Food Laws
So, the concept of clean vs. unclean in terms of the temple (ritual purity) was one thing but the food laws have to be examined on their own. Ritual purity was about what is acceptable to come into contact with the temple apparatus (the structure, the priests, etc.) It was literally about the ideas that there are some kinds of physical contagion by which the temple could be sullied and about the cleansing, washing, disinfecting procedures thought to remedy it. It’s not the same as “sin”. The food laws don’t exactly follow because the reasoning for the various distinctions are not apparent nor were they ever explained, their meaning is assumed to be understood. Here’s an excerpt from the “New Bible Dictionary” under the topic of Clean and Unclean as it relates to the food laws in the OT and how it changed in the NT.
The standard Jewish explanation is that the classification is arbitrary: they test obedience. Will you obey God, even if you cannot understand his reasons? Or is the aim to promote health? Pork, shellfish, and so on, often carry disease. There is nothing in the laws to suggest it. Some items classified as unclean are healthy foods, and vice versa. Nor does this explanation warrant Jesus’ abolition of the food laws. Would he have wanted his disciples to eat unhealthy foods? Another scholarly explanation is that some of the unclean animals (e.g. pigs) were used in pagan worship. But the premier clean sacrificial beast in Israel, the bull, [211] was also highly valued in Egyptian and Canaanite religion, so reaction to foreign practice does not explain these rules.
Once again Mary Douglas has put forward the most plausible type of explanation. She noted that the cleanness rules structure the bird, animal and human realms in a similar way (see above).
The realms of birds and beasts both contain a mixture of clean and unclean species. The clean may be eaten, the unclean may not. Within the clean group there is a subgroup of animals or birds that may also be sacrified (e.g. sheep, pigeons). This threefold division of the bird and animal kingdoms corresponds to the divisions among human beings. Mankind falls into two main groups, Israel and the Gentiles. Within Israel only one group, the priests may approach the altar to offer sacrifice. This matches the law’s understanding of sacred space. Outside the camp is the abode of Gentiles and unclean Israelites. Ordinary Israelites dwell inside the camp, but only priests may approach the altar or enter the tabernacle tent.
These distinctions served to remind Israel of her special status as God’s chosen people. The food laws not only reminded Israel of her distinctive-ness, but they also served to enforce it. Jews faithful to these laws would tend to avoid Gentile company, in case they were offered unclean food to eat (cf. Dn. 1:8–16).
God is identified with life and holiness, and un-cleanness is associated with death and opposition to God. The food laws symbolize that Israel is God’s people, called to enjoy his life, while Gentile idolaters are by and large opposed to him and his people, and face death. The food laws also underline respect for life directly as well as symbolically. Eating meat is described as a concession in Gn. 9:1–4. And it may only be eaten if the blood is drained out first, ‘for the life is … the blood’ (Lv. 17:11). Therefore, consumption of the life liquid is banned. Wanton slaughter of living creatures is also discouraged by the limited number of animals classified as clean. In both ways, these food laws tended to promote respect for life.
The OT food laws reminded the Jews of their special status as the one people chosen by God. The clean (edible) creatures symbolized Israel, whereas the unclean (prohibited) foods symbolized the Gentile nations. But the church is open to people of all nations, not just Jews, so it is inappropriate for the food laws to be maintained. In Mt. 15:16–17 and Mk. 7:18–19, Jesus’ critique of the food laws is immediately followed by the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman (describing herself as a dog, i.e. unclean), whose daughter, possessed by an unclean spirit, was healed by Jesus (Mt. 15:21–28; Mk. 7:24–30).
Jesus’ ministry and teaching thus laid the foundation for outreach to the Gentiles and the abolition of the food laws, but in Acts 10 the decisive step is taken. Peter has a vision in which a heavenly voice commands him to kill and eat unclean [212] animals. He responds: ‘Surely not. Lord! I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.’ Men sent by Cornelius, a Roman centurion, come asking for Peter to visit him. When he arrives at the house of Cornelius, Peter explains why he has come: ‘It is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean’ (Acts 10:14, 28). The significance of this Cornelius episode is underlined by Luke recounting it three times in Acts 10, 11 and 15. The Jerusalem council confirmed that it was right to include Gentiles within the church and simultaneously to abrogate the main food laws. The only uncleanness regulations they imposed concerned idolatry, sexual immorality and blood, which were the worst types of uncleanness in the OT (Acts 15:20). Paul takes it for granted that the other food laws no longer apply to Christians (e.g. 1 Cor. 8:8; 1 Tim. 4:3–5).
So again, it’s the conceptual framework, which is about access to God, that is being abolished. The case for contemporary ethical vegetarianism simply isn’t an issue that’s addressed directly in the bible and therefore not something that contemporary Christianity can legitimately discount as if the matter has already been settled. I’m not saying it’s requisite, just that it’s a topic worthy of honest and thoughtful discussion.
