Why did God prohibit pork? Why isnt this prohibition still valid for Catholics?

[bigbibles]

In the bible God says:
“And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven footed, yet he cheweth
not the cud; he is unclean to you”.
“Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcass shall ye not touch,
they are unclean to you.” [Leviticus 11:7-8]
Pork is also prohibited in the Bible in the book of Deuteronomy
“And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you. Ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass.” [Deuteronomy 14:8]

As a Catholic I’ve never been told that I cannot eat these things. I guess I’m wondering what was the point of God making these dietary laws? Was it for health reason or spiritual reasons? Is it okay for us to eat this food today? Why now and not then?

Thanks

 

[Bob_Crowley]

A lot of those laws were based on the practices of people around them, and usually boiled down to health considerations, In addition there were good reasons not to eat pork when they didn’t have the food regulations and controls we’ve got today. I believe that there is a higher chance of non-scaled fish being poisonous to eat than scaled fish, hence the probable prohibition on unscaled fish.

As for the rules not applying to Catholics, remember Peter’s dream of a sheet with “unclean” animals being let down and being told to “kill and eat”? He was being told to basically ignore the old Jewish prohibitions on “unclean” animals.

From Wikipedia -

Health issues
Pigs harbour a range of parasites and diseases that can be transmitted to humans. These include trichinosis, Taenia solium, cysticercosis, and brucellosis. Pigs are also known to host large concentrations of parasitic ascarid worms in their digestive tract.[18] The presence of these diseases and parasites is one of the reasons why pork meat should always be well cooked or cured before eating. Some religious groups that consider pork unclean refer to these issues as support for their views.[19]

Pigs are susceptible to bronchitis and pneumonia. They have small lungs in relation to body size; for this reason, bronchitis or pneumonia can kill a pig quickly.[20] There is concern that pigs may allow animal viruses such as influenza or Ebola Reston to infect humans more easily. Some strains of influenza are endemic in pigs (see Swine influenza), and pigs also can acquire human influenza.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

When Jesus came he said he fulfilled the LAW, thus the Mosaic Laws were fulfilled. So today we do not have to comply with the 600 plus laws which include treating slaves via the law or marrying only within the Jewish community.

 

[marchoi]

As for the rules not applying to Catholics, remember Peter’s dream of a sheet with “unclean” animals being let down and being told to “kill and eat”? He was being told to basically ignore the old Jewish prohibitions on “unclean” animals.

Eh, I wouldn’t word quite it like that, but I agree that’s the key Biblical text (Acts 10). In following with the theme of Christ’s renewing the covenant, certain aspects of the covenant were changed - like not only Jews beings the people of God, but also Gentiles. In fact, right after the vision, Peter is then called to convert Cornelius, a Gentile. I think the “What God has made clean, you shall not call unclean” part also applies to the Jew/Gentile distinction. (Not that I’m calling Gentiles pigs… )

 

[bigbibles]

Thanks guys for the posts…I guess Im still confused…

If Acts 10 is the verse that changes things regarding us eating pork, in it doesnt God say the animal is unclean?

Bob, so you think God was giving them these rules for health reason, there wasnt a spiritual reason behind his command?

Texas Roofer, thanks for posting…your right my question could be expand to a lot of the other laws that were given. So i guess Im need some help there as well…why did God give us those and then take them away? Do we have to look at each of them on a case to case basis or…what? How does Jesus fulfill the rule to not eat pork?

thanks for all the help

 

[Todd_Easton]

In addition to Acts 10, we also have the words of Jesus Christ on the matter:
And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? 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 7:17-18)

 

[bpbasilphx]

The Kashuroth (dietary restrictions) were never considered binding upon Gentiles in Jewish thought. Note that they all read about this or that “being unclean to you.”

And the Apostolic Council in Acts 15 made it clear that Gentile Christians were not expected to keep kosher.

 

[Cachonga]

Just to add my 2 cents worth - I agree that this applied to Israel, but we, as Christians, are no longer under the law, but under grace (see Rom 6:14). Looking back from here (21st century), we can see valid reasons for the prohibition, as already pointed out. Also, as pointed out, there was a prohibition on sea creatures without scales (like lobster, shrimp, crabs, etc…). Again, looking back, we can see many good health reasons for the prohibition (I, myself will not eat oysters or clams because they are little more than natures filters).

Be that as it may, I would suggest that, since God does not specify why He declared these animals unclean, then the actual reason is known only to Him. Because of this and the fact that we are under grace, the OT dietary laws do not apply to us in any way (for which I am greatful whenever I have shrimp or lobster, and especially when I enjoy a good Christmas Ham and the sandwiches that inevitably follow on into the new year).

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Thanks guys for the posts…I guess Im still confused…

If Acts 10 is the verse that changes things regarding us eating pork, in it doesnt God say the animal is unclean?

Bob, so you think God was giving them these rules for health reason, there wasnt a spiritual reason behind his command?

Texas Roofer, thanks for posting…your right my question could be expand to a lot of the other laws that were given. So i guess Im need some help there as well…why did God give us those and then take them away? Do we have to look at each of them on a case to case basis or…what? How does Jesus fulfill the rule to not eat pork?

thanks for all the help

The books of the Bible were written by people living in a certain society at a certain time. If we think that every word in the Bible was written for “spiritual” reasons, what are we to make of the story where the Benjamites gang-raped another man’s concubine, and he then passed bits of her anatomy around the other tribes, or the way they resolved the potential extinction of the Benjamites after their due punishment? It wasn’t exactly a spiritual highlight.

However for a theological based society, there is going to be a tendency to mix up secular laws with spiritual laws. This the Moslems, to give an example, want Sharia Law, and they’ll tell you God (or Allah) is with their “law” every inch of the way.

 

[Mailman]

As Bob Crowley correctly pointed out, health is a major consideration for God’s prohibition of eating pork – and of the other meats God has declared unclean. But there is also a spiritual reason, which will be spelled out shortly. This was true then and is still true today.

The health issues discussed in Wikipedia on the eating of pork (Bob’s post) is quite revealing. In fact, all the discoveries of medical science over the years reveal the wisdom of abiding by God’s prohibitions on the eating of animal meats He calls “unclean.” So, as far as health issues are concerned, we can be sure that there are animal meats harmful to body and health and should be avoided.

The spiritual issue, however, is not as well understood and in fact could not be known without a revelation from God. His Word reveals that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16) and we should not defile it (v. 17) but keep it holy “in all manner of [conduct]” (1 Pet. 1:15). We can say that anything we put into our bodies, as in the food we eat, is a part of our conduct – the way we conduct our appetites. The eating of unclean meats, when not knowing the biblical prohibition, violates a physical law of God, but when done knowingly, becomes a more serious matter. God’s Word tells us, “Thou shalt not covet [lust]” (Rom. 7:7). To eat unclean meats deliberately is to lust. The Christian who allows his life to be dominated by wrong desires or appetites is guilty of lust. He is defiling his body which is supposed to be the temple of God’s Spirit.

It is proven both scientifically and biblically that animal meats called “unclean” by God are harmful to the health. To consume these “foods” ignorantly is one thing, but do so deliberately after knowing the truth, makes one guilty of violating one of God’s Ten Commandments – the law against covetousness. And it defiles the temple of God – your body – which is to be holy in all manner of conduct.

Notice who is punished in the judgment: “For, behold, the Lord will come with fire… to render his anger with fury, and his rebukes with flames of fire. For by fire and by his sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many” (Isa. 66:15-16). And who are these “many” whom the Lord shall slay with fire and the sword? Notice it: “They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord” (verse 17).

Why can we eat now and not then? We cannot. This prophecy of Isaiah is one indisputable proof that God’s prohibition on unclean meats is still binding today.

 

[Cachonga]

Mailman:

Why can we eat now and not then? We cannot. This prophecy of Isaiah is one indisputable proof that God’s prohibition on unclean meats is still binding today.

And what about when God commanded Peter to “kill and eat” unclean beasts (Acts 10:9-16), or when Jesus pointed out that we are NOT defiled by what goes into us (Matt 15:10-20 and Mark 7:1-23)? What about the first church council in Acts 15? The Apostles didn’t enforce the dietary laws on the gentile believers! Why do you? It’s one thing to say “You shouldn’t pork, and here’s why …” giving the many health issue that have already been raised. It’s a completely different thing to say “You shouldn’t eat pork because God declared it unclean when He gave the Law to Moses”.

 

[bigbibles]

Thanks everyone for shining light on this for me.

So Im starting to think it doesnt apply to us. If that is true, what did Jesus mean in Mt 5?
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished

 

[Cachonga]

bigbibles:

So Im starting to think it doesnt apply to us. If that is true, what did Jesus mean in Mt 5?

In verse 18 Jesus makes it clear that the Law WILL BE fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled the Law by His death, burial, resurrection and ascension into heaven. Remember, while Matt 5 may not have been in a strict chronological order, it still came before Matt 28.

 

[juliamajor]

You have the commandments and you have the Holiness laws. Taboos in food and bodily integrity were an attempt to show the “nations” that Israel was unique.-a royal priesthood a Holy nation a PEOPLE SET APART.One of Israel’s missions was to show YHWH to the world and bring the “nations” the knowledge of YHWH. Laws such as no tatoos or cuttings of one’s flesh were forbidden because of the commonality of such behavior among pagans.Remember when Elijah and priests of Baal duked it out. They carried on slashing and letting their blood flow.-The behavior between pagan and Jew was to be so different that there would be no mistake which was which-again,So Israel was to be a witness to the world.

 

[Mailman]

And what about when God commanded Peter to “kill and eat” unclean beasts (Acts 10:9-16), or when Jesus pointed out that we are NOT defiled by what goes into us (Matt 15:10-20 and Mark 7:1-23)? What about the first church council in Acts 15? The Apostles didn’t enforce the dietary laws on the gentile believers! Why do you? It’s one thing to say “You shouldn’t pork, and here’s why …” giving the many health issue that have already been raised. It’s a completely different thing to say “You shouldn’t eat pork because God declared it unclean when He gave the Law to Moses”.

Unless Isaiah’s prophecy will not come to pass, God’s prohibition on eating pork [and any unclean meat] must still be valid today.

But the prophecy is sure and we have God’s assurance on that: “For I am God and there is none else; I am God and there is none like me. Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying My counsel shall stand, and I will do my pleasure” (Isa. 46:9-10).

So, why do we find God telling Peter to “kill and eat” unclean beasts in Acts 10:9-16? The Bible does not contradict itself, so something must be wrong with your understanding of Acts 10. Let’s examine what it says.

Peter was shown a VISION of “something coming down that looked like a large sheet… In it were all kinds of animals, reptiles, and wild birds. …” (Acts 10:11-12). A voice then said, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat.” Here, we find that Peter was indeed told to kill and eat the unclean beasts in the vision. But was Peter’s reaction?

Notice it. Peter refused to eat. As he said, he has “NEVER eaten anything unclean or defiled” (v.14). What does this immediately tell us? Only one thing: Peter had never in his life [not even once], eaten anything unclean – not before Jesus came into Peter’s life, not when Peter was with Jesus for 3-1/2 years, and not for 10 long years after Jesus left.

Now, “This happened three times, and then the thing was taken back up into heaven” (v.16). After having been shown the vision three times and told to eat three times, notice that Peter was still, “… wondering about the meaning of this vision” (v.17). Peter must have been confused why he was told to break a law of God that he had known since childhood and for which his Master had upheld throughout his association with Him. So, in spite of the repeated commands, Peter never “ate” of the unclean animals.

Unlike many of us today, Peter did not make any careless assumptions. Peter knew that God’s laws describe His very character. God is unchanging (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8) and so are His laws. Peter also knew Jesus did not come to change the Law (Matt. 5:17-18). So, instead of carelessly ASSUMING that the law of unclean animals had now been done away, Peter tried to figure out what his vision meant.

Did Peter find out its meaning? Yes, indeed! And we ought to stick to Peter’s interpretation of his vision rather than invent our own. Here’s what Peter said his vision meant: “…God has shown me” – that it was now ok to eat unclean beasts? – “that I must not consider any person unclean or defiled” (v.28).

So, it was not about meats after all, but people – specifically, GENTILES. Look what Peter said prior to that: “You yourselves know very well that a Jew is not allowed by his religion to visit or associate with Gentiles…” Because the Jews considered Gentiles “unclean,” the vision was meant to show Peter that they should discontinue referring to them as such and treat everyone the same. Notice what Peter said later in verse 34: “I NOW REALIZE” – and what did Paul realize? – “that it is true that God treats everyone on the same basis.” Paul says nothing of eating unclean meats.

Now, what does all that mean? Why should they [the Jewish Christians] now treat everyone the same? Was the whole thing clear to Peter? Yes! Notice, Peter said: “IT IS CLEAR that God gave those Gentiles the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ…” (Acts 11:17).

It was clear to Peter WHY they were now to treat everyone the same. It was because “God gave those Gentiles the same gift that He gave us [Jews].” And what was this gift that God gave to the Jews which could now be given to the Gentiles? The Jewish Christians who were with Peter can give us the answer. “God has given to the Gentiles also the opportunity to repent and live” (v.18). Yes, the gift of SAVATION! That was the gift God gave to the Jews which could now be given to the Gentiles.

Salvation was originally for the Jews only: “…salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22). Now salvation was open to Gentiles as well: “…salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew FIRST, and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16).

You can read the entire passage again and you will not find a single line saying that the prohibition on unclean foods has now been lifted. That is an assumption made without a careful examination of the biblical account.

 

[Mailman]

In verse 18 Jesus makes it clear that the Law WILL BE fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled the Law by His death, burial, resurrection and ascension into heaven. Remember, while Matt 5 may not have been in a strict chronological order, it still came before Matt 28.

What Jesus made clear in verse 18 is this: “UNTIL heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law [that is, His Spiritual Law]…”

Heaven and earth is still here, so NOTHING – not even the smallest letter – has disappeared from the Law. Yet, we teach that Jesus has “fulfilled” the Law because He has died and has resurrected? That is not what Jesus made clear!

The problem here is that you have interpreted the last phrase in verse 18 (“until everything is accomplished”) to mean “until my death and resurrection.” But it doesn’t say that. And there is no basis for such an interpretation. Consider this: Would Christ have meticulously spelled out the points of the Law and enjoined all to keep it (v. 19), only to “fulfill” it 3 years later?

Jesus had just declared in verse 17 that He has not come to abolish the Law. If we say His death and resurrection did away with His Law on unclean foods, then Jesus’ coming caused His Law (at least one of them) to be abolished. This contradicts His statement in verse 17.

Now, what did Jesus mean by “I have not come to abolish them [God’s laws] but to fulfill”? The word translated “fulfill” comes from the Greek “pleroo,” meaning “to make replete” – be complete, fill up, make full, fill to the full, perfect (Strong’s). Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to bring it to its full expression – to fill it to the full, to complete and perfect it. That is how Jesus “fulfilled” the Law. He “filled it full” by bringing it up to the spiritual level which God intended from the beginning.

When the prophets spoke of the New Covenant, they foresaw its spiritual expansion relative to the Law. Isaiah wrote: “The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable” (Isa. 42:21). Jesus’ entire discourse (Matt. 5:21-48) shows Jesus did “magnify the law, and make it honourable.” He EXPANDED the application of the Law, illustrating its full, spiritual intent. Six times Jesus said: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time … But I say unto you …” and He then proceeds to EXPOUND the spiritual principles underlying His Spiritual Law. That is how Jesus “fulfilled” the Law.

 

[Cachonga]

Mailman has raised some interesting points. I guess it makes complete sense since, after all, the Catholic Church has enforced the Jewish dietary laws for 2000 years (isn’t that what you’re implying?). BTW - what about Matt 15:10-20 and Mark 7:1-23? What did Jesus mean about foods not defiling a man? How about Acts 15 where the Gentile believers were NOT put under the jewish laws? And how would you exegete Gal 3? Finally, I would ask if what you’ve said is official church teaching, or is it your own opinion?

 

[guanophore]

Unless Isaiah’s prophecy will not come to pass, God’s prohibition on eating pork [and any unclean meat] must still be valid today…
You can read the entire passage again and you will not find a single line saying that the prohibition on unclean foods has now been lifted. That is an assumption made without a careful examination of the biblical account.

Yes, and when one reads it in the light of Jesus’ words, (declaring all foods clean) one might conclude that Peter chose to adhere to the disciplines of Moses, even though he knew that Gentiles were excused.

 

[chosen_people]

Now the reason Jews follow the commandments is because they are God’s commandments and it is unnecessary to seek any further reasoning.

The elevation of law to a divine integral part of religion as well as the conceiving of religious law as not only dealing with man’s relationship to God but with man’s relationship to other men (i.e. Torah in its wider sense) is one of the two foundations of Judaism and its eternal covenant with God. The other of course being the abstract concept of a singular God who did not need to be conceived in relation to an animate or inanimate object.

In as much as the Catholic rejection of the law (Torah) is concerned, Catholicism did not really have any choice. It sought universality among the pagan masses. The law is a developing dynamic force. It required a population that could grasp the nuances of guarding an ox for consideration as opposed for non consideration, previous behaviour of the animal, what is the responsibility of some of the people in whose care the animal has been given if one of the people so entrusted leaves without the consent of others? It requires that these developments and laws are passed on from father to son. In other words it required a population capable not only of understanding and developing the law it required universal male literacy. The pagan masses did not fit this bill. Instead Christianity invented itself as a dogmatic religion with a number of basic tenets which could be learned and upon their acceptance the person could be deemed an adherent. It set up a hierarchy with the authority to decide and impose what these tenets would be. It solved the problem of the necessity of rejecting Torah, God’s commandments, by simply stating that the “Law” had been fulfilled and was no longer necessary.

Now even though we are not required to examine the reason behind God’s commandments it is a fact that those very foods which God prohibits can be highly toxic. Jewish male circumcision happens to reduce by half heterosexual transmission of AIDS as well certain types of sexually transmitted cancers. However, swine flu aside, this may just be a coincidence.

 

[Mailman]

Mailman has raised some interesting points. I guess it makes complete sense since, after all, the Catholic Church has enforced the Jewish dietary laws for 2000 years (isn’t that what you’re implying?). BTW - what about Matt 15:10-20 and Mark 7:1-23? What did Jesus mean about foods not defiling a man? How about Acts 15 where the Gentile believers were NOT put under the jewish laws? And how would you exegete Gal 3? Finally, I would ask if what you’ve said is official church teaching, or is it your own opinion?

Matt. 15:10-20 and Mark 7:1-23.

We should understand this in its context. It starts with the very first verse: “Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread” (v. 1-2). Notice the subject matter had to do with “unwashed hands” and “tradition of the elders.”

Jesus answered by saying, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition…” and concluding with, “And in vain do they worship me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” The law on unclean meats is not a “commandment of men” as this was given by God Himself, so obviously Jesus was not talking about this particular law.

Then Jesus said, “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man…” (v. 10-11). Pressed for an explanation, Jesus said: “Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders …: These are the things which defile a man…” Notice that Jesus never mentioned anything about eating unclean meats.

Jesus concluded His explanation with: “… but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.” Notice that in his entire speech, NOT ONCE did Jesus mention unclean meats, for this was not the subject matter. Christ spoke only of how dirt or some foreign substance, might get to one’s food from one’s hands and how the digestive process “casts out” any such foreign matter, but that the man himself is not defiled.

Acts 15

The explanation to Acts 15 is made plain in Acts 21:21. The Jewish laws called in question involved “customs.” The Jews were falsely accusing Paul, saying that he taught the Jews living abroad “not to circumcise their children or observe the CUSTOMS” (Acts 21:21).

The controversy did not involve the [civil] law of Moses. It involved only the ceremonial additions to the original law. Notice the four points included in the law added by Moses which are binding on all Christians everywhere: We are not to eat blood, animals which are strangled, meats offered to idols or practice fornication. These four points were originally part of the law of Moses. They were also included LATER with the added ceremonies to regulate the typical sacrifices. The Gentiles ate their sacrifices with the blood, often strangled their animals, and presented them to idols. They also committed fornication in their religious ceremonies. To prevent these pagan customs being practiced by Israel, God included the four civil laws along with the rituals. (See Lev. 17:7 and 10; Numbers 25:1-3.)

When the ceremonies were declared no longer binding (in Acts 15), these four points had to be declared binding because some would have thought they were abolished along with the temporary rituals. But since these four points were part of the civil law before the addition of the rituals, they remained binding AFTER the abolition of the physical sacrifices and washings.

The [civil] law of Moses WHICH DEFINED SIN was not called in question, was not involved. The many civil laws regulating tithing, clean and unclean meats, the annual Sabbaths, and many others are still for the New Testament Church because they explain what sin is. They were NOT part of the ceremonial law mentioned in Hebrews 9:10 and abolished in Acts 15. The civil principles of the law of Moses were a SEPARATE law and not part of the ADDED “law of Moses” which is no longer in force.

Galatians 3

I believe you are referring to this passage: “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (v. 24-25).

The “law” that is spoken of here is the law that was “added because of transgressions” (v. 19). These are the temporary rituals and sacrifices that God had Moses add because God’s spiritual law was being broken – until Christ should come. Each time an Israelite transgressed the law and his sin had to be atoned for by burdensome work, it impressed upon his mind that he had failed to keep the law. It acted as a “schoolmaster” to teach and impress this upon him. The sacrifices were also a “schoolmaster” in that they pointed forward to the time when Christ would come to offer Himself once and for all time to atone for the sins of the world. They foreshadowed the sacrifice of Christ and were a “reminder of sin” to teach the people the need of the Messiah who would pay the penalty of human transgression (Heb. 10:3).

But God’s great spiritual law, THE ROYAL LAW OF LOVE –with its ten points, and later repeated and amplified by civil statutes [the law of clean and unclean meats being one of them] – “they stand fast forever and ever” (Ps. 111:7-8).

These are official Church teachings, not my own opinion.