RESOURCES
5-144000
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
Y
Z
|
|
FAQ 404
Eating Kosher
Is It Simply a Matter of Conscience?
Q. Whether we can ... or cannot eat [unkosher food] is hardly an argument. Whether we should eat them or should not eat [unkosher food] is an entirely different matter. If you don't have the faith to eat them then you should not eat them. If you don't have the faith to even eat meat you shouldn't eat meat at all. Doesn't matter if it's a cow, a pig, or a fish: "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean" (Romans 14:14).
A. The reason certain meats are stated in Leviticus 19 to be unkosher (unclean) is because Yahweh, our Heavenly Father, has declared that they are not food. Period. You are conflating two separate issues and making a common category error.
A word, first, about conscience since this is the matter raised in this and surrounding verses. What is conscience for? Yahweh has given makind a conscience to deal with those grey areas that are not explicity covered by concrete mitzvot (commandments), like whether one should smoke or drink soft beverages laced with poisonous preservatives like colas of sugar-free drinks. Grey area issues that are not black and white cannot be judged to be clean or unclean while Sabbath-breaking and eating pig certainly can be. In these and other concrete black-and-white mitzvot (commandments), repeated many times, the matter is settled because the Davar Elohim or Word of God does not return to Him void or empty (Is.55:11).
The food laws have nothing to do with Christ per se as He would not have 'fulfilled' anything messianically-speaking by abolishing Father's health laws. Our health needs remain unchanged in different dispensations or ages. This is to be constrasted with the Levitical sacrificial system which He did most definitely fulfill since there were actually pointing to Him. The food laws were given for man's health. They point only to our health, as scientific investigation on, for example, the negative health consequences has subsequently shown.
Paul is not espousing moral relativism. If the distinction between 'clean' and 'unclean' was eliminated at the cross, then no further reference to these categories would be made in the apostolic era of the New Testament. If, on the other hand:
- (1) the New Testament were to include both references to 'clean' and 'unclean' as distinct categories; and
- (2) an apostolic injunction were to be issued requiring Gentile converts to observe any part of the Kashrut Law with no option to challenge or appeal to conscience,
this would disprove your interpretation that for gentiles what kind of meat they eat is simply a matter of conscience.
Before I answer that, it is important to note that 'clean' and 'unclean' are the equivalent of the moral distinction between 'holy' and 'unholy':
"And they (the cohenim/priests) shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the unholy, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean" (Ezek.44:23, NKJV).
Let's now see what the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament) say about these two summonses:
- (1) "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified (made qadosh/holy, set-apart = made kosher) through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified (made qadosh/holy, set-apart = made kosher) through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean (unholy, unkosher), but as it is, they are qadosh (holy, set-apart = kosher)" (1 Cor.7:14, NIV).
"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of Elohim (God) and idols? For we are the temple of the living Elohim (God). As Elohim (God) has said: 'I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their Elohim (God), and they will be my people.' 'Therefore come out from them and be separate (holy, qadosh = kosher), says Yahweh. 'Touch no unclean (unkosher = unholy) thing, and I will receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Yahweh Almighty'" (2 Cor.6:14-18, NIV).
"With a mighty voice he shouted: 'Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become a home for demons and a haunt for every evil spirit, a haunt for every unclean (unkosher = unholy) and detestable bird..." (Rev.18:2, NIV).
- (2) "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to Elohim (God). Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (Ac.15:19-21, NIV).
Clearly Torah rules concerning what we can, and cannot eat remain unchanged. What Yahweh has permitted, is permitted because it's food (and is therefore healthy); what Yahweh has forbidden, is forbidden because it isn't food (and is therefore unhealthy). We are not obliged to eat that which is permitted - I can choose to be a vegetarian if I wish because I am not violating the rules governing what is forbidden. Whether I eat meat or not is therefore a legitimate choice. If my conscience is disturbed about eating meat (for whatever reason), then I must obey conscience so long as eating meat remains unconscionable even if my conscience has been educated wrongly because of, say, tradition. Perhaps I was born in a vegetarian community. Scripture regards such a person as weak but by no means sinful and we are not to force such a person to act against his conscience because the issue is not a matter of what Yahweh demands. If my conscience does not allow me to eat beef because I was raised a Hindu which religion regards cows as holy, then I have to be corrected but allowed not to eat beef should I so choose.
We had a sister in our congregation who came from a New Age religion which regarded eating meat as sinful. She was a vegetarian for invalid reasons. I told her she could be a vegetarian because she loved animals and felt unable to eat them but not for religious reasons, because of a New Age belief. She repented of her New Age belief and ceased being a vegetarian for religious reasons since Yahweh does not command vegetarianism in this age. Another sister is appalled at the idea of eating a lamb for psychological reasons. At Pesach (Passover) she eats only a token portion of lamb the size of a teaspoon in order to be obedient to the mitzvah (commandment) but at other times she still refuses to eat lamb, as is her right. She otherwise eats all sorts of meat. These are all example of the freedom of conscience and the requirements of obedience at work.
Different dispensations require us to do certain things (like circumcision) and deny us doing certain things. Men are no longer required to be circumcised in the new Covenant but if they want to be, they can, but, according to Paul, it is of no religious or spiritual value and he recommends converts to remain as they were when they converted to Christ. Circumcised people should remain circumcised (it is possible to become uncircumcised) and uncircumcised people, uncircumcised. To choose to be circumcised is now, therefore, the same as choosing to be a vegetarian or vegan. Conscience is of limited value and was designed as a stop-gap for people without law until such a time as they should be in informed of Yahweh's permissions and prohibitions. We are allowed to be single or married but we cannot prohibit someone from being married because such is a doctrine of demons. Interestingly, Paul lumps celibacy and marriage together. Likewise, a man is permitted to marry one or more women but he cannot be forbidden from doing so because Yahweh's Law pernmits him to do so. If his conscience does not allow him to marry more than one woman then he must obey that but he cannot forbid another from marrying two.
It is the juxtapositioning of law and conscience which is the main issue and what confuses believers. One Pauline passage in particular is misinterpreted and abused that we must address:
"All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify" (1 Cor.10:23, NKJV).
This does not mean there are no more rules or laws anymore and that conscience or "the Spirit" is the default, a teaching that opens the way for the existentialist heresy. Messianic Jew, David Stern, who uses the Greek version in his own translation, understands the apparent contradiction and renders this passage in the following way:
"'Everything is permitted,' you say? Maybe, but not everything is helpful. 'Everything is permitted?' Maybe, but not everythiong is edifying" (1 Cor.10;23, JNT).
The ambiguity is the fault of the Greek translation, an ambiguity not present in the original Aramaic as Dr.James Trimm brings out in his own translation:
"Everything is empowered to me but not everything is profitable; everything is empowered to me but not everything edifies" (1 Cor.10:23, HRV).
In other words, the original text is not an argument over law but over free agency. As an agent with free moral will I am enabled or empowered to do as I choose but not everything I choose to do is beneficial to either me or others. The Greek translator has assumed Paul was talking about rules and regulations and this has led to the terrible Protestant error that we don't need rules, only the 'Spirit', that has led to such feeling-based outrages in the charismatic movement and in the thousands of different denominations in Protestantism in general. Well, we need BOTH Law and Ruach (Spirit) because when these are kept at the proper tension we arrive at emet (truth)!
The unrestrained use (read 'abuse') of conscience has always been a receipe for chaos because the conscience can be, and commonly is, defiled by sin. Conscience can be deadened by sinning so that we are no longer using it for what it was intended. again, there is a difference in Yahweh's attitude towards those who sin in ignorance (and defile their conscience) and those who sin willfully (and do the same). Yahweh overlooks the former but condemns the latter. If He did not, conscience would be used as an excuse for men and women to do whatever they wanted. As a rule of thumb, what the Torah does not forbid must be personally judged by conscience until a revelation - personal or general - resolves an issue. When Christ came, He added new rules to the Torah, bringing it to completion or making it full (filling it up or full-filling it). There are far more rules or mitzvot (commandments) in the New Testament than the Old something that is often missed by Protestants in particular (though fewer than in the Talmud with all its man-made rules).
I hope this answers your question.
FAQ024
This page was created on 1 May 2024
Last updated on 17 May 2024
Copyright © 1987-2024 NCAY - All Rights Reserved
|
|
