why can we eat pork?

[stone]

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[OObi]

Judaizerism...

OHHH This is great debate material!!!

Shalom

 

[PaladinValer]

It is also quite true.

I'm not a Jew, I'm a Christian. Thanks to Jesus, I may eat all the shellfish, porkchops, and wear my polyester ties I wish.

I do not need to follow the ritual/holiness practices of Jews. If I did, I'm punching Jesus in the face and kicking Him in the groin. Those things are not salvific and the NT clearly states that they are not worthy of being followed anymore. Jesus however is...so follow Him, follow the spirit of the law, and He doesn't care how many piggies you consume or whether you eat a cheeseburger.

 

[8TarHeel8]

I'm just wondering why it is ok for christians to eat pork and shell fish and things that the bible says that we can't eat.

rockytriton,

The answer you are seeking is found 1 Corinthians 10:25-26:
Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake;
FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.

Paul also says:
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- (Colossians 2:16)

 

[rstrats]

8TarHeel8,


re: "The answer you are seeking is found 1 Corinthians 10:25-26:
Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake..."


The issue in 1 Corinthians 10 concerned meats offered to idols, not clean versus unclean animals.


re: "Paul also says:
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- (Colossians 2:16)"


How have you been able to rule out that Paul wasn’t simply telling the Colossians that they should not let anyone - other than the body of Christ, which is the church - criticize them for HOW they were observing the things mentioned in verse 16?

 

[OObi]

I'm not a Jew, I'm a Christian. Thanks to Jesus, I may eat all the shellfish, porkchops, and wear my polyester ties I wish.

Nor am I a Jew but a fellow Christian (look at the cool religious symbol by my name) and I'm sorry, but just because you say that doesn't make it true nor will it change the fact that there is no scriptural evidence for you to provide to support that position.

I do not need to follow the ritual/holiness practices of Jews. If I did, I'm punching Jesus in the face and kicking Him in the groin. Those things are not salvific and the NT clearly states that they are not worthy of being followed anymore.

I'm pretty sure you know the difference between Torah and talmud and we don't need to follow talmud, but we need to follow Torah. Jesus never did away with the law. In fact it says that word for word in Matthew 5:17. Jesus died for our sins so that we may go to heaven. That has nothing to do with the law. The law does not save you in anyway. Keeping to law perfectly will not get you closer to heaven then Hitler. I know this, the law is not a ticket to heaven. If Jesus had come to destroy to law, and I said that we need to keep the law, then I would be kicking Jesus. But Jesus never came to destroy the law, therefore no kicking.

If you don't believe that we need to follow the Torah, here is a two step guide. In Galatians 4:4 we read that Jesus was made under the law. And in 1 John 2:7 we read that we ought to walk as Jesus walked, very simple.

The answer you are seeking is found 1 Corinthians 10:25-26:
Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake;
FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.

It is suggested on the basis of these two verses, that we should not ask any questions about the food given to us, or the method of slaughter etc. If this were true, it would be the worst possible advice for people with stomach or digestive ailments. However that is not what Paul meant, and in order to get a proper understanding, we must look in to the world of the 1st Century A.D., when the Apostles wrote and ministered.
The context starting from verse 14 has to do with the custom of these days where food was often offered to an idol either in a pagan temple, or to the household gods and idols, before being eaten. Animals were frequently killed and offered as sacrifices to the gods in heathen temples, and the meat would later be re-sold to the public in the meat market. Paul was therefore saying that it would be improper to ask the host at a meal if the food had previously been part of an idolatrous ceremony, only as is clearly seen in verses 28 and 29, if it was made clear from the outset that the meat had been so offered, had the Christian an obligation to reuse it. 1 Corinthians 10:28,29 But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness." "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience?

Paul also says:
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- (Colossians 2:16)

To understand this verse, you need to read the next one as well:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

The first thing to clarify is that this is all one sentence. The next thing is that the word is in the [] is not there in scripture. So, the verse is actually read as...

Let no man therefore judge you... but the body of Christ.

It is saying that only those who are of Christ should judge you in the things mentioned. This is further established when we look at the earlier context of the verse in verse 8:


Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

This verse says don't let just anyone teach you false doctrine such as traditions or vain deciet and then goes on to say in verse 16 and 17 that only the body of Christ should do that.

In Christ, OObi

 

[Joey44]

Nor am I a Jew but a fellow Christian (look at the cool religious symbol by my name) and I'm sorry, but just because you say that doesn't make it true nor will it change the fact that there is no scriptural evidence for you to provide to support that position.



I'm pretty sure you know the difference between Torah and talmud and we don't need to follow talmud, but we need to follow Torah. Jesus never did away with the law. In fact it says that word for word in Matthew 5:17. Jesus died for our sins so that we may go to heaven. That has nothing to do with the law. The law does not save you in anyway. Keeping to law perfectly will not get you closer to heaven then Hitler. I know this, the law is not a ticket to heaven. If Jesus had come to destroy to law, and I said that we need to keep the law, then I would be kicking Jesus. But Jesus never came to destroy the law, therefore no kicking.

If you don't believe that we need to follow the Torah, here is a two step guide. In Galatians 4:4 we read that Jesus was made under the law. And in 1 John 2:7 we read that we ought to walk as Jesus walked, very simple.



It is suggested on the basis of these two verses, that we should not ask any questions about the food given to us, or the method of slaughter etc. If this were true, it would be the worst possible advice for people with stomach or digestive ailments. However that is not what Paul meant, and in order to get a proper understanding, we must look in to the world of the 1st Century A.D., when the Apostles wrote and ministered.
The context starting from verse 14 has to do with the custom of these days where food was often offered to an idol either in a pagan temple, or to the household gods and idols, before being eaten. Animals were frequently killed and offered as sacrifices to the gods in heathen temples, and the meat would later be re-sold to the public in the meat market. Paul was therefore saying that it would be improper to ask the host at a meal if the food had previously been part of an idolatrous ceremony, only as is clearly seen in verses 28 and 29, if it was made clear from the outset that the meat had been so offered, had the Christian an obligation to reuse it. 1 Corinthians 10:28,29 But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness." "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience?



To understand this verse, you need to read the next one as well:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

The first thing to clarify is that this is all one sentence. The next thing is that the word is in the [] is not there in scripture. So, the verse is actually read as...

Let no man therefore judge you... but the body of Christ.

It is saying that only those who are of Christ should judge you in the things mentioned. This is further established when we look at the earlier context of the verse in verse 8:


Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

This verse says don't let just anyone teach you false doctrine such as traditions or vain deciet and then goes on to say in verse 16 and 17 that only the body of Christ should do that.

In Christ, OObi

The Hebrew word translated as unclean, from Strong's concordance:

H2931. tame', taw-may'; from H2930; foul in a relig. sense:--defiled, + infamous, polluted (-tion), unclean.
H2930. tame', taw-may'; a prim. root; to be foul, espec. in a cerem. or mor. sense (contaminated):--defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, make self, pronounce) unclean, X utterly.
​

Note that "unclean" animals are polluted, contaminated and

If one maintains that Jesus changed the status of previously unclean animals, and removed God's restrictions against eating them, then I ask you, did a change also physically occur in the animals themselves, such that they were now fit for consumption, when previously they were an abomination?
The unclean animals did not change in any respect as a result of Jesus' teaching. They were a health hazard in the Old Testament, polluted and intrinsically unfit for human consumption, and they remain so today.

 

[PaladinValer]

Sorry, but the ritual/holiness laws are dead. Only Judaizers say otherwise.

 

[lemonflavor]

Mark 7:19
For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") (NIV)

Acts 10:9-18
9 About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 Then he heard a voice saying, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean." 15 The voice said to him again, a second time, "What God has made clean, you must not call profane." 16 This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven. 17 Now while Peter was greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision that he had seen, suddenly the men sent by Cornelius appeared. They were asking for Simon's house and were standing by the gate. 18 They called out to ask whether Simon, who was called Peter, was staying there. (NRSV)

 

[Scholar in training]

I don't get it, because Jesus died for our sins, we are now allowed to sin in any way that we want and it doesn't matter what we do anymore? That would sound like a failure to me, to make man stop living by a code of morals.

Is eating shellfish specifically a sin? How can that be a case of "missing the mark" (what sin, hamartia, literally means) or an offense against God? Remember what Paul said about the Law: it was a tutor to us until Christ came (Gal 3:24, NASB).

I think that the way Paladin explained it made sense: the ritual purity laws were enforced to remind the descendants of Abraham of their mission as the salt of the world. The ritual purity laws (such as priesthood duties, ritual cleanness, etc.) are not applicable to Christians today, but other laws may well be (respect your parents, don't covet, don't commit adultery, etc.)

 

[Linus]

Interesting topic and much have been said so I merely say this, I don't eat pork and Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour as well as Guide and role model. Jesus' life was the perfect example of a Holy life and He did not eat unclean foods like pork and nor do I intend to that. Nothing wrong with walking in the foot steps of Jesus...

God bless!

 

[Joey44]

Is eating shellfish specifically a sin? How can that be a case of "missing the mark" (what sin, hamartia, literally means) or an offense against God? Remember what Paul said about the Law: it was a tutor to us until Christ came (Gal 3:24, NASB).

I think that the way Paladin explained it made sense: the ritual purity laws were enforced to remind the descendants of Abraham of their mission as the salt of the world. The ritual purity laws (such as priesthood duties, ritual cleanness, etc.) are not applicable to Christians today, but other laws may well be (respect your parents, don't covet, don't commit adultery, etc.)

Dan 1:8 (KJV) But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.

Noah was aware of a distinction God had made between clean and unclean animals, even before the flood (Gen. 7:2)

Jesus was indeed teaching that no food you eat can corrupt your heart, such that it can be blamed for causing you to sin (in that sense all foods are clean), but He did not remove the prohibitions against eating unclean animals, they remain an abomination, unfit for human consumption, and and a hazard to your health to this day. And as with Daniel, obeying God's prohibition against eating the unclean has not only physical, but spiritual rewards as well.

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned..
​

 

[Joey44]

Dan 1:8 (KJV) But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.

Noah was aware of a distinction God had made between clean and unclean animals, even before the flood (Gen. 7:2)


Jesus was indeed teaching that no food you eat can corrupt your heart, such that it can be blamed for causing you to sin (in that sense all foods are clean), but He did not remove the prohibitions against eating unclean animals, they remain an abomination, unfit for human consumption, and and a hazard to your health to this day. And as with Daniel, obeying God's prohibition against eating the unclean has not only physical, but spiritual rewards as well.

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned..

​

 

[rstrats]

Linus,

re: " ...He did not eat unclean foods like pork..."

Just a suggestion, but in future posts you might want to change the phrase "unclean foods" to "unclean animals". I’m not aware of any scripture that ever refers to unclean animals as food.

 

[Linus]

Linus,

re: " ...He did not eat unclean foods like pork..."

Just a suggestion, but in future posts you might want to change the phrase "unclean foods" to "unclean animals". I’m not aware of any scripture that ever refers to unclean animals as food.

Point taken.

 

[OObi]

Sorry, but the ritual/holiness laws are dead. Only Judaizers say otherwise.

Is that just a statement or will this be backed up by scripture?

Mark 7:19
For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") (NIV)

Okay, this passage doesn't mean what you're intending it to mean. Let's establish what is being spoken of first. Look in the biginning of the chapter:

Mark 7
1Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash [their] hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

What this passage is talking about has nothing to do with cleaning meats. Common practice during that day, the practice of the tradition of the elders, was to not eat before establishing wether or not someone was clean. The way they did this was to dip one's clenched fist into a barrel (or something) of water and then raise the fist above their head, and then open it and if one drop of water didn't run down their elbow, they were unclean for the meal. This is what it is taking about when it says unwashed hands.

Mark 7
5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 6He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me. 7Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. 8For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Again, this passage has nothing to do with clean and unclean animals. It is taking about the talmud and how washing hands was a practice of men that you should not condemn others for not following (which is what they were doing).

Mark 7
9And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

Now, we see what Jesus was talking about when he mentions the heart later. These particular Jews had practiced corban, and we see that in the next verse.

Mark 7
11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, [It is] Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; [he shall be free]. 12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Corban is when you would sell your property off to the temple and you could redeem your property back at a later time. What the Jews did was when their parents would come to them asking for help, 'cause they were old and needed care, the Jews would corban their property so as to not take care of the "burden" of their parents. That's where all this parent business comes from if anyone ever wondered. So the two issues here are the washing of hands and corban.

Mark 7
15There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. 16If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. 17And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 18And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, [it] cannot defile him; 19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Okay, Jesus says it's not what goes in. He was speaking of the washing of hands, not food. Then he says it's what comes out that defiles a man, the corban. And again, that word parable means don't take this literally.
Does the expression "purging all meats" indicate that anything put into the body is somehow sanctified as wholesome and healthful? Of course not! Again, Jesus is highlighting the fact that true defilement comes from harboring spiritual uncleanness in the mind. Physical food passes through the purging processes of digestion and is separated from the body, while sin remains as a permeating poison.

Acts 10:9-18
9 About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 Then he heard a voice saying, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean." 15 The voice said to him again, a second time, "What God has made clean, you must not call profane." 16 This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven. 17 Now while Peter was greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision that he had seen, suddenly the men sent by Cornelius appeared. They were asking for Simon's house and were standing by the gate. 18 They called out to ask whether Simon, who was called Peter, was staying there. (NRSV)

Someone provided the same verse in post #2 and I answered that one in post #7 if you have any questions though, just ask.

Just a suggestion, but in future posts you might want to change the phrase "unclean foods" to "unclean animals". I’m not aware of any scripture that ever refers to unclean animals as food.

Good point

In Christ, OObi

 

[rstrats]

OObi,

re: "Good point."

Then - and I’m not trying to tell you what to do, of course, - you might what to consider editing your first sentence in paragraph six.

 

[Scholar in training]

Dan 1:8 (KJV) But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.

Noah was aware of a distinction God had made between clean and unclean animals, even before the flood (Gen. 7:2)[/quote]
This interpretation is missing the purpose for the ritual purity Laws; this results in empty practice, and is the same thing the Pharisees were admonished for doing.

I don't believe that the following point has been addressed sufficiently: the ritual purity laws were intended for the Israelites only, as a distinction between them and the Gentiles. The ritual purity laws existed to keep the Israelites focused on God and prepared for the coming of Christ. However, with Christ's coming, we see that those laws are perishable.

What basis is there for keeping - some - of the ritual purity laws and not others? (Remember, the entire Law is not at issue here. We are talking specifically of the ritual purity laws).

Jesus was indeed teaching that no food you eat can corrupt your heart, such that it can be blamed for causing you to sin (in that sense all foods are clean), but He did not remove the prohibitions against eating unclean animals

How can this be when the very purpose of the ritual purity laws was to prevent Israel from adopting pagan practices? The eating of the food is not really the problem, anymore than having a particular haircut is a sin (Lev 19:27). Instead, both of these laws are cultural; the first enacted for the purpose described above, the second because (at the time) no one cut off their beard unless they were going to engage in nasty activity. It was an insult to shave one's beard because it was a sign of manhood (see here).

they remain an abomination, unfit for human consumption, and and a hazard to your health to this day.

"Hazard to your health" as it appears in your post is an appendage. If this is a critical point, one would expect you to cite sources showing the Israelites had a concrete benefit from eating the food (such as a longer lifespan) or better yet that the laws were intended for health reasons, if that is what you are claiming.

And as with Daniel, obeying God's prohibition against eating the unclean has not only physical, but spiritual rewards as well.

This point has not been established. If you were using 1 Cor 2:14 to support your point, you should be aware that it refers to "the natural man" failing to receive the things of the Spirit of God because they are "spiritual". It does not say anything about the "spiritual benefits" of abstaining from eating meat. I believe that this kind of abstinance from meat could be beneficial AS IT RELATES TO things like "not offending the weaker brother", but abstinance from meat in general has no spiritual benefit.

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Clement 52:21-22 But those who read the Scriptures "plainly" without checking it against other Scripture or the wisdom of historical Christianity are wont to believe that they must first become Jews to become Christians and that they must follow commands that are "destined to perish with use."

 

[BarbB]

Has anyone explained WHY we are not to eat unclean meats?

Well, the pig has no sweat glands and no way to exude toxins which he was created to clean up. Therefore, the pig is truly a nasty meat. (And I grew up eating pork and loving it - it has been a sacrifice to eliminate it from my diet! ) Also, shellfish and catfish feed off fish poop. That's what finally convinced me that I should stick with beef (organic please - no hormones or protein meal), poultry and lamb.

p.s. I know that chickens eat anything that moves, but God made them with systems to get rid of the poison, not retain it as the unclean animals do.

 

[Joey44]

Note that Daniel's obedience, with respect to not eating the unclean foods of the king, was handsomely rewarded with good health:

Dan 1:15 And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat.
​

In addition to the prohibitions in Leviticus 11, Daniel also had this earlier example in Exodus to guide him in keeping his health through his diet:

Exo 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.
​

While not explicitly stated there, I think it is reasonable to assume that the diseases spoken of would have been the result of not heeding the distinctions made by God in clean and unclean animals.