Is it okay to eat pork?

[marks]

Indeed… I personally try to avoid eating pork, but I also recognize the difference in laws.

Mostly the pork I'd eat would be bacon, or hot dogs, or spam, or sausage. But nowadays, the processed meats create massive amounts of inflammation in my body, so before I eat I have to choose just how much I want to enjoy this innocent little bratwurst, because I may have a price to pay!

Much love!

 

[Bob Estey]

Do you know why God gave the Israelites their particular diet?

Much love!

I wasn't there, but I will say I can't think of anything less healthy than bacon or sausage.

 

[Bob Estey]

What is the reference to eating pork being an abomination? I suggest one not to eat it.

[3] "You shall not eat any abominable thing.
[4] These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat,
[5] the hart, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain-sheep.
[6] Every animal that parts the hoof and has the hoof cloven in two, and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat.
[7] Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not part the hoof, are unclean for you.
[8] And the swine, because it parts the hoof but does not chew the cud, is unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch." Deuteronomy 14:3-8 RSV

 

[marks]

I wasn't there, but I will say I can't think of anything less healthy than bacon or sausage.

I certainly can! But I don't think that was the point.

Much love!

 

[Bob Estey]

I certainly can! But I don't think that was the point.

Much love!

I suppose rat poison would be less healthy.

 

[BarneyFife]

God's instructions to Israel came with the Law, at Sinai.

Some of what was given to Israel at Sinai was just a refresher course of what had been handed down from Adam by oral tradition and forgotten because of their long mingling with the heathen.

God brought 2 each of the unclean, and 7 each of the clean animals into the ark, demonstrating that clean and unclean animals were designations that predated the Sinai covenant between God and Israel.

It could also demonstrate that more of the animals that were to be used as food and as sacrifices would be needed than the others that were needed only as sanitation workers.

God told Noah that he could eat of any of the animals - all are food for you - demonstrating that there was no intrinsic reason that they should not eat any of them.

"Unclean" has a sort of ring to it that's not very appetizing to me. There are some things that don't need to be specified to me. I suspect Noah was no different in many respects.

God allowed Noah, but not the Israelites. Do you know why?

I don't believe that God gave Noah permission to eat unclean animals from a single, general statement.

.

 

[marks]

I suppose rat poison would be less healthy.

For instance . . .

:)

Much love!

 

[marks]

Some of what was given to Israel at Sinai was just a refresher course of what had been handed down from Adam by oral tradition and forgotten because of their long mingling with the heathen.

It was actually a binding legal agreement made between God and Israel, there at Mt. Horeb. Whether or not similar items appear in other places does not change that.

Exodus 19:3-8 KJV
3) And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
4) Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
5) Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6) And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
7) And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
8) And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

What is written after that are the details of their required obedience.

Much love!

 

[marks]

It could also demonstrate that more of the animals that were to be used as food and as sacrifices would be needed than the others that were needed only as sanitation workers.

That's been suggested, however, I think that is man's pragmatism being projected onto God.

It may simply be that more of the clean animals were included solely for the sacrifices, and that God really was OK with His instructions to Noah and fam that they could now eat the animals, any of them.

Much love!

 

[marks]

"Unclean" has a sort of ring to it that's not very appetizing to me. There are some things that don't need to be specified to me. I suspect Noah was no different in many respects.

But that's you, and not them. I suspect Noah knew differently, and that all the animals were OK to eat.

I don't believe that God gave Noah permission to eat unclean animals from a single, general statement.

Genesis 9:1-3 KJV
1) And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2) And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3) Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Every moving thing that lives, except the unclean animals . . . is what He said? Or, every moving thing, just that?

Much love!

 

[Bob Estey]

For instance . . .

:)

Much love!

But of those things that fall under the classification of food, I can't offhand think of anything less healthy than bacon or sausage.

 

[BarneyFife]

It was actually a binding legal agreement made between God and Israel, there at Mt. Horeb. Whether or not similar items appear in other places does not change that.

Not sure why it would need to.

But that's you, and not them. I suspect Noah knew differently, and that all the animals were OK to eat.

And I suspect that bellying up to a table of food made from a short supply of animals that God had previously classified as being the opposite of "clean" after a hard day's work wouldn't exactly have made Noah's mouth water. In fact, I suspect just about anyone of such a belief would feel that way—not just me.

As long as we're just suspecting, that is.

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Every moving thing that lives, except the unclean animals . . . is what He said? Or, every moving thing, just that?

Surely it won't be necessary for me to provide a list of verses containing words like "all" and "every" that Christians don't take absolutely literal.

.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

It's OK to eat pork... but only if you use a fork.

Eating pork with a spoon, with nunchucks, or with your fingers... is frowned upon.

I can't think of anything less healthy than bacon or sausage.

It is unclean to eat. Pigs are bottom feeders that eat dead stuff and rotting stuff.

God did not create pigs to be eaten by humans which of course is why He told them in the old testament to not eat this garbage.

But, in the New Testament isn't no longer a sin to eat pork... it won't effect your salvation, but that doesn't mean pork is good to eat because it's not and as you stated it is unhealthy.

I read an article by a doctor once that said he was involved in a study where one of the subject had eaten a large meal of pork and when they ran tests on this guy he tested positive for cancer!

Once the pork passed thru his system he tested negative for cancer... and of course the doctor's advice was if one desires to stay healthy, they should NOT eat the pork.

 

[Brakelite]

Do you know why God give the Israelites their particular diet?

Much love!

To keep them healthy and alive and at their prime in order to serve Him as a testimony to God's wisdom and power. Same reason that Christians are called to eat and drink and do whatever to God's glory

 

[Brakelite]

I wasn't there, but I will say I can't think of anything less healthy than bacon or sausage.

Food nutritionists and food science folk have great difficulty in classifying bacon as food.

 

[Truthnightmare]

The confusion is arising in what is the law? 'We' use an incorrect term when 'we' say "Food LAWS." It is true that in referring to what animals, fish, birds, and insects were 'clean' (acceptable/healthy) to be eaten, the Old Testament Scripture says that "This is the law of the beasts..." (meaning these are the rules of what animals you should eat), but these are not laws like the Ten Commandments are:

Lev 11:46-47
46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten. (KJV)

In the above Scripture, God had just saved Israel out of Egyptian bondage; He was now leading them through the wilderness for the forty years and giving them His laws and statutes and teaching them all things again (for they had forgotten their God during their four hundred years of slavery in the land of Egypt).

But when it says "This is the law of the beasts..." (Lev 11:46) it is not like the Ten Commandment Law, it is rather like the "law" of leprosy in the below:

Lev 14:54
54 This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall, (KJV)

In other words it was God's explanation. Let me explain like this:

• When God explains foods, He is giving His explanation on what is healthy to eat (i.e., what is clean to the human body to consume).
• When God explains the Medicinal, He is giving His explanation on what is diagnosis and cures of sicknesses (i.e., what is the way to cleanse the human body of disease).
• When God explains Commandments, He is giving His explanation on what is commanded by God of men to do and not to do (i.e., what is the way to eternal life of the human soul).

Comparative explanation:

Below is God explaining food Laws, i.e., what is the way of foods for the body:
Lev 11:46-47
46 This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten. (KJV)


Below is God explaining Disease Laws, i.e., what is the way of diagnosis and curing of the sick body:
Lev 14:54-57
54 This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and scall,
55 And for the leprosy of a garment, and of a house,
56 And for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot:
57 To teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean: this is the law of leprosy. (KJV)

Below is God explaining Commandment Laws, i.e., what is the way that men ought to act under penalty of eternal death:
Exod 20:1-4
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: (KJV) [Etc., the Ten Commandments continue through verse 17...]

To say that all this law has the same weight would be to say that eating a piece of bacon (pork is forbade under the food laws) is the same as murdering a man (murder is outlawed in the Ten Commandments). Do you see the folly in calling the food laws the same as Commandment Law?

So it can become confusing when we use the modern-day English term "Law" for everything that God said. Don't get me wrong, whenever God speaks it is law, for He speaks only to command, not engaging in idle conversations; but there are laws unto death and there are laws that are not unto death. In other words, if you break the food laws you get sick, if you break the medicinal laws you won't get cured, but if you break His Commandment Laws you are apt to end up in Hell.

In the New Testament, Peter was told by God to eat unclean foods; Peter objected; God was a little bit upset with him:

Acts 10:11-15
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (KJV)

Was God here rescinding His "food laws" of the Old Testament? No, He was not. But this shows that the "food laws" were not commandments unto death if not followed; for God would not tell Peter to sin against God - yet God told Peter to break the 'food laws," thus proving unassailably that the "food laws" were not like the Commandment Laws (the Ten Commandments, etc.) Below Peter explains what God was showing him when God told Peter to eat the unclean foods (foods against the "food laws"):

Acts 10:28
28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (KJV)

 

[marks]

To keep them healthy and alive and at their prime in order to serve Him as a testimony to God's wisdom and power.

Can you show me the Scriptures on that?

Much love!

 

[marks]

And I suspect that bellying up to a table of food made from a short supply of animals that God had previously classified as being the opposite of "clean" after a hard day's work wouldn't exactly have made Noah's mouth water.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. Should we reach conclusions based on "I suppose . . ."? So I like to stick to the plain sayings.

Surely it won't be necessary for me to provide a list of verses containing words like "all" and "every" that Christians don't take absolutely literal.

Apples and oranges.

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

It's like God knew we'd be having this conversation, and so He worded this very specifically.

Much love!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

God said homosexuality and eating pork are abominations. If I criticize the homosexual without abstaining from pork, then I am a hypocrite.

No you are not, because the not eating pork was for OT times under the Mosaic Law! Under the covenant of Grace Jesus and Paul said all foods are clean.

But if your conscience forbids you to eat pork, then I stand 100% with you in your personal decision. You have that freedom and liberty to abstain, just as I have the liberty and freedom to eat.

 

[marks]

Was God here rescinding His "food laws" of the Old Testament? No, He was not. But this shows that the "food laws" were not commandments unto death if not followed; for God would not tell Peter to sin against God - yet God told Peter to break the 'food laws," thus proving unassailably that the "food laws" were not like the Commandment Laws (the Ten Commandments, etc.) Below Peter explains what God was showing him when God told Peter to eat the unclean foods (foods against the "food laws"):

Mark 7:19, depending on how you interpret it, whether "cleansing all the foods" should be included in Jesus' quote, or not, if not, this is Mark telling us that Jesus made all foods clean.

If in fact the food laws were first given to Israel in order to make a distinction between them and the gentiles, then this statement shows all foods now clean, and would be used in Peter's vision.

"Don't call unclean what I've cleansed", referring to the food, said lesson to be applied to the gentiles. Not the same distinction an longer.

Much love!