Meats: Universal and Plain?

In my investigation into meats laws I tried to learn why it was that the WCG taught what it did. If the laws were in effect, and it was so plain, the believers should be able to explain their reasoning. I started at HWA's beginning, with the Church of God (Seventh Day). They kept the food laws. However, some influential ministers’ understanding of those laws was different than what Herbert Armstrong taught. How can it be so universal and plain if he thought his own superiors in the church were wrong?

Unfortunately, the investigation didn’t get any easier. It would appear that after certain years in his own church, Herbert Armstrong returned to the interpretation held by the Church of God (Seventh Day). And not only that, but I wound up seeing that many of the splinters that came from the Worldwide Church of God disagree again with Herbert Armstrong. (And I apologize in advance for the length of this post.)

In his autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30, Herbert Armstrong speaks of his own beliefs and experiences as a young minister regarding the dietary laws. Here is an excerpt:

The "Pork" Obsession

"The opposition through the spring and summer of 1933 had come through the two ministers who had moved up to Oregon from California, Elders Sven (Sam) A. Oberg, and A. J. Ray. Mr. Ray was developing, through the summer, a sort of obsession against the eating of "unclean" meats -- pork, ham, bacon, seafoods, and those labelled "unclean" in Leviticus 11. The emphasis he continually put on this doctrine, almost with vehemence, rather gave the impression that, in his eyes, the eating of pork, which came in for his greatest condemnation, was the greatest of sins.

"About the time the Firbutte school meeting started, July 9, 1933, Mr. Ray began aiming his "anti-pork" guns directly at me. He demanded that I state definitely my stand on this question. I had written him a Biblical exposition of the subject, showing that it was a physical FOOD question, rather than a spiritual or Gospel subject. Unless a man broke the tenth commandment by lusting after it, the eating of pork did not violate the Ten Commandments, which constitute a SPIRITUAL law.

"I quoted Mark 7:15-23, where Jesus explained that sin is a spiritual principle -- that which is coming out of the heart of a man -- evil thoughts leading to actions of adultery, murder, theft, deceit, blasphemy, pride -- violations of the Ten Commandments; but that nothing from without, entering in his mouth, defiles the man spiritually. Jesus was speaking of SPIRITUAL principles, and SIN as a spiritual offense."

-Herbert Armstrong, Autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30

These are very important points. Mr. Armstrong, in contrast to his own church, did not teach the clean and unclean meats laws as a spiritual sin. He clearly says that eating the meats is not a sin. Instead, he taught the foods were unfit for the digestive process. As Herbert Armstrong said in His booklet

“God did not give poisonous herbs as food. He gave man the healthful herbs. Man can determine which herbs are healthful, but man cannot by himself determine which flesh foods are harmful. That is why God had to determine for us in His Word which meats are clean. Since the Flood every moving clean, healthful, nonpoisonous type of animal life is good for food—just as God gave us the healthful, nonpoisonous herbs.”

-Herbert Armstrong, “Is All Animal Flesh Good For Food”, p. 3

Actually, Genesis 9: 3 does not specify "clean", but rather it says "every moving thing that lives", the root word of 'moving thing' includes reptiles, and again it says "all things".

I utterly disagree when HWA says, "man cannot by himself determine which flesh foods are harmful." Let’s think about that for a moment. If this is not a sin issue, but a health issue, then we have a physical law of nature that can be proven with observation. What do we observe? That certain regions in Japan, certain regions in Germany, and certain regions in Italy have much higher life expectancy rates than the rest of the world. Why mention that? They eat unclean meats regularly, some of them almost exclusively, and they will probably outlive you. How can that food be bad for your digestion if people who eat it regularly can expect to outlive the rest of the world? Look in the United States. The life expectancy rate climbs upwardly. Most people in this nation eat unclean meats regularly. Look at what is called the “Mediterranean diet”. It includes meals with seafood and lean pork, but is considered one of the healthiest diets on earth. There is simply no truth to the claim that pork is bad for your health. Obviously, after thousands of years of eating "unclean" meats, it would be widely known if it were physically unhealthy to eat pork. High fructose corn syrup was discovered in the 1970's; not 30 years later many people are aware that it isn't the best idea to ingest it. Same with hydrogenated oils, or saccharine. But we are to believe that after thousands of years and trillions of people eating pork and shellfish, the majority consensus is that there are no physical ill effects, yet it isn't healthy to eat? That's just ridiculous.

So the claim evolved to emphasize improperly cooked pork. “God was protecting His people from trichinosis,” was oft heard. OK. Trichinosis is terrible. I wouldn’t wish it on an enemy. But what then do we say about mad cow, tape worms, ring worm, lice, salmonella, liver flukes and other parasites, avian flu, and not the least of all anthrax? All of these things can easily be contracted from clean meats. All of these are centuries old diseases that have plagued man. Why single out trichinosis and not these?

And if it is a health issue, proper digestion being the focus, how on earth can we continue to eat hydrogenated oils? They are the plague of modern man, raising levels of homocysteine and other bad chemicals in the blood, punching holes in our arteries and causing the liver to produce cholesterol to patch the holes which then blocks up our arteries and causes heart attacks, strokes, and death. Yet neither God nor Armstrong has said, “Thou shalt not eat Crisco!”

Now, I am not arguing that we should put things that are bad for our health into our bodies. We are the temple of the Living God, and we must respect and care for that temple as we are able. But to claim pork and seafood is somehow unhealthy, or more a risk than what we normally eat and call “clean”, is simply not accurate, nor is that found anywhere in the Bible!!

Let’s continue on in the Autobiography and see how that isn’t exactly what HWA believed:

"I told him I refused to make this food question a subject for sermons to the unconverted, unless he could show me Scriptural grounds for so doing."

-Herbert Armstrong, Autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30

HWA plainly shows that in his opinion the laws were not for the newly converted, but for the experienced Christian only. I cannot fault that logic. We cannot expect all people to understand all things from the start of our journey. However, on one hand he says it is not a sin, but then on the other hand he says the law is still in effect. If the law is still in effect, and it is violated knowingly, that makes it a sin. It cannot be a sin, and not a sin. His teaching was inconsistent.

HWA continues:

"Point number one: I read in Scripture that sin is the transgression of the Law. In Romans 7 Paul says the law it is sin to transgress is spiritual -- a spiritual, not a physical law.

"Point two: Jesus Christ, speaking of spiritual defilement in Mark 7, says that physical food entering a man's stomach from without cannot defile him spiritually, but that which comes from within, out of the heart -- adulteries, murders, thefts, covetousness -- transgressions of the Ten Commandments -- defile the man spiritually.

"Point three: The 'clean and unclean' laws of Leviticus 11 are physical, not spiritual laws.

"Point four: Christ preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. He commanded the Apostles, and us today, to preach the KINGDOM of God. That is the GOSPEL I am commanded to preach.

"Point five: Paul says plainly in Romans 14 that the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, which is obedience to God's Law.

"Point six: Therefore I do not preach to the unconverted meat and drink because it is not the Gospel. But, on the other hand, the physical body is the 'temple of the Holy Spirit,' and we are taught not to defile it, even physically.

"Finally, point seven: I realize fully that there were both the clean and unclean animals long before Mosaic Law -- even prior to the Flood -- and therefore from creation. God did not create the unclean animals for food. Just as many plants and weeds are poison and not food, so unclean animals were not made to digest properly or nourish the human body. They are not "creatures of God" intended for food. They are not sanctified -- or set apart -- by the Word of God. Peter's vision of the unclean animals in the sheet was given, it is distinctly stated in Acts 10, to show him that he should not call any man unclean -- not to make unclean animals clean. Therefore I do teach every convert and every church member that they should not eat the unclean meats. We do not eat them in our home. Not one of our church members -- not one of my converts -- is eating unclean meats. But I teach it as a physical matter of health, not as a spiritual matter of the true Gospel."

-Herbert Armstrong, Autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30

And that, my friends, was the opinion of the Church of God (seventh Day) and Mr. Armstrong in his early ministry. The clean and unclean meats laws were a physical matter of health, not a spiritual matter of sin.

A massive problem in the Worldwide Church of God was assumption. Even though we commonly claimed to be Berean, we always believed our leaders over the Bible. In fact, to believe unquestioningly was commanded and harshly enforced. No one could question anything. God only worked through the ministry, and not through the congregation. In other words, the members at large were leaves attached to the ministry, and the ministers were small branches that were attached to Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Armstrong was a large branch attached directly to the Vine. We commonly said to reassure ourselves, “God inspired Mr. Armstrong to teach his converts exactly as Paul and James taught,” when that is often demonstrably false in many areas. The proof comes when we review the scattered COGs – very few believe exactly what Mr. Armstrong taught but at the same time few truly agree with each other. How is this teaching universal and plain, then?

For example, the CGG teaches the matter as one of the spirit, and of health, as well as a random and rather meaningless “test commandment” given by God just because He can. They have all the bases covered. This partly contradicts Herbert Armstrong, whom they quote.

“Even though people throughout the world eat unclean food and live, and even though we could probably do the same – and many of us once did – for Christians, it is more than a health matter. In the Bible, God never directly connects keeping the laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 with health. In reality, it is a test commandment to see if we will obey God.”

-John O. Reid “Did God Change the Law of Clean and Unclean Meats”

If God never associates the food laws with health, why do the COGs? Incredibly, when the need arises to explain away Genesis 9: 1-5, they resort to calling the foods laws a matter of health again, preferring to compare pork to deadly nightshade:

“Does God allow us to eat poisonous plants like poison ivy, hemlock, deadly nightshade, etc.? Of course not!”

-John O. Reid, “Did God Change the Law of Clean and Unclean Meats”

But if clean/unclean is a matter of poison, as with the plants, then why are there no unclean plants? [Answer: clean/unclean is ceremonial and relates to sacrifice.]

In this next quote from the founder of the CGG, notice a few things. Note how it is now both a health and a spiritual issue. Carefully note how this is also a sign of keeping the Old Covenant. None of us should be keeping the Old Covenant!

“…in refraining eating the forbidden flesh meats listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 is a sign of keeping the Covenant. Do you understand the spiritual issue that is involved in this? Do you understand that your and my health is secondary? The issue is HOLINESS—spiritual holiness; not physical health. [Directly contrary to HWA!] Why did God do this? I don't know. Maybe it was only arbitrary. [Nothing God does is simply arbitrary. JR just doesn't understand why his desire to partially follow HWA doesn't match the gospel of the New Covenant.] He wanted to see whether we would restrain ourselves. [Because the 612 other laws wouldn't do that well enough?] That's a possibility. Restrain ourselves, refraining from eating those things that everybody else in the world seems to be enjoying and finds tasting so good."

"Now please don't be misled by what I said, because I think there is a physical health issue involved here. But God wants above all that we be holy, and that is the real issue, and so the first place that the "clean and unclean" appears is in what book? Leviticus — the book of holiness.” [Or, if you ask HWA, it first appears in Genesis 4.]

-John Ritenbaugh, “Maintaining Good Health (part 3)”

As a second example, most people who came out of Worldwide only keep the meats laws because they were taught to. They don’t know why. They don’t generally care why. They say, “God said ‘do it’, so I do it.” Noble indeed! Except they have not proven whether or not God says for them to do it. The majority of what Paul taught must be ignored or explained away in order to return to the “yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear”. They read in the abolished Old Covenant some verses that say to Israel that they should not eat pork, so they also avoid pork. Meanwhile, they don’t realize they are keeping the sacrificial law that they themselves teach was abolished. Nor do they realize that avoiding unclean meats was only a small portion of the various washings and sprinklings and meats and drinks laws – most of which they do not keep. They say “I keep the law”, but as I have already demonstrated time and time again, they most certainly do not!

The COGs would love everyone to believe they keep all the food laws. Anyone who does not keep all the food laws is disqualified from sainthood in this age, by their theology. But let's just see if they keep all of the food laws.

(LEV. 3: 17) 17 ‘This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor blood.’

(LEV. 7: 25-27) “22 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 23 “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘You shall not eat any fat, of ox or sheep or goat. 24 And the fat of an animal that dies naturally, and the fat of what is torn by wild beasts, may be used in any other way; but you shall by no means eat it. 25 For whoever eats the fat of the animal of which men offer an offering made by fire to the LORD, the person who eats it shall be cut off from his people. 26 Moreover you shall not eat any blood in any of your dwellings, whether of bird or beast. 27 Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.’”

In Armstrong's zeal for the law, did we ever eat beef fat? Answer: yes! Every time we ate McDonald’s french-fries, or any beef broth, or a juicy steak (if one could be afforded), etc.

All discussions on clean and unclean meats would be incomplete without someone mentioning Isaiah 52: 11 (even though the context of this chapter has nothing at all to do with food laws)

(ISA 52: 11) Touch no unclean thing

I ask you, do you own a pet? Have you ever touched a dog? A cat? Hamster? Gerbil? Iguana? Horse? Donkey? Been to an exotic petting zoo and perhaps touched a stingray or a shark or a sturgeon? Ever kill a spider? Guess what, you’ve touched an unclean thing! No self-respecting Armstrongist in all their legalism ever mentions that, though.

Did anyone ever, while asking question for conscience’ sake about pork, ask their generous host if there was any beef fat in their food? Then they didn’t keep all of the food laws, did they? Only the ones that suited them.

In conclusion, while this meats issue may appear very simple it most certainly is not. Just look at the many posts I've made on the subject of meats, and I'm not done yet! While the COGs may appear to be keeping the law they most certainly are not. We were clearly cherry-picking and keeping only the laws we felt like keeping! While the COGs claim it is universal and plain it most certainly is not. There is little agreement among the COGs. I suspect the main issue here is not the law, but that we were attempting to force the Bible to conform to our flawed assumptions. Unwittingly we followed a man rather than God. The confusion that surrounds this topic is not from God! And there is certainly plenty of confusion to go around. Even I don't claim to fully understand the whole scope. I am still, months into my study, trying to separate what flawed teaching was placed into my head from what the simplicity of Christ's gospel for the New Covenant actually teaches.

Isaiah 66 and Meats

In my continuing investigation into clean/unclean meats, I would like to take a serious look into Isaiah 66. I had a friend who agreed with everything I said about meats, but because Isaiah 66 confused him so, he could not accept it.

In order to move forward into this section, one absolutely must keep in mind the whole body of evidence on this topic. Temper that with the fact that prophecy cannot undo the New Covenant made in Jesus' blood. If it appears to, then we can be fairly certain that we are understanding something very much incorrectly.

In the COGs we would spend the better part of an entire sermon hearing about clean and unclean meats, then we were pointed to a place where “clean and unclean” are mentioned, where the minister would hope we would think that all instances of the words “clean and unclean” can mean only meats.

(EZE 44: 23) And they shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the unholy, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.

After such a verse, the minister would follow up with, “The teaching is that God clearly shows in the future there will be a keeping of the meats laws, therefore, they are in effect now.”

This is very much something Armstrong did often – sleight of hand. Notice the redirect. This helps set up the illusion which exists only in the properly distracted mind, that meats laws will be in effect - not that Jesus Christ pointed us to the spiritual meaning of “clean and unclean”.

Now notice another thing Armstrong does often – only giving part of the story. The verse is given, you look it up, you find it, you see the word 'unclean', they tell you what to think about it, then you feel like you’ve proven it and you are a Berean. Is that really proving it for yourself? Is that really, “Don’t believe me, believe your Bible”? No.

Ezekiel 44 refers to the Levitical teachers of the Old Covenant church. Not for everyone, nor for the Gentiles, but: “the Levites, the sons of Zadok” (EZE. 44: 15). Yet no one in Armstrong teaches the Levites are still commanded for our day (except where tithes are involved, of course).

(EZE. 44: 10-11) 10 And the Levites who went far from Me, when Israel went astray, who strayed away from Me after their idols, they shall bear their iniquity. 11 Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary, as gatekeepers of the house and ministers of the house; they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister to them.

Armstrong never taught that animal sacrifices are currently commanded. How then can we possibly think that since we see the phrase “clean and unclean” here (in prophecy) it can mean nothing else than the meats laws are still in force (right now)? This assumes this is even referring to meats.

After a good long sermon on meats laws, the ministry would point out Isaiah 66: 17.

(ISA. 66: 17) [AMP] Those who [attempt to] sanctify themselves and cleanse themselves to enter [and sacrifice to idols] in the gardens, following after **one in the midst, eating hog's flesh and the abomination [creeping things] and the [mouse--their works and their thoughts] shall come to an end together, says the Lord.

**Some commentators also suggest that this may refer to the cultic leader in the center who shows by his example how to conduct the ceremonies.

“See?” they say, “God still yet believes pork, creeping things (abominations), and mice to be unclean, eaten by pagans, and contrary to His faith.” And thus conveniently forget their own oft-used argument: "The context of this verse is idolatry, not clean and unclean meats." If Paul can be speaking of eating meats but they say he is only speaking of idolatry, then how can this clearly be speaking of idolatry but they say it is speaking of meats? We always wanted it both ways! And let us never forget that ALL prophetic interpretation is but speculation. When does shifting speculation become certain doctrine? It should not!

We must start at the beginning. This prophecy starts a few chapters beforehand in chapter 63 around verse 11. Isaiah (on behalf of Israel) is praying for God to return. He makes Israel’s case. God then spends the next 2 chapters making His own case in response to Israel. This is very much towards Israel; very specifically for them only. And it was written in the words that were meaningful for them at that time (those meats were condemned at that time).

In Isaiah 65: 1, God is referring to the calling of the Gentiles and the New Covenant. Paul confirms this in Romans 10: 20. That was 1,900 years ago! And why did God (temporarily) reject His people? Isaiah 65: 2-5 talks about the Jews committing idolatry. Baal worship, necromancy, witchcraft – you name it, they did it.

God was always trying to be with Israel. God wasn’t far from them; they were far from Him. Is it any wonder God hates idolatry? These were the practices of certain Jews who profaned themselves among the Gentiles. They practiced more than just eating of swine’s flesh. Even the most foul and ungodly things that men did to debase themselves to idols are implied here in this verse. It is these ones, these idolaters, towards whom the wrath of God is directed, that we see referenced in Isaiah 66. There is absolutely no way this verse is undoing the great and tremendous sacrifice of Christ in ending the Old Covenant.

What would God have loved to see from His people?

(ISA 66: 2) But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word.

God wanted moral excellence, but the people, the ones who weren’t outright idolatrous pagans, only gave Him legal excellence.

(ISA. 66: 3) He who kills a bull is as if he slays a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, as if he breaks a dog’s neck; he who offers a grain offering, as if he offers swine’s blood; he who burns incense, as if he blesses an idol.

So, how do we understand ISA. 66: 17? It so closely matches ISA. 65: 4, they must be tied together. In chapter 65, God makes His case against Israel. In chapter 66, He judges. Who is He judging? All people who eat pork? No. Idolatrous Israel! Pictured in these verses are people secreting away for an idolatrous worship service in a grove, for crying out loud, yet all Armstrong ever saw was meats. But it goes much farther than that.

What is God’s focus? Animal sacrifice? Physical meats? Not at all! But the inward man is what God looks on. Exactly as Christ teaches:

(MARK 7: 18-23) 18 So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" 20 And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man."

This is the magnified relationship; the New Covenant! God is not pleased with physical temples and physical sacrifices (ISA. 1: 11-14), nor is He displeased with physical meats (I COR. 8: 8). This is why it is so important to keep in mind my whole series about meats through this. God is not pleased with the Old Covenant worship, much less a cherry-picked version of it, but Armstrong uses this prophecy to say that is the only worship God accepts.

God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit, not in physical (JOHN 4: 23-24; ROM. 2: 29, 7: 6; II COR. 3: 6; PHP. 3: 3). God’s temple is inside us (I COR. 3: 16; HEB. 3: 6). God’s requirements are a humble and faithful mind (I TIM. 1: 5). God’s approval is not on those who keep outward rituals, like avoiding meats; most especially if those outward rituals do not come first of all with faith in Jesus and moral excellence (PHP 3: 7-11). Clean is what is spiritually pure, unclean is what is spiritually impure. Nothing like pork defiles us, but idolatry, pork or no pork, is contrary to God. How dangerous it is to idolize a man!

This really gets to the heart of two arguments that hold no merit. The first is “we see it before Sinai, therefore it is in force,” the second is “we see it in prophecy, therefore it is in force.”

We speculate (all prophetic interpretation is speculation) from Ezekiel that in the future there will be a Levitical priesthood with their proper clothing and ceremonies, a physical temple, animal sacrifices, and all sorts of such things that were done away with in the New Covenant. That's not now, that's future. How on earth, then, can we say the meats laws are any different? No Levites today, no commanded garb, no sacrifices, no temple worship.. but meats laws-- that's today! It doesn't make any sense.

We know that from the time of Cain and Abel there were animal sacrifices, and from Abraham we had circumcision. Both gone in the New Covenant. How on earth can we say those things are gone but meats are still in effect? They were a shadow from the day they were instituted. “The Kingdom of God is not in meats and drinks”! “Circumcision is of the heart”! We are “living sacrifices”! Why do we refuse to accept that moral excellence trumps legal excellence? It always has (EZE. 33: 12-20)! It always will! That is the very nature of the New Covenant. The old shadow is revealed for what it is – merely a shadow. The reality is now clearly available to us! We (as Gentiles) are no longer unclean. We are no longer to enter the temple of God through washings and blood of animals. The veil is taken away. We are the temple! We are clean! By the blood of Christ Himself, not by animals. Christ said "It is finished." And it is finished. By faith, not by law. If by law, then Christ died in vain!

(GAL. 2: 21) I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain

And no prophetic MIS-interpretation can undo this New Covenant.

The Sheet Vision

In an ongoing effort to investigate Armstrong's keeping of the clean and unclean meats laws, I would like to go over the Sheet Vision of Acts 10.

Not that anyone knows for certain, but some put the calling of Cornelius around 40AD. Peter was staying at the house of one Simon, a tanner, when God caused a centurion named Cornelius to send three of his servants (all of whom were Gentiles) to meet Peter.

(ACTS 10: 9-17)

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill [Strong's 2380 burn for ritual sacrifice] and eat." 14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure [2839 ceremonially or morally unclean, common, polluted] or unclean [169 ceremonially or morally lewd or demonic]." 15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure [2840 ceremonially or morally unclean, common, polluted] that God has made clean [2511 make clean, purge, purify]." 16This happened three times [one for each man coming to him], and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. 17While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon's house was and stopped at the gate.

I want to draw your attention to the word “kill” in verse 13. It is not just kill, but to burn in sacrifice; yet again, food laws are associated with sacrificial laws. From the days of Adam, animals were separated for sacrifice. Now, God says to Peter “sacrifice even what was once the unclean.” To a Jew, this must have been utterly impossible to accept. To those who feel the foods laws are still in place, think of how it makes you feel now, and then multiply that by a billion.

“Peter had God’s Spirit, and certainly was as much an apostle as any man,” Armstrong argued, “shouldn’t he have been taught by Jesus that the food laws were no longer valid, if that were the case?” 

The answer is obvious: at the time of Jesus’ life the Gentiles were not called, but this vision shows that by Jesus’ death and life God had changed the paradigm.

The Worldwide Church of God taught that this took place 10 years after Jesus’ death. I’ve heard numbers as high as 20 years and as low as 3 years. This was most likely from 7-9 years after the death of Jesus. 

Should we use this very same logic, the “Peter didn’t know x years later” argument, then we must conclude that physical circumcision is still in force since he didn’t know about that, and Gentiles are not called since he obviously didn’t know about that either, as well as Talmud laws are still in force since he and several others continued to regarded those even 20 years past this point. Peter didn’t understand those things at this time. This logic cannot selectively apply to one area (meats) and not the others (Gentiles, circumcision, Talmud, marriage laws).

Is it any wonder Peter didn’t understand all things? Clearly he didn’t see Jesus’ meaning in Matthew 15 and Mark 7. When Jesus taught them He would be killed, and then it came to pass, what did Peter do? He went back to fishing (JOHN 21: 3). Peter is one of the men who asked the resurrected Jesus on the day He was taken up, (ACTS 1: 6) “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel”. Jesus simply did not teach everything the Apostles would need to know while He was alive, nor did they grasp it all. This is clear in His statement in John 14: 25-26 “25 These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” Clearly, God was at this time teaching Peter something he did not previously receive (JOHN 16: 12-13). 

That lesson, I regret to add, Peter was not always straightforward in following even 20 years after the death of Jesus as we read in Galatians 2: 11-14. He was eating with the Gentiles, in a manner that he knew the Jewish converts would not approve of. But he regarded their opinion more than he regarded the calling of the Gentiles.

(GAL. 2: 11-14) “11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?”

We can see even further that Peter had no understanding at the time of Acts 10 about Gentile cleansing by the first words out of his mouth to Cornelius in Acts 10: 28, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation.” 

ONLY this vision gave Peter any inkling of any removal of the rules against associating with Gentiles, so therefore it most certainly did change things. It was not something Jesus taught them before this day. Certainly it is clear that no one else at that time understood either, because the first thing the people said to Peter when he returned to Jerusalem to tell about his experience was “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!” (ACTS 11: 3). Those who were zealous for the law were offended and accusing him of sin and betraying not only the food laws of Moses but the circumcision laws of Abraham. 

It is clear that Jesus openly and plainly taught no one about the calling of the Gentiles, yet the Gentiles are called. The argument that “Peter wasn’t taught meats are cleansed by Jesus, therefore meats are not cleansed” is completely invalidated. People who make this claim often haven’t the foggiest idea what a great many and very strict rules there were in Judaism to separate them from the Gentiles, both in the Torah and in the Talmud. It wasn’t just food by any means, but food and rules against intermarriage were the main separators. The symbolism of the unclean animals includes separation. The animals were separated from them as unclean (LEV. 20: 25).

According to Worldwide’s own theology, “God instituted His law of clean and unclean to show the difference between His people and the nations around them.” 

Absolutely correct! This is how some of the Jews understand it as well. However, we now know there is no substantive difference in God’s eyes any longer.

(GAL. 3: 28) “28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

All of these separations were wiped away – including the intermarriage between Jew and Gentile (especially between Christ and His Church). If the separators weren’t removed, the Apostles, being Jews, couldn’t go to the Gentiles effectively. If they weren’t wiped away, what Paul corrected Peter for in Galatians would have been normal behavior. Remember, Peter was the original Apostle to the Gentiles (ACTS 15: 7). Is it any wonder Paul took over that spot (GAL. 2: 8)?

Until that time, all who preached the gospel went to the Jews only:

(ACTS 11: 19) “19 Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only.” 

Of course that’s what they did. The gospel was to the Jew first, then the Gentile (ROM. 1: 16). But at that time they simply didn’t understand. Peter said to God, “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” Peter never went into a Gentile’s house until that time either. Yet he was about to. And he was about to eat with them. Peter ate with uncircumcised men!

 

Now, let me inform you of a little known fact about the clean/unclean meats laws as practiced – it was (and still very much is in some circles) considered an offense for anyone who is neither Jewish nor seeking to become a proselyte to Judaism to keep the food laws. Many Jews consider that a sign between them and God only. All Gentiles are discouraged from even attempting to keep the food laws. There are 613 laws in the Torah, given by Moses, called mitzvahs, which are binding on the Jews. However, there are only 7 laws binding on the Gentiles, called the 7 Noachide laws. The food laws were not among them. So, Peter ate with men who were not keeping the food laws! Now, in all honesty and candor no one can claim to know what Peter ate. But the opposite is also true – no one can claim to know what he didn’t eat. Best chances are however, in a Gentile house that until a few hours beforehand he felt was forbidden for him to enter, he ate something unclean.

“But Peter’s reaction to the vision clearly showed that the Gentiles are now called,” one would argue, “it doesn’t clearly show meats are cleansed”. Yes, Gentiles, the reality to the shadow, are cleansed. And no it does not clearly show this. That is correct. But one must take the evidence as a whole. This is only one specific area of the Bible. We cannot prove nor disprove the entire meats argument here - this is supporting evidence only.

Take circumcision for example - the other great physical sign given to physical Israel; commanded from the days of Abraham himself. The first people Peter reported his experience to complained that he ate with uncircumcised men. Later we learn that circumcision of the flesh was done away with – however we have no direct command from God showing Paul this was so. The evidence must be taken as a whole. 

So this argument then becomes completely undone. Gentile separation and circumcision are shown as being done away with, yet not all in one place. Even so, nothing separates Jew from Gentile now in God’s eyes. But we are to believe the unclean meats laws are still in effect? This makes no sense!

What did Peter see? Gentiles? No, he saw unclean beasts of all sorts. What did God ask him to do? Go to the Gentiles? No, God asked him to sacrifice and eat. How much more clear can you get than that?? Is God a liar? Does God tempt us to sin? What did Peter say to three direct commands from God? “No.” And we side with Peter against God, as if God didn’t know what He was talking about but Peter did, as if God were asking Peter to sin? “God never rebuked Peter,” Worldwide says. As if saying no to God and getting away with it makes it alright. However God most certainly did get after Peter.

(ACTS 10: 15) “15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’”

Yet some still insist “God was not talking about meats.” If the vision wasn’t about meats, why did Peter respond about what he put in his mouth? I conclude God most certainly was talking about meats – if the vision wasn’t enough to convince people, then He was talking about meats by associating them with Gentiles.

Some quote Acts 10: 28 “But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” Then they say, “See? Peter concluded that he should call no MAN common or unclean.” And so God did instruct Peter as such. What God has cleansed we should not call common. Obviously God’s point in the vision was primarily about men. The disconnect is some people claim it is only about men, which makes little sense given the weight of other Bible verses touching this subject. They forget Peter was a Jew and believed the meats laws didn’t apply to Cornelius anyhow. Why mention them, then?

If the meats had nothing to do with the equation, why did God use them in the vision? Why not use some other symbol, for example seas or perhaps Gentiles? But if meats represented Gentiles here, why not let the Bible interpret the Bible and see that meats represent Gentiles, and most likely have represented the Gentiles since the day God instructed Moses concerning them. It was the food laws that worked the front line on the separation of the Jew from the Gentile. Now that separation is abolished by a miracle of God. Why then the continued need for the separator? Also think about this, if the meats are a shadow of the Gentiles, and the Gentiles (the reality) are cleansed, then how can one reason the meats (the shadow cast by the reality) are not cleansed? Can a fountain give fresh water and impure water? Can a cleansed reality cast an unclean shadow? Not possible!

Look at Peter’s reaction to the vision – he wondered about its meaning. The Worldwide Church of God asks, “If the meaning of the vision was so simple as to cleanse all foods, why did Peter wonder about the meaning?” Two things: 

First, this wasn’t so simple as foods; that statement is misleading. It was a sea change in God’s direction unheard of for 1,400+ years. Things are being changed here that went back before the law and the prophets all the way to Abraham. While Jesus was alive as a man, He challenged the Talmud openly. Now He is challenging the Old Covenant and the calling of the Jews only.

Second, any man would wonder. The proven fact that Peter did not understand up until this point makes that his obvious natural human reaction. Most certainly he marveled at what God was doing. We can imagine what went through his mind. “Could it be so? Is God really doing this? It was against all the law – what else does this change?”

And what was his conclusion? Peter did not previously understand the New Covenant, or the gospel, or even God’s love. Now he does – just that much more.

(ACTS 10: 34-35) "34Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."

He knew the Jews were no longer separated.

“The vision was of God, but the vision was symbolic,” they argue. You find me one vision that isn’t symbolic! Much of the book of Revelation is symbolic. Of course it was symbolic! But that doesn’t give us license to undo what God was doing. What a weak argument this is.

I Corinthians 8 and 10

This is another post on the subject of clean/unclean meats in the New Covenant. The more I read the Bible for myself, without the 'guidance' (read 'control') of Armstrong's ministers, the more I see that HWA was very much wrong. I would like to look at select verses from I Corinthians 8 & 10 because these chapters always appear in COG booklets. How do they compare to what I had always thought while I was attending a COG?

Paul lays out his teachings a little more plainly in the eighth chapter of First Corinthians than he did in Romans 14.

(I COR. 8: 4-6) 4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

Paul makes it clear that the food is nothing. The point isn’t to focus on eating foods offered to idols, because eating the food is nothing at all, because the idol is nothing at all. It is all about the unintended consequences. Paul talks about conscience and how we either affect our mind and the minds of our neighbors negatively or positively. We who are used to Christianity and have faith in Christ know there is no God but the Father and no Lord but Jesus Christ alone. Paul reminds us that not all (including those who are new in the faith) fully understand this.

Is there really such a thing as idolatry? Yes. Is it a victimless crime? No. Paul takes it seriously. Idolatry is a lie, and as such t is against God. God takes it seriously. Weighing heavy on God's mind is the ability of His children to have a close and meaningful relationship with Him. Are there false gods - literally? No. The only God if the Father and the only Lord is Jesus - if you want to look at it like that. So the idol is just material and the offering is just food. Then what's the big deal? The deal is that when the conscience is injured we can separate ourselves from God out of guilt. We can injure our own conscience in doing what we know we shouldn't - but what we do not intend is when we do what we know we can... and it injures someone else's conscience. Paul wants us to be acutely aware of this!

(I COR. 8: 7) However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 

This is such a confusing sentence; please let me explain it as it was explained to me: 

The new Gentile converts, because they were idolatrous for so long, still regarded the idol as something real. They were not yet experienced enough in the faith to disregard their lifelong customs. The foods which they once ate during their time in idolatry, they ate without hesitation and without knowledge that idolatry was sinful to the one true God; polytheism is what they had always done. But now, knowledge has come in that the idol is contrary to God but that knowledge is not yet mature. Guilt is associated with the entire process - the idol, the food, and all. It shouldn't be, but at this natural and completely understandable phase it is.

(I COR. 8: 8) But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. 

Armstrong most certainly taught we are the worse if we eat, contrary to Paul’s clear instructions not just here but in many other places. And not just about the clean/unclean meats issues either (many will recall the white bread, peeled potatoes, etc teachings). This statement from Paul is important in that it can certainly assist in showing the Old Covenant meats laws are not binding on the New Covenant Christian. Armstrong's version of dietary law is cherry-picked and does not completely match the Bible's version anyhow. 

How many times and in how many different ways must this truth that God does not judge what goes into our mouths be illustrated in the Bible before it becomes 'true' to the reader? For some, there simply aren’t enough times. Armstrong trumps all.

(I COR. 8: 9-13) 9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

There is liberty in the New Covenant. Even in doing what is perfectly acceptable a Christian should be mindful of others. This goes along well with Matthew 5: 19.

So far we have been discussing how certain verses in the Bible deal with Gentile conversion and idol worship. This is one place where I think my study is different than others. I do not conclude that because people misuse and misunderstand the previous verses (and Armstrong was right - people have), it means the dietary laws are still valid. On the contrary, since we have not proved the law of clean and unclean meats was carried over into the New Covenant - we have clearly shown the Gentiles were taught no such thing - we add weight upon weight that Armstrong was in error in this area, being zealous for the Old Covenant as the Jewish converts who troubled Paul. The Word of God, the main party to the Old Covenant, died, thus relieving any burden to keep the Old Covenant. The burden of proof is now on the COGs to show the burden was reinstated, and they do not come through in that in any way. Not that there is any real problem with observing dietary restrictions. However, the problem comes in when judgment and condemnation come in, or when legalism is depended on for a qualities (such as God's righteousness) that it can never bring.

 

We now shift focus to I Corinthians 10. Our first question in the tenth chapter of First Corinthians should be, “what is the context of the verses we’re about to read?”  Verse 14 sums it up.

(I COR. 10: 14) Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 

The context of this entire chapter is idolatry again - I should say 'still'.

(I COR. 10: 18-21) 18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19 Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons.

This was this kind of honest talk that frightened some of the new converts.  Paul knew that sacrifices hold no special power or significance.  But we must avoid idolatry (I COR. 10: 14).  These rituals were not in God’s honor, but demons.  We cannot be the resurrected body and blood of Christ, as the Passover meal pictures the broken body of Christ, AND yet take part with demons.  However, Paul now works to reassure.  Paul was telling the Christians not to worry about meat they were unsure of – but definitely avoid eating as a part of an idolatrous act.

(I COR. 10: 25-26) 25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.”

Paul is not directly dealing with the clean and unclean meats laws here.  However, I will remind you that the majority of what was sacrificed to pagan idols was not “clean” by Jewish standards.  That Paul isn’t talking about meats here is probably the biggest argument against them; in other words, he didn’t mention unclean meats because it isn’t a New Covenant issue in the first place. Indeed, this is about idolatry, and not about clean or unclean.

The COGs would exclaim, “We cannot read clean and unclean meats into this verse!”  Paul is dealing with meat sacrificed to idols.  But just in case someone ever stopped to think that most meats sold in Gentile markets were unclean – offered to idols or not - the COGs would usually add “Eat everything sold in the market… except unclean meats.”  Thus, they wrote their own Bible, adding to as it fit them, and taking away where they pleased.  I very much respect Fred Coulter, but in his version of the Bible (he authored his own version) those words are clearly added in.  Italicized or not, I feel it is incredibly inappropriate to add in your own personal beliefs into the text of the Bible (DEU. 4: 2; REV. 22: 18-19).

Even so, Paul taught that we should not judge each other.  If someone believes they should avoid something, be accommodating and let them believe this way, praying they mature in the faith.  Do not cause them to do what they honestly believe to be wrong, or to worry about it unnecessarily, or flaunt your freedom in their face. Even though meats laws were not carried forward into the New Covenant, it may not always be expedient or edifying to eat. Think of others. (I COR. 10: 23-24)

Paul also refers to what we often find ourselves doing, having dinner.

(I COR. 10: 27-30) 27 If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake -- 29 the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

First off, Paul says plainly "eat whatever is put before you". This directly contradicted Herbert Armstrong's theology, and accepted practices in the COGs. This leads to yet another important principal expounded here – the well being of the unbeliever! (Who is a child of God and a potential believer.) Do not unnecessarily cause them to worry about offending you.  This is a rule the COGs regularly overlook – asking many questions for conscience’ sake, and making it immediately and openly known to all that they will not eat what is set before them if it is “unclean”.  This makes many people feel uncomfortable and hurt and their effort unappreciated, and makes Armstrongites look like callous and inconsiderate zealots.  We gave God a bad name in their eyes.  We should have just eaten what was set before us with thanks given to God as the Bible says to, and done what we were shown by asking no question for conscience’ sake.

I do not agree with people who say the host in verse 28 is informing the guest that the meat was in the past offered in sacrifice. That doesn't mesh, in my mind, with Paul's flow of logic. However, I agree with Jamieson Fausset and Brown's Commentary, and Vincent's Word Study, who say it is not the host who is commenting on the meat but a fellow Christian guest who is young in the faith. It makes a good amount of sense. I can perhaps agree with Matthew Henry's Commentary that the host is at the time performing a non-Christian rite or service. But I would think that this would be a gathering I would excuse myself politely from. The blunt reality is that participating in the body of Christ which God has called us to is something that is more important than making everyone feel good. (I COR. 10: 14) "Flee idolatry." 

I like to visualize it like this: when you both go before the Judgment of God, how will you explain to God and that person why you allowed that one to cause you to sin? You have then sinned against him as well. 

We have still not seen anything that shows meats laws were carried forward into the New Covenant. We have seen evidence to the contrary, however. I would summarize I Corinthians 8 and 10 like this: be mindful of giving offense, and do not be easily offended (I COR. 10: 32). This is love. And to love is the command we have from Christ.

Romans 14 and Meats

In Romans 14 we see another controversial area between those who advocate eating unclean foods and those who do not. Here again we must look at what Paul is talking about. What is the context of Romans 14?

(ROM. 14: 1) Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

Paul begins where Romans 13 left off, by warning about strife and envy, and following the law of love.

[GENEVA] Him that is weake in the faith, receiue vnto you, but not for controuersies of disputations.

[CEV]Welcome all the Lord's followers, even those whose faith is weak. Don't criticize them for having beliefs that are different from yours.

[LITV] And receive the one who is weak in the faith, not to judgments of your thoughts.

The context is first about strife and envy, manifested in passing judgment on people who might not agree with you on a certain disputable subject. There are certain areas that people should grow to understand that aren’t so immediately important that we need to make demands about them only to end up breaking the law of love by judging our brother over them. When a church demands all people speak, think, and believe the exact same thing, they pass judgment without recognizing that even Paul admitted some areas are disputable. Sometimes that comes from the weak in faith, sometimes from the experienced. But it should always be avoided.

Some people say the following verse is about vegetarianism, but it’s really not. It’s about what background you came out of. It’s about much more than that even. First off, you have to understand that Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. He often dealt with this subject we’re reading about here, it was dealt with in I Corinthians and again in Colossians. The Gentiles were given to Greek philosophy and superstitious idol worship. At the same time, the Jewish converts were coming from a very strict legal background. Both had issues to grow out of.

(ROM. 14: 2) One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

 

The two judged each other, one in fear, and the other in confidence.

(ROM. 14: 3-4) 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Knowingly eating foods sacrificed to idols is inappropriate. Jesus deals with this subject twice in Revelation 2, in verses 14 and 20. Foods offered to idols were one of the items required to be avoided by the Gentiles as we see in Acts 15 & 21. Not for the food’s sake, of course, but for the conscience of others who are weak in faith. Clearly God hates idolatry, and it has been a problem for ages. Unknowingly eating foods offered to idols was neither here nor there, for an idol is nothing and the food is nothing (I COR. 8: 4). Clean/unclean meats laws is not the focus here; meats offered to idols were not the focus here. Love is the focus here. As Paul makes abundantly clear in I Corinthians 8, there are Gentile converts to whom idolatry is very much something. We can discern that Paul was not telling people who were strong in the faith to eat foods offered to idols, but that there are people who are not so strong in their Christian faith as to have left behind all of their old superstitions, and they fear all meats offered in the marketplace and refuse to take the chance with any of them.

The early church had a set of issues to deal with. A person’s background beliefs are incredibly difficult to grow out of. (Anyone trying to exit Armstrongism fully understands this.) Paul says, all should be patient and gentle with each other.

(ROM. 14: 5-8) 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

Worldwide taught that, “The Romans were abstaining from eating on certain days.” But this would be what you and I commonly call “fasting”, and it is highly recommended that all people do such. So this very idea, though it sounds quite learned and scholarly, is silly. We all abstain from meats on certain days.

If anyone taught “Paul was basically telling them that until they had a more perfect understanding, they should attribute their understanding not to a pagan god but to Jesus,” then that is akin to saying, “Until you know better, regard your drunken orgy festival,” for such were pagan celebrations, “to Christ rather than Zeus”. I find this reasoning nonsensical. And of course it is! The reason for the wrangling is to try and claim the Old Covenant Holy Days are still binding on New Covenant Christians. This is simply not so. Worldwide had layers upon layers of such convoluted reasonings to explain away Christ's grace and lock us all back into legalistic bondage.

If the context were only idolatry, then Paul condones idolatry in verses 5-8 - which is contrary to multiple verses where God Himself clearly says to do no such thing. How does one keep idolatry to the Lord after all?

We cannot conclude that we are to regard pagan holidays as special to the Lord, therefore we cannot conclude Paul is referring only to idolatry. It makes more sense that Paul is dealing mainly with people’s backgrounds. The days are like the meats, some were eating and some were not, some were regarding as special, some were not, some were weak in the faith and abstained for conscience’ sake, and some were confident in faith. Each had their own background that separated them, and were not quite used to the Christian methods of worship. 

If you kept in mind that Paul was dealing with Jew and Gentile converts, trying to juggle the fact that Gentiles were never commanded to keep the Old Covenant laws while the Jews were zealous for it, you should by now understand that most definitely clean and unclean meats are covered within this chapter. Paul was commanded to teach the Gentiles to avoid meats offered to idols, not to eat them to the Lord. But to the Jewish converts, who stirred up trouble for Paul constantly and wanted all Gentiles to be Jews first in order to be Christians, this would appear that Paul was teaching the replacement of the Old Covenant food laws. Paul was teaching the magnification of the spirit of the law. To the Jews, abstain to the Lord with thanks; to the Gentiles, eat to the Lord with thanks. Only regard others' sensibilities in whatever you do. As for the days, it would make more sense in my mind that Paul was including the Jewish traditional days like Hanukah and Purim or perhaps non-idolatrous Gentile celebrations like birthdays or national celebrations.

(ROM. 14: 13) Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

Unfortunately, this was something most people NEVER learned, all the while condemning people for eating pork or whatever else. I wouldn’t be writing this study now, disputing over disputable matters, if we’d learned this lesson back then.

Now, here we see something new. This is the clincher that shows Paul was most definitely talking about the clean/unclean meats laws.

 

(ROM 14: 14-21) 14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing [“no thing” includes “no food”; the context is what you eat] unclean, [Strong's 2839: shared in common; or ceremonially profane, defiled] of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean [2839], to him it is unclean [2839]. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food [1033: food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonial) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law: - meat, victuals], you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food [1033] the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. 

19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food [1033]. All things [“all things” includes “food”; the context is what you eat] indeed are clean [2513: clean, clear, pure], but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 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. 22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. 

What a statement “I am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself”. “Unclean” here is the same word “common” from Acts 10: 14, 28; 11: 8-9. Just as Jesus told Peter to call nothing “common” that He had cleansed, Paul says he was also convinced by Jesus that nothing was “defiled”; same word. This is the exact same thing God said to Peter! But in that case people say “God only meant the Gentiles”, and here they say “God only means idolatry”. (The same people who keep a tradition because the English text says "forever" will in this case work to undo what God clearly says when it doesn't fit their theology.) Incredible!! Indeed this deals with meats! If we are to demand the context of the section be closely guarded, then the context here is undeniably about food. We cannot just wrangle this away!

I have prayed and pondered about this for some time. I have come to the conclusion that I agree with Paul. Nothing is inherently defiled except to those who feel it is defiled. For Worldwide, as it was with the Jewish converts, what is defiled includes what God has cleansed... and that is their prerogative. If you don't think you should eat, then by all meant do not! So long as they condemn no one else for eating what has been cleansed. But what does that mean? Nothing defiled is made to be defiled in and of and by its self - but if someone regards something to be defiled then to him it is defiled. Since the law is summed up as “Love your neighbor as yourself”, causing someone else to do something they consider a sin, even where there is no law against a certain thing, in this case eating, it is then made a sin to do such a thing. The defilement came not from the outside via the meat, as Jesus shows nothing from the outside defiles us, but from the inside, by loving one’s brother less than one’s appetite.

The idea that Paul considers absolutely nothing to be unclean is misleading. Remember, Paul is referring to food here, not all things in existence. Paul does indeed consider some things to be impure, unclean, or common. Search Paul's works for the word 'unclean' once; you'll see.

We know that in the New Covenant, those things that defile are spiritual; the things that come from within.

To that end, Paul rightly concludes, if eating something bothers you that much, by all means don’t eat it! Law or no law. However, don’t judge someone else for eating, “for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (ROM. 14: 17). And if you do eat, please be considerate to those who do not eat, and refrain from eating in front of them.

Meats - Conclusion

This is the last post (that I had planned) on the topic of meats. I had planned one last investigation into the subject, but instead I'm just going to review some highlights of what I've learned on this subject over the last 3/4 year.

I'd like to start at the very beginning. I theorize the problem with meats begins like this: 

It starts innocently enough with a growing desire to be closer to God. Somehow one becomes confused over some point of the Bible - usually the use of the English word "commandments" in the N.T. (for example in I John). Down whatever path, one comes to the eventual conclusion that the 10 Commandments survived unchanged into the New Covenant (most especially the 4th). I actually hear that a lot. When asked, "What led you to [Armstrongism]?" people have most often responded, "I knew the true church would be keeping the Sabbath." Compounding problems then arise with verses like (MATT. 5: 17-18) or (MATT. 23: 23), which lead people to search for more answers and this leads to meeting up with one religious group or the other. Depending on which religious  group one finds, such things as tithing and holy days will be taught until eventually a person is so hopelessly deep into legalism that accepting the meats laws becomes almost logical. Afterwards, anything that is described in the O.T. as "forever" or "perpetual" is fair game. The border between the Old and New Covenants is destroyed, but group-think prevents people from realizing the truth that they are now a part of neither Covenant. Unfortunately, at the very start, the grace of the New Covenant was set aside and reliance on one's own righteousness set in. That is a perfect recipe for going astray. Hence Paul uses terms like "ministry of death". And ultimately, while a person claims to be "the elect", Jesus' sacrifice is lessened to the point where Paul describes it as being "of no effect". The unsatisfiable chase after personal perfection, along with the obligatory fear and doubt that comes from it, betrays this to be horribly true.

Many things are said to be for a ‘perpetual covenant’ between God and Israel, like for example the avoidance of fat. Whenever I mention that food law to any Armstrongist, they dismiss it. The law! Just not THAT law! I actually had a person tell me "No one can do that!" As if that makes any difference in the world. The law is the law is the law. If you start to keep food laws, then keep the food laws. The law has no middle ground (JAS. 2: 10). Just because something says it is a ‘perpetual covenant’, it does not follow that it is valid for the New Covenant.

The challenge is to realize these two items: 

(MATT. 5: 17-18) "17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” 

and 

(2 TIM. 3: 16-17) “16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 

both declare the the amazing work Christ finished (JOHN 19: 30) when He fulfilled all the law and the prophets. It is a grave error to believe these verses say "keep the Old Covenant" because that is contrary to the salvation of Christ. It is the very error Paul fought so hard against. In fact, to keep a cherry-picked version of the Old Covenant, like the one taught by HWA, will without question cost you everything you think to save.

(GAL 5: 1-4) 1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised [in other words, set out to keep the law - circumcision is Torah not Talmud], Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised [in other words, set out to keep the Torah law] that he is a debtor to keep the whole law [not a cherry-picked version of it]. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

I argue that meats laws are not a weightier matter of the law whatsoever but were wholly ceremonial and wholly abolished by the New Covenant. Look, it's really quite simple. Jesus was party to the Old Covenant. He died. No amount of scriptural misinterpretation should confuse people about this one all-important point.

Once I simply accepted that fact, I came to believe Jesus Christ when He said “What goes into a man cannot defile him”, and “What God has cleansed you must not call common”, which blends with Paul who said “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself”, and “For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving”.

To preach anything else is to say Christ's sacrifice is insufficient. So answer, in what way was Christ's sacrifice insufficient?

Contrary to what may appear overtly obvious, I did not write the posts on meats to get people to eat pork. 

If one believes the meats are a sin, then to them it is a sin -- but not because of law. If one eats and defiles their conscience, God forbid. I do not in any way promote that! The real issue I address here is condemnation and judgment. I exhort all who keep the food laws (to whatever degree) to stop judging and condemning people who do not keep the food laws. If someone loves God by having faith in Christ and keeping a high standard of moral excellence, then where is the excuse for breaking the clear commandments against judging another? We have One Judge. Do not call His brothers and sisters for whom He died “self-willed”, “disobedient”, “uncalled”, “condemned”, nor any other such thing, for, as Paul said, "Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died" (ROM. 14: 15).  My number one, primary, el numero uno complaint about the COGs is the judgment and condemnation. Meats or no, that has got to stop.

I have also come to see that even if the food laws are no longer in effect, they are a wonderful lesson for us. They hold meaning. They are not without value. Jesus did not destroy any of the laws; He fulfilled them. He fulfilled all things. “Clean” and “unclean” are spiritual now, as opposed to symbolic/physical. Circumcision is of the heart. A good study into the physical symbolism of the spiritual reality will be fulfilling whether you eat or not.

I was surprised to learn that no animal was shown to be given to man to eat until Noah left the Ark. The distinction of the clean from the unclean animals that he took on that Ark were for sacrificial purposes, not for food. 

Sacrifice was there from the days of Adam, circumcision from the days of Abraham – both are now gone. Therefore, just because we see something before Sinai it does not follow that such thing is still valid today. The COGs would do well to answer, in what way are they valid today? Then perhaps they would see that all things are fulfilled. The sacrifices, Levitical priesthood, washings, and temple (among other things) some say will return in the future. But they are not here now. Therefore, just because we think we see something in prophecy for the Millennium (all prophetic interpretation is speculation) it does not follow that it is valid today. "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed" (MAL. 3: 6). It is the Lord's nature that 'changes not', but clearly His requirements for us do. 

I was surprised to learn that my Armstrongist beliefs caused me to unknowingly hold that all Christians had to become Jews in order to be Christians. I didn't realize that I believed that way. Recognizing it helped me to understand. And immediately God said "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you" (GEN. 9: 3). That is everything. All. Total. "...Every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea" (GEN. 9: 2). No exceptions.

And still people use reasoning to nullify the clear an inescapable words of the Bible. This is not because of any Biblical evidence (as their argument is designed to nullify the words of the Bible) but by an emotional attachment to ideology alone. And this is idolatry - a violation of the very Commandments they claim to uphold.

There are two groups of Christians in the early church: the Jewish converts that were zealous for the law, and the Gentile converts that were instructed to keep no such thing. This was obviously for their conscience’s sake. Exactly as the Pharisees who troubled Paul, Herbert Armstrong commanded the Gentiles to be Jews in order to be Christians. This is contrary to the decree of the Apostles, even while HWA quite plainly did not keep the whole law. A great many things had to be erased from Jewish law for God to cleanse the gentiles; not just the food laws. If it were not so then no Jew could effectively preach to a Gentile or vice versa. The unclean meats were a shadow. Jesus Christ who casts the shadow is clean; the shadow is therefore cleansed. 

Peter didn’t understand this at first. It was not something Jesus taught Him while He was alive because they simply could not handle it then. Jesus taught Peter through the Holy Spirit when the time had come, after the calling of Cornelius. These things were confirmed through Paul and Barnabas through miracles. Peter and a few other Apostles just seemed to have a problem accepting it. We can see that the Apostles did mind the Talmud traditions, and that became a stumbling block for them. Old habits are hard to break. HWA's clever comment "Why didn't Peter understand a change in meats laws 10 years later?" drew me in. It wasn't 10 years, for one thing. And Peter was the very first Apostle sent to a Gentile. By that same logic, if he didn't understand that Gentiles were cleansed x years later, then they must not be! Ergo, none of us are Christians anyhow.

Ridiculous!

I also came to disagree that the basis of this debate should be health, seeing as properly cooked pork is much more healthful than fresh scallions (or jalapenos or peanuts or blueberries, etc) with salmonella. If meats are health laws it should say so somewhere in the Bible, but it does not. Nowhere in the Bible are food laws explained to be health laws. They are symbolically unclean in relation to sacrifice, and that's it. Oh, how very many times do I hear "God didn't give us poison ivy to eat." Perhaps not. But He didn't designate clean/unclean plants either. Trying to force meats into a health issue via cleverly worded arguments does not Biblical truth make. The fact remains - meats are not a health issue.

I was at first confused by the meanings of some verses. They seemed to be plain and without need of interpretation. Peter was right to say some of Paul’s writings are hard to understand (2 PET. 3: 15-16). But if it’s health we’re so worried about, then we must begin to treat fast food, hydrogenated oils, food allergies, and laziness with much greater seriousness.

I was also surprised to learn what little agreement there is among the COGs about any of this. Armstrong taught one thing at one time, another thing at another time, and yet another thing at a third time. One group says this, another group says that, another group says the other thing. I even recall hearing one minister describe the issue in terms of "lobsters are gross." (And that's entirely a matter of personal preference. I used to think potatoes were gross.) If it were all so plain, why the confusion?

Whether you believe clean and unclean meats to be a physical law of health, a spiritual sin, a ceremonial sacrifice ritual, or just something you arbitrarily do, I hope you can agree with me that our understanding of the Bible is not open to personal interpretation. The Bible should interpret the Bible. Nor either can any man change the law as I often found HWA had done (what disturbs me most is people are fully aware of that yet go along none the less). I did this study because I thought if my Armstrongist preconceptions were true then they could stand up to scrutiny. I will leave it up to the reader to decide the outcome. Our relationship with God is on an individual basis. Much of how I was taught seemed to be an attempt to make me too afraid to read the Bible for myself. I never realized that I accepted much of what I did because Herbert W. Armstrong claimed he taught the truth and said I would go to the second resurrection (or worse) if I didn’t agree. Simply taking the word of a person because they claim to be some end-time celebrity is most definitely NOT Biblical. The old fallback “that’s not how I was taught” is probably the most dangerous position of all. Only after much study and prayer can we come to have a deep and mature understanding of God’s Word. Sometimes what the Bible is saying is not immediately obvious. A Christian walk is a growth process. It is dangerous to read into the Bible without a humble and teachable attitude. It is dangerous to use phrases like "non-negotiable". If something is true, it will be true every time you revisit the subject. And revisit you should. One must be ready to prove what is good or disprove even long standing beliefs.

Matthew 15 & Mark 7

Oh so many times I devoured the standard teaching about Matthew 15 and Mark 7. So satisfied with the explanation was I that I failed to question, test, and PROVE what I had accepted. I would like to take the time now to ask those questions I never did before as I should have been doing.

(MARK 7: 2) Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled [Strong's 2839: common, that is, (literally) shared by all or several, or (ceremonially) profane: - common, defiled, unclean, unholy.], that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault.

Jesus and his Apostles ate without washing their hands. This wasn’t just to say “with dirt on their hands”; that wasn’t what offended the Pharisees. To the Pharisees, their hands were just as defiled as an idol or pork. There are scores of things that could render the hands unclean. For example, touching the canonical Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament – because mice were often seen scurrying across them due to the fact they were stored close to the free will offerings.

eg. Jewish Encyclopedia: Treatise of Mishna and Tosefta

**Whatever was touched by something unclean, including the Torah, was also unclean. For those of you who think you keep the food laws by eating at restaurants but not ordering unclean foods, be aware that once unclean meat like bacon touches that grill, the whole grill becomes unclean. You can eat nothing cooked on it. IMHO, another example of cherry-picking.**

HWA tried his hardest to make this into an argument about dirt. It was never about dirt! The Pharisees didn’t ask about dirt, and Jesus didn’t respond about dirt. The Pharisees were commenting about ritually unclean hands; in the same fashion as pork was ritually unclean. The Pharisees were speaking of a ritual washing, not a “clean up before dinner” kind of washing. The hands weren’t to become clean with washing, but sanctified. One wasn’t supposed to even speak the name of God with unclean hands. Thus Jesus answered about the Talmud and what truly makes a person truly unclean. This is a discussion about what makes holy and what makes unholy.

Some believe that Jesus here made all foods clean.

(MARK 7: 14-23) NIV (..also look at this in the NKJV) 

14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' [Strong's 2840: ceremonially or morally unclean, common, polluted] [this is the same word used in Acts 10: 15] by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.['2840]" 17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean[2840]? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." 20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him unclean. [2840] 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man unclean."

The majority of Christians, and even some Bible translations, think this meant Jesus had decreed all meats clean. Technically this is untrue, since the cleansing could not occur until the New Covenant was ratified in His own blood. Jesus Christ is doing much more than stripping away layers of Talmud, however. He is laying down the groundwork for the magnification of the law to come later. He is bringing in the reality and removing the shadow.

(LUKE 11: 39) Then the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees make the outside of the cup and dish clean, but your inward part is full of greed and wickedness.

Here, HWA and hisministers would always interject, “But clean and unclean meats aren’t what the context of this discussion was about.” They continue, “Since the Jews added so much physical content to the law, through traditions of men without God’s consent, it ruined the spiritual intent of the law, and Jesus is merely teaching the spirit of the law here.” As a proof text, we are directed to Matthew 15.

(MATT. 15: 20) These are what make a man unclean[2840]; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him unclean. [2840]"

In response, it is important to understand that the context and question here is ‘what makes someone defiled?’ It most certainly does include food laws since at that time they most certainly could make someone defiled.

First, this is blatant and deliberate ignoring of what Christ is saying. Full well they reject the magnification of the law that they may keep the yoke of the Old Covenant! Yes, Jesus is discussing the overemphasis on the traditions contrary to the law. Washings, however, were not all contrary to the law; they were part of it (EXO. 40: 12, 30-31; also read LEV. 11-16 and see how many washings were commanded). Do we not understand that the Passover foot washing, as well as baptism, were cleansing rituals? We are clean (JOHN 13: 10)! Now nothing from the outside can defile us.

Yes, Jesus is directly addressing hand washing rituals. Yes He is directly addressing the Talmud. However, if the sub-context is the spirit of the law, as HWA freely admits, then this addresses so very much more than just physical hand washing. If Jesus was merely returning the law to its proper state by removing the Talmud, why didn’t He correct them from the washing laws in the Torah? They mention hand washings, He mentions adultery. He didn’t bring it back to its legal place; He brought it far above and beyond! It addresses taking our minds out of the shadowy, physical Old Covenant and placing it into the substantive, magnified and spiritual New Covenant.

Second, Jesus Christ says “nothing”, meaning nothing, which goes into the mouth can spiritually defile you. He doesn’t say “dirt that enters from the outside”. This was never about dirt! It was about ceremonial uncleanness! And so He says “whatever enters from the outside.” This may include dirt, but it does not by any means stop there. If He only meant dirt, why didn’t He say "dirt"? If this is about the digestive system purging impurities, then what about salmonella, ecoli, campylobacter, and other food-borne illnesses? Why pasteurize? Is Jesus mistaken? Jesus knew this isn’t about dirt or health! 

Why did He repeatedly say “nothing”? This is God in the flesh here; He said nothing that the Father didn’t give Him to say. If Jesus is only discussing the Talmud hand washings, He used a pretty large scatter gun by explaining exactly what does and does not defile a man. Jesus is laying the groundwork for the magnification of the law! Here Jesus lays out a list of things that can defile and things that cannot defile. Things that can defile you include things that come from inside you; spiritual things like “evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies”. Things that cannot defile you include things that come from outside of you; physical things like what goes into your mouth, and unwashed hands. Ask yourself, ‘which of these categories does meat fall into?’ Obviously they come from outside of you. How, then, can we claim Jesus is only speaking of unwashed hands – a very specific thing – when He says clearly “nothing” – a very broad and general thing?

Third, this word “defile” as Jesus uses it is the exact same word God used in Acts 10 where God says: 

(ACTS 10: 15) “What God has cleansed you must not call common [2840]” 

Whereas the word “defile” as the Pharisees use it is the exact same word that Paul uses in Romans 14 where he says: 

(ROM. 14: 14) I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean [2839] of itself 

So we see in many other areas of the Bible, these words most certainly do deal with foods.

To address the certain reaction by some who will inevitably say “I can think of a lot of things that could go into a man that would defile him.” I would reply, then, previous to that point, lust and sin have already defiled such a person.

Clean/Unclean For Noah?

I certainly wonder how I came to believe what I did while I was a practicing Armstrongist.  One of the biggest parts of my life was following the meats laws.  One of the last things I studied before the scales fell from my eyes was meats laws.  I could not prove it without referring to my own (HWA inspired) thinking.  One popular argument was, "Meats laws were kept by Noah; therefore we must keep them."  Directly springing from this is the claim "Pig was never meant for human digestion."  Is this true?  Please look through this with me.

In the beginning, God created all things very good.

(GEN. 1: 31) “31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.”

Many people claim certain animals were an abomination to God from the start, but that isn’t Biblically so.  God proclaimed all things ‘very good’. This claim is to bolster the case that clean and unclean meats for food were known from the beginning.

Originally, both man and animal were only given plants as a food source by God.

(GEN. 1: 29-30) 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

God gave Adam and Eve every tree that grew in the Garden of Eden to eat from, except one.

(GEN. 2: 15-17) 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Because Adam and Eve did not obey, the ground’s productivity was cursed.

(GEN. 3: 17-19) 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

The error persists that God gave Adam animals for food.  This is absolutely not determined from a reading of the Bible text.  Three times God tells Adam that he may eat plants.  He allows Adam to eat animals zero times. This persists until the day Noah came out of the Ark.

Why would Abel have flocks if not for food?  We don’t know.  Perhaps God allowed them to be milked and shorn and used as beasts of burden, but not eaten.  It doesn’t say; except that the words of the Bible do not show that any animal was given to man for food at this time.  Abel used the animals for sacrifice – that is shown.  Abel sacrificed only animals, and only his best, and with faith.  Cain sacrificed plants, but not his best, and without faith.

(GEN. 4: 3-5) 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Here, the word "flock" is Strong's 6629, which almost always refers to sheep/goats (as opposed to pigs or cows, etc).  Notice that Cain’s sacrifice was otherwise acceptable to God.  It was the lack of faith in his attitude that really caused the issue.  

(HEB. 11: 4) “4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain”.  It was a lack of faith that caused Cain to disregard the sacrifice.

Many people claim that Cain was not accepted because he did not sacrifice sheep.  God doesn’t indicate that anywhere.  Grain and wine were often offered as burnt sacrifices, for example in the Grain Offering, Peace Offering, Sin Offering, and the New Moon Offering.  But this wasn’t a burnt sacrifice like we see being given by the Levitical Priesthood.  This was  most likely a freewill offering.  All freewill offerings included flour and oil.  Perhaps when we read that Cain brought the “fruit of the land”, we think “he brought fruit.”  That is not necessarily so.  He merely brought what the land produced.  That could have been wheat and oil and grapes.  We simply don’t know.  Point being, to say “Cain didn’t bring sheep, so God was angry” is not Biblically sound.

God taught Adam and his family the ways God desired to be worshiped for that time, including what is right from wrong for that time, and those same ways were moved forward thousands of years later.  This is completely in line with all Jewish understanding of the Torah.  Even the Jews, who have studied and preserved the Torah for 4,000 years, say Noah had no meats law given to him.

The xCOGs often quote Romans 3: 2 when they wish to bolster a belief they hold.  However, I doubt they will hold that verse up in this instance.  I do not claim the Jews are always right by any means.  But in this case, there is no evidence to doubt them with.

Why would Abel sacrifice the exact animal Moses was told to sacrifice over two thousand years later?  We cannot know for sure.  The logical answer is not that the laws of Moses existed at that time.  Paul tells us the law was given 430 years after Abraham (GAL. 3: 17), and God tells us the sacrifice laws were added after that (JER. 7: 22).  The logical answer is because God knows what symbol He prefers to use for Jesus Christ’s sacrifice.

The story of Noah displays the knowledge of clean and unclean animals prior to the flood.

(GEN. 7: 1-3) 1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean [ceremonially pure; Strong's 2889] animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean [not clean; Strong's 2889] animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

CLEAN [Strong’s 2889, Heb. Tahor, from 2891]: pure (in a physical, chemical, ceremonial, or moral sense):- clean, fair, pure (-ness).

[Strong’s 2891, Heb. Taher]: to be bright, i.e. (by implication) to be pure (physically sound, clear, unadulterated; in Leviticus uncontaminated; morally innocent or holy): be (to make, make one’s self, pronounce) clean, cleanse (self), purge, purify (-ier, self).

Everyone knows Noah took the animals two-by-two, but what’s usually omitted is that he took 7 pairs of “clean” animals but only 2 pairs of “unclean” ones.  These animals on the Ark may have been filthy with mud and what not, but that isn’t what God was referring to here by “clean”. Obviously it was a condition of un-holiness, or rather ceremonial un-cleanliness, in which they existed.  There was indeed the knowledge both of ceremonially clean and unclean animals before Sinai, but they were for sacrifice (although the purpose of the sacrifice is not specified).  The Bible simply does not give animals for food yet.

These animals are not to be understood as unclean for consumption; no animal is given to man at this point in history for food, clean or otherwise.  What Noah ate – his food law – just as it was for Adam, was plants.  This indicates that the ceremonial impurity of animals for sacrifice existed before the Law was given to Israel, but after Adam sinned. 

(GEN. 6: 21) “21 And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them.”

Now pay close attention to the very first thing that Noah does when he steps off the Ark:

(GEN. 8: 20-21) 20 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. 21 And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.

These animals were not clean for food, they were clean for sacrifice!  And they pleased God’s heart.

Still yet, up to this point, God had only given plants to eat.  This was the law for both man and animal.  When the flood receded, Noah left the Ark and sacrificed clean animals to God.  Only then did God give animals to man for food.

(GEN. 9: 1-4) 1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing7431 [from 7430 a reptile or any other rapidly moving animal: - that creepeth, creeping (moving) thing.]  that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

God gives “everything that lives and moves” as food to mankind, except that nothing with its blood still in it may be eaten.  Many argue, “Everything… except the unclean animals.”  There are no such exceptions here.  “Moving thing” comes from a root word that specifically includes reptiles – all of which are forbidden in Mosaic law.  The clean animals were clean for sacrifice; clean for food does not factor in here.  He clearly says “everything”.  The original Hebrew word for “everything” really means “whole”, meaning the total sum, and is often translated “all” and “every”.  Anyone who says otherwise is not letting the Bible interpret the Bible.  God makes certain in the next verses that a misinterpretation cannot be made here, that perhaps someone might think this includes the right to cannibalism.  Man, therefore, is the only exception.

The xCOGs would never fail to argue, “God didn’t mean everything when He said ‘everything’.  Obviously He didn’t intend Noah to eat Black Widow spiders.  God gave all the green herbs, but did He mean poison ivy?”  Perhaps not.  Do we know those terrible things even existed back then?  In all honesty, that’s not an apples to apples comparison.  Comparing pigs which do not so much as have a poison gland to something poisonous which undoubtedly will kill you if you ingest it is not a fair comparison.  But this is all human reasoning, not relying on the Bible.  If we want to be semantic about it, the Bible says “as the green herbs”.  Were there clean and unclean green herbs?  No.  So when Armstrongism argues we shouldn't eat poison ivy, don't forget that poison ivy is not unclean!

Before the flood, no animals were given to man as food.  Now, ALL animals are given to man as food.  No exceptions are mentioned by God but man himself.  This was done by necessity, as there were few plants to eat.  It should be pointed out, however, that a few pairs of the clean animals would have been eaten first, since there were enough pairs to spare, until the rapidly-mating unclean animals could multiply.  Don’t forget that predatory animals would also need those clean pairs (they can’t eat the unclean ones or if they did you wouldn’t ever know they existed).  And 7 pairs, minus one pair used in sacrifice, minus one more pair that must survive, leaves 4 pairs of animals to last them and all the predatory animals.  That’s not a lot.  Eating unclean meats would have been a necessity.  This does not affect the ceremonial status of “unclean” animals for the purposes of sacrifice, however.