Should Christians Obey the Old Testament Dietary Laws....

[Basil the Great]

.... not for moral purposes, but because some contend that these dietary laws were instituted for reasons of health and that obeying them today will improve the life and longevity of Christians? I read an article way back in the 1980's where a Christian contended this very thesis. Thinking about it, modern scientific research seems to have proven that pork is not a healthy food to eat. Hence, perhaps we should consider abiding by the Old Testament dietary laws? What say all of you?

 

[RaymondG]

If one believes that eating pork will cause health issues......for them it will.. Likewise.....if another eats in full confidence...it is unlikely to affect him.

These are decisions that should be made individually... one much be persuaded in his own mind.....for what a man thinketh in his heart.....so is he......and when ye judge(i.e. pork will kill me eventually)......ye are judged.

 

[Residential Bob]

Gotta have my shellfish and my yeast.

 

[step_by_step]

I think that this comes down to personal preference. Personally, my body does better on a vegan, mostly fruit and vegetable based diet. Meat and dairy make me sick. But I have a friend who flourishes on a meat based diet. It really depends on the person. Additionally, pork may have been healthy back in the day but now with all the processing that our meat goes through, it's highly likely that it isn't healthy anymore.

Again, I think it just comes down to what an individual feels is best for them. If God tells us that we ought to live by those rules, then we should. But since I don't think he's made that explicitly clear, I think that we have the freedom to choose our diets ourselves.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Reminds of a thread I have up from some years back.

Romans 14:14,15 Did Paul declare all foods clean?

Did Paul declare all foods clean?
Romans 14:14 I have known and am persuaded in Lord Jesus that nothing unclean thru himself, except to the one accounting any being-unclean/koinon <2839> to be, to that one being-unclean
[Genesis 9:33]
15 and if through victuals<1033> thy brother is grieved, no more dost thou walk according to love; do not with thy victuals destroy that one for whom Christ died.
16 Let not then, your good be evil spoken of,
17 for the reign of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit;
1033. food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonially) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law:--meat, victuals.

Did Paul declare all food clean in Romans 14:14,15?

1. Yes
   44 vote(s)
   61.1%
2. No
   15 vote(s)
   20.8%
3. *
   I am not sure
   4 vote(s)
   5.6%
4. Other
   9 vote(s)
   12.5%

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Gotta have my shellfish and my yeast.

Can't have a burger w/o bacon on it.

I am kind of like Rambo........."eat things that would make a billy goat puke"

........................

 

[tampasteve]

.... not for moral purposes, but because some contend that these dietary laws were instituted for reasons of health and that obeying them today will improve the life and longevity of Christians?

I have read quite a bit on dietary Law, as a Messianic believer it is a constant discussion. In the end the reality is that most of the Law for diet is just because G-d said so. Is it a healthier diet? Sometimes, but then most "Mediterranean" diets are better than most Western diets. But often the Law just was to be followed, to set the people apart.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

.... not for moral purposes, but because some contend that these dietary laws were instituted for reasons of health and that obeying them today will improve the life and longevity of Christians? I read an article way back in the 1980's where a Christian contended this very thesis. Thinking about it, modern scientific research seems to have proven that pork is not a healthy food to eat. Hence, perhaps we should consider abiding by the Old Testament dietary laws? What say all of you?

I don't seem to understand why people would place themselves under the law.

the general principles to figure things out in the New Testament writings are far superior anyway.

 

[Jonaitis]

.... not for moral purposes, but because some contend that these dietary laws were instituted for reasons of health and that obeying them today will improve the life and longevity of Christians? I read an article way back in the 1980's where a Christian contended this very thesis. Thinking about it, modern scientific research seems to have proven that pork is not a healthy food to eat. Hence, perhaps we should consider abiding by the Old Testament dietary laws? What say all of you?

I believe it is smart to take the benefit of those dietary laws, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I am "obeying it" in that case since I am a Gentile (which laws were intended only for OT Jews).

 

[Dkh587]

I made a thread about this a while back, on how eating unclean animals is a work of the flesh.

Check it out:

Eating swine & other unclean animals is a work of the flesh

 

[Strong in Him]

.... not for moral purposes, but because some contend that these dietary laws were instituted for reasons of health and that obeying them today will improve the life and longevity of Christians? I read an article way back in the 1980's where a Christian contended this very thesis. Thinking about it, modern scientific research seems to have proven that pork is not a healthy food to eat. Hence, perhaps we should consider abiding by the Old Testament dietary laws? What say all of you?

They weren't written/given to us, and there is nothing in the NT which says that followers of Jesus NEED to keep them for salvation.
So I don't think it's a matter of having to keep them.

If you believe it's a better diet, or want to follow it for health reasons, there's no harm in it.
It's certainly wrong to impose it on others, though - not that you are doing that.

 

[1213]

.... What say all of you?

I believe it would not be bad as long as the reason is not that person tries to gain forgiveness by doing so.

 

[Der Alte]

In the early 90s I was transferred to Orange county So. Cal. I called the cable company and the cable guy, not Larry, showed up. He had a very distinctive speaking voice. My wife, never shy, mentioned it and told him he should use his voice for the glory of God. He said, "I do. I am the cantor at my synagogue." I had to explain what a synagogue and cantor was. He was a messianic Jew. He had grown up orthodox on the east coast and became a Christian when he went to college in CA. A 45 minute cable install turned into a 1.5 hour fellowship. He said he knew that observing all the feasts, ceremonies etc. were not salvific but as a MJ he continued to observe them in honor of his Jewish heritage. He said his night job, was the radio, TV voice of the San Diego Chargers. As I said a distinctive speaking voice.

 

[Soyeong]

.... not for moral purposes, but because some contend that these dietary laws were instituted for reasons of health and that obeying them today will improve the life and longevity of Christians? I read an article way back in the 1980's where a Christian contended this very thesis. Thinking about it, modern scientific research seems to have proven that pork is not a healthy food to eat. Hence, perhaps we should consider abiding by the Old Testament dietary laws? What say all of you?

Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's Law are inherently moral laws, which means that Christians should obey God's dietary laws for moral purposes.

There are night and day differences between how healthy it is to eat clean and unclean animals and there are an incredible amount of diseases and parasites that have been transferred to humans through eating unclean animals, so it is reasonable to think that health concerns had something to do with it, however, God associated it with his holiness, so there is much more to it than that. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45).

 

[Soyeong]

I don't seem to understand why people would place themselves under the law.

Do you believe God when He said that His Law was given for His people's own good in order to bless us (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13)?

The existence of sin requires there to be a standard of what is and is not sin, and that standard is revealed through God's Law. Gentiles are either under God's Law and are obligated to refrain from sin and are not under God's Law, have no obligation to refrain from sin, and have never needed Jesus to give himself to redeem them from all Lawlessness.

However, God is sovereign, so all Gentiles are under God's Law and are obligated to obey it and to refrain from sin regardless of whether or not they are in a covenant relationship with Him. For example, God judged the world with the Flood for their sins, God will judge the world in Revelation, God threatened to judge Nineveh, and God judged Sodom and Gomorrah for their Lawless deeds (2 Peter 2:6-8). They didn’t get the option to choose whether or not they wanted to be under God’s Law and neither do we. The choice we do get to make is whether or not we are going to heed the Gospel message, repent, and obey.

the general principles to figure things out in the New Testament writings are far superior anyway.

Everything taught in the NT is based upon and in accordance with what was taught in the OT. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul taught against OT Scripture to see whether it was true. About 1/3 of the verses in the NT contain quotes or allusions to the OT and the NT authors did this thousands of times in order to show that it supported what they were saying and that they hadn't departed from it, so they certainly saw the OT as still being authoritative.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Do you believe God when He said that His Law was given for His people's own good in order to bless us (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13)?

The existence of sin requires there to be a standard of what is and is not sin, and that standard is revealed through God's Law. Gentiles are either under God's Law and are obligated to refrain from sin and are not under God's Law, have no obligation to refrain from sin, and have never needed Jesus to give himself to redeem them from all Lawlessness.

However, God is sovereign, so all Gentiles are under God's Law and are obligated to obey it and to refrain from sin regardless of whether or not they are in a covenant relationship with Him. For example, God judged the world with the Flood for their sins, God will judge the world in Revelation, God threatened to judge Nineveh, and God judged Sodom and Gomorrah for their Lawless deeds (2 Peter 2:6-8). They didn’t get the option to choose whether or not they wanted to be under God’s Law and neither do we. The choice we do get to make is whether or not we are going to heed the Gospel message, repent, and obey.



Everything taught in the NT is based upon and in accordance with what was taught in the OT. In Acts 17:11, the Bereans were praised because they diligently tested everything that Paul taught against OT Scripture to see whether it was true. About 1/3 of the verses in the NT contain quotes or allusions to the OT and the NT authors did this thousands of times in order to show that it supported what they were saying and that they hadn't departed from it, so they certainly saw the OT as still being authoritative.

Good to see you again, blessings.

In general, the New Testament teachings are the teachings of the Light that was casting the shadow that is the Old Testament teachings. The hint in your post is "this law that I give you today for your good" in Romans 13 the general principle is given that if it causes harm, it's not of love, Romans 14 provides further explanation that anything that is not of faith is sin. In the same way that you cannot remove my shadow from me on a sunny day, the references to the shadow in the old testament will remain.

The point of the law is to see how it points to Jesus and move on to his superior teachings.

 

[FireDragon76]

I have read quite a bit on dietary Law, as a Messianic believer it is a constant discussion. In the end the reality is that most of the Law for diet is just because G-d said so. Is it a healthier diet? Sometimes, but then most "Mediterranean" diets are better than most Western diets. But often the Law just was to be followed, to set the people apart.

It's about separating the world into symbolic categories, that is obvious from study and familiarity with similar purity laws in other cultures. Categorization and ritual is one way people often manage existential anxiety.

There is no good evidence that modern pork producing methods are inadequate- pork in the US does not harbor significant amounts of disease and all pork must be inspected. In some parts of the world, people would be deprived of substantial amounts of calories if all "unclean" food were forbidden.

In addition, defamation of food and produce can have associated civil penalties in the US, because food producers do not take kindly to having their products maligned and their business threatened. So I think this would be a case of sticking to the actual scientific evidence, and not heresay.

 

[Soyeong]

Good to see you again, blessings.

In general, the New Testament teachings are the teachings of the Light that was casting the shadow that is the Old Testament teachings. The hint in your post is "this law that I give you today for your good" in Romans 13 the general principle is given that if it causes harm, it's not of love, Romans 14 provides further explanation that anything that is not of faith is sin. In the same way that you cannot remove my shadow from me on a sunny day, the references to the shadow in the old testament will remain.

The point of the law is to see how it points to Jesus and move on to his superior teachings.

Hello, good to speak with you again too.

The OT is full of important foreshadows that teach us about Christ and about God's plan of redemption. The light of Christ brings full substance to the foreshadows so that we can fully see what God was teaching us through them, which make them all the more important to continue to observe in remembrance of him. For example, 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul spoke in regard to how Passover foreshadowed Christ by drawing the connection of him being our Passover Lamb, however, instead of concluding that we no longer need to bother keeping Passover now that Christ has come, he concluded that we should therefore continue to keep the Feast.

In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law and obedience to God's instructions is straightforwardly about depending on Him to guide us, so God's Law is of faith, and whatever is not of faith is sin, just sin is defined as the transgression of God's Law (1 John 3:4).

The Law points us to Christ because it is all about him, how to act like him, and how to have a relationship with him based on faith and love. If what Jesus taught was different from what the Father taught, then that would mean that Jesus was in disagreement with the Father about what conduct we should have, but I see no indication of this. On the contrary, in John 14:23-24, Jesus said that if we love him, then we will obey his teachings, if we don't love him, then we will not obey his teachings, and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so if we love Jesus, then we will obey what the Father has taught. Jesus was sinless, so he set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and he did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:3-6).

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Hello, good to speak with you again too.

The OT is full of important foreshadows that teach us about Christ and about God's plan of redemption. The light of Christ brings full substance to the foreshadows so that we can fully see what God was teaching us through them, which make them all the more important to continue to observe in remembrance of him. For example, 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, Paul spoke in regard to how Passover foreshadowed Christ by drawing the connection of him being our Passover Lamb, however, instead of concluding that we no longer need to bother keeping Passover now that Christ has come, he concluded that we should therefore continue to keep the Feast.

In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law and obedience to God's instructions is straightforwardly about depending on Him to guide us, so God's Law is of faith, and whatever is not of faith is sin, just sin is defined as the transgression of God's Law (1 John 3:4).

The Law points us to Christ because it is all about him, how to act like him, and how to have a relationship with him based on faith and love. If what Jesus taught was different from what the Father taught, then that would mean that Jesus was in disagreement with the Father about what conduct we should have, but I see no indication of this. On the contrary, in John 14:23-24, Jesus said that if we love him, then we will obey his teachings, if we don't love him, then we will not obey his teachings, and that his teachings were not his own, but that of the Father, so if we love Jesus, then we will obey what the Father has taught. Jesus was sinless, so he set a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law and he did not hypocritically preach something other than what he practiced, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:3-6).

I've noticed a number of passages where the Pharisees asked him why he did stuff or didn't do stuff, and it seems that there was a higher principle underlying the law, and that is the basis of New Testament understanding. That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Soyeong]

I've noticed a number of passages where the Pharisees asked him why he did stuff or didn't do stuff, and it seems that there was a higher principle underlying the law, and that is the basis of New Testament understanding. That's how I see it anyway.

I agree that there a deeper underlying principles to the Law, though I would say that those principles have always been there and that Jesus was certainly not the first to expound upon them. There are more ways to do what is righteous or sinful than the Law specifically prescribes or prohibits, but the Law is spiritual in that it has always been intended to teach us deeper spiritual principles of which the listed laws are just example, which which are the character traits of God, such as holiness, righteousness, goodness, justice, mercy, faithfulness, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control. Jesus expressed these character traits through his actions and what that looked like was complete obedience to the Mosaic Law, so that is what it should look like when he is living in us. Our sanctification is about being made to be more like Christ, to have and to express the same character traits.

So when we correctly understand a spiritual principle, then it will lead us to take actions that are examples of that principle in accordance with what the Law instructs. Likewise, when we have a character trait, then we will express it through our actions, so when God imputes His righteousness to us and declares us to be righteous, He is also declaring us to be someone who therefore expresses His righteousness through our actions in accordance with His instructions for how to do that found in His Law. In other words, the reason that we have received the righteousness of God was not in order to hide it under a bushel, but in order to let it shine through our obedience (Matthew 5:13-16). So the reason that we are to do what is righteous in obedience to the Law is not in order to become righteous, but because we have been declared to be righteous.

If Jesus had wanted to argue matters of halakhah with the Pharisees, then he could have done that. For example:

Shabbat 128a And one may pick them with his hand and eat, as long as he does not pick them with a vessel. And one may crush and remove the seeds with his hand and eat them, as long as he does not crush a lot with a vessel; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: One may crush them only with the ends of his fingers, in an atypical manner, as long as he does not crush a lot with his hand in the manner that he does during the week.

So when Jesus was in the grainfields with his disciples and being questioned by the Pharisees, he could have debated with them the correct way to walk out the Torah if he had wanted to, but he always went to the heart of the matter.