All Foods are Clean?

This article was co-written with Chaim, who provided the initial outline, primary points and some initial sources with which to write this article

The kosher dietary laws, rooted in scripture, have long been a topic of debate within Christian circles. Many wonder if the New Testament abolishes these laws, citing key passages from Acts, Romans, and Corinthians. There are a few points to consider here that must be analyzed to logically conclude whether or not kosher laws remain relevant in Christian practice or if the New Testament explicitly permits the consumption of all foods.

In this article we will be addressing the following verses: Acts Chapters 10 and 15, Mark 7:19, Romans 14:14, Colossians 2:16, and 1 Timothy 4:4. This is not a complete list of verses used by Christians however, these are the most common "go-to" verses among most Christians when discussing the topic of Kosher laws in the Christian perspective.

Sin in Mind

Part of the problem with the idea that Jesus, or the New Testament in general, presents a case for the abolition of dietary laws is the internal contradictions it creates. For one, sin is not only the breaking of the Torah law (1 John 3:4) but to even teach somebody to break the Torah law is also sin (Matthew 5:19). So, unless there can be a strongly proven Torah based case for changing the dietary laws, this change cannot be allowed and anybody teaching otherwise qualifies as a false teacher.

So, if Jesus or any of the other writers of the NT suggested that the Kosher laws are no longer applicable, unless they can build a strong case from the Torah itself, they are false. This would immediately disqualify Jesus and the writers from being in any way valid teachers of G-d, which for Jesus particularly presents the problem that he is now a sinner and disqualified from being a Messianic candidate at all.

Therefore, with all this in mind, let us take a closer look at the most popular alleged passages in the NT that are commonly used to dismiss the kosher laws, and see if they really are as many Christians claim. Because if they are, that has very serious implications for Christianity and even the validity of the NT as a whole. So, we must be careful to inspect these passages seriously and consider also the possibility that Christians have been misinterpreting these passages for a very long time.

---

Acts Chapter 10: Peter’s Vision and Kosher Laws

Acts 10:9-16 describes Peter’s vision of a large sheet descending from heaven filled with various animals, many of which were considered unclean under Jewish law (Leviticus 11). When a voice from heaven tells Peter to "kill and eat," Peter refuses, saying, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common (koinos) or unclean (akathartos)" (Acts 10:14).

The vision occurs three times, but Peter’s initial refusal and God's repeated statement, "What God has made clean, do not call common" (Acts 10:15), lead to confusion. Peter later interprets this vision in Acts 10:28, clarifying that "God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean." The meaning of the vision is about the inclusion of Gentiles, not about changes to dietary laws. (For a more in depth break down of the language and cultural contexts in Acts 10 and Peter's vision, see this article by Seamus. Below is a short summary of the details which will suffice for this article.)

The vision is a clear object lesson: "What God has made clean, do not call common." Peter was correct not to eat from the sheet's selection, because they are things that God HAS made "unclean" in His eternal Word, the Torah. But, what God has made clean you must not call "common" or "unholy" (this is not the word for "unkosher", more on that later) which in this case is about humans, specifically gentiles, being considered "impure." A decree God did not ordain.

The concept of purity here is transferred from food to people, showing that Gentiles are no longer to be considered impure. This was a necessary clarification for Peter and the Jewish believers as a whole, because Jewish law at the time seems to indicate that Gentiles are to be considered as sources of impurity same as a dead body. (De’Rabbi Eliezer 29:9). Mishnah and Talmud also seem to have recorded some of these early Jewish sentiments (which is no longer the case today) in passages like y. Shabbat 1:3 or Mishnah Oholot 18:6-7.

The Primary concern was for reasons of avoiding idolatry. In the first century the idea of a gentile/non-Jew being anything other than an idol worshiper is incredibly rare. And if a gentile were no longer an idol worshiper, chances are he converted to Judaism. So all non-Jews were considered idol worshipers and treated as a source of impurity. As we know now from history, this was about to change. Today being a non-Jew does not automatically make one an idol worshiper (and modern Jewish law reflects this) but in Peter's day, this was mostly the case, and he appears to have been following this rule of thumb for most of his life up till now.

The Context of Gentile Inclusion in the Early Church

The broader context of Acts 10 is the early Christian movement’s struggle to incorporate Gentiles. The early church was primarily composed of Jews who followed Jewish customs, including dietary laws, and the question of how to integrate Gentiles (who are treated as idol worshipers) was a pressing issue. Peter’s vision comes just before he meets Cornelius, a Gentile, and the Holy Spirit falls on Cornelius and his household, indicating their acceptance by God (Acts 10:44-48).

Peter’s statement in Acts 10:28, "God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean," is the key to interpreting the vision. Scholar James D.G. Dunn, in his work The Partings of the Ways (1991), emphasizes that Peter's vision should not be interpreted as abolishing dietary laws but as a metaphor for the new openness to Gentile inclusion without conversion to Judaism.

"The primary thrust of Peter’s vision in Acts 10 is not a release from kosher regulations, but a revelation that Gentiles are not to be regarded as ritually impure. The issue is one of social and religious inclusion, not food laws." (James D.G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways (p. 79-80))

From Acts 10 to the Acts 15 Council

Even after Peter’s vision, it is clear that kosher laws were not discarded for Jewish believers. In Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem, the early church debates whether Gentile believers need to follow Jewish law. While circumcision (full legal conversion to Judaism) was not required, the council’s decision of four introductory laws consisted of three dietary restrictions for Gentiles, including abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, and from meat that had been strangled (Acts 15:20) nearly all of which are likely specifically meant to prevent idolatry from tainting the now welcomed non-Jews into the synagogues, which is supposed to be a safe space for purity.

These dietary rules are also central to kosher laws found in the Torah, specifically in Leviticus 17:10-14, which forbids the consumption of blood. Scholar Ben Witherington III, in his commentary The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (1998), points out that the Apostolic Decree in Acts 15 reinforces the importance of dietary restrictions, even for Gentiles.

"The Apostolic Decree makes it clear that while Gentiles were not required to fully adhere to the Jewish law, certain prohibitions, particularly regarding food, were necessary to maintain fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians." (Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (p. 460))

The Gentiles were new coming into Torah, and this is in alignment with the rabbinic understanding of conversion even today.

One of the fundamental principles in Jewish law is the concept of Darchei Shalom, which means "the ways of peace." This principle, found throughout the Talmud and codified in later Jewish law, emphasizes that teaching Torah should be done in a way that promotes peace, compassion, and understanding. When introducing someone to Torah observance, the goal is not to overwhelm them with obligations but to help them grow at a pace that is sustainable and spiritually meaningful.

Pirkei Avot 1:12: "Be like the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving your fellow creatures, and bringing them close to Torah."

This teaching from the Ethics of the Fathers [Pirkei Avot] reflects the idea that bringing people closer to Torah should be done with love, patience, and a deep sense of peace. It is not about demanding immediate perfection but rather guiding people step by step toward greater observance.

Talmud, Yevamot 47a-b: “We do not overwhelm a potential convert with too many laws at once. Instead, we tell them some of the lighter mitzvot and some of the more difficult mitzvot. We do not make things overly strict in order not to discourage them.”

Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Issurei Biah 14:2: "When a person comes to convert, they say to him: 'What did you see that brought you to convert? Don’t you know that the Jewish people at this time are oppressed, pushed about, and persecuted?' If he says: 'I know and I am not worthy,' they accept him immediately, and they inform him of some of the light commandments and some of the severe commandments."

When teaching new converts, or even when engaging with Jews who are less observant, the rabbis would focus on a few key commandments first, helping the individual internalize these before moving on to more complex or numerous obligations. The process of learning and becoming observant is described as progressive, respectful of the individual's spiritual development.

Chazon Ish, Yoreh De'ah 1:16: “One should not push a person too harshly towards mitzvah observance, for the growth of a person’s spirit requires time. If someone is pushed too quickly, they may come to reject the mitzvot altogether.”

Lubavitcher Rebbe, Sichot Kodesh 1974, Volume 1, p. 32: "It is not necessary to begin with everything. A single mitzvah, done with sincerity, can transform a person’s entire life and open the heart to greater observance. The important thing is to start, even if it’s one small thing."

Jewish law and tradition emphasizes a gentle and gradual approach to spiritual growth, recognizing that Torah observance is a lifelong journey. From the teachings of the Talmud to Maimonides' practical guidance for converts and the modern wisdom of the Chazon Ish and the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the message is clear: Torah observance should be introduced with patience, compassion, and understanding. Whether for new converts, those returning to observance, or Jews at any level of observance, the emphasis is on taking one step at a time, building a sustainable and meaningful relationship with God and the commandments.

Gentile Inclusion and Kosher Laws

The concept of Gentile inclusion into God’s covenant community is not a new idea in Jewish thought. Isaiah 56:6-7, for example, speaks of Gentiles joining themselves to the Lord and being welcomed into His house of prayer:

Isaiah 56:6-7: "And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant— these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations."

The Mishnah also discusses the inclusion of Gentiles under certain universal laws, known as the Noahide laws. These seven commandments, which include prohibitions against idolatry, murder, and consuming blood, are considered binding on all people, not just Jews.

Mishnah, Sanhedrin 56a: "The children of Noah were commanded concerning seven precepts: concerning adjudication, and concerning idolatry, and concerning blasphemy, and concerning sexual immorality, and concerning bloodshed, and concerning robbery, and concerning a limb from a living animal."

The Apostolic Decree’s emphasis on avoiding food sacrificed to idols and blood (Acts 15:20) aligns with these Noahide laws, showing continuity between Jewish and early Christian teachings. The restrictions placed on Gentiles were not seen as burdensome but as necessary for maintaining communal purity and respect for Jewish practices.

David Flusser, a leading scholar of early Christianity and Second Temple Judaism, also interprets Acts 10 within the framework of Jewish thought. In his book Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (1988), Flusser argues that the vision is not about abrogating the kosher laws but about a significant theological shift: the inclusion of Gentiles without requiring them to fully adopt Jewish customs.

"The vision of Peter in Acts 10 is a symbolic revelation indicating that Gentiles, once considered impure, are now fully accepted into the fold of the people of God. It is not a negation of the Torah’s dietary laws but a shift in the understanding of ritual purity and community." (David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (p. 589))

In summary, Acts 10 does not abolish kosher laws. Peter’s vision is a symbolic message concerning the inclusion of Gentiles into the Christian community, emphasizing that they should not be regarded as ritually impure. Scholarly sources, such as those from James D.G. Dunn and David Flusser, confirm that the passage is about social and religious inclusion rather than dietary regulations. Furthermore, the continued relevance of certain dietary laws, as outlined in Acts 15, shows that kosher principles were still upheld, even for Gentiles. Rabbinic traditions of symbolic visions and the Noahide laws further support this interpretation. Thus, the passage reflects a theological shift in the early Christian movement but does not invalidate the observance of kosher dietary laws for Christians.

---

Mark Chapter 7 and Declaring Foods Clean

Mark 7:19 is frequently used in Christian discourse to suggest that Jesus declared all foods clean, implying an abrogation of the kosher dietary laws outlined in the Torah. However, when analyzed within its cultural, theological, and textual context, it becomes clear that this passage is not about abolishing kosher laws but rather addresses certain traditions around ritual purity, specifically handwashing before meals. The issue at hand is not whether all foods are permissible but whether eating with unwashed hands renders food impure.

Context of Mark 7

Mark 7:1–23 records a dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees, who criticize his disciples for eating with unwashed hands, thereby violating the "tradition of the elders" (Mark 7:5). The Pharisees' concern revolves around a ritual purity law that required hands to be washed before eating to avoid contamination. This practice is rooted in the Pharisaic interpretation of purity laws found in the Torah, particularly in Leviticus. While Leviticus emphasizes the need for purity, particularly for priests, the Pharisees extended some of these practices to daily life for all Jews, symbolic of the fact that the Jewish people are supposed to be a "nation of priests."

The issue here is ritual impurity, not kosher food laws. As noted in Mishnah Yadayim 2:2, the ritual of handwashing before meals is a matter of custom rather than direct Torah law. The Mishnah describes how hands that have not been washed are considered impure, making the food one eats ritually impure as well. The Pharisees are enforcing this custom, and Jesus challenges them by pointing to the greater issue of internal, moral purity rather than external rituals.

A Closer Look at Mark 7:19

The critical verse, Mark 7:19, reads: “For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body. (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean)” (NIV). The phrase in parentheses, “Thus he declared all foods clean,” does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts. The phrase is an interpretative addition found in later manuscripts and modern translations.

In the original Greek, the phrase is more accurately translated as: "it goes out into the latrine, purging all foods." The Greek word καθαρίζων (katharizōn), translated as "cleansing" or "purging," refers to the natural process of digestion, where the body expels waste. Therefore, this passage is speaking about the digestive process, not making a declaration about the permissibility of non-kosher foods.

The lesson here is not that pork and shellfish are suddenly being allowed by the master (G-d forbid) but rather within its own context its clearly about emphasizing morality. In fact the entire episode is about bread and not meat at all. This is therefore not a conversation about kosher laws but strictly purity practice. In short, Jesus' words could be summarized as such: Physical impurities will pass away eventually and easily, but spiritual impurities are far more difficult to purge.

What's more, Jesus' initial statement is true! When it comes to the purity status of bread (but also any kosher food) even if the food itself was rendered ritually impure (also called "common" or "unholy" in other parts of the NT texts) the consumption of this food does indeed NOT render the person ritually impure. It is only the food itself that becomes "common" which only means that the food would not be fit for temple use. The hand washing ritual ensures that the food itself retains its purity for temple use, but outside of the temple it honestly doesn't matter as long as the food is still certified kosher.

The rule of thumb in Jewish purity food laws is "tumah (ritual impurity) only travels down, not up." Meaning a person can make food or a utensil contract ritual impurity, but the food or utensil cannot pass that impurity "up" to humans. Therefore yes, it is NOT what goes into your mouth (in this case) that makes you ritually impure. It is with this fact that Jesus takes the opportunity to create a lesson; to emphasize spiritual purity over and above the benign ritual impurity of bread, which washed hands or not, does nothing to the status of the person eating it.

Additional Context: Oral Law

In fact, if we take a step back and read the full text in context, you'll notice that between the initial accusation from the Pharisees and Jesus' final answer in regard to it, there is an entire section of a completely separate topic and a separate set of accusations from Jesus which interrupts the entire thing.

This middle section is actually the counter point Jesus raises to the Pharisees in response to their accusation. The text is intriguing, as a cursory reading by typical Christians is one that seems to suggest that these traditions violate God's commandments or at the very least they violate God's Torah in order to keep the traditions. At first glance it seems like the tradition to wash hands before bread is being included in this retort, but it is in fact not, this is a different issue entirely.

A full analysis of this section of the text is beyond the scope of this article; however, it should suffice to summarize the details in order to add the necessary context to Jesus' counter accusation to make sense.

Jesus seems to be upset at the Pharisees here not because they keep this tradition of hand washing but rather because their hypocritical enforcement of these traditions. He accuses them of breaking God's commands in order to maintain "their" traditions (note: not the tradition of the elders, but their own) saying

For Moses said: Honor your father and your mother; and Whoever speaks evil of his father or mother must be put to death. But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or mother: Whatever benefit you might have received from me is Corban’” (that is, a vowed gift committed to the temple), you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. You revoke God’s word by your tradition... (Mark 7:10-13 HCSB)

This is an issue that is recorded directly in the Mishna. The problem is this: Torah says that "one who makes a vow must fulfill it" (Deut. 23:22). The Torah offers absolutely no way out of a vow (expect in very special cases). So, the Rabbi's got together and debated "what do we do in a case where a vow would force a person to violate Torah, or if the vow is impossible to keep, or needs to be nullified for other reasons such as a change in office, or a divorce? (divorce is nullifying vows after all, and divorce is allowed in some instances)"

Mishna Nedarim is the record of these laws, and interestingly enough Jesus sides here with the Mishna.

Mishna Nedarim 9:1 Rabbi Eliezer says: When halakhic authorities are approached with regard to the dissolution of a vow, they may broach dissolution with a person who took a vow by raising the issue of how taking the vow ultimately degraded the honor of his father and mother, asking him the following: Had you known that your parents would experience public shame due to your lax attitude toward your vow, would you still have taken the vow?...the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a vow concerning a matter that is between him and his father and mother, that they may broach dissolution with him by raising the issue of the honor of his father and mother

Talmud later clarifies this Mishna too, saying that no such vow is allowed to even be made if it will knowingly bring dishonor on the persons parents.

The Torah does not allow nullifying a vow based on the honor of one's parents. The Torah gives absolutely no leniency to vow at all, but the Rabbis decreed it based on the idea that some commandments can be broken for others (b. Kiddushin 30b-31b). In Jesus' counter accusation, he tells the Pharisees who addressed him that they do not allow for nullifying a vow on the issue of his parent's honor, and that by not allowing this nullification they have "revoked God's word."

Where in Torah did God command this? Technically He didn't, but the Sanhedrin did and Jesus calls the official ruling of the Sanhedrin on this issue "God's word". Jesus is counter accusing the Pharisees here of violating the Mishna, the same Mishna that says to wash hands before bread.

Jesus' response is one of a kind of indignance. He counters with something like "you have the gall to say to me that we violate the traditions of the Elders when you're the ones living in open violation of the tradition of the Elders in favor of your own traditions?! How dare you?!" Then proceeds to talk about moral and spiritual purity, knowing that his accusers are listening, he's also accusing them of being morally bankrupt while demanding that the people follow the traditions of the elders when they themselves do not.

This is the exact same sentiment in Matthew 23:2-3

“The scribes and the Pharisees are seated in the chair of Moses. ³ Therefore do whatever they tell you, and observe it. But don’t do what they do, because they don’t practice what they teach.

The real issue here is not about food, or even really about the ritual purity laws and hand washing, but rather about addressing hypocrisy in the teachers of Jesus' day.

Scholarly Analysis

Leading scholars argue that the parenthetical phrase, “Thus he declared all foods clean,” is a later editorial comment rather than the intent of the original text. For example, New Testament scholar Bruce Chilton, in A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible (SPCK, 1984), notes that Mark 7:19 is often misread because it is understood as being about dietary laws when, in fact, it addresses ritual purity associated with handwashing. He emphasizes that the debate here is not about kosher laws but about the ritual tradition.

Similarly, The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2011), edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, provides critical insight into the cultural and religious context. It highlights that Jesus' critique is not of Torah law or even of the tradition itself, but of the Pharisees emphasis on traditions that are in this case immaterial, especially compared to the more significant moral importance of spiritual purity, which should come first. Jesus’ response focuses on the importance of inward purity, ethical behavior and intentions.

In his commentary, The Gospel of Mark (Eerdmans, 2002), scholar Robert A. Guelich argues that Jesus' teaching in Mark 7 is consistent with the broader Jewish prophetic tradition, which emphasized ethical and moral purity over ritual observance. This does not suggest a rejection of the Torah but a reorientation towards the heart of the law.

The Jewish Concept of Ritual Purity

The idea of ritual purity, particularly regarding handwashing, is deeply rooted in Jewish tradition. According to the Mishnah (Mishnah Yadayim 1:1-2:4), handwashing before meals is a custom designed to maintain ritual purity. Jesus' critique is not an outright rejection of the concept of purity, but a call to refocus on the more significant issues of moral and spiritual cleanliness.

Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, a prominent 20th-century Orthodox thinker, emphasizes in his work Halakhic Man that ritual laws are essential but should never overshadow the ethical dimensions of the Torah. Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees in Mark 7 aligns with this rabbinic notion: that ritual observance should not obscure the deeper spiritual and ethical requirements of the law, such as justice, kindness, and humility (Micah 6:8).

Unclean vs. Common: Distinguishing Terms

A key term in Mark 7:19 is the Greek word "koinos," which means "common" or "defiled" in a ritual sense. It is distinct from "akathartos," which refers to something unclean according to the Torah, such as pork or shellfish. The difference is significant because Jesus is not speaking about foods that are inherently unclean (like non-kosher foods) but about foods that become "common" or "ritually impure" through external factors like unwashed hands. These same words and distinctions are used in Acts 10 with Peter's vision, by the way.

In his book Purity and Danger (Routledge, 1966), anthropologist Mary Douglas explains that purity laws in ancient societies, including Israel, were symbolic systems that differentiated between the sacred and the profane. The concern in Mark 7 is with whether food becomes profane through improper ritual, not whether it is inherently unclean. This distinction supports the view that Jesus’ discussion was not about abolishing the kosher food laws but specifically in regard to the purity status of kosher foods.

The Broader Implication of Mark 7:19

Jesus’ message in Mark 7 aligns with other teachings in the Gospels, where he emphasizes inner purity over external ritualism (see Matthew 23:25-26). The idea that "all foods are clean" in Mark 7:19 must be read in light of this broader theme. Jesus is not declaring non-kosher foods permissible but is instead pointing out that external rituals, like handwashing, do not determine one's moral or spiritual status before God.

Rabbinic literature reinforces this understanding. The Talmud teaches that the essence of the Torah is ethical behavior. For example, Rabbi Hillel famously summarized the Torah as, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow; the rest is commentary" (Shabbat 31a). Jesus’ teaching in Mark 7 follows this same prophetic tradition, focusing on the heart of the law rather than the minutiae of benign rituals.

Mark 7:19 does not provide evidence that Jesus abolished kosher food laws. The passage addresses the tradition of handwashing and critiques their overemphasis on external rituals at the expense of internal purity. Jesus' focus was on the condition of the heart, not on nullifying the Torah’s dietary restrictions. Scholarly and rabbinic sources alike affirm that the issue at stake was ritual purity related to handwashing, not the broader question of kosher food.

Thus, Mark 7 reinforces the importance of understanding the difference between ritual defilement and inherent uncleanliness. Jesus critiques the focus on traditions but does not overturn the fundamental dietary laws of the Torah. Additionally, he does not overturn the ritual itself either, only critiquing the improper focus on it. Scholarly sources, such as Bruce Chilton and Robert Guelich, along with rabbinic tradition, support this interpretation, underscoring that the New Testament should be read within its Jewish context.

It is important to note here that Jesus is also not dismissing the ritual hand washing entirely. It seems that only "some" (according to the text) of the disciples were eating without washing hands, and he merely uses this to show the emphasis is being wrongly placed. But Jesus does not imply here that the tradition is bad or wrong or should be overturned or discarded. Jesus himself charged his disciples to carefully obey what the Pharisees tell them to do (Matthew 23:2-3). Jesus is just taking this opportunity to say that the focus on ritual purity is misplaced when the spiritual purity is the real problem. And this is especially true when the ritual in question has no practical effect on the person, and the accusers are themselves guilty of violating their own stringencies.

---

Romans 14: Vegetarians and Weak Faith?

Romans 14 is often cited to suggest that Christians are no longer bound by Jewish kosher laws and that believers are free to eat whatever they choose. In particular, Romans 14:2 and Romans 14:14 are frequently used to justify the idea that the distinction between clean and unclean foods has been abolished. However, a closer examination of the chapter, its historical context, and Paul’s intended audience reveals that this passage addresses ritual purity and issues of conscience in a mixed Jewish-Gentile community rather than abolishing kosher laws.

Context of Romans 14

Paul’s letter to the Romans is unique in that it addresses both Jewish and Gentile believers in Rome who were living together in a tense social environment. The early Christian movement, largely composed of Jews, was now grappling with an influx of Gentiles who were unfamiliar with Jewish customs and Torah observance. A significant issue in this context was dietary practices, particularly those concerning food offered to idols and the general handling of food in a Gentile world.

Romans 14 opens with Paul urging believers to "accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters" (Romans 14:1, NIV). He introduces the topic by saying, "One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables" (Romans 14:2, NIV). The reference to those who "eat only vegetables" points to a particular group of Jewish Christians who, out of concern for ritual purity, chose to abstain from meat entirely, rather than risk consuming something impure.

Historical Background: Why Vegetarians?

The decision to abstain from meat was not based on vegetarianism in the modern ethical or health sense but was likely a response to concerns about ritual purity. In ancient Rome, the synagogue was seeing a large influx of gentiles joining the congregation. This presented a real problem to the especially pious Jewish members of the congregation, since as they understand it, eating with a gentile would render many of their community foods as ritually impure.

This is actually the exact same concern Peter had in his vision in Acts 10, as well as a very similar concern which was brought up in Mark 7 above. This is dealing specifically with ritual purity status of food, whether it be bread eaten with unwashed hands or, as we will cover in this case, meat prepared by gentiles or even touched by gentiles. The topic at hand is food that would otherwise be kosher food but is in some way compromising the ritual purity status of that food. The food is still consumable without defiling the purity of the one eating it, but especially pious Jews would still abstain from these foods anyway, for reasons like devotion to God or for maybe other spiritual purposes, such as believing they may be inadvertently participating in idolatry.

The Mishnah, a major body of Jewish law compiled in the second century CE, discusses the dangers of consuming food prepared by non-Jews. Mishnah Avodah Zarah 2:6 indicates that Jews should be careful when consuming meat or wine prepared by Gentiles, as it may have been tainted by idolatry. Therefore, some Jews, to avoid any risk of impurity, adopted a vegetarian diet, eating only vegetables to ensure they maintained ritual cleanliness.

Scholar Robert Jewett, in his work Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia, 2007), highlights that Paul was addressing a practical concern in the mixed Jewish-Gentile community in Rome. Many Jews living in diaspora cities like Rome would have faced the challenge of maintaining their dietary standards in environments where kosher food was not readily available. Jewett notes that this issue was particularly sensitive, as sharing meals played a significant role in community bonding, yet Jewish concerns about purity laws would have created divisions within the community.

The disciples themselves even decided that gentiles should abstain from meat offered to idols in the Jerusalem council of Acts 15. So, it is perfectly reasonable to think in a world where nearly all gentiles are universally idolators, with few exceptions, to continue to be cautious about eating food that gentiles may have handled. If it's a gentile you know and can trust that may be one thing, but in a larger community with a sudden influx of strangers, you never know. One of them could be in here secretly touching the food and quietly mouthing an invocation to offer that food to his pagan god for all you know.

I'm sure the Roman community Jews thought that by simply abstaining from meat and foods that could be tainted by paganism as a precaution was a noble one. It's even in line with the letters sent out by the Jerusalem council. Paul, however, seems to be under the impression that some of those extra careful members of the community are imposing this same level of observance on the rest of the community, which will inevitably create hard-line divisions between Jews and Gentiles within the same synagogue.

Paul has dealt with this before too, in Galatians chapter 2, he recounts an altercation with Peter on exactly this issue.

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned. For he regularly ate with the Gentiles before certain men came from James. However, when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, because he feared those from the circumcision party" (Galatians 2:11-12)

Paul in this passage expected better of Peter, who was acting hypocritically in this matter depending on the audience. In Romans 14 Paul seemingly doesn't take one side over the other but will use this passage to try and promote unity within the community regardless of each persons personal decision on this particular matter, as long as they are consistent and "fully convinced in their own minds." (Romans 14:5)

What Does "Weak" Mean?

Paul refers to the person who eats only vegetables as "weak" in faith (Romans 14:2). However, this term does not imply spiritual inferiority or moral failure. In this context, “weak” refers to a heightened sensitivity or scrupulousness regarding ritual impurity. For some Jewish believers, particularly those who were newly accepting Gentile inclusion in the faith, there was a concern that eating certain foods might violate their understanding of Torah.

In rabbinic literature, we find a similar concept of “fence-building” around the Torah, where stricter observances were taken to prevent transgression.

The principle of mishmeret (building a fence around the law) is seen in Pirkei Avot 1:1: "Make a fence for the Torah." This tradition of building protective barriers around the commandments was meant to safeguard observance, particularly in a Gentile context where one might unknowingly violate kosher laws.

The idea is not without merit either; as mentioned above, in the ancient world Judaism is the only monotheist religion, and so in this context, literally all non-Jews are idolators. The idea of a non-Jewish non-idolator is so novel at this time that some Jews would even still not eat meat, bread or wine prepared by a non-Jew "just in case". The only way to know for certain that the food is not tainted by idolatry is to only eat that which was prepared by a Jew. But since vegetables cannot contract ritual impurity in Jewish law at all, they would not take issue with eating those prepared by a non-Jew.

Paul’s use of "weak" here, therefore, refers to those who are taking extra precautions in their dietary habits to avoid ritual impurity. It is not meant to denigrate their faith but to highlight differing approaches to Torah observance among believers. The word "weak" here is not a pejorative, it indicates "carefulness" in one aspect. Contrasted with "strong" in this context and its use is to imply the other interpretation which is "less careful" so to speak, but this is just legal terminology.

The "strong" person might argue for example that being careful to eat only veggies is to in a way acknowledge a power that idolatry has over a gentile. So, ignoring this implication on meat prepared by gentiles (who are no longer idolators) is to deny the legitimacy of an implied idol, since they are no longer themselves tainted by idolatry. By treating a non-idolator as though he is still tainted with idolatry, in their eyes, gives more power to the idol than it actually has.

The point here, however, is that both arguments are valid according to Paul. As Aaron Eby wrote in a 2021 article on ffoz.org entitled "Mind over Mitzvot"

"Paul places both perspectives on equal footing. He wrote his letter not to say that one is right and the other is wrong, but both positions have strong arguments, and both are righteous efforts to conform to the will of God."

Romans 14:14: The Misinterpretation of "Nothing Is Unclean"

Romans 14:14 is often cited to argue that Paul declared all foods clean:

"I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean" (NIV).

To understand this verse properly, we must look at the Greek terminology. As we covered above, the word translated as "unclean" in most English versions is "koinos," which means "common" or "defiled," not "unclean" in the Levitical sense. The Greek word for "unclean" according to Torah law is "akathartos" (ἀκάθαρτος), which is used in Leviticus in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) to describe foods prohibited under the kosher laws. However, in Romans 14:14, Paul does not use "akathartos"; instead, he uses "koinos" (κοινός), a term referring to something that has been made ritually impure, such as through improper handling or contact with Gentiles.

The Mishnah addresses the issue of common versus unclean food in several places. In Mishnah Chullin 1:1, it discusses proper slaughter methods to maintain the kosher status of meat. If kosher meat is improperly handled or exposed to impurity (for example, if it was prepared by a Gentile idolator or came into contact with something non-kosher), it could be rendered "common" or unfit for consumption by the Levitical priests or by Jews who were concerned about ritual purity.

Paul’s argument in Romans 14:14 does not claim that non-kosher food is now clean but addresses the issue of food becoming "common" (koinos) due to concerns about contamination in a Gentile/idolatry context. The "weak" believers were worried that even kosher meat could become "defiled" if it had been prepared by Gentiles or sold in the marketplace. Paul is encouraging the community to relax these concerns in the interest of fellowship, emphasizing that if someone does not consider food to be defiled, it is not defiled for them.

As New Testament scholar James D. G. Dunn explains in Romans 9-16 (Word Biblical Commentary, 1988), "Paul is dealing with disputes about the 'purity' of food that has become 'common' due to Gentile handling, not about whether or not non-kosher food is permissible." Dunn asserts that Paul is not suggesting that the dietary laws of Leviticus are irrelevant, but that food deemed ritually defiled should not divide the community.

Conclusion: Romans 14 and the Issue of Conscience

Romans 14 does not advocate the abandonment of kosher laws. Instead, it addresses the question of ritual purity in a mixed Jewish-Gentile community, focusing on the conscientious concerns of some believers who chose to abstain from meat to avoid the risk of defilement. Paul encourages tolerance and mutual respect within the community, urging believers to avoid passing judgment on others' dietary practices.

Paul is not advocating to eat food which is designated for idol worship either. However, he does feel the need to explain that while some Jews still feel the need to abstain from food which a gentile has touched or prepared, that the gentiles in question are like Cornelius from Peter's revelation. These Gentiles are not idol worshipers, and he believes they should be treated at the table fellowship with the same trust given to Jews. Some Jews seem to be ok with this proposition, others do not seem so convinced and would rather just err on the side of caution. But each one whether he eats or not is to be respected for the decision he has made, because they are doing so to honor God.

Far from abolishing kosher laws, Paul’s teaching in Romans 14 is a call for unity amid diversity, recognizing that different believers may have different approaches to maintaining ritual purity. The text emphasizes that what is most important is love, respect, and fellowship, even when believers follow different traditions regarding food. Therefore, this passage cannot be used as evidence that kosher laws are no longer relevant. It addresses specific issues related to Gentile inclusion and ritual purity rather than declaring all foods clean.

---

Colossians 2:16: Judgment on Food, Drink, and Festivals

Colossians 2:16 is often cited by Christians to suggest that Jewish dietary laws, Sabbath observance, and festivals are no longer binding for believers. However, a closer examination of this verse, within the context of Colossians and the broader New Testament, reveals that it is not advocating the abandonment of these practices but rather addressing issues of judgment and criticism within the community. The passage encourages believers not to let others judge them for their observance of these practices, implying their continued relevance and importance for those who choose to follow them.

Text of Colossians 2:16–17

The key verses read:

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you in matters of food or drink, or in respect to a festival, a new moon, or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." (Colossians 2:16–17, ESV)

At first glance, this passage seems to downplay the significance of Jewish practices. However, understanding Paul’s intent and the context of his letter to the Colossians provides a clearer perspective.

The Context of Colossians

Paul’s letter to the Colossians addresses a community that was being influenced by various ascetic and mystical teachings. The Colossian believers were being pressured by some to adopt additional ascetic practices and engage in excessive legalism, possibly influenced by a combination of local pagan philosophy, early Gnostic tendencies, and possibly some aspects of Jewish mysticism. These teachings included severe self-discipline, such as abstaining from certain foods and drinks, in an attempt to attain spiritual enlightenment or favor with God (Colossians 2:21–23).

Paul’s concern is not with Torah observance or the Jewish customs themselves but with those who were introducing extra-biblical regulations and ascetic practices as necessary for salvation. The warning here is against legalism and syncretistic practices, not Torah-based festivals or dietary laws.

Jewish Festivals, Sabbaths, and Food Laws in Context

The terms "food" and "drink" in Colossians 2:16 likely refer to the kosher laws prescribed in the Torah (Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14) regarding which foods are permitted and how they are to be prepared. Paul includes "festival, new moon, or Sabbath," which are part of the Jewish calendar and religious observance, as outlined in passages like Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28:11–15. These include annual festivals such as Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles, and the weekly Sabbath, all of which were central to Jewish worship.

Paul’s encouragement not to let others judge the Colossians for observing these practices suggests that Gentile believers were taking part in them, which was a significant issue in the early church. In a community of both Jewish and Gentile believers, some were likely facing criticism for maintaining or adopting these customs. The criticism could have come from both sides, though it seems more likely that the influence is coming from the outside, the world, given the context provided by the verses that follow.

 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on ascetic practices and the worship of angels, claiming access to a visionary realm and inflated without cause by his unspiritual mind... If you died with the Messiah to the elemental forces of this world, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world?... (Col. 2:18 & 20)

In other words, Paul is saying "don't let others judge you FOR keeping kosher and Torah Holidays where the Torah permits." You are under no obligation to add any additional prohibitions on yourself, and in fact, Judaism generally discourages this.

The idea is that the Torah is more than enough for you, to restrict yourself beyond what the Torah has already restricted from you is to say that the Torah is not perfect or not good enough. In a manner of speaking, you said "the Torah was not sufficient" (y. Nedarim 9:1). So, by telling the community not to let others judge you according to what the Torah allows Paul is actually reinforcing Torah observance in the positive manner, not the negative.

The Phrase “A Shadow of the Things to Come”

Paul’s phrase “a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ” (Colossians 2:17) is frequently misunderstood. Many interpret it to mean that the festivals, dietary laws, and Sabbaths were merely temporary symbols that are no longer necessary after Christ. However, this interpretation misunderstands the nature of "shadow" in the biblical tradition.

In Jewish thought, a shadow is not a negative or lesser thing but something that reflects a deeper spiritual reality. The Torah and its commandments are often seen as reflections of heavenly truths. For example, Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (Ramban) in his commentary on Leviticus 23, explains that the festivals not only commemorate past events but also foreshadow future redemption. The "shadow" in Paul’s statement does not imply that these practices are obsolete but that they point forward to greater fulfillment in the Messianic age.

Similarly, scholar N.T. Wright in Colossians and Philemon (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 1986) states, “Paul’s point is not that these practices are bad, but that they are only partial reflections of the true reality found in Christ.” The festivals, Sabbaths, and food laws continue to serve as valuable reminders of God’s plan for humanity and His covenant with Israel, now understood more fully in light of Messiah.

The Role of Festivals and Sabbath in Early Christianity

Far from rejecting the observance of Jewish customs, the early Christian movement often continued many of these practices. The New Testament records that both Jesus and the apostles observed the Sabbath, participated in Jewish festivals, and adhered to kosher laws (Luke 4:16, John 7:2–10, Acts 10:14). The early church, particularly Jewish believers, continued to maintain these traditions while acknowledging Jesus as the fulfillment of their deeper meaning.

The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2011), edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, explains that Jewish practices such as Sabbath observance and the festivals were still meaningful to the early Jewish-Christian community. Paul’s instructions in Colossians reflect the tension between maintaining these practices and the pressure from certain factions to move beyond them or add extra ascetic requirements.

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, in The Sabbath (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1951), highlights the spiritual significance of the Sabbath as a “sanctuary in time,” a holy day set apart for rest and reflection. Paul’s mention of the Sabbath as a shadow of things to come indicates that while the weekly Sabbath is meaningful, it also points to the ultimate rest and renewal found in the Messianic era; the ultimate Sabbath (Hebrews 4:9).

Scholarly Perspective on Colossians 2:16

Most modern scholars agree that Paul’s message in Colossians 2:16 is not a rejection of Torah observance but a rejection of additional legalism and judgment over non-biblical ascetic practices. James Dunn, in The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 1996), emphasizes that Paul’s concern is with the way these practices were being used to create division and spiritual elitism. Paul was not arguing that the festivals, Sabbaths, or dietary laws were irrelevant; rather, he was opposing those who were using them to judge or exclude others.

Likewise, Andrew T. Lincoln, in Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought (Cambridge University Press, 1981), notes that Paul understood these Jewish observances as part of a deeper eschatological framework. These practices pointed forward to the coming kingdom, and while their ultimate fulfillment is in Christ, they still hold value for believers.

Conclusion: Unity Amid Diversity

Colossians 2:16 should not be interpreted as a blanket dismissal of Jewish dietary laws, festivals, or Sabbaths. Instead, it addresses the issue of judgment and the imposition of additional, non-biblical practices that were causing division within the community. Paul encourages believers to respect one another’s practices and not allow judgment or pressure to divide the body of Christ.

The festivals, Sabbaths, and dietary laws remain important "shadows" that point to greater spiritual realities fulfilled in Christ. Choosing to indulge or abstain from what the Torah permits does not grant any kind of spiritual superiority in any way. Rather than abolishing them, Paul’s message supports their continued observance while reminding the Colossians that their ultimate meaning is found in Jesus, the Messiah.

---

1 Timothy 4:4: Everything Created by God is Good

1 Timothy 4:4 is frequently cited to argue that Christians are free to eat any type of food, including those deemed unclean under Jewish kosher laws, because “everything created by God is good.” However, this interpretation takes the verse out of context and overlooks the passage’s deeper meaning, which addresses asceticism and Gnostic influences, rather than the Torah's dietary laws. A closer analysis, rooted in its historical, cultural, and theological context, reveals that Paul is not dismissing kosher laws but combating specific heresies related to extreme ascetic practices.

Text of 1 Timothy 4:1–5

The passage reads:

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer." (1 Timothy 4:1–5, NIV)

At first glance, the phrase “everything created by God is good” (1 Timothy 4:4) may seem to support the idea that all foods, including those traditionally considered unclean, are permissible. However, this interpretation neglects the larger theological context of the letter and misrepresents Paul’s original intent.

Historical Context: Combatting Asceticism and Gnostic Influences

Paul’s letter to Timothy addresses specific false teachings that had infiltrated the early Christian community. These teachings, often associated with early Gnostic tendencies, advocated for extreme asceticism, including abstaining from marriage and certain foods. Gnosticism, a dualistic belief system that later became more prominent in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, viewed the material world as inherently evil, and thus rejected physical pleasures, including eating and marriage.

In 1 Timothy 4:1–5, Paul is specifically condemning these ascetic teachings, which forbade marriage and demanded abstinence from foods as part of a false notion of achieving spiritual purity. The problem Paul addresses is not about whether believers should observe the dietary laws of the Torah, but whether believers should embrace unnecessary and extreme abstinence from things that God created to be enjoyed within their proper context.

Scholar Luke Timothy Johnson, in The First and Second Letters to Timothy (Anchor Bible, 2001), explains that Paul’s reference to "foods" in this context is tied to the ascetic practices of certain groups who believed that renouncing material pleasures, including certain foods, was necessary for spiritual advancement. Johnson argues that Paul's real concern is with the influence of false teachers who, under the guise of piety, encouraged believers to reject the goodness of God’s creation.

The Phrase "Everything Created by God is Good"

When Paul states that "everything created by God is good," he is echoing the creation narrative in Genesis 1, where God declares all of His creation "good" (Genesis 1:31). However, this declaration does not imply that every aspect of creation is meant to be consumed as food. The Torah provides specific guidelines regarding which animals are suitable for consumption, outlining distinctions between clean and unclean animals (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14). God created both clean and unclean animals, and both serve a purpose in creation, but only clean animals were intended for human consumption.

Rabbinic literature supports this understanding, with Midrash Tanchuma (Parshat Shemini 8) commenting on the importance of maintaining these distinctions to fulfill the divine purpose in creation. The fact that God created something "good" does not automatically mean it was created for human consumption. For example, while pigs and other unclean animals have roles within the ecosystem, they are not considered suitable for food according to Torah law.

The Role of Food in Jewish Tradition

Paul’s statement that "everything created by God is good" must be understood in the context of Jewish teachings about food and sanctity. In the Jewish tradition, food is seen as a gift from God, and blessings are recited before and after meals to acknowledge God's provision. However, only certain foods are considered "kosher" (fit) to eat according to the laws of kashrut (Leviticus 11).

The Torah explicitly outlines which animals are permissible for consumption and which are not, based on their characteristics (such as chewing the cud and having split hooves). These laws were given not only for health reasons but also as a means of cultivating holiness and spiritual discipline (Leviticus 11:44–45). By observing these dietary laws, Jews were reminded of their covenant relationship with God.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, in his commentary on Leviticus 11, explains that kosher laws serve as a form of spiritual training, teaching self-restraint and reminding the Jewish people of their distinct role in the world. Thus, when Paul says that "everything created by God is good," he is affirming that all of creation serves God's purpose, but this does not negate the distinctions God Himself established for food.

"Consecrated by the Word of God and Prayer"

Paul further clarifies his statement in 1 Timothy 4:5 by saying that food is "consecrated by the word of God and prayer." The phrase "consecrated by the word of God" refers to the laws given in the Torah that distinguish between clean and unclean foods. In Leviticus 11, God’s word clearly outlines which animals are considered clean and permissible for consumption. Therefore, when Paul says that food is consecrated by the word of God, he is affirming the Torah’s role in determining which foods are acceptable.

The mention of prayer reflects the Jewish practice of blessing food before and after meals (Berakhot 35a). The recitation of blessings acknowledges God as the source of sustenance and sanctifies the act of eating. This practice was common in the early Christian community, which retained many Jewish customs, including the practice of blessing food.

In fact, in Judaism, not saying a blessing for consuming food is considered "stealing" the food (b. Berakhot 35a). Paul bringing up that food is "consecrated" by the Word of God (ie. Torah tells you what is and is not food) and by prayer is to say that the "prayer" portion (the blessing) is also just as important as the requirement for the food to be kosher.

The key phrase in the passage is

"...and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving..."

Which foods did God create to be received? That would be the kosher ones. And to be received with thanksgiving? That would be the kosher food accompanied by a blessing. From the passage here we can see that the issue is the influencers were ordering believers to abstain from food which is otherwise permitted by the Torah. And, as we covered above in the Colossians section of this article, abstaining from things permitted is discouraged in Judaism and seen as a declaration of the Torah's inadequacy (y. Nedarim 9:1)

Scholarly Interpretation

Several scholars agree that 1 Timothy 4:4 is not a blanket statement abrogating dietary laws but is, instead, addressing a specific ascetic heresy. New Testament scholar Gordon D. Fee, in 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (New International Biblical Commentary, 1988), argues that Paul’s reference to food is aimed at countering Gnostic-inspired abstinence and does not imply the negation of kosher laws. Fee notes that Paul’s concern is to affirm the goodness of God’s creation against those who would distort it by promoting unnecessary abstention from basic human experiences like eating and marriage.

Similarly, Richard B. Hays, in The Moral Vision of the New Testament (HarperCollins, 1996), emphasizes that Paul's argument in 1 Timothy 4 is about maintaining a proper balance between enjoying God’s creation and avoiding the extremes of asceticism. Hays notes that the dietary practices under discussion are not those rooted in Torah law but those imposed by false teachers who sought to deny the goodness of the material world.

Conclusion: The True Meaning of 1 Timothy 4:4

In 1 Timothy 4:4, Paul is addressing a specific heresy of asceticism, which promoted unnecessary restrictions on marriage and food. His declaration that "everything created by God is good" must be understood in the context of his argument against extreme abstinence, not as a rejection of the kosher dietary laws given in the Torah. The phrase "consecrated by the word of God" reaffirms the Torah’s teachings on what is permissible for consumption.

Therefore, this passage cannot be used to support the idea that kosher laws have been abolished. Instead, it is a reminder that food, when received with gratitude and in accordance with God’s word, is good. The proper understanding of 1 Timothy 4:4 upholds the distinction between clean and unclean foods while rejecting the false teachings of asceticism and extreme self-denial.