Contradiction with Leviticus 11:7-8
This passage forbids the consumption of swine, calling it unclean, while Acts 11:9 declares what God cleanses should not be called unclean.
Leviticus 11:7-8: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 14:8
Here, Israelites are commanded not to eat or touch the carcass of pigs, reinforcing dietary laws that Acts 11:9 challenges by declaring all things clean.
Deuteronomy 14:8: And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it [is] unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.
Contradiction with Leviticus 20:25
This verse instructs making a distinction between clean and unclean animals, which contradicts the message of Acts 11:9 that what God has cleansed is not to be called unclean.
Leviticus 20:25: Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. [creepeth: or, moveth]
Contradiction with Ezekiel 4:14
Ezekiel protests against eating defiled food, upholding dietary restrictions that Acts 11:9 dismisses by stating what God has cleansed should not be considered unclean.
Ezekiel 4:14: Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
Paradox #1
The theological issue in Acts 11:9 could be seen in how it challenges earlier Jewish dietary laws found in the Old Testament, which specified certain foods as unclean. Some might view this as a conflict between Old Testament teachings and the new covenant in the New Testament, where rules about clean and unclean foods are set aside to reflect a broader acceptance of all people into the faith. This can lead to discussions about how old laws are understood or reinterpreted in light of new revelations in the Bible.
Paradox #2
The verse in question addresses the idea of God declaring something clean that was previously considered unclean. A potential doctrinal conflict could arise when contrasting Old Testament dietary laws, which specified certain foods as unclean, with the New Testament position that these distinctions are no longer valid. This might seem inconsistent to those who believe that biblical laws are unchanging. However, in the context of the verse, it signals a shift in understanding of what God's laws permit, emphasizing a new covenant through Jesus.
Paradox #3
Acts 11:9 might present a contradiction or inconsistency if taken in context with previous dietary laws given in the Old Testament, which prohibited eating certain "unclean" animals. Here, a voice tells Peter not to call anything impure that God has made clean, suggesting a change in rules. Some could see a potential conflict between following past religious laws and adapting to new teachings.