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).

[Yuri Solomon]

If those unclean foods that God showed Peter only symbolized Gentiles and has no literal sense concerning food, then why was Peter having a ham sandwich with the gentiles in Galatian 2:12?

[James Pierce]

Yuri,

re-read what happened. He was not having a ham sandwich with the Gentiles. If that was true that He would eat pork, then He would not have rebuked Yahweh in Acts 10. Lets say if He was eating pork, then that would be breaking the law, which is sin(1 John 3:4)

[Yuri Solomon]

Was not his "rebuking" Yahweh in Acts 10 before this incident? Would Peter have even sat with Gentiles before Acts 10?

If Peter is eating at the Gentile table, doesn't this indicate that he is eating Gentile food? Would this not mean that he took the vision of Acts literally as well as symbolically?

Furthermore, in Romans 14, one man eat to the glory of God and another refrains from eating, and that to the glory of God as well. How can eating and not eating both be to the glory of God if eating is breaking the law? Moreover, why is the one who refrains from eating called weak?

[James Pierce]

Yuri,

Honestly, im not sure of the sequence of events there. But it doesn't matter. The fact was that Peter was acting hypocriticaly, and causing other Jews to follow him. Paul corrected him. If He corrected him because he was eating unclean foods, then rightly so, for the law forbids such. First hand, I'd say Peter took his vision literally(him rebuking Yahweh), but as context continued to reveal, it was all symbolism(him seeing the meaning of the vision).

[James Pierce]

Yuri,

Romans 14, as read in context, is about "eating". Through my studies of Torah, I've learned somethings about repetition, for its gives the great indication of what the chapter is about. We see that Romans 14 is about eating. Eating what? Meat or vegetables

How can eating and not eating both be to the glory of God if eating is breaking the law?

Well, Torah never said "eating" was a sin. Lev 11 gives us what we can and cannot eat. First off, you assume that the eating is referring to any food, whether unclean or clean. We must view a Jewish books within its Jewish understanding. So, when a Jew says food, we know what kind of foods he speaks of. It said we should not judge a person who wants to eat meat, and not vegetables, and vice versa.

Moreover, why is the one who refrains from eating called weak?

I am not sure what the author meant by this phrase just yet.

[Yuri Solomon]

Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

What does "eat all things" mean?

[James Pierce]

Yuri,

Within context, "all things" would equal "both" meat and herbs/vegetables.

[Yuri Solomon]

In historical context, this is a Jew eating at a Gentile table. Thus eating "only herbs" has to do with refusing to eat meats which were in violation of the Jewish law at the “indiscriminant” table of the Gentiles. This is an inference to Daniel’s extreme obedience to law by eating only veggies because there were no alternative meats in Babylon.BTW: the veggie only guy is considered weak in his comprehension of Christian liberties...

Furthermore, why would Paul say concerning gentile meats offered to idles which is in clear violation of the law, “for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse?” (1Co 8:8)

Again why does Paul instruct, “Whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake?” (1Co 10:27)

Paul says clearly... 1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient

[James Pierce]

Yuri

The written law does not condemn the exclusive eating of vegetables.

Furthermore, why would Paul say concerning gentile meats offered to idles which is in clear violation of the law, “for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse?” (1Co 8:8)

In Acts 15, Paul, and the rest of the apostles ruled that Gentiles ought not to eat food sacrificed to idols. This was so that they could be accepted into the jewish community, and also learn Torah every sabbath. I am not clear on Paul's words there, but one thing is clear is that I will not take it to mean that Paul accepts violations of the law.

Again why does Paul instruct, “Whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake?” (1Co 10:27)

I am not sure what Paul meant there. Even Peter admitted that some of Paul's writings are hard to understand. But, In my later studies of the New Testament, I will come to understanding of his words. Right now, its establishing The Law & The Prophets!

[Yuri Solomon]

Is it possible that Peter found Paul's words difficult to understand because he was a die hard Jew committed to the ways of the Old Covenant while the better and New Covenant calls for the ceremonial and symbolic things of the OT are fulfilled and done away with?

So you seem to aptly quote Peter.

[James Pierce]

Yuri,

Read my article on the new covenant. Tell me what you think.

[Yuri Solomon]

I have read it already... I am not interested in discussing this in that context right now. The big idea is that if there is an Old and a New Testament, regardless of how much continuity may exist between them, there is some discontinuity as well.

Here my question: When Jesus said, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Mat 5:17), what are the implications and applications of that fulfillment?