Are Christians allowed to eat pork under the New Covenant?

[BobRyan]

The Council of Jerusalem made it quite clear that Gentile believers need not be circumcised

I think we can all agree with that point. Gentiles were not required to be circumcised in the OT -- and we see them in the Synagogues in Acts 13, Acts 18:4, Acts 17:4 no need for circumcision even the non-Christian Jews were not requiring it of the gentiles as the NT shows.

It was a "made up" rule by certain Christian Jews.

Still eating diseased meat and rats (forbidden in scripture in Lev 11) would be just as harmful to Gentiles in the NT as in the OT.

 

[BobRyan]

Also, while all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are delivered from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law and shouldn't keep it (Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18),.

Matt 22 Jesus upholds the Law of Moses as containing the two most important commandments of all

Deut 6:5 - Love God with all your heart.
Lev 19:18 - Love your neighbor as yourself.

Says nothing along the lines "do not keep the scripture commands that Moses wrote" -

"Do not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 - is still in force. Even though Moses writes it.

In Mark 7:6-13 Christ condemns the removal of what Moses said because he equates it with "The Word of God" and the "Commandment of God" in those verses.

 

[Open Heart]

Still eating diseased meat and rats (forbidden in scripture in Lev 11) would be just as harmful to Gentiles in the NT as in the OT.

No one is saying to eat the meat of diseased animals. But there is no prohibition of Gentiles eating pig or shellfish or even rats. Noah was given permission to eat it ALL.

Poor rats, so misunderstood... the only rat I've ever known was my pet, very intelligent, trained, and affectionate. I miss him.

 

[Bible2+]

BobRyan said in post #442:

Says nothing along the lines "do not keep the scripture commands that Moses wrote" -

Note what the apostle Paul says:

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

2 Corinthians 3:6 ¶Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
12 ¶Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

This means all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, should stop trying to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. For the apostle Paul begins the passage by saying God has made "us" ministers "not of the letter" (2 Corinthians 3:6). By saying "us", Paul is including Jewish Christians, for Paul is a Jew (Acts 22:3). And by saying "ministers" (Greek: "diakonos", G1249), Paul means "servants" (cf. Romans 16:1). So in 2 Corinthians 3:6, Paul is saying the same thing as in Romans 7:6, where he says "we" (that is, including Jewish Christians) have been "delivered" from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, so "we" should serve "not in the oldness of the letter". Paul continues on in 2 Corinthians 3:6-18 to show all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, should stop trying to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, "for the letter killeth" (2 Corinthians 3:6).

 

[BobRyan]

No one is saying to eat the meat of diseased animals.

In fact God forbids it in Lev 11 along with forbidding the eating of rats.

Christ did not die on the cross to delete the scriptures that say that eating diseased meat and rats is out of God's will for mankind.

But there is no prohibition of Gentiles eating pig or shellfish or even rats. Noah was given permission to eat it ALL.

Your argument amounts to "God is allowed by me to say 'A' in Lev 11 for all mankind. But when He says 'B' He has gone too far and should not be listened to by Gentiles only Jews". There is nothing in that chapter that suggests God is setting you up as that sort of judged of scripture. I think we both agree on that point.

Noah has the Lev 11 Clean vs unclean animal rule -- known to him in Genesis 7 before the flood and Genesis 8 after the flood.

Clean animals were saved by 7's and unclean by 2's. That means that eating a few pigs would result in "pig extinction" whereas eating a few deer or sheep would not. Obviously Noah and his family were not eating the pigs. What is more given animals just as mankind was given plants to eat - allows for the same distinction since not all plants can be eaten without killing you. If you think you can eat all plants then spending a few days in the woods with no food will soon convince you to the contrary.

In any case this gentile will not be eating rats OR diseased meet - and Lev 11 is not the problem for mankind some have imagined it to be.

 

[Open Heart]

Noah has the Lev 11 Clean vs unclean animal rule -- known to him in Genesis 7 before the flood and Genesis 8 after the flood.

Clean animals were saved by 7's and unclean by 2's.

Noah has the SACRIFICIAL rule about clean animals. But he is given TO EAT everything that is on the face of the earth. THIS is the rule for Gentiles. Leviticus 11 is only for Israel (Jews).

 

[BobRyan]

Noah has the SACRIFICIAL rule about clean animals.

1. No text says "Noah had the sacrificial rule". But if we allow that God had only give mankind vegetation to eat until after the flood - and Noah was therefore vegetarian until after the flood - then it reasonable to assume that the clean and unclean distinctions of Lev 11 were being used as sacrificial animal rules by God's people before the flood.
2. the definition for "clean vs unclean" - terms you find in Genesis 7 and 8 - can only be found in Lev 11 - where the reader is told it is related to what is food for humans vs what is not. We could "invent" something else - but that is what Moses' readers would have known to use as interpretation for the terms in Genesis 7 and 8.
3. Noah is given the freedom to eat animals as well as plants - but even among the plants he could not eat them all - some were poison and not food. And there was no case where Moses or his readers thought that Noah should have been eating diseased meat or rats.
4. What is more - the numbers assigned to the animals (unclean by 2' and "clean by 7's) means NO unclean species would have survived a few months after the ark before they had been eaten into extinction by the 8 adult humans that came out of the ark. The reader could see this detail without a lot of difficulty.

Leviticus 11 is only for Israel (Jews).

Exodus 20 "do not take God's name in vain" is given to Israel --


Noah (who is not a Jew) is obeying the Lev 11 distinction between clean and unclean animal. Every unclean animal (only saved by 2's ) that is eaten equal "extinction".

You and I would not know about any unclean animals eaten - since that species would be extinct. The only animals left today are the clean and whatever unclean animal was not "eaten to extinction" given that it was saved only by 2's.

 

[Open Heart]

1. No text says "Noah had the sacrificial rule". But if we allow that God had only give mankind vegetation to eat until after the flood - and Noah was therefore vegetarian until after the flood - then it reasonable to assume that the clean and unclean distinctions of Lev 11 were being used as sacrificial animal rules by God's people before the flood.

There were two things animals were separated into clean and unclean for: eating and sacrifice. Since Noah was given everything that creeps to eat (even rats) we can assume that the focus of clean/unclean animals for him was sacrifice.

 

[Open Heart]

4. What is more - the numbers assigned to the animals (unclean by 2' and "clean by 7's) means NO unclean species would have survived a few months after the ark before they had been eaten into extinction by the 8 adult humans that came out of the ark. The reader could see this detail without a lot of difficulty.

You are taking the story literally. Let's not go there, or we shall have to deal with all the problems of housing those animals on an Ark that's only the size of Noah's.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I normally eat things that have faces (like cows and pigs), and occasionally some vegetables that are caramelized in butter and salt.

Agree......Cooking a pig's head is kind of creepy, but it's very tasty....

.

 

[FredVB]

That ... for Gentile believers at least, there is no reason why they can't eat pork.

To say that is to remain ignorant of every point I posted previously in this thread.

Noah has the SACRIFICIAL rule about clean animals. But he is given TO EAT everything that is on the face of the earth. THIS is the rule for Gentiles. Leviticus 11 is only for Israel (Jews).

There is no such rule for Gentiles to eat everything on the face of the earth, and it is such an unusual concept, I doubt you believe that just as stated that way. There were only mention of clean animals originally when people eating meat of animals had not been permitted. The burning meat had been smelled, though. When permission was given, it was with conditions you are not even acknowledging and so not obedient to.

 

[Open Heart]

To say that is to remain ignorant of every point I posted previously in this thread.

You know, some times people can read your points and still disagree.

 

[Open Heart]

There is no such rule for Gentiles to eat everything on the face of the earth

This is what God said to Noah, father of all Gentiles, in Genesis 9:3

Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

That means God told Noah that he could eat pigs, crabs, rats, ants... everything alive that moves. Since Noah is the father of all Gentiles, this covenant passes down to all humanity, except for the Children of Israel, with whom God made a narrower covenant.

 

[FredVB]

To say that is to remain ignorant of every point I posted previously in this thread.

You know, some times people can read your points and still disagree.

Where I would post my opinions it can be expected that readers will disagree, even then, in responses to me, they can post why they would disagree. When I post things as facts, responses are not very good if they don't bother with those things said, as if they weren't.

There is no such rule for Gentiles to eat everything on the face of the earth, and it is such an unusual concept, I doubt you believe that just as stated that way. There were only mention of clean animals originally when people eating meat of animals had not been permitted. The burning meat had been smelled, though. When permission was given, it was with conditions you are not even acknowledging and so not obedient to.

This is what God said to Noah, father of all Gentiles, in Genesis 9:3
Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
That means God told Noah that he could eat pigs, crabs, rats, ants... everything alive that moves. Since Noah is the father of all Gentiles, this covenant passes down to all humanity, except for the Children of Israel, with whom God made a narrower covenant.

I know the passage where permission for having meat was given, I deal with this anytime I contribute to where this subject is discussed. You're not noticing my response was not in disagreement to that but was to what you actually said before, which was not the same thing. The way you said it, God was saying you and everyone should eat everything on the face of the earth that lives and moves, and that was certainly far more than what God said or would have said, and I was pointing it out. That even you I think would not really believe, if you thought about it. God certainly gives allowance to those who refrain from having animal meat, it was never actually made a requirement to have. Since it is not as healthy (this being one of the points I made, as a fact, which has not had a response) God would not sensibly make it a requirement, with God's perfect will providing for our well-being.

When the permission was given, there were only enough of clean animals to use for food, to have when edible vegetation known for food was not growing adequately then, the other animals that were on the ark by twos of each kind would not be enough, if any of those other kinds were not to become extinct.

Since you have the position needing what Yahweh said to Noah passed down to everyone including you, you should know what I pointed out as another point, you are being disobedient, when you have meat that was prepared without first having the blood removed, that was an important part of that permission that was given. You also neglect that it was given in connection to sacrifices that were done, and the permission was not ever said to be for perpetuity, that it would always last. It wouldn't for there would be a return to the perfect design in the provision already given to start with, this is shown in the prophecies that were mentioned. When Jesus returns and reigns, there will be no suffering and harm or killing anymore under his rule, all creation groans for that relief which is coming. In fact, since he came and suffered for us, we don't have to have animals die for us. Many early Christians understood and didn't keep having meat.

 

[Open Heart]

The way you said it, God was saying you and everyone should eat everything on the face of the earth that lives and moves, and that was certainly far more than what God said or would have said, and I was pointing it out. That even you I think would not really believe, if you thought about it. God certainly gives allowance to those who refrain from having animal meat, it was never actually made a requirement to have. Since it is not as healthy (this being one of the points I made, as a fact, which has not had a response) God would not sensibly make it a requirement, with God's perfect will providing for our well-being.

I never said the Noahide covenant was that we HAD to eat meat. Only that we had permission to, that being vegetarian was not a requirement.

I disagree with you that eating meat is not healthy. I was a vegetarian for many years, and became and became a diabetic because of how much rice I ate. My weight is finally down to manageable levels and I am no longer diabetic, but that is largely because of the low carb (no white carbs) high protein (100 g/day) diet that my doctor put me on. There is no way I can do that diet without eating meat, which is the easiest way to get protein grams without overeating.

I think different people have different metabolisms. Some people seem to be designed for a vegetarian diet, some even a vegan diet. Others of us seem to be designed for a hunter-gatherer meat/fruit/veggie diet (no grains). I think it's important to live and let live.

 

[Bible2+]

Open Heart said in post #455:

I think it's important to live and let live.

Good point.

Romans 14:1 ¶Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

 

[FredVB]

Where I would post my opinions it can be expected that readers will disagree, even then, in responses to me, they can post why they would disagree. When I post things as facts, responses are not very good if they don't bother with those things said, as if they weren't.
I know the passage where permission for having meat was given, I deal with this anytime I contribute to where this subject is discussed. You're not noticing my response was not in disagreement to that but was to what you actually said before, which was not the same thing. The way you said it, God was saying you and everyone should eat everything on the face of the earth that lives and moves, and that was certainly far more than what God said or would have said, and I was pointing it out. That even you I think would not really believe, if you thought about it. God certainly gives allowance to those who refrain from having animal meat, it was never actually made a requirement to have. Since it is not as healthy (this being one of the points I made, as a fact, which has not had a response) God would not sensibly make it a requirement, with God's perfect will providing for our well-being.
When the permission was given, there were only enough of clean animals to use for food, to have when edible vegetation known for food was not growing adequately then, the other animals that were on the ark by twos of each kind would not be enough, if any of those other kinds were not to become extinct.
Since you have the position needing what Yahweh said to Noah passed down to everyone including you, you should know what I pointed out as another point, you are being disobedient, when you have meat that was prepared without first having the blood removed, that was an important part of that permission that was given. You also neglect that it was given in connection to sacrifices that were done, and the permission was not ever said to be for perpetuity, that it would always last. It wouldn't for there would be a return to the perfect design in the provision already given to start with, this is shown in the prophecies that were mentioned. When Jesus returns and reigns, there will be no suffering and harm or killing anymore under his rule, all creation groans for that relief which is coming. In fact, since he came and suffered for us, we don't have to have animals die for us. Many early Christians understood and didn't keep having meat.

I never said the Noahide covenant was that we HAD to eat meat. Only that we had permission to, that being vegetarian was not a requirement.
I disagree with you that eating meat is not healthy. I was a vegetarian for many years, and became and became a diabetic because of how much rice I ate. My weight is finally down to manageable levels and I am no longer diabetic, but that is largely because of the low carb (no white carbs) high protein (100 g/day) diet that my doctor put me on. There is no way I can do that diet without eating meat, which is the easiest way to get protein grams without overeating.
I think different people have different metabolisms. Some people seem to be designed for a vegetarian diet, some even a vegan diet. Others of us seem to be designed for a hunter-gatherer meat/fruit/veggie diet (no grains). I think it's important to live and let live.

But you did say this, "But he is given TO EAT everything that is on the face of the earth. THIS is the rule for Gentiles." That is not saying the same thing that is shown from scripture, which I certainly already knew. It should be referred to correctly, if not confusing others is important. With that permission, being vegetarian was then not required, but it is ironic that it is known to refer to that permission, and willingly be disobedient to the requirements with that permission, which I have mentioned several posts ago. It still is disregarded. The permission from God in the Bible is hardly needed, really, when it's going to be had anyway. Gentiles were going to do that, permission for it being forgotten, and apostles had to tell gentile believers, who didn't need to become Jewish, to still observe that.

I wish some like you were not giving a false testimony of vegetarianism. I say there is a way of being vegan, with a completely plant-based way of eating, that is absolutely the healthiest, for anyone, but that doesn't mean there are not unhealthy ways to eat as a vegetarian or even vegan. The healthy way is with a variety with good balance, not using the processed foods but just whole foods. It it not honest to eat in a unhealthy way, and then give testimony that being vegetarian was unhealthy. If you had a whole food plant-based way of eating, it really would reverse diabetes. This isn't just opinion, I have studies to refer to that show these things. So no, we don't have such different metabolisms that don't let being whole food plant-based work the best.

If is it really right to live and let live, you are not applying that right, and misapplying it to what is said from my posts and any others communicating it. I am not taking away from letting others live at all, which you can't say as much, and I am sharing the information, which does not at all take away from letting you or others live. It is useful and important information, and it is still with your choices to respond, and for how you respond.

Good point.
Romans 14:1 ¶Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

This is one of the most misapplied scriptures, being shown again. I was a believer for many many years, before even becoming vegetarian (which isn't needed to just become vegan, as I learned) and then being vegan. Was I not weak, until I then became weak? Is that how it is for any other believers becoming vegetarian or vegan? To be really honest, that passage is not about this. The context was about believers who were overly concerned about idolatry, which though really was an issue. It was not Paul telling his readers to use scripture to call others weak, that shouldn't even be done. It was for them to be accommodating, in the case for those who really were spiritually weaker. And neither of you would do what Paul says to do, that he was so willing to do. He said for their sake he would never eat meat again.

But what I have posted has nothing whatsoever to do with spiritual weakness, and you can't show there is any spiritual weakness from it. I see rather there is strength in such people who make change when seeing such things for it, and don't see such strength in others who don't.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No one is saying to eat the meat of diseased animals. But there is no prohibition of Gentiles eating pig or shellfish or even rats. Noah was given permission to eat it ALL.

Poor rats, so misunderstood... the only rat I've ever known was my pet, very intelligent, trained, and affectionate. I miss him.

I would try it.....

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5931901/recipes-for-the-post-apocalypse-how-and-why-to-eat-rat-meat
*snip*

Rat is a readily available street food in some Southeast Asian countries, and earlier editions of The Joy of Cooking contained instructions on the proper butchering of squirrels. But rodents have fallen out of favor in most Western cuisines, relegated to mere vermin. So how would you go about cooking a rat if you'd never tried it before?

What does it taste like?
They're gamey. I hear that they taste like rabbit a bit, but I haven't had rabbit yet.
Are there certain flavors that go especially well with rat meat?
We did find that a smokey flavor, like smoking the meat and dehydrating it into jerky, is quite tasty. And then we also used a basil sauce on the roasted rats. I've also had rats prepared in Atlanta with a barbecue glaze that was made with moonshine and those were really delicious.
Did you look to any other cultures that prepare rats in looking for flavors?
The first meal we knew that rats are prepared in Viet Nam and other Asian countries, so we looked for spicy flavors and flavors of those countries. That's what we used initially with the rats.........

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

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Noah has the SACRIFICIAL rule about clean animals. But he is given TO EAT everything that is on the face of the earth. THIS is the rule for Gentiles. Leviticus 11 is only for Israel (Jews).

That is my understanding also.
Does the verses below mean I can't eat beef cooked blood rare [which is how I like it]

Genesis 9:
2 "The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given.
3 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.
4 "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Acts 15:
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond these essential requirements:
29 You must abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

 

[Open Heart]

Does the verses below mean I can't eat beef cooked blood rare [which is how I like it]

It's fine to have rare beef. How much you cook meat has nothing to do with the amount of blood.

I'm not sure what the specific laws of the Noahide category of not cutting a limb from a live animal entail, but I know that modern butchers drain the blood before they sell the meat. Also, our society doesn't drink blood as some societies do. And finally, I can't think of any modern society that chops off limbs from live animals to eat, which was done at one time in history. The law has mostly to do with kindness to animals. Forcing chimpanzees to live in small cages would be a violation, IMHO. Blinding rabbits to make another stupid mascara (as if we don't have enough mascaras) is a violation, IMHO.