Concerning the food laws

[James Pierce]

1 Tim 4:4-5,"For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer."

This scripture has been misunderstood when it comes to Yahweh's dietary laws. Christians always read into this text to fit their denominational, or personal beliefs.

The only foods that are "set apart(holy) by God's word, are the foods that are outlined in the Torah(Lev 11). Most Christians think that God has now let all Gentiles eat pork, shellfish, and all unclean animals, while his Jews adhere to his laws. This does not make Logical sense. If Gentiles are grafted into the Olive Tree with Israel, does that mean we are to adhere to the same rules that they do? Of course, for Jew & Gentile are ONE in Yahshua.

Again, the only foods that are set apart by the word of God are the foods outlined in the Torah. Christians only read into the text whats actually not there. Foundational wise, its not their fault, for they were not taught Torah foundations.

The vision that Peter had is another misunderstood scripture. Christians will tell you that God was telling Peter, a Torah-Observant Jew, that all unclean foods are now good to eat. That cannot be further from the truth. Those unclean foods that God showed Peter represented the Gentiles that God has called out as people unto himself, just like he called out the Jews.

I have to say that ALL followers of Yahshua are under ONE LAW. 2 law theology, in my opinion, is heresey. To say that the Jews follow this, and the Gentiles follow that, will always cause dividance among God's people. But, Yahshua's body is ONE, we are under ONE TORAH.

Galatians is probably the most twisted, to their own destruction book in the New Testament. The book of Galatians is about Judaizers that were forcing "Rabbinic traditions" on Yahshua's followers. One tradition, which was also the center of debate in Acts 15, was that one had to be circumized to be saved. Paul was not debating these men for telling them to observe Torah, rather, he was debating them because they were telling Yahshua's followers to observe man-made traditions. To my knowledge, Jewish dietary laws are not even mentioned in Galatians.

To be a follower of Yahshua and say," I think we should eat anything in moderation", sounds convincing, but in true exegesis of scripture, It does not hold water. As Yahshua's followers, we are to eat the foods that are holy by God's word(1 Tim 4:4-5). And yes, too much Pork can cause many health problems, but since Yahweh said do not eat it period, I think we should adhere to his Torah, for there are huge blessings for doing so(Duet 6, 28).

[James Pierce]

Answer my question first.

[Yuri Solomon]

So let me see if I understand you... The the "wall of partition" that divides the outer court of Gentiles from the inner court of Jews in the Temple... was designed not by "Law of God" but by the "Tradition of men?"

[James Pierce]

Yuri,

You add to the scripture. It speaks nothing concerning the temple here. Its referring to the Jewish community, and the Gentile community. It is NOT referring to temple duties.

[Yuri Solomon]

Wesley's Notes

2:14 For he is our peace - Not only as he purchased it, but as he is the very bond and centre of union. He who hath made both - Jews and gentiles, one church. The apostle describes, The conjunction of the gentiles with Israel, Eph 2:14,15. And, The conjunction of both with God, Eph 2:15 - 18. Each description is subdivided into two parts. And the former part of the one, concerning abolishing the enmity, answers the former part of the other; the latter part of the one, concerning the evangelical decrees, the latter part of the other. And hath broken down the middle wall of partition - Alluding to that wall of old, which separated the court of Israel from the court of the gentiles. Such a wall was the ceremonial law, which Christ had now taken away.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

the middle wall of partition-Greek, ". of the partition" or "fence"; the middle wall which parted Jew and Gentile. There was a balustrade of stone which separated the court of the Gentiles from the holy place, which it was death for a Gentile to pass. But this, though incidentally alluded to, was but a symbol of the partition itself, namely, "the enmity" between "both" and God (Eph 2:15), the real cause of separation from God, and so the mediate cause of their separation from one another. Hence there was a twofold wall of partition, one the inner wall, severing the Jewish people from entrance to the holy part of the temple where the priests officiated, the other the outer wall, separating the Gentile proselytes from access to the court of the Jews (compare Eze 44:7; Ac 21:28). Thus this twofold wall represented the Sinaitic law, which both severed all men, even the Jews, from access to God (through sin, which is the violation of the law), and also separated the Gentiles from the Jews. As the term "wall" implies the strength of the partition, so "fence" implies that it was easily removed by God when the due time came.


Sketches of Jewish Social Life
by Alfred Edersheim

These are only general statements to show the prevalent feeling. It was easy to prove how it pervaded every relationship of life. The heathens, though often tolerant, of course retorted. Circumcision, the Sabbath-rest, the worship of an invisible God, and Jewish abstinence from pork, formed a never-ending theme of merriment to the heathen. Conquerors are not often chary in disguising their contempt for the conquered, especially when the latter presume to look down upon, and to hate them. In view of all this, what an almost incredible truth must it have seemed, when the Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed it among Israel as the object of His coming and kingdom, not to make of the Gentiles Jews, but of both alike children of one Heavenly Father; not to rivet upon the heathen the yoke of the law, but to deliver from it Jew and Gentile, or rather to fulfil its demands for all! The most unexpected and unprepared-for revelation, from the Jewish point of view, was that of the breaking down of the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, the taking away of the enmity of the law, and the nailing it to His cross. There was nothing analogous to it; not a hint of it to be found, either in the teaching or the spirit of the times. Quite the opposite. Assuredly, the most unlike thing to Christ were His times; and the greatest wonder of all--"the mystery hidden from ages and generations"--the foundation of one universal Church.

[James Pierce]

Yuri,

If only you had knowledge of the fact that there was a Oral law(i.e talmud, mishnah, etc). For many Jews of Jesus' time, the Oral Law held first place OVER the written law. Jesus opposed this approach, because much of it contradicted "what was WRITTEN". Many oral laws put up fences around the written law.

For example. Jewish Oral Law gives laws concerning Jewish dealings with Gentiles. The written law does to, but what the written law DOES NOT do is exclude Gentiles from conforming to Jewish life. The oral law does this in many ways. Get understanding of that, and scripture in many places wil open up to understanding.

[Yuri Solomon]

>>> I read it in context, and I came to find out that, if this chapter isnt referring to the written law, then the next thing is the oral law(tradition), that was also seen on the same level as the written law. Many laws(traditions) separated the Jews from the Gentiles. Gentiles couldnt even enter the synagouges of the day. The written law states in Exodus 12:49 that the Gentile must adhere to the same commandments as the Jew, therefore them being one in nationality. Gentiles need not to become Jews to be saved, rather, place their faith in Messiah, while at the same time, conforming to the obedience of the written law. br />

James,

Come on now...

Was the distinction made by God or by man?

HERE IS THE CONTEXT JAMES...

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

... and that is not an oral tradition!

Was not the command of circumcision given by God to Abraham?

Is not every Jew of the household of Abraham?

Is not even Ishmael illegitimate and not an hire to the promise nor is his descendants of the Commonwealth of Israel?

If God made this distinction, then how can you even think to reduce this passage to mere oral tradition being abolished and allowing for oneness of Jew and Gentile?

BTW: An "ORDINANCE" is not "ORAL" it is always written.

Gee Wiz... talking about Isogesis...

[James Pierce]

Yuri,

I'd love for you to show me where circumcision, feast days, ritual cleansing(baptism), sacrifices, and dietary laws were/are NOT apart of the "commandments of God????

[Yuri Solomon]

>>> I'd love for you to show me where circumcision, feast days, ritual cleansing(baptism), sacrifices, and dietary laws were/are NOT apart of the "commandments of God???? <


They are "ordinances"...

Do you even know what an ordinance is???

[James Pierce]

Yuri,

An ordinance is a regulation. But again, no WRITTEN LAW has a regulation that separates the Jewish community from the Gentile community. The scripture here is NOT referring to ANY temple duties. There are many reasons why a Gentile, or even a Jew could not enter the most holy parts of the temple. Some reasons are uncleaness(period, emissions, castration, no stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh).

But, these could not be abolished in the flesh, for these laws would still stand if the temple was still here today. There has to be another "dividing wall" that Jesus abolished. This dividing wall is most likely "traditions of man"/ Jewish Oral law, that divided the Jews from being the light to the Gentiles, by separating the communities.

Understand this, that even some Gentile converts to Judaism were NOT trusted, and Jewish oral law forbids Jews from socializing with them. There is now peace in Messiah where both Jew and Gentile can now fellowship. Yuri, read my article again on Acts 15, for it talks about the dividing wall. OBEY, YURI, and watch you be blessed by obedience to the law!

[Yuri Solomon]

James,

You are making a circular argument : "But, these could not be abolished in the flesh, for these laws would still stand if the temple was still here today." Now you are trying to make up an imaginary wall. I gave you a real wall, in fact the physical wall, Paul was referring to.

Why do you think the temple is not standing? It was God's plan to allow it to be destroy that this symbol may be done away with. No more outer court inner court partition.

[James Pierce]

Yuri,

Read the article I posted concerning the "dividing wall". Your dividing wall is not rooted in true exegesis of scripture. You fail to realize that Paul was speaking from a Jewish perspective, and not your christian perspective. YOUR dividing wall is what YOU want it to be, and you do not want to see it from a historical aspect. Read the paper I posted about the dividing wall, then get back to me.

[Yuri Solomon]

I've read the article and it only says the same thing you asserted without any objective substantiation.

It is no good to say the dividing wall could not be referring to the temple because 1) it did not use the official name, 2) or because it did not refer to the original temple.

The dividing wall was not mere sentiment developed by oral law.

This approach is nothing less than the same kind of presupposition under girded by eisogesis that you have been pushing.

The idea propagate in this article will not stand up to biblical truth.