Why Am I Eating a Pork Chop?

Status
Not open for further replies.

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,021
4,233
USA
✟470,517.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I was sure Leviticus wrote we are not allowed to eat anything that swims.
Maybe you missed it:

Leviticus 11:9

‘These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers—that you may eat.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,179
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Depends if we believe God's Word or not. Where does it say we can eat pork in the scriptures? I can only find this about eating pork below and in God's laws in regards to not eating pork in Deuteronomy 14:8 and it does not say we should be eating it although it seems many will be eating it and other unclean foods just prior to the second coming according to Isaiah...

Isaiah 66:17, They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the middle, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, said the LORD.
Why would I need to follow every law of the old covenant?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ss51
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Why would I need to follow every law of the old covenant?
Where does it say in the new testament scriptures we can now eat pork? The new testament scriptures do not delete the old testament scriptures. Much of the new testaments scriptures come from the old testament scriptures.

As posted earlier I can only find this about eating pork below and in God's laws in regards to not eating pork in Deuteronomy 14:8 and it does not say we should be eating it although it seems many will be eating it and other unclean foods just prior to the second coming according to Isaiah...

Isaiah 66:17, They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the middle, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, said the LORD.

Which seems to agree with Paul here...

1 Corinthians 3:16-17, Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?[17], If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

Do you have scripture to show that we can now eat Pork and foods that God has called unclean and therefore should not be eaten?
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,012
25,179
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,718,562.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Where does it say in the new testament scriptures we can now eat pork? The new testament scriptures do not delete the old testament scriptures. Much of the new testaments scriptures come from the old testament scriptures.

As posted earlier I can only find this about eating pork below and in God's laws in regards to not eating pork in Deuteronomy 14:8 and it does not say we should be eating it although it seems many will be eating it and other unclean foods just prior to the second coming according to Isaiah...

Isaiah 66:17, They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the middle, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, said the LORD.

Which seems to agree with Paul here...

1 Corinthians 3:16-17, Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?[17], If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

Do you have scripture to show that we can now eat Pork and foods that God has called unclean and therefore should not be eaten?
You didn’t answer my question.
 
Upvote 0

Questioning Brother

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2014
495
264
✟77,924.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are you implying God is not all knowing? God tells us not to eat the blood of the meat but chicken and other animals are considered clean, so that theory doesn’t really make sense.
No. I am saying that the people of the time were not able to cook things properly due to lack of technology. God knew the correct temperature to cook pork, but the people had no thermometers to measure it with. Again a large part of it was a health code for people with no idea where diseases come from. Also, the point with the circumcising verses were that non-Jewish Christians were not subject to the old law. They were subject to the new covenant.
Galatians 3:24-25 ESV / 12 helpful votes
So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You didn’t answer my question.
Yet I asked the question first to you and you did not answer it? I asked where is the scripture that says we can now eat Pork? I showed you the scriptures from God's Word stating we should not. There is nothing in the new testament scriptures that deletes old testament health laws that I can see. The Mosaic laws for remission of sin? Yep these have changed (see Hebrews 7 to Hebrews 10). Gods health and dietary laws? - Nope. Nothing out there in the NT that says I am now free to eat bat stew soup either or the abomination of the mouse *Isaiah 66:17.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Religiot
Upvote 0

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,021
4,233
USA
✟470,517.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
No. I am saying that the people of the time were not able to cook things properly due to lack of technology. God knew the correct temperature to cook pork, but the people had no thermometers to measure it with. Again a large part of it was a health code for people with no idea where diseases come from. Also, the point with the circumcising verses were that non-Jewish Christians were not subject to the old law. They were subject to the new covenant.
Galatians 3:24-25 ESV / 12 helpful votes
So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

So you think that verse wipes out all the laws?

I think its best to let God speak for Himself and not question or add words to it. He said swine is unclean, not sure He has to give a reason why, but I am trusting its not heathy for us. God was going to know we would advance and the heath laws are just as relevant today as His eternal laws, the commandments. If you read each one they are just a relevant as they were when He wrote and spoke them. He is all knowing and second guessing Him because of this or that is not something I think we should do.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I think a lot of people will be in for a big surprise to learn when God said something, He actually meant it. He tells us this when He said He changes not. Hebrews 13:8. It’s the same God in the OT that is in the NT. When we start putting man made traditions in place of Gods Words, its something to be very weary of.

That was precisely the point our Lord was making in Mark 7, when he brushed aside the Kosher dietary restrictions.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
So you think that verse wipes out all the laws?

I think its best to let God speak for Himself and not question or add words to it. He said swine is unclean, not sure He has to give a reason why, but I am trusting its not heathy for us. God was going to know we would advance and the heath laws are just as revenant today as His eternal laws, the commandments. If you read each one they are just a relevant as they were when He wrote and spoke them. He is all knowing and second guessing Him because of this or that is not something I think we should do.

I think its best to pay attention to what the New Testament actually says. And what it makes clear is that the Jewish ceremonial law is no longer in effect. Gentile Christians are not to be circumcised (Acts 15), all meats are clean (Mark 7, Acts 10), and Sabbath observance is no longer mandatory*, insofar as Christ is the new Sabbath (Colossians 2:16-17).

*I of course liturgically observe the Sabbath to commemorate Christ’s repose on Easter Even in a tomb, after having remade the human race in His image on Friday.

What we need to focus on are not the customs of the Jews, but how through his passion how our Lord saved us from death. We must give thanks for our ransom paid on the precious and life giving Cross, and apply a theology centered on the Cross of Jesus and what He did for us. To quote the Byzantine divine office, come, let us fall down and worship Christ our God.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Taodeching
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SabbathBlessings

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 12, 2020
10,021
4,233
USA
✟470,517.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I think its best to pay attention to what the New Testament actually says. And what it makes clear is that the Jewish ceremonial law is no longer in effect. Gentile Christians are not to be circumcised (Acts 15), all meats are clean (Mark 7, Acts 10), and Sabbath observance is no longer mandatory*, insofar as Christ is the new Sabbath (Colossians 2:16-17).

*I of course liturgically observe the Sabbath to commemorate Christ’s repose on Easter Even in a tomb, after having remade the human race in His image on Friday.

What we need to focus on are not the customs of the Jews, but how through his passion how our Lord saved us from death. We must give thanks for our ransom paid on the precious and life giving Cross, and apply a theology centered on the Cross of Jesus and what He did for us. To quote the Byzantine divine office, come, let us fall down and worship Christ our God.
A lot of misinterpretation of scriptures, but you don’t seem to be open to anything, so be well. We again will have to agree to disagree.
 
Upvote 0

.Mikha'el.

7x13=28
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Supporter
May 22, 2004
33,059
6,418
39
British Columbia
✟997,551.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
Scripture also prohibits eating aquatic animals in the same chapter, but Jesus served fish to 5,000 people during his ministry. If the dietary laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were still in effect for everyone, that miracle (which began with three fish) would not have happened. So clearly the dietary laws changed.

No, not all aquatic animals. Any creatures with fins and scales are okay, just not other kinds of seafood.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fwGod

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2005
1,404
532
✟65,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It clearly states in Deuteronomy 14:8 that we’re not to eat pork.
No, it clearly is for those living in the days of the old testament, abiding by the old covenant to not eat pig meat.

Read the new testament the epistles of the apostle Paul.. we are the body of Christ, we not under the law but under grace.
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.
That text is why Stephen was stoned. Were the Jews right in doing it?
It's also why Saul of Tarsus was going around arresting Christians for prison or death. Was he right in doing it?
It's also why the Jews called for Jesus' crucifixion. Were they right in doing it?
It's why Peter was jailed. The saints prayed and an angel got him out. Was that a right thing?
It's also why Paul was martyred.
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.
That's why Peter denied the Lord. And why the disciples of Jesus went to hide during and after his crucifixion.
21:18: Kill your own son if he is rebellious.
Guess what.. There are in these present days many Jews who are not religiously so. It would be supposed that even among family members they are only secular Jews. Yet there is no news reports of family leaders stoning their children for refusing to be religious.

You need to go over to the Hebrew- Jewish section on this forum and inquire of them why they don't keep those old testament laws.
Thou shalt not kill,
The word is murder. "You shall not murder". During war the warriors killed their enemies. In Chronicles God helped them. And David killed Goliath. When they got to the promised land God expected them to possess that land by ridding it of the giants. But much of the men were scared and in unbelief. God was not happy with that generation.
The text says in Ecclesiastes that "there is a time to kill and a time to heal."
but Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Exodus is full of examples like this where we are to kill people for sinning.
Again, we are not required to keep those old laws. The Jews don't even keep them as a people unto themselves. It's up to the civil laws of the land to deal with criminals.

The civil laws are on some level the same as the Biblical laws. Criminals risk the death penalty when they murder someone.
What about “as we forgive those who trespass against us”?
Now you switch to the other end of the stick.

But if we are to forgive then why are we to stone sinners? The two are contradictory to each other.. until they are each looked at more clearly.

The first part of that verse is "Forgive us O Lord as we forgive those who trespass against us."

There's a difference between someone doing a wrong and the person wronged forgiving that person. The further text says that if we refuse to forgive then our heavenly Father will not forgive us of our wrongdoings to others. Because we are to forgive others as God in Christ has forgiven us. So when we forgive it's a guarantee that we are forgiven by God.
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.
Faith is derived from the covenant requirements. If we don't forgive, God will not forgive us, God will not hear our requests in prayer, we cannot pray any righteous prayers because we are unrighteous because of the sin of forgiveness of someone who did wrong to us., our faith won't work for us, because faith works by love, we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. We are to forgive as God in Christ has forgiven us.
So why is it OK to have a pork Bratwurst at the church fundraising event these days when God clearly forbids it?
Is there no new testament.. that we are to be subject to the old testament in regard to food laws?

Even though modern food preparation practices have changed from the way they were back then.
The food laws of the old testament have reached their expired date when Jesus hung on the cross.

In the old testament days the preparing of meat was less sanitary. And the meat in those days could have been cut by pagans who sought their pagan gods to make them successful in their trade. They even took portions of the meat to sacrifice it to their pagan gods and then offered it to the public for consumption.

Those were the things that God was against.

Today there are many required federal laws to go by in preparing meats so the dangers are not as great as they were back then. Today so many businesses are secular rather than religious so not much spiritual dangers there either.

Nowadays eating a bratwurst is only a personal health issue.
You could argue that things were different back then and don’t apply today. But that would nullify the Ten Commandments.
The food laws are not on the same level as the ten commandments. So no one should put the two topics on an equal rating.
These laws I’m referring to were issued on the same day. They just didn’t make the top ten list.
It doesn't matter that they were issued on the same day. The new testament replaced the old testament.

Before Noah's flood no one ate meat. After the flood God allowed them to eat meat. In the old testament certain foods were not kosher. In the new testament all foods are kosher.

Throughout all things recorded in the Bible God guided people according to His primary ways as given in the ten commandments. They are His spiritual laws that don't change over time. They are still in force today because they still relate to common sins that occur today.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,444
3,769
Eretz
✟317,023.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Scripture also prohibits eating aquatic animals in the same chapter, but Jesus served fish to 5,000 people during his ministry. If the dietary laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy were still in effect for everyone, that miracle (which began with three fish) would not have happened. So clearly the dietary laws changed.

Where is there prohibition against eating fish with fins and scales? Yeshua served fish...kosher fish...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LoveGodsWord
Upvote 0

Yeshua HaDerekh

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it
May 9, 2013
11,444
3,769
Eretz
✟317,023.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
we are the body of Christ, we not under the law but under grace.

Sin is defined as transgression of the law...why do you need grace then? You need grace because you DO sin...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Religiot

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2020
1,046
384
Private
✟29,006.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Thanks. Yes, I know He ate meat.

Full disclosure... I edit my posts a billion times after the fact, because I am awful at proofreading. I reworded my post to more clearly express what I was trying to convey.

I truly believe that dietary laws are binding, not as a salvation issue, but as a health issue. God wants His creation to be healthy and live a long life. I also believe it has an impact on spiritual well-being.

It's okay to disagree with my position. Just giving food for thought (pun intended).
I believe that to disobey God in anything, presumptuously, is mortal sin.

If a man understands that God forbids anything, whether it swine or fornication, and that man continues in, and justifies his rebellion, then that man is lost, and does not love God, but himself.
 
Upvote 0

LoveGodsWord

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2017
22,242
6,634
Queensland
Visit site
✟252,319.00
Country
Australia
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I think its best to pay attention to what the New Testament actually says. And what it makes clear is that the Jewish ceremonial law is no longer in effect. Gentile Christians are not to be circumcised (Acts 15), all meats are clean (Mark 7, Acts 10), and Sabbath observance is no longer mandatory*, insofar as Christ is the new Sabbath (Colossians 2:16-17).

*I of course liturgically observe the Sabbath to commemorate Christ’s repose on Easter Even in a tomb, after having remade the human race in His image on Friday.

What we need to focus on are not the customs of the Jews, but how through his passion how our Lord saved us from death. We must give thanks for our ransom paid on the precious and life giving Cross, and apply a theology centered on the Cross of Jesus and what He did for us. To quote the Byzantine divine office, come, let us fall down and worship Christ our God.

I agree that it is a good idea to pay attention to what the new testament scriptures actually say. It is true that the Jewish ceremonial laws for remission of sins and circumcision are not in effect as in Acts 15. Paul says these do not matter but the keeping of the commandments of God do matter in 1 Corinthians 7:19. No where in the scriptures does it say in Mark 7 that Jesus is saying all foods are now clean as the context is to washing of pots and cups and neither does it say in Acts 10 all food is now clean as the context of the vision was understood to mean gentile believers are not unclean in Gods' eyes.

It also does not make any difference to me which translations are used in MARK 7:19 for the Greek word καθαρίζον used for clean means to purify ("declared" is not in the Greek it was added by the translators) the application of either Greek words meanings of course is chapter context and subject matter which determines the correct interpretation of the scriptures. They do not fit your interpretation that JESUS is saying all unclean foods are now clean as that is not the context and subject matter of both the scripture *MARK 7:19 and of the chapter context shown in MARK 7:2-23.

Using a single Greek word καθαρίζον which means "purify; cleanse make clean" (declared being added by the translators that is not in the Greek) is in context in the scripture to the word ἐκπορεύομαι which means to go out of the body or purge and after of course πάντα βρώματα (all food). The chapter context of course is to the washing of cups and pots and hands making someone κοινόω unclean or defiled not "unclean foods" *MARK 7:2-5 not to eating unclean foods prohibited in God's dietary laws of Leviticus 11.

The point of the scripture being to the chapter context and subject matter, is not the "washing of pots and cups and not washing of the hands that makes a man unclean a man (defiled)" (Mark 7:8) but breaking God's commandments and what comes out of the heart and mouth of the man that defiles (makes unclean) a man.

The context of making all meats clean is to the "purging out of the body" of impurities from not washing cups and pots and it is following man made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God over the Word of God that defile (makes unclean) the man, not what one eats which passes out of the man *Mark 7:2-23. The chapter subject matter is not to eating unclean foods as they were all JEWS who followed the food laws of Leviticus 11 but the subject matter was to eating food with unwashed hands, pots and cups *Mark 7:2-5.

To make clean, to cleanse; a. from physical stains and dirt. You can see that the application here is to the context of "purging out or cleansing all food from the system by passing out that which is impure or unclean" from the body. That is, the nutritious part of the food remains while that which is defiled or unclean passes out of the man.

The above post I hope demonstrated the context of MARK 7:2-23 and context supersedes word definitions for scripture and chapter interpretations in the Hebrew and the Greek.

The context of Mark 7:2-23 is to pots and cups not clean and unclean foods prohibited from the old testament dietary laws of Leviticus 11.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
NT 2511: καθαρίζω
καθαρίζω (Hellenistic for καθαίρω, which classic writings use); Attic future (cf. Buttmann, 37 (32); Winers Grammar, § 13, 1 c.; WH's Appendix, p. 163) καθαριῶ (Hebrews 9:14); 1 aorist ἐκαθάρισα (see below); present passive καθαρίζομαι; 1 aorist passive ἐκαθαρίσθην; perfect passive participle κεκαθαρισμενος (Hebrews 10:2 T Tr WH; on the forms ἐκαθερισθη, T WH in Matthew 8:3; Mark 1:42 (ἐκαθερισεν, Tr in Acts 10:15; Acts 11:9) and κεκαθερισμενος Lachmann in Hebrews 10:2, cf. (Tdf. Proleg., p. 82; WH's Appendix, p. 150); Sturz, De dial. Maced. etc., p. 118; Delitzsch on Hebrews 10:2; Krüger, Part ii. § 2, 2, 6, p. 4; (Buttmann, 29 (25f); Winer's Grammar, 43)); (καθαρός; the Sept. mostly for טִהַר;

1. to make clean, to cleanse;
a. from physical stains and dirt: e. g. utensils, Matthew 23:25 (figuratively, Matthew 23:26); Luke 11:39; food, Mark 7:19; τινα, a leper, to cleanse by curing, Matthew 8:2; Matthew 10:8; Matthew 11:5; Mark 1:40-42; Luke 4:27; Luke 5:12; Luke 7:22; Luke 17:14, 17 (Leviticus 14:8); to remove by cleansing: ἡ λέπρα ἐκαθαρίσθη, Matthew 8:3 (καθαριεῖς τό αἷμα τό ἀναίτιον ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, Deuteronomy 19:13; ἐκαθαριζε τήν περί ταῦτα συνήθειαν, the custom of marrying heathen women, Josephus, Antiquities 11, 5, 4; καθαιρεῖν αἷμα, Homer, Iliad 16, 667; cf. ἐκκαθαίρω).

.................

First lesson from the above section of Mark 7 is that Context matters in regards to interpretation of the scriptures.. Let's now look at Acts 10?

ACTS 10:1-28
1, There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, 2, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always. 3, He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. 4, And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. 5, And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: 6, He lodges with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what you should do. 7, And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually; 8, And when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.................

9, On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10, And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12, Wherein were all manner of four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13, And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14, But Peter said, NOT SO LORD FOR I HAVE NEVER EATEN ANYTHING THAT IS UNCLEAN AND COMMON.

15, And the voice spake unto him again the second time, WHAT GOD HAS CLEANSED, THAT DO NOT CALL COMMON.

16, This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

17, Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

Now the question here to consider is what was it that God had cleansed and we should not call common, this is what Peter was thinking about. WHILE PETER WAS THINKING ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE VISION. The praying gentile that believed God was at his gate asking for Peter...

18, And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

19, While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

20, Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

What was it that God was teaching Peter.....

27, And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.

28, And he said unto them, YOU KNOW THAT IT IS AN UNLAWFUL THING FOR A MAN THAT IS A JEW TO KEEP COMPANY, OR COME UNTO ONE OF ANOTHER NATION; BUT GOD HAS SHOWN ME THAT I SHOULD NOT CALL ANY MAN COMMON OR UNCLEAN

So the vision was not about saying that all foods are clean but that now all men are now clean and that the Believers can preach the Gospel to the Gentiles...

...................

Finally there is no scripture anywhere in the bible that says Jesus is a Sabbath. I hear that a lot but that is an unbiblical false teaching that cannot be shown in scripture in order to deny God's 4th commandment. So let's rightly divide the Word of truth. So what we agree on here is that we should pay attention to what the New testament actually teaches. We can only do this by seeking God for His Spirit so we can rightly divide the words of truth. Context matters.

Blessings.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Where is there prohibition against eating fish with fins and scales? Yeshua served fish...kosher fish...

My point was if Mosaic law banned eating fish, the fact Jesus served fish means dietary limitations are not in effect anymore. For some reason I kept thinking all aquatic animals are banned after reading the verse about it. Apparently whatever Jesus fed the Israelites was always allowed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Religiot
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I agree that it is a good idea to pay attention to what the new testament scriptures actually say. It is true that the Jewish ceremonial laws for remission of sins and circumcision are not in effect as in Acts 15. Paul says these do not matter but the keeping of the commandments of God do matter in 1 Corinthians 7:19. No where in the scriptures does it say in Mark 7 that Jesus is saying all foods are now clean as the context is to washing of pots and cups and neither does it say in Acts 10 all food is now clean as the context of the vision was understood to mean gentile believers are not unclean in Gods' eyes.

It also does not make any difference to me which translations are used in MARK 7:19 for the Greek word καθαρίζον used for clean means to purify ("declared" is not in the Greek it was added by the translators) the application of either Greek words meanings of course is chapter context and subject matter which determines the correct interpretation of the scriptures. They do not fit your interpretation that JESUS is saying all unclean foods are now clean as that is not the context and subject matter of both the scripture *MARK 7:19 and of the chapter context shown in MARK 7:2-23.

Using a single Greek word καθαρίζον which means "purify; cleanse make clean" (declared being added by the translators that is not in the Greek) is in context in the scripture to the word ἐκπορεύομαι which means to go out of the body or purge and after of course πάντα βρώματα (all food). The chapter context of course is to the washing of cups and pots and hands making someone κοινόω unclean or defiled not "unclean foods" *MARK 7:2-5 not to eating unclean foods prohibited in God's dietary laws of Leviticus 11.

The point of the scripture being to the chapter context and subject matter, is not the "washing of pots and cups and not washing of the hands that makes a man unclean a man (defiled)" (Mark 7:8) but breaking God's commandments and what comes out of the heart and mouth of the man that defiles (makes unclean) a man.

The context of making all meats clean is to the "purging out of the body" of impurities from not washing cups and pots and it is following man made teachings and traditions that break the commandments of God over the Word of God that defile (makes unclean) the man, not what one eats which passes out of the man *Mark 7:2-23. The chapter subject matter is not to eating unclean foods as they were all JEWS who followed the food laws of Leviticus 11 but the subject matter was to eating food with unwashed hands, pots and cups *Mark 7:2-5.

To make clean, to cleanse; a. from physical stains and dirt. You can see that the application here is to the context of "purging out or cleansing all food from the system by passing out that which is impure or unclean" from the body. That is, the nutritious part of the food remains while that which is defiled or unclean passes out of the man.

The above post I hope demonstrated the context of MARK 7:2-23 and context supersedes word definitions for scripture and chapter interpretations in the Hebrew and the Greek.

The context of Mark 7:2-23 is to pots and cups not clean and unclean foods prohibited from the old testament dietary laws of Leviticus 11.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
NT 2511: καθαρίζω
καθαρίζω (Hellenistic for καθαίρω, which classic writings use); Attic future (cf. Buttmann, 37 (32); Winers Grammar, § 13, 1 c.; WH's Appendix, p. 163) καθαριῶ (Hebrews 9:14); 1 aorist ἐκαθάρισα (see below); present passive καθαρίζομαι; 1 aorist passive ἐκαθαρίσθην; perfect passive participle κεκαθαρισμενος (Hebrews 10:2 T Tr WH; on the forms ἐκαθερισθη, T WH in Matthew 8:3; Mark 1:42 (ἐκαθερισεν, Tr in Acts 10:15; Acts 11:9) and κεκαθερισμενος Lachmann in Hebrews 10:2, cf. (Tdf. Proleg., p. 82; WH's Appendix, p. 150); Sturz, De dial. Maced. etc., p. 118; Delitzsch on Hebrews 10:2; Krüger, Part ii. § 2, 2, 6, p. 4; (Buttmann, 29 (25f); Winer's Grammar, 43)); (καθαρός; the Sept. mostly for טִהַר;

1. to make clean, to cleanse;
a. from physical stains and dirt: e. g. utensils, Matthew 23:25 (figuratively, Matthew 23:26); Luke 11:39; food, Mark 7:19; τινα, a leper, to cleanse by curing, Matthew 8:2; Matthew 10:8; Matthew 11:5; Mark 1:40-42; Luke 4:27; Luke 5:12; Luke 7:22; Luke 17:14, 17 (Leviticus 14:8); to remove by cleansing: ἡ λέπρα ἐκαθαρίσθη, Matthew 8:3 (καθαριεῖς τό αἷμα τό ἀναίτιον ἐξ Ἰσραήλ, Deuteronomy 19:13; ἐκαθαριζε τήν περί ταῦτα συνήθειαν, the custom of marrying heathen women, Josephus, Antiquities 11, 5, 4; καθαιρεῖν αἷμα, Homer, Iliad 16, 667; cf. ἐκκαθαίρω).

.................

First lesson from the above section of Mark 7 is that Context matters in regards to interpretation of the scriptures.. Let's now look at Acts 10?

ACTS 10:1-28
1, There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, 2, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always. 3, He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. 4, And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. 5, And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: 6, He lodges with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what you should do. 7, And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually; 8, And when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.................

9, On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10, And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12, Wherein were all manner of four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13, And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14, But Peter said, NOT SO LORD FOR I HAVE NEVER EATEN ANYTHING THAT IS UNCLEAN AND COMMON.

15, And the voice spake unto him again the second time, WHAT GOD HAS CLEANSED, THAT DO NOT CALL COMMON.

16, This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

17, Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

Now the question here to consider is what was it that God had cleansed and we should not call common, this is what Peter was thinking about. WHILE PETER WAS THINKING ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE VISION. The praying gentile that believed God was at his gate asking for Peter...

18, And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

19, While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

20, Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

What was it that God was teaching Peter.....

27, And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.

28, And he said unto them, YOU KNOW THAT IT IS AN UNLAWFUL THING FOR A MAN THAT IS A JEW TO KEEP COMPANY, OR COME UNTO ONE OF ANOTHER NATION; BUT GOD HAS SHOWN ME THAT I SHOULD NOT CALL ANY MAN COMMON OR UNCLEAN

So the vision was not about saying that all foods are clean but that now all men are now clean and that the Believers can preach the Gospel to the Gentiles...

...................

Finally there is no scripture anywhere in the bible that says Jesus is a Sabbath. I hear that a lot but that is an unbiblical false teaching that cannot be shown in scripture in order to deny God's 4th commandment. So let's rightly divide the Word of truth. So what we agree on here is that we should pay attention to what the New testament actually teaches. We can only do this by seeking God for His Spirit so we can rightly divide the words of truth. Context matters.

Blessings.

Forgive me, but your interpretation makes no sense at all, because our Lord actually said “what goes into a man does not defile him.” It’s that simple. The convoluted attempt to suggest Jewish ceremonial laws, which the dietary restrictions are considered to be a part of, even by Jews, are binding on Christians amounts to casuistry. Why should we interpret the New Testament in such a non-literal manner while interpreting the Old so literally?

But we also have a more compelling witness, that being the ancient church which compiled the NT canon. The bishops at Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus and the other ecumenical councils, as well as the great martyrs and confessors who led the church of the second and third centuries, such as Saints Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, and Peter of Alexandria, did eat pork and shellfish except during the fasts, and they also worshipped on Sunday, and the proof of their doctrinal correctness is the blood they and their disciples shed. St. Ignatius, for example, was devoured by lions in the Coliseum. The holy martyrdom of the early church, first at the hands of the Roman Empire until Theodosius came to power (there was also a brief respite under Constantine, but when he died, his Arian son took over, and the Arians persecuted the Christians), and the Persians and Indians (St. Thomas the Apostle was martyred there), and later the Muslims and the Communists, validate their doctrines. And this church condoned the eating of pork and shellfish. Indeed shellfish and caviar are the only meats permitted to the Eastern Orthodox during Lent, and only in some EO churches, and only on certain days of the week.

The bottom line is this: the New Testament has priority. Jesus Christ, who is God, declared a New Covenant. The Old Covenant is no longer in effect. This is why we no longer sacrifice animals, because He sacrificed himself for our sakes, and in the Eucharist we partake of the blood of the new covenant. This is why in another post I argued the SDA needs to put crosses in all its churches, to remind parishioners of what our Lord God Incarnate did for them.

As a strict aside, based on Acts 15, I privately believe only the Noachide Laws are in effect, and not the Ten Commandments per se, because the Ten Commandments were epitomized by our Lord into two, and his more concise way of expressing them is superior to the more verbose manner they were expressed by Moses (I believe that the Two Commandments were on the two tablets of stone, and the Ten Commandments were an exegesis thereof, but since I was not present on Mount Sinai, this is what the Greeks call a theologoumemnon, or Theological Opinion. As such I do not teach it in church or regard it as doctrine).
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.