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]

Yuri,

Came not to destroy...... but to fulfill, was a normal rabbinic argument in those days. The meaning of it is that if one came to destroy the law.... it meant that the person came to teach it, or to do it wrongfully. If a person came to fulfill the law..... it mean that he came to teach it, and do it correctly. This flows correctly with the following verses.

One thing for sure is that it does not mean that Jesus came to complete the law to the aspect that its no longer applicable.

[Yuri Solomon]

Would you agree that there are aspects of the Law that Christ's first advent made no longer necessary to practice as was done under the Old Covenant?

[James Pierce]

Yuri,

Yes sir, the levitical priesthood.

[Yuri Solomon]

What is meant by "law of commandments contained in ordinances" in the following verse?

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Would you say that this verse makes it broader than the Levitical Priesthood?

[James Pierce]

Hey Yuri,

What is meant by "law of commandments contained in ordinances" in the following verse?

Thats a great question. This brings me back to Duet 30, the chapter of free choice. But, does it only reveal that man has free choice to choose God, or to choose other gods? It goes a bit deeper. In this chapter also lies the "duality" of the law. What this means is that God laid out several things---The Blessing(life and good), and the curse(death and evil). This is the duality of the law. The NT persistently tells us that Jesus became the curse for us, and that we are no longer under the law--- death and evil.

Eph 2:15 should be seen in light of the duality of the Lord. It shows us that there were ordiances that were "against us". Which part of the duality of the law that was against us... The Blessing, or The Curse? For example, Paul said we are no longer under law(a Pharisee phrase), but under grace. Which part of the duality of the law did Paul apply here---- The Blessing, or The Curse?

Would you say that this verse makes it broader than the Levitical Priesthood?

Yes, it does, as I explained above.

[Yuri Solomon]

What does Paul mean by "the law of commandments 'CONTAINED' in ordinances"? Is it not clear in the context that whatever ORDINANCES were in place which gave MANIFEST PRACTICE to the law also serves to DIVIDE Jews and Gentiles?

[James Pierce]

Yuri,

What does Paul mean by "the law of commandments 'CONTAINED' in ordinances"?

Instead of using "contained", I am going to use a word that some other translations use that brings out more of its understanding and correction with Torah--- expressed. The Laws of God were expressed in ordinances, or regulations. I believe that scripture flows, and this scripture is no exception.

Jesus lifted the curse of the law from those in him. He became that curse for us. What is that curse? Well, I already explained it to you. In case you missed it, the curse of the, as Duet 30 reveals, contained "death and evil". Jesus, in his flesh, abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances/regulations. But the question is,"Which ones?"

YOU already know which part of the duality of the law that Jesus abolished. I already explained it to you.. CAN YOU re-state it??

Is it not clear in the context that whatever ORDINANCES were in place which gave MANIFEST PRACTICE to the law also serves to DIVIDE Jews and Gentiles?

Im not sure what you are trying to say here.

[Yuri Solomon]

Is the "BOOK OF EPHESIANS" about unity.

Is Eph 3:15 about keeping "ORDINANCES" or "REMOVING THEM" as a means to UNITY?

Is not Eph 3:15 the removal of whatever ceremonial observances "DIVIDED" Jews and Gentiles?

Was not the "law of commandments," which even Gentiles generally observe by nature (Rom 2), "EXPRESSED" distinctly among Jews in particular "ORDINANCES"; granting a sense of "dissimilarity", and in fact served to "separate" Jews from Gentiles as a physical "TYPE" of holiness.

What are the "expressed" ORDINANCES that served as the "MIDDLE WALL OF PARTITION" and is now "BROKEN DOWN".

[James Pierce]

Yuri,

Is Eph 3:15 about keeping "ORDINANCES" or "REMOVING THEM" as a means to UNITY?

Eph does not say any of that?

Was not the "law of commandments," which even Gentiles generally observe by nature (Rom 2), "EXPRESSED" distinctly among Jews in particular "ORDINANCES"; granting a sense of "dissimilarity", and in fact served to "separate" Jews from Gentiles as a physical "TYPE" of holiness.

No sir. The curse of the law was what was nailed to calvary.

What are the "expressed" ORDINANCES that served as the "MIDDLE WALL OF PARTITION" and is now "BROKEN DOWN".

It was the curse of the law. The blessings werent nailed to the cross, were they?

[Yuri Solomon]

Does not Eph 3:15 say "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances"...

How can the curse of the Law be the point of division between Jews and Gentiles? It cannot be! This is in fact a point of unity, for all are under that condemnation apart from obeying whatever light you've been given according to Rom 2.

Was not "the middle wall of partition between us" (Jew and Gentiles) the wall of the temple that separated the outer court (court of the gentiles) from the inner court (court of the Jews)? Was not the only way for a gentiles to enter the court of the Jews through the "ordinace" of circumcision alone with the ordinances that restricted the Jews from certain gentile practices?

Was not Abraham told in Genesis 17 to circumcise all the men of his household EVEN THE STRANGERS?

Is not this the dividing point... all gentiles who did not observe jewish ordinances were restricted to the outer court?

Is not this same observance of ordinances what the Judaizers were teaching that Gentiles converts must still do to be accepted in Christ?

[Anna]

Bro Yuri:
Interestingly the verses you quoted above from Romans 2 and Eph. 2 are ancient interpolations into the texts.

They represent the views of ancient scribes who originally placed these comments in the margins, but later these comments were moved into the body of the text and noted with either ( ) or [ ].

Many of these punctuation marks have been dropped so we don't know where all of these added verses are, but if you look into some old english bible versions you can find many of them. Sometimes other researchers have articles written on them.

Here is an article on the interpolation in Romans 2 about the "Gentiles and the law":

CJO - Abstract - ROMANS 1.18–2.29: A NON-PAULINE INTERPOLATION?
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=onlin...

Romans 3: 12 - 16 KJV

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law
13 ((((((For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law to themselves:
15 Who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;))))) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;( ) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel

This text fits perfectly together with the interpolated text removed. The inerpolated clause cannot be confirmed by any other scripture in the Bible.

&

Eph 2: 14 - 15 Tyndale
14: For he is our peace, which hath made of both one, and hath broken down the wall in the midst, that was a stop between us,

15 and hath also put away thorow his flesh, the cause of hatred (((((that is to say, the law of commandments contained in the law written,))))) for to make of twain one new man in himself, so making peace:

For he is our peace, which hath made of both one, and hath broken down the wall in the midst, that was a stop between us, and hath also put away thorow his flesh, the cause of hatred () for to make of twain one new man in himself, so making peace: :
http://faithofgod.net/TyNT/eph.htm#2:1

The text fits perfectly back together without the interpolated phrase. Additionally there is no prophet, neither did Yahshua or any other of His apostles teach that Messiah's purpose in dying was to do away with his laws or commandments.

So Yahshua did not repeal an part of the law/Torah.
It is the Torah that is written in the Heart and Mind of the NT believer.

It is the Torah that is taught as the laws of the Kingdom in Isaiah 2 & Micah 4.

So none of the food laws have been repealed, which is the topic of this blog.

[Anna]

Good Morning:

Bro Pierce, I wanted to address the text you posted for Bro Yuri's sake:

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."
~~~~~~~~~~
To be simply put, for us to eat anything, to receive it as food, there are two Biblical requirements that must be fulfilled. The item must be

1) Sanctified by the word of YHWH

and

2) Sanctified by Prayer

So Bro Yuri, can we find anywhere that the Swine has been sanctified by the Word of YHWH?
Eating swine is condemned as an abomination, in Deut 14 & Lev. 11. The term ABOMINATION is the same term used for the homosexual act! No Berean would take Paul's writings and assume that pork can be now eaten since the Messiah died.

Just as in a Gay wedding, you can have 1 million pastors try to bless that union, it will NEVER BE BLESSED, because the WORD OF YHWH condemns it!

Even Noah knew the distinction between clean and unclean meats, and that was before the Law of Moses.

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, the male and his female; and of the beasts that are not clean two, the male and his female (Gen. 7:2).

Why should Jesus death now make the Hog clean to eat? Are dogs now clean for Christians to eat?
Our Messiah's death dealt with removing the curse from breaking the Law/Torah. He did not abolish any of YHWH's laws. He even told us that.....