Are biblical dietary laws related directly to the Gentile/Jew division?

[UnitedWithChrist]

My response is "yes". Therefore, they don't apply anymore.

I am a former Sabbatarian, festivals observer and clean meat law observer, as a member of a Judaizer cult. As many of you will know, such groups have a continual fixation on diet and calendar observances, and love to judge others over their diet and days.

It is my firm conviction that the food laws were, in fact, designed to create a distinction between ancient Israel and the Gentiles. This division was created, in part, to keep ancient Israel from idolatrous practice.

After this Jew/Gentile division ended with the New Covenant, the food laws are no longer applicable.

Note that I am not arguing that these laws may have certain benefits. Physical circumcision reduces risk of penile cancer and infecting ones' spouse with diseases. However, that does not make physical circumcision a requirement under the New Covenant. So, any perceived health benefit is irrelevant.

Anyways, today a decent article was distributed by Gospel Coalition on this issue. I like it because it pays close attention to the Bible's storyline. If you are not familiar with the study of "biblical theology", I suggest that you become familiar with it. Understanding biblical theology will turn you away from legalistic Pharisee behavior.

You Are What (Animal) You Eat
Peter Leithart

I love bacon and ham and the occasional scallop. Sometimes, there’s nothing that will substitute for a grilled pork chop. Yet for thousands of years, God’s people were denied these delights. Why?

Many Christians immediately look for reasons of hygiene or health. Pigs wallow in muck, and pork breeds the larvae that cause trichinosis. Shrimp and lobsters are scavengers. God wisely kept Israel away from food that wouldn’t be good for them. The problem with that explanation is that, in the opinion of most Christians, God stopped prohibiting these meats in the new covenant. Is he less concerned with our health now?

To grasp the biblical logic behind the Torah’s rules about unclean food, we need to answer two questions. First, what are animals? Second, what is eating?

Neither question is as simple as it looks.

Creation’s Animals

God created many kinds of animals, but Genesis 1 groups them together in several large phyla. The Bible’s taxonomy of animals is different from ours: it emphasizes environment rather than reproduction. On days five and six, God creates living souls of the sea, of the sky, and of the earth (Gen. 1:20–25).

We learn later that “bats” are listed among “birds” (Lev. 11:19). Leviticus 11 treats amphibians, rodents, and reptiles as members of one large category of “creeping things.” Those details aren’t evidence of scientific ignorance. Scripture simply uses a different scientific scheme. For the Bible, “birds” are “flying things.” Since bats fly, they belong with other “flying things.” Mice and geckos both creep along the ground, so they’re lumped into the same group.

Land animals are further subdivided into “cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth” (Gen. 1:25). Like the larger categories, these are environmentally based. “Cattle” (behemah) live near man, “beasts” (chayyah) are more distant, and most “creepers” (remes) are untamed animals that sneak into human environments (the mice in your attic, the moles tearing up your lawn).

Adam was told to rule over all the animals (Gen. 1:27–28). But some land animals are created domesticated, while others are to be tamed over time. Later visions of lions and lambs, wolves and cattle, lying together in peace don’t portray a “return to Eden” but an advance on Eden (Isa. 11:6–9). The prophets glimpse the trajectory of human dominion by envisioning a world where all creatures have become “cattle.”

Clean and Unclean Animals

By the time of Noah, animals had been subdivided yet again, into categories of “clean” and “unclean” (Gen. 7:2–3, 8–9). The distinction is at least a liturgical one, since after the flood Noah offers one of every kind of clean animal as an ascension offering (Gen. 8:20–21). He doesn’t offer any of the unclean ones.

The role of animals changes dramatically with the Mosaic covenant. Things get much more complicated. The rules of unclean food still follow the creation taxonomy. Leviticus 11 lists clean and unclean land animals (vv. 2–8), sea creatures (vv. 9–12), flying things including winged insects (vv. 13–23), and creeping things (vv. 29–30). Yet, because Yahweh draws near to dwell amid Israel, new restrictions come into play. Israelites can’t offer every clean animal on the altar, as Noah did. Under the Mosaic order, “clean” animals are subdivided into “sacrificial” and “non-sacrificial” classes. Some clean domestic animals or “cattle” (bovines, sheep, goats, turtledoves, pigeons) may be placed on the altar, but some domestic animals are unclean (donkeys, camels). No wild animals, creeping things, or fish are sacrificed, but some wild land animals are clean and may be eaten (deer, roebuck). Unclean wild animals, like unclean domestic animals, are forbidden food (rock badgers, rabbits, pigs).

There’s nothing new about animals. Pigs wallowed in mud and shrimps scavenged in the seabed long before Moses, but they weren’t explicitly prohibited. Deer were deer before the Mosaic covenant, but Noah could sacrifice deer and Moses couldn’t. The new thing is the condition of Israel, particularly in their relation to the rest of the nations.
Animals represent human beings. The analogy is built into creation. Land animals are creatures of the sixth day, made from the ground, just like human beings (Gen. 1:24–28; 2:7). Both animals and human beings are blessed to multiply (Gen. 1:22). Humans and other living creatures are called “souls” (nephesh; 1:20–21, 24, 30; 2:7). Land animals and human beings feed on the same original diet of green plants (1:29–30).

Groupings of animals, thus, represent groupings of human beings. Sacrificial animals, which ascend to the altar to be turned to smoke, serve a priestly role in Israel’s worship, mediating between worshipers and Yahweh. They represent Israel, the priestly people, and especially the priests, who also mediate between Israel and the Lord. Clean but non-sacrificial animals represent Gentiles who worship Yahweh, Gentiles like Melchizedek or Jethro, Moses’s father-in-law. Unclean animals symbolize idolaters and enemies of Israel.

The general conduct of animals doesn’t determine whether they’re clean or unclean. Pigs aren’t unclean because they roll in mud and eat slop. The pig is unclean because “though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud” (Lev. 11:7). Land animals are clean or unclean depending on their “footwear” and their eating habits. Sea creatures are clean if they have fins and scales, unclean if they don’t (Lev. 11:9). That is, animals are clean or unclean depending on how they relate to their environment, whether to dust or water. Clean animals are the ones who are “armored” to protect them from the world around them.

The curse on the serpent is in the background: “On your belly shall you go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life” (Gen. 3:14). Man is made of dust and is cursed to return to dust (3:19). If the serpent is a dust-eater, he’s a man-eater, an agent of the curse who drags Adam’s children down to the dust of death. Land animals walk in the cursed dust are serpentine, and Israel is forbidden to eat them.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Eating as Identification

Why are they forbidden food? At a broad level, the food prohibitions of the old covenant show that Israel is still living in the old Adam. The “do not taste, do not touch” rules of the garden still apply. But the laws of unclean meats also assume a certain understanding of food and eating. Eating isn’t the same as fueling. Eating is incorporation. To eat is to become one body with what we eat and with our table companions. What we put into our bodies becomes one with us. Our table companions become members of a corporate body.

Israel is called to be a separate people. They exist to serve the Gentiles, to bring Yahweh’s blessing to the world, and to light the nations. But to be light, they need to avoid communion with darkness. They keep the food laws to maintain the God-given wall between Jews and Gentiles. Israel is prohibited from eating animals with serpentine features to train them to avoid communion at the table of demons. They aren’t to incorporate unclean meat, so they’ll learn to avoid unclean people.

Jesus died to break the dividing wall. The human race is no longer divided between Jew and Gentile, but now between the Seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. The food restrictions that kept Israel separated from Gentiles are canceled. That’s the message to Peter in Acts 10–11: a sheet full of animals is lowered from heaven and Peter is invited to eat. He objects that he’s never eaten unclean meat, but is told to do so. The whole context, though, has to do with Peter’s reception of Cornelius. He can eat unclean food; he can commune as an equal with the Gentile Cornelius. These are two implications of the gospel. For us, nothing is to be rejected, if it’s received with gratitude (1 Tim. 4:4).

New Covenant Menu
Christians have been right to celebrate Christmas with ham, because Jesus brings an end to the division of Jews and Gentiles, and for that reason an end to the old covenant fast. All food is clean. Enjoy your rattlesnake burrito, your lobster bisque, your alligator steak. Eat crow or crayfish if you like. Enjoy them in Christ, because he put these foods on your menu.

Jesus brings an end to the division of Jews and Gentiles, and for that reason an end to the old covenant fast.
​

Jesus fulfills the law, but Torah is still God’s instruction to us. We can eat anything, but we’re still under food restrictions of a sort. The New Testament’s food laws don’t have to do with what we eat; they concern where we eat, and especially with whom. Paul commands us to avoid the table of demons. We aren’t to have communion with the works of darkness, nor to share bread (com-pany = cum-panis = with-bread) at the table of the wicked. This is what Israel’s food laws always aimed at. They ritualized a perpetual Pauline warning: “Bad company corrupts good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33).

Here's the article:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/you-are-animal-eat-bible-dietary-laws/


By the way, I don't really care what others think about this, but as Romans 14 indicates, some will judge non-observers, and others will judge observers. Let every man be convinced on these issues himself, but I will tell you from past experience, the Judaizers I know are not content with this. They really want to judge you over your non-observance.

I have a few Sabbath observer friends who are not like that, though. One is a Seventh Day Baptist. He is convicted himself on the issue, but he is polite to non-observers and admits he may be wrong. He is reasonably intelligent, too.

 

[Bbrdrd]

The precise function of the food laws I cannot say, though they certainly served to mark off the Israelites from their neighbors along with Sabbath keeping and circumcision. In some way as with the rest of the law they served the purpose of bringing sin to its full sinfulness so that Christ would be crucified and we would be justified in His resurrection. In any case their function, as the function of all the Mosaic laws, has passed and we are to be obedient to the Spirit to lead us into all truth.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

The precise function of the food laws I cannot say, though they certainly served to mark off the Israelites from their neighbors along with Sabbath keeping and circumcision. In some way as with the rest of the law they served the purpose of bringing sin to its full sinfulness so that Christ would be crucified and we would be justified in His resurrection. In any case their function, as the function of all the Mosaic laws, has passed and we are to be obedient to the Spirit to lead us into all truth.

These are interesting comments.

I hold the position of the author of the article..but your remarks are interesting as they caused me to think about these verses:

1 Corinthians 9:8-12 8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? (ESV)

Paul says that ox were not what God was concerned with, but the observance of the law regarding not muzzling an ox was actually intended to teach a principle with regards to meeting the needs of the ministry.

However, how many of us would have figured that out from the law itself, if they were an ancient Israelite? I doubt that many would have figured it out. Provisions of the Law were meant to point toward greater truths. And, these truths are not always explicitly stated in Scripture, unlike the claims of some individuals. Most will figure out that I am talking about dispensationalists, who claim that reasoning in this manner cannot be done. But, perhaps they will agree with me on this issue, because it doesn't violate any of their pet doctrines

By the way I am not totally at variance with dispensationalists. There are some aspects of their beliefs that I would hold, only for different reasons than they employ.

Anyways, J. Daniel Hays wrote a good article on this general concept (and by the way, he is a professor at a progressive dispensationalist school).

I will attach it.

You are right, though. In some cases we might not be able to figure out all aspects of the Law, because we don't understand all the cultural context. In other cases, some detective work and reasoning can be employed to discover the true intention behind many of the commandments. And, some have a moral basis and others do not. In this case, clean/unclean laws can be identified with "separation commandments" by reading Acts 10 and the incident of Peter's vision concerning the sheet.

As a Judaizer who denied this, I claimed that the vision only applied to Gentiles being cleansed and not meats, however the two are related as the article demonstrates.

 

[Bbrdrd]

These are interesting comments.

I hold the position of the author of the article..but your remarks are interesting as they caused me to think about these verses:

1 Corinthians 9:8-12 8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? (ESV)

Paul says that ox were not what God was concerned with, but the observance of the law regarding not muzzling an ox was actually intended to teach a principle with regards to meeting the needs of the ministry.

However, how many of us would have figured that out from the law itself, if they were an ancient Israelite? I doubt that many would have figured it out. Provisions of the Law were meant to point toward greater truths. And, these truths are not always explicitly stated in Scripture, unlike the claims of some individuals. Most will figure out that I am talking about dispensationalists, who claim that reasoning in this manner cannot be done. But, perhaps they will agree with me on this issue, because it doesn't violate any of their pet doctrines

By the way I am not totally at variance with dispensationalists. There are some aspects of their beliefs that I would hold, only for different reasons than they employ.

Anyways, J. Daniel Hays wrote a good article on this general concept (and by the way, he is a professor at a progressive dispensationalist school).

I will attach it.

You are right, though. In some cases we might not be able to figure out all aspects of the Law, because we don't understand all the cultural context. In other cases, some detective work and reasoning can be employed to discover the true intention behind many of the commandments. And, some have a moral basis and others do not. In this case, clean/unclean laws can be identified with "separation commandments" by reading Acts 10 and the incident of Peter's vision concerning the sheet.

As a Judaizer who denied this, I claimed that the vision only applied to Gentiles being cleansed and not meats, however the two are related as the article demonstrates.

Even when we have the proper context it seems God often intends things that we are not aware of. For an example, if we look to Job's 3 friends they all were giving pretty solid retributive theology that could have come straight from Deuteronomy, yet when God appeared he rebuked them. There are also rather cryptic statements in Scripture that while we can contextualize them and explain them away(such as Jeremiah 8:8 and Ezekiel 20:25) but could be read as indictments of everything we think we know about the law. To make it even worse, there are instances that are baffling when we think about them with the law in mind such as Jesus and the woman caught in adultery or using David's clear violation of the law as a defense against accusations of law breaking. Ultimately we know the purpose of the law was the cross, and the cross somehow brought us back into right standing with God. How the various parts functioned requires much speculation and we can only continue struggling to discover His ways.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Even when we have the proper context it seems God often intends things that we are not aware of. For an example, if we look to Job's 3 friends they all were giving pretty solid retributive theology that could have come straight from Deuteronomy, yet when God appeared he rebuked them. There are also rather cryptic statements in Scripture that while we can contextualize them and explain them away(such as Jeremiah 8:8 and Ezekiel 20:25) but could be read as indictments of everything we think we know about the law. To make it even worse, there are instances that are baffling when we think about them with the law in mind such as Jesus and the woman caught in adultery or using David's clear violation of the law as a defense against accusations of law breaking. Ultimately we know the purpose of the law was the cross, and the cross somehow brought us back into right standing with God. How the various parts functioned requires much speculation and we can only continue struggling to discover His ways.

Some observations are rock solid.

1. The Law shows is, in some manner, what the image of God looks like. It is like a mirror that shows the human that he falls far short of this image, and is in need of redemption. It serves a "ministry of condemnation" in this regard.

2. The Law gave some order and structure to the Israelite community.

3. The Law identified Jesus Christ in a way...he is the ultimate sacrifice.

So, there are some solid facts.

As a Reformed person who can reason typologically, I can see much more that fits the narrative of Scripture, but I understand why those who accept dispensational hermeneutics would deny these shadows and types.

And, I acknowledge that some elements are very difficult and will not be clear to anyone. Paul said that believers see through a glass dimly.

It's not fruitless to keep seeking the intentions of God in this manner, though. Jesus said that all within the Scriptures points to him in some way.

Luke 24: 25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Some observations are rock solid.

1. The Law shows is, in some manner, what the image of God looks like. It is like a mirror that shows the human that he falls far short of this image, and is in need of redemption. It serves a "ministry of condemnation" in this regard.

2. The Law gave some order and structure to the Israelite community.

3. The Law identified Jesus Christ in a way...he is the ultimate sacrifice.

So, there are some solid facts.

As a Reformed person who can reason typologically, I can see much more that fits the narrative of Scripture, but I understand why those who accept dispensational hermeneutics would deny these shadows and types.

And, I acknowledge that some elements are very difficult and will not be clear to anyone. Paul said that believers see through a glass dimly.

It's not fruitless to keep seeking the intentions of God in this manner, though. Jesus said that all within the Scriptures points to him in some way.

Luke 24: 25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Oh, absolutely there are some truths we can stand on and all things in the OT point to Christ in some way. What I mean is the law and prophets are supposed to point us to the heart of God rather than be applied in a literal fashion and they always have been intended that way. The dietary laws in some way were meant to purify the Israelites as were the sacrifices but they missed it through misapplication. Though as Paul notes in Romans it was God's plan all along that the gentiles be brought in(Romans 8:29). Piecing it all together and figuring out how it works is something we all try to do, but it's when we think our opinions are the only way the Scripture can be read that it becomes an issue. The real truth is we've got to see the heart of our maker reflected in the word rather than trying to figure out His thoughts. For the thoughts we've just got to trust Him to be who He claims to be.

 

[massorite]

The precise function of the food laws I cannot say, though they certainly served to mark off the Israelites from their neighbors along with Sabbath keeping and circumcision. In some way as with the rest of the law they served the purpose of bringing sin to its full sinfulness so that Christ would be crucified and we would be justified in His resurrection. In any case their function, as the function of all the Mosaic laws, has passed and we are to be obedient to the Spirit to lead us into all truth.

The food laws had everything to do with health. God created all living breathing beings and He did not intend for any of them to be eaten at all. But with the fall of Adam everything changed and not a single animal was killed until after the fall of Adam. Some animals are ment to clean up after other animals. Cat fish, shrimp, lobster, sucker fish and so on are bottom feeders and eat the waste of other fish. Pigs. opossums, vultures and so many more are the cleanup animals that rid the world of other dead animals and so on.

 

[MattforJesus]

In the Old Testament there was the spiritual laws which are the 2 greatest laws love God, and love people, which are the 10 commandments, and any laws that had to do with love, and morals.

But they could not have the Spirit to regenerate them, and to overcome the flesh completely which a Spirit led life will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, but they had the blood of animals to cover their sins.

And they could not have spiritual salvation in the Old Testament, so it was a physical covenant with physical blessings like lands, and wealth, and material things.

The Jews had to keep physical laws and the separation of clean and unclean animals for the Spirit did not work among them like in the New Testament.

In the New Testament we can have the Spirit, and the Spirit is operating among the saints more than in the Old Testament, so there is no more separation of meats for it is cleansed now being a spiritual covenant with spiritual blessings.

Which God said all creatures is good and nothing to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving, for it sanctified by the word of God, and prayer.

And Jesus took the physical ordinances of Israel out of the way nailing them to His cross for they were contrary to us for they had no bearing on spiritual salvation, so let no person judge you in meats.

For the physical ordinances were but a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ by the Spirit.

 

[Bbrdrd]

The food laws had everything to do with health. God created all living breathing beings and He did not intend for any of them to be eaten at all. But with the fall of Adam everything changed and not a single animal was killed until after the fall of Adam. Some animals are ment to clean up after other animals. Cat fish, shrimp, lobster, sucker fish and so on are bottom feeders and eat the waste of other fish. Pigs. opossums, vultures and so many more are the cleanup animals that rid the world of other dead animals and so on.

I'm not sure they did have to do with health, though that is certainly a possibility. Both the Biblical data and medical information don't seem to convey that, though. Theologically the idea seems more one of purity, as the clean animals conform to what their kind is supposed to be like and unclean animals are those that diverge. If it is for health, then Jesus' words in Mark are difficult to understand when He points out that impurity comes from within not without. It also makes the meaning behind Peter's vision something entirely different than what the text seems to be presenting.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I'm not sure they did have to do with health, though that is certainly a possibility. Both the Biblical data and medical information don't seem to convey that, though. Theologically the idea seems more one of purity, as the clean animals conform to what their kind is supposed to be like and unclean animals are those that diverge. If it is for health, then Jesus' words in Mark are difficult to understand when He points out that impurity comes from within not without. It also makes the meaning behind Peter's vision something entirely different than what the text seems to be presenting.

Yeah...Acts 10 definitely indicates all meats are ok for human consumption.

Armstrongites (the cult I came from ) claimed that the vision only related to the Gentiles, and not the animals. However, like the author of the article says, animals are typological of people.

I would also point out that the animals that were unclean are mostly associated with the Curse in some way..for instance, serpents are reminiscent of Satan, and many of them were scavengers, which relates to death, and death entered the creation through Adam's sin.

This is why I always come back to the metanarrative of Scripture.

Creation - Fall - Rescue (Redemption) - Restoration (Consummation)

Jesus has, in fact, rolled back the Curse. Animals which were previously "cursed", in a sense, are now made clean. Same way with people.

We see this typologically in the Law, inaugurated in Christ at his first coming, and consummated at the Second Coming.

These are the types of things biblical theology has to offer. It offers some coherent metanarrative, rather than a disconnected mess of legalistic rules to follow without any clue why.

For those who can hear, I recommend studying biblical theology. It's legit.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

If you look at Acts 10, Peter never actually ate what was put in front of him by God. In Ezekiel, God is clear that we are mocking Him if we are eating pork, and we know God doesn’t change. I just don’t see God changing His mind over this.

There was an Aussie doctor on CC who argued with me over this. He actually went so far as to tell me that all meats have worms and that medication can kill it. By doing a little research we can see that no medication can kill the worms in pigs’ meat. The fact is God is protecting His children and for some reason He doesn’t like it if we eat pork meat.

Should we debate it? I don’t think so. We have to go by God’s word and what it tells us. If you are convicted when eating pork meat, don’t eat it, if not… enjoy.

My wife and I are eating macon (beef alternative to bacon) and it is great. You wouldn’t even know the difference, except for the fat. You don’t get that after taste when eating macon.

God bless friends

 

[Nehemiah6]

Are biblical dietary laws related directly to the Gentile/Jew division?

The way the question is worded, it would imply that God wanted to create division/animosity/hatred between Jews and Gentiles. That animosity exists regardless of dietary laws, but that was not their purpose.

But the dietary laws for Israel were consistent with the fact that (1) God had chosen Israel to be His instrument for blessings on earth, particularly through Messiah (the Lord Jesus Christ), and they were set apart for God and (2) all the laws give by God to Israel were to be a blessing to Israel, when obeyed. They are also consistent with prudence and common sense.

Keeping in mind the primitive food storage conditions of those times, as well as the obviously unclean nature of the creatures deemed to be unclean, the dietary laws were there to preserve the health and well-being of the Israelites and teach them the moral and spiritual lesson of making a difference between the clean and the unclean. God already provided certain domestic animals for human consumption, so there was no reason to seek out unclean animals.

At the same time under the New Covenant, there are absolutely no dietary restrictions for Christians (except those stated in Acts 15). The primary restriction (which has existed since the time of Noah) is the consumption of the blood of animals. And that relates to the significance of the shed blood of clean animals for the atonement of sins (which prefigured the shed blood of Christ for the remission of sins). Atonement covered sins, whereas remission takes away sins.

 

[John146]

The way the question is worded, it would imply that God wanted to create division/animosity/hatred between Jews and Gentiles. That animosity exists regardless of dietary laws, but that was not their purpose.

But the dietary laws for Israel were consistent with the fact that (1) God had chosen Israel to be His instrument for blessings on earth, particularly through Messiah (the Lord Jesus Christ), and they were set apart for God and (2) all the laws give by God to Israel were to be a blessing to Israel, when obeyed. They are also consistent with prudence and common sense.

Keeping in mind the primitive food storage conditions of those times, as well as the obviously unclean nature of the creatures deemed to be unclean, the dietary laws were there to preserve the health and well-being of the Israelites and teach them the moral and spiritual lesson of making a difference between the clean and the unclean. God already provided certain domestic animals for human consumption, so there was no reason to seek out unclean animals.

At the same time under the New Covenant, there are absolutely no dietary restrictions for Christians (except those stated in Acts 15). The primary restriction (which has existed since the time of Noah) is the consumption of the blood of animals. And that relates to the significance of the shed blood of clean animals for the atonement of sins (which prefigured the shed blood of Christ for the remission of sins). Atonement covered sins, whereas remission takes away sins.

Agreed. I wonder if our replacement theology friends would agree?

 

[massorite]

Yeah...Acts 10 definitely indicates all meats are ok for human consumption.

Armstrongites (the cult I came from ) claimed that the vision only related to the Gentiles, and not the animals. However, like the author of the article says, animals are typological of people.

I would also point out that the animals that were unclean are mostly associated with the Curse in some way..for instance, serpents are reminiscent of Satan, and many of them were scavengers, which relates to death, and death entered the creation through Adam's sin.

This is why I always come back to the metanarrative of Scripture.

Creation - Fall - Rescue (Redemption) - Restoration (Consummation)

Jesus has, in fact, rolled back the Curse. Animals which were previously "cursed", in a sense, are now made clean. Same way with people.

We see this typologically in the Law, inaugurated in Christ at his first coming, and consummated at the Second Coming.

These are the types of things biblical theology has to offer. It offers some coherent metanarrative, rather than a disconnected mess of legalistic rules to follow without any clue why.

For those who can hear, I recommend studying biblical theology. It's legit.

No you have misunderstood the true meaning of the vision. It didn't have anything to do with food and Acts 10:28 makes that clear.
Acts chapter ten is one of the most pivotal passages of scripture in the entire New Testament. It’s a passage that’s often used to support the erroneous teaching that God has now released us to freely eat every kind of animal, even those He previously defined as unfit for food and thereby human consumption.
Yet we quickly see from Scripture that Peter’s vision wasn’t about being able to eat unclean food at all, rather it was about God accepting the Gentile believer coming into faith and community. This was the great mystery of the ages being revealed to Peter through his vision here in Acts chapter 10 – that God would extend salvation to the Gentiles without them needing to first convert by becoming a legal Jew.
Before the men sent by Cornelius arrive, Peter goes onto the housetop to pray and becomes hungry. As Peter prays, Scripture says he falls into a trance. It’s during this trance that Yahweh reveals a message to Peter through a vision – it’s a message that will completely shake Jewish perception of Gentiles and their coming to faith in Yahweh, God of Israel.
Peter’s bewilderment concerning the meaning of the vision soon gives way to revelation and understanding. Three times the voice in the vision instructed Peter to “rise, kill, and eat”, and as he was pondering the vision, immediately the three Gentile men sent by Cornelius arrive at the house which Peter is staying at in Joppa. As the men arrive, Peter is still mulling over the meaning of the vision, and the Spirit then speaks to him “Behold, three men are looking for you. Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.” Why do you think that the three men showed up even before Peter got off of the roof?? Why do you think the Spirit of God instructed Peter todown and meet the three men and doubt nothing. Peter didn't know that three men were gentile until he got down from the roof and met the three men.
Act 10:20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.
The Gentile men sent from Cornelius tell Peter the divine reason for their coming; how Cornelius was directed through a heavenly vision and voice to send for Peter, so that Cornelius’ house might hear all that Peter has to speak about God – a word of good news and salvation that would be birthed by the Spirit of God. In Acts 10:28 Peter tells us that God showed him that he
"should not call any man common or unclean."
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

No you have misunderstood the true meaning of the vision. It didn't have anything to do with food and Acts 10:28 makes that clear.
Acts chapter ten is one of the most pivotal passages of scripture in the entire New Testament. It’s a passage that’s often used to support the erroneous teaching that God has now released us to freely eat every kind of animal, even those He previously defined as unfit for food and thereby human consumption.
Yet we quickly see from Scripture that Peter’s vision wasn’t about being able to eat unclean food at all, rather it was about God accepting the Gentile believer coming into faith and community. This was the great mystery of the ages being revealed to Peter through his vision here in Acts chapter 10 – that God would extend salvation to the Gentiles without them needing to first convert by becoming a legal Jew.
Before the men sent by Cornelius arrive, Peter goes onto the housetop to pray and becomes hungry. As Peter prays, Scripture says he falls into a trance. It’s during this trance that Yahweh reveals a message to Peter through a vision – it’s a message that will completely shake Jewish perception of Gentiles and their coming to faith in Yahweh, God of Israel.
Peter’s bewilderment concerning the meaning of the vision soon gives way to revelation and understanding. Three times the voice in the vision instructed Peter to “rise, kill, and eat”, and as he was pondering the vision, immediately the three Gentile men sent by Cornelius arrive at the house which Peter is staying at in Joppa. As the men arrive, Peter is still mulling over the meaning of the vision, and the Spirit then speaks to him “Behold, three men are looking for you. Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.” Why do you think that the three men showed up even before Peter got off of the roof?? Why do you think the Spirit of God instructed Peter todown and meet the three men and doubt nothing. Peter didn't know that three men were gentile until he got down from the roof and met the three men.
Act 10:20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.
The Gentile men sent from Cornelius tell Peter the divine reason for their coming; how Cornelius was directed through a heavenly vision and voice to send for Peter, so that Cornelius’ house might hear all that Peter has to speak about God – a word of good news and salvation that would be birthed by the Spirit of God. In Acts 10:28 Peter tells us that God showed him that he
"should not call any man common or unclean."
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

The two are connected as the original post indicates.

And, your explanation is basically exactly what Judaizer cults teach.

Of course, Gentiles were considered unclean by Jews, and part of the reason is because they ate food deemed unclean through the Mosaic Law. God intentionally separated his people from Gentiles by giving them a different diet. However, neither the food nor the people are unclean now.

Ephesians 2:13-15 indicates this.

Ephesians 2:13-16 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (ESV Strong's)

As a Judaizer, I would have used your exact explanation, though. So, I am familiar with it.

Judaizers major in two topics: days and diet. They love to judge others on those topics.

That's why Romans 14 was written...Jews and Gentiles in the Roman church were fighting over diet and days.

I'm not saying you are a Judaizer but the clean meat issue is one that is a favorite with them.

 

[massorite]

The two are connected as the original post indicates.

And, your explanation is basically exactly what Judaizer cults teach.

Of course, Gentiles were considered unclean by Jews, and part of the reason is because they ate food deemed unclean through the Mosaic Law. God intentionally separated his people from Gentiles by giving them a different diet. However, neither the food nor the people are unclean now.

Ephesians 2:13-15 indicates this.

Ephesians 2:13-16 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (ESV Strong's)

As a Judaizer, I would have used your exact explanation, though. So, I am familiar with it.

Judaizers major in two topics: days and diet. They love to judge others on those topics.

That's why Romans 14 was written...Jews and Gentiles in the Roman church were fighting over diet and days.

I'm not saying you are a Judaizer but the clean meat issue is one that is a favorite with them.

I don't know much about any Judaizer beliefs. I only know what my research reveals to me. One thing I have learned is that even though there are several "Christian Cults" that claim they are the only one's who are right, they all have one thing in common. There is always some sort of doctrinal belief that they have adopted that is actually correct. Just because they are a cult doesn't mean they are wrong in every doctrinal belief they adopt. I am not giving them credit here I am just stating an observation.
even in this day and time things like pork no matter how clean a pig is raised can still smell nasty when it is cooking in a frying pan. So I would say that both views have value.

 

[Moses_Young]

My response is "yes". Therefore, they don't apply anymore.

So, your response is "yes" to the question, "Are biblical dietary laws related directly to the Gentile/Jew division?", but "no" to the question "Do clean meat laws of Leviticus 11 still apply to the believer?"

I agree with this - Christ is our fulfilment of the law.[/FONT][/SIZE]

Note that I am not arguing that these laws may have certain benefits. Physical circumcision reduces risk of penile cancer and infecting ones' spouse with diseases. However, that does not make physical circumcision a requirement under the New Covenant. So, any perceived health benefit is irrelevant.

While I agree that not eating certain foods does have health benefits (although bacon is delicious!), I've recently learned that it's harder to prove that the circumcision practiced in the bible provides the same health benefits as the circumcision practiced today. I had always wondered why Michelangelo had carved his David uncircumcised, but it turns out, that was just how they did circumcisions back then. As most people today would consider Michelangelo's David statue uncircumcised, I think circumcision in the bible is possibly more a ceremonial law than a law with health benefits.

But still, a lot of laws dealing with health, like washing and personal quarantining.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

I don't know much about any Judaizer beliefs. I only know what my research reveals to me. One thing I have learned is that even though there are several "Christian Cults" that claim they are the only one's who are right, they all have one thing in common. There is always some sort of doctrinal belief that they have adopted that is actually correct. Just because they are a cult doesn't mean they are wrong in every doctrinal belief they adopt. I am not giving them credit here I am just stating an observation.
even in this day and time things like pork no matter how clean a pig is raised can still smell nasty when it is cooking in a frying pan. So I would say that both views have value.

Well, I am not going to judge another man's servant, and I suspect you belong to the LORD but I don't agree with you on this matter.

But, peace to you. If you don't belong to him, then fine, but I suspect you are simply confused

If I were to guess, you subscribe to dispensationalist hermeneutics. It is a good starting point, but once one drops off the spiritual tit, he should be able to reason typologically.

Diet and days are a common topic of dispute, though.

 

[garee]

My response is "yes". Therefore, they don't apply anymore.

I am a former Sabbatarian, festivals observer and clean meat law observer, as a member of a Judaizer cult. As many of you will know, such groups have a continual fixation on diet and calendar observances, and love to judge others over their diet and days.

It is my firm conviction that the food laws were, in fact, designed to create a distinction between ancient Israel and the Gentiles. This division was created, in part, to keep ancient Israel from idolatrous practice.

After this Jew/Gentile division ended with the New Covenant, the food laws are no longer applicable.

Note that I am not arguing that these laws may have certain benefits. Physical circumcision reduces risk of penile cancer and infecting ones' spouse with diseases. However, that does not make physical circumcision a requirement under the New Covenant. So, any perceived health benefit is irrelevant.

Anyways, today a decent article was distributed by Gospel Coalition on this issue. I like it because it pays close attention to the Bible's storyline. If you are not familiar with the study of "biblical theology", I suggest that you become familiar with it. Understanding biblical theology will turn you away from legalistic Pharisee behavior.

You Are What (Animal) You Eat
Peter Leithart

I love bacon and ham and the occasional scallop. Sometimes, there’s nothing that will substitute for a grilled pork chop. Yet for thousands of years, God’s people were denied these delights. Why?

Many Christians immediately look for reasons of hygiene or health. Pigs wallow in muck, and pork breeds the larvae that cause trichinosis. Shrimp and lobsters are scavengers. God wisely kept Israel away from food that wouldn’t be good for them. The problem with that explanation is that, in the opinion of most Christians, God stopped prohibiting these meats in the new covenant. Is he less concerned with our health now?

To grasp the biblical logic behind the Torah’s rules about unclean food, we need to answer two questions. First, what are animals? Second, what is eating?

Neither question is as simple as it looks.

Creation’s Animals

God created many kinds of animals, but Genesis 1 groups them together in several large phyla. The Bible’s taxonomy of animals is different from ours: it emphasizes environment rather than reproduction. On days five and six, God creates living souls of the sea, of the sky, and of the earth (Gen. 1:20–25).

We learn later that “bats” are listed among “birds” (Lev. 11:19). Leviticus 11 treats amphibians, rodents, and reptiles as members of one large category of “creeping things.” Those details aren’t evidence of scientific ignorance. Scripture simply uses a different scientific scheme. For the Bible, “birds” are “flying things.” Since bats fly, they belong with other “flying things.” Mice and geckos both creep along the ground, so they’re lumped into the same group.

Land animals are further subdivided into “cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth” (Gen. 1:25). Like the larger categories, these are environmentally based. “Cattle” (behemah) live near man, “beasts” (chayyah) are more distant, and most “creepers” (remes) are untamed animals that sneak into human environments (the mice in your attic, the moles tearing up your lawn).

Adam was told to rule over all the animals (Gen. 1:27–28). But some land animals are created domesticated, while others are to be tamed over time. Later visions of lions and lambs, wolves and cattle, lying together in peace don’t portray a “return to Eden” but an advance on Eden (Isa. 11:6–9). The prophets glimpse the trajectory of human dominion by envisioning a world where all creatures have become “cattle.”

Clean and Unclean Animals

By the time of Noah, animals had been subdivided yet again, into categories of “clean” and “unclean” (Gen. 7:2–3, 8–9). The distinction is at least a liturgical one, since after the flood Noah offers one of every kind of clean animal as an ascension offering (Gen. 8:20–21). He doesn’t offer any of the unclean ones.

The role of animals changes dramatically with the Mosaic covenant. Things get much more complicated. The rules of unclean food still follow the creation taxonomy. Leviticus 11 lists clean and unclean land animals (vv. 2–8), sea creatures (vv. 9–12), flying things including winged insects (vv. 13–23), and creeping things (vv. 29–30). Yet, because Yahweh draws near to dwell amid Israel, new restrictions come into play. Israelites can’t offer every clean animal on the altar, as Noah did. Under the Mosaic order, “clean” animals are subdivided into “sacrificial” and “non-sacrificial” classes. Some clean domestic animals or “cattle” (bovines, sheep, goats, turtledoves, pigeons) may be placed on the altar, but some domestic animals are unclean (donkeys, camels). No wild animals, creeping things, or fish are sacrificed, but some wild land animals are clean and may be eaten (deer, roebuck). Unclean wild animals, like unclean domestic animals, are forbidden food (rock badgers, rabbits, pigs).

Yes, clean to represent the redeemed and unclean to represent natural unconverted mankind as a beast of the field . Jew and gentile flesh are used in the same way .Ceremonies shadows of the eternal. Not in respect to what the eye sees the temporal .

Exodus 13:13 And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.

The purpose of ceremonial laws. . . . . shadows of the unseen eternal

The gospel in the above parable that spoke of the suffering of Christ beforehand and the glory that followed the time of reformation or time of suffering .The gospel that gave the old testaments saints in the graves the glory that followed the suffering. A living faith working in them as a finished work from the very beginning.

Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.1 Peter 1:9-11