1) Creation vs. Evolution : Natural Law is Constant : St Augustine Presumably Refuting Sarfati on Sibling Marriages [after second generation of mankind] · 2) New blog on the kid : Moral or Ceremonial : Was it Against Moral Law to Eat Porc Between Moses and Jesus or St Peter? · 3) HGL's F.B. writings : Overpopulation Still Falsehood
Here is Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's* solution:
Another problem is this artificial separation of moral and ceremonial laws. Surely every law God gives is a ‘moral law’, in that it would be immoral to disobey. The Mosaic Law of 613 commandments is a unity, which is why James told us that breaking one commandment was breaking the whole Law (James 2:10). And were we to categorize the law that Adam broke, it would come under ‘ceremonial’ since it was a prohibited food law.
Any law of God is immoral to disobey, including a ceremonial law. However, some commands are immoral to break before they are commanded, and some are immoral to break because of high and ceremonial respect and special relation to the lawgiver.
There is a law which is written in man's hearts. In and of itself it does not forbid eating porc or shrimps as such, unless one eat so much it leads to sexual overindulgence (when eating porc and shrimps were among abhominations of Canaanites, this was the case). There are two ways of dealing with porc and shrimps so as not to become sexually immoral. The old Jewish way was to avoid them. The Catholic way is to abstain once or even better twice a week. Twice was the original discipline and also involved fasting up to a certain hour.
Probably the Pharisaic custom of fasting developed in Babylon among people told to eat porc and shrimps and not wanting to defile themselves.
But to Jews living in freedom, like under King David or King Solomon or in the South Kingdom, abstinence from the fattest meats and allowance of other meats, was the custom required by law. It would have been immoral for them to disobey it. However, it was immoral to them, but not to each and every neighbour, unless they were so opulent they didn't fast. A Hindoo or Buddhist monk at that time would have been sinning by idolatry, but not by eating shrimps, since these monks were also fasting - and since they had no such special relation to God as the Israelites had. Socrates and Stoics may be presumed to have eaten of shrimps in this sinless way. Their behaviour was not identic to Canaanite behaviour when overindulging in aphrodosiac foods.
So, in the time span given, it was not unlawful for non-Jews to eat moderately of foods which, if taken in greater quantities would be aphrodisiac foods, hence Socrates** who was not a Jew did not sin by eating clams or shrimps. Some might even say that shrimps are not technically "fish" anyway, so it doesn't matter if they have fins and scales or not. On the other hand, are shrimps "plants" like some have regarded clams, or rather non-locust insects? But eels and lampreys would have been sinful for a Jew, unless forced by a Babylonian to eat thereof, and sinful if eaten as the Canaaneans did, in great quantities. But was not sinful for a non-Jewish philosopher enjoying them in moderation, even at that time.
When we say that ceremonial laws of the Old Testament are not binding, we do not mean that it would only have been a ceremonial bad manner rather than immoral to obey them, we mean that the ceremonial law is now other, as especially clear with reference to sacrifice and circumcision, we now have Holy Mass and Baptism.
And it would be immoral for a priest of Byzantine rite to use unleavened bread and for a priest of Roman Latin rite to use leavened bread in Holy Mass : because these ceremonial rites are, unlike that of the Old Testament, still in current validity. At least one of them, probably both, will remain so up to Doomsday. However, during Mosaic rite of Old Testament no bread at all was used in sacrifice, it was in the older Melchisedecian rite that bread and wine were used, as they are again under Christ.
In each case, breaking the laws of a ceremonial rite in current validity when belonging to the covenant is immoral. But not because of the action in itself, rather because of the covenant. And the Eternal Covenant is the New one. The Old was desecrated by Caiaphas and was made impossible to keep after the letter by destruction of the Temple.
But after the spirit, even now we must observe the ceremonial laws, though not each one doing so knows he is doing so. Because each of the 613 laws, if that is the correct number, has a spiritual significance which remains valid in the common or specifically ritual laws of the New Covenant, as given by the Church.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Sts Philip and Jacob, Apostles
* Cain’s wife and brother-sister intermarriage
Published: 14 May 2011(GMT+10)
Main theme already answered under the other post.
** Socrates was not technically fasting, but he was "only eating when hungry", i e eating frugally. Lean fish was more frequent in Athens of his time than either porc or even presumably shrimps. And he was more frugal than most Athenians of his time.