Are the Old TeStament

Binding Qn the
Christian 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 the 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 expressly historical:
honoring the fulfillmerit of 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
Dietary Lavvs
Levitical ioheritance laws
ceased: .. the dietary laws
also ceased.
Their ethical, judicial,
and geographical holioess
was to be manifested by
what 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
An 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 them 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
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
Noah to take more
animals on the ark than
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, it 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.
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). If 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
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 tIiem 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 of
health.' To misunderstand this is
LO misunderstand covenant
tbeology. To deny Ibis is LO deny
covenant theology and replace it
with 'taste not-touch not' reli-
gion, [Colossians 2:20-23]."-
LEVITICUS: AN ECONOMIC
COMMENTARY, p. 343.
(5). If 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 <tlld specifically. the vital truth of the
Spiritual sanctification of God's people by
which lIe savingly separates them from
and He and the New
Covenant are superior
to the Levitical
priesthood and its
ceremonies. In fact,
now that the "sub-
stance" of these
"shadows" has
appeared, the "shad-
th is condemned world of rebels and
consecrates them to Hilllself. '
ows" pass ' off the
scene, and to return And as Henry
Krabbendam has written in his
class notes on Leviticus:
The principle of discrimination
between clean and unclean is !lQl
evolutionistic (demonism and
totemism) or secUlaristic (hygiene,
economics, sociology) or cu1tic
(piety and elbics). Just as tbe
funeral customs ought to reflect
!bat Israel's God is a God of life, so
tbe usage of clean food only
syritbolizes the bright outlook for
the people of God. Clean food
stands for life, light and hope.
Unclean food siands for death,
darkness and despair. After the
resurrection of Christ-THE
evidence of life-tbe "Shadow"
symbols lose their importance:
Acts 10:9-16, Colossians 2:16-17.
After reminding us tbat the
Jesus would never have pro-
nounced aU these foods clean in
His day-And He said to tbem,
"Are you too so uncompre-
hending? Do you not see 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.)- Mark
7:18-19.
THE DISENGAGING OF THE
DIETARY LAWS WTIH CHRIST
Furtbermore, tbe New Testa-
ment clearly teaches that these
Old Testament dietary laws are
disengaged since the deatb and
resurrection of Christ, and
therefore Christians are neither
commanded nor advised to keep
to them as obligatory or advisory
is to cast suspicion upon the
superiority of the crucified,
resurrected, exalted Christ.
The Holy Spirit is signifying
this, that the way into the holy
place has not yet been disclosed,
while the m[ler [literal] tabernacle
is still standing; which is i!.
symbol for the time then
present. according to which botb
gifts and sacrifices are offered
which cannot make tbe wor-
shiper perfect in conscience,
since they relate only to food and
drink and various washings.
regulations for the body imposed
until a time of reformation. But
when Christ appeared as a high
priest of the good things to come,
He entered through' the greater
and more perfect tabernacle, not
6 - THE COUNSEL of Cbalcedon - December, 1998 - January, 1999
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 principle 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
or 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. It is interesting also to note
that while some Christians today
command us or advise us not to
eat unclean meats, God com-
manded Peter to eat Illem!
In 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
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)." It 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, Ute
person, whose auUtority he had just
acknowledged by addressing Him
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 IN 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.
IiI 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 their Jewish Christian
broUters and not abuse Uteir
Christian liberty. But it was also
8 - THE COUNSEL ofChalcedon - December, 1998 - January, 1999
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 Ule 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 it 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 Ihe Creator
responsible and involves bolh
blasphemy and the attempt to
al1eviate human responsibility for
wrong. It 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
temporary undeanlless-as temporary 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 the Israelites
gastronomically, just as circumci sion marked
tllem off physiologically ... .,. Gary Nort11,
LEVITICUS, p. 344.
s nle word. kill, in God's command to
Peter t o 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 away 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 if 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