Dietary Laws

[rstrats]

Acts 10 is often used as support for the teaching that the Levitical dietary laws are no longer in force. However, those who say that they ARE still in force argue that if they had been done away with, why didn’t Peter, who walked with and was taught by the Messiah for 3 plus years, and who was filled and guided by the Holy Spirit, know about it some 10 years later?

This sounds like a reasonable question. However, using the same reasoning, one might also legitimately ask why he didn’t know that it was ok to “keep company with or go to one of another nation�

Does anyone who believes that the dietary regulations are still in effect have any thoughts on why Peter didn’t know about the “keeping company†part of Acts 10?

 

[rstrats]

Perhaps someone new looking in will have some comments.

 

[John 8:32]

Acts 10 is often used as support for the teaching that the Levitical dietary laws are no longer in force. However, those who say that they ARE still in force argue that if they had been done away with, why didn’t Peter, who walked with and was taught by the Messiah for 3 plus years, and who was filled and guided by the Holy Spirit, know about it some 10 years later?

This sounds like a reasonable question. However, using the same reasoning, one might also legitimately ask why he didn’t know that it was ok to “keep company with or go to one of another nation�

Does anyone who believes that the dietary regulations are still in effect have any thoughts on why Peter didn’t know about the “keeping company†part of Acts 10?

The Apostles were men. They sometimes made mistakes and were, after all, just like us in that they needed to continue to...

2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Peter made mistakes...

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Paul rebuked him. None of us is perfect and conversion is a process not a one time event.

 

[Sparkey]

Are you asking why mankind doesn't see God face to Face or know Him even as much as we are known?

The book of Acts documents the actions of the Disciples of Jesus, it does not elevate them beyond their due nor celebrate their omniscience. It is here that we see the men who walked with Jesus while he lived and walked on the earth, who sat at his feet but did not understand much of what was said. It is here that we see them come to understand what it meant to continue to walk with Him after His resurrection and to grow in faith and trust of their Father in heaven. Their walk of faith is an example for us. Ours should be greater (see John 20:29).

 

[rstrats]

Sparrowhawke,

re: Are you asking why mankind doesn't see God face to Face or know Him even as much as we are known?"

No. I'm only asking for what I posed in the OP. Although, I do need to revise paragraph 3 to read: "Does anyone who believes that the dietary regulations are still in effect and uses the reasoning in paragraph 1, have any thoughts on why Peter didn’t know about the 'keeping company' part of Acts 10?"

 

[Free]

Acts 10 is often used as support for the teaching that the Levitical dietary laws are no longer in force. However, those who say that they ARE still in force argue that if they had been done away with, why didn’t Peter, who walked with and was taught by the Messiah for 3 plus years, and who was filled and guided by the Holy Spirit, know about it some 10 years later?

This sounds like a reasonable question. However, using the same reasoning, one might also legitimately ask why he didn’t know that it was ok to “keep company with or go to one of another nation”?

Does anyone who believes that the dietary regulations are still in effect have any thoughts on why Peter didn’t know about the “keeping company” part of Acts 10?

Why did the disciples fail to understand so much of what Jesus taught them? Why did they not understand when he said he was going to die, that he was going to die? They didn't understand a lot of things and it would seem that it was revealed to them as they discovered this new life in Christ.

Acts 10 is quite clear that the dietary restrictions are no longer in force and it is implied with all the times Paul mentions that we are no longer under the Law.

 

[Shannon H]

1Tim 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 1Tim 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. This also proves dietary laws no longer in effect, in acts 10:28 Peter was relating something to the Gentiles that was quite well known to any of them that had lived in Israel for any length of time. and now he himself had realized what was the meaning of the vision of the sheet let down from Heaven. and he was explaining this to them. My opinion is that The Lord may have choose not to reveal this to him until later, He was a Jew and followed the law even up until after the Lords Death and it took awhile for any of them to fully realize all the changes and embrace all the changes the new covenant had brought in. Paul was the one who the meaning of the new covenant and the Cross was revealed.

 

[whitestone]

1Tim 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 1Tim 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. This also proves dietary laws no longer in effect, in acts 10:28 Peter was relating something to the Gentiles that was quite well known to any of them that had lived in Israel for any length of time. and now he himself had realized what was the meaning of the vision of the sheet let down from Heaven. and he was explaining this to them. My opinion is that The Lord may have choose not to reveal this to him until later, He was a Jew and followed the law even up until after the Lords Death and it took awhile for any of them to fully realize all the changes and embrace all the changes the new covenant had brought in. Paul was the one who the meaning of the new covenant and the Cross was revealed.

Your quote in Timothy needs to begin with verse 3:

1 Timothy 4:3-4 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
​

Was swine or shellfish, etc, "created to be received" into our bodies? If not then we are to abstain.

 

[whitestone]

Why did the disciples fail to understand so much of what Jesus taught them? Why did they not understand when he said he was going to die, that he was going to die? They didn't understand a lot of things and it would seem that it was revealed to them as they discovered this new life in Christ.

Acts 10 is quite clear that the dietary restrictions are no longer in force and it is implied with all the times Paul mentions that we are no longer under the Law.

But the event in Acts had nothing to do with "food" that should or should not be consumed. Rather it was a lesson that Peter properly understood as.....

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

10:34-35 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him.
​

 

[Shannon H]

Was swine or shellfish, etc, "created to be received" into our bodies? If not then we are to abstain. Yes if you believe and know the truth, and receive them with thanksgiving .

 

[whitestone]

Was swine or shellfish, etc, "created to be received" into our bodies? If not then we are to abstain. Yes if you believe and know the truth, and receive them with thanksgiving .

If the answer was Yes then it would be written for we believe the written truth. They were created by God for a purpose but that purpose was not to be consumed by God's children for they are "unclean to you."

Leviticus 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Deuteronomy 14:8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

Isaiah 65:4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;

Isaiah 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst,eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

​

The message on the surface is to not consume the literal flesh which I assume was because they were created to clean the world of pollutants. When we consume them we then take in their poisons. Hence physical problems may arise. Perhaps years of taking in these "unclean" foods leads to arthritis, alzheimers, etc. The elderly diseases???

The deeper message is the swine, mouse, etc. are symbolic of spiritually unclean people...we shouldn't consume their teaching, their thoughts, their lifestyle. We can receive them "with Thanksgiving" if we "believe and know the TRUTH" for we can teach them but we cannot allow them to teach us.


Just as literal swine, shellfish, etc. are very tasty....so are the teachings of figurative swine. They tickle our ears but lead to death.

Mark 5:11-13 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. And all the devils besought Him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand) and were choked in the sea.




​

 

[Shannon H]

Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. The verse in Genesis, Before the law, everything that liveth (all animals) were given unto man for food. After the law, Paul teaches that every creature is sanctified (made clean) by the word of God. During the time of the law, the "dietary restrictions were meant for Jews". Don't know what else you are trying to say.

 

[Free]

But the event in Acts had nothing to do with "food" that should or should not be consumed. Rather it was a lesson that Peter properly understood as.....

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

10:34-35 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him.
​

There is no reason to believe it has "nothing to do with 'food' that should or should not be consumed." Why would God use unclean food, telling Peter that "What God has made clean, do not call common," if such food was still unclean? That would make no sense. Rather, we see Jesus say something of importance here:

Mar 7:14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand:
Mar 7:15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."
Mar 7:16 [If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.]
Mar 7:17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.
Mar 7:18 And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him,
Mar 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
Mar 7:20 And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,
Mar 7:22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person." (ESV)

Jesus had already "declared all foods clean." Thus, when Peter is shown the sheet of food and told to "not call common" what "God has made clean," it is true and makes sense. That it seems Peter had not yet understood or fully understood what Jesus had said does not determine the truth of the matter.

But really, Paul's continual statements that the Law is no longer in force does away with any notion that anyone, never mind Christians, are still to abide by dietary restrictions as given in the Law.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Your quote in Timothy needs to begin with verse 3:

1 Timothy 4:3-4 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
​

Was swine or shellfish, etc, "created to be received" into our bodies? If not then we are to abstain.

I agree with you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think where the issue lies about abstaining from meats has to do with the idea behind Romans 14 (which the subject was about eating foods offered to idols, and also vegetarianism by some was also an issue). So, in counteracting that dogma that they had to restrict eating those foods, Paul stated about eating "all things" i.e. things which were originally allowed in the Law that they were abstaining from.

An analogy would be how some Christians abstain from wine and alcohol, but since this was not a forbidden drink, then Paul said this was OK. But that is not meant to be misconstrued (because we can drink "all" things) as extrapolating that out to drinking poison!

If anyone disagrees with me and believes they are allowed to eat "all things", then fine. I'm going to serve supper tonight and I'm cooking up rats and spiders. Let's see how many come. View attachment 2857

 

[felix]

Acts 10 is often used as support for the teaching that the Levitical dietary laws are no longer in force. However, those who say that they ARE still in force argue that if they had been done away with, why didn’t Peter, who walked with and was taught by the Messiah for 3 plus years, and who was filled and guided by the Holy Spirit, know about it some 10 years later?

This sounds like a reasonable question. However, using the same reasoning, one might also legitimately ask why he didn’t know that it was ok to “keep company with or go to one of another nation”?

Does anyone who believes that the dietary regulations are still in effect have any thoughts on why Peter didn’t know about the “keeping company” part of Acts 10?

Christ already told them but they never understood all. He gave a new commandment and He created a new covenant - meaning, the old covenant is no more. But it takes time for them to understand. Quite frankly, it required a learned person like Paul who knows the in and out of the law to discern and made them understand which Peter himself said.

(Gal 2:14) But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before [them] all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

(2Pet 3:14-16) Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable [people] twist to their own destruction, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures.

Paul not only rebukes Peter before all, but Peter acknowledged the wisdom which God had given to Paul.

 

[Free]

If anyone disagrees with me and believes they are allowed to eat "all things", then fine. I'm going to serve supper tonight and I'm cooking up rats and spiders. Let's see how many come. View attachment 3688

In some countries they do eat such things and more.

 

[whitestone]

In some countries they do eat such things and more.

Indeed and yet we, as children of God, are held to a different standard.....

Deuteronomy 14:2 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto Himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.

26:18 And the LORD hath avouched thee this day to be His peculiar people, as He hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all His commandments;


​

Were the restrictions given to punish us? No, rather to protect us so that it would be "well with thee," to keep us healthy.....

4:40 Thou shalt keep therefore His statutes, and His commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever.

​

Are the laws still in effect? If "for ever" means just that then that is further substantiated by Jesus.....

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


​

 

[rstrats]

Perhaps someone new looking in who thinks that the dietary law is still in effect will have a comment on the question posed in the OP.

 

[felix]

Indeed and yet we, as children of God, are held to a different standard.....

Deuteronomy 14:2 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto Himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.

26:18 And the LORD hath avouched thee this day to be His peculiar people, as He hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all His commandments;


​

Were the restrictions given to punish us? No, rather to protect us so that it would be "well with thee," to keep us healthy.....

4:40 Thou shalt keep therefore His statutes, and His commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever.

​

Are the laws still in effect? If "for ever" means just that then that is further substantiated by Jesus.....

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


​

Matt 5:17-19 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches [them,] he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Which Commandments?

1. Matt 5:20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds [the] [righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
2. Matt 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.
3. Matt 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast [it] from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
4. Matt 5:32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
5. Matt 5:34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne;
6. Matt 5:39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
7. Matt 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you

Can you please refer me where in the Moses law, "these commandments" mentioned above are found. Christ is not speaking about the law of Moses but His Law which He speaks out according to the New Covenant.

Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." ... So Jesus said, "Are you also still without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are [the things] which defile a man ... (Matt 15:11-20a).

 

[Ryan]

Perhaps someone new looking in who thinks that the dietary law is still in effect will have a comment on the question posed in the OP.

OK, I'll bite, so to speak. I believe John 8:32 had it correct when he said that even Peter, who walked with Jesus was still, at times, sucked into the Jewish thought of the day that Gentiles were unclean and they had man-made laws prohibiting them from associating with so called "unclean' believers. This was the type of behaviour that Paul was so opposed to throughout his Epistles was the exclusion of Gentile believers into the greater Commonwealth of Israel. Even one who walked with the Messiah made mistakes, and Paul was correct to point that out.

Now if Peter walked, talked, prayed, and learned from Jesus, why could he not grasp a simple dietary exception in Mark 7:14-23? I submit that there never was any dietary changes. In Mark 7:19 in brackets (thus he declared all foods clean) was a man made addition into scripture that was never there in the Septuagint that you will only find in certain translations. You have to understand that this was kosher paradise they were living in, and if Jesus declared the dietary laws were done away with, he would have been called a blasphemer, false prophet and the Pharisees would have had credible grounds to try him. This parable is so clearly about the tongue defiling a person and what comes out of it as being evil, as well against the man made traditions of hand washing (ritually pure to be able to eat if you can believe that) of which Jesus so clearly opposes to when it was in contradiction to his commandments and the Word of God.

Mark 7:14-23 is no more about dietary laws as Mark 4:1-8 is about farming methods:
Again Jesus began to teach by the lake. The crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it out on the lake, while all the people were along the shore at the water’s edge. 2 He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said: 3 “Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, some multiplying thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times.”

In both parables, afterwards he told the disciples the real meaning of the parable and explained it to them. In Mark 7:20-23 he explained it as greed, lewdness, slander, arrogance, etc as one making one unclean, nothing even remotely suggests it was bald eagle being on the menu as that wasn't the context of what Jesus was talking about. Similarly in Mark 4:13:20 Jesus even criticises the disciples for not knowing that the parable was about the conditions for those receiving the Word of God. Not about agricultural methods.

Last word, "foods" as taught in the Bible clearly meant food that God has given permission for us to eat. Unless one can point an example to me, "food" in the Bible are those defined in the dietary laws in Leviticus. That was their definition of what food was. That's why Peter was so disgusted by that vision, because he would never have considered non-permissible animals as being something to eat. It was abhorent to him, unthinkable, detestable. And later in Acts 10:28 he made it clear that the vision wasn't a dietary change, it was one of calling Gentiles clean He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean," and further reinforced in Acts 10:34-36 "Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right."