Is it okay to eat pork?

[GracePeace]

To be honest, either this explanation is over my head or I don't think we're going to profit much from a discussion about the law as this seems rather a liberal view of law to me—actually more akin to what I might call "legal pluralism," at best. I confess it's shocking from the perspective of a Southern Baptist-raised baby boomer like me. Sometimes I really feel like a fossil..

Actually, I see it as "the narrow way" Jesus described--each man walking by the convictions God's Holy Spirit has given them to walk by as unto the Lord, in His presence, with peace. It's God, the "all-consuming fire", consuming us--serving God in our very thoughts and spirits, every moment pleasing to Him from the innermost core of our being, looking for a full reward at the resurrection.

 

[Phoneman777]

The church is not under the sabbath law . we are not required ot keep Saturday as the Sabbath, we have entered in to full Sabbath rest.

Jesus our reward, so does that mean we can rob banks?
Jesus our truth, so does that mean we can tell lies?

Jesus our rest, but somehow that means we can BREAK THE SABBATH...right?

If you read Hebrews 4:9 Peshitta Version, you'll see the Greek is properly rendered as "It is therefore the DUTY of the people of God to keep the Sabbath." Many don't know this, and so they erroneously claim "the Sabbath is the only commandment not repeated in the NT".

 

[Phoneman777]

That would be the moral law and it does not include Saturday sabbath since we see Saturday sabbath is not given as a requirement for Christians under the New Covenant

Hebrews 4:9 Peshitta: "It is therefore the DUTY of the people of God to KEEP THE SABBATH"

 

[GracePeace]

Jesus our reward, so does that mean we can rob banks?
Jesus our truth, so does that mean we can tell lies?

Jesus our rest, but somehow that means we can BREAK THE SABBATH...right?

If you read Hebrews 4:9 Peshitta Version, you'll see the Greek is properly rendered as "It is therefore the DUTY of the people of God to keep the Sabbath." Many don't know this, and so they erroneously claim "the Sabbath is the only commandment not repeated in the NT".

1. The Church Council didn't lay that burden on the Gentile believers (Acts).
2. Sabbath commemorates God's resting from creating--being we are "a new creation", God has created anew, so there is a new rest, and we are not bound to the 7th day sabbath, which is why it was never reiterated in the NT. It says "he who has rested has rested from his works"--THAT is the "Sabbath" rest, resting from working our own works, our own righteousness from the Law.

 

[Phoneman777]

The Jewish believers came and confronted Peter about eating with Gentiles (re: Cornelius).

There are laws detailing how ovens and pots and pans and what not become defiled by the corpses of certain animals, and there are laws for purifying some of these things, and the law stipulates they are to "BE CAREFUL" in observing all of these laws, but Peter went and ate with Gentiles on account of the vision. The vision must have meant that God had accepted the Gentiles THE WAY THEY ARE (as Paul argues over and over and over), including their foods.

Regarding this, Paul says he becomes as one under the Law, becomes as a Jew to Jews, and he becomes as one without the Law, becomes a Gentile to Gentiles (though not without God's Law--as if he would also commit immorality--but under Christ's Law).

FYI, the distinction between "clean/unclean" predates Moses, even Abraham. There is every reason to believe God's prohibition against consuming unclean flesh was part of the "charge, commandments, statutes, and covenants" of God that Abraham obeyed.

 

[GracePeace]

FYI, the distinction between "clean/unclean" predates Moses, even Abraham. There is every reason to believe God's prohibition against consuming unclean flesh was part of the "charge, commandments, statutes, and covenants" of God that Abraham obeyed.

1. The distinction was enumerated before men ever ate animals, was given for the purpose of sacrifices, so it had nothing to do with eating them; after the flood, God said the fear of man will fall on the creatures, and they will be food for him, so even the Jews recognize the Gentiles were never under the dietary restrictions.
2. The Gentile believers qualified as "doers of the Law" without even knowing the Law, so, if your teaching is, "Gentile believers must know and follow the Law or they're lawless", you have a problem with Christianity (Ro 2:13-15, 26, 27).
3. Paul says he is persuaded in the Lord that there is nothing unclean in itself, but to the person who thinks it is unclean, for that man it really is unclean and he is not permitted to eat it.

 

[GracePeace]

FYI, the distinction between "clean/unclean" predates Moses, even Abraham. There is every reason to believe God's prohibition against consuming unclean flesh was part of the "charge, commandments, statutes, and covenants" of God that Abraham obeyed.

Also, you didn't even address the fact that Peter was not "careful" to keep kosher in eating with the Gentile--and his vision SPECIFICALLY was about EATING UNCLEAN FOODS, because God had accepted the Gentiles AS THEY ARE, WITH THEIR DIET, as was later clarified (Gal 2, etc), represented in the fact that Peter was to eat unclean foods, which he did, by not "carefully" keeping kosher laws with Cornelius, for which eating he was condemned by the Jewish believers.

 

[Phoneman777]

1. The Church Council didn't lay that burden on the Gentile believers (Acts).

The context was the Mosaic Law which began at Sinai and ended at the Cross. This had nothing to do with the Ten Commandments which existed since the beginning and will be for all eternity...unless you're willing to argue that we may now worship Satan, bow down to idols, fornicate with another man's wife, etc.

2. Sabbath commemorates God's resting from creating--being we are "a new creation", God has created anew, so there is a new rest,

Correct, the Sabbath was created as a "memorial" to creation of the past, and also later a memorial to God's power to create "new creatures in Christ Jesus".

and we are not bound to the 7th day sabbath, which is why it was never reiterated in the NT.

"It is therefore the DUTY of the people of God to KEEP THE SABBATH". - Hebrews 4:9 Peshitta

We can't continue to claim "it was never reiterated" in the NT. What is true is that MOST TRANSLATIONS do not reiterate it, for reasons having to do with the "falling away" that took place in church history.

It says "he who has rested has rested from his works"--THAT is the Sabbath we are to rest from, working our own works, our own righteousness from the Law.

Hebrews 4:9-10 Peshitta/KJV says if we're resting inwardly in Christ, we'll demonstrate that rest by resting outwardly on the Sabbath day from our work "as God did from His".

God didn't rest from "works of sin" or "works to obtain salvation" - He rested from literal work, which is the same "rest" we are to join in. Those who break the Sabbath prove they are not resting inwardly in Christ.

 

[BarneyFife]

Number 1 : the Law isn't even entirely in force according to Christ, because He denounces some of its Laws (eg, making and keeping vows, permitted under Torah, He calls "of the evil one" Mt 5, and "any cause" divorce is revealed as having been a mere concession, not God's actual delight Mt 19).

Number 2: the fulfillment of the Law "one law for the native born and the foreigner" is "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind", otherwise, "anything that is not of faith is sin" (after having already described men of differing views, but each walking according to his own conviction before the Lord) would have no force or meaning. Recognize that GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS is revealed from faith to faith (Ro 1:17, 14:5, 23), whereas it seems you are demanding that we go to the Law to reveal our own righteousness. When we walk by faith, walk in the spirit, we bear the fruit of the Spirit, against which things "there is no Law"--we need to concern ourselves with walking in the spirit ("if we live in the spirit let us also walk in the spirit"), walking in faith, therefore, because "he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the entire Law", and love is a fruit of the spirit.

I can literally hear my arteries hardening, GP.

I'm being hyperbolic here but in no way facetious.

"one law for the native born and the foreigner" is "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" barely sounds like they're of the same language to me.

Not that I don't get the contrast you seem to be suggesting, but I've never bought the "law vs. spirit" argument. The "letter vs. spirit" I get.

There's only one covenant that has ever saved anyone—the New (Everlasting Covenant)—the law written on the heart.
Genesis 3:15; Deuteronomy 5:29; Jeremiah 31:33

The law is from God, it is a transcript of His character in summary, and God IS a spirit.

There is no righteousness by the law but righteousness is judged by it.

Christ came to magnify the law—not to replace it with ethereal improvisation. He takes up 3 full chapters of Matthew getting started on the job of explaining the "letter vs. spirit."

1. My view is THE "Gospel" view, nothing less nothing more.

I'm seeing a lot more than "the 'Gospel' view, nothing less nothing more" here, GB:

Number 2: the fulfillment of the Law "one law for the native born and the foreigner" is "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind", otherwise, "anything that is not of faith is sin" (after having already described men of differing views, but each walking according to his own conviction before the Lord) would have no force or meaning. Recognize that GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS is revealed from faith to faith (Ro 1:17, 14:5, 23), whereas it seems you are demanding that we go to the Law to reveal our own righteousness. When we walk by faith, walk in the spirit, we bear the fruit of the Spirit, against which things "there is no Law"--we need to concern ourselves with walking in the spirit ("if we live in the spirit let us also walk in the spirit"), walking in faith, therefore, because "he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the entire Law", and love is a fruit of the spirit.

I think Christ does a better job in Matthew 5-7, don't you? "Letter vs. Spirit"

I didn't mean to mean to set up my view as being superior to yours, btw, but I gotta go with what I know.

Actually, I see it as "the narrow way" Jesus described--each man walking by the convictions God's Holy Spirit has given them to walk by as unto the Lord, in His presence, with peace. It's God, the "all-consuming fire", consuming us--serving God in our very thoughts and spirits, every moment pleasing to Him from the innermost core of our being, looking for a full reward at the resurrection.

IMO, you're getting warm but, honestly, it's still "law vs. spirit" and, in the end, it just reads like someone dancing around the law.

Do you think Christ dances around the law in Matthew 5-7?

"This is a hard saying. Who can hear it?"

.

 

[GracePeace]

I can literally hear my arteries hardening, GP.

I'm being hyperbolic here but in no way facetious.

"one law for the native born and the foreigner" is "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" barely sounds like they're of the same language to me.

Not that I don't get the contrast you seem to be suggesting, but I've never bought the "law vs. spirit" argument. The "letter vs. spirit" I get.

There's only one covenant that has ever saved anyone—the New (Everlasting Covenant)—the law written on the heart.
Genesis 3:15; Deuteronomy 5:29; Jeremiah 31:33

The law is from God, it is a transcript of His character in summary, and God IS a spirit.

There is no righteousness by the law but righteousness is judged by it.

Christ came to magnify the law—not to replace it with ethereal improvisation. He takes up 3 full chapters of Matthew getting started on the job of explaining the "letter vs. spirit."



I'm seeing a lot more than "the 'Gospel' view, nothing less nothing more" here, GB:



I think Christ does a better job in Matthew 5-7, don't you? "Letter vs. Spirit"

I didn't mean to mean to set up my view as being superior to yours, btw, but I gotta go with what I know.



IMO, you're getting warm but, honestly, it's still "law vs. spirit" and, in the end, it just reads like someone dancing around the law.

Do you think Christ dances around the law in Matthew 5-7?

"This is a hard saying. Who can hear it?"

.

No, the Law is not a "transcript" of the Spirit. LOL
As I have already noted, Christ condemns some Torah laws as "of the evil one" Mt 5, and others as "concessions" Mt 19. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Phoneman777]

1. The distinction was enumerated before men ever ate animals, was given for the purpose of sacrifices, so it had nothing to do with eating them; after the flood, God said the fear of man will fall on the creatures, and they will be food for him, so even the Jews recognize the Gentiles were never under the dietary restrictions.
2. The Gentile believers qualified as "doers of the Law" without even knowing the Law, so, if your teaching is, "Gentile believers must know and follow the Law or they're lawless", you have a problem with Christianity (Ro 2:13-15, 26, 27).
3. Paul says he is persuaded in the Lord that there is nothing unclean in itself, but to the person who thinks it is unclean, for that man it really is unclean and he is not permitted to eat it.

It's not reasonable to say God put a distinction between "clean/unclean" at a time when man was not authorized to eat animals, then claim He authorized them to eat both clean/unclean, then prohibited humanity from eating unclean for all eternity.

What's reasonable is that God NEVER authorized the consumption of unclean flesh, which is why Isaiah 66:15-17 KJV says Jesus is going to burn up those found eating swine's flesh at His Second Coming.

 

[GracePeace]

The context was the Mosaic Law which began at Sinai and ended at the Cross. This had nothing to do with the Ten Commandments which existed since the beginning and will be for all eternity...unless you're willing to argue that we may now worship Satan, bow down to idols, fornicate with another man's wife, etc.

The righteous requirement of the Law is fulfilled in those who walk after the Spirit (Ro 8:4)--the entire Law is fulfilled in loving one's neighbor, and doing him no harm (Ro 13:8-10).

Correct, the Sabbath was created as a "memorial" to creation of the past, and also later a memorial to God's power to create "new creatures in Christ Jesus".

Nope, that was for the old creation, and we are a new creation, so it doesn't pertain to us.

"It is therefore the DUTY of the people of God to KEEP THE SABBATH". - Hebrews 4:9 Peshitta

We can't continue to claim "it was never reiterated" in the NT. What is true is that MOST TRANSLATIONS do not reiterate it, for reasons having to do with the "falling away" that took place in church history.

Hebrews 4:9-10 Peshitta/KJV says if we're resting inwardly in Christ, we'll demonstrate that rest by resting outwardly on the Sabbath day from our work "as God did from His".

God didn't rest from "works of sin" or "works to obtain salvation" - He rested from literal work, which is the same "rest" we are to join in. Those who break the Sabbath prove they are not resting inwardly in Christ.

"Resting from our labors" is not about sinning, it's about resting from working our own works of righteousness based on knowing the Law instead of working God's works.

 

[GracePeace]

It's not reasonable to say God put a distinction between "clean/unclean" at a time when man was not authorized to eat animals, then claim He authorized them to eat both clean/unclean, then prohibited humanity from eating unclean for all eternity.

What's reasonable is that God NEVER authorized the consumption of unclean flesh, which is why Isaiah 66:15-17 KJV says Jesus is going to burn up those found eating swine's flesh at His Second Coming.

1. It's entirely reasonable to understand the distinction was not for the purpose of delineating which was "edible", since man ate NO meat until after the flood, yet the distinction was given before the flood! LOL
And afterward the fear of man fell on the creatures, and those animals were for food for Noah and his descendants--and God accepts the Gentiles as they are, with their diets the way they are.
2. No, the most you can say about Isaiah 66 is that it pertained to the Jews, which was his audience--and, since Paul knew Isaiah 66, and still taught what he did, I'm going to go with Paul, who says "I am convinced in the Lord that there is nothing unclean in itself, but to the one who thinks it is unclean, for him it is unclean", which would mean that if someone is doing something he doubts, even eating what he doesn't believe he should eat, that person is going to be "burned up by the Lord" because he is sinning and is condemned (Ro 14:5, 23).

 

[BarneyFife]

No, the Law is not a "transcript" of the Spirit. LOL
As I have already noted, Christ condemns some Torah laws as "of the evil one" Mt 5, and others as "concessions" Mt 19. You don't know what you're talking about.

Well, this is going just like I hoped it wouldn't.

You're leading with "You don't know what you're talking about" so it's already devolved into a non-discussion.

A shame. Have a good evening, GB.

.

 

[GracePeace]

Well, this is going just like I hoped it wouldn't.

You're leading with "You don't know what you're talking about" so it's already devolved into a non-discussion.

A shame. Have a good evening, GB.

.

Right, my points stand unopposed and unanswered.

Thanks for discussing!

 

[GracePeace]

"one law for the native born and the foreigner" is "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" barely sounds like they're of the same language to me.

Well, YOU have to hold to the NT exegesis of the OT Scriptures done by Paul the Apostle--that is what I am doing. When I see that there is NOT a requirement that all hold to the same view and practice concerning observance of days or classifications of clean and unclean, but are free to walk in their own Spirit-inspired convictions about these things as unto the Lord, BUT I see there is one Law that is governing them all, "let every man be fully convinced in his own mind" (Ro 14:5), because "God's righteousness is revealed from faith to faith" (Ro 1:17), and "anything that is not from faith is sin" (Ro 14:23), what else am I to conclude?

 

[GracePeace]

I don't know.

I don't know what I'm talking about.

Sounds good.

 

[Phoneman777]

The righteous requirement of the Law is fulfilled in those who walk after the Spirit (Ro 8:4)--the entire Law is fulfilled in loving one's neighbor, and doing him no harm (Ro 13:8-10).

If you're walking in the Spirit and keeping the Spirit of the law, YOU'RE BY DEFAULT keeping the letter of the law.

Does a man stare up into the clouds lifting up the name of Jesus in the middle of having sex with his neighbor's wife? No, he's lusting after her at the same time he's in the very act.

The righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in them that love God and their neighbor because that love is what compels them to keep the requirements of the law.

Nope, that was for the old creation, and we are a new creation, so it doesn't pertain to us.

Hebrews 4:9 Peshitta: "IT IS THEREFORE THE DUTY OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD TO KEEP THE SABBATH".

I enlarged the letters so that you can't miss them this time.

"Resting from our labors" is not about sinning, it's about resting from working our own works of righteousness based on knowing the Law instead of working God's works.

No, it's about resting "as God did". Did God rest from literal work? Yes, His literal work of creating everything in six days. So, then, how are we to rest? Right, from literal work every Sabbath "as God did from His".

Hebrews 4:9-10 KJV says if we're resting inwardly in Christ, we'll demonstrate that by resting outwardly every Sabbath day, showing the world which God we serve: the Creator and Redeemer of the world.

 

[GracePeace]

If you're walking in the Spirit and keeping the Spirit of the law, YOU'RE BY DEFAULT keeping the letter of the law.

Nope, Christ, affirming the Spirit of the Law, nullifies various Torah Laws (Mt 5, 19).

Does a man stare up into the clouds lifting up the name of Jesus in the middle of having sex with his neighbor's wife? No, he's lusting after her at the same time he's in the very act.

The Gentile believers were deemed "doers of the Law" without even knowing the Law (Ro 2:13-16, 26, 27).
If what you teach were valid, this would be impossible. Don't you consider those who don't live by the Law "lawless"?

The righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in them that love God and their neighbor because that love is what compels them to keep the requirements of the law.

The righteous requirement is to love one's neighbor and do him no harm (Ro 13:8-10).
We do this by walking in faith, which reveals God's righteousness not our own from the Law (Ro 1:17, 14:5, 23).

Hebrews 4:9 Peshitta: "IT IS THEREFORE THE DUTY OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD TO KEEP THE SABBATH".

I enlarged the letters so that you can't miss them this time.

I never missed it. Yes, we must rest--rest from our own works of righteousness, as Paul stated, "Being found in Him not having a righteousness of my own from the Law, but a righteousness from God based on faith in Christ."

No, it's about resting "as God did". Did God rest from literal work? Yes, His literal work of creating everything in six days. So, then, how are we to rest? Right, from literal work every Sabbath "as God did from His".

The point is we are not to work our own works of righteousness, but work works of faith, as Paul makes clear throughout Romans and in many other places.

 

[Phoneman777]

Right, my points stand unopposed and unanswered.

Thanks for discussing!

Look, stopping your ears and ignoring the warning in Isaiah 66:15-17 KJV that says Jesus will come and burn up swine eaters hardly establishes one's opposing argument.