Acts 10

[Theofilus]

Originally Posted by intricatic

Uh, if you drive cars, you're judged by the law. If you sin without the redemption and grace offered by Christ, you're judged by the law, regardless of whether you hold it in high regard or do not. Offenders of the traffic laws do not care much about their existence either, until they get caught and fined.

Right. That was my point exactly. Laws about speed limits, traffic signs, parking and other traffic laws were made for people who drive cars. People who drive cars are expected to obey them. It is true, as you say, that most drivers don't seem to care about them, but that doesn't change their validity.

God's laws about food, Sabbaths, worship and all of the other commandments were made for God's people and God's people are expected to obey them. It is true that most people do not care about them, but that doesn't change their validity.

[intricatic]

Originally Posted by Theofilus

Right. That was my point exactly. Laws about speed limits, traffic signs, parking and other traffic laws were made for people who drive cars. People who drive cars are expected to obey them. It is true, as you say, that most drivers don't seem to care about them, but that doesn't change their validity.

God's laws about food, Sabbaths, worship and all of the other commandments were made for God's people and God's people are expected to obey them. It is true that most people do not care about them, but that doesn't change their validity.

People who don't drive cars don't need to worry about following exactly the traffic laws, though. See, Christ is our public transportation.

[Annie]

Not to sound like i'm patronizing or mocking or anything... i don't argue the convictions of others to only eat kosher food i've got no problem there but all this talk about the necessity of all of us eating kosher according to OT laws makes me wonder about a few things...

Why don't we obey the OT commands on sacrificing animals? Or mixing fabrics (Lev 19)? To cease from working the ground in the sabbath year(ex 23, Lev 25) or the Jubilee year and celebrate that year by returning to our former possessions(lev 25)? To hold to the laws which require sentencing of death by stoning or burning (Deut 22, Lev 20)? Why have we done away with cities of refuge (Deut 19)? Why do we allow false prophets to live (Deut 18)? or sowing different types of seeds together in the same field (Lev 19)? To redeem the firstborn (ex 13)? and on and on the list goes of laws that are no longer practiced. Why must we follow kosher laws and not the rest of the 613? It just seems strange that this one is constantly argued for passionately as something that even Gentile Christians should be following yet the rest of the laws, like the ones i've mentioned, that have fallen out of practice by even Jewish believers have been ignored yet are still part of God's Law for His people.

[Theofilus]

Originally Posted by Annie

Not to sound like i'm patronizing or mocking or anything... i don't argue the convictions of others to only eat kosher food i've got no problem there but all this talk about the necessity of all of us eating kosher according to OT laws makes me wonder about a few things...

Why don't we obey the OT commands on sacrificing animals?

Because the OT Law tells us not to. Sacrifices were only to be offered in the temple. Since there is no temple in Jerusalem, there is no place where sacrifices may legitimately be offered according to the Law.

Originally Posted by Annie

Or mixing fabrics (Lev 19)?

There are 2 fabrics that are specifically mentioned - wool and linen. Linen is a fabric made from flax. Today the word is used to refer to cotton, but that's not what it meant in the Bible. Find something woven with a combination of wool and flax if you can. I have never even seen such a garment and I'm pretty sure you've never worn one.

Originally Posted by Annie

To cease from working the ground in the sabbath year(ex 23, Lev 25) or the Jubilee year and celebrate that year by returning to our former possessions(lev 25)?

These things can only be done in a Torah-based economy, which is something that we don't have. It is impossible to keep them in any other situation. Also, since the Jews were driven from the land nearly 2000 years ago, nobody knows when the Sabbath or Jubilee years are any more.

Originally Posted by Annie

To hold to the laws which require sentencing of death by stoning or burning (Deut 22, Lev 20)?

The Law never required "us" (the common people) to do that. People were only to be executed after a fair trial. It was the Sanhedrin that was to pass the death sentence, not just anybody.

Originally Posted by Annie

Why have we done away with cities of refuge (Deut 19)?

Because we don't live in a Torah-based society.

Originally Posted by Annie

Why do we allow false prophets to live (Deut 18)?

Because we don't live in a Torah-based society or have Torah-based laws.

Originally Posted by Annie

or sowing different types of seeds together in the same field (Lev 19)?

Ah... finally one that's possible. Who says we shouldn't follow that rule. Of course, most of us aren't farmers, so it wouldn't apply to us anyway. If you do happen to be a farmer, you shouldn't sow two types of seed in the same field.

Originally Posted by Annie

To redeem the firstborn (ex 13)?

Because we don't live in a Torah-based society.

Originally Posted by Annie

and on and on the list goes of laws that are no longer practiced.

What does the fact that they aren't practiced have to do with anything. Most people don't follow the commandment against sex ouside of marriage. Does that mean that it's been done away with? Half of all marriages (including Christian marriages) end in divorce. Does that mean that what the Bible says about divorce is invalid? People get murdered every day. We don't follow the commandment that says "Thou shalt not kill". Does that mean that it's invalid? Of course not. Our breaking the commandments - any commandments - doesn't invalidate them in any way.

Originally Posted by Annie

Why must we follow kosher laws and not the rest of the 613?

Why must we follow the laws against adultery and not the rest? Why must we follow the laws against stealing and not the rest? Why must we follow the laws against idolotry and not the rest? Why must we follow the laws about honoring our parents and not the rest? Actually, we do follow most of the Law. I did a study on the Law a while back. I went through the Books of Moses and wrote down every commandment I could find that applied to everyone (I left out the ones that only applied to priests, levites, kings, or some other limited group), and which it was possible to keep today (i.e. didn't require a temple in Jerusalem, a functioning Sanhedrin or something else which Gentile Christians today don't have access to). Take a look at this list:

1. Do not eat blood
2. Do not eat non-kosher animals
3. Keep the weekly Sabbath
4. Keep the annual festivals
5. Circumcise male children
6. Put fringes on the corners of your garments
7. Do not practice Pagan customs and say that you're doing it for the LORD
8. Do not add to or take away from the Torah
9. Do not wear a garment woven of wool and linen

That's it. You can count the commandments we don't keep on your fingers. We keep (or try to keep) pretty much all the rest that it is possible to keep.

Originally Posted by Annie

It just seems strange that this one is constantly argued for passionately as something that even Gentile Christians should be following yet the rest of the laws, like the ones i've mentioned, that have fallen out of practice by even Jewish believers have been ignored yet are still part of God's Law for His people.

The reason this is mentioned so often is that this is one of the few parts of the Law that Gentile Christians don't keep. Look at what's going on in society in general. Why is there much more debate about homosexuality than rape? Is it because homosexuality is more serious? No. It's because homosexuality is a sin that our society is trying to get accepted as normal. Nobody is going around saying that rape should be legalized. That's why there's no debate going on about rape, but there is about homosexuality. Likewise, nobody is going around saying that it's ok for Christians to murder, rape, commit adultery, steal or worship idols. There's no reason to debate these commandments because everybody agrees about them. There's debate about eating kosher food because that's one of the laws that people are trying to justify breaking. If people tried to justify idolotry, there would be debate about that to.

[intricatic]

Originally Posted by Theofilus

Right. That was my point exactly. Laws about speed limits, traffic signs, parking and other traffic laws were made for people who drive cars. People who drive cars are expected to obey them. It is true, as you say, that most drivers don't seem to care about them, but that doesn't change their validity.

God's laws about food, Sabbaths, worship and all of the other commandments were made for God's people and God's people are expected to obey them. It is true that most people do not care about them, but that doesn't change their validity.

We don't live in a Torah-based society, so it's unreasonable to expect us to uphold the Torah in terms of the dietary laws.

[DesertScroll]

Hello again, had the same bug again where I lost all what I had typed. Guess it is to Word first, type, the to here heh.
And I am sorry I am breaking these responses up, but the forum is saying too many words (I guess I can admit I talk too much) which I have never had a problem with before, with much longer posts.

Originally Posted by Theofilus

I have to disagree with you on that. "What God has cleansed" does not include the unclean foods. If it did, it would not say:

While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision (Acts 10:17)

If the meaning of the vision was so obvious, why did Peter wonder about it? Peter knew that it was God who had declared these foods to be unclean. He knew that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He knew that God would never contradict His own word. He knew, therefore, that it could not be the food that was declared clean. It must be something else that the unclean foods represent. In verse 28 we see what it is. It represents the Gentiles.

I am not disputing that the reason for the vision was to show Peter that the Gentiles were also to be included under his grace. That is shown perfectly by v. 19,20,28. What I am saying the vision had a universal theme to it (v.15) which not only applied to the reason of the vision (the Gentiles) but also the imagery of the vision itself and what Peter answered to it (v.14). The imagery of the vision was the subject of v.15 and the reason for the vision was the subject of the vision itself. The universal words in v.15 of “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy” can cover a lot more than just the Gentiles and the church. And Peter didn’t feel that the Gentiles should be under the yoke of circumcision nor the Law of Moses based on the fact that they, just as themselves, are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus (Acts 15:5-11). I think Peter understood the universal nature of the message, both in the imagery of the vision and in the reason for the vision alike.

It doesn't say he ate pork, does it? The issue was not what he ate, but with whom he ate. It was the Gentiles that had been considered unclean according to rabbinical laws but had been declared clean by God.

Actually your analysis that it was only “with whom he ate” is flawed. Take a look (and this will apply again in your next quote).
Acts 11:3 “You went to uncircumcised men” – the with whom
“and ate with them” – the eating part
It’s a double charge, both having to do with the uncircumcised to be sure, but charge one 1)went to and 2) ate with. It doesn’t give a menu of what peter ate, but make no mistake it was the food of the uncircumcised. Does it have to be a food such as pork that Peter ate? No. Could it have been? Yes.

Yes, but take note of what Paul doesn't say. He doesn't say "Peter ate shellfish, yet fearing the party of the circumcision he withdrew from doing such." It wasn't what he ate, but with whom he ate. There isn't any hint of eating non-kosher food anywhere. The issue here isn't whether certain types of meat are unclean, but whether Gentiles are unclean.

Very similar to above. Again you claim it was not what Peter ate but with whom he ate it with. But the what is very much in question here. Paul opposed Peter not just in withdrawing from Gentiles as in v.12 but also living like the Gentiles (v.14). See the what and the whom are both in play here in Paul’s rebuke. “Live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews” in regards to Peter does not also apply to what he ate? It specifically says “not like the Jews” in regards to “live”. So once again no menu for what Peter ate, but we know it was what Gentiles ate and it was not what Jews ate.

And just a few verses later he says:

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience (I Cor. 10:25)

If you already know where the meat came from, you don't have to ask. He's talking about situations where you don't know whether the meat has been sacrificed or not. Like I said before, if you don't know, don't ask. Presume that it has not been sacrificed and give thanks to God for it.

But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it (I Cor. 10:28)

So, if you find out that it is sacrificial meat, don't eat it. But, even if Paul meant the exact opposite of what his words actually say, it still has no bearing on whether bacon has been declared kosher or not.

Back to 1 Cor 10:19-33.
Your quote: “So, if you find out that it is sacrificial meat, don't eat it”.
And was the reason for this because it was food sacrificed to idols? No. V.19,20 clearly state that what is sacrificed to idols is nothing. V.28 says the reason is for the sake of the one who informed you and for their conscience. And in v.29 Paul specifically states it is not for your own conscience, but the other man’s.
Is there any relationship here between a person about to eat and finding out that it was sacrificed to idols? None whatsoever. The relationship is between the person about to eat and the conscience of the one who told you. So the reason for your statement “So, if you find out that it is sacrificial meat, don't eat it” is not that the food was sacrificed to idols, but that it might harm the other person’s conscience.

[DesertScroll]

Part two:

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. (Col. 2:16)

Society doesn't judge those that conform to societetal norms. It judges those that do not conform. The Collosians were being judged because they didn't conform to the society in which they lived. But, what was that society like? It wasn't a nominally Christian society, like most of us are used to. Neither was it a Jewish society where God's laws were the accepted rule of life. They lived in a totally Pagan society, where people worshipped Pagan gods, in Pagan temples on Pagan holy days, celebrated Pagan festivals and ate and drank what was considered good according to Pagan customs. The fact that they were being judged by those around them shows us that they were not following the same customs as everyone else. If they had worshipped on Sunday, nobody would have judged them. But they were keeping the biblical Sabbath. That was not considered normal in their culture, and so they were judged for it. If they had been keeping all the Pagan festivals, nobody would have judged them. They were judged because they were keeping "foreign" (in their culture) festivals like Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles. Nobody would judge them for eating pork. Everybody ate pork in that culture. They were judged because they ate a "strange" diet. Paul is actually saying the direct opposite of what this is usually interpreted to mean.

Now to Col 2:16-23.
I am sorry, but the way you have interpreted the passage won’t hold. Take a look at v.21 “do not handle, do not taste, do not touch”. Paul was not addressing an issue where people were putting pressure on them to eat things they were not eating (inclusive) but people saying they should not eat certain things (exclusive). And if you say that the pagan community was telling them not to eat in the Jewish way then Paul’s words also go against Jewish dietary laws as once again we have a universal. V.20 “… do not submit yourself to decrees, such as, …”. There is no way to interpret the passage in the way you did above and still maintain the validity of the dietary laws.

No, he didn't. What he said in those verses actually had nothing at all to do with any kind of food, whether kosher or not. I admit that, if you take these few verses out of context, they do seem to support what you're saying. Unfortunately, that's pretty much the only way you're likely to hear those verses - out of context. Let's look a little earlier in the chapter to see what he was really talking about.

The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.) So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"(Mark 7:1-5)

The issue was never whether things like pork, shrimp or horse meat were fit for eating. The question Jesus was answering was about rabbinical laws that stated that, unless you washed ceremonially (this had nothing to do with soap and water), the food you ate became unclean (and therefore you became unclean). Jesus never contradicted his Father by declaring anything clean that Scripture had previously declared unclean.

Now Mark 7:18-23.
Here is a web page that I would assume takes your position quite nicely: http://www.keithhunt.com/Food20.html
What they fail to account for is that what Jesus said is not just about that specific instance. Jesus answered that specific instance with a universal answer, one that applies to all things that enter the body as well as answers where all evil things proceed from. Pointing back to an instance that the universal covers doesn’t do anything to the universal. The context of what Jesus was teaching against was in fact covered by his words. But his words covered much more than just that particular instance.
V.15,18,19 state “nothing outside the man” can defile
V.15,20,21,22,23 state Only that which proceeds from man defiles the man.
If it comes from the outside, then it doesn’t defile, period.
If it comes from the inside of the man it can defile.
So in relation to food, the only way it can matter is if it causes the man from inside to think or do evil. Not the food itself. Such as breaking the dietary law if one was under the law. Not, the say, pork itself, but the pork in relation to God’s command to Israel not to eat it. It actually goes well with your first post and point #1, why there were dietary laws (which was a good synopsis of yours in my opinion). So no Jesus was not contradicting what he previously said in the OT.

Yes, the Law is a tutor, and you don't need a tutor once you've learned what the tutor has to teach you. But you still need what he was teaching. When I was much younger than I am now, I went to the first grade. Among other things, my teacher taught me to read, write, add and subtract. I don't need a first grade teacher any more. But I still need what she taught me. In fact, I need it more today than I did then. The only math I did back in first grade was in a work book or taking tests. Now I use that knowlege to do my taxes, calculate my wages (they've tried to gyp me a couple of times) and for my home bookkeeping. The Law is a tutor, but it is also what is taught.

Here is where you missed it. The law is a tutor for something entirely different (as I posted before) the knowledge of sin. The only relation it has to saved by grace is that it shows us we are sinners, we can’t do it and points to Christ. So I agree the knowledge that the law provided is useful. But that is not what Paul is saying here. The tutor (the Law) is no longer required once you have gotten this lesson. Thanks tutor, bye . Do we have the knowledge of what was taught? Yes. Do we have our tutor still around? No. Knowledge of what the law taught, yes. The law itself, no. See the difference?

Another thing about tutors is that you actually have to have one before you can say that you don't need one "any more". When were you under the tutor that is the Law? I ask this, not to offend you or imply that you know less about the Law than me or anyone else, but to point out that the Law is not taught in churches today. If we are never taught the Law and what it means - if we are never taught the true meanings of the commandments, the festivals and the Sabbath - how can we say that the Law is our tutor, but that we don't need it any more?

This misses the fact that if you already know you are sinful, already know you can’t do it, and already know you need Christ, then why would I want a tutor for a subject I already know about? Most Christians never needed the Law as we already knew we needed Christ, already knew we were sinful, and already knew we couldn’t do it. How? The Spirit convicted us, truly God taught. And we can read about and how it affected Israel, without actually being under the law. I and most Christians have never needed this tutor, but reading about the law and its relation to Israel is a true blessing.
To the passage itself (Gal 3:23-29):
V.23 “before faith came” “under the law” “shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed”
V.24 “Law has become our tutor” “to lead to Christ”
V.25 “But now that faith has come” “no longer under a tutor”
V.26 “sons of God through faith”
V.28 “all one in Christ” “neither Jew nor Greek” “slave nor free man” “male nor female”
Before faith came the law was needed as it was to point to faith.
Now that faith has come there is no longer a need for the law.
Why? Because we are sons of God not by the law, but by faith. (Almost the exact same argument Peter made in Acts 15:7-11)

Allow me to paraphrase that.

The traffic laws are all in effect. But their existense is not for those who drive cars, but for those who do not yet have cars.

Does that really make sense to you? I've heard that logic quite a few times before, but I've never been able to understand it. God's Law wasn't given to Pagans. Nor does God intend for Pagans to keep His Law. The Law was given to God's people to show them how God wants them to live.

Intricate gave a good answer to the analogy:

Originally Posted by intricatic

People who don't drive cars don't need to worry about following exactly the traffic laws, though. See, Christ is our public transportation.

I don’t need traffic laws in regards to cars, when I am flying on a jet with Jesus as my pilot above the ground. The tutor shows one how to get to the airport, but it is then left aside. All its rules have nothing to do with flying.
As to the latter part of your quote, remember there is neither Jew nor Greek but Just Christ, the True Vine. God wants us to live by his Spirit. Is there overlap between how God wanted Israel to live as a nation of Jews and how God wants us to live as Christians? I would say yes. Is there complete agreement, no. Remember the why there were dietary laws in your point #1 and the words of Jesus in Mark 7? Very apt here.

[DesertScroll]

Part three:

No, they are not "conjoined". There is nothing that indicates that these people were eating the sacrifices at the same time that they were commiting adultery. (Personally, I find that a bit hard to picture.) It's simple. They are admonished for eating food that had been sacrificed to idols. There are no more details given. Any more details that we try to add are just conjecture on our part, and cannot be used to form any kind of doctrine, especially a doctrine that directly contradicts God's own commandments.

Maybe my words didn’t spell it out correctly, I apologize. I was not trying to say that they were doing these acts at the same time (they might have, but it really doesn’t matter, adds nothing to the point). And you are correct, one cannot form any type of doctrine from this passage as it is way too vague. My point is (since you brought it up) that eating food sacrificed to idols is mentioned with immorality. It was not just the act of eating food sacrificed to idols. But it gives a hint as to the intentions behind the eating of the food sacrificed to idols. And as Jesus taught in Mark 7 and Paul in 1 Cor 10 intentions of the heart are what matters. The immorality helps to show what kind of intentions they might have had. But yes, still too vague to know for sure or too use it in building an understanding of scripture.

Just to give a quick look at my position. I do not deny that one can follow parts of the law as he is led. Paul did it with vows, all the apostles were frequently at the temple, Paul circumcised Timothy (to not cause strife with the Jews as his father was Greek) and probably more examples. So it can be done.
The problem becomes when one says it is necessary to please God, to do all that God wants. And scripture does not back this view up in the slightest. If you feel led to eat kosher, then by all means go for it in thanksgiving to God. But don't fool yourself into thinking it is the right way and it is what scripture says all should do.

[Theofilus]

Originally Posted by DesertScroll

Part two:

Now to Col 2:16-23.
I am sorry, but the way you have interpreted the passage won’t hold. Take a look at v.21 “do not handle, do not taste, do not touch”. Paul was not addressing an issue where people were putting pressure on them to eat things they were not eating (inclusive) but people saying they should not eat certain things (exclusive). And if you say that the pagan community was telling them not to eat in the Jewish way then Paul’s words also go against Jewish dietary laws as once again we have a universal. V.20 “… do not submit yourself to decrees, such as, …”. There is no way to interpret the passage in the way you did above and still maintain the validity of the dietary laws.

It is true that there are commandments in the Bible that can be interprete as "do not handle, do not taste, do not touch". There are also rabbinical rulings (which are not binding on anyone, since they don't have authority to add to God's Law) that can be interpreted that way. But Paul was speaking of neither of those. Look at the whole context.

Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world [not the basic principals of God's Law], why, as though you still belonged to it [the world], do you submit to its [the world's] rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? (Col 2:20-21)

"Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch" are the world's rules, not God's commandments. They were judged (v. 16) because they became Christians and left Paganism and it's ways of doing things (which included rules like "do not handle, do not taste, do not touch"). As a result, some of them were going back to the Pagan way of doing things to avoid judgement, harassment and persecution. Paul is telling them not to go back to doing those things or following those rules.

Originally Posted by DesertScroll

Now Mark 7:18-23.
Here is a web page that I would assume takes your position quite