(seventh chapter of the book The Sects Before the Bible)
(What the author wrote in his book in the form of footnotes appears in this digital edition between [ ])
NOTE ON THE VERSIONS OF THE SACRED TEXT: Throughout this work I have preferably used my own direct translation from the Greek for the New Testament, and from the Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old. In the first case I have made use of the Greek-English New Testament, by Nestle and Aland, Editio XXVI, Stuttgart 1981, and in the second of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Editio Minor, Stuttgart 1984. I also quote from the prestigious versions of the Bible common in the Spanish-speaking world and from the sects’ own editions. The following abbreviations are the ones used in connection with the various translations of the Bible: VNM: Versión del Nuevo Mundo, or the Bible of Jehovah’s Witnesses; EP: La Santa Biblia, from Ediciones Paulinas; BJ: Biblia de Jerusalén; NC: Nácar-Colunga; VP: Versión Popular; VM: Versión Moderna; NBE: Nueva Biblia Española; RV: Reina-Valera. Where no reference is given, the translation is my own.
The prohibition of consuming certain foods is commonplace in the vast majority of sects. As was discussed in an earlier work [Psicología de las sectas, Paulinas, Madrid 1990, 53 ff.], the diet of the sects does not arise from hygienic or cultural reasons, as is the case with Judaism or Islam, but is the direct consequence of a policy of their leaders, aimed at ensuring that the follower acquires a clearly differentiated identity. This is why dietary prescriptions exist among the Mormons, the Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and practically all the Orientalist sects. Few things serve better to mark distances than a difference in diet or in the manner of dressing.
In this particular case we are going to focus on the two most numerous sects of the present day: Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists. Both were born in the United States, both teach that certain foods are forbidden to Christian believers, both accept the Bible as the word of God, and both claim to possess a revelation subsequent to the Bible (the Book of Mormon and other works in the case of the Mormons, the prophecies of Mrs. White in that of the Adventists), which, in the end, carries a far more decisive weight and which, in practice, excludes the teaching of the Scriptures. Despite these similarities, by no means negligible for that matter, they arrive (as is natural, since they start from different prophets) at different conclusions as to what a Christian may not ingest. In the case of the Adventists, the prohibition extends to a diet that claims to be the Levitical one; and in that of the Mormons, to alcohol and stimulating beverages, such as coffee. But does the Bible forbid such things?
- The OT does not forbid non-Jews any food
As we have had occasion to point out in the previous chapter, the Old Testament establishes an evident differentiation between the children of Israel and the rest of humanity. Certainly, the former are subject (from Moses onward) to a diet, conventionally called Levitical, in which not only the prohibition of certain foods comes into play, but also of certain ways of slaughtering and cooking them. Hence the Adventists’ claim to follow the Mosaic regulations proves ridiculous; for while the dietary prohibitions come close, this is not at all the case with the precepts concerning the slaughter of animals and the manner of cooking them [For an approach to the Jewish dietary regulations, sufficiently revealing of the distance between these and those of the Adventists, see, for example, Rabbi HAYIM HALEVY DONIN, El ser judío, Jerusalem 1978, 104 ff.].
Now, for non-Jews there was no obligation whatever to keep those dietary rules. We have already seen in Deut 14:21 how they could even take animals that had not been ritually slaughtered, and which, therefore, were unclean because their blood had not been drained. We have also had occasion to observe how in God’s covenant with Noah there appears not the slightest mention that non-Jews must make a distinction, when eating, between clean and unclean foods. On the contrary, there is an explicit mention that everything, without exception, is handed over to the human being to eat: “And let the fear and dread of you be upon all the beasts of the earth, and upon all the fowls of the air, and all that move upon the earth: all the fishes of the sea are delivered into your hand. And every thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you” (Gen 9:2-3).
Naturally, the Old Testament accepted the possibility that a non-Jew might be circumcised, come to form part of Israel and then follow the dietary laws in their entirety. But what was inconceivable was that a non-Jew (as is the case with the Adventists) should not be circumcised, should not enter the people of Israel, and should then keep the dietary laws by halves. Such an absurdity and folly was something unimaginable in the thought of the Old Testament.
- Jesus declared all foods clean
Naturally, the Adventists can claim, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses do when defending their prohibition of blood transfusions, that the Old Testament is not the basis of their doctrine, because they are Christians, and that they rely fundamentally on the revelation of the New Testament. As far as being able to claim it, they can do so. Quite another matter is whether it has the slightest semblance of plausibility.
Paul has transmitted to us the clear conviction of the early Church that Christ had been born under the law and had fulfilled it in order to redeem us from it: “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law: that he might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Gal 4:4-5).
Therefore, that Jesus complied with the dietary laws of the law of Moses (which, for that matter, are not those of the Adventists) is beyond dispute; as is the fact that he was indeed circumcised and that he celebrated the Jewish feasts (both circumstances not followed by the Adventists). Now, what is indeed evident is that Jesus took care to mark out the paths along which the apostolic Church would afterwards travel; and among them was that of emancipation from the law of Moses, which had no theological meaning after his coming. That this included abolishing the distinctions between clean and unclean foods follows from the gospels themselves: “And calling again the multitude unto him, he said to them: Hear ye me all, and understand. There is nothing from without a man that entering into him, can defile him. But the things which come from a man, those are they that defile a man. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. And when he was come into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked him the parable. And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? Understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him: because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats. But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man” (Mark 7:14-20).
Jesus’ teaching could not be clearer. There is nothing in foods that has a spiritually unclean content. It is precisely what comes out of the interior of man that can prove evil. That declaration, which moreover appears pregnant with logic, declared all foods clean… Quite another matter is that the “prophetess” White should have felt bold enough to correct Jesus of Nazareth himself.
- The apostles taught that Christians could take all foods
What is serious about the thesis maintained by the Adventists is that it also flatly contradicts the crystal-clear teaching of the apostles. We have already seen in the previous chapter how not even at the council of Jerusalem was any thought given, in order to avoid scandal, to forbidding specific foods to Christians. One gets the impression that the apostles were prepared to avoid occasions of stumbling in the evangelization of the Jews by forbidding blood, yes; by forbidding what was strangled, yes; by forbidding what was sacrificed to idols, yes; but never by imposing the Mosaic diet, which not even the law had laid upon non-Jews. That they did not fall into such excesses is logical, given Peter’s own experience in this regard. Luke narrates for us in the Acts of the Apostles a vision which the Adventists do not seem to know. The episode is worth quoting in extenso: “And on the next day, whilst they were going on their journey, and drawing nigh to the city, Peter went up to the higher parts of the house to pray, about the sixth hour. And being hungry, he was desirous to taste somewhat. And as they were preparing, there came upon him an ecstasy of mind. And he saw the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great linen sheet let down by the four corners from heaven to the earth: wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him: Arise, Peter; kill and eat. But Peter said: Far be it from me, Lord; for I never did eat any thing that is common and unclean. And the voice spoke to him again the second time: That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call common. And this was done thrice; and presently the vessel was taken up into heaven” (Acts 10:9-16).
It seems difficult for the teaching of the purification of all animals to have been taught to Peter in a clearer way, and it is not surprising that the vision also served to open the way for non-Jews (who ate all kinds of foods) into the Christian Church.
It is no wonder that such a teaching of freedom did not remain limited to the words of Jesus or of Peter. Paul, possibly, is the New Testament author who lays the greatest stress on the absurdity of maintaining a diet that provides no greater spirituality to Christians and that at the same time can be a platform for a pseudo-ascetic pride, a defect so thoroughly exploited by the sects in the persons of their followers.
We have already mentioned above Paul’s categorical affirmation that the Christian may eat, without scruples of conscience, of everything sold in the meat market (1 Cor 10:25-26). We shall now cite, in addition, some of his statements on the matter. The first is a clear warning to all Christians not to let themselves be taken in by those who tried to appear holier over questions of food or drink: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ” (Col 2:16-17).
The apostle’s teaching could not be clearer. Perhaps there was a time when all of that (sabbaths, new moons, dietary rules, etc.) had a meaning; but now, with Christ, it is nothing but a sad anachronism, and no Christian should lend an ear to such teachings. To do so would mean forgetting the work of Christ and submitting to worldly conduct unworthy of a believer in Jesus: “If then you be dead with Christ from the elements of this world, why do you yet decree as though living in the world? ‘Touch not’, ‘taste not’, ‘handle not’: which all are unto destruction by the very use, according to the precepts and doctrines of men. Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in superstition and humility, and not sparing the body; not in any honour to the filling of the flesh” (Col 2:20-23).
We believe that what underlies the diets of the sects (and very especially the Adventists) could hardly have been better expressed: a series of merely human precepts (in this case sprung from the feverish mind of Ellen White) which may give an appearance of piety, but which only cover pride and which are worthless in the face of the real temptations. If anyone thinks that the tactics of sectarians with their followers belong exclusively to the last century and to the present one, he should discover, in the light of passages like this one, how much greater their antiquity is.
Paul was aware at the same time that in the Church there could arise persons affected by this kind of teaching, and he recommended respect for them in the hope that their condition as those “weak in faith” would change with time (Rom 14); but even on occasions like that he made it quite clear that “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but justice, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Rom 14:17). Of course, there is no need to insist that Paul was an apostle of God, whereas Joseph Smith and Ellen White were very far from being even simple Christians, although no one can deny them the dubious privilege of having set on foot, the former, and reformed, the latter, the two most numerous sects in the world.
- Conclusion
One of the clearest characteristics of the sects is their insistence on the impurity of certain foods. Possibly the clearest cases are those of the Seventh-day Adventists and the Mormons. Such an attitude, as we have seen, lacks any biblical basis. In fact, we may say that seeking to acquire an appearance of holiness on the basis of depriving oneself of certain foods or drinks, for example coffee [Needless to say, the prohibition of coffee does not appear even remotely in the Bible. It is, once again, the differentiating itch which so delights the leaders and followers of the sects], undoubtedly has a psychological usefulness for the leaders of the sects, who thus fulfil unconscious longings of their followers and are able to retain them more easily; but it does not have, even remotely, the slightest basis in biblical Christianity. In reality it is rather the mark of the false prophets: “Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (1 Tim 4:1-5).
We believe that these words are, beyond any doubt, the best conclusion to this chapter, for they sum up to perfection the stuff of which the sects are made and the Christian teaching on foods. The latter appears pregnant with the joy implied in knowing that everything God created is good and that our Creator has been pleased to give it to humanity for an enjoyment that is even holy if it comes to recognize that everything, absolutely everything, we owe to Him. It is hard for that healthy and joyful sense of gratitude, which runs throughout the Bible in relation to the enjoyment of creation, to take flesh in those who follow the scarcely human and even less Christian pseudo-asceticism of the sects.
Source: Apologetica.org
