In the last couple of posts, my documenting James Jordan’s reasoning that the Mosaic dietary laws were not a prescription for the perfect healthy diet caused some negative reactions. So I decided to try and clarify with some of my own thoughts.
I understand that some Christian’s use the dietary laws as a witnessing tool. Oversimplifying it, the reasoning goes like this:
1. In the Old Testament, God told the Israelites what to eat and how to eat it and what not to eat.
2. Scientific research shows that this is the healthiest and best possible diet.
3. See the Bible is true and you should believe it.
My last two posts were seen as an attempt to pull the rug out from under the above approach to witnessing. Well, I guess that is true. I don’t believe the above approach is a good way to demonstrate the Bible’s reliability or a good strategy for evangelism. I think this because seeing the dietary laws as THE healthy way to eat leads to some problems:
1. It is saying something the Bible never says, unbelievers can see through that just by reading Leviticus 11.
2. It implies that we need science to prove the Bible is true. Science is shifting sand upon which to place your faith or to use to shore up your faith in the Bible.
The popular “scientific” studies are constantly changing what is believed to be healthy and unhealthy to eat. In my short lifetime, I remember several things that were declared unhealthy by some study when I was young and now has been proven to be healthy in moderation by newer studies: eggs, coffee, tea, pork, beef, fish… all these have gone back and forth on the healthy/unhealthy list.
Using current science as a foundation for the reliability of the Bible is dangerous ground for evangelism in my opinion.
The Bible is true whether the current version of “science” says so or not. You either believe the Bible wholeheartedly or you don’t, whether there are scientific proofs or not. Scientism is modern day Baalism.
2. It keeps believers from seeing the true meaning of the dietary laws, their biblical-symbolic redemptive meaning, and what they teach us about our faith in Christ today. In my mind, this is the more serious problem.
The Biblical Defense Against the Hygienic View of the Dietary Laws
It’s helpful to remember that the distinction between clean and unclean animals was known long before Moses. Noah was told to take both clean and unclean animals on the Ark.
Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate… Genesis 7:2;
In fact, Noah knew to only sacrifice clean animals to God before Moses wrote down the category descriptions (Abraham knew this too! Genesis 15).
Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. Genesis 8:20;
After smelling this offering, the Lord told Noah that he can eat anything that moves.
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Genesis 9:3
This includes both clean and unclean animals. Clean does not mean edible. Unclean does not mean inedible. Was this proclamation of God prescribing the perfect healthy diet for Noah and everyone up until Moses? I read this and have to say no, that wasn’t the purpose.
What it does strongly imply is that eating the animals beforehand was forbidden. Does that mean that a vegetarian diet is the original and perfect diet? I would have to say no again because this passage indicates an elevation to greater privilege.
Noah is elevated to kingship and given the power to exercise capital punishment (9:6) with that comes the privilege to eat meat. There is nothing in the text that indicates that eating meat was necessary because there won’t be enough plants in a post-Flood world or that it was necessary to accommodate our sinful nature.
God just says, Noah, you rule, put to death any man or animal who murders and with this privilege you get the privilege to eat meat.
Only after several hundred years, after Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and all Noahic covenant believers have been eating “every moving thing” does God tell Moses that circumcised children of Israel must have a restricted diet. The law says that uncircumcised believers, under the Noahic not Abrahamic covenant, can still eat “every moving thing.”
If you want to be circumcised and come under the Law, and thereby become a priestly believer, then you must follow the restricted diet of Leviticus 11. A healthy diet does not explain the reasons for all this! If you want to be a God-fearing Gentile, then eat “everything that moves!”
So why restrict the diet at this point in redemptive history? I believe it is because God has drawn nearer during the Mosaic covenant to a special group of people.
He cut out a section of humanity (symbolized by circumcision) and through the Mosaic covenant made them a special nation of priests to the other nations. They were to be used to usher in the Scriptures and to give birth to Christ. God then placed His Name/Presence in the Tabernacle, above the Ark of the Covenant behind three sets of veils and curtains. These separations were for their protection, lest God kill them (Ex 19:12,21;32:10;).
The clean and unclean distinctions in the law and the dietary laws were meant as a further means of separation and protection from God and as reminders that they were to keep holy even as He is holy.
With proof texts to come later, the basic distinctions are:
Clean domestic animals represented circumcised (priestly) believers.
Clean wild animals represented Gentile God-fearers (not priestly believers).
Unclean animals represented unbelieving Gentiles.
So, when the New Covenant replaces the Old, these restrictions are removed and we (priestly believers) are given the privilege to eat freely again.
Now to see this, let’s fast forward to Mark 7:19 (ESV):
And he (Jesus) said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
Mark tells us that Jesus’ proclamation here had the affect of cleansing all foods. Does this mean that all foods are healthy now? That somehow all unhealthy foods are now healthy? I don’t believe that makes sense. Clean does not mean healthy. Unclean does not mean unhealthy.
Now skip to Acts 10. Peter sees a vision of a blanket coming down from heaven with all kinds of animals both clean and unclean. God tells him to “Rise, Peter. Kill and eat.”
This happens three times. Each time, Peter says “No Lord, I’ve never eaten unclean food.” (I find it interesting that Peter again denies the Lord three times. The words “no” and “Lord” don’t belong in the same sentence!!)
The message is “What God has cleansed don’t call common (or unclean).”
The restrictions are removed in the New Covenant, the categories of clean and unclean are removed in the New Covenant. Theologically speaking, the death of Jesus cleansed the world. There are no longer different “classes” of believers, which the clean/unclean distinctions of animals symbolized.
All believers are now priests. In the passage following Peter’s vision, he goes to Cornelius’ house (a Gentile God-fearer, Acts 10:2,22). At first Peter doesn’t know what to think of the vision, but then he realized that God was showing him that uncircumcised Gentile believers are accepted in the New Covenant.
And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.
After Peter preached the Gospel, Cornelius and his household were filled with the Holy Spirit. The circumcised believers were amazed that uncircumcised believers were filled with the Spirit.
And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Water baptism replaces circumcision (among other things) in the New Covenant (Col 2:12). And so the vision telling Peter to eat unclean animals meant that believing Gentiles were accepted now in God’s presence in the New Covenant. This is one of the meanings of clean and unclean. But there is more to it than that!
My main point was to try and disprove the notion that the categories of clean and unclean animals do not have anything to do with a healthy or unhealthy diet. (I hope I was clear on all points. It’s hard to try and be clear and still keep the posts brief.) They have to do with God’s unfolding plan of salvation in biblical redemptive history.
This was a pretty rough sketch. I plan on going into more detail on each assertion above as I trudge through my notes on “Studies in Food and Faith.”
Leave a comment