We can’t find a better contrast between legalism and faith than the concept of “clean” and “unclean.” Unclean had clear delineation under the law, which forbade certain foods, animals, objects and activities. When a gray area God had left did appear, the Pharisees quickly slapped on the high contrast filters to get things back to black and white.
Clarifying the ambiguous
The Pharisees took two kinds of precautions to prevent contact with an unclean object, or to prevent doing anything that might render them unclean.
First, they had to carefully scrutinize and categorize every physical object and every nuance of the circumstances of their use. Some things were always unclean, such as pigs, so they posed no problem. But a cow could be clean or unclean, depending on how it was slaughtered and butchered. Here, one really had to know the rules to make sure one ate only clean (kosher) meat.
Second (in addition to knowing the sometimes infinitesimal distinctions between the clean and the unclean) the fastidious Jew also employed avoidance behaviors (e.g., Luke 10:31,32). As we learned in some of the earlier installments of the series, this could mean going as far as having two separate, fully-equipped kitchens to make sure that a vessel which once contained a milk product would never be used at a meal where meat was served. One had to know the rules and one had to carefully follow a vigilant regimen of avoidance behavior to stay pure from defilement.
If the Lord God ordained such distinctions (e.g., Lev. 13-15), how could anyone ever disregard them or relegate them to desuetude? How could anyone, especially a Jew, come along and say, “all foods are clean”? Little wonder the Pharisees took such violent exception to the teaching of Jesus and the early church. The change of covenants signified a major change of perspective on the matter of clean and unclean. As we say today, the early believers had a “paradigm shift.”
Such was necessary, because a system of Jewish national laws which specified external uncleanness could not co-exist with a system based on the individual faith of any Jew or Gentile in the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus.
Here’s why: If one avoided the unclean, then one had, de facto, ritual cleanliness. In other words, the most obvious failing of the legal system of clean and unclean was that it implicitly categorized a person as “clean” until defiled. You could only become defiled if you were previously clean. Under a system of law, human beings were innocent and clean by nature, and only unclean or defiled by circumstances of life. Defilement occurred from the outside; therefore, the person had to be inherently “clean.”
However, God has consigned all to disobedience that He may have mercy on all (Rom. 11:32). Human nature isn’t clean. We don’t start out clean and try to avoid anything out there that makes us unclean. We start out condemned to uncleanness by our mortal nature and the inevitable sins that come from our proneness to sin. So the first lesson we learn about clean and unclean is this: any system of designated clean and unclean objects or activities precludes the operation of grace, and vice versa.
They can’t co-exist, because they clash at the nexus of human nature. The one system depends on our inherent uncleanness; the other implies we are inherently clean.
In the first century, those who first incurred the shift of focus didn’t easily accept this lesson. Not only did they have to get used to eating swine and other previously verboten animals, but the entire basis of clean and unclean was abolished. Little wonder then that the New Testament has several references to this issue. Consider the following list:
“There is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him, but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.. .whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart, but his stomach, and so passes on. Thus he declared all foods clean. What comes out of a man defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these things come from within, and they defile a man” (Mark 7:14-23, see also Mt. 15:1-11 RSV as all verses).
“The Pharisees were astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner. And the Lord said to him, ‘Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. ..Give for alms those things which are within, and behold, everything is clean for you'” (Luke 11: 37-44).
“And there came a voice to him, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ But Peter said, ‘No Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.’ And the voice came to him again a second time, ‘What God has cleansed, you must not call common’ (Acts 10:13-15, see also Acts 11:8-9).
“I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean.” “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for any one to make others fall by what he eats” (Rom. 14:14, 20).
“All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but not all things build up” (I Cor. 10:23).
“For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving” (I Tim 4:4).
“To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted” (Titus 1:15).
The inspired testimonies of Jesus, Peter, and Paul all agree: the matter of external or ritual uncleanness is extinct. Nothing outside a person can carry the label “unclean.” No food, no object, no place, no thing of any kind. On the one hand, this simplified life; no longer did a person need to keep meticulous track of eating, utensils, food sources, and so on. Further, with the need for ritual cleanness gone, so also went the various ablutions and atonements connected with acts of defilement.
Did this really make life simpler? Or did it allow license for all kinds of questionable activities? Would this lead people in wrong directions? What would people use as a metaphorical basis of right and wrong? How would we learn to distinguish right and wrong if everything was clean? Clearly, the abolition of the law freed people from the issue of slavery to a dead system, but it did not free them from the struggles of spirituality. Rather, the covenant of grace led people to a higher level of thinking. Instead of a Pharisaical regimen of casuistry and irrelevant polemics, people would now dwell upon the virtues of love, self-discipline, faith, and forbearance. New Testament teaching could develop a level of morality unavailable to keepers of the law.
Looking inside
Starting with the declarations of Jesus recorded in Mark’s gospel, we see that much more was at stake than declaring swine’s flesh ceremonially clean.
“Thus he declared all foods clean,” Mark’s parenthetical comment, takes us beyond the issue of food, as Jesus’ discourse covers much greater issues than eating.
At issue is the principle of the origin of sin.
If something, anything, external is inherently unclean, then people could become unclean through association with that object. But if nothing is inherently unclean, then uncleanness has a different basis.
Jesus stated that basis: the human heart, clearly here referring to the brain, or thinking. Jesus said, “Out of the heart come evil thoughts.” Physiologically, blood comes out of the heart and thoughts come out of the brain. This figurative use of “heart” demonstrates the intrinsic dearness with which we hold our lusts. A list of twelve evil activities follows: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
These words connote behaviors, not thoughts. Out of the heart (brain) come evil thoughts, and the thoughts in turn beget the behaviors of sin (cp. Micah 2:1,2). These sins represent a far more reprehensible lifestyle than eating swine’s flesh. Could eating any food inculcate such atrocious behavior? Food has no effect on morality. Eating the right stuff won’t make you good; eating the wrong stuff won’t make you bad.
We must look truly inside of ourselves for the answer to the problem of immorality. All foods are clean and available for our use, and we should receive them with thanks. Not all foods have equal dietary merit, but that’s not the issue at hand. Defilement comes from evil thoughts which lead to evil actions. That’s the issue. A quick analysis of the list reveals a focus on self-centered and sensuous behaviors. It pictures human nature at its worst. Regrettably, the list describes the completeness of David’s evil in the affair with Bathsheba, yet he found forgiveness because he repented.
Repentance also internal
We look inside because that’s where the problem is, and that’s also where the remedy lies. That same evil heart — by God’s grace — can also recognize its own evil, and repent. That same evil heart can also harbor love and faith, and generate the ensuing good works. Just as we can think evil and then do it, we can also develop faith and then do the works of faith.
That same evil heart can receive grace and God’s love, the things that go into a man and stay there; they don’t just pass through like food does. The heart, which Jesus called “within” and Paul called the “inmost self’ (Rom. 7: 22), is bent, by nature, to evil, but it can, with spiritual intake, contain love and joy and peace. Spiritual intake affects the true heart, that is the thinking, but the intake of things physical has no effect on morality or thinking. Therefore the issue of foods becomes moot.
Beyond food
Before we go on to some other considerations, we want to expand on the food issue. Most of the scriptural examples in our list refer to foods, but what about other things? What about clothes? What about books, movies, TV, music, and so on? What about activities, hobbies, sports, etc? What about jobs, homes, and everything else in our world? Can we still label any of these clean and unclean?
In one respect, these are all “externals” also; that is, they form the world we live in, but they aren’t “us.” They’re still outside of us. Being outside, and not human hearts themselves, they cannot be either “good” or “bad.” In and of themselves, they have no morality.
If everything then is clean, does that mean we can do whatever we desire? Is there no need for any discretion or restraint? Are we entirely free? “No, we’re not,” is the right answer, but the “no” must be for the right reason. Unlike totally neutral substances such as food, items such as books and movies are the product of human hearts, and thus impact our brains while food does not. One cannot responsibly hide behind the rubric “all things are clean” and so open one’s self to all manner of influence to evil. It may not be a sin per se, as far as a legal accounting goes, but the question we must ask is not, “What’s wrong with it?” but, “How is this helpful?”
Let’s go back to Paul’s guidance in Corinthians, where he states that all things are lawful, but not all are helpful or edifying. The issue is not, “It’s O.K. because nothing out there can defile me,” but rather, “Will this help me grow in Christ?” We plan to cover this in more detail in the next article. The application now focuses on the realization that all things are clean, but not all things are helpful. Not only do humans sin, but human hearts can produce works that influence others to sin. Paul wrote to Timothy, “Everything created by God is good.” Not so for that which comes from human enterprise.
Creating uncleanness
Paul asserts in the Romans and Titus quotations that although everything is clean, anything can also be unclean to him who thinks it is unclean. This can apply in two ways. There’s also one thing it can’t mean, and we need to look at that first.
What Paul couldn’t mean was that our own value system could actually make something “unclean,” as if each person was a law-making body for himself. If I esteem something unclean, does it actually become unclean? If it does, it would amount to a reversal of God’s plan of grace. All things are clean, and we cannot make them unclean no matter what we think of them. It would also mean that if I avoided the object that I had personally labeled unclean, then I would have title to some kind of legal righteousness. Clearly, this meaning cannot apply.
For example, one can never make eating ham a sin. People can feel bad and ashamed about eating something they regard as unclean, but they can’t actually defile themselves, because nothing outside a man can defile him. The bad feeling we get is an ill conscience — as if we had actually transgressed — and that’s why Paul says “Don’t eat it if it bothers you.” But in fact we haven’t transgressed, because the “law” we internally established had no basis for existence — it was just a personal scruple.
To find out what Paul did mean, let’s consider the historical and social context of Paul’s teaching. Under the recently departed law, certain foods were unclean. Now they’re fine. Even food offered to idols was acceptable, because the idols had no real existence (I Cor. 8:4). But some might still have reservations about eating such food. Their conscience might bother them about the fact that they ate meat which had been dedicated to an idol of a Greek God. Certainly, eating something that one had always associated with sin and pagan behavior would be a spiritual stretch. Thus, Paul wrote: if it bothers you, don’t eat it. For you, it’s off limits, and that’s okay. Maybe someday you’ll accept that it’s all right, but if you would feel ashamed, then by all means don’t eat. So for you, that food is still off limits, but only because your faith is still growing in that area. In an accession to human perception and individual conscience, Paul did not command eating all foods.
A second meaning alludes to the recrudescent legalism that such an attitude might reflect. Let’s say you grew up Jewish, and you’re homophobic. Scripture says ham is clean, but you’re not so sure. You still have some doubts about certain things. You need a vision from heaven to convince you otherwise. If you harbor in your heart some vestigial legalist labels for your scruples, then you have made them unclean, not because they are unclean, but because you’ve delved back into legalism. To the pure all things are pure, because they will see them in that light. But to one who still believes that “some things out there can defile me,” nothing is pure, because that person has fallen away from grace and back into the law. We have judged ourselves by our own legal system. We avoided one thing, but we’ve fallen back into the law, wherein we cannot survive (Gal. 2:18).
All things are clean, not all are helpful, not all are good for everyone, but defilement comes only from the sensuous, self-centered thinking of our human nature. That’s the true uncleanness of the world, the uncleanness that we can wash away in the blood of Christ, and not by any ceremonial work of the law. Several other issues stem from the consideration of clean and unclean; these, God willing, we will continue in our next article, Freedom in Christ.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One