WHY CHRISTIANS EAT PORK
A Biblical and Quranic Examination of Dietary Laws
Dr. Maxwell Shimba
Shimba Theological Institute
Abstract
One of the most common criticisms Muslims raise against Christianity is that Christians consume pork despite its prohibition in the Mosaic Law. Muslims frequently argue that because the Torah forbids swine, Christians have abandoned God's commandments. This argument appears persuasive until the biblical texts are examined within their proper covenantal and historical context. Moreover, the argument becomes internally inconsistent when compared with Islamic teachings, since the Qur'an permits Muslims to eat camel meat even though the Torah equally forbids camels as unclean animals. This study examines the dietary regulations of the Torah, the teachings of Jesus Christ, the apostolic doctrine of the New Covenant, and relevant Qur'anic passages. It argues that Christians are not inconsistent for eating pork because they are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant. Furthermore, the Qur'an itself acknowledges that Jesus made lawful certain things that had previously been forbidden to the Jews. Consequently, the Muslim objection fails both biblically and logically.
Keywords: Mosaic Law, Pork, Camel, Dietary Laws, Christianity, Islam, New Covenant, Jesus Christ, Torah, Qur'an
Introduction
Among the most frequently repeated objections raised by Muslims against Christianity is the accusation that Christians disobey God by eating pork. Muslim apologists commonly quote Leviticus 11:7–8 and Deuteronomy 14:8 as evidence that the consumption of pork remains sinful. They contend that because Jesus declared He came not to abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17), Christians have no biblical justification for eating pork.
At first glance, this argument appears compelling. However, it suffers from three serious problems.
First, it selectively applies the Mosaic Law.
Second, it ignores the New Testament teaching concerning the fulfillment of the Law through Christ.
Third, it overlooks the Qur'an's own recognition that Jesus relaxed certain ceremonial restrictions placed upon Israel.
A careful comparison of Scripture and the Qur'an reveals that the Muslim criticism is inconsistent both historically and theologically.
The Dietary Laws of the Mosaic Covenant
The dietary laws were introduced through Moses as part of God's covenant with Israel.
Leviticus chapter eleven establishes two primary qualifications for clean land animals.
A land animal had to:
possess divided hooves, and
chew the cud.
Failure to meet either requirement rendered an animal ceremonially unclean.
Leviticus 11:3 states:
"Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat."
The prohibition was therefore based upon ceremonial distinctions established for the nation of Israel rather than permanent moral principles.
The Torah Prohibits More Than Pork
Muslim polemics generally focus exclusively upon the prohibition against pigs.
However, the very same chapter forbids several animals.
Leviticus 11 lists:
Camel
Rock Badger
Hare
Pig
Each violates one of the two requirements established by God.
The camel chews the cud but lacks divided hooves.
The pig possesses divided hooves but does not chew the cud.
Consequently, both are equally unclean according to the Mosaic Law.
There is no hierarchy of uncleanness.
The Torah never suggests that pork is more forbidden than camel meat.
This fact is often omitted in Muslim apologetic literature.
Deuteronomy Confirms the Same Principle
The second giving of the Law repeats exactly the same dietary regulations.
Deuteronomy 14:6 establishes the same requirements.
Verses 7–8 again prohibit:
Camel
Hare
Rock Badger
Pig
The consistency demonstrates that these restrictions formed part of Israel's ceremonial covenant.
Thus, if someone insists that Christians remain obligated to avoid pork because of Moses, consistency demands they also reject camel meat.
The Qur'an Recognizes These Jewish Dietary Restrictions
Interestingly, the Qur'an itself confirms that certain animals were forbidden to the Jews.
Surah 6:146 states that Allah prohibited particular animals for the Israelites.
Classical Islamic commentators explain that these prohibited animals include camels.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn identifies camels among the forbidden beasts.
Likewise, Ibn Kathir interprets the verse as referring to animals such as camels and ostriches.
Therefore, Islam itself acknowledges that the Torah prohibited camel meat.
This point is critical because it demonstrates that Muslims understand the Torah's dietary regulations when discussing Jewish law.
The Qur'an Simultaneously Permits Camel Meat
Despite recognizing the Torah's prohibition, the Qur'an authorizes Muslims to eat camels.
Surah 22:36 states that camels may be sacrificed and eaten.
Consequently, Muslims regularly consume camel meat.
This creates an important theological question.
If Christians are condemned for not observing the Mosaic prohibition concerning pork, why are Muslims not condemned for disregarding the Mosaic prohibition concerning camels?
The same standard must be applied consistently.
One cannot insist upon Mosaic authority when criticizing Christians while simultaneously rejecting Mosaic authority regarding camel meat.
Muhammad's Own Practice
Islamic traditions further complicate the Muslim argument.
Several authentic hadith report Muhammad eating camel meat.
Other narrations report him prescribing camel urine medicinally.
These reports are found in Sahih al-Bukhari.
Whether one accepts or rejects these traditions is not the issue.
Rather, the issue is consistency.
If Muhammad himself consumed animals declared unclean under the Torah, Muslims cannot reasonably accuse Christians of violating Mosaic dietary regulations.
Jesus Did Not Destroy the Law
Muslims frequently appeal to Matthew 5:17.
Jesus declared:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
The crucial word is "fulfill."
Fulfillment does not mean permanent continuation.
It means bringing something to its intended completion.
A contractor fulfills a construction contract by completing the building.
The contract is not destroyed.
It is completed.
After fulfillment, its obligations cease.
Likewise, Jesus fulfilled every requirement of the Mosaic Law.
The Law reached its intended goal in Christ.
Christ Established the New Covenant
The New Testament consistently teaches that believers are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant.
Paul writes:
"Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (Romans 10:4)
Similarly,
Colossians 2:16–17 instructs believers not to be judged concerning food or drink because these regulations were shadows pointing toward Christ.
Hebrews explains that the Old Covenant became obsolete through the establishment of the New Covenant.
Hebrews 8:13 declares:
"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old."
The dietary regulations belonged to the covenant made with Israel through Moses.
Christians live under the covenant established through Christ.
The Jerusalem Council
Acts chapter fifteen provides historical confirmation.
A controversy arose regarding whether Gentile believers must observe the Law of Moses.
After careful deliberation, the apostles concluded that Gentile Christians should not be placed under the Mosaic Law.
Notably, they imposed no command forbidding pork.
This decision would have been impossible had pork remained universally prohibited.
Jesus Declared Food Does Not Defile
In Matthew 15 and Mark 7, Jesus shifted attention from ceremonial purity to moral purity.
He declared that food entering the body does not spiritually defile a person.
Instead,
evil thoughts,
murder,
adultery,
greed,
blasphemy,
and wickedness proceed from the heart.
The true concern of God's kingdom is inward holiness rather than ceremonial dietary distinctions.
The Qur'an Affirms That Jesus Relaxed Certain Restrictions
An often-overlooked Qur'anic passage supports this conclusion.
Surah 3:50 records Jesus saying:
"I make lawful for you part of what was forbidden to you."
This statement demonstrates that even within Islamic theology, Jesus altered certain ceremonial restrictions previously imposed upon Israel.
The Qur'an therefore acknowledges change in ceremonial law.
Muslims who insist that Christians must permanently observe every Mosaic dietary restriction contradict their own scripture.
Moral Law Versus Ceremonial Law
Christian theology distinguishes between moral law and ceremonial law.
The moral law reflects God's eternal character.
Prohibitions against murder, theft, adultery, idolatry, and false witness remain binding.
Ceremonial laws—including sacrifices, circumcision, ritual purification, priesthood, temple worship, and dietary restrictions—pointed forward to Christ.
When Christ fulfilled their purpose, these ceremonial shadows ceased to function as covenant obligations.
This distinction explains why Christians reject murder while eating pork.
Both actions belonged to different categories of divine legislation.
The Inconsistency of the Muslim Argument
The Muslim objection ultimately depends upon selective application.
Muslims insist Christians obey Leviticus concerning pigs.
Yet Muslims themselves reject Leviticus concerning camels.
They appeal to Matthew 5:17 while overlooking Romans, Hebrews, Acts, and Colossians.
They cite the Torah while ignoring Surah 3:50.
Such selectivity weakens the force of the argument.
A consistent hermeneutic must consider all relevant texts.
Conclusion
The accusation that Christians disobey God by eating pork fails under careful examination.
The Torah prohibited both pigs and camels.
The Qur'an acknowledges these Jewish dietary restrictions while permitting Muslims to eat camel meat.
The New Testament teaches that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law and inaugurated the New Covenant.
The apostles confirmed that Gentile Christians were not obligated to observe Mosaic dietary regulations.
Even the Qur'an recognizes that Jesus made lawful certain things previously forbidden.
Therefore, Christians possess both biblical and theological justification for eating pork, while the Muslim objection rests upon a selective and inconsistent application of Scripture. Rather than demonstrating the falsity of Christianity, the dietary laws illustrate the profound transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant established through Jesus Christ, in whom the ceremonial shadows find their fulfillment.
No comments:
Post a Comment