Making sense of the Dietary Rules

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Making sense of the Dietary Rules

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

Some of the relevant passages of the Bible:
Genesis 7:1-3 wrote:[font=Georgia]Then the Lord said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time. You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.[/font]

This passage shows that the concept of unclean food comes before the giving of the Law to the Jews. Therefore, dismissing all of the dietary restrictions based on the idea that they were only for the Jews is not valid Biblically.
Leviticus 11 wrote:[font=Georgia]The Lord spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever divides a hoof, thus making split hoofs, and chews the cud, among the animals, that you may eat. Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you. Likewise, the shaphan, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you; and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you. You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

‘These you may eat, whatever is in the water: all that have fins and scales, those in the water, in the seas or in the rivers, you may eat. But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you, and they shall be abhorrent to you; you may not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses you shall detest. Whatever in the water does not have fins and scales is abhorrent to you.

‘These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the kite and the falcon in its kind, every raven in its kind, and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.

‘All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you. Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. These of them you may eat: the locust in its kinds, and the devastating locust in its kinds, and the cricket in its kinds, and the grasshopper in its kinds. But all other winged insects which are four-footed are detestable to you.

‘By these, moreover, you will be made unclean: whoever touches their carcasses becomes unclean until evening, and whoever picks up any of their carcasses shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. Concerning all the animals which divide the hoof but do not make a split hoof, or which do not chew cud, they are unclean to you: whoever touches them becomes unclean. Also whatever walks on its paws, among all the creatures that walk on all fours, are unclean to you; whoever touches their carcasses becomes unclean until evening, and the one who picks up their carcasses shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening; they are unclean to you.

‘Now these are to you the unclean among the swarming things which swarm on the earth: the mole, and the mouse, and the great lizard in its kinds, and the gecko, and the crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand reptile, and the chameleon. These are to you the unclean among all the swarming things; whoever touches them when they are dead becomes unclean until evening. Also anything on which one of them may fall when they are dead becomes unclean, including any wooden article, or clothing, or a skin, or a sack—any article of which use is made—it shall be put in the water and be unclean until evening, then it becomes clean. As for any earthenware vessel into which one of them may fall, whatever is in it becomes unclean and you shall break the vessel. Any of the food which may be eaten, on which water comes, shall become unclean, and any liquid which may be drunk in every vessel shall become unclean. Everything, moreover, on which part of their carcass may fall becomes unclean; an oven or a stove shall be smashed; they are unclean and shall continue as unclean to you. Nevertheless a spring or a cistern collecting water shall be clean, though the one who touches their carcass shall be unclean. If a part of their carcass falls on any seed for sowing which is to be sown, it is clean. Though if water is put on the seed and a part of their carcass falls on it, it is unclean to you.

‘Also if one of the animals dies which you have for food, the one who touches its carcass becomes unclean until evening. He too, who eats some of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening, and the one who picks up its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.

‘Now every swarming thing that swarms on the earth is detestable, not to be eaten. Whatever crawls on its belly, and whatever walks on all fours, whatever has many feet, in respect to every swarming thing that swarms on the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are detestable. Do not render yourselves detestable through any of the swarming things that swarm; and you shall not make yourselves unclean with them so that you become unclean. For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth. For I am the Lord who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.’�

This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the edible creature and the creature which is not to be eaten.
[/font]
Here they are in some detail. The rules about what is clean and unclean is a whole lot more involved than, "Don't eat pork and shellfish. "
Mark 7:18-19 wrote:[font=Georgia]And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?� (Thus He declared all foods clean.)[/font]

Jesus comes along and says something completely different; something that makes sense.
Acts 10:10-16,28,34-43 wrote:[font=Georgia]But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!� But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.� Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.� 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 with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.
[...]
Opening his mouth, Peter said:

“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)— you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.�
[/font]
Admittedly, this passage is not primarily about the removal of food restrictions, but uses that removal as a metaphor of the Christian view of the universality of God. Their God is no longer to be viewed as a tribal god. However, this passage makes no sense if the food restrictions had not been removed.

Paul recapitulates what Jesus said about food, twice.
Romans 14:14 wrote:[font=Georgia]I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.[/font]
1 Timothy 4:4-5 wrote:[font=Georgia]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.[/font]
Question for debate: In what way does this make sense? Why would God provide dietary restrictions on Noah and his descendents, clarify and perhaps amplify them for Moses then remove them altogether when he comes in person?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

KCKID
Guru
Posts: 1535
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:29 pm
Location: Townsville, Australia

Post #21

Post by KCKID »

bluethread wrote: Well, this thread has taken some interesting turns. The OP inquires regarding the purpose of the so called "dietary laws" and reconciling them with various Apostolic passages. Yet, just when I was getting to the part that applies the terms "clean" and "unclean" to various meats, we have the introduction of a replacement for that passage and the topic of homosexuality.

If it is indeed true that there must be more to these designations than what is and is not acceptable in the eyes of Adonai, maybe we should examine Lev. 11 and see if that was the case when meats were first referred to as "clean" and "unclean", with regard to their consumption. Also, though homosexuality is a controversial topic, I am reluctant to consider it appropriate to include it in a discussion of "clean and unclean meats".

Have we all grown tired of the OP so quickly? If so there is no reason to proceed. However, it would be nice to get the issue of "clean and unclean meats" cleared up, primarily because it seems to be thrown out quite often by detractors who appear to have little interest beyond ridiculing what they do not understand.
Why start a new thread simply to ask cnorman's perspective on an item already alluded to in his broad description of those Leviticus texts? It seems quite appropriate. Once cnorman responds - if he responds - I'll leave it at that and not attempt to derail the thread subject any further.

KCKID
Guru
Posts: 1535
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:29 pm
Location: Townsville, Australia

Post #22

Post by KCKID »

It was this . . .

Some laws, notably the prohibition against "lying with a man as with a woman," probably did not then have the same significance that we give them today--in that case, a prohibition against homosexuality. The Torah does not seem to be aware, so to speak, of homosexuality as a sexual orientation or a lifestyle choice as we are today; there is no indication of that anywhere. The reference most probably was referring to homosexual anal rape as a kind of formal degradation and humiliation of an enemy after defeating him, in war or perhaps in personal combat. Certainly there doesn't seem to have ever been a prosecution under that statute.

. . .from cnorman's post that prompted me into presenting that video and asking for cnorman's 'Torah perspective' on it. I apologize if my question is inappropriate with regard to the discussion at hand.

cnorman18

Post #23

Post by cnorman18 »

KCKID wrote: [Replying to post 7 by cnorman18]

That was most interesting, cnorman. Since you appear to be quite knowledgeable of the Torah, I wonder if you would spend 8:28 of your time and view the below video entitled The Truth About Leviticus & Homosexuality ...?

Since I'm a defender on this forum of those that appear to be 'born' homosexual but are nevertheless condemned by many present-day Christians, it's essential to me that I speak as accurately as I'm able whenever I debate the 'clobber' passages of Leviticus (and other allegedly anti-gay scriptures) with others.




Would you say that the 'explanations' of the Leviticus 'clobber' passages as given in the video to be at least feasible based on what you know?
I watched the video, and it's quite good. A trifle oversimplified when it comes to discussing other religions of the Bronze Age -- they weren't ALL obsessed with fertility rites and so on, and there were other contexts for "gay sex" as well, e.g. homosexual anal rape as a formal humiliation in war or feud -- but the analysis of the language of the Hebrew Bible is right on the money.

As I said, the Bible does not seem to be "aware," so to speak, of homosexuality as a sexual orientation; the reason the ACT is the point of reference is that it never occurred to the writers that anyone would do this because they WANTED to, or that one could be attracted to the same sex and want to live in a gay relationship.

Whatever. The fact is, we know things now that we didn't then, and the world is different. How many rules can one find in the Hebrew Bible that are no longer kept, or even understood in today's world? I eat shellfish, and often; I eat pork, I wear mixed fabrics, and when I had a garden I planted different crops together because they enriched the soil and kept the pests off each other. Anybody wearing a cotton/polyester shirt with clams or shrimp on his breath who points to these so-called "Clobber Passages" is either (a) ignorant or (b) a flaming hypocrite. I've got no patience for people who want to tell me that they "chose" to be straight and that gays can "choose" to change. That's nonsense.

Proof? Okay. CHOOSE TO BE GAY. Right now. You don't have to DO anything about it, mind; just CHOOSE to feel attracted to the other sex.

Can't be done.

My converting rabbi used to say, "If you see something in Torah that you KNOW to be wrong, there are two and only two alternatives. Either you are not reading the Torah properly -- or the Torah is wrong."

Notice that the third alternative, the one most commonly chosen by fundamentalists -- that is, "Discard your own rationality and moral sense in favor of religious dogmatism dictated by a literal reading" -- is not available to us. We are NOT allowed to stop thinking and just do as we're told. Not EVER. The Bible doesn't interpret itself, and even if it did, OUR MINDS STILL WORK. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO.

As I've said elsewhere; a literal reading disfigures and denigrates the Bible. In the mouths of fundamentalists, it does that inadvertently; they make the book look stupid and wrong by using it to support stupid and wrong views. Atheists use literal readings to make the book look stupid and wrong too, only they do it on purpose: "Look at all these horrible massacres!" as if they really happened and must have been approved by God because they're so presented, never mind that Moses sometimes defied God's orders and Abraham even argued with him. These things aren't as simple as BOTH sides try to portray them. The Bible isn't a comic book; it's ancient literature, and it's DIFFERENT.

Either way: The meaning of Scripture doesn't lie on the surface, and we're still obligated to use our brains and remember that these documents are thousands of years old. It's not rational to dismiss them entirely, but it's even less rational to follow them without engaging a few brain cells -- not to mention some human compassion and empathy -- of our own.

KCKID
Guru
Posts: 1535
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:29 pm
Location: Townsville, Australia

Post #24

Post by KCKID »

cnorman18 wrote:
KCKID wrote: [Replying to post 7 by cnorman18]

That was most interesting, cnorman. Since you appear to be quite knowledgeable of the Torah, I wonder if you would spend 8:28 of your time and view the below video entitled The Truth About Leviticus & Homosexuality ...?

Since I'm a defender on this forum of those that appear to be 'born' homosexual but are nevertheless condemned by many present-day Christians, it's essential to me that I speak as accurately as I'm able whenever I debate the 'clobber' passages of Leviticus (and other allegedly anti-gay scriptures) with others.




Would you say that the 'explanations' of the Leviticus 'clobber' passages as given in the video to be at least feasible based on what you know?
I watched the video, and it's quite good. A trifle oversimplified when it comes to discussing other religions of the Bronze Age -- they weren't ALL obsessed with fertility rites and so on, and there were other contexts for "gay sex" as well, e.g. homosexual anal rape as a formal humiliation in war or feud -- but the analysis of the language of the Hebrew Bible is right on the money.

As I said, the Bible does not seem to be "aware," so to speak, of homosexuality as a sexual orientation; the reason the ACT is the point of reference is that it never occurred to the writers that anyone would do this because they WANTED to, or that one could be attracted to the same sex and want to live in a gay relationship.

Whatever. The fact is, we know things now that we didn't then, and the world is different. How many rules can one find in the Hebrew Bible that are no longer kept, or even understood in today's world? I eat shellfish, and often; I eat pork, I wear mixed fabrics, and when I had a garden I planted different crops together because they enriched the soil and kept the pests off each other. Anybody wearing a cotton/polyester shirt with clams or shrimp on his breath who points to these so-called "Clobber Passages" is either (a) ignorant or (b) a flaming hypocrite. I've got no patience for people who want to tell me that they "chose" to be straight and that gays can "choose" to change. That's nonsense.

Proof? Okay. CHOOSE TO BE GAY. Right now. You don't have to DO anything about it, mind; just CHOOSE to feel attracted to the other sex.

Can't be done.

My converting rabbi used to say, "If you see something in Torah that you KNOW to be wrong, there are two and only two alternatives. Either you are not reading the Torah properly -- or the Torah is wrong."

Notice that the third alternative, the one most commonly chosen by fundamentalists -- that is, "Discard your own rationality and moral sense in favor of religious dogmatism dictated by a literal reading" -- is not available to us. We are NOT allowed to stop thinking and just do as we're told. Not EVER. The Bible doesn't interpret itself, and even if it did, OUR MINDS STILL WORK. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO.

As I've said elsewhere; a literal reading disfigures and denigrates the Bible. In the mouths of fundamentalists, it does that inadvertently; they make the book look stupid and wrong by using it to support stupid and wrong views. Atheists use literal readings to make the book look stupid and wrong too, only they do it on purpose: "Look at all these horrible massacres!" as if they really happened and must have been approved by God because they're so presented, never mind that Moses sometimes defied God's orders and Abraham even argued with him. These things aren't as simple as BOTH sides try to portray them. The Bible isn't a comic book; it's ancient literature, and it's DIFFERENT.

Either way: The meaning of Scripture doesn't lie on the surface, and we're still obligated to use our brains and remember that these documents are thousands of years old. It's not rational to dismiss them entirely, but it's even less rational to follow them without engaging a few brain cells -- not to mention some human compassion and empathy -- of our own.
Thanks very much for the response to my question (re the video) plus a great deal more information. I've certainly learned quite a lot from you on this and other threads. And, I'd like to think that others have too.

Post Reply