We have been looking closer at 3 Overlooked Dietary Laws in the New Testament. The last installment introduced the admonition to abstain from food that is strangled: What Does It Mean to Abstain from Food that Is Strangled?
We noted that commentators struggle with Acts 15:20, 29; and 21:25 because the prohibition against eating strangled meat (a seemingly ceremonial law) is side by side an obviously moral law (abstaining from sexual immorality).
This led us to ask some questions, which we will begin to answer.
The question we will address today is whether or not the admonition to abstain from strangled meat was indeed a ceremonial law — which is the position of many commentators. In fact, they say the law is no longer binding on the Christian church.
A strong case can be made, however, that it is not a ceremonial law at all. I will give three lines of argument to support this claim.
#1 If Ceremonial, Why Command It?
When Moses recorded God’s law, there were ceremonial portions and moral portions. The moral law consisted of the Ten Commandments as well as case laws expounding the Ten. Men for centuries have been debating which of these case laws are moral and which are ceremonial.
All ceremonial laws have their foundation in the Tabernacle and Temple worship instituted at Mount Sinai under the leadership of Moses. These ceremonial laws pointed to Christ who would be the final sacrifice. When He gave Himself up as that sacrifice, the sacrificial system ended spiritually. Physically it ended at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD — never to be re-instituted.
Most commentators place the Old Testament dietary restrictions in the category of ceremony and no longer valid. The New Testament seems to support this claim with Peter’s vision and other discussions on food. This is a topic for another study.
And we do find many dietary laws in the Old Testament that are given by Moses. And if they are ceremonial — then they have indeed passed away.
However, the apostles had seen Jesus. They had learned from Him. He expounded the Old Testament to them. And if the prohibition to abstain from food that was strangled was ceremonial in nature, would they have slighted the sacrifice of Christ by re-iterating it? Would they have come together in one accord to hold on to a law that was fulfilled in the sacrifice of their Savior? It doesn’t make sense.
What makes more sense is that the prohibition against food strangled was not of ceremonial origin.
#2 The Moral Nature of the Law
It has already been noted that the Council of Jerusalem’s edict to abstain from food that had been strangled was given along side a clearly “moral” law to abstain from fornication (sexual impurity). Commentators are perplexed that these two laws are side by side. They see the food law as ceremonial and the purity law as moral.
While it may seem difficult to see the mode of slaughtering an animal as a moral issue, there is evidence in the Scripture to consider. The first animal that was sacrificed was a lamb to clothe our first mother and father. Prior to that, animals lived along side humans in peace. They had no fear of humans largely because they were not permitted to be eaten. It was not until after the flood that animals were given to humans as food. At that time the Bible records that God put the fear of man in the animals, now that they had something to fear: being killed or eaten.
While animals were created lower than humans, who were created in God’s image, they still had the breath of life in them. They were God’s creatures. And they were without sin. God had to give permission to humans to kill that which He created. The first animal that died, was slaughtered by God Himself. And later animals were permitted to be offered as sacrifices. But until God gave the “okay” to eat animals — man did not have His permission to slaughter them for food.
Proverbs 12:10 says “A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.” If we love God, we love what He loves. And since animals belong to Him — we should treat them as He requires.
So when we take the life of a beast, it becomes a moral issue. And if we take the life for food — we should do it as He requires.
This will make more sense when we explore slaughtering techniques (in a future post).
#3 Deeper Roots than Ceremony
But there is an even stronger argument as to why the law to abstain from food strangled is not ceremonial. If you have read Narnia you are familiar with two sets of laws (magic in Narnia). In the Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe, there was a law that said another could die in the place of a traitor. Aslan delivered himself to the White Witch to save Edmund, who had betrayed his siblings. And the sisters cried as they saw Aslan dead. But later, they rejoice when they learn of the deeper law, or deeper magic:
When a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards.
Because of the deeper magic, Aslan conquers death and goes on to win the war against the witch.
Likewise, much of the moral law given by Moses is rooted in a deeper law. For example, the Sabbath mandate dates back to the 7th day (after creation) when God rested. Marriage between one man and one woman dates back to the Garden when God instituted marriage. Yes, marriage is celebrated with a ceremony — but it is not part of the ceremonial law that was done away with at the New Covenant.
And likewise, the admonition to abstain from food that is strangled also dates back to well before the giving of the Ten Commandments or the Ceremonial Law. In fact, the same commentators who wish to call the “strangled food law” ceremonial, trace it back to before the giving of the law of Moses.
Ellicott, who we have previously cited as an adherent to the ceremonial view, says the prohibition against eating food that was strangled “rested on Genesis 9:4.” The timeframe of this Genesis verse predates the Exodus and the giving of the law by hundreds of years.
Matthew Poole agrees that the law to abstain from strangled meat is rooted in the deeper law of God given prior to the law by Moses:
such creatures as had not their blood let out, and therefore were not to be fed upon, by the law of God, Genesis 9:4, given as soon as the use of flesh was allowed for food.
Since it is widely acknowledged that this New Testament law to abstain from “food strangled” does not have its origin in the ceremonial law, why do they wish to keep it classified as such?
Conclusion
I have shared three solid reasons that the strangling of food may be a moral issue, not a ceremonial one. There is more evidence that will come to light as we finish answering the questions posed in the previous post. We still have yet to answer the following questions. In so doing, the case will continue to build against a ceremonial rendering of this passage.
- Was the Council at Jerusalem merely trying to placate the Jews?
- How did the early church respond to this and other dietary restrictions?
- Is it possible that the modern Christian church has wrongfully neglected this clear New Testament teaching?
- If so, are there ramifications in the body of Christ for ignoring this decree?
- Could it be that the church should be teaching its members to abstain from food that has been strangled?
- Can we learn anything from the Jewish practice of slaughtering animals?
- Are there health issues that may be related?
You can access the next installment here: Was the Early Church Trying to Placate the Jews with this Dietary Law?
If you have not done so already, be sure to sign up to follow Reformed Health and you will never miss a post. The sign up link is next to the title of this blog post.
Also, you are invited to join the Reformed Health Community. It’s FREE. I will send you some resources and a weekly newsletter which covers some information that is not available on this website.
Disclaimer:
Reformed Health exists so you can take control of your own health and be all that God has designed you to be. The information shared on Reformed Health is the sole opinion of the author and is not meant to diagnose or treat any illness. None or our claims have been evaluated by the FDA or any other government organization. We are not medical doctors, nor do we have any medical doctors on staff. If you are having a health emergency, please call 911, contact your doctor, or visit a local emergency room. Always consult your doctor before engaging in any new exercise regime.
This page may contain affiliate links. Please refer to our affiliate policy.
Scripture quotations taken from the NASB.
Copyright:
© 2017 Mischelle Sandowich
All Rights Reserved