It appears that the dietary laws didn't just disappear over night. In Herman Witsius' The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man (originally published in 1693) on "the abrogation of the old testament" (I assume he means 'covenant' here) he makes an interesting observation:
He who was hitherto in bondage to the elements of the world, equally with the other worshippers of God, was placed with his people in heavenly places, where no such bondage takes place; and the Spirit was given, as the seal of a more delightful dispensation of the covenant. 4thly. But this liberty was for some time not sufficiently known, even to the apostles themselves; till Peter was instructed therein by a heavenly vision, Acts x.11. 5thly. Then, by a solemn decree of a synod of the apostles, under presidence of the Holy Spirit, it was ordained, that a yoke was not to be put on the neck of the disciples besides those few things necessary for that time; namely, to abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled; to which was subjoined, though of a different kind, fornication, Acts xv. 10, 28, 29. 6thly afterwards Paul preached freedom from these things also, excepting fornication, that being contrary to the moral law, 1 Cor viii. 4, 8 and x. 25-29.
So it appears that Witsius saw the abrogation of the dietary laws as a slow process, something not realized all at once. In looking at the dietary laws, I came up with:
1) The dietary laws were tied to holiness (Lev 20:23-26)
2) Christ declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19b)
3) Peter, before being sent to Cornelius, received instructions on food in a vision (Acts 10:11-15)
4) Peter interpreted this vision more broadly than just food, it included men (Acts 10:28)
5) Under the New Covenant, food is not an issue (1 Cor 8:8)
The context of point 1 is separation from the nations. In Leviticus 20:22 God warns the people to keep His commands or the land will spew (or vomit) them out. In verses 23 and 24, He tells them to be different from the nations He will drive out before them. Verse 25 begins "you are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and unclean." The fact that the dietary laws are mentioned in such close proximity to the separation from the nations and is connected by a 'therefore' is noteworthy. The context would seem to indicate that part of the reason for the dietary laws was to make Israel distinct from the nations around them.
Point 2 almost seems to be a misfit, but I don't think it is. At issue was the defilement of things in the market because of the Gentiles (see Mark 7:1-4, Gentiles are not explicitly mentioned there but that was where the defilement came from). The Pharisees got on Jesus because His disciples didn't wash before eating. Following a prolonged discussion about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, in verse 19 Jesus announces that it isn't what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out of him. The redemptive-historical shift that may be in sight here is that believing Gentiles are about to be grafted into Israel and the Pharisees (unfruitful branches that they were) were about to be broken off. Therefore, what Jesus had in sight was that the Gentiles weren't unclean and certain food was not unclean because the distinction between Jew and Gentile is about to be abrogated (Gal 3:28, Col 3:11, Eph 2:14). As we will see in point 4 below, food being clean means Gentiles are clean.
We need to consider points 3 and 4 together. Peter's vision was brought on by more than hunger pains. He received direct revelation that dietary laws had now undergone a redemptive-historical shift. Whereas he had never eaten any unclean thing according to the Law, now all things were clean so he could eat whatever he wished and still make the same claim. This would certainly make hanging around Gentiles easier. But what is most striking about this episode is how Peter understood it. Sure, he took its literal meaning; all animals are now okay to eat. But he also grasped its deeper, fuller meaning (the sensus plenior): all men are clean. As Peter explains his visit to Cornelius, he states "God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean" (Acts 10:28b). Remember Peter's objection when he saw the vision was that he had "never eaten anything impure or unclean" (v 14). These are the same words, in the vision describing the animals and in Peter's explanation describing men. Again, the distinction between Jew and Gentile is gone, and in this case, the end of that distinction is revealed in the abrogation of the dietary laws.
Really, point 5 is just an application of this principle. As Paul explains how it is okay to eat meat sacrificed to an idol provided it doesn't offend the weaker brother, he declares "food will not commend us to God". Paul is speaking after the redemptive-historical shift and since Christ has "made both groups into one" (Eph 2:14) food does not separate us any longer. The Jew is no more holy than the Gentile, we are one in Christ and made holy by Him. Alleluia! Food, or abstaining from it cannot bring us closer to God, we are in Christ, what more can a diet do? Notice that this is quite contrary to the ruling of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:23-29 (especially v 29a). The reality of the New Covenant appears to have only slowly dawned on the Church at that time. As the number of Gentiles coming in to the Church grew, the realization that the dietary law had ended grew. Paul's confrontation with Peter in Galatia was over the issue of eating with Gentiles (Gal 2:11-12). Apparently, some habits are very difficult to give up.
While the above answers the question about the dietary aspects of the law, how does it deal with the question of eating blood? The prohibition was first revealed in the Noahic Covenant when God permitted the eating of animals (Gen 9:4). It is repeated in the Mosaic Covenant (Lev 17:10-14; Deut 12:16,23) and in Leviticus 17:11 God gives the same reason as He did in the Noahic Covenant, "the life of the flesh is in the blood." An important question is whether the New Covenant declaration that all food is clean includes blood. After all, if the five points listed above are correct and all food is clean so that the Gentiles could be included in the commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12) how would that affect a law instituted in the Noahic Covenant which preceded the division of Jew and Gentile? Or more to the point, are we violating God's law when we eat meat with the blood still in it?
Actually, the five points listed above apply to this very question. First, Mark's comment that Jesus declared all food clean in Mark 7:19b is offered without qualification. Mark doesn't say that Jesus declared all food without blood in it clean; it is a blanket statement. Also, consider Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 8 on eating meat sacrificed to idols. In those days, the best meat you could buy in the market was that which had been sacrificed in a pagan temple. Some Christians continued to shop there and that offended other Christians. The weaker Christian's concern here was not that there was blood still in the meat, for surely there must have been as pagan temples would not follow kosher law, but that the meat had been sacrificed to an idol. If the prohibition against eating blood were still in force, Paul would not have admitted the Corinthians' liberty in eating that meat. In the end, Paul tells the Corinthians to take care with their liberty so that weaker Christians might not stumble.
So what was the point of prohibiting the eating of blood in the Old Testament? If we look to the Old Testament for that answer we'll see that it was tied to sacrifice. According to Leviticus 17:11 the blood was reserved to make atonement at the altar. The reason this changes with the coming of Christ is because He made the perfect, one-time-for-all sacrifice (Heb 10:12) and we are saved by the shedding of His blood (Rom 5:9). The blood of animals is no longer sacred because it has been eclipsed by the more precious blood of Jesus Christ (Heb 10:11-12).
In the end, we see that we are free to eat whatever we want. We shouldn't take this lightly though. Food was an expression of covenant holiness for the Jews under the Old Covenant. The reason that we are now free is because Jesus has united Jew and Gentile by the shedding of His precious blood. It is indeed fitting that we should offer thanks before every meal. We must also take very seriously Paul's words on this issue as a whole:
For through your knowledge [of libery in eating] he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble. - 1 Corinthians 8:11-13
So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin. - Romans 14:19-23
Though we may enjoy our liberty, we must never flaunt it in front of a weaker brother or sister to their ruin and our shame.
Note: This is based on an e-mail discussion I had with Jim Brooks, a friend of mine, back in October 1999.
©Copyright
2002 Timothy J. Etherington
This document is available
on line at http://www.byfarthersteps/Dietary.html