Pastor Mike James of the Church of God International has posted an article on their website entitled Did Jesus Keep the Kosher Laws? Unfortunately, the article perpetuates Mr. Herbert Armstrong's heretical teachings about a Christian's obligation to observe Torah Law. Like Armstrong, James frames the question in terms of "What did Jesus do?" Behind this question, of course, is the unspoken one: "Shouldn't we be following his example?" This line of reasoning, however, is deeply flawed and has caused some folks who are sincerely trying to follow God's will to reach some erroneous conclusions about what God expects from them! I know, because I was one of them.
James begins his post by defining what he means when he refers to "kosher laws." For him, that term encompasses both the Scriptural designations of clean and unclean foods found in the eleventh chapter of Leviticus and the oral traditions which Orthodox Jews claim to have derived from Moses. And, while Mike acknowledges that Jesus may have followed some of these oral traditions, he insists that only those guidelines which appear in the Scriptural Torah are actually binding upon Christians. For Pastor James (and most Armstrongites), it is crucial to differentiate between what is found in Scripture and these oral traditions of the Jews in determining what is or isn't binding upon Christians. Indeed, Mike made this all very clear in his article when he wrote: "This distinction is very important because it gets at the root of arguments on the law of God and whether we still need to observe it. We believe you need to keep God's law until heaven and earth pass away (Matthew 5:17–19). The law does not save us, but it helps us understand God's character and what sin is. By observing it, we are following the example of our Savior, Jesus Christ."
Unfortunately, what Mike and his associates fail to understand is that Jesus Christ HAD to perfectly fulfill ALL of the requirements of the Torah in order to pay the penalty for our sins! Moreover, in that passage that Mike referenced in his remarks (Matthew 5:17-19), we see that Christ said that nothing would "pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law! Heaven and earth didn't pass away before he accomplished that feat! It wasn't that Christ abolished or did away with the Law as the ACOGs claim that Traditional Christians teach, he filled it to the full - magnified it - distilled it - transformed it! And, in an ironic twist, it should be pointed out that even Mike is NOT suggesting that the entire Torah is still in full force and effect - still binding on Christians! Later, in this same post, Mike noted that "We know through the New Testament that the Old Testament sacrificial law is no longer required because Christ's sacrifice took all of that on (Hebrews 10:1–10)." So, we're NOT arguing about whether the whole law is carried forward into the terms of the New Covenant under Christ, we're arguing about which parts of it should be carried forward!
In this respect, Christ made very clear that the entire law was based on two principles: 1) Love for God, and 2) Love for each other. Later, both he and his disciples further clarified the Christian's responsibility in this respect by stating that the best way to demonstrate their love for God was by completely loving each other! For the Christian, both Jesus and his apostles declared that THIS would fulfill the requirements of the Law! In other words, for these new creatures in Christ, fulfillment would no longer be found in all of the dos and don'ts of the Torah, but by living in the Spirit of the Law. Moreover, even this obedience would NOT accomplish their reconciliation to God - earn them salvation - THAT WOULD BE ACHIEVED ONLY THROUGH THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF THE LIFE AND SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST! Their obedience to the Law of Love would demonstrate that they had accepted Christ and were henceforward walking in the newness of the life which HE had given them!
Returning to the narrower question of the Christian diet, Mike said that Jesus remarks in the seventh chapter of the Gospel of Mark have been misunderstood by mainstream Christians. With all due respect, I believe that Pastor James has missed the point of Christ's remarks there! Indeed, Christ himself summarized the meaning of his remarks - once publicly, and once privately for the benefit of his disciples. We read there: "When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man." (Mark 7:14-15) Continuing, "When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. 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?' And He said, 'What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.'" (Verses 17-23) In other words, in spiritual terms, washing and eating aren't what makes a person clean or unclean!
Later in his post, Pastor James also mentioned the great council which the Church held at Jerusalem for the purpose of confronting the issue of a Christian's obligation to the Torah once and for all. Unfortunately, Mike attempts to circumscribe (pun intended) the issue which that assembly addressed to whether or not Christians should be circumcised. Never mind, that even this narrow reading of the council's purpose would still be nullifying the requirement for Christian males to be physically circumcised. It should also be noted that this procedure was required by the Torah (Genesis 17:11) and was also performed on the Christ child (Luke 2:21). Hence, if we are being logically consistent, shouldn't Christians also be following Christ's example in this instance? Nevertheless, Scripture makes clear that the Jerusalem Council was about much more than circumcision.
Although the text of the fifteenth chapter of Acts, makes plain that the original confrontation arose over circumcision (Acts 15:1), it also makes clear that the debate quickly expanded to comprehend the entire question of a Christian's responsibility to the Law. We read that "some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." (Verse 5) During the council, we are informed that Peter stood up and asked "why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they." (Verses 10-11) Peter's speech was followed by a report from Paul and Barnabas about their missionary work among the Gentiles. (Verse 12) Next, James stood up and said: "Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath." (Verses 19-21) In other words, let's NOT make them responsible for observing all of the dos and don'ts of the Torah - Moses already has enough advocates for the covenant he outlined among the Jews! Moreover, this is reiterated in the actual text of the letter that was sent by the council to the Gentile Churches (see verses 23-29).
This understanding is also confirmed by what Paul wrote to the saints of Galatia about this early controversy in the Church. When he later confronted Peter about his backsliding in this regard, he wrote that he told him: "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Galatians 2:14-16)
What Herbert Armstrong, David Pack, Gerald Flurry, Roderick Meredith, and Mike James have never seemed to understand is that the Torah points to Jesus Christ, and it was FULFILLED perfectly by him on our behalf! It's NOT that Christ nullified/abrogated/did away with the Law - He observed, fulfilled, magnified, and distilled ALL of its precepts for us! Under the terms of the New Covenant, we have received the salvation of our souls through Jesus Christ; and we obey the Law of Love (for God and each other) to demonstrate that we are a new creature because of what Christ has done for us. In other words, our obedience to that Law is the fruit or evidence that we have truly received God's gift - the Holy Spirit and are walking in the Light! And, for the record, the Law of Love also summarizes and fulfills the requirements of all of those individual dos and don'ts found in the Torah! This isn't about Law vs Lawlessness. It's about Christians observing the Law which applies to them and for the reasons given by Christ and his apostles!
No ACOG member has ever kept kosher. That would be impossible unless you got all your meat from a kosher meat market or meat supplier. Let me elaborate on this.
ReplyDeleteKosher meat can't be prepared in a place where non-kosher meats are prepared. The average butcher shop, meat processing plant, or meat market processes both. That would be unthinkable for a Jew to buy meat from a place like that!
Also, those who go to the feasts
have never kept kosher either. Unless they had access to a kosher deli or restaurant, there would be no way they could have kept kosher. Why? The clean meats they would have eaten would have been cooked on the same grills or ovens as the unclean meats. The Non-ACOG'Ss got to eat to pilgrim!
I read that for each slice of bacon you eat, it subtracts nine minutes from your life. You can understand why people are concerned about what they eat and might see a spiritual dimension to diet. Yet, the NT uncouples the dietary laws from the spiritual walk that Christians must follow. But the NT does not make unhealthy food healthy. Eating greasy pork, like eating too much greasy beef, can be unhealthy.
ReplyDeleteHWA innovated the non-Biblical concept of "physical sin." These sins are about "breaking physical laws" - which is non-sensical - the suspension of physical laws is something only God can do. So when he was visiting foreign leaders and was served something unclean, HWA ate it. It was just a physical sin. It is sin but not to worry - its impact is only physical. Of course, if you lusted after pork that moved the issue into a spiritual dimension.
If Jesus had eaten pork, I think followers of HWA's ideas would likely believe that he had revoked his spiritual perfection and could no longer serve as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. (As far as I know, HWA did not make the argument that what he called physical sin was somehow not real sin. It was real sin - it just had only physical consequences.)
But Jesus, in principle, ate food that did have negative health consequences. This ingestion would then fall into HWA's category of physical sin. Jesus ate, for instance, bread, unleavened or leavened. When starches are subjected to high heat, acrylamides are produced. And acrylamides are carcinogenic. Jesus ingested body-damaging acrylamides. According to HWA's understanding of sin, Jesus sinned and disqualified himself from being the perfect sacrifice needed for our salvation - a horrific consequence, if HWA is right.
Jesus said that what went into your mouth did not defile you but what came out of your heart could defile you. This is statement that ingesting food has no spiritual consequence. There is no "physical sin" as HWA conceived it. We should follow the example of Jesus. He kept the dietary laws in Leviticus perfectly during the course of his life. But that is not his whole example. His whole example includes asserting that under the NT food and drink have no spiritual consequence. One cannot select to follow only part of what Jesus exemplified. He not only brought us actions but also words.
I observe the Leviticus dietary laws as best I can but for health reasons and not spiritual reasons. I assume that there are probably a health reasons behind the prescriptions of Leviticus. I do not believe that meat and drink have anything to do with salvation.
My two cents .....