AiG: “It can easily be demonstrated from the pages of Scripture that the dietary regulations of the Mosaic law were not binding on all people throughout history. We have already seen that Paul permitted his readers to eat whatever they chose, as long as their decision did not injure the conscience of the weaker brother. Does the Old Testament have any teachings similar to this?”
Me: As I explained in part 9, the word “meat” in the KJV refers to food. Google it or look it up in Strong’s concordance. In 1611, that’s what the word meant. And yes, of course people are allowed to eat any kind of food. The Father never told His people that we couldn’t eat every kind of food. Unclean animals, however, were not and are not considered food by the Father. Neither will they ever be considered food. Isaiah 66 explains to us the end of days. Verse 17 says: “ ‘Those who dedicate and purify themselves to enter the groves following their leader, eating meat from pigs, vermin, and rats, will perish together.’ This is the LORD’s declaration.” Paul didn’t have the authority to alter Torah because nobody has that authority. See Deuteronomy 4:2. He can’t (and didn’t) tell you that you can eat anything you want. In Matthew 4:4, Jesus said that man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, and He was quoting from Deuteronomy, using the Old Testament scriptures as the authority so that satan would know that what He said was true. Do you have any idea how many times Jesus quotes the Old Testament? It is reliable, dependable, unchanging. Timothy confirms this in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” You can and should base your doctrine upon the unchanging righteousness of the Father.
So what was Paul saying? If you read all of Romans 14, you will see that Paul was specifically addressing those who wanted to abstain from all “flesh,” what we would call meat today, and to eat only herbs. To demand that others follow this restriction would be to add to the Torah, God’s Law, which is what Jesus always preached against when he ridiculed the Pharisees.
AiG: “When God created Adam and Eve, he instructed them to eat vegetation (Genesis 1:29). There is no mention of any change in this regulation until Genesis 9:3, which records the Lord telling Noah after the Flood, ‘Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.’ Of particular interest here is that God specifically proclaims that he is changing what man is permitted to eat. At first, man could only eat plants, but after the Flood, God permitted man to eat meat from ‘every moving thing that lives.’ “
Me: In Genesis 1:29, sin and death had not yet entered into the world. It makes sense then, that in a perfect world, nothing needs to die. Also, the earth was perfect and the climate was perfect. It would bring forth food all year round. After the flood, the climate of the earth changed dramatically. (You’ll have to do some research into the firmament, and the waters which were above the firmament to understand these changes.) Suddenly, the people would begin to experience winters and might need to supplement their diets with animals. It’s not that God’s righteousness was changing. His righteousness always protects. In the beginning, He was protecting the animals from unnecessary death. Later, he was protecting the humans from starvation during winters.
AiG: “HRM proponents have argued that since the Flood account distinguishes between clean and unclean animals (Genesis 7:8), then it follows that God was simply telling Noah that he could now eat clean animals; thus it is just like the Levitical restrictions. A problem with this claim is that Genesis 9:3 makes no mention of the distinction between clean and unclean animals, so they are reading such an idea into the text rather than getting it from the text. In fact, the text specifically states twice that man was now permitted to eat “every” moving thing, and it mentions no restrictions. Another problem is that this verse still shows that prior to this moment, man was only permitted to eat vegetation. So the dietary restrictions found in Leviticus were clearly not in operation prior to the time of Moses. And if God changed the dietary restrictions at the time of Noah and the time of Moses, then there is no reason he could not have done so at the time of Jesus (Mark 7:18–19).”
Me: I’m not sure if Noah thought he should eat unclean animals or not. The fact that they were called unclean seems to suggest that they were unclean for eating. However, it’s true that the Father said that he could eat every thing. I would really like to read this in the Hebrew before I pass judgment on the passage one way or the other (I’m working on learning). If the Father was, in fact, giving Noah permission to eat unclean animals, that would suggest to me that cancers and other mutations were not yet a problem in the animal genes. Remember that God’s righteousness (His Law) is always for our benefit: “And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day” (Deuteronomy 6:24). “My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments arerighteousness” (Psalm 119:172).
AiG: “This simple fact undermines the central tenet of the HRM—the Mosaic law was not binding on all people throughout history. Of course, this does not mean it was fine to murder someone before God told Moses, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). Long before that, he confronted Cain over his evil act of murder (Genesis 4:10–15). He also told Noah that murderers deserve to be put to death, because man was made in God’s image (Genesis 9:6). Just because certain laws or principles can be found across biblical history, it does not follow that all 613 laws of Moses are binding across history.”
Me: We mustn’t forget that the Mosaic Law is the Father’s Law, the Father’s Word. Is the Father’s Law righteous or not? Who defines righteousness? Do we define it, or does God define it? Do you remember that the wages of sin is death? Have you ever wondered why? God didn’t just randomly assign death as the penalty for disobedience. He gave us instructions for life, for living. When you refuse to follow the instructions that bring life, then the natural result is death. When you disobey the Father, you are choosing death over life. So why did the Father’s instructions for life command that we abstain from unclean animals? Because eating them will kill you. Their toxic carcasses will work death in your body. Maybe they weren’t toxic yet in Noah’s day– maybe the mutations were not yet in the gene pool, or maybe Noah’s body was close enough to perfect not to be affected by which animals he ate. I don’t know. What I do know is what God said about His own Law, what David said about it, what Paul said about it, Timothy, Solomon, James – every person in the Bible who has ever said anything about the God’s perfect, righteous Law. The biggest argument for me is that the Father Himself instructs us not to add to it or take away from it (Deuteronomy 4:2), and Jesus constantly reprimands the Pharisees for trying.
On the other hand, we have what Tim Chaffey says about the Law. He has picked a verse from Genesis to prove his point, but to do so, he has had to ignore the entirety of the other scriptures, including the Word of the Father Himself. Almost every time the Father speaks through the prophets, He is begging the people to return to His Law or telling them what the consequences will be for disobedience. But Mr. Chaffey, and others who have been brainwashed by modern Christianity, want us to reinterpret every other verse that I have been showing you to pretend that disobeying the Father’s Law is not sin. Remember the New Testament definition of sin: transgression of the Law (I John 3:4).
Mr. Chaffey’s argument compares apples with oranges. The Father never told Noah that the permission to eat animals was a perpetual statute. (How can permission to do something be a statute anyway?) He never told Noah not to add to or take away from the words He was “commanding” him that day. (Again, He wasn’t making a commandment, but giving permission for something.) He didn’t tell Noah that he had to eat every moving thing in order to be part of His covenant. When the Father gave the Law and made a covenant with the people, He was setting them apart from all the people in the earth, making them different: healthy, civil, set apart. Even the pagan nations would recognize the righteousness of God’s Law. When we accept Christ, we become spiritual Israel. When we join ourselves to the covenant, we inherit their promise – the promise of salvation. At the same time, we become His covenant people in truth – set apart and subject to the same perfect, holy Law: “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises” (Romans 9:4). It’s silly to believe that we have entered the covenant, but only partway. That only the adoption and the glory and the promises apply to us, but not the covenants, the giving of the Law or the temple service. Who are we to pick and choose? Are we fully adopted sons, or not? Are we spiritual Israel, or not?