Meats - Conclusion

This is the last post (that I had planned) on the topic of meats. I had planned one last investigation into the subject, but instead I'm just going to review some highlights of what I've learned on this subject over the last 3/4 year.

I'd like to start at the very beginning. I theorize the problem with meats begins like this: 

It starts innocently enough with a growing desire to be closer to God. Somehow one becomes confused over some point of the Bible - usually the use of the English word "commandments" in the N.T. (for example in I John). Down whatever path, one comes to the eventual conclusion that the 10 Commandments survived unchanged into the New Covenant (most especially the 4th). I actually hear that a lot. When asked, "What led you to [Armstrongism]?" people have most often responded, "I knew the true church would be keeping the Sabbath." Compounding problems then arise with verses like (MATT. 5: 17-18) or (MATT. 23: 23), which lead people to search for more answers and this leads to meeting up with one religious group or the other. Depending on which religious  group one finds, such things as tithing and holy days will be taught until eventually a person is so hopelessly deep into legalism that accepting the meats laws becomes almost logical. Afterwards, anything that is described in the O.T. as "forever" or "perpetual" is fair game. The border between the Old and New Covenants is destroyed, but group-think prevents people from realizing the truth that they are now a part of neither Covenant. Unfortunately, at the very start, the grace of the New Covenant was set aside and reliance on one's own righteousness set in. That is a perfect recipe for going astray. Hence Paul uses terms like "ministry of death". And ultimately, while a person claims to be "the elect", Jesus' sacrifice is lessened to the point where Paul describes it as being "of no effect". The unsatisfiable chase after personal perfection, along with the obligatory fear and doubt that comes from it, betrays this to be horribly true.

Many things are said to be for a ‘perpetual covenant’ between God and Israel, like for example the avoidance of fat. Whenever I mention that food law to any Armstrongist, they dismiss it. The law! Just not THAT law! I actually had a person tell me "No one can do that!" As if that makes any difference in the world. The law is the law is the law. If you start to keep food laws, then keep the food laws. The law has no middle ground (JAS. 2: 10). Just because something says it is a ‘perpetual covenant’, it does not follow that it is valid for the New Covenant.

The challenge is to realize these two items: 

(MATT. 5: 17-18) "17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” 

and 

(2 TIM. 3: 16-17) “16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” 

both declare the the amazing work Christ finished (JOHN 19: 30) when He fulfilled all the law and the prophets. It is a grave error to believe these verses say "keep the Old Covenant" because that is contrary to the salvation of Christ. It is the very error Paul fought so hard against. In fact, to keep a cherry-picked version of the Old Covenant, like the one taught by HWA, will without question cost you everything you think to save.

(GAL 5: 1-4) 1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised [in other words, set out to keep the law - circumcision is Torah not Talmud], Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised [in other words, set out to keep the Torah law] that he is a debtor to keep the whole law [not a cherry-picked version of it]. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

I argue that meats laws are not a weightier matter of the law whatsoever but were wholly ceremonial and wholly abolished by the New Covenant. Look, it's really quite simple. Jesus was party to the Old Covenant. He died. No amount of scriptural misinterpretation should confuse people about this one all-important point.

Once I simply accepted that fact, I came to believe Jesus Christ when He said “What goes into a man cannot defile him”, and “What God has cleansed you must not call common”, which blends with Paul who said “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself”, and “For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving”.

To preach anything else is to say Christ's sacrifice is insufficient. So answer, in what way was Christ's sacrifice insufficient?

Contrary to what may appear overtly obvious, I did not write the posts on meats to get people to eat pork. 

If one believes the meats are a sin, then to them it is a sin -- but not because of law. If one eats and defiles their conscience, God forbid. I do not in any way promote that! The real issue I address here is condemnation and judgment. I exhort all who keep the food laws (to whatever degree) to stop judging and condemning people who do not keep the food laws. If someone loves God by having faith in Christ and keeping a high standard of moral excellence, then where is the excuse for breaking the clear commandments against judging another? We have One Judge. Do not call His brothers and sisters for whom He died “self-willed”, “disobedient”, “uncalled”, “condemned”, nor any other such thing, for, as Paul said, "Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died" (ROM. 14: 15).  My number one, primary, el numero uno complaint about the COGs is the judgment and condemnation. Meats or no, that has got to stop.

I have also come to see that even if the food laws are no longer in effect, they are a wonderful lesson for us. They hold meaning. They are not without value. Jesus did not destroy any of the laws; He fulfilled them. He fulfilled all things. “Clean” and “unclean” are spiritual now, as opposed to symbolic/physical. Circumcision is of the heart. A good study into the physical symbolism of the spiritual reality will be fulfilling whether you eat or not.

I was surprised to learn that no animal was shown to be given to man to eat until Noah left the Ark. The distinction of the clean from the unclean animals that he took on that Ark were for sacrificial purposes, not for food. 

Sacrifice was there from the days of Adam, circumcision from the days of Abraham – both are now gone. Therefore, just because we see something before Sinai it does not follow that such thing is still valid today. The COGs would do well to answer, in what way are they valid today? Then perhaps they would see that all things are fulfilled. The sacrifices, Levitical priesthood, washings, and temple (among other things) some say will return in the future. But they are not here now. Therefore, just because we think we see something in prophecy for the Millennium (all prophetic interpretation is speculation) it does not follow that it is valid today. "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed" (MAL. 3: 6). It is the Lord's nature that 'changes not', but clearly His requirements for us do. 

I was surprised to learn that my Armstrongist beliefs caused me to unknowingly hold that all Christians had to become Jews in order to be Christians. I didn't realize that I believed that way. Recognizing it helped me to understand. And immediately God said "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you" (GEN. 9: 3). That is everything. All. Total. "...Every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea" (GEN. 9: 2). No exceptions.

And still people use reasoning to nullify the clear an inescapable words of the Bible. This is not because of any Biblical evidence (as their argument is designed to nullify the words of the Bible) but by an emotional attachment to ideology alone. And this is idolatry - a violation of the very Commandments they claim to uphold.

There are two groups of Christians in the early church: the Jewish converts that were zealous for the law, and the Gentile converts that were instructed to keep no such thing. This was obviously for their conscience’s sake. Exactly as the Pharisees who troubled Paul, Herbert Armstrong commanded the Gentiles to be Jews in order to be Christians. This is contrary to the decree of the Apostles, even while HWA quite plainly did not keep the whole law. A great many things had to be erased from Jewish law for God to cleanse the gentiles; not just the food laws. If it were not so then no Jew could effectively preach to a Gentile or vice versa. The unclean meats were a shadow. Jesus Christ who casts the shadow is clean; the shadow is therefore cleansed. 

Peter didn’t understand this at first. It was not something Jesus taught Him while He was alive because they simply could not handle it then. Jesus taught Peter through the Holy Spirit when the time had come, after the calling of Cornelius. These things were confirmed through Paul and Barnabas through miracles. Peter and a few other Apostles just seemed to have a problem accepting it. We can see that the Apostles did mind the Talmud traditions, and that became a stumbling block for them. Old habits are hard to break. HWA's clever comment "Why didn't Peter understand a change in meats laws 10 years later?" drew me in. It wasn't 10 years, for one thing. And Peter was the very first Apostle sent to a Gentile. By that same logic, if he didn't understand that Gentiles were cleansed x years later, then they must not be! Ergo, none of us are Christians anyhow.

Ridiculous!

I also came to disagree that the basis of this debate should be health, seeing as properly cooked pork is much more healthful than fresh scallions (or jalapenos or peanuts or blueberries, etc) with salmonella. If meats are health laws it should say so somewhere in the Bible, but it does not. Nowhere in the Bible are food laws explained to be health laws. They are symbolically unclean in relation to sacrifice, and that's it. Oh, how very many times do I hear "God didn't give us poison ivy to eat." Perhaps not. But He didn't designate clean/unclean plants either. Trying to force meats into a health issue via cleverly worded arguments does not Biblical truth make. The fact remains - meats are not a health issue.

I was at first confused by the meanings of some verses. They seemed to be plain and without need of interpretation. Peter was right to say some of Paul’s writings are hard to understand (2 PET. 3: 15-16). But if it’s health we’re so worried about, then we must begin to treat fast food, hydrogenated oils, food allergies, and laziness with much greater seriousness.

I was also surprised to learn what little agreement there is among the COGs about any of this. Armstrong taught one thing at one time, another thing at another time, and yet another thing at a third time. One group says this, another group says that, another group says the other thing. I even recall hearing one minister describe the issue in terms of "lobsters are gross." (And that's entirely a matter of personal preference. I used to think potatoes were gross.) If it were all so plain, why the confusion?

Whether you believe clean and unclean meats to be a physical law of health, a spiritual sin, a ceremonial sacrifice ritual, or just something you arbitrarily do, I hope you can agree with me that our understanding of the Bible is not open to personal interpretation. The Bible should interpret the Bible. Nor either can any man change the law as I often found HWA had done (what disturbs me most is people are fully aware of that yet go along none the less). I did this study because I thought if my Armstrongist preconceptions were true then they could stand up to scrutiny. I will leave it up to the reader to decide the outcome. Our relationship with God is on an individual basis. Much of how I was taught seemed to be an attempt to make me too afraid to read the Bible for myself. I never realized that I accepted much of what I did because Herbert W. Armstrong claimed he taught the truth and said I would go to the second resurrection (or worse) if I didn’t agree. Simply taking the word of a person because they claim to be some end-time celebrity is most definitely NOT Biblical. The old fallback “that’s not how I was taught” is probably the most dangerous position of all. Only after much study and prayer can we come to have a deep and mature understanding of God’s Word. Sometimes what the Bible is saying is not immediately obvious. A Christian walk is a growth process. It is dangerous to read into the Bible without a humble and teachable attitude. It is dangerous to use phrases like "non-negotiable". If something is true, it will be true every time you revisit the subject. And revisit you should. One must be ready to prove what is good or disprove even long standing beliefs.

Meats: Universal and Plain?

In my investigation into meats laws I tried to learn why it was that the WCG taught what it did. If the laws were in effect, and it was so plain, the believers should be able to explain their reasoning. I started at HWA's beginning, with the Church of God (Seventh Day). They kept the food laws. However, some influential ministers’ understanding of those laws was different than what Herbert Armstrong taught. How can it be so universal and plain if he thought his own superiors in the church were wrong?

Unfortunately, the investigation didn’t get any easier. It would appear that after certain years in his own church, Herbert Armstrong returned to the interpretation held by the Church of God (Seventh Day). And not only that, but I wound up seeing that many of the splinters that came from the Worldwide Church of God disagree again with Herbert Armstrong. (And I apologize in advance for the length of this post.)

In his autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30, Herbert Armstrong speaks of his own beliefs and experiences as a young minister regarding the dietary laws. Here is an excerpt:

The "Pork" Obsession

"The opposition through the spring and summer of 1933 had come through the two ministers who had moved up to Oregon from California, Elders Sven (Sam) A. Oberg, and A. J. Ray. Mr. Ray was developing, through the summer, a sort of obsession against the eating of "unclean" meats -- pork, ham, bacon, seafoods, and those labelled "unclean" in Leviticus 11. The emphasis he continually put on this doctrine, almost with vehemence, rather gave the impression that, in his eyes, the eating of pork, which came in for his greatest condemnation, was the greatest of sins.

"About the time the Firbutte school meeting started, July 9, 1933, Mr. Ray began aiming his "anti-pork" guns directly at me. He demanded that I state definitely my stand on this question. I had written him a Biblical exposition of the subject, showing that it was a physical FOOD question, rather than a spiritual or Gospel subject. Unless a man broke the tenth commandment by lusting after it, the eating of pork did not violate the Ten Commandments, which constitute a SPIRITUAL law.

"I quoted Mark 7:15-23, where Jesus explained that sin is a spiritual principle -- that which is coming out of the heart of a man -- evil thoughts leading to actions of adultery, murder, theft, deceit, blasphemy, pride -- violations of the Ten Commandments; but that nothing from without, entering in his mouth, defiles the man spiritually. Jesus was speaking of SPIRITUAL principles, and SIN as a spiritual offense."

-Herbert Armstrong, Autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30

These are very important points. Mr. Armstrong, in contrast to his own church, did not teach the clean and unclean meats laws as a spiritual sin. He clearly says that eating the meats is not a sin. Instead, he taught the foods were unfit for the digestive process. As Herbert Armstrong said in His booklet

“God did not give poisonous herbs as food. He gave man the healthful herbs. Man can determine which herbs are healthful, but man cannot by himself determine which flesh foods are harmful. That is why God had to determine for us in His Word which meats are clean. Since the Flood every moving clean, healthful, nonpoisonous type of animal life is good for food—just as God gave us the healthful, nonpoisonous herbs.”

-Herbert Armstrong, “Is All Animal Flesh Good For Food”, p. 3

Actually, Genesis 9: 3 does not specify "clean", but rather it says "every moving thing that lives", the root word of 'moving thing' includes reptiles, and again it says "all things".

I utterly disagree when HWA says, "man cannot by himself determine which flesh foods are harmful." Let’s think about that for a moment. If this is not a sin issue, but a health issue, then we have a physical law of nature that can be proven with observation. What do we observe? That certain regions in Japan, certain regions in Germany, and certain regions in Italy have much higher life expectancy rates than the rest of the world. Why mention that? They eat unclean meats regularly, some of them almost exclusively, and they will probably outlive you. How can that food be bad for your digestion if people who eat it regularly can expect to outlive the rest of the world? Look in the United States. The life expectancy rate climbs upwardly. Most people in this nation eat unclean meats regularly. Look at what is called the “Mediterranean diet”. It includes meals with seafood and lean pork, but is considered one of the healthiest diets on earth. There is simply no truth to the claim that pork is bad for your health. Obviously, after thousands of years of eating "unclean" meats, it would be widely known if it were physically unhealthy to eat pork. High fructose corn syrup was discovered in the 1970's; not 30 years later many people are aware that it isn't the best idea to ingest it. Same with hydrogenated oils, or saccharine. But we are to believe that after thousands of years and trillions of people eating pork and shellfish, the majority consensus is that there are no physical ill effects, yet it isn't healthy to eat? That's just ridiculous.

So the claim evolved to emphasize improperly cooked pork. “God was protecting His people from trichinosis,” was oft heard. OK. Trichinosis is terrible. I wouldn’t wish it on an enemy. But what then do we say about mad cow, tape worms, ring worm, lice, salmonella, liver flukes and other parasites, avian flu, and not the least of all anthrax? All of these things can easily be contracted from clean meats. All of these are centuries old diseases that have plagued man. Why single out trichinosis and not these?

And if it is a health issue, proper digestion being the focus, how on earth can we continue to eat hydrogenated oils? They are the plague of modern man, raising levels of homocysteine and other bad chemicals in the blood, punching holes in our arteries and causing the liver to produce cholesterol to patch the holes which then blocks up our arteries and causes heart attacks, strokes, and death. Yet neither God nor Armstrong has said, “Thou shalt not eat Crisco!”

Now, I am not arguing that we should put things that are bad for our health into our bodies. We are the temple of the Living God, and we must respect and care for that temple as we are able. But to claim pork and seafood is somehow unhealthy, or more a risk than what we normally eat and call “clean”, is simply not accurate, nor is that found anywhere in the Bible!!

Let’s continue on in the Autobiography and see how that isn’t exactly what HWA believed:

"I told him I refused to make this food question a subject for sermons to the unconverted, unless he could show me Scriptural grounds for so doing."

-Herbert Armstrong, Autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30

HWA plainly shows that in his opinion the laws were not for the newly converted, but for the experienced Christian only. I cannot fault that logic. We cannot expect all people to understand all things from the start of our journey. However, on one hand he says it is not a sin, but then on the other hand he says the law is still in effect. If the law is still in effect, and it is violated knowingly, that makes it a sin. It cannot be a sin, and not a sin. His teaching was inconsistent.

HWA continues:

"Point number one: I read in Scripture that sin is the transgression of the Law. In Romans 7 Paul says the law it is sin to transgress is spiritual -- a spiritual, not a physical law.

"Point two: Jesus Christ, speaking of spiritual defilement in Mark 7, says that physical food entering a man's stomach from without cannot defile him spiritually, but that which comes from within, out of the heart -- adulteries, murders, thefts, covetousness -- transgressions of the Ten Commandments -- defile the man spiritually.

"Point three: The 'clean and unclean' laws of Leviticus 11 are physical, not spiritual laws.

"Point four: Christ preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. He commanded the Apostles, and us today, to preach the KINGDOM of God. That is the GOSPEL I am commanded to preach.

"Point five: Paul says plainly in Romans 14 that the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, which is obedience to God's Law.

"Point six: Therefore I do not preach to the unconverted meat and drink because it is not the Gospel. But, on the other hand, the physical body is the 'temple of the Holy Spirit,' and we are taught not to defile it, even physically.

"Finally, point seven: I realize fully that there were both the clean and unclean animals long before Mosaic Law -- even prior to the Flood -- and therefore from creation. God did not create the unclean animals for food. Just as many plants and weeds are poison and not food, so unclean animals were not made to digest properly or nourish the human body. They are not "creatures of God" intended for food. They are not sanctified -- or set apart -- by the Word of God. Peter's vision of the unclean animals in the sheet was given, it is distinctly stated in Acts 10, to show him that he should not call any man unclean -- not to make unclean animals clean. Therefore I do teach every convert and every church member that they should not eat the unclean meats. We do not eat them in our home. Not one of our church members -- not one of my converts -- is eating unclean meats. But I teach it as a physical matter of health, not as a spiritual matter of the true Gospel."

-Herbert Armstrong, Autobiography, volume 1, chapter 30

And that, my friends, was the opinion of the Church of God (seventh Day) and Mr. Armstrong in his early ministry. The clean and unclean meats laws were a physical matter of health, not a spiritual matter of sin.

A massive problem in the Worldwide Church of God was assumption. Even though we commonly claimed to be Berean, we always believed our leaders over the Bible. In fact, to believe unquestioningly was commanded and harshly enforced. No one could question anything. God only worked through the ministry, and not through the congregation. In other words, the members at large were leaves attached to the ministry, and the ministers were small branches that were attached to Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Armstrong was a large branch attached directly to the Vine. We commonly said to reassure ourselves, “God inspired Mr. Armstrong to teach his converts exactly as Paul and James taught,” when that is often demonstrably false in many areas. The proof comes when we review the scattered COGs – very few believe exactly what Mr. Armstrong taught but at the same time few truly agree with each other. How is this teaching universal and plain, then?

For example, the CGG teaches the matter as one of the spirit, and of health, as well as a random and rather meaningless “test commandment” given by God just because He can. They have all the bases covered. This partly contradicts Herbert Armstrong, whom they quote.

“Even though people throughout the world eat unclean food and live, and even though we could probably do the same – and many of us once did – for Christians, it is more than a health matter. In the Bible, God never directly connects keeping the laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 with health. In reality, it is a test commandment to see if we will obey God.”

-John O. Reid “Did God Change the Law of Clean and Unclean Meats”

If God never associates the food laws with health, why do the COGs? Incredibly, when the need arises to explain away Genesis 9: 1-5, they resort to calling the foods laws a matter of health again, preferring to compare pork to deadly nightshade:

“Does God allow us to eat poisonous plants like poison ivy, hemlock, deadly nightshade, etc.? Of course not!”

-John O. Reid, “Did God Change the Law of Clean and Unclean Meats”

But if clean/unclean is a matter of poison, as with the plants, then why are there no unclean plants? [Answer: clean/unclean is ceremonial and relates to sacrifice.]

In this next quote from the founder of the CGG, notice a few things. Note how it is now both a health and a spiritual issue. Carefully note how this is also a sign of keeping the Old Covenant. None of us should be keeping the Old Covenant!

“…in refraining eating the forbidden flesh meats listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 is a sign of keeping the Covenant. Do you understand the spiritual issue that is involved in this? Do you understand that your and my health is secondary? The issue is HOLINESS—spiritual holiness; not physical health. [Directly contrary to HWA!] Why did God do this? I don't know. Maybe it was only arbitrary. [Nothing God does is simply arbitrary. JR just doesn't understand why his desire to partially follow HWA doesn't match the gospel of the New Covenant.] He wanted to see whether we would restrain ourselves. [Because the 612 other laws wouldn't do that well enough?] That's a possibility. Restrain ourselves, refraining from eating those things that everybody else in the world seems to be enjoying and finds tasting so good."

"Now please don't be misled by what I said, because I think there is a physical health issue involved here. But God wants above all that we be holy, and that is the real issue, and so the first place that the "clean and unclean" appears is in what book? Leviticus — the book of holiness.” [Or, if you ask HWA, it first appears in Genesis 4.]

-John Ritenbaugh, “Maintaining Good Health (part 3)”

As a second example, most people who came out of Worldwide only keep the meats laws because they were taught to. They don’t know why. They don’t generally care why. They say, “God said ‘do it’, so I do it.” Noble indeed! Except they have not proven whether or not God says for them to do it. The majority of what Paul taught must be ignored or explained away in order to return to the “yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear”. They read in the abolished Old Covenant some verses that say to Israel that they should not eat pork, so they also avoid pork. Meanwhile, they don’t realize they are keeping the sacrificial law that they themselves teach was abolished. Nor do they realize that avoiding unclean meats was only a small portion of the various washings and sprinklings and meats and drinks laws – most of which they do not keep. They say “I keep the law”, but as I have already demonstrated time and time again, they most certainly do not!

The COGs would love everyone to believe they keep all the food laws. Anyone who does not keep all the food laws is disqualified from sainthood in this age, by their theology. But let's just see if they keep all of the food laws.

(LEV. 3: 17) 17 ‘This shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall eat neither fat nor blood.’

(LEV. 7: 25-27) “22 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 23 “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘You shall not eat any fat, of ox or sheep or goat. 24 And the fat of an animal that dies naturally, and the fat of what is torn by wild beasts, may be used in any other way; but you shall by no means eat it. 25 For whoever eats the fat of the animal of which men offer an offering made by fire to the LORD, the person who eats it shall be cut off from his people. 26 Moreover you shall not eat any blood in any of your dwellings, whether of bird or beast. 27 Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.’”

In Armstrong's zeal for the law, did we ever eat beef fat? Answer: yes! Every time we ate McDonald’s french-fries, or any beef broth, or a juicy steak (if one could be afforded), etc.

All discussions on clean and unclean meats would be incomplete without someone mentioning Isaiah 52: 11 (even though the context of this chapter has nothing at all to do with food laws)

(ISA 52: 11) Touch no unclean thing

I ask you, do you own a pet? Have you ever touched a dog? A cat? Hamster? Gerbil? Iguana? Horse? Donkey? Been to an exotic petting zoo and perhaps touched a stingray or a shark or a sturgeon? Ever kill a spider? Guess what, you’ve touched an unclean thing! No self-respecting Armstrongist in all their legalism ever mentions that, though.

Did anyone ever, while asking question for conscience’ sake about pork, ask their generous host if there was any beef fat in their food? Then they didn’t keep all of the food laws, did they? Only the ones that suited them.

In conclusion, while this meats issue may appear very simple it most certainly is not. Just look at the many posts I've made on the subject of meats, and I'm not done yet! While the COGs may appear to be keeping the law they most certainly are not. We were clearly cherry-picking and keeping only the laws we felt like keeping! While the COGs claim it is universal and plain it most certainly is not. There is little agreement among the COGs. I suspect the main issue here is not the law, but that we were attempting to force the Bible to conform to our flawed assumptions. Unwittingly we followed a man rather than God. The confusion that surrounds this topic is not from God! And there is certainly plenty of confusion to go around. Even I don't claim to fully understand the whole scope. I am still, months into my study, trying to separate what flawed teaching was placed into my head from what the simplicity of Christ's gospel for the New Covenant actually teaches.

Isaiah 66 and Meats

In my continuing investigation into clean/unclean meats, I would like to take a serious look into Isaiah 66. I had a friend who agreed with everything I said about meats, but because Isaiah 66 confused him so, he could not accept it.

In order to move forward into this section, one absolutely must keep in mind the whole body of evidence on this topic. Temper that with the fact that prophecy cannot undo the New Covenant made in Jesus' blood. If it appears to, then we can be fairly certain that we are understanding something very much incorrectly.

In the COGs we would spend the better part of an entire sermon hearing about clean and unclean meats, then we were pointed to a place where “clean and unclean” are mentioned, where the minister would hope we would think that all instances of the words “clean and unclean” can mean only meats.

(EZE 44: 23) And they shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the unholy, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.

After such a verse, the minister would follow up with, “The teaching is that God clearly shows in the future there will be a keeping of the meats laws, therefore, they are in effect now.”

This is very much something Armstrong did often – sleight of hand. Notice the redirect. This helps set up the illusion which exists only in the properly distracted mind, that meats laws will be in effect - not that Jesus Christ pointed us to the spiritual meaning of “clean and unclean”.

Now notice another thing Armstrong does often – only giving part of the story. The verse is given, you look it up, you find it, you see the word 'unclean', they tell you what to think about it, then you feel like you’ve proven it and you are a Berean. Is that really proving it for yourself? Is that really, “Don’t believe me, believe your Bible”? No.

Ezekiel 44 refers to the Levitical teachers of the Old Covenant church. Not for everyone, nor for the Gentiles, but: “the Levites, the sons of Zadok” (EZE. 44: 15). Yet no one in Armstrong teaches the Levites are still commanded for our day (except where tithes are involved, of course).

(EZE. 44: 10-11) 10 And the Levites who went far from Me, when Israel went astray, who strayed away from Me after their idols, they shall bear their iniquity. 11 Yet they shall be ministers in My sanctuary, as gatekeepers of the house and ministers of the house; they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall stand before them to minister to them.

Armstrong never taught that animal sacrifices are currently commanded. How then can we possibly think that since we see the phrase “clean and unclean” here (in prophecy) it can mean nothing else than the meats laws are still in force (right now)? This assumes this is even referring to meats.

After a good long sermon on meats laws, the ministry would point out Isaiah 66: 17.

(ISA. 66: 17) [AMP] Those who [attempt to] sanctify themselves and cleanse themselves to enter [and sacrifice to idols] in the gardens, following after **one in the midst, eating hog's flesh and the abomination [creeping things] and the [mouse--their works and their thoughts] shall come to an end together, says the Lord.

**Some commentators also suggest that this may refer to the cultic leader in the center who shows by his example how to conduct the ceremonies.

“See?” they say, “God still yet believes pork, creeping things (abominations), and mice to be unclean, eaten by pagans, and contrary to His faith.” And thus conveniently forget their own oft-used argument: "The context of this verse is idolatry, not clean and unclean meats." If Paul can be speaking of eating meats but they say he is only speaking of idolatry, then how can this clearly be speaking of idolatry but they say it is speaking of meats? We always wanted it both ways! And let us never forget that ALL prophetic interpretation is but speculation. When does shifting speculation become certain doctrine? It should not!

We must start at the beginning. This prophecy starts a few chapters beforehand in chapter 63 around verse 11. Isaiah (on behalf of Israel) is praying for God to return. He makes Israel’s case. God then spends the next 2 chapters making His own case in response to Israel. This is very much towards Israel; very specifically for them only. And it was written in the words that were meaningful for them at that time (those meats were condemned at that time).

In Isaiah 65: 1, God is referring to the calling of the Gentiles and the New Covenant. Paul confirms this in Romans 10: 20. That was 1,900 years ago! And why did God (temporarily) reject His people? Isaiah 65: 2-5 talks about the Jews committing idolatry. Baal worship, necromancy, witchcraft – you name it, they did it.

God was always trying to be with Israel. God wasn’t far from them; they were far from Him. Is it any wonder God hates idolatry? These were the practices of certain Jews who profaned themselves among the Gentiles. They practiced more than just eating of swine’s flesh. Even the most foul and ungodly things that men did to debase themselves to idols are implied here in this verse. It is these ones, these idolaters, towards whom the wrath of God is directed, that we see referenced in Isaiah 66. There is absolutely no way this verse is undoing the great and tremendous sacrifice of Christ in ending the Old Covenant.

What would God have loved to see from His people?

(ISA 66: 2) But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word.

God wanted moral excellence, but the people, the ones who weren’t outright idolatrous pagans, only gave Him legal excellence.

(ISA. 66: 3) He who kills a bull is as if he slays a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, as if he breaks a dog’s neck; he who offers a grain offering, as if he offers swine’s blood; he who burns incense, as if he blesses an idol.

So, how do we understand ISA. 66: 17? It so closely matches ISA. 65: 4, they must be tied together. In chapter 65, God makes His case against Israel. In chapter 66, He judges. Who is He judging? All people who eat pork? No. Idolatrous Israel! Pictured in these verses are people secreting away for an idolatrous worship service in a grove, for crying out loud, yet all Armstrong ever saw was meats. But it goes much farther than that.

What is God’s focus? Animal sacrifice? Physical meats? Not at all! But the inward man is what God looks on. Exactly as Christ teaches:

(MARK 7: 18-23) 18 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, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" 20 And He said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man."

This is the magnified relationship; the New Covenant! God is not pleased with physical temples and physical sacrifices (ISA. 1: 11-14), nor is He displeased with physical meats (I COR. 8: 8). This is why it is so important to keep in mind my whole series about meats through this. God is not pleased with the Old Covenant worship, much less a cherry-picked version of it, but Armstrong uses this prophecy to say that is the only worship God accepts.

God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit, not in physical (JOHN 4: 23-24; ROM. 2: 29, 7: 6; II COR. 3: 6; PHP. 3: 3). God’s temple is inside us (I COR. 3: 16; HEB. 3: 6). God’s requirements are a humble and faithful mind (I TIM. 1: 5). God’s approval is not on those who keep outward rituals, like avoiding meats; most especially if those outward rituals do not come first of all with faith in Jesus and moral excellence (PHP 3: 7-11). Clean is what is spiritually pure, unclean is what is spiritually impure. Nothing like pork defiles us, but idolatry, pork or no pork, is contrary to God. How dangerous it is to idolize a man!

This really gets to the heart of two arguments that hold no merit. The first is “we see it before Sinai, therefore it is in force,” the second is “we see it in prophecy, therefore it is in force.”

We speculate (all prophetic interpretation is speculation) from Ezekiel that in the future there will be a Levitical priesthood with their proper clothing and ceremonies, a physical temple, animal sacrifices, and all sorts of such things that were done away with in the New Covenant. That's not now, that's future. How on earth, then, can we say the meats laws are any different? No Levites today, no commanded garb, no sacrifices, no temple worship.. but meats laws-- that's today! It doesn't make any sense.

We know that from the time of Cain and Abel there were animal sacrifices, and from Abraham we had circumcision. Both gone in the New Covenant. How on earth can we say those things are gone but meats are still in effect? They were a shadow from the day they were instituted. “The Kingdom of God is not in meats and drinks”! “Circumcision is of the heart”! We are “living sacrifices”! Why do we refuse to accept that moral excellence trumps legal excellence? It always has (EZE. 33: 12-20)! It always will! That is the very nature of the New Covenant. The old shadow is revealed for what it is – merely a shadow. The reality is now clearly available to us! We (as Gentiles) are no longer unclean. We are no longer to enter the temple of God through washings and blood of animals. The veil is taken away. We are the temple! We are clean! By the blood of Christ Himself, not by animals. Christ said "It is finished." And it is finished. By faith, not by law. If by law, then Christ died in vain!

(GAL. 2: 21) I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain

And no prophetic MIS-interpretation can undo this New Covenant.

Meats and I Timothy 4

This is another in my line of posts about clean and unclean meats. This time I would like to go over a few verses in I Timothy 4.

First and by necessity we have to get a little off-topic, then we will get back on topic again. 

Paul goes into a certain discussion with Timothy about a distortion of the truth to occur after their time (in the "latter times"). Nothing must be taken for granted because these two men had studied and practiced and worked in God’s Spirit for years.

(I TIM. 4: 1) The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 

Paul is forewarning Timothy, who will continue after Paul is gone, to hold fast to the things he had already learned. Paul is not giving any new instruction here, or trying to insert any new law from God that Timothy didn’t already know from years of association with him. This verse is often used this as a stick to swat xCOG members with, causing them to fear when they read their Bibles. But “love casts out fear" (I JOHN 4: 18).

Pay close attention to what Paul says these people will fall into:

(I TIM. 4: 2) speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron

"Speaking lies in hypocrisy," Paul says. "In hypocrisy" would lead me to believe this is a "do what I say not what I do" crowd. "Lies" would lead me to believe these people are aware of their deceit, and perhaps even work to cover it up.

HWA does not escape this verse. If there is anything I have discussed on this blog (not that I am the only person to discuss such) it is the cherry-picking, deceitful, hypocritical nature of what Armstrong and his ministers teach. Should I ask you to read my other posts for more on this, or give a few examples? ...I will give a few examples. Actually, I'll do both. Examples first.

Armstrong preached the law, but he didn't keep the whole law -- When have the xCOGs built a booth at Tabernacles according to the design clearly laid out in scripture? Why does Deuteronomy 16 say you should travel three times in the year, but the COGs only travel once? Why do Armstrong's ministers claim to be "modern Levites" when tithes are involved, but not when the myriad other laws and rituals of the Levites are involved (eg. why don't they wear the required garments of a Levite)? The Jews count 613 laws in the Torah. What a small fraction Armstrong chose to keep!

Armstrong preached prophecy, but he failed in almost every single instance -- HWA predicted (on authority from scripture) the return of Christ in 1936, again in 1972, at various times between '36 and '72, and then the ever-shifting "within 3 to 4 years". HWA predicted (on authority from scripture) that the "Times of the Gentiles" ended previous to 1936, and again in 1982, and who can find all the references to the time when "the world" will be ended? There are hundreds of such examples!

Armstrong preached giving, but practiced taking (a salary of hundreds of thousands of dollars annually while his followers went without); preached faith healing (which killed his wife Loma), but made special exception for himself (when he had health issues he had no issue with visiting a doctor); taught only those who keep the whole law will be justified, but kept a fraction of the law (the rest he "changed"); taught the 10 Commandments, but made an idol of himself and his church organization; failed Paul's requirements for an elder (by my count) on 11 points; etc, etc, etc.

(I TIM. 4: 3) They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain food [Strong's 1033: food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonial) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law], which God created to be received [Strong's 3336: participation] with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 

I have heard men argue that the word “foods” does not mean “foods”, but rather means some other thing. This is obviously not so. It means all foods; whatever is eaten. I have also heard men argue that "received" does not mean "eat". What else besides "eat" then? Are we to believe it is OK to receive a ham as a gift, then not eat it? What, then, put it on a shelf? The word “received” does not immediately mean “to eat”, so what they say about that is technically true, but it is clear from the context that foods will be eaten. You don’t just receive food for the sake of it, as if to put it on the shelf, or hang it over the fireplace. Which foods did God create to be received? To Adam only plants were given. To Noah all foods were given. To the Jews, only certain foods were given. To the Christian without conscience issues, the Jewish laws do not pertain. Do we not already know that Christ died to abolish the Old Covenant, with its regulations about meats and drinks, and restored us to the days of Abraham and Noah where He gave us all things as food?

The Kingdom is not in meat and drink (ROM. 14: 17).

Worldwide was quick to point out the Catholics abstain from meats at certain times of the year according to an ancient pagan tradition that you will never find in the Bible. And they forbid their priests to marry. On the surface this is a close match for the prophecy, I’ll admit. But, technically, the word "foods", which refers to all foods, can especially refer to Jewish ceremonially unclean foods, which the Catholics do not forbid. Worldwide abstains from Jewish ceremonially unclean foods all the time (according to their own unique cherry-picked version of the Old Covenant), and their divorce and remarriage rules were brutal. Could it mean the Catholics? It might. But could it mean men with teachings like Armstrong's? It might! In my opinion, Armstrongism is a closer match. I advise caution when concluding the only possible interpretation here is towards Catholics.

A little known implication of these verses is that they describe more about the details of the "Great Falling Away". Since the time of HWA's passing the great falling away has been said to be from within Armstrongism, but of the people who reject HWA. This is mere speculation, as is any prophetic interpretation. But let me offer to you a twist which you may not have contemplated before. 

Read this excerpt from the John Darby's Synopsis of the Bible: 

"But there would be some who departed from the faith, from this knowledge of the one Creator and Saviour-God — Him who was manifested in the flesh. They would attack precisely these points which we have named. It might be that they would pretend to carry the idea of christian privileges farther than all others had done, as well as that of profound knowledge of God; but they would sin against first principles, against the faith which connected the Saviour God revealed in Christianity with the one only Creator-God."

Now, what this says to me is, Herbert W. Armstrong may have promoted the falling away, as opposed to guarded against it. For all the times that ministers taught us to hold fast to what was taught at the beginning, they did not mean "the beginning of Christianity in 31 AD", no! They meant "the beginning of your time with Armstrong". For any first generation xCOG member, you would have to fall away from what you were taught in order to pick up this new teaching with Armstrong. So, you have indeed "gone away from what you were taught at the beginning", because you have switched the "beginning". Even HWA himself went away from what he taught at the beginning of his ministry. Many times he changed his policies. Read my article about "Church Government - Image of the Beast?" for more evidence. So, what is the real "beginning"? Mr. Raymond C. Cole fought long and hard in his own mind over this very question. Read my take on his solution in my article "More Following Men"

I ask you, who wonder why you remain in Armstrongism, loved by God, to seriously meditate on the possibility that you are following a cult, and perhaps one prophesied from the beginning --- the REAL beginning; specifically in I Timothy 4! Am I saying HWA has fulfilled this? No. I'm merely saying prophetic interpretation is speculation, hence I speculate on the possibility that this is a match. What if it isn't? I would rather contemplate it then dismiss it, than not contemplate it at all! ...but what if it is?

(I TIM. 4: 4-5) 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received [Strong's 2983: to take; take hold of] with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

Worldwide taught the word ‘received’ has nothing to do with eating, then they would explain away the meaning of the verse with semantic acrobatics. God created pork and saw that it was good. If it’s ok to receive it, why isn’t it OK to eat the food which was received? That is never explained, however. While nit-picking the context of other sections to "prove" Armstrong's positions, they ignore the clear context of this section to "prove" Armstrong's positions. This is quite the double-standard. It most certainly is about food, and it most certainly is about eating.

As a matter of fact, the thing that is most surprising is that not once, not one single time in the entirety of the New Testament, is anything written that remotely resembles “food laws are in effect”. For all the times Paul says “everything is good for food”, despite that Jesus said “nothing that goes into a man can defile him”, time and time and time again, Armstrong always has a clever intellectual way to get around allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible. Not one time does it say “avoid foods ceremonially unclean,” or any such thing. Think about that.

What God created and gave to man is good. The animals are good. They were NOT unclean from the beginning, as some teach. See my post on "Clean/Unclean For Noah" for more on that subject. The faithful Gentiles are good (again, cleansed, as were the animals). Life is good. Truth is good! In fact, everything God created is good (GEN. 1: 31). God is not the author of confusion, but of peace (I COR. 14: 33). The Kingdom is not foods, but love. But that does not by any means or any interpretation tell us that disobeying God is good. We have already covered idolatry. That isn’t good.

Clean and Unclean Wordstudy

Mickey asked a while ago: 

"I wonder, though only if you have the time and inclination (or anyone with a bit of skill for that matter), if you would present a review of the usage of the Greek in these scriptures respecting the words "common" and "unclean". The reason I ask is that someone at UCG gave a recent sermonette online (yes, I was silly enough to listen in - what can I say but curiousity) and presented his argument from the Greek usage of those words."

Sure! ...but I don't know what level you would like someone to go into. I'll go the simple route, then. If anyone is interested in doing their own wordstudies, here is a nice howto from docstoc.com. I really do suggest you read through it if you're not very familiar with how to use a Strong's Concordance. I'll give you some really important info to keep in mind. In Strong's, this symbol ": -" (minus the quotes) separates the definition of the word from the translation of the word. The definition is what the word means, the translations are words the author thinks fit it well. Don't think that just because there is a transliteration, that it is a really good substitute for the word. Like a thesaurus, not all words really fit.

I would guess, Mickey, that this person you heard basically opened the Strong's Concordance and tried to become an armchair linguist. I would about guarantee his goal was not to understand the Bible, but to get the Bible to say what he wanted. Time and time again I've seen the COGs wallop the truth with a creative application of information from Strong's. Ron Weinland uses it often to try and transform Jesus into a created being. Keep in mind that the definition of 'clean' will be what it is, no matter what, and 'unclean' will be what it is. The question is - does the entirety of the evidence in the New Testament support or reject the keeping of food laws? I believe the answer is a resounding 'no'.

I would like to bring up what a commenter named Purple Hymnal reminded us of a while back: 

"In the interest of complete balance, I quote Wikipedia on Strong's Concordance:"

"Strong's Concordance is not a translation of the Bible nor is it intended as a translation tool. The use of Strong's numbers is not a substitute for professional translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English by those with formal training in ancient languages and the literature of the cultures in which the Bible was written.

"Since Strong's Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek, Strong's Numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training to change the Bible from its accurate meaning simply by taking the words out of cultural context. The use of Strong's numbers does not consider figures of speech, metaphors, idioms, common phrases, cultural references, references to historical events, or alternate meanings used by those of the time period to express their thoughts in their own language at the time. As such, professionals and amateurs alike must consult a number of contextual tools to reconstruct these cultural backgrounds. Many scholarly Greek and Hebrew Lexicons (e.g., Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Thayer's Greek Dictionary, and Vine's Bible Dictionary) also use Strong's numbers for cross-referencing, encouraging hermeneutical approaches to study."

I'm not knocking Strong's Concordance. It's great! But these words are true. So take what I'm about to do with a grain of salt, because I'm about to list some words and their entries from Strong's. I will also link to some Lexicons to help round them out. These are some important words in regards to the meats topic.

Old Testament

CLEAN 

[Strong’s 2889, Heb. Tahor, adj., from 2891]: pure (in a physical, chemical, ceremonial, or moral sense):- clean, fair, pure (-ness).

  [Strong’s 2891, Heb. Taher]: to be bright, i.e. (by implication) to be pure (physically sound,

  clear, unadulterated; in Leviticus uncontaminated; morally innocent or holy): be (to make,

  make  one’s self, pronounce) clean, cleanse (self), purge, purify (-ier, self).

(LEV. 11: 47)

New Testament

CLEAN 

[Strong’s 2513, Gr. Katharos, adj.]: clean (literally or figuratively): - clean, clear, pure.

(ROM. 14: 20)

UNCLEAN

[Strong’s 169, Gr. Akathartos, adj.]: impure (ceremonially, morally [lewd], or specifically [demonic]): - foul, unclean.

(ACTS 10: 14 & 28; ACTS 11: 8; II COR. 6: 17; EPH 5: 5)

CLEANSED 

[Strong’s 2511, Gr. Katharizo, verb]: to cleanse (literally or figuratively): - (make) clean (-se), purge, purify.

(ACTS 10: 15)

COMMON (also Unclean in ROM 14: 14)

[Strong’s 2839, Gr. Koinos, adj.] common, that is, (literally) shared by all or several, or (ceremonially) profane: - common, defiled, unclean, unholy.

(MARK 7: 2; ACTS 10: 14 & 28; ACTS 11: 8; ROM. 14: 14)

COMMON (also Defile in Matt. 15 and Mark 7)

[Strong’s 2840, Gr. Koinoo, verb]: to make (or consider) profane (ceremonially): - call common, defile, pollute, unclean.

(MATT. 15: 11 & 18 & 20; MARK 7: 15 & 18 & 20 & 23; ACTS 10: 15; ACTS 11: 9)

So, really all we have is two Greek adjectives:

1) Katharos

also see Biblestudytools.net for the Greek New Testament Lexicon entry for Katharos

2) Koinos 

also see Biblestudytools.net for the Greek New Testament Lexicon entry for Koinos

The other words I listed are either the negative or a verb form of these.

This should go a small ways to answering your question. Correct usage and meaning are very difficult to grasp from Strong's. I've seen false prophets twist Strong's a thousand ways from Sunday and generate all forms of distortion from it. But if we can manage to get the agenda out of the way, it's going to come out better.

Now for my typical pontification.

Part of the idea of cleanliness that absolutely must be grasped, but is not by Armstrongism for some unknowable reason, is that the Jews were given the idea of ceremonial cleanliness (and uncleanliness) in order to separate them from the Gentiles, and to be a lesson to them on distinguishing holy from unholy. Meats were a big part of this separation (there were other separators, like the prohibition on intermarriage). Now, in the New Covenant, those partitions must by necessity be taken out of the way. Even the veil to the Holy of Holies is torn in two. Jesus Christ made a reconciliation. If man is not separated from God, how can we separate man from man? Christ fulfilled every last portion of ceremonial cleanliness. It is done. Meats are not a health issue, as Armstrong claimed. Never are they associated with health. I admit that at the time there were health benefits, but that does not make a thing spiritual; this is no different than circumcision. These physical shadows simply have no place in the New Covenant other than as an example to help us wrap our minds around the spiritual reality. What separates now is the presence of the Spirit. Armstrong tries to grasp this, but he refused to accept the shadow is not equal to the substance.

The number one argument I've heard from my former association is "the Lord changes not". This is an easy out, of course. Are we to think the Word did not change from God to man to dead to God? Of course He changed! It is the essence of the Lord - His goodness and mercy - that 'changes not', or else we would be destroyed. His requirements for us do change. The ceremonial laws are a great example. They were instituted, kept valid for over a thousand years, fulfilled, and left in the past where they served their purpose. While Armstrong loved to say 'the Lord changes not' in order to promote legalism, he overlooked that if 'the Lord changes not' actually applied to the law, then they wouldn't have been instituted in the first place.

What I noticed is by far these words for unclean and common appear in reference to demons. That should be a good example of what unclean is. Clean, on the other hand, is the state we find ourselves in. We are not sinless, just under grace. We are cleansed by the blood of Christ that takes away our sins. Certainly the blood does not make us perfect, or what would be the point of this life? We still need to grow and build character. Meanwhile, Jesus takes on our sins and credits us His righteousness for our faith. In Jesus we are cleansed.

I Corinthians 8 and 10

This is another post on the subject of clean/unclean meats in the New Covenant. The more I read the Bible for myself, without the 'guidance' (read 'control') of Armstrong's ministers, the more I see that HWA was very much wrong. I would like to look at select verses from I Corinthians 8 & 10 because these chapters always appear in COG booklets. How do they compare to what I had always thought while I was attending a COG?

Paul lays out his teachings a little more plainly in the eighth chapter of First Corinthians than he did in Romans 14.

(I COR. 8: 4-6) 4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

Paul makes it clear that the food is nothing. The point isn’t to focus on eating foods offered to idols, because eating the food is nothing at all, because the idol is nothing at all. It is all about the unintended consequences. Paul talks about conscience and how we either affect our mind and the minds of our neighbors negatively or positively. We who are used to Christianity and have faith in Christ know there is no God but the Father and no Lord but Jesus Christ alone. Paul reminds us that not all (including those who are new in the faith) fully understand this.

Is there really such a thing as idolatry? Yes. Is it a victimless crime? No. Paul takes it seriously. Idolatry is a lie, and as such t is against God. God takes it seriously. Weighing heavy on God's mind is the ability of His children to have a close and meaningful relationship with Him. Are there false gods - literally? No. The only God if the Father and the only Lord is Jesus - if you want to look at it like that. So the idol is just material and the offering is just food. Then what's the big deal? The deal is that when the conscience is injured we can separate ourselves from God out of guilt. We can injure our own conscience in doing what we know we shouldn't - but what we do not intend is when we do what we know we can... and it injures someone else's conscience. Paul wants us to be acutely aware of this!

(I COR. 8: 7) However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 

This is such a confusing sentence; please let me explain it as it was explained to me: 

The new Gentile converts, because they were idolatrous for so long, still regarded the idol as something real. They were not yet experienced enough in the faith to disregard their lifelong customs. The foods which they once ate during their time in idolatry, they ate without hesitation and without knowledge that idolatry was sinful to the one true God; polytheism is what they had always done. But now, knowledge has come in that the idol is contrary to God but that knowledge is not yet mature. Guilt is associated with the entire process - the idol, the food, and all. It shouldn't be, but at this natural and completely understandable phase it is.

(I COR. 8: 8) But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. 

Armstrong most certainly taught we are the worse if we eat, contrary to Paul’s clear instructions not just here but in many other places. And not just about the clean/unclean meats issues either (many will recall the white bread, peeled potatoes, etc teachings). This statement from Paul is important in that it can certainly assist in showing the Old Covenant meats laws are not binding on the New Covenant Christian. Armstrong's version of dietary law is cherry-picked and does not completely match the Bible's version anyhow. 

How many times and in how many different ways must this truth that God does not judge what goes into our mouths be illustrated in the Bible before it becomes 'true' to the reader? For some, there simply aren’t enough times. Armstrong trumps all.

(I COR. 8: 9-13) 9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

There is liberty in the New Covenant. Even in doing what is perfectly acceptable a Christian should be mindful of others. This goes along well with Matthew 5: 19.

So far we have been discussing how certain verses in the Bible deal with Gentile conversion and idol worship. This is one place where I think my study is different than others. I do not conclude that because people misuse and misunderstand the previous verses (and Armstrong was right - people have), it means the dietary laws are still valid. On the contrary, since we have not proved the law of clean and unclean meats was carried over into the New Covenant - we have clearly shown the Gentiles were taught no such thing - we add weight upon weight that Armstrong was in error in this area, being zealous for the Old Covenant as the Jewish converts who troubled Paul. The Word of God, the main party to the Old Covenant, died, thus relieving any burden to keep the Old Covenant. The burden of proof is now on the COGs to show the burden was reinstated, and they do not come through in that in any way. Not that there is any real problem with observing dietary restrictions. However, the problem comes in when judgment and condemnation come in, or when legalism is depended on for a qualities (such as God's righteousness) that it can never bring.

 

We now shift focus to I Corinthians 10. Our first question in the tenth chapter of First Corinthians should be, “what is the context of the verses we’re about to read?”  Verse 14 sums it up.

(I COR. 10: 14) Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 

The context of this entire chapter is idolatry again - I should say 'still'.

(I COR. 10: 18-21) 18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19 Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons.

This was this kind of honest talk that frightened some of the new converts.  Paul knew that sacrifices hold no special power or significance.  But we must avoid idolatry (I COR. 10: 14).  These rituals were not in God’s honor, but demons.  We cannot be the resurrected body and blood of Christ, as the Passover meal pictures the broken body of Christ, AND yet take part with demons.  However, Paul now works to reassure.  Paul was telling the Christians not to worry about meat they were unsure of – but definitely avoid eating as a part of an idolatrous act.

(I COR. 10: 25-26) 25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.”

Paul is not directly dealing with the clean and unclean meats laws here.  However, I will remind you that the majority of what was sacrificed to pagan idols was not “clean” by Jewish standards.  That Paul isn’t talking about meats here is probably the biggest argument against them; in other words, he didn’t mention unclean meats because it isn’t a New Covenant issue in the first place. Indeed, this is about idolatry, and not about clean or unclean.

The COGs would exclaim, “We cannot read clean and unclean meats into this verse!”  Paul is dealing with meat sacrificed to idols.  But just in case someone ever stopped to think that most meats sold in Gentile markets were unclean – offered to idols or not - the COGs would usually add “Eat everything sold in the market… except unclean meats.”  Thus, they wrote their own Bible, adding to as it fit them, and taking away where they pleased.  I very much respect Fred Coulter, but in his version of the Bible (he authored his own version) those words are clearly added in.  Italicized or not, I feel it is incredibly inappropriate to add in your own personal beliefs into the text of the Bible (DEU. 4: 2; REV. 22: 18-19).

Even so, Paul taught that we should not judge each other.  If someone believes they should avoid something, be accommodating and let them believe this way, praying they mature in the faith.  Do not cause them to do what they honestly believe to be wrong, or to worry about it unnecessarily, or flaunt your freedom in their face. Even though meats laws were not carried forward into the New Covenant, it may not always be expedient or edifying to eat. Think of others. (I COR. 10: 23-24)

Paul also refers to what we often find ourselves doing, having dinner.

(I COR. 10: 27-30) 27 If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake -- 29 the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

First off, Paul says plainly "eat whatever is put before you". This directly contradicted Herbert Armstrong's theology, and accepted practices in the COGs. This leads to yet another important principal expounded here – the well being of the unbeliever! (Who is a child of God and a potential believer.) Do not unnecessarily cause them to worry about offending you.  This is a rule the COGs regularly overlook – asking many questions for conscience’ sake, and making it immediately and openly known to all that they will not eat what is set before them if it is “unclean”.  This makes many people feel uncomfortable and hurt and their effort unappreciated, and makes Armstrongites look like callous and inconsiderate zealots.  We gave God a bad name in their eyes.  We should have just eaten what was set before us with thanks given to God as the Bible says to, and done what we were shown by asking no question for conscience’ sake.

I do not agree with people who say the host in verse 28 is informing the guest that the meat was in the past offered in sacrifice. That doesn't mesh, in my mind, with Paul's flow of logic. However, I agree with Jamieson Fausset and Brown's Commentary, and Vincent's Word Study, who say it is not the host who is commenting on the meat but a fellow Christian guest who is young in the faith. It makes a good amount of sense. I can perhaps agree with Matthew Henry's Commentary that the host is at the time performing a non-Christian rite or service. But I would think that this would be a gathering I would excuse myself politely from. The blunt reality is that participating in the body of Christ which God has called us to is something that is more important than making everyone feel good. (I COR. 10: 14) "Flee idolatry." 

I like to visualize it like this: when you both go before the Judgment of God, how will you explain to God and that person why you allowed that one to cause you to sin? You have then sinned against him as well. 

We have still not seen anything that shows meats laws were carried forward into the New Covenant. We have seen evidence to the contrary, however. I would summarize I Corinthians 8 and 10 like this: be mindful of giving offense, and do not be easily offended (I COR. 10: 32). This is love. And to love is the command we have from Christ.

Romans 14 and Meats

In Romans 14 we see another controversial area between those who advocate eating unclean foods and those who do not. Here again we must look at what Paul is talking about. What is the context of Romans 14?

(ROM. 14: 1) Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

Paul begins where Romans 13 left off, by warning about strife and envy, and following the law of love.

[GENEVA] Him that is weake in the faith, receiue vnto you, but not for controuersies of disputations.

[CEV]Welcome all the Lord's followers, even those whose faith is weak. Don't criticize them for having beliefs that are different from yours.

[LITV] And receive the one who is weak in the faith, not to judgments of your thoughts.

The context is first about strife and envy, manifested in passing judgment on people who might not agree with you on a certain disputable subject. There are certain areas that people should grow to understand that aren’t so immediately important that we need to make demands about them only to end up breaking the law of love by judging our brother over them. When a church demands all people speak, think, and believe the exact same thing, they pass judgment without recognizing that even Paul admitted some areas are disputable. Sometimes that comes from the weak in faith, sometimes from the experienced. But it should always be avoided.

Some people say the following verse is about vegetarianism, but it’s really not. It’s about what background you came out of. It’s about much more than that even. First off, you have to understand that Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. He often dealt with this subject we’re reading about here, it was dealt with in I Corinthians and again in Colossians. The Gentiles were given to Greek philosophy and superstitious idol worship. At the same time, the Jewish converts were coming from a very strict legal background. Both had issues to grow out of.

(ROM. 14: 2) One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

 

The two judged each other, one in fear, and the other in confidence.

(ROM. 14: 3-4) 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Knowingly eating foods sacrificed to idols is inappropriate. Jesus deals with this subject twice in Revelation 2, in verses 14 and 20. Foods offered to idols were one of the items required to be avoided by the Gentiles as we see in Acts 15 & 21. Not for the food’s sake, of course, but for the conscience of others who are weak in faith. Clearly God hates idolatry, and it has been a problem for ages. Unknowingly eating foods offered to idols was neither here nor there, for an idol is nothing and the food is nothing (I COR. 8: 4). Clean/unclean meats laws is not the focus here; meats offered to idols were not the focus here. Love is the focus here. As Paul makes abundantly clear in I Corinthians 8, there are Gentile converts to whom idolatry is very much something. We can discern that Paul was not telling people who were strong in the faith to eat foods offered to idols, but that there are people who are not so strong in their Christian faith as to have left behind all of their old superstitions, and they fear all meats offered in the marketplace and refuse to take the chance with any of them.

The early church had a set of issues to deal with. A person’s background beliefs are incredibly difficult to grow out of. (Anyone trying to exit Armstrongism fully understands this.) Paul says, all should be patient and gentle with each other.

(ROM. 14: 5-8) 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

Worldwide taught that, “The Romans were abstaining from eating on certain days.” But this would be what you and I commonly call “fasting”, and it is highly recommended that all people do such. So this very idea, though it sounds quite learned and scholarly, is silly. We all abstain from meats on certain days.

If anyone taught “Paul was basically telling them that until they had a more perfect understanding, they should attribute their understanding not to a pagan god but to Jesus,” then that is akin to saying, “Until you know better, regard your drunken orgy festival,” for such were pagan celebrations, “to Christ rather than Zeus”. I find this reasoning nonsensical. And of course it is! The reason for the wrangling is to try and claim the Old Covenant Holy Days are still binding on New Covenant Christians. This is simply not so. Worldwide had layers upon layers of such convoluted reasonings to explain away Christ's grace and lock us all back into legalistic bondage.

If the context were only idolatry, then Paul condones idolatry in verses 5-8 - which is contrary to multiple verses where God Himself clearly says to do no such thing. How does one keep idolatry to the Lord after all?

We cannot conclude that we are to regard pagan holidays as special to the Lord, therefore we cannot conclude Paul is referring only to idolatry. It makes more sense that Paul is dealing mainly with people’s backgrounds. The days are like the meats, some were eating and some were not, some were regarding as special, some were not, some were weak in the faith and abstained for conscience’ sake, and some were confident in faith. Each had their own background that separated them, and were not quite used to the Christian methods of worship. 

If you kept in mind that Paul was dealing with Jew and Gentile converts, trying to juggle the fact that Gentiles were never commanded to keep the Old Covenant laws while the Jews were zealous for it, you should by now understand that most definitely clean and unclean meats are covered within this chapter. Paul was commanded to teach the Gentiles to avoid meats offered to idols, not to eat them to the Lord. But to the Jewish converts, who stirred up trouble for Paul constantly and wanted all Gentiles to be Jews first in order to be Christians, this would appear that Paul was teaching the replacement of the Old Covenant food laws. Paul was teaching the magnification of the spirit of the law. To the Jews, abstain to the Lord with thanks; to the Gentiles, eat to the Lord with thanks. Only regard others' sensibilities in whatever you do. As for the days, it would make more sense in my mind that Paul was including the Jewish traditional days like Hanukah and Purim or perhaps non-idolatrous Gentile celebrations like birthdays or national celebrations.

(ROM. 14: 13) Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

Unfortunately, this was something most people NEVER learned, all the while condemning people for eating pork or whatever else. I wouldn’t be writing this study now, disputing over disputable matters, if we’d learned this lesson back then.

Now, here we see something new. This is the clincher that shows Paul was most definitely talking about the clean/unclean meats laws.

 

(ROM 14: 14-21) 14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing [“no thing” includes “no food”; the context is what you eat] unclean, [Strong's 2839: shared in common; or ceremonially profane, defiled] of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean [2839], to him it is unclean [2839]. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food [1033: food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonial) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law: - meat, victuals], you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food [1033] the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. 

19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food [1033]. All things [“all things” includes “food”; the context is what you eat] indeed are clean [2513: clean, clear, pure], but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. 22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. 

What a statement “I am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself”. “Unclean” here is the same word “common” from Acts 10: 14, 28; 11: 8-9. Just as Jesus told Peter to call nothing “common” that He had cleansed, Paul says he was also convinced by Jesus that nothing was “defiled”; same word. This is the exact same thing God said to Peter! But in that case people say “God only meant the Gentiles”, and here they say “God only means idolatry”. (The same people who keep a tradition because the English text says "forever" will in this case work to undo what God clearly says when it doesn't fit their theology.) Incredible!! Indeed this deals with meats! If we are to demand the context of the section be closely guarded, then the context here is undeniably about food. We cannot just wrangle this away!

I have prayed and pondered about this for some time. I have come to the conclusion that I agree with Paul. Nothing is inherently defiled except to those who feel it is defiled. For Worldwide, as it was with the Jewish converts, what is defiled includes what God has cleansed... and that is their prerogative. If you don't think you should eat, then by all meant do not! So long as they condemn no one else for eating what has been cleansed. But what does that mean? Nothing defiled is made to be defiled in and of and by its self - but if someone regards something to be defiled then to him it is defiled. Since the law is summed up as “Love your neighbor as yourself”, causing someone else to do something they consider a sin, even where there is no law against a certain thing, in this case eating, it is then made a sin to do such a thing. The defilement came not from the outside via the meat, as Jesus shows nothing from the outside defiles us, but from the inside, by loving one’s brother less than one’s appetite.

The idea that Paul considers absolutely nothing to be unclean is misleading. Remember, Paul is referring to food here, not all things in existence. Paul does indeed consider some things to be impure, unclean, or common. Search Paul's works for the word 'unclean' once; you'll see.

We know that in the New Covenant, those things that defile are spiritual; the things that come from within.

To that end, Paul rightly concludes, if eating something bothers you that much, by all means don’t eat it! Law or no law. However, don’t judge someone else for eating, “for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (ROM. 14: 17). And if you do eat, please be considerate to those who do not eat, and refrain from eating in front of them.

4 Parts of the Old Covenant Remain?

The Gentiles were specifically told to mind certain things:

(ACTS 15: 19-20) 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

(ACTS 21: 25) But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

A common question brought up is, “Why would only these 4 points be brought up, which are from the law of Moses, and nothing else?” I would like to look in to that.

Even though all four of these points can be found in the Old Covenant law, the beginning of the answer is – these points are not a continuation of the Old Covenant. I see several possible contributing factors.

Here is one possibility. 

According to some Jewish groups, there are 613 laws in the Torah binding upon all Jews. Conversely, there are 7 “Noachide laws” that had existed from the beginning and are binding upon all mankind.  

As far as I can gather, these laws were oral until the second century AD when they were codified by the Sanhedrin 56a, taking the form we see them today. A Gentile was righteous if he kept only these 7 laws. And they are:

1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.

2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)

3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.

4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery.

5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.

6. Prohibition of Cruelty to Animals: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)

*cruelty to animals included a prohibition against blood

7. Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

Gentiles needed only to learn about these and they would be considered righteous by any Jew. This is in no way a “primer to Judaism” as I’ve heard it described. They were in no way officially expected to learn the remainder of the 613 laws. 

This could very well represent the understanding of the Jews who were zealous for the law, including the Apostles. 

Some would ask, “What does this have to do with anything?” Well, in order to understand what James, who appears to regard both written and oral law in certain instances, did, one must understand where he was coming from. Selecting 4 points from the Old Covenant law to arbitrarily bind upon the Gentiles, or to bind on them as a primer to introduce the rest of the law later, was certainly not what he was doing.

The mistake the converts from a Pharisaical background kept making is they assumed Gentiles were converting to Judaism first in order to be Christians, thus subjecting them to the rest of the law - which they were not subject to.  That they would not be eventually brought in to the rest of the physical law is clearly evident in all of Paul's works and the words of James. 

(ACTS 15: 24) Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law” —to whom we gave no such commandment.

So, the law of clean and unclean meats was most certainly not on its way later, as Armstrong professes vehemently. At the very least, if that were indeed so, we should hear something of it from Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin… somebody! We do not.

Here is another possibility. All four of those points were common in pagan rituals. 

As Paul pointed out time and time again, a Gentile convert would do well to avoid paganism.

In many places we see how God hates idolatry. God doesn’t hate idolatry by law; He hates it by nature of who He is – the true and Living God. Even if the covenant is removed, God by nature hates idolatry because a lie is contrary to God's nature; idolatry itself is a lie. 

All of these things mentioned in Acts 21: 25 are common practices in idolatry.

As an asside.. an interesting thing about the eating of blood - it was symbolic of Jesus’ sacrifice. In the blood is the life (GEN. 9: 4; LEV. 17: 11; DEU. 12: 23), and in Christ is Life (JOHN 1: 4; 14: 6; COL. 3: 4). All things belong to God. He gave us the use of meat for our bodies, but blood is only for the atonement of man to God.

In the Old Covenant we see this:

(LEV 17: 10-12) 10 ‘And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’ 12 Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood.’

 But now Christ tells us we SHOULD take that into us (symbolically):

(LUKE 22: 19-20) “19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.”

(JOHN 6: 52-58) “52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

Of course the Jews were quarreling. As with this debate on food laws, they saw things only in the Old Covenant terms, not in the New Covenant terms. So, we can see that the New Covenant is (at least symbolically) contrary to the Levitical prohibition. Even so, since animals were first given to Noah as food, God has never plainly condoned the ingesting of actual blood.

Going back to the original point, did Worldwide ever explain these things? No. They said, “[certain] meats were created unfit for human consumption," and left it at that. First, the Bible never says any “unclean” animal is “unfit for human consumption”. That isn’t a striving over words, it’s an important fact, since “unclean” means “ceremonially unclean”.  If we are to say these things were an abomination from the beginning, then we nullify Genesis 1: 31. If we are to say they were unclean from the beginning, then we nullify Romans 14: 14. In order to claim both of those things, without actually saying either of those things, the phrase “unfit for human consumption” was thrown in. The Jews do not teach 'food was unfit from the beginning'. No Jewish group that I am aware of teaches such. 

Worldwide would always quote Romans 3: 2 to bolster their theology when they were in symmetry with Jewish teachings. I wouldn’t suppose they will quote it in this instance.

There were two distinct groups in the early church: the Jewish converts – those Paul referred to as “of the circumcision”, about whom James remarks  “they are zealous for the law” (ACTS 21: 20) - and then there were the Gentile converts. It is clear that the two groups were indeed distinct. They were separate in conscience due to their backgrouns, but unified in Christ. 

Paul stopped in to Jerusalem and went to James. In Acts 21, James showed Paul all the converts from Judaism who were zealous for the law (verse 20). But those same Jewish converts were disturbed by what they heard about Paul’s teaching. And what disturbed them?

(ACTS 21: 21) 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

They only cared if Paul was teaching THE JEWS to forsake the customs of Moses. They already knew what the church’s policy was towards the Gentiles.

(ACTS 21: 25) “But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing [referring to the laws of Moses], except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.” 

Once again, they appear to be in line with Jewish teaching about the Mitzvahs and the Noahide laws. Yet some love to overlook that while they let slip judgment and condemnation, saying we must all observe all the laws of Moses (even while they themselves really do not).

Why was this decision made about the Gentiles in the first place? Because of Jewish converts to Christianity causing trouble among the Gentile converts, teaching them they had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

(ACTS 15: 24) Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law” — to whom we gave no such commandment

Notice what happened between Paul and James then:

(ACTS 21: 22-24) 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

The Jewish converts in Jerusalem wanted to make sure Paul, a convert from Pharisaical Judaism, was keeping the law, including circumcision which we clearly see Paul did teach against - not that they wanted to make sure the Gentiles were doing these things. Paul had a policy about that sort of thing:

(I COR. 9: 19-20) “19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law” 

The Gentiles were already decided to not be under the law. Everyone understood that (almost). However, the zealous converts from Judaism were none too happy with Paul. James’ solution? Have Paul obey the ceremonial laws of washings, which even the Worldwide Church of God in all its zeal for the law teaches were done away with. Worldwide said, “Paul only taught against the ceremonial laws of washings and sacrifices and the keeping of Jewish traditions added throughout the years.” Yet those are exactly the things James coached Paul to keep here.

If Armstrong sees Acts 21: 22-24 as such proof of the law still being in effect, why then do we see Paul being compelled to keep the washings which Armstrong sees were done away with? And why was circumcision mentioned by James which was done away with? Also, if Paul kept the law so closely, why do we only one time ever see Paul returning to Jerusalem to keep the Holy Days while the temple still stood? If the law was in effect, wouldn’t he be obligated to travel there regularly while the temple still stood? Worldwide simply didn’t make very good arguments. I suspect the reason is because no one can show the whole Old Covenant is still in effect alongside the New without great wrangling and twisting, adding to and taking away from.

Now notice that these wonderful and law abiding zealots, who constantly beset Paul and the Gentiles with trouble, also then plotted to KILL Paul! We see that in the next several chapters, starting here in verse 27 of Acts 21. And for what did they insist on this evil? For supposedly, though not actually, taking a Gentile into a physical temple which they supposed to still yet house the spirit of God, not understanding whatsoever that God’s temple is in His faithful believers. 

Not that we can prove it, but according to tradition, James himself was killed by these same legal zealots after they failed to kill Paul.

I painfully conclude, being zealous for the law does not necessarily equal being zealous for God.