— The Perpetuity of God's Law—Are you up to the challenge? Updated

By on

[Please note: my use of FULL CAPS is not to be considered shouting; it is simply easier to use in email (at least, with my email program) than italics; even if I write the email in another medium and dump it into an email, all the boldface, underlining, italics, etc. is lost; so FULL CAPS are merely for emphasis, not shouting.]


Someone is reading my booklet, So, You Call Yourself A Christian... (80pp., 5.50 + P&H), which shows that God’s Law was not abolished, and primarily thereafter shows that Peter’s Vision had nothing to do with abolishing the dietary laws.  He emailed with some questions concerning how the average Christian thinks, and my replies are interspersed among his questions / comments.

Other person:

For years I have wondered about the meaning of the vision of the sheet coming down from Heaven, full of unclean animals.  What puzzles me is this—and please understand that I am playing a sort of “Devil’s advocate” role here.  I do not have any fixed opinions on the meaning of the vision.  The work of the potter, as described in Jeremiah 18:1-6, was started when the northern tribes went into captivity.  Perhaps 750 years later, a major turning point was reached.  God had sifted the House of Israel through the nations, and had allowed the corrupted family lines in each tribe to die out, or become hopelessly mixed with the pagans.  But the vessels of honor had been preserved, along with SOME of the “bad guys”, and now they were being positioned to receive the promised Messiah... or, in some cases, to join with the Edomites, etc., in rejecting Him.  Prior to this time, it would have been unacceptable for the Judah/Benjamin remnant to mingle with them.  It is not clear whether they knew that these people were Israelites; but, whether or not they did, it was now time for these Judah and Benjamite peoples to learn to broaden their horizons and accept that which had been unacceptable.  GOD did not change, but his work as a potter had changed His people, Israel, and now His task was to get the “elder son” (of the parable) to change his attitudes and ideas.

My reply/comment:

This all is utterly irrelevant as concerning the perpetuity of God’s Law and God’s Immutability.  Morality does not change.  That is the entire problem with true Israel (the true peoples of Christendom, literally descended from Biblical Israel) in blindness, modernly thinking that God changes.  If He changes or changes morality in one area, what is to cause anyone to think He won’t change another also? and thus race mixing is now considered “wonderful” by the entire Apostate church and homo-perversion is now considered “wonderful” by a large percentage of the Apostate church.  It is hard to categorize or define the “Christian Church” since the majority of it is utterly Apostate and not of God and not Christian, and the tiny percentage of that which is Christian, is not much better, as they have embraced the way of the heathen, and embraced the heathen, and in blindness, reject God by rejecting His Standard of Holiness: His Law for His people.  If God changes in one area He is not Immutable.  God declared, “I am Yahweh and I change not, therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed”.  God’s Immutability is our hope!  He commanded “Be holy as I am Holy”—and therefore, our Standard of Morality cannot change because His does not change (and we cannot be holy as He is Holy if the “standard” for us changed, but the Standard for Him did not change).  A Standard does not change.  True Law does not change.  Standards are corrupted and true Law is departed from.  That which is dark, evil, immoral, sinful, abominable never becomes light, good, moral, righteous, or wholesome.

As an example, here is an excerpt from an unbelievable email that someone sent to me, from someone who had sent it to him... incomprehensibly coming from a PASTOR; if he is a pastor (he should be put out to pasture, or sent directly to the glue factory—or cast to the wolves, since that’s what he appears to be), he clearly is a Baal priest or an apostate pagan idol priest like Micah.

“I was talking to a pastor the other day ... He told me that morality was subjective and open to interpretation.  Example:  years ago woman wore long dresses now barely covers their bottoms.  Woman used to be ashamed of being pregnant without a husband—today we give them daycare in high school and baby showers.  A man can cheat on his wives write about it in a book and we are now going to elect him president; whereas in the past he at least did not flaunt it.  A person can lie to your face and the next day deny it and be elected for president.   He told me that I was trying to live in a modern world with outdated values.  And that I will continue to be depressed if I can’t find a way to be accepting of today’s “morals”.  I question his use of the word "morality" as there seems to be none and it is now an obsolete word and should be removed from the dictionary.”

This is the APOSTATE Church.  This is a “pastor” (or rather, “sheep-shearer who is in league with the wolves and the slaughterhouse!) who has never done any true Bible study on his own and who does not understand simple logic—and who is unregenerate, unconverted, and evil.  This is a pastor who was merely produced off the seminary assembly line (if he ever even took a Bible course in college or through mail order, or was merely a plumber and realized that there has to be an easier way to make a living without working so hard) and he cannot think outside the Apostate seminarial trough (or he does not want to—he likes the steady stream of rotten slop).

True believers SHOULD BE depressed and offended.  RIGHTEOUS LOT WAS VEXED with the evil of "his day". God did not expect Lot to "roll with the punches" and "go with the flow" and "interface" with modern notions of (im)morality and loosen his tie and let his hair down.  THIS IS AN APOSTATE PASTOR, a FALSE PROPHET.

Other person:

What I don’t understand is this: God gave Peter the vision of the sheet, not to deal with food, but, rather, to deal with the need to experience an attitude adjustment. Thus, most people seem to think that Peter had to be given a parallel experience in regard to food—since, after all (SUPPOSEDLY!), Jesus had (Mark 7:19) “purged all meats”, making all “foods” clean.  Now, He also said that previously forbidden people were “clean”.  (I DO understand that the NIV translation of Mark 7:19, which adds to the KJV rendition of this verse, has caused terrible misunderstanding, as Jesus was merely referring to the digestive processes, and NOT to any change in the nature of pigs, etc.!  But the usual understanding is that the dietary laws were abolished.)  

My reply/comment:

The “usual” understanding is completely erroneous and unbiblical!  And no, it has nothing to do with “digestion”.  Christ’s teaching had nothing to do with its manifest content, but its latent content—even as “beware of the leaven of the pharisees” had nothing to do with not having procured bread, as the confused disciples imagined.  Likewise, Christ would have called the majority of the mainstream Christian Church today, “Fools and slow of heart (mind) to understand the Scriptures”.  Peter’s Vision had nothing to do with food.  Christ’s discourse had nothing to do with food.  He wasn’t giving an Ann Landers or Martha Stewart column on dining etiquette.

As I explain in my S. T. E. Commentary on Romans (800pp., pb., 40.00 + P&H), Paul says to those with understanding “ALL THINGS THAT ARE LAWFUL are lawful to me”.  God’s Word will not contradict Itself.  Only a fool thinks that this is referring to things that God forbade us to eat.  Christ was not talking about specific forbidden unclean animals, but talking about the pharisees obsessive-compulsive handwashing, which they attempted to interject into the Law of God.  If the sheet that God had let down in Peter’s Vision had been full of naked women who were other men’s wives and God said, “Live it up!” only the most-depraved minded “Christian” would think that is really what God was telling Peter to do, rather than teaching by a lesson; like when the Prophet Nathan told David about the Israelite with one sheep, who was his best friend and his wealthy neighbor with thousands of sheep stole and killed and ate that neighbor’s one little beloved lamb.  The story had shock value—but it was not the story itself, but had a deeper meaning!  Children can’t see the deeper meaning; they only see the lights and the puppet show and think the puppets are real!  So it is with most “Christians” who have never matured and still have childish minds.  Paul said that when he became a man he put away childish things and stopped babbling like an infant.  “Christians” would do well to do the same.

Paul did NOT imply that eating a ham sandwich, murder, a homo relationship, or worshipping a false god would have been lawful for him.  Those who think so reveal that they are yet UNREGENERATE.  The problem is the modern Christian is lobotomized and cannot comprehend simple logic and he cannot understand the Scriptures because the Scriptures must be spiritually discerned and he is CARNAL and SOLD UNDER SIN and UNCONVERTED.  Christ was not talking about food in general.  He was not talking about food.  He was talking about unwashed hands but only to the extent to expose the pharisees fraud!

[I remember an Ann Landers column from the newspaper years ago, that someone read to me, as I have never read a newspaper in my life... I believe the rough feel and the dirty ink that comes off on your hands as you read in indicative of the value of the content.  Regardless, someone asked her, “Is it proper etiquette to eat fried chicken with my fingers?”  She replied, “No, eat the chicken first, and your fingers afterwards”.  Thus, humorously by comparative logic, Christ was not saying that you could eat unclean animals, but that you could eat your hands even if you had not washed them.]

Christ was referring to the Pharisees’ neurotic obsessive-compulsive disorder (due to their guilty consciences and unconfessed sin) that caused them to go through endless rituals of hand washing, especially before eating.  Christ’s comments had NOTHING to do with meat, or food.  On the surface, it had to do with what you eat (which would only be clean animals) WITH UNWASHED hands.  If your hands were clean to begin with they do not need another washing out of neurotic ritual being imposed upon you.  Christ similarly had told Peter at the footwashing before the Last Supper that he who is clean does not need his whole body washed, just his feet.  So Christ was NOT talking about eating with unwashed hands if you had just been cleaning out your sceptic tank, or mucking out the cattle stall, or if you had just cleaned up vomit.  He was talking about people whose hands were actually clean because they had not done anything to defile them.  Clearly, those whose hands are truly filthy don’t need an invitation or reminder to wash their hand before they eat.  But if someone’s hands are clean, he does not need to wash his hands due to some pharisaic ritual and the little bacteria that is on them is no different than the bacteria in the air, and that little amount is easily neutralized by the gastro-intestinal fluids.  But, as we shall see, this was not really the main teaching.

[Of course, in today's society full of aliens, third-world (and CDC laboratory-created) diseases, and homo-perverts washing ones hands before one eats anytime that one has been in public is a good idea... (as is washing and sterilizing ones hands once one gets into his car, where he can keep such sterilizing handwipes; because you don’t want to stick a finger in your mouth or nose after touching something that had been touched by some filthy person.  Everyone should be an “amateur” germaphobe if you want to be healthy in today’s polluted society, anytime after having been in public around people whom you don’t know.  Parents don’t raise their children properly; the savages just ignore them live wolves or swine do, and let their snotty nosed offspring touch or slobber over everything in a store.  Washing your hands before eating and after any contact with people, grocery carts, doors, passing money, shaking hands, etc., is a good idea—not in an obsessive-compulsive way, but simply as good preventative.  However, they did not have these issues in Christ’s day (or even in our nations 100 years ago).  In fact, even when I was in my early teens, and knew nothing, when I saw undesireable people 20 feet ahead of me, walking toward me on the sidewalk in the city, I would take a deep breath a few feet before they came close, and I would then hold it while walking until I could not hold it any longer.  Sadly, in society as it is now 40 years after that time, there would be no time to take a breath!]  

BUT Christ’s actual—not the superficial “container” [service tray] of the conversation, but the contents of the container—the real teaching was NOT about washing dirty hands.  That was merely the “springboard to the true lesson”, which was moral-spiritual cleansing (clean the inside of the platter—the heart—not merely the outside) and the utter corruption of the Pharisees.   Even as Christ, when He warned of the Pharisee’s leaven, was not talking about bread (though the disciples—having not heard the story from their childhood into adulthood—did not understand that Christ was speaking figuratively).

Christ kept the Law perfectly in all things—to show us how to keep it, so only a brain-dead Christian (the most-common kind) would think that Christ abolished ANY part of the Law—especially since Christ Himself declared NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE would pass from the Law, and that He did NOT come to destroy the Law.

The Law is perfect.  Man’s sinfulness is the problem (which Hebrews 8:8 tells us, “finding fault with THEM”—God’s people who are all born with a sin nature; the problem was not the Law).

That which is immoral NEVER BECOMES “Moral”... once a person FINALLY REALIZES THIS simple truth he will realize that many other “questions” (or false interpretations) concerning such Scriptures are SMOKESCREENS and indicative of spiritual delusion.

Sinful Christians (even those who delude themselves into thinking that they are not sinful, but that they are “spiritual”*) eagerly choose the LEAST-LIKELY and MOST-ABSURD possible interpretation of such passages, because they are carnal and they are eager to jump at the opportunity to declare their God to be mutable and imperfect while at the same time indulging in the sin that they so love, because they have no concept of holiness and have no desire to be holy.  Rather than seeing how close to God they can get, they see how close to the line of sin they can get without technically stepping over it (all the while, moving the line farther and farther away from God when they think that He is not looking).

[* —like the phone conversation that I once had with a “Christian” who has some popular youtubes on natural gardening.  He was an over-emotionally voiced person who spoke every word as if it was deluxe milk chocolate with caramel.  I mentioned something about God’s Law and agriculture and the dietary laws and he replied, “You know what, I once wondered about that and I asked God about it and you know what He told me...?”  I closed my eyes and sighed, “oh no”.  He continued, “You don’t have to worry about any of that any more; that was only for those other people way back then.”  I did not pursue the conversation any further because the guy was clearly pentecostal or holiness or something, who did not understand even the basics of the Bible or logic or the nature of God—and he did not even have a clue that his simple statement violated it all and reduced the Word of God to nonsense.  He also thought that God spoke to him, even though God said that He would never do so to anyone—not even His chosen prophets—after Moses himself.]


Other person:

My question, then, is: Why give Peter a vision which SEEMS to tell him to accept new ideas and practices about food, when in fact it does not really mean this?

My reply/comment:

BECAUSE IT DOES NOT “seem” to say that, except to a person who does not understand the most basic truths of Scripture, and thus he should not even be reading the Bible, but be sitting on someone’s lap having Bible “stories” read to him to “entertain” him, until hopefully, one day he matures to the point that he can actually understand truth, rather than children’s stories: once he has progressed from baby food, to adult food.  It is also possible that God purposely obscured the Scriptures because the truth is only meant for His elect to know.  But this is not rocket science.  The problem is minds polluted with false notions.  No one reading these chapters of the Book of Acts would come to the conclusion that God abolished the dietary laws—and especially not if they had read the Old Testament and the Gospels!  Only a fool would read one random chapter of a book, or rent a movie and start the movie in the middle and watch 10 minutes, and then close the book or turn the movie off and conclude, “well, there it is: That is how the book / movie ends”.  But that is the stupidity that the average Christian employs in his “understanding” of the Scriptures—something that he does not even understand.  The average Christian’s understanding of the Scriptures can be likened to being familiar with certain cartoons on t.v.  When he sees one, he declares, “Oh, this is a good one; I’ve seen it before”.  But if he has only seen 12 cartoons out of an integrated (that it, intimately connected in their meaning) series of 2,000 cartoons, how well does he really understand the intent of the entire collection? —not at all!

[The Bible is not to be interpreted in light of modern delusion and sinful practices and polluted ideas, but in light of exactly what it meant when God gave it.  Our churches (“ecclesiastical day-cares”) and Christians are as handicapped in this area, as the state and all citizens are with the Constitution.  They interpret the Constitution as a fluid document, a blasphemous lie of a “living, breathing, changing” document.  Jefferson said that the Constitution was NOT to be interpreted in light of modern ideas, but according to the SPIRIT OF THE DEBATES WHEN IT WAS ESTABLISHED!  Our church and state are corrupt and on the verge of extinction for the the same reason: perverting the Standard in light of modern sinfulness and polluted ideas—the main purpose of which is to destroy both the true Christian Church and our Christian Republic and enslave everyone.]

God does not change.  Morality does not change. That which is an abomination never becomes wholesome. This is beyond simplistic once one realizes the simple truth of Scripture. Maybe someone who has only read the Bible once in his entire life may make such an infantile false association (that is, that “morality changes”), but if someone (like ministers and Bible “experts” who have read the Bible HUNDREDS of times—or should have) cannot see such simple logic, then God has blinded his eyes and those who follow him will fall headlong into the same pit.

NO ONE in Peter’s day would have thought that God was suggesting that He was giving Peter “new ideas and practices”—especially ones that violated and contradicted God’s established, unchanging Law—NO ONE.  The reason “Christians” do today, is because their minds are polluted by the world, they are in blindness, and their darkened hearts actually WANT to believe the opposite of the true interpretation because they love their sin.  Rather than asking God to remove their blindness, they demand that darkness be called “light”.

The eating of unclean animals is an ABOMINATION and we make ourselves ABOMINABLE when we do so.  God COULD NOT change that into something wholesome any more than He could make HOMO-PERVERSION wholesome, normal, or holy.*  The issue again is the same in both church and state.  The method is dumbing down the populace and lowering the bar on the high jump, to the point that the bar is flat on the ground and even a cripple can belly crawl across it.  God said WOE unto those who call evil ‘good’ and good ‘evil’, who substitute darkness for light and bitterness for sweetness—and that applies to dietary laws, race-mixing, homo-perversion and EVERY SINGLE OTHER LAW that God commanded, “THOU SHALT NOT” or “THIS THOU SHALT DO”.

[* Understand: This is not to infer that God has limitations.  Again, that is a defective perspective.  I am sure you have heard the age-old skeptic’s question, “Can God make a rock so big that He can’t lift it?”  Do you know what the answer is? —God is not obligated to enter man’s delusions with him.  That is, God cannot do anything that is outside or in contradiction with His Own Nature, because He is Perfect and Immutable.  God is not as He is because He was “born that way” and had no control over it.  God is Master of His Universe—including Himself and He is as He is because He has so determined that is the only Way to be—Perfect.  To not be able to do something contrary to His Nature (or to the reality that He established based upon the Laws of Logic) is not a fault or failure or limitation on God’s part.  It is His being True to His Nature and the failure is in the mind of the human who thinks he is so clever that he can think up something that God cannot do.  God will not violate the Law of Contradiction.  Something cannot be “something specific” and “something not specific” at the same time.  A cat cannot be a cat and “non-cat” at the same time in the same way.  A cat can’t be a cat and a dog at the same time.  Those who blow spiritual milk bubbles (while making a spiritual stinker in their diaper) and think it is clever would do better to study the Philosophy of Logic and learn how to think correctly.]

Peter realized that God was not asking Peter to violate His Dietary Law.  As I explain in my booklet, that is why Peter was confused.  Notice also that Peter did not awake from the dream and go out and have a pork roast!  Peter was perplexed and later THE MEANING of the vision came to him—and Peter knew the meaning was not the abolishment of the dietary laws!

Other person:

Since God wanted to get Peter to adopt some new ideas, why did he provide him a vision which, despite appearances to the contrary, focused on something which did NOT change?

My reply/comment:

Again, God did not want Peter to “adopt new ideas”.  That is like carrying someone else’s luggage into God’s room at a hotel and saying, “Here are Your bags, God”.  Those are not Biblical ideas; they are not in the text; those are polluted notions that you have been taught and you approach the passage with spurious preconceived ideas and that of course results in confusion.  That’s like someone being taught his whole life that 1 + 2 = 2.  Then, years later when he goes to actually work the problem out on paper and he adds 1 and 2 together, he is utterly perplexed, wondering why on earth, no matter how many times he adds 1 and 2 together does he wind up with “1 extra digit”...!

They are only “new ideas” to those who never learned the ideas when God first taught them 4,000 years ago!  I think that you have not actually read my entire, brief, 70-page booklet and if you would have held off asking questions until actually having read it, you would not need to be asking the questions because you would actually understand the passage correctly.  Your speaking of God wanting Peter to “adopt new ideas” demonstrates this.  It was not to get Peter to adopt new ideas, but to correct his faulty ideas that were not Biblical; that were carnal; that were hypocritical.  As I am sure we will discuss (and as my booklet explains) the so-called “Gentiles” were not alien peoples being brought into the family—that itself is an abomination.  They were the Israelites of the diaspora that would be brought back in upon their repentance.  That is also what Christ’s parables taught (as we shall see).  This is not adopting new ideas, it is properly understanding Scripture that Peter should have known all along; but carnal nature got in the way, so God was correcting Peter’s mindset.

The point was that since the analogy was something that it COULD NOT MEAN on its surface or manifest level, then the only possibly interpretation was that the meaning was on the lower or latent (hidden) level.  That is the purpose of an analogy.  It is not the superficial appearance of the analogy that is the point, but the subtle, hidden meaning.  If a person said that he was hungry enough to eat a horse, he doesn’t go out and eat a horse.  If I am driving and someone blows by me and I said, “He passed me like I was standing still”, everyone listening clearly know that I was not standing still.  Why those with confused minds give in to their confusion and believe in the FOG and SMOKE and MIRRORS rather than the simple truth that they should know is a mystery to me; yet they choose to believe some “mystery”—a fictional tale—rather than the simple truth that the passage is meant to convey.  This is why (as I shall discuss later) many people stopped following Christ: because they erroneously believed that the analogy was literal instead of figurative; but no analogy in Scripture can be literal if what it suggests IS SIN.

God used the analogy that would GET PETER’S ATTENTION at to thus mirror HOW REVOLTING TO GOD was Peter’s attitude toward his own brethren of the diaspora (that’s who these so-called “Gentiles” were).

WHAT PERSON IN HIS RIGHT MIND—had God told Peter to make a POOP SANDWICH or put VOMIT or DIARRHEA on his spaghetti noodles and eat it—would have though that was what God actually wanted Peter to do...?

[Excuse the crudeness, but that is the revulsion that God intended with this analogy... as I will explain.  The problem is that those who have thoughtlessly violated God’s Commandments their entire lives have their minds innoculated against truth.  They don’t realize the utter disgust of it.  They don’t think from God’s Perspective—because they are utterly ignorant of His Nature.  They think of such things as merely “different customs”—when they are NOT “customs”—but MORALITY.  Just because they don’t think of it as a moral issue does not change reality.]

What person in his right mind would think that was what God really wanted Peter to do?—the same God who established so many laws of cleanliness and declared that someone who was rendered unclean had to remain outside the camp for a certain until sundown, or in some cases longer?

[—which minor inconvenience taught people to do their best to AVOID defiling themselves; when Miriam tried to usurp Moses' authority and got in his face, God struck her with leprosy.  Moses prayed for her and the leprosy was removed BUT SHE WAS STILL required to go through a period of 7 days cleansing in which she was technically defiled and had to remain outside the camp for the allotted period of time until the priests inspected her and declared her to be clean—and the ENTIRE CONGREGATION had to wait for one (hopefully humbled) arrogant woman, because they could not travel again until she was declared clean, because it seems due to her age and her being a woman, she would not have been safe all alone outside the camp travelling at a distance behind everyone else.  Why was Aaron not struck with leprosy?  1. He was generally weak and usually a follower in sin, not a leader; and 2. He was not a woman.  While he sinned in questioning the Lord’s annointed, his sin was not also compounded by being a woman attempting to usurp authority over a man; which bumped the sin up significantly.]

NO ISRAELITE in Peter’s day would have thought that God actually wanted Peter to eat unclean animals and NO ISRAELITE would have thought that God was changing the dietary laws—WHICH WERE PART OF THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT THAT WE ARE HIS PEOPLE... and because unclean animals, when eaten DEFILE US and MAKE US ABOMINABLE and since God declared BE HOLY FOR I AM HOLY and due to the fact that God’s Holiness DOES NOT CHANGE and He commanded that we be holy AS HE is Holy, therefore, our standard of holiness cannot change.  Scripture clearly tells us in the New Testament—quite after Acts chapter 10:

“If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” (I Corinthians 3)

God had clearly commanded in the Old Testament:

“43Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.  44For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” (Leviticus 11)

Christ said not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law and that He did not come to abolish the Law.  Why can Christians not connect the dots? —because their minds are darkened.  Darkness never becomes light—LIGHT DISPELS and BANISHES DARKNESS.  Evil never becomes good.  Sin / abominations never become righteousness / wholesome behaviour.  Immorality never becomes morality.  Violations of the Law never become obedience to the Law.  Evil never becomes good.  Sin is to be PUT AWAY / OUT of the congregation, not “embraced” and called “nonsin”.  What part of “woe unto them that call evil good and good evil” don’t Christians understand?  Can’t they remember other verses of the Bible while reading the current verse?  How do they function in the real world if their minds are so small, scatter-brained, and illogical?


As I explain in my booklet that you are reading, So, You Call Yourself A Christian..., (I guess you have not read that far yet?) Acts clearly shows that 3 days later Peter REALIZED the MEANING of the vision—WHICH CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE MEANING WAS NOT that God had “abolished” the dietary Laws.

HOW can Christians be so stupid?  Peter never killed and ate and Scripture declares that the vision was NOT about food; by God’s Very Nature and according to the Nature of the Law that He established, the Law cannot be abolished and Christ said that He did not abolish it and that no one else would either!*  Therefore, God did NOT “abolish” the dietary Laws; and Christ said that He did not come to destroy and not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law.  Christ even said that those who violated the least of the Commandments and taught others to do the same would be called LEAST in the Kingdom—if they even make it across the threshold!  

[* Who else would have the authority to abolish it if Christ did not and since God said that it was forever...?  Christ said that not one jot or tittle would pass—and the dietary laws were NOT part of any so-called “ceremonial Law” and the dietary laws had nothing to do with atonement for sin.  Blood sacrifices for temporary atonement were the only part of the Law that was replaced (not “abolished”) by Christ’s Eternal Sacrifice of Himself!  The Word of God is Masterpiece of a novel but the average Christian (including the average Bible “expert”) turns it into a Schizophrenic, disjointed flurry of unstable, shifting confusion; they turn a Peter Paul Rubens or Raphael into a Picasso or Salvador Dali!]

It is truly amazing, a series of law so important that if violated that God said that He would cut that soul off from among His people—that professed Bible “experts” would so casually violate God’s Law and teach others* to also violate God’s Law based upon not only something as flimsy as a “dream”—and a narrative in which Peter never, upon waking, violated that law of God—but in complete contradiction to what Christ Himself actually told us!  It is one thing to commit suicide.  However, when blind shepherds lead a flock toward the pit, it is mass murder.  They are evil and false prophets who say, “Thus saith the Lord”—when the Lord has NOT thus said.

[* —which Christ said will establish them as the “least” in the Kingdom—if they are even converted: for John wrote that if a man does not keep God’s Commandments then he does not even know God; tell me: Can a person be a “Christian”, that is “converted”, “regenerated” if he does not even know God?]

Christ said that His sheep know His Voice and follow [obey] Him; and the voice of a stranger they will not follow.  So why are the majority of “Christians” following a stranger’s voice?  Well, the answer is either that they are not God’s sheep, or they are pretty stupid and not yet truly converted (and we can only hope the latter): for if truly converted the Holy Spirit will lead into understanding and obedience; not ignorance and rebellion.

God commanded that we obey these laws throughout all our generations forever and that it was a sign that we are His people.  WHAT is so “confusing” about this...?
Yet the majority of Christians (including the “experts” who are the blind leading the blind) believe THE VERY OPPOSITE in the face of ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.  In essence, God says, “NO EATING UNCLEAN ANIMALS, FAT, or BLOOD—forever!” and yet the majority of Christians, Bible “experts” included, reply, “Okay, I hear what you are saying, God.  You are saying that it is perfectly fine for us to eat unclean animals and whatever we want; I understand you loud and clear.  Thanks for clearing that up in my mind.”  BRAIN DEAD.  SPIRITUALLY DEAD.  HOW SAD.  Every tree is known by its fruit.  That is a dead tree!  Satanically deluded.  God said to Adam and Eve, “NO eating from THIS ONE Tree”.  The Serpent (not a “snake”, but Satan himself) then said, “NO... God didn’t mean that...!”  Where then do you think that the majority of “Christians”—Bible “experts” included—get their ideas?  Hint: It is not from God!

FURTHERMORE, God said that He separated us from all other peoples even as He separated clean from unclean animals (Leviticus 20:24-26: READ IT.  It is perfectly clear).  God told Peter in the vision: Call not that which I have cleansed, “unclean”.  It was not unclean animals (whose natures were not changed) that were declared “clean”.  Christ said to His disciples before His arrest: “Now ye are clean through the Word [Doctrine] which I have spoken unto you” (John 15:3); Judas had already left the upper room 2 chapters earlier.  Christ declared, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel” and “as the Father hath sent Me so send I you”.  God said that He scattered His people true Israel throughout the world as a man sows wheat—and that He will regather whom He scattered!  Maybe you are not a farmer, but when you sow / scatter wheat, you don’t later harvest poison ivy.  You harvest the wheat and throw away all that is not wheat.  That’s what the parable of the fishes (that follows the parable of the tares) means. The good were kept and the bad (putrid) were cast into a furnace!

Therefore, Peter realized that he was not to call any man (that is, he was not to call any ISRAELITE OF THE DISPERSION—which was the topic of discussion, when due to pressure from the Pharisees, Peter stopped eating with the Israelites of the dispersion who had been converted to Christ), Peter was not to call or consider or treat his literal kinsmen, “brethren” [aldephos, “from the same womb”] of the dispersion who came to Christ “unclean or common”.

And since God commanded separation and even compared the separation of other peoples to the separation clean animals from unclean abominable animals for use as food, only someone who is spiritually brain dead or who has no knowledge of the Scriptures, or who has a dark heart who loves sin, COULD EVER think that God was saying that all races were the same and we should mix it up and hybridize.  God is Immutable.  His Holiness cannot change.  Our holiness (standard of morality) cannot change.  God commanded “everything after its own kind” and commanded separation and holiness and forbade intermarriage with aliens and even forbade seeking their peace or prosperity forever!  God did not change the biology of the pig (or shrimp, crab, lobster, eel, rabbit, etc.) and God did not change the biology or soul-spirit of alien peoples.  God does not kow-tow to sinful man’s ever-changing politically correct perverse delusions.

Those who believe the very opposite of what God commanded are responsible for the destruction of Christendom and the attempted pollution of Christ’s body and rape of His bride.  Even as those who violate the dietary laws pollute themselves and make themselves abominable in God’s Sight, they also incur serious health problems (even if the problems don’t arise immediately, the Law of the Harvest says that “whatsoever a man soeth that shall he also reap” and “the curse causeless shall not come” and “be sure your sin will find you out”).

If you go to a cancer, heart, or allergy doctor, the first thing he will do is hand you a list of foods to STOP EATING and pork and shellfish top the list.  They are known to cause inflammation (a deadly killer underlying dozens of degenerative disease).  Pork contains parasites that cannot be killed at any temperature and cannot be made “safe”, let alone “healthy” to eat.  Pork and shellfish also contain toxins that destroy the cells of the body and the organs.  Those who violate God’s Commands expressed in the dietary laws show that their god is their belly.  Your god or master is the one that you yield to, serve, and obey.  

Even if some unclean animal was “shown by medical research” to cure disease—it would still be a sin to ingest it in any way (whether eating, pill form, a drink, an injection, or a transdermal cream).  The end does not justify the means.  Utilitarianism and pragmatism do not replace obedience.  Furthermore, the “experts” in medical science are not only corrupt and deceitful, but they are proven year after year to not even be “experts” and are wrong much of the time; and often do more harm than good.  Over 1 million people in the U.S. die each year because of doctors and their drugs.  Drugs are frequently taken off the market; and new studies are continually being found to prove what the experts used to think was true was completely false!  Abominations are abominations and “seeking other gods” (doctors) will not engender the favor of the one true God Whom you “claim” to believe, trust, obey, serve, and worship.

Furthermore, do a word study and look up each verse in the Bible that uses the words abomination(s) and abominable.  Homoperversion and eating unclean animals are both called an abomination.  Do you think the Law against homoperversion was merely a “ceremonial law”...? —neither was race mixing or eating what God forbade.

Similarly, those who violate God’s law and marry outside the race, and bring aliens into the community and congregation are responsible for the destruction of Christendom (those who think otherwise, if you remember what the U.S. was like 50 years ago, you have to be in delusion to believe things are better; far from being better, we are swirling in the toilet about to go down the drain).  Really, how can people not see this? —because to those whose minds and consciences are defiled, everything that they see and think about is defiled by the perspective of their minds.  Even as I discussed that those who have no concept of God’s Holiness merely think the dietary laws were a “different custom”—but not eating unclean animals was no more a “different custom” than not engaging in homoperversion!

The mainstream “Christian” church and the governments of Christendom are EVIL TO THE CORE and they PROMOTE everything that God FORBADE and they DENOUNCE everything that God COMMANDED.  “Racism” is the most-heinous sin in the eyes of the world and the Apostate (Antichrist) “Church”.  WHY do you think that is?  Satan’s plan is to mongrelize the bride of Christ.  If Christ’s bride is mongrelized, He has no bride to which to return!  According to the Law of the Kinsman Redeemer (and Christ was in all areas tempted even as we are, yet without sin) an Israelite could only redeem another lawful Israelite—not an alien!*  Christ will not have a mongrel bride thrust upon Him—for he that is joined to a whore is polluted by her and because it would be a violation of the Law of God and Christ came to redeem His people—the angel who announced His Conception even declared that.

[* Again, God forbade marrying aliens.  Ruth was not a Moabite. She is called a Moabite because she was an Israelite who was born in the land of Moab whence her parents had fled to escape famine.  See my, S.T.E.C. on Ruth: The Truth About Ruth—Ruth the Israelite!  Many who have read it, before reading it, had expressed, “I don’t know how you are going to prove this...”; and by the time they had finished the book they contacted me and replied, “—but I am amazed and you did!”]

The Antichrist Plan to mongrelize or exterminate the peoples of Christendom (Caucasians) out of existence has been kicked into overdrive because Satan realizes that he does not have much time left (he knows the signs of the times and the Bible better than most Bible “experts”—because he actually knows God’s Power and believes God’s Word is not a mere fairy tale!).  God commanded SEPARATION and the governments and Pope and apostate Lutherans and Baptists and all other demon-inations are declaring that NO COMMUNITY WILL REMAIN HOMOGENOUS BUT WILL BECOME INTEGRATED. 

And yet stupid Christians think this is a “good” thing.  Stupid leaders, wolves in sheep’s clothing...? like David Jeremiah, reportedly claim this is a wonderful chance for us to witness to the Third World  and God is sending them to us for that purpose because we failed to obey Him and go to them and evangelize them.  This is a repulsive lie and false doctrine.  Nowhere does God say that the remnant are to “evangelize” the flood that the Dragon spews forth to drown them!  God commanded His people to go into all the world—not to evangelize the world, but to seek out the lost sheep!  Charlatans don’t know the Word of God and their minds are polluted and they preach abominations.

The very notion is not only in violation of the Word of God—it is STUPID AND SUICIDAL.  Is Dr. David Jeremiah BLIND?  He is not worthy of his last name (or his first).  He is old enough to remember what life was like in the U.S. in the 1950s...!  For him to think multiculturalism is a “good thing” is as polluted and brain-damaged a notion that a person can imagine.  Only those under the age of 50, who have never known anything other than a multicultural, polluted, homo-pervert, inter-faith society are unable to realize it is a bad thing—because they don’t remember how wonderful it was before our nation was turned into a Third World Hell Hole! —and before our very eyes every nation of Europe that received aliens is falling like dominoes—like rotting teeth falling out of someone’s mouth!  

If we have learned ANYTHING in the past 50 years it is that aliens that come into Christendom destroy our faith and our form of government, our society, our way of life from within.  Denominational boards of churches “vote” to change what they believe the Word of God says—as their minds become polluted by the world, they tailor their “doctrine” to fit the world, rather than conforming their minds to the Word of God and bringing every thought into captivity and obedience—(often to make the aliens feel more comfortable; and their own sinful families to feel better about themselves for their sin of intermarriage; and homoperversion is following the very same trail that interracialism blazed for it).  Aliens coming into our nation also increase crime, rob us through welfare (and increase the so-called “National” Debt), prison population, taxes, disease, vandalism, robbery, assault, rape, murder, integration and mongrel offspring—and an atomic explosion of millions perpetually on welfare robbing the nation.  Our treasonous public servants illegally give aliens “equal rights”, the right to vote and even be elected, and it results in the change of our laws, our form of government, and the loss of freedom and civilization itself as our entire nation degenerates into a socialist, godless Police State.

YET STUPID, immoral Christians, despite all the evidence, still think integration and the alien invasion is a “wonderful thing”—because they stupidly don’t understand the Bible, that God does not change; His Standard of Morality does not change... and God commanded separation.  And just for those who are clueless, God calls race mixing an abomination, commanded all alien wives and mongrel offspring to be sent away, the returning remnant from Babylon righteously REFUSED to allow the aliens in the land to have ANYTHING to do with worshiping God with them (so much for “converting the heathen” and the “integrated worship service” and “interfaith cooperation and dialogue”).  God calls HOMOSEXUALITY an ABOMINATION and He calls eating unclean animals AN ABOMINATION.  The only options are that either ALL ABOMINATIONS are now perfectly wholesome, OR NONE ARE.  In actuality, there is no “alternative”.  If one thinks that God abolished His Law then anything goes!  If one thinks that God made abominations now to be wholesome, then he has a polluted mind and worships a false god: for the god that he worships is not the God of the Bible—Who is Holy and Perfect and True and Immutable.

Those who don’t understand God and His Nature CANNOT understand the Bible.  Theology CENTERS AROUND GOD, not around man (that is called “humanism”, which is antichrist).  However, if man understands God, then he will understand the perpetuity of God’s Law as an extension of His Nature because God is Immutable and Holy and morality CANNOT change.  

Most Christians will only consider the truth if it leads in a direction that they want to go. They are not of God. That is not worship.  True worship is bowing down in obedience and submission.  What most “Christians” do is let God tag along if He behaves.  That is not obedience. That is not submission. It is merely a “coincidence”* that God happens to be going in the same direction, from time to time, briefly, that they want to go: so there is a false appearance of the average Christian endeavoring to please or obey God, but it is a delusion.  NO ONE can EVER “obey by mistake”.  One can without intending it, NOT “violate” a given law, but he cannot “obey” it by mistake.  Obedience is an active choice.  Furthermore, one cannot choose “which laws to obey”—it is all or none.  Choosing “which” you will obey is not obedience—it is doing what you want to do.

[* —that is, from a human perspective, in regard to man actually endeavoring to obey, please, serve, and worship God.  It is not that man plans it.  It is not that it happens as random chance.  It is that sinful “Christians”, deluding themselves with the thought that they are “spiritual”, superstitiously throw God a bone every now and then—if and when it does not interfere with what they want to do.]

Other person:

I hope I have expressed my confusion adequately. Please know that I do not accept the usual view concerning how the vision was meant to change the food laws. Still, I cannot figure out why God, who is NOT the author of confusion, would present a vision He KNEW would be misunderstood.

My reply/comment:

I don’t know if it is actually possible for a person to express his confusion properly.  If a person was not confused, he would have no confusion to try to express; and if he is confused, that is all that he can express, and it takes no forethought... so mission accomplished! :)

God does not present confusion.  God presents truth.  However, He has closed the minds, ears, eyes, and hearts, and stiffened the necks of all, so they cannot see, hear, understand, and so they even resist it—and He opens the eyes, ears, minds, hearts, of the elect so that they can, and softens their necks and hearts so they will.

Understand also, that the English language has changed, some from the 1611 King James Bible.  It is the best translation and the resolution is not to dumb down the Bible, but properly educate yourself and your children to understand the language that our ancestors understood. Again, even as the issue is not God’s Law, but sinful man, so also the issue is not God’s Word being confusing, but man’s mind being confused.  That is the proper perspective.  God resisteth the proud, but giveth more grace to the humble.  More grace in this context means more light / understanding.  The Scriptures are spiritual and must be spiritually discerned and the Holy Spirit of Truth leads into the Truth by the measure that God has determined for each.  However, it should be realized that God has also determined how long and how dedicated each will search.  If a person goes out looking for treasure for 15 minutes, once a week, a few months out of the year, while daydreaming and texting incessantly on his cell phone the whole time, while drinking a slurpy, it is quite certain, aside from a miracle, that he will not find the treasure that someone who, with undivided attention, who looks fervently for several hours every day of the year, even keeping sophisticated notes and charts.

GOD did not merely “know” that Peter would initially misunderstand—no, not misunderstand, Peter did not for a moment think that the vision meant he was to defile himself and eat what God had forbidden (and shame on any Christian or minister who thinks so)—God planned for Peter to not comprehend the meaning of the vision at first.  That is the very nature of visions and parables: to HIDE the truth.  This serves two purposes: 1. to keep the knowledge of the truth from those who are not supposed to know it, who don’t deserve it, to whom it was not given; and 2. it makes it that much more profound and dymanic in the heart and mind of the person for whom it is meant, when the meaning is finally understood.  This is what challenges are for: whether climbing Mount Everest, setting any other record, proving to yourself that you can do something, or strengthening your own mind and confidence and character; even in doing things like a rubic’s cube, crossword puzzles, jigsaw puzzles.  Those who think that they are mere “entertainment” have never actually plugged their brain in to use it and it serves only to weight their head down.

God is not passive.  His Knowledge is not passive.  God determines all—and for a reason, not whimsically.

To the contrary of what you think, God KNEW that the vision would NOT be “misunderstood” by either Peter or the Israelites of his day.  “Fuzzy logic”, “fluid moral boundaries”, “confusion”, and “compromise” (i.e., heresy leading to apostacy) are hallmarks of the modern age; and the modern reader needs to purge his mind of all corrupt modern notions and read the pure Word of God with a renewed mind, in order to understand what it meant at the time that God gave it to His people.  God sent blindness upon the majority of His people scattered throughout the world for a reason; it is part of Judgment.  Now we must “make bricks without straw being provided for us” and it is “hard to kick against the pricks”.  We must, as it were, struggle uphill, with a heavy load, with the sun and wind in our face.  Those who think it is not worth the effor were not called.

God knew that the vision would NOT be misunderstood by those who actually READ His Word and BELIEVE Him and understand HIS UNCHANGING NATURE.  If someone is going to read the Bible and imagine that God is like sinful man, like the sinful gods of Norse, Greek, Roman, Brythonic mythology, carried about by their passions, with our same faults and weaknesses, fickle and impulsive and unprincipled and untrue, subject to change, double-minded, without the moral character to hold fast to what is declared to be the standard and the plan—then they might as well not even read the Bible and just read mythology!  

God does NOT CHANGE and therefore, neither can morality.  Those who cannot grasp those two simple concepts will never be able to understand the Bible other than a handful of “stories” on a children’s Sunday school level (which means half of what they think they understand is not even true, but a humanistic imbecillic embellishment or misperception).
The only reason that Peter’s Vision (or any one of a hundred other things) is misunderstood today is because the masses in Christendom are not God’s people and the majority of “Christians” are not of the elect,* are not worthy of knowing the truth (because even if they knew it they would not obey it); so God has blinded their minds and sent a spirit of delusion so that they will be confused or believe a lie—even the most-transparent, juvenile, anti-intellectual lie—because they are not of His sheep (or, at least, hopefully, the Good Shepherd has not YET brought them back into the fold).

[* They are not converted, not regenerated, not saved, not truly Christians; they were not invited to the Marriage Feast of the Lamb, they were not drawn by the Holy Spirit—they are curiosity seekers and party crashers.  They are members of a “pseudo-spiritual country club” because that is how they were raised, because of tradition, because at one time to be accepted by society or business one had to be a church member, because their friends attend, or a pretty girl they might be interested in, or because they feel something is missing from their lives and they have come, not seeking God, but seeking self-fulfillment in some humanistic way.  While a percentage, it is possible, God may draw to “eventually” come to the truth, the majority God uses Satan to draw such persons to corrupt from within.  As I have expressed in other writings, barriers are no test of faithfulness—boundaries are.  Without temptations there would be nothing to test the faithfulness of the elect to remain true—hold fast to sound doctrine without compromising—and it would not build their character or faith or wisdom.  Without pressure coal is not transformed into a diamond.  Without the constant pressure of our earth’s atmosphere, for instance, if we were born and raised on the moon, our bodies would be like jellyfish (and so are most “Christians” morally); the bones would not grow hard and dense, nor the muscles develop.  Even after a few months in space, astronaughts come back and can’t even walk in earth’s atmosphere.  Those athletes who are used to living near and practicing at Mile High Stadium have an advantage over athletes from most all other regions.  When they play at lower altitudes, they are more fit; when other athletes play at mile high stadium, they have trouble breathing, and that effects muscle oxygenation and stamina as well as speed and agility.  People raised in the mountains have larger and stronger hearts.]


Other person:

Was it to trap those who accept the established teachings of many centuries?

My reply/comment:

It would help both you and me if you would speak more precisely and not vaguely.  To exactly what “established teaching” do you refer?  If you are speaking concerning those who are deceived by polluted mainstream humanism passing itself off as Bible Doctrine, then please use more words to express your thoughts so that you understand them better youself, and so I understand them.

It was no “trap”. Peter wasn’t “fooled”.  God’s intent is not to “play tricks” on His elect, though He may lay pitfalls for the non-elect.  No other Israelite in Peter’s day was “fooled” into thinking their Omnipotent, Immutable, Perfect, Holy God “changed” and was now contradicting Himself and “changing” morality and “abolishing” His Law.  Such thoughts are as alien to planet earth as are space aliens (in the minds of those who believe in UFOs).  Likewise, none of the disciples in the Upper Room at the Last Supper, celebrating Passover and Unleavened Bread thought for a minute that Jesus was giving them His real flesh and blood to eat and drink (which notion Christ purposely expressed earlier, to turn away from following Him many who were not of His sheep; John 6:53-66).  Cannibalism and eating any manner of blood was strictly forbidden in the Law of God and morality does not change.

The early Church Fathers / Councils were not fooled.  Christ said that His sheep know His Voice, and follow (obey) Him and that the voice of another they will not follow.  Therefore, those “Christians” who do not know Christ’s Voice, who do not obey Him, who follow someone elses voice—thinking that Christ “abolished” the Law*... such “Christians” clearly are not Christ’s sheep (or at least, they have not ceased to be wild / lawless and the Holy Spirit has not yet led them back to the fold to true conversion, which will result in obedience because of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling which will lead a true Christian to obey God; not casually live in sin, with the delusion that sin is no longer sin.

[* —even though Christ said that He did NOT come to abolish** the Law; and even though Christ said that NOT ONE JOT OR TITTLE would pass from the Law; and even though Paul himself said that the Law was not abolished, but Holy and Just and Good (Romans 3:31; 7:12); and even though David said that the Law of the Lord is Perfect (Psalm 19:7); and even though Christ that His Words (Doctrine) would never pass away; and even though David and Peter said that God’s Word shall endure / abide forever).

** —and neither did Christ abolish the Law “by mistake"; accidentally kicking it over and breaking it, like Catherine O’Leary’s cow allegedly kicked over an oil lamp in the barn and started the Great Chicago fire.  That sounds like good political disinformation and in reality, it would be an improvement if Mrs. O’Leary’s cow was still here to kick over another lamp in Chicago (and NYC, LA, Miami, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Dallas, Washington D.C., etc.]

The only true Christians that are fooled are those modern true Israelites (the true peoples of Christendom) who are in BLINDNESS.

There is no trap. If someone can comprehend simple logic in any other area of life, then the issue is not intellectual, but spiritual.  Men prefer darkness over light because their deeds are evil; they love their sin.  However, most “Christians” are like a person in a pig stye, who stumbles and falls face down in the mire—and thinks that it is as delicious as chocolate pudding and has no desire to arise!  If the person was like this in every area of life, we would conclude that the person has serious mental problems.  But when he is perfectly functional in all other areas of life, it is not intellectual, it is moral—and that is spiritual.  Thus, the problem is not with the logic of Scripture, or any vision or parable; the problem is the person who is in blindness whose eyes God has not opened.  The problem is a person’s darkened heart and mind who deludes himself into thinking that he is a Christian.  As the evangelist and former head of the Sword of the Lord Foundation, the late Curtis Hutson (who was a friend of mine) used to preach, “getting people saved is the easy part; getting them lost is the hard part”.  The average person, including the average person who thinks that he is a Christian, imagines himself to be good (and not really in need of “saving”) based upon the notion that because he does not commit murder, adultery, lie, cheat or steal, that he is good.  Such persons need to realize that goodness is not measured by comparing yourself to someone more sinful than yourself—but to God’s Perfect Standard.  If you want an honest appraisal of your own health, you compare yourself to a drug free athlete—not to a corpse rotting in the ground.

Other person:

That is a frightening thought [i.e., that it could be a “trap”]—but I cannot see any other reason why He would have chosen this strange method of teaching Peter to accept something new.

My reply/comment:

The frightening thought is that you do not understand God.  Perfect love (which is demonstrated through obedience) casts out fear.  This is not a strange method and the issue was not to teach something “new”.  It is a simple dranconian method that gets the message across.

I remember reading that Corrie Ten Boom when she was an 8 year old or so, at one time heard the word “sex-pot”, in public, or read it on a billboard or magazine in the liberal Netherlands, and asked her father what it meant.  Her father had a heavy briefcase of books and asked her to pick it up and carry it for him, as they were on a train and ready to depart.  She tried and replied that she could not, that it was too heavy for her.  He replied, something to the effect, “so it is with some words, so leave them be until you are older”.  This is similar to God’s method in Peter’s Vision.  Christ earlier had made a similar analogy, unless a man drink my blood and eat my flesh he has no part in me and cannot be my disciple... and many stopped following him because they did not understand (John 6:53-66).  Why then did Christ not use an analogy that they could understand? —because they were not meant to know; they were meant to stop following Him; they were not of Christ’s sheep.  Christ foreknew and foreordained those who would not believe and it was His Will that He stop following Him and as we are told elsewhere, Christ is the Rock of Offense and Stone of Stumbling to those who cannot believe because they were not ordained to believe.  But this has nothing to do with being a “trap” for the elect.

One time a guy who worked where I worked, decades ago, was trying to get me to go out with the whole group dancing at a bar. I explained I did not dance; I am an athlete, I dance with a soccer ball or any other ball, but see no sense in making useless gyrations, looking like a fool, and getting good clothes all sweaty. He asked if I ever tried dancing before.  I said no.  He asked how do you know you don’t like it if you’ve never tried it?  I could see he simply wanted to try to control me, for whatever reason (possibly debauch me with him so we could all have a good time on the same perverse level) and I could see that he was not about to relent, wanting to prove himself right—unless I gave him a “wake up call” so that he would (figuratively) “get off the train at the next stop”.  I waited a therapeutic moment to let the previous conversation pass a little, so he would not suspect my course of thinking, then casually asked him if he ever had sex with a man (and he was strongly hetero and mesermerized with what he thought was his own handsomeness—which he was not—and his reason for dancing was probably to meet women to further defile).  He was shocked at my question and said with disgust, “NO!”, with a revolted look on his face.  Then, when he recovered, he asked “WHY?”  I then parroted his own words, “—how do you know you would not like it if you never tried it?”  The light dawned in his mind and he realized my point, crude as it was, and never brought up the topic of me dancing again.

That’s little different than God’s analogy.  The point in both was to cause abhorrent disgust and revulsion.


He responded, “Not so,* Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean”.

[* “by no means” or loosely, “never!”]

Peter wasn’t “confused”.  He didn’t say, “GREAT, I’ve been wanting to try this new bacon, ham, double-cheeseburger with clam sauce and french fries with shrimp sauce!”
He was revolted.

Any other godly Israelite with whom he shared God’s vision WAS REVOLTED.  NONE of them were so ignorant or dead hearted that they thought for a moment that God was changing the UNCHANGABLE MORAL LAW.

The dietary laws are a MORAL issue, even as race mixing is a MORAL issue.  EVERY law of God is a moral issue—whether “THIS shalt thou do!” or “Thou shalt NOT!”  God declared BE HOLY AS I AM HOLY.  Every law of God is A MORAL ISSUE.  What do you think morality is? —it is the difference between “right” and “wrong”; “good” and “evil”.  Those who think morality is just of a “sexual” nature are wallowing in ignorance.  God no more changed the dietary laws than He changed who His people are—yet blind Christians believe that He changed both! —even though both were given by perpetual unconditional Covenant!

There was not anything “new” that God was trying to get Peter to try. The issue was that GOD WAS REVOLTED at Peter shunning the Israelites of the dispersion who had been convert to Christ, but who had not yet learned God’s Moral Rules in all areas... and God was as revolted at Peter’s attitude as Peter was revolted at the notion of eating unclean animals.

Christians today have had their minds POLLUTED by the world, and they do NOT REALIZE HOW ABOMINABLE AND PERVERSE AND IMMORAL AND REVOLTING their sin is.  Because their whole lives they have eaten unclean animals... they think that it is a mere menu choice.  They think sin is normal and natural and not even sin (yet hypocritically, are morally indignant and offended when someone else sins greater than they do, committing acts that are still generally considered sinful, rather than merely committing acts that are sinful that the Apostate church has given its seal of approval upon).  God called homoperversion an abomination also.  It is now being considered a “menu choice” too.

IT WAS NOT a mere “menu choice” FOR PETER and IT IS NOT FOR ME (having not knowingly eaten anything abominable for 31 years*) and IT IS NOT a matter of a mere “menu choice” in God’s Mind and it SHOULD NOT BE considered a mere “menu choice” in the minds of any of God’s children.  If it is—they do not have the mind of their Father!  John wrote that if a man says that he knows God and does not keep God’s Commandments that he is a liar—that he does not even know God and the Truth is not in him.

[* now 33 in 2018.  However, many Christians have looked at me with a strange look over the years when I would not defile myself... They don’t understand that you can’t just pick the pepperoni off the pizza or pull the sausage out of the spaghetti sauce; it is not a matter of not liking it... it has polluted the entire pie or pot, even as if a dog poop fell into it.  If dog poop dropped onto your pizza would you just brush it off and keep eating or if dog poop fell or was thrown into your pot of spaghetti sauce would you just ladle it out and serve the sauce?  THIS is the revulsion that God elicited from Peter by His use of the vision and this is the revulsion we SHOULD have because that is what an abomination is.  If someone was deathly allergic to peanuts and a bunch of peanuts were in the Teriyaki stir fry that you were serving, would you just tell him to pick the peanuts out?  Defilement or death (two very-closely related concepts**) seems so “unimportant” when it applies to someone elses body.  

** Defilement, pollution, corruption.  Christ’s Body in the grave God prevented from decomposition: “For Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell***; neither wilt thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption” (Psalm 16:10).

*** Here the word translated here as hell clearly means “grave”; but just because the word here means grave does not mean that elsewhere it does not mean Hell.  That is a false inference and a denial of the facts.  See my, What the Devil? — What the Hell?  Likewise, the words translated “heaven(s)” can also mean Heaven; context determines which.  However, just because we have a sky and atmosphere and space does not mean that Heaven Proper does not exist.

I once worked with a Christian friend in carpentry, some 30 years ago.  One day as we were building a deck we discussed the dietary laws.  He could see partial glimpses of what I said in all areas of doctrine, but peer pressure of his family I believe kept him from doing what is right.  Regardless, the next day he told me that last night he had a pepperoni pizza and got as sick as a dog and thought to himself, “maybe Bob’s right”, and he swore off pork.  I know it did not last long because unless one realizes that anything is a Command of God, and not merely a “good idea”, resolutions will not last long and even if he had good intentions, others in his life will sway him to abandon such “nonsense”.  We ought to obey and please God rather than man (family included... overbearing, controlling, manipulative, hostile wives included).

The average Christian’s mind is polluted with selfish humanism and he views everything from the perspective of what sinful self likes, or what his experience has always been, whether that experience is moral or not.  Sinful Christians downgrade the perversity of sin by their common experience with it—and that is why they are not of God.  It has nothing to do with man’s perspective and everything to do with God’s and if man feels no shame or remorse or desire to repent, then he is not of God and is unconverted.  “Christians” have had their minds POLLUTED their whole lives in regard to what God declared to be ABOMINATIONS, all they humanistically think of is “their experience” and they think that it is wonderful and therefore, that establishes it as good.  

Eve saw that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was “good for food” and “pleasant to the eyes” but that did not mean that it was morally proper for her to partake of it.  The average Christian does not live by faith (which is based upon theology), but by situation ethics, which is humanism.  Yes, robbing a bank is wonderful when you get away with it because it enriches you, would be the same type of logic.  Well, those who still want to justify their sin (who really have not thought very deeply about anything, ever) will claim that no, that would be a sin, because other people suffer.  Others of course (with equally fallen minds, merely fallen in a different direction) will claim that no one is hurt (as long as nothing goes wrong—and if it does, it is the other person’s fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and making the wrong decision) because the bank is insured and the people don’t lose their money.  

Similarly if a person has no morals or conscience, mass whoredom is “wonderful” because it feels good.  Most “Christians” would immediately object.  The whoremonger would counter: But how can it be wrong?  No one gets hurt.  Those women want to do it.  Ahhhh.  Now the situation-ethic “Christian” has a quandary and he must pursue another course of “logic” or it will expose his own sin.  The carnal mind can justify anything when acts are considered from man’s perspective.  But that is humanism, not Christianity.  Christianity is Revelationally based (based upon what God decreed and commanded and revealed); pseudo-Christianity (humanism) is experientially based.  That is how you spot humanism.  The sin should be considered from God’s Perspective because God is the Lawgiver and HE is the injured party, first and foremost, in every sin.  God’s Perspective is the only reality.  

God’s Law is not “pick and choose” or “mix and match”.  It is “all or none”.**  If you violate one point you are guilty of all.  If you think any laws don't matter, you will either be the least in the Kingdom or shut out of it.  It is not the keeping of the Law that saves.  It is the Holy Spirit, Who, if truly present as the result of TRUE conversion, will change the heart and mind and desires so that the Christian DOES NOT WANT TO SIN; this does not mean that a Christian will not slip and fall, but that when he does he is grieved in his soul and will repent and get back up!  The response should not be, “Well, if you violate one law you are guilty of all and I am already guilty so why the hell should I even try?”  That is not the mindset of a Christian.  That is the mindset of an unregenerate person who liked the idea of Eternal Life, but like the rich young ruler, was unwilling to pay the price for the Pearl of Great Price.  I knew a guy in town who worked for the post office and said he wanted some side work.  I had some yardwork and such to do.  I soon learned that he liked the idea of a side job, that is, the money it brought in, but he did not like the idea of actually doing work to earn  that money.  The only TRUE response indicative of TRUE conversion is to repent.  Those who don't are not of God.  

** See my, Ten Commandments for Youth.

Those who don’t consider the words written here concerning the dietary laws (or any other law) do not worship God, but themselves, their belly.  Those who move on from this point and continue to eat unclean food before ordering my So, You Call Yourself A Christian... and Ten Commandments for Youth, and actually pray and study before they sin against God so casually, are quite possibly unregenerate:

“22But be ye doers of the Word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.  23For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: 24For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.  25But whoso looketh into the Perfect Law of Liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” (James 1)

Deceiving your own selves infers that the person is not converted.  Whatsoever is not of faith (that is, established by the doctrine / commands of the Word of God) is sin.  He that sinneth [habitually, casually, indifferently] is not of God.  Obedience and not sinning against someone is demonstration of love.  If you love your parent or spouse, if someone told you that doing a certain thing really hurts them (maybe you don’t realize that they had an accident and are in excruciating pain, and you, being clumsy, often bump into them by mistake) would you continue to thoughtlessly hurt them?  If you loved them, you would not.  So it is with God.  Those who don’t obey Him, those who do not care that their sin is an offense, don’t love Him.  They don’t even know Him.  If they knew Him they would fear Him knowing that He is Just.  Why do they live as if they are their own if they are supposedly bought with a price...? —most likely because they were not bought with a price.  As I explain in other writings of mine, again, the carnal mind interprets the Word of God completely backwards.  The average Christian (Bible “experts” included) think that the Perfect Law of Liberty is the freedom to disobey God.  How abhorrent!  Why can they not see that it is “the freedom to not sin”...!  Scripture says, “Walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh [the violation of all that God commanded]”.  It does not say, “walk in the Spirit and live as you please”.  The Holy Spirit (if truly in a “Christian”) will empower the believer to understand the Word of God and to not sin.  As I have oft written, “Where no fruit is evident the Holy Spirit is not Resident”.  Obedience, keeping the Law of God, walking as Christ walked, walking in the Spirit, bearing fruit, being in Christ, doing good works—are all synonymns!  We don’t invent our own fruit or our own concept of “good works”—God defined them and the definition does not change!

Choosing which laws you will obey is not obedience; its doing what you want to do and putting a pseudo-spiritual spin on it to make it sound holy.  It is tokenism and a fraud and God is not fooled.  Why do you think that God is judging His people?  He is judging us for our sin.  He is PURGING His chosen vessel of the dross.  He is winnowing away the chaff from His wheat.  Christ will not return for a DEFILED BRIDE and God said that we defile ourselves and make ourselves abominable when we eat unclean animals and when we join together with aliens or become homoperverts.]

What God declared to Peter “Kill and eat” with the vision of the sheet of unclean abominations, in order to put it into revolting perspective to the Christian today (who has no clue about holiness and the morality of God’s entire law) would be as if God was walking with him along the road and came upon a nice ripe roadkill, a skunk or an opossum—and told him to peel it up off the asphalt and eat it... or if they walked past a hospital and there was an aborted baby in the “medical waste” and God said to him to eat it... or if a dog had dropped a fresh steamy pile on the sidewalk and God said to eat it.  The carnal mind likes to have a “refined” notion of sin, and not think of it as being as evil as it is it.  This doublemindedness is epitomized in the notion of a “white witch” versus a “black witch” (which has nothing to do with race, because the occult is one of the first segments of society to violate racial and gender boundaries).  A witch is a witch and God said suffer not a witch to live.

THAT is the REVULSION that Peter experienced and THAT IS WHAT GOD INTENDED.  The reason that modern “Christians” can’t comprehend the vision is because THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT SIN IS, they DON’T KNOW WHAT ABOMINATIONS ARE—they don’t love or fear God: They don’t know God.  I remember a missionary telling us 4 decades ago that when he was serving as a missionary in England, he was speaking one time and told a joke about a bossy woman, and then said, “I guess you know who wears the pants in that family”.  No one laughed.  He later asked someone why.  The reason, it seems, was because in England, pants are called “trousers”.  The joke would have produced the desired effect if he used the word trousers.  However, the word pants in England (at least, at that time) meant “underwear” (“underpants”).  Thus, to the English listeners in their minds, there was nothing humorous, for everyone wears underpants.  SO IT IS WITH SIN.  The average “Christian” does not have a clue what God is talking about (because of the “communication barrier” called “the carnal mind”), so naturally they do not understand Peter's Vision or many other passages of Scripture.

Abominations NEVER become wholesome. Those who think that the dietary laws and racial laws have been “made wholesome” HAVE NO moral or spiritual ground to claim that gender-perversion laws have likewise not been superseded and “made holy”—and thus, they shall be revealed to be the first apostates to cave in and side with the world over God on that issue too.  

Christians don’t realize the perversity of their sin because they think it is “natural” and “normal” and a matter of “personal choice”—and they love it.  Thus, nothing is sacred and it is merely a matter of time before every single abomination and taboo (even pedophilia and cannibalism and more-noticeable forms of bestiality*) become legally sanctions, protected, and glorified.  

[* Understand, even as desecrating or tearing down our national monuments is the first step toward genocide (if our dead don’t matter, we don’t matter), so also “fuzzy logic” and blurried boundaries serve as a moral fog to blind people to morality.  As I expressed in an earlier Rumination, the mindlessness of evolutionists is astounding.  One person who wrote for a major regional magazine, expressed in a “professional” article: gorillas are human too!  No.  They are not.  However, this mind fart is possible because the way was paved by generations of professionals who have for over a century declared that man is an animal (which he is not; man is a living creature, yes, but He was made in the Image of God and God is not an animal).  Therefore, the ultimate conclusion to the internal logic of this perverted thinking, clearly, is: 1. Since man is an animal and we eat some forms of animals then it is okay to eat humans; and 2. Since man is an animal and other animals are animals then there is nothing wrong in sex between the species.  Again, this was paved by thinking that all races descend from a common ancestor (whether a monkey or Adam or Noah’s sons)—which they do not.  Sexual relations and intermarriage with alien races was originally a CRIME and a TABOO and ANATHEMA!  Breaking down that moral barrier paves the way for gender perversion as well as bestality.]

Abominations are forever abominations, regardless of modern political correctness, regardless of the humanism of the Apostate Antichrist “Church”—sinful man or polluted denominations cannot, “take a vote” and “overrule God”.  
We are seeing the results of their perverse, hedonistic humanism: multiculturalism (which also paved the way for the blasphemy and polluted legal thinking that the builders of a nation have no right to their nation—it belongs to all races, cultures, and religions) and homoperversion are the “left-right” knockout punch that is destroying Christendom: and the destructin is irreversible.  No nation—NO NATION has ever survived both of these abominations once publically accepted.  The graveyard of nations is bestrewn with once powerful, successful empires, that are now little more than temples to rats or monkeys.  

The old adage is true, “Sometimes you don’t appreciate what you had until you lose it”.  That is why Christ said that the Zeitgeist before His Return will be as in the days of Noah—they were engaged in hedonistic revelry violating all the boundaries that God established (while even denying the true God and worshipping gods they made with their own hands, or the planets, or wind, or the river, or a mountain, because God sent upon them Strong Delusion to believe a lie, even the most foolish things imagineable; just like modern-day liberals).  Again, as in the days of Noah, they were engaged in all their perversion—and the floods came and took them all away and they knew it not!  SUDDEN shall be destruction.  It takes a long time to come, because God is Longsuffering—but when it comes it is devastating and irreversible.

Not until the tyranny and crime and evil DESTROYS THEIR OWN HOUSE will the average “Christian” or “liberal” or “pagan” will they then begin to “consider their ways”—but then it will be too late.  The time to repent is BEFORE the point of no return is passed.  Partying on the deck of the “Love Boat” as it drifts in the fog toward Niagara Falls does not present a good outcome scenario—especially if the owners and the crew have been lying to the people, telling them that “we’re doing great” despite the fact that the engines are broken down, the company is bankrupt, and they have just enough fuel left for a final burst of speed over the precipice.  However, the minds of the majority are so polluted and so dumbed down, when tragedy strikes they will simply be like a bird that has flown into a platen glass window and sits dazed, in bewilderment on the ground, where it remains easy prey for any predator.

Also, understand what Peter’s Vision DOES NOT say.  So many Christians believe ANTI-theology instead of theology.  God told Peter, “call not unclean or common that which I have cleansed”.  And yet, the average Christian thinks that the inverse of this is true (which it is not)—that we are to call clean and holy THAT WHICH GOD HAS NOT CLEANSED.  God did not cleanse all.  He had no plans to cleanse all.  Did Christ not say “give NOT that which is holy to the dogs and cast NOT pearls before swine, lest they turn and trample and rend you”....?  THAT is what we are seeing in the alien invasion (the flood that the Dragon / Serpent / Satan has spewed out of his mouth)—because of our violation of what God commanded (separation) and what Christ Himself re-iterated.  Yet, Holy Spirit-devoid Christians, for centuries have misinterpreted the Great Commission and cast pearls before swine and given that which is holy to the dogs and invited the swine and dogs and wolves into the sheepfold—and the result has been the destruction of Christendom (and spiritually dead Christians, even hearing that pronouncement, don’t think of it as any loss—they were probably more distraught when the owner of the Chicago Bulls decided to break up the undefeatable team and build a new one).  True to God’s Promise, “the curse causeless shall not come”.

Other person:

I have to wonder how many other so-called “orthodox” teachings are really false!  Thank you!

Thank you for the detailed explanation.  I need to re-read it several times, as I am sure that I am missing some points.  But this is an excellent response to many questions—not only to questions about the food laws.

I inadvertently keep the dietary laws myself, because pork products aggravate my gastrointestinal problems, and also because the high-fat content messes up my blood sugar control.  As I found out about ten years ago, excessive fat in meat dishes, soups, etc. slows down metabolism—at least so far as control of diabetes is concerned.  I used to wonder why EVERY TIME, after eating kielbasa, I would have high blood sugar readings the following morning. I have not eaten kielbasa for about ten years now.  As for shellfish and other related seafood products, I simply have never liked them.

My reply/comment:

Well, understand NO ONE inadvertently “keeps" the dietary laws or any other law.  You cannot “keep” a law “by mistake or serendipitously”.  Obedience is a conscious, cognitive, positive decision, not a random passive absence of action.  While indeed you may be able to “not violate” a law inadvertently, you CANNOT “keep” a law inadvertently if you do not intend to obey it, but it merely “works out” that way.  Obedience is a choice.  A decision.  An action based upon knowledge of the order; not a “default”.  If your father had given orders for you to mow the lawn today, and you nevergot the message because you refused to present yourself to learn his will and read the “job assignment” for the day, if you went out and mowed the lawn because it was a nice day and you felt like getting a little sun and exercise, that would not be obedience; though indeed, the lawn got mowed.  

A man and woman who are merely shacked up living together are NOT man and wife UNLESS they vowed to each other TO BE man and wife, accepting that responsibility and offering that dedication.  A piece of paper from a corrupt state or an apostate church does not make a marriage.  What is called “Common Law Marriage” is not a marriage in God’s Eyes, unless the man and woman actually vowed to each other to be man and wife, and were so dedicated to each other (and the woman submitting to the God-ordained structure of a Biblical marriage), regardless of whether they chose to go before a corrupt state or church and bow down to them and ask for the state / church’s permission, recognition, or blessing.  Nothing that the wicked do is honorable or acceptable or pleasing in God’s Sight.  Actions alone are meaningless.  The act itself has to be an ordained act and the actor has to have the intent to commit the act for the right reason—His heart motive is required for God to honor it.  No Israelite who had a blood sacrifice offered for his sins had his sins temporarily atoned for—unless he had actually repented of his sins, confessed them, and asked God to forgive him in addition to the offering of the required blood sacrifice.

Thus, if a person has a food allergy, or a health issue (or the restaurant just happened to be out of pork roast that night when he planned on ordering it) that is NOT “keeping” God’s dietary laws.  It is simply not violating them—but not by choice but by circumstances imposed upon him; it is not obeying God but merely pragmatically preventing unpleasant health problems.  That is humanism and self-serving, not obedience to God.  

Obedience is worship.  It is offering our lives as a living sacrifice and a denial of self.  No one can inadvertantly or mistakenly obey God or keep God’s Law any more than he could mistakenly or inadvertantly “worship” God.  Worship (and hence obedience) must be in spirit and in truth (with a clean heart); not mere default or accident.  As I have written in various books of mine: The true test of obedience is not doing something that one wants to do anyway (such as being ordered, “Eat that hot-fudge Sundae and I want to see a smile on your face!”); the true test of obedience is doing what one was commanded when it is something that he does not want to do, but doing it with the attitude as if it was something that he wanted to do.  Going through the motions with a cold, hateful, bitter attitude is not obedience; it is mere compliance—it is sin in and of itself.  It would be greater sin not to do what was ordered at all; but it is still sin to do it with the wrong attitude.  God declares that stubbornness is as the sin of idolatry and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft (I Samuel 15:23).  This is no light matter, despite the carnal mind’s instinct to “blow off” this adomition and just go back into the pig stye of rebellion.  God declared that women who don’t obey their husbands blaspheme the Word of God (Titus 2:5).  Again, that is not a “menu choice” nor a light offense.

By the way, you can get all-beef or all-turkey kielbasa in the grocery store; the beef will have higher fat than the turkey, the turkey will be essentially fat free, but the beef should be lower in fat than pork, and of course, not be a defiled meat.  However, you do have to read the ingredients carefully, and even call the 800 number, because many companies will use pork casings—and some may even add bacon fat for flavoring!—and not list clearly that they contain pork!  God will certainly honor our desire to obey, even if in ignorance someone fools us.  However, non-vigilant intentions only go so far.  If you drink a jigger of Draino instead of Ni-Quill you will probably go to sleep a little longer than you expected, and not as peacefully.


[I’ve seen “Ezekiel Bread” for sale in the health food stores, but they always leave out one main ingredient: I wonder why? read on...]

Ezekiel 4

1Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and portray upon it the city, even Jerusalem:

2And lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it, and set battering rams against it round about.

3Moreover take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it.  This shall be a sign to the House of Israel.

4Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the House of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity.

5For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.

6And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the House of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

7Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and thine arm shall be uncovered, and thou shalt prophesy against it.

8And, behold, I will lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege.

9Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches [spelt or rye], and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof.  [that is, enough bread to last him as his only food for 390 days]

10And thy meat [meal, that is, his bread] which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it.  [about 10 ounces]

11Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink.

[A hin was a gallon, so about 21 1/3 ounces.]

[Here comes the good part...]

12And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

13And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles [nations], whither I will drive them.

14Then said I, “Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth”.

15Then He said unto me, “Lo, I have given thee cow’s dung for man’s dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith”.

16Moreover he said unto me, “Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment:

17That they may want bread and water, and be astonied one with another, and consume away for their iniquity”.

[It should be understood that the “application line” to apply to be a prophet of God was very short; especially after this prophecy.]

It is uncertain whether God intended the dung to actually be an ingredient in the bread, or whether the dried dung was to be used as a fuel to bake (fry) the bread... as is common in Africa and other places.  Dried cow dung is like dried peat because it is mostly digested grass, hay, and straw (cellulose), and when dried, is a slow burning fuel in places in which wood is scarce.

However, dung that cometh out of a man would not have fuel value (I don’t think) because it would be missing all that dried grass and hay (wood fiber / cellulose).  However, if the diets of people back then had a WHOLE lot more fiber and FAR LESS meat, eggs, cheese, than our diets do, it is possible that the human dung could be used as fuel, but it seems doubtful.  It indeed would burn in a fire; but it by itself would not serve as a fuel to light and sustain that fire.  Furthermore, the issue seems to be that both the human dung and the cow dung were fresh—otherwise, the revulsion effect would have been a bit lost.  If Ezekiel, in the presence of the people, was kneading bread and then added the special ingredient, if he had to tell them it was dried out human dung, while it would be revolting, they might have doubted it, and it would have lost a little of the shock value of disgust.  If the human dung was fresh, no one would have to ask what it was, and they could also smell it.  There was no doubt in anyone’s mind what is was; and just imagine their utter revulsion when they saw him kneed it into his bread dough.

EITHER WAY (fresh or dried, added to the dough itself) the notion is ABOMINABLE... and the lesson again was that Israel would eat UNCLEAN, ABOMINABLE things in their captivity.*  They would eat such vile things because of their SINFULNESS and in their eventual BLINDNESS—not because of any antichrist fairy tale that God had “abolished” His Holy Standard and Moral Code—but because they would be SINFUL!

[* This had even happened around a century earlier; while under enemy siege and shut up in the city.  II Kings 6:25 records, those who were able to paid for and ate pigeon dung!  At least two ate an infant; others ate an ass’ head.  This turned the stomach of even the wicked King Jehoram of Israel and he rent his clothes and wore sackcloth—but he did not rend his heart; but true to a sinful nature, he blamed the Prophet of God and was even so wicked as to order (unsuccessfully) Elisha to be captured and beheaded!  But of course, the godless king did not blame his own sinfulness, or that of the people.]


Regardless, God in His Kindness informed Ezekiel that the use of human dung was only for “show value” before the people, and that the bread that Ezekiel would later actually eat would be made with cow dung.

[Sort of like those food cooking shows on tv where the host shows you how to prepare a certain meal from start to finish, but then pulls out of the oven the fully cooked, completed meal that he had actually started many hours earlier, and the meal that he just prepared before your very eyes that he just stuck in the oven, would not be ready for many more hours (and hopefully they actually cooked it and did not just throw it out).  Thus, Jeremiah prepared for visual effect the human-dung bread dough, but later only ate the bread that was made with cow dung; and each subsequent batch that he made for over a full year, he made with cow dung... as I will explain below.]

Substituting cow dung for human dung in ones bread recipe is not really that great a substitution if the ingredient was actually added to the bread dough (rather than being the fuel; but note that it DOES seem that the dung was added to the dough, not used as fuel, for Ezekiel did not say that he had never used anything unclean for fuel to cook a meal, but that no unclean thing had ever touched his lips)... So maybe the amount of dung was very, very small and the issue was one of revulsion, not overpowering flavor or actual health.  But notice that God did not have Ezekiel substitute PIG dung.  While dung is still dung, since an unclean animal is unclean of itself, its dung is even “uncleaner”.  Human dung is “uncleaner” too, than cow dung, because diseases can be transmitted from human to human from it.  That is why God commands humans to carry a paddle or shovel into the woods or wilderness when camping or travelling when they need to relieve themselves AND BURY IT (not just tokenly, like a cat does, but truly give it a good and proper burial).  However, nowhere in Scripture does God command us to follow along behind our cows and sheep and collect and bury their dung.  However, cow and sheep and goat dung is unhealthy for those animals, for they do infect themselves with parasites from eating grass that has touched their own feces (or even scratching their knee with their lower jaw teeth, where they have bedded down in their own feces).  The worms are usually on a 3-week cycle, so it is important to rotate the animals among 3 or 4 fields continually.  However, their dung can be used as fertilizer, even as their blood.  While not expressedly forbidden, it would probably be wise not to use the dung of unclean animals in gardening where food is raised for humans.  Some diseases are transferrable to humans, horses carry tetanus, and swine urine and feces are so toxic it kills everything in the field they are raised in (the muck they wallow in is a combination of soil, their own urine and feces, and pus that oozes from a hollow canal running down their legs and emanating from an opening in their hooves.

However, the key point is that, as with my illustrations above concerning eating feces or aborted babies or vomit... GOD HIMSELF draws that very analogy of DUNG as being JUST AS ABOMINABLE as eating UNCLEAN ABOMINABLE ANIMALS.  This is no mistake.  The dietary laws are a MORAL issue.  They are an issue of HOLINESS.  Their violation is a SIN.  Their violation is an ABOMINATION and those who violate them make themselves ABOMINABLE and DEFILE themselves and that is how God sees them.

Finally, while Ezekiel ate the cow-dung biscuits, Peter did not kill and eat any unclean animals and God revealed to him that the issue was never about eating unclean animals, which will ever and always be an abomination and forbidden.