Bible's Dietary Laws: Only for the Jews?

[A_G_Brito]

The Divine Manual For the Operation of the Human Machine

Last spring a bought a bicycle, and the manual of how to assemble and operate it in safety was almost as thick of that of an automobile. That is because the maker wants the user to have his equipment in the most efficient and durable application.

God, man’s Creator, wouldn’t act differently from any maker of human equipment, leaving the “machine” He created without being accompanied by its due “manual”. Thus, He established laws so that man put into operation the “machine” of his body for the best performance possible. The health laws of the Bible regulate the best for human feeding, with its hygienic features as clear preventive measures to preserve the good health of His creatures.

Actually, the advocates of the “eat-it-all” freedom mentality regarding these rules admit that the reason why God gave these detailed laws on foods was exactly to grant man defense mechanisms in the face of the underdeveloped conditions, at a time when there were no hospitals, clinics, laboratories, medicines and the modern means of treatment. That is true, but with that they can’t justify why these laws had to end overnight (when Christ died), since the conditions that could be detrimental to men kept on justifying such divine care, both in the land of Judah and in the other lands where the gospel would be proclaimed.

The Bible dietary rules practically define what should constitute food for man. Otherwise, he would ignore what would be best for him and consume every type of animal, whose ecological role is of another character, which involves land, air and water beings.

Some time ago I read in the Readers' Digest about someone asking to a dweller in the seashore region why they didn’t hunt the fowls that flew over the beaches to eat. The experienced man explained that a brick put to cook in an oven would end up being smoother than a seagull and other birds typical of the coastal areas.

Ignoring such dietary rules has been the cause of many plagues and diseases that have affected human beings, such the AIDS, ebola fever and afflictions such as the bubonic plague of the Middle Ages have been attributed to the consumption and manipulation by men of animals prohibited by God.

The Sabbath commandment has its health aspects also. If God hadn’t established a day for man to interrupt his activities, his tendency would be to work more and more, without stop, causing himself great physical and mental harm. God wisely associated a day for his rest with a special time for worship, thus setting necessary limits for man and a time for his spiritual refreshment. Jesus demonstrated an interest for the best health of His disciples caring for their physical rest, when He urged them once: “Come with Me by yourself to a quiet place and get some rest” – Mark 6:31 (NIV).

Even the tithe question has its beneficial logic. God doesn’t need man’s money, but He created norms for the maintenance of the ministry so that there was participation of His children. Otherwise man’s tendency would be to gather selfishly more and more to himself, not thinking about the responsibility for God’s Work that man has the assignment of concluding on this planet—the mission of preaching the gospel to every people, thus promoting Christ’s message until the end of all things (Matt. 28:19, 20 and 24:14).

The December 2005 issue of the National Geographic Magazine brought a special news story confirming what had been found in previous researches—the greater longevity of the Seventh-day Adventists and the health advantages of this religious group in comparison with Americans in general. Jesus declared: “By their fruits ye shall know” if a tree is good or bad. The fruitage of the Adventist’s (and Jewish) care for the biblical dietary laws could only result in benefit for those who follow them.

And if these rules are good for the Seventh-day Adventists, why wouldn’t they be equally good for other Christians and the general population as well?

[A_G_Brito]

An Assessment of the Arguments Presented By the Adherents of “Total Freedom” From the Bible’s Dietary Laws:

* Any discussion regarding the Bible’s dietary rules should take into account three basic questions that need to be well defined. These three questions really set the foundation of the discussion on these divine laws, and they are:

1 – Why did God create these laws of dietary limitations, to begin with? Did He simply decide arbitrarily that certain meats were bad, without any clear reasons, and that was it?

2 – In what aspects were the dietary rules abolished on the cross, since they were not ceremonial? In what did they point forward to Christ's atoning sacrifice?

Note.: Somebody suggested they would symbolize the separation between Jews and gentiles. But if that is true, would God include in His law a feature of something He, Who is not a respecter of persons (Rom. 2:11), condemns?

3 – How the shed blood of Christ would have been efficacious to purify the meat of pigs, rats, ravens, serpents and lizards? Had it operated some change in the structural composition in a way of turning them adequate to human consumption?

Let’s see now the main arguments raised by the “eat-it-all” advocates and how there are immense difficulties to find them right in their allegations:

* Allegation: Christ in Mark 7:1-23 says that whatever enter the mouth won’t contaminate man, which shows that He is freeing His followers of following the dietary rules of the Bible:

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – The context clearly indicates that the discussion was not regarding the contents of the dietary laws in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, rather the contrast between what God has stipulated and what the “tradition of the elders” established (Mat. 15:2). He Himself confirmed it in vs. 20.

B – If Jesus were “purifying” supposed unclean foods in that meal, His act would have been good for nothing, because that was a Jewish meal, where no unclean meat would be found.

C – If Jesus were abolishing the dietary laws for good, He would be abolishing the law of food restrictions AHEAD OF TIME, for these dietary rules were not abolished on the cross? Besides being ahead of time, the supposed prefigurative sense would be absent, for only at Christ's atonement the types meet the antitype, the shadow is substituted by the Reality!

D – Christ would be teaching something contrary to the divine law “still” in force, thus He Himself had to be considered “the least in the kingdom of heaven” on the light of His own words in Matthew 5:19.

*Allegation: The Jerusalem Council, of Acts 15, shows that the gentile Christians were set free from all the limitations of the “Jewish law”, especially in regard to keeping the Sabbath and following the dietary laws.

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – To attempt using the expression “law of Moses” (vs. 5) only to some items that don’t seem convenient to the Bible student is dishonest (food laws and the Sabbath). This expression is much more comprehensive and includes the ceremonial precepts, as well as the moral ones, such as “ye shall not kill”, “ye shall not steal”, “honor thy father and thy mother”, “ye shall not say the name of the Lord thy God in vain”. . . This discriminatory use of the expression is totally suspicious.

B – What was determined during the Council is expressed in the four items of things the gentile Christians should ABSTAIN from (Acts 15:20, 29). These were no list of things they should, then, put into practice, as if it were a sort of “Tetralogue”, replacing the Decalogue, as some could think.

C – Of the four rules set, THREE deal with . . . food restrictions! Thus, instead of the Jerusalem Council confirming “total freedom” regarding the dietary laws, it instituted some rules reiterating ancient restrictions, by the way, things of the law that had been supposedly abolished, as the prohibition to ingest blood (Lev. 17:10-14). How would they repeat norms of an abolished code?!

D – Among the reiterations of ancient norms there is a recommendation against “sexual immorality”, which was something very well known as a divine law, expressed in the seventh commandment, “ye shall not commit adultery”. However, the apostles deemed it necessary to reiterate such a principle, probably due to the cultic prostitution of pagan religions, and the law of which this rule is quoted had not been abolished.

* Allegation: The episode of Peter’s vision of the sheet, narrated in Act 10, when a sheet appears to him coming from heaven with all sorts of unclean animals, accompanied by the order, “kill them and eat” is a proof of a divine “total freedom” on the dietary laws:

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – Peter’s resistance to the order “kill and eat” shows that he had not learned with either Jesus or his apostolic companions that there had been a “total freedom” regarding the dietary laws.

B – Peter did not understand the vision at all, for he kept wondering what was its meaning (vs. 17). That the meaning was entirely symbolic can be realized through the simple fact that it would be impossible for the Apostle to kill and eat something he saw in a vision. It would be the same as to try eating an ice cream seen on the TV’s screen.

C – When he finally understood the vision’s meaning, he didn’t interpret it as having to do with freedom to eat everything, rather that the gentiles, which the Jews had no permission to even “get close to”, should be contacted with the gospel message (see vs. 28).

D – In the following chapter, 11, he says that he could not resist the vision (vs. 17), but that resistance was not related to license to eat unclean meats, but to contact the gentiles. In his speech before the Jerusalem Council he mentioned his experience indirectly, and he speaks of “purification”, but not of unclean meats, rather of the hearts of the converted gentiles (see Acts 15:7-9).

That he overcame such resistance is made clear in Galatians 2:11, where it is said that he ate with the gentiles, even though receiving a rebuke by Paul for attempting to disguise these contacts of his, without justification.

* Allegation: The laws of dietary restriction were ceremonial, symbolizing the separation between Jews and Gentiles and ended with the atoning death of Christ:

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – The adherents of the “total freedom” of the dietary laws theory cannot define the reasons why God established them, to start with. If they aimed at protecting the people’s health, why such a preoccupation would disappear overnight with the death of Christ, since the hygiene of both men and animals would remain the same of centuries, not only in the land of Judah, as throughout the world where the Gospel would be proclaimed?

B – There is no way to justify that overnight meats such as that of rats, ravens, snakes and lizards began to be consumed when the Temple’s veil was rent from top to bottom, and the eat-it-all advocates can’t explain how the death of Christ altered the composition of these unclean meats, and why such food so harmful to health became apt for human consumption when Christ uttered His “It’s finished” and expired.

C – There is not the least evidence that a diet of all kinds of foods became the common practice of Christ’s followers in the early years of Christianity, be it in the land of Judah or throughout the world.

D – Although those who allege that those laws were prefigurations of the separation between Jews and gentiles, the fact is that God wouldn’t maintain in His law such a negative aspect of human sentiments (racial prejudice, xenophobia), for He is “no respecter of people”. Besides, that would represent to shift the focus from Christ and His perfect sacrifice to men’s deficiencies.

* Allegation: In Romans 14, Paul deals with the “weak” in conflict with the “strong” ones in the faith, regarding certain foods, that being a debate surrounding the permission to utilize meats that were unclean before, which is also the case in 1 Tim. 4:1-3:

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – There is not the least evidence that the debates there surpassed the question of food sacrificed to idols, since Paul dissented from the decision of the Jerusalem Council, which forbade the consumption of such food. He said that “the idol is nothing in itself”, allowing their consumption, but at the same time recommended respect for those who were scrupulously delicate, for not shocking them with their license to use these food articles, which, by the way, are not limited to meat (Gr. broma, any food).

B – Paul’s emphasis regarding our body being “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:15) doesn’t favor the notion that the believer can feed himself with pig, rat, ravens, snakes and lizards, since the same Paul said: “Whatever you eat or drink, or do any other thing, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). That shows that the Christian should be careful with the kinds of food he takes, rather than being indifferent regarding that.

C – The text of the parallel discussion in 1 Timothy 4 refers to “abstinence of foods that God created for being received with thankfulness” (1 Tim. 4:3) and its context refers to those who prohibited marriages, thus in a reference to a specific group of people. Specialists have identified these as the Gnostics, an ascetic sect. Thus, he was not setting a general rule, and also we have to face the fact that the “all that God created is good” (vs. 4) should include snakes, lizard, cockroaches, spiders. . . Besides, it would exclude those foods of the “dietary restrictions” of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:20, 29), which makes the “all” not being possible to be interpreted in an absolute way.

D – In Tim. 4:5 Paul speaks of using foods that God created for food and that they are good “for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer”. Since the God’s Word is referred to as basis for a decision on foods, and it establishes the dietary rules (and the early Christians got their Bible instruction in large extent by hearing the reading of the Torah on the Sabbaths in the synagogues—see Acts 15:21) it is extremely difficult that the Apostle is giving a “blank check” for the consumption of cockroaches, ravens, snakes and lizard as being created by God for human consumption, miraculously transformed into food apt for consumption just because of saying grace (as some people even imply).

* Allegation: The eschatological text of Isaiah 66:17 deals with the very last happenings of this planet’s history, but is related to the nation of Israel, not to the entire population of the Earth, since there are names of nations related to Israel’s experience and history:

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – Chapters 65 and 66 in its entirety show the picture of God appealing to Israel to be faithful to Him and to abandon condemned and abominable practices, in the face of the promise of extermination of the enemies who deviated them from the truth, and the new heavens and New Earth that are anticipated.

B – The immediate context of the text speaks of “fire and sword” with which the Lord will enter in “judgment WITH ALL FLESH”, and that He come to “join all nations and languages” who will “contemplate My glory”, in a very clear indication that it is the same end referred to in the book of Revelation. And these “all” who eat pig and rat and practice idolatry are included among those condemned to destruction, both in chapter 65 and 66 (see Isa. 65: 3 e 4 e 66:16-18; see also Eze. 33:25, heathen nations condemned for eating flesh with blood).

C – There are description of nations contemporary of the prophet (Tharsis, Pul, Lude, Tubal and Javan), but these are representative of the “all nations” mentioned, as it occurs in the book of Revelation, where the Patmos seer also speaks of Babylon, Egypt, Gog and Magog, representing ALL the people who are enemies of God’s children and who will face their final punishment.

D – At the end of the chapter there is clear reference to the “new heavens” and “New Earth”, when God’s people would be keeping themselves faithful to the divine law, including the Sabbath observance. In the New Testament we also read about the destruction of those who destroy the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:17 and 6:19) and in Revelation John refers to the “unclean fowls”, in an eschatological context (see Rev.18:2). Thus, by the end of the I Century AD John still kept the conception of unclean animals, a proof that such attribution to certain animals had ceased.

[A_G_Brito]

10 Reasons Why the Christian Should Not Eat Unclean Meats

1 – Because the division of clean and unclean animals comes from BEFORE the mosaic legislation, since the time of the Flood, when God ordered Noah: “Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate” (Gen. 7:2). Thus, it is made very clear that it was not a rule limited to the people of Israel, attached to the mosaic law.

2 – Because the objectives of the divine prohibitions aimed at the best health of the chosen people. He said: “If you listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you” (Exo. 15:26). In Deuteronomy God connects the sanctity of life with the dietary restrictions imposed to His people: “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured possession. Do not eat any detestable thing” (Deu. 14:2, 3).

The unclean animals, such as pigs, snakes, lizards, ravens, rats, have their role to play in the ecology, but they are bearers of sickness factors, besides other problems that make than unsafe for human feeding, as medical authorities have found.

3 – Because prophet Isaiah speaks of condemnation on the part of God to consumers of pig and rat, that are associated with pagan rites, calling all that ABOMINATION: “Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following the one in the midst of those who eat the flesh of pigs and rats and other abominable things—they will meet their end together," declares the LORD” (Isa. 66:17). To Ezekiel the Lord also condemned such types of food, and the prophet expressed his repulse to them (see Eze. 4:13, 14).

4 – Because we have a Bible example of a faith hero who preferred death to eat pig meat, as quoted in 2 Maccabees 6:18-31: Eleazar chose death rather than consuming prohibited meats, “leaving behind, by his death, not only to the young people, but to the majority of the nation, an example of noble courage and a memorial of virtue” (vs. 31—Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible).

5 – Because the hygiene and health laws had no prefigurative character. They were not “ceremonial” laws and they did not point to Christ’s atonement on the cross. The Christ’s debates on what enters the mouth, so often misunderstood, has to do with rules of ceremonial impurities, and not discussions on freedom for oneself feeding on unclean foods. Nor are they recommendations about eating “without washing the hands”, which would not be an appropriate measure, through a medical viewpoint.

6 – Because in the vision of the sheet, Acts 10, Peter declared that he would in no way consume unclean animals, as were shown to him in the vision, symbolizing the gentiles, who were despised as “common or unclean” by the Jews (see Acts 10:10-16, 28 and 34). Thus, he demonstrates that he had not learned with Jesus or his apostolic companions to feed on those animals.

7 – Because among the four rules decided by the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), regarding things the gentiles should ABSTAIN from, even though consumption of blood and food offered to idols is quoted, no rule is set regarding things for which there was no need of clarification. All already knew that the unclean meats were not valid foods for a Christian’s consumption. Paul didn’t discuss that question when addressing the problem of “food sacrificed to idols” (1 Cor. 8'). If he intended to indicate the end of these dietary restriction laws he would profit from the occasion to discuss it, and never did. What he said is that there would be no preoccupation with that type of meat for having been sacrificed to idols because “an idol is nothing at all ”. The pagan priests used to sell parts of the meats from their sacrifices for public consumption. Even though they also sacrificed such animals as pigs, rats, snakes, the Christians would know how to sort out what he considered real edible “food”, to be received with “foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving ” (see 1 Tim. 4:3), excluding those things that God’s Word prohibits.

8 – Because, being the Christian’s body the “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 2 Cor. 6:16), he should not contaminate it with whatever is harmful, since we are supposed to present our bodies “offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship” (Rom. 12:1). Paul also recommended to Christians: “you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body”. (1 Cor. 6:20).

9 – Because both Christ and Peter presented comparisions and illustrations involving pigs, in a scornful way, as when Jesus speaks of “throw your pearls to pigs”, as when he mentions pigs in the story of the prodigal son, stressing the lowest level he reached in his experience, and when He expelled demons making them to incorporate in a herd of pigs; Peter speaks of the sow that, once washed, returns to the mud (see Mat. 7.6; 8:30-32; Luke 15:15, 16; 2 Ped. 2:22).

10 – Because scientific data confirm the harmful character of those animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, as the “sea food”, pigs, fish not having scales, indicating the superiority of the mosaic legislation: Rudolph Virchow, known as the ‘father of modern pathology’, said:

“Moses was the greatest hygienist the world has even known. Depending on revealed knowledge and lacking scientific equipment, Moses taught, in its essentials, almost all the principles of hygiene put into practice today. Among them we find the prevention of diseases, disinfection through fire and water, epidemic control through reporting and isolation of those bearing communicable diseases, followed by the complete disinfection of all objects possibly contaminated. The personal cleanliness was imposed and the sewage system was obligatory, so that the camp of the Israelites was as clean as are modern cities. Even though physical exercise was provided, frequent periods of rest and relaxation, to avoid excessive work, was also imposed”. -- Dr. Owen S. Parrett, Diseases of Food Animals, p. 7 (Southern Publishing Assn., Nashville, Tenn., 1939). -– Study prepared by Prof. Azenilto G. Brito.

__________

* The Bible texts are from the New International Version ©

[John317]

I completely agree with what you posted here. Hope you participate in the discussion on the subject of Levitcus.