Nothing Is Unclean of Itself

Over the week I was listening to a neat podcast from J.K. McKee: Implementation of the Apostolic Decree. It’s about the controversial ruling in Acts 15 on whether gentiles should keep God’s commandments.

I’m a student of Paul’s letters in the New Testament. And one particular bit from Paul has long made me cringe:

I am fully convinced in the Lord Jesus that no food is unclean in itself.

-Paul, in his letter to Rome

Does the above sentence give you pause? It should. Whether you’re an all-grace, no-law kind of Christian, or a stringent Torah-keeper, there are ugly problems with this statement:

  1. It’s written – engraved on tablets of stone, and heard from the mouth of God thundering on Mt. Sinai, that there are, in fact, unclean things. Paul’s little theological musings to the Romans here appears dismissive of a 3500 year-old divine decree from the lips of the Creator. Yikes.

  2. Since Paul seems to be dismissing large swaths of God’s commandments in a single sentence, he would also be contradicting Messiah’s own words. Woops.

  3. When the apostles ruled on Torah & gentiles, their ruling included 3 dietary laws, particularly abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols. With it being, ahem, unclean. Paul’s words here contradict the apostles’ ruling at the Jerusalem Council. Doh!

In other words, and with apologies to the female conservative savior, Paul here is going rogue.


If you’re a pro-Torah Messianic, this bit from Paul is a problem because he’s contradicting the Torah, which says there are, in fact, unclean things.

If you’re a “Torah is for Jews only” Messianic, this bit is problematic because it contradicts the apostolic ruling on gentiles & Torah.

If you’re a all-grace, law-free Christian, this bit is problematic because it contradicts Yeshua’s words and the ruling in Acts.

I said before I listened to a neat little podcast by J.K. McKee. Yeah. He explains how Paul implements the Jerusalem Council ruling in the Messianic community at Rome. Turns out, Paul may not really be going rogue here. Turns out, this may be another case of mistranslation.

Skip to 1:14 in the podcast. You’ll hear McKee document a linguistics and translation issue:

Almost all bible translations read with the word “unclean” in Romans 14:14.


The Septuagint [Greek translation of the Torah] renders unclean as the Greek akathartos…ceremonially unclean. But Akathartos does not appear in Romans 14:14, and the rendering of “unclean” is inaccurate.

The Greek word that appears instead is the word koinos. This word means “common”, as in the sense of common ownership of property, ideas, etc. Koinos relates to being of little value, because of being common, ordinary, or profane, and can concern that which ordinary people eat.

John is fair, and documents another side of the issue: he recognizes that koinos has, in the book of Maccabees in the apocrypha, been used to denote unfit foods sacrificed by the Seleucids.

A further study of my own suggests that koinos is used in other places in the New Testament, for example, Acts 2:44:

They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles.All the believers were together and had everything in common [koinos]. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.

If this research is correct, and koinos is indeed used here, then it would appear we have an inconsistency in our English translation. Had the translators been consistent between Acts and Romans, this Acts verse should read:

All the believers were together and had everything unclean.

-Nonsensical, made up translation of Acts 2, translating the Greek ‘koinos’ as unclean, as is done with Romans 14:14.

If koinos is interpreted properly as “common”, Romans 14 suddenly becomes harmonious with the Torah, Messiah, and the apostles:

I am fully convinced in the Lord Jesus that no food is common in itself. But if someone regards something as common, then for him it is common.

-Paul, in his letter to Rome

I suspect this translation was an attempt by translators to fit Paul’s words to what they thought he was saying: that Jesus rendered the Law, in particular the dietary commandments, of no effect.

But a proper study of the language suggests otherwise. It is interesting to stumble on these translation inconsistencies. I wonder how many more there are.


  1. Is there not room for non-observant Messianic Jews?

    I don't think all Messianic Jews are Torah observant, nor indeed should we be. I totally respect those who are and their decisions.

    Can't it be that no food is unclean of itself, but it could be labelled unclean for a certain period of time, ie. the pre-Yeshua Torah age?

    That is, it was unclean because God said it was unclean, but its essense wasn't itself unclean. And now the Torah has led us to Messiah Yeshua, we are at liberty to move beyond the decrees of Torah and look at the bigger picture.

  2. Similarly with food offered to idols, it is not unclean of itself but because it has been polluted by the idols.

  3. Whether or not one keeps the Torah dietary commandments (and I recognize that Messianics have varying levels of observance, ranging from Evangelical "all things made clean" to Orthodox stringency), reading Paul from Greek suggests Romans 14 is more about common foods than unclean foods.

  4. You do highlight an interesting issue that may also change the meaning of this passage: Paul's use of the "of itself" as a qualifier.

    "Nothing is koinos of itself."

    I think a lot of people skip over that qualifier in an attempt to shape theology one way or another.

  5. Agreed with you on Romans 14.

    There's Mark 2:23-28:

    I don't think Yeshua is being anti-kosher, just saying we're not under the burden of kosher laws.

  6. Yeah, Yeshua is not being anti-kosher there. Actually, the usual accusation is that Yeshua is breaking the Sabbath, rather than breaking kosher laws, as his disciples weren't eating unclean meats, rather, they were eating grain picked on the Sabbath.

  7. Good spot! I have the same attitude to Sabbath, kashrut & Torah in general - if it works for you, go for it...

  8. "Is there not room for non-observant Messianic Jews? "

    Plenty. In fact, I absolutely love non-observant Jews and seek them out everywhere I can, and often bend backwards to accommodate them (and I understand their fear of Torah, especially those who are ultra-secular or coming out of churches). It's just I am (and my synagogue) here to help them become covenant-faithful (of course, we teach them about Yeshua first, if they do not yet know him), at their own pace and comfort level. One Jew at a time.

    So, there's still hope for you, Yeze! G-d willing, one day you too will start to view Torah in a different light (as I once did - and I too was once very secular-minded and anti-Torah as far as required Jewish observances go, probably just like you if not more so).

  9. You may be right, Gene! At the moment I don't feel particularly inclined towards Torah-observance, maybe one day I will.

    I've got nothing against Torah, just don't think it's for me for now.

    One of the things keeping me cautious at the moment is the tendency of people to leave Messianic Judaism and go through to Judaism - then again I suppose the reverse is true with non-observant MJs in churches.

  10. "One of the things keeping me cautious at the moment is the tendency of people to leave Messianic Judaism and go through to Judaism."

    It does happen and will continue to happen. But, over the years I've seen quite a number of people (Christians) who left Yeshua and faith, without Judaism being involved at all.

    "then again I suppose the reverse is true with non-observant MJs in churches."

    In fact, what often happens is that Jews who are in churches who suddenly become aware that they have been deprived of Yiddishkeit and Judaism all these years - the danger is that they will start to view everything they learned in churches as a deception. Which is quite unfortunate. But let's face it, most churches are as non-Jewish as it gets (a quick browse of most statements of faith will show that most do not acknowledge either Israel or Jewishness of Yeshua). Messianic Judaism gives these Jews an opportunity to be Yeshua-following Jews they were meant to be.

  11. The common translation of koinos as "unclean" is scandalous. Especially in the past century where access to extant Jewish texts explain well the relationship between what the "New Testament" calls "akathartos" [unclean] and "koinos" [common]. Examining the Eighteen Measures in b.Shabbat 13b and following shows the correlation. The Apostolic writers used "koinos" for those extra biblical issues.

    The Eighteen Measures were what made Gentiles "off limits" (and other similar issues). Read Peter's response in Acts 10:14. He uses "akathartos" and "koinos" - then read the Voice's response, "What G-d has cleansed you must not call common [koionos]." What happened to "akathartos"?

    The Eighteen Measures were enacted after a massacre of Hillelites at the hands of pro-Shammaite Sicarii in ~ 20 BCE. They were Jewish law until ~ 80 CE when they were repealed "by divine decree."

    The discussion in Romans 14 is one about whether the Eighteen Measures were operable for believers. Paul's conclusion - not if they brought disunity (between Gentile and Jew etc.)

    BUT, the key verse of Romans 14, is 14:1, where Paul says, "...but not to disputes over doubtful things." DOUBTFUL THINGS. No matter what your perspective is on Leviticus 11... in the First Century it was not DOUBTFUL.

  12. Yeze,

    If you're fine with Jews not being observant, you have no idea why Rabi Yehoshua` came.

    The whole idea of "believing" in R. Yehoshua` is no different than having emuna (not blind "faith", but trusting faithfulness) in HaShem and His Torah.

    That's why R. Yehoshua` says one has eternal life by adherence to the Torah in the proper mode, and it also says that all who have emuna (trusting faithfulness) in R. Yehoshua` have eternal life. Both of these are true because one is other, they're in truth the same thing. People who misunderstand this, however, will say someone is "saved" by a simple mere belief, and that all the people zealous for the Torah are "going to hell" because they apparently don't hold this specific belief.

    Taking a "if it works for you, go for it" approach on Shabath and kashruth is pretty bad.
    To clear things up, R. Yehoshua` never broke Shabath by the proper halakha of Hillel, but he did by the halakha of Shamai. The Pharisees of Shamai were in power in R. Yehoshua`'s day, thus we see the conflict between two groups of Pharisees--that's all, has nothing to do with anyone being able to all the sudden break Shabath, or "not being under the burden of the kosher laws".

    The only way I may agree with you somewhat is that unobservant people becoming more observant have grace while they are in the process of observance, as they are learning Torah and starting to do it, more and more, they are not held accountable for that which they do not yet know of, or are not yet able to observe (they have to take it a step at a time). However, this absolutely does not apply to the liars who name R. Yehoshua` but make no attempt to keep Torah whatsoever, nor do they study it to do it whatsoever.

  13. This is also an example of translators choosing a particular word or words to express their theological perspective. Unfortunately, we all have a human tendency to rewrite the Bible in our image. What would it be like if we could all experience the Bible and God with fresh eyes, free from tradition and theology?

  14. Judah:
    You wrote: "I think a lot of people skip over [Paul's use of the "of itself" as a qualifier] qualifier in an attempt to shape theology one way or another."

    Mark Kinzer touches on a very similar point in his treatment of Mark 7 in Post-missionary Messianic Judaism. He cites an interesting example from the Talmud to support his proposition. Check it out and see what you think!

  15. James:

    You wrote: "What would it be like if we could all experience the Bible and God with fresh eyes, free from tradition and theology?"

    I'd like to humbly ask: isn't this impossible? If so, what's the use of dreaming about it?

    I think we need to recognize the good in traditions (and "theology"!) as well as the bad, and work to make sure that both our traditions and our theology are helpful and not harmful.

  16. James:

    BTW, You posted recently on your blog about this very idea (in the article "Dark Glass"), but the comments were closed before I could sound in. If you're willing to re-open comments, we could move this discussion there (since it's a bit tangential from Judah's original post here).

  17. My interpretation is different. I'd be interested to hear J.K.'s feedback as well. No food is inherently unclean. This is the long-held Jewish belief. Pork is not inherently unclean. God specifically said it was good for food (Gen 9). It is unclean for Jews. I know there are rabbinic sayings to this effect, though I am unable to cite them. Kinzer says the same, BTW, in his book.

    Paul speaking to non-Jews would say, "Don't let any synagogue proselytizer make you feel your food is unclean."

    Derek Leman

  18. Aaron Eby has posted an interesting blog in response to this post: Nothing Is Unclean of Itself, where he suggests a distinction between clean and kosher foods, and that this distinction is largely lost on modern readers.

  19. My issue with Romans 14:14 is that the standard term for "unclean," akathartos, used in the LXX to render tamei in both Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, does not appear. This is a clue to me that we should not be rushing off to thinking that Paul has just disregarded the dietary laws. There might be another explanation.

    When the Seleucids sacrificed swine and animals that were koinos (1 Maccabees 1:47), the latter could just as well have been cattle, sheep, or goats--but not at all acceptable or tamim for sacrifice.

    The updated version of my article "Does the New Testament Annul the Biblical Appointments?" (currently not on my website) addresses my position in detail. The scene of Romans 14 is the fellowship meals of Believers, and draws the conclusion that clean meat was indeed served at these meals, but not always up to par with the standards of the "weak" Believers adopting vegetarianism. (The updated version will be posted by month's end.)

    You all might also be interested to read a paper I wrote a year ago on Genesis 9:3-7, "Why Meat?":

  20. Aharon, just to be clear, you're calling me a liar for eating pork and claiming to follow Yeshua? Where do you get that from?

    You won't find anything in the New Testament to back that up: or in the Talmud for that matter. So why project it onto others?

  21. Judah, I like the way you approach and present this, nice job! I also agree with Aaron (sorry Yeze) Yeshua said if you love me you will do my commands! (Not much wiggle room there)

  22. Jesse, do you think those who don't keep to Torah are liars?

    Does this include Peter, upon whom Yeshua built his church?

    Galatians 2:11-16

    11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
    14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

    15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

  23. Yeze,

    1John 3:4-6
    "4Everyone who sins breaks the Law/Torah; in fact, sin is breaking the Torah. 5But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6No one who lives in him keeps on sinning (breaking the Torah). No one who continues to sin (break the Torah) has either seen him or known him."

    The purpose of Rabi Yehoshua` was to bring all Israel back to Torah observance and to the Land of Israel. The "Kingdom of Heaven" is all 12 tribes of Israel living in the Land of Israel obeying the Torah to the fullest degree.
    That means pulling lost-Israelites from out the nations, from out of their gentile identity:

    Acts 15:19-21
    "19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses (synonym for Torah) has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.""

    Circumcision happened AFTER they went through th 3 year cycle of Torah readings in the synagogues, NOT BEFORE. Circumcision IS REQUIRED, but IS NOT A PREREQUISITE, it instead is a RESULT.

    For Jews: all Jews, all Israelites by blood, are obligated to learn and obey the whole of Torah.

    For Gentiles: all Gentiles "turning to God" by accepting the path of R. Yehoshua` and attaching their souls to the Ssadiq should be in a process of conversion to the faith of Israel, Judaism, to become Israelites.

    Again, FOCUS ON WHY R. YEHOSHUA` CAME: to restore the Kingdom of Heaven - all Israel returned to the Land and following the Torah.
    Anyone who is working against that in any way, or is not headed in that direction but still names Rabi Yehoshua`, is at least very confused and at most is a complete liar and from HaSatan. Continuing from the above 1John 3 quote:

    "7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful (breaking the Torah, see verses 4-6) is of the Satan/Adversary, because the Adversary has been sinning (breaking Torah, going against God's will, His Word, His Torah) from the beginning."

  24. Aharon, so why does Paul tell Peter that he was acting like a Gentile, and not condemn him for it?

    I agree that the Torah has been preached in the synagogues until Messiah, as the Torah was our tutor to bring us to Him (Gal 3:24).

    You wrote above:
    "For Gentiles: all Gentiles "turning to God" by accepting the path of R. Yehoshua` and attaching their souls to the Ssadiq should be in a process of conversion to the faith of Israel, Judaism, to become Israelites."

    What do you mean about attaching souls to the Ssadiq? Surely this is taken directly from Hasidic philosophy, which takes its assumptions from Lurianic Kabbalah, and not on the New Testament.

    And anyway, how do you square your idea of converting Gentiles with Paul's admonition of Peter for doing exactly that?

  25. "For Gentiles: all Gentiles "turning to God" by accepting the path of R. Yehoshua` and attaching their souls to the Ssadiq should be in a process of conversion to the faith of Israel, Judaism, to become Israelites."

    Don't worry, Yeze, the mainstream Messianic "Jewish" Judaism (unfortunately, one has to qualify it as so now-a-days) does not hold to the above view (which is Two-House - Gentiles as lost Israelites and One-Law - Gentiles must observe Mosaic Law). We reject in the strongest terms that Gentiles are to be converted to Judaism in order to have a proper relationship with G-d that is equal (qualitatively speaking) to that of Jews, that they are to be circumcised at ANY point of their walk for religious reasons, or that they are to observe Mosaic commandments as given specifically to the Jewish nation.

  26. So, Aaron thinks Jews and gentiles must keep Torah, Gene thinks Jews must keep Torah, and Yeze thinks neither Jews nor Christians must keep Torah.

    Cha-ching, we have a Messianic tri-fecta! :-)

  27. "Yeze thinks neither Jews nor Christians must keep Torah."

    I think that Yeze is open minded about Jews keeping Torah. As he said "At the moment I don't feel particularly inclined towards Torah-observance, maybe one day I will."

    I understand Yeze has been turned off to Torah as binding on Jews for today by what he considered as statements in the NT opposing it, where as in fact those statements either deal negatively with Gentile Torah observance or with using Torah to achieve righteousness apart from G-d. This is compounded by his aversion to Judaism that opposes Yeshua, where as I believe that Yeshua worked within the framework of Judaism of his day, that is Judaism that already had plenty of traditions and various interpretations and sects espousing them, and also had great opposition to his work from the beginning (in some parts of it).

  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

  29. Judah, your observation is funny and sad at the same time:)

  30. Yeze,

    That's really a stupid question to ask. Rabi Yehoshua` and his talmidim were Jews, Torah observant, DEFINITELY didn't come to say Jews no longer need to keep Torah, but that that is actually how one gains eternal life - I didn't say it, Rabi Yehoshua` did.

    Acts 15 is talking about Torah in the synagogues in the context of gentiles AFTER the death of R. Yehoshua`. You're not listening to me, stop being ignorant.

    The body is physical, the soul is spiritual--don't you agree?
    When people die, they're not gone, part of their soul returns to the Creator where it came from, and the other part goes to sheol for either the end result of Gan `Eden or Gei Hinom, depending on their deeds.

    People can attach to the souls of Ssadiqim (Temani translit. for the common "Tzadikim") in order to attain higher spiritual levels. Its a shortcut, so-to-speak. It was the Ramhha"l, I believe, who said that Ssadiqim can atone for a generation or even for all time, depending on their deeds/merit.

    Lurianic Kabbalah for sure! Kabbalah is part of the Oral Tradition, it is the same as the "Torath HaSod" or "Torath HaNistar" of earlier times. The same wellspring is from where the spiritual teachings of Rabi Yehoshua` and his talmidim came. Its not a coincidence that there are tremendous parallels between Hhasiduth and the particular tradition of Rabi Yehoshua` as much as we know it--because they're in essence the same thing.

    Shouldn't circumcise gentiles who haven't gone through the process yet!! They're "saved" when they make a declaration of dedication to the God of Israel, whether they keep that place in the World to Come depends on their deeds. They're not immediately held to the standard of Torah until they learn Torah and undergo a circumcision and miqwe. Before then, they're to adhere by the Noahide laws as all gentiles should.

    Its quite simple, but you're confusing it with xtian doctrines, and you play along with xtianity by separating the Jewish from the "NT" stuff. You might as well attend a xtian church, but then again, lots of "Messianic" congregations are nothing more than just that. Sorry to be brash, but that's the way it is, hope you change your mind about these things.

  31. Lol Judah I guess this is a Triple Threat Match :-)

    It's cool Gene, I know, yours is a position I can respect and sympathise with, no-one should indulge this One Law stuff though.

  32. Aharon: why dilly-dally around the Messianic scene? You should just be honest with yourself and convert to Hasidic Judaism.

    Unlike Messianic Judaism, Hasidic Judaism does accept Gentile converts.

    I should introduce you to my new online friend, Rabbi Moshe Shulman, sometime, I think you'd get on quite well! (except the "Reb Yehoshua" bit, but you can phase that out)

  33. Seriously, Aharon & Jesse, where does "Rabi Yehoshua" fit in to all this?

    Surely you might as well write "the Baal Shem Tov" instead?

  34. Yeze,

    I'm not Messianic. I'm an anti-missionary of sorts, however, not like most, because instead of bashing the xtian Jesus/Yesh"u as well as the actual historical person (who had nothing to do with that anti-Semitic Roman man-god figment of the pagan imagination), I separate them and show them to be complete opposites. I know of some prominent Rabbis in observant Judaism as well as many Jews personally who share similar views, although there are certainly others who think otherwise.

  35. Hahahaha...


    Comparing a Perushi or Hhasid Rishoni with a modern Hhasid shouldn't be so astounding to you. On the contrary, misojudaic Jesus-es/Yesh"u-s are what is truly out of character.

    The parallels between "NT" accounts and those in the Zohar as well as Kabbalistic teaching are alive, well, and thriving. But they're not for people who hate Judaism, the faith of Rabi Yehoshua`. Sorry.

  36. Oh right, fair enough then Aharon. Gets a bit confusing sometimes remembering who believes what...

  37. I don't hate Judaism, I just don't believe in it. Still find it fascinating.

  38. Yeze, if you're Jewish, you should be keeping Torah. It isn't hard, and its not contrary to faith in Rabi Yehoshua`/Yeshua`. And it brings life, happiness, and contentness.

  39. Don't take this the wrong way Aharon, but you can't be a very good anti-missionary if you don't want me to give up my faith in Yeshua ;)

  40. This has been an interesting conversation. Most of you know where I stand on the issue of one law and so on. This verse in Ephesians comes to mind, for obvious reasons.

    "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you also were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one immersion, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all."

    Because if faith equals practice then there should only be one practice (walk) for all who are in Messiah.

    Does someone really want to argue for two? Since there is only one, where is the other one.

    If there is one thing that I can admire (though there are many) about the emissary Sha'ul it is that he spoke the same message regardless of the audience, Jew or Gentile. The depth and complexity might change based on the knowledge of the hearers, but the core message was always the same.

    Since the disagreement here seems to be about observance consider this: a believer who walks in the love of Messiah, being empowered by the Spirit to do so, is as observant as one can ever be on this planet.

    Now does someone want to break that down into particulars?


    Love does no harm to his neighbors.

    Are you doing harm to others? Then that is not love.

    Still need the particulars?

    Then there are some basic principles of behavior contained in some of the commandments in Torah that can be used to guide a person in a given situation.

    btw, just because a person may consider an animal clean does not mean that it was meant for food.



  41. Yeze,

    I just want Messianics to realize the truth of R. Yehoshua`, and certain missionary-like Messianics to stop with preaching doctrines which are foreign to original Torah-Judaism. I also want sincere Christians to find the truth.

    I think there are lots of sincere Messianics who are searching for the truth. I'd really, honestly, love to see them come to the full truth--it seems many are in a process right now. What I hope it will result in is what Rabi Yehoshua` came for, and what all Jews are waiting for: the geula/redemption of all Israel back to our Land and to the observance of the Torah in that Land. Then Gan `Eden will finally be restored in our days.

    I'll just pray that you find the ultimate truth of how you are to live and serve the Creator. I know for sure that it is by the 613 commands of Torah, but I want the Creator to lead you to it.

  42. As much as I like to jump in on this fiasco with my 0.02, I just wanted to tell Judah that I liked the "Goin' Rogue" icon of the Apostle Paul.

  43. Judah, it is amazing that you wanted to start a constructive conversation on Romans 14, and what you get instead is the usual banter on anything but...

    Maybe next time?!

  44. The less people want to argue, the less will be resolved, and the more lashon hara` will be spoken.

    The more people get offended by arguing, the less will be resolved, and the more lashon hara` will be spoken.

    Kudos to Yeze for not getting offended, and arguing back as well.

  45. - In regards to the Clean/Unclean - The Hebrew word to'evah (Abomination) - In Deut 14:3 Thou shalt not eat any to'evah (detestable thing). Then the verses that follow define the clean and unclean foods.

    I think that Clean/Unclean is grossly mistranslated in today usage.

    If a dish or clothes are dirty or not clean - you wash them then they are clean - if impure or unholy was used it would better communicate the intent.

    Verse three to'evah is the same word Abomination used for Bestiality, Homosexuality, as well as Pride, and passing your children through the fire for Molech or "abortion", and all the other things that the Lord calls Abominations.

    to'evah BDB/Strongs Definition: H8441

    What did Yeshua redeem with his sacrifice? Man or to render swine "clean"?

    Swine will still eat human excrement even to this day. See this BBC video about a tribe in India.

    Many miss that the Lord differentiated between Clean and Unclean before Moses and the Exodus. What did He tell Noah?

    To much sunday school "two by two" the animals went, in reality:

    Gen 7:2 You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female;

    How did Noah what animals were clean or unclean before Moses?

    So How did Noah know to only Sacrifice clean animals on the Altar? (Gen 8:20)

    So If it was unfit for sacrifice why would it be fit for food?

    Why would Paul still sacrifice in the Temple close to 20 years after the Resurrection, Yet embrace a position that would have gotten him stoned, (Eating unclean foods) We see Peters response -

    Act 11:8 But I said, "Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.'

    How much more so for one that sat at the feet of Gamaliel.

    Eating unclean foods for Paul had to be tantamount to us eating Dog or Cat ( for those that live in the West and not the Orient). It would have been that repulsive -

    How do you think that it would be received if a Rav/Pastor taught that it is fine to eat Dog or Cat - because of this new understanding?

    Food for thought.