Do Christians Have to Keep OT Dietary Laws? Should They?

Summary

Knowing Faith – Episode Summary Episode: Do Christians Have to Keep OT Dietary Laws? Should They?
Hosts: Kyle Worley, JT English, Jen Wilkin
Date: May 14, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode addresses a significant and often misunderstood theological question: “Do Christians have to keep Old Testament dietary laws, or should they?” The conversation moves from playful banter about food to a nuanced, deeply biblical exploration of why Old Testament food laws existed, their role in biblical history, and how New Testament believers should understand their relationship to these laws today. Throughout, the hosts connect the topic to broader questions of law, wisdom, and Christian freedom.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What Were Old Testament Dietary Laws? (07:46 – 09:53)

• Definition and Context:
  • Restrictions on certain animals (e.g., prohibition on pork and shellfish, rules about split hooves and chewing cud).
  • Not boiling "a baby in its mother's milk" and draining blood from animal meat (08:53 – 10:06).
  • These laws were highly visible, communal, and intended to set Israel apart (“contrast community”) from surrounding cultures.
• Quote:
  • Jen: “Meals and eating and food preparation was a very public, very communal, very corporate, very visible element of life in the ancient world.” (12:46)

2. Why Did the Dietary Laws Exist? (11:04 – 15:56)

• Distinctiveness:
  • The laws established Israel's separateness theologically, ethically, and ethnically.
  • They functioned as a “contrast community” (term from Michael Goheen & Craig Bartholomew).
• Purpose Beyond the Surface:
  • Not mere arbitrariness; rather, designed for distinction and to make Israel a light among nations.
• Quote:
  • Kyle: “The dietary laws might seem arbitrary to you, but they were one of a number of things...to create what Michael Goheen and Craig Bartholomew refer to as a contrast community.” (13:20)

3. How Does the New Testament Address Dietary Laws? (16:03 – 20:55)

• The Early Church's Struggle:
  • Central question in Acts, Pauline letters (esp. Romans, 1 Corinthians), and the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).
  • “Do I have to be Jewish to be Christian?” included issues like circumcision and dietary restrictions.
  • The transition from Old Covenant’s visible laws to New Covenant’s spiritual realities.
• Quote:
  • JT: “The entire Book of Acts and a huge portion of Paul's epistles are a movement towards answering this question: Do I have to be Jewish in order to be a Christian?” (16:25)

4. Jesus’ Teaching on Clean and Unclean (17:34 – 20:55)

• Parables and Practices:
  • Jesus reframes the discussion, showing the deeper spiritual meanings behind clean/unclean classifications (parables like the dragnet).
  • Mark 7/Matthew 15:11, “It’s not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out…” (18:50)
• Peter’s Vision (Acts 10):
  • God’s declaration of all foods clean.
  • Symbolic of the breaking down of Jew/Gentile distinctions in Christ.

5. Shadows and Fulfillment: Old Testament to Christ (20:55 – 22:41)

• Sacrificial System and Eucharist Link:
  • Connection between not drinking blood in OT and Jesus telling disciples to “drink my blood.”
  • Raises questions about fulfillment and inversion of OT expectations in Christ (see John 6).
  • Jen: “The ultimate understanding of what has been considered unclean is now clean, seen in the sacrifice of Christ himself.” (21:47)

6. How Do Christians Relate to the Law? (Moral, Ceremonial, Civil) (23:13 – 25:06, 27:05 – 32:56)

• Moral Law:
  • Enduring, applies propositionally (e.g. don't murder still applies, and is even deepened by Jesus).
• Ceremonial/Civil Law:
  • Fulfilled in Christ, carried forward only in principle (not literal observance).
  • Examples: wave offering as gratitude (echoed in church offerings), dietary laws as wisdom/witness, not rules.
• Sacrifice: Efficacious or Symbolic?
  • Hebrews 10: OT sacrifices not ultimately effective in removing sin – only Christ's death does that.
  • But OT rituals “accomplished something” for Israel in a shadow/anticipatory way.
  • “When we talk about things as being a shadow, that doesn't mean they're nothing.” – JT (31:25)

7. Christian Freedom and Wisdom in Food (32:56 – 37:22)

• No Requirement, But Not Careless:
  • Christians are not bound by food laws, but are called to exercise wisdom and love.
  • Paul’s teaching (1 Cor 10:31): “Whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God.”
  • Wisely loving neighbor supersedes rigid rule-keeping: If your action harms someone (e.g. an allergy), you abstain for their sake.
• Quote:
  • Kyle: “It does matter [what you eat], and now everything is accessible to you…which doesn’t invite careless living, but should create more freedom for careful and faithful living.” (34:27)

8. The Illusion of Legalism and “Christian Food Gimmicks” (37:27 – 40:45)

• Why Do Christians (and Others) Seek Food Rules?
  • Human desire for clear, simple rules rather than walking wisely.
  • Examples: “Daniel Diet,” “Ezekiel bread.”
  • Jen: “I think that we...think if I do X, God will bless me in this particular way, so there must be some secret code to the diet out there that's in the Bible.” (39:32)

9. “Out of Conviction, I’ll Keep OT Food Laws” (40:45 – 41:07)

• Response:
  • Christians are free to abstain if they wish, but should not judge or impose on others (Romans 14).
  • “Great. Go for it. Have fun. Can I have your pork chop?” – Kyle (40:56)
• Key: Freedom, not pressure or legalism.

10. Addressing Common Objections (“Gotcha” Arguments) (41:40 – 44:06)

• Objection: Christians pick and choose laws (e.g., ignore food laws, but enforce sexual ethics).
• Answer:
  • Distinction between moral/propositional laws (which continue) and ceremonial/principle-based ones (which are fulfilled or transformed in Christ).
  • Importance of image-bearing in morality versus dietary rules.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Jen (on contrast community):
  “Meals and eating and food preparation was a very public, very communal, very corporate, very visible element of life in the ancient world.” (12:46)

• Kyle (on wisdom):
  “It does matter [what you eat], and now everything is accessible to you…which doesn’t invite careless living, but should create more freedom for careful and faithful living.” (34:27)

• JT (on law and shadow):
  “The entire Book of Acts and a huge portion of Paul's epistles are a movement towards answering this question: Do I have to be Jewish in order to be a Christian?” (16:25)

• Jen (on food rule legalism):
  “I think that we...think if I do X, God will bless me in this particular way, so there must be some secret code to the diet out there that's in the Bible.” (39:32)

---

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• Old Testament Dietary Laws overview: 07:46 – 09:53
• Purpose & context of laws: 11:04 – 15:56
• New Testament: church & food: 16:03 – 20:55
• Jesus’ teaching, Peter’s vision: 18:50 – 20:55
• Sacrifice/Communion connections: 20:55 – 22:41
• Law today: moral/ceremonial/civil: 23:13 – 32:56
• Wisdom and Christian freedom: 32:56 – 37:22
• Food legalism and gimmicks: 37:27 – 40:45
• Personal convictions and freedom: 40:45 – 41:07
• Addressing “gotcha” objections: 41:40 – 44:06

---

Natural Flow & Tone

The episode maintains a playful, conversational tone with humor and asides about food preferences, but continually returns to thoughtful exposition and mutual respect in theological disagreements. The hosts model charitable dialogue and deep engagement with Scripture, making the content accessible but substantive.

---

Summary Conclusion

The episode concludes that Christians are not obligated to keep Old Testament dietary laws because these were fulfilled in Christ and served a specific purpose in Israel’s history as a distinct people. However, the spirit of those laws—distinctiveness, wisdom, love for neighbor—should inform Christian practice today. Rather than strict rules, Christians are called to exercise wisdom, consider their neighbors, and live in freedom for God’s glory, avoiding both legalism and careless living.

Transcript

[A]

This episode of Knowing Faith is brought to you by Crossway, publisher of the Grace Laced Bible Journaling Edition. This Bible showcases the beauty of God's Word alongside artist Ruth Chow Simon's signature watercolor art. Featuring 50 full page verse illustrations, 250 illustrated verses, and lined writing space in the margins, this elegant journaling Bible is ideal for personal reading and reflection, small group study, or taking notes during sermons. Pick up a copy of the ESV Grace laced Bible wherever books are sold or visit Crossway.org ESVGracelaced to learn how to get 30% off with a free Crossway plus account. The One Year Bible for Men and the One Year Bible for Women help you engage with Scripture 365 days a year. Each day's reading includes one portion each from the Old Testament to New Testament psalms and proverbs, along with short devotionals that connect Scripture to real life challenges. The devotionals in each edition are unique, focusing on the questions and concerns either men or women may encounter. Individually, these Bibles help you grow deeper in your walk with God and together they can create a powerful shared experience for couples reading side by side, encouraging each other and discovering how God's Word speaks into our lives. Find your One Year Bible at the One Year Bible.com.

[B]

This is Kyle Worley and I'm joined by my co host Jen Wilkin and J.T. english and Jen. Jen is doing her very best to stifle what is a terrible cough. Not to out you, Jen, but if you hear Jen cough on this episode, just know she is doing her best to not give you the unfiltered version. JT and I have heard it a couple of times and I'm just glad we're recording a distance today. Jen.

[C]

I'm going to try to mute myself.

[B]

I'm always grateful.

[C]

Probably you guys have been waiting for an episode where I would mute myself more so. Well, you know, congratulations.

[B]

My dream episode is an episode where both of you are muted.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Couldn't help myself. Couldn't help myself. Hey, we're right here on the precipice of the summer. You know, it's very. Lots of people use that phrase. Precipice of the summer. Summer. It's a very. It's a very famous phrase. So what's your. I want to know this. Jen, are you. Do you like watermelon?

[C]

Yep.

[B]

Jt do you like watermelon?

[D]

I love watermelon.

[B]

Okay, let me ask you this question. And this was really. This is a dividing point potentially in our friendship and partnership and a tricky Question that I know that we've never discussed. Do you put salt on your watermelon?

[C]

I mean, I'm not opposed. I put salt on anything. So I. I can't say that I regularly salt my watermelon by. Before fully willing to try it.

[B]

Okay, J.T. no, I was just with a group of people this week, and they were, like, just, like, sprinkling the sea salt on the watermelon. And this happens around Texas quite a bit. And I have to tell you, I think it's psychopathic behavior.

[C]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Captain hyperbole.

[B]

I just think, like, what? Like, salt. Salt on a watermelon. Like, can you imagine cutting open an apple and be like, let me sprinkle some salt on this? Yes.

[D]

Really?

[C]

Have you never done that?

[B]

Sprinkled salt on an apple? Yes. Jay, are you pulling my leg here?

[C]

No. Have you ever had peanut butter on an apple?

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

You know why? You like it.

[B]

Okay, that's different.

[C]

Okay, here's another one. Have you ever eaten that Chicago mix of popcorn? The cheese and the caramel? You know why? You like it.

[B]

Okay, it is crazy that my wife and I were just talking about this. If you handed me a block of cheese and then you melted caramel over

[C]

it, you would not eat it.

[B]

I wouldn't eat it. I wouldn't touch it, and I would. Honestly, I think less of you as a person. That caramel and cheddar popcorn mix, though, we can't keep it in that.

[C]

I know. We call it the devil's popcorn.

[B]

You. We will absolutely decimate a bag of that popcorn.

[C]

I guess, to be fair, I should call it the world, the flesh of the devil's popcorn, but you get the point.

[B]

Well, no, no, I'm just. I'm glad to hear you talking about the devil more. Our audience.

[C]

Yeah, I thought you would like that.

[B]

Our audience is hungry for your quick sports opinions on the devil. Jt, I'm just glad that we're standing in solidarity that even if we eat caramel and cheddar popcorn, salting your. Your fruit is a bad idea. Yes.

[C]

Salt is biblical.

[B]

There's no doubt that it is. But on, like, a carne asada, not on a cut watermelon.

[D]

I think people who put salt on watermelons also wear ball caps.

[B]

Nice.

[C]

Oh, the groundswell of support that I have received for the term ball cap should put you both to shame. I have not forwarded you all of the DMS that I got, because I'm

[D]

not, like, I can't help that there are people wrong in the world. That's not my response.

[C]

Oh, my gosh.

[B]

What is. What does Jed Bartlett say? You just stand there and you're wrong. That's how I feel about the ball cap contingency. The ball cap mafia is out there defending Jen. You know, you just.

[C]

They're young and old. They're young and old. You guys tried to make.

[D]

So are flat Earthers. Just because there's a lot of lot of them doesn't mean.

[B]

Yeah, this is like Tobias Junke and Arrested Development. There are dozens of us. Dozens of us who are.

[C]

Where.

[B]

Yeah, you know, it just.

[C]

I'm amazed that show's been out long enough that you feel safe mentioning on a podcast that you've actually watched it. Kudos to you.

[B]

I gotta tell you, I. Goodbye, Kyle.

[C]

It was nice knowing you.

[B]

I want to be clear. You cannot read you in a court of law. All I have told you is that I know that meme, not that I watch that show. So if you come at me on social media for watching it, that that will not hold up in the court of public opinion. Trust me on that one.

[C]

The kids wanted my grandmother name to be Gangi.

[B]

I'm really glad that you avoided that narrowly. All right, well, we. We've got hot sports opinions on snacks and sitcoms, but today we're talking about a tricky question. And that tricky question is not can we eat the devil's popcorn? But. But do Christians have to keep old Testament dietary laws or should they keep Old Testament dietary laws? And we are so glad this is. The last two seasons have been two of the biggest seasons of knowing faith in the history of knowing faith. And we love our audience. And if you want to show some support for the show, there are two ways you can do that. You can go over to trainthechurch.com support. You can get access to these episodes early and ad free and on video. And you would know that JT today has on a really great storyline hat, but not a ball cap. Only. Only the Maniacs would say that. But yeah, you go to train the church.com support and that helps make the show possible. You can get access. We hear that the Youngins like to watch their podcast these days. Back in my day, we didn't watch podcasts. We listened to them. But some of you out there now just really, you want to put your eyeballs, your peepers on these podcasts or if you want something else that you can do, super easy to help support the show, go to Apple podcast, leave a review and when you leave a review, drop a question in. We Recording a Q and A episode next week. And so you can drop your question in and we'll be happy to take a look at it. This season, we're looking at tricky topics and thorny questions. So here we are. Do Christians have to keep Old Testament dietary laws, or should they? Before we answer the question, I know I normally get you. You guys to give me the yes, no, up top. We're not going to do that. What were or are some of the Old Testament dietary laws? Jen, when I'm talking about Old Testament dietary laws, you are a resident expert and care about all things Old Testament. JT and I read it in seminary a few years ago. We haven't gone back to those pages for a very long time. We just stay in the New Testament. What are some of the Old Testament dietary laws that come to mind?

[C]

Well, it depends on how far you want to throw it back. I mean, if you want to go pre Genesis 9, it's just eat your vegetables. Kyle's having some sort of apoplectic fit.

[B]

Don't keep going.

[C]

Then they get to eat the meats after the flood.

[B]

Jen, I will say throw it back as a phrase. I want to encourage you as a younger friend of yours that we're gonna go ahead and take that one.

[C]

That's bad. That's bad.

[B]

We're gonna go ahead and take the throw it back phrase, Jen, out of your teaching vocabulary. Okay?

[C]

Why? What's the matter with that one?

[D]

It's just because you should keep using it. It's very common. People know exactly what you mean.

[C]

Maybe I was being adorable. Maybe I was, like, being funny about it. You don't know. You think I'm old now?

[B]

No, a hundred percent. You were not being funny about it. But let's throw it back. Let's throw it back. To look at these Old Testament dietary laws. Yeah, definitely. The. Some of the. Some of the meat. The meat ones are the ones that

[C]

come to mind immediately after the exodus. And we hear all the dietary laws around clean and unclean foods. So you got certain fish they can't eat, certain animals they can't eat. Like, requirements around what the hooves look like. And so the most famous one, of course, for which Kyle famously named one of our past episodes Pigs in a Blanket, is that they don't eat pork.

[B]

Man, that is a call. That is a callback. Back when we were all in that,

[C]

I just threw it back.

[B]

You get one more of those, sis, and you used it up. You're really gonna want Google that one later. Okay? Not while we're on air. Okay. Yes. The. The. The. The pigs come to mind. I think that's the one we think of. You know, shellfish is another one. There. There are all sorts of. Of things that are not boil.

[C]

Go ahead. You. You say it don't boil.

[B]

A baby in its mother's milk. A baby animal. Baby.

[C]

Baby animal. This is. Do you remember back in our big chick fil A days, and we used to go chick fil a all the time and they used to have that. That breakfast burrito.

[B]

Yep.

[C]

Which I believed was. Yeah. Because it was chicken and egg. And when we called, I called it the mama baby combo is very non kosher.

[B]

Yeah, it's absolutely non kosher.

[C]

Probably why they got rid of it. Honestly.

[B]

Yeah, no, 100%. You know what? I do want to talk a little bit about the purpose behind these laws because we often acknowledge the Old Testament dietary laws and be. And we kind of acknowledge them in a, like, we're not so sure why they were there, but they were there kind of way. And it was important that Israel kept them. But maybe we're not entirely sure why it was important that Israel kept. You went and Googled it. I. Can I see you laughing. Okay, now I have to read out the definition that Google gives to me. Okay, man, this is one of those episodes that the people who don't like the banter.

[C]

Yeah, they're gonna hate this one.

[B]

This is not one. This is a person. We call these in podcast world, y', all personality episodes. You are now nine minutes into a personality episode of Knowing Faith. We will bring it back to content. But just so you guys know what Jen just read, Throw It Back primarily refers to a popular dance move often on social media, involving thrusting the hips or buttocks backward, shaking the backside, and frequently body rolling while bent over.

[C]

So it also says referring to something from a previous time or era and to quickly swallow a drink. So maybe you just are. Maybe you are naughty.

[B]

Okay, okay. Now we're in, like, cancelable territory. Okay, so. Okay, here is what I want to say about the Old Testament dietary laws from a content perspective. Getting back to the point, the dietary. There. There are a lot of reasons why the dietary laws are significant, why they were significant for Israel. Let's point to a couple. One, I take the perspective on this that there were some questions of normativity. There were some questions of cleanliness and normativity that were informing these dietary laws, meaning the animal restrictions that are given or the dietary restrictions that are given, I think closely coincide with what we might say were aesthetic or cleanliness norms. The animals, some of the food restrictions, I think, are indicative of God's larger project to have Israel stand out in a world of muck and mire, and that the dietary laws were a visible way of Israel's differentiation and distinction. Keep in mind, we feel this less so in a privatized, individualized world. But meals and eating and food preparation was a very public, very communal, very corporate, very visible element of life in the ancient world. You weren't going to the shopping center to buy a packet of bacon and bring home to cook it privately. These are things that involved a lot of. You were rearing these animals, you were transporting these animals, you were slaughtering these animals publicly. If you were a Jew, you were offering these animals in some form or fashion sacrificially. And so we think, well, how would the dietary laws have distinguished them from their neighbors? Well, you think about meals as a private thing, but they didn't think about meals as a private thing. They. We honestly see a little bit of this in Daniel, don't we? Like, part of the reason that, like, Daniel stands out is that he's not abiding by the dietary norms of Babylon. So that's like a distinctive thing. It's a differentiating marker. And so that's just a signal to you that the dietary laws might seem arbitrary to you, but they were one of a number of things included in the law that were there to create what Michael Goheen and Craig Bartholomew refer to as a contrast community. A contrast community they were going to enter in among the Canaanites, and they were going to live in such a way to where the people in Canaan would go, huh? They're not like these other people that are here in Canaan. They're different meals and food and eating, which is going to be one of those things. And I think this is one of the reasons why the dietary laws are there is that. Do y' all have a different understanding of the purpose of the dietary laws or a. I hear people. We'll get to that in a minute. But any other things that you'd add to the reason for them, the rationale?

[D]

No. I mean, I think the entire narrative post Exodus and even in Exodus, is about this contrast community, the theological, ethical, and ethnic distinction that Israel is going to have in the land amongst the nations. Of course, those three distinctions that I just mentioned, theological, ethical, you can even argue national, are. Are going to change differently over the course of the narrative of Scripture. In other words, I think a question you might have if you're listening to this podcast is. Well, are we saying the New Testament changes how we relate to God's law? The answer is yes, but not all of God's law. Why? I think that's a challenging question for people. Do I still have to obey the Ten Commandments? If so, why do I have to obey dietary laws? No. If so, why not? So I think helping people understand how one was typological and kind of a shadow of, and we have a substance of Christ and how one was a fulfillment of and how we can continue to participate in.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. So let's talk a little bit about that. Do I have to keep the Old Testament dietary laws? And if not, why not?

[D]

I think that I want. I think we should get to that question. That's the whole podcast. But I. I think maybe even backing up just one more time. The entire New Testament is concerned with questions like this. I remember the first time somebody kind of helped me see this. And you can't unsee it once you see it, but you could argue that the entire Book of Acts and a huge portion of Paul's epistles are a movement towards answering this question. Do I have to be Jewish in order to be a Christian? That includes dietary laws, but also includes other ethnic distinctions or theological distinctions. How Jewish do I need to be? The first council that the church ever has before Nicaea, before Chalcedon, before Ephesus, is the council in Acts, chapter 15, known as the Council of Jerusalem. And where you have. And Paul has become an apostle to the Gentiles, and you have lots of Jewish Christians now proselytizing and sharing their faith. And the key question for the churches is, what kinds of things would we expect Gentile converts to do? Do they have to be Jewish? And that would include dietary laws. Of course, Paul has to deal with this with the church in Rome, where you have many Jewish Christians and now many more Gentile Christians coming to faith. And he has to address the issues of strong and weak. What do we do with this food and drink? Am I supposed to have this? Am I not supposed to have this? So let's answer that question. But I think I want to broaden this out for people. This is not a narrow question for the New Testament. This is an enormous question for the New Testament that the early church went at lengths to answer.

[C]

Well, yeah, I mean, anytime you're looking at an Old Testament law that is a shadow that has found its fulfillment, you're asking, how has it moved from the physical realm to the spiritual realm in our understanding? And we, we actually have a little help around clean and unclean foods. When we get to the parables that Jesus tells, he talks specifically the parable of the dragnet. He talks about casting a wide net, and then it's pulled in, and then the fish are sorted, good or bad. And that's an oblique reference to clean or unclean fish. And that would have been a common experience for any Jewish fisherman, among whom he had several in his company when he tells that story, that you could haul in this great catch. But it wasn't until you sorted between the ones that you were allowed to eat and the ones you weren't allowed to eat that you actually knew how big the catch was. And of course, Jesus has already said to his followers, come with me, and I will make you fishers of men. And so the parable is telling us that clean and unclean was really never strictly speaking about what you did or didn't eat. It was about who is clean and who is unclean. And so when we look at the New Testament, what Jesus is saying is, your dividing line is not between Jew and gentile for clean versus unclean, it's between true Israel and the rest of the world.

[B]

Yeah. And it's astounding how many times Jesus addresses this topic head on. Like, that's why I appreciate the point you're making, both of you are making. And that, J.T. you started us with, which is, it's kind of like we can approach this question and be like, you know, kind of a. Like you might hear or look at this episode and go like, that's kind of a small question. But it's absolutely not an insignificant question in the New Testament or even in just the teaching ministry of Jesus. Like, how many times are the Pharisees or religious leaders trying to trip Jesus up on some point of the Pentateuchal law, you know, and. And Jesus does address it directly. Think about Matthew 15 and verse 11, when Jesus says about the issue of eating and drinking, it's not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth that defiles a person. Like, Jesus is addressing these issues very concretely, very specifically, very directly. And Sabbath comes up probably the most. And then the dietary laws come up significantly as well. Just the very notion of cleanliness. We see it also in questions around who Jesus associates with and whether or not that taints him or not. And so there are all these different kind of, you know, all these different angles by which the New Testament addresses it. And then certainly one of the most significant addresses of this is an episode we've already covered, which is Cornelius vision. Right. With Peter around the clean and unclean animals and the blanket full of bacon, where you know, this vision that. There's this vision that comes down of don't declare unclean. What I've declared clean. And so it does seem like you can look at a question like this and be like, is this just kind of theological navel gazing for the purposes of a funny discussion? That's certainly not how the New Testament's approaching the question at all.

[C]

Let me ask you something. This is occurring to me while we're recording this podcast, so it feels super safe to ask this question. But I know one of the old dietary requirements was that they drain all of the blood out of an animal before they ate it. They were not to consume an animal that still had the blood in it. So when Jesus becomes the lamb slain and he tells his disciples, you are to eat my flesh and drink my blood. And he's talking about in spiritual terms, how does that relate to this conversation of clean and unclean? Because in strictest understanding, no Jew would tell another Jew to drink the blood of anything. Correct. So is there something going on there?

[B]

Well, I think it's one of the reasons why when Jesus says this to

[C]

them, it's so shocking.

[B]

It's so shocking to them.

[C]

But I think that's what I'm saying is the ultimate understanding of what has been considered unclean is now clean, seen in the sacrifice of Christ himself, because even in the passover lamb, they drained all the blood.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. I think it's probably just one. I'd have to think about it more. But it might be just one of the many dimensions in which Christ's substitutionary atoning work is an inversion of what you would expect for him to do that. Like, we are made clean by an unclean act.

[C]

Well, that's what I'm exactly. I'm saying, like, basically, that would mean in taking the elements, you are spiritually touching a dead body, which would have made a Jew ceremonially unclean. I'm just wondering what the connections are there. It's never really even occurred to me.

[D]

That's a really good question, Jen.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

There has to be a fascinating answer.

[C]

There has to be.

[D]

I don't know it, though. But that's really. That's making me think.

[B]

Well, that is something that we will come back to on a future episode. But I do want to move our audience towards some sort of resolution here in Terms of what, as a Christian, is our orientation to the law generally, which we've covered extensively on this podcast, but the dietary laws specifically. So is there any Christian subservience or any sort of Christian commitment to the Old Testament law as Old Testament law?

[C]

Well, yeah, I mean, to the moral law. Sure. And to the ceremonial law only, to whatever principle underlay any particular law. And did I leave one out? Civil law, same thing. If there's a principle that we can apply that we would pull forward.

[B]

The moral law carries forward propositionally or like it carries over with a one to one correspondence. But the ceremonial and the civil law are more principle.

[C]

Yeah. And they're not as divided as we make them sound. The moral law undergirded the ceremonial and the civil law. They were expressions of the moral law for a particular time in a particular place. And so the ceremonial law, like for example, the wave offering, which is an expression of gratitude. Right. And it's giving something. I mean, the closest you would come to it in a modern service would be something we don't necessarily do anymore, which is pass the plate and then present it at the altar at the front. And so I actually think that's one of the ways that that particular Old Testament law sort of echoes through even modern day liturgies. But it doesn't mean that we are practicing Old Testament law. It means that we are grateful for what that law taught us about. Right. Living before the Lord. And we want. We want to offer the Lord our gifts on a regular basis. And so that would be one way that I would see that ceremonial loss still in play, but not literally and not accomplishing the same thing. Like, I think there's a. Well, actually, here's something we should really address. Do you think, or would you say that the Old Testament ceremonial laws were achieving the remission of sin?

[B]

No.

[C]

No. Right, right. And so we would not think that any modern nod to an Old Testament ceremonial law was doing anything to remove sin. I just think that's an important designation to make.

[E]

Are you tired of shallow discipleship in your life, the life of your church or small group? God is inviting you into deeper places. Real participation in his story, real understanding of who he is and what he has done, and a more meaningful practice of following in his ways. For the last 10 years, JT, Jen and Kyle have been teaching a program called Deep Discipleship in their local churches. And they have NOW worked with LifeWay to make this available to everyone everywhere. Whether you're an individual looking to go deeper, a church leader looking for an Accessible way to invite your small groups, classes and student ministry or a homeschool family. Looking for curriculum for your high school students? Go check out the Deep discipleship [e-mail] deep discipleship,

[A]

The One Year Bible for Men and the One Year Bible for Women help you engage with Scripture 365 days a year. Each day's reading includes one portion each from the Old Testament, the New Testament, Psalms and Proverbs, along with short devotionals that connect scripture to real life challenges. The devotionals in each edition are unique, focusing on the questions and concerns either men or women may encounter. Individually, these Bibles help you grow deeper in your walk with God. And together they can create a powerful shared experience for couples reading side by side, encouraging each other and discovering how God's word speaks into our lives. Find your One Year Bible at the1yearbible.com.

[B]

Yeah, like it's a generally good thing to wash your hands, right? When you wash your hands, you don't purify your soul, Right.

[D]

What about the sacrifice of a lamb?

[C]

Well, that's what I'm. That's kind of what I'm getting at. That's why we would never go and sacrifice a lamb, because we understand that even when that was happening, it was a shadow that has its fulfillment.

[B]

Yeah, well, yeah. And now that the fulfillment has come, we don't need to dwell in the land of shadows any longer.

[D]

Right, Right, right. I'm not disagreeing with you, but that wasn't quite the question. The question is wouldn't we wouldn't do that now. But did it do it then?

[C]

Oh, yeah, yeah. That was the point I was trying to clarify.

[D]

Right.

[B]

And you would say it did it then by virtue of future fulfillment.

[C]

No, I don't know. Hebrews talks about the limitations of the Old Testament sacrificial system.

[B]

Yeah, but limitations are different from null, right?

[C]

I don't know. Would you say that the laws were actually accomplishing what is fully and finally accomplished at the cross? Or would you say no?

[D]

No, I just think. I think we're actually living in a tension that the Bible demands us to live in. Like the Passover lamb. The actual lambs that were slaughtered that night in Egypt accomplished something for God's people. The angel of death, that wasn't the blood of Christ, that was the blood of lamb. Of a lamb. And the angel of death passes over the houses of the firstborn in Egypt and spares them. That accomplished something.

[C]

Yeah, but I wonder if that is.

[D]

Had they not done that, the firstborn dies.

[C]

Yes, but I'm wondering, is that the Lord testing His. His children?

[D]

Well, sure, yeah, that could be fine. But what I'm saying is in the same way that the. What is it? Leviticus 16 and the day of Atonement, There is atonement that's taking place as these lambs are sacrificed in place of God's people. These are actual offerings. Now, where I think you're. I think we're probably saying much more closely the same thing. They're all pointing towards a greater fulfillment. And that insofar as they were participating in these sacrifices by faith, they were recipients of mercy.

[B]

They were efficacious, but not efficacious in and of themselves. They were efficacious on the basis of a future fulfillment yet to come.

[D]

I would say efficacious based upon faith, which is faith in God atoning for sins through the sacrifice of a lamb. And again, there's people who are actually like, very committed to one of these two positions. I find it a bit more helpful, honestly, to be kind of in the middle, because I think if you were writing. If you were talking to Moses when he was writing this down, he was like, yeah, you sacrificed the lamb.

[C]

Yeah, okay. You know, I'm thinking about Hebrews 10, right?

[D]

Just like we do.

[C]

Well, I mean, that says. It says the law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming, not the realities themselves. For this reason, it can never by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. Otherwise would they not have stopped being offered. For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. And so I think what I would say is. I think maybe what I would say is the analogous situation is when God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac because he's testing Abraham. And God, when he tests, is always testing to show someone righteous. He's not. As Satan tempts them to show them unrighteous, God tests us to show us righteous. He already knows that Abraham is going to do the right thing. So then the sacrifice of Isaac is showing the faith of Abraham, but is it accomplishing something? Now, obviously it doesn't happen, but you see my point.

[D]

Yeah, I think so. I agree with everything you're saying, and I certainly agree with Hebrews 10.

[C]

I think I'm happy to live in the tension. I'm just trying to feel my way toward where the offsetting tension is.

[D]

Right. I just. What I don't. What I don't want to do. I know that neither of you do, too. When we talk about things as being a shadow, that doesn't mean they're nothing.

[C]

Yeah, that's a good word.

[B]

Yes, I agree with that. I agree with that. And I think that this is actually an important question. That is not the point of our episode. But I did just write it down for season 17. Oh, we are going to do an episode on that. And that one actually might be good to get a guest on, somebody who can come in and kind of give us a lay of the land, of the Old Testament sacrificial system.

[C]

I think that sounds. It sounds from the way we're talking about this, like that would be really beneficial.

[B]

Maybe. Yeah. I mean. Yeah, because I think you're right. We're all trying to get in that tension, kind of figure out, like, what's that key inflection point where it's like, just faithful enough to how they would have originally heard it, but not so much where it precludes the fulfillment that comes with Christ. But anyways, I want to keep going. So Old Testament law, generally, there is some of it that carries over the moral law carries over. And it carries over with what we might call strong correspondence. Like when it says in the Ten Commandments, don't murder. Like that carries over into the New Testament, thank God, in a way that has strong correspondence to it. It's not like principle. It's not like there's a general. Huh. I wonder what the principle of not murdering is. It's don't murder.

[C]

You can even argue that it gets bigger when it moves to the New Testament. It's more expansive. Because if you imagine the Gospel going out to the ends of the earth, well, the number of ways that people come up with to commit murder as you move between different people groups actually expands.

[B]

That's right. And also, too, Jesus intensifies to the depth of it. Right.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Art where it's like, if you've even hated somebody, it's as if you've murdered to them. So it gets broader and deeper. I think this is actually how the food laws work, too. So I'll lay my position out here. I don't think. I don't think the Christian has to obey Old Testament dietary laws. I don't think we're bound to the Old Testament dietary laws. That being said, that makes it sound like we're being alleviated by the strictures of the law. But I actually think Paul's larger point in First Corinthians, where he deals extensively with what we eat and drink among a group of predominantly Gentile Christians, is doing something very similar to what Jesus does with the moral law. He is intensifying the kind of activity that's required. If you give somebody a law, it requires no real thinking to think about the gray matter. Whereas when you get to Corinth, Paul is helping the church in Corinth understand, hey, have you really considered what you're eating and drinking? You should not do so flippantly. You should do so faithfully. And the boundaries are no longer these narrow lanes. You can't eat this. You can't drink this. It's now wide open to you. Which doesn't invite careless living, but should create more freedom for careful and faithful living, even in the midst of unrighteous, foolish, or differing neighbors. I think Paul's larger point, and I think this is kind of how the dietary laws get expanded, is not that, gosh, we get to the New Testament, who cares about those dietary laws? It doesn't matter whether I eat or drink anymore. That's not it. No, no, it does matter. And now everything is accessible to you to eat or drink in a way. First Corinthians 10:31, whether you eat or drink, do all to the glory of God. Now, because it's so expansive, it actually requires more care and more thoughtfulness than it did previously. Does that make sense? So it's like, okay, technically, it is not a bad. Like, it is not a breach of some sort of dietary law for me to have 100 pounds of shrimp. I'm breaking no dietary law to have 100 pounds of shrimp.

[D]

Maybe gluttony or 100 pounds is a lot.

[B]

I'm getting there. You got my point. But like. Or, you know, I came from southeast Texas, which is basically southwest Louisiana, so I probably should use 100 pounds of shrimp. I should probably say 100 pounds of crawfish. But it's. It's not. There's no Old Testament dietary law I'm breaking. I'm breaking by eating a hundred and one hundred pounds of crawfish and Dewey. But, Jen, should I eat a hundred pounds of crawfish?

[C]

No, I would not. Would not recommend it's a bad idea

[B]

to eat 100 pounds of crawfish. Should I. Should I demand crawfish at my dinner if my neighbor has a shellfish allergy?

[C]

No.

[B]

Right. Because it's like. But. But I can have. I can have as much as of crawfish as I want, right? Would it be. Would it be loving my neighbor if there were a hundred pounds of crawfish for sale at a crawfish boil on our street and I bought all hundred pounds of it and brought them into my home? No. Right. Why? Because there's a hundred pounds and there are many neighbors. To buy all the crawfish and bring it into my own house and say I'm eating all of it is not a way of loving my neighbor. There's no generosity of spirit there. I've created much more moral complexity and moral agency and witness, contrast, community, opportunity than just saying you can't eat crawfish.

[C]

Well, because the real question is, is your heart unclean or clean in the action that it's performing?

[B]

That's right.

[C]

Yeah. And that's tough. But I also think that the role of wisdom is constantly in play. Like, we've talked about wisdom on the show a lot, but that wisdom seeks for how best to apply the principles of the moral law in any given situation. And wisdom, I think when we hear wisdom, what we think is what's best for me, I have to discern what's best for me. But wisdom, as it's depicted in lady wisdom in Proverbs 31, is not just what's best for me, it's what's best for everyone who is within my sphere of concern. And so the clean and unclean issue does not have to do with just the individual, as you were pointing out. It has to do with how the individual inhabits something bigger than themselves.

[B]

Yeah, I agree 100 with that. JT, anything to add?

[D]

No, you guys got it covered.

[C]

Do you think that Christians are uniquely drawn toward religiosity with food?

[B]

Well, that depends on what community you're talking about and what. And what you mean by religiosity. Like,

[C]

food rules?

[B]

No, no, I don't think so.

[C]

I think they uniquely are.

[B]

I don't.

[A]

Because, like, if you think about our

[B]

Muslim neighbors, like, the Islamic community in our town is huge. And they have like, like, if you ask the normal person in the community I live in, what group in this town is the most food conscious group that every. I don't have a single neighbor that would say, oh, the Christians are the most food conscious group. They would all say the Muslims are the most food conscious group. And typically because of that, they organize their, their, like their food establishments often have religious semiotic signs and symbolic universes directly attached to their branding. So like, like, if you drive past most Muslim food establishments or Mediterranean, it'll. It'll be very Clear. It's halal, Right. Or Jewish. Like, we have a grocery store in town and they have kosher market on the side. You don't see, like, Christian grocery store up there or a little trinity. You know, the. The triangle in the circle, the Trinity symbol. You don't see that up there, but you will see a lot of halal signs and you'll see some kosher delis and markets, community. But nothing. Nothing. That's obviously Christian in symbolism. Am I?

[D]

Hinduism also practice of nonviolence. Very hesitant to kill animals, Largely vegetarian, specifically as it relates even to sacred cows and not eating meat. So, yeah, the Christians I know are probably the most free as it feels. We can eat whatever we want and how much we want. Do you have something else in mind, though, Jen?

[C]

The Daniel diet.

[D]

Yeah. Or like, the Ezekiel bread.

[C]

So I guess what I should say is. What. Why do you think we're drawn to gimmicky food laws?

[B]

I mean, doesn't the heart. The heart seeks for something that's easier than wisdom?

[C]

Yes, that's what I think. I think that we. I think it has to do with all the. If I do X, God will bless me in this particular way. So, like, there must be some secret code to the diet out there that's in the Bible that if I eat

[D]

it in some of that stuff, it's not just like, oh, yeah, fit. I thought you were gonna say blessed fit. I think people just think God's law is good for flourishing.

[C]

Therefore, my body is built to operate a certain way. And the Bible must have encoded in there what I'm supposed to eat to take care of this body.

[B]

And there's no doubt that, like, gosh, it's really easy to not, like, take care of yourself. Right. I mean, like, we started this episode talking about salt. It's like, salt and sugar are pretty awesome. You.

[C]

I love songs.

[B]

They're pretty great.

[D]

And the mama baby combo is pretty great.

[C]

The mama baby combo.

[B]

And it takes a lot. It's a lot easier to be like, yeah, you should use wisdom than it is to just create new laws. That's. It's hard to live wisely.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

In a foolish world. And it's easy to. It's easier to embrace the illusion of legalism.

[C]

Yeah. So what would you say to someone who says, well, just out of conviction, I'm going to adhere to the Old Testament dietary laws.

[B]

Great. Go for it. Have fun. Can I have your pork chop?

[C]

Oh, my gosh, Kyle.

[B]

I mean, if we're at the barbecue, like, can I have your Portion of.

[D]

I think there's lots of first century Christians that were still doing that. Yeah, I think that's one. Romans 14, one. And that's what's interesting is Romans 14 is kind of directed towards Jew Gentile relationships as it relates to what do we do with food. And then 1 Corinthians 8 is related to can we eat the food that pagans sacrifice to idols? And so there's a lot of. Of how do Christians engage with food in the New Testament?

[B]

Yeah. What about, what about this, Jin? If somebody says,

[D]

can I have a hundred pounds of nerds cluster with salt? Yeah.

[B]

Somebody says, like, hey, Christians are inconsistent because they really want to. They really want to remind us what the Bible says about Christian sexuality. But none of the, you know, they're wearing clothes of mixed fabric. They eat pork, they eat shellfish. Like, I feel like these things come up on social media. Like there'll be some Instagram reel or

[C]

tweet where somebody will be like, it's a gotcha response.

[B]

It is over and over again. And it comes up every three or four months. Like, what do say to somebody, jt,

[C]

what do you say?

[D]

They need to make. We need to make sure we go back to that original distinction of the principle of the law and the. What was the other word you used, Kyle? You had alliteration for it.

[B]

I. Now I've lost it.

[D]

It was, how do we take a principle over Or a proposition. Proposition. That's what it was. I believe that these propositions carry over to the New Testament. I mean, there's clear propositional law related to gender and sexuality that Jesus refers to from Genesis 1 and 2 and from Old Testament law that is less clear or much more clear propositionally, as it relates to gender, sexuality, what it means to be made in the image of God and to have ongoing relations with other people. That is more of a principle related to food laws. So I would see the laws and prohibitions related to sexuality to be more principally, or, sorry, propositionally, to use Kyle's term, ongoing in the New Testament and a part of God's moral law, not ceremonial law.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah, I think that's the right thing.

[C]

Yeah, I would agree too. And I also think that related to that is that questions of sexuality have so much to do with image bearing. It's a more direct correlation than dietary laws. And so. And everyone would acknowledge that how we. I would imagine everyone would acknowledge that we or most people would acknowledge that what we think about food versus what we think about sexual behaviors, those are not equal in their degree of concern or in the degree of harm that might be caused if we get it wrong. And so I think that's something that often doesn't come up in those moments. It's like you're equating whether to eat shrimp, whether to commit sexual sin.

[B]

Yeah. And it's. And it's. And it's not like things right. Well, we did an effective job of pivoting from a personality episode to a content episode for all who made the journey with us. We are glad if you didn't make the journey with us. If you bowed out, then you're not listening. And don't worry, next week we will throw it back to our more content driven approaches to these episodes. Thank you for listening to the podcast today. If you want to help make the show possible, go to train the church.com support. If you want to leave us a question for a future Q and A,

[C]

pay for our all you can eat shrimp bar.

[B]

Nice. Nice. If you want to leave a question for an upcoming Q and A episode, go over to Apple Podcasts and leave a review. Don't worry, I read every single one of them. So if you want a direct line to me, you don't need my phone number. You just need to go leave a review over at Apple Podcasts and I will absolutely read it. Thank you for listening to the podcast today. Don't forget to check out our sponsors through our webpage link and the show notes are [e-mail] under the Knowing Faith Podcast webpage. We hope you enjoyed the discussion. Grace and Peace.