TRUE CONFESSIONS:
I WAS A PORK-EATING CHRISTIAN
--Daniel Botkin--
Sometime around 1978, a new believer was telling a group of us about a recent experience. He recounted his experience in words like these:
"I was reading in Leviticus, and I read where it says we shouldn't eat pork. At first I thought to myself, 'Why would the Lord not want us to eat pork?' But I said to myself, 'Well, He's the Lord, and if He says don't do it, then I'd better not do it. No more Egg McMuffins!' And I really loved Egg McMuffins. I hadn't eaten pork for about a month, and one morning I was driving and listening to Brother J- V- M- on the radio. He read that story in Acts about Peter seeing the great sheet with all the animals. Brother M- said he's sure glad the Lord showed Peter that vision, 'cause he really loves pork chops. As soon as I heard that, I said, 'Praise the Lord!' and pulled into the first McDonald's I saw, and got myself an Egg McMuffin!"
As this young brother finished his story, I got a sick feeling deep in my gut. I wondered why the story grieved me, because, at the time, I agreed 100% with the radio preacher's theology. Yet I could not shake the thought that an innocent babe in the faith had been duped and robbed of a blessing. I was very disturbed by the conflict between my theology and my immediate reaction. It was not until 10 years later that I understood the reason for this conflict between my gut reaction and my theology: my theology was wrong.
Proverbs 18:17 says, "The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him." This is especially obvious in the area of theology. Most believers receive their strongest theological influence during the first few years of their walk with the Lord. If they receive a strong dose of the eternal security teaching, then they grow up with a strong belief in that doctrine. If they receive strong teaching against eternal security, they grow up opposed to the doctrine. Young believers who grow up under the influence of Pentecostal teaching sooner or later speak in tongues; those who grow up under strong teaching against tongues rarely experience tongues. And on and on the list goes.
The first Bible I ever read through in its entirety was a Scofield Reference Bible. While I knew Scofield's notes were not part of the Sacred Text, they nonetheless influenced my view of the Torah. As a result, I was programmed from the beginning of my walk to believe that the Lord no longer cares if we eat pork or shellfish (or moles, bats, mice, and lizards, for that matter). Like most trusting, newborn babes, I was easily convinced by "the first to present his case" (Scofield), because he "seemed right" -- "until another came forward and questioned him."
The first witness to "come forward and question" my view of the Torah was the Torah itself. Other witnesses that challenged me were the words of the Psalmists and Prophets, and the words of the Messiah and His Apostles. I spent ten years reading, studying, and wondering where the Torah should fit into the life of a New Covenant believer.
In 1988 and 1989 I spent a long period of time in intense, in-depth study of the issue, accompanied by long periods of fervent, desperate prayer to God for understanding. Like Jacob, I determined to "not let go" until I had received the blessing I sought. Out of that agonizing period, I emerged, like Jacob, a changed man -- a man whose eyes were opened to see the glorious Torah that had been written on my heart since first coming to the faith in 1972. Then I understood why I had been disturbed by the young believer's story about the Egg McMuffin in 1978. In 1978, even though my mind had not yet seen God's Torah written on my heart, my spirit knew, and grieved.
Seeing the Torah written on my heart has made much of the Bible read like a new Book. Peter's vision of unclean animals made clean takes on a different meaning than before -- a meaning that harmonizes with Torah instead of contradicting Torah.
To properly understand Peter's vision, we must put ourselves in Peter's shoes. Like the Messiah he followed, Peter was a Torah-observant man. He knew God had clearly commanded his people to not eat certain animals. This explains his immediate reaction to the vision: "Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean" (Acts 10:14).
To put yourself in Peter's shoes, imagine that you, as a born-again Christian man, go into a trance and see a great sheet let down from heaven. The sheet is filled with naked women. You hear a voice address you by name and say, "Arise, take and commit adultery!"
Like Peter, you would be taken aback by such a vision, because you know that the Scriptures clearly forbid such an act. The only conclusion you could draw from such a vision would be: a)it is of the devil, or b)it is of the Lord, but certainly not meant to be taken in the literal sense.
When the messengers of Cornelius arrived, Peter understood that the vision was indeed from the Lord. The fact that these men were Gentiles led Peter to understand the true meaning of the vision: "God hath shown me that I should call no MAN common or unclean" (Acts 10:28). Peter's explanation makes it clear that the vision was meant to be understood in a figurative sense.
Peter had the brains to know that God would not command him to do something that the Scriptures clearly forbid. Peter understood that the vision had nothing at all to do with a change in the dietary laws; it was God's way of showing His intention to graft the Gentiles into the commonwealth of Israel through their faith in Israel's Messiah.
Sometimes it is easier for non-Christians to see the inconsistency of some Christian doctrines. A few years ago I had a student from Saudi Arabia in an English class I was teaching. He was a devout Moslem, but very interested in learning what Judaism and Christianity teach. I spent time talking with him, and gave him an Arabic Bible and other Arabic literature. I explained that Christians accept both the OT and NT, and that Jews (except for those who believe in Jesus) accept only the OT. One day he wanted to talk to me about something.
"Why don't Jews eat pork?" he asked.
"Because the OT says not to," I replied.
Pause.
"You said Jews believe the OT, and Christians believe all the Bible?"
"That's right," I answered.
He was quiet, and I could tell he was thinking.
"Christians have the same Bible as the Jews?" he asked.
"Right. Except that Christians also have the NT."
"Christians believe all the Bible, and Jews don't eat pork because the Bible says not to?"
"Right," I answered.
"But Christians eat pork," he said with a puzzled look. "Why do Christians eat pork?"
As Yeshua said, "The children of this world are, in their generation, wiser than the children of light" (Luke 16:8).
Many Christians say, "A believer who refuses to eat pork has a 'holier-than-thou' attitude. If you are a missionary in another culture, and refuse to eat food that is offered to you, you will offend your hosts and hinder them from accepting the gospel."
I reply to this by pointing out that in some cultures, a man shows hospitality to a guest by letting the guest sleep with his wife. To refuse is to offend the host. We must be consistent! If it is permissable to knowingly disobey the dietary laws to avoid offending your host, then why not commit adultery with your host's wife for the same reason?
Those who accuse believers of a holier-than-thou attitude for refusing to eat pork probably do not realize that the expression "holier than thou" is taken directly from the Bible (Isa.65:5). It is ironic that the people described in the Bible as having a holier-than-thou attitude are not those who refuse to eat pork and other unclean animals. On the contrary: The Bible says that the holier-than-thou people are those "who eat the flesh of pigs, and whose pots hold broth of unclean meat" (Isa.65:4). According to the Scriptures, these are the people who offend God with their holier-than-thou attitude. Pork-eating believers who quote the holier-than-thou passage to criticize their porkless brothers will find themselves condemned, and their porkless brothers vindicated by this passage.
On the other side of the coin, we believers who have seen the validity of the dietary laws must be careful not to adopt an attitude of superiority toward our brothers who have not yet seen this particular truth. They may see some truth in a different area where we are blind. Our obedience must be accompanied by humility before the Lord and patience toward our brothers. After all, God was (and is!) very patient toward us.
Copyright 1995 Gates of Eden
Brother Daniel Botkin publishes a newsletter called, "Gates of Eden: The Botkin Bimonthly". You can request a copy for a suggested donation of $2 or more by sending to:
Gates of Eden
Dept. WWW
P.O. Box 2257
East Peoria, IL 61611-0257
If you discover any problems with the Hyper-Text Markup Language (HTML) of this page, please email the Webmaster, "Brother Clif," at brclif@iu.net.
Please consider visiting the Webmaster's site, "Saint Anne Frank's Secret Apartment," for which Daniel Botkin is in NO WAY responsible.