Question re: Isaiah 66

[Paul not the apostle]

Does anyone have an opinion regarding Isaiah 66, specifically if this passage is referring to what is commonly believed to be the "second coming of Christ"?

Is this passage yet to be fulfilled, or has this already come to pass in your opinion?

Thank you for any responses.

Paul

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Nothing in that text I know of points to anything other than a future time in which Christ ushers in a new age culminating in a new heaven and new earth.

For example, in the text if we read the Bible with a literal hermeneutic it says in 66:20 that people will come to the "holy mountain in Jerusalem."

That aligns with other prophetic portions that speak to a coming day when Christ descends to the earth with judgment (Isa. 66:15-16) which is also said in Revelation 19:11-21 concerning the events of judgment that occur when Christ physically returns. This too coincides with Matthew 25:31-46.

We find this again in Zechariah as well in chapter 14 where we see that when Christ returns to this earth physically he will rule and reign from a specific place, i.e. Jerusalem. In that Zech. text we find statements like this: "On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward. . . .And the Lord will be king overall the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and the name one" (14:3-4, 9). This mount of Olives is exactly the place from where he left. And it is where he told his disciples through the angels that he shall return just as he left (Acts 1:11). When he returns to the earth to set up his throne, i.e. his place of rule, he will come back to the same place where he left, which is in this case Jerusalem at the Mount of Olives.

In that era while Christ rules as King the peoples shall "go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, and to keep the Feat of Booths." (Zech 14:16). This coincides with the Isa 66:20 text that identifies where Christ will be on his holy mountain in Jerusalem where he shall be king over the world.

 

[Paul not the apostle]

Thanks for your responses, I do have another question about this passage. Is this passage in Isaiah only for "Israel", or is it also for the "non-jewish" believers, those that are "converted Gentiles" such as most of us here on the forums?

Isa 66:12 For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye suck, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dandled upon her knees.

I believe it applies to all men, jew and gentile.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

1 This is what the LORD says:

“Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
Where is the house you will build for me?
Where will my resting place be?
2 Has not my hand made all these things,
and so they came into being?”
declares the LORD.

“These are the ones I look on with favor:
those who are humble and contrite in spirit,
and who tremble at my word.
3 But whoever sacrifices a bull
is like one who kills a person,
and whoever offers a lamb
is like one who breaks a dog’s neck;
whoever makes a grain offering
is like one who presents pig’s blood,
and whoever burns memorial incense
is like one who worships an idol.
They have chosen their own ways,
and they delight in their abominations;
4 so I also will choose harsh treatment for them
and will bring on them what they dread.
For when I called, no one answered,
when I spoke, no one listened.
They did evil in my sight
and chose what displeases me.”

Destruction of the temple. Anti-Christ Jews even to this day thinking an animal sacrifice will appease God out of a desire to reject the truth about Jesus

5 Hear the word of the LORD,
you who tremble at his word:
“Your own people who hate you,
and exclude you because of my name, have said,
‘Let the LORD be glorified,
that we may see your joy!’
Yet they will be put to shame.
6 Hear that uproar from the city,
hear that noise from the temple!
It is the sound of the LORD
repaying his enemies all they deserve.

7 “Before she goes into labor,
she gives birth;
before the pains come upon her,
she delivers a son.
8 Who has ever heard of such things?
Who has ever seen things like this?
Can a country be born in a day
or a nation be brought forth in a moment?
Yet no sooner is Zion in labor
than she gives birth to her children.
9 Do I bring to the moment of birth
and not give delivery?” says the LORD.
“Do I close up the womb
when I bring to delivery?” says your God.
10 “Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her,
all you who love her;
rejoice greatly with her,
all you who mourn over her.
11 For you will nurse and be satisfied
at her comforting breasts;
you will drink deeply
and delight in her overflowing abundance.”

Israel becomes a nation again (although many of them are anti-christs and it really belongs to the Christian Jews instead of those who "break dogs' necks" and "offer pigs blood")

12 For this is what the LORD says:

“I will extend peace to her like a river,
and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream;
you will nurse and be carried on her arm
and dandled on her knees.
13 As a mother comforts her child,
so will I comfort you;
and you will be comforted over Jerusalem.”

14 When you see this, your heart will rejoice
and you will flourish like grass;
the hand of the LORD will be made known to his servants,
but his fury will be shown to his foes.
15 See, the LORD is coming with fire,
and his chariots are like a whirlwind;
he will bring down his anger with fury,
and his rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For with fire and with his sword
the LORD will execute judgment on all people,
and many will be those slain by the LORD.

Second coming of Jesus

17 “Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one who is among those who eat the flesh of pigs, rats and other unclean things—they will meet their end together with the one they follow,” declares the LORD.

18 “And I, because of what they have planned and done, am about to come[a] and gather the people of all nations and languages, and they will come and see my glory.

19 “I will set a sign among them, and I will send some of those who survive to the nations—to Tarshish, to the Libyans and Lydians (famous as archers), to Tubal and Greece, and to the distant islands that have not heard of my fame or seen my glory. They will proclaim my glory among the nations. 20 And they will bring all your people, from all the nations, to my holy mountain in Jerusalem as an offering to the LORD—on horses, in chariots and wagons, and on mules and camels,” says the LORD. “They will bring them, as the Israelites bring their grain offerings, to the temple of the LORD in ceremonially clean vessels. 21 And I will select some of them also to be priests and Levites,” says the LORD.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

22 “As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares the LORD, “so will your name and descendants endure. 23 From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,” says the LORD. 24 “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.”

New heavens and new earth and "hell" something to do with God's judgment and blessing at a later time and possible connected with the millenial Kingdom and or heaven and the afterlife. "Heavenly Jerusalem" (afterlife "heaven") might come to earth after the earth and heaven are destroyed and recreated and resurrected non-pro-creating people might co-exist with people who never died and can procreate until they die and are to be resurrected and judged. But this might be over-speculation on my part and or the part of other people. I heard other people say something similar to this and it includes portions of things I think I thought before I heard them say these things, but I might be jumbling up their order of events and lumping multiple things together that were meant to be separate. So this paragraph is a jumbling of my thoughts and those of others who I somewhat potentially agree with and I am not quite sure if this is what the Bible teaches at this point.

5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
2 Peter 3:5-7 NIV 2011

10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.[a]

11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.
2 Peter 3:10-13 NIV 2011

1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
Revelation 21:1-4 NIV 2011

6 On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare
a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
the best of meats and the finest of wines.
7 On this mountain he will destroy
the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
the sheet that covers all nations;
8 he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove his people’s disgrace
from all the earth.
The LORD has spoken.

9 In that day they will say,

“Surely this is our God;
we trusted in him, and he saved us.
This is the LORD, we trusted in him;
let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation.”
Isaiah 25:6-9 NIV 2011

21 Deliverers will go up on[c] Mount Zion
to govern the mountains of Esau.
And the kingdom will be the LORD’s.
[c] Obadiah 1:21 Or from
Obadiah 1:21 NIV 2011

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Paul, from a futuristic position it seems that this passage as well as others refers to the Jews and Gentiles who will both compose the kingdom citizens. I would add too that most all who hold to a futurist view would also believe that the people coming to the Jerusalem Kingdom Center will not be those who are glorified. There will be people in natural bodies in that time. In the kingdom will be both natural bodied people and then the glorified people who are the body of Christ, or at least as I see it the bride of Christ. Even if one does not want to apply the bride term to the body of Christ as all who are glorified it can still work out the same way. There will be glorified people in the kingdom and non-glorified people in the kingdom who live in natural bodies.

This has also sparked a considerable amount of discussion concerning how to take the last half of the book of Ezekiel and especially in regard to the sacrifices it mentions. Many have rejected a plain and literal interpretation because they claim that if you read the book literally it calls for a clear position that a temple will exist and people will be making sacrifices in it again. People, especially those who not Judeo-Christian centered like the Christoplatonists, then argue you cannot interpret it that way because if anyone makes sacrifices again that doing so is sinful since Christ is the final sacrifice.

Good scholars though have more than answered this over and over though most of the Christoplatonists have ignored the answers offered. The proposed solutions fit very well with what we see Paul doing in Acts 21:17-26.

There we clearly see Paul who was in Christ and after he had already written almost half of our NT still free and willing to go into the temple to make sacrifices. Why was he able to do that? Because a sacrifice was not done in order to be saved but to be a memorial or reminder of Christ's sacrifice. It is just like the Lord's Supper (communion) today.

Other scholars have said that if that view is not taken it could also be a sacrifice made for national sins, i.e. not for personal salvation but for a reminder of the demand for justice among the physical beings still living in the kingdom of that time.

I for one think it is probably a combination view. The sacrifices made at that time will point to the ultimate sacrifice made by Christ and they might also be actions to remind leaders of nations and the people of the nation about the cost of sin. In any case here are the basic views of what those sacrifices and other related things will be in that time.

1. Memorials to the ultimate sacrifice of Christ like the Lord's Supper is today.
2. Sacrifices to atone or make right for national or physical sins but not for eternal salvation.
3. Sacrifices that function as a temporal covering for national sin until the people are born again (temporal covering view).
4. Restoration of fellowship with the King view.

There are probably a few more but those are the main ones I can recall off the top of my head. Whichever one takes or however one combines the various views all of the teachers I have found come together to say that there is no issue whatsoever for those sacrifices and feasts to be practiced so long as it is not done as a work to earn righteousness with Christ on an eternal basis. Some do, however, believe it has to do with temporal earthly relations and that would not hinder the gospel of grace even if one takes that view. It is that misunderstanding so often that causes those who are zealous to defend the gospel of grace to run from any view that says there will be a restored sacrificial system. They are scared it amounts to works and thus they will alter the entire last half of the book of Ezekiel in order to steer away from that idea. But all of that is not necessary nor is it safe to depart from a plain, historical-grammatical hermeneutic just because of a fear. There clearly can be saints practicing sacrifices while still in Christ without it violating the doctrine of grace alone. Paul was a prime example of that in Acts. If someone says anything different then they have just made Apostle Paul an apostate and thus we would have an apostate who wrote half of our NT. That will not work. We can indeed therefore have both a sacrificial system that is not done for eternal salvation while still holding firm to the idea that salvation in Christ is by grace alone without works. Just as someone can partake of the Lord's Supper today without that act being done to earn salvation so too can the kingdom citizens practice the sacrificial system without it violating the doctrine of grace then.

 

[Paul not the apostle]

Thanks everybody...

so if this is futuristic, or for anyone that believes it is futuristic, the Lord is specific that swine's flesh should not be eaten, or at least that he will destroy those that are eating swine's flesh at this time.

Is this correct?

Isa 66:16 For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.
Isa 66:17 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.

So believers should not eat swine's flesh, and should obey the dietary commandments given by God...because He commanded it and will consume with fire and sword anyone that is doing that "abomination".

Am I understanding this passage correctly?

 

[Anonymous]

Paul NTA wrote,

So believers should not eat swine's flesh, and should obey the dietary commandments given by God...because He commanded it and will consume with fire and sword anyone that is doing that "abomination".

Am I understanding this passage correctly?

Good question Paul, one that I, for one am not prepared to answer fully(yet) . But it does stimulate some of my own thoughts for research regarding Jew and Gentile responsibility to the Law of God given through Moses. I am still in research mode, but I am leaning to a particular responsibility by the ethnic Jews (all 12 tribes of Israel) to maintain the majority of the law (exempting sacrifice of yom kippur) and a different standard (faith of Abraham) for Gentile believers. This is largely the topic of the book of Galatians. Thanks for bringing this up, makes me study harder and faster.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

The key to that, according to my research, is the "they that seek to sanctify themselves." In other words, those that believe their actions are what sanctify them they will come under judgment because they are placing their trust in the actions of the law itself.

They key is found in the "sanctify" word as well as the phrase in vs 18 where God says he "knows their thoughts." These two phrases sandwich the clause about swines flesh and destruction, and thus those phrases define our immediate context which is the people who are destroyed are so destroyed because they seek to base their justification and sanctification upon their own physical actions. It is thus something God destroys them for because they are seeking to earn their favor with God which is a violation to his grace. In the kingdom when perfection is the rule people will have to rely upon grace or thus be perfectly judged for trying to justify themselves by works own their own. The eating of the swine flesh is connected to the self effort of the people to use that as their claim as to why they are justified. The puritan scholar Matthew Henry noted this when he said:

the prophecy may refer to all those judgments which the wrath of God, according to the word of God, will bring upon provoking sinners, that live in contempt of God and are devoted to the world and the flesh: They shall be consumed together. From the happiness of heaven we find expressly excluded all idolaters, and whosoever worketh abomination, Rev. 21:27; 22:15. In the day of vengeance secret wickedness will be brought to light and brought to the account; for (v. 18), I know their works and their thoughts. God knows both what men do and from what principle and with what design they do it; and therefore is fit to judge the world, because he can judge the secrets of men, Rom. 2:16.

Some commentators add that this is also connected to their idolatry. Several Hebrew Christian scholars note that the context in this text is also not only about the motive of their heart being wrong, i.e. the efforts to use their own works to make themselves acceptable before God, but that it is also an act of idolatry that is in their heart as they do these deeds which God judges as impure. The eating was done to a false god and thus condemned b/c it was idolatrous oriented.

Theologian David Guzik, who has been a leader and pastor in the Calvary Chapel movement since the 1980's, adds this:
Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, to go to the gardens, after an idol in the midst: When the Messiah returns in glory and triumph, He will see through those who practice empty religion. They “shall be consumed together,” says the Lord.

In his reading of the text he too sees the issue the motives of their hearts. They are seeking to do something in order to be made right by their works in that. So the Lord's destruction of them is because they are trying to make themselves right before God by their works which is deplorable in the sight of a holy God who saves only by grace.

 

[CecilW]

Sorry, I don't buy the right to pick and choose.

God's standard of righteousness stands forever, else Jesus did not need to die.

So, whether it is possible to argue for permission for gentiles to get away with eating piggy parts or not, no swine's flesh for me.

 

[Paul not the apostle]

Thanks for all your input.

Dr. K,

I understand what you are saying, and agree to a point. I do feel like your point is well made, but I have some thoughts about the conclusions.

those that believe their actions are what sanctify them they will come under judgment because they are placing their trust in the actions of the law itself.

It would seem like eating anything to sanctify yourself, even if it is a clean meat, would bring judgment in that circumstance. If the rule is placing trust in the law as being that which brings fire and judgment, then I wonder why He put any reference to unclean meats, and still calls them abominations.

IF the "key" is trying to sanctify while eating swine's flesh, then there would be no need to say anything about swine's flesh. It would seem that if anything, the argument could be made that He is trying to tell everyone that it will still be an abomination to Him, just like it was before Calvary, and after Calvary, for anyone that calls themselves His people.

It seems to me that according to this quote

The eating of the swine flesh is connected to the self effort of the people to use that as their claim as to why they are justified

we could also say that He will judge those that think the law does not apply to them, or those that are mistaken in thinking that they are free to not obey the Laws that are still able to be observed. They justify themselves by thinking that Grace alone is all that they need, and at the cost of not obeying all of his commandments.

Just a thought, more later.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

He is trying to tell everyone that it will still be an abomination to Him, just like it was before Calvary, and after Calvary, for anyone that calls themselves His people

Am I reading that correctly about what you would think of those people today, i.e. anyone who eats bacon or a ham sandwich today is an abomination unto the Lord? Or am I missing something by that interpretation of that clause?

From the way it reads to me and from the context the abomination is connected back to motives. I'm sure there will be people in the millennial kingdom who obey the Mosaic Code with wrong motives. And in such cases, just like for anyone today who practices any of the 613 laws to sanctify themselves, those people would come under judgment.

As for the law code itself Professor Bill Luck makes a good point about it. It is interesting to note that every time we have a new era some new regulations come into play with the food laws and dietary laws. Prior to the Mosaic code in the Adamic era people were vegetarians. Then after the flood people were free to eat meat. As God said to Noah: "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants I now give you everything." (Gen. 9:3). Then in the Mosaic Code certain meats were restricted. Then after Calvary meats again are open and clean to the believers, as Paul said: "they forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving because it is consecrated by the word and prayer" (1 Tim. 4:3-5).

This issue goes back to the whole does God change issue. And to that I say no not at all. God as a being NEVER changes. His character, his holiness, and his love, his essence remains constant. But as a Father he governs and thus as a Father he gives some rules that apply to a people at a certain age and adjusts those rules according to the needs of the people at the current time just like any human father does today with his children. A rule to a 7 year old on some things may be adjusted when that child is a 17 year old. What he may be able to eat at 7 will likely be different than at 17. God does the same thing in his administration or government with his people throughout the ages. That does not mean the character of God or his love or holiness has changed anymore than an earthly father who out of love regulates a certain food for a 7 year and then applies a different regulation with the child at 17. God's love, holiness, character, his essence does not change either even though he does regulate in each some in some areas with distinct laws in one age but not in another.

 

[CecilW]

I find it interesting that Jesus said that in the last days, "Because of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold."

If we are not only out from under the judgment due us for our transgression of the law, but also out from under the need to reform and comply to the best of our ability, as the above posts seem to imply, then to what laws and lack thereof is Christ referring?

Could it be that while our salvation comes through Grace, we are still required to abide by the revealed laws of God?

And is there a difference between saying, "Don't do that!" while expecting us to obey as His children, vs. "Ya do that and I'm withdrawing my grace!"?

Seems to me that if He said, "That's filthy and nasty and highly offensive to Me. Don't do it.", that is enough. Why do I need to ask, "Well, if I do are you gonna stop loving me and toss me in the Long-Term Hot Tub? No? Then phooey on Ya, I'm doing it anyway! But I worship and adore you, on my knees before You..."

I really wouldn't like my wives or kids using that attitude on me to flout what I've asked or required. Why would I wanna do it to God?

I understand that there are all these arguments built, quoting this or that great Christian. But I don't answer to them. I look into God's face, and want to see a delighted smile in return. Not long-suffering exasperation and a wrinkled Nose as He says, "Eeewwww!"

Sorry. Much as I appreciate the scholarship, I still go for the simple. Too much time wasted trying to explain the complicated stuff to Sir BumbleBerry.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

I understand that there are all these arguments built, quoting this or that great Christian. But I don't answer to them. I look into God's face, and want to see a delighted smile in return. Not long-suffering exasperation and a wrinkled Nose as He says, "Eeewwww!"Sorry. Much as I appreciate the scholarship, I still go for the simple. Too much time wasted trying to explain the complicated stuff to Sir BumbleBerry.

Yep I agree Cecil, it is very simple. I like how Paul put it. I will not judge those who eat only vegetables and those who eat meats under the law of Christ so long as they are free in their conscience as well. Both are accepted by God and are not to be judged for what they eat or do not eat.

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. . . . So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do no destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to stumble. So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:1-8,12-23).

On my end I accept those without judgment who eat only vegetables and those who see all food as clean and eat any meat. I think whatever one holds personally this is clear from any angle we read this text. Some are free in their conscience to eat meat and some are not. Both are acceptable, pleasing, and right in the eye of God and those who have freedom to eat should not abuse that freedom when around those whose conscience is weak because for them it would be sin for them personally to eat anything that violates their conscience. As for those who do eat everything they are not to be spoken of as evil or judged by those who do not have that freedom.

 

[CecilW]

Sure 'nuff. I join in the non-judgment of those who differ with me, while believing and advocating what it seems that the Bible says.

While I am mostly vegetarian, I do understand that the Bible allows and sometimes commands the consumption of meat.

The idewa that that allowance now extends to unclean meats seems to me a misinterpretation, so I live accordingly. Those who differ remain my siblings in Christ, no problem.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

I understand and see where you are coming from Cecil. I also respect the many wonderful health teachings from those from your tradition. Healthy living is vitally important. Too few today exercise, and too few seek to make sure they are taking in all of the right nutrients for the body. At the same time, on this end it is very hard for me to interpret Paul's words of "I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself" to refer to anything other than the Jew and Gentile debate over the foods that were once unclean, such as pork. Why else would he use the term "unclean" if it was not an issue over things like pork which was at one point under the Mosaic code unclean. As soon as I mention "a food" that is supposedly unclean that runs against the "no food" as that is a universal statement by Paul. Then again the universal statement by Paul where he said, "everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected." Those universal statements are just like Paul's statement that "no one does good, no not one," and "for all have sinned." So whenever I try and insert just one small piece of food into the unclean camp I run into conflict with those all encompassing statements by Paul. To be sure, there are foods that I will not eat but it is based upon other reasons than a moral reason over whether it is sin or not sin.

I think what happens is that each person has a personal conscience and thus we easily read the Bible from that lens. For example, if my conscience is against drinking wine I tend to read scripture in such a light that presses the idea that one should refrain from it because it is wrong for me personally. Then I try and take my personal belief and make that a universal belief that all others have to follow. Then sometimes those that are free to drink try and make those who conscience is not free to drink. Neither position is good. If my conscience (or anyone's) is do not drink then I am right not to drink. But I cannot take my conscience and require every other person to obey that rule which is something only for me personally (which is where legalism comes into play). It looks like to me that is the issue we have with the food laws. Some people have a conscience one way and others have a conscience another way and thus it looks like Paul dealt with it this way in Romans 14.

For me I am going to love, accept, and serve with those who are free and not free in certain regards so long as we do not hurt one another as we go along in the work of the Great Commission. What troubles me more so is I find so many who will talk more about what to eat and not to eat than they will actually talk to others about the need for Christ Jesus in their life. For some reason it appears that when people get caught up in such debates as food laws they lose focus on the larger issue of trying to make a disciple in Christ. It is as if the introverted spirit takes over and the larger focus of seeking the lost takes a back seat. This is just an empirical observation which I admit, but it is what I have seen for the most part from the years of service in the Lord.

 

[CecilW]

Agreed, bro. Jesus, not pork bellies, is the focus! :lol:

 

[Maddog]

Whatever is done, whether sacrifice as Dr Allen referred to earlier or abstaining of eating meats, needs to be by faith. I have then this question, Why? What purpose would my eating or not eating, sacrificing or not sacrificing, drinking or not drinking serve? Am I a better Christian if I do certain actions or am I a better Christian therefore I will do certain things. Conscience is a good place to draw a line but that line is not the same for every believer. If by drinking, I am pulled back again into a lifestyle that destroys lives and families, I will not touch the stuff! On the other hand if my background was never tarnished by alcoholism, I don't have that weakness. If my previous life was marked by confessionals and fish on fridays, i might therefore feel great liberty from a works salvation and rejoice in a intimacy with God the Father directly without any other mediary than the finished work of Jesus Christ. In every instance of believers in the OT, it was Faith in God that made them a "believer". See again the Hall of Faith in Hebrews- "...by faith Abram..., by faith Rahab the harlot..." We have the benefit of hindsight and the sacrifice of Jesus fulfilling the shadows of the OT however, the OT saints did not have that and so by their own estimation works were critical to being a God follower.

Paul the Apostle writes to the Galatians:

Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Gal 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if [it be] yet in vain.
Gal 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Gal 3:10 ¶ For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.


Is my faith calling on me to reach orthodox Jews? Great, then observe the ancient laws.
Is my faith calling on me to reach the boys down at the watering hole? Be free to step inside for a game or two of darts and pool.
Is my faith calling on me to be as healthy as I can be? Great, there are many advantages to vegetarian and vegan life and you have an "in" with the greenies of the world.

I am saved(made a believer) By Faith in Jesus Christ, I am kept By Faith. I am set aside for the work of God by the works that I do, "To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some." I Cor 9:22.

Blessings,
Maddog

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Is my faith calling on me to reach orthodox Jews? Great, then observe the ancient laws.Is my faith calling on me to reach the boys down at the watering hole? Be free to step inside for a game or two of darts and pool. Is my faith calling on me to be as healthy as I can be? Great, there are many advantages to vegetarian and vegan life and you have an "in" with the greenies of the world.

Maddog,

I believe you are seeing the ways of how the Hebrew Christian Apostle Paul lived. This is how I see Paul when he wrote this:

"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law" (1 Cor. 9:19-21).

In modern day terms he would likely do what another Hebrew Christian does that I know. Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum will not eat a ham & bacon sandwich in front of orthodox Jews as he is trying to win them to Christ as he teaches and befriends them. But when he walks across the street in NY and is away from his Hebrew brethren he will meet with some Gentiles and eat a ham and bacon sandwich while he befriends them for the gospel. In both cases he has exercised wisdom, skill, and functioned biblically without violation of any law. To a Jew who is still under the Mosaic Law code he will subject himself to that code for a time to work with them to bring them on to Christ and maturity. When away from those who do not live under the Mosaic Code he will be under the law of Christ but not in specific and exact step with the Mosaic Code (though still so in principle) but will follow the law of Christ as he ministers to those who have no law code in any shape or form because they are lost and without Christ as their head. Apostle Paul was a master example of that type of life.

 

[steve]

it is very hard for me to interpret Paul's words of "I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself" to refer to anything other than the Jew and Gentile debate over the foods that were once unclean, such as pork. Why else would he use the term "unclean" if it was not an issue over things like pork which was at one point under the Mosaic code unclean. As soon as I mention "a food" that is supposedly unclean that runs against the "no food" as that is a universal statement by Paul. Then again the universal statement by Paul where he said, "everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected." Those universal statements are just like Paul's statement that "no one does good, no not one," and "for all have sinned." So whenever I try and insert just one small piece of food into the unclean camp I run into conflict with those all encompassing statements by Paul.

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

is paul in disagreement with acts 15:20 (and 15:29 and 21:25)?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Steve,

Eating a ham sandwich, even with with all the bacon one can pile on it, does not in any way contradict the teaching of those texts in Acts which speak of foods sacrificed to idols. Paul's teaching corresponds to that rather well and with harmony.

Paul gave us a clear teaching on this when he said: "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, 'This has been offered in sacrifice, then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience--I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that which I give thanks? So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they might be saved" (1 Cor. 10:25-33).

Paul saw no food in and of itself unclean. He was free in his own conscience to eat anything, which clearly included any food and all food which thus naturally means even food such as from a pig as that was one of the most commonly known foods to be unclean. Paul clearly made a universal statement that said no food is unclean in itself (Rom. 14:14). This aligns and harmonizes with Acts and the Jerusalem conference as well. The point they were making was that the believers ought not to eat anything that was sacrificed to a pagan idol as that could hurt those with a sensitive conscience to that idea. If someone knew something was sacrificed to an idol then for their good one should abstain so as not to injure a weaker brother's conscience. The refraining was not done in order to be holy in what one ate but to be holy in not offending someone who had a weaker conscience. The food in and of itself was not the issue according to Paul's teachings. It was the conscience issue and the motives of those involved who were eating or not eating that constituted the morality issue.

In short, if eating a ham sandwich offends someone who still believes that food to be unclean well then Paul says don't eat that around them and in front of them. But too he also says, do not allow the one whose conscience is free, like his was, to be judged as sinful for exercising his freedom and liberty in the law of Christ.

All foods were clean for Paul but if someone had a conscience issue or if someone saw that the food was part of a religious sacrifice then the texts you mentioned in Acts would apply. They key to those texts in regard to food has to do with the "idol" aspect of them.