Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 66

Acts 10:11-15, "And Peter saw heaven opened; and a certain vessel descending unto him, wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, sayings arise, Peter, kill and eat. But Peter, said, Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

The same is stated ibid. chapter 11:9. In Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 10:25, the following doctrine is taught: "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no questions for conscience sake." Mark, (chap. 7:15,) declares only such things unclean which come out of the mouth, but not those which go into the mouth.

We have already animadverted on the inconsistency of such declarations when compared with the stringent injunction enforced in the very same book, to abstain most rigidly from blood and flesh of torn or strangled beasts. See what we have noticed before, when treating on Matthew 15 in the Second Part of this Work. 

 The laws of kashrut are relevant to the New Testament context, but not quite in the way that Troki is implying. These two verses do not address the laws at all, but signal Peter's call to witness to non-Jews. Consider the passage immediately following this:

Now while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean, behold, the men who were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood at the gate and called out to ask whether Simon who was called Peter was lodging there. And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.” And Peter went down to the men and said, “I am the one you are looking for. What is the reason for your coming?” And they said, “Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and to hear what you have to say.” So he invited them in to be his guests. (Acts 10:17-23)

 Peter wonders what the vision meant, and then immediately a Roman Centurion comes to Peter for help. If that coincidence is not good enough for you, the Holy Spirit himself said in response to the vision, and that he had sent these men to look for Peter.

Matthew, Acts, and Galatians all address the issue of Jewish dietary laws, and I will respond to Troki's accusations when he gets there.

That said, the rabbis themselves draw a distinction between the moral law, and other aspects of the Jewish law. A Jew is allowed to desire non-kosher food and say "I would love to eat that non-kosher food, but my creator forbids me from doing so." A Jew is not allowed to say "I would love to bang that woman who is married to someone else, but my creator forbids me from doing so." This is because one is not allowed to even entertain the desire to violate the moral law. Again, even the rabbis acknowledge this distinction.

Secondly, consider the purpose of the Mosaic Law. The system was never meant to be a system of religious observances that pious people do. It was meant to be the actual law of the land. We Americans do not pay American taxes because it is some sort of pious observance. We pay taxes in order not to get arrested and go to tax jail.

Consider another hypothetical scenario. Prostitution is illegal in the United States, but legal in Amsterdam. If you buy a prostitute's services in the United States, you can be arrested for that. If you go to Amsterdam and buy a prostitute's services, it is legal even if you are an American citizen. Suppose such an American citizen travels to Amsterdam, buys a prostitute's services, and then returns to the United States. Can the police arrest him for doing so? Of course not. Even if he confesses in front of the police to using a prostitute's services in Amsterdam, the police officer can do nothing about it.

The laws of ancient Israel were tied to the land, which is why they applied equally to the people of Israel and the strangers who reside in their midst. It did not matter if you were a Jew or a non-Jew. The same law applied equally. There was no such thing as a Shabbos goy in those days, because the laws would not have permitted it.

This is why I do not believe that these laws are binding, even on Jews, today. In the future, I believe there will be a theocratic nation of Israel with a restored temple, in which case the laws will be binding again, but only in that area.