Friday, September 22, 2023

Clean and Unclean in Torah




Clean and Unclean in Torah


In my former life as a member of Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, I believed that I was obligated to follow the clean and unclean animal designations found in Torah. Prior to my baptism into that church, I had enjoyed ham, pork chops, bacon, lobster, and shrimp. Moreover, at the time of my baptism, I was still living with my very Southern grandparents (I was a seventeen-year-old teenager), both of whom were NOT members of the church. Even so, out of love for me, my grandmother drastically changed the way that she prepared meals to accommodate my religious views. I look back on that time now, and I cringe. What a self-centered, self-righteous little sh-t I was!

After reading COG Catholic's How the Bible Brought Me to Bacon at Banned by HWA, the memories of my own experience in this regard came flooding back to me. In that article, the author makes the point that the dietary laws of the eleventh chapter of Leviticus were given to underscore Israel's designation as a people set apart by God. Indeed, this point coincided with the thesis of many of the posts on this blog about the relevance/purpose of that entire body of legislation (in other words, all of the 613 commandments of Torah). Nevertheless, in addition to this very important point, there are a number of other considerations which pertain to the principle of clean and unclean in Scripture.

Interestingly, from the perspective of Scripture, the concept of clean and unclean is always associated with the sacrificial and ceremonial system outlined in Torah. In fact, the first time this distinction between clean and unclean is mentioned in Scripture is in the story of Noah and the flood. We read there that God instructed Noah: "You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female..." (Genesis 7:2, NKJV) Later, after the waters of the flood had receded and Noah and his family had emerged from the ark, we read: "Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar." (Genesis 8:20)

It is, however, in the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy that the concept of clean and unclean is fully developed. In the fifth chapter of Leviticus, we read that any Israelite who touched any unclean thing (animal or human) was required to present an offering for the offense (verses 2-3). Likewise, in the seventh chapter of that same book, we are informed that any Israelite "who touches any unclean thing, such as human uncleanness, an unclean animal, or any abominable unclean thing, and who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering that belongs to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people." (Verse 21) In the tenth chapter, we learn that God spoke directly to Aaron and told him: "Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, that you may distinguish between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean, and that you may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord has spoken to them by the hand of Moses." (Verses 9-11)

Then, the imperative to differentiate between that which was clean and that which was unclean was extended to that which the children of Israel were permitted to eat (Leviticus 11). As with other features of this legislation, the commandments were specifically addressed to the children of Israel (verse 2). Moreover, the conclusion of the chapter makes very clear just how important this concept of distinguishing between clean/unclean was to the overall covenant between God and Israel. We read: "This is the law of the animals and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten." (Verses 46-47)

As we shall see, however, the principle of clean/unclean went far beyond what was acceptable/unacceptable to eat. In chapters 12-17 of Leviticus, we are informed that people, dwellings, and furnishings can also be unclean. Also, in the twenty-second chapter of the book, we see that a person could be made unclean just by touching or coming into contact with something that was unclean. In the book of Numbers, we learn that there were periods of time where someone or something could be designated as unclean. In the fourteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, the list of clean and unclean meats is reiterated, but in the twenty-third chapter we see that the entire camp of the Israelites was to be free of any unclean things. In all of these instances, it is interesting to note that the Hebrew word translated into English as "unclean" indicates something that has been fouled, defiled, or polluted in some way. This is the sense of the word in all of its manifestations in Torah. Moreover, once again, it is clear that this designation was intimately associated with the ritual, ceremonial, and sacrificial life of the community.

Even so, Torah also introduced the Israelites to the concept of clean and unclean as it related to the moral life of the community. In the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus, the rituals associated with the Day of Atonement are outlined, and it clearly pointed to the removal of the sins of the people. In describing the role of the High Priest, we read: "Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins; and so he shall do for the tabernacle of meeting which remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness." (Verses 15-16) Also, as part of the ceremony, Aaron was to take some of the blood of the sacrifice and sprinkle it on the altar to "cleanse it, and consecrate it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel." (Verse 19) Indeed, in the summary of the ceremony, we read: "For on that day the priest shall make atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before the Lord." (Verse 30)

Interestingly, the concept is developed even further in the Prophets and Writings of the Hebrew Bible. In Isaiah, non-Israelites are characterized as being unclean (35:8 and 52:1). In the writings of Ezekiel, the Israelites and their leaders are taken to task for failing to differentiate between that which is clean and unclean (22:26 and 44:23). Moreover, just as we have seen with the description of the Day of Atonement, the Prophets and Writings talk about God's ability to cleanse the children of Israel from their moral uncleanness. We read: "I will cleanse them from all their iniquity by which they have sinned against Me, and I will pardon all their iniquities by which they have sinned against Me and by which they have transgressed against Me." (Jeremiah 33:8) In Ezekiel, we read: "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols." (36:25) Likewise, in the 51st Psalm, we read: "Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity And cleanse me from my sin." (Verse 2) "Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." (Verse7) "Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me." (Verse 10)

Thus, we have seen how the concepts of clean and unclean were developed in Torah and the other Hebrew Scriptures, but the question for us is: How does all of this relate to the Christian? Herbert Armstrong's answer was that Christians should observe the Day of Atonement and the dietary laws. The New Testament, however, makes clear that we (Christians) are made clean by the blood of Jesus Christ - that all of that clean and unclean stuff (ritual/ceremonial, sacrificial, and moral) finds fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth! Once again, according to Jesus and his apostles, the Hebrew Scriptures MUST be interpreted through the lens of Jesus Christ.

Christ told his disciples that they had been cleansed by hearing the message which he had given to them. (John 15:3) And, a central part of that message was about what defiles a person - what makes a person unclean. In the Gospel of Matthew, we read that the scribes and Pharisees confronted Christ about the fact that his disciples weren't following their rituals for ceremonial cleanliness. In response, we are told that Christ pointed out their hypocrisy - that they had completely abandoned what God actually expected/demanded of them to pursue their own notions about religious practice (15:1-9). Next, we are told that he turned to his disciples and said: "Hear and understand: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." (Verses 10-11) Then, Peter asked him what he meant by this "parable" (verse 15). Christ responded: "Are you also still without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man." (Verses 16-20) In other words, it isn't the observance of a ritual which makes a person clean/unclean - it's what's in that persons heart!

Likewise, in the first epistle of John, we read: "This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1:5-9)

In the epistle to the Hebrews, we read: "Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (9:11-14) Likewise, in the following chapter, the author informed his audience that Christ had "sprinkled" their dirty consciences and washed their bodies clean (10:22).

In Paul's first letter to the saints at Corinth, he listed several unrighteous behaviors that make people unclean (6:9-10). He continued: "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." (Verse 11) In similar fashion, Paul wrote to Titus about "the washing of regeneration" (3:5), and to the Ephesians about Christ sanctifying the Church "having cleansed her by the washing of water." (5:26) In other words, it is Jesus Christ which makes the Christian clean before God!

Moreover, this message is reinforced in the book of Revelation. John said that he saw "a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands" (7:9). Continuing with the thought, John was told that "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." (7:14) Once again, the symbolism is clear - it is Christ who makes us clean before God!

To be sure, there are other passages which have been cited by both Armstrongists and more traditional Christians in connection with this topic of clean and unclean. Chief among them is the account of Peter's dream in the book of Acts. Unfortunately, both sides frequently ignore the context of this dream in trying to buttress their own arguments about clean/unclean. In the account, we are informed that an angel had instructed a Gentile named Cornelius to contact the Apostle Peter (for the purpose of becoming a Christian - see Acts 10:1-8). Prior to this time, Christ's original disciples had focused on evangelizing among the Jews of Judea and the surrounding territories - there had NOT been any effort to fulfill the Great Commission and carry the good news about Christ to the rest of the world (Acts 1-9).

Now, while all of that was going on with Cornelius, the angel, and Cornelius' emissaries, God had given Peter a dream. Continuing with the account, we read that Peter "became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' But Peter said, 'Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.' And a voice spoke to him again the second time, 'What God has cleansed you must not call common.' This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again." (10:10-16) Clearly, in this instance, God equated the concept of commanding Peter (a Torah observant Jew) to eat unclean meats with the acceptance of Gentiles into the Church. Indeed, later, Peter makes this connection himself (10:34-48). Yet again, the message is clear: Christ makes those who are unclean clean!

Another one of those passages that is often mentioned by both sides in this regard is the fourteenth chapter of Paul's epistle to the saints at Rome. In this passage, Paul described the situation among Christ's disciples in that city: "For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand." (14:2-4) He went on to say: "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak." (14:20-21) For me, this is a warning to both sides in this debate over the enforcement of the Levitical dietary laws and other religious notions related to diet. In other words, this stuff is peripheral - it's not that important - it's certainly NOT a matter of salvation!

Thus, in summary, we see that this distinction between clean and unclean was used by God to distinguish the children of Israel from the nations which surrounded them and to underscore the importance of the ceremonial and sacrificial systems which were an integral part of his covenant with that people. And, as with every other feature of Torah, Prophets, and Writings, for the Christian, this distinction between clean and unclean pointed to Jesus Christ and his work. In other words, the biblical concept of clean and unclean finds its fulfillment in Jesus. Moreover, because Christ makes us clean before God, the observance of the regulations surrounding clean and unclean meats is redundant and unnecessary - the substance/reality overwhelms the shadow/symbol! Finally, we have also demonstrated in our examination of what Scripture has to say on the subject, that NOTHING in those writings equates this principle with physical health (that is something which some of us have added to justify our practices). So, as Christians, let us shun the uncleanness of our former lives and wash away those sins in the blood of Jesus Christ! 

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

More atheistic filth designed to lead the brethren away from the truth. Shame on you all! All this blog does is bad mouth the truth that was revealed to us through Mr. Armstrong. I absolutely would not want to be in any of your shoes on judgement day!

Anonymous said...

..."NOTHING in those writings equates this principle with physical health"...

So the leper doesn't have to cry unclean, unclean?

......"let us shun the uncleanness of our former lives and wash away those sins in the blood of Jesus Christ!"

And exactly how do you do that?

Uh, forget it. Don't answer.

RSK said...

What're you doing, trying to trigger em all over again?

Ronco said...

Lonnie, it's obvious that you didn't pay attention to Pastor Bill Watson's sermon.

Anonymous said...

The way to stay clean is to keep the Sabbath and shun Sunday keeping. Keep holy what GOD has made holy.

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

Regarding the first three comments in this thread:
Most atheists could care less about the applicability of any of the provisions of Torah to Christians. This blog critiques the heretical teachings of Herbert Armstrong and attempts to demonstrate that they are NOT consistent with what is revealed in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. A leper was considered unclean because of his/her appearance and because they had a primitive understanding that things like leprosy could spread to others (also mold and mildew). A woman after childbirth or on her period was also considered unclean - as was a man who had had a wet dream. In other words, the uncleanness was related to the presentation of the physical body, NOT the person's health status. In other words, the question of a person being clean or unclean was related to their appropriateness for participation in the religious life of the community. And, no I'm not trying to trigger anyone - just trying to make them think about why they believe what they believe :)

Anonymous said...

A COG member think for themself? Now that’s a novel idea!

RSK said...

Oh, I dont know. Its pretty easy to send COGlodytes into a frothy rage, and two posts about meats in the same week might be a really mean thing to do. ;)

Anonymous said...

Not sure if the post from anon 3:25:00 PM PDT is genuine or simply posted as a trigger.
If genuine then which one of the 300+ splinters from wwcog do you belong too?
Some commentators have said there are 700 or so ‘splinters’.
Not exactly a glowing recommendation for Christianity is it?
And what is the truth’ as you understand it? Can you articulate it? Are you open to critique pointing out errors that others may perceive are in your ‘arguments’ in support of HWA?
Because objections to HWA and his theology are posted here does not mean that whose who post here are in any way atheists at all. That is intellectually sloppy indeed and quite a bizarre comment which leads me to believe you must be a JW. To lump you in as a JW is entirely intentional and a worthy response to your post. One has no doubt you could easily point out the flaws in JW doctrine, of which there are many; but have a blind spot with HWA. Touché.

Anonymous said...

The way to stay clean is to keep the Sabbath and shun Sunday keeping.

...except on Pentecost, apparently.

Anonymous said...

While the scripture does not say anything about health, I cannot help but feel there was some criterion related to suitability for food that God used to make a distinction between clean and unclean animals. I left Armstrongism back in 1995 but I still follow the dietary principles. Actually, over the past decade or so, the idea of eating any animals is beginning to acquire a undertone of disgust from my view. I doubt that there will be butcheries in Paradise. But I believe Jesus did eat fish in his resurrected state.

Scout

Anonymous said...

If you trigger a trinity person with the truth about God their heads will explode (or so they will claim).

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

Scout,

Many have wondered if this passage from the first chapter of Genesis suggests that God originally intended for humans to be vegetarians: "29 And God said, 'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.'" Personally, I see this chapter as being allegorical/symbolic in nature. Even so, the notion of not harming or killing other creatures does seem consistent with the principle of love. At any rate, I don't consume as much meat as I used to - probably a good thing in terms of health.

RSK said...

Broiled fish at that, or so says the translation. I guess he liked blackened fish!

RSK said...

Its pretty bog-standard stuff. We get those every so often, 6:01, often with near-identical wording. Its always THIS BLOG and THE TRUTH REVEALED THROUGH MR. ARMATRONG and the SHOES comment.

Anonymous said...

Lonnie~ Christian potheads often cite Gen. 1:29 as a proof text that God gave mankind marijuana to enjoy.

Anonymous said...

RSK~ Wouldn't it be gas if our blog critic were actually some mischievous atheist himself? He's been doing his muckraking here for years now.

Cory Haffly said...

Herbert W. Armstrong was no theologian or Bible scholar by any stretch of the imagination. How he ever got into the religion business is a story in itself. That said, he somehow managed to teach many true things, along with false things. A strange brew, a strange story. Much is made of Armstrong's Torah teachings but apart from clean and unclean meats, the Sabbath, Holy Days and tithing, he had virtually nothing to say about the rest of the Torah, what Jews call the 613 commandments. He was no Torah scholar by any stretch. He simply picked and chose a little of this and a little of that and the finished product became known as "Armstrongism". He meant well, I guess, but he didn't know what he was doing. Made a lot of money though.

Cory Haffly said...

Yes, but there's a little more to it than that. But that's definitely a good place to start.

Cory Haffly said...

Today's Jews, the descendants of the Pharisees, are wrong about many things, but at least one thing they have right is Pentecost, which they observe on Sivan 6, NOT the traditional Sunday Pentecost of the WCG and it's offshoots. The Sunday Pentecost idea came from the Sadducees, who ceased to exist after 70 AD.

Anonymous said...

Why is Bill Watson's accent & cadence just like a car salesman...did they press that in Spokesman's Club

Anonymous said...

Finally...someone noticed that the lion will eat straw like the ox

& if so, won't everyone by then

RSK said...

That plus the story in Daniel. I'm no vegetarian, but I will say that... well, being black, hypertensions a concern. So I made it a point some years ago to consume much more veggies and water daily than the average person. Its amazing how different my bloodwork looks since I started doing that.

RSK said...

Heh, yes, 10:43, Ive seen that too. Believe it originated with the Rastafarians, or at least theyre the first group I know of to cite it.

RSK said...

Its possible, as formulaic as the comments are. :)

Anonymous said...

"The way to stay clean is to keep the Sabbath and shun Sunday keeping.

...except on Pentecost, apparently."



Ummm, nice try, but Pentecost is not on Sunday. Pentecost is the first day of the week which falls partly on Saturday and partly on Sunday of the Roman calendar.
Sunday falls partly on the first day of the week, and partly on the second day of the week.

Just because a pagan entity creates a day of the week and labels it "Sunday", and lays it on the calendar overlapping two different days doesn't mean The Church is keeping "Sunday" in any shape or form.

Anonymous said...

Eating is a mystical experience. God created beings with mouths, taste buds and digestive tracts and decreed that they would receive sustenance from consuming other things. It is a principle that runs through the earthly creation and maybe parts of the spirit creation. Angels may eat manna.

But God himself does not have to eat for sustenance. He knows eating and the experience of eating without having ever had the experience because he created the whole concept. He does not have to descend to our level. We are his poetry. It is difficult for those who believe that the metaphors of the Old Testament actually characterize the reality of God to understand that God pre-existed mouths, taste buds and digestive tracts. But he did. They are not a part of his essence. He created the concept of food and eating for us.

And Jesus came to us as the Bread of Life. We must consume him in order to have eternal life. What he is, like food, is incorporated into our substance, becomes a part of our personal ontology. It is the ultimate sublimation of the principle of food and eating. With each mouth of food we take, we are reminded that eternal life is in and through Jesus. I wonder if Armstrongists, who will soon be feasting inordinately, will recognize the Bread of Life in their gustatory acts. Or is what they do simply a physical frenzy of Mosaic zeal. Does their thinking stop at the shallow letter of the law?

In the Book of Revelation, God says:

“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.”

I believe this statement is allegorical. But it once again invokes the principle of food and eating. We must forever consume something to live. Not physically but spiritually. My belief is that we must consume the very life of God – must become partakers of the divine nature. Christ in us.

So maybe it is not so much what you eat. Even though we all have a responsibility to do what we can to maintain health. Rather, how you receive the spiritual meaning of eating. To some it is mundane, physical and Mosaic. To others it is an enactment of receiving life and the resurrection.

Scout

Anonymous said...

Addendum:

I like the Native American approach of some of my ancestors: "In a sacred manner I live." I know Armstrongists will leap on this with accusations of paganism. But I am not referring to the ideology but to acknowledging the pervasiveness of spiritual life and wisdom. Even down to the act of eating lunch. We can eat spiritually or profanely.

Scout

BP8 said...

Both Adam Clark and the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia are in agreement on Genesis 7:2 that "the distinction between clean and unclean animals existed long before the Mosaic law (long before Israel even existed) and the distinction seems to have been designed to mark those animals which were proper for sacrifice and food from those that were not".

This shows that " the concept of the clean and unclean" is (NOT) always associated with the ceremonial system of Torah"! As previously pointed out, in that system people, dwellings, and furnishings could BECOME unclean because of certain circumstances. Likewise, through various means of purification, such as the mere passing of time, cleansing agents, or various atoning sacrifices, they could be rendered clean again.

SUCH IS NOT THE CASE WITH ANIMALS!!! Why?

The pig was created unclean. It is unclean by nature, and there is nothing externally that one can do to make it clean. This is reality, and this is not only indicated by the difference in the various Hebrew and Greek words, but by scriptural usage.

Years after the death and resurrection of Christ and AFTER the new covenant was inaugurated, the apostle Peter STILL acknowledged the validity of the dietary laws, Acts 10. This is also proof that Matthew 15 and Mark 7 are not referring to meats at all but, as pointed out in the post, spiritual defilement. That is how Peter understood it! The actual context of those passages is unwashed hands which can't defile one spiritually, but I'm sure that point doesn't stop people now from washing their hands before eating.

Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 4:5 also upholds the validity of the dietary laws, as those meats "sanctified, set apart by the word of God", which word is present tense "profitable for doctrine and instruction", 2 Timothy 3:16.

Scripture affirms that Christ died to make people clean, not animals! As far as the health aspect goes, E.W. Bullinger's commentary at Leviticus 11:4 states:

"These laws are not arbitrary. Food plays a chief part in health and sickness. It is our wisdom to obey these laws, now, as far as possible. All are based on the preservation and health of the race".

No, these laws are not required or meant to give salvation! But they are like other points of truth, examples of uniformity found in God's word. Existence

Past (Genesis 7,8, Leviticus 11)

Present (Acts 10, 1 Timothy 4:5)

and Future (Isaiah 66:16-18, Revelation 18:2).

RSK said...

Maybe we should all trade recipes. Thatd be something different...

Anonymous said...

Pentecost: Sivan 6 can be after 7 seven day weeks (shabua) but the command is the 50th day after the 7th day sabbath (shabbath) which has to be Saturday sunset to Sunday sunset.

After 90 Armstrongic (I just coined that word) years no ACOG I know of obeys Exodus 23:14-16. Three feasts (chags Hebrew): Nisan 14-20; Pentecost; Tishri 15-21. Other days are annual sabbaths. All days are fixed times (Tanakh), moeds (Hebrew-Lev 23:2).

I eat physically.

Anonymous said...

Bacon, lobster, shrimp, calamari, I eat them all now without a shadow of guilt.

RSK said...

I mean, clean and unclean recipes. Variations for both categories if needed, lol!

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

BP8,

Sorry, the notion that God created something inherently imperfect or unclean does NOT make sense. In the first chapter of Genesis, after creation was finished, we read: "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." Similarly, women menstruating and having children are normal, God-designed bodily functions - they are NOT inherently unclean. They were designated as such in Torah. Why were those particular animals designated as unclean? We can only speculate (and there's nothing wrong with speculation, as long as we don't treat it as dogma).

As for I Timothy, 4:1 "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer." For me, this suggests that Christians should give thanks for - and ask God's blessing on - everything we eat! I certainly don't see anything in the context that suggests an affirmation that Christians are obligated to observe the Torah dietary laws. As always, though, I'm content to let our readers review the various passages and arguments and decide for themselves (just don't try to impose the dictates of your conscience on this matter on others). In other words, if you don't believe that you should eat pork, DON'T EAT IT!

BP8 said...

God created something inherently imperfect or unclean?

First of all the terms are not the same thing, and yes, everything created by God is good!

A woman because of external circumstances can be declared unclean or clean. The pig,through no fault of its own, IS unclean for reasons explained by God. That reality has not changed.

The pig is perfect for the purpose for which it was created. Food is not it!

I'm not setting dogma just giving an opinion. Feel free to do what you want.

Anonymous said...

BP8 7:21

A part of the picture that you are ommitting is HWA's doctrine of physical sin. Protein is protein in the analysis of chemistry. But HWA decided that the Bible in Leviticus indicated that there were certain animals whose consumption would be damaging to human health. To eat pork is to commit a physical sin. Pork damages the human body, he felt. This is the foundation in Armstrongism of cleanness and uncleanness in the Torah. But to HWA, physical sin was a lesser category of sin. I recall him talking about eating unclean food at a banquet and stating that it was "only physical sin" and it would be too embarrassing to decline the food in front of world leaders. (Most WCG members would have declined for fear of being ejected from the WCG and losing salvation.)

But eventually physical sin breaks down under the findings of science. When grains and other carbohydrates are cooked at high temperatures, they produce acrylamides. Acrylamides are carcinogenic. Hence, anyone who eats bread, potatoes and other commonly consumed carbohydrates is committing a physical sin that it just as wrong as eating pork or shellfish or reptiles. In fact, Jesus ate unleavened bread for sure. If HWA's theory holds water then Christ willfully committed physical sin, consumed acrylamides, and this disqualifies him from being our saviour. And we are all dead in our sins. In fact, the Torah directs you to eat unleavened bread so the Torah is not a Godly law. If HWA is right.

I have mentioned this several times on this blog and nobody has ever responded to it. I think people have difficulty forming a reaction to it, whether pro or con. But it is a show stopper for the Armstrongist view of dietary laws.

I don't eat the prohibited foods of Leviticus because I suspect that they may not be optimally fit for human consumption. But I don't think eating pork is any worse for you than eating a marbled steak a the FOT. Most doctors will tell you to stay away from restaurants. But I do not believe in HWA's theory of physical sin as the basis of clean and unclean foods.

Scout

Anonymous said...

Some people will come up with any excuse to do away the law, even the Sabbath. If you can break the Sabbath then you can break the other 9 commandments, so you can kill, steal and commit adultery.

Anonymous said...

Aaaaand there's the red herring. Yes, of course, questioning the place of the Sabbath post-Christ just causes one to go out and kill, steal and adulteriiiiize endlessly!

Anonymous said...

RSK are you trading in church services or outside of them ? Inquiring minds need to know.

Earl said...

Scout 608 and Anon335,
I’m definitely a meat eater and agree there’s a health reason for the designation of clean/healthy, but the COGs teach that there will be sacrifices in the millennium. However, this doesn’t jive with the lion/lamb and the lion eating atraw and “that none shall hurt on My holy hill”

BP8 said...

Scout 401

I'm not trying to align myself with HWA on this topic, I'm just telling it like I see it.

As far as what meat is fit for human consumption, how would one know unless it is revealed by reliable expertise, preferably the Creator?

I'm familiar with the concept of physical sin. It's an oversimplification of a variety of complex subjects--sin, health, sickness and disease. Like you, I follow the dietary laws but I am not under the illusion that is the most important aspect to good health!

We live in the modern era of pollution, food additives, farm chemicals, pesticides, where most meats designated clean are probably not fit to eat! Then, as you say, how things are cooked and processed are factors. One of the major detriments to human health manifesting itself today besides sugar is linoleic acid (cooking oils), and how a poor quality wrecks the bodily system. To the chagrin of Cog'ers, even lard is promoted as a healthy substitute to the corn and vegetable oils available.

The sickest I have ever been was in 1980 driving home from the FOT with the wife and 3 infants. We stopped at a Kentucky Fried (clean meat?) chicken and ended up staying at a motel for 3 days due to food poison. I don't know if it was the meat, the oil, dirty employee hands, or a combination of all, but I know I will never eat at that chain again!

I lean towards alternative health methods (not an endorsement of Bob Thiels apostleship) because I don't subscribe to the medical profession's "one size fits all" approach. Health, like new covenant Christianity, is an individual matter, that makes each of us (not the church) responsible for the choices we make in life. God is not mocked!

Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrix said...

I like the tone of BP8's 8:27 comment - that this is an individual (NOT collective) matter of conscience. This goes back to one's basic conception of God's nature. I don't believe in the trickster god in whom some folks seem to believe. I believe that God is explicit about those things which matter to him and is silent or unclear about things that just don't matter very much in the grand scheme of things.

Let's face it - these bodies that we currently inhabit are not designed to last forever! Hence, while I do believe that each of us who has God's Holy Spirit should do our best to take care of this temple, we should not be under any illusion that our efforts to maintain it are going to necessarily prolong its lifespan or cure the illnesses or diseases which are associated with it. God is all about eternity, and the Scriptures reflect that preoccupation. In other words, the spiritual side of things is paramount.

Finally, I think that we are much more likely to mock God if we ignore or neglect those things which are clearly important to him. I don't know why God designated certain things as "clean" and others as "unclean," and he hasn't revealed his reasoning in Scripture. While the speculation about the healthfulness of consuming the flesh of certain animals is interesting (and intellectually more appealing than arbitrariness), the simple fact is we just don't know!

What I do know is that God wants me to accept his Son, and what he has done for me. He wants me to love him with all of my heart and love my brothers and sisters like I love myself. He wants me to treat others the way in which I would like to be treated. God wants me to be patient, kind, merciful, and forgiving. Hence, for me, it seems very clear that this is where the bulk of my attention and energy should be focused.

RSK said...

" We stopped at a Kentucky Fried (clean meat?) chicken and ended up staying at a motel for 3 days due to food poison. I don't know if it was the meat, the oil, dirty employee hands, or a combination of all, but I know I will never eat at that chain again!"

Heh, you probably dont want it now. Budget cuts killed it even without the food poisoning.

Àyelböůrne, Elder on Ørgæñìa ⚖️ said...

excellent point to ponder, Earl

Anonymous said...

The Judaics are wrong about a lot of stuff Corey eg re Pentecost if God wanted His people to keep it on Sivan 6 every year then He would’ve plainly said so like He did about all the other holy days by giving them the specific day unlike Pentecost wherein He told them to count 7 weeks. The week ends with the 7th day Sabbath hence the 50th day after 7 weeks would naturally occur on the day after the Sabbath ie Sunday. So the Sadducees were correct in this case imo.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
The way to stay clean is to keep the Sabbath and shun Sunday keeping. Keep holy what GOD has made holy.

When we get muddy by sinning (violating the law), we can be washed clean by the blood of Christ. But don't we first have to get out of the mud?