Dietary laws from Adam to the apostles

[TonyChanYT]

Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were vegetarians, Genesis 1:

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

After the flood, Noah was allowed to eat meat, Genesis 9:

3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

But there was a catch:

4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Don't eat blood.

For the Israelites, Leviticus 17:

14 For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.

Furthermore, there was a refinement between clean and unclean Food, Leviticus 11:

1 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 2“Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud.

Targeting the Gentiles, the Lord told Peter in Acts 10:

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

James arrived at a compromise between the influences of Jews and Gentiles, Acts 15: The Jerusalem Council declared in Acts 15:

28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29a that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled

In the final analysis, for us today, Mark 7:

19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Paul was emphatic, Romans 14:

14 I am convinced and fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.

17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

20a Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean.

Foods law was strange teaching, Hebrews 13:

9 Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them.

Colossians 2:

16 do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink.

It is reiterated in 1 Timothy 4:

3 They [demons] will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from certain foods

In fact, demons will make dietary requirements.

that God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creation of God is good, and nothing that is received with thanksgiving should be rejected, 5 because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were vegetarians, Genesis 1

I don't believe so. Not only were we born with teeth to eat meat, but domestic animals seem to have had its own category in the language man utilized in describing animals from the beginning. Gen 1.24. We don't really know whether killing animals was determined from the beginning, before the Fall. It may seem part of a "fallen Creation," but there was no sin in it. It may have been representative of Man's domination on earth, showing Satan that his influence was not to be tolerated?

After the flood, Noah was allowed to eat meat, Genesis 9:
But there was a catch:
Don't eat blood.

Yes, after the Fall, killing animals contained an element of human violence, and bloodlust was not to be part of human domination on earth.

For the Israelites, Leviticus 17:
Furthermore, there was a refinement between clean and unclean Food, Leviticus 11:
Targeting the Gentiles, the Lord told Peter in Acts 10:
James arrived at a compromise between the influences of Jews and Gentiles, Acts 15: The Jerusalem Council declared in Acts 15:

Wild animals are symbolic of rebellion against God, and domesticated animals symbolic of submission to God. The pagan Gentiles were associated with "wild animals" by the more "domesticated" Jewish People under the Law of Moses.

Foods law was strange teaching, Hebrews 13:

The passage does not indicate "food" is the strange teaching. It is attached to "strange teaching" not because it was "strange" but because it was in the category of teaching that rebelled against God's word. Eating various kinds of food is not rebellion, but determining what food is clean after God has already proclaimed it clean is legalism and rebellious, just like "strange teachings," or heresies, are rebellious.

 

[TonyChanYT]

domestic animals seem to have had its own category in the language man utilized in describing animals from the beginning.

Please elaborate.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Please elaborate.

I provided a reference...
Gen 1.24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

So what is it you want me to elaborate on? I thought I was pretty clear on the statement:
"Not only were we born with teeth to eat meat, but domestic animals seem to have had its own category in the language man utilized in describing animals from the beginning."

What is there to elaborate on? Specifically, we have "livestock," and we have "wild animals," which are different categories. "livestock," as I understand it, are animals domesticated for food purposes--not just pets.

Although vegetarians have canine teeth it might be argued that they can be used to defend against animals or to eat animals. Even vegetarians have to defend against animals. Either way, canine teeth seem to have anticipated meat eaters, or at the very least an indication that the animal world is violent prior to the Fall of Man. Any way you look at it, the deaths of animals is not viewed as human Sin.

In my view, animal deaths appearing *before the Fall of Man" is an indication that Satan was a fallen angel from the beginning. The Creation is seemingly designed to show this conflict, with Man entering into the conflict as yet uncontaminated. Eating meat means he is in the conflict, but not yet complicit in Satan's Sin. Man was to "dominate" on earth to prevent Satan from introducing Sin into the world.

It may be significant that Satan used a "wild animal," ie the snake, to deceive Man in order to introduce Sin into him. Man failed to distinguish between domestic creatures, which were relatively harmless, from wild animals, which were dangerous. Man was supposed to dominate both and to know the difference, calling them names indicating what they were.

 

[TonyChanYT]

animal deaths appearing *before the Fall of Man"

verse?

 

[Randy Kluth]

verse?

It isn't a verse. It's Nature. Animals have to eat, and the prey dies, whether animals, birds, fish, or bugs.
Do you have a verse to prove otherwise? To say that Nature, as we see it today, is radically different should require either a complete change in the way these creatures lived, or a verse should justify thinking that.

 

[TonyChanYT]

It isn't a verse. It's Nature. Animals have to eat, and the prey dies, whether animals, birds, fish, or bugs.
Do you have a verse to prove otherwise? To say that Nature, as we see it today, is radically different should require either a complete change in the way these creatures lived, or a verse should justify thinking that.

What about
Isaiah 11:6
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.

 

[Randy Kluth]

What about
Isaiah 11:6
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.

Yes, that does seem to defy Nature as we know it. But I think it's just a way of saying that people will live at peace together, whether they are Christian or pagan.

1 Cor 9.9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned?

 

[TonyChanYT]

people will live at peace together, whether they are Christian or pagan.

verse?

 

[Randy Kluth]

verse?

For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned?

So this is a matter of interpretation and the use of literary devices, as opposed to proof texts confirming a particular doctrine. In fact, the entire Law of Moses was used as a "pattern," avoiding an ultra-literal value placed on the elements themselves.

Heb 10.1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.

Col 2.20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules

But if you're asking about a verse establishing that there will be peace on earth among nations, you can find that in Isa 2.4, where the "swords are beaten into plowshares."

 

[TonyChanYT]

Isa 2.4, where the "swords are beaten into plowshares."

It does not say that Christians and pagans will live in peace together.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It does not say that Christians and pagans will live in peace together.

What is your theology based on? Are you Amillennial? Not arguing--just curious?

 

[TonyChanYT]

What is your theology based on?

Good question. See A Disciplined Probabilistic Approach to Biblical Hermeneutics

 

[Randy Kluth]

Good question. See A Disciplined Probabilistic Approach to Biblical Hermeneutics

Yes, I enjoy your good spirit. However, keep in mind that even with all of the good tools you put to use there is the problem of human flaws. I wish to be idealistic, as well, with respect to biblical interpretation. But in a flawed world, we can only get so far, and even less in community.

I also have used tools for interpretation. One thing I believe God gave me, in answer for a request for wisdom, is to look at where a biblical doctrine originated from. (You may simply see this as Common Sense--it is.) And it is found, if at all, in an explicitly-stated thought earlier in the biblical record.

I find that themes are common in Scriptures, such as the theme of the promises God made to Abraham. Promises are much more valuable, I think, then categories such as eras, eg dispensations. The latter can be helpful as teaching tools, but promises are the theme running through across the centuries.

Much of interpretation is language. You have to be able to read between the lines when something is not so explicitly stated. You have to be able to read the inferences, the poetry, the suggestion. But there is also the need and supply of confirmations the Bible provides for every important point. The Holy Spirit is a Person, and anticipates the problems we could have with understanding certain vital points.

That being said, some refuse to believe, and some will not hear when they don't accept the groundwork for understanding the rest. If you reject Christ, you will not see him as speaking authoritatively as a Divine Person. If you don't accept that we can be regenerated there will be no acceptance of a new spiritual nature in Man.

Thank you for sharing your wisdom. There's much to be gained from following some of your principles. Different from you, however, I actually enjoy the different "isms" and former schools of theology even though I agree the language of each theology creates confusion for the next theological formulation. And each one meets the need in its historical moment, and may fail to see the problem it means for a new historical moment.

But I find that understanding the language in each system helps in solving its problems in the next theological formulation. There is no avoiding problems in the different uses of words or semantics.

There are many different languages and the use of words change with each new condition or application. We simply have to be willing to employ language as it is understood by those we speak to, or fail to be evangelists to the world.
Thanks again.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It does not say that Christians and pagans will live in peace together.

This is an assumption made when people who have swords, used for purposes of "violence," stop being violent. Hence, pagans stop acting like pagans. Either they are converted to being people of the light, or they cease practicing, as pagans, the evil deeds of darkness, and get along with the righteous.

You have to decide whether in the Kingdom of God both pagans and righteous will live. The Scriptures do not distinguish between this mixture, as it is in the present age, from the way it will be in the next. This depends upon your beliefs about the Millennium, which anticipates another 1000 years of human history "as is," without the influence of Satan.

To say "the wolf will dwell with the lamb" is a poetic way of saying the violent will learn to cease from their violence in dealing with people of peace.

Isa 11.The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.

 

[TonyChanYT]

You have to decide whether in the Kingdom of God both pagans and righteous will live.

Define Kingdom of God.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Define Kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God is the rule of God as it is being applied, whether in heaven or on earth. It has only a temporal effect on earth at present, and not a full rule over nations opposed to Him. When the Kingdom comes to earth in its consummate form, nations will not be allowed to fight against and defeat Christian nations. Despite the occurrence of a rebellion for a short time at the end of a thousand of years of God's reign on earth, the Kingdom that comes with Jesus will last forever.

Temporary indications of God's Kingdom on earth took place in ancient Israel when they lived in covenant with God through the Law. God set up His place among His people, Israel, through the temple worship.

That temporary effect of God's Kingdom continued, I believe, in Christian nations. Jesus said the Kingdom, such as it had been with Israel, would be transferred to another nation, which I believe refers to European-style Christian kingdoms, or nations that obtained the Gospel that began with Rome's evangelization.

But the ultimate reign of God will transcend anything like the Holy Roman Empire, and will be free from attack by non-Christian, or pagan nations, which will be pacified by threat of Divine Judgment, represented by the binding of Satan. This is a Premillennial position.

 

[TonyChanYT]

The Kingdom of God is the rule of God as it is being applied, whether in heaven or on earth.

Right. Are there pagans in the Kingdom of God?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Right. Are there pagans in the Kingdom of God?

Of course there are. God rules over all. But the enforcement of the Kingdom requirements is restrained to allow for repentance.

Matt 13.30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

 

[TonyChanYT]

Of course there are

My definition of the Kingdom of God is narrower. Pagans do not have the Kingdom of God in them.