Food and Calendars
Paul argued for tolerance within the church on food regulations and the observation of holy days - The “shadows” have found their fulfillment in Jesus.
The law of Moses specified what foods the people
of God could eat by distinguishing between the “clean” and the “unclean,” with the
consumption of the latter being forbidden. A comprehensive description of the dietary
regulations given to Israel is found in the eleventh chapter of the book
of Leviticus.
Israel was called to be “holy” since
Yahweh was holy, so, it was inappropriate for members of the covenant people to
eat anything that was ritually “unclean.” The nation was required to “distinguish
between the unclean and the clean, and between the living thing that may be
eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten.” To eat “unclean”
meat was an “abomination” before the Lord.
At issue was not personal hygiene or healthy
dietary practices, but ritual purity. An impure state prevented
a person from full participation in the worship of Yahweh, and in the religious
and social life of the nation.
On one occasion, Jesus was challenged by certain
Jews when his disciples ate food with “unwashed hands.” The Pharisees
believed that doing so rendered a person “unclean.” He responded to the
immediate bone of contention but also went further by declaring:
- “Not what enters the mouth defiles a man, but that which proceeds out of the mouth, the same defiles him” - (Matthew 15:11, Mark 7:1-23).
Food enters the mouth, but it “does not
enter into the heart but into the stomach whence it proceeds into the latrine,
thus cleansing all foods.” In stating this, Jesus undermined the religious
logic behind food restrictions and any resultant limitations on table
fellowship with anyone who might, thereby, be considered ritually unclean - (Mark
7:19).
This saying of Jesus is behind Paul’s
statement in the fourteenth chapter of Romans - “I know and am
persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is profane of itself.” He was
dealing with disagreements between Jewish and Gentile believers in Rome that
included disputes over dietary practices and holy days - (Romans 14:14).
Paul categorized individuals with scruples
about keeping specific days or avoiding certain foods as “weak in the
faith,” though he argued for tolerance between the disputing parties.
On the one hand, those without such scruples are
free to esteem every day the same or to eat whatever they prefer. On the other
hand, those who feel obligated by their conscience to keep holy days or to avoid
certain foods must continue to do so until they are convinced otherwise, for “whatever
is not of faith is a sin.”
In the interim, each group must not only tolerate
the other but also remain sensitive to the other’s scruples - “Let not him
that eats despise him that eats not and let not him that eats not judge him
that eats.”
His call for tolerance did not water down his
principles, for the kingdom of God “consists not of eating and drinking, but
of righteousness and peace and joy in Holy Spirit.” Food does not affect a
person’s standing before God. It neither condemns nor commends one before Him.
Believers are no worse or better if they choose to eat or not to eat certain
foods. Regarding right standing before God, such things are matters of indifference,
and believers must not divide over them - (1 Corinthians 8:7-8).
Paul did not require some Christians to eat
and others not to eat. He left the matter to each man’s conscience. If he had continued
to believe that diet or calendrical observations affected one’s standing before
God, then he could not have made this argument in good conscience. Similarly, to
the Colossians, he wrote:
- (Colossians 2:16-23) - “Let no one, therefore, be judging you in eating and in drinking, or in respect of feast or new moon or Sabbath, which are a shadow of the things to come, whereas the substance is of the Christ… If you have died together with Christ from the first principles of the world, why as though alive in the world, are you submitting to decrees, do not handle nor taste nor touch; which things are all for decay in the using up, according to the commandments and teachings of men? The which things, indeed, though they have an appearance of wisdom in self-devised religious rituals and lowliness of mind, and ill-treatment of body, are in no honorable way for a satisfying of the flesh.”
Paul’s wording is not precisely parallel to
that of Jesus, but the conceptual link with food being subject to “decay”
is clear enough (“food enters into the belly and goes out into the draught”).
In Colossae, the issue may have been fasting
rather than debates over “clean” and “unclean” meats. However, the principle
holds true - let no one judge you in matters of “food and drink.” Such
things are only “shadows” of the substance now found in Jesus, rudimentary things and precursors to the new covenant inaugurated by him.
Paul’s logic indicates that the time of the
shadows had reached its end. The full light of day had dawned in Christ.
Decrees over matters of food and drink constitute the “rudimentary
principles” of the old age that already is “passing away.” Food is
subject to decay, a characteristic of life in this fallen age, but not of life
in the age to come.
None of this means that believers who observe dietary restrictions commit sin. Christians are not obligated to conform to the dietary regulations of Leviticus, but neither is there anything inherently sinful in doing so.
If food does not commend or condemn us before
God, what one eats is irrelevant to one’s standing before Him, it is a matter
of indifference except when eating (or not eating) violates his or her
conscience, or the act offends another believer unnecessarily.
The Levitical food regulations amounted to “shadows,”
and the true substance is now available in Jesus. One is free to eat or not, to
keep the Sabbath or not. However, a red line is crossed whenever we teach that
conformity to dietary regulations or calendrical regulations is necessary for
proper Christian conduct or, even worse, salvation.
However, since Jesus is the substance, why
continue to cling to the “shadows” of the Old Covenant? Indeed, Jesus
has “canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us,
which was hostile to us; and taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the
cross” - (Colossians 2:14).
Comments
Post a Comment
We encourage free discussions on the commenting system provided by the Google Blogger platform, with the stipulation that conversations remain civil. Comments voicing dissenting views are encouraged.