Were All the commandments nailed to the cross?

[nebula]

I don't know . . .

If Jesus' words meant it is OK for us to eat anything . . . ?

Does that include pathogenic bacteria?

Yummm, salmonella infested chicken . . . .

[Guest shiloh357]

Actually Smalcald, you need to look at the context. They were talking about eating food that had been made ritually unclean by eating with unwashed hands. In Rabbinic tradition, even an apple, if eaten with unclean hands was not kosher.

They were not arguing about pork. Jesus declared all foods clean relative to eating with unwashed hands. He was not saying that every living creature is edible. Technically pork is not "food." Eat it if you want, but it is not food. God created some animals that he knew would eventually be used as food. IN that sense there is no "unclean foods." There are unclean animals, but no unclean food, if you define "food" as that which was created to be food. That is just a Messianic Jewish take on the issue.

[Smalcald]

I don't have any problem with a person who believes pork to be an unclean food or not food as you say. But I don't think that yoke is requirement for all Christians. Certainly within the Jewish tradition you would reject pork, but in my tradition and ethnic background pork has always been used as food. As Paul says we shouldn't tear each other down over food, as all food and all stomachs will be destroyed in the end anyway and we will have new bodies.

I do think the above verse does clearly indicate that food itself cannot defile a man and totally within the context of what He was saying. Jesus very directly addresses this when He compares things that go into the stomach and pass out as essentially not important to your soul, but the things which come out of us such as adultery etc, are what defile us, not food, so indeed He was directly addressing within context food itself in that part of what He was saying. I think you have to do some real stretching to find something different in that passage.

But I understand disagreement.

[Smalcald]

As an aside for apologetic reasons that is an important passage.

I have been in debates with gay people who claim they are Christians (and maybe they are I judge no person in that regard), but they do claim that Christ never mentioned gay sex, only adultery. In this passage Christ specifically mentions fornication as something which defiles us, fornication of course is any sex outside of that between a man and a women in marriage, this would include pre-marital sex and gay sex.

[Guest shiloh357]

I do think the above verse does clearly indicate that food itself cannot defile a man and totally within the context of what He was saying. Jesus very directly addresses this when He compares things that go into the stomach and pass out as essentially not important to your soul, but the things which come out of us such as adultery etc, are what defile us, not food, so indeed He was directly addressing within context food itself in that part of what He was saying. I think you have to do some real stretching to find something different in that passage.

There is no stretch. The entire flow of the conversation was concerning Rabbinic tradition, and not the food that was eaten. You cannot divorce the ritual handwashing from the conversation and just unplug it from the equation. Context is very important when studying Scripture. Jesus words must be understood in the light of the accusation being made; namely, that the food going into them was defiling them by virtue of not washing their hands in the prescribed manner. Had the accusation been that the disciples were eating pork chops and lobster bisque, then you would have good point. The disciples were eating clean food. They were simply eating it in a way the Rabbis disapproved of, and THAT is what Jesus is addressing.

I agree that we should not be legalistic about what we eat. I don't hold anyone at fault for eating pork or what not. My point is that THIS passage does not speak to the issue of clean and unclean foods, per se. Jesus was addressing misguided rabbinic understanding. He was not abrogating God's dietary commandments in this passage.

If Jesus had been declaring pork clean, then they would have used it against him at his trial.

[Smalcald]

I respectfully disagree.

I think the misguided thinking was that food could defile.

18So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"

Its pretty clear.

[Guest shiloh357]

I respectfully disagree.

That's cool...

I think the misguided thinking was that food could defile.

Yes, they were saying that food could defile. But look at WHY they said that food could defile. You simply cannot ignore their reasons.

18So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"

Its pretty clear.

And if those were the only two verses if the passage, I would agree. Here is the first part.

2Now when[a] they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.

5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?"

They did not ask why the disciples were defiling themselves with pork or a certain kind of food, but why they were defiling themselves by eating with unwashed hands. That sets the tone for the rest of the conversation. Jesus was answering their question in light of his disciples departure from rabbinic prescription. Verses 18 and 19 must be seen in the light of verses 2-5 as THOSE verses tell us what the topic of the conversation was about.

You are simply using the wrong chapter of the Bible to make your point. Colossians chapter 2 would be better.

[other one]

I don't know . . .

If Jesus' words meant it is OK for us to eat anything . . . ?

Does that include pathogenic bacteria?

Yummm, salmonella infested chicken . . . .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it won't defile you soul....... and I think that is what the scripture is telling us. In other words it won't send you to hell, maybe to heaven a little early (unless you were trying to kill yourself and then I am not sure).

[jc49]

Shalom,Peace,Paix,Pax,Pace .....

JESUS CHRIST DIED and ROSE AGAIN and ASCENDED and HE IS at THE FATHER RIGHT HAND INTERCEDING for US and HE IS COMING BACK.

HE has SENT THE HOLY SPIRIT that is with us and in us....

One intercessor in Heaven one intercessor in earth and THE FATHER loves us...I am asking IF JESUS IS NOT ENOUGH and we have to go back to THE LAW...well WE ARE IN DEEP TROUBLE because NOBODY CAN SATISFY THE DEMANDS of THE LAW...for the life of me I just cannot understand the PEOPLE of GRACE trying to REVERT to THE LAW.....

JESUS RULES and MARANATHA!!!!

[Guest shiloh357]

Shalom,Peace,Paix,Pax,Pace .....

JESUS CHRIST DIED and ROSE AGAIN and ASCENDED and HE IS at THE FATHER RIGHT HAND INTERCEDING for US and HE IS COMING BACK.

HE has SENT THE HOLY SPIRIT that is with us and in us....

One intercessor in Heaven one intercessor in earth and THE FATHER loves us...I am asking IF JESUS IS NOT ENOUGH and we have to go back to THE LAW...well WE ARE IN DEEP TROUBLE because NOBODY CAN SATISFY THE DEMANDS of THE LAW...for the life of me I just cannot understand the PEOPLE of GRACE trying to REVERT to THE LAW.....

JESUS RULES and MARANATHA!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that I need to make the distinction between God's ceremonial commandments, and His ethical commandments. I am not applying my views to dietary commandments, or the ceremonial commandments either.

The aspect of the Torah that had to be "satisfied" was met in Jesus' sinless life. Jesus met the demands of the Torah's righteousness, and his sacrificed satisfied the demands of God's justice. That does not remove God's demands as far as our moral ethical life is concerned. It makes us more responsible to live uprightly not less.

The Torah says that we are to love God with all of our heart, soul and strength. We are to love our neighbor as ourselves. The other commandments tell us how that is done. The New Testament is an augmentation of God's Torah, not an abrogation. It shows how to observe God's commandments in a better way. Jesus came to bring a more full expression of God's commandments.

Grace is not antagonistic to God's commandments. Grace does not set aside our need to obey. If there are no commandments, there is no sin. If there is no sin, there is no need for grace. Torah and Grace are two wings of the same bird. Torah is God's instruction on how to live. Grace is the ability to meet those demands, and it is the mercy to forgive when fall short of God's demands. We are not saved by following God's commandments, but our willingness or lack there of demonstrates the depth of our relationship with God.

I am not saying that you cannot eat pork. I am not saying that Christians have to keep God's dietary commandments, or else. I will, however, defend my fellow Messianic Jews from being accused of being legalistic or "reverting to the law" simply because they choose to observe those commandments.