Kosher Relevance

[judge]

My question would be, on what basis do we say that laws about food are any different to laws in general?
On what basis can we separate them to be viewed independently from all laws from yahweh found in the hebrew bible?

The writings of the NT , to me, present writings of jews (mainly) from a time when their way of looking at the world was being challenged and in fact passing away.
One can't expect these writings to do anything more than reflect this period, and reflect the difficulty of even those people to come grips with the full implications of their way of life (in it's outward manifestations) being merely a shadow, and their texts being imperfect.
But the Master, worked with what He had.

[Dawid]

My question would be, on what basis do we say that laws about food are any different to laws in general?
On what basis can we separate them to be viewed independently from all laws from yahweh found in the hebrew bible?

The writings of the NT , to me, present writings of jews (mainly) from a time when their way of looking at the world was being challenged and in fact passing away.
One can't expect these writings to do anything more than reflect this period, and reflect the difficulty of even those people to come grips with the full implications of their way of life (in it's outward manifestations) being merely a shadow, and their texts being imperfect.
But the Master, worked with what He had.

Judge, keep on keeping on. I love this perspective.
Paul, James, Peter, John, and Luke are all trying to come to terms with the world around them, reality as they experienced it. As a result, some conflict followed, and we need to stop being afraid of that fact.

[Aaron S]

I like the vagueness this thread is venturing into...it's so....enlightening <!-- s:| --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/neutral.gif" alt=":|" title="Neutral" /><!-- s:| -->

[Dawid]

Was there debate? I believe so. The world in which they lived in was becoming something else, even coming to a close. However was there ultimately a consensus? I also believe so. I think you should read what the immediate successors of the Apostles wrote to get a complete understanding at what consensus was reached. The writings of Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius are a good place to begin (beware the spurious letters though). I'm sure there are some COE patristics which date to that same period when the Apostles died and the new Bishops came into place and discussed their views as well. I cannot believe that the Apostles left this world without reaching some clear-cut decisions on where to lead their followers. That is yes, too scary akhi.

I'm not sure that that conclusion can really be supported. As late as Revelation we can see hints at the same debate that went on between Paul and James in Acts, Galatians, and James.

[judge]

Was there debate? I believe so.

Yes we know there were different opinions even as early as the incidents in the book of Acts.

The world in which they lived in was becoming something else, even coming to a close.

Yes.

However was there ultimately a consensus? I also believe so.

What consensus? Who came to this?

I think you should read what the immediate successors of the Apostles wrote to get a complete understanding at what consensus was reached. The writings of Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius are a good place to begin (beware the spurious letters though).

We have precious little from these men, even if we do think we can accord their writings some authority.
Are we though to accept everything attributed to them..or to cherry pick?

I'm sure there are some COE patristics which date to that same period when the Apostles died and the new Bishops came into place and discussed their views as well.

If only we did have the writings of these men. It would make the case for peshitta primacy so easy.
What do we have though? Not much until Aphrahat, which is centuries later.

I cannot believe that the Apostles left this world without reaching some clear-cut decisions on where to lead their followers. That is yes, too scary akhi.

No its not scary..in fact it allays all our fears. We have the good news. Free access to the Father of all. We dont need a priest to go and sacrifice on our behalf, we dont need an officer (priest) to go and intervene for us.
Our Master has come and demonstrated the love of God for us.

It is such amazingly good news for those who were bound up in the uselessness of the shadows. And good news for us as well, although the relevance was perhaps easier to see for those familiar with those shadows.

Nothing can seperate us from the love of God. No earthly troubles are so much they ruin us. Our Heavenly father delights to give us the kingdom..if we can only believe.

[judge]

I like the vagueness this thread is venturing into...it's so....enlightening <!-- s:| --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/neutral.gif" alt=":|" title="Neutral" /><!-- s:| -->

I think its hard to escape the conflicting views on this unless we see that Jesus, when he says that nothing that goes into a man defiles him is showing some ..er..disrespect for Leviticus. Or at least he doesn't seem to have the same assumptions about it that you bring to your article.
At the time,and place, it must surely have been, quite a thing to say....?

[Aaron S]

Yes....this I grapple with quite a bit, but I have an approach that may be fruitful. Rather than taking the 'simplest' route and come to the conclusion that Yeshua somehow showed that the words of Leviticus were somehow wrong, it would make sense to consider these words in the 1st century Israel context into which they were spoken. We can easily read the passage in this day and age and read it as a clear-cut affront to Leviticus, but perhaps he was making a strong point regarding purity.
Let me targum what this would mean as far as his statement is concerned:
????A man can be completely clean according to the letter of the instructions of purity,
????but the things that can defile such a man are lack of wholeheartedness and lack of spiritual discipline.

My point was to say that he wasn't as much saying that the commands of YHWH don't get to the heart of it as he was that the commands laid the knowledge unto purity for those who are in a faithful relationship with YHWH - so the bottom line is the heart. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

[Burning one]

Shlama,


i'm not seeing any disrespect to Leviticus by Messiah's words. it must be understood contextually, and the context was ritual purity according to the traditions of the elders. this concerned the necessity to wash one's hands before eating food the status of which was questionable regarding whether or not it had come into contact with unclean hands. very similar today with khlav Yisrael milk - which must be overseen by a Jewish man from cow to container to be sure it is never "defiled."

so the context had nothing to do with unclean foods, which were part of commandments, but instead, traditions of men that were being set up improperly as commandments. the Pharisees seemed to understand this difference, because as much as they were throwing a hissy-fit over His ignoring their traditions, they didn't say a word to Him about breaking any actual commandments -- had He done so, THAT alone would have been sufficient enough to use against Him as being a false teacher, yet this was never done. His disrespect was not towards Leviticus in any manner, but to the traditions of the elders which encumbered the people more than needed.

my two shekels worth!

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

[visionary]

Back in those days, you could have heard it said..

"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog."
Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b

It was a strong prejudice going on back in those days.. and the dividing lines were so bad that it took a vision to get Peter to see that God does not consider people from other nations as unclean or common and go to Cornelius house to tell him the good news of the gospel. It was the reason for the Jerusalem Council to be held. Paul explained that there should be no more dividing Jew and Gentile.. we are all equal in the eyes of God and we are all called to believe in Him who is our Messiah, our savior, and our hope.

[dowidh]

"God created specific foods for use and thanksgiving for Believers who know the truth (the Torah). For everything God created is good (for the purpose God created it for), and nothing (God created for use) is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving (berakha), because it (clean meat) is sanctified by the word of God (Lev. 11 & Deut. 14) and prayer." 1Timothy 4:3b-5

Much of what seems to be against kosher food in the NT is in reality talking against vegetarianism and other false religions, because the Tora speaks strongly against doctrinal vegetarianism,
"When you say, ?Let me eat meat,? because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much meat as your heart desires. If the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name (mount Zion) is too far from you, then you may slaughter from your herd and from your flock which the LORD has given you, just as I have commanded you, and you may eat within your gates as much as your heart desires." Deuteronomy 12:20-21

That's why Believers who know the truth, will know they are free to eat meat as much as they like.

[Stephen Silver]

"God created specific foods for use and thanksgiving for Believers who know the truth (the Torah). For everything God created is good (for the purpose God created it for), and nothing (God created for use) is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving (berakha), because it (clean meat) is sanctified by the word of God (Lev. 11 & Deut. 14) and prayer." 1Timothy 4:3b-5

Much of what seems to be against kosher food in the NT is in reality talking against vegetarianism and other false religions, because the Tora speaks strongly against doctrinal vegetarianism,
"When you say, ?Let me eat meat,? because you long to eat meat, you may eat as much meat as your heart desires. If the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name (mount Zion) is too far from you, then you may slaughter from your herd and from your flock which the LORD has given you, just as I have commanded you, and you may eat within your gates as much as your heart desires." Deuteronomy 12:20-21

That's why Believers who know the truth, will know they are free to eat meat as much as they like.

Shlama Beloved Brethren:
Is Paul only addressing Jews in Romans chapter 14 or is he speaking also to Gentile believers as well? I have met Gentile Christian believers who have attempted to stuff pork down my throat (figuratively speaking). And I am now reading an article from a Torah-Observant believer who interprets vegetarianism as an equivalence to false religion, though I have only quoted from Paul's letter to the Romans. Paul has addressed Gentile pride in Romans Chapter 11, and in particular Romans 11:17-21. I do not think Paul was speaking in vain. Was Paul Torah-Observant? I read evidence in Acts and in his letters that he indeed was, while holding the Faith of Mashiakha in good standing as a witness amongst Jews as well as Gentiles. His concern, as well as that of James was for the weak and poor amongst the believing community. James struggled to keep watch over his Jewish brethren both saved and unsaved, for he as a son of David had the same likeness as King David. His inclusive stand seems to have led to his murder in 62 A.D. when he was thrown from the Temple wall and beaten to death by a launderer carrying a bat who beat his brains out while he struggled on the ground. The fact is that James, Paul and Peter were in close agreement with the Rukha d'Kadusha, concerning the things that were necessary for the Gentile believers to have open fellowship with the Gentile believers and only four stipulations were placed upon them 15:20, 28, 29. So what is Kosher Relevance. To the Jew and Gentile it is more relevant to show mercy, both to a slaughtered animal as well as to Gentile brethren.
1) when it comes to things strangled, where the blood will pool in the meat and the stress that the animal experiences by being suffocated in strangulation adds an unpleasant taste in the meat, it is important to use a keenly sharpened knife applied swiftly and gently to the carotid arteries, and then allowing the blood to completely drain, while the animal quickly and mercifully loses consciousness. In doing so there is no adrenaline released into the meat and muscles as there is from the struggling strangled animal which causes a bitter/off taste, though the meat is carefully cooked afterwards. Tainted meat is unfit for human consumption if the animal is not slaughtered properly.

2) The command not to consume blood, for the soul (life) of the flesh is in the blood. Every creature has a living soul (nefesh chaya). All earthly creatures, apart from humanity are created with living nefesh but not nashama (breath of Alaha). (Genesis 2:7)

3) adultery, which is self explained in the Torah.

4) idolatry, which again is explained in the Torah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 14:2 For one believes that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eat's vegetables.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 14:14 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 14:20 Do not 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 15:1 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 8:9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brethren, my desire is to bring clarity and not to argue or be contentious.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research

[Aaron S]

I'm wondering if we perhaps may expound on the comparison between now and then: What variables pressed Paul (along with the 12) to emphasize what he did? specifically the variation between now and then with respect to the existence of what is deemed 'Christendom.' We can draw many similitudes between now and then [namely between secularism and heathenism]; but perhaps it is also needful to take some more time to address the aforementioned.
A peculiarity I'm sure can be learned from this endeavor is that the modern reader must hold back any eisegetical judgment of kashruth when reading about Paul's advise on vegetarianism and sacrifices to idols. As we understand more deeply the ancient culture and its variations from nowadays, we may also be more confident in what will be clearly shown as the proper intents of the letters of Paul.
Even so... I am baffled to an extent when Paul writes "all food is clean," and the like. Would you read Romans 14:20 according to vegetarian context or apply it also to kashruth?

Thanks for your words Stephen.

[Stephen Silver]

I'm wondering if we perhaps may expound on the comparison between now and then: What variables pressed Paul (along with the 12) to emphasize what he did? specifically the variation between now and then with respect to the existence of what is deemed 'Christendom.' We can draw many similitudes between now and then [namely between secularism and heathenism]; but perhaps it is also needful to take some more time to address the aforementioned.
A peculiarity I'm sure can be learned from this endeavor is that the modern reader must hold back any eisegetical judgment of kashruth when reading about Paul's advise on vegetarianism and sacrifices to idols. As we understand more deeply the ancient culture and its variations from nowadays, we may also be more confident in what will be clearly shown as the proper intents of the letters of Paul.
Even so... I am baffled to an extent when Paul writes "all food is clean," and the like. Would you read Romans 14:20 according to vegetarian context or apply it also to kashruth?

Thanks for your words Stephen.

Shlama Kulkhon:
How shall we understand Genesis 9:2-4. At this time the whole world was Gentile, there was neither Jew nor Gentile. Abraham became the first physical Jew. Having said this Noah understood the difference between clean and unclean. In the beginning there were many more unkosher animals than kosher, according to Noah's personal revelation from Elohim and the divisions between clean and unclean written much later in Leviticus chapter 11.
These restrictions in kashrut were for circumcised Jews only, not Gentiles. Yet throughout the Torah is the command not to eat/consume blood. This among four restrictions were given in Acts 15 for the purpose of joined fellowship of Jews and Gentiles in fellowiship around the table and nothing more. Thus the reminder of Paul,

"the kingdom of heaven is neither meat nor drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit".

It was the Holy Spirit which was present at Cornelius' conversion (Acts 10) as well as in the Jerusalem Counsel (Acts 15). It was the Holy Spirit that sanctioned the decision to put only four restraints upon Gentiles as written in Acts 15:20, 29. I hope this will stimulate some more comments and throw revelatory light on the matter for all of us.

Shlama,
Stephen

[Luc Lefebvre]

Even so... I am baffled to an extent when Paul writes "all food is clean," and the like. Would you read Romans 14:20 according to vegetarian context or apply it also to kashruth?

The way I have always understood Paul's statement regarding all foods being clean is within the context of idolatry. While it was ruled in Acts 15 that foods sacrificed to idols was to be avoided, Paul makes some interesting remarks in 1 Corinthians 8. As far as I understand it, meat in those days would be bought in the market and there may not necessarily have been knowledge as to whether or not that meat had been sacrificed to an idol (or prepared properly in general). Within these circumstances I see the zealousness of some Believers to avoid meat altogether, just to be on the safe side (i.e. Romans 14). But Paul, the man of intense faith that he was, proclaims in 1 Cornithians 8 that there is no such thing as an idol or any other god. They are nothing; worthless! Indeed, there is only one true Creator and it is He whom we all follow. Therefore, if we have that faith, we should not worry about if that meat was sacrificed to an idol. It is clean because such an idol is powerless.

But as far as what constitutes food, from a Torah observant standpoint, food is only qualified as such if it is specified as so in Leviticus 11. Everything else is designed for a separate function (i.e. garbage eating, bottom feeders, etc.)

This is my attempt at trying to determine the context of Paul's words. Much of what Paul was trying to do I see as his detemining halacha for the communities in order to foster unity and avoid division between Believers. Such rulings apply to those communities within their cultural situation and context. In our communities we may very well need to do the same, and, when we visit them, have a respect for the rulings of other communities and what their calling is within the Body.

[Stephen Silver]

Even so... I am baffled to an extent when Paul writes "all food is clean," and the like. Would you read Romans 14:20 according to vegetarian context or apply it also to kashruth?

The way I have always understood Paul's statement regarding all foods being clean is within the context of idolatry. While it was ruled in Acts 15 that foods sacrificed to idols was to be avoided, Paul makes some interesting remarks in 1 Corinthians 8. As far as I understand it, meat in those days would be bought in the market and there may not necessarily have been knowledge as to whether or not that meat had been sacrificed to an idol (or prepared properly in general). Within these circumstances I see the zealousness of some Believers to avoid meat altogether, just to be on the safe side (i.e. Romans 14). But Paul, the man of intense faith that he was, proclaims in 1 Cornithians 8 that there is no such thing as an idol or any other god. They are nothing; worthless! Indeed, there is only one true Creator and it is He whom we all follow. Therefore, if we have that faith, we should not worry about if that meat was sacrificed to an idol. It is clean because such an idol is powerless.

But as far as what constitutes food, from a Torah observant standpoint, food is only qualified as such if it is specified as so in Leviticus 11. Everything else is designed for a separate function (i.e. garbage eating, bottom feeders, etc.)

This is my attempt at trying to determine the context of Paul's words. Much of what Paul was trying to do I see as his detemining halacha for the communities in order to foster unity and avoid division between Believers. Such rulings apply to those communities within their cultural situation and context. In our communities we may very well need to do the same, and, when we visit them, have a respect for the rulings of other communities and what their calling is within the Body.

Shlama Akhi Luc:
Paul also said, if one says, "this meat has been sacrificed to an idol", do not eat of it, for his sake that brought it and for conscience sake" (I Cor. 10:28). Indeed, Paul also said, "eat what is sold in the market, asking no questions for conscience sake"(10:25).

Shlama,
Stephen