Dietry laws and Christian freedom

[BFP]

The context, v1 "Now the Spirit expressly says that in the latter times some will depart from the faith..."

v3 "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be recieved with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."

v4 "For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is recieved with thanksgiving;"

v5 "for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

This is very clear proof that Christians are not subject to the dietry laws given to Israel.

We can see also v1, that it is prophesied that the Spirit expressly says some will try to insist we are.

And in v4 we see that every creature is now clean and not to be refused because it has v5 been sanctified by the word of God (Rom 14 esp v17-20) and by prayer IF we recieve it with thankgiving, ( with a clear conscience, "Whatever is not of faith is sin").

In v3 we see that those who know this are described as "those who believe and know the truth". The truth being Jesus. This means it is speaking of true Christians be they Jew or Gentile.

Whoops i think i should have started this in controversial or doctrinal forums?

I have believed this passage to be talking to Catholic preists and vegetarians...as a warning against both. Vegetarianism has become a religion of it's own in past years. I also think the key words here are "taken with thanksgving"

If we remember to take the time to thank God for our meals He will bless it to our bodies, even if it is pork...

[Guest shiloh357]

The context, v1 "Now the Spirit expressly says that in the latter times some will depart from the faith..."

v3 "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be recieved with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."

v4 "For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is recieved with thanksgiving;"

v5 "for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

This is very clear proof that Christians are not subject to the dietry laws given to Israel.

We can see also v1, that it is prophesied that the Spirit expressly says some will try to insist we are.

And in v4 we see that every creature is now clean and not to be refused because it has v5 been sanctified by the word of God (Rom 14 esp v17-20) and by prayer IF we recieve it with thankgiving, ( with a clear conscience, "Whatever is not of faith is sin").

In v3 we see that those who know this are described as "those who believe and know the truth". The truth being Jesus. This means it is speaking of true Christians be they Jew or Gentile.

Whoops i think i should have started this in controversial or doctrinal forums?

The problem is that Paul is not referencing the dietary commandments given to Israel. Jews were not the only people that abstained from certain foods. Note that Paul ties that in with those forbid marriage. Paul is not talking about Jewish customs as Jews promote marriage. Paul does not say every creature is clean. Rather Paul says that every creature created to be received as food is is to be received with thanksgiving. God did not create every creature on earth to be food for man.

The point, however, is that Paul is referencing pagan aceticism and not the Jewish dietary laws. There existed (and still do) pagan customs where denial of certain types of food was a sign of piety before their gods, and unfortunately, that custom was making its way into the church. In addition to that, forbidding marriage was part of that aceticism. Celibacy and in many cases self-induced starvation were part of pagan rituals and also became part of early Christian practices, as if somehow they made a person more holy or more spiritual.

You really need to use better exegesis and pay closer attention to the object the author has in view when trying to expound on particular passages.

The object of the author is clearly stated in verse 1.

When does "every creature is good" not mean every creature?

No, you are not paying attention to the object. He clearly states that these false teachers are forbidding marriage and to abstain from foods God created to be received. That is not how the biblical dietary commandments are structured.

Paul is a Jew, and refers to those animals that God created for food. Not all creatures are designed by God to be eaten by man. Every creature" needs to be understood by what Paul says in verse 3.

Paul does not have the Jewish dietary laws in mind. He is referring to pagan aceticism (self-abuse) that had infiltrated the church.

[JCISGD]

The context, v1 "Now the Spirit expressly says that in the latter times some will depart from the faith..."

v3 "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be recieved with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."

v4 "For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is recieved with thanksgiving;"

v5 "for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

This is very clear proof that Christians are not subject to the dietry laws given to Israel.

We can see also v1, that it is prophesied that the Spirit expressly says some will try to insist we are.

And in v4 we see that every creature is now clean and not to be refused because it has v5 been sanctified by the word of God (Rom 14 esp v17-20) and by prayer IF we recieve it with thankgiving, ( with a clear conscience, "Whatever is not of faith is sin").

In v3 we see that those who know this are described as "those who believe and know the truth". The truth being Jesus. This means it is speaking of true Christians be they Jew or Gentile.

Whoops i think i should have started this in controversial or doctrinal forums?

The problem is that Paul is not referencing the dietary commandments given to Israel. Jews were not the only people that abstained from certain foods. Note that Paul ties that in with those forbid marriage. Paul is not talking about Jewish customs as Jews promote marriage. Paul does not say every creature is clean. Rather Paul says that every creature created to be received as food is is to be received with thanksgiving. God did not create every creature on earth to be food for man.

The point, however, is that Paul is referencing pagan aceticism and not the Jewish dietary laws. There existed (and still do) pagan customs where denial of certain types of food was a sign of piety before their gods, and unfortunately, that custom was making its way into the church. In addition to that, forbidding marriage was part of that aceticism. Celibacy and in many cases self-induced starvation were part of pagan rituals and also became part of early Christian practices, as if somehow they made a person more holy or more spiritual.

You really need to use better exegesis and pay closer attention to the object the author has in view when trying to expound on particular passages.

The object of the author is clearly stated in verse 1.

When does "every creature is good" not mean every creature?

No, you are not paying attention to the object. He clearly states that these false teachers are forbidding marriage and to abstain from foods God created to be received. That is not how the biblical dietary commandments are structured.

Paul is a Jew, and refers to those animals that God created for food. Not all creatures are designed by God to be eaten by man. Every creature" needs to be understood by what Paul says in verse 3.

Paul does not have the Jewish dietary laws in mind. He is referring to pagan aceticism (self-abuse) that had infiltrated the church.

Paul was a Jew but is now a Christian. You are adding to what is plainly intended. Paul has not made the distinctions you make nor can they be obtained from scripture.

While i respect alot of what you say Shiloh, i think your just plain wrong and relying on commentaries and supposed events extra to the plain words of the bible that does not require scholarship to be understood.

Show me where you get such claims from the scripture and i will retract my statement above.

[Guest shiloh357]

Paul was a Jew but is now a Christian.

Paul did not suddenly start eating bacon. Paul still considered himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; 26:5, Phil. 3:5) Paul personally circumcised Timothy ( Acts 16:3) and performed nazarite sacrifices (Acts 18:18, Acts 21:26) He also kept the feasts of the Lord (Acts 18:21). Paul did not become a Gentile after salvation. Paul lived and died as a Torah-observant Jew who believed and taught that Jesus is the promised Messiah. That may offend Gentile pride, but it is the truth.

You are adding to what is plainly intended. Paul has not made the distinctions you make nor can they be obtained from scripture.

The Jews do not forbid marriage. Celibacy is forbidden in Jewish law. Paul says the false teachers forbid marriage and to abstain from food that God created to be received. That would not include just meat but vegitable and grain-based foods as well. Paganism in those days, especially among the Gnostics which were a problem for the early church were all about abstaining from all physical pleasure to the extent of starvation and extreme self-denial based on the premise that the physical world was sinful.

While i respect alot of what you say Shiloh, i think your just plain wrong and relying on commentaries and supposed events extra to the plain words of the bible that does not require scholarship to be understood.

The problem is that you have yet to establish that Paul is referencing Jewish traditions. Why would Paul even be referencing God's dietary laws in the first place??? Paul is talking about end-time deception, not the OT dietary commandments. I am not basing this on commentaries, but on a plain reading of the text. YOU are the one approaching the text with the preconcevied notion that you have not even established up to this point.

[JCISGD]

Paul was a Jew but is now a Christian.

Paul did not suddenly start eating bacon. Paul still considered himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; 26:5, Phil. 3:5) Paul personally circumcised Timothy ( Acts 16:3) and performed nazarite sacrifices (Acts 18:18, Acts 21:26) He also kept the feasts of the Lord (Acts 18:21). Paul did not become a Gentile after salvation. Paul lived and died as a Torah-observant Jew who believed and taught that Jesus is the promised Messiah. That may offend Gentile pride, but it is the truth.

You are adding to what is plainly intended. Paul has not made the distinctions you make nor can they be obtained from scripture.

The Jews do not forbid marriage. Celibacy is forbidden in Jewish law. Paul says the false teachers forbid marriage and to abstain from food that God created to be received. That would not include just meat but vegitable and grain-based foods as well. Paganism in those days, especially among the Gnostics which were a problem for the early church were all about abstaining from all physical pleasure to the extent of starvation and extreme self-denial based on the premise that the physical world was sinful.

While i respect alot of what you say Shiloh, i think your just plain wrong and relying on commentaries and supposed events extra to the plain words of the bible that does not require scholarship to be understood.

The problem is that you have yet to establish that Paul is referencing Jewish traditions. Why would Paul even be referencing God's dietary laws in the first place??? Paul is talking about end-time deception, not the OT dietary commandments. I am not basing this on commentaries, but on a plain reading of the text. YOU are the one approaching the text with the preconcevied notion that you have not even established up to this point.

No Gentile pride here.

Jews are not automatically saved by being born one and they become "new creations" after salvation. I dont think you prove Paul was Torah observant as his claims were only what he was not how he lived. Phil 3:8 ...i count them (the things that were gain to him-Pharisee qualifications v7) as rubbish, that i may gain Christ.

The fact that Paul had Timothy circumcised is not proof of anything and is an exception to his other instructions elsewhere. Are you saying Christians are to circumcise themselves? In Phil 3:2 Paul calls those who insist on circumcision "dogs" and this is proved by his next statement in v3 "For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh".

We dont know if Paul ate bacon or not, we can be fairly sure Peter did when he was at gentile meals. Sorry but you really have to go out of the way to make the assertions you have, the word of God does not make the distinction of foods NT that you claim. Every creature means just that and it would be misleading to word it such if it required specialist treatment to understand, as the context and the intention are clearly literal.

I dont have any preconcieved notion as you claim and approach the word of God with caution and an open mind to the Holy Spirit. Scripture is literal in some parts and figurative in others. where it is intended to be literal it is to be taken as such. I dont intend to establish anything here, i have stated my belief and it was moved to Doctrinal discussions at the mods discretion. I am fully convinced of my opinion and get no check in my spirit from the Holy Spirit thus far.

[Guest yod]

I dont have any preconcieved notion as you claim and approach the word of God with caution and an open mind to the Holy Spirit.

Oh, but you do, even if you came by it honestly like so many christians who have been taught from christian tradition. It's natural that people react to these things which have never been taught in the church correctly. It is so radically different than anything you've heard before so you react with a bit of suspicion...and who can blame you for being careful?

But if you would take the time to really hear what Shiloh is saying, you will find that he is only trying to tell you the truth.

The jews who gave you the Messiah, the Covenants, the scriptures have a different perspective and it is such a radically different starting place that it appears to threaten the foundation you were given through Rome, Germany, and England. It should!

Yeshua is the Living Word and always was. Yet after millennia of receiving the Word at Mt Sinai, the jewish people had added so many traditions/customs to the Word that they were unable to distinguish the difference between tradition and scripture, between righteousness and morality. I find this has come full circle today and many christians can't tell the difference between theology and scripture. We should consider everything we are taught against the Word before accepting it as the gospel. What was perhaps a great revelation in christendom's past can always be re-examined in the light of what we have learned today.

Shiloh is not condemning anyone, nor has he ever tried to impose legalism upon the freedom of your salvation liberty. However, he is trying to undo what has been done over the age of church history through interpreting hebraic concepts through greco-humanism.

The Holy Spirit will bring us all to the same place eventually. The Holy Spirit will even guide us in spite of the prevailing greco-humanism (which infiltrated the church in the 2nd century) to arrive at holiness. But there is a correct understanding of the people and place which first offended the greco-humanistic world when Rome met Jerusalem 2,000 years ago.

And if we can humble ourself enough to be teachable (not you specifically Arthur; myself included), suddenly the scriptures aren't nearly as mysterious and the apparent inconsistencies of christian theology are untied like the Gordian knot.

Or we can continue fighting about the meanings of words which have been translated from hebrew to greek to latin to german and finally to english.

[Guest shiloh357]

Jews are not automatically saved by being born one and they become "new creations" after salvation. I dont think you prove Paul was Torah observant as his claims were only what he was not how he lived. Phil 3:8 ...i count them (the things that were gain to him-Pharisee qualifications v7) as rubbish, that i may gain Christ.

Paul could not have claimed to be a Pharisee and at the same time reject Torah-observance. Pharisees were Torah teachers. Paul did not repudiate either his Jewish heritage nor his role as a Pharisee. His point was that he was not glorying in the flesh nor allowing his Jewish heritage or accomplishments as a teacher of the law to be a stumbling block of pride. He simply acknowledged that his best accomplishments were but garbage compared to the excellency of knowing Christ and the power of His resurrection.

The fact that Paul had Timothy circumcised is not proof of anything and is an exception to his other instructions elsewhere. Are you saying Christians are to circumcise themselves?

No, the point is that if Paul were against circumcision, he would not have circumcised Timothy for any reason. Paul did not condemn the act of circumcision itself. Rather Paul condemned the perversion of the rite as it applied to the Galatian congregation. The Galatian congregation perverted the meaning and importance of circumcision by supplanting the grace of God as the means of obtaining salvation. The Galatians were decieved into thinking that they had to convert to the Jewish religion in addition to receiving Christ in order to be saved. The only reason Gentiles are circumcised is to convert to the Jewish religion.

Paul did not repudiate circumcision as the covenant sign commanded by God in an eternal covenant between God and the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. He only repudiated the misapplication of it by the Judaizing cult that had begun infecting the early congregations.

In Phil 3:2 Paul calls those who insist on circumcision "dogs" and this is proved by his next statement in v3 "For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh".

Paul is referring to Judaizers, not to circumcised Jews. Paul is not calling His own people "dogs." The Judaizers put confidence in the flesh as opposed to Christ, thus perverting the gospel into a works-based system of righteousness.

We dont know if Paul ate bacon or not, we can be fairly sure Peter did when he was at gentile meals.

Actually that is not true. Peter simply did not want to be seen eating with the Gentiles. No one ever accused him of eating any unclean animals.

Sorry but you really have to go out of the way to make the assertions you have, the word of God does not make the distinction of foods NT that you claim. Every creature means just that and it would be misleading to word it such if it required specialist treatment to understand, as the context and the intention are clearly literal.

You are mistaking "literal" for face value. Paul makes no reference to the Jbiblical dietary laws, as Jews do not forbid to marry and do abstain from what God created to be received. "Every creature" to Torah-observant Jews like Paul refers to every creature that God created to be received, when the entire passage is taken as a whole.

I dont have any preconcieved notion as you claim and approach the word of God with caution and an open mind to the Holy Spirit.

Yes you do have a preconceived notion. You assume Paul is referencing the Torah's dietary laws, when the context demands to be understood to be referencing pagan dietary restrictions. You opened up this thread to repudiate the dietary laws based on inaccurate exegesis. You saw something about food and tried to tie to the Bible's dietary laws, when there was no literary, exegetical connection whatsoever.

Scripture is literal in some parts and figurative in others. where it is intended to be literal it is to be taken as such.

This is not a literal vs. figurative issue. This is a context issue, which you have demonstrated that you are not willing recognize.

[Botz]

Paul was a Jew but is now a Christian.

Arthur...just to say, it is this very misconception, rife amongst Gentile Believers, that has been causitive in the Jewish people being given the wrong message about what the Good News of their Salvation is all about...they equate it with having to lose their Jewish identity, and become a 'Christian' and stand in agreement with so much of the past history of Christians that have murdered and rejected their people.

We have used the word 'Christian' in a way to distance ourselves from our Jewish heritage...there is nothing wrong with the word itself, as it developed from the Greek for Messiah 'Christos'...but it would have been better to retain the Hebrew word 'Meshiach' from which we get Messiah, and therefore at Antioch the Believers were first called 'Messianics' because of their belief in the Jewish Messiah Yeshua ben Yosef.

As I mentioned before this has been further compounded by called the L-rd Jesus Christ, as if Christ is His actual surname.

Paul is a Messianic Jew...he never stopped being a Jew...through a personal revelation of Jesus on the road to Damascus, he realised that his zealous acts of persecution to preserve the integrity of his Jewish faith, were in fact totally in opposition to the gospel and in particular were against the annointed One of G-d....so from this dynamic miraculous encounter, he believed that Jesus was His Messiah, and became a believing/fulfilled/ Jew.

[JCISGD]

Yod, Shiloh and Botz, i do appreciate your gracious and even handed treatment of this topic and i know that if you are right, then swimming against the flow requires much paitence and sacrifice just to win one sometimes.

I hear your words and will be praying about your counsel. I think what you say is plausible but i remain unconvinced for now.

If you are right i ask God now to show me and convince me beyond the doubt i have at this point.

One thing that stumbles me is that you are virtually saying no one can read the bible at face value and must have historical grounding to know the truth ? but these historical evidences are mostly subjective are they not ?

[Guest shiloh357]

One thing that stumbles me is that you are virtually saying no one can read the bible at face value and must have historical grounding to know the truth ? but these historical evidences are mostly subjective are they not ?

No, they are objective.

The Bible is a book of history written to a people in history. The surrounding historical context naturally flavors the text. Knowing the historical/cultural context is part of biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. God does not circumvent those things when He inspired Scripture. Part of studying Scripture is understanding both the historical and immediate contexts present in the text.