A third difference is found in the diet of Jesus when He walked the earth. The law prescribed a kosher diet that forbade the eating of certain types of animals, fish, and fowl. The argument referenced above concerning the obedience to the feasts is applicable to Jesus’ obeying the food laws. Certainly, Jesus would not have disobeyed a command from His Father. It is of interest that in approximately A.D.41, Peter told the Lord in the vision concerning clean and unclean animals: But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." (RSV) Christ had been crucified approximately ten years earlier and Peter was still following the dietary laws from Leviticus. Since Peter had never eaten unclean food, this would be a compelling argument that while he was with Jesus, no unclean foods were consumed.
In the modern church, to mention the dietary laws would invoke allegations of legalism. Many churches have specific gatherings around food that Jesus would never touch. How many “pig roasts” or “clam bakes” take place in the church today? Jesus might attend, but would He eat the pork or the shell fish? From the Bible, we can ascertain some portions of Jesus diet: He had broiled fish and honeycomb after the resurrection, bread and wine at the Last Supper, wine at the wedding at Cana, and bread and fish at the feeding of the multitudes. The point is not to debate the continuance of the dietary laws, but to acknowledge that the practices of Jesus and the modern church are dissimilar.
Posts
Nothing Written
18 hours ago
