Should Christians eat pork?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
B

Bremster

Guest
#1
This is a topic that I personally have wavered back and forth on for years. This is where I currently sit with the issue and I would appreciate your thoughts.

There are four different scripture passages in the new testament that persons will use to try to substantiate their belief that the unclean animals mentioned in Lev 11 were only unclean for a period of time and today we can eat anything we want.

The first would be Mark 7:18-19
"So He said to them, 'Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods."

Now on the surface, without considering any context, it sounds like Jesus is saying that all the unclean animals mentioned in God's instruction book are okay because they will not defile a man, but is this really what He is saying in context? To just read a verse or two without looking at context is the fastest way to erroneous doctrine and belief, so let's start back at the beginning of the chapter to see what Jesus is actually talking about.
Mark 7:2 - "Now when they (Pharisees) saw some of His disciples eat bread with DEFILED, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault." -
Elders taught - if you eat bread without a washing ceremony you were defiled. This is a practice which was not, nor never was a part of God's dietary instruction, but rather a rule that they made up themselves.

:3 - "For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the traditions of the elders."
The issue Jesus is addressing here is a tradition of man (elders) and NOT God, and therefore in context is not talking about God's dietary law at all, but rather man's traditions.

:4 - "When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they ghave received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches."
Here we learn that there are many traditions of MAN that these people established and believed that they would defile a man. Again, this is nothing to do with God's dietary laws, but here we clearly see, Jesus is pointing out their own traditions, not God's.

:5 - "Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, 'Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?"
Again we have confirmation that this set of scriptures is talking about traditions of man (elders) and NOT the law of God.

:6 - 8- "He answered and said unto them - 'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men - the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such thing you do."
Here Jesus is laying into them because they are holding their own traditions above God's. Once again, we see that Jesus is referencing and attacking the traditions of the ELDERS - NOT God's dietary laws!!! Notice how Jesus mentions that they are 'laying aside the commandment of God' - He's actually upholding God's law here!!!

:9 - "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your traditions."
Again and again, Jesus is making reference to these people holding their own traditions above God's law thereby rejecting God's law. Jesus Christ is making a grand distinction between the law of God and the commandments of men - the two were contrary to one another and Jesus is attacking their traditions which they held in higher regard to God's law. He is in no way attacking the law of God here, if anything He is upholding it.

:10 - 13 - Here we have an example of how they have held their own tradition above God's law.

So in this passage of scripture Jesus is teaching that a bit of dirt on your hands that then ends up in your stomach is not what defiles a man. He's explaining that real defilement is what comes out of a man's heart. And what was the 'heart issue' that Jesus was attacking them with... Thinking that their traditions were superior to God's commandments.

At no time in this passage of scriptures is God's dietary laws mentioned. In context this is talking about eating food with unwashed hands which had nothing to do with God's dietary laws. Part II soon.
 
B

Bremster

Guest
#2
The next set of scriptures I would like to look at is Peter's vision in Acts 10:9-16.

In the vision, Peter sees heaven opened and all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creepy crawlies, and birds of the air, and there is a voice instructing him to rise, kill and eat.

Notice what Peter says in verse 14 - "Not so Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."

Couple things for us to consider.
1 - A vision is ALWAYS symbolic it is NEVER literal.
2 - This is now ten years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Peter who walked beside Jesus, listening to all of His teaching directly, in context of the language/circumstances, is completely unaware of any changes to God's dietary laws. Do you still think that Jesus did away with God's dietary laws? I think it would be safe to say that Jesus NEVER changed the dietary laws when He was walking on the earth, cause if He had, Peter would have known.
So did God change the dietary laws with this vision 10 years after J/C resurrection? Let's explore.

What get's most people unstuck is verse 15 where the voice says, "What God has declared clean you must not call common." Was God declaring unclean animals clean with this vision? If you read just verses 9 to 16 without looking at the overall context, without considering that visions are always symbolic, then you might come to this conclusion. However, visions are never literal and we must always look at what is going on in context, so don't jump to any conclusions just yet.

Remembering that a vision is never literal and always symbolic, we must ask, what was the symbolism of the vision representing? idea- The voice spoke 3 times in verse 16. Soon after 3 men came to the door (in verse 19). Remember visions are symbolic.

Verse 17 - Even Peter understood that it was symbolic and was trying to figure out what the vision meant. If it was literal, then Peter would not have had to consider the meaning of it.

Verse 28 - Peter finally gets what the vision is about. That he was never to consider a 'MAN' common or unclean. The meaning had NOTHING to do with unclean animals, but was symbolic of the Gentiles.

At that time it was unlawful for a Jewish man to keep company with a Gentile. Clearly in context (and Peter got the meaning of the vision as soon as he saw the three Gentiles at the door), God was saying that it is okay to keep company with a Gentile. Why? Because God had opened His book of life to them!!!!

In no way, shape and or form was this vision literal in any way, changing God's dietary laws, but rather introduced a massive change to the heart of man in how they interact with Gentiles whom God was calling to be a part of His family. It was God's way of saying that He was giving His Holy Spirit to the Gentiles. It was NOT about changing God's dietary laws, but something far far far greater.

Notice that whilst Peter was contemplating what the vision meant, 3 Gentile men came to the door, and then he understood that the vision was about not calling any 'MAN' unclean. Context is always important to consider.
Did God change His dietary laws making what was originally unclean, abominable, a filthy, pollutant now all of a sudden full of health and nutrition with this vision? No, it was symbolic of the calling of the Gentiles into the family of God. Part III soon.
 
B

Bremster

Guest
#3
Let's have a look at Romans 14, the scriptural passage that is perhaps the scariest chapter in the bible if you do not study and consider what it is saying but also what it is not saying. I would dare say that there is no other chapter in the bible that is as misunderstood as this passage of scriptures which gives the most ridiculous outcomes by some individuals. We must not read into the scriptures something that simply isn't there.

Let's start off by looking specifically at verse 14 "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

This is open for huge doctrinal error, if we do not come to a proper understanding of what this is in fact saying. We might ask, is this actually saying that, EVERYTHING else that is written in all the rest of the scriptures spoken of directly from God or Jesus Christ is of no value and no effect because it boils down to what we believe and/or consider to be okay ourselves? Is that what this is saying? Of course not.

The term 'unclean' tends to throw a spanner in the works for some. Especially considering that the word is mistranslated in most modern translation of the bible. The greek word is 'koinos' which means 'common; by external misuse, defiled'. So a more accurate translation of verse 14 should read, "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing common of itself; but to him who considers anything to be common, to him it is defiled."

As always, we MUST look at what is happening here in CONTEXT. Let's go back to the beginning of the chapter and have a look at:
verse 2 - "For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables." -

Now what is going on here? Paul is discussing a belief that had crept into the church that to live by a vegan, or vegetarian lifestyle means that you are holier than others who eat all foods. It was a doubtful belief that had crept in that 'self denial=holiness'.

Couple of things to consider here and it's important for us to consider what is this chapter not talking about here? Is the term 'unclean MEATs' used in this chapter? No it is not, in fact in context unclean meats is not mentioned at all in the entire book of Romans!

When the term 'food' is used, what was food at that time? Well to the believer of God, food consisted of everything God had declared to be food, declared to be clean. No believer of God at the time would look at a pig or a crab and even consider putting it in the category of 'food', to them it would have been considered an abomination - detestable filth, a pollutant for them - it would never have entered the realm of being classed as 'food' to any of them!

At no time in this chapter is the law of God specifically mentioned. He is talking to a people about vegetarianism and whether they should eat meat (clean meat) in front of those who believe in vegetarianism or whether that could be a stumbling block to their faith. Vegetarianism is NOT part of the law of God.

This is NOT talking about the law of God in context. Paul is not saying that it is okay to eat the unclean meats declared by God to be unclean, but rather is discussing the self-denial / vegetarian debate that had entered the church. Context is a very important thing to consider and if you don't ask what this chapter is not talking about you will think that Paul has done a complete back flip to what he said earlier in Romans 7, when he said the law of God is Holy, just and GOOD and that he himself lives by it. The first thing that Paul says in verse 1 of Romans 14 is not to dispute over 'doubtful things'. The vegetarian debate was a doubtful thing (which is why Paul was putting it to rest) but God's dietary law is and never had been 'doubtful'.

You can't look at a vegetarian debate (which was not part of God's dietary instruction) and try to input God's dietary law into what is being said. You can't substantiate that what is being spoken of in this chapter could also correlate with God's dietary law. What was being discussed was a 'doubtful' (vs 1) belief, not an absolute law of God. The two are complete opposites and to try to 'find God's will on a topic by combining the two will lead to erroneous doctrinal belief. You simply cannot read into the scriptures something that is NOT there. Final part next...
 
B

Bremster

Guest
#4
The final set of scriptures that some will use to try to substantiate why it is okay to eat the dirty pig is found in I Tim 4 and in particular verses 3-5 which says, "... commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

Again, if you just read the above verses and do not consider the context in which it is given you will find yourself concluding an erroneous doctrine of epic proportions!!! So let's explore what this is actually talking about in context.


I Tim 4:1 - "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart form the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons"-

Do you think this is talking about the law of Almighty God? No, this is talking about deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons. I dare say there is a grand distinction between the law of God and a doctrine of a demon!!!

:2-3 - "speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." -

Did God CREATE pig at creation to be received with thanksgiving? No, He referred to it as an abomination, a filthy pollutant for His people who were instructed very clearly not to consume.

Did God CREATE the other animals He declared unclean to be received with thanksgiving. No, His specific and clear instructions were to NOT eat them. And keep in mind this set of scriptures is references doctrines of demons.
Again, you have to agree that there is a massive difference between the dietary law of Almighty God and a doctrine of a demon. There is no comparison. To put the two in the same category is simply foolish.

:4-5 "For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused IF it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the WORD OF GOD and prayer."

Is the eating of unclean animals sanctified by the WORD OF GOD? No, No NO NO NO NO NO NO, Absolutely NOT. That is a massive qualifier.
The great apostasy in this set of scriptures is not only talking about doctrines of demons, but is actually upholding God's dietary laws because it confirms that we are only to eat those animals which God created to be received with thanksgiving, the ones He declared clean in the Word of God.

All the biblical evidence that I can find supports refraining from eating pork. But why?

Back in the days of old, God's people only had His instruction to go by. They didn't have the nutritional knowledge that we do today about such things. Why did God instruct quarantine laws for His people? Because God knew and understood that a contagious disease could be devastating for His people, so He gave them quarantine laws. He gave them this instruction because He loved His people so much.

Today we have nutritional experts who know and understand about the digestive system of the pig and how the parasites and bacteria that is stored in the pigs fat is potentially toxic for humans. Today, we have experts who study how shrimp and lobster and crab, literally filter the body of water they are in, and those toxins remain in the bodies of those creatures. God created all things, don't you think He knows what is good and not good for us? He gave us an instruction manual on how to live a happy life. I think it might be best to follow it. Look forward to your thoughts.
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
60
0
#5
Yea, your right.
Eating scavengers is bad for your body.
Can you eat them and still be saved?
Of course.
Should you?
Probably not. - (I don't.)

(But if someone presented me with a plate of lobster or shrimp or pig bacon I wouldn't turn it down.)
Remember what the Spirit told Peter, "what I have called clean, let no man call unclean".
This saying had spiritual ramifications so we shouldn't read too much into the material aspect
of it; but just knowing that scavengers are depositing toxins into your body is reason enough to
stay away from them..........but if your starving? I say eat up. God's grace is sufficient.
 

Twinkle77

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2012
357
5
18
#6
1 Corinthians 10:22 Everything is permissible - but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible - but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for , The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."

I agree with you that pork is not the best meat to eat because of the bacteria that is in it and that it has to be properly cooked before eaten. I try to avoid pork for health reasons only but if I was invited to someone's place and pork was the only dish, I would eat it without any problems.

Eating pork will not affect my salvation nor my relationship to God but may affect my stomach if it was not cooked well.:)
 
L

Laodicea

Guest
#7
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFyqagQp62Q[/video]
 
B

Bremster

Guest
#8
I Cor 10 is talking about meat being eaten after being sacrificed to other gods. Again, has nothing to do with God's dietary laws. You can't read into scripture something that simply isn't there.

The point I was trying to make is that whilst God created everything, He created some things for mankind to consume and other animals had different purposes to fulfill.

When God calls something an abomination, I don't think we should be so carefree in our attitude towards it. Just my opinion.

Remembering that the Spirit told Peter, What I have called clean let no man call unclean - well the point is He never called pig clean to begin with, in fact He called it an abomination.

Are we saved by what we eat? Of course not
Are we justified by what we eat? Of course not
Are we sanctified by what we eat? Absolutely
 
L

Laodicea

Guest
#9
Jesus died to make us clean He did not die to make pork clean.
 
K

kessy001

Guest
#10
we can eat whatever is eatable as long as it doesn't make another christian fall.
 
M

megaman125

Guest
#11
A few points I want to make.

1. Eating pork was never a sin. The consequences (biblical consequences mind you) of eating pork are that you're unclean until the evening, which just meant that you can't go to the tabernacle, because we totally do that nowadays.

2. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
Genesis 9:3

Saying that Noah didn't know the difference between clean and unclean animals would also be false, since there is a distinction made in Genesis 7. Of course though, I'm sure Noah would try to eat the clean stuff as much as possible.

3. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
Romans 14:6

It's possible to eat pork and give thanks to God.

4. Should we eat pork or other unclean animals? Probably not, since it's been shown medically and scientifically that the unclean animals are not all that healthy for us. We can eat them, but I'd certainly say to try and keep that stuff to a minimum. Same goes with your processed foods that are loaded with harmful chemicals and preservitives. After all, our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit, so we should do our best to maintain them and keep them healthy.

5. My last point is going to be a warning, a warning not to go down the path of legalism. That's the path the pharisees were on, and we shouldn't want to be like them. Now I certainly wouldn't stop anyone that doesn't want to eat the unclean animals (again, Romans 14:6 on abstaining), but keep in mind that you're getting dangerously close to legalism and trying to do works to earn salvation, so please just be weary of that (I've heard this stuff from other people, and they went as far as accusing people who ate pork of not loving God, rejecting God, God rejecting them, and not being saved). Again, eating pork is not even a sin, so in no way should that even affect a person's salvation.
 
L

Laodicea

Guest
#12
we can eat whatever is eatable as long as it doesn't make another christian fall.
How do we know what is eatable? Some countries they eat rats. We should follow health laws in the Bible because God wants us healthy.
3 John 1:2
(2) Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

 
O

oracle2world

Guest
#13
Bacon is soooooooooooooo good!
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
60
0
#14
I Cor 10 is talking about meat being eaten after being sacrificed to other gods. Again, has nothing to do with God's dietary laws. You can't read into scripture something that simply isn't there.

The point I was trying to make is that whilst God created everything, He created some things for mankind to consume and other animals had different purposes to fulfill.

When God calls something an abomination, I don't think we should be so carefree in our attitude towards it. Just my opinion.

Remembering that the Spirit told Peter, What I have called clean let no man call unclean - well the point is He never called pig clean to begin with, in fact He called it an abomination.

Are we saved by what we eat? Of course not
Are we justified by what we eat? Of course not
Are we sanctified by what we eat? Absolutely

Are we sanctified in the spirit by what we eat?????
Absolutely not!
Remember the vision God gave Peter Bremster?
Go back and read it.
It is literally unclean animals.
Used as a type and shadow for the gentiles who the Jews called 'dogs'.
What did Jesus tell Peter to do???
I just want you to tell me what the Spirit told Peter to do!
"Arise and eat" - - - - "For what God has called clean, let no man call unclean."
Now I know that was a type and a shadow for the holy man to divine what God really meant.
But, can't you see the irony of your argument.......set against Holy Writ???
 
M

megaman125

Guest
#15
Are we sanctified in the spirit by what we eat?????
Absolutely not!
Remember the vision God gave Peter Bremster?
Go back and read it.
It is literally unclean animals.
Used as a type and shadow for the gentiles who the Jews called 'dogs'.
What did Jesus tell Peter to do???
I just want you to tell me what the Spirit told Peter to do!
"Arise and eat" - - - - "For what God has called clean, let no man call unclean."
Now I know that was a type and a shadow for the holy man to divine what God really meant.
But, can't you see the irony of your argument.......set against Holy Writ???
Bremster is right about Acts 10. Peter's vision wasn't about eating food. The interpretation of the vision is found right in the Bible. If Peter didn't get the interpretation of his vision right, he would have kept having the vision until he did, but this is not the case.
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
60
0
#16
We are not sanctified by what we eat!
Jesus said: "Nothing entering the mouth of a man defiles the man,
for it is digested and cast out into the drought.
It is what cometh out of the heart of a man that defiles him". - (Spiritual; John 6:63)
 
Jul 27, 2011
1,622
89
0
#17
actually God gave us the perfect diet in Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. God didn't give man permission to eat meat till Noah came off Ark, Genesis 9:3-5. Then we go to Isaiah 11:6-9 when the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD. I'm not judgeing anything anyone else does in their life thats not my business, this is what God has given me as a way of life for me. Nice topic Brimster.
 
Jul 27, 2011
1,622
89
0
#18
oops God didn't give man permission to eat animals till noah came off ark, my meat is beans and rice, and vegetables.
 
B

babyboyblue

Guest
#19
Apparently eating pig or anything unclean can send you to Hell. Why? For several reasons.

1. Your body is the temple of the Lord. Defile that and God will destroy you

2. You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. Therefore you are not at liberty to eat whatever you want, wear whatever you want or put yourself where ever you want. You Must get permission from the owner of your body. That's either God or Satan.

3. Is eating unclean food unhealthy? Probably, but the food will not not cause you to lose your soul. It's the act of disobedience. When Eve ate the fruit was it a poisonous fruit? No. So what was wrong with it? Only that God said Do Not Eat It! So when you eat things God said not to eat, you're doing the same thing Adam and Eve did. Let's not make the same mistakes they did.

Remember you are living in a world of sin just because of what someone ate.

This is my favorite verse related to the eating of foods that are deemed unclean by the word of God.
Isaiah 66:15-20


15 For, behold, the Lord 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 will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many.
17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.

Even the foods that were deemed "clean" I don't think are safe to eat any longer. And not only that, if you did eat it, it should be Kosher. Most Christians who adhere to the health laws in the bible are still eating flesh with the blood.

1 Samuel 14:32-33


32 And the people flew upon the spoil, and took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground: and the people did eat them with the blood.
33 Then they told Saul, saying, Behold, the people sin against the Lord, in that they eat with the blood. And he said, Ye have transgressed: roll a great stone unto me this day.


Oh, BTW - Fish sucks too and is probably one of the most unhealthy things to eat. Yeah, Yeah I know Jesus ate fish, but would he eat it today? Fish from these mercury filled, polluted waters. I don't think so.


PS: Sugar is horrible as well.

Also, anyone preparing for a place in Heaven should now in this present life, be getting use to the diet supplied in Genesis. Fruit, Grains and Nuts. Won't be any BBQ's in Heaven or in the New Earth. Yay!!
 
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
60
0
#20
Heavy bent toward what goes in the material
body as sanctifying the soul here.
Complete error.
Eating right is good.
But it has nothing to do with your spiritual makeup.
The body and the soul are two separate entities.
Eat right.
But don't confuse it with your spiritual condition.