Is Eating Pork Wrong?

Brother Bob,
Are we stil sinning if we are unaaare that the food we are eating is rats, cats, or dogs? Thank you.
Faithgirl

 

Do you know what is usually the difference between someone who is on "skid row" and a legalistic 'Christain' is ?

The "skid row" 'bum' is a wino; the legalist is a 'whine-o' bum.

Ed

 

Christ says "you say you see - so your sin remains" - so I would agree with you that those who do not see rats and cats as something God forbids as food - may not have the guilt at some level. But the same goes for idolatry.

However the disease coming from "not eating food" would still apply to those who eat rats and the damage done to the soul and the view of God that is done through idolatry would still be there.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In Genesis 6 we see that the "clean/unclean" distinction was in existence prior to the writing of the book of Leviticus -- so it is infact much simpler than you suppose.

But remember the "Goal" is not to find ways to ignore the Word of God -- right?

Also note that in Isaiah 66 you see a "future" where God is pouring out fire and brimstone on all mankind (something we see in Rev 20) and in that future - God punishes those who eat mice.

If you have some "future hell" for those who wear cotton - listed in scripture - feel free to show it.

Otherwise I am not going to equivocate between laws that were in existence before Israel and ARE enforced AFTER the NT age -- and those that are not.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This whole argument is really moot.

We are no longer under the Old Testament law.

The Old covenant has indeed been abolished

2 Cor 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

Heb. 7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

 

If we can slice up our Bible so that it no longer has 66 books - just 27 (the NT) the question is -- should we ALSO slice out the 4 gospels recording the doctrinal positions of God PRIOR to the Cross??

Some would say "YES YES" --

I say no to both!

Christ is "THE SAME" yesterday today and forever. God says "I DO NOT CHANGE therefore you are not destroyed" Mal 3:6.

Paul says "DO we then MAKE VOID the Law of God by our faith?? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW of God" Rom 3:31.

Christ said that "Those who say that the law of God can be broken and SO teaches others will be called least in the kingdom of God" Matt 6.

I am thinking these sources "can be believed".

 

Just maybe, some understand scripture rightly in its proper historical contex. If we ignore the historical values, we ignore fact.

I haven't seen anyone take the scissors to the Bible yet. Does someone have an over imaginative mind overemployed?

Cheers,

Jim

I wear shoes and not sandals, trousers and not robes.

 

What a great thing - hopefully all here can agree to keeping the 66.

I would be greatly surprised to see them all accept it - but who knows -- it could happen!

 

Back to the thread topic, if eating pork is wrong then I don't want to be right... JK

But I would have to cancel my BBQ sauce of the month membership....

 

Interesting.

Then in Lev 11 God makes some kind of statement about "what is food".

You have to admit that the devotion we see to pork on THIS thread is also expressed in some parts of Asia and the far east for the rats, cats, dogs and bats!

I am sure "they too" would not want to be right - eh?

The question is - do they try it with BBQ sauce?

 

what about skunk?

 

Are you implying you only eat Kosher meats? That you only eat meats prepared under the supervision of a Rabbi? How about shell fish? I mean if you obey one part (pork) of the law then shouldn't you obey the entire law? Do you eat leveaned bread?

Now, let's go NT.

1 Timothy 4:2-5 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Romans 14:2-4 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

1 Corinthians 8:8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

1 Corinthians 10:25-27 25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

Then there was the time before the ecclesiastical law which was under the priest hood of Melchizedek. I mention this because Paul says, "Hebrews 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. "

Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

 

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Then in Lev 11 God makes some kind of statement about "what is food".

You have to admit that the devotion we see to pork on THIS thread is also expressed in some parts of Asia and the far east for the rats, cats, dogs and bats!

I am sure "they too" would not want to be right - eh?

The question is - do they try it with BBQ sauce?

This is a common argument of the form "The OT has a bunch of bad ideas in it - surely we don't want ANYTHING from that part of God's Word do we? If we take some part of it then we will have to pay attention to all of it and - that means paying attention to all those bad ideas.

Let's just ignore it and only pay attention the 27 books of the NT!

After all God sent His Son to save us from Sin AND to have us from His OT Word"


We will now look and see if the NT authors agree with that slash-and-burn approach to the OT.

But first I want to look at the OT (PRE-CROSS) teaching of God (who does not change) as we find it in the book of Mark and a PRE-CROSS teaching of God.

Christ insists that we can NOT MIX the man-made-traditions of the Jews WITH the OT Word of God can call it all "God's WORD" as some often do today.

In Christ,

Bob

 

So before we go around saying that the Creator did not know what He was talking about in Lev 11 as HE defined what animals are "for food" and what animals (rats, cats, snakes, dogs, horses and bats) are NOT for food...

We need to take a hard look at what the NT authors said about the OT text of God's Word and how we should NOT ignore it!

Instead of “less obedience” to each commandment of Christ the Creator – God calls for “more”.

Instead of “less obedience” to each commandment of Christ the Creator – God calls for “more”. No wonder Paul says --

So lets see. The law will not change in even the minutest way, till heaven and earth pass. Anyone who breaks the law, and teaches others to do so, will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Thinking about committing sin is now just like actually committing the sin. Ah, the law has been magnified. Christ came and fulfilled the law, observing all of it’s commands, even in thought, not just action.

Yes, lets let the scriptures speak for themselves.

Christ quotes from the 3rd commandment for the statement above.

Christ said that HIS commandment and the Father’s Commandment are one and the same

Notice that John promotes this theme not only with his recording the pre-cross statements of Christ the hCreator – but also the post –cross teaching.

Christ condemns those who would break the Commandments of God for the sake of man-made tradition –

Christ’s followers continue to keep the Sabbath commandment after His command that they should “Love Me and Keep My Commandments” John 14:15 (quoting from the 3rd commandment in Exodus 20)

Why do the Gospel writers take such care to teach us what Christ commanded them?

Notice that John does not try to “divide God” as if God’s commandments are not Christ’s

 

In Gen 6 and 8 we see the distinction of "Clean vs Unclean" used pre-Cross.

The Clean animals go into the ark by 7's and the unclean by 2's.

So when Noah comes out of the ark - there are STILL more concentrations of any one clean species than any one unclean.

That part is obvious.

But what about plants - are all plant edible?? Or are SOME good for food and OTHERS down right poisonous??

That answer is also obvious.

The division exists for BOTH plants and animals. Some are food and some are not.

Gen 9

Here we see in Genesis 6 the pre-sinai disctinction between clean and unclean carried over onto the ark and coming out of the ark!

In Lev 11 we see the distinction is continued at Sinai.

In Gen 9 we see that just as the plants are divided - some for food and some not - so also the clean/unclean distinction provides that same line for animals.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Some would argue that we SHOULD be eating rats, cats, dogs, horses and bats and NOT to do so would be to violate God's command to eat them.

But Lev 11 makes it clear what "the CREATOR" says is "FOOD" as He says "THESE are FOOD" and points them out.

Further - Isaiah 66 shows that this remains even until the future point of the Rev 20 lake of fire and brimstone where God punishes those who eat mice FOR doing it!

This is an issue of "judging others" - but is not a command to ignore God's Word the way many have taken it today.

1 Cor 8 and 10 we are shown that the NT issue of meat has to do with "meat that is for food" that has been offerred to idols.

(Recall that in Acts 15 they are actually forbidden from eating meat offerred to idols)

Note - there is "NO" OT command to "eat vegetables only" so this is not an issue between Jews and Gentiles and is not an issue that is solved by doing a slash-and-burn of the OT.

The Vegetable vs meat issue is explained clearly in 1Cor 8 and 11 by Paul.

In the 1 Cor 8 example the “Jew” is the one that KNOWS there is only one REAL God. The gentile is the one who thinks that the idols are competing gods.

This is the ONLY NT text giving us "detail" on the "VEGETABLES ONLY" Vs "Meat" controversy vs "eating Meat"! And it is clearly NOT a Lev 11 issue!

This is the ONLY text in the NT explaining how it is that "he who HAS faith" and knowledge can possibly wound the one who "eats vegetables only".

This then is the CONTEXT for the SAME points being discussed in Romans 14.

 

Having said all that -- "under supervision of Rabbi" is not in Lev 11. But you make a good point that IF we ARE going to pay any attention at all to God's Word telling us not to eat rats, cats, dogs, horses and bats then we will be stuck having to pay attention to what He says about shell fish as well.

I agree completely.

We just need to decide what do do with God's Word.

Christ's approach to His own OT Word was always to "strengthen" the obligation and authority of what He said - never to abolish it.

 

You're speaking on your own behalf, I presume.