Dietary Law

[The Author of my Faith]

I am not sure where to post this so if this is the wrong area forgive me.

But I have a question on Dietary Law. My friend just told me that he has studied and realized that God's Dietary Law is still valid for Christians. The health benefits alone are proof of that. I have to be honest, I never really studied the topic in detail about dietary law. I figured hey if all foods are clean then please pass the pork!

Is there any validity to his belief from a Biblical Standpoint? He mentioned that God told Noah to bring clean and unclean animals on the ark. Since that was prior to the Law of Moses God already made a distinction between what is clean and unclean and Noah must have know the difference as well.

I also heard someone say that when God made a distinction between clean an unclean that Noah did not know the difference. Moses was writing to a people who were under the Law and therefore he was explaining the fact that those animals were clean or unclean based on the Law that they now know (Am I making this clear?) I don't agree with this view at all but it was brought up.

Any thoughts?

 

[John Weathersby]

Steve,

I think, to read the Bible and come away with this position you have to A, want to obstain from these foods, or B, add to your salvation. I've had this conversation quite a number of times, and here is where I land.

In the New Testament Food Laws are only loosely referenced for example, possibly in Colossians 2:16-23 (of which is a shadow and Christ is the substance) if we assume that this passage refers to Deuteronomy 14 and/or Leviticus 11, or 1 Corinthians 10:18-33, or, Peter's vision in Acts 10 but these are limited to specific circumstances. Other places in the New state that Christians CAN eat ‘unclean’ foods, for example 1 Timothy 4:1-5, and Chapter 14 of Romans indicate that we are free from dietary restrictions and most specifically verse 17.

If Jesus shows, in his dealings with the Pharisees and Scribes, that our inward state is more important than our outward observance of ceremony (Matthew 15:10/11). Thus, the root of the question is, does the Bible state for us today that there are foods that are morally WRONG to eat? If so, would the previous statement not cause a contradiction with Romans 14:17 “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit”? In this passage (Romans 17:17, ‘righteousness’ is pitted as an antitype of ‘eating and drinking’ the two are NOT related. We know, because we see biblically, that Jesus is not concerned with a legalistic following of ceremonial law, (Luke 11:37-52/Matthew 12:10-12/Matthew 19:1-12). However our outward and visible evidence of salvation is provided in Galatians 5:22 “but the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control”. If adherence to food laws was evidence of salvation this list of the fruit of the spirit would have been a great place to note such.

With the light of the full revelation in Christ, we can go back to the shadows of the Old Testament and see more clearly what was being developed. Noah was a vegetarian before the ark, however, he was aware which foods were clean and unclean. Genesis 7:2, says, “take with you 7 pairs of all clean animals”; therefore, the animals were unclean not because they were not good for eating due to inefficiencies in digestive systems, because meat was not food yet, but because God said they were unclean. Next, recognize in Genesis 9:3 God states, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you”, even the ‘unclean’ animals were food, Noah was given the green light for eating animals NO qualification was given regarding which animals were clean and unclean animal for eating.
Moreover, notice in Genesis 8:20, Noah offers a sacrifice to God, of CLEAN animals. The distinction of clean and unclean was originally made in sacrifice and offering to God, not as it relates to eating. So your friend has noted correctly that Noah knew of clean and unclean foods, but this classification had nothing to do with eating. This position is supported further in Leviticus 20:25-26, is there something inherently wrong with the animals or were things “set apart for you to hold unclean”? The Israelites were told that God “separated you from the peoples (Lev 20:26)”.

One may be tempted to ask why God would do it this way. We should resist questions like these from shaping our view of scriptures reality or as a method of developing/understanding its meaning. As we see clearly in Isaiah 55:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord”. Should we test God to our heart if we know that “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it, Jeremiah 17:9”. We can appreciate that God gave us his word to understand what he would have us understand about him. Scripture is all we need to understand what God has revealed 2 Timothy 3:16/17.

Many will say, in support of keeping dietary restrictions, is that God does not change. However, does Gods commanding his will be carried out differently mean that “He”, God, has changed? No, God responds differently within time, even though he is outside of time. One example of this is provided in Leviticus 17:1-7 states that sacrifice must occur at the entrance of the tent of meeting with verse 7 stating specifically that “This shall be a statute forever for them thought their generations (Lev 17:7)”. However, later in Deuteronomy 12:15-21 the people are allowed to slaughter meat where ever they are if they are too far from the tent of meeting. In Jeremiah 18:8 God relented of the disaster he intended to do to a city, did he change? If the sinner is in sin God will change the relationship with the sinner, 1 Peter 3:7 shows that God’s position towards the sinner will be changed as his prayers can he hindered, but has God changed? No, the sinner changes in that they are sinning/repenting. God is reacting, within our view and understanding of time to different circumstances while his positions and purposes are unchanging and he is unchanging in his nature. I believe this is the same with the commands given to Israel, God’s plan for Israel was to show his majesty to the world around Israel and to the future believers in Christ. So, they were set apart as a people. This was not only in food regulations but also in the tabernacle, why then do some try to defend that God cannot change in food rules but ignore the tabernacle’s not being required any longer? If saying God doesn’t change, defends the requirements for Gods food laws being in place all other of his laws must too be in place.

Setting aside animals as clean and unclean defined specifically which animals could be used for sacrifice to God lending further reverence for God and understanding of the levity of Sin. Just as Noah is observed offering ‘clean’ animals in Genesis 8, we with the knowledge of the full revelation of Jesus can understand that this setting aside of some animals was to show the people and prepare the way for Christ that only a ‘clean’ sacrifice could pay for/atone for sin.

Now our sins are paid for with the one perfect ‘clean’ sacrifice for our Sin, Jesus (Hebrews 10:10). As the fulfillment Matthew 5:17, the word ἀναπληρόω is to fulfill or make full. The requirements of the law have been “made full” in that Jesus was perfect and clean, completely without sin, not created of earthly father, but heavenly. As no more offering for Sin is requirement outside Christ, Colossians 2:14, “By canceling the record of debut that stood against us with it’s legal demands. This he set aside nailing it to the cross”.

The legal demands of the law he set aside are keeping clean and unclean animals and dietary restrictions. In conclusion, pork may not be good for your cholesterol but they are clean with respect to eating with reverence and respect for God, and have no bearing on your salvation, standing before God, nor is there biblical evidence that requires we abstain from eating them in this day. If you obtain for health reasons, then say ‘I don’t eat pork, it’s bad for me’. Don’t say God made the animals unclean for food, that’s refuted in Genesis 9:3 and Romans 14:17, I will not attest as Peter “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean (Acts 10:14)”

Those are my thoughts, I hope this helps some.

 

[Peairtach]

Dear Author of my Faith

These laws were given for holiness-ceremonial reasons. The fact that some of them sometimes may coincide with health is not the biblical reason they were given. The biblical reasons they were given were to:-

(a) Help the childhood church (Israel) not get too involved with pagans and pagan influences.

(b) Teach the childhood church not to ingest moral not physical filth.

(c) Teach them to make distinctions between good and evil.

We can learn these lessons from them too.

Certain of the clean animals were specially for the purpose of sacrifice, which is why the distinction is introduced in relation to Noah, since some sacrifices were necessary from the Fall to the Law of Moses. We are told that Noah and his offspring were free to eat what they wanted, but did not sacrifice what they wanted.

If you believe from non-biblical evidence that shellfish or pork (or horse a la France) is bad for your health, or you have other reasons for not eating it, then don't eat it. But many have found these meats - if prepared and reared properly, like any clean meat - is not bad for one. Clean meats can be bad for you too if you don't rear and prepare them properly.

So people like your friend shouldn't lay these laws on anyone from a biblical but a scientific perspective. If he uses the Bible for this, he's misusing it.

See James Jordan's "Pig Out: 25 reasons why Christians may eat pork". I don't necessarily endorse some of Jordan's other material, as he involved in the Federal Vision heresy.

Some people think circumcision is good for you, but they should not argue for it from the Bible but from science. The biblical reason for it is not health.

If the Bible is misused like this we could end up bound by a conscience before God about laws we have been set free from in the adolescent and adult stage of the church (the New Covenant). The childhood stage of the church from Moses to Christ needed picture-book baby teaching and a system of discipline that was suitable to the church's infancy. Only the moral law ("Creation ordinances", Ten Commandments, general equity of the civil law, and all moral principles from Genesis to Malachi) binds Christians - not as a way of salvation, but as a pattern of holiness.

See also this thread:-

http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/theonomy-regard-food-facial-hair-51045/

 

[Scott1]

Remember, reformed theology looks at biblical law as of three kinds:

1) moral (perpetual commandments)
2) ceremonial (fulfilled in Christ's coming)
3) civil (given to Israel as a nation, ending when the nation when destroyed, except that some equitable principles may still apply).

The Israelite had to obey all these laws in order to be right before God, because God gave them as law.

Today, we do not have to obey ceremonial law or civil law given to Israel to be right with God, but we do have to obey the moral law.

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter XIX
Of the Law of God

I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.[1]

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables:[2] the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.[3]

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.[7]

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[10]
...

Peter, a Jewish believer, Apostle was specifically commanded TO eat pork..

Acts 11

4But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,

5I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:

6Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

7And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.

8But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.

9But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

This was in the context of showing the civil law given to Israel was expiring as the the theocratic nation of Israel was ending, being judged by God and now God was going to all nations, in accord with His plan from the beginning, explicitly on the basis of Christ.

So there is no requirement at all for Christians to not eat pork or follow the Old Testament diet laws.

Having said all that... there manifestly were some health and safety and other reasons that are worthy of consideration. Some of those issues were particularly true in that time, but others may still remain. There's pretty good evidence pork is not good for you, particularly as a staple (high fat, sodium, cholesterol, not a clean animal and bears food borne illness more easily than other meats).

But not eating pork at all would not be a matter of righteousness, at all.

Rebuke your friend on this, as Paul did the Galatians... and then invite him over for a modest quantity of well-cooked bacon!

 

[Peairtach]

Every time we eat pork or shellfish we should be reminded of the liberty we have in Christ and the New Covenant, compared to the Old Testament saints, and rejoice in it.

 

[Edward]

Invite your friend over to discuss it more over a meal of fried catfish, barbecued pork, and boiled shrimp.

It sounds like he has had an attack of bad theology.