Why Am I Eating a Pork Chop?

[ralliann]

Not really. We are in a global pandemic which started by eating an unclean animal.

Mad cow started by eating clean animals

 

[Sophrosyne]

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." --Genesis 8:20-9:4

Clipped from your post

 

[fhansen]

It clearly states in Deuteronomy 14:8 that we’re not to eat pork. In fact, Deuteronomy and Leviticus clearly state a lot of things that we don’t adhere to.

13:6 through18: We’re instructed to kill without mercy -even your own family members- anyone who tries to convince you to worship other gods.

17:2 through 13: Kill anyone who does evil-such as worshipping the stars- and violates the covenant. And if you’re not sure if the party is guilty, take it to court and if the Judge finds the party guilty and you refuse take part in stoning the defendant to death, then you should be killed too.

21:18: Kill your own son if he is rebellious.

Thou shalt not kill, but Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Exodus is full of examples like this where we are to kill people for sinning. What about “as we forgive those who trespass against us”? I seem to have made executing people the theme here, but there are instructions/laws on other topics as well that we don’t follow, I’m assuming because they just don’t seem consistent with our faith.

So why is it OK to have a pork Bratwurst at the church fundraising event these days when God clearly forbids it?

You could argue that things were different back then and don’t apply today. But that would nullify the Ten Commandments. These laws I’m referring to were issued on the same day. They just didn’t make the top ten list.

It doesn't nullify the Ten Commandments at all because the Church, in the east and the west, has historically stated and taught and continues to state and teach that the ten commandments are obligatory, and possible to fulfill for the justified person, incidentally.

 

[Religiot]

Luke 11:41 also confirms foods clean...

NASB
41
But give that which is within as a charitable gift, and then all things are clean for you.

KJV
41
But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

Luke here, says nothing of clean foods nor unclean foods, but is solely talking about hypocrisy.

The verse, now, with context:

"And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you. But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them." --Luke 11:37-44

"All things are clean unto you." Means plainly, by the context, that they will be clean, both inside and out, by doing what is right: He then says, "But woe unto you, Pharisees!", and goes on to further explain what He is trying to get them to understand, namely, that they mind the little things, as they should, but ignore the big things, to their detriment.

Harmonizing all the accounts, it is easy to see that, not only was the Lord rebuking them for adding to the law their traditions of washing hands, but also rebuking them for not keeping the actual law! lol

How this has become a passage about clean vs unclean foods, cannot be extrapolated from what the actual text says, but solely from the traditions of men.

 

[Religiot]

Clipped from your post

Sorry you missed it.

I tried.

Edit: *it.

 

[Soyeong]

A lot of the Law is designed to separate Israel from other nations.

Holiness is an aspect of God's nature, so the reason why the Israelites were called to be separate from other nations was not for its own sake, but in order for Israelite to act as a light and a blessing to the nations through testifying about who God is. In 1 Peter 1:16 we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so following those instructions is testifying about God's holiness, while not following those instructions is bearing false testimony against God's holiness. Furthermore, in 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, which are terms used to describe Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6), so Gentiles also have the privilege of getting to following the instructions that God gave for how to fulfill those roles. It is contradictory for a Gentile to want to become part of a holy nation while wanting nothing to do with following God's instructions for how to live as part of a holy nation.

If you're thinking it's telling everyone how to live sinless, or it's all designed to be some moral enlightenment, that's not what it is. It's designed to help get the Israelite's focusing on the things that are right, which is worshipping God.

Sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4), so yes, it is God's instructions for how to refrain from sin. Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's laws are inherently moral laws, and there is no example in the Bible of disobedience to any of God's laws being considered to be moral. Likewise, morality is based on God's nature, God's law is His instructions for how to testify about His nature, and we are morally obligated to live in a way that testifies about God's nature, which is what it looks like to worship God.

That's one of the reasons the Old Covenant is no more: now Jesus is the focus, not the Law. Jesus gets us focusing on God.

While we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same laws for how to testify about His nature. The Son is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), so all of His works in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law testified about God's nature (John 14:6-11), which means that we partake in God's nature through our obedience to the Mosaic Law, we are testifying about how to experientially know Christ, which is why he said that the Scripture testify about him (John 5:39-40). For example, whenever we do what is righteous in obedience to the Mosaic Law, we are testifying about Christ's righteousness, so the focus has always been on Christ. Christ taught how to obey the Mosaic Law both by word and by example and did not establish the New Covenant in order to undermine anything that he spent his ministry teaching, but rather the New Covenant still involves obeying it (Jeremiah 31:33).

 

[Religiot]

Obviously it was found in some WAY older translations.

Actually, no, it wasn't.

That is solely a modern addition, found nowhere amongst published ancient bibles.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Luke here, says nothing of clean foods nor unclean foods, but is solely talking about hypocrisy.

The verse, now, with context:

"And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you. But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them." --Luke 11:37-44

"All things are clean unto you." Means plainly, by the context, that they will be clean, both inside and out, by doing what is right: He then says, "But woe unto you, Pharisees!", and goes on to further explain what He is trying to get them to understand, namely, that they mind the little things, as they should, but ignore the big things, to their detriment.

Harmonizing all the accounts, it is easy to see that, not only was the Lord rebuking them for adding to the law their traditions of washing hands, but also rebuking them for not keeping the actual law! lol

How this has become a passage about clean vs unclean foods, cannot be extrapolated from what the actual text says, but solely from the traditions of men.

So do you think the parallel passage in Mark, which specifically refers to foods, was not in the original manuscripts?

 

[Hammster]

Actually, no, it wasn't.

That is solely a modern addition, found nowhere amongst published ancient bibles.

You might want to go back a bit further.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You might want to go back a bit further.

Can you be specific...

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

Do


Do you think God was wrong to command it, or the scripture was wrong to record it?

HI Carl. Thanks for responding.
Unless your asking if I think the scripture was recorded incorrectly, I'm not understanding how these two options present a valid "either/or". But regardless, I don't want to take the position that God was wrong to command anything. I'm just struggling with the Bible when I come across these type of things that seem contradictory. I mean, kill your own son if he's rebellious? (Seems like half the population would be wiped out if rebellious teenagers are to be stoned to death). Doesn't seem to line up with love, mercy, forgiveness, etc....

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

That is the law given to the nation of Israel.

thanks for the reply, rallian.
So, the ten commandments was only intended for Israel, then?

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

Jesus was not in disagreement with what the Father had commanded, but rather forgiving those who trespass against us is in in regard to personal offenses. In Numbers 35:31, it prohibits there being a ransom in the case of murderers, so the exception proves the rule that a ransom is permitted in other cases. The harshness of the prescribed penalty was to show the seriousness of the offense, while the light penalty given was to show the mercy of God. So Jews do not have a history of executing someone every time that God's law prescribed it, but usually imposed a fine instead. Furthermore, there were requirements that made executions rare, such as with no one being put to death without at least two or three witnesses, and with false witnesses being given the same penalty that the person that they testified against would have received. In fact, a Sanhedrin that executed someone once every 70 years was considered to be murderous, and there is no evidence that a rebellious son was ever executed.

Sin is the transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4) and God's law prohibits eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14), so it is a sin to eat pork chops. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from God's law, so it is also a sin for someone to tell you that it is not a sin to eat pork chops. In Deuteronomy 13:4-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone was a false prophet who was not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying His law, so God did not allow any room for His children to follow anything who says that it is not a sin to eat pork chops. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so following those instructions is testifying about God's holiness, while not following those instructions is bearing false testimony against God's holiness.

View attachment 294643

thanks for the response, Soyeong.
Yeah, I would guess that it would be rare or if at all that a rebellious son would be executed. What parent would do that? What I'm interpreting from your response, though, is that, given how you defend the pork law, you think that a rebellious son, providing there are two witnesses (most likely the kid's younger sisters- lol), should be executed to this day per God's instructions. Is this correct?

 

[ralliann]

thanks for the reply, rallian.
So, the ten commandments was only intended for Israel, then?

No, There was law long before law was given Moses for Israel. Abraham kept law, and that law was retained in Moses law. Paul speaks of it as the law of faith, which James speaks of works of faith. Obviously the the nations had law as well, since God called Israel out to bring Judgement upon them and dispossess them because of their sin.

 

[Religiot]

So do you think the parallel passage in Mark, which specifically refers to foods, was not in the original manuscripts?

Again, the passage is not about what foods are clean or unclean, but that nothing entering into a man can make him unclean, save that which comes out of a man: the teaching, the context, in all, has nothing to do, at all, with clean and unclean foods, but hypocrisy.

For example, I could be force-fed swine, or tricked into eating swine, etc.; yet, swine itself cannot make me unclean, nothing can, save that which comes out of me.

Conversely, if I were to eat apples, believing that God did not want me to eat apples, but I did eat apples, presumptuously, to sin against God, then, the eating of apples, to me, would indeed make me unclean: not that apples are unclean, but that my rebellion is.

Likewise, God tells us what He wants us to eat and not to eat; therefore, to eat contrary to that which He has set aside as food for us, presumptuously, would be sin indeed. --mortal, in-fact, for that would be plain rebellion, which is true witchcraft, and no witch may enter into the Kingdom.

None of this is about food, period, but obedience.

 

[chilehed]

It clearly states in Deuteronomy 14:8 that we’re not to eat pork.

No. It clearly says that Jews aren't supposed to eat pork. The Mosaic Law was never binding on non-Jews.

 

[Religiot]

You might want to go back a bit further.

I'm always willing to learn, so please tell me, if you know of an older translation, that was published, that indeed contains the phrase. --I would truly appreciate it.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

It doesn't nullify the Ten Commandments at all because the Church, in the east and the west, has historically stated and taught and continues to state and teach that the ten commandments are obligatory, and possible to fulfill for the justified person, incidentally.

thanks for the reply, fhansen.
With all due respect to the Church, I'm going to consider the Bible as the better source. And with all due respect to the Bible, I'm going to consider the quotes attributed to God and Jesus as the better source.

 

[Hanging by a Thread]

No. It clearly says that Jews aren't supposed to eat pork. The Mosaic Law was never binding on non-Jews.

thanks for the reply, chilehed.
So wouldn't this render Leviticus, Deuteronomy, the ten commandments and most of the OT as irrelevant to non-jews?

 

[ralliann]

thanks for the reply, chilehed.
So wouldn't this render Leviticus, Deuteronomy, the ten commandments and most of the OT as irrelevant to non-jews?

Why would the law be irrelevant to non Jews? The covenant promises
concerning the nations are recorded there, not just Israel.
Ge 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. {many … : Heb. multitude of nations }
Ge 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. {Abraham: that is, Father of a great multitude }
Ro 4:17
Ro 4:18