Are Christians Permitted to Eat Unclean Animals?

[Christianbookworm]

Let's explain the whole concept of two covenants. It's like if a landlord had two different apartment complexes. Now many of the rules would be the same, but there would be differences.

[One Bad Pig]

I agree that all of the other commands are how to obey the greatest two commands, which is why I am arguing in favor of obeying all of the other commands.

...except they're not commands, and not exhaustive. They are examples to be followed; if a situation comes up which isn't explicitly covered by something, one should use the examples given to help understand how one should act in it. Even the examples given, however, aren't "do this, every single time." Sometimes one must choose between, e.g., obeying the government and proclaiming Christ. Commands are black and white; the real world is not.

[One Bad Pig]

I completely agree with Paul's stance against the Judaizers and have never suggested that all Gentiles need to become circumcised in order to become saved. Paul was not an enemy of God, so his problem with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching followers of God to follow Him commands, but that they were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified.

I"m honestly not sure how to distinguish between you and the Judaizers; the main difference appears to be that the Judaizers wanted everyone to have to follow the law up front, and you're willing to give Gentiles time to ease into things.

[Soyeong]

Let's explain the whole concept of two covenants. It's like if a landlord had two different apartment complexes. Now many of the rules would be the same, but there would be differences.

While we are under the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God with the same nature and therefore the same instructions for how to walk in the same ways and express the same character traits. For example, God's righteousness is eternal, so any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His righteousness will always be valid. For instance, if God were to make another covenant where it was in accordance with His righteousness to commit adultery and sinful to help the poor, then God's righteousness would not be eternal, so those will always be valid instructions.

Sin was in the world before the Law was given (Romans 5:13), so there was nothing that became or ceased to be righteous or sinful when the Mosaic Covenant was made, but rather the Mosaic Law revealed what has always been and will always be the way to do that. For instance, in Genesis 39:9, Joseph knew that it was a sin against God to commit adultery, so that didn't become sinful when the Mosaic Covenant was made and didn't cease to be sinful after it has become obsolete.

Even if God had never made any covenants with man, then there would still exist a way to act in accordance with God's nature and express His character traits, which we should still follow. For example, God judged the world with the Flood because of their sin and judged Sodom and Gomorrah for their Lawless deeds even though they weren't in a covenant relationship with Him (2 Peter 2:6-8), so it is not good to focus so much on whom the Law was given to that you lose sight of whom the Law was given by.

The Bible often uses the same terms to describe the character of God as it does to describe the character of God's Law, which is because it is God's instructions for how to express His character traits. There are many verse that describe the Mosaic Law as being instructions for how to walk in His ways, so it was given to teach us about who God is and about how to express His character traits in accordance with His nature. So by expressing God's character traits in accordance with His Law, we are acting as a light to the world, we are testifying to the world about who God is, and we are expressing our love for who God is (Deuteronomy 4:5-8).

[Christianbookworm]

And you completely missed the point.... Did you even watch the videos?

[Soyeong]

...except they're not commands, and not exhaustive. They are examples to be followed; if a situation comes up which isn't explicitly covered by something, one should use the examples given to help understand how one should act in it. Even the examples given, however, aren't "do this, every single time." Sometimes one must choose between, e.g., obeying the government and proclaiming Christ. Commands are black and white; the real world is not.

The things that God instructs are commands, though I would agree that they are not exhaustive. There are more ways to do what is righteous or sinful that the Law specifically prescribes or prohibits, but the Law is spiritual in that it has always been intended to teach us how to express deeper spiritual principles of which the listed laws are just examples, and which are the character traits of God. If we correctly understand a spiritual principle, then we will take actions that are examples of that principle in accordance with what the Law instruct and if we have a character trait, then we will express it through our actions.

I"m honestly not sure how to distinguish between you and the Judaizers; the main difference appears to be that the Judaizers wanted everyone to have to follow the law up front, and you're willing to give Gentiles time to ease into things.

In Acts 15:1, they were wanting to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved. However, that was never the purpose for which God command circumcision, so the problem was not with obeying what God has command, but with circumcision being used for a purpose that went above and beyond what God commanded it for. So the Jerusalem Council upheld God's Law by correctly ruling against that requirement and a ruling against requiring Gentiles to do something that God never commanded should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded.

My problem is that many Christians have taken things that were only said against obeying man-made laws as being against obeying God's Law, as though it were somehow a negative thing for followers of God to follow what He has commanded in accordance with the example that Christ set for us to follow. If we believe that God can be trusted to guide us in how to rightly live and to give laws that are for our own good, then then we should find His laws to be desirable. David said repeatedly throughout the Psalms that he loved God's Law and delighted in obeying it, which Paul also did (Romans 7:22), and if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of God's Law, then we should therefore share the same view.

For example, in Psalms 1:2, blessed are those who delight in the Law of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, which is fundamentally opposed to how most Christians view God's Law even though most Christians consider the Psalms to be Scripture. If someone were speaking to the group of Christians who have that verse memorized and were to suggest that we should delight in God's Law and meditate on it day and night, then it would be more likely for them to find Christians who would criticize them for being too legalistic than to find Christians who would agree and who want to be blessed. So something does not compute and I think the issue stems from misunderstanding Paul's problem with the Judaizers.

[Soyeong]

And you completely missed the point.... Did you even watch the videos?

Indeed, I watched all four of them and it is not the first time that I have watched them either. They make some points that I agree with and others that I disagree. For example, with the idea that you only have to follow the laws of the contract if you sign it is not correct because God judged people for their sins even though they were not in a covenant relationship with Him, such as with judging the world with the Flood, judging Sodom and Gomorrah, and threatening to judge Nineveh. If they were not under God's Law and obligated to obey it, then God would not have had any ground by which to judge them for their sin, but God is sovereign, so the whole world is obligated to obey His Law regardless of whether or not we sign a contract. It was not as though Sodom and Gomorrah had a choice of whether or not they wanted to be under God's Law and neither to we, so the choice we do get to make is whether or not we are going to heed the Gospel message, repent, and obey God's Law.

[mikewhitney]

Indeed, I watched all four of them and it is not the first time that I have watched them either. They make some points that I agree with and others that I disagree. For example, with the idea that you only have to follow the laws of the contract if you sign it is not correct because God judged people for their sins even though they were not in a covenant relationship with Him, such as with judging the world with the Flood, judging Sodom and Gomorrah, and threatening to judge Nineveh. If they were not under God's Law and obligated to obey it, then God would not have had any ground by which to judge them for their sin, but God is sovereign, so the whole world is obligated to obey His Law regardless of whether or not we sign a contract. It was not as though Sodom and Gomorrah had a choice of whether or not they wanted to be under God's Law and neither to we, so the choice we do get to make is whether or not we are going to heed the Gospel message, repent, and obey God's Law.

You are right about Sodom and Gomorrah not having a choice to be under law or not. In fact, there was no law for them to be under. So you have hit another dead end on your argument. How come you keep hitting these failed points in your argument?

[Soyeong]

You are right about Sodom and Gomorrah not having a choice to be under law or not. In fact, there was no law for them to be under. So you have hit another dead end on your argument. How come you keep hitting these failed points in your argument?

Again, God would not have had any grounds by which to judge them if they were not under His Law and obligated to obey it. In 2 Peter 2:6-8, they were judged for their Lawless deeds.

[mikewhitney]

Again, God would not have had any grounds by which to judge them if they were not under His Law and obligated to obey it. In 2 Peter 2:6-8, they were judged for their Lawless deed.

So you wish to make up laws out of thin air that they were to follow. That was popular in the first century too.

[Soyeong]

I didn't make up any laws, but rather all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160).

[mikewhitney]

I didn't make up any laws, but rather all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160).

without going into the many errors you make within so few words... we don't find many rules existing apart from the Jewish covenant when Moses came. Even the misuse of Romans 5:12-14 points that out. You are falling into the fallacy of Jewish perspectives of the first century before the Messiah was manifest among them.

For example, the Jews assumed that the law (essentially the Mosaic law) existed for Abraham to obey and thus become righteous. It doesn't even seem you need a Messiah at this point in your doctrine.

[Soyeong]

It was the Messianic Jews of the first century who caused problems for Paul in Acts 21:17ff. (This isn't finding a problem with Jews today who are simply acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah.)


The Jewish followers of Christ may have had a general requirement to adhere to the Law of Moses until the fall of the temple. The continuing adherence to the Mosaic Law would have been partly been for the goal of maintaining some common ground with Jews who still were under the Law. We see pressure on Paul by Jewish followers of Christ in Acts 21. But imagine if these Jewish Christians had stood out as non-followers of the Law. As seen in Hebrews, there was even compulsion to avoid assembling together lest they be identified as Christians and then be persecuted.

It is interesting that the passage reiterates the instructions given for Gentiles.
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Paul wouldn't have had a reputation about being against the law for Jews if Paul's message to Gentiles had included adherence to Jewish law. There had to be some element of truth for the Jerusalem Jews to have thought Paul was preaching this also to Jews.

Jesus did not come to start his own religion following a different god, but rather he came to bring fullness to Judaism as its Jewish Messiah in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy. He practiced Judaism by keeping the Torah and by teaching his followers how to obey it by word and by example. In Acts 6:13, Stephen was falsely accused of teaching against the Law and in Act 21:20-24, Paul took steps at the direction of James to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against obeying God's Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. So if no one in leadership was teaching people to rebel against what God had commanded, then all Christians were Torah observant Jews for roughly the first 7-15 years after Christ's resurrection up until the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10. This means that Christianity at its origin was the form of Judaism that recognized Jesus as its prophesied Messiah.

In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all Lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works. God's Law is his instructions for how to equip us to do every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17), so becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's Law is the correct respond to the Gospel message and in Acts 21:20, they were glorifying God that there were tens of thousands of Jews who believed and were becoming zealous for the Law. Christ was sinless, so he had a zeal for the Law that surpassed even the Pharisees. Gentiles to not need to become Jews in order to become followers of the Jewish Messiah of Judaism, but Gentiles can't follow him by refusing to follow the Law that he followed and spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey by word and by example.

When you have many Gentiles coming our of paganism who are unfamiliar with Christianity, then in order to avoid overwhelming them, it becomes important to be in the same page about which things need to be taught right away and which things can be taught over time as they mature in their faith. It would be ridiculous to think that Gentiles should disregard everything that God commanded and that Christ taught by word and by example except for those four laws. The Jerusalem didn't have greater authority than God, so they had no authority to countermand Him or to tell Gentiles not to obey any of His laws even if they had wanted to do that, nor should Gentiles follow them instead of God even if you insist that is what they were doing.

[Soyeong]

without going into the many errors you make within so few words... we don't find many rules existing apart from the Jewish covenant when Moses came. Even the misuse of Romans 5:12-14 points that out. You are falling into the fallacy of Jewish perspectives of the first century before the Messiah was manifest among them.

For example, the Jews assumed that the law (essentially the Mosaic law) existed for Abraham to obey and thus become righteous. It doesn't even seem you need a Messiah at this point in your doctrine.

The way to do what is righteous is straightforwardly based on God's righteousness, not on a particular covenant, so it existed before God made any covenants with man. The existence of righteousness and sinfulness requires there to be standard of what is and is not righteous or sinful, and that standard is God's eternal Law. There are many examples of God's laws being in place throughout Genesis long before they were given at Sinai, so even those who aren't in a covenant relationship should still follow them.

For example, in Genesis 26:5, Abraham heard God's voice and kept His charge, His commandments, his statutes, and His Laws. It doesn't go into details about the exact content of these instructions, but any two sets of instructions for how to act in accordance with God's eternal righteousness are going to be the same in type and vary only in the degree of thoroughness. Any instructions that God has ever given for how to act in accordance with His eternal righteousness are eternally valid. The Law points us to the Messiah because everything in it teaches us about who he is, how to walk in the same way he walked, and how to thereby grow in a relationship with him.

[Soyeong]

Oh!

Ok, the kind that recognizes Jesus as "I AM," or the kind that's actually an infidel and doesn't know it?

I recognize Jesus as "I AM".