Greg, if you use what is in scripture as your guide and don’t add anything to it, then the first kosher laws given were to man after the flood. In Genesis 9 God (Jesus) told Noah that he and his family could eat anything that moves, but they could not eat the blood of the animal. Not eating blood was also repeated to Moses and Israel and again to gentiles in Acts 15.

So given that this instruction was repeated three times we must conclude that it was very important and universal for all mankind.

The clean and unclean distinction was originally given to Noah and before for sacrificial reasons. Then it was given to Israel for sacrificial reasons and eating reasons. Then no other instructions to anyone gentile or not in the NT. So unlike eating blood, the reasons for the clean/unclean distinction seem to be confined to Israel and reflect ceremonial reasons and not health reasons.

So while any law given by God is a moral issue, the fact that the law was not continued in the NT and was originally given for ceremonial reasons, would indicate that the law was also removed with all the other ceremonial Jewish laws at the cross.

Then why the distinction between the clean and the unclean entering Noah's ark?

quote:

---

Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

---

For sacrificial reasons. God only allowed clean animals to be sacrificed. God was very specific about the sacrificial system and didn’t even allow fruit to be sacrificed, remember Cain and Able?

So the distinction was given to Noah so he could make an appropriate sacrifice. However, the story of Cain and Able tells us that the distinction was around long before Noah’s time.

I assume you, Lobo, are basing what you said on the following reference:

quote:

---

Genesis 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

---

But do you think that for a sacrifice was the only reason?

The following verses seems to say that what you, Lobo, say may be true:

quote:

---

Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

---

Verse 4 seems to be the only prohibition.

I guess I will need to examine this further.

Yes Daryl, what you have quoted is what I am referring to. That text in Gen 9 seems to say two things: that Noah, and by extension mankind, was allowed to eat “everything that lives and moves”, and that mankind was also prohibited from eating animals that were already dead (i.e. not moving) and from blood.

So while you are reviewing this it would be good to think about why the prohibition on blood was repeated three times in the bible (Noah, Moses, Jerusalem council) and the clean/unclean distinction for eating was only mentioned with Moses?

Also, since there is no mention of eating related to clean/unclean until Moses, but there was sacrifices, and given Gen 9:3-4, what evidence is there that the clean/unclean law applied to food until Moses? I can’t find any, maybe you can?

Don’t get me wrong, I personally don’t eat unclean food as a matter of health. However, from a witness standpoint I will not refuse if eating in someone else’s home, etc.. But again, I do this for health reasons and don’t apply it to others as a universal moral issue.

Anyway, research this and tell me what you think.

Lastly, Daryl, I’m very pleased to see your openness to research this and willingness to accept what scripture seems to be teaching. You are a credit to the SDA church and Christians in general.

Hi Lobo,
You made an interesting point in the following:

quote:

---

However, from a witness standpoint I will not refuse if eating in someone else’s home, etc.. But again, I do this for health reasons and don’t apply it to others as a universal moral issue.

---

I have read this in the Bible, and am actually confused.
I don't eat meat period after I was poisoned after I ate a cheapo beef burger from famous burger place. Now with that setting lets say I go to a friends house and they are cooking up steaks, and even went through the troubles of making an incredible seafood platter..shrimp and all.. How does one handle this? Do you eat the food at risk of getting really sick or not? Let me know what you think about this.

God Bless,
Will

Will, excellent question.

First, it is not often that one gets acutely ill after eating clean or unclean meat, or just meat in general. This only occurs when the meat is not cooked properly. However, from a health standpoint, it’s what occurs over a longer period of time or is chronic. So eating that occasionally at someone else’s house will not harm you (unless you are alergic).

Now, Paul talks about this kind of thing specifically:

“23"Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive. 24Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. 25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake -- 29the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?” 1 Cor 10


Paul’s point I believe is that witness is not about food or drink or the “do’s and don’ts” of your faith. It’s about Jesus saving grace, period. Eating is something that would come up as a Christian matures in his faith. So what Paul is saying is that don’t confuse the gospel with food issues that are not germane to ones salvation. So we do whatever supports the witness and the other person’s conscience.

Make sense?

Dear friends

Some time ago I posted an "assessment" of the arguments presented in defense of the "eat-it-all" philosophy....

******* Reference to a topic and link to a forum other than MSDAOL removed - Daryl *******

After a time I improved upon it with a few changes and I want to submit the study again. So, whoever copied it, please, consider this new version as the best and erase the previous one.

Thanks

Azenilto G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
Bessemer, Ala., USA

An Assessment of the Arguments Presented By the Adherents of “Total Freedom” From the Bible’s Dietary Laws:

* Allegation: Christ in Mark 7:1-23 says that whatever enter the mouth won’t contaminate man, which shows that He is freeing His followers of following the dietary rules of the Bible:

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – The context clearly indicates that the discussion was not regarding the contents of the dietary laws in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, rather the contrast between what God has stipulated and what the “tradition of the elders” established (Mat. 15:2). He Himself confirmed it in vs. 20.

B – If Jesus were “purifying” supposed unclean foods in that meal, His act would have been good for nothing, because that was a Jewish meal, where no unclean meat would be found.

C – If Jesus were abolishing the dietary laws for good, He would be abolishing the law of food restrictions AHEAD OF TIME, for these dietary rules were not abolished on the cross? Besides being ahead of time, the supposed prefigurative sense would be absent, for only at Christ's atonement the types meet the antitype, the shadow is substituted by the Reality!

D – Christ would be teaching something contrary to the divine law “still” in force, thus He Himself had to be considered “the least in the kingdom of heaven” on the light of His own words in Matthew 5:19.


*Allegation: The Jerusalem Council, of Acts 15, shows that the gentile Christians were set free from all the limitations of the “Jewish law”, especially in regard to keeping the Sabbath and following the dietary laws.

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – To attempt using the expression “law of Moses” (vs. 5) only to some items that don’t seem convenient to the Bible student is dishonest (food laws and the Sabbath). This expression is much more comprehensive and includes the ceremonial precepts, as well as the moral ones, such as “ye shall not kill”, “ye shall not steal”, “honor thy father and thy mother”, “ye shall not say the name of the Lord thy God in vain”. . . This discriminatory use of the expression is totally suspicious.

B – What was determined during the Council is expressed in the four items of things the gentile Christians should ABSTAIN from (Acts 15:20, 29). These were no list of things they should, then, put into practice, as if it were a sort of “Tetralogue”, replacing the Decalogue, as some could think.

C – Of the four rules set, THREE deal with . . . food restrictions! Thus, instead of the Jerusalem Council confirming “total freedom” regarding the dietary laws, it instituted some rules reiterating ancient restrictions, by the way, things of the law that had been supposedly abolished, as the prohibition to ingest blood (Lev. 17:10-14). How would they repeat norms of an abolished code?!

D – Among the reiterations of ancient norms there is a recommendation against “sexual immorality”, which was something very well known as a divine law, expressed in the seventh commandment, “ye shall not commit adultery”. However, the apostles deemed it necessary to reiterate such a principle, for reasons that are not explained, and the law of which this rule is quoted had not been abolished.


* Allegation: The episode of Peter’s vision of the sheet, narrated in Act 10, when a sheet appears to him coming from heaven with all sorts of unclean animals, accompanied by the order, “kill them and eat” is a proof of a divine “total freedom” on the dietary laws:

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – Peter’s resistance to the order “kill and eat” shows that he had not learned with either Jesus or his apostolic companions that there had been a “total freedom” regarding the dietary laws.

B – Peter did not understand the vision at all, for he kept wondering what was its meaning (vs. 17). That the meaning was entirely symbolic can be realized through the simple fact that it would be impossible for the Apostle to kill and eat something he saw in a vision. It would be the same as to try eating an ice cream seen on the TV’s screen.

C – When he finally understood the vision’s meaning, he didn’t interpret it as having to do with freedom to eat everything, rather that the gentiles, which the Jews had no permission to even “get close to”, should be contacted with the gospel message (see vs. 28).

D – In the following chapter, 11, he says that he could not resist the vision (vs. 17), but that resistance was not related to license to eat unclean meats, but to contact the gentiles. In his speech before the Jerusalem Council he mentioned his experience indirectly, and he speaks of “purification”, but not of unclean meats, rather of the hearts of the converted gentiles (see Acts 15:7-9).

That he overcame such resistance is made clear in Galatians 2:11, where it is said that he ate with the gentiles, even though receiving a rebuke by Paul for attempting to disguise these contacts of his, without justification.


* Allegation: The laws of dietary restriction were ceremonial, symbolizing the separation between Jews and Gentiles and ended with the atoning death of Christ:

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – The adherents of the “total freedom” of the dietary laws theory cannot define the reasons why God established them, to start with. If they aimed at protecting the people’s health, why such a preoccupation would disappear overnight with the death of Christ, since the hygiene of both men and animals would remain the same of centuries, not only in the land of Judah, as throughout the world where the Gospel would be proclaimed?

B – There is no way to justify that overnight meats such as that of rats, ravens, snakes and lizards began to be consumed when the Temple’s veil was rent from top to bottom, and the eat-it-all advocates can’t explain how the death of Christ altered the composition of these unclean meats, and why such food so harmful to health became apt for human consumption when Christ uttered His “It’s finished” and expired.

C – There is not the least evidence that a diet of all kinds of foods became the common practice of Christ’s followers in the early years of Christianity, be it in the land of Judah or throughout the world.

D – Although those who allege that those laws were prefigurations of the separation between Jews and gentiles, the fact is that God wouldn’t maintain in His law such a negative aspect of human sentiments (racial prejudice, xenophobia), for He is “no respecter of people”. Besides, that would represent to shift the focus from Christ and His perfect sacrifice to men’s deficiencies.


* Allegation: In Romans 14, Paul deals with the “weak” in conflict with the “strong” ones in the faith, regarding certain foods, that being a debate surrounding the permission to utilize meats that were unclean before, which is also the case in 1 Tim. 4:1-3:

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – There is not the least evidence that the debates there surpassed the question of food sacrificed to idols, since Paul dissented from the decision of the Jerusalem Council, which forbade the consumption of such food. He said that “the idol is nothing in itself”, allowing their consumption, but at the same time recommended respect for those who were scrupulously delicate, for not shocking them with their license to use these food articles, which, by the way, are not limited to meat (Gr. broma, any food).

B – Paul’s emphasis regarding our body being “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:15) doesn’t favor the notion that the believer can feed himself with pig, rat, ravens, snakes and lizards, since the same Paul said: “Whatever you eat or drink, or do any other thing, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).

C – The text of the parallel discussion in 1 Timothy 4 refers to “abstinence of foods that God created for being received with thankfulness” (1 Tim. 4:3) and its context refers to those who prohibited marriages, thus in a reference to a specific group of people. Specialists have identified these as the Gnostics, an ascetic sect. Thus, he was not setting a general rule, and also we have to face the fact that the “all that God created is good” (vs. 4) should include snakes, lizard, cockroaches, spiders. . .

D - The “all that God created”, even in normal dietary terms, would exclude those food items of the “dietary restrictions” of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:20). Thus, the “all” clearly has its limitations and cannot be interpreted in an absolute way. Also it is extremely improbable that the Apostle is giving a “blank check” for the consumption of cockroaches, ravens, snakes and lizard as being created by God for human consumption.


* Allegation: The eschatological text of Isaiah 66:17 deals with the very last happenings of this planet’s history, but is related to the nation of Israel, not to the entire population of the Earth, since there are names of nations related to Israel’s experience and history:

Difficulties in that interpretation:

A – Chapters 65 and 66 in its entirety show the picture of God appealing to Israel to be faithful to Him and to abandon condemned and abominable practices, in the face of the promise of extermination of the enemies who deviated them from the truth, and the new heavens and New Earth that are anticipated.

B – The immediate context of the text speaks of “fire and sword” with which the Lord will enter in “judgment WITH ALL FLESH”, and that He come to “join all nations and languages” who will “contemplate My glory”, in a very clear indication that it is the same end referred to in the book of Revelation. And these “all” who eat pig and rat and practice idolatry are included among those condemned to destruction, both in chapter 65 and 66 (see Isa. 65: 3 e 4 e 66:16-18).

C – There are description of nations contemporary of the prophet (Tharsis, Pul, Lude, Tubal and Javan), but these are representative of the “all nations” mentioned, as it occurs in the book of Revelation, where the Patmos seer also speaks of Babylon, Egypt, Gog and Magog, representing ALL the people who are enemies of God’s children and who will face their final punishment.

D – At the end of the chapter there is clear reference to the “new heavens” and “New Earth”, when God’s people would be keeping themselves faithful to the divine law, including the Sabbath observance. In the New Testament we also read about the destruction of those who destroy the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:17 and 6:19) and in Revelation John refers to the “unclean fowls”, in an eschatological context (see Rev.18:2). Thus, by the end of the I Century AD John still kept the conception of unclean animals, a proof that such attribution to certain animals had ceased.

========

Link to a different topic and forum outside of MSDAOL removed. - Daryl

"ceased"? Did you mean "not ceased"?