3000 Years of To Eat or Not to Eat. Why or Why Not? -- Depends Who You Ask

 Bob Thiel is out with his semi-annual and typically Church of God defining practice of keeping what can be eaten and what cannot in mind.  

Why Some Are Eating ‘Biblically Clean’ and COVID

https://www.cogwriter.com/news/doctrine/why-some-now-are-eating-biblically-clean-and-covid/

We here all know the Church of God drill on not eating the unclean animals listed in the OT so I won't rehearse it. 

But the answer as to "Why not?" has always been elusive. 

Of course the New Testament gives the definite impression that for Paul , as Apostle to the Gentiles, there was no problem with eating unclean foods or even meats offered to idols, which he was told to avoid in Acts 15.  He blew that off once back home to Corinth with caveats I am sure he only practiced in the presence of "the weak in understanding".   I Cor 8 and 10   In this he was truly "all things to all men depending"

And without all the apologetics given by the Churches of God, we have Peter, in a going to the Gentiles setting, being told in Acts 10:

10And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, 11And 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: 12Wherein were all manner of four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 16This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

This was done three times. Peter doubted the meaning but then got the hint.

“28 And he said unto them, 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 shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”

And, of course, we know the COG apologetic being, "Well yeah, go to the Gentiles for sure with the Gospel, but we still don't literally eat the Unclean" etc. 

Jesus is even said to have noted:

“Hear me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him…. Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) (Mark 7:1-5, 14-19; RSV)

We're not going to worry if the "Thus" was a later editorial opinion or part of the author's intent. It's in the Bible. 

This post is the "Why Not?" of eating or not eating the creatures on the planet, and debating all the "health" reasons for doing or not doing so. Every one of them can be refuted or argued endlessly about.  For example, today the answer to the health concerns over 

"Which meat is healthier, pork or beef?  is...

"Pork chops used to be on the doctors’ hit list. Today, however, pork is “the other white meat” and is a healthy alternative to red meat. And when it’s eaten in reasonable quantities (8 oz), a pork chop can be quite good for you."

But I would like to draw our attention to what the Jewish Rabbis and scholars have speculated about as to "Why" about. Precious little has to do with health vs it will kill you and God knows what's good for you.  It is also a fact of Israelite history that they were warned not to because they often did not heed the rules.

Huge topic in Jewish history and a good read of the various and many Jewish views as to why can be fascinating. No real why seems to be agreed upon. Church of God types, of course, know more than the people who wrote the Book and the rules and have simplistic views and answers. They also are forced to weave fantastic apologetics for many clear New Testament dismissals of the rules for clean and unclean.

To the point.  The conclusion of the Jewish argument as to "Why are some creatures good for food and others forbidden? is...

. "There is no other reason for all the dietary laws than that God gave them" (Samson Raphael Hirsch, "Horeb," 1837, p. 433). Thus says Lasch ("Die Goettlichen Gesetze," 1857, p. 173) in regard to the dietary laws: "He who truly fears God will observe His laws without inquiring into the reasons for them." Any question regarding the historical development of these laws is obviously excluded from the standpoint of traditional Judaism. "The dietary laws," says M. Friedländer ("The Jewish Religion," p. 237, London, 1891), "are exactly the same now as they were in the days of Moses."

A few quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia

"The distinction between clean and unclean animals appears first in Gen. vii. 2-3, 8, where it is said that Noah took into the ark seven and seven, male and female, of all kinds of clean beasts and fowls, and two and two, male and female, of all kinds of beasts and fowls that are not clean. Again, Gen. viii. 20 says that after the flood Noah "took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar that he had built to the Lord." It seems that in the mind of this writer the distinction between clean and unclean animals was intended for sacrifices only; for in the following chapter he makes God say: "Everything that moveth shall be food for you" (Gen. ix. 3). "

"In Leviticus (xi. 1-47) and Deuteronomy (xiv. 1-20), however, the distinction between "clean" and "unclean" is made the foundation of a food-law: "This is the law . . . to make a difference between the clean and the unclean, and between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten" (Lev. xi. 46-47)."

Reasons for Distinction.

"There was much speculation as to the reasons why certain species of animals should be allowed as food and others forbidden. In the Letter of Aristeas (lines 144-154) it is explained at length that "these laws have been given for justice' sake to awake pious thoughts and to form the character." 

"One should not say "The meat of the hog is obnoxious to me," but "I would and could eat it had not my Heavenly Father forbidden it" (Sifra, Ḳedoshim, end). In Talmudic-Midrashic literature no attempt is made to bring these laws nearer to human understanding. It was feared that much defining would endanger the observance of them, and all were satisfied "that they are things the use of which the Torah forbids" (Tanḥuma, Lev. ed. Buber, Shemini, iii. 29), although they were not capable of explanation."

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4408-clean-and-unclean-animals

" Whether justified in doing so or not, the great majority of West European Jews have broken away from the dietary laws; and the question for the Reform rabbis of the nineteenth century was whether the religious consciousness of the modern Jew should be allowed to suffer from a continual transgression of these laws, or whether the laws themselves should be submitted to a careful scrutiny as to their meaning and purpose and be revised—that is, either modified or abrogated by the rabbinical authorities of the present time. "

"A proposition to this effect was made at the Rabbinical Conference of Breslau (see Conferences, Rabbinical), and a committee consisting of Drs. Einhorn, Holdheim, A. Adler, S. Hirsch, and Herzfeld was appointed to report at the next conference, which, however, was never held. Dr. Einhorn's report, on behalf of the committee, was nevertheless published in "Sinai" (1859 and 1860). Its leading idea is that the dietary laws, with the exception of the prohibition of blood and of beasts that have died (or die) a natural death, are inseparably connected with the Levitical laws of purity and the priestly sacrificial laws, and are therefore of a mere temporary ceremonial character and not essentially religious or moral laws."

"G. Wiener in an exhaustive work of 524 pages, M. Kalisch, and K. Kohler have pleaded for a revision of the dietary laws. S. R. Hirsch and M. Friedländer have written in favor of the full retention of the laws (see bibliography below). Sam Hirsch gives a symbolic and allegorical interpretation of these laws in his Catechism, 2d ed., pp. 55-64, Philadelphia, 1877. As a matter of course, this question of revising or abrogating Biblical and rabbinical laws has no bearing upon the majority of Jews, who believe in the immutability of the Law, both the written and the oral. See Abrogation of Laws; Articles of Faith; Reform Judaism."

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5191-dietary-laws#anchor7

Personally, I find this interesting...

I. Animal and Plant Names:Arguments in Favor of Totemism.

A considerable number of persons and places in the Old Testament have names derived from animals or plants. Jacobs ("Studies in Biblical Archæology," pp. 94-103) has given a list of over 160 such names, including Oreb (the raven) and Zeeb (the wolf), princes of the Midianites; Caleb (the dog), Tola (the worm), Shual (the fox), Zimri (the chamois), Jonah (the dove), Huldah (the weasel), Jael (the ibex), Nahash (the serpent), Kezia (the cassia), Shaphan (the rock-badger), Ajalon (the great stag), and Zeboim (the hyena). Many of these, however, are personal names; but among the Israelitish tribes mentioned in Num. xxvi. are the Shualites, or fox clan of Asher; the Shuphamites, or serpent clan of Benjamin; the Bachrites, or camel clan; and the Arelites, or lion clan of Gad. Other tribes having similar names are the Zimrites, or hornet clan, and the Calebites, or dog tribe. In the genealogy of the Horites (Gen. xxxvi.) several animal names occur, such as Shobal (the young lion), Zibeon (the hyena), Anah (the wild ass), Dishan (the gazel), Akan (the roe), Aiah (the kite), Aran (the ass), and Cheran (the lamb). The occurrence of such a large number of animal names in one set of clan names suggests the possibility that the Horites, who were nomads, were organized on the totem-clan system.

(NOTE:  I always wondered why Moses would raise "the serpent in the wilderness" for healing of snake bite when such images were strictly forbidden in the Big Ten "

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live." (Numbers 21:8)

Gospel Jesus confirms this use of the Serpent as meaningful pointing to his own being "lifted up" John 3:14-15. So as a totem perhaps it was fine.)

"IV. Forbidden Food:

Members of a totem clan did not eat the totem animal. As such totems gradually spread throughout the nation, a list of forbidden animals would arise which might be analogous to the list of forbidden animals given in Lev. xi. and Deut. xv. Jacobs, however, has shown that in the list of animal names given by him forty-three are clean as against forty-two unclean."

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14460-totemism

The point being that for the Jewish people and throughout their history since the law of clean and unclean were written by the priests, the "Why?" has many possible reasons with none agreed upon.  

It is truly a case of "Because I said so is why!"

The simplistic idea given by the Churches of God that "because the unclean animals are not good for you and the clean ones are", is shallow and weak. 

Ask about the health benefits of eating any "unclean" creature, such as shrimp and you will scientifically get...

"Health Benefits

Because they're low in carbs and calories and packed with nutrients, shrimp are an ideal choice if you're trying to shed some pounds.

The antioxidants in shrimp are good for your health. These substances can protect your cells against damage. Studies suggest that the antioxidant astaxanthin helps prevent wrinkles and lessens sun damage.

Shrimp also has plenty of selenium. Some studies suggest this mineral prevents certain types of cancer, but there's not enough research to know how well it works."

 The problem with any meats, from Chicken to Pork to Beef to Fish, is in the caution in preparation and not in the nutritional value.   Even pork rinds, (fried pork skins) are considered a much better choice than the standard potato chip which I am sure Church of God types have no problem scarfing down. 

https://drhealthbenefits.com/food-bevarages/meats/health-benefits-of-eating-pork-skin

The point being that the topic of "Why?" are some creatures considered clean and others unclean is a three thousand year old debate amongst the People of the Book themselves with many differencing conclusions drawn. 

Ultimately, "Because God says so" seems to be the best they can do until other come along and say, "Well,  that question today and in the New Testament is rendered moot".

 Others will scream, "Is not! Is not!"