Pork and Sabbatarian Adventists

[Don777]

Pork Restriction: "We think it cannot be made to rest upon Bible ground." (1857)

Quote:

Beards and Mustaches

In view of the feeling which is growing up on this subject throughout the country as evinced by the many unshaven faces which one everywhere meets, and considering moreover that some of our correspondents have expressed themselves quite warmly in favor of this reform, if reform it may be called, it may be proper for us to say a word on the subject at this time.

We would say then that we must beg to be excused from taking any interest in the question, or discussing its merits or demerits in the Review, as we cannot look upon it as a Bible question.

Like that restriction which would exclude swine's flesh from the list of our eatables, whatever other plea may be urged in its favor, we think it cannot be made to rest upon Bible ground. We do not regard that book as imposing upon mankind at the present time any restrictions on these subjects. Then let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind.

If a person is fully assured that shaving is incompatible with health, we would not of course have him do anything to injure his constitution; and if he thinks that the sympathy between his eyes and his upper lip is such that he cannot shave the latter without injuring the former, we see no other way but that a mustache must develop itself. Though in our opinion the views which many take on these points stand much in need of confirmation.

Again, as to its looks, and the plea that has been advanced, that to shave was to mar the divine beauty of the human visage as God designed it, we must remember that all have not the same ideas of beauty, and that in the eyes of many a projecting mustache and flowing beard, are as apt to make a man look like a rough goat as a venerable patriarch, and perhaps more so. We only say, let every one endeavor to form correct views of propriety and abide by them; and if under these circumstances they can feel free to make a meal of pork steak, or brandish a razor, we have no objections to offer.

Upon these subjects, until they shall assume more importance than we can at present attach to them, we design to be neutral; and neutrality, now-a-days, is silence.

Review and Herald, June 25, 1857, p. 8.

http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18570625-V10-08__B.pdf#view=fit

(emphasis added)

Observations

1. This article has no author's name included. Uriah Smith was the "Resident Editor" at the time.

2. "We think it cannot be made to rest upon Bible ground." The Adventists of the 1850's did not consider Leviticus 11 to be the Biblical grounds needed to avoid pork.

[Green Cochoa]

I believe at that time they understood the dietary and health laws to be part of the ceremonial laws that had reached their fulfillment at the Cross. In this, of course, they were simply not yet aware of the full picture. They spoke from the best of their understanding at that time.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Hair]

they were simply not yet aware of the full picture. They spoke from the best of their understanding at that time.

Boy! The WO people and the Feast Keepers could have a "hayday" with that statement.

I get what you're saying though, and I agree...just poking on ya.

Also, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the SDA church was not official with a set standard of beliefs until sometime in the 1860's. I'm not sure of the specifics and exact years, but I'm sure some one here will know exactly. So maybe it would be incorrect to pin that on us as what we once taught as a church.

There was a lot of people, studying, praying, work, toil, and turmoil that went into forming our church and as Green said, we did not have as many answers as we do now.

[Johann]

Pork Restriction: "We think it cannot be made to rest upon Bible ground." (1857)

Quote:

Review and Herald, June 25, 1857, p. 8.

http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18570625-V10-08__B.pdf#view=fit

(emphasis added)

[color:#FF0000]Observations

1. This article has no author's name included. Uriah Smith was the "Resident Editor" at the time.

2. "We think it cannot be made to rest upon Bible ground." The Adventists of the 1850's did not consider Leviticus 11 to be the Biblical grounds needed to avoid pork.

Several years ago I read an article in an earlier issue when James White was the editor. He gave a similar reply to someone who asked. And he added that he and his wife had just bought a whole pig that would be their food supply for a while.

[Don777]

Pork in Sabbatarian Adventist Literature

The purpose of this thread is to document the Sabbatarian Adventist view of pork as a food item.

[Hair]

Are you after the date of exactly when, and by whom, and how the decision was made by the SDA church?... and when it was actually documented as a fundamental belief?

Because, as I am sure you are aware, today we do not view pork as a "food item" at all. The pig is good in its own right and purpose, but that purpose is not one of food.

[Hair]

HEY ALL

GOD gave his disciples step by step bible truths

GOD gave our early church leaders step by step bible truths

and GOD gives his followers to day step by step bible truths

just thinking here

dgrimm60

Amen! God is perfect as a teacher as in all else.

He knows all of our prerequisite accomplishments and exactly what we are ready for next. He knows our personalities, exactly what teaching methods work best on us as individuals, what kind of home we came from, and just how to make us behave and listen. Then, he'll come home and help us with the homework personally, and we all get the benefit of one on one teaching. There is no limit to his knowledge and he teaches all subjects. Can't beat that :)

[Don777]

Pork and Adventists: A Chronological History

Are you after the date of exactly when, and by whom, and how the decision was made by the SDA church?... and when it was actually documented as a fundamental belief?

Because, as I am sure you are aware, today we do not view pork as a "food item" at all. The pig is good in its own right and purpose, but that purpose is not one of food.

@Hair and others: My goal is to document the views as expressed in the Church archives. I have been posting interesting earlier views, so far. And yes, I am interested in the date and "by whom" and how we came to our current view... and the doctrinal statement...I am aware that pork is not viewed as an acceptable "food item" at all.

Personally as an Adventist, I grew up viewing pork as chiefly denounced by Leviticus 11. It has intrigued me that the earlier Adventists did not come at pork from the Leviticus 11 stance.

One related is area how we arrived, Biblically, at the "no pork" understanding.

[Johann]

Pork is not mentioned as such in our fundamental beliefs, only unclean foods:

Quote:

Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures. Since alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and the irresponsible use of drugs and narcotics are harmful to our bodies, we are to abstain from them as well. Instead, we are to engage in whatever brings our thoughts and bodies into the discipline of Christ, who desires our wholesomeness, joy, and goodness. (Rom. 12:1, 2; 1 John 2:6; Eph. 5:1-21; Phil. 4:8; 2 Cor. 10:5; 6:14-7:1; 1 Peter 3:1-4; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; 10:31; Lev. 11:1-47; 3 John 2.)

[Don777]

Biblical or Health Science or Personal Need (1858)

Quote:

To Correspondents

...

L.M.A. to your query concerning the lawfulness of eating pork, we have not time nor space to give an extended reply. We will only refer to one declaration of Paul's which, in our opinion is sufficient, so far as the Bible is concerned, to demolish completely all distinction which people may endeavor to raise between meats.

1 Tim. iv. He speaks of some commanding to abstain from meats, &c., and then says: "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving."

Here is permission given touching every creature without qualification and without limitation, provided it be received with thanksgiving. Whatever is positively repulsive, our palates will admonish us not to touch; and whatever is not for our health of course we should not indulge in. But the comparative merits of different kinds of food as promotive of health, is a question which the Bible does not decide for us. Each must determine this for himself according to the laws of his own nature.

Review and Herald, December 9, 1858, p. 8.

http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18581209-V13-03__B.pdf#view=fit

Observations

1. This is several years before the beginning of the "Health Message."

2. Obviously, the church was stirring regarding pork as an item of food.

3. The stand taken by the Review, in 1858, is that clean and unclean meats are not Biblical supported for the Christian.

4. "Whatever is not for our health of course we should not indulge in." Is this the grounds for the future health message?

5. "But the comparative merits of different kinds of food as promotive of health, is a question which the Bible does not decide for us. Each must determine this for himself according to the laws of his own nature." I seem to recall Ellen White giving this kind of counsel on some aspects of the Health Message.

[Don777]

George Knight on Pork in SDA History (1993)

Quote:

...

Change as progressive development

A second type of change that we find in Ellen White's ideas across time is that of progressive development. An illustration of that dynamic can be seen in her approach to the topic of unclean foods.

From at least as early as 1850, some of the Sabbatarian Adventists had been raising the question as to whether it was appropriate to eat swine's flesh. James White hoped to settle the issue once and for all in November 1850 by publishing a powerful argument based on Acts 10 and other passages by which he sought to prove that the use of swine's flesh in the Christian era was quite appropriate. 17 In spite of James's forceful argument, however, the issue refused to die a peaceful death. S. N. Haskell agitated the issue among the Sabbatarians in the late 1850's. Ellen White, in responding to Haskell, urged him not to press his views to the point where they would cause division in the developing church. "I saw," she wrote, "that your views concerning swine's flesh would prove no injury if you have them to yourselves; but in your judgment and opinion you have made this question a test.... If it is the duty of the church to abstain from swine's flesh, God will discover it to more than two or three. He will teach His church their duty. God is leading out a people, not a few separate individuals here and there, one believing this thing, another that. . . . Some run ahead of the angels that are leading this people.... I saw that the angels of God would lead His people no faster than they could receive and act upon the important truths that are communicated to them." To preach the swine's flesh issue at that time, she asserted, would be rushing on "without divine guidance, and thus bring confusion and discord into the ranks." 18

It should be noted that the Whites, along with most other Adventists in the late 1850s, were still using swine's flesh in their diet. As proof of the fact, James scribbled a note on the back of a letter from Ellen in which she was advising a sister to cook swine's flesh for her husband if he desired it. James's note read: "That you may know how we stand on this question, I would say that we have just put down a two-hundred-pound porker." 19

By 1863, however, Ellen White's writings had taken a new position on the swine's flesh issue. "Pork," she penned, "although one of the most common articles of diet, is one of the most injurious. God did not prohibit the Hebrews from eating swine's flesh merely to show His authority, but because it was not a proper article of food for man. . . . God never designed the swine to be eaten under any circumstances." 20

Thus in a few short years Mrs. White had moved from tolerance on the use of pork to a position in which she counseled against its use on the basis of health. She would hold to that position for the rest of her life.

Three things happened that help account for the shift in Ellen White's teaching on this subject. First, a "new disease" (trichinosis) was discovered in hog flesh in the early 1860s and was receiving widespread publicity. Second, the long battle among Adventists over organization was finally concluded with the formation of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in May 1863. With the extensive efforts to develop Adventist doctrine out of the way (1844- 1850) and the rigorous drive for organization accomplished (1850-1863), Adventism was ready for its next progressive step lifestyle and institutional development (1863-1880s). 21

The time, therefore, was ripe for the third element in the new equation in the Adventist approach to the use of swine's flesh Ellen White's health reform vision of June 6, 1863, which took place less than three weeks after the organization of the General Conference. That vision set forth a broad-based view of health reform that led to new emphases in later Adventism and Mrs. White's writings.

In other words, the changing times had led to changing emphases. Present truth, as the early Adventists saw it, was progressive. (We will have more to say on that topic later in this article.) Ellen White had implied that perspective in her counsel to Haskell in 1858. "God," she wrote, "is leading out a people, not a few separate individuals here and there, one believing this thing, another that. . . . The third angel is leading out and purifying a people. . . . / saw that the angels of God would lead His people no faster than they could receive and act upon the important truths that are communicated to them." 22

By 1863 the time had come for the forward move in the area of health re form, including the use of swine's flesh. Ellen White's counsel modified accordingly.

Meanwhile, her husband and others would be claiming by 1872 that the eating of swine's flesh was a sin. Ellen, on the other hand, never took her husband's extreme position. In 1889 she wrote that "swine's flesh was prohibited by Jesus Christ enshrouded in the billowy cloud." But, she added, in agreement with her 1858 counsel to Haskell, "this is not a test question." For her, as the 1889 passage goes on to indicate, the issue was one of health. 23

The difference in the treatment of the use of swine's flesh between the Whites is informative. They both changed their positions, but James took the polar extremes from arguing from the New Testament for the use of swine's flesh in 1850 to condemning it as a sin in 1872. Ellen, on the other hand, avoided both polar positions. Her counsel in 1858 was not one of advocacy for the use of swine's flesh, but that Haskell should not make his views prominent because the church was not ready for that step. Meanwhile, although it appears that she may not have recognized the full implications at the time, her 1858 statement definitely implied that God would lead in the direction of the prohibition of pork from the diet. The way, therefore, was left open for progressive change. On the other hand, her counsel that pork eating was not a test question remained constant across time.

Thus we find two different types of change in the teachings of the Whites on the pork question. James's treatment illustrates contradictory change, while Ellen's illustrates progressive change against the background of the ongoing development of present truth...

References:

18 Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 1, pp. 206,207.

19 James White, quoted in H. E. Carver, Mrs. E.G. White's Claim to Divine Inspiration Examined,2nd ed. (Marion, Iowa: Advent and Sabbath Advocate Press, 1877), p. 20; see also Ellen G. White Estate, A Critique of the Book Prophetess of Health (Washington, D.C.: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1976), pp. 44, 45.

20 Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, book 2,p. 417; see also Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4a, pp. 124,146. Both of these presentations are based on material given during the June 6, 1863, health reform vision.

21 For a treatment of the progressive, step-by-step development of Adventism, see George R. Knight, Anticipating the Advent: A Brief History of Seventh-day Adventists (Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1993), chaps. 2-4.

22 Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 207 (italics supplied).

23 [James White], "Swine's Flesh," Health Reformer, January 1872,p. 18; Ellen G. White Manuscript Releases, vol. Ib, p. 173.

Source:

George R. Knight. Adventists and Change. Ministry Magazine, October, 1993.

https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1993/10/adventists-and-change

[Don777]

Pork is not mentioned as such in our fundamental beliefs, only unclean foods:

As we look back on the previous fundamental beliefs, it seems that it was not until into the 1900s that clean and unclean foods were listed in those beliefs.

[Johann]

Don, I like the way you have examined this issue. I also find it interesting that Ellen White never made pork a test of faith or fellowship, but an issue of health, that we'd better follow.

Are we ready to use the writings of Ellen White according to her standards?

[Don777]

Don, I like the way you have examined this issue. I also find it interesting that Ellen White never made pork a test of faith or fellowship, but an issue of health, that we'd better follow.

Are we ready to use the writings of Ellen White according to her standards?

Thanks Johann... I grew up considering clean and unclean foods a "test of faith" doctrine. It comes as news that EGW did not. You may be aware of the pig in the desert scenario. If that is all you had, would you eat it? As a youth, I visualized dying for my faith. Today, I would eat, offer thanks, shudder at the brutal necessity, and then continue a life of faith; i.e. of helping others.

[Don777]

The Development of Adventist Thinking on Clean and Unclean Meats

by Ron Graybill (1981)

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/clean-uncl.html

Observations:

1. Ron Graybill presents some useful references; including those regarding the contentious use of oysters.

2. He also identifies the time frame for when Ellen White made a complete break with the eating of meat. (1894)

[debbym]

Quote:

Thanks Johann... I grew up considering clean and unclean foods a "test of faith" doctrine. It comes as news that EGW did not.

pig meat was likely eaten by our ancestors and it kept them quite alive to pass on life to future generations. it may or may not be less healthy today then in the past with the increase of disease.

i am very glad they survived. i had some Asian friends who would have meals with various small slimy cooked critters, covered in sweet fiercely peppery sauces. they said they ate these things to honor their ancestors who had to eat them to survive, and they do this to express gratitude for the survival of life to their generation.

and i don't think anyone is going to hell because they eat any kind of meat.

since it was made a test of faith, i am sure many peoples health was benefited by it. and i too am surprised it was not held as a test of faith back in the day.

[Johann]

I have been a vegetarian now for more than 80 years, and have no intentions of changing that. This also means that I never have to worry about unclean meat.

In my childhood I was certain this made me a favorite child of God. Now that our relationship has lasted for so long I see His blessings on several other levels and I have health to enjoy our relationship.

[Green Cochoa]

Don, I like the way you have examined this issue. I also find it interesting that Ellen White never made pork a test of faith or fellowship, but an issue of health, that we'd better follow.

Are we ready to use the writings of Ellen White according to her standards?

[Don777]

In other words, Mrs. White never made the ownership of hogs a test of fellowship. There is nothing in this statement to indicate whether or not the consumption of swine's flesh should be a test of fellowship.

Thanks Green for this careful distinction. I wonder if we can pin point when the Seventh-day Adventist Church included clean and unclean foods in its "tests of fellowship?"

One suggestion is that when the baptismal vow includes "clean and unclean foods" in its list of doctrines then it became a test of fellowship.

[8thdaypriest]

Noah recognized "clean" and "unclean" animals.

Unclean were recognized as scavenger.

That was BEFORE the flood, which would suggest Adam recognized same.

Commands to Israel thru Moses were just repetition to "remember."

I live in Texas. Here you have to say "no bacon please" in ordering just about anything from potato soup to green beans.

The Nutrition Action Newsletter has had some interesting articles lately siting studies re: people consuming pork having more cancer, and in the latest issue: 3 strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria identified as being commonly found in pork products sold for public consumption.

The Leviticus 11 dietary laws were not pointing forward to anything. The LORD was just trying to keep His people healthy.

Acts 10 was NOT about diet. It was about the Gentiles who were going to be "grafted in" to Israel.

Matthew 15 is about the disciples eating with ceremonially unwashed hands. Christ declared the "food" eaten without this ceremonial washing of hands -"clean."

He was not declaring non-food (unclean) items acceptable as "food." He was saying that ceremonial washing of hands was not necessary before partaking of food.

Same with Paul, declaring that an idol cannot change the "food". He is NOT dismissing Leviticus 11.

The more science reveals of the metabolism, bacterial flora, toxin levels, etc. etc. of "unclean" animals - the more health conscious people are turning away from these items as food.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Shalom