
A BIBLICAL DIET;
DINING GOD'S WAY
A) INTRODUCTION.
B) TO THE BIBLE.
C) A PROPER BIBLICAL DIET.
D) DEAD ANIMALS.
E) YOUR OBJECTIONS.
Genesis 9:3;
Deuteronomy 12:15 & 22;
Matthew 15:11;
Mark 7:18-20;
Acts 10:11-16;
Romans 14:1-21;
First Corinthians 10:23-28;
First Timothy 4:3-5;
A) INTRODUCTION
LET ME STATE RIGHT OFF THAT I BELIEVE GOD DESIGNED HIS FOOD (DIET) REGULATIONS IN ORDER TO KEEP MANKIND HEALTHY AND ALIVE. Therefore, any deviation from God’s design is to distrust in God and His Laws and a shortening of one’s own life. Don’t let your “god” be your “belly,” Philippians 3:19.
Also, according to Hosea 4:3, because of mankind’s sinfulness, and the way that they handle the products we eat, specifically spelled out as “the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also,” they cannot possibly be clean anymore.
Why did Christ subject Himself to a 40-day fast? “The great end for which Christ endured that long fast in the wilderness was to teach us the necessity of self-denial and temperance.” GHA:173. “The length of this fast is the strongest evidence of the extent of the sinfulness and power of debased appetite upon the human family.” RH, August 4, 1874; 1SM:272; 5BC:1079. “Many who profess godliness do not inquire into the reason of Christ’s long period of fasting and suffering in the wilderness. His anguish was not so much from the pangs of hunger as from His sense of the fearful result of the indulgence of appetite and passion upon the race. He knew that appetite would be man’s idol and would lead Him to forget God and would stand directly in the way of His salvation.” “Confrontation,” page 51.
Did you know that if you were to go out to your local farm and head for the barnyard and select some fresh barnyard manure, then you went to the local U.S.D.A. meat market and selected a prime cut of choice U.S.D.A. meat, that now, armed with the culprits, you could subject the two specimens to be placed under the scrutiny of a microscopic examination, that there you would find that your U.S.D.A. choice meat would have more harmful germs and more colon germs per gram compared to your barnyard manure? Documentation found in, “Legacy -- The Heritage of a Unique International Medical Outreach,” by Richard A. Schaefer. Because of the drugs given to and living conditions of the cattle.
B) TO THE BIBLE
Vegetarianism Is Best:
Original Diet: Genesis 1:11-12; 29; 2:5; 3:18.
Flesh Added: Genesis 9:3-4. Man’s Lifespan Lowers.
Two Meals A Day: Exodus 16:8; First Kings 17:6.
Eat At Regular Times: Ecclesiastes 10:17.
God Wanted His People To Return To His Original Diet: Exodus 16:35 (Compare Exo. 16:8 & 12-13 with Num. 11:4 & 32-33; Psa. 78:18 & 29-31).
Note Also That Paul Classes Flesh Foods With Unacceptable Wine: Romans 14:21 (See also Pro. 23:20).
C) A PROPER BIBLICAL DIET
God’s original diet, as found in Genesis 1:11-12 & 29; 2:5, consisted only of herbs of the field and fruit and nuts from the trees. We can easily see that diet is very important to both God and Satan. The very first instruction God gave to Adam, was regarding diet. He was to eat grains, nuts, and fruits (Gen. 1:29; 2:16-17). It is noteworthy that at every new beginning God gave instructions about diet (see Gen. 3:17-18; [4:12 associated with 5:29]; Num. 6:2-8; Jud. 13:4 & 7 & 14; Mat. 1:18; Luke 1:15; 7:33).
What I find very interesting is that whenever Christian denominations want to use verses to cancel the God ordained (established) Biblical diet, they never discuss the conclusion of the first Apostolic council. When the first Apostolic council met in Jerusalem to discuss the Christian outreach to the Gentiles, three of the four deliberations had to do with diet, namely, abstention from food that was “sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled,” Acts 15:20 & 29. The first temptation of mankind was on the point of appetite, “yea had God said,” Genesis 3:1, questioning God’s wisdom in this area. To this day, mankind struggles with his appetite.
God said then as He says now: “But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it,” Genesis 2:17, just as now He says not to eat of the unclean meats as listed in Leviticus, the Eleventh Chapter, and Deuteronomy, the Fourteenth Chapter. That man thinks these dietary Laws have been cancelled has caused many more diseases than we should have to bear and other health related problems. From 2SP:89-90 we read: “Through appetite, Satan had accomplished the ruin of Adam and Eve, and through all succeeding generations, this had been his strongest weapon [Note: this is Satan’s “strongest weapon”] in corrupting the human race.”
What we discover in the Biblically approved diet after the flood in regards to animals, is that what an animal eats is the determining factor as to whether or not it is acceptable to be eaten by mankind. In other words, those animals that are vegetarian, “cheweth the cud,” Leviticus 11:3-6 & 26; Deuteronomy 14:6, as an example, are Biblically approved; while those animals that prey on, or eat other animals, feed on carcasses of dead things, are bottom feeders of dead things (in other words, the cleanup crew), are not. And as we know with today’s science, feeding upon a carnivore increases your liability, and feeding upon meat (dead animals) at all, shortens your lifespan.
D) DEAD ANIMALS
God never intended for us to be eating the flesh of dead animals, nor is this the cuisine of the Heavenly Canaan. Think about it, where are you going to acquire a “Steak” in Heaven if there is to be “no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away?” Revelation 21:4. Since God is teaching us to be holy here, wouldn’t it make sense that He would also be training us to structure our pallets for the bounties of the Heavenly kingdom?
As an example of God’s training towards a fleshless diet, consider the wanderings of Israel for forty years, with the goal of the Promised Land [Heaven] at stake. Only the bread from Heaven (manna) was to be provided for 40 years. If this isn’t a vegetarian diet, what is?
Consider also the length of time a man lived before the flood, and the rapid deterioration of man’s longevity with the introduction of flesh food after the flood. Nevertheless, God did distinguish, in His allocation of a flesh diet, the clean from the unclean. If you MUST HAVE your meat, at least follow God’s dietary plan as laid out in Leviticus, the Eleventh Chapter, and Deuteronomy, the Fourteenth Chapter. Our first indication of God showing man what is clean and what is not clean, is found in Genesis 7:2, when the unclean animals were entering into the ark “by twos,” but the clean “by sevens.” In fact, God is so adamant about what we let pass our lips, so much so that at His Second Coming He will slay those who go against His rules, still eating pork and mice (see Isa. 66:17).
However, if you must eat meat, consider taking a look at a Bible based steak. It must be lean, in fact totally lean (Lev. 7:23). No juicy steak either because no blood can be present (Lev. 7:26). To ensure that this is the case one must have it well done, in fact, very well done. To eat kosher meat is to have it taste and feel like a leather belt. The purpose being to dissuade you from eating dead animals.
Also consider that the patriarchs Ezekiel and Daniel specifically still followed the God ordained diet in their day (see Eze. 4:14; Dan. 1:8). Has God changed? If He has, then Christ need not have died upon the cross for our sins; for He could have just changed His Law in order to accomplish our salvation.
Meat, Dairy, Egg, and Fish Farming take up approximately 83% of the world’s farmland. Yet these industries provide only 18% of the needed calories that your body needs to sustain itself. While a plant-based diet provides nearly 95% of what your body needs (vitamin B12 needs to be supplemented due to the chemicals used in cleaning todays foods). Plus, the leading cause of deforestation is the land needed to grow food for these animals. Why not use it to grow real proper food for people? In fact, 25% of rivers that used to flow into the oceans around the world are no longer doing that because this water is being fed into the grain (feed) for these animals; and the watering of these animals themselves. Approximately 27% of the water on this planet goes to animal consumption; which in reality ends up as water pollution.
The reason why animals need so much land is because they consume six (6) times more protein than they produce. In addition to the cost to our environment. Whereas plants not only use the soil in a natural way and are proven to be healthier for humans; the plants actually rejuvenate the soil (as long as you rotate the crops). By contrast, most informed people by now know that these non-plant-based industries have been lying to the public for years with commercials and advertisements and clinical studies funded by themselves. In other words, it’s all about money, not health.
E) YOUR OBJECTIONS (If You Still Have Any By Now)
GENESIS 9:3: “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”
This is the first permission by God to eat flesh. Though the distinction between clean and unclean animals is not made here, it would not follow that Noah did not know the difference. He brought clean and unclean beasts into the ark (Gen. 7:2) and he offered only clean animals as a burnt offering to God after the flood (Gen. 8:20). The immutability of God’s character (Mal. 3:6; Jam. 1:17) precludes the possibility of construing this passage as permission to slaughter and eat all creatures. Animals that were unclean for one purpose could not have become clean for another.
To further prove that Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals, we learn from Genesis 8:20, that Noah ONLY offered clean animals in thanks to God. In FACT, had Noah offered a little piglet, we would have no “swine” living today.
Also: “Every living substance upon the face of the earth upon which man could subsist had been destroyed; therefore God gave Noah permission to eat of the clean beasts which he had taken with him into the ark.” 1SP:79; 3SG:76. However, according to Genesis 8:11, “the dove” which Noah sent out came back with “an olive leaf,” meaning that soon there would be fruit on the trees and vegetables to eat and Noah need not to eat flesh. Remembering the statement above: “God permitted the flesh of dead animals to be eaten by the ancients, although He knew by so doing the lives of men would be shortened.” SpM:419.
DEUTERONOMY 12:15 & 22: “(15) Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing [ACCORDING TO WHAT?] of the LORD thy God which He hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart.” (22) “Even as the roebuck and the hart is eaten, so thou shalt eat them: the unclean and the clean shall eat of them alike.”
This is a modification of the Law in effect during the wilderness wanderings, which prohibited the slaughter of animals for food except at the door of the tabernacle (Lev. 17:3-4). This new Law would apply to residence in Canaan.
Surface readers apply “the unclean and the clean may eat,” incorrectly as referring to the animal kingdom. What God is expressing here is not food, but man. Specifically the priests. It means those who are Levitically unclean or clean. Remember, the text does not say “you may eat,” but you may eat “according to the blessing of the Lord,” verse 15, which was already established and known what was “clean and unclean” meat.
What blessing, or rather, we should ask, “What kind of food would God bless?” That God has consistently distinguished between “clean and unclean” articles of food should be quite clear. Therefore, let the reader come to the correct conclusion. “By the inspiration of the Spirit of God, Paul the apostle writes that ‘whatsoever ye do,’ even the natural act of eating or drinking, should be done, not to gratify a perverted appetite, but under a sense of responsibility, -- ‘do all to the glory of God.’ Every part of the man is to be guarded; we are to beware lest that which is taken into the stomach shall banish from the mind high and holy thoughts. May I not do as I please with myself? ask some, as if we were seeking to deprive them of a great good, when we present before them the necessity of eating intelligently, and conforming all their habits to the Laws God has established.” CD:56.
The choice is yours, but God has set His seal on those who choose to dine the way He has proscribed. Therefore, the reference to a blessing here is to a common meal, which is the theme of this verse. Because a common meal was not a sacrificial one, ceremonial cleanliness would not be insisted upon as in the case of a sacrificial meal. Consequently, when the people ate at their own homes the person who was not Levitically clean might also participate having the Lord’s blessing.
Here is my breakdown in my Bible Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy:
12:15: “whatsoever thy soul lusteth after” = However, “according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which He hath given thee.” And the instruction in Leviticus 20:25: “You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean.”
There were cases when they might kill and eat in all their gates such as the roebuck and the hart, or all clean wild beasts; for these being taken in hunting, and frequently shot by arrows, their blood could not be poured out at the altar. The bottom line is that the ceremonial distinctions did not apply in such cases where animals, for example, where taken during hunting, or were not used for sacrificial offerings, such as “the roebuck” (or gazelle) “and hart.” Therefore, the word “unclean” does not mean “unclean” animals were now acceptable for consumption; rather, it is speaking of animals that were sacrificially “clean,” or sacrificially “unclean,” for the sacrificial offerings. See my Leviticus 17:13Note.
12:21: “be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill” = This verse is VERY IMPORTANT in understanding the “killing,” the Hebrew word for “kill” here is, “zabach,” and should have been translated as, “sacrifice;” that most Israelites could not financially or physically traverse to Jerusalem three times a year. Thus, this verse tells us that our God gives accommodation for His people. For according to Exodus 20:24 -- understanding that the Levitical priest made representation for the people in his area -- “in all places where I record My Name.” Thus, the people could go to “the Levite that is within thy gates,” Deuteronomy 12:18, of the city the people were in or nearer than that of Jerusalem.
12:22: “the unclean and the clean” =According to Deuteronomy 12:15, “the unclean and the clean” is speaking of persons, not animals. In other words, any of the Israelites, whether “unclean” or “clean” could and were to take part. Also, the only animals you could eat would be those “according to the blessing of the LORD thy God,” Deuteronomy 12:15.
MATTHEW 15:11: “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.”
Jesus is not changing or discussing God’s clean and unclean meats Law here. But if we were to follow along with the thought that Jesus is discussing dietary Laws here, then Jesus would be teaching us that it is no longer acceptable to “eat bread” (see verse 2). Because (subject wise) that would have to be the article in question (if diet is the focus here).
However, people who wish to make of this verse a cancellation of any of God’s Laws are falling into the trap of the individuals whom Christ condemns in verse 9 (the ones who worship Him in vain). Since this is ridiculous reasoning, the subject now becomes obvious, i.e., not a cancellation of God’s Laws, but worshipping God with your “heart,” verses 8 & 18 & 19. Also, their false “tradition” of “unwashen hands defileth,” verse 20, Jesus says is of no consequence when compared to what comes from the “heart.”
If Jesus was canceling anything, it is quite clear that it is their “tradition.” The entire discussion (verses 1-20) becomes clear when we read it in context. Jesus turns their question (verse 2) around and points out that God wants a “heart” relationship with us, and that He is concerned only about “those things which proceed. . . [and] come forth from the heart,” verse 18.
MARK 7:18-20: “(18) And He saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; (19) Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging [Greek; G2511; meaning, “eliminating”] all meats? (20) And He said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.”
The problem comes with the many new translations such as the “NIV” translating the end of verse 19 as, “Jesus declared all foods clean.” The correct translation of “purging” does NOT translate to “declaring,” and then adding the word “clean,” which is not even in the text, is deceptive and forms a doctrine that is not present.
The argument is that now Jesus has made all meats “clean,” i.e., “purging all meats.” If all meats are now declared available to eat by Jesus, why did Peter not get the message when he stated to God Himself after Jesus had been resurrected, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” In FACT, had Jesus declared all foods “clean,” there would have been such an uproar from the Sadducees and Pharisees and a calling for the stoning of Christ (as before when claiming to be God), for attempting to abolish the God ordained clean and unclean dietary Laws. Yet we have no such record. And since the record states of no such action, therefore it is easy to conclude that that is not what is being discussed here.
The context deals, not with biological uncleanness, but with uncleanness supposedly incurred from the omission of ritual washing, i.e., the “unwashen hands” of verses 2 & 5. According to “Thayer’s Greek Definition’s,” the “bread” here mentioned means, “Anything for the sustenance of the body of which bread [grains] is a principal part.” The kind of food the disciples ate is not even referred to, but specifically only the way in which they ate it, i.e., with “unwashen hands.” Therefore, to then proceed to make the audacious move to make all food (rats and pigs) clean, is theological blasphemy.
Throughout Christ’s dealings with the Sadducees and Pharisees, He deals with the separation of the “Commandments of God,” verses the “traditions of men.” And in this instance, Christ is concerned with what is in the “heart” of man (verses 6 & 19 & 21; implied in Christ’s entire discourse with the “elders”).
Again, it should be understood that the Greek word “G1033; bromata,” translated as “meats,” means simply “that which is eaten,” i.e., “food,” and includes all kinds of food, bread, vegetables, animals. It NEVER denotes the flesh of dead animals only, as distinguished from other kinds of food, unless the context makes it so (and in this case it does not). To extend the words “purging all meats” to include all flesh foods contrary to the “clean and unclean” foods set up by God (Christ) Himself, concluding that Christ here abolished the distinction between clean and unclean flesh used as food(see Lev. Ch. 11 & Deu. Ch. 14), is to ignore completely the meaning of our Lord (as evidenced by the breakdown of the Greek).
Let’s be honest. What the verse is really talking about and found in the context, is “unwashen hands,” Mark 7:5. The context is that when the dirt that was taken in with the food, because of their “unwashen hands,” the dirt would be “purged” out “into the draught,” along with the food. Consequently, the purging is not the cleansing, or making of all “food” clean, but only cleansing the dirt from the intestinal tract. Thus, to “purge” the intestinal track is not the same discussion as if to discuss the “purging [of] all meats.”
The conclusion, and our Lord’s main point for even dealing with “unwashen hands,” is His typical turning around (or against) what His enemies are trying to catch Him in and bringing any discussion to what its main point should be, and that is “salvation.” How is that you say? By stating, “That which cometh out. . . defileth the man,” verse 20. And to be clear, He is not talking about just a bowel movement, but also and more to the point, what comes out of one’s mouth.
Christ here (as always) is dealing with a heart relationship among His people and Himself; not a dietary issue. Eating (clean or unclean) food does not change or affect the heart (except being disobedient to God’s Word), even when leaving the body. By Contrast, the conversation that comes out of a man’s mouth does defile him. Even verse 15confirms this: “the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.” See also Mathew 15:11, which states the same thing. Our Lord is here declaring that ceremonial washings have nothing to do with food being clean or unclean. As always, it is a “heart” issue with our Lord. And that is what His discourse is all about.
Another Key to understanding this verse properly is to consider the word used by both parties, that being “defile.” Daniel clearly identifies the use of that word in the same context that is taking place here, i.e., “Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat,” Daniel 1:8. However, that is the secondary issue that in reality is not taking place here. But if it were, see again Daniel 1:8. Remember, it is a “heart” issue here. What proceeds out of your mouth is the real you.
The distinction between clean and unclean animals was not an issue among the Jews, nor was it an issue in the early Church, for they knew their own dietary Laws and this was not an issue with them (it is only an issue in our day. In other words, the dietary issue was not considered by them here; it was already understood). Also, if God’s Health Laws were good for a person’s health before the cross, then they would be just as good after the cross.
ACTS 10:11-16: “(11) And saw Heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: (12) Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. (13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. (14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. (15) And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (16) This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into Heaven.”
Most Christians today treat the God directed and Jerusalem council affirmations of such dietary Laws of God as temporary recommendations. In fact, almost all Christian denominations contend that Christ cleansed all food when He was here on earth at His First Coming. To contend that Christ Came to earth to CANCEL any of His Holy Laws is to misunderstand our unchangeable God. The Biblical fact that God is unchanging is clear from the following texts: Numbers 23:19; Psalm 89:34; Psalm 102:27; Ecclesiastes 3:14-15; Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 1:11-12; 13:8; James 1:17; First Peter 1:23.
Thus, the so-called “Apostolic Decree,” was neither temporary nor a new code of Christian ethics that excluded everything else related to the Old Testament. In truth, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28), the apostles and elders of the Church reproduced the regulations as listed in Leviticus, the Eleventh Chapter, and Deuteronomy, the Fourteenth Chapter. See also Revelation 2:14 & 20, in which the Jerusalem council decisions are still in effect. The Biblical affirmation that no objections were raise from the demands of the Jerusalem council is proof positive that the dietary Laws of God were NOT, nor EVER to be changed.
By contrast, Peter knew nothing about any change in the dietary Laws of God, for he says in verse 14: “Not so Lord for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” In fact, Peter didn’t do this just once, but three times (verse 16). However, Peter did not know what the vision meant (verse 17), nor had he been instructed ever by Christ during His lifetime that all food articles where now considered clean; else he would not have made this statement. Nor would he have had trouble with eating the articles presented before him in the vision. For Christ to change His dietary Laws after the Cross would mean that He would have to come back and die on the Cross again for the new Laws.
It is very important to take note that he did NOT eat anything in the sheet, as he was instructed to do. Think about it, if the Lord asked you to do something, would you want to argue with Him knowing the history of Jonah running from God and Peter himself deniying Him three times?
Acts 10:15 becomes important here in the statement of our Lord: “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” The question naturally arises, What has our Lord cleansed?
Any God-fearing Jew, such as Peter, already knew the answer to that question; which was not the articles of food, which in turn is why Peter became confused. This brings us to verse 17, which says, “Now while Peter doubted in himself what the vision which he had seen should mean,” and again in verse 19, “While Peter thought on the vision.” In other words, Peter still could not understand the meaning of the vision. For in verses 19-20 the Spirit said unto him, “go with them, doubting nothing.” Still “doubting.”
However, he must have finally understood the meaning of the vision, for in verses 28 & 29 & 34 & 35, and Acts, Chapter 15:8-9, Peter states the purpose and meaning of the vision. Looking at verse 28 we read: “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” The meaning was now clear. It had nothing to do with diet. The Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles from henceforth. This is the Biblical interpretation of the vision. Any other conjecture stands in direct contradiction to this plainly interpreted passage of Scripture. To attempt to apply this passage to the canceling of the “unclean” foods Law of God is a great misuse of Scripture.
In fact, according to Acts 11:3, Jews were not to eat with Gentiles. Not only because they were not to associate with them. But more importantly, the text specifically mentions what may be served (unclean meats) at a meal in their homes. In other words, here again there are specific foods that are registered as “unclean” and God’s people are not to eat of them (assumed that Gentiles do).
The meaning of the vision was now clear. It had nothing to do with diet, nor the canceling of God’s dietary Laws, as found in Leviticus, Chapter 11, and Deuteronomy, Chapter 14, or else our God is changeable and unreliable in His Words to us for even Salvational issues, or any other teachings we have come to believe to be unchangeable or unarguable.
Also, nowhere in this vision does our Lord teach or instruct which animals are now clean or unclean (unless you say “all”). Nowhere in the vision, nor in the voice, are there any declarations of a change in the diet or dietary restrictions as already given Biblically. By contrast, the meaning of the vision became clear later to Peter, in that the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles from henceforth.
This is the proper Biblical interpretation of the vision. Any other conjecture stands in direct contradiction to this plainly interpreted passage of Scripture for us in verse 28, “not call any man common or unclean.” To attempt to apply this passage to the canceling of the “unclean” foods Law of God is a great misuse of Scripture. That “ ‘swine’s’ flesh was fit for food. . . is a very narrow, and erroneous interpretation, and is plainly contradicted in the Scriptural account of the vision and its consequences.” 3SP:328.
ROMANS 14:1-21: “Him that is weak in the faith. . .”
The main issue here is the concern over a fellow (weaker) believer. This is the focus and we should not conjecture further. When a person comes before the Lord and “believeth that he may eat all things,” verse 2, this would be in conjunction with, and accordance to God’s dietary Laws as found in Leviticus, Chapter 11, and Deuteronomy, Chapter 14; Paul being the devoted Jew that he was is instructing that he will not eat food that is sacrificed to idols if a “weak” brother who abstains from such is present.
As an example: I believe I have freedom in Christ Jesus and “CAN DO ALL THINGS,” Philippians 4:12. However, this then does not cancel God’s Laws and mean I can then go out and steal, murder, and commit adultery; but still love God.
Just consider for a moment with me here. I think we can agree that the point of the discourse is that no food is “unclean” just because it was offered to an idol. Therefore, Paul is not, in verses 2 & 3, canceling the Law of not eating the blood with the flesh (see Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; Deu. 12:16; Acts 15:20); neither does he here cancel the Holy Sabbath day (see Acts 15:21); but rather is referring to days separate from the Sabbath (see Lev. 23:37-38; Col. 2:16); which should become obvious.
Remember, that the Greek word translated “meat” (verses 15 & 17 & 20), is “bromata,” and means “food” of all kinds. While in verses 14 & 20, “meat” refers to foods that were first offered to idols (see 1Co. 8:1 & 4 & 10; 10:19 & 28) and not to the “clean and unclean” meats Law of God. However, if a man’s conscience bothers him for eating such food offered to idols, he should abstain from such foods. Or, if it causes an offense for a brother (fellow believer), he should likewise not eat from such a source which would offend the “weaker” brother.
Sometimes it is helpful to carefully notice what a Bible text does not say, as well as what it does say. Verses 2 & 3 say nothing about what is eaten. Therefore we could not possibly conclude which foods are now acceptable by the Lord. We cannot assume “all things” (are eatable, verse 2), because we find nowhere in this passage a cancellation of God’s “clean and unclean” meats Law. Also, verses 5 & 6 say nothing about either worship or the Seventh-day Sabbath. They simply talk about regarding a day. To say this particular day is the Seventh-day Sabbath, which was instituted by God, blessed by God, and Sanctified by God, Genesis 2:3, is an unwarranted assumption.
Romans 14:1 sets the tone for the entire Chapter; indicating that the discussion focuses on “doubtful disputations,” or disputes in doubtful matters, NOT things which are already established. In Romans 14:20 we find: “All things indeed are pure.” Are unclean foods such as pork and mice -- with those still partaking of these articles of food being put to death at His Second Coming (see Isa. 66:15-17), a “doubtful” disputation (verse 1)? Is the Seventh-day Sabbath, set apart by God at creation (Gen. 2:1-3), placed within the heart of the Moral Law (Exo. 20:8-11), a “doubtful” matter? Certainly Not!
In Romans 14:14 we have this little statement: “there is nothing unclean of itself.” We must remember that the subject is still foods that are sacrificed to idols. Therefore, the issue is clearly not the distinction between the foodsdeemed “clean and unclean” via God’s established dietary Laws. Paul might have been stoned had his audience thought him to be stating such of animals. Therefore, we can know that he was not stating this. By contrast, what Paul is saying is that there is nothing wrong, per se, in eating foods that might have been offered to idols, yet are sanctified by God’s Word, unless a weaker brother is present.
In regards to God’s Holy Sabbath day, the key to our passage is found in verse 6, which states; “He that regards the day regards it unto the Lord. . .” The issue revolved around fast days, not every Seventh-day Sabbath day. Some Jewish Christians believed there was particular merit in fasting on certain days. They judged others by their own standards. The Pharisees fasted at least twice a week and boasted about it (see Luke 18:12). In Romans, Chapter 14, Paul is pointing out that to fast or not to fast on a certain day is a matter of individual conscience, not a matter of God’s Commandments.
FIRST CORINTHIANS 10:23-28: “(23) All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. (24) Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth. (25) Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: (26) For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof. (27) If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. (28) But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.”
To conclude that God is giving new light in this passage about His Dietary Laws is to ignore the context and purpose of the discourse. Notice verse 23 where Paul states twice: “All things are lawful for me.” Does this then mean that Paul cancels his statement in Romans 13:9 and CAN “commit adultery,” “steal,” etcetera? “God forbid,” he says (see Gal. 2:17). For he also says, “I myself serve the Law of God” (Rom. 7:25). This would include God’s dietary Laws (see Lev. Ch. 11 and Deu. Ch. 14 again).
What Paul is setting up is the reason for you “asking no question for conscience sake.” And it is because “we know that an idol is nothing,” First Corinthians 8:4, and food offered to an idol is only a problem to a “weak brother,” verses 10-14, eating “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles,” or better, “market place,” verse 25, does not mean Paul is canceling God’s “clean and unclean” meats Law. If Paul is canceling anything, it is that food “offered in sacrifice unto idols, [is no longer of any concern because] we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other [non-changing] God but one.” First Corinthians 8:4.
FIRST TIMOTHY 4:3-5: “(3) Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (4) For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: (5) For it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.”
Note verse five. Paul affirms that any created thing in the food line is acceptable as long as it meets two tests, i.e., ONE (1): It must be approved (or sanctified) by the Word of God, and TWO (2): It should be prayed over with thanksgiving. To be “sanctified” by the Word of God would mean that it is “sanctioned” by that Word, making some Law (Lev. Ch. 11; Deu. Ch. 14) still in effect. Therefore, in order to pray over and ask God’s blessing for the food to be partaken of, we better be certain God has “sanctioned” it in His Word.
Just as we would not ask God to bless us in the killing of another human being, neither should we ask Him to bless us in the destruction of our bodies by blessing any unclean meats. And if we notice in verse 3 the statement, “which God hath created to be received,” we should not miss the point that Paul was teaching and recognizing that NOT everything that God “created” was good for food. Remember, Paul did recognize (being a devote Jew) that God created certain things in the food chain that could “be received” with our Lord’s predetermined permission and conditions that had already been established (see Lev. Ch. 11 and Deu. Ch. 14 again).
What many Christians seem to miss here in this passage is that in it Paul makes reference to creation, i.e., “which God hath created.” If we are going to restrict this passage to a doctrinal dissertation upon the proper Biblical diet than we must also conclude that the proper Biblical diet that Paul is referring to here is the one set up and established at “creation,” i.e., “fruits, nuts, and grains,” Genesis 1:29. And don’t miss that BIG word “sanctified” in verse 5. The proper understanding of “sanctified” is, “to set apart,” “to make holy.” And our Lord has already shown us which animals were “set apart,” and “sanctified” by Him, and “made holy” by Him (see Lev. Ch. 11 and Deu. Ch. 14repeatedly).