Dietary Laws

[Capbook]

Is there anyone here who believes the Levitical dietary laws are still in force?

For me, I believe so, as the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron regarding animals suitable as food in Leviticus 11.

In the case of pig, the LORD give only one reason why it is unclean, as, "it does not chew the cud."
If pigs did chew the cud these days, I believe we might be right to call it's meat food.

Lev 11:7 and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you.​

 

[JonC]

I assure you I am not trying to play the victim.

It sounded like you were trying very hard to find offense by applying one meaning to a word that we all know has many.

Just see it from my perspective. You, I am sure, have encountered "sinfully" in many different ways, with several different meanings. One can act sinfully (sin against God, or sin against man). One can say a cake is sinfully delicious. One says "guilty as sin". And even in the UK using the meaning "unreasonably" is very common.

"Sinful" is a real word with several different meanings. Before playing a victim by taking offense you would have done well to have consulted a dictionary.

I looked it up in Merrium-Webster dictionary to confirm "sinful" meant "unreasonably" rather than just taking it as a common phrase here. It took less than a minute.

So you were wrong in two ways. First, a saying is not always the sum of its words (although in this case, it is). Second, "sinful" means "unreasonably".

Today people seek to be offended, and they find what they are looking for even if it is of their own making. I am not sure exactly when this victim mentality became popular (that was not the case when I was growing up, at least in the US).

Now...if this were a thread about sins then you would have a point. But Christians need to stop playing the victim. We have the victory. We have to stop crying at the drop of a dime.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Even Scripture uses "sin" to speak of offending another person (perhaps not its most common use, but anybody reading their Bible will come across this use several times).

"Sinfully" can mean:

1. A sinful action agsinst God
2. An offense against another person.
3. Decadent
4. Unreasonably or to an extreme

All sin is sin against God. Gen. 39:9; Psalm 51:4; 1 Cor. 8:12; James 2:8-9.

 

[JonC]

All sin is sin against God. Gen. 39:9; Psalm 51:4; 1 Cor. 8:12; James 2:8-9.

Ultimately sin (as wickedness) is against God. But we also sin against one another.

You deny that we are to forgive those who sin against us (Matt 6:12-14); that people may sin against us (Matt 18:15); that we rebuke Christians who sin and forgive those who sin against us (Luke 17:3-4); that if we forgive thise who sin against us God will forgive us when we sin against Him, BUT if we do not forgive those who sin against us God will not forgive us when we sin against Him (Matt 6:14-15).

As long as you have been on this board you have viewed sin as a very superficial thing (as actions that deserve to be punished), so I get that you cannot grasp the word in any context other than actions against God (apart from other implications).

In theology these are often termed as horizontal sin (sins against one another) and vertical sin (sins against God). All sin (wickedness) is against God. But often sin against another is not wickedness (the offense against us is not always intended as such, but we harbor the resentment). This is often the case in interpersonal relationships, very often in business situations.

Maybe the trouble you are having with understanding God's Word cones from your selective approach (you pick and choose which passages to believe).

 

[JonC]

The problem here (with the OP) is not the error in theology. The error is not good, but the problem is the error has become an identifier to the person's faith.

Our understanding is flawed. It will be flawed in this life. It is when we lean on this understanding that we risk being carried away from the faith by our philosophy.

Some Christians in Paul's time believed that they were under certain Old Covenant laws. If they were offered a plate of pulled pork and ate the meal it would violate their conscious (they viewed it as sin, so partaking would be sinful for them). They lacked knowledge. They were of a "weaker faith". But that was fine. We look out for the weaker brother.

BUT some were advocating that others return to specific laws under the Law. These Paul condemned. They were falling away.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 0430 GMT, 1030 pm EDT , 730 pm PDT

 

[rstrats]

Dietary law begins in Genesis 1, not Leviticus. However, in answer to your question, 'Yes.'

When discussing Peter's vision in Acts and the Levitical dietary rules with those who say that they have been cancelled, they sometimes use Galatians 2:14 to support the idea.

The anti-dietary law advocates say that the phrase, "...livest after the manner of Gentiles..." includes the eating of unclean animals thus showing that Peter not only understood the vision to have been about cancelling the Jews practice of avoiding contact with Gentiles but also been about the cancelling of the dietary rules as well even though Peter never wrote anything about that.

Since you say that you think that the dietary laws are still in force, how would you reply to their comment?


Also, when Paul asked Peter "why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews" to what do you think Paul was referring?

 

[JonC]

For me, I believe so, as the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron regarding animals suitable as food in Leviticus 11.

In the case of pig, the LORD give only one reason why it is unclean, as, "it does not chew the cud."
If pigs did chew the cud these days, I believe we might be right to call it's meat food.

Lev 11:7 and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you.​

Pigs do not chew cud because they have a single chambered stomach.

It all goes back to the context of these dietary laws. They were given to a specific people at a specific point in time under a specific covenant. They did not apply to Israel's forefathers (like Adam, Noah and Abraham) and they did not apply to Gentiles (Deut 12).

Adam was not given any animals as food. Noah was given all animals as food (Genesis 9). The dietary laws applied only to Israelites who were a part of the Old Coveant Law given through Moses. This Law was intended to be a witness of the Messiah who was to come (John 5:39;

The Law was added (it did not apply to those before the Law) UNTIL the Seed to Whom the promise was made came (Galatians 3:19).

The Law was "canceled" (Col 2:14), "abolished" (Ephesians 2:15), "annulled"(Hebrews 7:18), "destroyed" (Galatians 2:18) by being fulfilled (Matt 5:17).

Those who try to rebuild what has been destroyed (returning to the dietary laws, the ceremonial laws, the Old Covenant) prove themselves transgressors and abandon the purpose of Christ's death in freeing us from bondage (Galatians 2-3).