It is Friday. Let's talk about food. Ever since a tablecloth filled with animals descended from heaven before Peter and a vision, the kitchen doors have been flung wide open to all sorts of delicious dishes we have come to love, including bacon and lobster and coconut shrimp and bluefin tuna sushi, on and on it goes.

But there's still a lingering question over whether veganism more closely maps on to God's original dietary design for us. And it's a question that comes to us from Scott in Cincinnati. "Dear Pastor John, several of my friends are either vegans or vegetarians, and while they are mostly non-Christians, they occasionally challenge me theologically for eating meat.

I see in scripture that God provided quail for the Israelites in the wilderness. He demanded animal sacrifices. Jesus, after the resurrection, ate broiled fish. Peter, of course, was given a vision of animals clean to eat. But before the fall, they point out that God gave man only seed-yielding plants and the fruit from trees for food.

And in eternity, instead of killing animals, the lion shall eat straw like the ox and no further blood will be shed. The more I think about this, I am unconvinced that eating meat is sinful. But isn't veganism closer to God's original pre-fall and even post-fall dietary design for us?" What moves me in regard to eating patterns is that neither Jesus nor the apostles, though they had many opportunities to do so, neither of them argued from a pre-fall eating pattern forward or a future eschatological eating pattern backward to the way we should eat today.

They didn't argue that way. Such an argument would have solved some serious problems in the church in Corinth and Rome, but Paul did not take that approach. In fact, he emphatically went in another direction. And I suspect that the reason he didn't argue that way and went in another direction is because he saw that God did not intend for either the pre-fall world or the post-sin world to provide the model of eating in this world.

The risen Christ, with his new resurrection body, is the closest glimpse that we get of eating in the age to come, and he ate fish—dead fish. Now, instead of arguing that way, Paul argued like this. This is 1 Corinthians 10:24. "Let no one seek his own good but the good of his neighbor.

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience, for the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." That's a quote from Psalm 24 that Paul uses as a ground clause. The whole question of meat offered to idols would have been solved for Paul if he had taken the position that eating meat is sub-Christian in any case.

He argued just the opposite. Animals which provide meat do not belong to themselves. They don't belong to the earth. They belong to the Lord who provides his people with their needs for food, so eat them. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. That was Paul's argument for eating meat.

And lest we think that Paul was off on his own here, Mark, in his gospel, chapter 7, verse 19, said, "Jesus declared all foods clean" (Mark 7, 19). Clean, acceptable, not banned, not illegal. But here's the most important and urgent biblical teaching regarding the patterns of eating among Christians today.

This is a classic and explicit illustration of what ought not to divide Christians or hinder our precious and close and sweet fellowship with each other. This was Paul's main concern in dealing with eating of meat. Romans 14 is written to deal explicitly with the conflict between vegetarians and meat eaters.

It is astonishingly relevant for Scott's question. There are other issues in Romans 14, like what days should be honored and whether we should drink wine, but vegetarianism and meat eating are front and center. So here's what he says. This is Romans 12, 2, following. "One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.

Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls, and he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand." There's the central concern and the central teaching on this issue, according to Paul.

Meat eaters don't despise vegetarians. Vegetarians don't pass judgment on meat eaters. On such issues, each of us stands before the Lord to give his own account. Don't become lords judging each other on this issue. That's the main message. Then verse 14, "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died." Romans 14, verses 14 to 15. Then he continues on. Verse 17, "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men." Then one more section, verses 20 and 21, still in Romans 14. "Do not for the sake of food destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.

It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble." Don't cause a brother to stumble into sin and destruction by what you eat. That's not love. So in Paul's mind, the issue of vegetarian versus meat eater is not an issue of health.

It's not an issue of attaining the ideal of pre-fall or post-sin eschatological conditions. It is an issue of love. And in that sense, it's a great issue. But in only that sense, it's not a great issue in and of itself. What we eat here—hear me on this, this is going to shock some—what we eat here is of almost zero significance compared to righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, which are the manifestations of the saving reign of God among his people.

So let's keep things in perspective. Manifest the reign of God and love one another. That's a wonderful little biblical theology of food. Thank you, Pastor John. And you're exactly right. It's interesting how often food is discussed in the epistles. It's surprising, really. Thank you, Pastor John. And Scott, thanks for the question.

And listeners, thank you for joining us again and for ever being willing to prayerfully and financially support our work over the years. Appreciate it very much. So thank you. Well, you can stay current with the Ask Pastor John podcast on your phone or device by subscribing through your preferred podcast catcher app.

And if you want to search our past episodes or if you want to send us an email, even questions about what the Bible says about food, you can do those things through our online home at DesiringGod.org/AskPastorJohn. Well, Christians struggle with sin because we Christians in this life are sinners still.

Sin will not be eradicated from our lives until a glorious day when we see Jesus face to face. But until that glorious moment, we fight sin by faith and we can experience assurance inside of that fight. But the Reformed tradition has also taught that there are forms of willful sin, willful sin, that evidences a heart that has not been saved.

So what is the difference between unwilled sin and willful sin? That's the question on Monday. Until then, I'm your host, Tony Rank. You have a great weekend and we'll see you next week. 1 Desiring God's Pastor John's Podcast 2 Desiring God's Pastor John's Podcast 3 Desiring God's Pastor John's Podcast 4 Desiring God's Pastor John's Podcast 5 Desiring God's Pastor John's Podcast 6 Desiring God's Pastor John's Podcast 7 Desiring God's Pastor John's Podcast 8 Desiring God's Pastor John's Podcast 9 Desiring God's Pastor John's Podcast 10