All Foods Clean?

[Rossw]

Animals were declared clean or unclean pre-exodus and even pre-Abraham. Animals are declared clean or unclean post exodus. Christ's fulfillment of the old covenant did not extend to animals. Animals are now still clean or unclean. 

Does man really love meat so much they'd ignore what Scripture forbids?

[CoAspen]

Quote

 .....post flood story humans were told to eat of everything,........

 

[Rossw]

39 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

 

But not post exodus.

[CoAspen]

So...what changed? Okay to eat one day but not the next. Has to be a logical reason.

 

[Rossw]

No, never changed. Just reiterated for the children of Israel who didn't know from years of captivity.

[CoAspen]

Houston, we have an issue......There was a change, post flood told to eat everything!

Quote

Now here is a serious wrinkle for the discussion at hand.  God's first direction to eat animals was to Noah after the flood, right after Noah offered the sacrifices.  Read Genesis 9:3 carefully. No mention of eating only clean animals. In fact, the text clearly and unambiguously says that God told Noah that every animals was for food - every living creature that moves on the earth.  No exclusions. It is the same phrasing as used to describe all the animals that entered the ark, both clean and unclean. God's only restriction was to not eat the blood.

Tom brought this observation forward and I am interested in hearing peoples thought about it. The SDA commentary suggestions that Noah would have 'known' not to eat unclean animals but we have no Biblical instruction or words that would indicate that to be true, we assume.

Quote

The meaning of Hebrew word was not precisely just "clean".  It meant "pure" which suggests something uncorrupted, unblemished, undiluted, often used in reference to pure gold, for example.  In that context it would be gold, not mixed with any other metal or substance.  I am inclined to understand this, as it applies to animals, as perhaps similar a pure-bread animals, one with clear bloodlines back to its first known pure ancestors, not mixed in its breeding with anything else.  I also am inclined to see the clean animals as the pure-bred animals descended unchanged and/or with no cross-breeding from the original two of its kind created by God.  That would explain why they were the only ones acceptable as sacrifices to God.

 

Looking at the resources available it would seem that the above statement is indeed correct as Tom posted.

My interest is not in what people eat or don't eat, but rather how we arrived at our present day stance on what food sources are appropriate to eat or not eat and the logical reasons for such. I do not see God as being illogical, so if there was a prohibition from certain foods, there should be an explanation and not just traditions or 'so and so said not too'. The Bible commentary suggest that the peoples lives would be shorter eating flesh foods. We are now living longer and still flesh foods are a big part of diets. It may be healthier to not eat flesh foods but many parts of the world would likely become even more unhealthy or even die without them due to a variety of reasons including the unavailability of non-flesh products. We have also had missionaries given 'permission' to eat 'unclean' foods by the .org because no 'clean/pure' foods were available.

Many people in the church have made eating 'unclean' foods a salvic issue or just plain calling it a sin. For those who use a 'thus saith the Lord' I believe we have an issue.

[Rossw]

for before  don't have an issue for the "thus saith the Lord" understanding. I generally don't believe food is a salvation issue which would be Biblically consistent. However, we do have a guideline of what is clean or unclean. EGW clarifies early post flood times as Noah eating clean animals. Am I going to build a doctrine around Genesis 9? No. There is other Scripture to look at to be able to build a solid belief. I don't believe their was a differing dispensation before and after exodus.

[Rossw]

1 hour ago, CoAspen said:

My interest is not in what people eat or don't eat, but rather how we arrived at our present day stance on what food sources are appropriate to eat or not eat and the logical reasons for such. I do not see God as being illogical, so if there was a prohibition from certain foods, there should be an explanation and not just traditions or 'so and so said not too'. The Bible commentary suggest that the peoples lives would be shorter eating flesh foods. We are now living longer and still flesh foods are a big part of diets. It may be healthier to not eat flesh foods but many parts of the world would likely become even more unhealthy or even die without them due to a variety of reasons including the unavailability of non-flesh products. We have also had missionaries given 'permission' to eat 'unclean' foods by the .org because no 'clean/pure' foods were available.

 

Leviticus does provide guidelines.

Longer and shorter lives are relative. "Living longer" than who? Living longer than Noah? Longer than Abraham? Longer than Moses?

[Tom Wetmore]

In the modern era, of which Adventists are very much a part, the idea of the dietary restrictions have a very strong health oriented basis.  That really was not the point of the clean vs. unclean distinctions of Leviticus or before.  Leviticus really much more strongly frames it consistent with what I have said of the purity  concept.  The whole idea of being "ceremonially unclean" related directly to holiness necessary to be able to enter the temple and its services before God.  The need to stand before God as "clean" or pure as possible was the objective.  Some might even conclude that the rules of Leviticus are primarily applicable to the tribe of Levi, the priestly class conducting the temple services.  

[Rossw]

51 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

"ceremonially unclean" related directly to holiness necessary to be able to enter the temple and its services before God.  The need to stand before God as "clean" or pure as possible was the objective.  Some might even conclude that the rules of Leviticus are primarily applicable to the tribe of Levi, the priestly class conducting the temple services.  

"11 The Lord spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth.

"46 This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing " moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth, 47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten."

What you've written in your post is not consistent with the Scripture. The unclean animals were detestable and not to be eaten. That goes beyond dietary suggestions.

The guide lines were also meant for the whole camp and not just particularly for the priests according to the Scripture.

[JoeMo]

On ‎8‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 0:21 PM, CoAspen said:

Joe, I get the sense we are still dancing around the subject a bit of what should be eaten or not and just who made that decision. A lot of it comes from Jewish history. I think it is an interesting topic as we need to separate 'tradition' from 'reality'. What are you thoughts?

I can only speak for my reality.  God has advised us not to eat unclean meat.  So as a rule, I don't.  Paul says not to judge a person by what they eat or drink; so as a rule, I don't.

I will ask God's blessing on food that others serve me if it has pork or shellfish in it.  But I do eat it.  I don't refuse it and then offer them a Bible study on diet.  To me that's practical reality.

I also wonder why we draw the line at clean/unclean meats; but don't encourage other dietary restrictions in the OT; like don't cook meat in its mother's milk (the modern equivalent of don't eat meat gravy).

[phkrause]

On 8/3/2016 at 5:49 PM, JoeMo said:

I also wonder why we draw the line at clean/unclean meats; but don't encourage other dietary restrictions in the OT; like don't cook meat in its mother's milk (the modern equivalent of don't eat meat gravy).

Sorry but I have many Adventist cooking books that encourage other dietary restrictions!! Which includes staying away from eating meat!!

[Tom Wetmore]

On August 3, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Rossw said:

"11 The Lord spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth.

"46 This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing " moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth, 47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten."

What you've written in your post is not consistent with the Scripture. The unclean animals were detestable and not to be eaten. That goes beyond dietary suggestions.

The guide lines were also meant for the whole camp and not just particularly for the priests according to the Scripture.

Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear...  By focusing on the last sentence, you seem to have missed the primary point which is that the clean vs. unclean distinction is all about ceremonial purity for the purposes of participation in the temple services. It was not primarily dietary, as in directions for a healthy diet, as we now use it. 

When I said "some might conclude" I am not advocating that as necessarily the correct interpretation or one with which I agree.  However it is reflecting, somewhat obliquely, a conclusion of some Biblical scholars that the the book of Leviticus was in fact instructions for the Levites, or priestly class.  The word "Leviticus" does literally mean "relating to the Levites".  But that title of the book is derived from the Septuagint, which was the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT.  The Hebrew title apparently was simply the first word of the Hebrew text of the book, according to the introductory explanation in my study Bible.  I am not convinced that all the rules of Leviticus only applied to the priests and tribe of Levi.  It is clear that it applies to any Israelite who participates, by bringing a sacrifice to the temple.  (If you want to get technical, it was precisely addressed only to the "sons" of Israel, leaving out the women and children of Israel, and quit frankly any gentiles. Whether these rules should apply to the gentiles was the huge debate in the NT Church.) But I am also not convinced that the book of Leviticus applies to us today.  If it does, then all of it should.  If any of it no longer applies it becomes difficult to explain how to decided what parts still apply and which do not.

The larger point remains correct that this was the ceremonial law for the purity of the sacrificial system of the Israelites regulating all of the materials used in the temple, its services and for all those who participated in the temple/sacrificial rituals and the whole process of how those rituals were to be carried out.  If the ceremonial law was done away with entirely at the cross, as I understand the Church to teach, then none of it would still be applicable now to us.  The criticism is that we have cherry picked only a narrow, and quite frankly superficial and incomplete, part of the many rules and regulations of Leviticus as still applicable to us today.  We only take the distinction of clean vs. unclean animals for what we can eat, but seem to completely ignore everything else that would have been considered as making a person unclean and unfit to participate in the temple services, even to enter to temple courtyard and come close to the presence of the Holy One. To even touch an unclean animal (or anything else unclean) would render one unclean and require a ceremonial cleansing and waiting period before one could come into the temple.  We also do not follow the kosher dietary rules that are derived from Leviticus.  

[Tom Wetmore]

To be clear, as I have said a number of times before when this whole topic have been discussed here, I am not opposed to and am supportive of those who do advocate and follow the principles of healthful living and diet that we encourage and teach as a church. My point is that we cannot rely on the Biblical references as the primary basis, because they were not directed to the Israelites for health reasons, even though they may have had that as a secondary benefit.  We know that a vegetarian diet is best, but clearly the Bible does not mandate that.  We also know that completely refraining from alcohol is best, but clearly the Bible does not advocate that either.  The confusion is that when we claim our diet as Biblical we start down the path that it is now a matter of our faith, and pursuit of holiness. And on closer examination we realize that we have gone far beyond the Biblical  mandates and have also missed many of the details that we should also follow if in deed it is all about following the Bible on these issues.  As a result, we lose credibility with careful students of the Bible and end up in debates like this. 

[Rossw]

13 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

My point is that we cannot rely on the Biblical references as the primary basis, because they were not directed to the Israelites for health reasons, even though they may have had that as a secondary benefit. 

Interesting...

[Rossw]

Is the Sabbath still a requirement?

[CoAspen]

Quote

Is the Sabbath still a requirement?

Instead of jumping off the topic, as if there is some correlation, why not address the points of TW's post.

The topic is origin of eating/health laws. Are we consistent in what we teach and have we made 'rules' where only guidance was given? Have we tried to make some things salvation issues when we deny that we have? A strong and believable faith must have a solid foundation. Tom has brought up some interesting points about the priesthood/Levitical system and the offerings presented. 

[Rossw]

54 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

The topic is origin of eating/health laws. Are we consistent in what we teach and have we made 'rules' where only guidance was given? Have we tried to make some things salvation issues when we deny that we have?

Exactly. As Adventists, are we consistent. Foods are an interesting topic but the meat of the issue here now is the relevance of Leviticus. You didn't catch that?

[Robert]

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/02/pork-did-leviticus-117-have-it-right/

[CoAspen]

Quote

 People are continually eating flesh that is filled with tuberculous and cancerous germs. Tuberculosis, cancer, and other fatal diseases are thus communicated. 408 {CCh 229.2} 

The statement above needs historical context.  We live in a different period and time. May have been true in her day but now we can test and prevent diseased animals from entering the food chain. We also have antibiotics to control the spread or keep the disease from being caught. When she wrote that statement she was reflecting the knowledge of that day and time. We have come a long way in producing healthier products for consumption.

The cars that were driven in her day and time, those that could afford, were extremely 'unsafe' as compared to what we now drive. Should we use the data from that period of time as a reason for telling people not to own or drive cars today? 

The goal still remains the same, eat and live as healthy as possible.

[Rossw]

1 hour ago, CoAspen said:

The goal still remains the same, eat and live as healthy as possible.

What is your council worth compared to what God has spoken to us through the prophets?

[Rossw]

12 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear...  By focusing on the last sentence, you seem to have missed the primary point which is that the clean vs. unclean distinction is all about ceremonial purity for the purposes of participation in the temple services. It was not primarily dietary, as in directions for a healthy diet, as we now use it.  

Can you prove this Biblically?

[Tom Wetmore]

Read the whole book of Leviticus, carefully in one sitting.  Understand the whole context and the theme throughout.  Note that what to eat and what not to eat was only a small part of the whole book.  Notice all the other rules and all the other things that have nothing to do with diet or food.  And notice how many of them we do not teach or adhere to now.  Why is that?  What is the Biblical support for only continuing to follow the rules of a small part of the whole book?  

[Rossw]

8 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Read the whole book of Leviticus, carefully in one sitting.  Understand the whole context and the theme throughout.  Note that what to eat and what not to eat was only a small part of the whole book.  Notice all the other rules and all the other things that have nothing to do with diet or food.  And notice how many of them we do not teach or adhere to now.  Why is that?  What is the Biblical support for only continuing to follow the rules of a small part of the whole book?  

Oh, I see. 

[Tom Wetmore]

Now sit down and read through the whole book of Hebrews, while keeping in mind Jesus' own words of the new symbols of the new covenant pronounced in the upper room, symbolically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of The One true and holy sacrifice.  (Pay special attention to chapters 8-10.) Notice how utterly  and jarringly radical those symbols  sounded in the ears of those Jewish men on that final Passover.  "Eat my flesh and drink my blood."  Even from the days of Noah, eating human flesh and drinking any blood was unthinkable.  But the old order of things pertaining to holiness for continual sacrifices was set aside by the final sacrifice of the one and only pure sacrifice.