God’s Dietary Law, Is Still Good Today

[Bro.T]

It’s a sad fact of life that it is constantly necessary to affirm what the Almighty God has said with his own mouth. For all that God has said and done is good, but many have thought to overturn the words and works of the creator. Though God had it written plainly in black and white, many attempt to do away with God’s dietary law, but God does not change (Malachi 3:6).

Lets back up to some foundation

“And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, speak unto the children of Israel, saying, these are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth” (Leviticus 11:1,2). I ask you, why would the Lord tell his servants to only eat certain animals and later change it, as many contend? Yet, there are no scriptures in the New Testament reversing what God said in the Old Testament. People simply read their own beliefs into certain verses, which is a great sin for God has warned us about adding to and taking away from His Word (Deuteronomy 4:1,2 & Revelation 22:18,19).

Many have taught that certain Old Testament laws (including God’s Dietary Laws) were done away with when Jesus came and died. Let’s see what Jesus said, “…Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven…” (Matthew 5:18,19). I find that many simply do not believe Jesus, for how else can they continue to transgress his laws (sin) and think it’s ok. There will be punishment for those who break the least of Gods Commandments, let alone the greatest

 

[Bro.T]

Why did God deem certain animals unclean and therefore un-edible? Being the creator, God knows what each creature’s purpose is and though all creatures are good all are not good to eat. For instance, when one of our loved ones die we don’t just make them our next meal, though they are creatures of God. This rules out twisting I Timothy 4:4 to mean we can eat every creature period, because it’s understood which ones are for eating

purposes. Pigs, Mice, Dogs, Catfish, Shrimp and Lobster are all un-edible.

“And the swine (pig), though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. Of their flesh shall ye not eat… And all that have not fins and scales in the seas… They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh…” (Leviticus 11:7,8,10,11). By contrast, Cows and chickens are clean and therefore ok to eat. Remember, God knows best!

Some try to belittle the Old Testament Law, calling it the Mosaic Law, however Moses talked to God face to face and Jesus warned us about breaking the least of his commandments. Man has known God’s laws since the beginning. Many fail to realize that when God flooded the earth for man’s disobedience the dietary law was intact. God told Noah, “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two...” (Genesis 7:2). We have heard that the animals went on the ark two by two, but the truth is that the clean animals went on seven by seven. Moses was not even born at this time.

 

[DavidPresently]

Before I respond to your argument, please know that I do not eat shellfish, pork, etc. I have practiced such for years. However, the reason I do is different than the reason you do. My reason is because I have a heavenly Father who loves me and instructs me on how to have the most blessed life in this age. You do so because of legal obligation thinking by it you are more righteous than others. One is following in the steps of Jesus and the other in the steps of the religious Pharisees who were self-righteous yet condemned by Jesus.

To answer your first question, God deemed certain animals "unclean" to the Jews (not the Gentiles) to teach them through types and shadows, like the purpose of the rest of the OT. That is not putting the OT down, it is giving it its proper respect for its true purpose, as taught by Jesus himself. The Torah of Moses was never expected, even by Moses, to be the full revelation of God to mankind. It was veiled, and within it the two trees of the garden were placed for those hearing it to choose between.

You are still choosing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and it is obvious based on your understanding of legality and what makes man like God (godly, righteous, holy). That way will continue to make you feel you need to put on a fig leaf cover-up like Adam and Eve did, because of their shame. When you let Christ clothe you, you will not feel the need to do that anymore, and all guilt and shame vanishes so you can partake in Life.

One reason some animals are designated "unclean" was for the ritual worship given to the Israelites, which served as a type and shadow of things to come, but themselves were not the substance or final revelation of worship of God. We see this when Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman about worship "in spirit and in truth" rather than by ritual rules, and when Paul spoke of nothing being unclean in and of itself, but to the person thinking it unclean, it is.

Therefore, when the ritual worship system of the OT faded away, which no longer exists even among Jews, the necessity of designating some animals clean for sacrifice and others unclean and not worthy to be used as sacrifice, also passed away. There is no longer any need to designate any animals sacrifice worthy or not (clean or unclean).

However, the animals God chose to designate unclean for ritual use also happen to be those which are scavengers, bottom feeders, garbage disposals (like pigs), and carnivores (which eat blood). The clean animals, on the other hand, eat vegetation. By telling his people not to eat such, now going beyond ritual worship designations, God is giving good advice to them concerning what is a good diet.

Pork contains a greater quantity/possibility of parasitic creatures that are not all killed when it is cooked. Those who ingest pork commonly are putting themselves at greater risks of getting such parasites which will harm their health. Shellfish also has problems associated with them that can lead to humans who ingest such having a higher risk of health problems.

So, in the case of dietary instructions, it is wise advice from a loving Father to his children concerning things best left uneaten. You make it into a "right and wrong" legal issue, and make it something to accuse and condemn over. That is an improper use of the dietary instructions.

I agree that Christians should not ignore the instructions, and as I've tried to tell you, I believe what Paul said, that we do not abolish the Torah because of faith, but we establish it. However, in light of NT revelation, which is God's will unveiled rather than veiled as it was in the OT, we should see the proper place and purpose for Torah, which is not for accusation and condemnation of believers, unless you are joining with Satan, the Accuser, who uses the Torah for such, and is deceiving you into doing so.

Concerning pre-flood, you are incorrect. The dietary instructions given to Adam and passed on to Noah were that vegetation was for food for they and the animals. No mention is ever made in Scripture of any dietary instructions designating some animals okay for food and not others. If such is in Scripture, please quote it. You may theorize that Noah knew what Moses did about animals to eat and others not to eat, but you should not call your theory scriptural if there is no foundation for it in Scripture.

Remember that Moses wrote Genesis and we have no way of knowing if God actually told Noah how many of each animal calling some "clean" and others "unclean," or if he instructed Noah another way to know which animals would come in sevens and which would come in pairs. Moses uses the terms in Genesis 7:2, but we must remember that he was the one writing it, who was instructed about "clean and unclean." We have no proof in Scripture that Noah or other before him had the dietary instructions Moses gave to Israel.

It seems the common diet from Adam to Noah was vegetarian. But that is not completely provable by Scripture neither.

 

[Nurbz]

I dunno.. if you're saying OT laws are still valid, then you're saying christians have to stone disobedient children and cut our facial hair a certian way too.

 

[Bryanfromiowa]

1st Corinthians 10:25 eat anything in the meat market without raising questions of conscience , for the earth is the lords and everything in it

Mark 7:15 nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather , it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean

 

[Uncle Guido]

Ay, what all this? Uncle Guido, he says you’re completely wrong. You need to know that if you read Acts, you will see that there was a controversy in the early church. The question was, “Hey, do Gentile converts have to follow the Law of Moses? We donna know what to do? Some people, they say we do. Some people, they say we don’t.” The Apostles, this isa what they said, they said, “Hello! Some people are teaching you things that aren’t true. Just stay away from sexual immorality, from food offered to idols, from strangled food and from blood. Don’t worry about anything else. Ciao!”

Lemme back up. If you read Acts 15, you’ll see the debate was over circumcision at first. “What’s that got to do with a food?” you are asking, ci? Well, you have to understand Jewish theology and what it means to follow the Laws of Moses, and Uncle Guido, he thinks you don’t know. You didn’t just pick some random laws froma the Old Testament to follow them. You either followed the Old Testament laws or you didn’t, and the way you were “initiated” into following all of the laws was to be circumcised. There’sa 613 laws inna the OT, are you just gonna pick the ones about food? What about not trimming the corners of your beard, or making cloth from cotton and linen? Do you think things on which a bambina sits when she’s having her monthly visitor are unclean? When’s the last time you sacrificed a lamb at the altar?

I bet you’rea thinking “613?” Yeah, Uncle Guido, he has found that people who get into all the dietary things and Sabbath things don’t really even know what the laws are, or how many there are.

But tell me this, ifa you want to be a teacher of the Law to us, my brother: Uncle Guido wants to have a pizza with beef hamburger on it? Isa that okay?

 

[ben avraham]

Ay, what all this? Uncle Guido, he says you’re completely wrong. You need to know that if you read Acts, you will see that there was a controversy in the early church. The question was, “Hey, do Gentile converts have to follow the Law of Moses? We donna know what to do? Some people, they say we do. Some people, they say we don’t.” The Apostles, this isa what they said, they said, “Hello! Some people are teaching you things that aren’t true. Just stay away from sexual immorality, from food offered to idols, from strangled food and from blood. Don’t worry about anything else. Ciao!”

Lemme back up. If you read Acts 15, you’ll see the debate was over circumcision at first. “What’s that got to do with a food?” you are asking, ci? Well, you have to understand Jewish theology and what it means to follow the Laws of Moses, and Uncle Guido, he thinks you don’t know. You didn’t just pick some random laws froma the Old Testament to follow them. You either followed the Old Testament laws or you didn’t, and the way you were “initiated” into following all of the laws was to be circumcised. There’sa 613 laws inna the OT, are you just gonna pick the ones about food? What about not trimming the corners of your beard, or making cloth from cotton and linen? Do you think things on which a bambina sits when she’s having her monthly visitor are unclean? When’s the last time you sacrificed a lamb at the altar?

I bet you’rea thinking “613?” Yeah, Uncle Guido, he has found that people who get into all the dietary things and Sabbath things don’t really even know what the laws are, or how many there are.

But tell me this, ifa you want to be a teacher of the Law to us, my brother: Uncle Guido wants to have a pizza with beef hamburger on it? Isa that okay?

My first post!

One thing I know:

"For through the Law I died to the law, that I might live to God." (Gal.2: 19)

"But now we having been set free from the Law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter." (Rom.7: 6)

Two things I know:

"Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, (Jer 31:31)
not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah; (Jer 31:32)
but this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says Jehovah, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (Jer 31:33)

Three things I know:

"But the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. (Rom 8:2)
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; (Rom 8:3).

If you don't eat pork only because the written law says you mustn't, then you must do what the rest of the written law tells you to do also - and your must take up animal sacrifices for sins again.

If the law given by God to the people through Moses is still binding on God's people, then Jesus is not our High Priest, since He has no right to serve as our High priest accroding to the Law:

"For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change made in the law also." (Heb 7:12)

ben avraham

 

[Bro.T]

I dunno.. if you're saying OT laws are still valid, then you're saying christians have to stone disobedient children and cut our facial hair a certian way too.

Of course the OT laws are still valid, theres only two laws that the Lord nail to the Cross..... The Law of the Leviticus Priesthood and The Animal Sacrifice Law. Just because people are not being stone today, does not mean that payday is not at the end of the rode. Now Jesus is the High
Priest, so the lake of fire is at the end of this rode.

Keep in mind....Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8)

 

[Bro.T]

My first post!

One thing I know:

"For through the Law I died to the law, that I might live to God." (Gal.2: 19)

"But now we having been set free from the Law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter." (Rom.7: 6)

Two things I know:

"Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, (Jer 31:31)
not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah; (Jer 31:32)
but this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says Jehovah, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (Jer 31:33)

Three things I know:

"But the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. (Rom 8:2)
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; (Rom 8:3).

If you don't eat pork only because the written law says you mustn't, then you must do what the rest of the written law tells you to do also - and your must take up animal sacrifices for sins again.

If the law given by God to the people through Moses is still binding on God's people, then Jesus is not our High Priest, since He has no right to serve as our High priest accroding to the Law:

"For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change made in the law also." (Heb 7:12)

ben avraham

I understand what you are saying. Lets take a look and break some of this
down because The Lord had Peter to clearly warn you about some of Paul’s writing. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](2Peter:3:15-16) (v.15) And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](v.16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. [/FONT][/FONT]Now take heed to this warning, you can’t ignore all the bible and just concentrate on one or two verses out of the writings of Paul. Because some of Paul’s writing is hard to be understood.

"For through the Law I died to the law, that I might live to God." (Gal.2: 19)

"But now we having been set free from the Law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter." (Rom.7: 6)

Paul is talking about the animal sacrifical law.

"But the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. (Rom 8:2)

Again...Paul is talking about the animal sacrifical law. Cause remember
what Paul said in Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(1John 3:4) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Now we have just read the biblical definition of sin, the transgression (breaking) of the law (commandments.)
[/FONT][/FONT]
Paul talks about three laws, but two are nail to the cross....The Law of the Leviticus Priesthood, the Animal Sacrifice Law, and the Royal Law (Ten Commandments). The royal law is not nail to the cross. (never)

Paul quoted Jeremiah 31 Chapter in Hebrews the 8 Chapter I understand.

Lets get some understanding on Pauls writing.


(Gal. 3:1, 13, 16-17, 19, 24) (v.1) O FOOLISH Ga-la’-tians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? (v.13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, CURSED IS EVER YONE THAT HANGETH ON A TREE:

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]What law is this talking about? Let the bible speak for itself. [/FONT][/FONT]

(v.16) Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of One, AND TO THY SEED, which is Christ.
(v.17) And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Now pay attention, the law that is being spoken of here came four hundred and thirty years after this covenant. But God’s holy commandments have been around forever even before man was created. Remember that Satan was kicked out of heaven because iniquity (sin) was found in him. And what is sin? The transgression of the law (commandments). [/FONT][/FONT]

(v.19) Wherefore then serveth the law?

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]A question is being asked here. Then why should we serve this law? [/FONT][/FONT]

It was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]the law that we are talking about here was added because of sin. But we now know that sin is the transgression of the law. How do you add a law if sin is the transgression of the law? Because there are two sets of laws, you have God’s holy commandments which abided forever, and you had the animal sacrificial law which was added because of sin, but it was only good until the seed should come to whom the promise was made, and that seed was Jesus. [/FONT][/FONT]

(v.24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]This animal sacrificial law was only a schoolmaster. And this schoolmaster taught you that when you sinned in ignorance blood had to be shed (an animal sacrificed). But Christ being the ultimate sacrifice shed his precious blood once and for all, and by doing this putting an end to the animal sacrificial law.
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[ben avraham]

Of course the OT laws are still valid, theres only two laws that the Lord nail to the Cross..... The Law of the Leviticus Priesthood and The Animal Sacrifice Law.

Hi, tanzel. I'm interested to know why you say that there are only two groups Torah Law which were nailed to the cross. The Torah Law groups which you mention in your post were inextricably linked to the Old Testament temple. I'm not arguing or debating your point, the points I made in my previous post, I made not because I don't believe I could be wrong about anything (except when I say that God is right about everything He says!) - but I made them because this issue of obedience to the written Law vs obedience to the Living Law confuses me often.

Jesus did not seem to say that the "Mosaic" Law was becoming obsolete - and the promise of the New Covenant speaks of God writing the Law in our hearts. But Paul seems to have a different view, and it's quite evident that there was a huge squable between the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem and Paul regarding observance of the Law. Even the "Law" of circumcision which Paul says in Galatians is part of the Law, was actually given by God as a sign to Israel 430 years BEFORE the law was added.

But I'm fully aware of the New Testament scriptures which seem to suggest that the entire written Law given to Moses was merely a shadow of things to come. But then, I personally can't see why Jesus would say, for example, "The sabbath was made for man..." if He intended for us to ignore it. He is also the Lord who sanctifies us, and the sabbath was given as a sign by God between He and His people that He is the LORD who sanctifies His people.

But the sabbath is going off the point of your OP, which has to do with dietery laws. At one time I believed that the Law was moral, ceremonial and civil, and that the moral Law still applies eternally, but I had the Law regarding clean/unclean animals lumped with the ceremonial Law, along with the Law regarding the Old Testament temple system.

It would e helpful if you could say why you say what you do regarding "only" the Levitical and Sacrificial Law being nailed to the cross. Thanks

ben abraham

 

[ben avraham]

Oops, I was bust typing that post out before I saw your new post. Will go read what you said there now. Thanx

ben avrham

 

[Bro.T]

1st Corinthians 10:25 eat anything in the meat market without raising questions of conscience , for the earth is the lords and everything in it

Mark 7:15 nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather , it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean

Jesus would never speak against God’s law but he was addressing their tradition of not eating with unwashed hands. He went further to explain that breaking God’s law (including blasphemy) comes from the heart and defiles us, but eating with unwashed hands doesn’t defile us (Matthew 15:18-20) Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. ). It is blasphemy to change God’s Dietary Law.

Now Lets read about Clean and UnClean......

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.

Galatians 5:19 - Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,


Ephesians 5:3 - But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

Ephesians 5:5 - For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

1 Thessalonians 4:7 - For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

Leviticus 11:46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:

11:47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.

Now lets go to 1Corinthians 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.

 

[ben avraham]

I understand what you are saying. Lets take a look and break some of this
down because The Lord had Peter to clearly warn you about some of Paul’s writing.[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](2Peter:3:15-16) (v.15) And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](v.16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. [/FONT][/FONT]Now take heed to this warning, you can’t ignore all the bible and just concentrate on one or two verses out of the writings of Paul. Because some of Paul’s writing is hard to be understood.
Paul is talking about the animal sacrifical law.

Ok, but where is the proof that Paul's references to the Law refers only to the Levitical and Sacrificial Law?

[/size]

Again...Paul is talking about the animal sacrifical law. Cause remember
what Paul said in Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(1John 3:4) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Now we have just read the biblical definition of sin, the transgression (breaking) of the law (commandments.) [/FONT]
[/FONT]
Paul talks about three laws, but two are nail to the cross....The Law of the Leviticus Priesthood, the Animal Sacrifice Law, and the Royal Law (Ten Commandments). The royal law is not nail to the cross. (never)

I accept the part regarding the royal law. But if the law regarding clean/unclean animals is still applicable, does this not turn it into royal law?

Paul quoted Jeremiah 31 Chapter in Hebrews the 8 Chapter I understand.

Lets get some understanding on Pauls writing.

(Gal. 3:1, 13, 16-17, 19, 24) (v.1) O FOOLISH Ga-la’-tians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? (v.13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, CURSED IS EVER YONE THAT HANGETH ON A TREE:

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]What law is this talking about? Let the bible speak for itself. [/FONT][/FONT]

(v.16) Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of One, AND TO THY SEED, which is Christ.
(v.17) And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Now pay attention, the law that is being spoken of here came four hundred and thirty years after this covenant. But God’s holy commandments have been around forever even before man was created. Remember that Satan was kicked out of heaven because iniquity (sin) was found in him. And what is sin? The transgression of the law (commandments). [/FONT][/FONT]

(v.19) Wherefore then serveth the law?

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]A question is being asked here. Then why should we serve this law? [/FONT][/FONT]

It was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]the law that we are talking about here was added because of sin. But we now know that sin is the transgression of the law. How do you add a law if sin is the transgression of the law? Because there are two sets of laws, you have God’s holy commandments which abided forever, and you had the animal sacrificial law which was added because of sin, but it was only good until the seed should come to whom the promise was made, and that seed was Jesus. [/FONT][/FONT]

"God's holy commandments" - Does this not refer to what you call "the royal law" or the ten commandments? The Law regarding clean/unclean animals clearly does not belong with the ten commandments, does it? I know you are saying that Paul was making a distinction between the Levitical/Sacrificial law and "God's holy commandments" (which, I agree, are eternal), but I still don't see how the law regarding clean/unclean animals fits in with the eternal Law (the royal law or the ten commandments)

(v.24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]This animal sacrificial law was only a schoolmaster. And this schoolmaster taught you that when you sinned in ignorance blood had to be shed (an animal sacrificed). But Christ being the ultimate sacrifice shed his precious blood once and for all, and by doing this putting an end to the animal sacrificial law. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

I think what Paul means by the law being our schoolmaster has a great deal more meaning than merely that the animal sacrificial system pointed to Christ:

Isn't Paul teaching us that THE LAW teaches us that righteousness cannot be obtained through human endeavor, and that Jesus is our righteousness?

He (Y'shua) is the last Adam, who perfectly obeyed and fulfilled the Law, and died in our place for the transgression of the law which we had committed, rose again and represents us before God. We are either in the last Adam (Christ) or in the first Adam.

ben avraham

 

[DavidPresently]

Isn't Paul teaching us that THE LAW teaches us that righteousness cannot be obtained through human endeavor, and that Jesus is our righteousness?

He (Y'shua) is the last Adam, who perfectly obeyed and fulfilled the Law, and died in our place for the transgression of the law which we had committed, rose again and represents us before God. We are either in the last Adam (Christ) or in the first Adam.

ben avraham

Very well said! My answer to your question is, yes, Paul was teaching that Christ is our righteousness, not our own works of the law. He makes that very obvious, and it is not one of things that Peter mentioned as being hard to understand in Paul's letters. Paul does go into some heavy/deep revelation/insight at times in his letters, but in regard to the issue of legality/law he was very clear. We establish the Law by faith, and do not abolish it. However, it's purpose is not to make us righteous or give us Life, which it has no power to do. That is what Christ is for. Paul also clearly defines the purpose of the Law in his letters, and it is not as Tanzel supposes.

 

[ben avraham]

Very well said! My answer to your question is, yes, Paul was teaching that Christ is our righteousness, not our own works of the law. He makes that very obvious, and it is not one of things that Peter mentioned as being hard to understand in Paul's letters. Paul does go into some heavy/deep revelation/insight at times in his letters, but in regard to the issue of legality/law he was very clear. We establish the Law by faith, and do not abolish it. However, it's purpose is not to make us righteous or give us Life, which it has no power to do. That is what Christ is for. Paul also clearly defines the purpose of the Law in his letters, and it is not as Tanzel supposes.

Thanks, David. Yes, I'm satisfied that the law condemns us as sinners, because this is what Paul also said - it makes all the world guilty before God, because we have proved in the presence of the entire universe through our transgression of the law, that we are no friends to the law or to the law-giver. I think it would be an insult to the law-giver if we had to publicaly acknowledge that fact through our confession of sin and baptism in our Advocate who took our punishment upon Himself, and then after that try and prove ourselves to be a friend to the law and to the law-giver through obedience to the law which condemns us.

BUT - I'm very confused about the meaning of the dietery laws - why were they imposed in the first place, and if they were a "shadow of things to come", what is/was the shadow? It's easy to understand that the Levitical priesthood and whole temple sacrificial system has been abolished forever, but what about these dietery laws?

ben avraham

 

[Uncle Guido]

So Tanzel isn't going to tell Uncle Guido if it's okay to eat a pizza with hamburger on it?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Why did God deem certain animals unclean and therefore un-edible?

And then he told Peter to go and eat.

 

[DavidPresently]

BUT - I'm very confused about the meaning of the dietery laws - why were they imposed in the first place, and if they were a "shadow of things to come", what is/was the shadow? It's easy to understand that the Levitical priesthood and whole temple sacrificial system has been abolished forever, but what about these dietery laws?

ben avraham

Concerning a shadow of things to come, I believe the dietary instructions along with the rest of the ritually clean instructions have to do with keeping ourselves pure before God. For example, in the NT we are told to not be of the world, though in it, and not love the things of the world. To do so makes us unclean in a manner of speaking. For example, looking at pornography could be something making the believer's soul unclean, while abstaining from such helps keep the believer pure.

We do not want to be contaminated by the world around us. I don't typically listen to secular music for this very reason, as in a manner it is "unclean." Much of what they speak of is impure and I don't want that in my mind. I want to keep my mind pure.

In this manner, the mind is what we are feeding, and eating the unclean is taking in things that make the mind impure, made dirty by the wickedness of the world. Making sure we only take in pure things into our mind is like only eating clean meat.

In the OT, there was no instructions about what one allowed into their mind, so I believe that was taught by the types and shadows of the "clean and unclean" among physical things.

This aligns with what Jesus taught concerning it is what comes out of the heart/mind of man that makes him unclean, or reveals him as unclean. We know that what comes out of the mind had to be put there first, to come out later. It is the whole saying, "Garbage in; garbage out."

I hope this helps!

 

[ben avraham]

Concerning a shadow of things to come, I believe the dietary instructions along with the rest of the ritually clean instructions have to do with keeping ourselves pure before God. For example, in the NT we are told to not be of the world, though in it, and not love the things of the world. To do so makes us unclean in a manner of speaking. For example, looking at pornography could be something making the believer's soul unclean, while abstaining from such helps keep the believer pure.

We do not want to be contaminated by the world around us. I don't typically listen to secular music for this very reason, as in a manner it is "unclean." Much of what they speak of is impure and I don't want that in my mind. I want to keep my mind pure.

In this manner, the mind is what we are feeding, and eating the unclean is taking in things that make the mind impure, made dirty by the wickedness of the world. Making sure we only take in pure things into our mind is like only eating clean meat.

In the OT, there was no instructions about what one allowed into their mind, so I believe that was taught by the types and shadows of the "clean and unclean" among physical things.

This aligns with what Jesus taught concerning it is what comes out of the heart/mind of man that makes him unclean, or reveals him as unclean. We know that what comes out of the mind had to be put there first, to come out later. It is the whole saying, "Garbage in; garbage out."

I hope this helps!

Actually, yes. That does make a great deal of sense. It's like tanzel said, "To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten."

"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils."

"Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what partnership does light have with darkness?" (2Co 6:14).

Peter had a prejudice against ALL Gentiles, regarding them as unclean. But he was on his way to the first Gentile convert (Cornelius's) house, and he had the vision of the sheet with unclean foods in it, and he was told to eat. When he refused, saying that he cannot eat unclean food, God told Peter not to call unclean what God has cleansed (meaning that Gentile believers are just as much a part of God's people as Jewish believers are).

I'm wondering if it is NO coincidence that God specifically linked Peter's attitide toward all Gentiles to clean/unclean foods? What food would Cornelius have offered his guest to eat?

Perhaps the Law regarding clean/unclean food is, therefore, a "shadow" or type.

Thank you, David. This makes a great deal of sense.

ben avraham

 

[Bro.T]

Ok, but where is the proof that Paul's references to the Law refers only to the Levitical and Sacrificial Law?



I accept the part regarding the royal law. But if the law regarding clean/unclean animals is still applicable, does this not turn it into royal law?

[/size]

"God's holy commandments" - Does this not refer to what you call "the royal law" or the ten commandments? The Law regarding clean/unclean animals clearly does not belong with the ten commandments, does it? I know you are saying that Paul was making a distinction between the Levitical/Sacrificial law and "God's holy commandments" (which, I agree, are eternal), but I still don't see how the law regarding clean/unclean animals fits in with the eternal Law (the royal law or the ten commandments)



I think what Paul means by the law being our schoolmaster has a great deal more meaning than merely that the animal sacrificial system pointed to Christ:

Isn't Paul teaching us that THE LAW teaches us that righteousness cannot be obtained through human endeavor, and that Jesus is our righteousness?

He (Y'shua) is the last Adam, who perfectly obeyed and fulfilled the Law, and died in our place for the transgression of the law which we had committed, rose again and represents us before God. We are either in the last Adam (Christ) or in the first Adam.

ben avraham

What I did was put the laws that Pauls talks about on the table, also showed you which laws that where nail to the cross. I didn't say that the dietary law was part of the Royal Law. Its part of the Lord statues or judgements. Its simple to understand that the sacrificial law and the levitical preishood law is nail to the cross, Paul broke these laws down in Hebrews, everything else is still intact.

For example....Lets go to the royal law (scriptures) and point out something.


Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Lets make some sense out of this. People go to church on the first day of the week (sunday) is serving another God. Because there would be no church at all, today, if it was not for the law, even on the wrong day of the week (sunday). So understand that wrong follows wrong, then everything gets off course.

Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

History

Ample evidence from history shows that the celebration of Sunday originated from pagan practices of SUN WORSHIP. In March of 321 A.D., the Roman Emperor Constantine, who was at first a sun-worshiper and later a Christian convert, issued the first decree declaring Sunday to be a legal day of rest. In 336 A.D., the Roman Catholic Church officially changed the observance of Sabbath to Sunday for political and economic expediency. Since then, the original Sabbath gradually gave way to Sunday observance and the practice remains to this day.

Sad thing about this, is, that you got people who try argue with facts.
This is one of the main reasons why the earth is out of course today.
Thing you can't read in the Bible people do and what you can read in the Bible people don't or won't do.
Some people just don't know.

ben avraham I'm not picking on you, I'm just venting right now about the whole fact of the matter.


Another Example of the law...Paul point out the Royal LAw

(Rom. 7:7,12) (v.7) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, THOU SHALT NOT COVET.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Paul asked a question, is the law sin? He said God forbid, he said the only way that he knew what sin was, was by the law. [/FONT][/FONT]

v.12) Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Why in the world would a Christian want to do away with something that God said is holy. [/FONT][/FONT]

(Rom. 4:15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

If there is no law there is no sin. Which mean we can do as we please when we please! People we must realize everybody has laws by which we must operate by, the governments have laws, your job have laws, your card games have laws, even the boy scouts have laws. But now you are going to try and convince yourselves that the creator of the world has no laws by which we must live[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]. [/FONT][/FONT]

(Rom. 5:13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]If there is no law, there is no sin! [/FONT][/FONT](1Cor. 14:37) If any man thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. Paul didn’t come preaching and teaching his own thing, but he abided in the doctrine of Christ[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]. [/FONT][/FONT](Rom. 3:20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sights for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

This is true because the blood of Jesus can only justify us. But does this make the law void? God forbid. You wouldn’t know what sin was if there was no law.[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]
[/FONT]