"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth: for God hath received him…Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves." (Romans 14:1-23 & 15:1 – Note: please read the entire chapter 14 before proceeding.)
Let's talk about meat and herbs for a moment to try to get a clearer picture of what Paul is discussing above.
Herbs first:
Before sin entered in, God gave Adam and Eve these instructions concerning which things they were to regard as food to eat:
- "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat…" (Genesis 1:29)
- "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)
After their sin, what did God command them to eat? Herbs!
"Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field…" (Genesis 3:18)
Just before the flood, God commanded Noah:
"…and take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them [for the animals]." (Genesis 6:21) Thus, Noah and his family and all the animals on board the ark were to continue to "gather" (signifying a harvest rather than hunting) "all food that is eaten…i.e., "herbs of the field" just as they had always done, for that is what food was at that time, and Noah was to have plenty of it on board for all Ark residents to eat (both human and animal) for the length of their stay on the ark. Animal flesh had not yet been sanctioned by God as food for man.
Now, if someone today, as in Paul's day, decided after reading these sections of Genesis, that God designed our bodies originally to eat herbs and fruit only, therefore we should only eat these specific things if we want the healthiest bodies, and if they began to eat only those things, would we call them sinners? Would we call them legalistic? I would hope not, as nowhere in the Bible did the Lord come back to anyone and say "you can no longer eat herbs!" or "no more fruit ever!" To eat only herbs, even after animal flesh was sanctioned, is not sin. Thus, one brother in Christ is not to "judge" another brother in Christ because he chooses to eat herbs only; something they were apparently doing in the Roman church.
Now let's look at meat.
Immediately after the flood, and possibly for quite some time to come, herb and fruit trees had quite a recovery to make from being under water for so long; although the dove did come back with an olive twig in its mouth…still there probably wasn't enough "herbs" to sustain 8 people in the days after the flood; which is why God, in His providence, had Noah load by "sevens" (i.e., seven males and seven females) every "clean" animal, and only by "twos" (i.e., two males and two females) every "unclean" animal (Genesis 6:19 and 7:2), knowing that Noah and his family would have to eat the animals to survive after the flood, and providing enough "clean" ones for them to eat, having enough left over for the clean animals to not become extinct. God didn't have Noah load as many "unclean" animals, because He didn't intend for them to use "unclean" animals as food, yet He did not want the "unclean" ones to become extinct either. After the flood, God's instructions to Noah were:
"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Genesis 9:3)
Let's discuss the word "every" that begins this verse above. Do you recall God telling man that he could eat "every tree" in Genesis 1:29, so that means EVERY tree, right? EXCEPT, He then went on to give a qualifier by using one little word: "but." "But don't eat THAT one! Don't eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil!" (I am paraphrasing obviously.)
The word "every" that is used in Genesis 1:29 is not "absolute" in its meaning. And the word "every" as used in Genesis 9:3 isn't "absolute" either; there are exceptions. The exceptions are the "unclean" things. This is clear because God NEVER intended for the "unclean" animals to EVER be food for man. So when He says "every moving thing that liveth" He is assuming, with very good reason, that Noah and his family understand that this means "every moving thing that liveth…that is "clean." It is understood; no longer understood by us these days, but it was understood by Noah.
How do I know that? I know because God never changes. He doesn't say, "OK today this meat is unclean ("an abomination"), but tomorrow it will be really good for you to eat" OR "Today I want you to be separate from the world around you, but tomorrow it won't matter if you are separate." He doesn't change.
In Leviticus 11, God defines which animals are considered "clean" and which are considered "unclean." Notice that the "unclean" things are often "swarming things"...and most of the "swarming things" that "are an abomination" stay pretty close to the earth, crawling on the ground on their bellies, or being ocean bottom feeders, eating other flesh and things that fall on the ground; in the ocean, especially these days, that can include all sorts of toxic matter that eventually settles down on the ocean floor I would imagine. The things that fly are scavengers, again, flesh-eaters. God does not want us eating animals who eat other animals for the most part, although fish "having scales and fins" have been known, I believe, to eat smaller fish, but perhaps they are predominantly insect and plankton eaters instead, I cannot say for sure.
But the general idea is for man not to consume animals who eat other animal and for good reason. Mad cow disease comes about when cows are given feed that contains other ground up cows. Cows were meant to "chew the cud" and that was meant to be grasses and grains and such, not other animals. Man interfered causing mad cow disease which is deadly to humans.
Those things that are "clean" often had legs and hoofs that kept them sort of up off of the ground, or wings to fly or assist with jumping so that they could eat grasses and greens and such and not have to eat off the ground so much perhaps. Do you see that there is some connection with "bottom-feeders" in this?
Do you also see a connection with the "serpent" in the Garden who was cursed by God and made to forevermore "crawl on its belly?" Bottom-dwellers, let's call them, are an "abomination" to God, from what I can tell. And bottom-dwellers who swarm together cinches the deal! Pigs love to ROLL in filth. God abhors filth. There is a principle involved here of clean versus filthy, up versus down, holiness versus sin, and things that represent sin and that God calls sin. Anything that is an "abomination" is most definitely sin. So why would we WANT to eat what God calls "an abomination?"
AND, by NOT eating certain animals, the people called by God's name kept their distinction from the pagans all around them; so that it was for the sake of "holiness" as well that God forbade them to eat things that He called abominable and detestable. (Just like sexual immorality was abominable and detestable…He hasn't changed His mind about that either! Interestingly, the church abides by that law…why not the dietary laws as well? Or are we still picking and choosing?)
Obviously Noah knew which was "clean" and which was "unclean" at the time that he loaded up the ark. But at the time of Moses, since the people had been in slavery and under Egyptian customs for 400 years, what was once common knowledge probably now needed to be re-taught, wouldn't you think? So God provided a refresher course on what to eat and what not to eat. [What you should note here is that the dietary laws did not go into effect only at the time of Moses. They began with Noah. But in either case they are considered part of the Torah, because the Torah is the first five books of the Bible.]
My point is that God did not introduce something new with Moses. It had already been established with Noah. And one possible reason that man went from having herbs as food, and then suddenly to having "clean" animal flesh as food might have been because the "firmament" that covered the earth prior to the flood (Genesis 1:7) broke loose at the time of the torrential rains that flooded the earth (thus the "waters" were no longer separated – see Genesis 1:6-7), and the entire eco-system surely must have changed, as it had NEVER rained prior to the Flood. Perhaps vegetation was scarce for a long time to come after the flood, or perhaps it never grew in the same abundance that it had before the flood. Whatever the reason, God knew in advance that man would need animals to eat and so He provided extra of the "clean" animals that were meant to be food for man.
So…God began "clean" and "unclean" animals with Noah , continued it with Moses, and the practice was still in place where Jesus and the disciples were concerned; with the disciples and Paul even teaching some basics to the new Gentile converts until they had time to learn "Moses" for themselves (Acts 15:19-21).
God did not change. He has not changed.
But what has changed is OUR understanding, and thus our actions. More in next posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment