Did Jesus end Kashrus?

I am a gentile believer and I guess I go with all things r permissible but not all profitable

edit

Open Heart said:

Sometimes folks quote Mark 7:18-19 to say that Jesus ended the dietary laws.

"And [Jesus] said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)"​

But there are problems with this interpretation. If Jesus were teaching the abrogation of Kashrus, why were Peter, James, Paul, etc., all keeping kosher? Why did none of them ever refer to this incident as an argument for giving up Kashrus? You would think that Paul at least, notorious Paul, would have cited it! But NO.

It's very telling, don't you think? Rather than giving up Kashrus, Paul testified under oath to have kept all the laws. James said he and the Messianic Jews in Jerusalem were all zealous for Torah. Peter said he had not eaten non-Kosher foods. (Acts 10;14) Surely if Jesus had taught that there was no longer a prohibition against unclean foods, this would not be the case!

This post was inspired by "Did Jesus Suspend the Observance of the Law?" http://www.catholicsforisrael.com/articles/torah-and-gospel/64-did-jesus-abrogate-the-law

Click to expand...

But Peter did teach against it, in Acts 10:9-11:18, as did Paul in Romans 14:14, Hebrews 9:10, and Hebrews 13:9.

ScottA said:

But Peter did teach against it, in Acts 10:9-11:18, as did Paul in Romans 14:14, Hebrews 9:10, and Hebrews 13:9.

Click to expand...

Nope. None of those are about eating unclean food. You need to read context and also understand that they were all observant Jews who would no more eat pork than you would pee on a church altar during service. Yes, it's that disgusting.

ScottA said:

But Peter did teach against it, in Acts 10:9-11:18, as did Paul in Romans 14:14, Hebrews 9:10, and Hebrews 13:9.

Click to expand...

Acts 10: Peter says it was about 'men' not about food.
Romans 14: is about Jewish believers sensitivities about food, drink, and pagan holidays. Compare with Avodah Zarah in the Mishnah.

Open Heart said:

Sometimes folks quote Mark 7:18-19 to say that Jesus ended the dietary laws.

"And [Jesus] said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)"​

But there are problems with this interpretation. If Jesus were teaching the abrogation of Kashrus, why were Peter, James, Paul, etc., all keeping kosher? Why did none of them ever refer to this incident as an argument for giving up Kashrus? You would think that Paul at least, notorious Paul, would have cited it! But NO.

It's very telling, don't you think? Rather than giving up Kashrus, Paul testified under oath to have kept all the laws. James said he and the Messianic Jews in Jerusalem were all zealous for Torah. Peter said he had not eaten non-Kosher foods. (Acts 10;14) Surely if Jesus had taught that there was no longer a prohibition against unclean foods, this would not be the case!

This post was inspired by "Did Jesus Suspend the Observance of the Law?" http://www.catholicsforisrael.com/articles/torah-and-gospel/64-did-jesus-abrogate-the-law

Click to expand...

3 Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
8 and the swine, because he parteth the hoof but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you; of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch. {S}
4 or if any one swear clearly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath, and it be hid from him; and, when he knoweth of it, be guilty in one of these things;

…21For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. 22It has happened to them according to the true proverb, "A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT," and, "A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire."


…36"Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37"But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes ' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.

10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:

11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.

12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?

14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:


13Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. 14But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth.…

…20With the fruit of a man's mouth his stomach will be satisfied; He will be satisfied with the product of his lips. 21Death and life are in the power of the tongue, And those who love it will eat its fruit. 22He who finds a wife finds a good thing And obtains favor from the LORD.…


To me imagery comes to mind.
If you don't see what I am showing with the scripture. I'll explain further.

Open Heart said:

It is always best to assume that others can't read your mind.

Click to expand...

A fault of mine I forget and assume I am understandable.

Open Heart said:

It is always best to assume that others can't read your mind.

Click to expand...

Start with deduction.

Open Heart said:

It is always best to assume that others can't read your mind.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah

Hope this helps.
This is something else from Black Elk.

You have noticed that everything an Indian does is in a circle, and that is because the Power of the World always works in circles, and everything tries to be round. In the old days when we were a strong and happy people, all our power came to us from the sacred hoop of the nation, and so long as the hoop was unbroken, the people flourished. The flowering tree was the living center of the hoop, and the circle of the four quarters nourished it. The east gave peace and light, the south gave warmth, the west gave rain, and the north with its cold and mighty wind gave strength and endurance.

This knowledge came to us from the outer world with our religion. Everything the Power of the World does is done in a circle. The sky is round, and I have heard that the earth is round like a ball, and so are all the stars. The wind, in its greatest power, whirls. Birds make their nests in circles, for theirs is the same religion as ours. The sun comes forth and goes down again in a circle. The moon does the same, and both are round. Even the seasons form a great circle in their changing, and always come back again to where they were. The life of a man is a circle from childhood to childhood, and so it is in everything where power moves. Our teepees were round like the nests of birds, and these were always set in a circle, the nation's hoop, a nest of many nests, where the Great Spirit meant for us to hatch our children.

Black Elk - Oglala Sioux

The root word is often used to refer to birds' nesting and nests. ("Every bird nests [shekinot] with its kind, and man with its like,

pat34lee said:

Nope. None of those are about eating unclean food. You need to read context and also understand that they were all observant Jews who would no more eat pork than you would pee on a church altar during service. Yes, it's that disgusting.

Click to expand...

You have it backwards. How is it that you think that the matter was EVER about food, now or with Israel? Is food the object of salvation, God's work among men?

It was NEVER about food.

ScottA said:

You have it backwards. How is it that you think that the matter was EVER about food, now or with Israel? Is food the object of salvation, God's work among men?

It was NEVER about food.

Click to expand...

Leviticus 1Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, 2"Speak to the children of Israel, saying, 'These are the living things which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. 3Whatever parts the hoof, and is cloven-footed, and chews the cud among the animals, that you may eat. 4"'Nevertheless these you shall not eat of those that chew the cud, or of those who part the hoof: the camel, because he chews the cud but doesn't have a parted hoof, he is unclean to you. 5The coney, because he chews the cud but doesn't have a parted hoof, he is unclean to you. 6The hare, because she chews the cud but doesn't part the hoof, she is unclean to you. 7The pig, because he has a split hoof, and is cloven-footed, but doesn't chew the cud, he is unclean to you. 8Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you.

Turns out scripture says it is about food.

And who is the 'you' in the aforementioned verses?

ScottA said:

You have it backwards. How is it that you think that the matter was EVER about food, now or with Israel? Is food the object of salvation, God's work among men?

It was NEVER about food.

Click to expand...

Correct. It's about obedience.

If you love me, keep my commands.
I never knew you, workers of lawlessness.
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father
Whoever then shall break one of the least of these commandments and shall teach others the same, he will be called least in the kingdom of the heavens
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous
Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me
We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands
And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands
for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury

ScottA said:

But Peter did teach against it, in Acts 10:9-11:18, as did Paul in Romans 14:14, Hebrews 9:10, and Hebrews 13:9.

Click to expand...

Acts 10:10-16 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

All kinds of animals were let down in Peter's vision in Acts 10, so why didn't Peter obey God by simply killing at eating one of the clean animals? Why did he object? The answer is that the Jews had made-made ritual purity laws that said that if something clean came into contact with something unclean, then it would become defiled or common (Mark 7:3-4). All of the animals in his vision were bundled in the sheet, so all of the clean animals had become common, thus when Peter objected by saying that he had never eaten anything common or unclean, he was saying that he had never violated that man-made ritual purity law or God's dietary laws. So by refusing to kill and eat a clean animal, he was disobeying God to obey man. Note that God did not rebuke Peter for calling clean animals unclean, but rather He said not to call common what He had made clean, thus God was only referring to the clean animals and saying not to mislabel them as common. Very consistently throughout the Bible man's laws are overruled while God's laws are upheld.

The context of Romans 14 is in the first verse, namely it is about disputable matters of opinion, not about the commands of God. Whether man regards one day over another is a very different from whether God does. We are not to keep God's Sabbath and Festivals because man esteemed those days above other days, but because God did and commanded us to keep them. The word use in Romans 14:14 is again using the word the refers to man's opinion of something being ritually unclean or common and is not the same word for when God declared certain animals to be clean or unclean. The Kingdom of God is not about judging each other over matters of human opinion, but it is about having a righteous and holy conduct in obedience to God, which does include God's dietary laws.


Matthew 15:20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

The same logic applies to Mark 7, where the context is about a man-made ritual purity law where eating kosher food with unwashed hands caused it to be defiled or common and therefore the person who ate it to become defiled or common. Jesus statement in the parallel account at the end of the discussion in Matthew 15:20 shows that the topic never switched from being about the man-made ritual purity law of being defiled by eating with unwashed hands. Furthermore, Mark 7:19 uses the word broma, which refers to the things that God has given as food, so again, Jesus was only speaking about food that was clean and was saying that clean food eaten with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.

ErezY said:

And who is the 'you' in the aforementioned verses?

Click to expand...

God's chosen people.

BelieveTheWord said:

Leviticus 1Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them, 2"Speak to the children of Israel, saying, 'These are the living things which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. 3Whatever parts the hoof, and is cloven-footed, and chews the cud among the animals, that you may eat. 4"'Nevertheless these you shall not eat of those that chew the cud, or of those who part the hoof: the camel, because he chews the cud but doesn't have a parted hoof, he is unclean to you. 5The coney, because he chews the cud but doesn't have a parted hoof, he is unclean to you. 6The hare, because she chews the cud but doesn't part the hoof, she is unclean to you. 7The pig, because he has a split hoof, and is cloven-footed, but doesn't chew the cud, he is unclean to you. 8Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you.

Turns out scripture says it is about food.

Click to expand...

Would it have helped if scripture stated instead of "you shall not eat", "this is not food, don't eat"