Is it Wrong to Love Bacon?
Are we under the deitary laws still? What evidence is there?
Many Christians will argue over which Biblical laws are applicable to us today. The majority of Christians will agree that we are no longer under the dietary laws because they are part of the 'old covenant', while others say that we should follow dietary laws because Jesus did not abolish them. So should we follow God's dietary plan? If you want to know what God's dietary plan is for us you can check out the 'What is Food' article.
Exhibit A - Peter's Vision
Acts 7:10-15 He [Peter] became hungry and wanted to eat, while the meal was being prepared he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and a large sheet being let down to earth by all four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and Eat." "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean".
This first argument is that Peter was told that God made all these animals clean, and thus Peter should not call anything unclean that was made clean by God. But nearly all visions have an interpretation revealed shortly after so we must keep reading if we want to know for certain if the vision is to be literal or figurative.
Acts 7:24-29 The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.” While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?
While this started off as a strong argument for God declaring everything as clean, it looks to fall short once the vision is explained shortly after.
Exhibit B - Paul to Timothy
1 Timothy 4:4 Every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
In 1 Timothy, we have a very compelling argument on the surface level once again, but since context is important we read also around the scripture to find the context. Does this relate to food, people, or is there an alternative meaning?
1 Timothy 4:1-3 The spirit says in later times, people will abandon the teachings of the faith and pay attention to to decietful people and the teachings of demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hor iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
In addition to the surrounding text, we also have some background info on who Paul was (who wrote this). Paul was a Pharisee who studied under one of the greatest Rabbis of that time named Gamaliel. As a Pharisee, he would have had the entire first five books of the Bible memorized. So the faith that Paul is talking about is most likely in reference to the faith in the one true God and not some "new testament" scripture which had not yet been compiled. The faith was the observance of God's commands for righteousness. Righteousness comes from the Greek word "dikaios" which means 'observing divine law'. So if we want to be righteous, then we must follow the commands/instructions of God as Paul reiterates in 2 Timothy 3:16
2 Timothy 3:16-17 Paul says "All scripture which is God-breathed, profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness so that the servant of God may be equipped for every good work."
Being that the New Testament had not been compiled, the 'scripture' that Paul is referring to would have been what we now call the 'Old Testament'. So he is once again telling us that the old law is still in effect. But this text also has a common mistranslation dating back to the protestant reformation, and thus we must also acknowledge that not all scripture is God-breathed, but rather the parts of scripture that God-breathed are good doctrine whereas there are other scriptures that are not directly from God. So it is critical to know what parts of scripture were deemed as "God-breathed" vs just recorded.
Paul then mentions, in verse 3, people will follow the teachings of demons and abstain from marriage and certain foods that God created for thanksgiving. Foods for thanksgiving were specifically the clean foods that God mentioned in Leviticus 11 and not the unclean foods. Then Paul goes on to say, "every creature of God is good" which is the curveball here. The Jewish understanding of this is that every creature God created is good but we obviously don't eat horns or the teeth of an animal because that isn't food. We also don't eat raw meat because it is not considered food. Thus the animals that are food are the animals we should freely eat - and the animals that are food are defined in the 'what can and can't be eaten' part of the law in Leviticus 11. Thus animals like pigs were not considered food. All things created are good, but not all things are food - the things that are food are to be taken with thanksgiving. So "every creature" is to be received with thanksgiving would apply to all the creatures that are given to us for thanksgiving because it was consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
Now the term "word of God" is important because 'word' means the 'plan/reason' of God. Thus the consecration of the food was done by what was laid out by God in his commands to us through his divine reasoning.
You can read more about what 'the word' is in the article; The Word Was Who?
On the opposing end, one could say that it states that all creatures of God is good and therefore nothing is to be rejected - and if Paul wanted to clarify what types of creatures then he would have used terms like food, clean, or some other hint towards knowing what creatures were clean and unclean. And if ALL animals were now clean it was because it was God's plan/reason similarly how Noah was permitted to eat all things after the flood, we too are now allowed to eat any living thing because God has once again permitted it through the sacrifice of the Messiah.
Once again, both options are viable, but we still have to dig further into this topic if we want to be obedient to God and not just our own opinion.
Exhibit C - Jesus' Simile
The Pharisees saw many of the disciples with 'defiled hands' since their hands were unwashed and they were eating bread. So the Pharisees questioned him and asked why the disciples weren't following the tradition of the Jewish elders by washing hands before they eat. Jesus answered saying they hold more to the tradition of men, they baptize pots and cups, and essentially calling them out for their ridiculous traditions that were not from God and hold to the traditions more than the law of God and then we proceed with Mark 7:15;
Mark 7:15 There is nothing from without the man entering into him that is able to defile him, but the things coming out from him, those are the things defiling the man.
This verse is another commonly used verse to point out we no longer need to follow dietary laws because as Jesus said, "Nothing going into the man can defile him, only that which comes out." The disciples were a little confused and didn't understand the simile Jesus was trying to make then Jesus follows it up with;
Mark 7:19-21a Because it does not enter his heart, but instead it enters his belly where it goes into the privy purifying all the meats. That which goes out of the man, that defiles the man. For it is from within, out of the hearts of men, the evil reasonings do come forth.
The argument here is that Jesus confirms that it is not what goes into the body that defiles him and while the first context is referring to traditions of men, Jesus then proceeds to say that it is what goes into his heart that defiles him (and probably not speaking of cholesterol) and not his belly emphasizing that this was more than just eating with dirty hands as he expands and says the meat you eat is even purified after it leaves the body.
But is this argument accurate? While the book of Mark is rather brief on the subject, Matthew 15 fills in the gaps where he discusses the exact same simile.
Matthew 15:2-3 Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition!?"
Matthew 15:17-18, 20 Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person's mouth come from the heart, and these defile them... These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.
As a quick background here, it is important to know the origin of the law "wash hands before you eat" which was also included in "baptize your cups and pots". According to the Talmud, you can add to the law and take away from the law as long as it doesn't break the law. For instance, if the law said, "don't swim on Saturday" - the Talmud could remove the word 'Saturday' in oral teachings so people would just avoid swimming all together. They could also add "all sabbath days" and thus adding all high Sabbaths which don't fall on Saturdays. It doesn't remove the command, it expands it to include even more for 'safety'. The issue that Jesus is pointing out is that the Pharisees were so concerned about their 'traditions of elders' that they elevated the oral tradition laws above God's law which states:
Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
This explanation in Matthew is saying that eating with unclean hands didn't defile the man, what he says defiles him. Thus knowing that only clean meats were considered "food" there would be nothing unclean about what is acceptable food going into your mouth. Because if you eat without washing your hands, it is still food and it is purified through ingestion with thanksgiving to God in accordance with what we learned in Paul's letter to Timothy (Exhibit B).
It is also important to note that this was said much earlier than Acts 7:10 (Exhibit A) when Peter was told to eat impure foods and said "I have never!" Which we find later on was talking about people and not food. So we must assume Peter understood the simile to mean going against the commands of God defiles us and it had nothing to do with eating unclean meats.
Exhibit E - Did Jewish Law Change?
Galatians 3:22 Scripture imprisoned everything under sin.
Galatians 3:23 Now before faith came, we were under the law, imprisoned until the coming of faith would be revealed.
Galatians 3:25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
Galatians 4:21 Who desires to be under the law? Do you not listen to the law?
Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse!
Out of context, these passages seem like ironclad proof that we are no longer under this prison of old laws because now we have faith, and anyone who still follows the law is cursed. Which according to that logic, we wouldn't need to teach people not to steal, cheat, lie, murder, etc. right? Well, not exactly - Paul knew the audience he was speaking to which understood the 'curse of the law'.
Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law".
The laws had a blessing and a curse. If you followed the law, you were blessed. When you broke the law you were cursed. Thus, those who had diseases in the Jewish community were thought to have been cursed. This is why they asked Jesus, "why is this man unable to walk, was it he who sinned or his parents?". Those who were blessed were followers of the law, while those who broke the law were outcasts.
Galatians 3:13-14 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole". He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus so that by faith we might receive the promise of the spirit.
Paul is noting that there was a curse to the law but the curse no longer exists because Jesus took the punishment for our sins. The law isn't abolished, but the curse of the law is. The law has blessings and curses - if the laws are broken then curses are given and Jesus fulfilled the curses of the law on our behalf.
Galatians 3:17-18 What I mean is this: The law, introduces 430 years later (from Abraham to Moses) does not set aside the covenant previously established by God (salvation for our faith) and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance (salvation by faith) depended on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.
Paul is stating that the original covenant with Abraham promised salvation through faith. This promise is not null and void just because we have the law. The law helps us be righteous, and walking in the law shows others we have faith that there is a God. For if we believe there is a God who we love, would we not also desire to please him? How do we demonstrate our faith? When Abraham was told to sacrifice his son, that had not had any children yet, was said to be the father of many nations - Abraham trusted that God would possibly bring him back to life or something. God stopped Abraham from actually doing it, but Abraham was totally committed to it and it was that faith that God would follow through with his promise that he was seen as righteous before God.
Galatians 3:25-27 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. So in Christ Jesus, you are all sons of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ.
The word "guardian" here is paidagogos which means "a trainer of boys". The paidagogos is responsible for supervising and correcting the moral behavior of the boys of the family but ended when the child became an adult. The 'guardian' would discipline the boys of the family until they acted right. This parallels the curse of the law. So what Paul is saying is that the law had discipline built into it, but now that we have Jesus we don't have the discipline built into it. We are baptized into Christ and we follow his ways and teachings. We are not disciplined or cursed when we break it. This parallels Deuteronomy as well:
Deuteronomy 30:7-8 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the hearts of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul, that you may live. And the Lord your God will put all these curses on your foes and enemies who persecuted you. And you shall again obey the voice of the Lord and keep all his commandments that I command you today.
1 Peter 1:14-16 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former desires in your ignorance. But as he which has called you is holy, so be you holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be you holy, for I am holy.
The circumcision of the heart is the inner change, removing the heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh. The fruit of the heart and following Jesus is that we follow God's commandments that he gave us. The curses of the law were good for mentoring, but now we have one who removed the curse and the more we align with him, the more we will want to follow his ways - and his ways are the ways of God, the commands of God.
So while Paul does say the old law curse doesn't apply if we are in Christ, he does not specify that the law is not to be observed. In fact, he observed it and argued for it and you can see that in Acts as well:
Acts 21:21,24 When have been informed that you (Paul) teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children (he teaches circumcision of the heart in accordance with Deut 30) or live according to our customs .... Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.
So all in all, when it came to the Jews, the law still needed to be observed completely.
Exhibit F - The Law of the Gentiles
This should be its own article, but I'll try to do a quick non-Paul style summary of it. This creates the appearance that Jews and Gentiles have different covenant obligations and standards of righteousness.
Acts 21:25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, and from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.
Acts 15:10 Why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither of our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Acts 15:29-30 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood
And lastly, this is the didache, which was used as a 'Christianity 101' text much later in 2nd century AD, but still:
Didache 6:2-3 If you can bear the Lord's full yoke, you will be perfect. But if you cannot, then do what you can. Now about food: undertake what you can. But keep strictly away from what is offered to idols, for that implies worshiping dead gods.
The yoke here in Acts 15:10 and the 'burden' is assumed to be the law of God, but it can't be since we also have 1 John 5:3 that states, if we love God we will keep his commands and his commandments are not burdensome. Deuteronomy 30:11-14 says the law is not too mysterious or far away to achieve. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that it is good for instructing righteousness and equips people for every good work.
Many assume that these 'acts' are referring to the Noachide laws, which are 7 laws of Noah. The Noachide laws however are not found in any written works prior to 200 AD. They aren't even mentioned in any of the oral torahs or the historical records made by Josephus around 100AD. The Noachide laws were laws to seemingly divide the Jews and Gentiles yet again. The Noachide laws are essentially mimicking Ezekiel 33 which is about Israel.
Ezekial 33:23-26 They who inhabit Israel are saying, "Abraham was the only one, and he inherited the land. We are many, the land has been given to us as a possession." Therefore say to them, "God says you eat meat with blood (1), you lift your eyes to idols (2), and shed blood (3). Should you possess the land? You rely on your sword, commit abominations (4), you defile one another's wives (5). Should you possess the land?
Noachide laws: Don't eat flesh from a living animal (1). Don't worship false idols (2), Don't murder (3), Don't commit sexual immortality (4), Don't steal, Don't curse God, Establish courts of justice.
The Noachide laws (Gentile's law) were made to separate the Jews from Gentiles as an all-inclusive list of what Gentiles had to follow, whereas the Jews had a much longer list because they (who believe in Noachide laws) thought they were more mature and much more holy. However, the accusation in Ezekial was to Israel and not the Gentiles. These basic principles as listed in Ezekial and in Acts were not made to separate the Jews from Gentiles as the Noachide laws were, because if we only were to keep on reading as we so often forget to do, we would see the exact reason as to why they were told to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, blood, meat of strangled animals, and sexual immorality rather than giving them the entire book of the law:
Acts 15:19-21 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood because Moses had, throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.
The point wasn't to give them a simplified list, the point was that these laws were a starting point. When you teach someone how to swim, you don't just toss them in and say "do this like I'm doing" - they would be overwhelmed and quite literally drown. You give them a starting point, you teach them the core basics.
Vegans are weaklings
Romans 14:2 One person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
Well, that's what Paul makes it sound like when you don't read it in context. During the time of writing, meat was often sacrificed on altars and dedicated to pagan gods, the unused meat was then offered for sale in the meat market. Similarly, today we assume that meat wasn't offered to a strange god or strangled to death. So many Christians during that time (and today even) wonder if we should abstain from all meat unless it is verified to be kosher - thus better safe than sorry and we should just stay away from all meats. This had nothing to do with what kind of meat since God already said that unclean meat was not food. The issue at hand was a conscience one.
1 Corinthians 8:4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.
1 Corinthians 8:7-8 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, being consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither, if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse
Paul clarifies here that when buying meat at the market or eating at a home where meat was served, the believers don't need to first determine its origins and whether or not it was offered to idols.
1 Corinthians 10:25 Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake. For the earth is the Lord's and all it contains. If one unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat anything set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake. But if anyone says, "This meat is sacrificed to idols" then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and conscience' sake.
The point that Paul is making is that if you knowingly buy meat or eat meat that was sacrificed to idols then you are hurting your conscience and in turn, it makes breaking other laws easier because you start to rationalize. So those who don't ask or worry about where the food came from are not breaking the law, because even if you asked if it was sacrificed to an idol, they could still lie to you. But if they say it was sacrificed to an idol - even if it wasn't, you are not to eat it because you are to follow the law which separates the believers from the rest of the world. There is nothing physically harmful about eating meat sacrificed to idols as the food is still food and idols have no power or thoughts, the damage is from knowingly breaking a commandment of God and partaking in idol worship by eating meat you know is sacrificed to a false god.
But Paul also states that while you don't need to worry about buying from public markets or eating at an unbeliever's house, he does say that if it goes against your conscience, you should not do it. So if you think that by eating meat they may have been sacrificed to an idol, then it's better to just avoid it than to continually rationalize with yourself like, "well, I knowingly eat meat sacrificed to idols in the market anyway, so what difference does it make if someone tells me it was sacrificed." That line of thinking will lead you down a dangerous path. Likewise, if a fellow believer is with someone who does not feel comfortable eating meat because of their conscience, then neither one should - because it may lead that believer into peer pressure and thus violate their conscience.
Romans 14:3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.
Romans 14:13-14 If your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean it itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean.
Now at the ending here we have 'nothing is unclean in itself' but the context around who it was written to, the time, and the surrounding verses show that it applies to the ideologies of the Pharisees and Rabbis and not that of God. For example, when Jesus said "it is not what goes into the mouth that makes it unclean" (Exhibit C) the same is being referenced here. People thought that the food was made unclean by things like being cooked in pots that weren't baptized, unwashed hands, unknowingly sacrificed to idols, not blessed by a priest, not cut in a specific way, etc. No food was unclean (but given the context of what was food), but if it goes against your conscience then it may as well be unclean to you because it hurts your conscience when you eat it.
The Conclusion
Thank God for your food! You shouldn't eat things you think are unclean (by whatever standard you have in your conscience), but feel free to eat anything that God said is food. Do what will please God and walk as Jesus did. The definition of food has not changed and God clearly designed some things to be food and some things to be vacuum cleaners for the earth. If you are curious about what "food" is because you've been eating garbage? I was too. I already knew that though because I ate hot pockets, which I don't think are defined as food even in today's standards. Check out the 'What is Food' article. There are some awesome alternatives to the things you like that aren't food. However, there isn't a substitute for bacon... that's just gone. I've tried turkey bacon, it isn't even close to real bacon. Shoelaces for spaghetti are a better substitute than turkey bacon for real bacon. Feel free to leave a comment if you have a good bacon alternative though. God is a genius and knows what is best for us. If you eat pork or shrimp you will not go to hell or anything, you just might not be as healthy since you are essentially eating out of earth's dumpster. Enjoy!