Eating Pork

[Crankitup]

In the process of hermeneutics, these meanings in scripture are what we call both explicit and implicit truths.

For me the meaning of Peter's vision is clear and unambiguous. It wasn't clear to him initially (v 17) but luckily the Holy Spirit guided him. If there's a secondary meaning in the passage, I doubt it's about pork. It would be more likely something to do with being fully open and receptive to the Holy Spirit's direction when you are confused about His leading.

Acts 10:15 And the voice came to him again a second time, What God has cleansed and pronounced clean, do not you defile and profane by regarding and calling common and unhallowed or unclean. 16 This occurred three times; then immediately the sheet was taken up to heaven.
17 Now Peter was still inwardly perplexed and doubted as to what the vision which he had seen could mean, when [just then] behold the messengers that were sent by Cornelius, who had made inquiry for Simon's house, stopped and stood before the gate.
18 And they called out to inquire whether Simon who was surnamed Peter was staying there.
19 And while Peter was earnestly revolving the vision in his mind and meditating on it, the [Holy] Spirit said to him, Behold, three men are looking for you!
20 Get up and go below and accompany them without any doubt [about its legality] or any discrimination or hesitation, for I have sent them.

This is all really a side issue though, because as I've said before I don't believe any believer is made 'ceremonially unclean' by eating pork or shellfish, simply because Christ fulfilled the law.

In much the same way, no believer is made unclean or cursed by not rigorously following the OT tithe. We are instead advised in the NT to give cheerfully and not under compulsion.

 

[JoabAnias]

For me the meaning of Peter's vision is clear and unambiguous. It wasn't clear to him initially (v 17) but luckily the Holy Spirit guided him. If there's a secondary meaning in the passage, I doubt it's about pork. It would be more likely something to do with being fully open and receptive to the Holy Spirit's direction when you are confused about His leading.

In the first, and literal sense of hermeneutics it is explicity about foods.

In the context and understanding of the day in which it was written that passage would have been taken on explicit meaning about foods that the Jews had always held unclean and why Peter spoke explicitly of still not wanting to partake of those foods even after being shown they were now clean. This is why the vision admonished him to not call unclean what God had made clean. This is direct correlation to the dietary mitzvot and rather explicit.

There are other such examples in Scripture as well that have changed the praxis of Christianity in divergence from Judaism. Two such examples that immediately come to mind are Sunday worship (the Lords day - First day of the week) and the abrogation of circumcision as being necessary. In fact, the first schism from the Church, was the correction of the Judaizers as also indicated in the book of Acts. The Bereans, for example, verified the Mosaic prophesies in the Torah and correctly chose to accept Christ as the Messiah and followed the Apostles from then on.

If one takes a look at all 612 Judaic Mitzvot it becomes apparent how, and that they have indeed been fulfilled by Christ. One such example that comes to mind is that men without beards are a disgrace and to be stoned to death that I am sure anyone would find ridiculous.

What you are getting at are the deeper implicit meanings in the following verses. On the surface though, the primary interpretation is of the initial passage is the fulfillment of the dietary mitzvot for all those in Christ.

Again it comes down to Covenant which God himself has changed at different periods throughout Scriptural history. This example of the vision of Peter is but one example of how the new Covenant was fulfilled and proof of Gods promise to steer the Church - through Peter - where He wanted it to go.

More recommended reading:

The Covenantal Structure of the Bible:
An Introduction to the Bible

by Rev. Ralph Allan Smith​

Chapter One: The Central Theme of the Bible
Chapter Two: What is a Covenant? (Part 1)
Chapter Three: What is a Covenant? (Part 2)
Chapter Four: The History of the Covenants (Part 1)
Chapter Five: The History of the Covenants (Part 2)
Chapter Six: The Edenic Covenant
Chapter Seven: The Post-Fall Promise
Chapter Eight: The Noahic Covenant
Chapter Nine: The Abrahamic Covenant
Chapter Ten: The Mosaic Covenant
Chapter Eleven: The Davidic Covenant
Chapter Twelve: The Restoration Covenant
Chapter Thirteen: The New Covenant

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Again it comes down to Covenant which God himself has changed at different periods throughout Scriptural history. This example of the vision of Peter is but one example of how the new Covenant was fulfilled and proof of Gods promise to steer the Church - through Peter - where He wanted it to go.

I was looking at the greek in Acts 10:11 and the greek word #746 is used and I always thought is was the same word used in Reve 20:8 concerning the "gog-magog" but they look different.
Thoughts?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Acts 10:11 and he is beholding the heaven having been opened and descending a certain vessel as a sheet, great, to four Corners/arcaiV <746> being let down upon the Land,

Reve 20:8 and he shall be coming out to deceive the nations, the in the Four Corners/gwniaiV <1137> of the Land, the Gog and magog, to be mobilizing them into the battle of which the number of them as the sand of the sea. [Ezekiel 7:1]

746. arche ar-khay' from 756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank):--beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.

1137. gonia go-nee'-ah probably akin to 1119; an angle:--corner, quarter.

 

[Crankitup]

In the first, and literal sense of hermeneutics it is explicity about foods.

In the context and understanding of the day in which it was written that passage would have been taken on explicit meaning about foods that the Jews had always held unclean and why Peter spoke explicitly of still not wanting to partake of those foods even after being shown they were now clean. This is why the vision admonished him to not call unclean what God had made clean. This is direct correlation to the dietary mitzvot and rather explicit.

There are other such examples in Scripture as well that have changed the praxis of Christianity in divergence from Judaism. Two such examples that immediately come to mind are Sunday worship (the Lords day - First day of the week) and the abrogation of circumcision as being necessary. In fact, the first schism from the Church, was the correction of the Judaizers as also indicated in the book of Acts. The Bereans, for example, verified the Mosaic prophesies in the Torah and correctly chose to accept Christ as the Messiah and followed the Apostles from then on.

If one takes a look at all 612 Judaic Mitzvot it becomes apparent how, and that they have indeed been fulfilled by Christ. One such example that comes to mind is that men without beards are a disgrace and to be stoned to death that I am sure anyone would find ridiculous.

What you are getting at are the deeper implicit meanings in the following verses. On the surface though, the primary interpretation is of the initial passage is the fulfillment of the dietary mitzvot for all those in Christ.

Again it comes down to Covenant which God himself has changed at different periods throughout Scriptural history. This example of the vision of Peter is but one example of how the new Covenant was fulfilled and proof of Gods promise to steer the Church - through Peter - where He wanted it to go.

More recommended reading:

The Covenantal Structure of the Bible:
An Introduction to the Bible

by Rev. Ralph Allan Smith​

Chapter One: The Central Theme of the Bible
Chapter Two: What is a Covenant? (Part 1)
Chapter Three: What is a Covenant? (Part 2)
Chapter Four: The History of the Covenants (Part 1)
Chapter Five: The History of the Covenants (Part 2)
Chapter Six: The Edenic Covenant
Chapter Seven: The Post-Fall Promise
Chapter Eight: The Noahic Covenant
Chapter Nine: The Abrahamic Covenant
Chapter Ten: The Mosaic Covenant
Chapter Eleven: The Davidic Covenant
Chapter Twelve: The Restoration Covenant
Chapter Thirteen: The New Covenant

Well luckily for the Gospel's sake this isn't the meaning Peter took.

Acts 10:28 And he said to them, You yourselves are aware how it is not lawful or permissible for a Jew to keep company with or to visit or [even] to come near or to speak first to anyone of another nationality, but God has shown and taught me by words that I should not call any human being common or unhallowed or [ceremonially] unclean.

Unclean animals and dogs were seen as a metaphor for the Gentiles. Even Jesus used the metaphor.

 

[JoabAnias]

Well luckily for the Gospel's sake this isn't the meaning Peter took.

Acts 10:28 And he said to them, You yourselves are aware how it is not lawful or permissible for a Jew to keep company with or to visit or [even] to come near or to speak first to anyone of another nationality, but God has shown and taught me by words that I should not call any human being common or unhallowed or [ceremonially] unclean.

Unclean animals and dogs were seen as a metaphor for the Gentiles. Even Jesus used the metaphor.

Again, not an either or but a both and.

The entire context is missing in that one verse. I could just as easily repost the verse about unclean animals but that would also be out of context and it would be pitting scripture against scripture. All passages must be taken together to get the fullness of meaning.

I believe he took several meanings from the vision but the explicit one about unclean foods first.

Which is why he was free in the fulfillment of Christ through the New Covenant with God and Man to partake of foods previously forbidden as bound by the Mosaic laws.

You do know the Apostles were run out of the Synagogues in Jerusalem for what they were teaching contrary to Judaism right?

 

[thereselittleflower]

Greetings. I am the type that will just about eat anything and I do love pork-ribs and bacon. [I don't like lima beans though ]
Heck, Rambo ate things that would make a billy goat puke!

As far as Muslims, I think they still follow a lot of the Law of Moses and this one Muslim gave this reason why they do not eat pork:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=2885502&page=44&highlight=pork

Why Christians do eat pork despite its forbidden in the bible?!!.....................................

Pork prohibited in the Bible

The Christian is likely to be convinced by his religious scriptures. The Bible prohibits the consumption of pork, in the book of Leviticus

5. Pig is the most shameless animal

The pig is the most shameless animal on the face of the earth. It is the only animal that invites its friends to have sex with its mate. In America, most people consume pork. Many times after dance parties, they have swapping of wives; i.e. many say "you sleep with my wife and I will sleep with your wife." If you eat pigs then you behave like pigs.

Ummm . . . . .

The forbidding of pork was only to the Jews under the old covenant mosaic law .. . .

We are not jews and we are not gentiles. . . there are no jews in Christ just as there are no gentiles in Christ.

Pork was never forbidden to the non-jew.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Well luckily for the Gospel's sake this isn't the meaning Peter took.

Acts 10:28 And he said to them, You yourselves are aware how it is not lawful or permissible for a Jew to keep company with or to visit or [even] to come near or to speak first to anyone of another nationality, but God has shown and taught me by words that I should not call any human being common or unhallowed or [ceremonially] unclean.

Unclean animals and dogs were seen as a metaphor for the Gentiles. Even Jesus used the metaphor.

Of course it is part of the meaning Peter took . . . it is not either/or . .. .. it is both and.

Peter, when with the gentiles, ate and lived as the gentiles did .. . .so he ate pork.

 

[Crankitup]

The entire context is missing in that one verse.

I quoted the other part of Chapter 10 dealing with the vision in my prior post. There was no need to post it again. Especially since I was now focusing on what Peter understood his vision to mean, in his own words. All that Peter revealed about what God had shown him (about it's meaning) is contained in that verse. Once you get to heaven though maybe you can tell him what it really meant.

As to your final point, it's obvious you haven't read what I've stated on at least a couple of occasions regarding my view that Christ did indeed fulfill the law. I just don't use Acts 10 as my proof text for promoting pork and shellfish consumption because it's not about that AT ALL.

 

[Crankitup]

Peter, when with the gentiles, ate and lived as the gentiles did .. . .so he ate pork.

Actually, if you're referring to I Cor 9:19-23, then it's Paul who became all things to all men. Whether that extended to eating bacon or not scripture is silent, and one of the biggest faux pas in hermeneutics is an argument from silence.

 

[Romans 13:3]

Would anyone be willing to consider the reason that many foods were restricted in the ancient diet through dietary laws was that their consumption was filled with risk? Shellfish are susceptible to bacterial contamination and pork, especially in open range ancient times, was filled with intra-muscular parasites that lead to extreme health concerns for the eater of it. Dietary laws were a way for religion to protect its members.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Would anyone be willing to consider the reason that many foods were restricted in the ancient diet through dietary laws was that their consumption was filled with risk? Shellfish are susceptible to bacterial contamination and pork, especially in open range ancient times, was filled with intra-muscular parasites that lead to extreme health concerns for the eater of it. Dietary laws were a way for religion to protect its members.

That could be true, but dietary ordinances are viewed differently by different religions around the world.
Are the RCs prohibited by the Vatican from eating certain foods? Thanks

 

[Romans 13:3]

In a sense of fasting, yes; but not as an idea that a given foodstuff is unclean and should not be eaten.

 

[Romans 13:3]

... and gluttony and drunkenness are to be avoided as well. I good meal and nice drink of themselves are fine.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In a sense of fasting, yes; but not as an idea that a give foodstuff is unclean and should not be eaten.

Ok thanks.

LLOJ now unsubsribes to this thread

 

[JoabAnias]

As to your final point, it's obvious you haven't read what I've stated on at least a couple of occasions regarding my view that Christ did indeed fulfill the law. I just don't use Acts 10 as my proof text for promoting pork and shellfish consumption because it's not about that AT ALL.

I read everything you wrote and saw that you agreed with Christs fulfillment of the Law. Thats great yet here I don't think you are grasping the fullness of meaning in this scripture. You have part of it, but not all. I agreed with your points as well and perhaps we are speaking past each other a bit.

And though I am not using this passage as sole proof of the fulfillment of the Mosaic law either, because its not I agree, I am trying to show you that it is in fact explicitly related by reiterating to Peter the New Covenant fulfillment of the dietary mitzvot already accomplished by Jesus and as taught according to Apostolic teaching. Peter may have been sliding back into Judaic ways.

The part of the passage I am referring to is when Scripture plainly states:

12 In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air.
13 Then he heard a voice saying, &#8216;Get up, Peter; kill and eat.&#8217;
14 But Peter said, &#8216;By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.&#8217;
15 The voice said to him again, a second time, &#8216;What God has made clean, you must not call profane.&#8217;

Pork is a four footed creature.

Do you see the correlation from that and the dietary fulfillment now?

Peter was corrected in regard to the dietary fulfillment and as such this is a lesson to us as explicitly related to the New Covenant fulfillment of the old and fulfilled dietary laws.

Tread easy, because in this thread you have resurrected, and according to our FSG's, your not allowed to debate Catholic teaching here in OBOB and I don't want to see you get reported by someone for debating.

The following from the CCC below may help to better understand my point of view. It is a pious practice to reference the foot notes as well:

I. JESUS AND THE LAW


577 At the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus issued a solemn warning in which he presented God's law, given on Sinai during the first covenant, in light of the grace of the New Covenant:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets: I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law, until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.329

578 Jesus, Israel's Messiah and therefore the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, was to fulfill the Law by keeping it in its all embracing detail - according to his own words, down to "the least of these commandments".330 He is in fact the only one who could keep it perfectly.331 On their own admission the Jews were never able to observe the Law in its entirety without violating the least of its precepts.332 This is why every year on the Day of Atonement the children of Israel ask God's forgiveness for their transgressions of the Law. The Law indeed makes up one inseparable whole, and St. James recalls, "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."333

579 This principle of integral observance of the Law not only in letter but in spirit was dear to the Pharisees. By giving Israel this principle they had led many Jews of Jesus' time to an extreme religious zeal.334 This zeal, were it not to lapse into "hypocritical" casuistry,335 could only prepare the People for the unprecedented intervention of God through the perfect fulfillment of the Law by the only Righteous One in place of all sinners.336

580 The perfect fulfillment of the Law could be the work of none but the divine legislator, born subject to the Law in the person of the Son.337 In Jesus, the Law no longer appears engraved on tables of stone but "upon the heart" of the Servant who becomes "a covenant to the people", because he will "faithfully bring forth justice".338 Jesus fulfills the Law to the point of taking upon himself "the curse of the Law" incurred by those who do not "abide by the things written in the book of the Law, and do them", for his death took place to redeem them "from the transgressions under the first covenant".339

581 The Jewish people and their spiritual leaders viewed Jesus as a rabbi.340 He often argued within the framework of rabbinical interpretation of the Law.341 Yet Jesus could not help but offend the teachers of the Law, for he was not content to propose his interpretation alongside theirs but taught the people "as one who had authority, and not as their scribes".342 In Jesus, the same Word of God that had resounded on Mount Sinai to give the written Law to Moses, made itself heard anew on the Mount of the Beatitudes.343 Jesus did not abolish the Law but fulfilled it by giving its ultimate interpretation in a divine way: "You have heard that it was said to the men of old. . . But I say to you. . ."344 With this same divine authority, he disavowed certain human traditions of the Pharisees that were "making void the word of God".345

582 Going even further, Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation: "Whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him. . . (Thus he declared all foods clean.). . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts. . ."346 In presenting with divine authority the definitive interpretation of the Law, Jesus found himself confronted by certain teachers of the Law who did not accept his interpretation of the Law, guaranteed though it was by the divine signs that accompanied it.347 This was the case especially with the sabbath laws, for he recalls, often with rabbinical arguments, that the sabbath rest is not violated by serving God and neighbor,348 which his own healings did.

If you still don't see it now, I know of no other way to make it more clear.

Peace.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Actually, if you're referring to I Cor 9:19-23, then it's Paul who became all things to all men. Whether that extended to eating bacon or not scripture is silent, and one of the biggest faux pas in hermeneutics is an argument from silence.

where does it say that ONLY Paul became all things to all men?

It doesn't say that anywhere. It is very illogical to draw a conclusion that because Paul said HE became all things to all men that he is the ONLY one to do so . . .. He didn't say any such thing as he was the only one to do so.


Both Peter and Paul went to both the Jews and Gentiles. Both Peter and Paul lived with the gentiles as a gentile.

This is clear when everything in scripture about them is taken into consideration.


Even in the Council of Jerusalem Peter states that he was chosen by God to go the Gentiles .


Now, it is important that we discuss what is really factual. This is factual.

It is also factual that Paul taught to eat anything found in the market place, which would include pork . .. . . that is in scripture, so it is not conjecture or aruging from silence.

 

[Crankitup]

The part of the passage I am referring to is when Scripture plainly states:

12 In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air.
13 Then he heard a voice saying, &#8216;Get up, Peter; kill and eat.&#8217;
14 But Peter said, &#8216;By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.&#8217;
15 The voice said to him again, a second time, &#8216;What God has made clean, you must not call profane.&#8217;

Pork is a four footed creature.

Do you see the correlation from that and the dietary fulfillment now?

To answer your question first, no, not in Acts 10 anyway.

As I said before the 'creatures' were a metaphor for the Gentiles. The Jews metaphorically referred to the Gentiles as dogs. Some probably took the metaphor further and literally saw the Gentiles as somehow subhuman. Maybe that's why Jesus used the word 'creature' rather than 'men' in Mark 16:15 to ensure there was no confusion that He wanted the gospel preached to all mankind.

Mark 16:15 And He said to them, &#8220;Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

That part of Acts 10:15 you have highlighted in red; 'What God has made clean', refers to the Gentiles not to pigs. God had cleansed the Gentiles through Christ's sacrifice, not pigs!!

Something else should be mentioned here, just because Christ fulfilled the purpose of the law, doesn't make the law a bad thing.

As Paul says in Romans;

Romans 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

The fact is many Jewish Christians were and still follow the dietary law. Consider the following scripture;

Acts 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.

Not eating things that were strangled, or blood etc was part of the Mosaic Law!!! The Gentiles were told to follow the Mosaic Law in this respect, because if they practiced these things amongst their Jewish brethren still following the dietary laws, it would have been offensive.

Can you see that Jesus' fulfillment of the Law wasn't an excuse to then demonstrate our freedom by purposefully and willfully seeking to do the opposite of every command in the Mosaic Law?

For instance having sex with animals was specifically outlawed in Leviticus 20 as was having sex with your sister, brother etc. Does Christ's fulfillment of the law make these things OK again? I think we'd agree the answer is no.

Noah was told what was clean and unclean, and not to eat blood, before the law. The fact remains that some creatures were designed to be food and some weren't. Under the new covenant we're not made ceremonially unclean by eating them, but that doesn't mean they're particularly healthful. Eating the fat that covers/surrounds an animal's flesh was outlawed in Leviticus also. You're not made ceremonially unclean by munching on that pork crackling/rind from your roast, but is it healthy? If you say yes, I think modern science would disagree with you.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Greetings. I was under the impression non Catholics couldn't debate here and one reason I didn't post again. Sure looks like debating to me now.....Peace

 

[thereselittleflower]

From scripture:

He said to them, "Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) Mark 7:18-20
​

 

[Crankitup]

where does it say that ONLY Paul became all things to all men?

It doesn't. The bible is silent on the issue. Hence my argument. You cannot argue from silence. We can neither rule it out or in.