Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

An answer to this question references Acts 15:20, which says --

(19) Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, (20) but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. (21) For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

James, in the presence of "[t]he apostles and the elders," (verse six) is talking about what he believes should be required of Gentiles that wanted to join the disciplines.

In Christianity, are there any formal, historical doctrinal statements -- creeds, canons, catechisms, confessions, etc. -- that specifically address dietary regulations such as those found in Acts 15:20?

My current understanding is informed by passages like Acts 10:9-16, 1Cor 10:23-33, and the manifold passages that tell us that Christians are not under the law.


Note the distinction between this question, which asks about regulations for consumption, and the referenced question, which asks about regulations for slaughter. I'll leave it to the moderators to determine whether the two are similar enough to close the present question.

share|improve this question
    
+1 This should be interesting. There are conflicting passages in the Bible on this. In contrast to Acts15:20, Peter's vision of snake and Matthew 15:11 seem to suggest that no food is unclean. –  Monika Michael Jul 25 '12 at 4:11
    
Only a comment as I don't have an answer for your bolded question, but I've always interpreted that passage to be setting out the only rules (besides the 10 Commandments) that Christians have to follow. Pollution by idols gets its own treatment, sexual immorality defiles the Temple of the body, strangling is cruel, and drinking blood essentially means drinking the life of another animal/human. –  El'endia Starman Jul 25 '12 at 5:07
    
@El'endiaStarman All good points except that last one. Eating flesh would also mean eating the life of the animal. IDK why eating blood is forbidden. OTTOMH Maybe for health reasons as most of the diseases are transmitted through blood and unlike flesh blood isn't properly cooked. –  Monika Michael Jul 25 '12 at 5:21
    
@MonikaMichael: Actually, it's drinking blood that's forbidden, not eating it. Eating blood is pretty much unavoidable if you're eating meat. (Health probably played/plays a part too.) –  El'endia Starman Jul 25 '12 at 5:44
    
Glad to see people are interested. Here's another new question. –  Philip Schaff Jul 25 '12 at 5:53

2 Answers 2

I'm reminded of the passage in Romans two where the issues of the law is discussed.

Romans 2

New International Version (NIV) God’s Righteous Judgment

2 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?

5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath , when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.

12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. The Jews and the Law

17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”[b]

25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

So it seems to me though the a person will do well if he holds to the law of the Old Testament he cannot find his salvation through just a observance of laws. It is one of the big differences between Judaism and Christianity. Your holding to the Jewish laws should come from a relationship with God and a acceptance of Christ as saviour. Then it would be healthy and in accordance with Christianity.

share|improve this answer
1  
I am tempted to -1 this. It shows no effort on your part. Copy pasting an entire chapter of the Bible doesn't make a great answer. And since you don't comment on the verses we might aswell read the whole thing in our own Bibles. –  Monika Michael Jul 25 '12 at 11:45
1  
Maybe you should look at that last paragraph again –  Neil Meyer Jul 25 '12 at 11:48
4  
Maybe that last paragraph is the only thing that should be there. And that doesn't answer the question either, which asks for official doctrinal statements on dietary practices. –  Monika Michael Jul 25 '12 at 11:52
    
Hi Neil. I'm glad the question interested you enough to share your thoughts. It looks like that passage addresses the notion of law vs. grace; another user also linked, in the comments, to a C.SE post that looks at parts of Romans (click "show additional comments," above; see also my response there). What I'm really trying to get at in this question is the fact that it looks like the apostles are saying, "yes, there are actually some laws that apply to Christians." Since that's so complex, I'm trying to locate important historical references -- because, for this issue, I know of none! Cheers. –  Philip Schaff Jul 25 '12 at 18:03

There never were any dietary Laws enforced in the New Testament aside from polite rules derived from brotherly love and the desire for peace during the time of transition between the shadows of the Old Testament and the realities found in Christ.

Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” (NIV Matthew 15:10-11)

I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. (NIV Romans 14:14-15)

The rule established in Acts 15:20 for new converts does not contradict the truth that no food is unclean in itself, even blood! as established by Acts 10:15, Romans 14:14, 1 Corinthians 8, etc. In Acts we simply find instructions being given to Gentiles to bring a noble death to specific matters that would enflame, outrage, shock their prejudices and cause discord among Jewish converts. In a sense many Jews would need to have been treated as 'weaker brothers' in the matter of blood and certain meats sacrificed to idols, etc. because after having learning to associate God's ceremonial displeasure with these activities, though not sinful in themselves, for so long, it would have been difficult for them to unravel these symbolic things from their consciences. This natural revulsion on things morally neutral would be hard to unlearn especially when they had learned to hate them so much and to distinguish themselves from Gentile sinners partly by these differences. This created a situation where new converts should 'become a Jew unto a Jew' on harmless abstinence, for any behavior otherwise would be inflammatory actions ruining the love of Christian fellowship. It would give occasion for scandal and all over nothing.

Paul adopts the same 'love principle' in advising believers to abstain from eating meats sacrificed to idols, if in so doing it harms a brother's faith. There is really nothing special here in Acts that contradicts Paul. What might make this decision in Acts appear strange is that real sins are joined up with neutral matters. The similarity is not in that they are all sins but that they all especially would bring discord, inflammatory reaction, provocation to anger and general destruction to the gospel taking shape within synagogues around the region.  In addition, in all these things the Romans and Greeks had no moral objection to and all had some role within their idolatries, especially those that had temple prostitutes. This rule maintained a peaceful atmosphere for the true liberty of the gospel to grow and allowed a natural and noble death of some of the harmless shadows and ceremonial symbols of the Old Testament in brotherly love.

Lastly, there is some Jewish history that proves this temporary kindness to weaker brothers was related to the Jewish expectations on Gentile converts before Christ based on the covenant God made with Noah.  

Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. (NIV Genesis 9:3-4)

As this covenant with Noah is considered to have been made with all mankind, Jew and Gentile, the Jews called 'the seven Noachic commandments', which, according to them, were binding upon all Gentile proselytes. These were a prohibition  

(1)  of idolatry,  (2)  of blasphemy,  (3)  of murder,  (4)  of incest,  (5)  of robbery and theft,  (6)  of eating blood and strangled animals, and  (7)  an injunction of obedience to magistrates. (Alfred Edersheim, Bible History Old Testament - Vol 1)

This further explains the theological footprint or Biblical context at this critical time of history.  All the more reason for Gentiles to gain respect of outsiders and Jewish brethren at a time of incomprehensible changes and upheaval of religion and not force a shock on the community unnecessarily.

Given the situation then, looking for creeds or canons about an old shadow of the realities found in Christ is not to be expected and if one turned up most Christians would simply reject it as being opposed to the arguments in the scriptures. 

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.