I did this search on Google: "proof texts for pork". Among the listings was this site: Where in the Bible did God give his okay to eat pork? When I started reading it I was totally blown away about how this person is leading his flock onto the broad way. So, let's pick it apart. My comments are bolded, italicized, and underlined.
Are there any dietary restrictions binding on Christians?
My answer - Yes.
Thanks for your question.
The Lord Jesus Christ totally removed all dietary prohibitions from his followers.
They are not following the Jesus of the Bible from this point because He never did that.
Read what he says in Mark 7:14-19, "Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. "All of you listen," he said, "and try to understand. You are not defiled by what you eat; you are defiled by what you say and do!" Then Jesus went into a house to get away from the crowds, and his disciples asked him what he meant by the statement he had made. "Don't you understand either?" he asked. "Can't you see that what you eat won't defile you? Food doesn't come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then comes out again." (By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable.)" - New Living Translation.
The text was originally written in Hebrew. Note the word food is used. In Hebrew the word food is Broma.
- 1033. broma bro'-mah from the base of 977; food of any kind.
Notice in the definition it says food of any kind. To the hebrews food was something that God allows you to eat. Mark, being a Hebrew, understood that. God allows only those things He deems as clean to be eaten. Jesus did not change this.
The NLT goes on to say: (By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable.). This is something the NLT translators added and they are putting words in Jesus' mouth. Jesus never said that.
Note that the text in brackets is Mark's comment on what Jesus said. So, we don't follow the dietary laws in Leviticus because Jesus fulfilled the whole law and told us specifically that all dietary restrictions, by his authority, have been lifted.
Fulfilling the law does not mean that he can to do away with it, it means he can to live it fully so that we can see that we can live it fully. This author is preaching a false Jesus.
The Apostle Paul echoes the Lord's words in 1 Corinthians 10:25-27 "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience, for "the earth and its fullness are the Lord's." If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience."
But Paul does not tell you to eat unclean things. at the time of Paul's writing food sold in the marketplace may have been part of a pagan ritual. Nobody knew if it was or not. Paul was simply saying, don't worry about it. It is the same way today. If what is being sold is on the clean list, it is food.
Note the experience of Peter in his vision in Acts 10:10-15 "He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. Then he heard a voice saying, Get up, Peter; kill and eat. But Peter said, By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean. The voice said to him again, a second time, What God has made clean, you must not call profane."
The author obviously did not read Acts 10 in its entirety. He is cherry picking.
Acts 10 is specifically about Cornelius, a Roman that worshipped Jesus. Cornelius was considered to be a Gentile and according to Jewish tradition all Gentiles were unclean and considered loathsome. The whole point of Acts 10 is that Gentiles are not unclean and can be ministered to. This opened up Peter's ministry to the Gentiles.
If God through His son, has declared all foods to be clean because the lessons of separation and holiness taught by the laws of uncleaness in the Law of Moses, have been fulfilled in Christ, then who are we to insist that such laws should still be binding? As the angel said to Peter, "What God has cleansed, we must not call profane (unclean)."
And God never cleansed the unclean animals. They have purposes but food is not their purpose. The purpose of most of the unclean animals is to clean up the environment and by eating them you are taking into your body, the temple of the Holy Spirit, toxins that the unclean animals have consumed. These toxins may not kill you right away but they may help you reach Sheol faster than you should have.
If the argument is valid that because these restrictions are mentioned in the book of Leviticus that we should still do them, we are making a huge mistake. These things were fulfilled in Christ. They are the shadow pointing forward to him and his work. He is the substance. We no longer need these "teaching aids" (see Galatians 3:24) because now we see the work and person of the Lord in all the glory given to him by His Father.
Again, he does not get the purpose of Jesus' "fulfillment". He was demonstrating that Torah can be lived to the fullest; that is, He was our living example. Jesus never ate any unclean animals and we should follow His example.
Leviticus, in 75 verses talks about the law of the burnt offering. Why don't we do that too?
We don't need to do that because:
- Jesus accomplished on the cross what the burnt offering was being used for.
- Even if He did not, there is no temple to perform the sacrifice in.
In 44 verses it talks about the Tabernacle. Should we be building tabernacles and offering bulls, sheep, and goats too? That's all in Leviticus just like the prohibitions against eating pork.
Yes, the tabernacle is talked about in Leviticus. It no longer exists. We are now the living tabernacle of the Holy Spirit. Do not defile it with unclean animals.
If someone curses their father or mother, the law in Leviticus requires that the guilty child should be put to death (Leviticus 20:9). Should we be doing that because it is in the Law?
And one must understand how guilt was determined during the time Jesus walked among us. Guilt was determined by the priests class or cohanim. The accuser, accused, and all witnesses were taken to the priest. If they were found guilty then the stoning could happen. We don't have cohanim anymore so this cannot be accomplished. Yes, it is in "the law" but it cannot be done.
You can't pick and choose.
Then why are you?
Once you decide that obedience to one part of the Law of Moses is essential, you must then keep the entire Law.
Good advice. That is what Jesus wants you to do. TOO KEEP THE ENTIRE LAW THAT IS APPLICABLE TO YOU. If you are a woman, keep those parts applicable to women and tge general parts. If you are a man, keep those parts applicable to men and tge general parts. We have no temple built by human hands so we cannot keep that part. Etc.
It's an all or nothing situation. (See Galatians 5:3; 3:10). Clearly, such prohibitions are a thing of the past. We are not under the Law but under grace and the only rituals the Lord requires of us are those of Baptism and the partaking of bread and wine in remembrance of him and his work.
The punishment for breaking the law (sin) has been taken away by Jesus' work on the cross; however, the law remains as a means of judgement. We do not keep Torah (the law) top be saved, we keep Torah because we are saved. We need to follow our perfect example, Jesus, by doing our best to walk out Torah.
I hope you have found this helpful.
God bless!
Mike
Well. Mike is mislead. Do not follow his teachings.
No comments:
Post a Comment