Is unclean ακαθαρτος / ακαθαρτον in the NT the same as in the OT LXX of the Law (Pentateuch)?

Question

In reading the New Testament Epistles the words rooted in ακαθαρτ translated 'unclean' in the KJV are listed among sinful actions:

Ephesians 5:5  For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person (ακαθαρτος), nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

The words deriving from ακαθαρ are used through out the Pentateuch in the LXX, in regards to various forms of sanctification required by YHWH upon his covenant people, such as:

(Brenton LXX) Leviticus 11:46-47  This is the law concerning beasts and birds and every living creature moving in the water, and every living creature creeping on the earth; to distinguish between the unclean (ακαθαρτων) and the clean; and between those that bring forth alive, such as should be eaten, and those that bring forth alive, such as should not be eaten.

Is there any Evidence to not believe Paul and other NT writers are not referring to the same 'uncleanness' as Moses in the Pentateuch?

It is obvious that the Hebrew word טמא used in the Torah was understood as ακαθαρτων by the translators of the LXX, would this not be the correct way to understand Paul by a proper biblical hermeneutic?

Simply: Is Paul speaking of prior biblically defined 'uncleanness'? If not what evidence turns the meaning from what Moses by God's word had prior stated?

Answer 1

The concept of uncleanness/impurity (טָמֵא in Hebrew, ἀκάθαρτος in LXX, and its opposite טָהוֹר/καθαρός) has many applications in the Old Testament apart from food laws, for example the impurity contracted from a dead body (Numbers 19:11), and more poetically, impure lips (Isaiah 6:5) and a pure heart (Psalms 51:12/LXX 50:12). So even within the Old Testament, "impurity" isn't restricted to food that must not be eaten.

However, in the specific case of the New Testament, the concept of impurity with regard to forbidden food is explicitly acknowledged and repudiated. In Acts 11:6-9, Peter (like Ezekiel, 4:14) complains that he has never eaten anything impure, but unlike Ezekiel, Peter is instructed, "What God has made clean, you must not call profane."

This is in keeping with what Jesus is reported to have said regarding food eaten with unwashed hands: "it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles" (Matthew 15:11, NRSV, however using the verb κοινόω rather than καθαρίζω).

Given this context, it would be very surprising if Paul in the letter to the Ephesians meant to censure people who ate unclean foods, when Jesus and Peter are said to have accepted them. On the contrary, even though eating food sacrificed to idols was one of the few things that Peter and others decided to forbid the gentiles from eating (Acts 15:20), he sees nothing technically wrong in eating even this (1 Corinthians 8), and as far as I know he doesn't even consider other types of impermissible food.

Therefore, Paul's "unclean person" in Ephesians 5:5 is more likely to have been referring to "evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander," the definition of what defiles a person given by Jesus (Matthew 15:19-20), than to someone who eats forbidden food, which is a law Paul doesn't consider binding.

Answer 2

The obvious answer to this question seems to be that the terms of uncleanness as spoken by YHWH God in the Torah and translated into the Greek LXX Pentateuch are in Paul's focus. Regardless of if we are speaking of food, sexual issue, or defilement of many sorts, the Law as acting like a mirror tells the Christian of his sinful state before a Holy God. There is no need to redefine the meaning of ακαθαρτ- in the New Testament as any thing different and unspoken rather than the Hebrew word טמא used in the Torah and understood as ακαθαρτ- by the translators of the LXX and Paul the writer. The Evidence suggests that Paul is using the language of the GOD of Israel as communicated in the Torah through the Pentateuch as there is no other meaning given absolutely stated as directly as the Law clearly defines the words.

If direct language did exist a case would be made for a new translation of the words deriving from ακαθαρτ- in the New Testament, particularly of Paul. Thus, it is my conclusion based on the Evidence listed in the question it self and all other Scripture considered that Paul is speaking of the same thing as Moses, keeping God's word consistent and not confused to fit traditional doctrine.