Share Button

“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.”

Matthew 5:17 (NLT)

Is the law here or is it done away with? I mean, if Jesus appeared at your table tonight and you offered him bacon, would he decline out of observance of the law?

One might say yes and point to Matt 15, Mark 7 or Galatians 5-7 and show that we are not under the law, and Jesus wouldn’t observe it when eating food today. Probably the clearest verse in the whole new testament is:

 Food doesn’t come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then comes out again.” (By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable.) Mark 7:19 (NLT)

But, is that a fair representation of the Greek? King James translators thought not:

 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? Mark 7:19 (KJV)

What is the truth here? Would Jesus eat bacon or not?

References.

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?dir=next&folioNo=6&lid=en&quireNo=76&side=r&zoomSlider=0

35 Responses

  1. Stan Gain

    More than 80% of the world’s population are going to a lost eternity without Jesus.

    Stop wasting your time with such trivia

    Reply
  2. Jim

    I’m not sure if Jesus would eat bacon. But I’ve always thought that it’s odd that at Easter Sunday, the typical meal is ham.

    Sometimes Jesus did things to avoid controversy which would detract from his message. For example getting baptized by John the Baptist.

    Reply
  3. Phillip Wood

    The answer to this is both ‘yes and no’ Jesus the Living Incarnate Word would consider motives, and all aspects of the situation to eat or not eat bacon. Then make the right and correct decision to His action as the Lord of all creation.

    Reply
  4. Brad

    I’m not sure… Back then forsure not! Now maybe. But I’m trying to love Jesus more than I love bacon. And, I know He loves me more than bacon! So that says a lot!

    Reply
    • Dalet

      Jesus said if u love me keep my commandments
      What is here unclear?
      Jesus never changed low but came to put it back- fulfill since the destruction of the temple Rabbis came with Talmud that burden the people. Jesus was against the low that Rabbis put ion place not The Father.
      He never told us anywhere Lev 23 re dietary law is changed.

      Reply
  5. Gordon Carson

    You totally missed the scripture in Acts 10, where God makes all animals clean:

    9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

    14“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

    15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

    16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

    Reply
    • PileOQuestions
      PileOQuestions

      How do you know that all the food has been made clean when the interpretation for Peter’s vision is given later on in the chapter:

      34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.”

      I am not saying it’s a sin to eat unclean animals, but I am wondering about the interpretation of Acts 10. It was all about reaching out to the Gentiles, as Peter states.

      Reply
    • TJG Spook

      You have missed the whole point in Acts. This is not whether food is clean or unclean but whether the gentiles were clean or unclean. Why are you twisting the scriptures? What do you do with this verse:
      Deu 14:8 And the swine, because he parteth the hoof but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you: of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch.

      Reply
    • Dalet

      Peters vision had to do with Genitals not food
      That is greater deception that the enemy sneaked in among followers of Jesus

      Reply
  6. Jackie

    I think Jesus would eat bacon! In Acts 10, Paul is admonished by God when he said would not eat anything common or unclean. God clearly speaks to him telling that whatever God has blessed is neither common or unclean.

    Reply
    • TJG Spook

      Paul is not corrected in Acts 10, It is Peter who is corrected. And this text has nothing to do with food. This was concerning the Gentiles as to whether they were clean or unclean. The Bible clearly states this about two verses. Don’t put your interpretation on what the Bible says let the Bible explain itself.

      Reply
  7. Paul Clifford

    Textus Receptus (on which the KJV is based) isn’t considered an accurate representation of the original manuscripts. Additionally, Greek wasn’t really well-known so the people who translated the New Testament would often refer to the much later Latin manuscripts when they had a question.

    This discussion leaves out Peter’s vision in Acts, though. So, I’d say Jesus is fine with us eating bacon and may or may not eat it based on what he was trying to accomplish by doing so.

    Reply
    • TJG Spook

      The most accurate translation of the Bible which is based on the Textus Receptus and the Greek is the American Standard Version if 1901. It states:
      Act 10:28 and he said unto them, Ye yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to join himself or come unto one of another nation; and yet unto me hath God showed that I should not call any man common or unclean:

      This has nothing to do with food. And what God has made unclean is still unclean

      Reply
  8. Jim D

    Why, when people are perishing all around us, do we spend so much energy of hypothetical questions? Christ established a better covenant as God’s sin-bearer. What a believer eats is between them and the Lord. Let’s quit splitting hairs and put our efforts into winning the lost.

    Reply
    • Steve M

      No man comes to the Father less the Spirit draws him. God has got the “lost” under control. So many Christians think He doesn’t. He does. Live your life in unconditional love with everyone you come into contact with and believe me, all will be well!

      Reply
  9. Matt

    Of course not! 🙂

    No, Jesus would not eat bacon. As an observant Jew (and the kosher laws were given to the Jews) he would most certainly eat kosher. We see this in the parable of the net. Jesus says that you ‘throw away the bad fish’. What is a ‘bad fish’? One that does not line up with kosher, i.e. one that does not have BOTH fins and scales. We can’t as Christians stand on Peter’s vision as some do as a proof text for kosher eating, after all Peter himself gives the explanation of the vision as being about Gentiles coming in. So there’s my 2 cents. Do I eat bacon? Yes, I’m not Jewish. Would I serve it to Jesus? God forbid. Certainly not. Have a great day. 🙂

    Reply
    • Steve M

      He might eat it in front of the Scribes and Pharisees just to disturb their silly thinking some more.

      Reply
  10. Mike Wehde

    Who cares if Jesus would eat bacon? He fulfilled the Law so we wouldn’t have to, and any dietary guidelines we hold to now are merely preference, and not restrictions. So if Jesus refused bacon, it would be because he finds it nasty, not naughty.
    It is for Freedom that He set us free.

    Reply
  11. Dennis Martens

    Beginning with Matthew 5:17: In Jesus’ day, to “abolish the law” was to give an inproper interpretation of it, and to “fulfill the law” was to give a proper and correct interpretation of the law. (One reference would be, “Jesus the Jewish Theologian” by Brad H. Young, pp 263-269.) Yes, Jesus did come to fulfill all the law and prophets (John 5:39), but in context Matt. 5:17 does not apply to that.

    Regarding Mark 7:19, we should not take the single verse to understand your question. Rather answer it with the whole of the New Testament, like Acts 10:9-16, and 1 Corinthians 8:4-13.

    Finally, Life in Christ is not about what Jesus would eat or not eat, but whether or not we are making disciples by the life we live in Him. (Mat. 28:18-20) To do that we must be disciples ourselves, learning to “know what the Master knows and do what the Master does.” (Mat. 10:24-25; Who is your master? Are you willing to be like him in ALL of your life?)

    Reply
  12. Bob

    I have always used that verse (Mark 7:19) to defend my smoking habit. True it has been proven that cigarettes are hazardous to your health.Unfortunately, the church uses tobacco as a litmus test to determine if a believer is truly a believer. It seems like social politics, and civil religion have become the “new” commandments.

    Reply
  13. Robert

    Jesus would not eat bacon. Nobody that follows Jesus should eat bacon. Jesus is the word made flesh (John 1:14). Jesus only taught the doctrine of His Father (John 7:16). Proverbs 4:2 says “For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.” Jesus said if you love Him, to keep His commandments. Since He only taught His Father’s doctrine, His commandments were also His Father’s commandments.

    In Mark 7 and Matthew 15, Jesus is responding to accusations from the Pharisees about the disciples eating “bread” without ritual handwashing. This man-made tradition or lack thereof did not make clean food defiled and that’s what Jesus was explaining. He said, “These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man” in Matthew 15:20.

    In Acts 10, God was showing Peter that he was still keeping man-made traditions that interfered with God’s commands. The Jews believed that a “clean” animal became “defiled” or “common” when it touched an “unclean” animal. That’s why God let the animals down in a sheet so they would be touching. He said don’t call “common”, what I have made “clean”. In 1 Timothy 4, the forbidding of eating meat that is sanctified (set apart) by the word of God and prayer is called a doctrine of demons by Paul. All of this related to the Gentiles because the Jews called them “common” if they kept God’s law and they called them “unclean” if they didn’t keep God’s law. Peter shows that he understood the vision when he expressed that God told him not to call any man common or unclean.

    The issue in the first century was the Jews trying to call clean animals common or defiled because of their traditions. Today the problem is the exact opposite. People have misinterpreted God’s word for so long that their tradition says that all animals are clean. Jesus said, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?”

    The truth is that God is creator. He made some animals to be food and he made some animals to clean up the earth. Leviticus 11 tells us which is creatures are food and which are not. When Jesus came, He didn’t keep the law so we wouldn’t have to. He became the curse that we deserved and died so we wouldn’t have to. He kept the law perfectly as an example for us.

    1 John 2:1-6
    My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

    Reply
  14. Dan

    Is there is perhaps a critical focus missing here?
    That would be “When?”

    We know that Jesus came to fulfill the law that we could not fulfill. So I believe in that respect – while here on earth – He would certainly not eat it. If it was a matter of being “able to”, yes He could have, but He “could” have done many things always, instead choosing to remain in God’s will.

    Now that He has saved us all, fulfilling God’s will and accomplishing His purpose…
    He can eat as much as He wants.

    Reply
    • PileOQuestions
      PileOQuestions

      Good question. Was it God’s desire that his people abstain from pork? Does the Law reveal to us his desires? If that’s the case, Jesus can’t ever transgress the Father’s will. If it’s not his will, his preference, why was it a law?

      Reply
  15. Ian

    We become what we eat, and we are what we have eaten in the past. Why would we eat scavengers or the garbage processors of our world? Consumption of bacon will affect our spiritual and physical hearts and lessen the influence of our soul on our self. Jesus had a high level soul and it would not have made any rational or spiritual sense for him to eat pork. For Stan: Muslims also believe that everyone except them is going to hell for eternity.

    Reply
  16. John Lowe

    When Jesus walked the earth he would not have eaten bacon because as a Jew he was under the law. If he turned up at one of our houses today he would eat bacon because the old covenant has been abolished and the new covenant has no such restrictions.
    Rom 6:14 you are not under the law
    Heb 7:18, 19 The former regulation [ie the Law which was the old covenant] is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
    Gal 4:24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, [ten commandments] bearing children for slavery. 30 But what does the scripture say? “Drive out the slave [Hagar representing the Old Covenant of the ten commandments] and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman.”

    Heb 7:18, 19 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

    Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one.(8) God finds fault with them when he says: “The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;:(9) not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors… for they did not continue in my covenant, [i.e. keep the commandments] (10) This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws [this is all about the commandments] in their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people (13) In speaking of “a new covenant,” he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear.
    The Law/Covenant/Ten Commandments Is described as
    “obsolete”
    “growing old”
    “weak and useless”

    Reply
    • Robert

      Most of the time when Paul says “you are not UNDER the law” like in Romans 6:14, he means you are not under the curse of the law. Other times he means you are not under the talmudic law. Above all, we should not let Paul’s letters confuse us into not keeping God’s law out of love for our Savior.

      2 Peter 3
      14 So then, beloved ones, looking forward to this, do your utmost to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
      15 and reckon the patience of our Master as deliverance, as also our beloved brother Sha’ul (Paul) wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him,
      16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these matters, in which some are hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the other Scriptures.
      17 You, then, beloved ones, being forewarned, watch, lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the delusion of the lawless,
      18 but grow in the favour and knowledge of our Master and Saviour יהושע Messiah. To Him be the esteem both now and to a day that abides. Amĕn.

      As far as being under the new covenant, we still have to teach others and not everybody knows Yahweh so I would say we’re still under the old covenant (Hebrews 8:11). The old covenant is growing old and will soon disappear, but it hasn’t yet (Hebrews 8:13).

      Reply
  17. Dan Willis

    Christ was without sin. It would be against his character to consume any unclean animal whether pork or a roast beef sandwich with swiss cheese or a nice dish of venison. These things in his followers are permissible but in Christ would be sinful and as such impossible.

    Reply
  18. Robert

    Jesus does a lot of things that the Hebrew Moshiach YeShua would not do. Isa 66:17, Lev 11:41-47 The Creator said it was an abomination, meaning he hates it. What he hate HIS people hate. Its not even debatable since The Father is Spirit and the Son is the manifesto of the Father and they are echad, one. YeShua never would nor would he ever violate the Word of the Father. If you tell me this is “Under the Law” then you tell me you do not understand Paul meaning and usage of the expression. Furthermore it Deu 12:32-13:5. Scripture is true and it does not change for any reason.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.