All Foods Clean?

[CoAspen]

So did God create 'unclean foods' or was their another more logical reason for the injunction at that point in time.........curious....??

[Raphael]

My personal experience is unclean foods are heaviest on the digestion, very uncomfortable.. While clean (meat) foods are significantly lighter on the indigestion and vegetables/fruits are lightest on the digestion.. So it's not hard to look for the comfiest one that makes one feel good ahh..

[Ron Amnsn]

12 hours ago, CoAspen said:

So did God create 'unclean foods' or was their another more logical reason for the injunction at that point in time.........curious....??

In the Bible creatures that are "unclean" are not considered to be food, so "unclean foods" is an oxymoron.  God created the unclean creatures, but not as food for humans.

[CoAspen]

So..... to take this a bit further, the use of the word 'unclean' gives the impression that something is 'wrong' with it.  Did God create something 'wrong'?

 

[phkrause]

6 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

God created the unclean creatures, but not as food for humans.

I don't believe God created the animals to be eaten!!

[CoAspen]

I originally wasn't interested in this topic, but I have been thinking.........If God created the animals, fish, birds, etc and not with any intention of being 'eaten', then what was His plan for fallen humans to survive, food wise? He did kill the first animals as clothing. 

Was all of creation condemned by Adams failure and then over a period of time some types of 'life' became unfit for human consumption?

[Tom Wetmore]

The flood account is the first mention of two classes of animals, clean and not clean. The concept of clean and unclean animals precedes God's instructed Noah that animals were for food. The Biblical account of the time before the flood makes no mention of mankind eating animals, nor any indication from God instructing or allowing for eating animals.  The indication of animals being killed was for clothing from their skins and to sacrifice as an offering to God.  That latter use is confirmed as the reason for Noak to bring extra "clean" animals in the ark.  The text gives no explanation Of the reason for loading the extra animals. The first indication is when Noah offers the clean animals as sacrifices to God after exiting the ark.   That would suggest Noah already understood their use for sacrifices, so no explanation was needed.  

The meaning of Hebrew word was not precisely just "clean".  It meant "pure" which suggests something uncorrupted, unblemished, undiluted, often used in reference to pure gold, for example.  In that context it would be gold, not mixed with any other metal or substance.  I am inclined to understand this, as it applies to animals, as perhaps similar a pure-bread animals, one with clear bloodlines back to its first known pure ancestors, not mixed in its breeding with anything else.  I also am inclined to see the clean animals as the pure-bred animals descended unchanged and/or with no cross-breeding from the original two of its kind created by God.  That would explain why they were the only ones acceptable as sacrifices to God.

Now here is a serious wrinkle for the discussion at hand.  God's first direction to eat animals was to Noah after the flood, right after Noah offered the sacrifices.  Read Genesis 9:3 carefully. No mention of eating only clean animals. In fact, the text clearly and unambiguously says that God told Noah that every animals was for food - every living creature that moves on the earth.  No exclusions. It is the same phrasing as used to describe all the animals that entered the ark, both clean and unclean. God's only restriction was to not eat the blood.

[phkrause]

It is interesting also, in chapter 6 he says 2 of each living thing, male and female, but doesn't mention clean or unclean. In chapter 7 though he does mention in verse 2 the word clean and to take 7 of each. Very interesting indeed!! I wonder if there was a change to the animals from the time they were created to the time they got on the Ark? I also don't recall that the animals killed each other for eating, they ate the same kind of diet that humans did?? After the flood it changed??

[Rossw]

As Noah looked upon the powerful beasts of prey that came forth with him from the ark, he feared that his family, numbering only eight persons, would be destroyed by them.But the Lord sent an angel to His servant with the assuring message: “The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” Before this time God had given man no permission to eat animal food; He intended that the race should subsist wholly upon the productions of the earth; but now that every green thing had been destroyed, He allowed them to eat the flesh of the clean beasts that had been preserved in the ark. PP 107.3

[Green Cochoa]

Obviously, Noah could NOT have eaten any of the unclean beasts.  If he did, we don't have them today.   So it was pretty clear which beasts God intended for him to eat--those practical facts had been supplied by the quantities of animals, and God did not need to say much about it.

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Now here is a serious wrinkle for the discussion at hand.  God's first direction to eat animals was to Noah after the flood, right after Noah offered the sacrifices.  Read Genesis 9:3 carefully. No mention of eating only clean animals. In fact, the text clearly and unambiguously says that God told Noah that every animals was for food - every living creature that moves on the earth.  No exclusions. It is the same phrasing as used to describe all the animals that entered the ark, both clean and unclean. God's only restriction was to not eat the blood.

I have read Genesis 9:3 carefully.  It says, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything."

To whom did God give all the green plants for food?  "And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” (Genesis 1:30)

For humans there were restrictions on the green plants that were given for food.  "And God said, Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food." (Genesis 1:29)   "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16,17)   What about the poisonous plants, are they food?  And the inedible parts of the plants, are those for food too?

Since there were restrictions on which plants humans were given for food, there could also be restrictions on the animals that humans were given for food.

Also, the verses following Genesis 9:3 seem to exclude the flesh of humans as food, although they might allow eating humans that died of natural causes.

[CoAspen]

Quote

Obviously, Noah could NOT have eaten any of the unclean beasts. 

What is the scriptural reference for that? A 'thus saith the Lord'...so to speak?

Tom brings up an interesting point concerning this 'eating' in Genesis 9:3.

[Tom Wetmore]

Of course there is a practical result of eating one of the last living pair of a species, clean or unclean, or for that matter the last of the seed potatoes or nuts.  The same reality would apply to animals eating each other.   But that really is beside the point of the text of what God told Noah.  All resources were scarce at that point, including vegetables and fruits. It would take time to replenish the supply. That was just the immediate circumstances and 8 people were not going to need all the animals for food immediately. But it is likely they may have had to ration everything for a time.  Just as rabbits and other unclean and clean animals reproduce rapidly, the numbers would increase, as would everything.  God's directive to Noah didn't have an emergency condition, nor does it appear to be about the immediate circumstances. He said, man can eat everything from now on.  

The bottom line is that the dietary restriction along with a lot of other purity rules did not come until after the Israelites left Egypt, according to the Biblical record.  

[Tom Wetmore]

8 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Obviously, Noah could NOT have eaten any of the unclean beasts.  If he did, we don't have them today.   So it was pretty clear which beasts God intended for him to eat--those practical facts had been supplied by the quantities of animals, and God did not need to say much about it.

i would just add that there are indeed a lot of species we do not have today that have gone extinct. And fossil records of many that became extinct a very long time ago.  Maybe that is what happens to the dinosaurs!  Noah ate them!   

[CoAspen]

[8thdaypriest]

On 7/30/2016 at 5:33 PM, CoAspen said:

So..... to take this a bit further, the use of the word 'unclean' gives the impression that something is 'wrong' with it.  Did God create something 'wrong'?

 

There is nothing "wrong" with a sewage treatment plant.  But one would not want to bathe in that water.   

The LORD created certain animals FOR cleaning the water, and disposing of waste, and fertilizing the grass.  Doesn't imply the intended purpose of these animals was FOR human consumption.  

I don't believe the LORD intended that man should EAT the flesh of dead animals.  That all came about (the eating of animal flesh) AFTER sin, and probably AFTER the flood, when nutritious food became very scarce.  Originally, the LORD did not intend that animals eat other animals.  That also came into being AFTER sin entered, and AFTER Noah's flood.

In the New Earth, the "lion will eat straw like the ox".  So it appears that animals will no longer EAT other animals.  Why then would humans continue to EAT animal flesh? 

We will have new "spiritual bodies" - no longer carbon based.  Why would those spiritual bodies have the same nutritional needs anyway.      

[CoAspen]

Actually the treatment plant produces 'clean' water. Not sure what a 'spiritual body' or 'non carbon based' would be  or where you might get that idea from.

However, concerning the topic....I have yet to hear why certain foods have come to be considered 'unclean'. What of Gods 'thus saith the lord' quote to Noah and family to eat of everything?

My guess is that we need to go back to the time of the wondering hoard and their laws about 'food'. I am still interested in what changed the 'food' to make it inedible.

[Rossw]

2 hours ago, CoAspen said:

However, concerning the topic....I have yet to hear why certain foods have come to be considered 'unclean'. 

Trick statement. Nothing became unclean. There was already a distinction between clean and unclean per Genesis 7. Through reason we could see Noah may have had permission to eat that which was unclean but this does not mean he actually ate what is considered unclean.

If we accept God spoke through EGW we may see a fuller picture through PP and can understand Noah only ate the clean animal. 

Another point to consider. God did not mention food as clean and unclean but the animals were. Man was just allowed to eat the flesh. 

Another likely condition is the only reason for the eating of animals is because plant life had all died off. That was not a permanent situation.

 

[CoAspen]

So..it was okay to eat anything at one point but then it was not later? Why? Special dispensation?

[Rossw]

1 hour ago, CoAspen said:

So..it was okay to eat anything at one point but then it was not later? Why? Special dispensation?

Pay attention to the conditions of why they were able to eat animals. Were the conditions permanent?

[JoeMo]

14 hours ago, Rossw said:

Another likely condition is the only reason for the eating of animals is because plant life had all died off. That was not a permanent situation.

What was Jesus' excuse for eating fish and lamb?  Why the command in Exodus to eat a Passover lamb?  Why will there be fishermen in the Kingdom?

Oh I know - Jesus didn't have the light that we currently have through Mrs. White.

[Rossw]

22 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

What was Jesus' excuse for eating fish and lamb?  Why the command in Exodus to eat a Passover lamb?  Why will there be fishermen in the Kingdom?

Oh I know - Jesus didn't have the light that we currently have through Mrs. White.

Now you've gone past the scope of the flood narrative. Of course we know later the Passover sacrifices were eaten, etc.

It just appeares to me a doctrine for meat eating is being developed out of Genesis 9 when that isn't the context or intent of that chapter.

[CoAspen]

Joe, I get the sense we are still dancing around the subject a bit of what should be eaten or not and just who made that decision. A lot of it comes from Jewish history. I think it is an interesting topic as we need to separate 'tradition' from 'reality'. What are you thoughts?

[phkrause]

8 hours ago, CoAspen said:

A lot of it comes from Jewish history.

What's wrong with Jewish history?? They wrote the Bible you know!!

[CoAspen]

Nothing, just looking for the source and why's. Is it traditions, cultural, Biblical etc? Tom pointed out that post flood story humans were told to eat of everything, so why do we today have prohibitions against certain foods?