Nothing is unclean of itself (a): Should Christians follow the Dietary Laws? [Part 5a]

Romans 14: ‘Nothing is unclean of itself’

Definition: ‘Torah’ is used here to denote the laws of God as given through Moses and recorded in the first five books of our Bibles.

The widely accepted view of Romans 14 is that Paul was hereby abolishing the Sabbath and feast days and was saying that what God had called ‘unclean’ and therefore not to be eaten, was now clean. To support this view, two verses in particular are used, namely v5 (‘all days are alike’) and v14 (‘nothing is unclean of itself’). Another view is that we can eat what we like and worship on any day we like, as long as it doesn’t cause a (weaker) brother to stumble. In this post, I hope to show you that this is not what Paul is saying at all. The chapter is not about Sabbaths or festival days and is not about declaring all meat clean.

Introduction

Before we look at the passage in detail, we ought to do a recap for the benefit of those who have not read earlier posts.

First, the word for ‘food’ is ‘broma’ (Gk) and is the word used for food in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It refers only to that which God declares to be food, as defined primarily in Leviticus 11. For a further treatment of this, see the post here: Should Christians Follow the Dietary Laws? [Part 3] ( https://christiansandtorah.blogspot.com/2025/09/should-christians-follow-dietary-laws_10.html )

Secondly, let’s look again briefly at the words akathartos and koinos. The former means ‘unclean’ as defined by God – namely, certain animals were not to be eaten and were deemed ‘unclean’ or ‘impure’ (akathartos). The word ‘koinos’ literally means and is translated ‘common’ in such passages as Acts 10 and is a term used to define foods that were clean by God’s definition, but had become somehow contaminated by their association with unclean things, by man’s definition. In Acts 10, both words are used and the chapter demonstrates the difference between the two, where God only tells Peter not to call ‘koinos’ what God has cleansed. He nowhere says things that are ‘akathartos’ had been cleansed. To see a more in depth study of these words, see the post here: Should Christians Follow the Dietary Laws? [Part 4] ( https://christiansandtorah.blogspot.com/2025/09/should-christians-follow-dietary-laws_16.html )

Thirdly, we need to remind ourselves of Peter’s warning:

2 Peter 3v15-17: “Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him.  He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, beloved, since you already know these things, be on your guard so that you will not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure standing (emphasis mine).”

The point Peter is making is that Paul wrote things that some found hard to understand. They then twisted his words to mean something Paul never meant and in doing so, fell into error. What kind of error? The error of lawlessness! In other words, even back in Paul and Peter’s day, some were saying that Paul was doing away with the law of God. In fact, this accusation came to the attention of the elders in Jerusalem. The account of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem is given in Acts 21v17-26. Paul gave a report of what God was doing among the Gentiles and James brings up the rumour that Paul is thought to have been speaking against the Law of Moses, telling the Jewish believers they should no longer circumcise their children. The accusation was actually false and to prove it was false, the elders suggested he take a vow (likely a Nazirite vow) along with four other young men, who he was to pay for. Paul readily agreed to this vow and set about it straight away.

The following day, Paul went into the Temple to give notice about starting the period of purification for the vow, taking others into the Temple with him. Some Jews then accused him of having taken Gentiles into the Temple (which he had not done) and caused a riot in the city. At that point, Paul was arrested and held prisoner for two years. After a few chapters describing the incidents that led to Paul appealing to Caesar (ie asking to have his case heard by Rome, as was his right as a Roman citizen), he makes a defence of his position before Festus, where he said:

“I have committed no offence – not against the Torah to which the Jews hold, not against the Temple, and not against the Emperor” (Acts 25v8 CJB)

The allegation therefore that Paul spoke against God’s law was false and unfounded. So why do Christians today make the same accusation against Paul? Did he really speak against God’s law?

Well, you might think that this was okay because Paul was a Jew and he was accused of telling Jews not to follow the Torah any more. But in Romans, Paul is addressing mainly Gentile believers; the Jews had been expelled from Rome, although it is thought that not all of them left. And it is in Romans that we see Paul’s view of the law most clearly. He tells his readers that “the law is holy and the commandment holy, just and good” (7v12) and that he himself “delights in the law” (7v22). He also asks his (mainly) Gentile audience, “Do we then nullify the law through this faith? God forbid! Rather we uphold the law” (3v31)

The word translated ‘uphold’ is histemi in the Greek and means ‘to stand’. It has been translated variously as abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand, stand firm – in other words, Paul is saying, no, the law stands! So why then do Christians think he contradicted himself in the same letter just a few short chapters later and did away with the Sabbaths and food laws?

Romans 14

Now let’s turn our attention to Romans 14 in detail, where I aim to show that it has nothing to do with God’s established food laws of Leviticus 11, or the Sabbaths and holy days of Leviticus 23. And because this letter is addressed primarily to Gentile believers, it should also go some way to answering our question: Should Christians (particularly those from a Gentile background) follow the dietary laws as set out in Leviticus 11?

At first glance then, it appears Paul is addressing three issues, all relating to food and holy days:

·        Those who eat anything vs those who eat only vegetables (see v 2-3)

·        Those who consider a day holy vs those who think all days are alike (see v 5-6)

·        Those who eat anything vs those who abstain (see v 6)

Then he adds a comment that most people believe is a summary of the whole passage:

“I know – that is, I have been persuaded by the Lord Jesus Christ – that nothing is unclean of itself. But if a person considers something unclean, then for him it is unclean” (v 14)

He also contrasts the weak with the strong (v1) and defines the weak as the one who eats only vegetables and the strong as the one who eats anything (v2). This has led many Christians to make the assumption that Paul is claiming the ‘weak’ are those who have continued living by the dietary laws and feast days as given in Leviticus and the ‘strong’ are those who no longer keep those laws and eat anything they like; they are now ‘free from the law’ (I will be addressing that concept at a later date). They claim Paul’s conclusion indicates that these laws no longer apply. It is a popular interpretation, but is that interpretation right? Is it consistent with the whole of Scripture? In fact, is it consistent with Paul’s teachings elsewhere about the Torah?

Context

In Romans 14v1, Paul speaks of a dissention that has occurred among the believers in Rome. He begins by saying there are some who are weak who have started attending and these weaker brothers eat only vegetables (v2). He reminds the established believers that they should welcome these people, but not to ‘doubtful disputations’ (KJV). Another translation renders these words as ‘not to get into arguments over matters of opinion’ (CJB). So it is obvious there had been a dispute about some things over which there was some doubt. This could have been a dissention about whether the Gentile believers needed to follow those regulations given in Leviticus 11 and 23 or not. This is indeed a dissention that arises in some churches today with most believers considering that Paul settled the matter when he said ‘nothing is unclean of itself’.

However, could things pertaining to ‘doubtful disputations’ or ‘matters of opinion’ actually be referring to the food laws and festival days/Sabbaths? No, because when it comes to the Word of God, there can be no doubt. If he was speaking about things recorded in the Torah, then it would suggest that Paul considered such things doubtful or ‘matters of opinion’. Today, we do have disputes over these things, but that is not because the Word is unclear or doubtful – it is more because we like our own opinions and are less trusting of the Word of God. Rather than being something that is a matter of opinion, God’s laws were given to show us what sin is (see Romans 7v7 and 1 John 3v4). If sin is a matter of opinion, what need have we of the Scriptures at all? Thus I contend that Paul cannot be speaking of Leviticus 11 and 23, because those things are clear and unambiguous. Paul therefore is speaking of things that are not in the law/Torah, but of other matters, not contained in the Torah, which could easily be matters of contention. The letter to the Romans is a specific letter to a specific group of people about a specific subject that has become a bone of contention among the congregation. However, there are clues both here and elsewhere that shed light and help to explain what Paul is actually saying in this chapter.

This then sets the context for the rest of the chapter: Paul is addressing the (mainly) Gentile believers in Rome about a dispute that has arisen among the congregation, between people who are ‘weak’ and those who obviously consider themselves ‘strong’, over some subject(s) that were ‘matters of opinion’. So, to repeat, Paul sets out, in verses 2-6,  the subjects under discussion:

·        One person’s faith allows him to eat anything; another eats only vegetables (v2)

·        One person considers one day more holy than another; another regards all days as alike (v5)

·        One person eats; another abstains (v6)

·        In vs 14, Paul sets out his conclusion: ‘I am persuaded nothing is unclean of itself’

Eating ‘all things’ vs eating only vegetables (v2)

“Beginning in verse two, Paul begins to outline the problem. Some were content to eat anything, while others would only eat vegetables. Does eating “anything” mean eating “anything?” The Greek word translated “anything” is πᾶς (pas) which literally means anything. But, of course, we know that they were not literally eating anything, such as poisonous plants or human corpses. No, there is a larger context under which we need to operate. People have taken this pas to mean that God's food laws were done away with, that we can now eat anything, but the context says nothing about God's food laws anymore than it indicates that the Romans were permitted to be cannibals.”
(The Case for Torah, https://casefortorah.com/romans-chapter-14.html )

Suffice it to say at this point that the dispute was about whether a believer should be vegetarian, or can he eat ‘all things’? ‘Eat anything’ is contrasted with ‘eat only vegetables’. Therefore, in context, ‘all things’ here clearly refers to eating meat along with the vegetables.

But why would any believer choose to be vegetarian? Unlike in today’s society, back in the first Century, vegetarianism was rarely practised. The Essenes were thought to be vegetarian, but almost everyone else ate meat.

I am a great believer in Scripture interpreting Scripture and so God has not left us without clues. The first clue is in the book of Daniel. When Daniel and his friends were taken captive into Babylon, he was among those boys/young men singled out for special attention. They were to be fed the best food from the king’s table. But Daniel refused. He asked to be fed only a vegetarian diet. Why? There are two possible reasons:

1.       Because the meat from the king’s table had likely been sacrificed to idols and Daniel wanted no part of that.

2.      The meat might have included meats that were not permitted to be eaten such as pork or horse.

The fact that Daniel later refused to bow down when the god/king came past is evidence that Daniel was very particular about the laws pertaining to idol worship, even though his life was threatened for not complying.

1 Corinthians 8-10

The second clue is in 1 Corinthians chapters 8-10, which we shall look at in more depth here in context with Romans 14.

Scholars say 1 Corinthians was written c 55AD and Romans c57AD from Corinth, so the subject was still reasonably fresh in Paul’s mind. These chapters cover much the same issue as Romans 14, but in Corinthians the reason is made clear why some might have chosen to be vegetarian – meat sold in the market might have been offered to idols and eating such meat was forbidden, not only under Jewish law, but also under the rules given to Gentile believers in Acts 15:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead 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.”[Acts 15v19-20]

There was a concern then that meat in the marketplace in Corinth might have been offered to idols and, as Paul explains, eating such meat, knowing its origins, makes a person a participant in the pagan sacrifice:

“Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf. Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?” [1 Corinthians 10 v 14-18 NIV]

Just as partaking of the bread and wine makes us participants in the body and blood (the sacrifice) of Jesus, and just as the Jews physically ate the meat offered at the Temple and so were participating in the sacrifice, so too, knowingly eating meat offered to idols makes the eater a participant in the pagan sacrifice.

The following excerpt from Bible Things in Bible Ways, clarifies this point:

“Paul begins this topic in 1 Cor 8v1 and ends it at 10v33.... The topic starts with ‘now concerning food offered to idols’ – so his entire subject is about things that have been sacrificed to a pagan god. Abstaining from meat that had been offered to idols was one of the four rules given by James at the Council of Jerusalem. It seems some believed that to eat such meat would be tantamount to making the offering to the idol themselves, which was something that was actually happening in the world around them (ie eating meat sacrificed to idols was seen as participating in that sacrifice). At the Isthmian games, held in honour of Poseidon, if you ate the meat that had been offered, you were partaking of the ritual associated with Poseidon, even if you hadn’t personally offered the sacrifice. All Roman citizens had the right to attend the games, so Paul could have been warning those who were believers and attended the games, to be careful what they ate so as not to cause weaker believers to think participating in idol worship was also allowable. He also warns them not to become arrogant and think they would not fall into temptation. Partaking of the bread and wine is participating in the body of Christ, so too partaking of the food at the Games made the eater a participant in the cult of Poseidon. Just because attending the games and the associated meals was not against the law, to do so might offend other believers and cause them to fall into temptation.”
[Excerpt from: https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/can-we-eat-all-meats-food-sacrificed-to-idols-and-misunderstandings-regarding-1cor-1025/ ]

So the controversy in Corinth concerned meat offered to idols, hence some choosing not to eat meat but to follow Daniel’s example and eat only vegetables. Therefore, as Scripture sheds light on Scripture, we can confidently suggest that Romans 14v2 is also speaking of meat that has been sacrificed to idols and ‘eating all things’ means eating meat as well as vegetables, which is then contrasted with ‘eating only vegetables’. That left the believers in Rome with only two choices:

·        To eat a vegetarian diet in order to avoid eating meat offered to idols

·        To decide that idols are nothing and eat the meat – as long as you do not know for certain that the meat has been offered to an idol. Not all the meat in the marketplace had been, therefore, unless someone pointed out to you what meat was offered and what wasn’t, you can eat it with a clear conscience (see 1 Corinthians 8v4, 10-11)

 But there was an additional issue. According to Jewish rabbinical rules, meat could become contaminated by association and thus be ‘common’ (koinos). Was therefore the meat that was permitted under the law in Leviticus 11 still fit to eat? Note again that we are only talking about permitted meat as God defined it, so not pork or horsemeat etc. Beef, goat and lamb were clean, even if they had been sacrificed to idols, but they might have become ‘common’ by association with the pagan rituals. The only way to be certain, for some believers, was to avoid meat altogether and eat only vegetables. These Paul calls the ‘weaker brethren’. They refrained from ALL meat, rather than risk eating something that might have been offered to an idol. But Paul says no, you can eat the meat, as long as you do not know for certain that it has been used in a pagan sacrifice.

So if a believer thinks he can eat it, even if he suspects (not KNOWS – food offered to idols was prohibited in Acts 15) it might have been been offered to idols; then the meat is clean as per the laws in Leviticus 11. But a believer who considers it unclean or common, to him it IS unclean/common (Romans 14v14b).

And this is where we run into an issue with our English translations. The word common, as we now know, is ‘koinos’, while the word for unclean is ‘akathartos’. It ought to follow then that the word in Romans 14 translated ‘unclean’ is ‘akathartos’. But it isn’t. The word in Greek in this chapter is ‘koinos’ and this, I believe, is the only place in the New Testament where ‘koinos’ is translated ‘unclean’. Hence Paul can say with impunity that ‘nothing is koinos (common) of itself’. He is not saying that unclean meats are now clean, but that meat from the marketplace is not ‘common’ or unfit for eating of itself; it might be perfectly clean as per Leviticus 11. Thus, something could be ‘common’ (ceremonially unclean) even though it would otherwise be considered biblically clean. Just because meat that was otherwise lawful to eat might have been associated with idol worship does not, of itself, render the meat unfit to be eaten. Paul then is not discussing biblical restrictions/prohibitions at all, but whether the believers in Rome could eat meat they bought in the marketplace, or if they should avoid it altogether.

However, there are certain things that should preclude us eating it, even if it is clean by God’s definition:

·        If someone has pointed out that it was offered to an idol, you don’t eat it – not for the sake of your own conscience, but for the sake of the conscience of the one who told you (1 Corinthians 10v28-29).

·        If a weaker brother sees you eating meat and thinks you might have been attending a pagan ritual, he might think he can mix his former paganism with his life as a new believer and thus his faith in Jesus could be destroyed (1 Corinthians 8v10)

·        If it is going to lead to arguments among the members of the congregation, you are not acting lovingly towards your brother for whom Christ died (Romans 14v15)

·        Do not let what you eat become a stumbling block to a weaker brother (1 Corinthians 8v9, & 10v32; Romans 14v21)

1 Corinthians 10v25-27 is Paul’s summary statement:

·        You can eat what has been bought in the marketplace without asking questions (1 Corinthians 10v25)

·        If you go to an unbeliever’s home for a meal, you should eat what is put in front of you (biblical laws notwithstanding – you don’t disobey God and eat pork) (1 Corinthians 10v27)

·        However, if at that meal, someone points out that the meat was used in a pagan sacrifice, you should abstain (1 Corinthians 10v28-29)

·        Paul finishes by saying it is good neither to eat meat (kreas = animal flesh) nor drink wine (also offered to idols) nor do anything by which your brother is offended (1 Corinthians 8v9, 13)

·        This is the context of the words: ‘whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God’. How can we give God glory doing something He has forbidden? Therefore this is not speaking of eating things unlawful by OT standards – God has already defined what constitutes food for His people

·        Finally, we are not to judge our brother for refusing to eat clean meat that he suspects might have been offered to an idol, just as he should not judge you for eating clean meat that has been bought in the marketplace (Romans 14v3-4, 10,13)

Unfortunately, the way 1 Corinthians 10v25 has been interpreted by many, if not most, Christians directly contradicts Leviticus 11, where God defines ‘food’ and states what may or may not be eaten. This understanding suggests that Paul is nullifying God’s laws, effectively making them void. Yet Paul also writes in Romans 3v3 “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the law.” So if Paul is contradicting Leviticus 11, then he is also contradicting himself. Why would he say the law is not nullified/made void in one breath and in the next nullify the food laws? I addressed this point more fully in the introduction to this post.

We should be able now to agree that Paul was not in fact nullifying the dietary laws, but was speaking of something else – namely, whether meat is defiled (made ‘common’) by being sacrificed to an idol. What he was teaching is in harmony with both Jesus and Peter (see previous posts on Mark 7 and Acts 10) – that food deemed clean by God’s standard is clean and we can eat it as long as we did not have prior knowledge that it had been used in a pagan sacrifice and we are not causing another (weaker) brother to fall by the wayside.

A modern example might be meat bought in our local supermarket. Much meat in our larger shops has been halal slaughtered, which means it has been killed in an abattoir facing Mecca and a prayer has been recited over the abattoir and/or the animal being slaughtered. Some supermarkets label their halal meat, others stock it but don’t label it, some may not stock it at all. Thus if I am in a supermarket that I know sells only halal meat, I do not buy my meat from there; if I see meat that says on the label that it is halal, then likewise, I do not buy it. However, if I am in a supermarket that does not label its halal products and I do not know if it is halal or not, I can buy and eat it without it raising matters of conscience (1 Corinthians 10v25). I do not need to ask the butcher. After all, the meat does not change its constitution just because it might have been ritually slaughtered (1 Corinthians 8v4, 7).

Likewise, if I am invited to the home of a friend, who is not a believer, for a meal, I can eat what is prepared and put in front of me – as long as it is ‘food’ by the biblical definition of ‘food’. I once read a story of a Jewish man who was invited to the home of a Christian family for Christmas. Many people in America eat roast ham for Christmas dinner. This is based on a pre-Christian form of pagan worship in Germany and surrounding regions. They ate pork during this time as an offering to one of their gods, Freyr, who was associated with the wild boar.

The family was aware he was Jewish, so he did not feel the need to say anything about dietary requirements. However, when they pulled a large roast ham from the oven and asked him how many slices he wanted he was disturbed. The children of the family looked on amused until they could no longer keep quiet – ‘it’s turkey ham’ they declared. If you are going to the home of someone who does not keep to the biblical dietary laws, it is helpful to mention in advance that you do, much like you would if you had an allergy.

Conclusion

I will start this conclusion with a fairly lengthy quotation from Case for Torah (you can access the whole article from the link at the end):

“So what exactly was Paul saying? What was the situation that he was addressing?.... What we do know is this: Paul is clearly addressing some type of man-imposed laws governing eating, and specifically these laws concern whether or not one should eat meat or only vegetables. Consider what Dunn says:

“Which food laws were in mind is not made clear. The Jewish law of clean and unclean foods did not, of course require vegetarianism. There were also the kosher laws to be considered . . . and probably more important in a diaspora environment was the fear of eating food tainted by idolatry” (801, emphasis ours).

Because, as Dunn states, the food laws found in the Torah never require vegetarianism, it does not appear that Paul is addressing those who follow the Torah's food laws versus those who do not. Rather, he is focusing on something more specific regarding opinions about eating meat versus vegetables. According to Dunn, one of the most pressing issues would have been whether or not it was okay to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols. It is likely that this is the very issue that Paul is addressing.
We know that Paul addresses this issue in his first letter to the Corinthians, in chapters eight through ten.....The connections here [between the two letters] are quite significant, giving good grounds to say that Paul is addressing in Rome a similar issue to what he was addressing in Corinth: whether or not it was okay to eat meat that may have been sacrificed to idols, especially concerning the weak versus the strong.
This, then, is most-likely the context in which some believers decided only to eat vegetables (to avoid eating meat that may have been sacrificed to idols), whereas other believers felt the freedom to eat meat. Paul is careful to tell those who differ in opinion on the matter, not to pass judgment on each other (3-4, 13), but rather to be careful not to be a stumbling block and cause their brother to fall.
As a side note, if the issue were regarding whether or not it is acceptable to eat unclean foods such as pork, then strict vegetarianism would not have been the solution. The reason vegetarianism was encouraged by some was because one could not tell if the meat had been sacrificed to an idol or not, so some thought it was best to avoid meat all together. If the issue instead were God's food laws found in the Mosaic Law, it would not be necessary to eat only vegetables. One would simply need to avoid pork. The difference between pork and “clean” meats such as beef are noticeable by sight and taste. You wouldn't accidentally eat pork as you might accidentally eat meat that had been used in idol worship.”
[ https://casefortorah.com/romans-chapter-14.html ]

So far, we have only addressed Romans 14v2 with a lengthy examination of 1 Corinthians 8-10. For this reason, the rest of Romans 14 will be dealt with in the next post, to avoid this one becoming too unwieldy.

To summarise: Paul is only speaking, as did all the biblical writers, of meats that were defined by God as ‘food’ in Leviticus 11. Just as Jesus said in Mark 7 and Matthew 15 and Peter in Acts 10, all ‘food’ is clean, so too, Paul is not now claiming that the food laws have been abolished; rather he is reiterating that ‘food’ (broma – that which God has defined as food) is clean of itself and associations do not inherently make the food unfit to eat. However, there are some specific reasons why you need to be careful when indulging in eating meat. This interpretation makes the Scriptures consistent throughout and doesn’t have Paul contradicting either God’s laws or his own writings.

Much of the confusion arises from the translation of the word ‘koinos’ as ‘unclean’ in Romans 14, whereas in every other instance it is translated ‘common’. The word ‘unclean’ naturally has associations with the animals prohibited for food in Leviticus 11. This has led many to understand Romans 14 as abrogating the dietary laws for Christians, especially Gentile Christians. However, that interpretation means that Paul, writing to mainly Gentile believers, not only contradicted God’s established laws, but also contradicted himself when he said that faith in Christ does not nullify or make void the law. Thus we need to understand that Paul is not addressing the food laws in this passage, but the manmade laws of koinos (contamination of clean foods) and whether those rules applied to meat that had been sacrificed to idols. He answers this admirably when he says we can eat what is available in the market (as long as it qualifies in the biblical definition) without asking questions about whether it has been sacrificed to an idol or not.

Romans 14v2 then is about whether one can eat meat with their vegetables or whether one should eat only vegetables. 1 Corinthians 8-10 sheds light and understanding on Romans 14 by explaining why some had chosen to become vegetarian – meat in the marketplace might have been contaminated by association with idol worship. These passages say absolutely nothing about no longer following the dietary laws and, because they were mainly written to Gentile believers, it is becoming clear that Paul’s intention was that Christians should continue to keep those dietary laws.

Further reading: 

Food, Faith and Fasting