The Bible Diet:
Which Foods were Created to be Eaten by Man?
(Part 1
of 2)
By Steven M. Collins
During the pre-Christian era, it is a well-known fact that God forbade the
Israelites to eat certain types of animal flesh. While the Israelites frequently
disobeyed God's instructions, it was quite clear that God's law prohibited the
consumption of pork, shellfish and other types of animal flesh. Therefore, if a
person ate "unclean" food in Old Testament times, it was because they were
choosing to disobey God's instructions, not because they felt they had a
divine authorization to consume such meats.
In the modern world, most Christians consume "unclean" meats not out of
rebellion, but because of a belief that New Testament scriptures permit them to
do so. The belief that Old Testament instructions on the consumption of animal
flesh are no longer applicable is often referred to as "Christian liberty" (i.e.
"freedom" from the "restrictions" of the Old Testament). This article will
examine the subject of "unclean meats" from biblical and scientific viewpoints
in an effort to determine what the "New Testament" Christian viewpoint on this
subject should be. The answer will reveal whether modern Christians are (A)
exercising "liberty" to eat unclean meats or (B) ignoring God's guidance
on the subject.
In the Old Testament, the issue was clear: God said to avoid eating the flesh
of certain animals. It is in New Testament times that the issue has become
blurred. The Old Testament meat instructions are still found in Leviticus 11 and
Deuteronomy 14 in our Bibles. Clearly, anyone who eats forbidden animal flesh is
disobeying those scriptures. However, do they have the "liberty" to do so as a
result of New Testament scriptures? A deeper question is: "If God really
has abolished his Old Testament dietary laws, is there any empirical physical
evidence to support that conclusion?"
Jesus and the "Law of Moses"
At Mt. Sinai, God gave Moses not only the Ten Commandments but also many divine
instructions about personal behavior, methods of worship and lifestyle choices.
These divine instructions came to be known as the "law of Moses" even though
they were actually "the law of God given to Moses." When Jesus Christ lived his
physical life, many often forget he was reared as a devout Jew. After Jesus'
birth, Joseph and Mary observed the seven-day purification period for women, and
also had Jesus circumcised on the eighth day (Luke 2:21-23), according to the
instructions of the law of Moses n Leviticus 12:1-3. These aspects of the Law of
Moses are found literally adjacent to the chapter on dietary laws (Leviticus
11). Since Joseph and Mary scrupulously observed Leviticus 12 in rearing Jesus,
it follows that they scrupulously observed Leviticus 11 in their choice of meats
which were fed to Jesus and the rest of their children. The observant nature of
Jesus' family is further confirmed in Luke 2:39: "And when they [Joseph and Mary] had performed all things according to
the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee."
Notice that Luke does not call these Old Testament requirements the "Law of
Moses," but refers to them as the "Law of the Lord." a subtle,
but important indicator of the early Christian church's views about Old
Testament laws. Luke 2:41 adds that Joseph and Mary kept the Feast of Passover
"every year" at Jerusalem. It is not clear whether they brought their children
with them every year, but verse 42 states that they brought Jesus with them to
Jerusalem for the Passover Feast when Jesus was twelve years old.
During his adult years, the scriptures portray Jesus as being loyal to the
"observant" traditions of his parents. We know that Jesus was careful to observe
the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread (Matthew 26:17-19), and that he
participated in the "Last Great Day" of the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:37). In
Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus openly declared his allegiance to the Old Testament Laws
of God (i.e. "law of Moses"). He emphatically stated: "think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not
come to destroy, but to fulfill... Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
[a dot of the I] or one tittle [a cross of the T] shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Whew! Jesus' affirmation that his coming will abolish "nothing" from the Old
Testament laws of God ought to give all modern Christians pause about assuming
Jesus made any major changes in the observance of the dietary laws. Two truisms
of biblical study are as follows: (A)
The words of God (in the Old Testament) and Jesus Christ (in the New Testament)
carry more scriptural authority than the words of their human followers, and
(B) one must interpret vague scriptures in light of the meaning of clear
scriptures, not vice versa. Applying both these truisms, any vague passages in
New Testament books must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the clear
declaration of Jesus Christ in Matthew 5:17. Given the vehemence of Jesus'
support for God's Old Testament laws in Matthew 5:17-18, we must insist on
finding very explicit evidence in the New Testament that something was "done
away" before we abandon the practice.
This is particularly true in the case of Paul's writings as Peter warned that
Paul's writings were easy to misunderstand (II Peter 3:16). It is noteworthy
that while God canonized many of Paul's writings, Peter's warning about their
difficult doctrinal application was also canonized. If Paul's words were easily
misunderstood in his own time and in his own culture, how much easier
might it be for us to misunderstand Paul's writings when we not only read Paul's
words in a different language but are also two millennia removed from his
historical context?
Hebrews 13:8 tells us that Jesus Christ is: "...the same yesterday, today and forever. Be not carried about with
divers and strange doctrines."
Here the writer of Hebrews warns against following false doctrines by reminding
the reader that Jesus Christ's doctrines not only "did not change" but also
"will never change." Does this scripture sound like Jesus Christ was one to
radically alter the Old Testament laws of God? Quite the contrary, the
scriptural evidence is that Jesus supported and practiced them faithfully during
his entire life.
It is apparent that Jesus Christ and his disciples obeyed the dietary laws of
Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. The fact that there is no mention of any
controversy about this point between Jesus and the Pharisees makes this evident.
The Pharisees were eagerly looking for grounds to accuse Jesus on
religious grounds to undermine his popularity with the masses. If Jesus (or his
followers) had ever eaten unclean meats, the Pharisees would have made it one of
their central accusations against him. Likewise, if the early New Testament
church had eaten unclean meats, it would have been a "cause to celebrate" in the
book of Acts. The fact that there were no controversies in the gospels about
eating pork, shellfish, etc. argues that Jesus, his followers and the Pharisees
were all in agreement on this matter. Paul's own defense to his Jewish accusers
in Acts 22:3 and 23:1 ("I [was] taught according to the perfect manner
of the law of the fathers...I
have lived in good conscience before God until this day")
also indicates that Paul had maintained a devout obedience to the laws of God
(which including the dietary laws) throughout his life. Nowhere in the
scriptures is Paul accused by his detractors of "eating unclean meats."
What was "done away with" in the New Testament?
Having said the above, it needs to be acknowledged that some things were "done away with" in the New Testament. Clear scriptures record that the New Testament did abolish the need for animal sacrifices and the various rites associated with those sacrifices (Hebrews 9:9-15, 10:4). It is also clear that the requirement of physical circumcision was abolished (I Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Some might say: "See, that means the whole law of Moses was abolished," but that is a recklessly broad claim. Since the Ten Commandments were part of the "law of Moses," an assertion that the whole "law of Moses" was "done away with" also asserts the Ten Commandments were "done away with." Does that mean Christians are now "free" to rob banks, lie, sleep with anyone they want to and murder at will?" Of course not! Paul himself expressed amazement that people had gotten the idea that New Testament faith "did away with" the laws of God. He wrote in Romans 3:31: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Therefore, we must carefully evaluate the scriptures to see what requirements really were "done away." Let us begin with the need for animal sacrifices and the rituals associated with them.
In Jeremiah 7:22-24, God stated: "For when I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I said nothing to them,
gave no orders, about burnt offerings or sacrifices. My one command to them
was this: Listen to my voice, then I will be your God and you shall be my
people...but they did not listen." (New Jerusalem Bible)
God himself stated that the sacrificial laws and rituals were not a part
of his original laws given to Israel, but were added later because the
Israelites did not obey him. Since they were not a part of God's original laws,
their abolition in the New Testament does nothing to revoke the main body of
God's laws. Paul also wrote in Galatians 3:19 that there was an Old Testament
"law" which had been "added because of transgressions." Combining
Galatians 3:19 with Jeremiah 7:22-24, it is apparent that the "law" that was
"added" [to the original laws of God] was the "law" (or rules) about animal
sacrifices. Paul did not abolish the laws of God in any of his writings,
as Romans 3:31 confirms.
Also, the rite of physical circumcision (which was no longer required in the New
Testament) was not a part of the "law of God," but was rather a "sign" of the
Old Testament covenant between God and Israel. Even the Old
Testament Hebrew prophets prophesied that the "Old Covenant" would eventually be
replaced by a "new covenant" that would be spiritual in nature.
Jeremiah 31:31 prophesied: "Look, the days are coming, Yahweh declares, when I shall make a
new covenant
with the House of Israel (and the House of Judah), but not like the
covenant I made with their ancestors the day I brought them...out of Egypt...No,
this is the covenant I shall make with the House of Israel when those days
have come, Yahweh declares. Within them I shall plant my Law, writing it on
their hearts."
(NJB)
Unlike the temporary covenant made at Sinai, the "New Covenant" would be
"everlasting." While the Old Covenant was a physical covenant (with physical
circumcision as its sign), the New Covenant would be a spiritual covenant (with
circumcision of the "heart" being its sign-Romans 2:28-29). This was
foreshadowed in Deuteronomy 10:16 wherein God spoke of the "circumcision of
the foreskin
of the heart"
as proof of a real attitude change. When the Old Covenant was replaced by the
New Covenant, the sign of the Old Covenant (circumcision) became moot and
unnecessary.
Many assume that "since the Old Covenant was abolished, the Old Testament laws
of God were abolished as well." This assumption is incorrect. The Old Covenant
and the laws of God were separate entities. The Old Covenant was a compact
between God and the 12 tribes of Israel that God would provide national
blessings, wealth and power to them if they obeyed his law, and
that progressively worse curses would befall the tribes of Israel if they
broke his laws. As we know, both Israel and Judah broke this covenant
with God, and received national curses culminating in their captivities and
removal from the Promised Land. The New Covenant was prophesied (see Jeremiah
31:31 quoted above) as one which would "plant" or "write" the laws of God in the
heart of a person. In other words, the Old Covenant failed to enable mankind to
obey God's laws, but the New Covenant would enable mankind to obey God
because it would internalize God's laws within human hearts. Ezekiel 39:39
and Joel 2:28 prophesied that this would be done when God shared his own divine
Spirit with mankind. This was fulfilled in the New Covenant process of
repentance, baptism, the receiving of God's Holy Spirit, and a lifelong process
of submitting to it.
We saw earlier that Paul (in Romans 3:31) taught that the laws of God were
"established," not "done away" by the New Testament covenant based on faith. The
Apostle John echoed Paul's view in I John 3:24 and 5:3, which state (in the New
Jerusalem Bible): "Whoever keeps his commandments remains in God, and God in him..."
and also,
"This is what the love of God is: keeping his commandments. Nor are his
commandments burdensome..."
It is clear that the early Apostles believed that God's laws were unaffected by
the replacement of the Old Covenant with the New Covenant. The New Testament
scriptures cited above conclusively show that the abolition of the sacrificial
rites, circumcision and the Old Covenant did not abolish the laws of God. There
are other instructions of God in the law of Moses which no longer are relevant
today as they were given to regulate institutions in ancient Israel which no
longer exist in modern Christian nations (for example: regulations on slavery in
Leviticus 25:35-55). The important thing to remember is, given Jesus Christ's
statement that he did not come to abolish "the law," the abolition or historical
obsolescence of a specific biblical regulation on how the law was implemented in
ancient Israel does not abolish the law of God itself.
Unclean Meats and New Testament Scriptures
Now let us address the "unclean meats" issue by examining the New Testament
passages which are often understood to mean that the Old Testament dietary laws
were abolished. The first is Colossians 2:20-22, which is cited from the
New Jerusalem Bible. "If you have really died with Christ to the
principles of this world,
why do you still let rules dictate to you, as though you were still living
in this world?- 'do not pick up this, do not eat that, do not touch the
other,' and all about things which perish even while they are being
used-according to merely human commandments and doctrines."
(Emphasis added.)
Whatever Paul was referring to in his comment "do not eat that," he was
not referring to the divine laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Paul was
arguing against "principles of this world" and "commandments and doctrines"
which were "merely human." Such human meat regulations could have
been a secular rule in Colossae (a Gentile city with pagan gods and temples)
that no meat be eaten unless it was first sacrificed to idols. Paul made it
clear that he was discussing a human meat regulation known to his readers
in Colossae, not the divine meat laws of the scriptures. This
leads us to a second scripture to be considered, I Timothy 4:4, which states (in
the NJB). "Everything God has created is good, and no food is to 'be rejected,
provided if is received with thanksgiving:
the word of God
and prayer make it holy."
(Emphasis added.)
What makes a food "holy" and acceptable to eat?
An attitude of thanksgiving, prayer and the word of God. What was the "word of
God" for the early Christian church? The only "word of God" at that time was the
accepted canon of the Old Testament (i.e. "the Hebrew Bible")! Leviticus 11 and
Deuteronomy 14 are the portions of "the word of God" which list
the meats God approved for human consumption. Rather than permitting the
consumption of unclean meats, Paul's instructions to Timothy actually affirmed
that food must have prior approval in the word of God (the Old Testament) in
order to be eaten. Therefore, in this passage, Paul is actually affirming the
applicability of the Old Testament dietary laws. By examining this passage in its overall context (I Timothy 4:1-4), we see that
Paul was addressing the subject of enforced vegetarianism, not the subject of
"unclean meats." Paul warned that "in the latter times...some shall depart
from the faith,"
teaching false doctrines such as "...commanding to abstain from meats."
Paul countered that false teaching by saying that it is permissible to eat
animal flesh as long as the meats were approved in the word of God. Now consider
that I Timothy 4:4 is contained within a prophecy about the latter days (which
many regard as our current modern times). Interestingly, in our modern world we
have vocal "animal rights" advocates (loosely associated with the New Age
Movement) who noisily wish to impose vegetarianism on society, labeling the
consumption of animal flesh as some kind of "animal abuse." Paul was telling
those living "in the latter times" that they should ignore those who say
it is wrong or immoral to eat animal flesh. Paul prophesied that people could
continue to eat animal flesh in the latter days as long as the meats were
"approved" for human consumption in God's Word. Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14
are those sections of the "word of God" known to Paul that specified what types
of animal flesh were permitted by God for human consumption. So this passage
of I Timothy actually upheld Leviticus 11's and Deuteronomy 14's applicability
for the New Testament (and latter day) Christian church!
Portions of I Corinthians (chapter 8 and 10:14-33) are also taken by some to
permit the eating of unclean meats. However, the eating of unclean meats is not
the subject of these passages. In fact, Paul is discussing whether any
meats can be consumed if they have been "offered to idols." Paul makes this very
clear in I Corinthians 8:1 and 4 in writing: "Now about foods which have been dedicated to false gods...On the subject
of eating foods dedicated to false gods..." (NJB)
There was evidently a difference of opinion on this subject in the Corinthian
church. Some believed they had the "freedom" to eat such meats because they knew
that non-existent "gods" could not "bless" anything. While Paul concedes that
fact, he warns such Corinthians that they needed to be careful about where and
what they ate lest they trouble or offend those with "weaker consciences." Paul
warned those "with knowledge" that it would be a sin to trouble another's
conscience in this matter so it would be preferable to avoid eating meats
altogether in a public eating place associated with a false god's temple
(see 8:10) rather than risk troubling a "weak" brother's conscience who
might, by chance, witness this act of eating and be "offended."
In I Corinthians 10:25 when Paul says : "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles [meat market], that eat, asking no
questions for conscience sake". We must remember Paul was not addressing the subject of eating unclean meats,
but rather the eating of meats sacrificed to idols (see 10:28). By lifting I
Corinthians 10:25 out of its limited context, some assume Paul meant it was all
right to eat any unclean meat sold in the marketplace. Paul's statement
must be understood within its context: he was saying that people
shouldn't bother asking whether a cut of meat was "sacrificed to idols" before
buying it. Paul's other writings make it clear he did not sanction the eating of
unclean meats by early Christians, so he was telling Corinthian church members
it was best to not even ask whether their "clean" meats had been "blessed by
idols" because if the issue was not brought up, it did not even have to be
addressed.
We must also remember Paul was writing about this issue to converts living in a
gentile, pagan city. This question would have been irrelevant in a Jewish
community because the Jews would not have offered their meats to idols as part
of their food preparation process. Paul's writings show that he is clearly
wrestling with this issue: upholding the freedom to eat "clean" meats while
ensuring that the greater need (for brethren not to offend each other in a
matter of conscience) took precedence.
Did Peter's vision "do away with" Unclean Meats?
Peter's vision in Acts 10 is also cited as biblical sanction for eating unclean
meats, but a literal reading of the text does not support that view. Peter had a
vision (verses 9-16) in which he saw a sheet full of many animals whose flesh
was "unclean" to eat.
Note that Peter himself did not attribute to his vision any meaning that God had
cleansed unclean meats; he simply didn't know what it meant. He didn't have long
to wait to determine the meaning as it became clear as soon the men sent by
Cornelius arrived. Cornelius was a Gentile (a Roman officer) who had sent
three men to Peter after receiving a vision of his own to do so. Peter quickly
realized that his vision meant that he should not "call any man
(not any meat) common or unclean." Peter understood the unclean meat in the
vision had a symbolic, not a literal, meaning.
The Jews of Peter's time (including Peter) were so Xenophobia that they avoided
contact with Gentiles as much as possible, regarding them as "unclean"
(as verse 28 confirms). Peter shared that Xenophobia (an appropriate modern term
would be "racism"), and in all likelihood would not have accompanied these
Gentiles unless God had revealed to him in the vision "not to treat any man
as unclean" (a conclusion Peter reiterated in verse 34). Later, God gave the
Holy Spirit to these Gentiles in the presence of Peter and his delegation. What
was their reaction? Verse 45 states: "Jewish believers who had accompanied Peter were all astonished
that...the Holy Spirit should be poured out on Gentiles too." (NJB)
The racism of the early Jewish converts was so strong that even though Peter and
his group met with the Gentiles, there apparently was no chance that they would
have baptized these Gentiles and accepted them into the church unless God had
performed a miracle by giving them the Holy Spirit in the presence of Peter and
his fellow Christian Jews. In verse 47, Peter further realized God had shown
them it was also acceptable to baptize Gentiles into the faith. In chapter 11,
some of Peter's Jewish friends argued with Peter about what he had done, but
Peter retold the entire history of his vision and God's miraculous gift of the
Holy Spirit to the previously "unclean" Gentiles. The whole group then agreed
with Peter's perception of his vision and the subsequent events. A careful
evaluation of "Peter's vision" reveals that it contains no message permitting
Christians to eat "unclean meat." Indeed, we have Peter's strong affirmation in
Acts 10:14 that he had "never" eaten anything unclean. The whole purpose of the
vision was to convince the early Jewish Christians to accept Gentiles converts
into the church.
Did Jesus "do away with" Unclean Meats?
Another passage sometimes cited to defend the eating of unclean meats is Matthew
15:11 wherein Jesus stated:
"What goes into the mouth does not make anyone unclean; it is what comes
out of the mouth that makes someone unclean." (NJB)
When the verse is considered in its overall context, it becomes clear that Jesus
isn't discussing the subject of eating meats at all. In verses 1-2, the
Pharisees nitpicked Jesus by saying:
"Why do your disciples break away from the tradition of the elders?
They eat without washing their hands."
Notice that the subject being discussed is not the eating of unclean meats, but
rather why the disciples were not washing their hands according to the practices
of the Pharisees ("the elders"). Jesus then snapped back at them in verses 3-6:
"Why
do you break away from the commandments of God for the sake of your
tradition...you have made God's word ineffective by means of your tradition."
(NJB)
Jesus was telling the Pharisees that failure to observe all the ritualistic
"Jewish traditions" was not a violation of God's law. He identified the
Pharisees' subversion of God's law as the real transgression. In fact, Jesus was
affirming the necessity of putting God's laws paramount above any
tradition or requirement of any man or group of men. By the time
Jesus Concludes his denunciation against the "hypocritical" Pharisees with his
statement in verse 10, it is clear that Jesus is stating that if some foreign
particle (dust, a fleck of dirt, etc.) is accidentally eaten because of
insufficient hand-washing, it was "no big deal." What really matters is what
comes out of one's mouth (our words and speech) which indicates what is going on
in our heart.
To summarize thus far, a careful examination of the scriptures indicates that
the early New Testament church continued the Old Testament practice of observing
the dietary laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. The words of Jesus
Christ and Peter as well as the writings of Paul all support this conclusion.
Before we examine physical, empirical evidence on this question, let us look
closer at Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 to see what meats God actually permits
for consumption and which he forbids us to eat.
Footnotes
Written by:
Steven M. Collins
(Originally titled Does the Bible Permit Christians to Eat "Unclean" Meat in
New Testament Times?)