1999 Issue 1 - Old Testament Dietary Laws - Counsel of Chalcedon

8/12/2019 1999 Issue 1 - Old Testament Dietary Laws - Counsel of Chalcedon

1/6

Are the Old TeStament

D i e t a r y L ~ w s Binding Qn the

Chris tian Thday?

No.

Does the Bible Advise Chris

tians Today to Use the Dietary

Laws in Their Daily Diet?

No.

Were

the

Dietary Laws Given

for Hygienic Nntritional

Reasons? No.

For centuries Reformed

Christians have not asked these

questions because they knew the

arts wer to them before they

thought to ask them. Had they

asked them they would have

answered No

to

all three.

God's grace to Israel 'by which

God separated clean Israel from

the unclean nations, making her

His own treasured possession.

For you are a holy people to

the LORD your God; the LORD

yonr God has chosen you to be a

people for His own possession out

of all the peoples wbo are

on

the

face of the earth. Deuteronomy

7:6.

God made a distinction

between the clean and un

clean animals to keep before the

eyes of His covenaot people that

He had made a distinction

SPIRITUAl separation

of

God's

chosen people out

of

this evil

world.

The dietary laws reinforced

polot three of th covenauc cov

enantal boWldaries. For as long as

the boundaries of the Promised

Land remained lotact covenantally,

Israelites

were

required

to

honor

the

dietary laws . The Levitical dietary

laws were

expr

essly historical

honoring the fulfillmerit o God s

promise to Abraham regarding the

land. They were laws that relo

forced the Levitical

laws

governiog

landed ioheritance. When the

Today some Christians

have differing answers.

To

these questions some

would answer Yes to

all three. while others

answer No to the first

but Yes to the second

Old

T e s t a n : 1 e n t

i e tary

avvs

Levitical ioheritance laws

ceased: .the dietary laws

also ceas

ed

.

Their ethical, judicial,

and

geographical holioess

was

to be

manifested

by

wh

at

they

ate and

did

not

eat: primarily at the

Passover meal and sec-

and third. Today some

Christians desiring to be

healthier by eating nutritional

foods and avoiding substances

harmful to the body hold that the

observation of dietary laws of the

Old Testament will make one's

diet more nutritional, and that

God either commands

or

advises

us to keep these dietary laws.

While we recogIiize the impor-

. tance of good nutrition, must we

go along with this modem view

toward the Old Testament dietary

laws?

THE COVENANTAL PUR

POSE

OF

THE

DIETARY LAWS

n explanation should be given

regarding the phrase dietary

laws. They are those regulations

in the Old Testament which

identified for the Israelites some

of

the animals they may eat and

some

of

the animals they may not

eat . Unclean animals could not

be eaten and clean animals

could be eaten. The identifying

marks

of

what made an animal

clean or unclean are set forth

in Leviticus 11:1-47 and Deuter

onomy 14:3-20. Thus these

dietary laws were reminders

of

Rev.

Joe

Morecrafi:

III

between Israel and Egypt-But

against any of the sons of

Israel a dog shall not even

bark, whether against man or

beast,

that

you may understand

how the LORD makes a dis

tinction between Egypt and

Israel, Exodus

11:7

. Because

of

their unique relation to God by

His grace, Israel is called to

separate herself from moral

uncleanness and sin lo her every

day

life-Then

the LORD spoke

to Moses, saying, Speak to all

the congregation

of the

sons

of

Israel

and

say to them, 'You

shall be holy, for I the LORD

your God

am

holy,' Leviticus

19:1-2. (See also 11:44-45,

20:7,26.)

So then, these dietary laws,

along with prohibitions against

certain klods of mixlog, Leviticus

19 :1-2.19. Deuteronomy 22:9-11,

taught O.T. Israel God's require

ments

of

CULTURAL and NA-

TIONAL separation from the

pagan world. This NATIONAL

separation was symbolic of the

ondarily by th.e dietary laws. This

holiness or separation was ritually

reinforced

by

the Passover meal

and

the special dietary restrictions.

-

With the

abrogation of the

Old

Covenant order

came

the abrogation

of

the

Mosaic food laws: Passover

and

pork

laws

. This abrogation

ended willt

the

abrogation of the

Promised Land's historically unique

position as an agent of God's

sanctions. - Prior to the

fall of

Jerusalem io A.D . 70 the Promised

Land was said to spew out evil

doers .. .The Israelites would drive

out the Canaanites; if

they

subse

quently rebelled, other nations

would drive

th

em

out.

After A.D.

70, the land of Israel lost its special

covenantal status. The Mosaic .

sacrificial system

was

cut off. -

Gary

North

, LEVITICUS: AN

ECONOMIC

COMMENTARY,

p.

345, 348,349.

THE ALLEGED HYGIENIC

FUNCTION OF THE

DIETARY LAWS

The argument of those who

hold the view that the dietary

4 -THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - December, 1998 - January, 1999


2/6

laws are still obligatory upou or

advisory to the Christian today is

based on their assumption that

these laws were given to Israel in

tlle

O.T. by Jehovah for hygienic

and nutritional purposes,

i.e.

unclean meats are hygienically

unclean and tllerefore non

nutritional and unhealtllY, while

clean meats are hygienically clean

and therefore nutritional and

healthy. Whereas some of tllese

meats may be unhealtllY for us

and some healtllY, tlle point tlIat

tltis is tlle basis

of

the distinction

in tlle Old Testament does not

hold water for several reasons:

(1). When God allowed

mankind to eat meat, He said tllat

all meat may be eaten: Every

moving

thing that

is alive shall

be food

for

you; I give all to

you, as I gave the green plant,

Genesis 9:3. Some meats have

more food valne that otllers, and

some entail more risk thah otllers

but God said tlIat l ro . animal may

be eaten. This contradicts the

view tl,at tlle restrictive dietary

laws were based on hygiene and

nutrition. Furthermore, while

God distinguished for Noah tlle

clean animals tlIat could be

offered

on

the altar of sacrifice

from tlle unclean ones tllat

could not, (and therefore telling

oah to take more ~ ' c l e a n

animals on the

ark

than ~ ' u n c l e a n

animals), He did not tell NOall tllat

tllese nnclean,

i.e.

unsacrificeable, animals could

not be eaten by him.

(2). The dietary laws which

distinguished Israel nationally

were ceremonial laws tl,at had no

meaning apart from tlle sacrificial

system

of

tlle Old Testament. The

clean-unclean distinction that

played such an important role in

tlle religious life of ancient Israel

was a ceremonial distinction with

reference to tlle O.T. sacrificial

system.' Leviticus 11-15 lists

various tllings in life tlIat could

make a person unclean, and

tllerefore unable to participate in

the sacrifices and worship of the

Tabernacle:

(1). Eating unclean meat, 11:1-

47,

(2).

Even coming into

the

slightest contact with the

dead

carcasses of unclean animals,

11:24-25,

(3). The slightest contact

Witll

any article or utensil that touched a

dead carcass, 11:32,

(4). Touching the dead carcass

of clean animals, 11:39-40,

(5). Childbirth, 12:1-8

(6). Skin Diseases and Mildew

in

one's house, 13:1-14:54

(7). Bodily discharges in men

and women, 15:1-32, including

menstruation, 12:2

That this clean-unclean

distinction is a ceremonial distinc

tion and not a moral, hygienic, or

nutritional distinction becomes

obvious in tlle penalties for

various unclean acts:

(1). Some acts made one

unclean until evening,

11:24,25,27,31

(2). The birth of a son made a

woman unclean for seven days,

12:2, and she shall remain in the

blood

of

her purification for

thirty-three days, 12:4

(3). The birth of a danghter

made a woman unclean for

two

weeks, and she had to remain in

the blood of her purification for

sixty-six days, 12:5

(4). At tlle end of

tltis

period

the

new mother had to make

various offerings at

the

doorway of

the Tabernacle, 12:6-8.

(5). If someone was unclean

becanse of leprosy, various offer

ings were reqnired of him, 14:

If

(6). Uncleanness cansed by

bodily discharges also reqnired

various offerings, 15:13-15

Uncleanness was a ceremo

nial status.' Unclean animals

could not be sacrificed on the

altar, clean animals could be,

Genesis 7. Clean persons could

participate in worship services at

the Tabernacle, unclean persons

could not do so. After the birth

of a son, the new mother for

thirty-three days conld

not

tonch

any consecrated thing nor

enter the sanctuary nntil the

days of

her purification are

completed, Leviticus 12:4.

Childbirtll

of

a son did

not

make a

godly married woman morally

repugnant, t simply made her

ceremonially nnclean for a week

followed by tllirty-tll1'ee days,

(for the birth of a daughter she

was unclean two weeks followed

by sixty-six days). Menstruation

made a woman unclean, but

certainly not morally so. The

point is, as we have seen, that

these ceremonial laws were

symbols, they were visnally to

O.T. Israel, what gospel preach

ing

was

in the N.T. h u r h ~

instruction in the fundamentals

of

the gospel of God's covenant in

CIl1 ist. 3 One

of

these fundamen

tals is the antitllesis between

God's covenant people in Christ

and the world in rebellion against

God. This antitllesis must be

maintained or the church be

comes the world and perishes

Witll the world.

In

these ceremo

nial laws Israel was taught visibly

and nationally day in and day out,

sternly and specifically, the vital

truth of the Spiritual sanctifica

tion of God's people by which He

savingly separates tllem from this

condemned world of rebels and

consecrates them to Himself.

The clean/unclean regulations

kept these great truths before

their eyes.

(3).

f

their purpose was

hygienic and nutritional, in order

for it to be achieved in a healtllY

diet for the Israelite, the list of

clean and unclean foods would

have to be exhaustive and all-

December, 1998 -

January

1999 - THE COUNSEL

of

Chalcedon - 5


3/6

inclusive, and it is not. Further

more, hygiene cannot account for

all the prohibitions. For example,

trichinosis is rare in free-range

pigs. Moreover, only about

40%

of tbe animals of tbe Near EasL

mentioned here can be identified

witb certainty. And if hygiene

were tbe basis for these dieLary

laws, surely poisonous plants

would be identified as unclean,

but tbey are not.

(4). The Bible nowhere says

tbat tbe purpose of the dietary

laws was hygienic and nutritional.

This view of tbese laws is im

posed upon tbe Bible not draM

from it. John Calvin wrote that

God "does

not

invite tbem [the

covenant people] to take care of

tbeir healtb, nor warn t iem of tbe

danger

of

contracting

diseases,

but

bids

four Hebrew youths who refused

to eat tbe king's gourmet food did

not insist on a conventional

Levitical diet, Gary North warns

us

thaL

the Levitical dietary laws

were laws furthering covenantal

separation inside the Promised

Land, not universal laws o

health.' To misunderstand this is

O misunderstand covenant

tbeology. To deny Ibis is O deny

covenant theology and replace it

with 'taste not-touch not' reli

gion, [Colossians 2:20-23]."

LEVITICUS:

N

ECONOMIC

COMMENTARY, p.

343.

(5). f tbe reason for tbe

prohibition of certain animals to

be eaten was hygienic ,

i.e.,

tbey

are so detrimental to one's health

that tbey should not be eaten,

them for the purpose of good

health or for any other reason.

How do we know Ibis to

be

tbe

case?

FIRST, tbe dietary laws along

with tbe rest of

the

Old Testa

ment ceremonial rites in tbe

Levitical sacrificial system were

"shadows" tbat "foreshadowed"

the glory of Christ and the New

Covenant. Colossians 2:

16-17

teaches us that the ceremonial

laws of

the

Old Testament are a

mere

shadow of

what

is to

come;

but the

s lbstance be

longs to Christ. Hebrews 8:5

tells us that the Levitical priests

and their ceremonies were a copy

and shadow

of heavenly things.

And the theme of the book of

Hebrews is that Christ is the

reality

of

which these

tbings were a shadow,

tbem beware of

defiling tbemselves.

Thus holiness is only

connected instrumen

tally ,itb tbe distinc

tion of meats; since

their abstinence had no

otber object tban tbat

tbey should consecrate

tbemselves to God/'

"In these cereilionial laws Israel

w ~

taught

visibly and Ilatiollally day

in

and clay ouL

sternly


4/6

made with hands, that

is

to

say

not of this creation; and not

throngh the blood of goats and

calves, but through His own

blood, He entered the holy place

once for all, having obtained

eternal redemption.

Hebrews

9:8-12

SECOND, Mark,

the

Spirit

inspired Gospel writer, interprets

Jesus' explanation

to His

disciples

of

His

comments

to

the Pharisees

as

indicating that the clean

unclean distinction of meats

was

no longer in effect.

And He said to them, "Are

you too

so

uncomprehending?

Do

you not see that whatever

goes into the man from outside

caunot defile him; because it

goes not into his heart, but into

his stomach, and

is

eliminated?"

(Thus He declared all foods

mnJ And He was saying,

"That which proceeds out of the

man, that

is

what defiles the

man."- Mark 7:18-20

From Jesus' words Mark

deduced. literally. This He said,

cleansing all meats, indicating

that "the ancient ritual prescrip

tions were only a sign of a mote

profound interior purification."

William Lane, MARK,

p.

256.

Therefore, they were

to

serve as

symbols of that purification of the

heart that was promised under

Messiah's Reign, Jeremiah

31

and

Ezekiel 36, until the coming of the

Messiah and Ille New Covenant.

"Hence, all foods, also meat from

ceremonially 'unclean' animals, is

in principle undefiling. Interpret

ers

may

differ on Ille question

exactly when, according

to

God's

will,

Ille

abolition

of

the ceremo

nial laws regarding clean and

unclean went into effect. Did it

take place right now. at

Ille

very

moment when Jesus spoke these

words? Did it occur when Jesus

was crucified? See Colossians

2:

14.

On

Ille day of Pentecost?

Whatever be Ille answer, it

remains true that

in prin iple

all

foods were pronounced clean

here and now." - William

Hendriksen, MARK, p. 282.

THIRD, Ille temporary nature

of Ille

dietary laws

is

seen in

God's calling of Jewish Peter to

bring Ille gospel

of

grace

to

non

Jewish Cornelius in Acts 10:9-

16,28.

And on the next day, as they

were on their way and approach.

ing the city, Peter went up on the

housetop about the sixth hour to

pray. And he became hungry,

and was desiring to eat;

but

while

they were making preparations,

he

fell

into a trance; and he

beheld the sky opened up, and a

certain object like a great sheet

coming down, lowered by four

corners to the ground, and there

were iu it all kinds

of

fonr-footed

animals and crawling creatures

of

the earth and birds of the air.

And a voice came to him,

"Arise, Peter, kill and eat " But

Peter said, "By no means, Lord,

for I have never eaten anything

unholy and unclean." And again

a voice came to him a second

time, "What God has cleansed,

no longer consider unholy." And

this happened three times; and

immediately the object was

taken up into the sky. - And

he said to them, ''You yourselves

know how unlawful it is for a

man who

is

a Jew to associate

Witll

a foreigner

or

to visit him;

and yet God has shown me that I

should not call any man unholy

r

unclean.

The Lord

is

teaching Peter a

lesson he found difficult

to

learn,

Galatians

2:

14.

The gospel of

Christ is not

to

be confined

to

Ille

Jews-For

God so loved the

world

.

, Jolm 3:16, nor is mem

bership in the

Church-in

Christ

there

is

neither

Jew

nor

Greek, Galatians 3 28. Or to use

Peter's own words, showing that

he understood the point of

Ille

sheet coming down out of heaven

and the command of

God-God

has shown me that I shonld

not

call any

man unholy or un

clean.

God made this point to Peter

dramatically and convincingly as

Ille

record in Acts

10

shows. He

commanded Peter to eat indis

criminately from the animals in

the sheet, whether they were

clean or unclean-Arise, Peter,

kill and eat. At first Peter

refused telling Ille Lord that he

had never eaten any foods prohib

ited

by

the dietary laws. There

fore God spoke directly to him

and said: What God has

cleansed, no longer consider

nnholy. Obviously Ille sheet and

the voice that came to Peter in a

trance were meant to make a

point: the gospel is to be offered

indiscriminately

to

all peoples.

However, two aspects of this

divine instruction must

be

empha

sized:

I).

God did command

Peter to eat the unclean meats;

and (2). God did tell Peter that He

had cleansed the unclean meats

and Illey were no longer unclean

or unholy,

i e

no longer prohib

ited.

t

is interesting also to note

that while some Christians today

command us r advise us not t

eat unclean meats, God com

manded Peter to eat Illem

n his effort

to

con vince his

readers that Ille dietary laws are

valid for today, R.J. Rushdoony,

for whom I have great respect,

says this about Acts

10:

"Acts 10

is commonly cited as abolishing

the old dietary restrictions. There

is no

reason for Illis opinion.

Peter's vision did not instruct him

to eat pork, dogs, cats, or the

like: it prepared him for Ille

comiog

of

Cornelius' servants.

The Gentiles were to be received

into the kingdom ... Peter did not

see the meaning of the vision

as

a

pernlission

to

eat forbidden

foods ...There is no evidence in

the chapter that the vision had

anything to do with diet; it did

have everylliing

to

do with the

Great Commission and the

December, 1998 January, 1999 THE COUNSEL

ofChalcedon-7


5/6

admission of Gentiles into Ute

kingdom. - THE INSTITUTES

OF BIBLICAL

LAW,

p. 301.

Rtishdoony is correct on two

points. The point of Ute vision

was to prepare Peter for Ute

coming of Cornelius's servant and

Utat its primary concern was in

teaching Peter

Ute

true

meaning

of

Ute

Great Commission and Ute

truth about the admission

of

Gentiles into Ute church by

faiUt

in

Christ. However, he is mis

taken when he writes

Utat

Peter's vision did not instruct

him to eat pork.. . God most

dermitely did instruct and com

mand Peter to eat whatever meat

was in the Sheet. clean or un-

clean.

Peter's

iJ1itial refusal of

God's command reveals

Utat

he

is appalled at Ute divine command

which

is

an implied contradiction

of the dietary laws of Leviticus

and Deuteronomy. Aod God's

answer confirmed Peter's suspi

cion by impiying that Ute dietary

laws were no longer in effect

because of divine cleansing.

5

God did not give

Peter-permission

to

eat

forbidden .foods God

commanded him to eat forbidden

fQ.Qdli

What

is

Ute

meaning

of

Ute

phrase,

what

G.od has cleansed,

wiUt reference to unclean meats?

The word here means to pro

nounce clean and to make clean.

And what God

has

cleansed,

Peter is not to pronounce and

make unholy (common). t is

as if He said, What God has

hallowed do not attempt to

unhallow. J.A. Alexander gives

us an excellent explanation of

what is meant by

Utis

vision and

voice:

This reply of Ute unseen speaker .

to Peter's true but proud profession

of Levitical fidelity and stricmess

must have been surprising and at

first confounding' Iilstead of

recognizing his pretensions to the

praise of ceremonial perfection,

Ut

e

person, whose auUtority he had just

acknowledged by addressing im

as Lord, denies

Ute truUt and

value

of the distinction

altogeUter.

It is

not

a mere precaution against error.

in Ute application of the ceremonial

principle but an abrogation

of

the

pOnciPle itself. Peter is not simply

put upon his guard against

the

error

of regarding as unclean, according

to

Ute Jewish standard, what was

really, according to tbat standard,

clean. He is warned against Ute far

worse error

of

continuing to

recognize that standard as itself

obligatory, after it had ceased to be

so. Hitherto Utere had been a

distinction between clean and

unclean,

boUt

in meats and persons.

Henceforth Utere could be none; for

what had been unclean

for

ages by

divine auUtority was now pro

nounced clean

by

the same; and

what had

Utus

been constituted

clean could not be rendered com

mon by

Ute

exercise of any human

power or

auUtority.-

ACTS, pp.

395-96.

FOURTH, Utese dietary laws

symbolized God's choice of Israel

from the Gentiles as we have

seen. WiUt Ute coming of Christ,

salvation in Utis new era is open

to all people wiUtout distinction,

John 12:32. Those laws which

divided mankind into Jew and

Gentile gave way

to

God's greater

purpose: the summing up of all

things in

Christ,

all things in

the heavens

and

things upon

the

earth, Ephesians I :10.

Now

in Christ you who formerly

were

afar off [Ute

Gentiles) have

been brought

near

by the blood

of

Christ.

For He Himself is

our peace, who made both

groups

[Jews and Gentiles) into

one,

and

broke down

the

barrier of the dividing wall,

Ephesians 2:11-22. Thus Ute

distinction between clean and

unclean foods is as obsolete as

the distinction between Jew and

Gentile. - Wenham, LEVITICUS,

NICOT. As Greg Bahnsen

as

written:

The Jews were culturally taught

God's requirements of separation

by

means of certain prohibitions

against

(a)

unclean animals, Lev.

11:147, esp. vs. 44,45; Dt. 14:1-

21;

esp. vs. 2,21; carefully note

Lev.

20:22-26 and

Acts

10:9-43,

and (b) certain

kinds

of mixing,

Lev. 19:1-2,19; Dt. 22:9-11; Note

n

Cor.

6: 14,

17.

Paul's point in

Ephesians 2 is that with

Ute

coming

of Christ this legal system of

NATIONAL separation has been

disengaged; the

Jews

and Gentiles

are NOW brought together in Christ

(2 :11-13) and made fellow-heirs of

salvation (3:1-7). God's require

ment of separation is no longer

national (the shadow) but spiritual

(the reality). The physical separa

tion of Israel. Yahweh's bride,

typified the spiritual separation of

Ute

church, Christ's bride, from

Ute

W1believing world. The ceremonial

(typological) system of ordinances

retains its meaning, but is altered in

its manner of observation.

THEONOMY N CHRISTIAN

ETHICS,

p.

209.

One may ask: How Uten is

Acts

15

: 19-20

to

be understood?

It says: Therefore it is my

judgment that

we

do not

trouble those who

are turnibg

to God from among the Gen

t i l ~ s

but that

we

write

to

them

that they abstain from

things

contaminated by idols and from

fornication and from what is

strangled aDd from blood.

i Acts 15, we have Ute

record of

Ute

J erosalem

presbytery meeting to deal (I)

with Ute Judaizers who were

denying salvation by grace alone

Utrough faiUt in Christ alone, (2)

wiUt Ute fact that many non

Jewish people were coming to

faiUt in Christ and

(3)

wiUt the

conflicts that had arisen between

these Gentile and Jewish Chris

tians concerning

Ute

ceremonial

rituals of

Ute

Old Testament. The

Gentile churches were urged to

respect

th

eir Jewish Christian

broUters and not abuse Uteir

Christian liberty. But it was also

8 -THE COUNSEL ofChalcedon - December, 1998 - January, 1999


6/6

made abundantly clear that the

Gentile Christians were not

subject to tlle ceremonial aspects

of tlle Mosaic legislation. As J.A.

Alexander has explained:

The Western churches, both

reformed and unrefonned, adhere,

Widl

individual exceptions, 10 the

doctrine

of

Augustine, that the

prohibition

was

prudential and

temporary, founded on no natural

necessity or principle, the Old

Testanlent restriction having ceased

with tite sacrificial services

to

which it had relation, and the

one

before

us

being merely

an

expedient

for maintaining peace between

converted Jews and Gentiles,

during the anomalous

and doubtful

interval between

Ihe

organization of

Ihe Christian Church and the

outward as well

as

inward abroga

tion of Ihe Jewish one." J.

A.

AJexander,

ACTS

. .

Whetller or not tite decree

given at the Jerusalem presbytery

is of binding force on Ihe church

of

all ages is still not a settled

matter in the Reformed chnrches.

Some think that Ue prohibition of

drinking blood is rooted in the

pre-Mosaic period during the days

of

NOall,

Genesis 9:4; and Ihere

fore tl,at it does not disappear

with tlle passing of the Levitical

sacrificial system.

FIFTH, the apostle Paul refers

to the passing

auUlOrity of

the Old

Testanlent ceremonial laws in I

TimoU1Y 4:1-5, Romans 14:14-15

and Colossians 2:20-23.

I know and am convinced

in

the Lord

Tesus

that nothing

js

unclean in itself; but to him who

thinks

anything to be unclean, to

him i t is unclean. For if because

of

food your brother is

hurt,

you

are

no

longer walking according

to love.

Do

not destroy with your

food him for whom Christ died,

Romans 14:14-15.

In Romans 14, Paul exhorts

titose who are strong in the faith

not to be judgmental and intpa

tient with those who are weak

and immature in tlte faith. The

strong are to treat the weak in

such a way that their actions and

attitudes do not become an

occasion of falling into sin for

Ulem

. What Paul is condemning

is

Ule

inconsiderateness

Umt

discards the religious interests

of

the weak."- John Murray, RO

MANS, NICNT, Vol. II, p. 188.

Some weak and immature

Jewish converts to Christ had a

difficult tinte disentangling

Ulemselves from Old Testatnent

dietary laws. "The conviction

underlying abstinence from

certain foods and drinks was tltat

these things were intrinsically evil

and that the use

of them for titese

purposes was defiling and con

trary to tite morals which should

govern Christians. The apostle

sets forth the biblical principle

U18t

notlting is unclean of it

seIL. -

John Murray,

Vol.

II,

p.

188.

That "nothing is unclean of

itself' is

Ihe

justification

of

Ule

belief entertained

by Ihe

strong lhat

he may eat all tltings, vs. 2, and is

the reason

why

abstinence on he

part

of

some is due 10 weakness

of

faith. This principle is Ihe refuta

tion of all prohibitionism which lays

Ihe

responsibility for wrong at the

door

of

things rather Ihan at man's

heart. The basic evil of his e hic

is

tllat it makes God

Ih

e Creator

responsible and involves bolh

blasphemy and the attempt

to

al1eviate human responsibility for

wrong.

t

was necessary for the

apostle

to

preface his plea

to

the

strong with the insistence

Umt

noUling

is unclean of itself. Olher

wise the plea would lose its charac

ter as one based entirely upon

consideration for

Ule

religious

interests

of

the weak. - Though

nothing is unclean of itself, it does

not follow Ihat every

Uling

is

clean

for every one.

TItis if Ihe

force of

Ule

latter part of verse

14.

The

conviction of each person must be

taken into account. - There

is

nothing unclean of itself; dtis is a

proposition that is absolutely and

universally

true

and there is

no

e>lception.

But it is also true tllat

not

al1

have sufficient faith

to

know

Ulis.- Jolm Mnnay,

Vol.

II, p. 189.

In conclusion, let us take heed

to Paul's warning and instruction

in I

TimoUIY

4:1-5-But

the

Spirit

explicitly says

that

in

later

times

some

will fall

away

from

the

faith, paying atten

tion to deceitful

spirits and

doctrines of demons, by means

of

the

hypocrisy

of

liars

seared

in

their

own couscience as with

a

branding

iron, men who

forbid marriage and

adyocate

abstaining from

foods. which

God

has

created to he grate

fully shared in by those who

heUeye and know

the

truth.

For

everything

created

by

God

is

good. and nothing is to

be

rejected,

if it

is received

with

gratitude: for it

is

sanctified

by means of

the

word

of

God

and

prayer.

1

For a careful distinction between God's

moral Jaws and His ceremonial rituals see

Grea Bahnsen. THEONOMY IN CHRIS

TIAN ETHICS, pp. 209. 214215.

2 "There was nothing intrinsically evil

or

unclean in any food; there was only

tempor ry undeanlless as tempo

rary as

the covenantal status

of

the boundaries

of

Promised Land."- North, LEVITICUS,

p.

346.

, "Preaching is the

N.T.equivruent of

all the 'ceremonial' laws of the O.T."

James Jordan, "

111e

Djetary Laws of

Scripture: Their Meaning for Today

.

"'Dlese bws marked off

th

e Israelites

gastronomically, just as circumcision marked

tllem off physiologically .. . Gary

Nort11,

LEVITICUS,

p. 344.

s

nle word. kill, in

God's

command

to

Peter to

arise

.. kill

and eat

denotes

sacrificial slaying,

or

the act

of

killing

with

a reference to some religious putpose.

The

use of tllis significant expression, which is

not to be

f;1ilU ed

or

explained aw

ay

without

necessity, shows that the following

command (and eat) refers not merely to

the satisfaction of

the

appetite, but to those

cerem9nial restrictions, under which Ole law

of Moses pliced

the

Jews, both

in

their

worship and in their daily use of necessary

food. As i the voice had said, 'From

among these animals select thy offering

of

thy food, without regard to the distinction

between clean and unclean ... J.A.

Alexander.

ACTS,

p. 394.

December, 1998 - January, 1999 -

THE

COUNSEL ofChalcedon - 9

Documents

1999 Issue 1 - Old Testament Dietary Laws - Counsel of Chalcedon