https://www.spreaker.com/user/wayneoconner/do-old-covenant-food-laws-still-apply-to

Chapter Seven (Proposed chapter for my upcoming book Kingdom Lessons Five)

Do Old Covenant Food Laws Apply to Christians Today?

 

Didn’t Paul the Apostle make a distinction, in the ninth chapter of first Corinthians between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant?  Does he hint in the twenty-first verse that he is under the law of Christ rather than the law of the Old Covenant?  While we should consider the foods that we eat, does our salvation hinge on whether we have consumed Old Covenant unclean foods after our conversion to Christ? Is it spiritual adultery to practice the Old Covenant law instead of the law of Christ?

 

Those who are pushing the modern “law following” are they onto something or have they just fallen heed to the doctrines of devils?  Are they modern day Judaizers?  Are they right? Am I wrong?  Either one of us could be tweaking scripture to justify our doctrinal stance.  That said, so far, from what I am reading in the New Testament, I am not seeing that Jesus is calling me to go back under the law. Is there a way for individual Christians to honor Old Covenant food laws without “going back under the law?” This paper will present my position on the issue.

 

My dietary preference is that of an omnivore, although I do try to have at least one meal each day that is a granny salad or one fruit. To be honest, I have had to discipline my natural carnivorous tendencies. To say that I love meat, especially charcoal grilled meats, is an understatement. Particularly at my age, it is not healthy to live on a meat only diet any more than it is to live on a high carbs and sugar diet. I believe that under the grace received from Jesus I have the right to eat meats and plants, including pork, although I try to limit my consumption of those muddy, dung and garbage eating oinkers, tasty as they are at times.

 

Months ago I read a post at the Viking Christian Facebook Group where he was defending his Christian right to have just consumed a fine breakfast replete with eggs and pork products.  Following a lively debate several Christians of the modern-day Old Covenant food law sect, roasted “the Norseman” for his unclean repast.  I posted a few verses that I had been studying and said I was going to be writing about the issue in my next book.

 

Recently I had been talking with a friend who visits my home fellowship on rare occasions.  Because she has food allergies and has read a few articles about meat consumption among Christians being sinful, she is practically vegan. It seems I have seen her nibble meat on rare occasions. I explained to her that she has the right as a Christian to eat according to that lifestyle but to teach that Christians cannot harvest or breed animals or eat meat would be a scriptural error. I added that good Christian stewards will carefully breed cattle, for example, and that artificial insemination, would not truly be the equivalent of rape among humans. Bad stewards will raise animals according to their preferences and profit potentials. They would care less about anything else, but good stewards should consider the health and well-being of the animal, too. More than that, I posited that before the flood righteous men and women were given a commandment to eat only fruits, herbs and plants, but commanded post flood to eat meat.

 

Proverbs 10:12 says, “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.”  I had told her that God had given Adam dominion over the animals in the first chapter of Genesis.  We have the right and responsibility to exercise that dominion even now, but God expects us to do that wisely.

 

Genesis 1:26

 

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

Most Christians do not realize that originally, dominion did not include eating the meat of the animal kingdom. It is possible flocks and herds were originally raised for sacrifice or to make clothing and righteous followers of God, may have used skins for clothing, but did not consume the meat. Probably one of the prevalent early sins of mankind was to eat meat before they had permission.  Next, they probably began giving in to all kinds of wickedness including cannibalizing each other.

 

In Genesis chapter nine God gave Noah and his offspring the right to eat meat.  Before that, in the third chapter of Genesis, mankind had been given the right to eat fruits, plants, and herbs, not meat. I have had Christians laugh at me when I have shared that with them, but if you look, the scripture provides us with proof for the case that pre-flood humans were expected to be vegetarians.

 

Genesis 3:17-21

 

17  And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18  Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19  In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

20  And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

21  Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

 

Considering that Adam and Eve first wore leaves over their genitals, it seems fairly apparent that they were not even killing animals to make clothing.  God clothed them with the first skins himself!  God seemed to initiate sacrifices after the fall and introduced the concept of blood atonement.

 

Gen 4:4

 

4  And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering…

 

I have had vegetarian Christians tell me that all meat consumption is a sin. When I have asked them why the books of the law explain rules for not only sacrificing meat cuts but detail different methods for preparing the sacrifices for food, that does not usually go over well.  That question often makes the “all meat consumption is sin” faction quite livid with me.  One such couple, almost two decades ago, prayed that God would remove my spiritual blinders that caused me to believe that Jesus and his disciples fished.  The wife had emphatically added that the Bible translators had substituted the word fish for fish-plants! She then said that the disciples used their boats and nets to harvest fish plants, a plant common to lakes around Galilee.  See my blog article, A Fish Story: https://wayneoconner.com/example-post-5/ to read the tale.

 

Genesis chapter nine records the first instance where God tells Noah to begin using animals for food. If it was the customary practice for righteous mankind to already eat meat, why does God go out of his way to instruct Noah to use meat? It is also possible that following the flood, it may have taken a while for vegetation to reproduce sufficiently for consumption. It took Noah’s dove a while to find an olive branch if I remember correctly. Chapter nine verse three also confirms that originally mankind was expected to live according to a vegetarian diet.  Surprisingly, it appears in that same verse that God did not even expect Noah to follow the clean and unclean foods distinction yet! It would have taken quite a while for animals to reproduce, too, although it seemed like God had placed several pairs of most clean animals on the ark, and only a pair of those that were not. (See Genesis chapter seven.)  “Everything that liveth” is the terminology that the King James Bible translators used. That is how the text reads in Genesis chapter nine.  God commanded Noah and his family to begin eating meat, after the flood, and so it would have made sense to temporarily allow for the consumption of either clean or unclean animals.

 

Gen 9:1-4

 

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.

4  But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

 

For those of you who like to shake your heads and say, “It’s just Waayyynnne,” I am not a lone ranger shouting from my balcony that pre-flood mankind was expected not to eat meat!  Both the “Search for Bible Truth” and “Answers in Genesis” independently presented articles that make the same bold claim.

 

On January 9^th, 2012, Search For Bible Truths, published an online article entitled, “Did Humans Eat Meat Before the Flood.” The opening sentence of their article starts, “The Bible states that God gave permission for humans to eat meat, the meat of animals after the flood of Noah’s day, supplementing the diet of vegetation they were originally given.”

 

I will detail the article from Answers in Genesis in the box below.

 

Creation’s Original Diet and the Changes at the Fall

by Jim Stambaugh on August 1, 1991

Answers in Genesis

Originally published in Journal of Creation 5, no 2 (August 1991): 130-138.

 

“Finally, this study will venture off into an area of speculation. When God finished His work of creation there was an idyllic, harmonious existence between earth, animals, and man. The world that we observe today is not very idyllic, and it is certainly not very harmonious. The questions of why this came about, and what kind of change resulted will be raised and an answer proposed.

We have very little information concerning the original diet of mankind and animals in the Garden of Eden. If one were to accept a naturalistic theory for the origin of animals, then one must believe that mankind and their animal ancestors have always been carnivorous. Yet God clearly said, in Genesis 1:29–30, that both men and animals were to eat only vegetation. This was certainly part of the creation being [very good], and was God’s best for His creation.”

 

 

By the time of Paul, the Old Covenant food laws were well established in the traditions of the religious leaders. Acts chapter fifteen provides the first scriptural evidence of the staunch opposition of this group to Paul and Barnabas.  The Judaizers demanded that all new converts had to agree to be circumcised and obey the law of Moses.  Paul did not agree with their demand.  If we look at his reasoning, there in the text of Acts chapter fifteen, Paul stated that God had accepted the Gentile converts without the qualification of the Old Covenant.  Faith in the finished work of Jesus on the cross seems to be the qualifier here, not Old Covenant laws such as circumcision and unclean foods.

 

Acts 15:8-9 (KJV)

8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

 

The issue was so crucial that the elders of Jerusalem held a special council session. What does the scripture say that the final decision was of that council?  Did they decide that Gentile converts were supposed to embrace the Old Covenant?  No, they did not.  They said, according to Acts fifteen verse twenty, “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” Nothing was mentioned about the food laws other than that they should not eat things strangled or meat that had not been drained of blood. So, except for those exceptions. Paul and the council jettisoned the major part of Old Covenant food law as being mandatory for Christians.

 

Paul goes on to visit many churches and writes letters to them reminding them not to go back under the law.  Over and over through the New Testament, Paul keeps reminding them of this.  And yet, modern-day Judaizers keep finding Old Testament verses that redefine certain New Testament verses. They do this to justify going back under the law. The Judaizers of Paul’s time were not always mentioned by name, but they were among the Pharisees that followed Paul and tried to denigrate his work among the new Christians. Demanding the adherence to Old Covenant food regulations was part of that group’s plan to dismantle the New Testament teachings of Paul that were replacing the Old Covenant.

The Old Covenant had to be fulfilled and done away with to establish the New Covenant. See Hebrews 10:9-10, Heb. 8:6-9; 7:22; 2 Cor. 3:6. In Romans 7:4 we learn that we are freed from the law so that we are joined to Christ. It doesn’t say that we do both.  We have to choose one or the other.  Paul gives us many examples of this fact. Galatians 3:24-27 says that we are no longer under the schoolmaster (old law). We have the New Covenant gospel of faith in Jesus finished work on the cross.

Let’s say I ask a carpenter to build a deck onto my house.  I show him the style of the deck I want. We discuss the cost of the project and then make a contract for the construction.  When the carpenter finishes the project, and I pay him for his completed work, the contract has been concluded.  The contract has been fulfilled!  To fulfill the Old Covenant, Jesus, the former carpenter from Nazareth, had to fulfill that contract, and the newly finished work is the New Covenant.  During the time that the carpenter was working to build my deck, he was under the constraints of the contract.  In much the same way, before His resurrection, Jesus was still under the constraint of the Old Covenant.  Since Jesus followed the law in many instances before that time, modern-day Judaizers will often point to those verses in the New Testament and claim that Christians are still under the law!

In the same way, many modern-day Judaizers often point at Old Testament verses that exemplify living under the law and use those verses to negate or modify New Testament verses that encourage us not to go back under the law.  There is an internet radio show that I will not name.  I enjoy many of their programs, but I can’t help but feel they are doing spiritual gymnastics in this same way to negate Paul’s warnings – multiple warnings –  not to go back under the law!  They even have a show that explains the Book of Galatians in light of their doctrine in such a way that negates Paul’s warnings about going back under the law!  I have Christian friends who I believe are doing the same things and twisting scripture to the same ends.

In Galatians 2:16 Paul says, ^“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”  Galatians 2:19 goes on to say that we are dead to the law. Much of the book of Galatians seems to be a warning not to go back under the law.  Galatians chapter five seems to nail it home just as soundly as when the monk Martin Luther nailed his manifesto against the castle church door in Wittenberg, Germany.

 

Paul is talking about circumcision here, but it is part of the Old Covenant law like clean and unclean foods. Paul seemed to be so irritated with the Judaizers that he says that he wishes they would be cut off.  Is this just a trick of semantics?  Is Paul saying they should be castrated or is he saying that they should be cut off from interfering with the Body of Christ?  Is this heated sarcasm, in the form of a double entendre from Paul the Apostle, really saying that the Judaizers should be emasculated?  If this is the case, Paul was more than a little ticked off.  I wonder what words he would have for the modern Judaizers of today?

 

 

Galatians 5:1-18 sounds a deafening klaxon alarm that only dings moderately in other letters.

 

Galatians 5:1-18

 

1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?

8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.

9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.

11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.

12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

 

We do seem to have some freedom under grace to honor some aspects of the Old Covenant, but I believe there is a very fine line.  Paul does say here in First Corinthians that he at times temporarily practiced the law so that he might be in a better position to witness to the followers of the Old Covenant.  And yet at the same time, he made distinctions in his preaching that proved he was under the law of Christ and not under the Old Covenant law.

 

1 Corinthians 9:19-21

 

19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

 

Ephesians chapter two also seems to be an example where Paul says that the Old Covenant law had to be abolished to make room for the New Covenant.

 

Ephesians 2:14-18

 

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

 

The eighth chapter of Hebrews reminds me of when the learned teacher of the law asked Jesus, according to Matthew twenty-two, which Old Covenant laws were the most important.  Jesus answer seems to foreshadow the coming transfer from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.

Matthew 22:37 

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jeremiah 31:33 says, “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, said the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”  It says, “after those days.”  After what days? After the days of making the covenant with His people.  This verse seems to promise that one day the House of Israel will be given an opportunity to get a new and better covenant than the Old Covenant.

When Jesus came and was crucified and resurrected, I think that was the first instant of that promise.  And some did come to repentance and make the shift to the New Covenant.  More than that, God allowed the Gentiles to be grafted into the New Covenant. In Romans eleven Paul even refers to Gentile converts as “wild olive tree branches” grafted into the people of God. Paul refers to himself in that same chapter, in verse thirteen, as the apostle to the Gentiles.

We are not grafted into the Old Covenant but grafted into the New Covenant.  The Old Covenant also had room for Gentiles to come into that covenant.  With the genesis of the New Covenant, Gentile conversions sky-rocketed for the Kingdom of God, overtaking what had once been primarily a Hebraic religious movement, That said, Gentile conversion is not a Old Testament only phenomena. Acts 10 records the story of Cornelius, who worshiped God.  He was already considered a friend of the temple and a generous alms-giver.  God really had to push Peter’s buttons to get him to minister to Cornelius and his household because he was a Gentile convert. God seems to want to make this the flagship case for taking Old Testament gentile converts and bringing them into the New Covenant.  If God makes this distinction, we as New Testament Christians need to make this distinction, too, rather than torturing the scripture to make it negate Paul’s constant warnings about going back under the law!   Food law was just one kind of Old Covenant example.

 

Galatians 6:12-13

 

12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.

 

13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

 

Here Paul seems to be saying that those who want you to go back under the law want to do so for their fleshly vanity.  I think another way of saying this is that such people want to prove that they convinced you, to show that you have converted to their Old Covenant doctrine. They are scoring victory points, tagging their trophies, and logging it into their tally books.

 

Galatians 3:16-25

 

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

 

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

 

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

 

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

 

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

 

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

 

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

 

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

 

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

 

 

Galatians chapter five and Ephesians 2:15 seems to be saying that Jesus fulfilled and ended the Old Covenant and Ordinances.  Such claims only intensified his battle with the Judaizers, one that is still an ongoing war in modernity.  Only now, rather than being Judaizers that challenges Paul’s New Covenant principles, it is a new sect of Christians who are demanding that we go back to being law-keepers.

 

Who, again, were the Judaizers of Paul’s time? It seems like they were a group, belonging to the Pharisaical sect that tried to force new Christians back under the law, with circumcision being just one of those laws.  It also seems to hint here that there would be those in the future which would cause a great hullabaloo by hornswoggling them into going back under the law once more. Paul later prophesies that the time would come that some would forbid the eating of meats and marrying.  I don’t think it is fair to point at just the Vatican when considering this prophecy.  The Hebrew Roots movement, I believe, is one modern example of religious people, or deceived Christians, trying to force others back under the law, and forbidding the consumption of certain meats.

 

When Paul meets with James to discuss this issue and has the opportunity to make all the food laws binding on Christians, does he do so? No. For those of us who can’t be honest about this fact it does not bode well.

 

If you look at Galatians chapter three, it appears that God wants to write His law on our hearts, rather than have us follow the letter of the law and the Old Covenant.  At the same time, I believe there may be a few old laws which aren’t modified in the New Testament or may be a personal choice issue. In those instances, we must still be careful and prayerful about how we apply them in our lives. As a rule, most of the time, if you compare scripture correctly, Paul’s warnings against going back under the law, and the fact that the Old Covenant was fulfilled, take precedence.

 

Paul says the law is a schoolmaster to show us that we need Jesus.  To me, that means we should be following His Spirit rather than the Old Covenant law which we cannot follow perfectly.  Only Christ could follow those laws and become the perfect sacrifice.  If He would not have fulfilled the law before his crucifixion, would not that have made his atonement null and void?  But because He did fulfill that law, does that mean that we must do the same now?  No!

 

We each have our own walk. What if, while not trading Christ for the law, we as individuals are called to some modifications in our life that appear to be going back under the law, but isn’t in actuality going back under the law? For example, pork is very unhealthy. God is a good  Father.  If we wish to abstain totally from pork that is not a terrible thing.  Personally, I do not abstain from pork, but I do limit my intake. Occasionally, I enjoy a breakfast of toast and eggs, with bacon or sausage, but most mornings I eat some berries, coconut, and nuts, and yogurt or a piece of fruit – despite the fact it looks like my tailor is Omar the Tentmaker!  I have a friend, who believes the Lord has requested that he not cut his hair.  However, it seems that Jesus has told him, that he is not under the original Nazarite Vow. It seems Jesus is calling him not to cut his hair for various reasons having to do with obedience and supernatural strength.

 

I have learned that many of us as brothers and sisters disagree on doctrine.  I have also found that many of us when we say, “I want to know the truth,” are really saying, “I only want to know the truth if it fits my doctrine.” In other words, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind!”

 

Here are a few more verses which seem to make it clear that our salvation is not a matter of unclean food and that we are not called to go back under the law.

 

Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

 

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

 

Matthew 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

 

Romans 14:13-14

 

Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

 

Many get confused about the reason God gave “the Law” (as part of the Sinai Covenant) to Israel. Some say all believers must follow the commandments of the Old Covenant, not understanding they are settling for lower moral standards.  Take for example Jesus’ teaching called the Sermon on the Mount.  That teaching blows me away in that it goes beyond the act and says that just thinking about doing certain evil is as bad as performing the evil!

I think we all need to be very careful about redefining words and concepts in scripture.  Many verses that are used to justify going back under the law are being used to negate New Covenant verses that warn us not to do that very thing! Many verses that are used, from a timing perspective, are BACKWARDS! Either the verse is about a long-ago time when people were under the law or point to Jesus fulfilling a law that He had to, before the resurrection, when His failure to follow the law in that instance, would have disqualified Him from being our Sacrifice!  If He didn’t need to follow the law in a certain instance, and Jesus was well aware of the difference, He boldly proclaimed by his statements or His actions, that the authority to supersede the hedge laws of the religious leaders was His right. When that would happen, the laws He would break, were the extra-biblical man-made laws. Rules such as picking fruit or grain to eat and “storing it in your stomach” on the Sabbath day.  Or like spitting in the dirt and putting the paste in a blind man’s eyes to heal him, which would make the now healed man “spiritually” unclean.  Such things were taboo to the religious leaders of the time but were not sins in God’s eyes.

Many verses that say “forever” are used to justify that we are still under the Old Covenant law.  Many such laws were given to Hebrews of that time and then discontinued, by God Himself, later.  There are some Old Testament prophecies, like Ezekiel 40:38-39, that seem to point to a possible reintroduction of some the Old Covenant sacrifices in the temple in the future, following Jesus’ return.   Maybe this will be a new and unique religious, historical reenactment, rather than an actual sacrifice for sin?  Jesus knows. There is no need for atonement for sin other  than that which Jesus provided. While there may be exceptions, generally you can find examples that use that word, “forever,” and we see that it stopped at some time. It reminds me of a quote from one of my favorite movies, “The Princess Bride,” where Inigo Montoya remarks about Vizzini’s use of the word “inconceivable.”

 

 “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” — Inigo Montoya

 

In other cases, the original word could demarcate the beginning and ending of a specific time-period, rather than forever.  I hear constant ravings about Christians not obeying the laws of Jesus that forbid us to eat unclean foods.  Such teachers are often giving their own definition of the law to which Jesus refers.  If one uses that definition, it contradicts what Jesus said in other passages like Matthew 15:11. And there are other examples where a certain amount of hypocrisy must be involved.  If you are going to follow the law, as far as making this a mandatory rule, you must follow all of the laws!  If you follow one law and ignore another law, it won’t work. If you are going to bind yourself to follow the whole law, you are just setting yourself up for failure. Only Jesus was able to do that perfectly. We cannot do that, and that is scripture! Close doesn’t count. This is not horseshoes and hand grenades!

That said, those of us who do not want to go back under the law must be careful, too. This is just my opinion, but I think we need to have a certain amount of grace with those who wish to follow Old Covenant food laws.

• It is obvious that many of those laws are quite healthy. While I do not abstain from pork products, I believe it should be eaten in moderation and cooked carefully! Bottom feeder fish eat a great deal of excrement and other materials that turn them into swimming cesspools, especially when exacerbated by living in unnatural factory ponds. Does that mean I won’t eat fried catfish? I will, but not very often, and if I knew it did not come from a reasonably safe river or lake, I would probably skip that menu item, even if it has been three consecutive leap years since I have dined on that particular aquatic “delicacy.”

 

• When it comes to our personal walk with Jesus, He may, for whatever reason, want certain individuals to eat or do certain things that may follow Old Covenant concepts. And if they are called to do this, they will be expected to do so in a limited fashion, while carefully not binding themselves to going back under the law! And if we, as a special gift to Jesus, want to refrain from eating unclean foods, or “rich king’s food” like Daniel did, we can do that! Either temporarily or for as long as we live, we can do that! If you want to follow Feast Days for Jesus, go for it! We may even get a special blessing for doing such things. It has to be a personal choice issue, not a mandatory requirement that puts us back under the law!

 

• Motives and reasons for our actions are critical. Jesus does take those into account.

 

If we are following the food laws because we think we cannot be saved if we don’t and that it is a necessity for salvation, we are in error. If we want to follow some of the food laws because it is healthy, there is nothing wrong with that. It is actually a very wise practice.  If we are guilty of lording it over other Christians and forcing them back under the law, to be saved, or obedient love slaves to the “law of Jesus” then we lose any benefits, we may have gained. When we redefine the “my commandments” of Jesus as including the Old Covenant laws, in order to cancel out Paul’s warnings and justify our favorite personal doctrine, that is an error! Maybe even heretical!

 

I have heard many Christians, even scholarly Christians who should know better, ranting and raving from their pulpit of choice, and throwing around the H word.  There are times when we may be justified in calling someone a heretic. But I do believe that most of the time when we call someone a heretic,  the term “in error,” may be more appropriate in most instances. In Matthew 5:22 Jesus warns of the danger of calling someone “raca,” which means fool or simpleton.

 

I know of one case where a dear old saint was going on and on about a certain Christian speaker being a heretic on a certain issue.  I showed her the scriptures that the man was using.  They were right there in her Bible, admittedly in obscure places. Another brother and sister had to show her those same verses, and a few more, before she stopped her campaign. She was shocked when she found the verses were actually in her Bible and agreed to pray about the matter.

 

Witchcraft is not only practicing the occult, but it is also lording it over people! “If you really love Him and want to be ‘a true follower of Yahshua,’ you will obey His laws!” I have heard that phrase or others of its ilk so many times I have lost count. With some, such brotherly or sisterly “encouragement” may end up being counted as blackmail, manipulation, or control over your brethren, when you stand before Jesus, on your day of reckoning, in the future after His return.

 

If we look down our noses and become prideful and judgmental against Christians that don’t practice certain Old Covenant food laws or other “Hebraic” laws, we also lose whatever benefits we may think we have gained.  Our repentance and Jesus finished work on the cross is what is important to salvation.  When we redefine what the “law of obedience” is or add things, that really aren’t scriptural, to give our doctrinally approved definition of “the law of Jesus” and make it an element of salvation, we are walking on very dangerous ground.

 

All that to say, if a person wants to follow some food laws of the Old Covenant, but makes the distinction, that it is not an element of salvation, they are treading a fine line, but under grace, I think they should be free to walk that way.  If following the food laws is not considered by them to be an immutable ordinance, but a personal preference, they should not be mocked or persecuted for it.  If they are not making demands or foolish judgments against other brothers and sisters, and follow certain Old Covenant laws, they should have the right to do so.

 

Just over the edge is a horrific swirling vortex, waiting for the careless “law” Christian to step over that indistinct line, into a yawning deathly sinkhole, that will suck them into following the Old Covenant law rather than Jesus. All the while they believe they are the only ones who are truly following Jesus. Instead, they are following a deceptive pied piper that is a demon flutist, leading them astray, with an exquisite melody of great beauty and greater evil.

 

Admittedly I study materials published by Hebraic Roots movement authors and of Christians who follow certain Old Covenant teachings. Paul told Timothy to study to show himself approved.  I enjoy studying such things, but I do not desire to trade following Jesus, and His Holy Spirit, for going back under the Old Covenant!  Many Old Covenant verses mystically foreshadow New Testament principles.  God designed both covenants, and both covenants will have His fingerprints all over them! And there may be a few Old Covenant principles that are not transformed or reinterpreted in the New Covenant, but as a general rule, that is not going to be the case.

 

Most of the time when articulate “law Christians” present teachings that justify our going back under the Old Covenant, they are in serious error.  These misguided teachers can only do so, by canceling and modifying certain verses, that Paul pointedly used to counteract that dangerous doctrine which plagued him then and still demonizes us today.

 

We have much to learn from the Old Testament and the Old Covenant.  We really need to be like Sherlock Holmes, put our thinking cap on, and use our magnifying glass carefully, while studying the Old Covenant and Old Testament, looking for clues that mark instances where transformation occurred in the New Covenant teachings of the New Testament. We must, of course, do our sleuthing without being hindered by this famous character’s unconverted mind and soulishness.

 

If we don’t have a doctrinal framework that justifies going back under Old Covenant law, that is clouding our vision, seeing the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament should be invigorating and impactful.

 

We must be careful, or that awful dark whirlpool that Paul constantly warned us about in his many letters, will suck us deep into its watery vortex.  It pains me deeply that many scholarly Christian leaders today, who have done so much for the company of believers in their spheres of influence, have not only plunged into that terrible abyss but are pulling scores of weaker brothers and sisters down with them. All the while demons and fallen angels squeal, hoot, roar, cackle, and giggle with fiendish delight.