• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Eating pork

Status
Not open for further replies.
Memphis Dwight

Memphis Dwight

Member
Is eating pork one of those sins that was punished by the death penalty. If not, what penalty was required for it?

I don't think it is right to eat pork. Whenever I came to understand this and quit, I started feeling much better. It was not all in my head because I thought I have slipped a few times and each time I feel bad for a few days. Pigs don't digest their food enough and they consume lots of parasites and then the man that eats pork gets that in his system regardless of how well the pork is cooked.
 
Leviticus 11 covers the prohibition. Touching the carcass makes you unclean and you are required to wash, unless I missed something no specific punishment is prescribed if you actually eat it, feeling ill is probably punishment enough.
 
Memphis Dwight said:
I don't think it is right to eat pork. Whenever I came to understand this and quit, I started feeling much better.
Click to expand...
I personally agree with you regarding eating pork, but only from a purely health reason. Mosaic law may have prohibited some things which I am free to eat, and Mosaic law may have allowed some things which I choose not to eat. My general avoidance of eating pork is unrelated to Mosaic law, as I cannot be subject to (brought under) that covenant system.

That being said, a really good book I once read called "The Maker's Diet" gave a lot of good health reasons to avoid eating pork, and of course any who believe they are to obey parts of the Mosaic law will probably agree with most of the information presented, on that basis alone. My own experience is that we should strive to eat healthier in any event, independent of what dietary rules were given to Israel. Where they happen to overlap, that's fine by me, though I never understood why anyone thought the Mosaic dietary restrictions were supposed to be for HEALTH reasons in the first place, as Scripture certainly never says any such thing.

When I go out to eat in a restaurant, I just prefer big beefy BBQ ribs over puny pork ribs (the beef ribs taste better too!) but if someone orders me a combo pizza, I'm certainly not going to pick the bacon or sausage toppings off, as if I was somehow required to. Whatever God sees fit to provide for me to eat, I will give Him thanks for.

In His love,
David
 
No question that avoiding things like pork or shellfish is healthier. And the same friend who wrote a book on diet which introduced me to the idea of avoiding "swine's flesh" was the first self-admitted polygynist I ever met.

But I came at this from the opposite direction -- in that there was a time I was simply so ignorant that I could not see the Bible as His Truth.

Recognizing that what He Wrote about marriage was not at ALL what I had been told it said was a big part of that process.

But another was the shocking realization that God -- our Designer -- knew what He made for us to eat (and what He calls "food"). I remember being amazed when I saw the headline in a popular science news piece that said "Pig DNA Closest to Human", which then went on to explain how every single major pandemic was the result of a virus "jumping the species barrier" from pig to man, and why this just didn't happen with animals like cows. Could it be that God really knew what He was talking about, and science is still just catching up to His Word? (Now, of course, engineered diseases from gene-splicing add to that mix.)

The more I studied, the more obvious it became. Enzymes with names like "cadaverene" and "putrescene" (guess what they are for) just make the point clear. Check out the charming effluent tubes that run down from porcine bodies to their hooves, and what courses out of them after a meal of decaying animal flesh. "Unclean" is a pretty decent summary.

I suspect that there is more Truth in His admonition of us to eat what He says than just merely health. But that is sufficient. I usually make the final distinction this way, with the understanding that it is perhaps "not a salvation issue":

Eating pig (or other unclean non-foods) won't affect where you go after you die...just how long it may take. ;)


Blessings,
Mark
 
I personally have not found any biblical punishments in the natural world for eating pork. As someone already said, a person who had become unclean would have to cleanse themselves (and a few other rules to adhere to) before being able to be clean again.
What I have come to believe is that eating pork is like smoking cigarettes... it is something that we are given permission to have, but we would be better to not have. While I can't cite the exact passages; Jesus told us that we "may" eat all the meats of the market and Paul points out that "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient for me". So just because we are allowed to do something, we should consider if it might be bad for us & then pray for God's truth to be revealed to us through his word.
 
I enjoy eating some shellfish on special occasions, but I generally avoid everything else. I even decided not to trap and skin a rabbit in our yard based on Leviticus, and I declined beaver meat last time it was offered for the same reason.
 
Memphis Dwight said:
Is eating pork one of those sins that was punished by the death penalty. If not, what penalty was required for it?

I don't think it is right to eat pork. Whenever I came to understand this and quit, I started feeling much better. It was not all in my head because I thought I have slipped a few times and each time I feel bad for a few days. Pigs don't digest their food enough and they consume lots of parasites and then the man that eats pork gets that in his system regardless of how well the pork is cooked.
Click to expand...

The Bible itself does not specifically name a punishment for eating unclean meats. But various historical sources do affirm that the normal punishment for eating it intentionally was a certain number of lashes, decided by local elders. Washing would have also been involved.

As you mentioned pork making you sick. I’ve had the same experience. When I stopped eating non-foods several years ago, I noticed if I would be somewhere and eat the stuff just because it was all that was available I would get really sick. I believe the things the Bible says not to eat are definitely for us today.
 
"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For 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.") Mk 7,NIV
I am not an observant Jew, I am a Christian, free from the law. If you don't want to eat pork, or meat at all that is fine, but it is not a Christian thing it is a personal thing. As God said to Noah- Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. Gen 9,KJV
I'm German, I grew up on pork sausage, as did my 93 year old mother.
 
Take a step back and look at that time period (There is a reason for the law):
What would have happened if say the H1N1 would have broke out in a Jewish town?

Buppa Dave said:
"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For 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.") Mk 7,NIV
Click to expand...
I believe he is talking about spiritual "clean/unclean"
That doesn't mean its a good idea to eat everything.
 
Hello,

I agree God did not make any arbitrary laws. Each has a reason and purpose. The health laws are just that. They are for our best health. There are people who live a long time who eat anything, but their health might have been better and they may have lived longer if they known or followed God's health plan. When you read the word food in the new testament remember that it is defined by the word of God itself. We would not go to the dictionary to find the final word on the meaning of adultery so why should we use the dictionary to define food? 1 Peter 1:16 Be Holy for I am Holy. This verse is taken from Leviticus 11:44. I think there is some significance as to where the verse is located as to our state of holiness in God's eyes.
 
Buppa Dave said:
As God said to Noah- Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. Gen 9,KJV
I'm German, I grew up on pork sausage, as did my 93 year old mother.
Click to expand...

While God may have said to Noah, "I have given you all things." ... would you take that to mean it's OK to eat the plants on this page:
http://www.wilderness-survival.net/Appc.php
even though they are poisonous? I would think not. While it is true that God provided us with all manner of plant & animals; not all of them are meant to be consumed by us. There are many things that come from plants & animals that can be used externally for drawing out infections, or that are safe for other lifeforms to consume but no us.

I refer people once again to what Paul tells us (I looked up the passage this time)... KJV-1Corinthians 6:12 "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. (v13) Meats for the belly, and the belly for the meats: but God shall destroy both it and them...." ***Note that I added bold for emphasis***

To paraphrase what can be learned through extensive study of the Bible...
1) YES - God did give man EVERY BEAST and EVERY PLANT for him to use.
2) YES- God did set forth very defined rules/laws as to what man SHOULD eat, as well as what SHOULD NOT be eaten.
3) YES- Jesus did free us from the Laws of dietary restriction, and thus removed the requirement for use to atone for breaking them.
4) YES- It is better for us to follow the dietary restrictions of the Old Testament out of love for God. (Think John14:15)
5) NO- It is not always good for us to do things just because we are "allowed" to.
6) NO- We should not strive with another over matters that do not affect salvation.
7) YES- We should turn to God fervently in prayer, for ALL things that we wish to know his will on.
 
Buppa Dave said:
"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For 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.") Mk 7,NIV
I am not an observant Jew, I am a Christian, free from the law. If you don't want to eat pork, or meat at all that is fine, but it is not a Christian thing it is a personal thing. As God said to Noah- Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. Gen 9,KJV
I'm German, I grew up on pork sausage, as did my 93 year old mother.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I was getting at when I said I generally choose not to eat pork. I pay absolutely no attention to the Mosaic dietary laws; rather, I decide what I will eat based on other, more practical criteria. Where they overlap, they overlap.

Noah and his family (and by extention, all gentiles) were told by God Himself in Gen. 9:3 that every moving creature that lives is food for us, just as with the green plants. This command was never rescinded. Moses and Israel (and by extension, all Jews) were told by God in Lev. 11 that only select animals were food for them (and them alone). The gentiles of that era were, of course, still free to eat all moving creatures and green plants. As a New Covenant Believer, the dietary laws given to Noah are certainly more applicable to me than any dietary laws given to Moses, so if I have to choose one over the other, I'll stick with the freedom laws given to all mankind in all ages as opposed to the restrictive laws given to a select people for a determined time. Given all the specific NT warnings against trying to obey any part of the obsolete covenant, I'll use my freedom in Him and my own common sense to determine what I will and will not eat.

In His love,
David
 
...I have little bit of head rubbing going on about these other ones. Figure you can straighten it out for me...

...athest screed deleted...
Click to expand...

Hopefully almost anyone on here can, JTM.

Rather than quoting entire passages of Atheist tripe, stick to studying the Word for yourself. You'd be able to see through such , and wouldn't have to ask "foolish questions", intended to 'engender strife'.


(PS, the versions of this anti-Biblical screed that I've seen all-to-often in years past generally add another anti-patriarchy twisting or two. Why'd you drop that out? Was it too obvious, and made the post seem even more asinine than the rest of it, in a Biblically-literate forum?)
 
Hi Marc,

I wasn't intending to generate strife or offend.

Had had recently received what I posted, when I read it, it gave me a giggle and I thought it might be worth a giggle or two for some folks as well.

Over and over I have seen believers wrestle with "which part of the Law of Moses do I have to live under?"

The answer according to Paul... None. You are not under law but under grace.

In the past when a brother or sister has approqced me on the shrimp and pork issue, I generally ask if I can see the tag on their shirt to make sure they aren't wearing a cotton and polyester blend... Since that too would be a violation.

In the book of Acts in the midst of the controversy over which of the law Gentiles should have placed upon them, the conclusion was none. Simply encourage them to stay away from idolatry and fornication.

I'd love to type more, but I'm doing this with my thumbs on a cell phone.

Be blessed my brothers and sisters.
 
Thanks for the clarification, JTM. Since that particular atheist tome has made the rounds on the web literally for years, with the intent of mocking Scripture, and undermining the concept that there could be ANYTHING of value in a Book which contains such, it is easy to expect that this was the intent here.

Since the "law" debate has been done here before, and generally ends badly, I won't go much further, other than to address the misreading of both Acts 15 (which specifies a MINIMUM set of conditions necessary to "clean up" the formerly pagan gentiles enough so that they can go hear "Moses read", in every synagogue, in every city, every Sabbath (v 21); and Acts 10:28 where a similar misread of Peter's dream, apropos to this thread, is corrected) and in the writings of Paul.

The answer according to Paul... None.
Click to expand...

This part is almost funny, since that's not at all what the torah scholar who called himself a "bondservant" actually wrote! (It turns out that "if" is the key word, as in John 14:15.) But if you 'twist' him the same way that the atheist who made such a mockery of Moses did, one can come to that conclusion.

The answer, of course, in both cases is to understand what is Written, not what is written ABOUT it, in order to legalistically reduce the meaning to absurdity. Of COURSE you can't "earn" salvation by not walking too far on the Sabbath, or stoning somebody. Don't confuse "salvation" with simply knowing how best to live HERE, and now. But there is a blessing for obedience -- because He says so.

And why would we call Him "Lord, Lord", and not do what He says?

In BOTH cases, II Peter 3:15-16 applies:

"...in all [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures. "
 
PS> While I would hardly consider "snopes" to be a useful source for Biblical issues, their "urban legend" expose on the so-called "letter to Dr. Laura," or "letter to George Bush," is at least revealing.

They claim that it dates back to at least the year 2000, and made a comeback in the new form after Bush's 2004 re-election, often to ridicule not only the Bible, but a Biblical stand against homosexuality in particular.

They go on to say that,
"the key to this essay is its premise..." which is that homosexuality cannot be wrong merely "because the Bible says so", when "other parts have been discarded as archaic".

The same arguments were at one point used against a "Bible-thumper" in a TV episode of The West Wing to showcase President Bartlett's "detailed knowledge" of the Bible, and make such believers "look ridiculous". (I didn't watch that show, but do now recall making a point of seeing that episode in a rerun several years ago. It wasn't funny then, either, but it does demonstrate IMHO just how effective the Adversary can be in undermining His Word, and how cooperative Hollywood can often be. ;) )
 
Was just reading 1Tim 4:1-3, which talks about forbidding to marry and abstaining from meats which God had created to be received with thanksgiving.

I've often heard this quoted in defense of eating pork, shellfish, et al. But I got to wondering ...

If God specifically SAID that some of them were unclean and not to be eaten (btw, what is ceremonial about that?), then how do we get the idea that THOSE ones were created to be received and eaten with thanksgiving?

Ad if we start to say that, well, that was for the Jews, then how come God made a difference between the clean and unclean critters, and called them such, going into Noah's Ark?

Of course, I still prefer the meat of the wild tofudabeest. :lol:
 
Hello,

The definition for the words marriage, adultery, polygyny and even divorce are found in scripture, specifically the old testament. The word food is also defined by scripture. It is found in the old testament. I suppose one could argue that if any definition for the word food is good then one could go to just any source for scriptural polygyny then as well.

1 TImothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats (broma - food), which God has created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

So do we use the scripture for definitions or Webster's? You are what you eat. Some thing you might find amusing and interesting.

Isaiah 65:4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels

I thought it interesting that in this verse the word abominable comes from the Hebrew word pig-gool. It means to stink, properly fetid that is unclean. i thought it funny and rather telling, but just a minor thing compared to scripture.

"Be holy, for I am holy." 1 Peter 1:16 a quote from Leviticus 11, right in the middle of the health laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top