Foundations of our Faith: Food Laws

Foundations of our Faith  •  Sermon  •  Submitted
0 ratings
· 20 views
Notes
Transcript
To view this teaching on YouTube: https://youtu.be/6ijMWdJOjR8
Shabbat shalom everyone. Once again, we’re working on stepping through our foundations series here, week after week. Again I would like to remind everyone of Hebrews 6:1, which speaks of moving on from the basic things, and not laying again a foundation of the basic elements of the faith. But since we are a new fellowship, before we can “move on” from the foundation…well…we first have to lay it in the first place. Amein? So once again, that’s what we’re doing.
So to quickly recap here:
Week 1, I spoke about identity. Who we are as believers. Are we Christian, are we Messianic, are those two things just synonyms, or do they mean something different? What does it mean to be made in the image of God? We have that teaching available on our website, so feel free to check that out if you missed it.
Week 2, Jeff taught about the Gospel, the Good News. What exactly is the Gospel? Is it just asking Jesus into your heart, so that when you die, you can go to heaven? Is there more to it than that? What does it mean when we read that Yeshua proclaimed the Gospel of the Kingdom?
Week 3 was back to me again. I taught about the Sabbath, about work, about rest. We talked about the Saturday-to-Sunday transition, as well as some pratctical advice regarding the do’s and don’ts of Shabbat. I then taught the next day about Shavuot, and about the significance of the day. Both when the Torah was given, as well as when the Holy Spirit descended.
Last week was week 4, and Jeff put together a pretty comprehensive sermon about tithes and offerings. About how tithing is, at its core, an act of worship. We don’t give money to our local congregation simply because we have been guilted into counting up exactly 10% of our net (or gross, depending on who you ask) income. We give - and we should do so cheerfully - as an act of worship.
So that’s sort of the 2-minute snapshot catching us up to today’s topic. Again, if you missed any of the prior teachings, they can be found on the website, nrfcommunity.org, as well as on YouTube. Today’s should make it up, hopefully, by this time next week. Though I can’t make any promises, since I am extremely busy these days.
If you would, if you’ve got a Bible today, turn to Lev. 11. For today’s topic, we’ll be covering the topic of the dietary laws. Really quick, I would note a matter of semantics. People often refer to the dietary laws as kosher food laws. But this is technically a misnomer. In fact, the word kosher and its derivative form kashrut are not found in the Torah, nor anywhere in the Tanakh. We do find the root word for it, though, which is kasher, once in Esther and twice in Ecclesiastes. This word means proper, or suitable. As such, kosher does not mean “clean” but rather means “fit for use.” This is why you’ll find the kosher label on all sorts of products that have nothing to do with the status of animal meat being clean or unclean. Kosher wine - such as for Passover, ensuring it does not have a sort of leavening agent - kosher pickles, kosher salt, and so on. The term kosher carries a lot of baggage in Judaism, and implies a lot more additional standards than we’ll be looking at here, in terms of clean and unclean animals.
So for today’s topic of study, it will be a bit short overall. Kind of like the Sabbath sermon I gave, this one seems kind of basic, right? Don’t eat pork or shellfish or catfish etc. Pretty simple. So since the topic itself is rather short, I’m going to wade into the waters of apologetics for a little bit. I bet y’all didn’t expect to get a lecture on apologetics today, huh?
Just in case anyone is unclear on the term, apologetics just refers to the defense of your faith. When people engage in an apologetic debate over the existence of God with atheists, for example, they are arguing that God does exist, and they are defending that belief. They are practicing apologetics.
For today’s topic, we’re going to go through a number of Scriptures to first of all establish just what Yahweh has to say regarding the dietary instructions. We will then address some supposed proof-texts that many believers today - unfortunately - have been told simply that the dietary instructions have been abrogated, or done away with. For that reason, I’ll be going over some apologetics when it comes to this topic. That sound okay to everyone?

Clean and Unclean

The first thing to establish, as I like to do and you’ve probably noticed, is the definitions we’ll be working with. For this study, that will be two words in particular: clean and unclean.
We find them in various places throughout Scripture, especially in the passages that pertain to clean and unclean meat.
The word for “clean” is tahar.
Tahar (תהר)
This word is pretty simply defined as “clean.” That’s why virtually all Bible translations will use the same term, clean, for it. In some cases, it is translated as “pure.” It conveys a sense of something being without defect, or impurity. We find the word used along with zahav, meaning “gold” in Exodus 25:24. That is, “pure gold.” The sort which is without material impurity.
Tamei (תמא)
The word tamei means unclean and, rather simply, is the antonym of tahar. It means impure, unclean. It is a word found more in Leviticus than in any other book of the Bible.
In Leviticus 10, we find the incident of Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu being killed for offering “strange fire.” We aren’t explicitly told just what they did or what made it strange. Some scholars speculate that it could be because it was offered in a way that was strange ie. foreign, such as a way that they had learned in Egypt. Others assert that the two had become drunk, and had tried to offer incense at a time when it was not mandated. This theory states that they did so, because they were inebriated and were unaware of the timing. This theory comes from verse 8, which has Yahweh warning Aaron not to drink any alcohol when he enters the tent of meeting. A warning that doesn’t make a lot of sense, unless it were related to the incident that had just taken place.
Regardless of the reason why these men were killed, the verses immediately following, at Lev. 10:8-11, relate that the priests were tasked with making a distinction between the holy and the profane. These two words are then paralleled with clean and unclean.

8ADONAI spoke to Aaron saying: 9“Do not drink wine or fermented drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, so that you do not die. This is to be a statute forever throughout your generations. 10You are to make a distinction between the holy and the common and between the unclean and the clean. 11And you are to teach Bnei-Yisrael all the statutes which ADONAI has spoken to them through Moses.”

Our very next chapter after this incident, happens to be Lev. 11, where we find the dietary laws. So already, before we even get to the laws about clean and unclean animals, we find a very strong warning: we are to understand the difference between clean and unclean.

Leviticus 11

Going into Lev. 11 then, we find what is essentially a list of common clean - and unclean - animals, as the Israelites would have known them. We find this list is obviously not exhaustive, right? There are millions of more types of creatures than are listed in Lev. 11. But to be fair, naming a whole bunch of creatures that the Hebrew people didn’t know existed and didn’t have names for, wouldn’t have done them much good. However, it also lists the guidelines of how to identify even the creatures that it doesn’t name. These are the classifications we get for land animals:
Split hoof
Chews cud
For fish:
Fins
Scales
This does create a couple of oddities. For example, some species of fish have fins and scales, but when they enter adulthood they lose their scales. Are these still fit for use? Are we still able to eat them? When it comes to these sort of disputed things, I first urge people to follow the leading the Holy Spirit. If they feel as though they should abstain from it, then by all means, do so. Many people adopt the “err on the side of caution” sort of response, and I think that’s honorable as well. When it comes to the topic of fish that lose their scales, I also ask a question in turn: if the ancient Hebrews, knowing to look for fins and scales, had caught one, would they have assumed it were unclean? You could say that depends on if they caught a juvenile or an adult. Next question: if it did have scales as a juvenile, you would know it’s acceptable to eat. If it later lost those scales, then either it’s not okay to eat the fish as an adult, or else it’s okay to eat it, even if it lost the scales it had.
Though some of this may be a non-issue, as most of these fish do in fact still have very small scales. I’m just trying to offer a little practical, logical guidance.
For birds:
A principle, more than general rule, of no carrion fowl
Birds are, actually, the most debated ones here. There are some people who eat duck, for example, and others who do not. Some don’t even eat turkey. The hard part is understanding if these animals fit into the “kinds” of birds listed in Lev. 11. Without taking a trip backwards in time, we cannot be absolutely certain as to the identification of every single animal listed by name. For example, in verse 18, in the NASB, we find: “the white owl, and the pelican, and the carrion vulture.” This same verse, in the TLV, we read, “the white owl, the desert owl, and the osprey.” So they have white owl in common, but we’ve swapped pelican for desert owl? There’s a huge difference between those birds. The NRSV reads, “the water hen, the desert owl, and the carrion vulture.” So now instead of white owl, we get water hen.
So all of this to say, the reason why there are so many differences here between translations is because it is very difficult to know which animal is being referenced here. We do not have an ancient Hebrew scroll that lists the taxonomy of these flying creatures. So these are words that are used only a couple of times. We know they refer to birds, but we do not know what type if birds. Or to be more technical, flying creatures, since bats aren’t birds anyway.
So to this topic, I often advise people the same way as with fish. If in doubt, or if struggle with it, avoid it. Like duck. Follow the leading of the Ruach. If you want to dig in and study it, try to establish a pattern. What sort of things do these flying creatures - across various translations - tend to have in common? Many of them are carrion; many of them are raptors of some sort.
Lastly, we have the classification for insects, which is honestly probably the simplest:
The locust family
This last category includes crickets, grasshoppers, and the locust. This should bring to mind Matthew 3:4, and Mark 1:6, which says that Yochanan the Immerser, John the Baptizer, had for his food “locusts and wild honey.”
So now that we have a baseline established for understanding the types and categories of clean and unclean animals, we can move forward through our study.
We have established the types of clean and unclean creatures, literally the things which God said we are to eat, and the things which He said we are not to eat. Moving forward into the New Testament era, this is where some things can look a little difficult.
As y’all are probably already aware, the synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke - contain mostly the same narratives about Yeshua. Albeit, they view those events from different angles. For example, Luke is quick to point out just how much Yeshua stayed a Jew. This may be because Luke, writing later as a traveling companion of Paul, encountered a lot of resistance, and claims that the Apostles were teaching against the Torah. Matthew similarly has a Hebraic focus; Matthew often compares Yeshua to Moses, the law-giver, and to being the fulfillment of prophecy. Mark wrote the shortest Gospel, and his pretty much hurriedly rushes through events leading up to the ultimate point he’s making: the death, burial, and resurrection of Yeshua.
So we turn now to Matthew 15 and Mark 7. Matt. 15:1-11:

1Then some Pharisees and Torah scholars came to Yeshua from Jerusalem. They said, 2“Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not do the ritual handwashing when they eat bread.”

3And answering, He said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death.’ 5But you say, ‘Whoever tells his father or mother, “Whatever you might have gained from me is a gift to God,” 6he need not honor his father.’ On account of your tradition, you made void the word of God. 7Hypocrites! Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying,

8‘This people honors Me

with their lips,

but their heart is far from Me.

9And in vain they worship Me,

teaching as doctrines the

commandments of men.’ ”

10Then Yeshua called the crowd and said to them, “Hear and understand. 11It’s not what goes into the mouth that makes the man unholy; but what comes out of the mouth, this makes the man unholy.”

Mark 7

That’s pretty straight forward, no problem here. But then we read the same account from Mark 7:1-19:

1 The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, 2 and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) 5 The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” 6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,

BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.

7 ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,

TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’

8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

The Heart of Man

14 After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 [If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”]

17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 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, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

I read this from the NASB to make a point. All of this sounds largely like the verses we already read from Matt. 15, yes? Except the addition at the end, where it says in verse 19, “thus he declared all foods clean.” Well this is certainly problematic, is it not? We just went through all that study in Leviticus to determine what is clean and unclean, what is to be eaten and what is not, and suddenly now it’s been done away?
This can be challenging passage, especially if you’re new to this whole pro-Torah walk. This is one of the go-to passages for those that will argue against keeping the Torah, or at the very least keeping the dietary laws.
But let’s break it down a bit. It has been pointed out by numerous others before that “food” is, by definition, clean. That is, you wouldn’t refer to a stone as an unclean food, because it’s not food at all. Food is that which is intended for nourishment to the body, and if God never intended for it to be eaten, then by Biblical definition, it isn’t food.
I would say I appreciate this perspective, but that itself does not settle the debate over this passage.
Instead, we need to revisit the matter of the translation itself. In verse 19, we have “thus he declared all foods clean.” But that is an unfair translation based on tradition and bias. What it literally says, in Greek, is καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα, which means “is making clean/purifying all the foods.” There is no “thus he declared” here. That was added to make this odd phrasing make more sense. So if we replace those words with what I just mentioned, we get, “…because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated, purifying [or purging] all the foods.” This changes the meaning, from a declarative statement, to an explanation of the job of the stomach. The digestive system purges food, that is its job. And it must be mentioned that the “uncleanness” here in this context, as we’ve already read, is not about eating unclean animals, but about eating with hands that have not been ritually washed according to the traditions of the elders. That is why the TLV renders verses 18-19 as:

18And He said to them, “Are you then also lacking understanding? Don’t you grasp that whatever goes into the man cannot make him unholy? 19For it does not enter into the heart but into the stomach, and then goes out into the sewer, cleansing all foods.”

Acts 10

The next problem area we come to, is Acts 10. Peter’s infamous white sheet vision. Go ahead and turn there in your Bibles. Acts 10, starting in verse 9.

9The next day, as the soldiers were traveling and approaching the city, Peter went up to the rooftop to pray, at about the sixth hour. 10Now he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they were preparing something, he fell into a trance. 11He saw the heavens opened, and something like a great sheet coming down, lowered by its four corners to the earth. 12In it were all sorts of four-footed animals and reptiles and birds of the air.

13A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14But Peter said, “Certainly not, Lord! For never have I eaten anything unholy or unclean.”

15Again a voice came to him, a second time: “What God has made clean, you must not consider unholy.” 16This happened three times, and the sheet was immediately taken up to heaven.

Peter has a vision of all sorts of creatures. He hears a voice say to rise up, kill, and eat. Peter argues. Now it’s worth asking, right here at this juncture: if Peter knew Yeshua taught that all things were declared clean in Mark 7…why is he still refusing to eat unclean things? That’s just a side note.
This is the second go-to proof-text for trying to say the dietary laws have been revoked. But we, again, have to ask a couple questions. Peter had a vision. Were there actual unclean animals on a sheet in front of him, or was it a vision? When Pharaoh saw 7 sickly, skinny cows gobbling up the 7 fat cows…were there actually 14 cows, 7 of which were cannibalistic? When Nebuchadnezzar saw a giant statue made of multiple types of metal…was there actually a multi-metal statue? The answer to both is “no.” So why then do we want to force Peter’s vision to be literal? That’s the first question.
The second question is, just as the dreams of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar were interpreted and their meaning plainly given…is Peter’s vision explained? The answer is “yes!” we just have to keep reading.
You see, the background here, is that Peter is about to be sent to the house of Cornelius. A gentile, and a person whose house Peter should not enter. Gentiles had idols, they had household gods, they didn’t care for the ritual purity that Jews had to maintain. To enter their homes was forbidden - in most cases - for Jews. Now let’s read verses 24-29:

24The following day he entered Caesarea. Cornelius was waiting for them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25As Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.

26But Peter pulled him up, saying, “Stand up! I too am just a man.”

27Talking with him, Peter went inside and found many people gathered. 28He said to them, “You yourselves know that it is not permitted for a Jewish man to associate with a non-Jew or to visit him. Yet God has shown me that I should call no one unholy or unclean. 29So I came without objection when I was sent for. I ask, then, what is the reason why you sent for me?”

Peter clarifies the meaning of the vision: Yahweh showed him not to call any person unclean or unholy (most Bibles will say common). This wasn’t about animals at all, as shown by the context and Peter’s own interpretation. Just as Mark 7 wasn’t about pork and shellfish, so too was Acts 10 not about those things either.
The next passage to examine is 1 Cor. 8, so go ahead and turn there if you would. Verses 23-27. This one is short, and pretty simple.

23“Everything is permitted”—but not everything is helpful. “Everything is permitted”—but not everything builds up. 24Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. 25Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, without raising questions of conscience. 26For “the earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness.” 27If an unbeliever invites you over and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, without raising questions of conscience.

This is not about unclean animals. This is about meat that’s been offered to idols. When the god inevitably did not consume the offering, it would be reclaimed and sold at the meat market. You rarely would know if it had been offered to an idol before being sold at the market.
A little tip here, if you start looking into the whole “meat sacrificed to idols” bit. We recall from the Torah that eating things offered to idols was forbidden; and we know Acts 15 and Revelation 2:14 reiterate this, warning against eating things offered to idols. Bible scholar Ben Witherington has written pretty extensively about this topic before, and I agree with his conclusion: the references found in Scripture as well as external ancient sources, regard “eating in the presence” of idols to be the issue at hand. That is, eating a thing that had previously been offered to an idol wasn’t the problem. A clean cut of beef is a clean cut of beef. Rather, the problem, was eating that meat, in the presence of idols. This is why just a few verses earlier in in 1 Cor. 10:14-22 Paul offers the warning against being “partakers in the altar” and says what they offer is to demons, not to God.
But once again, in all of this, there is no reference to unclean animals, but rather things offered to idols.
One last Pauline passage to review, and we will wrap up.
1 Timothy 4:1–5 NASB95PARA
1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.
I have had this passage quoted to me before, and have been told personally that I am violating it. Because I teach that people should abstain from eating certain things. As I mentioned earlier, we could say that since “food” is defined as that which is meant for consumption, and unclean animals were never meant for human consumption, this one seems a non-starter. But we still have the issue: who is it that is prohibiting people from eating, and what are they saying not to eat?
Here we need culture to determine context. It is possible that Paul refers to a sort of ascetic cult, those who rejected anything physical as bad. The Gnostics did this: physical was bad, and only spiritual was good. Marriage - a relationship that existed for physical intimacy and the production of physical offspring - was bad. Food, aside from the basic necessities, was bad. It is also possible that this Greek Gnostic influence had infected some of the Jewish communities. There are debates about the Essenes and Ebionites, for example, and about how they were vegetarians and forbade marriage, even prohibiting women from joining them. There is an apocryphal book known as the Gospel of Thomas. A Gnostic writing, that has the disciples complaining that Yeshua allowed women to follow Him. According to this book, He responds by telling them that every woman who wishes to follow Him, would be turned into a man, so that she may be part of the Kingdom. I’m not making this up. These are the sorts of doctrines and philosophies that Paul dealt with.
So it’s easy to see how he likely could have faced off against a group of false teachers - which is the context of much of 1 Timothy anyway - who were claiming that people shouldn’t marry; shouldn’t eat certain things, though he doesn’t specify what that is.
But what about that last part? “Nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving”? Well, verse 5 clarifies: “for it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer.” Nowhere are unclean animals “sanctified” by the word of God. Nowhere did God ever change His mind about what is or is not fit for human consumption.
A last warning to add to this. Food laws can seem kind of small. But I would caution people to consider how much Yahweh does seem to care about what we eat. I mean, He obviously cared about what Adam and Eve ate, yes? Consider Isaiah 66, wherein we find a strong warning. In this passage, God is telling about a coming judgment that He will render. In verse 17, He lists a few different behaviors that He will meet with destruction. One of those is, apparently, eating swine’s flesh. If this is a prophecy that is intended to be understood for the eschaton, for the Return of the King if you will, then we should also take it seriously that He still appears quite opposed to eating unclean things.
Yahweh takes this seriously; we should, too.
Any questions?