That Pork Question Again.
By W.
SOME time ago we wrote a short article for the SIGNS in answer to a question concerning the use of swine's flesh. Shortly after, we gave an explanation of Peter's vision, in reply to one who gave that as divine authority for pork-eating. In that we showed that God did not give Peter a vision for the purpose of teaching him that it was his duty to eat pork, but to teach him that he should call no man common. We also stated the fact that the distinction of clean and unclean beasts was not peculiar to the Levitical economy, but that it existed from the earliest ages, and that consequently the abolition of the ceremonial law had no effect upon the hog. As proof that the distinction of clean and unclean beasts existed before the Jewish age, we referred to Gen. 7:2, 8; 8:20. A friend, however, takes exception to this, and claims that Gen. 9:3 shows that there was no distinction, but that all beasts were alike good for food. That verse reads thus, “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” Every moving thing that liveth would include not only the hog but rats, toads, lizards, bats, buzzards, porcupines, centipedes, spiders, and scores of lesser vermin, which we think even our pork-loving friend would not wish to have included in his bill of fare. But our friend will say the text says, “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you,” and we are not at liberty to say that it does not mean what it says, even though it may appear unreasonable. It is true that we are not at liberty to put our construction on the text, but we must allow one text to explain another. We often find that a comprehensive statement is made in one place, and that exceptions to it are noted in another. For instance we read in Ex. 16:4: “Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day.” If we should confine our attention to this text we should suppose the people gathered manna seven days in the week, but in the 26th verse we read: “Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none.” Now when we read Ex. 16:4 we read it in the light of the other verse, and know that the Lord meant that they should gather manna every working day; so, likewise, when we read Gen. 9:3, we read it in the light of Gen. 7:2, 8; Lev. 11:7, 8; Isa. 65:3-5; 66:17, and others, which say that certain animals, the swine among them, are unclean and unfit for food. Therefore we know that the Lord meant that he had given to Noah every living thing of clean beasts for meat, and Noah must certainly have so understood it. Our friend brings up Rom. 14:2, 3, 14 as evidence that pork eating is allowable. But these texts have no reference whatever to the eating of pork. The question here as in 1 Cor. 8 is concerning things offered to idols. There is no reason to suppose that the word meat means flesh simply; on the contrary, it must necessarily include fruits and grains as well, for these were offered to idols. Now the question was, Is it lawful to eat any food that has been dedicated to an idol? Paul declares that it is, but he would not make it a matter of dispute. If a brother newly come to the faith thought that to eat food that had been offered to an idol was a recognition of that idol, he should be permitted to abstain from it and select food that had not been so dedicated. Neither should those who knew that there was no harm in it cause the weak brother to stumble by partaking of it. Almost all food which the heathen used was dedicated to their gods, so that Christians could scarcely have found anything to eat if it had been true that such food was not lawful to be eaten. But Paul declared that an idol was nothing and that to dedicate food to it had no effect upon it, and so he said, “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience' sake.” 1 Cor. 10:27 is quoted as proof that we are at liberty to eat anything and everything. That reads, “If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake.” The next verse, however, shows what is referred to, for it says, “If any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience' sake; for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” If the matter of pork eating had been under discussion it would not have been necessary to say, “asking no question for conscience' sake,” for the man could tell if the dish were pork without asking any questions; but he could not tell that food had been offered to idols unless he should ask, and this Paul tells him not to do because it is of no consequence. Again we read, “For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” 1 Tim. 4:4, 5. This text is quoted in favor of pork eating, but like Gen. 9:3 it is too comprehensive. There must be exceptions, for there are creatures whose flesh is unwholesome and poisonous. The fifth verse in this case deprives the pork eater of all the comfort which he seeks to draw from it, for no one can find where swine has been sanctified by the word of God. One more text we must notice. Our friend quotes Col. 2:16, 17, but what has already been said covers this text. Paul is speaking here of the ceremonial law, and we have already seen that the distinction between clean and unclean animals was before the ceremonial law. All must admit that this distinction was made in the very beginning, for immediately after the fall sacrifices were made to God, and no right-minded person could think that the sacrifice of a hog or other unclean animal would be acceptable to God, even if the Bible said nothing about it. Therefore the distinction of clean and unclean beasts could be no part of the shadow of which Christ is the body. But if our friend thinks that he can trace some connection between pork eating599and the mystery of Christ, we should like to have him show it to us. We have considered these texts at this length because an explanation of them was asked, and we wished to give the true sense of them. We still adhere to our belief that the eating of swine's flesh is forbidden by the word of God. We cannot believe that the Lord now delights in what twenty-five hundred years ago he called an abomination. And we emphatically protest against such a low view of Christ's sacrifice as would lead to the supposition that it was made largely in order that men might be at liberty to eat whatever their perverted appetites might crave.
W.