Chapter 10 ..:Part One:..
In the book of Acts, chapter 10, is the account of Peter's vision...
The seemingly indestructible Dan and others have commented recently and in the past that we all pick and choose what we accept from the bible, and that some passages were for a different time, and different people. The eating of shellfish, and pork are readily brought forward as an example of how things have changed in terms of what's allowable and what is not. Well, okay. Let's look at a chapter that seems to speak to what is and is not unclean in terms of diet.
Every time a question about diet and 'The Law' is brought forward, the above passage from the book of Acts is invariably pulled out of mothballs to prove that eating pork and shrimp is fine and dandy. But does this passage really speak to diet?
When God offered Peter a spread of typically unclean beasts to kill and feast upon, Peter said, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean."
But God responded with, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." On the surface this appears to be permission to eat what God had previously called unclean. But remember that God changes not; what was unclean in the Old Testament is still unclean. But no one is going to stone you for that BLT you had the other day.
In Leviticus 11:7 God says, "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you." There are other verses describing other creatures as unclean but this is enough testimony to the fact that in the book of Acts God has used unclean beasts as a metaphor, but a metaphor for what?
The same text from Acts says, "the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them." No, these men weren't bearing sausages and fried catfish, they bore a request from their lord-- one Cornelius from the town of Caesarea, and it is not likely Cornelius was inviting Peter over for ribs. It becomes clear by the end of chapter 10 that the reason for Peter's vision was to show Peter that the Gentiles were no longer to be considered unclean, for the sacrifice of Christ had made possible the cleansing of the Gentile nations, as will be pointed out in "Chapter 10 ..:Part Two:.."
People are free to eat lobster and shrimp if they choose, as well as pork. Some of the Levitical laws were purely for the health of God's people the Jews, others were to demostrate the nature of God's holiness; what He can and cannot accept in His presence. God has said that Obedience is better than Sacrifice. In the days of the Law's deliverance to the Children of Israel, God was seeking obedience. He was, as all good husbandmen do, setting out the standard by which He would cull the herd-- His would be a peculiar people; a people set apart from the other nations of the world. Perhaps this was what He deemed necessary to insure the bad habits of a few didn't infect the entire herd; if one person began to eat swine many others may follow suit. If fornication, incest, and homosexuality become acceptable the entire herd could fall victim to disease and abberation, at which point the herd must be destroyed altogether. Look at what has become acceptable in America today...
But we don't kill rebellious children or stone adulters-- or gays for that matter --because God is not willing that any should perish; anyone can find forgiveness in God. The Levitical laws governing diet and sexual purity still have relevance today, for the benefit not only of our health, but for our holiness and purity and obedience to God's word in recognition of His great wisdom in telling us what is and is not safe to eat... Among other equally important things.
The God of Leviticus is still the same God of the New Testament. God hasn't changed, for everyone still deserves death-- not just rebellious children, adulterers, and gays --for the evil that resides in our hearts. But there is a way, a truth, and a life obtainable through Jesus. No one has to die in their sin and pay the ultimate price for their obstinance.
Some folks like to look at Peter's vision in the book of Acts as a license to eat pork and shellfish, but this is simply not the case. God used what was 'unclean' to demonstrate to Peter that Gentiles-- unclean in the Jew's eye --were now welcome in the new order-- the Church. I assure you, Peter and Paul and all the others DID NOT say to themselves, "Hey, there's a man selling sausage... let's go try some!" Pigs are still unclean, as are Oysters, and Shrimp, and Lobster, and Catfish... Everyone is free to eat from that plate, but whoever does will pay the price in terms of a depreciation in good health. God wants us healthy and would prefer we don't eat such things, but nothing the Lord has made is evil. Even Lobsters serve a purpose in the greater scheme of things, and they happen to be quite tasty with real drawn butter. People die eating oysters-- not so much with lobsters, but eating pork is a much slower death.
There's no picking and choosing here. What was true in the Old Testament is still true today. To borrow a phrase from ER-- God is still speaking, and His message hasn't changed. Just as He told Adam that in the day he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would surely die; neglecting to tell Adam that death would be some 900 years distant, so too are God's warnings about Pork and Shellfish. These foods may not kill you the instant you eat them, but they will shorten your life.
Going back to verse 15:
"What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."
Please note that Peter said 'common or unclean', but God makes no mention of unclean only 'common'. When God cleans something it's no longer common. Before the cross what hope had Gentiles of Salvation short of converting to Judaism and placing themselves under the Law? None. But "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!" For what God said to Isaiah still stands today, "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes... though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
The blood of Christ cleanses men's souls from sin, not pork from its uncleanness. But choosing to not eat pork for reasons of health should not be confused with falling into legalism, for such a choice to be deemed legalistic the man who chooses to abstain from unclean beasts must believe that by doing so he makes himself holy and righteous before God, making it 'Salvation by Works', and not of Grace. Choosing to abstain from unhealthy foods is more than just prudent, it is wise; and perfectly acceptable under Grace, for the right reason.
And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, and called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them. Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come? And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
--Acts 10:10-22
The seemingly indestructible Dan and others have commented recently and in the past that we all pick and choose what we accept from the bible, and that some passages were for a different time, and different people. The eating of shellfish, and pork are readily brought forward as an example of how things have changed in terms of what's allowable and what is not. Well, okay. Let's look at a chapter that seems to speak to what is and is not unclean in terms of diet.
Every time a question about diet and 'The Law' is brought forward, the above passage from the book of Acts is invariably pulled out of mothballs to prove that eating pork and shrimp is fine and dandy. But does this passage really speak to diet?
When God offered Peter a spread of typically unclean beasts to kill and feast upon, Peter said, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean."
But God responded with, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." On the surface this appears to be permission to eat what God had previously called unclean. But remember that God changes not; what was unclean in the Old Testament is still unclean. But no one is going to stone you for that BLT you had the other day.
In Leviticus 11:7 God says, "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you." There are other verses describing other creatures as unclean but this is enough testimony to the fact that in the book of Acts God has used unclean beasts as a metaphor, but a metaphor for what?
The same text from Acts says, "the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them." No, these men weren't bearing sausages and fried catfish, they bore a request from their lord-- one Cornelius from the town of Caesarea, and it is not likely Cornelius was inviting Peter over for ribs. It becomes clear by the end of chapter 10 that the reason for Peter's vision was to show Peter that the Gentiles were no longer to be considered unclean, for the sacrifice of Christ had made possible the cleansing of the Gentile nations, as will be pointed out in "Chapter 10 ..:Part Two:.."
People are free to eat lobster and shrimp if they choose, as well as pork. Some of the Levitical laws were purely for the health of God's people the Jews, others were to demostrate the nature of God's holiness; what He can and cannot accept in His presence. God has said that Obedience is better than Sacrifice. In the days of the Law's deliverance to the Children of Israel, God was seeking obedience. He was, as all good husbandmen do, setting out the standard by which He would cull the herd-- His would be a peculiar people; a people set apart from the other nations of the world. Perhaps this was what He deemed necessary to insure the bad habits of a few didn't infect the entire herd; if one person began to eat swine many others may follow suit. If fornication, incest, and homosexuality become acceptable the entire herd could fall victim to disease and abberation, at which point the herd must be destroyed altogether. Look at what has become acceptable in America today...
But we don't kill rebellious children or stone adulters-- or gays for that matter --because God is not willing that any should perish; anyone can find forgiveness in God. The Levitical laws governing diet and sexual purity still have relevance today, for the benefit not only of our health, but for our holiness and purity and obedience to God's word in recognition of His great wisdom in telling us what is and is not safe to eat... Among other equally important things.
The God of Leviticus is still the same God of the New Testament. God hasn't changed, for everyone still deserves death-- not just rebellious children, adulterers, and gays --for the evil that resides in our hearts. But there is a way, a truth, and a life obtainable through Jesus. No one has to die in their sin and pay the ultimate price for their obstinance.
Some folks like to look at Peter's vision in the book of Acts as a license to eat pork and shellfish, but this is simply not the case. God used what was 'unclean' to demonstrate to Peter that Gentiles-- unclean in the Jew's eye --were now welcome in the new order-- the Church. I assure you, Peter and Paul and all the others DID NOT say to themselves, "Hey, there's a man selling sausage... let's go try some!" Pigs are still unclean, as are Oysters, and Shrimp, and Lobster, and Catfish... Everyone is free to eat from that plate, but whoever does will pay the price in terms of a depreciation in good health. God wants us healthy and would prefer we don't eat such things, but nothing the Lord has made is evil. Even Lobsters serve a purpose in the greater scheme of things, and they happen to be quite tasty with real drawn butter. People die eating oysters-- not so much with lobsters, but eating pork is a much slower death.
There's no picking and choosing here. What was true in the Old Testament is still true today. To borrow a phrase from ER-- God is still speaking, and His message hasn't changed. Just as He told Adam that in the day he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would surely die; neglecting to tell Adam that death would be some 900 years distant, so too are God's warnings about Pork and Shellfish. These foods may not kill you the instant you eat them, but they will shorten your life.
Going back to verse 15:
"What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."
Please note that Peter said 'common or unclean', but God makes no mention of unclean only 'common'. When God cleans something it's no longer common. Before the cross what hope had Gentiles of Salvation short of converting to Judaism and placing themselves under the Law? None. But "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!" For what God said to Isaiah still stands today, "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes... though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
The blood of Christ cleanses men's souls from sin, not pork from its uncleanness. But choosing to not eat pork for reasons of health should not be confused with falling into legalism, for such a choice to be deemed legalistic the man who chooses to abstain from unclean beasts must believe that by doing so he makes himself holy and righteous before God, making it 'Salvation by Works', and not of Grace. Choosing to abstain from unhealthy foods is more than just prudent, it is wise; and perfectly acceptable under Grace, for the right reason.
from the mind of... Eric | 11:16 PM
8 Comments:
"The seemingly indestructible Dan..."
Bulletproof, ain't he? LOL!
I think he's equipped with matrix-like reflexes. He's able to dodge every point brilliantly.
I actually don't know anyone who thinks this passage is about food. But, in any case, one can't very well take this passage literally and *not* think it's about food.
And if yer going to refer to me directly in a post, I'd appreciate it if you'd run all my comments. No, you don't have to. But it's the right thing to do, otherwise I'm put in a false light.
But God IS still speaking, ER. No false light anywhere therein.
The bible itself is a result of people picking and choosing. Even the new testament evolved over many centuries, all the way into the middle ages. To treat either testament as the received word of god is naive.
Eric, I just want to say that your posts lately have been extremely well thought out, succinct in their messages, and powerful in that they've been backed with the right Scriptures for the particular issue they've addressed. Well done.
Solomon:
Then I will remain naive, for I've read nothing, found nothing, seen nothing to convince me otherwise.
Every one of the New Testament books were written in the first century, by either His apostles, or those who had intimate contact with Him and His disciples. This naturally includes Luke, Mark and Paul.
We naturally disagree. But spiritually, I and others like myself DO agree. Surely we are not ALL naive. There must be something to what and why we believe? But for myself, nothing I've read by modern scholars convinces me that the Bible is not what I already believe it to be... the inspired, inerrant word of God. There has likewise been no earth-shattering revelation by modern science to convince me otherwise.
Quote from Solomon's link:
"Ever since it came to light, Sinaiticus has been a pivotal document -- and a theological challenge -- for scholars like Ehrman. Together with a few other documents, it forms the basis for the most authoritative modern versions of the Old Testament in the original Greek."
These statements show ignorance of the truth of this manuscript, along with the other few minority texts upon which most new Bible versions are based. The article was written by a non Christian with an obvious agenda. The majority of the article is hogwash and half truths. (for those who don't know, a half-truth= a whole lie)
Post a Comment
<< Home