Old Testament Diet - Was God being a Bully?

[Soyeong]

If Peter was writing only to Jews, who had that practice or who were used to that, then possibly that is what they would have thought to begin with. But he wouldn't have expected others to read between the lines and assume that they knew what he was saying. Would a Gentile - or we - who read those words have thought, "ah, Peter says ' be holy because I am holy'. This appears in the OT where God is talking about food and hygiene laws, so therefore Peter must be saying that in order to be holy we have to keep all these laws"? If Peter was writing to Gentiles with little knowledge of the OT, or to people who didn't realise that quoting part of a verse brought to mind the rest of it - or may have known that one day such people would be reading his letter - he would have spelt out, plainly "it is God's will for you to follow all the food laws that he gave to our nation back at Mt Sinai, so go and read them and find out what they are."

Acts 15:21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

1 Timothy 4:13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Every Sabbath in the synagogues OT Scripture was read publicly, which included the law, and Gentiles were expected to learn from this how to they should behave, how to do what good and how to have a holy and righteous conduct. The implication of Peter referring to Gentiles as obedient children and encouraging them to have a holy conduct is that the recipients of his letter already had to background knowledge to know what he meant, or else they could ask others, or find out by continuing to listen to OT Scripture being publically read every Sabbath.

Yes. We are made righteous and holy in Jesus.
God "chose us in him before the foundation of the world to be holy and righteous in his sight" (Ephesians 1:4) Jesus was made sin for us so that, in him, we might become the righteousness of God, (2 Corinthians 5:21).
If we are in Christ, if we abide in Jesus, we are righteous and God sees us as righteous. This gives us freedom to live in righteousness and holiness - because we already are; that is how God sees us. Also, if we love God we will want to live holy lives.

Neither Jesus, Peter, Paul or any of the other disciples said that being in Christ means obeying all the OT food laws and we cannot be in Christ unless we obey them.

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

1 John 3:6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.

John 15:7-8 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.

Again, we aren't to obey God's laws to be declared righteous, but because we have been declared righteous, and that's what righteous people are called to do. Abiding in Christ means that we are to bear much good fruit/do good works/practice righteous/refrain from sin, all in accordance with God's instructions for how to do that in His law. Paul said that the law was profitable for training in righteousness and in how to do good works. It makes no sense to say that if we love God we will want to live holy lives while at the same time disregarding God's instructions for how to live holy lives, and following God's dietary laws are part of those instructions. It's not that we can't be in Christ unless we have a righteous conduct, that we are new creations in Christ for the purpose of having a righteous conduct.

That's the point - he gave it to Moses and the Israelites.
Since then, Jesus, the Messiah has come, fulfilled Jewish law for the Jews (if they can accept it) and laid down his life for us all - Jews and Gentiles - so we can be reconciled to God and have eternal life. Jesus is the second Adam, bringing life where the first Adam brought death, and sealed the NEW covenant, prophesied through Jeremiah, with his blood. Hebrews says that where there is a new covenant, the old is obsolete.

I agree. To fulfill the law was a rabbinic term that meat to interpret it in a way that filled it up with meaning, added meaning to it, brought full understanding to it, or to demonstrate how the law should correctly be obeyed. Every Sabbath a rabbi would take a Torah scroll to Moses' seat and fulfill the law by interpreting and explaining how it should be understood. Jesus fulfilled the law 6 times in Matthew 5 by teaching how to understand it and by demonstrating a perfectly sinless example of how the law should be obeyed. Everyone since the time of Moses who has loved their neighbor as themselves has fulfilled the law, so it was not a once and for all thing that Jesus did for us so that we don't have to. On the contrary Jesus said that not the least bit would disappear from the law until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished (Matthew 5:17-19). We should not go back to the Old Covenant, but God's law is independent of any particular covenant, and the New Covenant involves God's law being written on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). The problem with the Old Covenant was that His people disobeyed God's law, so God made a New Covenant where His people would obey it, not so that we would disregard it.

You don't.
But if the NT writers expected their readers/audiences to obey Jewish food laws, that had been given to other people many years previously; if this was vital for living a holy life, was a command from God and was his will for them as Gentile believers, then I feel sure that they would have spelt it out and made absolutely sure these Gentile believers knew what was expected of them. Instead, what do we find in Acts 15? The Jewish believers in Jerusalem sent a letter to Gentile believers telling them to abstain from blood and from food offered to idols. No mention at all of what to eat or having to keep the rest of the law.

As I said, it's spelled out pretty clearly in 1 John 3:4-10. Sin is defined as breaking the law and no one who abides in Christ keeps on sinning. The law is God's instructions for how to practice righteousness and we're told that practicing righteousness is evidence that we are children of God and not practicing righteousness is evidence that we are children of the devil. Jesus was sinless which means that he obeyed God's dietary laws perfectly, so if we are to become like him and follow his righteous example, then we should also obey God's righteous laws.

If you hold hard to the four laws mentioned in Acts 15 being an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required of Gentiles, then that would excluding the commands of Jesus and other commands given to them in the NT. However, if you say that it was not an exhaustive list and other laws were obviously included, then I'd agree with you. The list was for the purpose of providing a minimum standard by which Gentiles could have table fellowship with Jews and was given with the understanding that Gentiles would continue to learn how to behave by hearing Moses preached every Sabbath in the synagogues.

I don't think that's how the Jews see it.
Christianity has Jewish origins, Jewish Scriptures, a Jewish Messiah and was probably almost exclusively Jewish for the first few years. I do feel that any Jew who accepts Jesus as their Messiah has become a complete, or fulfilled, Jew.
BUT many of us are not Jews and never have been.
There are similarities between us. God rescued the Israelites from slavery and death in Egypt; we have been rescued from slavery to sin and saved from eternal death by God himself, who sent his Son to die for us. The Israelites were given God's law and were chosen to be his people; we believe in Jesus who IS the Word of God and are his people, and God's children, if we have received eternal life and his Holy Spirit. We don't have the wonderful, rich tradition that Jewish believers have; we have Jesus, only Jesus. But he is enough.

That's how Jewish believers see it. Naturally, Jews who don't believe Jesus is their Messiah would disagree, but if Jesus is the Messiah, then it is the truth, regardless of how anyone sees it. This is what it means to be grafted in:

Ruth 1:16 But Ruth said, “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God.

According to Ephesians 2:19 Gentiles are now citizens of Israel and according to 1 Peter 2:9-10 Gentiles are now included as part of God's chosen people, so really when people come to faith in the Messiah they are no longer foreigners or heathens and should no longer be referred to as Gentiles. It's not about whether or not you are a Jew or were a Gentile, but about whether you are in Christ and whether the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is your God too. If He is and you are counted among His people, then you should obey the commands that He has given to His people.

That is not to say that I have to put myself under Jewish law. And by the way, Jewish law isn't just about not eating pork, it includes circumcision, not wearing clothes of mixed fabrics, declaring yourself, or being declared, unclean at certain times (especially if you are a woman). It involves stoning people to death for blasphemy, adultery, or not keeping the Sabbath, it includes instructions to men about beards.

I have never suggest that we should come under God's law, but I think Paul meant something different by "not being under the law" than you do. The law is how we know what sin is and Paul said that we don't have a licence to sin, so we don't have a licence to break God's law, and so Paul did not understand "not being under the law" to mean the same thing as "a licence to disregard the law". It refers to not being under the power of the law to condemn you to death to break it, not to being free from its holy, righteous, and good instructions. We should desire to do what is holy, righteous, and good and take delight in it, so it's not even something that we should want to be free from or something that God would want us to be free from, but rather it is what we have been set free to do (Romans 6:15-19).

I completely agree that dietary laws are not the only laws we should be keeping, as things like not mixing fabrics are also part of what it means to have a holy and righteous conduct. However, the Bible never commanded all Gentiles everywhere to become circumcised and laws in regard to how to do Temple worship only apply when there is a Temple in which to worship. Jesus has paid the penalty for our sins, so there is no need enforce a penalty that has already been paid.

Leviticus gives instructions about offering sacrifices for sin - yet we don't need to do this because Jesus offered his life, once and for all, upon the cross, and even the Jews don't do this now. So Jews and Gentiles alike disregard that part of the law.
If the law given to Hebrews applies to us too, then all of it applies - we can't pick and choose which parts of his law are important or acceptable.

Paul continued to offer sacrifices as part of his Nazarite vow and paid for the sacrifices of others, which included sin sacrifices (Numbers 6) even after Jesus death and resurrection. Furthermore, there will be sacrifices offered, including sin sacrifices, during the Millennium. But again there is no Temple, so those outside the land must do what we can without sacrifices, as the Jews in the Diaspora did. Part of their condition for the return of the exiles was that they would obey God's commands, which included God's Feasts, which would have made that difficult to do if they couldn't keep them without first returning to the land.

Jesus has told, and shown me, how he wants me to live my life, and no one did/does he say "you MUST avoid pork, shellfish, polyester/cotton mixes in order to prove to God that you are holy." Nowhere has he commanded Gentile believers to come to him for salvation and then do everything that God commanded Moses.

Again, having a holy conduct is not about proving that you are holy, but about what those who are holy are called to do. It's what we are to do because we are holy and part of a royal priesthood and a holy nation (1 Peter 2:9-10).

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

In other words, we are declared righteous, not by doing what is righteous, but rather we are new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing what is righteous. The good works that God prepared beforehand are what God instructed are good works in His law, which He gave beforehand. As Paul said the OT Scriptures are profitable for training in righteousness and in how to do every good work. So if you want to know what it means to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct, which boths Jews and Gentiles are told to have, then you need to look up God's instructions for that in His law.

 

[Soyeong]

The law was given to that generation "for their good" so as weird as some of the regulations seem now, they were given to preserve the slaves from egypt in the wilderness and then later when they had their own country.

The law was given to instruct how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct. It is always good to have such a conduct, even if those instructions were given to someone else.

 

[Strong in Him]

The reason is because he wanted the cloak.
The application to us; when you need something brought to you, it is a good idea to ask someone coming your way to bring it.

You're not serious??
What about the other passages that I mentioned?

 

[Strong in Him]

Acts 15:21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

I'm sure he is.
I don't go to synagogues though.

Gentiles were expected to learn from this how to they should behave, how to do what good and how to have a holy and righteous conduct.

Maybe.
But everything changed after Jesus came. Hebrews says that something better has come - the law, which the Messiah fulfilled anyway - was only a shadow of what was to come, is the Old Covenant and is obsolete.

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Absolutey!.
But neither Jesus, nor anyone else, has ever told me that those good works include keeping all the Jewish food laws.

I agree. To fulfill the law was a rabbinic term that meat to interpret it in a way that filled it up with meaning, added meaning to it, brought full understanding to it, or to demonstrate how the law should correctly be obeyed. Every Sabbath a rabbi would take a Torah scroll to Moses' seat and fulfill the law by interpreting and explaining how it should be understood. Jesus fulfilled the law 6 times in Matthew 5 by teaching how to understand it and by demonstrating a perfectly sinless example of how the law should be obeyed. Everyone since the time of Moses who has loved their neighbor as themselves has fulfilled the law, so it was not a once and for all thing that Jesus did for us so that we don't have to. On the contrary Jesus said that not the least bit would disappear from the law until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished (Matthew 5:17-19).

It won't.
But for the Jew, Jesus has fulfilled that law, and Gentiles have not been commanded, by him, to keep it.

As I said, it's spelled out pretty clearly in 1 John 3:4-10. Sin is defined as breaking the law

Jesus commanded us to love as he loves us, and summarised the 10 commandments by saying "love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbour as yourself." He did not say that if you eat a ham sandwich you are sinning against God and disobeying him.

If you keep the law, you have to keep ALL of it, and if you break one part of the law you are guilty of breaking ALL of it.

If you hold hard to the four laws mentioned in Acts 15 being an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required of Gentiles, then that would excluding the commands of Jesus and other commands given to them in the NT.

So James wrote them a letter telling them to abstain from certain things - but expected them to know that actually he meant everything in the law, not just what's on this list?
Sorry, I don't believe that. What would be the point in doing that; it's confusing and misleading. If they had wanted the Gentile believers to abstain from pork, they could, and should, have made that clear. If eating pork was such a big deal for Gentile believers who had come to faith in Jesus, they/we should have been told and not just left to assume that we would work it out somehow from the OT.

That's how Jewish believers see it.

Maybe - I doubt that's how most Christians see it though. I don't consider that I have joined Judaism To me, and I suspect to most people, including those who write about world faiths, Christianity and Judaism are two separate religions.

I completely agree that dietary laws are not the only laws we should be keeping, as things like not mixing fabrics are also part of what it means to have a holy and righteous conduct. However, the Bible never commanded all Gentiles everywhere to become circumcised

So the law doesn't command Gentiles to be circumcised - which for a Jew was a sign that they were part of the covenant promise and belonged to God - but it does expect Gentiles to obey food laws to show that we are holy and belong to God? Doesn't make sense.
And I belong to God because of Jesus anyway, and through being born again and receiving his Holy Spirit.

In other words, we are declared righteous, not by doing what is righteous, but rather we are new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing what is righteous.

Yes, I am made righteous and holy by Christ, through Christ. I have every spiritual blessing in Christ. I belong to God, am his child and am an heir with Christ.
God HAS prepared good works for me to do and has a plan for my life - a plan which will not be thwarted by the occasional sausage roll or pork chop.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The law was given to instruct how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct. It is always good to have such a conduct, even if those instructions were given to someone else.

Apostle Paul disagreed with you, there's a higher standard now, just observing the law is the righteousness of the pharisees God wants more than just the appearance of Godliness, cleaning the inside of the cup is much more messier.

 

[BobRyan]

The Apostle Paul disagrees with you - in Heb 4:2 "The Gospel was preached it US just as it was to THEM also"

As do other NT writers
Gal 1:6-9 "There is only ONE Gospel"
Gal 3:7 "the Gospel was preached to Abraham"
John 8 "Abraham saw my day and was glad"
1Peter 1 Prophets of old "saw the sufferings of Christ AND the glories to follow"
1 Cor 10 'They all drank from the same Spiritual Rock and that Rock was Christ"

OT New Covenant Jer 31:31-33 same as in New Testament Heb 8:6-10 "I will write my LAWs on their mind and heart"

"the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

 

[BobRyan]

The law was given to instruct how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct. It is always good to have such a conduct, even if those instructions were given to someone else.

For the born again New Covenant saints - the "Law is written on the Mind and heart" Heb 8:6-10 - as given by Christ at Sinai according to Heb 8.

 

[BobRyan]

That doesn't answer my question; "what's the reason for Paul's specific instruction to Timothy to visit him and take him his cloak?"
If everything in the Bible applies to us, how does this?

Kindness - the "gift of helps" in 1Cor 12 does not apply to us??

 

[Strong in Him]

Kindness - the "gift of helps" in 1Cor 12 does not apply to us??

You know it does. Bringing a cloak that someone left behind in a place when you are going from that place to meet them, is not "the gift of helps", it's good, old fashioned kindness - friendliness.
This is clutching at straws.

No one's given an answer for the other Scriptures I mentioned.
How does Paul's instruction to Timothy to start drinking wine because of his frequent illnesses apply to us today - especially to those of us who are tee total and not ill?
Would the church at Philippi been able to have obey his instructions to the church at Corinth about not abusing the lord's supper if they weren't doing any such thing?
Would people in Ephesus have taken any notice of Paul's plea to Euodia and Syntyche, who were in Philippi, to stop squabbling?

If someone wrote a letter to you family and put in little bits for each of you, such as "I hope Dave enjoys watching the racing", would anyone who is not called Dave and hates racing take any notice of it? They might read it as it was in the letter, but if it wasn't written to them and didn't apply to them, why would they take any notice of it, far less try to carry it out?
They wouldn't and I suspect you know that they wouldn't.
It's the same principle with the Bible - except that some people believe that everything in the Bible IS for them and try to make it fit their circumstances.

 

[BobRyan]

That doesn't answer my question; "what's the reason for Paul's specific instruction to Timothy to visit him and take him his cloak?"
If everything in the Bible applies to us, how does this?

Kindness - the "gift of helps" in 1Cor 12 does not apply to us??

You know it does. Bringing a cloak that someone left behind in a place when you are going from that place to meet them, is not "the gift of helps", it's good, old fashioned kindness - friendliness.

That is clutching at straws.

No one's given an answer for the other Scriptures I mentioned.
How does Paul's instruction to Timothy to start drinking wine because of his frequent illnesses apply to us today - especially to those of us who are tee total and not ill?

Well even those of us who do not take drugs and drink alcohol will rinse with Listerine that has bug-killing-alcohol and will take drugs when we are sick.

Would the church at Philippi been able to have obey his instructions to the church at Corinth about not abusing the lord's supper if they weren't doing any such thing?
Would people in Ephesus have taken any notice of Paul's plea to Euodia and Syntyche, who were in Philippi, to stop squabbling?

Yes in all cases for as Paul said in 1Cor 10 -- "These things are written for our instruction" not just for the instruction of the "incidental case" that happens to illustrate the point.

If someone wrote a letter to you family and put in little bits for each of you, such as "I hope Dave enjoys watching the racing", would anyone who is not called Dave and hates racing take any notice of it?

That analogy does not fit. this one does "I instruct Dave not to over eat - this is causing all kinds of sickness, shortening his life and making him prone to a great many other diseases" ... now is it true that "Dave has unique biology such that this sort of advise cannot benefit anyone but Dave?". I think we all know the answer to that. And so there are instructions that are given to one person that serve by way of example - to others.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Strong in Him]

That is clutching at straws.

No, doing something helpful does not mean you have the gift of helps.

The spiritual gifts courses that I've done/read define this gift as; taking over a mundane task that someone else is doing, thus releasing that person so that they can follow their own gifting.

Well even those of us who do not take drugs and drink alcohol will rinse with Listerine that has bug-killing-alcohol and will take drugs when we are sick.

What's that got to do with it?
I ask you how Paul's words to Timothy to stop drinking only water and drink wine because of your frequent illnesses applies to me as a teetotaller,. and your answer is "well, you must take drugs when you're sick"! That wasn't the question - how does that verse apply to me as a teetotaller; how do I obey it and do I need to?

That analogy does not fit. this one does "I instruct Dave not to over eat - this is causing all kinds of sickness, shortening his life and making him prone to a great many other diseases" ... now is it true that "Dave has unique biology such that this sort of advise cannot benefit anyone but Dave?". I think we all know the answer to that. And so there are instructions that are given to one person that serve by way of example - to others.

No, you've created an analogy to fit your position.

The words "stop drinking only water and drink wine because of your frequent illnesses" applied to Timothy, and only to Timothy - this should not be surprising, the letter was written to him, was not immediately passed round other churches - if at all - and apparently was nearly not included in the NT. It is personal advice.
The example in the analogy you gave could benefit almost anyone, but telling a teetotaller they need to start drinking wine whenever they get a stomach ache is unhelpful and probably wrong - whereas saying that to a recovering alcoholic could be downright dangerous.

My analogy was that you have a letter written to a family, large group or church, and the writer says, "I hope Dave enjoys his racing" or maybe "Tell Dave to take care when he is racing". Other members of the family/group who do not like racing or do not drive will disregard such good wishes or advice. If you don't go racing you don't need to take care when racing; if you don't drink alcohol or have stomach bugs, you don't need to start drinking wine. In both cases, the advice, and the Bible verse, are not applicable, or relevant, to certain people.
Just as you don't need to worry about being unclean after childbirth, it's something which doesn't affect you and which you will never experience - being a man. I'll never experience it either, actually; so all the verses about childbirth, giving birth to children, breastfeeding etc, don't apply to either of us.

 

[BobRyan]

No, doing something helpful does not mean you have the gift of helps.

ok maybe we differ there.

In anycase - something all Christians should be doing.

What's that got to do with it?
I ask you how Paul's words to Timothy to stop drinking only water and drink wine because of your frequent illnesses applies to me as a teetotaller,. and your answer is "well, you must take drugs when you're sick"! That wasn't the question - how does that verse apply to me as a teetotaller; how do I obey it and do I need to?

Timothy was taking it because of an illness - you seem to be saying that in a similar case of illness we should ignore the principle here - which does not make sense to me.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote]
BobRyan said: ↑
That analogy does not fit (the Bible example).

this one does "I instruct Dave not to over eat - this is causing all kinds of sickness, shortening his life and making him prone to a great many other diseases" ... now is it true that "Dave has unique biology such that this sort of advise cannot benefit anyone but Dave?". I think we all know the answer to that. And so there are instructions that are given to one person that serve by way of example - to others.
[/quote]

No, you've created an analogy to fit your position.

I think it fits the Bible case at hand. It shows how a principle/teaching can be illustrated by the case-in-point the specific instance with Timothy.

The words "stop drinking only water and drink wine because of your frequent illnesses" applied to Timothy, and only to Timothy

only true - if "only Timothy" ever got sick and needed medicine in that form.

Is that the case you wish to make?

- this should not be surprising, the letter was written to him, was not immediately passed round other churches - if at all - and apparently was nearly not included in the NT. It is personal advice.
The example in the analogy you gave could benefit almost anyone,

True - just as this case of taking medicine when you are sick could apply to those who are sick.

but telling a teetotaller they need to start drinking wine whenever they get a stomach ache is unhelpful and probably wrong -

Your stomach works the same as Timothy's -- I think we can all agree with this point.

If the kind of illness that Timothy had - involved harmful bacteria -- it is very likely that the alcohol was going to kill it.

If you had the same harmful bacteria and were limited to similar forms of medicine as was Timothy -- it is not at all clear that you would be wise to ignore Paul's statement.

Today we still follow that in general - in that we take medicines when sick that we would never take when well.

My analogy was that you have a letter written to a family, large group or church, and the writer says, "I hope Dave enjoys his racing"

Which does not fit the case with Timothy at all.

If you don't go racing you don't need to take care when racing; if you don't drink alcohol or have stomach bugs, you don't need to start drinking wine. In both cases, the advice, and the Bible verse, are not applicable, or relevant, to certain people.

True - but that does not mean we do not all read it to see if there is something in it for us.

The point is that almost nothing is unique to one person only. We all deal with issue of the same kind -- all of us get sick... all of us have had to take medicine at one time that we would have never taken if we had always been well.

Just as you don't need to worry about being unclean after childbirth, it's something which doesn't affect you and which you will never experience - being a man. I'll never experience it either, actually; so all the verses about childbirth, giving birth to children, breastfeeding etc, don't apply to either of us.

Agreed. The advice Paul gives to women in certain cases cannot be applied to men.

What is that proving? you seem to have strayed far from the point that we find here.

The law was given to instruct how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct. It is always good to have such a conduct, even if those instructions were given to someone else.

Michael Collum said: ↑
The law was given to that generation "for their good" so as weird as some of the regulations seem now, they were given to preserve the slaves from egypt in the wilderness and then later when they had their own country.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[chris.j.b]

Mmm... to put forward a counter argument, the old testament laws were for a time and place. In this time and place beef is one of the most ecologically damaging meats to farm. Pork is one of the most economically and ecologically sustainable meats to farm. And we could dig up some verses about looking after the earth.

 

[Billygoat]

Guys,

Arguing with Judaizers is futile. They think in order to keep salvation, we must obey the OT law. Whether they realize it or not, they are preaching a false, works based gospel.

 

[Strong in Him]

Timothy was taking it because of an illness - you seem to be saying that in a similar case of illness we should ignore the principle here - which does not make sense to me.

Timothy was most likely taking it because the water wasn't that clean/pure and wine was the better option. It may have been the water that made him sick in the first place.

Today, we not only have purer water but drinking 8 glasses a day is recommended for good health. When someone is sick, the advice is to drink plenty of fluids - and I'm fairly certain that doctors don't mean alcohol.

So if you're saying that when I'm ill I should have a glass of wine because the Bible says that is the way to get better, then I disagree, and would indeed reject that "Scriptural principle".

 

[Strong in Him]

Guys,

Arguing with Judaizers is futile. They think in order to keep salvation, we must obey the OT law. Whether they realize it or not, they are preaching a false, works based gospel.

You're probably right, and in any case I have raised several points that have not been answered.

Bottom line: no, God was not being a bully when he told the Israelites to obey certain food laws.
God is love, and love is patient, kind, does not dishonour others and always protects. God is also light and there is no darkness in him at all.
Even if Jesus had commanded Gentile believers to abstain from pork, he would not be a bully. I don't believe he has, nor that God requires this from us. Others believe that he does, but there is no bullying involved.

 

[BobRyan]

Timothy was most likely taking it because the water wasn't that clean/pure and wine was the better option.

That text says specifically that it was related to illness.

So if you're saying that when I'm ill I should have a glass of wine because the Bible says that is the way to get better, then I disagree

The Bible does not give the same remedy for every illness.

You seem to have strayed far away from the subject of the Ten Commandments.

 

[BobRyan]

New Covenant Christians do not call the New Covenant "Judaizing"

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68512559, member: 235244"]For New Covenant Christians we have the covenant made with "the house of Judah and Israel" - the "new Covenant" which writes "My Laws on their mind and on their heart" Heb 8:6-10 speaking of the LAW of God known to Jeremiah and his readers in Jer 31:31-33.[/QUOTE]

 

[Soyeong]

Guys,

Arguing with Judaizers is futile. They think in order to keep salvation, we must obey the OT law. Whether they realize it or not, they are preaching a false, works based gospel.

Not a single person in this thread has expressed that viewpoint.