15. Dietary Laws (Remastered)

Dietary Rules

R.J. Rushdoony

Our Scripture is Deuteronomy 14:1-21, and our subject, ‘Dietary Rules.’

“Ye are the children of the Lord your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.

Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing. These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois. And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat. Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you. And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it isunclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

Of all clean birds ye shall eat. But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, And every raven after his kind, And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan, And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant, And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. And every creeping thing that flieth is unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten. But of all clean fowls ye may eat.

Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.”

Eating and drinking, together with every other aspect of life, is regulated by Biblical Law. The laws of diet or the ‘kosher’ laws are generally well known, but here as elsewhere, man sees God’s rule as a frustration and a hinderance of life rather than as a principle of life, a means of blessing and furthering life. 

In Scripture, the purpose of eating and drinking is not ascetic, that is, it has health in mind, but not health alone, it is part of our enjoyment of life. As a result, the ascetic definitely is not scriptural. In fact, one might say, to take the Middle Ages when the fat jolly monk was regarded as somehow irreligious and the lean ascetic monk was regarded as holy, the Bible perhaps would tend to say it should have been, if anything, the other way around, because the Biblical principle is, of course, health, but also the enjoyment of life. 

As Solomon declared:

“…every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.” ⁱ

And as St. Paul added

“…every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things.” ⁱⁱ

Thus, food is given not only for the substance of man, but also for his enjoyment with temperance. 

Now, it is often stated that before the Flood, according to Genesis 1:29 - 30, permission to eat non-carnivorous foods, vegetables, was alone given and that in Genesis 9:3 the permission to eat meat was given. However, we are not given grounds enough to be sure that meat eating started only after the Flood because there are references before the Flood to clean and unclean animals, and we do know that cattle raising was a part of the life. So apparently, the division between good meats and unclean meats had already been made by God directly to His people.

Very definitely in the New Testament it is stated that it is the mark of seducing spirits and the doctrine of devils, that is, the teaching 

“Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” ⁱⁱⁱ

Religious vegetarianism is thus very sharply condemned in Scripture. If a man wants to practice it, he does so then only on purely personal grounds, Scripture gives him no grounds for doing it religiously. 

Now the laws of diet as they were given by Moses appear in a number of passages; the one we read, Deuteronomy 14:1-21, and especially Leviticus 11 as well as other passages. These passages are sometimes a little difficult to follow because so many of the names of animals are unfamiliar to us or the names have changed, and some of the animals have disappeared, and some we simply do not know what the name refers to. The English translators gave guesses at a number of points. However, the general principles are clear-cut. Certain principles are given here. 

First, let us examine what Moses under God taught concerning diet, and then having analyzed this principle, let us see what our relationship to them is today. How valid are these for us now? Before we analyze these general rules that appear in the law, it is well to point out that these are basically the laws of diet to which you adhere today, with minor exceptions. In other words, in every Christian country, the diet today has been changed to conform, with exceptions, to the mosaic regulations. We no longer eat the kind of thing that was once commonplace in Europe, America, and elsewhere in pre-Christian times. For example, and this is still true today among Western American tribes, puppies are a great favorite, and it is well to keep your puppy indoors after dark if you are among certain Indians, or your puppy will wind up in a pot! And we could go on and cite a variety of animals which are the choicest parts of the diets of many peoples which to us would be a revolting thing to eat. 

Now first of all, the eating of blood is forbidden throughout scripture. The animal, on being butchered, must be bled. And this particular rule was restated in Acts 15:20, so we have this very clearly in both Testaments. 

Second, any animal that dies of itself is ruled out as a part of the diet. In other words it must be butchered. Again this goes sharply against the diet of many people. In some parts of the world in the past and to this day a dead animal is preferred because they believe the meat has gotten riper and as a result, tastier. And it is very highly regarded. 

Now, the law as seen in the twenty-first verse, says that such meat as a cow dies can be given to the aliens who are within the land or sold to others. In other words, as long as it is sold for what it is, a dead animal, there is no point in trying to conform the diets of the unbelievers who will not agree with your principles, so that it can be sold to them. 

Third, animal fats are forbidden. This does not mean every little bit of fat that is a part of a piece of steak or anything, but the large segments of fat when there is butchering have to be trimmed away. There is no ban on vegetable fats. Here we can add that medical science has tended to confirm this ban on animal fats.

Fourth, with respect to animals and birds and in most cases with fish also, the scavenger food animals are forbidden food. Any animal that is a scavenger is forbidden. And as a result, shellfish are on the list of the foods that are prescribed because the shellfish are scavengers. Catfish, again, are banned in that they are scavenger fish. The only partial exception here, you might say, is the carp, which because it had fins and scales was not in the list of forbidden fish. And it is not as clearly a scavenger fish as some of the others such as the catfish.

Fifth, carnivorous animals, beasts of prey; lions and dogs and the like, are very clearly forbidden. The pig, by the way, is also forbidden among these scavenger animals and this is the most conspicuous exception, together with the shellfish, from the modern diet, almost the only point at which our diet and the Mosaic laws part company. 

Sixth, herbivorous animals are clearly allowed; that is grass-eating animals, unless they neither chew the cud nor divide the hoof. The horse, as a result, is banned, as well as the pig. And the horse was once the staple in European diet in pre-Christian times. The only area where it has remained of course, is France. Grain-feeding birds thus are the permitted birds, but the carnivorous birds, the birds of prey, are banned.

Seventh, all the insects, except those of the locust family, are prohibited. And the locust family was permitted but it was not prized. It was survival fare, and it was eaten in times of famine and in times of great difficulty. 

Eighth, there is no legislation with respect to fruits, grains, eggs, and vegetables. These are all permitted, and taste, and the practicality of growing them are thus their only criterion. 

Ninth, we have to point out that although there are very obvious rules of health apparent here, the primary principle is religious of which the ascetic and hygienic aspects are simply a part. The terms that are used in the law are ‘clean’ and ‘unclean,’ and other foods that are not clean are termed ‘abomination.’ Religious and moral purity are clearly in mind here, and physical purity is a part of this broader classification. Hence, not only are dead animals forbidden, but the flesh of animals torn by wild beasts in Exodus 22:31. Such an animal could not then be butchered, for example, if a wolf or a bear attacked a cow that animal could not be butchered. If it recovered and went back into the herd, well and good, if it died, it had to be fed to the dogs. Dead and wounded animals again could be sold to pagans. 

Eleventh, we must add that another category of forbidden foods with all foods and liquids remaining in uncovered vessels in the tent or room of a dying or a dead man where there could be contagion. Again the health aspect is clearly in mind here, this appears in Numbers 19:14-16. 

Then with regard to drink, temperance is the rule, and wine was a part of the legitimate offering to God in Numbers 16:5, 7, and 10. There are many warnings in Scripture against intemperance, but we have also the council to Timothy by St. Paul to avoid abstaining from wine and to:

“...use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.” ^iv

Now the question, having surveyed these laws of diet, recognizing that by and large they are the laws of diet that have molded our habits with the exception of pork and shellfish as the major exceptions, to what extent are these dietary laws still valid for us? At this point there are many who say that they have no validity, and that Acts 10, Peter’s vision, is our grounds for the abolition of these laws. But the vision did not counsel St. Peter to eat pork, or to eat dogs, cats, and the like, but to receive Gentiles whom he had up until that point, as a result of the pharisaic teachings of the day, regarded as unclean as say, a pig. 

“What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” ^v

And God was saying, “I am cleansing the Gentiles who are coming to you.” And Peter saw this as the meaning of it, and he said, “You know that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company or come unto one that is of another nation, but God hast showed me that I shouldn’t call any man common or unclean.” In other words, there is no reference in this chapter to diet, the vision had reference to the fact that against the pharisaic designation of all other peoples as unclean; God said that he should call no man common or unclean.

However, in Colossians 2:16-17, we do have a declaration concerning diet. St. Paul says, 

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body isof Christ.” ^vi

We saw a few months ago the significance of this in relationship to the laws of the Sabbath. We are no longer under Sabbath law, the Sabbath is a principle of life for us which affects the totality of our life; we rest in Christ, He is our Sabbath, He is our peace. Now as a rule we follow the counsel, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together,” ^viibut at this point the old Sabbath laws are no longer a matter of civil or ecclesiastical law; they are our rule of faith, a principle of life, but not of legislation. This is also true, therefore, on the same premises, for the law of diet. They are now dietary rules, not laws. What does this mean? Well, when we go to the New Testament we find very obviously what it meant. How were they going to live in a Gentile world and meet with Gentiles and seek their conversion if they could not eat with them or had to regard them in terms of the Pharisaic regulations as unclean? 

Our Lord makes it clear, speaking through St. Paul, what the purpose of these laws are. They are not to prohibit intercourse with other people. They are not to prohibit any kind of relations with others. So that, for example, when Peter was with Gentiles, he ate their food. He ate pork when it was served, he ate any kind of food that was served because he was there, not to teach them the rules of diet, but to bring Christ to them. Now, when the Judaizers came and criticized Peter for this, he promptly withdrew from these Gentiles. And St. Paul tells us in Galatians 2:9-15 that he rebuked Peter to his face for this withdrawal. The Judaizers had followed the Pharisees in making the laws of diet central to salvation. They never had this purpose, their purpose was to instruct the people of God in the basic principles of health as God ordained them.

So that the Pauline principle was sound. In essence, you follow the Mosaic regulations, but you do not say, “I will never touch these foods,” and you eat whatever food is set before you because you do not make this a line of division. It is simply a guide, a rule of health. Even as we have not dropped the Sabbath but have dropped the old Judaic attitude regarding Sabbath laws, so we have not discarded the laws of diet, we in essence observe them, but we do not feel that we have sinned if we eat anything that is proscribed. These are thus rules of diet, principles of health, guidelines for the people of God, but not to be the line of separation between the people of God and the world. The line of separation, the dividing mark, must be Jesus Christ. 

Thus, Israel misused these laws and made it its principle of separation, its principle as it were of salvation, and against this St. Paul had to speak up. It was not the diet of Israel nor the Sabbath of Israel that constituted their principle of separation, but the grace of God unto Salvation and so it must be with us. Thus, understood in these terms, these rules of diet still have validity for us in that they do disclose the wisdom of God concerning our daily life. 

Let us pray.

* * *

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, we give thanks unto thee for thy Word. Give us ever grace, our Father, to understand that thy Word speaks unto us for salvation, for our sanctification, for our health, our welfare, our joy and our prosperity in thee. Teach us then to enjoy thy law and to delight in it, to obey it and day by day to seek in all things first thy kingdom and thy righteousness, knowing that all things will be added unto us who magnify thee and thy sovereignty. Bless us, in Jesus’ name. Amen.

* * *

Are there any questions now first of all with respect to our lesson?

Yes?

[Audience member] Is this related to the eating of rare meat, eating meat the blood in it? ^viii

[Rushdoony] No. It does not, because it had reference to the bleeding of an animal in the process of butchering it. Just as not all the blood will be out and there is no prescription of the residual blood, so there is no prescription of the residual fat. But to eat what the Eskimos do, blubber, to make that an important part of the diet is one thing, and to eat blood, or drink it as many people did, to regard this as essential or to feel that the animal should never be bled only strangled, is altogether a different matter.

Yes?

[Audience member] Why is it that the law allows for dead or torn meat from wounded animals to be sold? Isn’t that equivalent to selling them poison? ^ix

[Rushdoony] Yes. Ah why then, can you sell or give dead meat or torn meet wounded animals to others? Well, the answer to that is, you’re not selling them poison. You are selling them something which from your point of view is not the best for your health, let alone aesthetically desirable, but it may be good to them. So that, it’s simply recognizing you cannot legislate the lives of every man. So there is no point, if to them it is something desirable, forbidding them to have it! So you give it to them, or sell it. This is not immoral, you’re not selling it under false pretenses. If you were to sell it as freshly-killed meat, that would be dishonest.

[Audience member] It would have been better, perhaps to have banned that meat. ^x

[Rushdoony] Well they would know if you were in ancient Israel that you would never touch such food. Today of course, we have passed rules requiring that all such meats be not so, so that we have in a sense done today what you have indicated you would like to do. In other words, dead meat today cannot be sold, it’s illegal. There is no harm in selling anything to people who know what they’re buying. You cannot try to legislate the lives of every man who’s outside the state.

[Audience member] It doesn’t seem right to me. ^xi

[Rushdoony] Well, the law of God says you can sell it to them. So are you going to say, I have a holier standard than God does? 

[Audience member] Aren’t we better sticking to God’s standard for diet all the time, even in evangelism? Doesn’t that set the bar high? ^xii

[Rushdoony] No, no. Because your message to the unbeliever is not the laws of diet, but the grace of God. And you see, this was the mistake of Israel. They made the laws of diet their missionary point as it were rather than the grace of God. They were trying to convert people to their way of eating, and their way of dressing, and their way of living rather than to God’s! So if you were to try to persuade people that they should live in terms of your God, you’re putting the wrong things first. 

In other words, it cannot be that important to us. This is a part of God’s rule, but it is not to take the place of first things. So that we are not given any grounds today to go around criticizing people for their diet; Christian or non-Christian. Here it is, the principle of operation, God has given it to us for our help. But we judge them in terms of Christ. So this is why the statement of St. Paul in Colossians was made: to prevent the church from doing what it once did, and of course, you do find churches which seem to feel that the ground of being a Christian is how you observe the Sabbath regulations that they have set up. And I know of churches who will say that more than so many miles of driving on Sunday, even if you’re going to church, is wrong because then you’re laboring on the Sabbath.

I know of a case about fifteen, twenty years ago where they debated for months on end. This man, there was no church in his area, he lived far out in a rural community and the only way he could go to a church where the Word of God was faithfully preached was to drive sixty miles, a hundred and twenty miles a day. And so, they debated endlessly and couldn’t decide whether he was sinning, they kind of thought he was, or whether he was not sinning, and they didn’t want to say he wasn’t, so they left this poor man feeling, well maybe he was a sinner, but they just didn’t quite want to say so. Now, that is wicked, you see. That is wicked, and that’s why Colossians speaks out against it, the church has no right trying to legislate in this area; Christ is the principle. 

And that’s why this is given as a principle for us, a kind of rule to follow; not a law whereby we can say, “Oh you’re not following these, you’re a sinner.” No! That is not Christian.

Yes?

[Audience member] Question about the relation of health to the adherence to the Biblical Laws of diet.

[Rushdoony] Well, I’m not confident to go into that, but I suspect that we will progressively find sound medical grounds behind these things, and I know I’ve seen one person whose diet was given to him in terms of a coronary situation, and it excluded of course, animal fat, pork, shellfish, a number of things. So here was a case of a man with a coronary and the diet list he was given by a heart specialist pretty well followed the mosaic regulations. I don’t know why, but apparently there are reasons here that God knows and knew.

Yes?

[Audience member] Aren’t there geographical considerations to this legislation? If you’re six days from the ocean without refrigeration, the shellfish would spoil, after all. ^xiii

[Rushdoony] No, because they were on the shores of the Mediterranean.

[Audience member] But they didn’t have the refrigeration, and, depending on where you lived, the food might spoil before it reached you. ^xiv

[Rushdoony] No I don’t think that was the purpose or else God would have said, “Eat it within a few hours.” In those days you butchered meat and ate it immediately because unless you salted it down… you usually killed to eat immediately. 

[Audience member] Some build up an immunity to all sorts of foodstuffs and poor drinking water. ^xv

[Rushdoony] That’s true, they do build up an immunity, but they pay a price for it. They do not have the health you do.

Yes?

[Audience member] Surely the central point here is that God said it, not the fact that certain animals may be healthy or unhealthy for us to consume. ^xvi

[Rushdoony] Yes. Very good. That is the central point. The healthy or unhealthy is clearly in perspective, it is obvious that it is a part of the principle but the basic principle is religious. It has religious words used, “clean” and “unclean.” It has reference to holiness, and the reason is, “Ye are the children of the Lord your God, for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, therefore, these are the rules of health.”

Well, our time is just about up, but there are a couple things I’d like to share with you. I was in New York all this last week, and I was interested in this very brief editorial in the Daily News for Friday, April 18. Just a couple sentences. 

“Tale of Two Tours

City council president Frances X. Smith is powerfully convinced that there are twenty-five thousand able-bodied relievers whom the city should be striving to prod into paying jobs.” 

Now, I don’t know how he gets that figure because there are a total of almost a million on welfare in New York so that’s perhaps twenty-five thousand he knows of. To continue. 

“On Wednesday, Mr. Smith took reporters on two tours; one through twenty-three employment agencies where next to nobody was seen seeking a job. And two, through the welfare center, just one welfare center, which was swarming with persons applying for relief. You take it from there.” 

Which I think put this very, very ably.

One of the things, incidentally, which was most startling to me in New York city, I was there last April, of course, again, with the extent to which in a year the city has deteriorated with respect to law and order. The amount of deterioration was really alarming, and it is to the point where people are aware that it’s going down hill, and yet, since it happens gradually, they adjust to it. 

But on Thursday night when I went to dinner at the home of a friend who is a Russian nobleman in a very lovely apartment in one of the best areas, when the cab driver left me off at the apartment, he told me, “When you leave,” I’d been chatting with him, and he knew I was from out of town, “don’t walk out. You stay inside the doorway and send to doorman out to flag the cab for you. Don’t walk out and wait with him, and only when the cab pulls up in front of the awning should you go out and get in it when the door has been opened.”

Now, this is the way life is there. This is all a part of the blessings of a ‘great society’ and the marvelous security it is providing for us from cradle to grave. It certainly has made it easier for us to get to the grave in a hurry if we’re not careful!

I have a poster here by way of conclusion that I’d like to share with you, an old poster about government security. I don’t know if you can see it.

“Join the Seventh Cavalry Today

See Montana with Custer

Excellent pension plan!”

And with that, we are adjourned.

i. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ec 3:13.

ii. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Co 9:25.

iii. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Ti 4:3.

iv. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorised Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Ti 5:23.

v. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ac 10:15.

vi. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Col 2:16–17.

vii. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Heb 10:25.

viii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

ix.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

x.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xi.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xiii.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xiv.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xv.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.

xvi.  Question added/modified for clarity and brevity.