2 of 3
But the Ebionites left behind a fundamental question that still has not received a satisfying reply. If Jews ate only meat that was properly slaughtered, and the atoning death of Jesus replaced the Temple sacrifices, should Christians eat all kinds of meat, or none?
The answer to that question depends on the meaning of the Hebraic purity laws, which comprise the bulk of the Torah. Were they instituted by God to keep Israel separate from her pagan neighbors, or do they have a more universal meaning? When Jesus put an end to animal sacrifices, did he also take the issue of diet off the table? However these questions are resolved, it is fascinating that food issues, especially those involving the eating of meat, are as prominent and controversial today as they were in the time of Paul's missionary travels. Food choices helped drive the earliest Christians out of the synagogues. Now dietary scruples are bringing them back to Judaism for a second look.
To be fair, I should point out that Egan and her group are not, strictly speaking, neo-Ebionites. They honor the whole New Testament and arrive at their position on diet through a strict interpretation of the Bible. The theological options for Christians who want to appropriate some aspects of Jewish tradition are complex, but a simple distinction can be made between Torah-observant Christians and Messianic Jews. The former are Christians who have discovered the Torah, while the latter are ethnic Jews who have discovered Jesus Christ. Both groups challenge their home traditions by stretching them in provocative ways. They converge in their understanding of the intersection of Christ and the law. Egan is surely right that Jesus did not come to abolish every single law found in the Torah. She is also right that the way Christians typically divide the law into the broad categories of moral, civil, and ceremonial has its problems. The Torah was thoroughly moral. Whatever the interpretation of its relationship to salvation, Christians can agree that it pointed the way toward holiness. If that is the case, then how should Christians live the Torah today?
Egan could not have written this book if she were a trained theologian. Most theologians treat dietary questions as a sideshow to the more fundamental drama of the relationship of grace and law. Egan also could not have written this book if she had not been raised Jewish, because most Christians think that the Apostle Paul settled the question of diet once and for all in the early years of the church. While on the Roman roads, Paul had to deal with dietary decisions on a daily basis. His solution was more practical than principled. He clearly knew Christian vegetarians, whom he alternately tolerates and chastizes. They might have been former Jews who decided to give up meat eating after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. Paul did not want such a potent dietary choice to come between members of Christ's body.
The numerous and subtle passages in the New Testament that cover dietary issues are a nightmare for both sides in a proof-texting debate. Vegetarians and carnivores can go round and round throwing verses at each other in a verbal food fight. What do we make of the apostolic decree at the Jerusalem Council that required Christians to abstain from ingesting blood (Acts 15:29, 21:25)? What group is being criticized for preaching abstinence from certain foods in 1 Timothy 4:3? What about Peter's vision of the sheet and the voice that says, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!" (Acts 10:13)?
share this page
RSS Feed
