Are Christians Permitted to Eat Unclean Animals?

[Darfius]

If the intent was that we are still to follow the Law of the Obsolete Covenant, then Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and the author of Hebrews should have written *much* more clearly. Even James should have done better. Off the top of my head, only Peter and Jude did not write anything that would specifically suggest the old Law is no longer in effect for those in Christ.

Where is the written law called "the obsolete covenant" in Scripture? And the Bible is as clear as it needs to be for those who want it to be clear. The stumbling stone for the Jews was not believing themselves righteous for going through rituals in the name of adhering to the law. The stumbling stone for Christians is not believing themselves righteous for paying lip service to Christ while disobeying Him. Two different problems requiring two different solutions.

[mikewhitney]

Darfius is doing the same type of argument as Soyeong. The argument is external to scripture without any mildly supportive scripture to show that Christians are obligated to the Mosaic Law.

The argument about Abraham's covenant misses the scope of that ... Abraham's physical descendants and, possibly, from one of the covenant passages, just the seed -- who is Jesus.

[Sparko]

I like how even though Soyeong has been nothing but cordial and respectful even in the face of ridicule in this thread, you guys still ridicule and disrespect him.

Me: You on the other hand know no other mode of posting and get what you dish out.

One post later:

So you are either stupid, a liar or--my personal favorite--both.

[Darfius]

Darfius is doing the same type of argument as Soyeong. The argument is external to scripture without any mildly supportive scripture to show that Christians are obligated to the Mosaic Law.

The argument about Abraham's covenant misses the scope of that ... Abraham's physical descendants and, possibly, from one of the covenant passages, just the seed -- who is Jesus.

Paul says Christians have been "grafted in" to the covenant. Why use that language if the covenant's rules are no longer in effect? And "Abraham's covenant" only applying to Abraham's physical descendants was a mistake the Jews made. I would hope a Christian would know better.

[Darfius]

Me: You on the other hand know no other mode of posting and get what you dish out.

One post later:

I like to bring verbal hellfire to save people from literal hellfire.

[Sparko]

I like to bring verbal hellfire to save people from literal hellfire.

No you just like being a sanctimonious, rude prig with delusions of competency.

[mikewhitney]

Paul says Christians have been "grafted in" to the covenant. Why use that language if the covenant's rules are no longer in effect? And "Abraham's covenant" only applying to Abraham's physical descendants was a mistake the Jews made. I would hope a Christian would know better.

You still have not stated any scripture in the NT to attest to your view. Your idea about Rom 11 is not convincing -- the point was not about the old covenant.

Wow. your idea about the Jews' mistake is certainly an unusual proposal.

In Galatians, Paul notes that people in Christ have the benefit of the Abraham covenant fulfilled through Jesus. In this fashion, the whole Israel covenant of law has been bypassed. While few recognize this implication, Paul's argument seems to be built around this point.

[NorrinRadd]

Where is the written law called "the obsolete covenant" in Scripture?

Heb. 8:13 uses that term. "Obsolete Covenant" is an expression I've been using for several years, well before Andy Stanley stirred up a stink-storm several months ago with a book he wrote.

In that same verse, the author speaks of the "New Covenant." It is explicitly the Covenant prophesied in Jer. 31. The early part of the chapter shows that the New and better Covenant replaces the Covenant of Moses, and that the change was needed because God found fault with the Mosaic Covenant (8:7). The previous chapter noted that the priesthood instituted by Moses was being replaced by the Melchizedek priesthood, that with a change in priesthood must necessarily come a change in law, and that a former commandment is set aside because it was "weak and useless" (7:18). This then leads into the discussion of the "better covenant" (7:22) which evolves in ch. 8.

I will here take the liberty of expanding on some things to which I alluded in the post to which you replied:

-- Matthew 12:39-40 records Jesus teaching that the whole Law depends on the Commandment(s) to "Love the LORD your God..." and the second which is like (or "the same as") it, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Elsewhere in Matthew, He boils it down further -- "Treat othes as you wish them to treat you" -- and says this one instruction fulfills the entire Law AND Prophets.

-- Mark 2:27 records Jesus teaching that "The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath." This sentiment seems rather starkly at odds with Ex. 31:15, which mandates the death penalty for profaning the Sabbath. We have already noted in this thread that in 7:19, Mark parenthetically avers that Jesus declared all foods clean.

-- Luke 10:27 records the Two Great Commandments as a single command, and Jesus affirming that keeping it is sufficient. Luke 22:20, during the Last Supper, records the first NT mention of "New Covenant."

-- John 6 records Jesus teaching that the only "work" needed to obtain eternal life is to "believe in Him." John 13:34, during the Last Supper, records the institution of the New Commandment. The sense of 15:12 in context seems to be that "love one another" replaces the numerous Commandments Jesus fulfilled (15:10).

-- In Romans, Paul famously makes clear that we are saved by faith, not works. Rom. 13:8-10 explicitly reduces the entire Law down to "Love your neighbor as yourself" or "Love one another," and says this is the only debt we owe each other. Rom. 14 makes clear that laws about holy days and permissible foods no longer apply.

-- In Galatians 3, Paul says that we progress in our salvation the same way we began -- by the Spirit, and by believing what we heard, not by works of Law. He also says we are "redeemed from the curse of the Law," which is probably a synecdoche meaning "We are released from the curse of living under Law," given that he goes on to say that the Law was a child-conductor needed only temporarily. Also in Galatians (4:10) he again notes with dismay that the church has reverted to thinking of some days as "special," and also, as in Romans, he sums up the whole law as "Love your neighbor as yourself" (5:14).

-- In Eph. 2, he famously says we are saved by grace through faith, not works. He goes on to say explicitly that God "nullified" the Law of "decrees and Commandments" for those in Christ. This clearly did not refer to just some man-made laws, because the context is that it was those laws given specifically to Jews to distinguish them from gentiles, i.e. the Laws of the Covenant that defined them as God's people.

-- In Col. 2:14, somewhat like Eph. 2:15, Paul says God "destroyed" the decrees against us. Therefore (v. 16), we are not to allow people to judge us in regard to holy days -- including the Sabbath -- or allowable foods, or whatever.

-- James spends the last section of ch. 1 talking about how we should live and treat each other, and sums it up with "27 Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their adversity and to keep oneself unstained by the world." Then in the next chapter, he gives practical examples, with the apex of his argument being, "8 But if you fulfill the royal law as expressed in this scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well." The rest of the chapter, including the famous and sometimes controversial "faith without works is dead" completes the context, showing that THE evidence of "faith" is doing acts in line with "Love your neighbor as yourself," and that these are the "works" to be concerned about.

[NorrinRadd]

Paul says Christians have been "grafted in" to the covenant. Why use that language if the covenant's rules are no longer in effect? And "Abraham's covenant" only applying to Abraham's physical descendants was a mistake the Jews made. I would hope a Christian would know better.

The "grafted in" language comes from the first part of Rom. 11. He does not there mention "covenant." Believing gentiles are "grafted in" to the people of God, not to the Obsolete Covenant. The mention of "covenant" in ch. 11 comes later, in v. 27. It appears to be an allusion (certainly not a direct quote) to Jer. 31, i.e. the New Covenant.

As to the Abraham thing, Paul makes clear that we are part of that in that Abraham's righteousness was due to his faith.

In any case, the Covenant to which we are party is the New and better Covenant with its new law, not the Obsolete Covenant which was found faulty.

[NorrinRadd]

I like to bring verbal hellfire to save people from literal hellfire.

How noble.

However, you should be aware that Gal. 5 says that attempts at righteousness via law-observance leave one fallen from grace and separated from Christ, and Gal. 1 says anyone trying to foist such a false "gospel" on others is to be accursed (implicitly, "damned to hell").

[Darfius]

Heb. 8:13 uses that term. "Obsolete Covenant" is an expression I've been using for several years, well before Andy Stanley stirred up a stink-storm several months ago with a book he wrote.

The form of the covenant became obsolete, as is clarified in Hebrews 8:8, not the written law.

In that same verse, the author speaks of the "New Covenant." It is explicitly the Covenant prophesied in Jer. 31. The early part of the chapter shows that the New and better Covenant replaces the Covenant of Moses, and that the change was needed because God found fault with the Mosaic Covenant (8:7). The previous chapter noted that the priesthood instituted by Moses was being replaced by the Melchizedek priesthood, that with a change in priesthood must necessarily come a change in law, and that a former commandment is set aside because it was "weak and useless" (7:18). This then leads into the discussion of the "better covenant" (7:22) which evolves in ch. 8.

Again, 8:8 clarifies that it was not the written law that was found fault with (as how could it be, having been authored by God?), but "the people." They could not adhere to the written law under that covenant, which God foreknew and provided for with the "new covenant", one in which they could keep the written law by the power of the indwelling Spirit.

I will here take the liberty of expanding on some things to which I alluded in the post to which you replied:

-- Matthew 12:39-40 records Jesus teaching that the whole Law depends on the Commandment(s) to "Love the LORD your God..." and the second which is like (or "the same as") it, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Elsewhere in Matthew, He boils it down further -- "Treat othes as you wish them to treat you" -- and says this one instruction fulfills the entire Law AND Prophets.

Yes, the written law was given us to enable us to love God and love our neighbor as ourself. But declaring arbitrarily that you love God and your neighbor does not make it true. Following God and Jesus' express commands go towards making it true, with the written law being part of their commands.

-- Mark 2:27 records Jesus teaching that "The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath." This sentiment seems rather starkly at odds with Ex. 31:15, which mandates the death penalty for profaning the Sabbath. We have already noted in this thread that in 7:19, Mark parenthetically avers that Jesus declared all foods clean.

A deeper understanding of the written law, provided by the Spirit, enables a deeper keeping of the written law. It also enables more grace when the strict letter of the law is not kept, in keeping with the Spirit behind the law. And as Soyeong has already pointed out, the context of Mark 7:19 is the ceremonial (traditional) handwashing of the Pharisees, not a brief, one sentence overturning of the written food laws of God. The Pharisees were teaching that above and beyond what God had already declared clean, food was not actually clean until the people observed a tradition of men over and above what God declared.

-- Luke 10:27 records the Two Great Commandments as a single command, and Jesus affirming that keeping it is sufficient. Luke 22:20, during the Last Supper, records the first NT mention of "New Covenant."

Where does Jesus utter the word "sufficient", as you claim? Pure eisegesis.

-- John 6 records Jesus teaching that the only "work" needed to obtain eternal life is to "believe in Him." John 13:34, during the Last Supper, records the institution of the New Commandment. The sense of 15:12 in context seems to be that "love one another" replaces the numerous Commandments Jesus fulfilled (15:10).

Scripture Verse: John 14

15 "If you love me, keep my commands."

© Copyright Original Source

-- In Romans, Paul famously makes clear that we are saved by faith, not works. Rom. 13:8-10 explicitly reduces the entire Law down to "Love your neighbor as yourself" or "Love one another," and says this is the only debt we owe each other. Rom. 14 makes clear that laws about holy days and permissible foods no longer apply.

James "famously" makes clear that faith without works is dead. Your usage of the word "reduce" rather than "sums up" is fitting, since you and your ilk wish to "reduce" God's control over you as the other heathens do. Your use of the word "only" to describe our debt to one another reveals your ignorance of what it means to truly love someone else as you love yourself, since it is a debt we cannot ever truly pay, which only those who truly make the attempt ever come to see. But following the written law helps us try.

"Romans" is a letter to Gentile members of the church who--as is made clear in the letter from the elders in Acts--were not held to a strict standard in regards to keeping the written law as they integrated into the family of God's people, which is all Romans 14 "makes clear." Paul wasn't saying he enjoyed ham sandwiches now.

-- In Galatians 3, Paul says that we progress in our salvation the same way we began -- by the Spirit, and by believing what we heard, not by works of Law. He also says we are "redeemed from the curse of the Law," which is probably a synecdoche meaning "We are released from the curse of living under Law," given that he goes on to say that the Law was a child-conductor needed only temporarily. Also in Galatians (4:10) he again notes with dismay that the church has reverted to thinking of some days as "special," and also, as in Romans, he sums up the whole law as "Love your neighbor as yourself" (5:14).

There's no need to speculate about what Paul meant by the curse of the law. In verse 10 he quotes explicitly from Deuteronomy 27 cursing those who do not keep the law. He is making it clear that a legalistic keeping of the law has never and can never save anyone and that a cursory breaking of the law in service to the higher Spirit would never condemn anyone. He is walking the thin line between the necessity for both faith and works as being two sides of the same loving coin. Often, pretenders wish to show preference to one or the other, doing nothing and professing their "faith" or enacting rituals and boasting of their "works". Christ freed us of such hypocrisy by enabling us to perfectly keep the law by the indwelling of His Spirit.

-- In Eph. 2, he famously says we are saved by grace through faith, not works. He goes on to say explicitly that God "nullified" the Law of "decrees and Commandments" for those in Christ. This clearly did not refer to just some man-made laws, because the context is that it was those laws given specifically to Jews to distinguish them from gentiles, i.e. the Laws of the Covenant that defined them as God's people.

The NIV, if I am reading the segment you are referring to correctly, says Christ "set aside in his flesh" the law, but set it aside in regards to the Gentiles being able to join God's people specifically. Before Christ, a Gentile had to become an Israelite to be saved, complete with circumcision and obedience to the written law. The whole point of Paul's ministry was to show that God's people now transcended culture and race, in Christ. It is not saying that obedience to the written law is of no import, but rather what is paramount is the knowledge of and obedience to Christ, which gives access to the Spirit. But the more we come to know God, the more we will seek to follow His commands, which the written law is an excellent source of.

-- In Col. 2:14, somewhat like Eph. 2:15, Paul says God "destroyed" the decrees against us. Therefore (v. 16), we are not to allow people to judge us in regard to holy days -- including the Sabbath -- or allowable foods, or whatever.

If a newly converted Gentile is ignorant of the written law--and they likely would be--they are not to be deemed as and treated less than a converted Jew. But if they scorn God's commandments even when knowledge is given, then their conversion is a sham.

-- James spends the last section of ch. 1 talking about how we should live and treat each other, and sums it up with "27 Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their adversity and to keep oneself unstained by the world." Then in the next chapter, he gives practical examples, with the apex of his argument being, "8 But if you fulfill the royal law as expressed in this scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well." The rest of the chapter, including the famous and sometimes controversial "faith without works is dead" completes the context, showing that THE evidence of "faith" is doing acts in line with "Love your neighbor as yourself," and that these are the "works" to be concerned about.

And are we each to define "love of our neighbor" for ourselves? Or is there some sort of guidebook written down somewhere?

[Darfius]

How noble.

However, you should be aware that Gal. 5 says that attempts at righteousness via law-observance leave one fallen from grace and separated from Christ, and Gal. 1 says anyone trying to foist such a false "gospel" on others is to be accursed (implicitly, "damned to hell").

I am already aware that ritualism is not Christianity. But there is something you should be aware of, too:

Scripture Verse: Matthew 5

7 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

© Copyright Original Source

[mikewhitney]

I am already aware that ritualism is not Christianity. But there is something you should be aware of, too:

Scripture Verse: Matthew 5

7 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

© Copyright Original Source

Why do you think that 5:17 is there? There would be no reason for people to think Jesus was abolishing the law unless the law was coming to an end. The reign of the law came to an end because Jesus fulfilled the law.

The Jewish universe did come to an end. Heaven and earth did pass away at the destruction of the temple.

Where did you get such a legalistic bias in reading Paul's letters?

[Darfius]

Why do you think that 5:17 is there? There would be no reason for people to think Jesus was abolishing the law unless the law was coming to an end. The reign of the law came to an end because Jesus fulfilled the law.

The Jewish universe did come to an end. Heaven and earth did pass away at the destruction of the temple.

Where did you get such a legalistic bias in reading Paul's letters?

So you read "do not think I have come to abolish the law" as "I have come to abolish the law"? And you ask me where my bias came from? The phrase "Jewish universe" does not appear in scripture. And I have no respect whatsoever for those who call the Lord Jesus, maker of heaven and earth, a lie-telling, rhetorical, flamboyant, ignorant backwoods rabbi. He meant every word He said.

[mikewhitney]

So you read "do not think I have come to abolish the law" as "I have come to abolish the law"? And you ask me where my bias came from? The phrase "Jewish universe" does not appear in scripture. And I have no respect whatsoever for those who call the Lord Jesus, maker of heaven and earth, a lie-telling, rhetorical, flamboyant, ignorant backwoods rabbi. He meant every word He said.

I missed seeing where you answered the issue I raised.