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: "So when they (Joseph and Mary) had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee . . ." (Luke 2:39) 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: "DO NOT THINK THAT I CAME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will BY NO MEANS pass from the law till all is fulfilled. " (Matthew 5:17-18) 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. What two study rules will help us understand God's law? Two basic, fundamental rules of Bible study are: 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. One must interpret vague scriptures in light of the meaning of clear scriptures, not vice versa.
Applying both these rules, 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 (2Peter 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: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines . . ." (Hebrews 13:8-9) Here the apostle Paul 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 popular 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 defense to his Jewish accusers also indicates that Paul had maintained a devout obedience to the laws of God (which including the dietary laws) throughout his life: “'I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.' "Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, 'Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.' ” (Acts 22:3, 23:1)
Nowhere in the scriptures is Paul accused by his detractors of eating unclean meats. Were some Old Testament laws no longer applicable in the New Testament? Having said the above, it needs to be acknowledged that some things were "done away with," meaning their observance was no longer needed, in the New Testament. Clear scriptures record that the New Testament did end 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 (1Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Some might reason that this means the WHOLE law of Moses was abolished but that would be a reckless conclusion. Since the Ten Commandments were part of the law of Moses, an assertion that the whole law was cancelled also asserts the Ten Commandments were no longer needed. 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 faith in Jesus and his teachings meant the laws of God were no longer valid: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, WE ESTABLISH THE LAW." (Romans 3:31)
Therefore, we must carefully evaluate the scriptures to see what requirements really were ended. Let us begin with the need for animal sacrifices and the rituals associated with them. In Jeremiah 7 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." (Jeremiah 7:22-24, NJB)
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 that there was an Old Testament law which: "What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions . . ." (Galatians 3:19)
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. Additionally, 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 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." (Jeremiah 31:31, 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 - see 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 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 twelve 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. 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 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 1John which states: "Whoever keeps his commandments remains in God, and God in him . . ." (1John 3:24, NJB) "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. " (1John 5:3, NKJV) 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. Were Old Testament dietary laws HUMAN commandments? 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: "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." (Colossians 2:20-22, NJB)
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 found in the first book of Timothy. Is EVERYTHING made by God GOOD to eat?"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." (1Timothy 4:4, NJB)
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! 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 1Timothy 4 in its overall context, we see that Paul was addressing the subject of enforced vegetarianism, not the subject of "unclean meats." Paul warned that: "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith . . . speaking lies in hypocrisy . . . forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving . . ." (1Timothy 4:1-3, NKJV)
Paul's argument was that it is permissible to eat animal flesh as long as the meats were approved in the word of God. Now consider that 1Timothy 4:4 is contained within a prophecy about the latter days (which many regard as our current modern times). Paul was telling those living "in 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 1Timothy actually uphold the clean and unclean foods laws as being applicable to the New Testament (and latter day) Christian church! Eat food sacrificed to an IDOL? Portions of 1Corinthians 8 are also taken by some to permit the eating of unclean meats: "Therefore concerning THE EATING OF THINGS OFFERED TO IDOLS, we know that an idol is NOTHING in the world, and that there is no other God but one. "However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their CONSCIENCE, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. "But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" (1Corinthians 8:4, 7-11, NKJV)
The eating of unclean meats is not the subject of these passages. In fact, Paul makes it clear he is discussing whether ANY meats can be consumed if they have been "offered to idols." 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 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 rather than risk troubling a "weak" brother's conscience who might, by chance, witness this act of eating and offend themselves. In conjuction with what he wrote in 1Corinthians 8 Paul writes later on: "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience . . ." (1Corinthians 10:25, NKJV)
We must remember Paul was not addressing the subject of eating unclean meats, but rather the eating of meats sacrificed to idols (1Corinthians 10:28). By lifting 1Corinthians 10:25 out of its limited context, some assume Paul meant it was alright 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 (not to offer reasons for others, weak in the faith, to offend themselves and weaken their faith) took precedence. Did Peter's vision permit the eating of Biblically unclean meats? Peter's vision in Acts 10 is also cited as 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. This sheet of unclean meat was offered to him three times with the words "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." In the vision, Peter refuses to do so with the words: "I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." (Acts 10:14, NJB)
This statement affirms that it was the practice of the Apostles and the early New Testament Christian church to avoid eating unclean meats! In the vision, Peter is told : "what God has made clean, you have no right to call profane " (Acts 10:15, NJB). Many assume this means God "cleansed" unclean food, but they neglect to read on to see if that assumption is correct. Verse 17 says: "Peter was still at a loss over the meaning of the vision he had seen, when the men sent by Cornelius arrived ." (Acts 10:17, NJB)
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 meat) common or unclean" (Acts 10:28, NKJV). Peter understood the unclean meat in the vision had a symbolic, not a literal, meaning. The Jews of Peter's time (including Peter) had such an unreasonable fear or hatred of those considered foreign or strangers (today we call it Xenophobia) that they avoided contact with Gentiles as much as possible and regarded them as "unclean" to be with. Peter, because of his beliefs, in all likelihood would not have accompanied these Gentiles unless God had revealed to him in the vision that this is what God wanted him to do. 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." (Acts 10:45, 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 before baptism. A careful evaluation of the vision given to Peter reveals that it contains no message permitting Christians to eat "unclean meat." Indeed, we have Peter's strong affirmation 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 permit the eating of unclean meats? Another passage sometimes cited to defend the eating of unclean meats is Matthew 15 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." (Matthew 15:11, 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. The Pharisees nitpicked Jesus by saying: "Why do your disciples break away from the tradition of the elders? THEY EAT WITHOUT WASHING THEIR HANDS." (Matthew 15:1-2, NJB)
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 TRADITIONS of the Pharisees ("the elders"). Jesus then snapped back with: "He answered and said to them, 'Why do you also transgress the commandment of God BECAUSE OF YOUR TRADITION? For God commanded, saying, "Honor your father and your mother"; and, "He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death." "'But you say, "Whoever says to his father or mother, 'Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God' — then he need not honor his father or mother." Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect BY YOUR TRADITION.' " (Matthew 15:3-6, NKJV) Jesus was telling the Pharisees that failure to observe all the ritualistic, rigid 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 it is clear that Jesus is stating that it DID NOT MATTER if some foreign particle (dust, a fleck of dirt, etc.) is accidentally eaten because of insufficient hand-washing: "When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, 'Hear and understand: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth (his attitude, his character, what goes on in his heart), this defiles a man.' ” (Mathew 15:10-11)
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. What animals does the Bible consider CLEAN or UNCLEAN? Besides giving the Israelites a list of which animals, fish and birds were meant to be eaten by man, he also gave them general guidelines for recognizing those animals which would be acceptable to eat. In Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 God stated that any cud chewing animal with parted hooves would be clean to eat. Also, all fish that have fins and scales can be used as food. Animals, birds and sea creatures considered unclean or unhealthy to eat generally are those who either kill other animals for food or who eat the dead, putrefying flesh of other animals regardless of how they died. For example, pigs are capable of eating (and thriving) on diseased or decaying flesh. Predatory animals (lions, raptors, etc.) often prey on weak (and sometimes diseased) animals. In regard to unclean seafood, bottom-dwelling shellfish (clams, lobsters, oysters, etc.) eat decaying organic detritus which sinks to the sea floor. When humans eat such unclean animals and sea creatures they are partaking of a "food chain" that lived off things that are ultimately harmful to humans.
List of Common
Clean and Unclean Foods | | | | |
CLEAN ANIMALS AND BIRDS | | | | Buffalo - Cattle (Beef, Veal) - Chicken - Deer (Venision) - Duck | Goose - Sheep (Lamb, Mutton) - Turkey | | | CLEAN SEAFOOD | | | Anchovy - Bass - Bluefish - Bluegill - Carp - Cod - Herring - Flounder | Grouper - Haddock - Halibut - Mackerel - Minnow - Mullet - Orange Roughy | Perch - Pike - Red Snapper - Salmon - Sardine - Smelt - Sole | Sucker - Trout - Tuna - Whitefish - Whiting - Yellow Perch | | | UNCLEAN ANIMALS | | | Pig (Swine) - Rabbit | | | UNCLEAN SEAFOOD | | | Catfish - Clams - Crabs - Crayfish - Lobster - Oysters - Scallop | |
Shrimp - Sturgeon (includes most caviar) - Swordfish | | | | View our Comprehensive List of
Biblically Clean and Unclean Foods | |
In Leviticus 11 God concludes his instructions on unclean foods with these words: “You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps; NOR SHALL YOU MAKE YOURSELVES UNCLEAN WITH THEM, lest you be defiled by them. For I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps on the earth. For I am the Lord who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. "This is the law of the animals and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.’” (Leviticus 11:43-47, NKJV)
God regarded humans to be "defiled" or "unclean" if they ate the flesh of unclean animals. He expected the Israelites to refrain from unclean meats to maintain a state of holiness in his sight. As noted previously, the early New Testament church obeyed God's instructions in Leviticus 11. The Apostle Peter recoiled at the thought of eating unclean meats and the Apostle Paul wrote that animal flesh had to be sanctified in the word of God before it could be eaten. How can a believer continue to be HOLY? Paul's instructions in 2Corinthians 6 are worth considering. After commenting on the importance of being separate from the sinfulness of the world He writes: "And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? FOR YOU ARE THE TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD. As God has said: 'I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God, and they shall be My people.' Therefore 'Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN, and I will receive you.' 'I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters . . .' " (2Corinthians 6:16-18, NKJV)
Interesting! While writing to a congregation in a Gentile (non-Jewish) community, Paul quotes God's Old Testament instructions to " touch not the unclean thing " as part of a commentary on maintaining Christian holiness. In citing these scriptures Paul was likely referring to forbidden meats as "unclean things," especially since his fellow Apostle, Peter, specifically used the word "unclean" to describe forbidden meats (Acts 10:14). Even as the Israelites were forbidden to eat unclean meats as part of their holiness obligation toward God, Paul told early Christians to also avoid "unclean things" as part of their holiness obligation toward God. In other words, Paul was telling Corinthian Christians they would be defiling their bodies ("the temple of the living God") if they "touched unclean things." The above passage indicates that Paul, considered the primary apostle to the Gentiles, affirmed that the animal meat restrictions of the Old Testament were BINDING on New Testament Christians. Somehow, this fact has been overlooked by virtually all of modern Christendom! Does eating unclean foods PROVOKE God's anger before Jesus returns? Isaiah writes, in a prophecy about the latter day period preceding the return of Jesus Christ: "For behold, the Lord will come with fire and with His chariots, like a whirlwind, to render His anger with fury, and His rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire and by His sword the Lord will judge all flesh and the slain of the Lord shall be many." (Isaiah 66:15-16, NKJV)
This directly parallels Revelation 19:11-21's prophecy that the return of Jesus will involve a bloody war in which His heavenly army slays huge numbers of human armies who resist his rule. After this prophecy is introduced notice what is mentioned as one of humanity's sins in the latter days which provokes God to ANGER: "'Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, to go to the gardens after an idol in the midst, EATING SWINE’S FLESH and the abomination and the MOUSE, shall be consumed together,' says the Lord." (Isaiah 66:17, NKJV) How many understand that this prophecy reveals God's wrath in the end time is provoked, in part, by man eating UNCLEAN meats? Is there any SCIENTIFIC evidence about the risks of eating unclean foods? If God made this physical world (as the Bible asserts), then we should also be able to see physical, empirical evidence that unclean foods are somehow harmful for human beings. Conversely, if God "purified unclean foods," the physical world should reflect an absence of risk in consuming them. It is well known that the flesh of animals dubbed "unclean" for human consumption pose unique risks to humans who eat them. Webster's Dictionary definition of "trichinosis" states: "a trichinas disease marked by fever, diarrhea, muscular pains, etc. and usually acquired by eating undercooked, infested pork." (Webster's New World Dictionary, Second Concise Edition, Avenel Books, 1975, see Heading "trichinosis," page 798)
The Encyclopedia Americana adds this warning: "Hogs may be infested by parasitic roundworms called . . . (trichina), which are lodged in muscle tissue. The trichina can be transferred to humans if raw or inadequately cooked pork is ingested, and serious, sometimes fatal, illness may result . . . There is more likelihood of pork being contaminated by trichina in the United States than in Europe. In Europe, hog carcasses are inspected microscopically for evidence . . . of trichina." (Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 22, 1988 Edition, see Heading entitled "Pork," page 416)
The Americana also states the following about trichinosis: "The disease is worldwide, and about 15% of the United States population is said to be infested, although the majority of cases remain symptomatic. The degree of severity of the infection is believed to depend on the number of trichinae contained in the ingested pork . . . The mortality of symptomatic cases runs from 5 to 40% . . . Once the trichinae are encysted in muscle tissue they cannot be dislodged . . . Death is usually from cardiac or respiratory failure in the acute phase." (Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 27, 1988 Edition, see Heading "Trichinosis," p. 99)
Notice! In SPITE OF of widespread measures to protect the public from pork-related trichina infections, approximately 15% of Americans have become infested anyway! Consider the following about shellfish poisoning: " . . . any of a group of disorders that develop following the eating of oysters, clams and other shellfish harvested from polluted waters. Nearly all the disorders are caused by disease organisms or the toxic substances ingested by the shellfish. The disorders range from diseases such as cholera and infective hepatitis to attacks of diarrhea and vomiting caused by unidentified organisms. "One of the most serious disorders in this group is paralytic shellfish poisoning associated with . . . certain protozoa . . . that are eaten by shellfish. " (Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 24, see Heading entitled "Shellfish Poisoning," p. 697) In an adjacent article, the Americana defines "shellfish" as: " . . . aquatic shelled invertebrates, many of which are popular foods. See Clam, Crab, Crustacea . . . Lobster, Mollusk, Oyster, Shrimp, Snail and Slug." (Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 24, see Heading entitled "Shellfish Poisoning," p. 697)
It is a well-established scientific fact that the flesh of pigs and shellfish pose special infection risks to humans. If 15% of Americans are infested with trichina as a direct result of eating pork, one wonders how many unexplained cases of "cardiac or respiratory" problems could be a result of trichina infestations. One also wonders how many cases of unexplained diarrhea or vomiting attributed to mysterious "bugs" are actually caused by eating shellfish . It is worth noting that while the health risks of eating pork and shellfish are so well known that they deserve their own listings in encyclopedias, there are no such special diseases inherent within Biblically clean foods. Is it any wonder that God said in Deuteronomy 5: "Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, THAT IT MIGHT BE WELL WITH THEM AND WITH THEIR CHILDREN FOREVER! "Therefore you shall be careful to do as the Lord your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. You shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God has commanded you, THAT YOU MAY LIVE and that it may be WELL WITH YOU, and that you may prolong your days in the land which you shall possess." (Deuteronomy 5:29-30, 32-33, NKJV)
God didn't give his laws to ARBITRARILY assert power over human beings. He gave his laws that it might be WELL with us! Conclusion We have seen that there is NO Biblical basis for believing that the Old Testament dietary laws were abolished or ended in New Testament times. Indeed, we have seen that the early Apostolic church obeyed those laws, and several New Testament scriptures openly affirm them. Somewhere between the Apostolic church and the modern era, the Christian church stopped obeying God's laws, probably because of a fear of "Judaizing" as there were edicts to persecute or kill those who did so. Many millions of people have died since the time of the early church because those who claim their faith rests on what the Bible teaches foolishly forsook God's food, sanitation and hygiene laws. If we believe that God is an all-wise Creator as well as a loving Father, it logically follows that we should believe that his Biblical instructions represent the sound instructions of a caring parent who wishes only the BEST for their children. God's instructions (and restrictions) are offered to us in that spirit of parental, and perfect, love. The question remains, do we TRUST God to give us the wisest advise on a subject or will we think we know better? |