Are Christians Permitted to Eat Unclean Animals?

[mikewhitney]

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.

Whenever you try defending your position, you are imagining laws that aren't given. I'm not sure how to build any doctrine or argument on that.

Sure Abraham did what God required of him that doesn't mean you have to put aside what Paul and Jesus taught just to put an emphasis on 1000 supposed laws that you think are required of Christians.

[mikewhitney]

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.

Not much of what you say here seems substantiated. The closest is 3 Tim 3:16-17. But this doesn't teach them to "do the Mosaic Laws" as some essential daily practice.

It is a bit odd for you to say "Jesus did not come to start his own religion" since he spoke of the covenant he was making with people. This covenant is a new things. Indeed it is the same God but it is not an obligation to the letter of the law as was the understanding in the old covenant.

Where do you get the idea that Jesus was teaching the people how to do the law? How do you come out with new teachings that were not part of Christian understanding for most of 2000 years?

[Soyeong]

Whenever you try defending your position, you are imagining laws that aren't given. I'm not sure how to build any doctrine or argument on that.

Sure Abraham did what God required of him that doesn't mean you have to put aside what Paul and Jesus taught just to put an emphasis on 1000 supposed laws that you think are required of Christians.

God's laws are not given arbitrarily, but rather they are given to teach us about who He is and how to express His character traits in accordance with his nature and God's nature is eternal, so there is no need to guess at the sort of laws that He has given. Again, there are many examples of God's laws being given throughout Genesis.

God's Law distinguishes between good and evil, so Adam and Eve would have gained knowledge of it when they ate of the tree. In any case, in Genesis 4:7, God told Cain that sin was couching at the door, which implies that he had been given instructions given God's Law. Likewise, it can be inferred that he was given instructions in regard to making offerings, it was sinful for him to hate his brother, and he was treated in accordance with God's instructions in Deuteronomy 19 for how to treat someone who accidentally committed manslaughter. In Genesis 7:2, Noah had been given instructions for what to do with clean and unclean animals without being told how to tell the difference and in 8:20, he knew to offer a clean animals, so he must have been instructed in that regard. In Genesis 39:9, Joseph knew that it was a sin against God to commit adultery.

I have never suggested that we should put aside what Paul and Jesus taught. Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand (Matthew 4:17, 23) and the Mosaic Law was how his audience knew what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to it is an integral part of the Gospel of Christ. Christ lived in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he would have still taught full obedience to it by example even if he had said nothing, and as his followers we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22), so he taught obedience to the Mosaic Law both by word and by example. We can't follow Christ by refusing to follow him.

[mikewhitney]

Soyeong,
you keep on saying there were laws applying to the non-Israel people. But you have only said that there were some laws to Noah and that Joseph had a concern about sinning against God through adultery. But you have not established how laws were made and applied to the non-Israel people. You totally missed the Romans 5:12-14 issue. How is anyone supposed to get bearings on this from what you have presented? You seem just to start with the idea that 'law' is everywhere ... in every nook and cranny ... behind every bush. But there is no record of this in scripture.

[The Remonstrant]

Soyeong, are you a Seventh-day Adventist?

No, he's a Messianic Jew.

All right; thank you.

[One Bad Pig]

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 more or less agree with this.

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.

This only sort of answers my question. Do you assert that Gentiles need to follow the law, and thus should be circumcised?

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.

I think you're broadly misunderstanding Paul (and Christians in general). Disagreeing with your interpretation of Ps. 1:2 is hardly an indication that someone does not want to be blessed. As far as I can see, meditating on how to love God and neighbor would fully qualify.

[Sparko]

Morality is in regard to what we ought to do and we ought to obey God, so all of God's Laws are inherently moral.

uh. no. Morality is how we treat each other. It is "right" and "wrong" - eating food has nothing to do with morality. It is a dietary rule. It is only given to those who belong to the Old Covenant and the Temple. Just like the sacrificial laws. You don't do those anymore. Yet if your definition is correct, then you are sinning by not sacrificing animals at the temple.

A number of God's laws came with conditions under which they should be followed, so for example there is nothing wrong with not keeping the Sabbath holy when it is not the 7th day for the same reason that there is nothing wrong with not keeping God's laws in regard to temple practice when there is no temple in which to practice them.

Er what? The 7th day is always Saturday, even on our calendar. So why isn't keeping the sabbath on Saturday still a commandment for you to follow? You seem to make excuses when it is convenient for you to allow behavior that you should consider breaking a commandment if you really believe you are still under the Law.

When the Israelites were in exile in Babylon, the condition for their return to the land was to first return to obedience to God's Law, which required them to have access to a temple that they didn't have access to while they were in exile, so we should be faithful to obey as much as we can obey. If we believe that God can be trusted to give laws for our own good in order to bless us, then we should have the attitude of looking for reasons for why we have the delight or getting to obey God's Law rather than the attitude of looking for every excuse under the sun to avoid following God's guidance. So there are both legitimate and illegitimate reasons for not obeying a particular law and there is a difference between someone who is not keeping the Sabbath holy because it is not the 7th day and someone is is not keeping the Sabbath holy because they are rebelling against what God has commanded.

The Jews still keep the Sabbath, so why don't you? Saturday is still the 7th day.

[Soyeong]

uh. no. Morality is how we treat each other. It is "right" and "wrong" - eating food has nothing to do with morality. It is a dietary rule. It is only given to those who belong to the Old Covenant and the Temple.

If morality is only in regard to our relationship with our neighbor and not in regard to our relationship with God, then it would not be immoral to commit idolatry, but if it is also in regard to our relationship with God, then all of God's laws are moral laws.

While it is good to correctly understand whom the Law was given to, it is not good to focus on that to the point that you lose sight of whom it was give by. The Mosaic Law was given to Israel to teach them about who He is, to teach them how to follow Him, to repent of their sin, and to walk in His ways, to teach them how to express His character traits in accordance with His nature, and to equip them to be a light to the nations and to bless the nations by teaching them to repent from their sin and how to walk in God's ways (Isaiah 2:2-3). By expressing God's character traits through our actions in obedience to His Law, we are testifying to the world about who God is (Deuteronomy 4:5-8), so the Law was given to Israel as a tool to evangelize and thereby bless the nations. So by focusing so much on whom the Law was given to, you are are losing sight of the fact that the Law was given to each us about who God is, and that we follow the same God.

For example, in 1 Peter 1:16, we are instructed to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to have a holy conduct, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so by following those instructions we are acting in accordance with and reflecting the holy character of our God.

Just like the sacrificial laws. You don't do those anymore. Yet if your definition is correct, then you are sinning by not sacrificing animals at the temple.

Er what? The 7th day is always Saturday, even on our calendar. So why isn't keeping the sabbath on Saturday still a commandment for you to follow? You seem to make excuses when it is convenient for you to allow behavior that you should consider breaking a commandment if you really believe you are still under the Law.

The Jews still keep the Sabbath, so why don't you? Saturday is still the 7th day.

Sorry if I was not clear. I do keep the Sabbath holy when it is the 7th day, but I do not follow that command during the other six days of the week, and there is nothing wrong with that for the same reason that there is nothing wrong with not following instructions in regard to temple practice when there is no temple in which to practice them along with no presiding Levitical priesthood. A good portion of the Mosaic Law was given to govern the conduct of the Levitical priesthood, which was only intended to be following by Levites, so there are both legitimate and illegitimate reasons for not following a particular law.

[Sparko]

If morality is only in regard to our relationship with our neighbor and not in regard to our relationship with God, then it would not be immoral to commit idolatry, but if it is also in regard to our relationship with God, then all of God's laws are moral laws.

I should have been clearer. The moral laws God gave the Israelites were not just about Him, they were about how to treat one another. You are taking the point to an extreme. Many of the laws God gave the Israelites were about how to treat one another and others were how to be separate from other people and he taught them lessons about that using clean and unclean things. The whole point of telling them not to eat certain foods wasn't because it was immoral to eat shell fish or pork, but because he wanted them to understand that they were a chosen people and were to be separate from the gentiles who did eat pork and shellfish. And the point of Peter's vision is that they are no longer separate from gentiles, they are a new people, Jews and Gentiles alike who belong to Christ. Those are the chosen people now. Christians.

[Darfius]

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. It makes me feel completely justified in treating you like the hypocrites you are.

"We don't have to do what God said because Jesus came to deliver us from doing what God said." omgsmdhwtfroflmfao And you guys dare to call yourselves Christians.

Jesus and Paul's beef were with the oral law of the Pharisees, not the written law. The "traditions of men" which had obscured and overruled the laws of God. No one has to get circumcised to be saved, but if you know that God desires such a sign of your loyalty to Him in your flesh, why wouldn't you? Jesus came to save us from abuse, misapplication, misinterpretation, and disobedience to the law into a perfect fulfillment of it because we have something better: the Spirit.

[Darfius]

By the way, the calendar of fixed "weeks" that we have now came from the Romans. Saturn's day has not always been the 7th day. I'd tell you to educate yourselves, but you're inherently opposed to that.

[JonathanL]

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. It makes me feel completely justified in treating you like the hypocrites you are.

"We don't have to do what God said because Jesus came to deliver us from doing what God said." omgsmdhwtfroflmfao And you guys dare to call yourselves Christians.

Jesus and Paul's beef were with the oral law of the Pharisees, not the written law. The "traditions of men" which had obscured and overruled the laws of God. No one has to get circumcised to be saved, but if you know that God desires such a sign of your loyalty to Him in your flesh, why wouldn't you? Jesus came to save us from abuse, misapplication, misinterpretation, and disobedience to the law into a perfect fulfillment of it because we have something better: the Spirit.

You're working from the presumption that circumcision is something "God desires [as] a sign of your loyalty to Him in your flesh" but there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that supports this idea. Circumcision was the mark of the old covenant, not the new, and there's no need anymore for anyone who doesn't belong to the old covenant to undergo circumcision for the sole reason of pleasing God.

And the argument is not that "We don't have to do what God said because Jesus came to deliver us from doing what God said." The argument is that as gentiles we were never required to follow the Law of Moses in the first place, since that Law was for the people living under the old covenant. We were required to follow the Moral Law, but the Moral Law and the Mosaic Law are not the same thing, even though parts of the Mosaic Law is a specific expression of the Moral Law fit for the time and culture in which it was given. And even when we become members of the new covenant there is still no need for us to follow the Law of Moses in the sense that we have to follow every commandment in the Old Testament literally as it is written. There are of course general moral principles behind the moral laws in the Old Testament that we ought to try and heed, but trying to literally fulfill every commandment and rule from the old covenant to the letter is completely unnecessary.

And we haven't even touched on the sacrificial, ritual, dietary and purity laws of the OT yet, of which there is probably not a single one that we as gentiles (both before and after becoming Christians) have any obligation, nor any reason that would be generally applicable, to follow. Neither is there any obligation for a Jewish convert to continue following these laws after he becomes a Christian, except for the sacrifical laws (ignoring for a moment the fact that performing sacrifices according to the laws of the OT is impossible at the moment), although he may choose to continue living according to these laws if he wishes to.

[NorrinRadd]

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. It makes me feel completely justified in treating you like the hypocrites you are.

"We don't have to do what God said because Jesus came to deliver us from doing what God said." omgsmdhwtfroflmfao And you guys dare to call yourselves Christians.

Jesus and Paul's beef were with the oral law of the Pharisees, not the written law. The "traditions of men" which had obscured and overruled the laws of God. No one has to get circumcised to be saved, but if you know that God desires such a sign of your loyalty to Him in your flesh, why wouldn't you? Jesus came to save us from abuse, misapplication, misinterpretation, and disobedience to the law into a perfect fulfillment of it because we have something better: the Spirit.

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.

[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. It makes me feel completely justified in treating you like the hypocrites you are.

"We don't have to do what God said because Jesus came to deliver us from doing what God said." omgsmdhwtfroflmfao And you guys dare to call yourselves Christians.

Jesus and Paul's beef were with the oral law of the Pharisees, not the written law. The "traditions of men" which had obscured and overruled the laws of God. No one has to get circumcised to be saved, but if you know that God desires such a sign of your loyalty to Him in your flesh, why wouldn't you? Jesus came to save us from abuse, misapplication, misinterpretation, and disobedience to the law into a perfect fulfillment of it because we have something better: the Spirit.

I haven't disrespected him. You on the other hand know no other mode of posting and get what you dish out.

[Darfius]

You're working from the presumption that circumcision is something "God desires [as] a sign of your loyalty to Him in your flesh" but there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that supports this idea. Circumcision was the mark of the old covenant, not the new, and there's no need anymore for anyone who doesn't belong to the old covenant to undergo circumcision for the sole reason of pleasing God.

Scripture Verse: Genesis 17

9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

© Copyright Original Source

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

And the argument is not that "We don't have to do what God said because Jesus came to deliver us from doing what God said." The argument is that as gentiles we were never required to follow the Law of Moses in the first place, since that Law was for the people living under the old covenant. We were required to follow the Moral Law, but the Moral Law and the Mosaic Law are not the same thing, even though parts of the Mosaic Law is a specific expression of the Moral Law fit for the time and culture in which it was given. And even when we become members of the new covenant there is still no need for us to follow the Law of Moses in the sense that we have to follow every commandment in the Old Testament literally as it is written. There are of course general moral principles behind the moral laws in the Old Testament that we ought to try and heed, but trying to literally fulfill every commandment and rule from the old covenant to the letter is completely unnecessary.

Where does the New Testament teach that obedience to the written law is no longer necessary? As Soyeong has already pointed out, the list given in Acts for new, Gentile Christians was not meant to be exhaustive, but rather "ease" them into the covenant.

And we haven't even touched on the sacrificial, ritual, dietary and purity laws of the OT yet, of which there is probably not a single one that we as gentiles (both before and after becoming Christians) have any obligation, nor any reason that would be generally applicable, to follow. Neither is there any obligation for a Jewish convert to continue following these laws after he becomes a Christian, except for the sacrifical laws (ignoring for a moment the fact that performing sacrifices according to the laws of the OT is impossible at the moment), although he may choose to continue living according to these laws if he wishes to.

Have you or any of the other morons here ever stopped to think why God would give these laws "only to the Jews"? If mere separation from the surrounding cultures was intended, He did not need to use language such as "abomination" or "filth" to describe the behavior the laws are meant to curb. But He did. The laws were clearly universal in application and only given to the Jews because the Jews were the only people group in a position to receive them.

And the necessity of a temple to carry out sacrifices is probably why the temple is rebuilt and then desecrated by the Antichrist. Why would he desecrate something that means nothing to God, by the way? Hopefully you have a lightbulb moment.