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).

 

[Capbook]

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).

May we know, why these passages said so? The LORD's declaration, subtitled as "Final Judgment and the Glory of the Lord."
As my resource Bible subtitled it "Final judgment," may we know further when do we interpret this would happen?

Final Judgment and Glory of the Lord​

Isa 66:15 For behold, the LORD will come in fire And His chariots like the whirlwind, To render His anger with fury, And His rebuke with flames of fire.​

Isa 66:16 For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh, And those slain by the LORD will be many.​

Isa 66:17 "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens, Following one in the center, Who eat swine's flesh, detestable things and mice, Will come to an end altogether," declares the LORD.​

 

[Ben1445]

May we know, why these passages said so? The LORD's declaration, subtitled as "Final Judgment and the Glory of the Lord."
As my resource Bible subtitled it "Final judgment," may we know further when do we interpret this would happen?

Final Judgment and Glory of the Lord​

Isa 66:15 For behold, the LORD will come in fire And His chariots like the whirlwind, To render His anger with fury, And His rebuke with flames of fire.​

Isa 66:16 For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh, And those slain by the LORD will be many.​

Isa 66:17 "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens, Following one in the center, Who eat swine's flesh, detestable things and mice, Will come to an end altogether," declares the LORD.​

You have ignored the beginning of verse 17. Judgment Is not specifically about what you are eating. The flesh profits nothing.
What are they doing? That is the real question.

 

[JonC]

May we know, why these passages said so? The LORD's declaration, subtitled as "Final Judgment and the Glory of the Lord."
As my resource Bible subtitled it "Final judgment," may we know further when do we interpret this would happen?

Final Judgment and Glory of the Lord​

Isa 66:15 For behold, the LORD will come in fire And His chariots like the whirlwind, To render His anger with fury, And His rebuke with flames of fire.​

Isa 66:16 For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh, And those slain by the LORD will be many.​

Isa 66:17 "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go to the gardens, Following one in the center, Who eat swine's flesh, detestable things and mice, Will come to an end altogether," declares the LORD.​

I have already listed the passages (passages in Matthew, Galatians, Hebrews, Colossians, Ephesians among others).

Paul made the point that to return to these laws was to rebuild what God has destroyed, to return to what has already been fulfilled. In Hebrews this is referred to as falling away from the faith (turning to the Law whose purpose was to testify of the comming Messiah).

God gave Noah every animal as food as He had given Adam plants. If it was wrong for Noah to eat pork, shrimp, catfish, etc then the sin falls on God for giving them to Noah as food.

The ONLY dietary laws (prohibiting eating certain animals) in Scripture is found in the Old Covenant Law which was made between God and Israel during the time of Moses.

And YES - an Israelite living in the time of Isaiah who ate pork was actively sinning against God by transgressing the Law. That person became a curse under the Law. So did the person who ate fruit from a tree that had not bore fruit for 3 years already. So did the man who was clean shaven.

BUT Scriptire tells is this Law has been "destroyed", "annulled", and "canceled" by being "fulfilled".

The idea that we fall under this covenant gained traction OUTSIDE of Christianity with the SDA cult. It spread to some Christian groups more recently as interest in Judiasm became popular.


You referencing Scripture describing those under the Law as transgressing the Law by being clean shaven, eating shrimp, etc is just as useless as it would have been for Isaiah to say God gave him pork as food because God gave it to Noah.

Isaiah was under the Law (he was a part of that covenant). He was forbidden to eat pork. Noah was not under the Law. God have him swine as food. We are not under the Law.

 

[JonC]

@Capbook

The more interesting part regarding those who place themselves under the Law concerning dietary laws is how selective they are in choosing which laws to apply to themselves (and others).

Under the Law eating swine, shrimp, catfish, etc. are forbidden. But so is eating fruit from a plant before it has produced three crops. So is men being clean shaven. So is men cutting the corners of their hair at the forehead (a rounded cut).

This is why Paul emphasized the folly in putting oneself under the Law. The Law testified of the Promise to come and was "fulfilled", "destroyed" "annulled", "canceled" with the arrival of the Promise.

This is why Paul emphasized that putting oneself under the Law was to embrace comdemnation and death. One cannot pick anc choose, and if one decides to put oneself under the fietary laws (or part of the dietary laws) one is under the entire Law and becomes a transgressor (becomes a curse, abandoning the freedom in Christ wrought by His own blood).

 

[Capbook]

You have ignored the beginning of verse 17. Judgment Is not specifically about what you are eating. The flesh profits nothing.
What are they doing? That is the real question.

If that is the case, may we know why verse 17 are all in commas except the one period in the last?
Isn't the flow of thought concerning of the subject "they or those" in other version?"

 

[Ben1445]

If that is the case, may we know why verse 17 are all in commas except the one period in the last?
Isn't the flow of thought concerning of the subject "they or those" in other version?"

I don’t know what you are asking. It appears to me that you are the person who has ignored the commas and started a new sentence midway through another.