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
They were living among the Jewish population; avoiding the customs and traditions they were accustomed to - would definitely have caused a stumbling block for fellowship and the gospel. Not only that, but their Jewish identity would have been questioned, and certainly garnered prejudice and persecution from the localities and synagogues. As we know, Paul had some terrible persecution.
"“We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him."
When Paul arrives in Jerusalem and is plotted against and beaten, his reply is to acknowledge his roots. How he was zealous for the law, taught under Gamaliel and his conversion to Christ. Even this was not enough to stop the plot for his life. Paul made sure not to make offence against anyone, Caesar, Jews or the temple.
"while he answered for himself, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all.”
"And they listened to him until this word, and then they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he is not fit to live!”"
So we have mixed congregations of gentiles and Jews, some of which divides are being made. The Law of Moses has been preached from the earliest times, to stop this would have been a major stumbling block for converts. You cannot jump to meat before the milk.
"But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
"Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
"and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”
Peters vision surely can be interpreted to have double meaning. Certainly the statement (in my mind) of unclean applies to both food and the uncircumcised.
"And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again."
"And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”"
"and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses."
If we use the example of abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols (applying to a mixed congregation) - this was to not lead others astray. Yet a gentile church: meat sacrificed to idols was fine as long as (you guessed it) it didn't lead brothers astray. Tailored in those times as a means of fellowship and removing potential stumbling blocks.
"This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men."
"Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him."
In regards to the OP. To say conclusively on either side will always be ambiguous. What I do think is important, is following God in faith. Conscience bearing witness against you, whether you observe or not - do what you are certain of in your heart. Then, when we have to give answers, I don't think they will be lacking if we acted in faith.
"One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks."
"So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way."
"I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died."
"Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.
Sorry for my long-winded post. So to summarise: Our conscience bears witness to our decisions in life, I do not think anything of itself is unclean, yet if in the company of brothers who do - I would avoid it.
Using examples on either side are always viewed as ambiguous with the inherent bias of our minds. The law was practiced from the earliest times, so to stop would have seriously hindered the Gospel at that time. Question is: is that true now?
I welcome keeping to your identity, it truly saddens me when I see prejudice against it. I feel that a greater unity and a warmer welcome would be shown to our Jewish brothers and sister in the churches -
if we were more accepting. Just remember, the Law doesn't define you as Gods people, your heart does. And we know God searches the heart.
