View
217
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
8/12/2019 1999 Issue 1 - Old Testament Dietary Laws - Counsel of Chalcedon
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
8/12/2019 1999 Issue 1 - Old Testament Dietary Laws - Counsel of Chalcedon
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
8/12/2019 1999 Issue 1 - Old Testament Dietary Laws - Counsel of Chalcedon
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
8/12/2019 1999 Issue 1 - Old Testament Dietary Laws - Counsel of Chalcedon
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
8/12/2019 1999 Issue 1 - Old Testament Dietary Laws - Counsel of Chalcedon
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
Recommended