Eating pork

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Ke4ke

This teaching article from us may be helpful to you in this law issue.

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=1811

Enjoy,

Dr. Allen

 

[Mark C]

Some of us find both the clear example and consistent teachings of our Messiah, the Torah Made Flesh, far more "helpful".

 

[macike]

How about Whale Meat . . .

We eat Kosher in our house and have for many years.

However, I would like to try whale meat if I ever get to Japan. <--- never thought of eating whale till I watched Whale Wars. Now I want to try whale meat even thought it is not kosher.


BTW the reason that Whales are not kosher is because they do not chew the cud and the hoof issue. Most people think it is the skin issue.

 

[Tali]

Having lived on the mission field in two countries, Mexico and Iraq specifically, I was in one culture that was wide open to pig and one that thought consuming it was a "high crime and misdemeanor." I had come to my own conclusion decades ago that pig had never been intended to be food, as pigs didn't somehow magically develop sweat glands or quit excreting the aforementioned cadaverene or putricene once Yeshua was raised from the dead.

Pigs and lobsters haven't been redeemed into non-scavenger status as a result of Calvary, they are doing what they have always done, and I do my best to avoid eating them when I am in total charge of my food choices. However, if I am in someone's home, and they have spent all day roasting a pig as a special treat for me as a visitor, I will indeed receive it with thanksgiving and ask God to do waaaaay more than just "bless it to my body." :mrgreen:

Converesely, Iraqis were far more open to me and the gospel when they found out I didn't eat pork when everybody else did. In both countries I had opportunities to bless people by my choices, and the "I'll eat vegetables for the rest of my life to keep from offending my brother" was a no-brainer.

Additionally, when we lived in Mexico, we learned some very interesting things re: pig, chicken and beef when it comes to bringing them into the America. If you had beef which had been purchased on either side of the border, ( in any state, raw or cooked,in a package or out, refrigerated or not,) you could bring it in to the US. If you had chicken, it had to be cooked in order for it to be admitted into the US, irrespective of where you purchased it. If you had purchased a package of Oscar Meyer pork lunch meat on the US side, crossed the border to MX, ended up not using the bologna, still had it in its original, unopened package, you could not bring it into the States because it posed a health risk. Go figure.

So, I do my best to eat the way my Daddy told me to in His Book, to steer clear of "the other white meat" and crustaceans that look like cockroaches, and ask Him to keep me safe when I can't.

I am surrounded by believers who toss back just about anything and everything, and we all love each other jes' fine.

My question, though, if everything is meant to be eaten, "and nothing to be refused," why is it we aren't powerin' down slugs, rats, spiders and toads? Some folks in some cultures swear by 'em.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

If we take the New Testament literally with a historical, grammatical, cultural context rule applied to it we cannot in any way, without rejecting the words of the NT, claim that any person is in sin by eating ANY type of food.

Jesus made this clear to Peter with words that are unmistakable unless we approach the text with a OT priority or presupposition that demandas the text means something else then what it plainly says:

Acts 10:12-16: "In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." But Peter said, "By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has made clean, do not call common." This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven."

Apostle Paul, functioning under new revelation (not just a restatment of the OT laws, or not just an application of OT law to people, but an actual new revelation under inspiration) said it this way: there are those who "require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For EVERYTHING created by God is good, and NOTHING is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer" (1 Timothy 4:3-4).

Reading this from the Greek text I can also see here that the word for "everything" here is "pan", which is the word we have when we trasnlate the word "All, everyone, everything." For example this word is used by Paul when he says: "For (pan) all have sinned....."

But it does not stop there. To make sure Paul's emphasis is made clear without any confusion he goes even further and adds, "ouden" (nothing, universally negative) is to be rejected.

If we accept the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration, the doctrine that says each and every word of the Bible is inspired and if we accept the fact that Jesus Christ gave to the apostles more than just knowledge of the law but that he actually gave to them inspired revelation then we have to accept the idea that all foods are and can be in some sense or another eaten by man without it being sin. PIGS, COW, HORSE, SNAKE, etc etc.

If we say anything else then we are denying the very explicit teachings of the NT. Now, can it be that we are not sure how to best cook or prepare certain foods because we are limited in our knowledge? Could it be that we need more growth in knowledge? Sure. For example, some foods or plants can kill us if prepared the wrong way. Some foods if eaten raw can harm us. Some plants are good only for a certain type of use but not another. But that is a problem on our end in knowing through scientific study and anlaysis what and how to use the plant or meat or food or material.

Furthermore, I may not like the food, I may actually despise it due to my taste buds or due to my psychological state of mind in the way I perceive a certain food. But I cannot claim that any food or anything by God is to be considered unclean. There is a good use for everything and we cannot tell anyone that any certain food (i.e. food defined as anything that can be received by the body for physical nourishment) is sinful and wrong to eat. To do that is to deny what Jesus and Paul both said and taught.

A true little story may be of help here.

A Hebrew Christian medical doctor sitting in his office one day was approached by one of his patients who sat down with him and said: "Doc, I am concerned about my health and I see in this law book that we are not to eat certain foods."

"Is that so, well can you show me sir what foods we are forbidden to eat."

"Well certainly I can. Here is the list. Moses told us not to eat these types of foods because they were unclean."

"Ah, I see. So the issue is about the food being clean, right?"

"Well yes sir. It is about being being healthy. I think God knew what he was talking about, don't you?"

"Oh, of course and as your doctor I too am concerned about your health. I want to see you healthy, not sick and in pain."

"Is that really so Doc? I mean after all if I am sick then you get paid money for me coming to see you."

"Well, I can see how you might think that but I think that is short-sighted. Those who believe such are usually people who are lacking in business skill and with a good dose of skepticism and a cynical spirit."

"How so Doc?"

"Well, is it not so that the longer I keep you alive the longer you'll be here to come and get regular check-ups, for which I get paid?"

"Well, yes I suppose that is true."

"And is it not true that if I were interested in letting you get sick fast and often that you would likely die sooner than later?"

"Well yes Doc I think that makes logical sense."

"And is it not so that if you get really sick you would be sent to specialists and thus they would get your money and not I?"

"Well yes that it normally what happens as you are a general medical practitioner."


"And is it not so that by keeping you healthy and well and your body running smooth that I gain a better reputation and thus more customers you refer?"

"Well yes I suppose so Doc."

"So therefore, it is in my best interest, if we are speaking strictly in business terms, to keep you healthy and around long term so that you and others can benefit my wallet long term?"

"Ok Doc, I think I understand. Alright, I suppose I can trust that you are not out to make me sick just to get more money. But last night I saw you at the local barbecue place and you were eating PORK! Now Doc how is that kosher? C'mon, that is unclean!"

"Well would you trust me if I told you?"

"Maybe, try me Doc."

"You are concerned about the morality of eating pork right? You are concerned that if you eat pork that you might be damaging your body and thus because Pork is unclean if you eat it that you become unclean, right?"

"Exactly Doc. And how do you do it? You and I both attend the same Hebrew Christian church. How is it that a Jew like you eats pork and a Jew like me thinks it to be unclean?"

"Well, your hang up is about whether it is clean or unclean right? You are concerned about whether or not it will harm your body or not right?"

"Well yes Doc I am. That is why I am here asking you as the medical doctor. So what do you think? Do you think it is good or not good to eat pork?"

"Do you believe that God designed your body correctly young man?"

"Of course I do!"

"Well can you tell me why God gave you a liver?"

"Well I'm not the doctor, you are. So tell me, what does the liver have to do with this."

"The answer is simple: the liver is God's gift of grace to the body. So long as you follow Solomen's rule on your part God will do the other part."

"My part? God's part? What are you talking about?"

"Solomen said there is a 'a season and a time for every matter under heaven.....a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing.' The key is therefore moderation. Too much of anything, even the so-called good foods, can be bad for your body and it can overload your liver. But to act and live as if the so-called unclean foods will always in every way harm you or make you unclean is to ignore God's gift of grace to you, the organ we call the liver. God uses this to clean out the toxins and so long as you don't overload it with an unbalanced diet then you will be fine. If you have a balanced diet it will do its job and it will clean your system.

But if you do decide to eat only vegetables then fine so be it. The Lord has told me in his word this: 'as for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him (Rom. 14:1-3)"

"Oh, ok, so what you are saying is Doc that you are free in the Lord to eat any food if your conscience is free to eat that, right? And I am not to judge you by my opinions on that matter, right? But, if my conscience is weak or against eating something then I should refrain from eating that but then if I do that then I should not judge you for doing something that I am personally not free to do even though you may be free to do it, right?"

"Yep, now we're on the same page. Any by the way your blood work came back good. Here is all of your paperwork."

"Doc, one more question. Do you have your blood work done as well?"

"Why certainly I do."

"Are you in good health?"

"Well as of last week when I had the other medical doctor check me out I was. Why do you ask?"

"Just checking to see if your liver was working."

"Ha ha ha, well yes it is working fine and so far yours is to."

"Well that is good news Doc but it is not my liver that really hurts today."

"Well what does hurt today? You should feel fine. Your lab work has come back clear and I see nothing wrong with you. So is there something wrong?"

"Yes there is! My buttocks is burning."

"Buttocks, well when did this start?"

"Oh about the time you handed me that paper."

"Paper, what? What do you mean?"

"Yeah, as soon as you handed me that paper I saw the bill and my wallet just caught on fire and burned a hole in my buttocks. I think inflation has hit your office or either I just got charged for both good medical care as well as good biblical counseling on the law of God!"

 

[Mark C]

If we take the New Testament literally with a historical, grammatical, cultural context rule applied to it we cannot in any way, without rejecting the words of the NT, claim that any person is in sin by eating ANY type of food.

Hardly.

All one has to do is ask whether He is lying or not when He says (Matthew 5:17-19) that He came NOT to change so much as "one yod or tiddle" of His torah (instruction) so long as "heaven and earth" still exist. When it comes to the "historic context" of a Savior Who knew what He had made "food" and what was not, and writers like Shaul/Paul who knew EXACTLY what He meant and sought to follow Him, there is no need to claim anything.

But I certainly don't presume to "teach others" to break His commandments (that same Matthew 5:17-19 sequence, IN context). He obviously holds teachers to a higher standard.

As for the Acts 10 claim --

Jesus made this clear to Peter with words that are unmistakable unless...

all one has to do is read the rest of the story. Peter clearly understood what he was being told about MEN, and not food, even if he wouldn't have understood the Greek any more than most who rely on scholars to tell them what it says.
And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common. - Acts 10:15

Acts 10:28 shows that he understood the message:

And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Our Messiah made it clear that we would "tread on serpents and scorpions", and could even eat poison should it be necessary, without harm. But the putrescene and cadaverene enzymes in pigs did not disappear when He died to clean MEN from the curse of their rebellion, their DNA did not change, His purpose in their design remains, and those who knew what Hebrew words like "food" and "meat" knew that the words they knew did not suddenly change either -- any more than "rocks" or "dog scat" suddenly became part of what "ALL food" included.

What we eat is not a "salvation issue". Neither is how many we marry, whether we know what "honest weights and measures" are (even though He calls the fake stuff that dares to say "In God we trust" an "abomination"), or even whether we know to honor Him by keeping His Sabbaths and feasts which He told us to keep "forever". But, "to whom much is given, much is expected". As we learn more of what pleases Him, we should seek to walk in greater obedience - not teach rebellion to what He says, repeatedly, through multiple witnesses. If we seek to please the Father, we will not only "study for ourselves", but try to DO what He asks. It is in fact our "reasonable service" (Shaul) and is "not too hard" for us (Deut. 30).

(I'd find a better "doctor" than the guy who tells me to trust in his knowledge of my body above my Designer's knowledge, too! Maybe that "doc" would be better advised to study the immune system before spouting off, or ask an alcoholic whether bad 'food' choices might be an issue for one's liver.)


As for me, I don't "claim" that anyone is "in sin", either. It is enough simply to read what He said -- repeatedly -- and then note that He also gave us a simple, clear choice: "If you love Me, keep My commands."

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Yeah yeah yeah yeah the ole let's look ONLY at Matthew and forget that there is the doctrine of progressive revelation....sorry, but the Lord wrote additional SCRIPTURE that reveals the PROGRESS of History.

God's character does not change but the expression of his character in love through laws do adjust and develop.

For those who want to force Matthew 5 into every other text to make all other texts fall under it then they fail to properly recognize that there was the change in covenants and laws. It is very simple: before the cross people made sacrifices because the LAW demanded it. After the cross Christ FULFILLS the law and that is no longer obligatory. That in and of itself is a CHANGE in the law as to what one must do to be pleasing to the Lord. No matter how hard one tries if one claims only Christ without actually brining a sacrifice for sin then that saint has to, if honest, admit something changed after the cross of Christ.

If you were living for God before the CROSS one HAD to MAKE SACRIFICES. If one is living after the Cross the ONE SACRIFICE OF Christ is all that is needed. Why? A change in the law code and thus a change in obligations.

One change in the law......UH OH....how can that be if the Matthew 5 text means the LAW WILL NEVER BE ADJUSTED?

Oh, well that is the key...the Bible never says the law will not be adjusted or that God will change, what it DOES say is that "Christ will not ABOLISH" but "FULFILL." The LAW will NOT PASS AWAY until ALL IS ACCOMPLISHED.

Again literal reading with careful attention to details to the actual words used in the text clears the mud from the water and makes the WHOLE bible fit together systematically. This too is one of the golden rules in the laws of hermeneutics, the rule of Scripture will interpret Scripture and we allow for progressive revelation.

The WHOLE text hinges upon the following words/phrases:

1. will not abolish (changing or adjusting the law code is not the same as abolish)
2. will not abolish but will fulfill
3. not an ioto not a dot will pass from the law UNTIL all is accomplished (until indicates a time when something will occur)

When did this accomplishment take place? When did the Fulfillment take place? When is the UNTIL portion applicable?

The rest of the Bible fills in the details. But, of course if the pages of the Bible are stuck together and it will not turn any further for the rest of the story it is easy to miss the rest of the revelation of God on this matter and to force Matthew into every other text.

"Now BEFORE faith came, we were held captive UNDER the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So the law was our guardian/tutor/school master UNTIL (here is where Mathew's UNTIL is fulfilled) Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come we are NO LONGER UNDER (obligated to follow, under that authority, required to do what that law code says) a guardian/ tutor/ school master. . . ." (Gal. 3:23-25)

Romans 7 points this out in illustration for. As long as Christ (the husband was alive) the Mosaic Law code applied. But WHEN (the UNTIL OF MATTHEW) he died the people were freed from that law code to be bound to another. Paul specifically says: "Likewise, my brothers, you ALSO have DIED TO THE LAW through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead . . . ."

It even gets clearer in Romans 10:4-5 "For Christ is the END OF THE LAW FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS to everyone who believes. For MOSES writes about the rightousness that IS BASED UPON THE LAW, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them."

And of course Hebrews shows us this shift in the law code by the new law giver and the new covenant that replaces the old law giver (Moses) with Christ who also replaces the old covenant with the new covenant.

The Bible there says: "For WHEN (another time indicator like in Matthew showing something would change) there is a change in the priesthood there is necessarily a CHANGE in the law as well. . . . .For on the one hand, a FORMER commandment is set aside because of its weakness and ueslessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God" (Hebrews 7:12,18-19)

Oh my....no say it aint so....surely something in the LAW could not CHANGE! Oh never never never because Christ said that nothing would change until ......uh.....oh, well.....ummmm..... huh.........my....that dangling little inspired word "UNTIL"....how can we get that out of our Bibles to keep people under the Mosaic Law.....surely we have to redefine this "UNTIL" because we can't let God ever adjust his law code now can we? CHANGE? God forbid that he ever change anything in his law code. The world wouldhave to end for that to be. What shall we ever do to conceal this until because the natural reading of it will lead people to become antinomian surely if we let the people understand there is an an UNTIL.

A covenant theologian by the name of Dr. Rousas John Rushdoony, one of the GREATEST LAW theologians to ever write in the history of Christianity had this to say about the law in his massive 2 Volume set called: "The Institutes of Biblical Law." He TOO believes that the law of God applies, UNLESS something later SPECIFICALLY says the law has been changed. He writes:

"With the completion of Christ's work, the role of the pharisees as interpreters ended, but not the authority of the Law. In the New Testament era, ONLY apostolically received revelation was ground for ANY ALTERATION in the law" (Vol. 1, pg. 7).

And that is EXACTLY what happened. If you hold that NO LAW can be ADJUSTED at any time by any other succeeding revelation then there is no way to avoid being required to make sacrifices for sin because that too was one of the required laws of Moses.

So it comes down to the law of non-contradiction. Either the phrase "not an ioto, not a dot, will PASS AWAY from the Law UNTIL ALL IS ACCOMPLISHED" means that EVERY SINGLE LAW without EXCEPTION must remain in effect at all times at all places with no end whatsoever in application or obligation

or

It means that there would come a time when those laws would be FULFILLED and a change by another law code would takes its place.

If anyone allows for a CHANGE in the sacrificial system then that is a CHANGE no matter how one tries to make it not so. The LAW changed and that certainly is MORE than an IOTA or DOT.

Why is that CHANGE then acceptable? Simple: Christ is the FULFILLMENT of the sacrifical laws and by being IN HIM we fulfill that law as well as every other law and thus we are under his law code along with the laws that he inspired his apostles to pen for us, which is exactly what He and the others apostles taught. We are now under the law of Christ.

Just one change, such as with the laws about animal sacrifices, shows us that Matthew 5 DOES NOT mean the law cannot AT SOME POINT IN TIME be ADJUSTED or ALTERED or CHANGED. Also, a change in the law code does not mean a change in God's character. His law is ONE way to EXPRESS his character but he can adjust his laws with time and with the progress of history in order to reflect different spheres or emphasis of his character, which is again why the change from the OC to the NC. The OC was to display and emphasize the JUSTICE aspect of God's character (what Paul called a ministry of death in 2 Cor. 3) whereas the New Covenant is to express or emphasize the character quality of grace and life (also what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3 about more glory under the NC where theire is the SPirit, freedom).

What it does do is tell us that there WOULD be a time, and that time was UNTIL ALL IS ACCOMPLISHED? It means there was a fulfillment date. And the rest of Scripture fills in the time when that UNTIL was accomplished, which is why we do not have to make sacrifices today because the new law code came with the new covenant which came with a new priest, which is Christ Jesus, Lord of Lords and King and Kings.

Again for the readers here I refer you to this article on the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. We as a ministry organization here believe people are free to choose to follow the laws of the OC so long as they DO NOT DEMAND that ANYONE HAS to do so to be right or holy or in good standing with the Lord today. We accept Messianic/Hebrew Christians but we are an Evangelical Ministry that will not allow any person to be taught that they must OBEY any OT law. To assert here that one MUST OBEY an OC law to right with the Lord is contrary to what we believe and accept as a ministry.

Also, on the other hand, we will not allow any person to DEMAND or FORCE or TEACH that a person cannot practice an OC law. One is free to practice the OC law so long as it is not done for salvation or righteousness sake in Christ.

We give freedom both ways BUT will not allow either person to require either to give up their liberty or conscience. Some will be more free in their conscience and they are totally at peace and with God's blessing in that freedom NOT to PRACTICE the 613 laws of Moses. Others, however, who have not yet arrived at that position will choose to follow some of the OT laws. We who are on this side MUST give them that freedom so long as they give us our freedom. Both are free to do so as we point out in this article:

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=1811