Acts 10

[intricatic]

9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.
(Acts 10)

I would present the idea that this passage refers to both the unclean foods, and the gentiles whom Peter would soon be drawn to minister to. The reason I make this statement is multiple, but to begin...

(1) The vision itself is a testament to the law and what this particular law was meant to do (insulate Israel from the influence of the Gentile nations surrounding her), as the gentile believers would hereby represent those "unclean things" falling from heaven.

(2) When Peter is told to partake of the unclean animals, he is being called to do so in a symbolic sense meant to lead him to understand God's will for the gentile believers. The gentile believers are hereby represented by the unclean meats prohibited in Deuteronomy as abominations to God because the idols of the gentiles were also likewise abominations to God. This part is not as explicitly stated in the Old Testament, but it's clear given the nature of idolatry and "harlotry".

This also fits well into what Paul says about foods sacrificed to idols:

18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?
(1 Corinthians 10)

Notice the idea of having fellowship with demons; not eating those things which cause offense to God, but drawing a believer to fellowship with those who worship demons and false gods. You cannot partake of both because actions have immediate consequences; if you partake of the "cup of demons", you are acknowledging something inwardly about the subject of worship. This is not to say the thing itself is unclean, but how it's used is unclean.

Mind: by this I don't mean to argue against following kosher laws, or eating only those things specifically laid down by God in Deuteronomy. That's fine and perhaps healthier than otherwise, but I don't believe that not following those specific institutes will put a man or a woman in any more animosity towards or from God than if they did, unless it's coupled with an improper worship.

[intricatic]

Lemme just say: this is one of the few issues that Messianics and I disagree on, but it's more like a running thing than anything else. I don't take it personally when people disagree with me and will consider arguments to the contrary, so long as they're well reasoned.

I'm a firm Sola Scriptura type, and believe any doctrine should harmonize easily with all relevant scripture. There are some questions I can't answer on this one, though.

[under His wings]

I tend to agree with what you have stated. I don't believe we are inferior to God in anyway bc of what we eat. Jesus was quite clear that what we put into our body does not make us unclean/clean, or unacceptable/acceptable to God. However, I am very respectful of those who choose to follow the kosher laws completely. I think it is a sign of discipline and something they feel they must do, therefore, they must do it. At this point, it would be sinful for them to start eating like us bc they feel it is wrong. God also said that Gentiles need not be circumcised, yet my son is...as most believe it is a cleaner, healthier option. The same is probably true for eating kosher, although it is not demanded it is probably a cleaner, healthier option. God has always done what is best for us, therefore, those laws were and still are for the best of our health. They simply are not commanded and cannot keep us from the love of our LORD.

[intricatic]

God's commandments can be understood on a variety of different levels. On one hand, those laws might have been explicitly for the insulation of Israel from surrounding Gentile nations, and the defilement God knew those nations would bring to her, but they were also because the foods which were not prohibited would constitute the most healthy and beneficial diet God could allow for His children. In terms of prohibition, I think it's silly to say there is a rule about what we eat, but being obedient to God's commandments are not bad provided they're clearly understood for what they were intended to accomplish. I would have no qualms about taking on a kosher diet (out of respect for God, or for purely practical reasons), but the last thing I would do is consider it a way of being more obedient to God, or trying to live more righteously than I could otherwise.

[Theofilus]

This is my third attempt at making this post. Both other tries posted, but both disappeared. I wonder how long this one will stay up.

There are three issues that you mention in your original post.

1. The reason for the dietary laws
2. Peter's vision
3. Pauls statements about meat offered to idols

I would like to address each of these issues seprately, and then point out a couple of other scripture references.

1. The reason for the dietary laws
There are two reasons commonly given for the dietary laws. For some reason, they both are used to specifically address eating pork, but neither can be used to address many other non-kosher meats. These two reasons are:

• If it is not properly cooked, there can be worms in pork that can be transfred to people.
• Pagans ate pork and used pigs in religious rites. Jews were therefore not to eat pork to be seperate from the Pagans.

The Bible doesn't tell us what the reason for the dietary laws is. We cannot, therefore, know what the reason was. We can, however, know that it was neither of these reasons. Whatever the reason was, we should be able to apply it consistantly to all kosher or non-kosher foods. Lets look at how those reasons apply to two specific examples:

If it is not cooked properly, you can contract salmonella - a potentially fatal disease without modern medicines - from eating chicken. Chickens were also used by Pagans in religious rituals. Both of the above reasons would apply to eating chicken, yet chicken is kosher.

There is less chance of contracting worms or diseases by eating horse meat than by eating chicken. Horses were not sacrificed by Pagans nor were they used in Pagan rituals. According to the two most commonly sited reasons for the dietary laws, horse meat should be kosher, but it isn't.

The fact is that no reason is given for the dietary laws. All we know is that God told us not to eat the meat of certain animals. That should be enough. We shouldn't need a reason to obey God.

2. Peter's vision
Dreams, visions and revalations in the Bible seldom mean what the appear to be about on the surface. For example, Pharaoh's dream about 7 skinny cows eating 7 fat cows did not imply that cows are carnivors. The real meaning had nothing at all to do with cattle. It was a prophesy that what the skinny cows represented would eat (destroy) what the fat cows represented. In Revelation, John's vision of Babylon doesn't mean that, in the end times, people will see a literal harlot riding on a heretofore unknown species of animal with 7 heads and 10 horns. Rather, it means that what the harlot represents will ride (be supported by) what the beast represents. So it is with Peter's vision also. It doesn't mean that foods which God declared unclean are now acceptable for us to eat. It means that what the unclean foods represent has been declared clean. In verse 28 of the same chapter, we are told what the vision represented. According to rabbinical (not biblical) laws, it was forbidden for Jews to associate with Gentiles in any way. It was even forbidden for Jews to enter the homes of Gentiles. Through Peter's vision, God told him that these rabbinical laws were invalid, and that he (and later others) should go and preach the good news to the Gentiles. It had nothing to do with the dietary laws, any more than Johns vision in Rev. 10:9 means that books should be part of our diet.

3. Meat offered to idols
This has absolutely nothing at all to do with which animals are kosher and which are not. There is no mention of pigs, shrimp, shellfish, horses, vultures or any other non-kosher animals in the section where Paul writes about this. The question being addressed was not whether eating pork was ok, but whether othewise kosher meat became non-kosher by being sacrificed to an idol. Contrary to what is commonly taught, Paul did not say that it's ok to eat the meat of Pagan sacrifices. What he said was that, if you don't know whether or not meat has been sacrificed, then don't worry about it. Presume that it hasn't and offer thanks to God for it. However, if you find out that it has been sacrificed to an idol, then you shouldn't eat it. Not only does this not even address (much less invalidate) the laws about kosher and non-kosher meats, it doesn't even change the laws about eating meat offered to Pagan Gods.

In discussing this and other aspects of the Law, we must not forget what Jesus had to say about it. In the Sermon on the Mount, He says that not a single letter of the Law shall pass away as long as Heaven and Earth stand. Last time I checked, they were both still here. We may therefore assume that not one letter of the Law has become invalid. Then there is also what Jesus says to the churches in Reveleation. Jesus admonishes two churches (Pergamos and Thyatira) for allowing people to eat things that had been sacrificed to idols (Rev. 2:14,20). Revelation was written decades after I Corinthians and Acts. If all meat, including meat sacrificed to idols, had been declared clean, why would Jesus be admonishing people about it decades later?

[DesertScroll]

Originally Posted by Theofilus

This is my third attempt at making this post. Both other tries posted, but both disappeared. I wonder how long this one will stay up.

Same. Finally went to word and then copy/paste. (And the quote bug is still around).

2 Peter's vision
[/b]Dreams, visions and revalations in the Bible seldom mean what the appear to be about on the surface. For example, Pharaoh's dream about 7 skinny cows eating 7 fat cows did not imply that cows are carnivors. The real meaning had nothing at all to do with cattle. It was a prophesy that what the skinny cows represented would eat (destroy) what the fat cows represented. In Revelation, John's vision of Babylon doesn't mean that, in the end times, people will see a literal harlot riding on a heretofore unknown species of animal with 7 heads and 10 horns. Rather, it means that what the harlot represents will ride (be supported by) what the beast represents. So it is with Peter's vision also. It doesn't mean that foods which God declared unclean are now acceptable for us to eat. It means that what the unclean foods represent has been declared clean. In verse 28 of the same chapter, we are told what the vision represented. According to rabbinical (not biblical) laws, it was forbidden for Jews to associate with Gentiles in any way. It was even forbidden for Jews to enter the homes of Gentiles. Through Peter's vision, God told him that these rabbinical laws were invalid, and that he (and later others) should go and preach the good news to the Gentiles. It had nothing to do with the dietary laws, any more than Johns vision in Rev. 10:9 means that books should be part of our diet.

Peter’s vision had a general meaning as seen in 10:15 with the voice saying “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy” which includes the Gentiles as seen in verses 19,20,28. But it also can be applied to foods as Peter’s reply was not about men, but what went into his mouth (v.14).
Peter also used this vision in his defense to the charge that he “went to uncircumcised men and ate with them” (Acts 11:3). He didn’t deny this charge, but explained it by means of his vision.
Paul also mentions that Peter ate with Gentiles, yet fearing the party of the circumcision he withdrew from doing such (Gal 2:11,12). Something Paul opposed (v.13,14).

3 Meat offered to idols
This has absolutely nothing at all to do with which animals are kosher and which are not. There is no mention of pigs, shrimp, shellfish, horses, vultures or any other non-kosher animals in the section where Paul writes about this. The question being addressed was not whether eating pork was ok, but whether othewise kosher meat became non-kosher by being sacrificed to an idol. Contrary to what is commonly taught, Paul did not say that it's ok to eat the meat of Pagan sacrifices. What he said was that, if you don't know whether or not meat has been sacrificed, then don't worry about it. Presume that it hasn't and offer thanks to God for it. However, if you find out that it has been sacrificed to an idol, then you shouldn't eat it. Not only does this not even address (much less invalidate) the laws about kosher and non-kosher meats, it doesn't even change the laws about eating meat offered to Pagan Gods.

Paul did say it was ok to eat food sacrificed to idols. The passage of 1 Cor 10:19-33 is the one I think you are referring to. In v.19 he clearly says that what is sacrificed to idols and idols themselves are nothing. Paul says he doesn’t want them to associate with demons which are behind the sacrifices (v.20,21). And the reason why you shouldn’t eat food sacrificed to idols had nothing to do with the food itself, but for the sake of the one who proclaimed that it was in fact food sacrificed to an idol (v. 28,29). And not for your own conscience as what you are thankful for cannot be slandered (v.30,31).

Paul also talked about this previously in the same letter 1 Cor 8:1-13. Same thing here. Food does not commend one to God (v.8) but we are to be mindful of others and how they feel (v.7). So if they are weak minded and think eating that food is something, then don’t do it (v.11-13).

Paul also talks about all food not being unclean in other passages such as Col 2:16-23. Which lines up perfectly with the two passages in 1 Cor.

In discussing this and other aspects of the Law, we must not forget what Jesus had to say about it. In the Sermon on the Mount, He says that not a single letter of the Law shall pass away as long as Heaven and Earth stand. Last time I checked, they were both still here. We may therefore assume that not one letter of the Law has become invalid. Then there is also what Jesus says to the churches in Reveleation. Jesus admonishes two churches (Pergamos and Thyatira) for allowing people to eat things that had been sacrificed to idols (Rev. 2:14,20). Revelation was written decades after I Corinthians and Acts. If all meat, including meat sacrificed to idols, had been declared clean, why would Jesus be admonishing people about it decades later?

Jesus also declared all food clean in passages like Mark 7:18-23.

The law is still around and it is still good and useful for its purpose. The law is for the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20 7:7) and it is a tutor that leads one to Christ (Gal 3:24) but once one is in Christ there is no longer a need for the tutor (3:25).

So I agree, not one letter of the law is invalid and it is still in effect. But its existence is not for those in Christ, but those that need Christ.

The verses in Rev 2:14,20 do admonish the people for eating food sacrificed to idols. But they are both conjoined with food sacrificed to idols and acts of immorality. This was not just a case of eating the food, but as Jesus said, what was coming out of the heart, the reason why they were eating this food and performing these acts. Combining the eating and acts of immorality was the charge. The exact nature is not known, but it was not the act of eating food sacrificed to idols with thanksgiving to God for providing (as Paul fully supports).

[Theofilus]

Originally Posted by DesertScroll

Peter’s vision had a general meaning as seen in 10:15 with the voice saying “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy” which includes the Gentiles as seen in verses 19,20,28. But it also can be applied to foods as Peter’s reply was not about men, but what went into his mouth (v.14).

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.

Peter also used this vision in his defense to the charge that he “went to uncircumcised men and ate with them” (Acts 11:3). He didn’t deny this charge, but explained it by means of his vision.

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.

Paul also mentions that Peter ate with Gentiles, yet fearing the party of the circumcision he withdrew from doing such (Gal 2:11,12). Something Paul opposed (v.13,14).

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.

Paul did say it was ok to eat food sacrificed to idols. The passage of 1 Cor 10:19-33 is the one I think you are referring to. In v.19 he clearly says that what is sacrificed to idols and idols themselves are nothing.

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.

Paul also talks about all food not being unclean in other passages such as Col 2:16-23.

Quite the opposite.

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.

Jesus also declared all food clean in passages like Mark 7:18-23.

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.

The law is still around and it is still good and useful for its purpose. The law is for the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20 7:7) and it is a tutor that leads one to Christ (Gal 3:24) but once one is in Christ there is no longer a need for the tutor (3:25).

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.

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?

So I agree, not one letter of the law is invalid and it is still in effect. But its existence is not for those in Christ, but those that need Christ.

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.

The verses in Rev 2:14,20 do admonish the people for eating food sacrificed to idols. But they are both conjoined with food sacrificed to idols and acts of immorality. This was not just a case of eating the food, but as Jesus said, what was coming out of the heart, the reason why they were eating this food and performing these acts. Combining the eating and acts of immorality was the charge. The exact nature is not known, but it was not the act of eating food sacrificed to idols with thanksgiving to God for providing (as Paul fully supports).

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.

[intricatic]

Originally Posted by Theofilus

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.

Do you realize the irony of saying that about this passage? It can be taken literally for both arguments, if we're applying a standardized "Do" or "Do not" formula to understand what Paul was talking about.

28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness. 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience?
(1 Corinthians 10:28, expanded)

[intricatic]

Originally Posted by Theofilus

Allow me to paraphrase that.

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.

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.

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.