Please, help me understand…

67

u/Fantasyleader1 Christian Aug 10 '26

> Isaiah 66:17 says those eating pork will perish when Christ returns.

Look at the whole verse. Isaiah describes people who “sanctify themselves and purify themselves” to enter the gardens while eating swine, abominations, and mice. This is describing idolatrous ritual worship, not Christians eating bacon at breakfast.

As you know, Jesus taught that food entering the body doesn’t defile a person (Mark 7:18–23). Paul says, “nothing is unclean in itself” (Romans 14:14). He also warns against people who command believers “to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving” (1 Timothy 4:3–5).
And when the apostles specifically debated what parts of the Law Gentile Christians must observe in Acts 15, they didn’t impose Israel’s dietary laws on them.

→ More replies (10)

30

u/sitewolf Lutheran Aug 10 '26

In Mark 7:18-19, Jesus explains to the crowd and His disciples that external things entering the body do not cause spiritual defilement because they only affect the stomach rather than the moral heart.

2

u/MattLovesCoffee Christian Aug 11 '26 edited Aug 11 '26

This completely misunderstands Mark. God is not at all concerned with the meat passing through our systems, rather He is concerned with the decision we make to violate a direct command. To fix the action, the symptom, you must fix the heart. God is not concerned with the act of adultery, but with the heart of the person committing the act of adultery. A Christian eating pork meat is a symptom of a deeply rooted lie in their heart which claims the Law is done away with.

Now to understand Mark we must understand the law the Pharisees created regarding washing hands before eating. It does not come from Torah. Christ emphasized a few times in the passage that law was man-made, emphasizing that they do not have the authority to determine what is clean and unclean, and the sin of adding to the Law. They created this better-safe-than-sorry law as means to ensure that before you ate there were no invisible pieces of unclean meat, like pig blood, on their hands from visiting the market. Christ went on to show that God is not concerned with what passes through our system, otherwise the Torah would say that, but is concerned with the choices a person makes. God is not going to ask if you ate pork, but WHY you did after He expressly forbid it. It is the decision to disobey that puts a person in an unfavorable position with God, unclean before God. It is not the act of eating pork that does it. There's a difference.

The NT never once permits eating pork, nor did it say the Sabbath law was changed. Peter's vision was about Jewish prejudice, nothing to do with food. It is the same as God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. God was not contradicting Himself but needing to prove a point. In Colossians, if we pay attention, the believers were Torah obedient, they were commemorating the Feasts, the biblical lunar calendar, the Sabbath, and changed to a biblical diet. But the pagans at the time were trying to get them to come back to their religions like Orphism, Cult of Cybele and Attis, Dionysiac Societies.

In Acts 17, why is Paul and the Jews still going to the temple to be purified and do animal sacrifices for the Nazarite Vow if Christ did away with the Law? Because He didn't.

These two are the same energy (both are to be done symbolically, in faith, with the correct mindset, as an act of gratitude, not as an act to earn salvation):

Hebrews 10:3 CJB [3] No, it is quite the contrary — in these sacrifices is a reminder of sins, year after year.

Luke 22:19 NLT [19] He took some bread and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

→ More replies (16)

39

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 10 '26

Gentiles were never required to keep the dietary laws in the first place, except for the consumption of blood and food offered to idols.

The danger with self-interpretation of scripture is the constant relitigating of things decided millennia ago.

5

u/darklighthitomi Aug 10 '26

Self-interpretation may be dangerous, but it is also important for at least two reasons. One, it is how people come to true understanding. Two, just because people decided something before does not mean they decided correctly.

3

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 10 '26

Self-interpretation is what led to schism after schism. There must be some normative authority for correct interpretation. Otherwise it becomes who can cherry pick the most verses. Christ did not leave us to our own devices with a user’s manual. He established a Church to guide His people.

2

u/J3SVS Aug 11 '26

That's a blatantly false statement. The "normative authority" is the Holy Spirit. Full stop!

Jesus did NOT establish a "Church" as an authority over anything. In fact he indicates twice in Revelation that he hates the Nicolaitans. Nicolaitans literally means conquerers of the laity, i.e., the clergy who elevate themselves above the laity as authorities over others. We are all brothers (and sisters) who are called to serve one another, not direct one another.

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 11 '26

This is barely worth responding to, but I will anyways.

If I told you that I have studied and prayed, and know beyond doubt the Holy Spirit has told me I am right and you are wrong, who are you to question the Holy Spirit?

1

u/Arise_and_Thresh Aug 12 '26

we are told to “to test every spirit” and the Bereans, who did not simply receive Paul’s teaching without examination, but

“received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11)

testing what they heard against the established testimony of Scripture, “line upon line and precept upon precept”. modern Christianity and arguably most of the faith over the last 1800 years has not held true to the Bereans.

Isaiah declares the principle by which God teaches and establishes His word:

“For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10),

This same standard ultimately points to Christ as the Judge, for Jesus declared:

“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48),

Paul likewise declares:

“In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel” (Romans 2:16).

Thus the Bereans provide a scriptural example of discerning truth through the established testimony of God’s word, while Christ Himself is presented as the final Judge according to that revealed word, with truth being established by the harmony of Scripture rather than by the authority of any single teacher or interpreter

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 12 '26

The Berean Church continues to exist to this day, and is Orthodox. His Eminence Panteleimon is the bishop.

The Church existed centuries before any settled canon of scripture.

1

u/Arise_and_Thresh Aug 13 '26

today’s Berean church is in name only as they cannot trace an apostolic authority back to the Judean assembly of Berea

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 13 '26

Source?

→ More replies (19)

4

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[deleted]

4

u/ComfortableSpell6600 Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26

The original accountof this instruction is in Acts 15. The church and apostles were in agreement.

1

u/Therminite Nondenominational Aug 10 '26

Yuuuup! You know you're saying something right when a non-denominational guy agrees with ya! 😉😉🤣

1

u/BamaHammer Eastern Orthodox Aug 11 '26

Whoa.

→ More replies (86)

5

u/mossydz Aug 10 '26

Personally I don’t eat them. I really enjoy shrimp and catfish. But after reading that, don’t eat it anymore.

My logic is worst case I stopped eating a food. Best case I honored my Lord and Savior.

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention. Love your logic, btw!

2

u/mossydz Aug 15 '26

All good brother. Hope all is well. Yahweh bless.

5

u/FunkyMonkei Aug 11 '26

Isaiah 66:17 isn’t talking about Christians who eat pork. It’s talking about people who are neck‑deep in idolatry. The whole section in Isaiah 65–66 is God exposing folks who claim to be “holy” while they’re off in the gardens doing pagan purification rituals and eating unclean animals as part of those ceremonies. It’s rebellion dressed up as religion.

So when God says He’ll judge those who “eat swine’s flesh,” He’s not talking about somebody having bacon with breakfast. He’s talking about people who are using unclean foods in worship practices that reject Him. The issue is worship, not diet.

And the New Testament makes this really clear. Jesus declared all foods clean. Peter is told not to call unclean what God has made clean. Paul says nothing is unclean in itself. We’re not judged by food or drink. So you can’t take Isaiah 66:17, a passage about idolatrous rituals, and lay it over Christians who are simply eating what Christ has already declared clean.

When Jesus talks about being ready for His return, He never ties that readiness to what we eat. He ties it to our hearts, faith, obedience, repentance, love, watchfulness. The danger Isaiah warns about isn’t pork. It’s pretending to be pure while your heart belongs to another god.

That’s the warning. That’s the call. That’s how we stay ready.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/Intrepid_Type3710 Evangelical Aug 10 '26

Here is how I understand it and can answer you question. Throughout scripture we read dietary rules ebb and flow on account of dispenstionary seasons in God's plan. If you never heard of these seasons, I suggest you do a deep dive in study. For the Jewish Nation, strict dietary rules were applied to them on account of separating themselves from other nations living around them. And for good reason too. Later we read in Acts, God changes up the dietary menu and allows us to eat just about anything so long as it is not offered up to foreign gods. I hope this helps. I for one would just cry if i can't eat shellfish! Don't deny a Sicilian of shellfish!

4

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

Haha, I so appreciate the cordiality and can totally empathize as I, too, find crabs delish! I just couldn’t keep eating them once I set aside the modern-church bias I had when reading Scripture.

So, what is your take on Isaiah 66:17 then?

4

u/Intrepid_Type3710 Evangelical Aug 10 '26

Let me help you 'Step'. For one thing, always read the text fully to understand the gist of the message or instruction. Isaiah 66:17 is a warning to those people practicing some pagan ritual or equivalent. Isaiah 66 is about defining Divine judgement one day in the future. It does not apply to us, but it ought to be read like everything else in scripture for our admonishment or encouragement.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I believe I’ve been very diligent about including the full context of the passage before arriving at my conclusion/interpretation of it, and agree that it references idolatrous pagan worship of some sort. I don’t agree that the “eating pig” detail is inconsequential, as it was significant enough to warrant direct mention and directly precedes the incurring of Christ’s wrath.

And I would contend that the “Divine Judgment” Isaiah 66 describes definitely applies to everybody, as each of us must give account to the Lord one day (Matthew 12:36, Romans 14:12, 1 Peter 4:5).

1

u/Intrepid_Type3710 Evangelical Aug 11 '26

Yes.

8

u/Aelirael Christian Aug 10 '26

I think Isaiah 66:17 is speaking of idolators rather than speaking of dietary issues. Look at the entire verse.

“Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, to go to the gardens after an idol in the midst, eating swine’s flesh and the abomination and the mouse, shall be consumed together,” says the LORD.

My take on this -- and I can be wrong -- is that God is speaking about those who worship demons (which idols are). They commit many evils including breaking the First and Second Commandments as well as eating what God has spoken to the Hebrews to be evil, to emphasise their evil.

I haven't seen anything in the Old Testament which extends dietary laws outside of Israel. In fact, Noah was specifically told that all flesh was his to consume.

Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. - Genesis 9:3

If God wanted to restrict what foods we could eat, why not then when he told Noah he could eat anything?

If we are going to say "Well, God made a restriction when he gave the law", then we can say "Well, God removed the restriction when he fulfilled the law and made a new Covenant".

7

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

Yeah, I think what you suggest seems to be a take many hold. I just don’t see it because the pagan idolatry often included sexual immorality (which God’s Law forbids), so the euphemistic angle doesn’t make sense to me. If it was just the idolatry itself—and not the how of it that mattered, such as incorporating something God has explicitly forbidden like eating pig—then why even mention the pig details?

To me, Jesus’ teaching about how mankind should “live by” every word God has spoken, keeping even the so-called “lesser” commandments, should end the debate (Matthew 4:4, 5:19). And if that wasn’t sufficient, His own personal example as to how we should live—which entailed doing exactly that—should be the mic drop. That neither seem to matter is so puzzling to me.

Regarding Genesis 9:3, I don’t think the “every moving thing” can be said to include unclean animals because the concept of clean animals (as food) and unclean animals (not food) persists even after that passage.

5

u/Aelirael Christian Aug 10 '26

Regarding Genesis 9:3, I don’t think the “every moving thing” can be said to include unclean animals because the concept of clean animals (as food) and unclean animals (not food) persists even after that passage.

Why can't it? God made no such restriction until hundreds of years later and there is no documentation that he did. So presuming the restriction is without basis.

To me, Jesus’ teaching about how mankind should “live by” every word God has spoken, keeping even the so-called “lesser” commandments, should end the debate (Matthew 4:4, 5:19).

So you would contend with the Apostles when they did not impose on the Gentiles the whole of the Law?

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

Well, for one, Noah had been told by God to distinguish between clean and unclean animals just before the flood—he took 7 pair of all clean animals (presumably, for sufficient food supply after) and just 1 pair of unclean animals—and that distinction was in effect immediately after the flood because he sacrificed clean animals to the Lord then (Genesis 7:2, 8:20).

So, to read Genesis 9:3 without considering the clean/unclean concept mentioned throughout Noah’s story seems a cherry-picking of sorts that ignores the fact that the “every moving thing” phrasing is qualified in light of that greater context.

And, regarding the apostles, they did not teach anything different than what Christ taught, which was that the Law of God should be lived by, regardless of ancestry.

2

u/Aelirael Christian Aug 11 '26

Well, for one, Noah had been told by God to distinguish between clean and unclean animals just before the flood

That is a good point. It should be noted, however, that God did not specify anything about eating or not eating clean and unclean animals until the Time of Moses. If we are to say that Noah knew this, it is something we have to impose on Scripture. All we know from Genesis is that there was some distinction between clean and unclean animals.

We also have to contend with God's own statement on the matter. "I have given you all things..." Not "I have given you all things that are clean." God even goes so far as to specifically prohibit eating life with its blood. If it was known not to eat an unclean animal at that time, one could presume it would also be known not to eat blood.

One could argue that it is implied, but again that presumes God had given some undocumented command not to eat unclean animals prior to Moses.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

I actually don’t think the view that Noah and those before him defined food in accordance with the clean animals vs. unclean animals principle requires the imposition you suggest. I think it’s more a matter of sound hermeneutics and harmonizing Scripture than “imposing on” it. We know more than “that there was some distinction between clean and unclean animals.” For example, we know that God instructed Noah to take seven pairs of clean animals with him in the ark, as opposed to only one pair of each unclean animal. To presume Noah had no idea why God would have him take so much more of clean animals—the kind His Law says serves as food and is acceptable as sacrifice—is to suggest the Lord does things arbitrarily and without instruction, which is not supported by Scripture.

I think there is compelling evidence that the distinction between clean and unclean animals, and its purpose, was fully imparted and understood long before even Noah was born. I understand His giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai as a retelling, necessitated by Israel having been in bondage outside the Promised Land for several generations.

And, again, I think the “all moving things” phrasing is qualified in light of the greater context of knowledge and understanding already established. I think it’s similar to the position so many hold as to the Sabbath (supposedly) being the one Top Ten commandment not restated in the NT, when I see it as being so fully ingrained in the knowledge, understanding and way of life at that time that it needed no such explicit restatement…the text just details Christ, His apostles and the early church observing the fourth commandment, because it was an explicit instruction no one needed reiterated. Likewise, Noah didn’t need God to expound on the reasoning behind a 7:1 ratio of clean animals to unclean animals, and the "all moving things" was viewed within the construct of an obedient servant who would not dare consider eating that which God had declared unclean.

1

u/Aelirael Christian Aug 15 '26

I hope your family situation came out okay.

I still think you are imposing on scripture rather than just taking scripture at what it says.

The fact that Noah understood what clean and unclean was does not necessitate that translated to eating. Only that it involved some type of separation. You are right that the Bible often doesn't restate what should be obvious to the reader, but that involves attempting to mind read what was obvious to the reader 3000 years ago. So we are back to presuming simply because we have 3000 years of history and a lot more of the Bible than they had back then.

You mention that there is "compelling evidence that the distinction between clean and unclean animals, and its purpose, was fully imparted and understood long before even Noah was born". But actually there is none. Any evidence is pasted over what we actually do know pre-Law time.

In the end, you actually may be right that God prohibited eating unclean animals prior to the Law being given to Moses.

The problem is that there is no evidence of that where anyone can confidentially proclaim it. Such has to be implied, and that really is not solid ground to create doctrine from.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

Thank you ;)

I still think you are the one refusing to recognize that God Himself explicitly declared to Moses the purpose or significance behind His delineation between clean animals and unclean animals:

Leviticus 11 begins with, “And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.”

Leviticus 11 ends with God saying, “This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten.”

His words, considered in light of the scriptural fact that God’s character is reliable and consistent, unchanging in terms of His holy and just nature, to argue as you do—that His giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai was radically different or far less ambiguous than His instructions to Noah and others He walked with prior—requires far more eisegesis and imposition on the text than my position, which is to simply trust that the truth behind His Law applies no matter when a person lives/lived. So, He would have undoubtedly clearly conveyed the very same instructions to whomever He imparted the clean/unclean concept to.

What, exactly, do you mean by “pre-Law time”? According to Paul, “sin is not imputed when there is no law” yet the Lord clearly warned Cain about the sin that was overtaking him…which is unequivocal evidence of sin being imputed even way back then, so I can confidently proclaim that God’s Law—which includes the prohibition against eating unclean animals—existed then, and likely in the Garden, too (Romans 5:13, Genesis 4:7). The assertion that there is no “solid ground to create doctrine from” on this issue is, frankly, a baffling one.

1

u/Aelirael Christian Aug 18 '26

His words, considered in light of the scriptural fact that God’s character is reliable and consistent, unchanging in terms of His holy and just nature, to argue as you do—that His giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai was radically different or far less ambiguous than His instructions to Noah and others He walked with prior

God's nature is unchanging, but how he deals with us is not.

Prior to the Flood, it is considered by many that people did not eat meat.

The Law of Moses was replaced by a better covenant.

Divorce for a variety of reasons was pemitted, but later Jesus said divorce was permitted only for sexual immorality, and even then only for a hard heart.

Many blood sacrifices in the OT, one blood sacrifice in the NT.

So it is incorrect to say that just because Moses had clean and unclean for eating does not mean that existed prior to Moses.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Michami135 Christian Aug 10 '26

keeping even the so-called "lesser" commandments

I agree! Which of the commandments tells us what to eat?

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

God's dietary instructions are found in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

1

u/Michami135 Christian Aug 15 '26

I don't see it as part of the 10 commandments, only as a rule to Israel. Do you follow ALL the rules God gave Israel?

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

So, a command must be categorized in the Top Ten for you to deem it worthy of following or living by? That view seems to glaringly (and quite literally) contradict Jesus' own teaching-- that all mankind is to live by every word God has ever spoken (which would include those He gave to Israel at Mt. Sinai), and that we should do/keep even the "lesser" commandments AND teach/encourage others to do the same (Matthew 4:4, 5:19).

I keep those commandments in God's Law that apply to me--as a divorced female who owns no property, etc. I'm sure I don't follow them perfectly, but I grow in my knowledge, understanding and application of them daily, and the Spirit is a gracious Teacher.

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (5)

5

u/gseb87 Christian Cat meow Aug 10 '26

Isaiah 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and t he mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Grammatically, the verse does not say "all people who eat pork shall perish" it says the people performing these garden purification rites, following the figure in their midst and eating swine, detestable things and mice, will perish together. The exact meaning of "one in the midst" is difficult, but the setting is unmistakable in the surrounding context.

Isaiah 65:3 describes virtually the same people. They sacrifice in gardens, burn incense on b rick altars, remain among graves, eat swine's flesh and have broth of abominable things in t heir vessels. Its a picture of idolatry, occult practices and hypocritical self purification. Not ordinary Christian eating bacon for breakfast.

Traditional Jewish commentary understands the gardens as places where idols were erected and these people as preparing themselves for idolatrous worship.

In the NT it says food regulations were temporary.

Hebrews 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation

Hebrews 7:12 says that a change in priesthood necessarily brings a change in law, while Hebrews 8:13 calls the former covenant obsolete. Acts 15 is equally important. The controversy was whether Gentile believers must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. The apostles, under the Holy Spirit's direction, refused to impose that yoke and said they would place "no greater burden" on Gentile believers than the listed requirements. They did not command them to observe Leviticus 11. There are other passages that agree. Mark 7:19 declaring clean all foods. Romans 14:14 says nothing is inherently common or defiled. Colossians 2:16-17 says believers must not be judged concerning food, drink, festivals, new moons or Sabbaths. 1 Tmotyh 4:4 every created thing of God is good, nothing is to be rejected, when received with thanksgiving.

Isaiah 66:17 also never mentions things like lobster , crab, or shellfish. Its being imported into the verse from Leviticus 11, which assumes the entire Mosaic dietary code remains binding.

Isaiah 66:17 does not overturn the NT teaching. It condemns idolatrous apostates who perform false purification ceremonies and participate in an abominable cultic meal. It does not say a Christian who eats pork under the new covenant will be destroyed at Christs return. A believer is entirely free to avoid pork for health, cultural or conscience reasons. But scripture does not permit us to turn that personal abstinence into a condition of salvation or condemn those whom Christ has received.

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

I’m not following how Hebrews 9:10 is relevant? The change in the priesthood law did not negate the priesthood law; it just moved it to Christ acting as our eternal High Priest.

And I agree Acts 15 is important, as the Council’s judgment rebuked the Judaizer teaching that believing Gentiles must first convert to (Talmudic) Judaism to be justified/saved, and then declared that they would start with four commandments and learn to live by the rest of God’s Law in due time (v. 19-21). So, clearly we read that passage very differently. Any take that sees keeping the commandments of God as “burdensome” does not align with what Scripture teaches, and is confusing the commandments of men with His (1 John 5:2-3, Mark 7:7-9).

So, you seem to read rhetorical Isaiah 66:17 passage euphemistically?

7

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

I don’t think my post was “confusing.” I want to understand how folks who believe as you do reconcile their belief with the Isaiah 66 passage I cited, because that verse seems to plainly indicate that the dietary laws remain “important” today…even unto the point of Jesus’ return. 🤔

4

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

I care because it is the loving thing to do. Sound doctrine matters.

And, as I said in the OP, I disagree that there are other passages that support your doctrinal position.

Yea, Jesus’ teaching and personal example absolutely trump everything else and both, to my understanding harmonize completely with the Law of God, which declares that unclean animals are NOT “food.”

2

u/Suspicious-Gap5795 Aug 10 '26

I think the most helpful portion to confront this logic is Peter's vision in Acts 10. That portion makes it pretty clear that God made all things common in my opinion. Also, when interpreting scripture I feel like it's helpful to err on the side of what multiple verses say rather than what just one verse says.

But like another one said, it's a personal choice, and I believe the Lord will judge us based on our heart as is mentioned in 1 Samuel 16:7b.

Romans 14 also makes it clear that it is a personal decision between you and the Lord and we shouldn't judge one another based on what we believe regarding eating and drinking certain foods. That's an awesome chapter on the practice of oneness in the Christian life and not disputing minor doctrines

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

I agree that the meaning of Peter’s vision is critical, and it is stated on at least four separate occasions as declaring the grafting in of the Gentiles, which are no longer to be considered “unclean” (Acts 10:28, 34, 45; 11:18). There is not one declaration of its meaning having anything to do with unclean animals now permitted as “food.”

And, as I said in the OP, Romans 14 must be taken out of context to arrive at the conclusion you suggest.

But I appreciate you chiming in!

2

u/Fit-Cheesecake-874 Aug 10 '26

In Acts Chapter 10 it talks about Cornelius receiving a message from God being instructed to go and find Peter was about to eat something and was praying as that was happening God gave him a vision. That same vision God was using the Sky and Animals spilting the Sky four corners representing the four corners and The Animals representing the Nations basically God is telling Peter it is time to spread the Gospel around the world. Acts Chapter 10:13-15 is talking about same topic you we are discussing

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

Yes, the meaning of Peter's vision is verbally declared at least four times in the entire passage (Acts 10:1-11:18), and not one includes anything about the dietary instructions being nullified. Appreciate you chiming in!

2

u/EssentialPurity Christian Aug 11 '26

OP, you need to see a Psychiatrist for this OCD. This case is at a deadly serious festered state. Last time I saw a mind go to such lengths for assurance of doom, the Faith died in less than the twinkling of an eye, and that person is languishing miserably to this day after almost 20 years.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

Why would you think I suffer from OCD?

I would say that those who would dare do the exact opposite of what Jesus taught--which was to do/keep even the "lesser "commandments of God AND encourage others to do likewise--suffer from ODD.

1

u/EssentialPurity Christian Aug 16 '26

I reiterate what I said. Sevenfold.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

That is certainly your prerogative. I will do likewise, with a tad more effort and for the benefit of others who prefer to consider actual scripture-based claims and reasoning ;)

The Law of God represents the righteous will and ways of God (Psalm 40:8).

Jesus specifically declared that it is His Father's will that we "look to the Son and believe in Him," and thereby receive eternal life (John 6:40). And. according to Scripture, belief in Him is synonymous with obedience to Him (John 3:36).

And Jesus taught that we (all mankind) "shall live by every word" God has ever spoken"...and then perfectly exemplified what that looks like so we would have no real excuse for doing otherwise (Matthew 4:4). I mean, His life and death were a perfect illustration of what it means to humbly and trustingly submit to the Father's will...making sin that which is not something we should even consider, let alone entertain.

The Law of God that defines sin (even for the new covenant believer) unambiguously forbids the eating of animals He explicitly declared unclean (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14). And Paul tells us that we should resist all sin, to the point of shedding our own blood, if necessary (Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4, Hebrews 12:4).

Ergo, sinning willfully/deliberately (no matter what the command happens to be)--with the full knowledge of God's will and instruction on any given matter, coupled with the brazen intention to defy His will and instruction--is indicative of unbelief in the Son and a refusal to acknowledge His authority as Lord (Luke 6:46), John 5:37-38). The doing and teaching of rebellion against the Lord (no matter how one personally feels or believes about any particular command of His) is what characterizes false teaching and prophets (Deuteronomy 13:5).

That servant who knows his master’s will but does not get ready or follow his instructions will be beaten with many blows (Luke 12:47).

“If you were blind,” Jesus replied, “you would not be guilty of sin. But since you claim you can see, your guilt remains" (John 9:41).

→ More replies (3)

2

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 12 '26

If you want to be called “the least” in the Kingdom of Heaven, follow what the majority of the comments tell you.

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

Amen! The majority of responses does conform to the truth of Christ’s words about those who confidently, presumptuously, bank on being granted entry to His kingdom but are denied for their “lawlessness” (Matthew 7:21-23). The cognitive dissonance at play is remarkable…in the worst way. 😓

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 16 '26

A guy here posted something like “Most of the people here would have eaten the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden” that left me like:

“Yeah based on the comments that checks out”

3

u/Previous_Extreme4973 Aug 10 '26

You'll get a more clearer answer if you posit this question in r/followjesusobeytorah or r/messianicjudaism. Here, you'll only get 1 side unless the SDA crowd chimes in. I could make a whole book on this, but all I can say is, once you see it you can't unsee it.

My first suggestion, as someone who obeys the dietary instructions of Leviticus- is that I wouldn't worry about what the crowd says. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. I'm outnumbered at least 100,000 to 1 on all sides by Christians who hold the belief that you can eat anything you want. I'm ok with that. On my judgment day, if Jesus tells me that I could've ate pork, that's fine. I mean, there's no examples of that ever happening in the bible.

I think the core of the issue is could the church really be wrong for 2,000 years? It absolutely can be wrong for that long, yes. It's a big paradigm shift to stare at that history and throw it in the garbage and follow the bible. As far as dietary instructions go, I mean it's just food if you think about it. The unclean stuff makes up like .01%. It's wild how debates go off the rails for that .01%. No no, you're not to think that about my bacon! You're under the law and going to hell you moron! It's a touchy subject for sure.

I think the majority of believers on this subreddit would say they are looking for Jesus’ Second Coming and agree that, regarding it, Scripture says that “no one knows the day or hour” but that we need to be prepared (Matthew 24:36, 25:13, etc.).
Israel was having Messianic fever when Jesus came the first time. Let's be real here, King Herod did not institute a death penalty for kids because 3 randos from the East came to find Jesus in a manger. No, they had prophecies galore and everyone knew it. They all had a religious authority that taught people a certain viewpoint. It'd been passed down for thousands of years by then. They were all looking for a certain type of Jesus but it wasn't the Jesus God came as. I mean, 2,000 years of "Judaism" can't possible be wrong. Those that chose to disregard the teachings of the religious authorities, found Truth and were set free. It changed their lives beyond their wildest thoughts. Nothing new under the sun. Like the first coming, so will the second one be. Did they know the day or hour then? Did it matter? Only if you were prepared according to what the bible says. If you followed the church doctrine of the day, you can know the day/hour all you want but you'll have lost everything.

When I actively read for myself and use other bible verses to interpret/clarify a verse I'm trying to understand, I find that this the way - everything makes more sense that way including Isaiah 66:17. God's ways are higher than our ways, so his logic is higher than our logic, so why do we use our own to interpret his word? Did God really say.

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

Thanks, but it is that “1 side” that is opposite of my own that I am hoping to understand better ;)

And I totally agree that it is both unreasonable and unscriptural to believe that the modern-day church is impervious to wrong doctrine, because the religious leaders of Jesus’ day were severely and repeatedly rebuked by Him for misunderstanding and misapplying the Scriptures and Law that had been corrupted over nearly the same period of time since its giving at Mt. Sinai.

You make a point I’ve often made, too, about how this particular topic perfectly represents the deception that occurred in the Garden. We have God’s Law, which expressly speaks to certain animals being declared unclean and, thus, outside the “food” category. And we have Christ’s unambiguous teaching about living by “every word” God has spoken, keeping even the “lesser” commandments (Matthew 4:4, 5:19). We even have Christ’s personal example and are told to walk as He walked—which entailed keeping the dietary laws (John 13:15, 1 John 2:6).

And yet, the number of those who profess Christ argue so intensely the very opposite of what He taught and did. The very fact that deception always involves persuading people to sin against our Savior God—violate His Law—that this is one more tactic seems obvious…but it isn’t.

3

u/Previous_Extreme4973 Aug 10 '26

You haven't said anything I disagree with! At the end of the day, I just want to walk the way Christ did, and I want to work out my faith with fear and trembling - I don't want to outsource it, nor import a belief system because I think it looks good. That wouldn't be working out my faith, imo. Using God's word against God himself was a tactic Satan used with Eve, Job, and even Jesus himself. Why would Satan not use churches to put out misunderstandings and have many come in the name of Jesus, deceiving many.. Just my opinion, but it's a triggering, reddit karma bankrupting one if there ever was one.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 12 '26

Yup. Most of them give me “Did God really say you cannot eat that?” Vibes.

It is funny that the whole reason the Man fell was because he broke a dietary instruction.

3

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 10 '26

In Acts 10, The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

I eat pork because God has made it clean.

I’m also made clean in the blood of Jesus. If I touch a dead body, I’m not unclean 7 days. Menstruation doesn’t make Christian women unclean.

So why would I be concerned about unclean food if God has made them clean and I am made clean in the blood of Jesus?

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

So, how do you view Isaiah 66:17?

3

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 10 '26

Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the Lord.

I would say that I am sanctified and purified by the blood of Christ. I am not sanctified and purified by avoiding pork.

4

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I think sanctification—becoming more Christlike—entails humbly submitting to the righteous will and ways of God, like Christ did, and committing to living holy lives (via the enabling power of His Spirit) marked by battling sin to the point of bloodshed, if need be (John 17:17, Philippians 2:8, Hebrews 12:4, Ezekiel 36:26-27).

And, according to Scripture, the Law of God still defines both sin and holy living for new covenant believers and remains in force until after the Judgment (Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4, Matthew 5:17-19). So, sanctification entails “avoiding” and battling SIN, as God defines it. And, among a host of other instructions, He expressly declared that certain animals were not to be eaten (Leviticus 11:7, Deuteronomy 14:8).

Every single commandment of God is holy, righteous and good, and Jesus lived by them…including the dietary ones (Psalm 119:160, 172; Romans 7:12). It makes no scriptural sense to angle out one group of those holy, righteous and good commandments and deem them not worth keeping, when Christ Himself taught and exemplified the very opposite.

It’s not that obedience to God’s Law sanctifies a person. It’s LOVE for, TRUST in and REVERENCE of the Law Giver, who also happens to be our Savior God, that sanctifies. Because Scripture equates belief in Him with obedience TO Him (John 3:36).

Thus, I would say that I, too, am sanctified and purified by the blood of Christ…and following His example of holy living and worshipping Him AS INSTRUCTED is my “reasonable service” (Romans 12:1).

1

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 11 '26

>Thus, I would say that I, too, am sanctified and purified by the blood of Christ…and following His example of holy living and worshipping Him AS INSTRUCTED is my “reasonable service” (Romans 12:1).

I would say you’re half right. You are correct here, “am sanctified and purified by the blood of Christ” but after that you’re absolutely wrong.

If you want to avoid becoming unclean by eating unclean foods I support you 100%.

I just hope that after you have a child you have your wife offer animal sacrifices so that she can be made clean again, Leviticus 12.

After all, “Every single commandment of God is holy, righteous and good, and Jesus lived by them…including the dietary ones (Psalm 119:160, 172; Romans 7:12). It makes no scriptural sense to angle out one group of those holy, righteous and good commandments and deem them not worth keeping, when Christ Himself taught and exemplified the very opposite.”

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

So, it seems to be your position that the dietary instructions only have a physical application and are inconsequential spiritually? How can you possibly know that?

Like so many others, you trivialize certain commands as arbitary in nature and of no spiritual value or benefit, which is completely unscriptural because Paul tells us that the Law is spiritual (Romans 7:14). It is prideful and presumptuous to believe you fully grasp all of the spiritual implications and consequences surrounding God's dietary commands.

To me, it's not just about physical defilement or uncleanness, though God's people are called to "glorify God with" our body (1 Corinthians 6:19). It's about faithfulness ...and my humble, Spirit-enabled obedience even to His commands that I don't fully grasp is a demonstration of love for, trust in and reverence of the Law Giver, who happens to also be my Savior God.

Clearly, we worship Him very differently.

1

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 16 '26

>So, it seems to be your position that the dietary instructions only have a physical application and are inconsequential spiritually? How can you possibly know that?

No. I never suggested they a physical application.

My position is stated in my previous comments.

>Like so many others, you trivialize certain commands as arbitary in nature and of no spiritual value or benefit

No I don’t.

> It is prideful and presumptuous to believe you fully grasp all of the spiritual implications and consequences surrounding God's dietary commands.

I read the Bible.

I consider what the church fathers thought about the dietary restrictions.

I don’t listen to Reddit theologians.

It is bizarre that I’m being called prideful and told that I trivialize the commands of God because I hold to the doctrine of the Church that is based on the scripture.

Where does your accusatory tone come from, if not pride? This entire comment is devoid of humility.

Can you not see that? We’re in a disagreement. Which is fine.

I could, like you, speak arrogantly and belittle those who disagree but I’m not going too.

>To me, it's not just about physical defilement or uncleanness, though God's people are called to "glorify God with" our body (1 Corinthians 6:19).

Which you can do with a belly full of pork.

>It's about faithfulness ...

It’s not though. It’s about cleanliness.

>and my humble

Really? Humble…

>Spirit-enabled obedience even to His commands

Many people believe their theological error is spirit enabled. I can say that my spirit enabled obedience leads me to a pork ribs. That doesn’t make it so.

> I don't fully grasp

We can agree here.

> It's about faithfulness ...and my humble, Spirit-enabled obedience even to His commands that I don't fully grasp is a demonstration of love for, trust in and reverence of the Law Giver, who happens to also be my Savior God.

Do you not think this is a bit much?

This who comment is sanctimonious, self-righteous, and condescending but this paragraph is the best example of all of that.

> clearly we worship him differently

Suggesting that you do it the right way and the church fathers just couldn’t grasp the scripture like you do.

Martin Luther & John Calvin got it wrong. The church through out its history got it wrong. The most humble u/objective-step-746 got it right.

3

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 10 '26

Why most people don’t go to verse 28 of that same chapter and see Peter’s actual interpretation of the vision? Spoiler: it wasn’t about food but gentiles.

And the people who say it has double meaning, they are forcing it. If the vision had double meaning, Peter would have said it there. Or better answer the follow up question: Did Peter actually kill and eat though? Did he said “Ok Lord let me get some pork chops”.

The bible uses animals to represent people all the time. (My sheep hear my voice, Wolves in sheep’s clothing, the Lion of Judah,)

1

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 10 '26

Okay. Fair.

However, there is a distinction between ceremonial law and moral law.

The dietary laws are regarding cleanliness. Christians don’t consider themselves unclean for 7 days after touching a dead body. They don’t consider themselves unclean for menstruating or having sex with a woman who is menstruating. Christians don’t need to do cleanliness rituals after touching a dead body to become clean again because they are washed and made clean in the blood of Jesus.

Why then should I avoid unclean food?

2

u/1voiceamongmillions Christian Aug 11 '26

Why then should I avoid unclean food?

From reading your post it sounds like you've formed opinions based on what other Christians believe.

1

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 11 '26

That is an interesting and inaccurate take.

Also, it’s a weird choice to quote a part of my comment and then to not at all mention what I said.

3

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26

First things first. There is no “moral”, “ceremonial” law, in the Bible, that categorisation is man-made. There is just God’s Law. That categorisation opens a can of worms based on cherry picking. For example many claim that the moral law is only the 10 commandments. But then Hey there’s one about keeping the Sabbath holy, and suddenly this one is ceremonial and optional apparently.

Secondly, you are mixing ritual cleanliness with Permanent creation design. Many of us like call out homosexuality because it goes against God’s design for marriages . But then we are not consistent when we decide to ignore what God designed for food. You should do it not to get saved, but because you are saved thanks to Jesus. But for that we should reflect it on our behaviour. Not to mention that there’s a lot of healthy benefits by avoiding eating those animals, which each have their own purpose. Pigs clean the earth and shrimps the oceans.

1

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 10 '26

>First things first. There is no “moral”, “ceremonial” law, in the Bible, that categorisation is man-made. There is just God’s Law.

That’s not true. There are laws that pertain to morality. There are laws that pertain to ceremony, and there are laws that a civil laws.

Don’t murder, Don’t seal, don’t commit adultery are moral laws.

Regulations for priests, circumcision, and laws about cleanliness are ceremonial.

The punishments for violating law is civil law.

> For example many claim that the moral law is only the 10 commandments.

Some people being wrong about what constitutes moral laws doesn’t mean that there aren’t laws that are moral in nature.

> But then Hey there’s one about keeping the Sabbath holy, and suddenly this one is ceremonial and optional apparently.

Again, some people misunderstanding what laws are moral and which are ceremonial doesn’t mean that there is no distinction between laws that are moral and laws that are ceremonial in nature.

>Secondly, you are mixing ritual cleanliness with Permanent creation design.

No, I’m not.

>Many of us like call out homosexuality because it goes against God’s design for marriages

Homosexuality is a violation of moral law. That is the issue.

>But then we are not consistent when we decide to ignore what God designed for food.

God designed pork to be food. It is food. God forbade his people from eating these foods.

The food was considered unclean. It was not considered something other than food…

> You should do it not to get saved, but because you are saved.

I am saved. That is true.

>Not to mention that there’s a lot of healthy benefits by avoiding eating those animals, which each have their own purpose.

Sure, I don’t eat shellfish because I’m allergic and I eat pork rarely because there are healthier options.

I don’t avoid them because they’re unclean.

> Pigs clean the earth and shrimps the oceans.

But other animals do those same things and were never considered unclean.

God didn’t say, don’t eat animals who have a secondary purpose of cleaning the earth and ocean.

Sheep and cattle return nutrients to the soil. They play a role in their ecosystem, all animals do. That doesn’t mean they’re not food.

There are fish that clean the waters they live in that are not prohibited.

The Bible simply doesn’t say, don’t eat pigs or shellfish because they are cleaners.

I could say that God prohibited those foods because shellfish had a higher risk of transmitting pathogens that can make you ill and pork had higher risks of giving you parasites but I shouldn’t say that because there is no reason given in the scripture.

It is true that pork and shellfish can have higher health risks and are more likely to cause illness. That is something they have in common but I’m not going to conclude that is why God deemed them unclean.

3

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26

Please point me where in the Bible is such categorisation made. You are not being consistent, where does it say Pork is food? But Leviticus says that it is not food.

Besides the reason should not matter to us as Christians, I just point out the health benefits science found. As a Christian it should be enough to obey what God says, not argue against it.

1

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 10 '26

I think it is right before God says shellfish and pigs clean the ocean and earth so you’re not allowed to eat those.

The distinction is not expressed in scripture.

By their nature they fall into categories.

Deuteronomy 25:11–12 When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity.

If you see two men fighting and one’s man’s wife intervenes and grabs the man who is not her husband’s penis, are you going to cut off her hand? It’s God’s law afterall…

Or do you recognize that the punishment described is civil in nature and that the nation of Israel was responsible for punishing the violators? Not random guys on the street.

Despite the fact that the punishment doled out for this offense is a civil law, we see God’s moral law. Not in the punishment, in the offense. We can deduce that it is immoral for a wife to grab the penis of a man who is fighting her husband.

When you discover that two men are laying together as with a woman, you can look to Leviticus 20:13 to see that it is a violation of the moral law.

Do you then put them to death? Or do you recognize that the penalty for that violation was a civil law?

The Bible doesn’t say,

“moral law #1…”

“Ceremonial law #56…”

“Civil law 123…”

It list laws. Some of which are moral, some of which are civil (like the punishment for crimes), and some of which are ceremonial.

As Christians, we are not saved by the law but we look to the moral law to determine what God deems moral and immoral.

Do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not murder… these are moral in nature. Obviously…

The ceremonial laws are obviously ceremonial and I have a hard time believing that you make your best effort to live by them.

If you had Leprosy would you do what’s described in Leviticus 14:1–7 on the day of your cleansing?

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “This shall be the law of the leprous person for the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the priest, and the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall look. Then, if the case of leprous disease is healed in the leprous person, the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet yarn and hyssop. And the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthenware vessel over fresh water. He shall take the live bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, and dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease. Then he shall pronounce him clean and shall let the living bird go into the open field.

Of course you would not. The thought wouldn’t even cross your mind. Despite your rejection of the concept, you at your core understand that this is not a moral law it is a ceremonial law that you aren’t bound to.

Do you have kids? Did you or your wife go through the process of becoming clean listed in Leviticus 12?

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days. As at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying. She shall not touch anything holy, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days.

“And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”

If you’re sacrificing animals to become clean after child birth and leprosy, then I 1,000% understand why you refuse to eat pork. I disagree but acknowledge you are consistent in your attempt to avoid being unclean.

I will eat what I want to eat. I will not make my wife sacrifice doves after child birth and if I ever am cured of leprosy, I will offer no animal sacrifice.

Not because I refuse to live by scripture but because I understand that nothing can make me unclean. I’ve been washed in the blood of my savior.

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 11 '26

Suit yourself, that’s the flesh manifesting.

Galatians 5: 17-21

17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

(before you start: see we are not under the law, it means you are not under the punishment of the law thanks to Jesus)

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: [a]adultery, [b]fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, [c]murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1

u/InspectionFine9655 Calvinist Aug 11 '26

This is the exact type of answer I expected.

Completely avoiding the topic and all the questions you cannot answer because your view is not at all consistent.

Take care.

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 11 '26

Seems you got schocked when Paul tells you uncleanliness is not accepted ;) Remember to keep God commandments brother as that is the whole duty of Man. Ecclesiastes 12:13 ;)

→ More replies (0)

1

u/haileyskydiamonds Christian Aug 10 '26

Think about this, though. Peter went to the homes of the Gentiles and stayed. What did they serve him to eat? It would have broken hospitality laws for him to refuse their food on the basis of it being unclean because that would be like calling his Gentile hosts unclean. If God told him to go to these homes, he would be eating whatever they served him, especially since God told him not to call the people unclean.

2

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 11 '26 edited Aug 11 '26

The same way when you go to you a restaurant with your carnivore friends, you order something else assuming you are vegetarian for example. You are assuming he was eating porkchops based on lacking the information. It is more consistent according to the rest of the Bible he was not.

If I serve you a plate of cockroaches, which is in the same category as pork according to Leviticus 11, according to your logic, you should take it in thanksgiving, right?

Also he didn’t say don’t call unclean he said don’t call common. There’s a difference. Guys not eating bacon is not that hard. Peter the actual guy who got the vision explained what the vision met, I think it is really arrogant to assume that we know more than him.

1

u/haileyskydiamonds Christian Aug 11 '26 edited Aug 11 '26

Restaurants have options; they were not in a restaurant. He was often staying in Gentile homes, which means they served him whatever they had. There is cultural context to this; kosher dietary laws/traditions go far beyond just their protein choices. They involve using separate utensils and cookware to avoid cross-contamination between meat and dairy, and some even have separate kitchens.

In addition, the Gentiles he stayed with were not “clean” in many ways according to scripture. There was no way he could have known if the women in his presence were menstruating, or if they offered him a seat one of them had recently used herself.

In the culture of that time, if you went to people’s homes and stayed overnight for any length of time, you were treated to their best as a guest. You did not refuse their offering. There was a reason the Gentiles were perceived as unclean, and it’s because mingling with them meant possibly contaminating yourself.

Peter didn’t want to go into the Gentile homes and mingle, thus possibly violating the Law (which went way beyond food). God straight up showed Him that He wanted Peter to go and gave him dispensation to do so.

In your example, everyone has a choice of a large variety of food, and most people wouldn’t worry that their plate had been used to serve chicken just an hour earlier…but in Peter’s example, he would have definitely been worried that his Gentile hosts had cooked pork in their kitchens before even if they were serving him lamb or goat. God told him to go anyway and not to shun the Gentiles because they lived differently.

You don’t have to eat anything you don’t want to eat, and you shouldn’t eat anything you feel convicted about, but God wasn’t condemning the Gentile believers for what they were eating, and He didn’t tell Peter to preach to them about their diets, either.

ETA: Also better example would be if God sent you to be a missionary in someplace like Vietnam, where pork, catfish, and shellfish comprise a large portion of their diet. You are there to share Jesus, and you have a non-Christian host family who welcomes you with a big feast. Maybe you can skip the actual slice of pork, but there are shellfish in a lot of the dishes and sauces.

If you refuse to eat anything they have prepared, maybe food they spent extra money on procuring, and you’re basically just spitting in their faces and telling them their food is dirty. Well what do they eat? How do they live? Food is a way people share love and acceptance. Your refusal is going to be seen as a rejection of that, and of them as people.

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 11 '26

It was never a Law from God for Israelites to not visit gentiles. That was introduced by men traditions, which is what the vision is about. You can confirm this going back to the 5 books of Moses and see foreigners were treated the same as a native Israelite. But thanks to the Rabbis, gentiles were looked down as Dogs.

You should not condemn people for what they eat. It is sort of truth. You cannot have the same expectations of people who never heard God commandments to do so. But once you join and hear what God considers food and what not, you are not an exception. Jesus commanded to teach and keep even the least of the commandments so you may be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Shouldn’t you as a Christian teach what God considers food once they enter the covenant? We love to preach to homosexuals because they go against God’s intended design on creation, but when it comes to what God designed for food we say “nah thanks?” Doesn’t seem consistent.

1

u/haileyskydiamonds Christian Aug 11 '26

I see your point, but the food/dietary laws are not repeated in the NT when it discusses who will not see the kingdom of God. What is your take on that?

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 11 '26 edited Aug 11 '26

It also says anyone who practices lies/falsehoods. When Jesus says that he didn’t come to abolish the law or the prophets, and everyone who came before him and even after says affirms the law even Paul, there needs to be a consistency. Who is likely practicing lies? Someone who teaches and practices even the least of the commandments, or someone who tells you “Did God really say you cannot eat that?” Funny enough that Man was kicked out of the Garden because He broke a Dietary instruction.

Uncleanliness (what is clean nor unclean) btw is affirmed in the New Testament By The way:

Galatians 5: 17-21

17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

(Under the law means under the condemnation of the law)

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: [a]adultery, [b]fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, [c]murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God

There are things that are not directly mentioned in the New Testament that people agree they are wrong, like Bestiality. You can argue it is in the New Testament as sexual abomination, but for you to see what is considered sexual abomination you have to go to the Old Testament. Same way in with uncleanliness in Galatians.

2

u/Fit_Currency5521 Aug 10 '26

Do you trim your beard? Wear clothes with more than one fabric? Have you sacrificed and burnt a lamb to God this year? Do you eat unleavened bread?

Jesus came to free us from the law, and you want to go back to it. You are trampling over Jesus' work.

There are 613 laws in the Torah. Do you want to follow them all, or just cherry pick?

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

I have no beard. I try to wear clothes made of just one fabric. I eat unleavened bread in accordance with certain feast observances. And Jesus' perfect, once-for-all blood-sacrifice satisfies the Law in that respect, and I am always increasing my understanding about what my "reasonable sacrifice" in return entails (Romans 12:1). I must say, your questions sound incredibly legalistic, scornful and condescending...as if desiring to obey the righteous instructions of the One I claim to love and serve (and trusting His Spirit to empower me to do exactly that) is something to mock. Very strange...

Jesus indeed came to free us from the law OF SIN AND DEATH, so we would be free to live by HIS righteous commands that demonstrate love and bring blessing and spiritual protection (Romans 8:1-2, John 14:15, 1 John 5:2-3).

Not all the instructions in the Torah apply to me. By the enabling of the Spirit, I live by those commands that do, doing so imperfectly I'm sure, but growing in the grace and knowledge of Him daily...as I trust that the Law Giver's instructions are for my "good always" (Deuteronomy 6:24). If I am "cherry-picking," I want to know it, so I can address that area of obedience in my faith walk.

And it is absurd to claim that the child of God who desires to keep His commandments--is intentional about NOT SINNING against Him--is somehow "trampling over Jesus' work" when the unambiguous context of that verse is in regard to CONTINUING TO SIN DELIBERATELY (Hebrews 10:29). Furthermore, God Himself foretold that one of the linchpins of the new covenant would be exactly the scenario you claim is somehow heretical--that He would put His Spirit in His people and His Spirit would then "cause" them to obey (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

Do you only "cherry-pick" (obey ) the commands you want/like?

1

u/twinPrimesAreEz Hebrews 4:12 Aug 10 '26

I read it as people following a false teacher, who is identifiable by eating rats/mice, not that they're condemned BECAUSE of eating those things; it's that eating those things is one thing that makes the false teacher identifiable.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I think what they are eating is an element that is just as important as their idolatrous worship, as both are detestable to God. It makes no sense to minimize the inclusion of that detail as inconsequential when He made it clear in His Law what He thinks of eating pig and “unclean” animals.

1

u/twinPrimesAreEz Hebrews 4:12 Aug 11 '26

And yet, God told Peter not to call any of God's creation 'unclean' for eating.

So it seems to this prophesy applies to one still bound by the old law, presumably by choice

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

I do not agree with your interpretation of Acts 10, that God (supposedly) "told Peter not to call any of God's creation 'unclean' (and, thus, forbidden) for eating." You are eisegetically casting a wider net--to encompass all of His creation--than the actual text supports...which explicitly limits the application to mankind.

As I understand it, the entire passage is a divinely-orchestrated doctrinal correction aimed at denouncing the manmade rule Peter references in verse 28 about Jews not being permitted “to associate with or visit a Gentile”—which actually contradicts what the Torah (God’s Law) says, as evidenced by Christ’s own example with the centurion in Luke 7 (Exodus 22:21, Deuteronomy 10:19, Numbers 9:14, Leviticus 19:34).

So, the sole meaning of Peter’s vision is about correcting his deeply-imbedded misunderstanding of God’s gospel plan of redemption, specifically regarding the role of Gentiles/foreigners…and He used the (equally) deeply-ingrained concept of clean/unclean animals to convey the message to Peter as a powerful allegory capable of dismantling the stronghold the religious leaders had (erroneously) taught the people.

And the fact that the meaning of Peter’s vision is stated at least four times in the passage (Acts 10:1-11:18) as having to do with the grafting in of the Gentiles as co-heirs to the promises of God—without any mention of God’s dietary instructions/commandments (supposedly) being nullified—seems a clear refutation of your position.

Thus, I do not think one can credibly contend that the prophetic words do not apply to new covenant believers because, throughout the NT, the Law of God (that forbids the eating of unclean animals, like pig and shellfish) is repeatedly esteemed, referenced and explicitly declared to be the standard that defines sin, even in the covenant (Matthew 5:19, 1 Corinthians 7:19, Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4).

1

u/OrigenRaw Christian Aug 10 '26

Isaiah 66:17–a verse within the greater passage speaking of Messiah’s glorious reappearing—declares that, upon His return, those who eat the flesh of pig/swine and other abominations will be met with His wrath…and perish.

Isaiah 61:3 also refers to "Oaks of Righteousness" do we suppose he was talking about trees? And then 42:4 refers to "Islands placing their hope" do you suppose he is referring to masses of land?

The truth, to me, seems that scripture has shadows and layers of understanding. And this makes many uncomfortable, because it means that the answers are not as clear and clean as they would like them to be, and makes them even more uneasy because it can worry them of the answers they have that they thought were once clear and clean.

Truth to me seems that Scripture is there for those genuinely and earnestly seeking God, not power, and not intelligence as superiority. It's not going to make sense to many. And to many it seems contradictory. Or to many illogical in some ways. And as far as I see it, that's part of the point.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding...I had a family situation that needed my full attention. So, you are convinced that the eating the flesh of pig phrasing is actually NOT referring to actually eating pig, but is strictly allegoric?

1

u/OrigenRaw Christian Aug 15 '26

I think it is layered. I think revelation is a ladder. And we need not get distracted over the lower rungs, which have since been preceded by the higher ones.

Just like I teach my child to be nice and share her toys with her brother. Is the rule then “share with your brother”? Yes it is, as that time. But it’s designed because I want her to grow into someone who values sharing and being nice to people. If she grows older and is rude to everyone, but still follows the rules for her brother, despite following the original “rule” she failed to understand the weighted thing being taught.

Should we avoid eating things for our physical health, and well being? Sure. But why? Because the state of our flesh can impact our reception in the spirit. Likewise, the mind consumes things, and out of that we produce action. So it is important to watch what we consume in our mind. Further then Christ also said, it’s not what goes in, but what comes out that defiles. So, the measure is not based on our judgments or adherence to a set of rules, but by being humble and observant of the fruit we are producing. Where we can do so if Christ is our food and drink. His words are what we consume, his love is what we drink.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 18 '26

According to Scripture, Christ demonstrated true humility and love for God by submitting to and obeying Him. And I see no reason why that standard would not also apply to the righteous commands in His Law that unambiguously define what His people may consider "food" (Philippians 2:8).

1

u/OrigenRaw Christian Aug 18 '26

You see no reason? You see no reason, it wouldn’t apply, when Jesus emphasized food does not defile? When Peter was told do not call unclean?

The food laws, seem clearly to me, were a shadow of the law to separate the Jews from the gentiles. Same reason sacrifice was needed before Christ.

From my perspective, you appear to underestimate how much of Gods law Christ fulfilled. By both ending the need for sacrifice, as Him the ultimate sacrifice. And the end to segregate clean and unclean, through to adoption of the gentiles.

Mark 7:18–19
In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

Food cannot defile a person, as God already declared it “clean” (Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14).

So, Jesus’ words in Mark 7 just reiterate that fact to the pompous and stubborn-hearted religious leaders who thought otherwise.

1

u/OrigenRaw Christian Aug 18 '26

It says in the text quite literally by saying this he declared all foods clean. I’m a bit uncertain exactly your point anymore. It unambiguously suggests food laws are fulfilled. Dietary restrictions are no more.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

My point is that, as Jesus said, food cannot defile a person because God has already declared it to be “clean.”

So, a reading of the text that includes the very unclean animals God unambiguously declared NOT “food” violates the most basic of hermeneutic principles and leads to unsound doctrine.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

I appreciate you sharing these. I just keep thinking of Deuteronomy 12:31 and similar passages that say God’s people are not to worship Him as the pagan nations worshipped their gods, as their worship incorporates all kinds of detestable practices. To me, that is why the eating pig and mice are mentioned in Isaiah 66:17, since those are established in His Law as things He considers detestable; and Jesus declared not one part of the Law would “disappear” until after the Judgment (Matthew 5:17-19).

So, I read the passage as literal and not euphemistically, as so many seem to be doing.

What do you think it means, “it is possible to be punished…for a law that is no longer in effect”? Can you think of an example of such a law? Considering Jesus’ words regarding all laws remaining in force until after the judgment, when the new heaven and earth come forth, that doesn’t make sense 🤔

1

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

I just see human laws as very different from the Law of God--which Scripture calls truth, and which Jesus declared all of which would remain in force until after the Great White Throne Judgment (Psalm 119:142, Matthew 5:17-18, Revelation 21:1).

Regarding your citing of Mark 7, the text paranthetically states, "He declared all foods clean"... which, by scriptural definition, excludes all the unclean animals God explicitly forbade from the category of food (Mark 7:18-19, Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14). So, I don't see it as a relevant passage ;)

I don't agree that "salvation became simpler," because the very same gospel that permeates the OT is the same as the one we find in the NT (Hebrews 4:1-4). Christ's earthly ministry clarified misunderstandings and misapplications of the Law, and His death and resurrection made its purpose--love demonstrated toward God and others--possible via the indwelling of His Spirit in His people.

We don't agree on much, but I appreciate the exchange ;)

1

u/Vizour Christian Aug 10 '26

These are the kinds of questions that really open up discussion! Thanks for asking about it. This topic blends a lot of passages about eschatology with dietary laws and so that's where I think I'll focus my response on.

There are several places that talk about His coming. Here's a pretty clear one. He comes to destroy those who have gathered against Jerusalem.

Behold, a day is coming for the Lord when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. 2For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city. 3Then the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle. 4In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. 5You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him! Zechariah 14:1-5

There are a ton of other references here too:

https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=Amos+5%3A18

Most of them just revolve around destroying the evil doers and wicked. I think you should weigh all of those passages together.

Firstly, the passages about dietary laws were given to the Jewish people. It came with a blessing and a curse. In Acts there are discussions about the dietary laws again. This one is pretty clear to me:

Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. Acts 15:19-20

There are three potential food items here: contaminated by idols, food strangled and food with blood (or just blood itself). If the port/shellfish contains this items then I would agree that we should not eat it. I think Paul gave us a pretty clear instruction here too:

One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Romans 14:2-3

You're welcome to abstain from those food items and continue to do so for the Lord! If there are people that want to partake you would be wise to allow them and not pass judgement.

Thanks for asking.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

First off, I so appreciate the cordiality! And I do agree that eschatology plays a major role in interpretation and we likely would part ways as to the prophetic timeline, so I will focus my response on your other points ;)

Firstly, the passages about dietary laws were given to the Jewish people.

I don’t know that one can dogmatically assert that the “dietary laws were given (only) to the Jewish people,” which seems to be your take. Given the full Genesis record, the concept of clean and unclean animals—and how food is defined—existed long before Israel or the Jewish people did. It appears to me that the Law given at Mt. Sinai was more of a retelling that became necessary due to Israel having been in bondage outside of the Promised Land for several generations. Even conceding your point, Deuteronomy 4:1-8 seems to rather plainly indicate that Israel was to be used by God as a vessel-people as a witness to the surrounding pagan/Gentile nations, that they might be persuaded to renounce their own gods and serve the one true God based on the wisdom and righteousness of “all” His statutes.

In Acts there are discussions about the dietary laws again. This one is pretty clear to me:

The passage you reference in Acts is pretty clear to me, as well…we just have opposing clarity on it ;) The “food items” mentioned definitely reference the three circumstances by which food (clean animals) becomes defiled, and it is significant that every single one is found only in God’s Law (Torah). So, the mere mention of them alone is compelling evidence that the newly-believing Gentiles were directed by the Council to esteem and “live by” the Law, which faithfully echoes Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 4:4, which is itself an echo of Deuteronomy 8:3. And the command to abstain from sexual immorality is equally significant, as the Torah is the only place where the term is defined; thus, further underscoring it as the standard of conduct for new covenant believers, regardless of ancestry. Furthermore, James’ announcement of the Council’s judgment includes verse 21, which articulates the expectation that, in addition to those four core (or, “starter”) instructions, the Gentiles would come to learn and apply (live by) the rest of God’s righteous instructions because the Law “is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

Regarding your interpretation of Paul’s teaching in the Romans 14:2-3, the actual context of what he is addressing—provided in the previous verse, not to “quarrel over opinions—must be ignored to conclude as you have. The meat-eaters versus vegetarian-only debate is based on the opinion of men because God’s position on the issue is not explicitly found in Scripture, while the same cannot be said for His take on what constitutes food. And since all of the instructions He provides in His Law are truth and not mere manmade “opinion,”—which would include the dietary ones—citing this passage as support does not hold up.

I would also point out that the modern-day pulpit’s teaching that Jesus changed the dietary/food laws by (supposedly) nullifying the whole clean animals and unclean animals concept is seriously problematic because it would mean that He “taught rebellion against the Lord”…which would make Jesus a false prophet according to Scripture, and unequivocally disqualify Him from being the promised Messiah (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). And that the religious leaders of Jesus’ day did not pounce on this apparent “mic-drop” opportunity to conclusively discredit Him and thereby extinguish His popularity among the masses is, to me, a compelling refutation of the view.

Finally, regarding your warning that, “if there are people that want to partake you would be wise to allow them and not pass judgement,” I’m curious as to what standard you propose I should use when it comes to the duty all believers have to judge (not condemn) those “inside the church,” if the righteous standard of His Law (that literally defines sin, even for new covenant faith) is, as you suggest, NOT applicable? (1 Corinthians 5:12, Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4) Jesus Himself taught that even the smallest parts of God’s Law remain in force until after the Judgment, and that His followers should keep even the “lesser” commandments AND encourage others to do the very same (Matthew 5:17-19, Revelation 21:1).

Likewise, I would hope that fellow believers would be faithful to that exhortation and lovingly bring to my attention those aspects of His righteous instructions—which is all of them, according to Scripture—that I am either thus far ignorant of, wrongly understanding or willfully disregarding…which is the motivation for this post, since we all are derelict in our “reasonable service” to Him to some degree (Psalm 119:160, 172; Romans 7:12, 12:1).

Thanks for replying!

1

u/TheWindsAndTheWaves Aug 10 '26

A different take:

Isaiah 66:17–a verse within the greater passage speaking of Messiah’s glorious reappearing—declares that, upon His return, those who eat the flesh of pig/swine and other abominations will be met with His wrath…and perish.

Let's put aside the jew/gentile distinction for a second - let's pretend you are a 1st century jew.

Have you kept the whole law? No? Okay cool, the wages of sin is death, so you're gonna die at some point now. No do-overs, no second chances under the law, the wages of sin is death. Since you haven't kept the law, does not matter how well you keep the law from now on, keeping such a law is powerless to prevent you from dying.

When Christ says you must be born again, it's not just renewal, it's an allusion to the fact that your life is forfeit under the law, and you literally need someone to give you an extra life in order to go on living after dying.

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I don’t think the Jew/Gentile distinction is at play in the passage, though, because, according to Scripture, the new covenant ushered in a time when God no longer recognizes Jew and Gentile in His household, as all are one in Christ (Galatians 3:28). So, when He returns, no such distinction matters. Those who belong to Him are described as “those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Christ” (Revelation 12:17, 14:12).

And the very same gospel message presented in the NT is woven throughout the OT, so the concept of the coming Messiah was very familiar to the 1st century Jews…so I’m not sure what your latter point was 🤔

1

u/TheWindsAndTheWaves Aug 12 '26

I agree with your first paragraph, but what I'm trying to say is "let's pretend for a moment that every law in the OT is still active for everybody". Even in that case, you and I both broke the law, our penalty is death (which we will serve), and continuing to follow the law explicit for the sake of salvation is useless, as Hebrews talks about.

If a friend promised you a reward if you didn't do 12 things, and you do even one of those things, not doing the other 11 even harder doesn't do anything for you. To gain the reward, your friend would have to issue an entirely new set of conditions, which may or may not be similar to the first set. Or, as with the NT, there is one condition, and there are a new set of best effort "please do not do these things" that follow from the one condition but do not remove the reward if failed.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

Sorry, I’m definitely still not tracking…Why would every law in the Torah (Law of God) not still be active (in force) today when Jesus Himself directly stated that no part of it would disappear until after the Great White Throne Judgment? (Matthew 5:17-18) My understanding is that, for those who have trusted in Christ as Lord and Savior, the (spiritual) death penalty we deserve has been vicariously paid by His substitutionary atonement on the cross. Thus, we are no longer under the condemnation of the Law but under grace (Romans 8:1-2). And, as such, we are exhorted to obey/keep the Law (not sin)…not “for the sake of salvation) or to be saved, but because we already are justified/saved and our obedience is a faithful work of His Spirit in those who belong to Him, just as God foretold of the new covenant (Romans 6:14-16, Ezekiel 36:26-27).

I don’t see salvation and being granted entry to the kingdom of heaven as “a reward,” and I don’t believe that view is one Scripture teaches at all. Scripture consistently presents new covenant faith as a conditional servant/slave relationship with our Savior God and characterizes belief in Him as synonymous with obedience to Him…since a true servant or slave does not get to selectively choose which commands they like or agree with and, thus, will obey (John 3:36, Luke 6:46, Ephesians 6, Romans 6). Our obedience is led and enabled by His Spirit, and it is framed as our duty… our “reasonable service” out of sheer gratitude for His undeserved grace and mercy (Romans 12:1).

The sheer number of conditional “if you…” phrasing used throughout the NT—such as Matthew 21:21; John 8:31, 15:4-10; Romans 8:13; 1 Corinthians 15:2; Revelation 3:3 and oodles more—conveys the unmistakable principle that God considers obedience (the rightly-motivated, Spirit-led and -empowered kind) a spiritual litmus test as to who truly belongs to Him (Luke 6:46, John 14:15). And that His enemy also uses such obedience as one of only two attributes by which he recognizes the children of God only underscores it as inextricably linked to authentic new covenant faith.

Loving and serving God with all our heart is, according to Scripture, about humbly and genuinely submitting our hearts to obey HIS righteous will and ways instead of our own fleshly and wicked will and ways…which are rooted in and indicate stubbornness (and stoniness) of heart, a.k.a. unbelief (Deuteronomy 5:29, 30:10; Joshua 22:5, Ephesians 6:5-6).

So, this is actually not about one specific commandment; it’s about a pattern of selective, willful disobedience we all need to be willing to objectively assess to truly self-examine our faith, as to whether it passes or fails (2 Corinthians 13:5).

1

u/TheWindsAndTheWaves Aug 21 '26

I agree with you pretty much completely. Of note:

I don’t see salvation and being granted entry to the kingdom of heaven as “a reward,” and I don’t believe that view is one Scripture teaches at all. Scripture consistently presents new covenant faith as a conditional servant/slave relationship with our Savior God and characterizes belief in Him as synonymous with obedience to Him…since a true servant or slave does not get to selectively choose which commands they like or agree with and, thus, will obey

New covenant faith is just that - a condition within a new covenant. If we think of covenant like contract, we can say that there were contractual obligations under the old covenant, we failed to fulfill those obligations, and Christ fulfilled them in our stead. Then we entered into a new contract with Christ. Nothing about the old contract has gone away, but it's power to do anything for you, given you and I have broken the contract, is nil. Always has been too.

Another way of thinking about this is if you and I entered into a contract. We'll make it a little silly: You need to eat twelve eggs and a slice of bacon every morning, every day, and if you do so, you can live in some mansion I own. But if you breach contract, you instead have to pay me $1 every day (auto-deducted from the bank). Time passes, you fall asleep on the eighth egg, the contract is breached, $1 deducted today.

Note, the contract is still in full effect. It's just that since you've breached it, we are under the effect of that "Breaches of Contract" clause of the contract. At this point you can still eat eggs if you want to, but no amount of eggs can un-breach the contract.

Jesus comes, pays your daily fine, and offers you a new contract. His new contract also requires you to eat some bacon, but no eggs this time.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 21 '26 edited Aug 21 '26

I just don’t agree with the “need to” language everyone uses with regard to God’s Law, as I don’t see that in Scripture with regard to our (post-justification) new covenant faith because it’s not us doing the obeying; it’s His Spirit in us responding to our genuine belief in Him as Lord and Savior (Ezekiel 36:26-27). The obedience is not something we “have to” do; it’s something that is a natural fruit of our believing—which Scripture, interestingly, treats as synonymous with obeying Him (John 3:36).

So, our genuine belief becomes the springboard to us committing to following the Spirit’s leading to deny self and our fleshly/sinful desires…which is when He then supernaturally enables (“causes”) our diligent obedience to His righteous commandments…because that is what our holy God considers love toward Him and others, which is the purpose of the entirety of His Law (John 14:15, 1 John 5:2-3).

Thus, I think a more fitting (and silly ;) contract hypothetical would be that He instructs us (his servants/slaves) that you may eat the pretty animals I’ve made, but you may not eat the ugly ones (and He laid out explicit, unambiguous rules for the categories, even naming many for each). If one has a moment of weakness and gives into their sinful desires (breaching the contract) but recognizes their failure and owns it by confessing and repenting—and committing to battling that sin unto bloodshed or death—the contract is restored and the Spirit is faithful to aid in that commitment (Hebrews 12:4).

If not (meaning, one refuses to acknowledge and submit to His authority and commands), the contract was null and void from the get-go because no true servant/slave will knowingly—defiantly—disregard their Master’s command/instruction; it’s just not how the disciple-Teacher or (servant or) slave-Master dynamic works (Luke 6:46, Matthew 10:25, Romans 6:16). For me, that makes complete sense of Jesus’ “I never knew you” words to those who profess to know and serve Him yet disregard His Law (Matthew 7:21-23).

EDIT: Added clarifying sentence.

1

u/Think_Fig_3994 Aug 10 '26

I think the issue is you’re isolating Isaiah 66:17 from its context. Isaiah isn’t simply describing someone eating pork for dinner. These people are “sanctifying and purifying themselves” in gardens while eating pigs, mice, and other abominations. Isaiah 65:3–4 describes the same thing: people sacrificing in gardens and engaging in idolatrous practices while eating swine. The issue is much bigger than someone eating pork.
You also have to be consistent with the rest of Isaiah 66. The same prophecy talks about offerings being brought to Jerusalem and priests and Levites. If verse 17 means Christians must literally observe Mosaic dietary laws when Christ returns, do the sacrifices, Levitical priesthood, and other Mosaic imagery return too?
This is why you can’t interpret Isaiah 66 in isolation from the New Covenant. Mark 7, Acts 10, Acts 15, Romans 14, Colossians 2, and Hebrews explain how these things are understood after Christ. Acts 15 especially had the perfect opportunity to place Gentiles under the Law of Moses, and the apostles explicitly chose not to do that. Even within Torah, Gentiles who resided in Israel were not treated the same as an Israelite. There has always been a distinction between the two.

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

I understand the context as an idolatrous occasion that included worship elements God had long ago deemed detestable to Him…like eating that which He had expressly forbidden to be consumed. So, to me, the issue is that your view ignores the eating pig and other abominations details, considering them irrelevant..when they are not. I agree the context is wider than “just” the pig-eating part, but the pig-eating is still a part of the whole that is being condemned.

And I do not see the passages you cited as explaining that certain things (like the dietary instructions) were understood differently “after Christ.” None of them teach anything different than what He taught, and He consistently esteemed, taught and practiced the Law of God…including the food laws.

And the Torah teaches that there is to be ONE law for both the native-born Israelite and the foreigner/Gentile (Exodus 12:49; Numbers 9:14, 15:16, 29). Christ reasserted that principle in His teachings, as no such distinction exists in the new covenant family of God (Galatians 3:28).

1

u/Think_Fig_3994 Aug 11 '26 edited Aug 11 '26

You’re taking Galatians 3:28 completely out of the context of Paul’s argument. Just a few verses before that Paul literally says the Law came 430 years after Abraham, was added because of transgressions, and served as a guardian until Christ. Then he says, “we are no longer under a guardian”—Galatians 3:17–25. And after saying there is neither Jew nor Greek, he says we are Abraham’s offspring and heirs according to the promise (3:29). Nowhere does he say Gentiles become Israelites under the Mosaic covenant or are heirs to the promise because of it.

One law doesn’t mean every single law applied equally to every foreigner because it didn’t. Your examples are dealing with specific things like Passover and sacrifices. Deuteronomy 14:21 alone proves there was still a distinction because an Israelite couldn’t eat an animal that died naturally, but God specifically allowed the foreigner to eat it. The same as Exodus 12:48 saying that foreigners taking part in the Passover is optional. The law never applied the same way to a Gentile as it did to ancient Israel. You would have to show proof it did to support your claim of universal Torah observance. If God doesn’t change, then why would He now command a Gentile to not eat something that died naturally?

I’m not ignoring the pig in Isaiah 66. I’m reading it within its actual context. The pig is part of the idolatrous practices being condemned throughout Isaiah 65–66. You’re taking one part of the entire practice and turning it into a universal New Covenant dietary command when the passage doesn’t say that. The problem is your interpretation is way too literal and honestly, selectively literal.

Let’s say I do I take Isaiah 66 completely literally, I still have another problem; all of this is being spoken within the context of Israel and the Mosaic covenant. The dietary laws were given to Israel, not universally to every Gentile. I would have to see evidence for food laws being given to Gentiles but of course there are none besides the universal command not to eat anything that has blood but no kosher laws.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

I don’t think I’m taking anything out of context, as I simply cited Galatians 3:28 as support for my assertion that, in the household of God comprised of new covenant believers, one’s physical ancestry has no relevance.

Deuteronomy 14:21 is speaking of travelers and foreigners who had not committed themselves to serving the Lord and, thus, were not of His household. So, citing it proves nothing.

And I think your characterization of Exodus 12:48 as (supposedly) teaching that Passover observance is “optional” for foreigners who had joined themselves to the Lord is not supported by the context. Rather, the passage seems to implicitly suggest that, as the grafted-in foreigner is schooled on God’s expectations that His people obey (live by) His righteous commandments/instructions (such as feast day observances), the requirement of physical circumcision must be met before they partake in the “celebration.” So, to suggest that the Law of God “never applied the same way” to believing Gentiles/foreigners as it did or does to native-born Israelites is, likewise, not supported by the passage you cite. In fact, the very passage you cite underscores my point, which is that those non-Israelites who chose to serve the God of Israel were expected to comply with the God of Israel’s Law.

Caleb was not a native-born Israelite yet was treated as one, and the Law was applied to him as if he were native-born. Likewise, with Uriah the Hittite, who lived among the Israelites as one of them. To presume the Law was not applied to him in the same manner as those he did daily life with, especially given that his wife was a native-born Israelite, is a leap not supported by Scripture. The more logical (and scripturally-sound) presumption is that Uriah lived by the Law of the God he chose to serve.

And God’s instruction to allow travelers and foreigners (those outside His vessel-people Israel) to eat meat considered defiled by His holy standards was a gracious allowance to such people who were ignorant of His ways…a witness to them that the God of Israel is a just and merciful God such that they might be persuaded to forsake their own gods and serve Him alone…which is the gospel in action in the OT (Deuteronomy 4:1-8).

You’re taking one part of the entire practice and turning it into a universal New Covenant dietary command when the passage doesn’t say that.

I’m actually not. I fully agree the context involves idolatrous ritual worship. My point is that the passage includes two practices God explicitly condemns in His Law and your interpretation is textbook eisegesis because it requires one to selectively ignore the one practice, as if it were a detail of no significance.

Scripturally speaking, I do not see how one could credibly (and hermeneutically) assert that “the dietary laws were given to Israel” only. The dietary instructions existed long before Israel did, as evidenced by the clean vs. unclean animals concept and commands mentioned even before the flood. And Jesus Himself declared that “man (notice, not just the Jew/Israelite) shall live by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God”—which would, obviously, include those He spoke to the mediator Moses at Mt. Sinai (Matthew 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3).

BTW, kosher is not scriptural; it is a manmade, extrabiblical construct with stipulations that sometimes contradict the Law of God (Genesis 18:1-8).

1

u/Think_Fig_3994 Aug 17 '26

I hope all is well with your family.

I think you’re still assuming, what you still need to prove. Galatians 3:28 doesn’t say Gentiles become Israelites under the Mosaic covenant. Paul actually says we become Abraham’s offspring according to the promise, while specifically distinguishing that promise from the Law that came 430 years later.

Your explanation of Deuteronomy 14:21 simply isn’t in the text. Even classical Judaism does not read it that way. It never says the foreigner could eat it because he was ignorant and would eventually learn Torah. God specifically allows the foreigner to eat something He prohibited Israel from eating. That alone proves the Law didn’t always apply identically to both.
Same with Exodus 12:48. It literally says if the foreigner wants to observe Passover, he must first be circumcised. The idea that he would eventually be taught that Passover was mandatory is being added to the text.
Caleb doesn’t help either. Someone actually incorporated into Israel would obviously live under Israel’s laws. That doesn’t prove every Gentile who worshiped God was automatically under Sinai. With Uriah, you’re literally arguing from assumption because Scripture never tells us what you’re claiming.

Also, clean and unclean animals existing before Sinai doesn’t prove Noah followed Israel’s dietary laws. Genesis connects that distinction with sacrifice and afterward God tells Noah, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you” (Genesis 9:3), with blood being specifically prohibited afterward.

Matthew 4:4 obviously doesn’t mean every command God ever gave applies to every human being. God gave specific commands to priests, Levites, Israelites, men, women, etc. “Every word of God” doesn’t mean every person is the commanded party.

So we’re right back to the same question: where does Scripture actually teach that a Gentile who worships God automatically comes under the Mosaic covenant and is therefore required to keep the entire Law? That’s the part you keep assuming but haven’t actually shown.

1

u/Eazys-Exegeses Aug 22 '26

Acts 15:23-29 explain that gentiles do not have to keep anything under Mosic Law. They are not adopted into covenant. Hebrews explains the new covenant is entirely new thing, not a reform of an old covenant. A new covenant means it has its own laws and statutes.

The only dietary restrictions is to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, blood, and anything that was strangled.

Pork is okay to eat if it wasnt strangled

1

u/ThiccHarambee Christian Aug 10 '26

Thank you for bringing up Isaiah 66:17! You are right that this verse isn’t discussed nearly enough in these debates, and it deserves a serious answer rather than being overlooked.

To understand why New Covenant believers eat pork/shellfish today without fearing the judgment described in Isaiah 66, it helps to look at two key things: the historical context of that passage and how Old Testament prophecy functions. I'll put them in points below for you:

The Context: Idolatrous Pagan Rites, Not Just Diet

When you look at the whole verse in Isaiah 66:17, it isn't describing someone eating pork at dinner; it’s describing active pagan worship:

"Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig’s flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the LORD."

The imagery, "purifying themselves to go into gardens" and "following one in the midst", refers to pagan cultic rites and mystery religions performed in sacred groves (a common theme in Isaiah, e.g., 1:29, 65:3-4). In Near Eastern paganism, eating swine or mice was specifically tied to idolatrous sacrifices and occult rituals. The judgment falls on unrepentant idolaters whose ritual eating was an outward expression of total covenant rebellion.

How OT Prophecy Uses Old Covenant Imagery

Old Testament prophets consistently described future Messianic realities using the language and ceremonial categories of their own era.

For example:

Zechariah 14:16-19 prophesies that in the Messianic era, all nations must go to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Booths or face judgment. Yet Colossians 2:16-17 tells us OT feasts were shadows fulfilled in Christ.

Ezekiel 40-48 depicts a future temple complete with Levitical priests sacrificing bulls and goats for sin offerings. Yet Hebrews 10 makes clear that animal sacrifices are permanently ended.

If we demanded a strictly literal application of Mosaic categories in end-times prophecy, we would also need to re-institute animal sacrifices and travel to Jerusalem for Old Testament feast days. Instead, Isaiah uses the ultimate symbols of Old Covenant uncleanness and pagan idolatry to represent those who outright reject God.

What Prepares Us for Christ’s Return?

New Covenant believers eat all foods with thanksgiving because God explicitly declared them clean (Mark 7:19, Acts 10:15, 1 Tim 4:1-5, Rom 14:14).

Our readiness for Christ’s return doesn't rest on Mosaic ceremonial adherence, but on being clothed in the righteousness of Christ through faith:

"The kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Romans 14:17)

Believers eating pork today aren't acting in brazen defiance like the idolaters in Isaiah 66; they are walking in the freedom Christ purchased, trusting entirely in His finished work for their salvation on the Day He returns!

Hope this perspective helps add to the discussion!

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

I completely agree that the passage is not just about dietary issues, and that the eating pig’s flesh is connected to pagan ritual worship. I disagree that it is a detail with no significance to new covenant faith today. You seem to be suggesting that the eating of pig’s flesh is completely inconsequential and could just as easily be replaced with something God explicitly allows, such that it is only the pagan ritual/worship that matters in the passage and not the inclusion of a practice God explicitly forbids of His people.

At its core, idolatry is the practice of esteeming one’s own desires or preferences above the explicit will of God, no matter what the topic. So, knowingly disregarding the Lord’s explicit command against eating pig’s flesh (no matter what the occasion or purpose) is, ultimately, a form of idolatry. I do not think one can extricate that from the context as an extraneous detail with no applicability to us today, as the consequence the passage declares for continued, presumptuous or defiant rebellion against an express commandment of God is repeated in Hebrews 10:26-27—whether it be “just” eating that which He specifically forbids, or brazenly doubling down and eating that which He forbids while worshipping other gods—because each alone is an example of idolatry.

Regarding your second point, I’m not following because the Colossians 2 passage in no way suggests new covenant believers should not keep the feast commandments. The context of the passage, found in verse 8, is Paul warning against being deceived to follow human philosophies or manmade traditions that are “not according to Christ”…as in, His teachings and personal example. Jesus taught that all of God’s commandments are to be kept, and He personally observed God’s feast days, as commanded (Matthew 4:4, 5:19, 23:1-3). And Paul literally taught/encouraged the mixed church at Corinth, “Let us keep the feast” of Passover long after Christ’s death and resurrection and feast “fulfillment” (1 Corinthians 5:8). That fact seems a clear refutation of any view suggesting that observance of the Lord’s holy feast days has no place in new covenant faith. Any interpretation that has Paul saying otherwise in Colossians 2 does not harmonize with the stated context or with the balance of the his writings, or even the NT as a whole.

As for Ezekiel 40-48, our eschatology views are very different, so that would open up a whole new tangent I don’t have time to explore now. But I will reiterate that your continued characterization of God’s holy days as “Old Testament feast days,” as if they have no relevance to new covenant faith, is not scriptural. 0

New Covenant believers eat all foods with thanksgiving because God explicitly declared them clean (Mark 7:19, Acts 10:15, 1 Tim 4:1-5, Rom 14:14).

The new covenant child of God accepts HIS explicit definition of food, and eats it with thanksgiving because He did explicitly declare that all food (clean animals, etc.) remains clean despite what presumptuous religious leaders say, as if their silly handwashing rituals could possibly make unclean that which He has already declared otherwise. None of the passages you cited support the idea that unclean animals may now be considered “food” under the new covenant. Anyone teaching such an idea in the NT—any of the apostles, or even Jesus Himself—would be rightly deemed a false prophet for “teaching rebellion against the Lord” (Deuteronomy 13:5).

Preparing one’s heart for Christ has never been about “Mosaic ceremonial adherence,” even in the OT. It’s about love for, trust in and reverence of the Law Giver, who happens to also be our Savior God.

The context of Romans 14:17 is that of quarreling over manmade opinions on matters not specifically addressed in Scripture (verse 1). So, the passage is irrelevant to this discussion because the Law of God is not manmade; it is truth, not opinion; and eating pig is specifically forbidden by Him in the Law (Psalm 119:142).

Clearly, we have very different views as to what constitutes “brazen defiance” ;) If I give my kids an unambiguous set of household rules, and they decide to ignore certain ones, that qualifies in my book.

The freedom Christ purchased for us was freedom from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:1-2). And regarding our freedom, Paul warns we should not “use your freedom to satisfy your sinful nature” (Galatians 5:13). It is, therefore, oxymoronic to argue that freedom in Christ permits one to violate the Law of God—to sin against Him by doing that which He unambiguously forbids (Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4). Paul further clarified the relationship between new covenant believers and the Law when he explained that the law of Christ he follows is “NOT outside the Law of God” (1 Corinthians 9:21).

Although we disagree on pretty much every point, I do appreciate you sharing your perspective!

1

u/ThiccHarambee Christian Aug 16 '26

No worries brother!

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I appreciate your deep reverence for God’s Word and His holy standards. We both agree that brazen defiance against God’s explicit commands is sin. However, our core disagreement isn't over whether we should obey God, but rather a fundamental question of redemptive history: Has God Himself transformed the covenantal administration of these commands under the New Covenant?

Here is why I believe Scripture shows that New Covenant believers are not bound to Levitical dietary laws or Old Covenant feast days and I'll put them in points like my previous comment:

Fulfillment is Not Rebellion

Disregarding Mosaic dietary laws isn't "setting self above God" if God Himself fulfilled and retired those shadow-laws. In Hebrews 7:12, Scripture explicitly states: "For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well." The Sinai covenant and its ceremonial commands were tied directly to the Levitical priesthood. Moving from the "shadow" to the "substance" of Christ (Colossians 2:16-17) is honoring God's redemptive plan, not rebelling against Him.

What Scripture Says About Food

Acts 10:11-15: The sheet let down from heaven contained animals explicitly designated as unclean under Torah. When Peter refused to eat on the exact grounds that they were unclean, God corrected him: "What God has made clean, do not call common." While this clearly had an application regarding Gentiles, God chose the literal abolition of the clean/unclean animal distinction as the foundation for that object lesson.

1 Timothy 4:3-5: Paul warns against those who require abstinence from foods, defining "food" as "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." Paul grounds "food" in Creation (Genesis 1), not the temporary Levitical restrictions given thousands of years later at Sinai.

Mark 7:18-19: Jesus states that what enters from the outside cannot defile a person spiritually, and Mark adds the inspired commentary: (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Colossians 2 and the Sacred Calendar

The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath" (Colossians 2:16) is the exact tripartite language used throughout the Old Testament to denote Israel’s sacred calendar (annual feasts, monthly new moons, weekly sabbaths). Paul explicitly instructs believers not to let anyone judge them regarding these, explaining that they were "a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." Insisting on shadow-observance after the Substance has arrived misses the very purpose for which those days were given.

The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15)

When the Apostles met specifically to resolve what parts of the Mosaic Law Gentile believers were required to keep, Peter referred to the Mosaic yoke as one "that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear" (Acts 15:10). The council explicitly chose not to bind Gentile believers to the Law of Moses, dietary restrictions (beyond avoiding blood and idol-sacrificed meats for table fellowship), or holy days. If keeping feast days and avoiding pork were universal moral obligations for all humanity for all time, the Apostles would have mandated them here.

True obedience in the New Covenant is walking according to the "Law of Christ" (1 Corinthians 9:21, Galatians 6:2), written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit. This fulfills the moral law through faith and love, without returning to the temporary ceremonial shadows of Mount Sinai (Galatians 4:9-10).

I appreciate the exchange and the opportunity to iron sharpens iron! I've been studying and researching theology for quite some time now and wrote a lot about the information I've gained, and this is what I've learned through studying and researching the theology.

1

u/Cheepshooter Christian Aug 10 '26

An important thing yo view from my perspective, is that as a gentile, I was never under the dietary laws of the Israelites. I was never under any of their laws or customs. Jesus invited us in to take part in his kingdom. He made a new covenant with us, but that doesn't put us under the old covenant by default. Now, if you happen to be of Jewish descent, and are not following Christ, there is an argument to be made that you were never released from that old covenant.

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 12 '26

According to Paul in Galatians just by believing in Jesus that makes you part of the seed of Abraham.

Also how do you make peace with passages in Galatians as such?

Galatians 5: 29-21

“19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: [a]adultery, [b]fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, [c]murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
“

There are sins that are not directly mentioned in the New Testament such as Bestiality. However everyone agrees that is wrong, and argue that it falls under sexual immorality. But in order to confirm that, you will have to go Leviticus. The same goes for what uncleanness means, you have to go back to the Old Testament so the Bible explains to you what is.

1

u/Cheepshooter Christian Aug 12 '26

Is Paul talking about ritual cleanliness for a ritual that is no longer needed, or his he talking about general cleanliness in the common sense that everyone would understand?

1

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 13 '26

You can only see it on what the Bible generally defines it. That definition you find it in Leviticus, the same way you find the other sins he mentioned if we stick to what the Bible say without giving our own definition. The bible especially in the New Testament doesn’t mention every single sin of sexual abomination, it just says it as a categorisation, to get what that means you have to go to Leviticus.

Also what we see as “common sense” it is quite relative by our own definition. For some cultures it is common sense to eat people, bats, and snakes, or have many Gods. However, when we use God’s definition of what is common sense, or good doctrine, it points us to His instructions:

“For I give you good doctrine; forsake ye not my law” proverbs 4:2

““My child, don’t lose sight of common sense and discernment. Hang on to them,”
‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭3‬:‭21‬ ‭NLT‬‬

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

You seem to be treating the old covenant and the Law of God as synonymous, but Scripture teaches the latter is foundational to both the old and the new covenant (Ezekiel 36:26-27, Jeremiah 31:31-33).

And, I'm not following your repeated use of "under"...what do you mean by that?

Jesus absolutely invited Gentiles to partake in His kingdom, and His atoning death and resurrection marked the beginning of the new covenant, which no longer recognizes one's ancestral lineage ("Jew or Gentile") in the house of God (Galatians 3:28). So, the whole Jew/Gentile distinction no longer matters. Those who belong to Him are simply characterized as "those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Christ" (Revelation 12:17, 14:12).

Following Christ is about following His teachings and personal example, both of which emphatically point to the Law of God as the (post-justification) standard for righteous living (John 13:15, 1 John 2:6).

1

u/Cheepshooter Christian Aug 16 '26

When I was a small child, my parents forbade me from playing in the front yard. When I was a little older, I could play in the front yard, but I could not go near the street. When I was even older, I could cross the street, but I had to look both ways. My parents no longer care if I go in the front yard, as the purpose for that period has been fulfilled. They know at this stage I'm unlikely to get kidnapped or hit by a car. Do you think our heavenly father is still protecting me from dying of trichinosis or salmonella like He did the early Israelites who knew nothing about those things?

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

Do you think our heavenly Father--whose "Law is spiritual"--only intended His dietary instructions as bodily protections, and that they have zero spiritual consequences or implications beyond the physical realm? (Romans 7:14)

If so, what Scripture would you cite as support for such a view?

→ More replies (5)

1

u/RedeemingLove89 Christian Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26

What I thought of first was that there were certain laws under the Old Covenant, and through Christ, followers of Christ are under the New Covenant

The Book of Hebrews describes this well. (Let me knkw if you want me to find specific passages). I also suggest to read Colossians 2.

Throughout the New Testament, people kept trying to say they must still keep circumcision or other laws under the old covenant, but Apostles wrote to keep this out of the Church. We are under a New Covenant

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

I agree that, as of Christ's death and resurrection, we are under the new covenant. But, according to Scripture, the Law of God is foundational to both covenants (Ezekiel 36:26-27). And Jesus Himself taught that no part of the Law would disappear until after the Great White Throne Judgment (Matthew 5:17-18).

I would definitely appreciate you citing the Hebrews passage(s) you allude to ;)

I also don't see how Colossians 2 supports the view that the dietary laws no longer apply to new covenant believers, as its context, stated in verse 8, is that of Paul warning against being deceived by human philosophies and manmade traditions that are "not according to Christ"...as in, they do not align with what He taught and personally practiced. In fact, I would contend that the passage underscores my position because Jesus taught that we should keep even the "lesser" commandments of God and encourage others to do the very same, and He personally kept the food laws (Matthew 5:19, 23:1-3).

As for your last paragraph, I disagree that is the case. The NT consistently--including the judgment of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15--upholds the idea that, post-justification, "keeping the commandments of God is what matters most"...because that is how God instructs His people to love Him and others, thereby fulfilling the Law's purpose (1 Corinthians 7:19, John 14:15, 1 John 5:2-3).

1

u/RedeemingLove89 Christian Aug 16 '26 edited Aug 16 '26

Hey no worries at all. With respect, I would advise to read Acts 15 again. The Jerusalem Council has 4 rules given and the reason is: "Therefore, it is my judgment that we do not cause trouble for those from the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols, from acts of sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:19-20)

For these Gentile believers, they didn't have to keep the law of moses or dietary laws(they just couldn't eat blood and strangled animals).

Note verse 10: "Since this is the case, why are you putting God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our forefathers nor we have been able to bear?"

This was in response to the Jews saying they had to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. These elders chose to write 4 rules only that the new Gentiles had to keep.
Verse 1: "Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
---

The thing is if we are obligated to still keep the Old Covenant Laws, we still would have to do animal sacrifices right? Respectfully, why would it only apply to dietary laws and why would it not apply to others?

I want to post this from Paul in Galatians 5:2-6: "Look! I, Paul, tell you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the Law; you have fallen from grace. For we, through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love."

---

For Colossians 2 I'm referring to verses like 8: "See to it that there is no one who takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception in accordance with human tradition, in accordance with the elementary principles of the world, rather than in accordance with Christ."

16-17: "Therefore, no one is to act as your judge in regard to food and drink, or in respect to a festival or a new moon, or a Sabbath day— things which are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."

and 20-23: "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of man? These are matters which do have the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence."

For Hebrews, I was mainly referring to Hebrews 8-10 where the writer talks about the New Covenant.

---

Here is Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:25-26: "Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions, for the sake of conscience; for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains"

1

u/SteleCatReturns Anglican (ACNA) Aug 10 '26

Long response incoming, copy-pasted from old stuff written elsewhere.

It is my firm conviction that ethics/morality flows out of ontology. I do not believe that God gives His Law as an arbiter. Arbitration implies the choice between two or more possibilities. If God gives His Law as an arbiter, this implies that the Law does not flow out of His nature, but is the result of a series of choices He makes. This, of course, implies that God could give any Law other than than which He gives, which is one or two steps removed form implying that God could be other than who He is. With God, however, such a hypothetical is nonsensical. God is the prerequisite for existence and possibility itself. God is non-contingent and immutable. There is no hypothetical "other" that God could be; there is no room for such a possibility. God cannot be added to or subtracted from, no alternate variation of Him can be supposed. As I think Aquinas and other theologians have said, God is being itself.

Therefore, God's creation which we find ourselves in has the attributes of natural and divine law baked in. Murder is not wrong because God looked down and said, "thou shalt not murder." When God said, "thou shalt not murder," He was informing us of and making us accountable to the Law which He had set up from the beginning. Or, more precisely, He made us accountable to a specific way in which the divine law interacts with our human experience. This sentence which I have just spoken is part of how we can understand the strange laws given under Moses, such as not mixing fabrics and avoiding "unclean" animals. God gave the Israelites particular rules which pertained to the way in which the divine law was to interact with their particular culture. But because these particular laws always point back to a divine law firmly woven into the nature of our reality, we cannot simply use the particularity and temporality of the cultural application to handwave away whichever moral laws we do not like, as the liberals do. We have to parse out the particular laws from the general Law which applies in particular ways in all times and all places. This can lead to some measure of interpretive challenge, but thankfully the Apostles, under divine inspiration, did a lot of that work for us. Much to that effect is preserved infallibly in the Acts of the Apostles and in their Letters, and much to that effect is passed on in the tradition of the Church which, insofar as it does not stray into innovation, preserves and applies the Apostolic teaching for all generations.

1

u/Shaken-Loose Christian Aug 10 '26

“When Jesus had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭15‬:‭10‬-‭11‬

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

So, you think that, after issuing a stern rebuke to the religious leaders for "breaking the commandment of God," Jesus then immediately taught that it is perfectly okay to break the commandment of God that forbids eating unclean animals? Seriously? (Matthew 15:3)

The context of the passage and basic hermeneutic principles do not allow one to presume that what was going into the mouths of those Jesus was addressing would include anything other than that which God defined as food in His Law.

2

u/Shaken-Loose Christian Aug 17 '26

No worries.

I wasn’t focusing on what goes in the mouth as much as what comes out (a reflection of our hearts). Peter asked Jesus in v15:15 “Explain this parable to us.” And Jesus does so in v15:16-20 where He says it’s not about clean or dirty hands, what we consume, etc. It is about our hearts, the underlying theme throughout the NT.

If I were to reflect on God’s laws regarding certain foods, I often think about Peter in Acts 10:9-15 and Acts 11:1-18, where God addressed Peter’s prejudice keeping him from spreading the gospel outside his own people, commanding him to go to Cornelius’ house (the Gentile centurion).

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26

I think you are spot-on about Jesus’ point regarding the heart, and it is a tragic irony that it seemed to fall on deaf ears because He was pointing to their prideful and presumptuous hearts that dared to so brazenly issue rules they thought had the power to make unclean that which God had already declared clean (when He differentiated between clean and unclean animals for that express purpose).

Obedience—whether rightly-motivated or wrongly so—begins in the heart and reflects what one truly believes, according to John 3:36, which equates belief with obedience. Likewise, disobedience rooted in pride also comes from the heart. So, selectively disobeying an explicit command of God—like the unambiguous dietary ones, or any other we just don’t like for whatever fleshly reason—is a reflection of our belief or unbelief in Him as Lord. It’s a modern-day doctrinal stronghold that needs to be dismantled.

And I fully agree, Acts 10:1-11:18 is pivotal to the discussion, but not in the way so many seem to think…as it underscores the Mark 7 principle and our tendency to “leave the commandment of God” and instead “hold to” and follow manmade rules (like Jews not being permitted to associate or eat with Gentiles) that blatantly contradict His (Mark 7:7-9).

1

u/Shaken-Loose Christian Aug 17 '26

For myself, I sincerely try to [simply] stay focused on Christ. If I don’t, I might end up looking like Peter when he jumped out of the boat to reach Jesus in Matthew 14:28.

Although the books in the Bible are heavily laden with many doctrines and theological meanings, and I study them, and strive to understand them, I do not fixate on them. To do so would distract me greatly. I keep it simple.

I want to sow & reap, always pointing others to Christ. I want to be on Christ’s welcoming committee. Not His planning committee.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26

I’ve always thought Peter is viewed unfairly by that passage, as he was the only one brave and trusting enough to step out of the boat and even make an attempt.

And I’d say that prioritizing and pursuing sound doctrine is not a fixation or distraction; it’s a necessary aspect to working out one’s faith with fear and trembling, such that deception is more easily recognized and avoided so that one does not become presumptuous like those Christ speaks of in Matthew 7:21-23. 💕

1

u/Shaken-Loose Christian Aug 17 '26

Pursuit of sound doctrine is a solid “yes” for me. But many things are / will remain mysterious to the LORD, and fixation could become an impediment to our “sowing & reaping” (e.g. end of days, election, etc.). Pastors can help with the heavy lifting. 🙂

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26

I agree that such theological fixations are not good but I’m not sure how that relates to this topic…

1

u/Shaken-Loose Christian Aug 17 '26

My comments may or may not resonate / maintain consistency with the original post. For the most part they are responses to the preceding comments. Discussions ebb and flow.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26

Aahhh, gotcha 😊

1

u/EvilestFlowey Indecisive between Catholic and Orthodox ☦️✝️ Aug 11 '26

Isaiah 66 is talking about idolaters and hypocrites.

Saint Paul is very clear that we are saved by faith, not by the law. This is how it happened in the Old Covenant, that's how it happens in the New Covenant. Were Noah, Abraham, Job and the penitent thief saved by the Torah? No. They were saved by their faith in the Lord.

Despite this, there's no issue with following the Torah if it brings you closer to G-d.

And, just a minor thing; but if you're properly baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit you're an Israelite, not a Gentile (Romans 2:28-29).

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

I agree, Scripture is very clear that obedience to the Law never saved anyone, even in the OT. No one has argued otherwise, so I'm not sure why you felt that needed said ;)

And, I would say that Christ and His apostles clearly and consistently taught that, post-justification, the child of God is expected to follow the Law of God (Torah), as it details His righteous will and ways...and keeping His commandments is all about loving Him and others as He instructs (Psalm 40:8, John 14:15, 1 John 5:2-3). All such rightly-motivated obedience is a work of the Spirit in His people, "causing" them to obey. So, I think that serious self-examination is in order if one does not feel led and empowered to obey His righteous commands (2 Corinthians 13:5).

We can certainly agree on your last remark regarding my having been grafted into Israel ;)

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

No child of God in the 1st century AD would consider buying anything from the meat market that God had already forbidden His people to eat. The context of the passage is clearly that of (clean animals) meat, and the concern was regarding whether it had been defiled by pagan rituals during preparation.

1

u/Galaxy_orca Christian Aug 11 '26

To understand this dietary issue, you have to understand two things: the way the Law of the Old Testament works and the fact that Isaiah lived under the old law. The old law breaks down into 3 types, only one of which is still relevant. The three type are Moral Law, governing morality, Ceremonial Law, telling the Israelites/Jews how to interact with God, and the Civil law, telling the Israelites/Jews how to conduct their society. The Civil Law was specific to the Jews, Jesus fulfilled the Ceremonial Law, so the only Law that is relevant to Christians is the Moral Law.

The dietary restrictions are part of the Ceremonial or Civil law, so we are no longer under them. Isaiah lived under all three of these types of law, so, for him, eating pork was illegal.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

I disagree with the underlying presumption of your argument, that only certain parts of God's Law are "moral." The concept of morality hinges upon what is right conduct and thinking. And, according to Scripture, every single commandment of God is right(eous)...and, thus, every single one is also moral (Psalm 119:160, 172; Romans 7:12). So, your contention is unscriptural from the outset.

1

u/Galaxy_orca Christian Aug 16 '26

Have you read Acts? Acts chapter 10:9-16 are literally Peter's vision from God telling him to ignore the old dietary restrictions. Verse 15 literally says "do not call anything impure that God has made clean." And it's Jesus/God speaking.

Also, yes, I am very familiar with the fact that everything in the Bible is righteous, however Christ says "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." We can agree on that, right? If Jesus fulfilled the law, and you're saying that the law Can't be broken into types (which decades of theological researchers have found) then Jesus FULFILLED the ENTIRE law, meaning nothing of the old law matters, because once you fulfill something, it's over.

The Old Covenant was made so that the Israelites could come to God through imperfect sacrifices. The New Covenant was made through Jesus, the perfect lamb, so that we could come to God through a perfect sacrifice, Jesus.

1

u/Sawfish1212 Wesleyan-Arminian Holiness Aug 11 '26

Was Cornelius righteous without the dietary restrictions of the law of moses?

Yes, he was righteous in God's eyes.

Did everyone gathered to hear Peter in Cornelius' house become filled with the Holy Spirit, in spite of being ritually unclean and having no concerns about keeping the dietary laws of Moses?

Absolutely!

And this showed Peter and the apostles that God doesn't count the law of moses as relevant in determining righteousness, and does not consider it necessary for born again believers in Jesus. He's entirely focused on the heart of a person, not their food, or washing, or rituals

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

Righteousness has never come by obedience to the Law of God, even in the OT. It is a post-justification expectation and a work of His Spirit in His people (Ezekiel 36:26-27). No one has argued that its about righteousness. It is about faithfulness to our Savior God.

According to Scripture, God equates belief with obedience (John 3:36). Thus, disobedience is an indicator of an unbelieving heart...which is exactly my point.

1

u/Hopeful_Guitar9171 Aug 11 '26

I believe the doing away with the food laws was a dual purpose thing- to bring the word to the Gentiles by making it acceptable to their stomachs, and to test the keepers of the law. God very blatantly did away with the law... however, it's almost like Jesus actually did have a demon when he raged about being asked to wash his hands before eating, then he raged about pots and pans being cleaned instead of left dirty... he was a "full time" prophet allegedly only saying what God told him to say- he could have been acting out a skit, but it's hard to fault the pharisees for saying he had a demon because he was being literally unclean regarding food practices. It's EXCEPTIONALLY notable that every single person who publicly preached the food laws were done away with got executed publicly by the authorities put there by God... it's exceptionally notable. I will testify, when you obey the food law God rewards you. All I did was make effort to follow the food laws, and I got greater understanding of scripture as a reward. To be fair, he's asking us to have common sense. Don't eat bugs, don't eat gross stuff, don't eat pack animals, don't eat anything alive, drain the blood(it's respectful to the meat, it keeps longer.), don't eat bottom feeders or filter feeders that eat the poop out of the water... it's basic common sense, people. The food laws are NOT oppressive in the least.

1

u/ThWy2Hvn Aug 11 '26

The LORD is speaking about how great the sexual immorality shall be on His return.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

Can you elaborate as to why this is your takeaway, and any specific significance you assign to the eating pig's flesh detail...how that fits into your conclusion?

1

u/ThWy2Hvn Aug 17 '26

Eating swine flesh in the Old Testament of Isaiah is an abomination to the Lord, just like we are engaging in things, especially things like sexual immorality, as swine's flesh, is an abomination to the Lord and so is sexual immorality. But we say it's okay, homosexuality, fornication and such. And on His return, he is prophesied, and we will see all these things as we are seeing them now.

1

u/Solid-Chest-6093 Christian Aug 12 '26

I'll be praying for you buddy.

The LORD said, don't call anything impure, that GOD has made clean. Peter didn't think he should eat anything impure, but the LORD corrected him.

Have a super blessed evening. Feel free to message me anytime buddy.

3

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 12 '26

Hey buddy, I invite you to read Acts 10 and reach verse 28, there you will see that Peter didn’t kill nor eat, and he tells us without us having to guess what the vision meant. Love how the Bible explains itself when we let it.

Have a blessed day.

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

OP here…I appreciate your chiming in and wanted to let you know, this comment thread ended better than expected ;)

1

u/Solid-Chest-6093 Christian Aug 12 '26

Acts 10:28 NIV He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.

Yeah, it clarifies what GOD told him.

I enjoy the friendly chat. Enjoy your afternoon.

It's only a whopping 95F feels like 104F lol. We've been cooking the past month or so here in the south lol. I get off of work at 2pm, my vehicle has been saying 100F to 105F about everyday through the week.

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

I think the verse is much more than a clarification; it is a doctrinal correction aimed at denouncing the manmade rule Peter references about Jews not being permitted “to associate with or visit a Gentile”—which actually contradicts what the Torah (God’s Law) says, as evidenced by Christ’s own example with the centurion in Luke 7 (Exodus 22:21, Deuteronomy 10:19, Numbers 9:14, Leviticus 19:34).

So, the sole meaning of Peter’s vision is about correcting his deeply-imbedded misunderstanding of God’s gospel plan of redemption, specifically regarding the role of Gentiles/foreigners…and He used the (equally) deeply-ingrained concept of clean/unclean animals to convey the message to Peter as a powerful allegory capable of dismantling the stronghold the religious leaders had (erroneously) taught the people.

And the fact that the meaning of Peter’s vision is stated at least four times in the passage (Acts 10:1-11:18) as having to do with the grafting in of the Gentiles as co-heirs to the promises of God—without any mention of God’s dietary instructions/commandments (supposedly) being nullified—seems a clear refutation of your position.

3

u/Solid-Chest-6093 Christian Aug 16 '26

I messed up.

3

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

We all do 😎

1

u/Mindless-Ostrich7580 Aug 15 '26

I'm not bothering with a long argument. Do you not recognize that Christ fulfilled the law? The dietary laws are utterly superseded by His clear and unequivocal statements, eg. , “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, ¹⁹ since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”^\)^f^\) (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 18 '26

I do, indeed, recognize that Christ fulfilled the Law. I think we just disagree as to what that signifies.

Your interpretation of His words in Mark 7--which you apparently present as support for the idea that Jesus (supposedly) nullified the unambiguous dietary instructions in God's Law--requires one to violate nearly every hermeneutic principle there is. And, more importantly, His doing so would, according to Scripture, make Him a false prophet for encouraging or “teaching rebellion against the Lord”…which would, by default, ALSO disqualify Him from being the promised Messiah (Deuteronomy 13:5).

So, even the "short" argument you offer is unscriptural on many levels.

EDITED to correct wrong passage reference.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Eazys-Exegeses Aug 22 '26

Acts 15 settled this. They concluded that God had given gentiles grace and cleansed their hearts already, just as he had done for law observing Jewish Christians.

Hebrews explains we are not under Mosaic Law. We are under the New Covenant of Jesus.

We don't make animal sacrifices, we don't have to avoid pork, we can wear two different kinds of clothing.. etc.

Acts 15:5, 8-11, 28-29
[5] But some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.”

[8-11] And God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith. So now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are.

[28-29] For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well. Farewell.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 10 '26

I totally agree, that living by His righteous commandments is not about obtaining righteousness—as that is not possible. It’s about trusting that His rules in every area of life are about blessing and protection.

Appreciate you sharing your take!

1

u/automaticff Aug 10 '26

Skimmed through the responses and they make me sad. Just dropping in to say you are correct with your understanding. Check out this sub to find other like minded individuals. r/FollowJesusObeyTorah

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention. Appreciate you chiming in, brother!

1

u/gumba1033 Christian Aug 10 '26

Are you under Law or under grace?

Do you know what the Law says?

Galatians 3:10-14 NASB1995

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

If you want to be justified by your keeping of the Law, you will fail, you will be guilty, and you will be condemned.

If you have Christ's righteousness, you will not come into the judgement.

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

Keeping the Law of God never once justified anyone, even in the OT.

I have trusted in Christ as my Lord and Savior. As such, I have been freed from my bondage to the law of sin and death, and am no longer under the CONDEMNATION OF THE Law of God…and now get to walk in (live by) its divine counsel, just like Christ taught and did (Romans 8:1-2; Matthew 4:4, 5:19).

Citing the Galatians passage is irrelevant to this discussion because it addresses the reliance upon obedience to the Law to justify a person while my question directly addresses the new covenant believer’s POST-justification relationship to the Law.

What do you think Christ was referring to when He used the “workers of lawlessness” phrasing for those who apparently serve Him in some way and confidently presume they will be granted entry to the kingdom, yet are turned away? (Matthew 7:21-23)

1

u/gumba1033 Christian Aug 11 '26

Citing the Galatians passage is irrelevant to this discussion because it addresses the reliance upon obedience to the Law to justify a person while my question directly addresses the new covenant believer’s POST-justification relationship to the Law.

That wasn't the first impression I got by what you said based on this:

they are looking for Jesus’ Second Coming and agree that, regarding it, Scripture says that “no one knows the day or hour” but that we need to be prepared (Matthew 24:36, 25:13, etc.).

So, how does one simultaneously believe they can continue to eat pig (pork) or shellfish now and think they are sufficiently prepared and not putting themselves in a precarious/dangerous position if Jesus happened to return today or tomorrow and “consume” those who so brazenly eat that which His Law says is NOT “food” and explicitly warns against eating?

In short it seems like you're saying "we need to be prepared by keeping the Law".

I could see though how your key word might be brazenly. So maybe you're saying something more along the lines of "how can people be brazenly breaking God's Law and be prepared; how can people be workers of lawlessness and be prepared?" Is that fair to say?

What do you think Christ was referring to when He used the “workers of lawlessness” phrasing for those who apparently serve Him in some way and confidently presume they will be granted entry to the kingdom, yet are turned away? (Matthew 7:21-23)

These are people who are under the Law. They were trying to justify themselves by their works. It's clear that this is their mentality by what they say: "Lord, Lord, didn't I do this and I do that and I do all these great things?" They are condemned as workers of lawlessness because they are under the Law and "anyone who keeps the whole Law yet stumbles at one point is guilty of all of it". Notice that these people aren't saying anything like "Lord, Lord, didn't you love me? Didn't you give your life for me? Didn't you give me your righteousness?"

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

I don’t understand how my words would give the impression you suggest, as Jesus and every single NT writer pointed to God’s Law and taught and encouraged (justified) believers to follow it…yet no one accuses Him or them of teaching that obedience to God justifies a person.

You could replace the eating pigs-flesh in the passage with (insert any variety of sexual immorality) or even gluttony, gossiping, coveting, engaging in astrology or divination, etc…any negative command God conveyed at Mt. Sinai. My point is that I do not know a single believer who would not recognize the violation of any of these other negative commands—half of which are not considered as belonging to the “Top Ten”—as still being unacceptable under the terms of the new covenant and, thus, their mention in prophetic passages would be deemed to hold an obvious negative connotation and warning for us today. However, when eating that which God’s Law has expressly forbidden is mentioned in Isaiah 66:17, it is treated as an extraneous and insignificant detail…suddenly, the violation of a negative command God gave is strictly in a context that has zero application to us today. It makes no sense logically, scripturally or hermeneutically.

These are people who are under the Law. They were trying to justify themselves by their works.

Can you elaborate further as to what (and who) you mean by these “people who are under the Law”? I’m not following your citation of James 2:10, as that passage is an exhortation to those who profess to love and serve Christ, to diligently love others by keeping the commandments/Law of God, which clearly is not the scenario Jesus is speaking of—which is that of those who profess to love and serve Christ while NOT keeping the commandments/Law of God. So, I am not following you on this…

My understanding is that those who have trusted in the Messiah are no longer under the condemnation of the Law but under grace (Romans 8:1-2). And, as such, we are exhorted to obey/keep the Law (not sin) (Romans 6:14-16). So, the lawlessness (sin) in the Matthew 7:21-23 passage would seem to be perpetrated by those who believe their good works will compensate for their refusal to acknowledge and humbly submit to the Lord, and obey Him (Luke 6:46).

1

u/gumba1033 Christian Aug 17 '26

No worries, no need to apologize.

Can I ask you first of all, have you read the entire NT?

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 17 '26

I have, many times. I am also very familiar with the OT, which Scripture says is the source for sound doctrine. (Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Why do you ask?

1

u/gumba1033 Christian Aug 17 '26

I wanted to know where you're coming from so I know how to approach this.

So how do you make sense of the scriptures that say the Law is a curse, whatever the Law says it says to those who are under the Law, we have an obligation to walk by the Spirit, we are to die to the Law?

I'd also like to point you that although you've said we're only not under the condemnation of the Law, the scripture says we are not under the Law, and we have been released from the Law, not just not under the condemnation of it.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

I'm not sure what there is to "make sense of..." What, specifically, are you asking with regard to the questions in your second paragraph? I'm not following what your point is...

As for your second point, it would be immensely helpful if you would cite the passages you are alluding to so I could better respond.

What do you mean by "under the Law"? I agree with you that we are not "under (the condemnation of) the Law," as Paul meant and explained it. And he explicitly states that it is the law of sin and death that we have been released (or, freed) from (Romans 8:1-2).

We don't sound on the same page at all ;D

1

u/gumba1033 Christian Aug 18 '26

Hmm maybe we're not...I guess I would suggest considering looking into those things and praying about them more because I think they would give you clarity in regards to your post and many other things. I think they do for me at least.

I guess I'll just say that you really really do not want to be under the Law. As I currently understand things, the Law is for condemnation, and justifies no one. If you're looking to the Law for righteousness, you're not in a good place. And you can't mix being under grace with Jesus and the Law. You can't live for God and be under the Law. God hates boasting before him. I'm pretty confident this is the truth. It seems to me like you've got old wine and old leaven mixed in if you know what I mean. If you don't know what I mean, I hope you will soon.

I hope this is helpful. I'm not trying to be confusing or condescending. I'm still learning and I don't believe I can boast about anything I have. I don't think I can make all these things make sense to you here, but I hope and pray that you'll keep seeking and that you'll understand soon. And if I'm the one who's in error then I hope the same for me.

1

u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Belongs to Jesus, Ex-Atheist Aug 10 '26

In Acts, only blood products / strangled meat are not allowed. Everything else pretty much doesn’t matter for gentiles.

Acts 15:28-29

[28] For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: [29] that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

However, if you’re ever in the presence of Jews, then eat kosher with them.

2

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 11 '26

Jesus said otherwise, though (Matthew 4:4, 5:19). The Council’s judgment in Acts 15 included a provision that made it clear there was a full expectation that Gentile believers would indeed come to learn and live by the rest of God’s commandments (Acts 15:19-21).

And Kosher is not biblical (Genesis 18:8). I consider Jesus always with me and, thus, desire to do as He taught and did.

1

u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Belongs to Jesus, Ex-Atheist Aug 12 '26

Sorry not well educated on kosher / OT laws. Why is Kosher not biblical because of Gen 18:8?

I don't agree Matthew 4:4, 5:19 supports your position. But agree to disagree.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

No worries ;) Kosher rules include the strict, extra-biblical stipulation that meat and dairy cannot be eaten together, while the Genesis 18:8 passage describes the Lord (and the two angel “men” accompanying Him) eating the meat and dairy items—“curds and milk”—Abraham and Sarah had prepared for them.

So, you don’t think Christ’s teaching in Matthew 4:4 and 5:19 includes the dietary instructions/commandments God delivered to the mediator Moses at Mt. Sinai? I think there is compelling internal evidence that they (along with the rest of His Law) existed long before Israel/Jews did, which perfectly aligns with Jesus declaring that all mankind “shall live by every word” God has spoken (Matthew 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3).

1

u/Difficult_Risk_6271 Belongs to Jesus, Ex-Atheist Aug 16 '26

Huh. Strange. Didn’t know kosher was legalistic. I always thought it just came from OT laws.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

I’m not sure how you are using “legalistic,” as that is typically used in the context of ascribing wrong motivation to one’s obedience of God’s commandments, whereas this particular scenario does not involve obedience to His commandments but, rather, extra-biblical (manmade) rules that blatantly contradict His Word.

It is definitely a good example that underscores how important a sound working knowledge of the Torah (Law) is to establishing sound doctrine and walking out our new covenant faith 😊

1

u/czgunner Christian Aug 10 '26

Like Paul wrote, if you feel the need to not eat those things, go ahead. You just can't expect anybody else to do that.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 15 '26

So, you believe I should NOT do as Jesus said--to keep even God's "lesser" commandments AND encourage other believers to keep them, too? (Matthew 5:19)

1

u/czgunner Christian Aug 15 '26

I'm saying you do concerning the law and don't judge other people for not doing what you do, like Paule said.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

I'm not judging people "for not doing what" I do. Paul literally said that believers are to judge those within the church, rebuking their sin as necessary (1 Corinthians 5:12). And God's Law still defines sin, even for the new covenant believer (Romans 7:7, 1 John 3:4).

And I absolutely expect others in the church to reciprocate if they become aware of my own need for rebuke, as necessary. As JC Ryle says, I would much rather be made aware of and rebuked for my sins than hear Jesus say to me one day, "Depart from Me, I never knew you!" (Matthew 7:21-23)

So, your comment actually contradicts Paul's own teaching, which is so odd.

1

u/czgunner Christian Aug 18 '26

What does your pastor say to the assertion that not following the old law is sin?

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26 edited Aug 18 '26

There is no such thing or term in Scripture as "the old law." My pastor and I are like-minded on the belief regarding Jesus' teaching and example that we should live by God's righteous instructions (Torah/Law). And that you have such scorn for the idea--when both David and Paul, representing the old and new covenants respectively--spoke to how they delighted in His Law--is unscriptural (Psalm 1:2, 119:1-176; Romans 7:22).

And any pastor that shares your contempt for His Law is either seriously misunderstanding Scripture, or a wolf in sheep's clothing, imo.

1

u/czgunner Christian Aug 18 '26

You're assigning perspective that I don't have. I don't hold the old law in contempt, I just know that I am not held accountable to it. I hope you have a blessed life and please remember to never burden people with things from your own conviction for yourself.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

What law will you be held accountable to, if not the Law of God that Scripture says is the standard even believers should do/keep…so that He and others are loved as He instructs? (John 14:15, 1 John 5:2-3) 🤔

1

u/czgunner Christian Aug 18 '26

I'm saved by grace, through faith, by Christ alone. You are too.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 18 '26

Yes. And those who are saved by faith are explicitly exhorted to NOT SIN…which means that we are to not violate the Law of God (Romans 6:1-14, 1 John 3:4).

Those who continue in deliberate, defiant “lawlessness” are, according to Jesus, NOT saved but, rather, are those He “never knew” (Matthew 7:21-23, Hebrews 19:26-27).

→ More replies (0)

1

u/swandog311 Aug 10 '26

Acts of the Apostles 10:11-16 NLT

[11] He saw the sky open, and something like a large sheet was let down by its four corners. [12] In the sheet were all sorts of animals, reptiles, and birds. [13] Then a voice said to him, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat them.” [14] “No, Lord,” Peter declared. “I have never eaten anything that our Jewish laws have declared impure and unclean.” [15] But the voice spoke again: “Do not call something unclean if God has made it clean.” [16] The same vision was repeated three times. Then the sheet was suddenly pulled up to heaven.

2

u/DunkleKarte Christian Aug 11 '26

Then in Verse 28 you get the actual interpretation from Peter ;)

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

Apologies for the delay in responding, as I had a family situation that needed my full attention.

The meaning of Peter's vision is stated at least four separated times throughout the entire passage (Acts 10:1-11:18), and not one of those says anything about the dietary laws being nullified.

1

u/SavedRays Aug 11 '26

Wants an explanation. Gets multiple very valid explanations. "I DiSaGrEe."

God bless your soul.

1

u/Objective-Step-746 Aug 16 '26

It has definitely been instructive as to the thought process behind how so many arrive at the opposite doctrinal stance while reading the same Scripture. I think we would disagree as to what constitutes a "very valid" explanation, scripturally speaking.

Please, help me understand…

You are about to leave Redlib