I just ate pepperoni, now what?

[Brother_Don]

We see here that Paul didn't think it was necessary to ask questions about the origin of meats in the marketplace, for all animals belong to Yahweh. If we with a pure heart are eating an animal that Yahweh has not forbidden us to eat then surely there is no sin in that. The problem was that the believers in Corinth (and also in Rome) were surrounded by paganism.

1Cor 10:27 - If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake.
​

This phrase "eat what is set before you" is not a new one. Yahushua the Messiah used it when sending out the seventy:

Luke 10:8 - "Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you.
9 "And heal the sick there, and say to them, `The kingdom of Yahweh has come near to you.'
​

Certainly He was not suggesting that they could eat pork. Those who believe He would are contradicting their own theology because this was still during the time before the Messiah died for our sins. The laws against eating pork were in place, and the Messiah would not have told His disciples that they could eat pork if they wanted to.

He's simply giving them the same advice that Paul is gave:

1Cor 10:27 - If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake.
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 Yahweh'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?
​

Notice that this Psalm 24 scripture "the earth is Yahweh's and all its fullness" is quoted to support the idea of not needing to ask questions for conscience sake in terms of meat being offered to idols, but then it is quoted to support one's refusal to eat the meat because someone mentioned it was offered to an idol. Why would this scripture support both of these views?
By eating the food offered to an idol, the other person might believe that you don't really acknowledge "the earth is Yahweh's and all its fullness." Knowing that all things were created by Yahweh is the key to proving that all the idols are worthless because Yahweh truly has made all things.
Continuing...

1Cor 10:30 - But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks?
​

If we are giving thanks to Yahweh for our food, which He has created, we are acknowledging it was He who has given us these things.

1Cor 10:31 - Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of Yahweh.
​

This is the whole point of what is being said to those in Corinth. Even though we recognize an idol is nothing, we do not want to eat anything that might cause Yahweh to be looked upon with a lesser degree of glory. For truly the earth is Yahweh's!
So while we need not ask questions for conscience sake, we certainly should not go to the other extreme and start eating meat in an idol's temple. And we should not eat it if doing so might wound another person's conscience.
Thus, we see an example of a weaker brother in the city of Corinth and we have a very similar situation in the city of Rome. However, the believers in Rome are more knowledgeable about Yahweh than those in Corinth.

Paul told the ones in Corinth:
But those in Rome Paul said:

Romans 15:14 - Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.
​

By this, we could conclude that what we see in Rome is a more advanced situation than the one in Corinth. With this in mind lets get back to the situation in Romans. Here is verse 1 again:

Romans 14:1 - Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.
​

So again here in Romans we are dealing with a weak brother. There will always be new believers coming into the congregation, so the older and more knowledgeable believers need to lead them along gently.
Both the Corinthian and Roman assemblies have the common thread of needing to help weaker brethren.

Romans 14:2 - For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.
​

Here is a very key verse. Clearly it is talking about vegetarianism. The weak person is the one eating vegetables. The question is, why is this person considered to be weak?
In Rome there were over 400 pagan temples. If one were to go to the marketplace to buy meat, quite possibly nearly all the meat would have came from a temple sacrifice somewhere. Thus, if a weak brother wanted to avoid thinking of an idol when eating meat, he would need to eliminate eating meat at all.
To me, this explanation makes the most sense. It would explain why the vegetarian was 'one who is weak' and it would explain why there are parallel statements like these I quoted earlier:

Rom 14:15 - Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Messiah died.
1Co 8:11-12 - And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Messiah died?
12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Messiah.
​

And again:

Rom 14:21 - It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.
1Co 8:13 - Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
​

1Cor 15:34 - Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of Yahweh. I speak this to your shame.

 

[Brother_Don]

Paul told the ones in Corinth:

1Cor 15:34 - Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of Yahweh. I speak this to your shame.
​

But those in Rome Paul said:

Romans 15:14 - Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.
​

By this, we could conclude that what we see in Rome is a more advanced situation than the one in Corinth. With this in mind lets get back to the situation in Romans. Here is verse 1 again:

Romans 14:1 - Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.
​

So again here in Romans we are dealing with a weak brother. There will always be new believers coming into the congregation, so the older and more knowledgeable believers need to lead them along gently.
Both the Corinthian and Roman assemblies have the common thread of needing to help weaker brethren.

Romans 14:2 - For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.
​

Here is a very key verse. Clearly it is talking about vegetarianism. The weak person is the one eating vegetables. The question is, why is this person considered to be weak?
In Rome there were over 400 pagan temples. If one were to go to the marketplace to buy meat, quite possibly nearly all the meat would have came from a temple sacrifice somewhere. Thus, if a weak brother wanted to avoid thinking of an idol when eating meat, he would need to eliminate eating meat at all.
To me, this explanation makes the most sense. It would explain why the vegetarian was 'one who is weak' and it would explain why there are parallel statements like these I quoted earlier:

Rom 14:15 - Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Messiah died.
1Co 8:11-12 - And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Messiah died?
12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Messiah.
​

And again:

Rom 14:21 - It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.
1Co 8:13 - Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

When reading this chapter, it is evident that Paul and the Roman assembly are aware the issue, but we are left to figure out what it is. It is much like listening to one side of a phone conversation. We hear Paul, but we don't know what the Romans would have said to him or what they might have said to him in the past.
But either way, keep in mind that these are disputes over 'doubtful things' or disputable matters that aren't really that important. Based on Paul's own statements in Romans, the commandments of Yahweh would not be among the doubtful or disputable matters. His view of the law was that it actually defines sin:

Rom 7:7 - I would not have known sin except through the law.
Rom 3:20 - by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:31 - Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
Rom 8:6-7 - For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against Elohim; for it is not subject to the law of Elohim, nor indeed can be.
​

Each of these verses have a context which I deal with thoroughly in other studies, but it's indisputable that it is the law which teaches us what sin actually is and that those who are spiritually minded will subject themselves to it. He would not turn around and say in Romans 14 that whether or not we keep the commandments found in the law are "doubtful" or disputable things.
Remember the situation with the 'weak' brother in the Corinthian assembly? This persons faith was hindered by his temptation to follow an idol. But it appears to be a more advanced situation in Rome. Brothers have taken more of a stance on both sides of the issue and are getting into "disputes" over it.

Rom 14:1-4 - Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.
2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.
3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for Elohim has received him.
4 Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Elohim is able to make him stand.

So it seems that what is being said here is that they should not judge one another based on this issue. The Roman assembly apparently had a division on this. Those who ate meat from the marketplace were condemned by those who refused to eat anything (for fear it might have been offered to an idol) and likewise the weaker ones were judging those who were eating meat from the marketplace because it may have been offered to an idol.

Romans 14:5 - One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
6 He who observes the day, observes it to Yahweh; and he who does not observe the day, to Yahweh he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to Yahweh, for he gives Yahweh thanks; and he who does not eat, to Yahweh he does not eat, and gives Yahweh thanks.
​

There are various theories on these 2 verses. One theory states that this is talking about the Sabbath. There are several reasons why I believe that this is not so. They are:

• 
  [*]This chapter is about 'doubtful things'. Commandments of Yahweh are not doubtful things, especially when Yahweh writes them with His own finger.
  
  [*]There is no mention of the Sabbath in this chapter.
  
  [*]This stance does not agree with other scriptures that uphold the Sabbath. In order to believe this, you would have to inject it into the text, based on a preconceived belief. We cannot use Romans 14:5 alone as our basis for setting aside the Sabbath.
  
  [*]The alternative to esteeming one day above another is to esteem "every day." If this were talking about the Sabbath, it would mean that every day is a day of rest and we would not be able to work at all.
  
  [*]It isn't man who makes the Sabbath day above all other days. It is Yahweh who sanctified and blessed the 7th day when He created the world. We are just commanded to keep it sanctified so that it is not defiled.
  
  [*]It would disregard other passages in the book of Romans such as Romans 8:7 which says "the carnal mind is enmity against Elohim; for it is not subject to the law." Thus, it cannot be referring to the observance of days which the law specifically tell us to observe. This chapter is about doubtful or disputable things. Unless we want to be "at enmity" with Yahweh, there are no other sides of the issue to dispute.

Since this is talking about the observance of days which are outside the law, one possibility would be that it is referring to days on which one should fast. This does have support in the text because the scripture says:

Romans 14:6 - He who observes the day, observes it to Yahweh; and he who does not observe the day, to Yahweh he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to Yahweh, for he gives Yahweh thanks; and he who does not eat, to Yahweh he does not eat, and gives Yahweh thanks.
​

Paul could be referring back to his earlier statement in verse 3 where he who "does not eat" is the vegetarian, but this is not necessarily certain. Remember, we are listening to one side of a phone conversation.
One of the traditions of the Pharisees in that day was to fast twice a week:

Luke 18:11 - "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, `Elohim, I thank You that I am not like other men--extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 `I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.'
​

To my knowledge, these are the only extra-biblical days mentioned in scripture which would be observed "to Yahweh." Also Yahushua expected that His disciples would fast:

Luke 5:34 - And He said to them, "Can you make the friends of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them? 35 "But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them; then they will fast in those days."
​

 

[posthuman]

i strikes me that under the covenant that Israel made with God under Moses ((not the same covenant God made with us)), many rules were given to them to separate them from the other nations around them, and prevent them from following after the gods of those people. the dietary rules in particular, were not given from the beginning - because He also told Noah that everything that lives and moves on the earth was for food for him (Genesis 9:3). Noah too, was separated by God from the other people in his day - but not by food, or by clothing, or by custom. how then was Noah separated to God?
then, as you know, Israel broke their covenant, and God sent the Anointed One, who makes a new covenant - so that the old one passes away and is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). in this new covenant, by which we take part, God has revealed the mystery hidden from Israel, and given His salvation to the Gentiles - which almost all of us here are from among.
Gentiles. a people not separated from others by food, by clothing, or custom.
and God has chosen to set as apart by the name of His Son Jesus Christ - setting the seal of His Spirit on us, and declaring us righteous by faith - a righteousness that is not gained by food, by clothing, or by ritual, but by believing on the salvation of God revealed in the finished work of His Christ, who died and rose and now lives forever, interceding for us as our high priest of a new covenant.
Gentiles. a people not separated by food, clothing or ritual.
Gentiles - having been given peace with God through faith, not by food, clothing, or ritual.
Gentiles. Gentiles have been given salvation, so that from them, Israel, who sought a righteousness by works, but did not attain it, may also see and receive the grace of God.

isn't that wonderful??!!
so, i'm thankful for pepperoni, but much more thankful for the grace of God and His covenant of peace!

 

[Brother_Don]

If it is speaking of fast days, the context of this whole chapter would to have one common thread: FOOD. This would explain why later says the kingdom of Elohim is not about eating and drinking (vs. 17).
Continuing on....

Romans 14:7 - For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself.
8 For if we live, we live to Yahweh; and if we die, we die to Yahweh. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are Yahweh's.
9 For to this end the Messiah died and rose and lived again, that He might be Master of both the dead and the living.
10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of the Messiah.
11 For it is written: "As I live, says Yahweh, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to Yahweh."
12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to Yahweh.
13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way.
​

So Paul did not condemn those who refused eat meat. He never condemned the brothers in Corinth for refusing to eat meat either. If he had, it might have caused that brother to stumble because those who had a consciousness of the idol would eat it "as a thing offered to an idol" and their conscience, being weak, would be defiled. Paul wanted those in Rome to keep this in mind.
What was condemned here was the attitude of the stronger brother toward the weaker one.

Romans 14:14 - I know and am convinced by the Master Yahushua that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
​

The actual word rendered "unclean" is from #2839 'Koinos,' which means "common." The word is used in other places such as

Act 2:44 - Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common <2839>.
​

It's a term designating every day, regular things which are not consecrated. Some Jews in Messiah's day believed that such things were to be avoided, but there was no biblical basis for their claims:

Mar 7:2-4 - Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled <2839>., that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches
​

There is nothing in the scriptures which tell us our hands are defiled unless we wash them prior to eating. This was a "tradition of the elders." This is the only other instance of this word #2839 'Koinos' in relation to eating food. Therefore, the "Koinos" spoken of in Romans 14:14 is not speaking about pork or other biblically unclean meats. It's speaking of the 'tradition of the elders' and how they regarded the marketplace as being a place which would make your hands 'common' and in need of a special kind of handwashing. Messiah told them:

Mat 15:19-20 - "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
20 "These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."
​

The Jews of that time period believed that if a clean animal such as an ox were offered to an idol, that would automatically cause the meat to be impure or common. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica under the heading "Purity" it says:

"In the case of idolatrous offerings the law is even stricter than the impurity of the idol itself and Judah b. Bava says that it conveys impurity by overshadowing, as does a corpse"
​

But Paul, a former Pharisee himself, was persuaded by Yahushua that that these things were not "common" at all and in fact nothing really is. There really isn't a separate class of items called "common" in the bible in the sense that they need to be avoided.
The scriptures already supply us with correct classifications of what is clean and what is unclean. We don't need a special set of laws, especially ones based on traditions of men, to make other classifications of things we must avoid in order to be "clean." Thus the scripture should actually read:

Romans 14:14 - I know and am convinced by the Master Yahushua that there is nothing common of itself; but to him who considers anything to be common, to him it is common.
15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom the Messiah died.
​

So here in Romans 14 we evidently have a situation where there are Jewish believers avoiding meat because they viewed it as "common," Gentile believers avoiding meat because they were weak in their conscience and couldn't help but think of the idol, and other stronger believers who had fully cleansed their conscience of both Jewish tradition and Gentile tendencies toward idol worship.
But those who were more mature in their faith were acting immature in other ways, for they were partaking of that food in such a way that it would weaken and grieve new converts who, in their weaknesses, would be tempted to return to their former ways. To cause stumbling in a brother is a failure to love.
So if what we choose to eat would not bring honor to Yahweh but would harm our brother who is weak in faith then surely that is not the will of Yahweh.

Romans 14:16 - Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil;
17 for the kingdom of Yahweh is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
18 For he who serves the Messiah in these things is acceptable to Yahweh and approved by men.
19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.
20 Do not destroy the work of Yahweh for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.
​

Now some would point out that Paul said "All things are indeed pure" and consider that to be proof that we can now eat unclean animals.
However, notice that the context of verse 20 is that Paul doesn't want to see a brother destroyed over "food." There isn't a single verse in the bible that would classify unclean animals as "food." Actually there are numerous places in the bible where it says just the opposite. So among things that are considered to be "food," all things are indeed pure.
This is why Yahushua could say to the Jewish people that "all things are clean" in Luke 11:39, for he was speaking within the context of food. In the Jewish mind, pork and shellfish were never food to begin with.
Another point is that when verse 20 says that "all things are pure" we do need to be careful with assuming "all things" really means "ALL THINGS" in the sense of never having a single exception.
For instance:

Col 3:22 - Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing Elohim.
​

What a slaveowner told his slave to go and murder someone? Or to go and commit adultery? It does say "All things," yet we make an exception for the obvious because we know Paul would not be telling slaves to obey their masters rather than Yahweh. Yahweh's word provides the parameter from which we understand the exceptions involved.

Here's another example of where "all" doesn't literally mean "ALL":

Rom 16:19 - For your obedience has become known to all. Therefore I am glad on your behalf; but I want you to be wise in what is good, and simple concerning evil.
​

Did every human being on the planet know about the obedience of the believers in Rome? It says "all," yet we know just from common sense that he didn't really mean all.

Even in our own language, "all" doesn't always mean "all."
For instance, if I said that my daughter ate "all" of her breakfast, it may be possible that she left a few crumbs on her plate. So, even in our own language "all" CAN mean "all", but it doesn't always mean "all" without a exceptions.

 

[Brother_Don]

We have to understand context, don't we? We can't just look at a verse which says "all things are pure" and assume, based on a western Gentile mindset that we understand what the obvious exceptions are.

Here's another:

Titus 1:15 - To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defil
​

Does this mean that if I'm a pure person, I can look at a pile of buzzard droppings, or rotting corpses and say, "wow, how pure! Pure as the wind driven snow!"

Or would we say that sexual immorality is pure? How about murder? Certainly not.

We know that sexual immorality and murder are not pure because Yahweh's word already tells us that these things are not pure.

So when we look at this verse:

Rom 14:20 - "All things indeed are pure"
​

...we should not assume that Paul is speaking against what Yahweh already said was is impure and unclean.

No one, not even Paul can go against scripture. Yahweh's word is not divided against itself. We don't have contradictions in the bible.
For this reason, we have to work within the obvious parameters of what Yahweh has already said, and what would have been "common sense" to a first century Jew when it comes to understanding the obvious exceptions.
The concept of clean/unclean did not come from the Levitical law. Noah was told to take 7 of all clean animals on the ark with him and 2 of the unclean. Noah knew the difference because it was common knowledge even in his day.
So the context of Romans 14:20 has everything to do with real "food" (clean meats) and the unnecessary and unbiblical classification of clean meats becoming "common" and thus needing to be avoided for that reason.

Romans 14:21 - It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.
​

This is where Paul actually clarifies that he is talking about meat offered to idols. It is hidden from our eyes by translation but it is nonetheless there! Let's look at the Greek word that is translated "meat" here...

BDB/Thayers # 2907 kreas {kreh'-as} perhaps a primary word;; n n AV - flesh 2; 2
1) (the) flesh (of a sacrificed animal)
​

In fact it is this same word that is used in 1Corinthians:

1Cor 8:13 - Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat <2907> , lest I make my brother stumble.
​

This is the only 2 places in the New Testament that it is used. In both cases the context was concerning meat offered to idols.

Romans 14:22 - Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before Yahweh. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.
​

If one has any doubts about the earth being Yahweh's and the fullness therein...and are tempted by the idol, this person would be condemned if he eats. Since this is exactly what was taught in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, and the striking parallels between what he said to Corinth and what he said to Rome, it seems very obvious to me that both are speaking of the same things. But in Rome, there were more Jews and we have both Jews and Gentiles bringing their "baggage" and thought patterns into the true faith, both of which were based on traditions and ideas of men. The Jews had their fast days and concerns about otherwise clean meats becoming "common," and Gentiles had their tendencies toward idolatry. The stronger believer had fully cleansed their minds of these patterns, but they were warned to walk in love, and not do things to cause weakness in others.
Paul at no time during this chapter considers 'liberty' a license to sin. By the law is the knowledge of sin, and sin is defined as "transgression of the law" (KJV 1John 3:4). If we eat things that the law has said are "abominations" and should not be eaten, we are transgressing the law.
So we can't throw out the whole of scripture that teaches against sin because of a one sided conversation in Romans! It can not be proven that this chapter is speaking of unclean meats. But it CAN be proven that is not. There are many other passages that teach we should keep the commandments. Here is one example in scripture that shows Yahweh's concern for people who eat unclean animals:

Isa 66:15-18 - For behold, Yahweh will come with fire And with His chariots, like a whirlwind, To render His anger with fury, And His rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For by fire and by His sword Yahweh will judge all flesh; And the slain of Yahweh shall be many.
17 "Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine's flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together," says Yahweh.
18 "For I know their works and their thoughts. It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory.
​

This is what Yahweh says he will do when He comes and judges the world with fire. This has not occurred yet. So yes, Yahweh is still concerned that we do not eat things that are abominations to Him. There are a few things in Yahweh's word that He considers to be an abomination. Eating the flesh of animals that He did not create us to eat is one of them.

If we are or have been ignorant of this, Yahweh takes into consideration that our hearts are yielded to His will, even if we have not fully understood His will for our lives. He can save us in spite of our lack of knowledge, so I do not condemn those who are uninformed or don't see the things that I happen to see.
But if one has been using Romans 14 as justification for Sabbath breaking and eating swine's flesh, and working under the assumption that those things were done away with when Messiah died for our sins, I do not see anything in Romans 14 that would prove such a concept. And the concept directly contradicts other scriptures, not only in the prophets, but also within the book of Romans itself.
We all know that the Messiah will return and at that time all the world will be under the New Covenant reign for 1000 years:

Isa 66:22-24 - "For as the new heavens and the new earth Which I will make shall remain before Me," says Yahweh, "So shall your descendants and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass That from one New Moon to another, And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me," says Yahweh.
24 "And they shall go forth and look Upon the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, And their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."
​

We need to take a hard look at these things and realize that the Sabbath and even the New Moons will be among the observances during the New Covenant reign of Messiah. It is those who have "transgressed against" Him that will be judged. Since He is destroying those who eat swine's flesh and He is re-establishing worship days on the Sabbath and New Moons, it is obvious to me that sin is still "transgression of the law" (kjv 1John 3:4) and Paul in Romans 14 cannot be suggesting that we can eat swine's flesh and break the Sabbath. Otherwise, he would be leading the Romans to transgression and setting themselves to be at "enmity" with Yahweh, leading them to have a carnal mind which is "not subject to the law of Elohim, nor indeed can be," Romans 8:6-7.
Let's not wait until the Messiah has to set our theology straight when He returns and re-establishes the law of Yahweh as being the law of the land, let's seek to subject ourselves to it today, while cleaving to the understanding that it is only by grace that we are saved. For while the law can save no one, we are called to live as Messiah lived and walk as He walked. He was not a Sabbath breaker or swine eater. And He who is the same yesterday, today and forever now wants to manifest His life through us. Let's allow Him to do that!

 

[Brother_Don]

The reason i posted the study is i seen a post calling those that eat only veggies as weak, so i just wanted to post something i found about why those that choose only veggies are considered weak. i've been vegetarian 35 years and do not see that it has made me weak.

 

[p_rehbein]

The reason i posted the study is i seen a post calling those that eat only veggies as weak, so i just wanted to post something i found about why those that choose only veggies are considered weak. i've been vegetarian 35 years and do not see that it has made me weak.

Weak? Probably not.............Windy? uh, er, hmm............

 

[inJC]

There is not even one verse in the entire bible that contradicts the concept of clean and unclean as laid out in the bible. the problem has been one of poor exegesis and or poor bible translation from the Greek.
Let us consider one such case of misunderstanding in the book of Romans ch14.
The opening comment of Paul sets the stage for his remarks. He mentions a problem of the weak brother and counsels to receive that brother, but not to doubtful disputations. Paul is therefore referring to disputable matters, he is not dealing with doctrine at all, but rather matters that we as Christians may dispute.This excludes doctrines as they are not disputable.

Paul is here dealing with issues that were dividing the early church but which were not doctrinal. There was a schism in the early church between gentile Christians and Jewish Christians that resulted in them judging each other. It is this issue of judging that Paul is focusing on. see vs 3,10,13

The gentile Christians had come out of idolatry and they knew that the meat sold in the markets had been dedicated to idols, that is before slaughter an idols name was pronounced on the animal. The gentile Christians could not in good conscience eat this meat so they would eat only vegetables as they thought it was an offense to God to eat food dedicated to idols. The Jewish Christians in their history had worshiped idols but they had learned better and they now knew that idols are nothing and they had no qualms about eating such meat, it was not an issue for them. read 1 Cor 8:1-13
This freedom the Jewish Christians were practicing in front of their gentile brethren and it was a stumbling block to them. Paul is addressing this in Rom 14:2,3

The Jewish Christians still believed that the feast days were valid, v5 the gentile Christians not having this background did not recognize these feast days, much to the indignation of the Jewish Christians, who felt it was necessary. Remember Paul addressed these things as disputable matters, this was not about doctrine, but about being charitable to one's brother in the faith. The meat in question was not that it was unclean, but that it had been sacrificed to idols.

In vs 14 Paul says, I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus Christ that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who esteems anything to be unclean to him it is unclean.
The last part is easy to understand, If you think something is unclean, then to you it may be, but not necessarily to others.
In the first part, Paul is not saying that there is nothing that unclean, no, because he makes the claim many times elsewhere that unclean is a reality. He is stating that nothing is unclean of itself. This is true.

When God created the animals He said, "it was good". Every animal that God made is therefore good, good for the purpose God made it for. Even the unclean animals are not unclean of themselves, they do not defile anything or anybody. It is only when they die that their carcass is unclean to us. see Lev 11:22-31 It is the carcass, not the living animal that defiles, note that Jesus rode a donkey and was not defiled. So Paul is saying that every animal whether designated clean or unclean is not unclean of itself. You may touch it without any defilement. He also means that the clean animals suffer no defilement even if they are sacrificed to idols.

In vs 20 Paul states, For meat {(bromata) bromata means 'that which is eaten'} destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure;but it is evil for the man who eateth with offense.
Paul is here saying that all food is clean, but if a man has a guilty conscience about eating what he deems offensive then to him it is sin.
Paul is making a true statement when he declares that all food is clean. Let me help you here.

God is the Supreme Provider and Creator and as such it is He who has declared what is food for us to eat. At creation, God gave every fruit bearing tree to be food for us and the herb of the field was designated for the animals. He authorizes mans diet. After the flood God authorized man to eat clean animals Gen 7:3 God allowed man to eat the flesh of every animal except for the unclean, even as the green herb have i given you all things. Remember we cannot eat every green herb, many are poisonous. Note the distinction of the animals as clean and unclean. Provision was made for man to eat the clean animals by being saved by sevens but not so the unclean who were saved by two's. In ch 8:20 Noah sacrificed only clean animals. It may interest you to know that the concept of clean and unclean was known by Adam, he had to know, which animals were acceptable for sacrifice and which ones would be an abomination for sacrifice.

Further, It is God who designates what is clean and what is unclean, see lev 11 for a list of clean and unclean animals.
God declares that you shall not defile yourself nor make yourself abominable by eating their unclean flesh.
You may eat the unclean thing and call it food, but God calls it abominable, and he says you are unholy and defiled and unfit for service to God. Lev 11:43-47
You may call your pepperoni food, sure, but God call it abomination, and therefore by definition pepperoni is not food.
This is how Paul could say, All food is clean. It is, but pork is not food, it is therefore that Jesus threw it into the sea.
Mark 5:13
Again by definition there is no such thing as, 'unclean food' which is an oxymoron. If an item is food, then it cannot be unclean.
I will next deal with Matt 15, Mark 7, Acts 10 , 1Tim 4 and more. I maintain that there is not a single verse in the entire bible that advocates eating the unclean. Blessings.

 

[p_rehbein]

QUOTE from InJC:

There is not even one verse in the entire bible that contradicts the concept of clean and unclean as laid out in the bible. the problem has been one of poor exegesis and or poor bible translation from the Greek.

.......................................................................................................

Paul kinda explained all of this for us, we just have to believe what Jesus "persuaded" him of I suppose.



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.

 

[tourist]

Try some on pizza next time. Or ham. Don't forget the green peppers and onions. I recommend Papa John's. Better Ingredients - Better Pizza

 

[inJC]

What was Jesus saying to us in Matt 15 and Mark 7? Was Jesus introducing a new teaching about the unclean animals? Did He then begin to allow the consumption of unclean meat? Lets find out.

The issue was about eating with unwashed hands, a charge was made by the pharisees that the disciples were transgressing the tradition of the elders by eating with ceremonially unclean hands.

Jesus then charges them with transgressing the Law of God for the sake of their tradition. The pharisees' by the use of 'corban' had invented an escape from the law of God, specifically the third commandment. Jesus accuses them of hypocrisy for teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Jesus then states, Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man but that which comes out of his mouth. v11
The pharisees were concerned about eating with impure hands that perhaps might harbor for example a fly's wing or leg after swatting it. Jesus is saying that even if you ingest it, it will be cast out in the latrine. But this still would not defile a man.

Defilement comes from within. The pharisees were upset about the custom of ceremonial washing while at the same time they had murder in their hearts, they wanted to kill Jesus. This ceremonial defilement was only an imaginary one but their evil thoughts were true defilement. This was Jesus teaching and His conclusion of the matter was; "These are the things that defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands defiles not a man. v20

Many Christians falsely think that Jesus cleansed the unclean animals in v17 and Mark 7:19. No He did not, as it was not even food that was under discussion.

But let us consider that point of view that Christ did abolish the law of the unclean. Lev 11:46
In that case Christ would be introducing His own new teaching in place of the the law of God. Would he not be guilty of the same charge He leveled against the pharisee's of hypocrisy? Surely. Would He not be guilty of hypocrisy for introducing His own new teaching to escape the law of God. No, that is untenable. Jesus upheld the law of God, He made no new teaching here.

It is one thing to eat with 'koinos' unclean hands. The Greek word means, 'something that is good has been defiled'. This is only a Jewish Pharisaical belief but Christ denied that such a thing is possible.

If Jesus taught the abolition of the unclean, He certainly would have been so charged by the Pharisees and it would have been used against him at his trial. Jesus never cleansed the unclean animals, it is only speculation and horrible bible exegesis.
Jesus sent the pigs into the sea where they drowned. Your pepperoni and all the unclean meat in your fridge should also be thrown into the sea.

 

[inJC]

If Jesus taught that all animals were clean, then why did Peter in Acts 10 not know anything about that. He was with Jesus for 3 1/2 years and he knows nothing about the unclean being cleansed. When the voice came to rise, kill and eat, Peter was shocked and surprised, he said no. Peter and the disciples were ignorant of Christ teaching anything in this regard.

 

[sparkman]

If Jesus taught that all animals were clean, then why did Peter in Acts 10 not know anything about that. He was with Jesus for 3 1/2 years and he knows nothing about the unclean being cleansed. When the voice came to rise, kill and eat, Peter was shocked and surprised, he said no. Peter and the disciples were ignorant of Christ teaching anything in this regard.

I used to believe this stuff as a Sabbath/festival/clean unclean meat observer.

The Old Covenant is not in effect. Clean/unclean laws are only part of the Old Covenant.

Read Romans 7:1-7, II Corinthians 3, Galatians 3 and 4, Acts 15, Ephesians 2:13-15.

Ephesians 2:13-15 13But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,…


These verses are talking about the laws which formed a division between Jew and Gentile. Part of the Old Covenant was meant to separate the nation of Israel from the surrounding nations. These laws related to dress, diet, and religious observances.

Modern day Judaizers attempt to do the same thing with regards to other Christians. They proclaim a certain subset of the Old Covenant to be applicable, and look down their nose at Christians who don't agree. The three main ones are Sabbath, festivals and clean/unclean meats. Some oddballs even claim that physical circumcision is still applicable.

Romans 14 is very clear in stating that no food is unclean. Mark 7:19 says that Christ cleansed all foods. This parenthetical statement was written after the event. Mark was speaking in hindsight. The apostles did not understand the implications of what happened on the Cross until later. The Old Covenant was still in effect until the Cross.

Those who make the argument that the Sabbath, holy days, and clean/unclean meat laws still apply must explain why Sabbath breaking and eating "unclean" meats is never mentioned in any of the instructions of Paul to the Gentile churches, and why they aren't included in any of the sin lists to the Gentiles.

I find that people who are fixated on these things, including myself before I repented, are not focused on Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice. They do not have a Christ-centered mindframe. They obsess on conspiracy theories and slanders toward orthodox Christianity.

 

[sparkman]

By the way, some of the Armstrongite ministries claim that the parenthetical clause in Mark 7:19 was something the translators added in order to convince people that the clean/unclean meat laws no longer apply.

This is an ignorant assertion, and is untrue. The modern translations contain this rendering because the earliest Greek manuscripts reflect this wording. Modern translations work from the Nestle-Aland New Testament, which takes into account much more manuscript of a more ancient nature than the Textus Receptus.

Besides that, Mark 7:18 says this:

Mark 7:18 18“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?

I ask those who claim the clean/unclean meat laws the same question...are you so dull??? I might reword that to...are you so ignorant??



Note that it says NOTHING that enters a person from the outside defiles him. This includes meats.

The apostles didn't understand the full meaning of what he was saying at the time, but when Mark wrote this gospel decades later (which probably was Peter's gospel dictated to Mark), the full meaning of what Christ had said was plain to them..this was after the Gentiles were called into the Church and the whole matter of the law of Moses was resolved at the conference at Jerusalem chronicled in Acts 15.

This is why the parenthetical statement is there.

 

[inJC]

The concept of clean and unclean predates the Jews and the old covenant. Read and see, Noah understood the concept of clean and unclean and it's attendant responsibilities. As noted God created all living animals good and declared it so on the day of creation, this has never been changed. Nevertheless the flesh (carcass) of certain animals have always from the beginning of creation been unclean. The flesh (carcass) of the other animals has always been considered clean. Consider the sacrifices to God by the sons of Adam. Only clean beasts (carcasses) would be acceptable to God for sacrifice. The clean beasts (lambs) that were sacrificed were shadows of Christ's sacrifice. Unclean animal flesh would be an abomination as a sacrifice. Hear what God has shown you in Lev 11:43-46. He did not just make it up at this time, investigate what God said to Noah.
The concept of clean and unclean did not originate with the old covenant, it transcends it because it is a universal principle just like the commandments of God, it is not limited to a time or a people.

We cannot use Eph 2:13-15 to claim that Jesus died to cleanse swine or abrogate the righteous requirements of the law.

Romans 14 claims that all food is clean, that is correct, however the abomination is not food.
see Lev 11 for what is food and what is abomination.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isiah 5:20

No legitimate argument can be made from silence.

Jesus ask's, "are you so dull"? Jesus answered the charge from the Pharisee's regarding eating with unclean hands. His only conclusion was that, "eating with unwashed hands does not defile a man. Matt15:20 He never declared the unclean flesh to be clean. Do not fall into this snare.

Jesus criticized the pharisees for substituting their own teaching for the commandments of God. He called them hypocrites for doing so. Now, if Jesus did what you are saying, that is, introducing His own new teaching, that contradicts the word of God, (cleansing the unclean) then He would be guilty of hypocrisy as well. The Pharisees would then have had a legitimate charge against Jesus. Jesus did not contradict what He had previously established.

Consider Acts 10, Peters vision.

Peter was hungry and would have eaten but lunch was not yet ready.
In the vision he see's a sheet let down by the four corners.
In the sheet was 'all manner of four footed beasts, fowls of the air and creeping things.
What does 'all manner of four footed beasts' mean? It means all manner of animals both clean and unclean. this is important to understand.
The voice said, "rise Peter, kill and eat."
Peter looked at the animals on the sheet, elephants, giraffes, lions,etc as well as goats, oxen, sheep,etc, eagles owls chickens doves etc add your own if you like, to make up the meaning of "all manner of four footed animals, fowls of the air etc.
As the sheet was coming down the second time, Peter knew what was in the sheet before it came down and he knew that all the animals were in close proximity to each other, they were jumbled together. He knows and sees this.
He replies, Not so Lord, I have never eaten anything common or unclean".
His objection to the unclean animals we can understand that. His objection to the clean animals which he labels as common is understood by the Jews of his day in this way. The Greek word, 'koinos' translated as 'common' means: something that is good has become defiled.
In this case the the clean animals have become common because of their proximity to the unclean animals. Recall the presentation, the animals had to be in close contact with each other because of the way the sheet was lowered by it's corners.
Peter replies, not so Lord, i have never eaten anything common or unclean.
The voice declares, "what God has cleansed, call not thou common". Regarding the 'unclean', the voice is SILENT.
Peter is baffled.
He does not understand the vision until he comes into the room full of gentiles along with his own brethren.
It is at this point he understands, He along with the Jewish nation had superstitiously deemed it unlawful to fellowship with gentiles.
But God has shown Peter by the vision that he should not call any man common or unclean. All men are accepted by God, He has no partiality toward anyone.
Remember the voice, 'What God has cleansed, call not thou common". The voice mentioned nothing about cleansing the unclean animals!
Remember the concept of "Koinos' 'common' was a purely Jewish construct. This thinking which is not in the bible, was just an invention of the Jews. God broke down the barrier that men had set up.
If God would lower the sheet a fourth time, we would see Jews and gentiles in the sheet.
This was the thrust of the vision!
To declare that God cleansed the unclean animals by this vision is poor bible exegesis by those who are feeding on swines flesh more than God's word. The Holy Spirit can never make a residence there, He can only probe the conscience. It is the Holy Spirit who can lead us into all truth.


You see Peter would not eat the clean animals because he believed them to have been defiled by the unclean ones.
God showed him that he would not be defiled by his association with gentiles. He was wrong to refuse the voice who had told him to rise kill and eat. It was Peters faulty thinking that kept him from selecting a chicken or a lamb from the sheet.
God thus showed Peter that He should not call any man common or unclean.

16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. 2 Cor 6:16-18,7:1

 

[inJC]

Let us consider Paul's warning in 1 Tim 4:1-5

He states that the Holy Spirit speaks expressly that in the last days, some (that is of the elect) shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and giving heed to doctrines of devils. This is very apparent to anyone who sees and reads.

Are you following the doctrine of devils, have you been deceived by the siren song of seducing spirits? How could this happen? Lets follow Paul closely in his warning.

Paul says that these fallen brethren will be speaking lies in hypocrisy and their conscience is no longer working to warn them.
They will be commanding folks to no longer marry, perhaps just live common law. They will also command that brethren abstain from the meat of clean animals. All clean meat has been created by God and been given to man at the time of Noah to be received freely, the only caveat being to abstain from the blood of these creatures. We can eat this flesh food without any guilt attached, because we believe and know the truth as it is in Jesus.

Paul goes on to say that the word of God says that we can be thankful because it sanctifies these animals, that they are good and acceptable for food.

We need to ask, is every creature of God good? Absolutely, for the Creator declared it so at the creation, God said after he had created the animals on the 5th and 6th day that it was good and very good.
Everything God made was good, this also includes the unclean animals.

At creation man's diet was given, it was a vegetarian one, the same for all the animals.
Man was only permitted to eat flesh after the flood since the vegetation had been decimated. He gave permission for man to eat only the clean animals, they had been preserved by sevens and the unclean animals to them had been preserved by two's, the male and his female. Eating a single unclean animal would have resulted in the extermination of the species. Man could now eat every kind of animal excepting the unclean ones.

He allowed them to eat every beast of the field in the same way as He had now given them every green herb. Note the unwritten caveat, there are scores of poisonous green herbs, man must also be selective in choosing which ones to eat.

The word of God sanctifies the eating of the clean animals only, see Lev 11 for a guide in making the distinction between clean and unclean. The word of God does not sanctify the eating of unclean animals, rather God himself speaks the words that we should not defile ourselves and become abominable in His sight. He equates holiness with not being defiled by the flesh of these animals. see Lev 11:43,44

The creatures that God has made for us to be received with thanksgiving, exclude the unclean animals.
Paul's counsel to Timothy has nothing to do with unclean animals. Paul would never contradict the word of God.

Paul makes the case in 1 cor 3:16

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy, for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

If you are eating the unclean, the Holy Spirit cannot reside in you. He can only prick your conscience and if your conscience is seared, you will be giving heed to seducing spirits. The truth as it is in Jesus will make no sense to you. Remember what Jesus said of those Christians who would one day say, Lord, Lord. That is the affliction they suffer, not doing what Jesus has commanded.

There is not one verse in the bible that contradicts the word of God and permits the eating of the unclean.
Eating pepperoni separates you from God, no different than eating a piece of fruit did.

 

[Magenta]

Jesus sent the pigs into the sea where they drowned. Your pepperoni and all the unclean meat in your fridge should also be thrown into the sea.

You complain about poor exegesis and then say this? Hmmm. Clearly Jesus gave legion permission to enter the pigs as legion had requested, but there is nothing in Scripture to lead us to believe that Jesus then sent the pigs into the sea. Your theory is quite washed up!

 

[inJC]

But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man. John 2:24,25

When Jesus was on His way to heal Jairus' daughter, he knew he had an appointment with the woman who had an issue of blood for 12 years, just as He would know He had an appointment with Zacheus. It was not just happenstance.

Jesus was not at all surprised by the reaction to His agreeing to the request of legion, as you may be inferring. Jesus desired to do the Father's will in everything He did. Therefore it was also the Father's foreknowledge and will for this to happen.
He in so doing was teaching a lesson that the owners of the pigs and you yourself are unwilling to learn.

I explained the frugality of Jesus in collecting the remnants of the bread from which He had fed the 5,000.
You must necessarily be looking upon the swine as a great loss, this is certainly a mistake on your part in not being on side with Jesus as He acted correctly and still in accord with His noted frugality as the swine were not food in Jesus eyes.

To say that Jesus did not send the pigs into the sea but they went in by His ignorance of what would transpire is to diminish
Jesus.

Jesus ruined every funeral He went to. Even the dead came back to life in the presence of the Lifegiver, even swine if He had desired, however it was Jesus will for the pigs to perish to teach the lesson, even if some in our day will not receive the lesson. Jesus does not want His children to be washed up, as were the wicked in Noah's time in which only 8 souls were saved. In this case only one soul was saved, the owners and their servants, evidently not. Jesus did not regard the swine of any value for food, that is clear and inline with the bible.

 

[Magenta]

To say that Jesus did not send the pigs into the sea but they went in by His ignorance of what would transpire is to diminish Jesus.

No, it is you making up more stuff to support your erroneous position. Nobody said anything about ignorance but you. Stop pretending people said things they didn't. You simply make yourself look dishonest.

 

[JesusIsAll]

Would really miss the clams and bacon and much of the food I saw on the unclean list.

I don't know you should be so concerned. If you know the Lord Jesus, a diet heavy on all that stuff may even get you to heaven sooner. And you didn't mention any of the main food groups, Slim Jims, deep fried shrimp and tater tots, hot dogs and rocky road ice cream, the latter maybe a sin unto death, depending on your cardiologist's skill. But enough dreaming of misspent youth. You're also making me hungry. Off to get some celery to snack on. (Maybe get daring, splurge on popcorn.)

Mark 7:18-23 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.