Please see part 1
The second part of Yeshua's confrontation with the scribes and Pharisees over the disciples eating bread with unwashed hands begins with Mark 7:14.
Mark 7:14-23 (KJV)
14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
At this point, Yeshua gathered the multitude to hear and understand what He was about to teach regarding the eating of bread with unwashed hands (verse 14). He plainly explained that what is taken into the body cannot defile a man, or in other words, make him spiritually unclean. It is what comes from the man that causes defilement (verse 15).
The disciples then requested that Yeshua explain His statement (verse 17). Although Yeshua reprimanded the disciples for lacking in understanding (After all, He only had a limited amount of time before His disciples needed to be ready to take over His ministry), He complied and began His explanation (verse 18). Verse 19, without the embellishment of later translators, states that what is taken in by mouth goes not into the heart, but into the belly and whatever is unusable by the body is eliminated. This is clearly a description of the digestive process. Through it, all food is purged. Then, verses 20 to 23 demonstrate and list all of the many things that defile a man like evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, and murders.
Reason tells us that the physical process of digestion which eliminates impurities from food, could not possibly cause an unclean food to suddenly become clean in a spiritual sense. Digestion has been a bodily process from the time of Creation. God instituted His Torah Laws while digestion was already occurring. He commanded His people not to eat certain things that were unclean. Digestion continued, but still, certain foods were unclean. Yeshua came to earth as a man. Digestion continued. Nothing changed. It is impossible to believe that Yeshua now claimed that digestion caused all foods to become clean! As discussed in the prior posts, Yeshua could not speak against the Torah or to change it, or mankind would still be lost in sin and condemned without hope.
Just as was seen in part 1 of this post, the topic has nothing to do with unclean foods becoming clean. The primary point of the passage (Mark 7:1-23) is how the Pharisees were misusing tradition, often raising tradition to the level of the written commandments of God, or of even raising it above the Torah. This second part is a further explanation of how food that may have been contaminated by something cannot make someone unclean. It is the actions and thoughts of man that defile.
Mark 7:19's addition has added to the confusion about the continuing applicability of the Torah. Let's open our hearts and minds to the truths that are written there and seek to find the seamless and enduring Torah that exists in both the Old and New Testaments!
Showing posts with label Food Laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Food Laws. Show all posts
Sunday, November 5, 2017
Sunday, October 29, 2017
What's the Big Deal About Eating Bread with Unwashed Hands?
Now that it has been established that the parenthetical phrase of Mark 7:19 is an addition to our English Bibles and it cannot serve as the conclusion of the passage, it is important to uncover the true meaning of Mark 7:1-23. See Previous:
Let's begin with the first section of that passage.
Mark 7:1-13 (KJV)
1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem apparently had come to check out the stories and accounts that they had received regarding Yeshua. As they watched Yeshua and His disciples they were horrified to see that some of the disciples ate bread with unwashed hands (verse 2). In verses 3 and 4 Mark explained the traditions of the elders that these scribes and Pharisees held to.
These traditions had been passed down from generation to generation supposedly starting from the days of Moses. They were not written down but were orally transmitted. The point of these traditions was to fill in the details of the written Torah. The sages did not want the people to accidentally transgress the laws of God, so they made hedges to protect the people that would help keep them from actual disobedience of the Torah. Although the idea and intent were good, the Oral Law had often been treated as if it were as important as the written Torah. This is the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees who came to see Yeshua.
Why did some of the disciples not wash their hands? This seems to indicate that the Oral Law was not always observed the same by all the people. An example of Yeshua following the traditions of the Oral Law can be found in Matthew 14:19 where He said a blessing before feeding the 5,000. That is a tradition. The commandment is to say a blessing after eating (Deuteronomy 8:10).
Since the washing of hands before eating bread (which is a clean food) was a tradition, the Pharisees and scribes were out of line by raising that tradition up to the level of the Torah. Instead of directly stating this to the scribes and Pharisees, Yeshua called the men hypocrites and quoted Isaiah 29:13 (verses 6 and 7).
Isaiah 29:13 (KJV)
13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
Yeshua told the scribes and Pharisees via Isaiah that they gave God lip service, but that their hearts were far from God. They taught the traditions as if they were the commandments of God. He went on then to ask the men why they rejected the Laws of God (Torah) by their traditions (verse 9).
In verses 10 through 13 Yeshua explained a tradition where the scribes and Pharisees found a way to avoid having to honor their parents by not supplying an animal for their parents' use but claimed that the animal was going to be used for sacrifice, thereby freeing them from the obligation of providing for their parents. By doing this these men made the Word of God (Law of God) of none effect. In other words, they were using tradition to circumvent observance of God's Law. They were raising tradition to a level above the Law of God.
The point of this first section of Mark 7 has nothing to do with making all foods clean. It is a discussion on the proper place of tradition, nothing more and nothing less. Next time the second part of Mark 7:1-23 will be discussed.
Let's begin with the first section of that passage.
Mark 7:1-13 (KJV)
1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem apparently had come to check out the stories and accounts that they had received regarding Yeshua. As they watched Yeshua and His disciples they were horrified to see that some of the disciples ate bread with unwashed hands (verse 2). In verses 3 and 4 Mark explained the traditions of the elders that these scribes and Pharisees held to.
These traditions had been passed down from generation to generation supposedly starting from the days of Moses. They were not written down but were orally transmitted. The point of these traditions was to fill in the details of the written Torah. The sages did not want the people to accidentally transgress the laws of God, so they made hedges to protect the people that would help keep them from actual disobedience of the Torah. Although the idea and intent were good, the Oral Law had often been treated as if it were as important as the written Torah. This is the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees who came to see Yeshua.
Why did some of the disciples not wash their hands? This seems to indicate that the Oral Law was not always observed the same by all the people. An example of Yeshua following the traditions of the Oral Law can be found in Matthew 14:19 where He said a blessing before feeding the 5,000. That is a tradition. The commandment is to say a blessing after eating (Deuteronomy 8:10).
Since the washing of hands before eating bread (which is a clean food) was a tradition, the Pharisees and scribes were out of line by raising that tradition up to the level of the Torah. Instead of directly stating this to the scribes and Pharisees, Yeshua called the men hypocrites and quoted Isaiah 29:13 (verses 6 and 7).
Isaiah 29:13 (KJV)
13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
Yeshua told the scribes and Pharisees via Isaiah that they gave God lip service, but that their hearts were far from God. They taught the traditions as if they were the commandments of God. He went on then to ask the men why they rejected the Laws of God (Torah) by their traditions (verse 9).
In verses 10 through 13 Yeshua explained a tradition where the scribes and Pharisees found a way to avoid having to honor their parents by not supplying an animal for their parents' use but claimed that the animal was going to be used for sacrifice, thereby freeing them from the obligation of providing for their parents. By doing this these men made the Word of God (Law of God) of none effect. In other words, they were using tradition to circumvent observance of God's Law. They were raising tradition to a level above the Law of God.
The point of this first section of Mark 7 has nothing to do with making all foods clean. It is a discussion on the proper place of tradition, nothing more and nothing less. Next time the second part of Mark 7:1-23 will be discussed.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Did Jesus Declare All Foods Clean?
From three different Bible verses, God has instructed mankind not to add to His prophecy or to His commandments. Please see the previous post. Yet, in the Gospel of Mark, there is an egregious example of how translation teams and commentators have ignored these warnings.
Mark 7:1-23 relates an account of a confrontation that Yeshua had with some scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem. The problem stemmed from the fact that some of the disciples ate bread with unwashed hands. The passage is rather long and complicated, but in verse 19, the New International Version states this:
Mark 7:19 (NIV)
19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
Mark 7:1-23 relates an account of a confrontation that Yeshua had with some scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem. The problem stemmed from the fact that some of the disciples ate bread with unwashed hands. The passage is rather long and complicated, but in verse 19, the New International Version states this:
Mark 7:19 (NIV)
19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
Similarly, the New American Standard Bible says:
Mark 7:19 (NASB)
19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
The phrase in parentheses looks and sounds an awful lot like a conclusion and even many Bible commentators have used this verse in exactly that same manner. However, the parentheses are an indication that the phrase is not in the Greek. The Greek simply ends with the phrase "purging all the food."
19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
The phrase in parentheses looks and sounds an awful lot like a conclusion and even many Bible commentators have used this verse in exactly that same manner. However, the parentheses are an indication that the phrase is not in the Greek. The Greek simply ends with the phrase "purging all the food."
So what is up with this extra phrase? Obviously, it is an interpretation of what Mark 7:19 supposedly means. So rather than allowing the verse to be translated as it was written, someone, somewhere along the line, decided that Yeshua meant more than what He stated, that the verse by itself wasn't plain enough. The problem with this is two-fold. In the first place, the Bible was violated by having an interpretation forced on it. It also became a kind of conclusion, which makes no sense when the passage is analyzed. The second problem is that the conclusion has resulted in affirming a lie. God has warned Biblical writers, translators, teachers, and pastors not to add to or subtract from His commandments. This extra phrase subtracts from the commandments of God. Therefore, the extra phrase is incorrect. This wrong conclusion has allowed sincere believers to accept that the food laws are no longer applicable, that the law can be changed, and that other passages, particularly in Paul's writings that on the surface appear to negate the law, prove that the law has been abrogated.
Some common sense demonstrates that this line of thought is impossible!
Matthew 5:17-19 (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For an understanding of the word "fulfill," please see:
Yeshua had to obey the Torah perfectly in order for Him to be qualified to be man's substitutionary sacrifice. According to Matthew 5, He also could not speak against the Torah. Therefore, it is impossible that Yeshua could have concluded that "all foods were now clean." He couldn't have even hinted at it or said that all foods would be clean after His death.
Praise God, as Yeshua was obedient to God's commandments and became the Savior, how can we even think that our disobedience is now acceptable!
Next: Mark 7:19 explained.
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
By Whose Authority?
Matthew 12:48-50 (KJV)
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
In this brief passage we learn that belonging to the spiritual family of Yeshua means that we do the will of the Father. But how do we know what the will of the Father is? Where can we find what the Father requires? At the time that Yeshua made this comment, there was no New Testament. Therefore, Yeshua's audience could only look to the Old Testament for those answers. They would have searched out the laws and requirements in the Torah.
If we ask ourselves today these same questions do we come up with different answers because we have the New Testament? Many would say, "Yes." Many would say that Yeshua fulfilled the requirements of the Old Testament Torah, so we don't have to. However, doesn't this answer cause a disconnect with Yeshua's audience? Why would Yeshua imply one thing to His audience and something different to His followers throughout the later centuries?
Also, if the requirements of following the Father's will have changed, by whose authority were these changes made? Let's look at some possibilities.
1. Yeshua changed the requirements. In the first place, in order for Yeshua to be qualified to be our Savior, He had to follow the Torah completely and perfectly. If He hadn't, He would have been a sinner and could not have been a qualified substitute for us. We would not have had a Savior and we would still be held responsible for our own sins. There would be no eternal life! Secondly, if Yeshua had followed the Torah completely, but taught anyone else that the Torah didn't need to be followed, He would then be called, "The least in the kingdom of Heaven," according to Matthew 5:19.
Matthew 5:17-19 (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so , he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Italics mine).
Yeshua will one day reign as King over the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, it is not possible that He would be "least" in the Kingdom and He did not have any authority to change the requirements of God's will as taught in the Torah.
2. Paul or Peter changed the requirements. Most believers would say that the requirements were changed in the New Testament and that there are many verses that indicate this. One such section noted might be Peter's vision of the sheet and the non-Kosher animals that he was instructed to eat. A careful reading of the text shows us that three times Peter indicated what the vision meant. Each time the meaning had to do with the acceptability of Gentiles coming to faith and never once were the food laws in the Torah mentioned.
Paul also makes statements that have been misinterpreted to say that the Torah has been set aside. It could also be said that Paul received this "new" understanding while he was in the desert for three years being instructed by God. However, there are some serious problems with relying on either Peter or Paul as having the authority to change Torah requirements.
Deuteronomy 13:1-5 (KJV)
1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee (Italics mine).
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
In this brief passage we learn that belonging to the spiritual family of Yeshua means that we do the will of the Father. But how do we know what the will of the Father is? Where can we find what the Father requires? At the time that Yeshua made this comment, there was no New Testament. Therefore, Yeshua's audience could only look to the Old Testament for those answers. They would have searched out the laws and requirements in the Torah.
If we ask ourselves today these same questions do we come up with different answers because we have the New Testament? Many would say, "Yes." Many would say that Yeshua fulfilled the requirements of the Old Testament Torah, so we don't have to. However, doesn't this answer cause a disconnect with Yeshua's audience? Why would Yeshua imply one thing to His audience and something different to His followers throughout the later centuries?
Also, if the requirements of following the Father's will have changed, by whose authority were these changes made? Let's look at some possibilities.
1. Yeshua changed the requirements. In the first place, in order for Yeshua to be qualified to be our Savior, He had to follow the Torah completely and perfectly. If He hadn't, He would have been a sinner and could not have been a qualified substitute for us. We would not have had a Savior and we would still be held responsible for our own sins. There would be no eternal life! Secondly, if Yeshua had followed the Torah completely, but taught anyone else that the Torah didn't need to be followed, He would then be called, "The least in the kingdom of Heaven," according to Matthew 5:19.
Matthew 5:17-19 (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so , he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Italics mine).
Yeshua will one day reign as King over the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, it is not possible that He would be "least" in the Kingdom and He did not have any authority to change the requirements of God's will as taught in the Torah.
2. Paul or Peter changed the requirements. Most believers would say that the requirements were changed in the New Testament and that there are many verses that indicate this. One such section noted might be Peter's vision of the sheet and the non-Kosher animals that he was instructed to eat. A careful reading of the text shows us that three times Peter indicated what the vision meant. Each time the meaning had to do with the acceptability of Gentiles coming to faith and never once were the food laws in the Torah mentioned.
Paul also makes statements that have been misinterpreted to say that the Torah has been set aside. It could also be said that Paul received this "new" understanding while he was in the desert for three years being instructed by God. However, there are some serious problems with relying on either Peter or Paul as having the authority to change Torah requirements.
Deuteronomy 13:1-5 (KJV)
1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee (Italics mine).
Both Paul and Peter had "visions." If these visions instructed the people to turn away from the way in which God had commanded them to walk in, they were worthy of death. Therefore, if we believe that Paul and Peter wrote parts of the inspired Word of God, it is impossible that they had any authority to change the requirements of God's will either.
So who are we left with? There really is no one. No one has the authority to change what God has required. No one can change what God's written Word has stated.
So, if belonging to the family of Yeshua is determined by the observance of Torah, are you a member of His family?
Saturday, November 21, 2015
The Torah Before Moses?
This week's Torah portion comes from Genesis 25:19-28:9.
Genesis 26:2-5 (KJV)
2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
God appeared to Isaac and told him to live in Canaan and not to go down into Egypt. God would be with him and bless him. God affirmed that the promises made to his father Abraham would be carried out also to Isaac and to his descendants. This was great news not only for Isaac and the Jewish people, but for all the nations of the earth as well, because through Isaac's seed (Messiah Yeshua) the whole world would be able to partake in the relationship between God and His people.
Verse 5 gives the reason for why Isaac would be so blessed. Abraham obeyed God's voice, kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws!
But what charge, what commandments, what statutes, and what laws did Abraham obey? Traditional Christianity has long claimed that the Torah was only given to Moses and was somehow fulfilled (meaning set aside) by Yeshua's death and resurrection. However, if Christianity has been wrong about when the Torah was given, couldn't it be wrong about believers being able to set aside the "Mosaic Law?"
The Hebrew words used in verse 5 are: mishmeroti meaning "my charge or safeguards," mitzvotai meaning "my commandments," chukotai meaning "my inscribed statutes," and torotai, meaning "my instructions." This last word translated into English often becomes Law or Torah. Abraham obeyed the Torah! Although it is true that the Torah in its full sense was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, God's people were aware of many of God's desires prior to Moses. The seventh day Sabbath was revealed in Genesis 2. The rules of clean and unclean food were known by Genesis 8. And circumcision began in Genesis 21. So whatever parts of the Torah that Abraham knew about, he obeyed. And God was pleased by his obedience. If God was please by a Saturday Sabbath, the eating of clean foods, and circumcision, why would that change? How could Yeshua's death and resurrection change God's laws, especially those of a God that never changes?
Malachi 3:6a (KJV)
6 For I am the LORD, I change not;
May God one day see our obedience in the same way that He saw Abraham's!
Genesis 26:2-5 (KJV)
2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
God appeared to Isaac and told him to live in Canaan and not to go down into Egypt. God would be with him and bless him. God affirmed that the promises made to his father Abraham would be carried out also to Isaac and to his descendants. This was great news not only for Isaac and the Jewish people, but for all the nations of the earth as well, because through Isaac's seed (Messiah Yeshua) the whole world would be able to partake in the relationship between God and His people.
Verse 5 gives the reason for why Isaac would be so blessed. Abraham obeyed God's voice, kept His charge, His commandments, His statutes, and His laws!
But what charge, what commandments, what statutes, and what laws did Abraham obey? Traditional Christianity has long claimed that the Torah was only given to Moses and was somehow fulfilled (meaning set aside) by Yeshua's death and resurrection. However, if Christianity has been wrong about when the Torah was given, couldn't it be wrong about believers being able to set aside the "Mosaic Law?"
The Hebrew words used in verse 5 are: mishmeroti meaning "my charge or safeguards," mitzvotai meaning "my commandments," chukotai meaning "my inscribed statutes," and torotai, meaning "my instructions." This last word translated into English often becomes Law or Torah. Abraham obeyed the Torah! Although it is true that the Torah in its full sense was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, God's people were aware of many of God's desires prior to Moses. The seventh day Sabbath was revealed in Genesis 2. The rules of clean and unclean food were known by Genesis 8. And circumcision began in Genesis 21. So whatever parts of the Torah that Abraham knew about, he obeyed. And God was pleased by his obedience. If God was please by a Saturday Sabbath, the eating of clean foods, and circumcision, why would that change? How could Yeshua's death and resurrection change God's laws, especially those of a God that never changes?
Malachi 3:6a (KJV)
6 For I am the LORD, I change not;
May God one day see our obedience in the same way that He saw Abraham's!
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Righteous Noah
This week's Torah portion covers Genesis 6:9 to Genesis 11:32.
Immediately we read:
Genesis 6:9 (KJV)
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
What does it mean to be just or righteous? We could look to the dictionary at this point, but if we read a little further in Genesis we can ascertain why Noah was considered righteous.
Genesis 6:22 (KJV)
22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
Noah was obedient to all that God had commanded him. This is what made him righteous. But what had God commanded him to do? The answer is certainly that he built the ark that saved eight people from the killing flood that was to come. Despite the fact that there had never been any rain, or that there was no nearby body of water large enough to float the ark, Noah obeyed. However, this was not all that Noah apparently accomplished according to God's will.
In Genesis 7:14,15 we read about how the animals came to the ark.
Genesis 7:14-15 (KJV)
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
Even small children know the account of Noah and his ark and how the animals came two by two. Not all know that some animals came by sevens.
Genesis 7:2 (KJV)
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
The animals that came by sevens (most likely seven pairs) were the "clean" animals. Why were there more of some animals than others?
Genesis 8:20 (KJV)
20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
After the flood the ark came to rest on Mount Ararat. The first thing that Noah did was to build an altar to God in thanksgiving and praise for his and his family's safety. Part of the reason for the extra clean animals was for making burnt (or elevation) offerings. The other reason was for a food supply. But what are "clean" animals?
The Bible doesn't give us this answer until Leviticus 11 where it describes which animals are clean and which aren't. This has caused many to have the idea that the Law of God was not known, nor required until Moses. But the fact that Noah offered and later only ate clean animals proves otherwise. This is not to say that revelation wasn't progressively given. It is difficult to fully comprehend how much of the Law Noah actually knew. But his knowledge of which animals were clean and unclean is clear.
This also demonstrates that the requirements of the Law were not restricted to the Mosaic Covenant. Perhaps other theological notions are just as erroneous. It behooves us to be very careful in constructing theologies.
Lastly, does Genesis 6:9 really mean that Noah was "perfect?" From Genesis 9 we read about the incident of Noah's drunkenness. He obviously was not perfect in the way that we normally view perfection. But just as Noah was righteous, he was perfect. The description conveys Noah's leanings. His striving to do all that God required made him a righteous and perfect man. This does not take away from the imputed righteousness that the believer receives at the new birth in Yeshua, but it does point to our obligation to follow God's commands to the best of our ability. This makes us righteous, too.
Immediately we read:
Genesis 6:9 (KJV)
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
What does it mean to be just or righteous? We could look to the dictionary at this point, but if we read a little further in Genesis we can ascertain why Noah was considered righteous.
Genesis 6:22 (KJV)
22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
Noah was obedient to all that God had commanded him. This is what made him righteous. But what had God commanded him to do? The answer is certainly that he built the ark that saved eight people from the killing flood that was to come. Despite the fact that there had never been any rain, or that there was no nearby body of water large enough to float the ark, Noah obeyed. However, this was not all that Noah apparently accomplished according to God's will.
In Genesis 7:14,15 we read about how the animals came to the ark.
Genesis 7:14-15 (KJV)
14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.
15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
Even small children know the account of Noah and his ark and how the animals came two by two. Not all know that some animals came by sevens.
Genesis 7:2 (KJV)
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
The animals that came by sevens (most likely seven pairs) were the "clean" animals. Why were there more of some animals than others?
Genesis 8:20 (KJV)
20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
After the flood the ark came to rest on Mount Ararat. The first thing that Noah did was to build an altar to God in thanksgiving and praise for his and his family's safety. Part of the reason for the extra clean animals was for making burnt (or elevation) offerings. The other reason was for a food supply. But what are "clean" animals?
The Bible doesn't give us this answer until Leviticus 11 where it describes which animals are clean and which aren't. This has caused many to have the idea that the Law of God was not known, nor required until Moses. But the fact that Noah offered and later only ate clean animals proves otherwise. This is not to say that revelation wasn't progressively given. It is difficult to fully comprehend how much of the Law Noah actually knew. But his knowledge of which animals were clean and unclean is clear.
This also demonstrates that the requirements of the Law were not restricted to the Mosaic Covenant. Perhaps other theological notions are just as erroneous. It behooves us to be very careful in constructing theologies.
Lastly, does Genesis 6:9 really mean that Noah was "perfect?" From Genesis 9 we read about the incident of Noah's drunkenness. He obviously was not perfect in the way that we normally view perfection. But just as Noah was righteous, he was perfect. The description conveys Noah's leanings. His striving to do all that God required made him a righteous and perfect man. This does not take away from the imputed righteousness that the believer receives at the new birth in Yeshua, but it does point to our obligation to follow God's commands to the best of our ability. This makes us righteous, too.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Fulfilled and Destroyed? or Fulfilled and Obeyed?
Matthew 5:17-20 (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Like many Christians I read and reread this section of Scripture without really understanding what it was saying. The words themselves are relatively simple, yet because of translation issues and historical theology, the plain meaning of the text has been lost to the majority of Christians today.
Yeshua sat on a hill with his disciples around Him (Matthew 5:1). He began to teach starting with the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12). Then He spoke about believers being salt to the Jews and light to the Gentiles (see http://eclecticchristian.blogspot.com/2015/05/salt-and-light.html) Next He told His listeners that they were not to think that He had come to destroy the Torah or the Prophets (the whole Word of God), but that He had come to fulfill them (verse 17). The religious leaders of Yeshua's day constantly accused Yeshua of violating the Torah of God, but if that were really the case and Yeshua had actually violated a single commandment of the Torah, Yeshua would not have been sinless and would not have been qualified to die on mankind's behalf. There would be no salvation nor eternal life for anyone!! What Yeshua objected to was the religious leaders' misinterpretation of the Torah and their elevating the Oral Law to the status of the Word of God. Yeshua was guilty only of violating the man made rules that the religious leaders had, that often conflicted with the Torah.
To strengthen His statement, Yeshua declared that the Torah would not pass away until heaven and earth passed away (verse 18). Since heaven and earth are obviously still present, the Torah cannot have been done away with. However, the last part of verse 18 seems to imply that the Torah would pass away when it was all fulfilled. The conclusion by many is that despite the continued presence of heaven and earth, Yeshua fulfilled the Torah and it has passed away. Logically, this conclusion doesn't make any sense, especially when verse 19 is read. According to traditional Christianity Yeshua fulfilled the Torah, so that believers now are free to worship on Sunday instead of Saturday, ham is permissible as food, and the holy days like Passover and Yom Kippur can be ignored. Yet, verse 19 says that anyone who breaks one of the least commandments or teaches men so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. Obviously, the breaking of the Sabbath, food laws, and Holy Days comes with a stiff penalty.
The problem in this section that has led to much misunderstanding is the word fulfill, which is used to translate two different Greek words. In the first occurrence in verse 17, the Greek word behind fulfill is pleroo. This word means "to fill to the full" or "to complete." Therefore, Yeshua completed (or did) (or obeyed) the Torah and showed mankind how to do likewise. The second Greek word that is translated as fulfill in verse 18 is the word ginomai, which means "to occur" or "to happen." In other words the Torah would not pass away until everything (meaning the whole of history stated in Scripture - Genesis to Revelation) had happened.
I have heard commentators try to get around the sensible meaning of this text by saying that verses 17 and 18 refer to the ritual laws, that Yeshua fulfilled them and that they are done away with. Then verses 19 and 20 refer to the moral law, that these should not be violated. However, in verse 19 the word "therefore" connects verse 19 to verse 18 and there is no hint that the subject of the sentence had changed. Also, there is no place in Scripture where God's commands are divided into ritual versus moral law. This is a man made construct that isn't Biblically based.
The religious leaders of Yeshua's day were accusing Yeshua of destroying the Torah. Let's not do the same thing today by saying that the Torah has been fulfilled and has passed away.
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Like many Christians I read and reread this section of Scripture without really understanding what it was saying. The words themselves are relatively simple, yet because of translation issues and historical theology, the plain meaning of the text has been lost to the majority of Christians today.
Yeshua sat on a hill with his disciples around Him (Matthew 5:1). He began to teach starting with the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12). Then He spoke about believers being salt to the Jews and light to the Gentiles (see http://eclecticchristian.blogspot.com/2015/05/salt-and-light.html) Next He told His listeners that they were not to think that He had come to destroy the Torah or the Prophets (the whole Word of God), but that He had come to fulfill them (verse 17). The religious leaders of Yeshua's day constantly accused Yeshua of violating the Torah of God, but if that were really the case and Yeshua had actually violated a single commandment of the Torah, Yeshua would not have been sinless and would not have been qualified to die on mankind's behalf. There would be no salvation nor eternal life for anyone!! What Yeshua objected to was the religious leaders' misinterpretation of the Torah and their elevating the Oral Law to the status of the Word of God. Yeshua was guilty only of violating the man made rules that the religious leaders had, that often conflicted with the Torah.
To strengthen His statement, Yeshua declared that the Torah would not pass away until heaven and earth passed away (verse 18). Since heaven and earth are obviously still present, the Torah cannot have been done away with. However, the last part of verse 18 seems to imply that the Torah would pass away when it was all fulfilled. The conclusion by many is that despite the continued presence of heaven and earth, Yeshua fulfilled the Torah and it has passed away. Logically, this conclusion doesn't make any sense, especially when verse 19 is read. According to traditional Christianity Yeshua fulfilled the Torah, so that believers now are free to worship on Sunday instead of Saturday, ham is permissible as food, and the holy days like Passover and Yom Kippur can be ignored. Yet, verse 19 says that anyone who breaks one of the least commandments or teaches men so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. Obviously, the breaking of the Sabbath, food laws, and Holy Days comes with a stiff penalty.
The problem in this section that has led to much misunderstanding is the word fulfill, which is used to translate two different Greek words. In the first occurrence in verse 17, the Greek word behind fulfill is pleroo. This word means "to fill to the full" or "to complete." Therefore, Yeshua completed (or did) (or obeyed) the Torah and showed mankind how to do likewise. The second Greek word that is translated as fulfill in verse 18 is the word ginomai, which means "to occur" or "to happen." In other words the Torah would not pass away until everything (meaning the whole of history stated in Scripture - Genesis to Revelation) had happened.
I have heard commentators try to get around the sensible meaning of this text by saying that verses 17 and 18 refer to the ritual laws, that Yeshua fulfilled them and that they are done away with. Then verses 19 and 20 refer to the moral law, that these should not be violated. However, in verse 19 the word "therefore" connects verse 19 to verse 18 and there is no hint that the subject of the sentence had changed. Also, there is no place in Scripture where God's commands are divided into ritual versus moral law. This is a man made construct that isn't Biblically based.
The religious leaders of Yeshua's day were accusing Yeshua of destroying the Torah. Let's not do the same thing today by saying that the Torah has been fulfilled and has passed away.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Doing What is Right in Your Own Eyes
Although Christians hold to a general body of rights and wrongs or moral code, they seem to have difficulty in identifying what that code exactly is. Some will cling to the Ten Commandments, but others shun the Old Testament completely and believe that the Law of Christ, loving God and one's neighbor, is the only true guideline that we have. Add to this Paul's cryptic "Christian liberty," and you have individual Christians running around, all deciding for themselves, their own code of morals and ethics. We also have the "thou shalt not judge" anyone enthusiasts, leaving true believers without a clue as to how we really are to live, at least in the details.
From Torah portion, "Re'eh - Behold" we read the following:
Deuteronomy 11:26-28 (KJV)
26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:
28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.
From this we see that God had given the Israelites detailed descriptions on how they were to live. They would be blessed if they obeyed God's commandments and would be cursed if they did not. God also said this:
Deuteronomy 12:8 (KJV)
8 Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.
"Doing what is right in your own eyes" is clearly an idea that God despises. Yet, this is often how Christianity determines what is right and wrong.
"Yes, we got a divorce. God wants us to be in a happier place."
"Yes, I buy lottery tickets. If I win, I'll donate some to my church."
"Yes, we're living together. We're saving money and besides, marriage is just a piece of paper anyway."
"Yes, we go to church on Sunday, or Tuesday. God doesn't care what day we worship."
"Yes, I eat bacon. God doesn't care what we eat."
This fuzzy moral code is really a figment of our imaginations. Christians are living contrary to the Word of God and somehow they believe that God is pleased.
Deuteronomy 12:32 (KJV)
32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
What God has commanded, He intended His people to observe and obey. Rather than trying to determine on our own what is right and wrong, He has given us His guidelines in His entire Word, the Bible. It's about time we fully paid attention.
From Torah portion, "Re'eh - Behold" we read the following:
Deuteronomy 11:26-28 (KJV)
26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:
28 And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.
From this we see that God had given the Israelites detailed descriptions on how they were to live. They would be blessed if they obeyed God's commandments and would be cursed if they did not. God also said this:
Deuteronomy 12:8 (KJV)
8 Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.
"Doing what is right in your own eyes" is clearly an idea that God despises. Yet, this is often how Christianity determines what is right and wrong.
"Yes, we got a divorce. God wants us to be in a happier place."
"Yes, I buy lottery tickets. If I win, I'll donate some to my church."
"Yes, we're living together. We're saving money and besides, marriage is just a piece of paper anyway."
"Yes, we go to church on Sunday, or Tuesday. God doesn't care what day we worship."
"Yes, I eat bacon. God doesn't care what we eat."
This fuzzy moral code is really a figment of our imaginations. Christians are living contrary to the Word of God and somehow they believe that God is pleased.
Deuteronomy 12:32 (KJV)
32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
What God has commanded, He intended His people to observe and obey. Rather than trying to determine on our own what is right and wrong, He has given us His guidelines in His entire Word, the Bible. It's about time we fully paid attention.
Monday, June 2, 2014
Romans 14:10-13 - Being a Stumbling Block
Paul continued his thoughts on the weak and strong in faith.
Romans 14:10-13 (KJV)
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
So, if believers are subject to their master Yeshua, why should believers judge one another (verse 10)? Or why would believers regard their brothers with contempt? They all must stand before the judgment seat of Messiah and be held accountable for their own actions.
For it is written in Isaiah (verse 11):
Isaiah 45:23 (KJV)
23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Paul used this quote not to focus on the future day when all would come to understand that God is to be worshiped, but that all are accountable to God (verse 12). Therefore, believers are not to judge one another, but rather judge whether or not certain actions of theirs places a stumbling block in the way of another that will cause him or her to fall into sin (verse 13).
The context of these verses remains the same as in verses 1 through 9. Paul had been comparing a meat diet versus a vegetarian diet. But since each believer is accountable to God, whether one eats meat (that was offered to idols) or not, is between him and God. It is not for anyone else to judge. This was not a passage to be used to denounce all judgment. Believers have an obligation to judge sin based on God's standard in His Word. Therefore, Paul again was not talking about actions prohibited by God's Torah, but other actions, like the eating of meat or not, that are not prohibited in the Torah.
Often, the decision on an action's appropriateness (after determining its Torah-acceptability) is based on whether or not the action could cause another to fall into actual or perceived sin. If by eating meat offered to an idol the believer caused another to then eat the same meat, thinking that that might be sinful, the believer has placed a stumbling block in front of another. Believers must take into consideration how their actions affect others. Too often, believers use their "Christian liberty" to boast about all kinds of actions that cause others trouble. They stand on their "rights." But according to Paul, believers do not have any such rights. These verses denounce this kind of behavior. Again, believers must think of their own actions in light of their affect on others!
Romans 14:10-13 (KJV)
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
So, if believers are subject to their master Yeshua, why should believers judge one another (verse 10)? Or why would believers regard their brothers with contempt? They all must stand before the judgment seat of Messiah and be held accountable for their own actions.
For it is written in Isaiah (verse 11):
Isaiah 45:23 (KJV)
23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Paul used this quote not to focus on the future day when all would come to understand that God is to be worshiped, but that all are accountable to God (verse 12). Therefore, believers are not to judge one another, but rather judge whether or not certain actions of theirs places a stumbling block in the way of another that will cause him or her to fall into sin (verse 13).
The context of these verses remains the same as in verses 1 through 9. Paul had been comparing a meat diet versus a vegetarian diet. But since each believer is accountable to God, whether one eats meat (that was offered to idols) or not, is between him and God. It is not for anyone else to judge. This was not a passage to be used to denounce all judgment. Believers have an obligation to judge sin based on God's standard in His Word. Therefore, Paul again was not talking about actions prohibited by God's Torah, but other actions, like the eating of meat or not, that are not prohibited in the Torah.
Often, the decision on an action's appropriateness (after determining its Torah-acceptability) is based on whether or not the action could cause another to fall into actual or perceived sin. If by eating meat offered to an idol the believer caused another to then eat the same meat, thinking that that might be sinful, the believer has placed a stumbling block in front of another. Believers must take into consideration how their actions affect others. Too often, believers use their "Christian liberty" to boast about all kinds of actions that cause others trouble. They stand on their "rights." But according to Paul, believers do not have any such rights. These verses denounce this kind of behavior. Again, believers must think of their own actions in light of their affect on others!
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Be Ye Holy
Have your children ever embarrassed you by something that they either said or did? Probably most parents have experienced this, although with growth and maturity, we hope that our children will come to understand what is acceptable behavior. This is a part of growing up and becoming more adult like. As parents we try to model good behavior, and our children respond by emulating what we do.
This process of growth through emulation takes place in the believers' lives as well. Yeshua is our master, our savior, and our God. If we want to grow to be like Him, we must emulate Him. Although we can look to the Gospels for His examples, we also find behavioral advice throughout God's Word.
1 Peter 1:15-16 (KJV)
15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
When Peter penned these two verses, he was talking about our emulating God. Because God is holy, his people, the believers, are to be holy also. Specifically, verse 15 talks about our being holy in our manner of conversation. This is King James' talk for being holy in our conduct. Although our thoughts do matter, it is our behavior that shows what is going on in our minds. His readers had come out of paganism and self-centered ignorant behavior that didn't please God. Instead Peter advised them to be holy as God is holy. But Peter was not the originator of this concept. He was quoting from three separate places in the Old Testament.
Leviticus 11:44 (KJV)
44 For 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 19:2 (KJV)
2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.
Leviticus 20:7 (KJV)
7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.
Although Peter was able to write about behaviors that were considered holy, he used the quotes from the Old Testament to remind his readers about the contexts of the three verses from which he quoted. God had already stated what constituted holy behavior. Let's examine what God said in Leviticus about holy behaviors.
Obviously, from Leviticus 11:44 we can see that holy actions included not defiling oneself by eating creeping things. However, the whole chapter 11 of Leviticus is about what constitutes food and what doesn't. For example, according to God, eating pork is not how believers behave in an holy manner.
Leviticus 19 is about revering one's father and mother, keeping of Sabbaths, and other laws. Apparently, holy behavior consists of reverence for parents and the observance of the seventh day Sabbath.
Leviticus 20 is about maintaining sexual purity. Again, God had already declared what behaviors were holy and what were not. Peter was simply reminding his readers.
Too often as we read the Bible, we see all the wonderful quotes that the New Testament writers have used, but we don't look back to see what God had already said regarding a matter. This has led to misunderstandings and incorrect theologies. Until we begin to follow the threads written through both New and Old Testaments we will continue to call holy behavior unholy, and unholy behavior holy. It is only through correcting this, that we will know how to emulate our master Yeshua, and not be an embarrassment to Him.
This process of growth through emulation takes place in the believers' lives as well. Yeshua is our master, our savior, and our God. If we want to grow to be like Him, we must emulate Him. Although we can look to the Gospels for His examples, we also find behavioral advice throughout God's Word.
1 Peter 1:15-16 (KJV)
15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
When Peter penned these two verses, he was talking about our emulating God. Because God is holy, his people, the believers, are to be holy also. Specifically, verse 15 talks about our being holy in our manner of conversation. This is King James' talk for being holy in our conduct. Although our thoughts do matter, it is our behavior that shows what is going on in our minds. His readers had come out of paganism and self-centered ignorant behavior that didn't please God. Instead Peter advised them to be holy as God is holy. But Peter was not the originator of this concept. He was quoting from three separate places in the Old Testament.
Leviticus 11:44 (KJV)
44 For 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 19:2 (KJV)
2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.
Leviticus 20:7 (KJV)
7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.
Although Peter was able to write about behaviors that were considered holy, he used the quotes from the Old Testament to remind his readers about the contexts of the three verses from which he quoted. God had already stated what constituted holy behavior. Let's examine what God said in Leviticus about holy behaviors.
Obviously, from Leviticus 11:44 we can see that holy actions included not defiling oneself by eating creeping things. However, the whole chapter 11 of Leviticus is about what constitutes food and what doesn't. For example, according to God, eating pork is not how believers behave in an holy manner.
Leviticus 19 is about revering one's father and mother, keeping of Sabbaths, and other laws. Apparently, holy behavior consists of reverence for parents and the observance of the seventh day Sabbath.
Leviticus 20 is about maintaining sexual purity. Again, God had already declared what behaviors were holy and what were not. Peter was simply reminding his readers.
Too often as we read the Bible, we see all the wonderful quotes that the New Testament writers have used, but we don't look back to see what God had already said regarding a matter. This has led to misunderstandings and incorrect theologies. Until we begin to follow the threads written through both New and Old Testaments we will continue to call holy behavior unholy, and unholy behavior holy. It is only through correcting this, that we will know how to emulate our master Yeshua, and not be an embarrassment to Him.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
The Meat of Idols - Part 3
Previous:
Part 1: The Jerusalem Council, in Acts 15, had determined a list of four purity related prohibitions that would allow the new Gentile believers to participate in the local body of Messiah Yeshua. One of those prohibitions was the abstaining from meats that had been offered to idols. Part 2: Paul, attempting to solve the practical problem of dealing with meats of unknown origin, advised the believers in 1 Corinthians 8 that the eating of unknown meat was perfectly acceptable, unless it would cause another believer to stumble in his or her walk with Yeshua. Today's topic comes from Romans 14.
Romans 14:2-4 (KJV)
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
Romans 14 is also dealing with the topic of meats. In verse 2 it appears that there are two kinds of believers. One believes that he may eat all things, while the other eats only herbs. Traditionally, Christianity has used this verse as an example of how the food laws have been put aside and are no longer applicable to Christians. However, just as was seen in the discussion on 1 Corinthians 8, the topic was not about meats in general, but on meats that had been offered to idols. The food laws of Leviticus 11 and 14 never command anyone to eat only herbs. The only reason that a believer would eat only herbs was to stay away from any potential meat that had been offered to idols. So, Paul was saying that one kind of believer was able to eat the meat of unknown origin without violating his or her conscience, while the other kind refrained from all meats and ate only herbs. In verse 3 Paul commanded that the two kinds of believers not judge each other. God was the only judge as seen in verse 4.
Romans 14:5 (KJV)
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
In verse 5, Paul seemed to exhort the believers to follow their own consciences regarding eating and the keeping of holy days. However, if Paul was truly advocating that each individual become a law unto himself, he would, again, be guilty of contradicting the Jerusalem Council's decision and the Torah, that states that some days were to be kept as holy days and that the eating of certain foods did matter.
Since the topic of this passage was about meats offered to idols, it is also likely that the days mentioned are not those discussed in the Torah, but are those days that the wider culture deemed special. An example might be the celebrating of one's birthday.
Romans 14:19 (KJV)
19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Romans 14:21 (KJV)
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Finally, Paul concluded that the guideline in this area of eating was the edification of fellow believers and the prohibition of becoming a stumblingblock. In many cases, it was likely that the believers did, in fact, refrain from eating meats from unknown origins just so that no one would stumble in his or her faith.
What about our own practices? Do we adhere to Paul's guideline or do we flaunt those things that we think we can do or eat? Too often, we view our way as right, and then judge and ridicule those with differing ideas. While we must adhere to God's law, those non-essentials should not be used against our fellow believers.
Part 1: The Jerusalem Council, in Acts 15, had determined a list of four purity related prohibitions that would allow the new Gentile believers to participate in the local body of Messiah Yeshua. One of those prohibitions was the abstaining from meats that had been offered to idols. Part 2: Paul, attempting to solve the practical problem of dealing with meats of unknown origin, advised the believers in 1 Corinthians 8 that the eating of unknown meat was perfectly acceptable, unless it would cause another believer to stumble in his or her walk with Yeshua. Today's topic comes from Romans 14.
Romans 14:2-4 (KJV)
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
Romans 14 is also dealing with the topic of meats. In verse 2 it appears that there are two kinds of believers. One believes that he may eat all things, while the other eats only herbs. Traditionally, Christianity has used this verse as an example of how the food laws have been put aside and are no longer applicable to Christians. However, just as was seen in the discussion on 1 Corinthians 8, the topic was not about meats in general, but on meats that had been offered to idols. The food laws of Leviticus 11 and 14 never command anyone to eat only herbs. The only reason that a believer would eat only herbs was to stay away from any potential meat that had been offered to idols. So, Paul was saying that one kind of believer was able to eat the meat of unknown origin without violating his or her conscience, while the other kind refrained from all meats and ate only herbs. In verse 3 Paul commanded that the two kinds of believers not judge each other. God was the only judge as seen in verse 4.
Romans 14:5 (KJV)
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
In verse 5, Paul seemed to exhort the believers to follow their own consciences regarding eating and the keeping of holy days. However, if Paul was truly advocating that each individual become a law unto himself, he would, again, be guilty of contradicting the Jerusalem Council's decision and the Torah, that states that some days were to be kept as holy days and that the eating of certain foods did matter.
Since the topic of this passage was about meats offered to idols, it is also likely that the days mentioned are not those discussed in the Torah, but are those days that the wider culture deemed special. An example might be the celebrating of one's birthday.
Romans 14:19 (KJV)
19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
Romans 14:21 (KJV)
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Finally, Paul concluded that the guideline in this area of eating was the edification of fellow believers and the prohibition of becoming a stumblingblock. In many cases, it was likely that the believers did, in fact, refrain from eating meats from unknown origins just so that no one would stumble in his or her faith.
What about our own practices? Do we adhere to Paul's guideline or do we flaunt those things that we think we can do or eat? Too often, we view our way as right, and then judge and ridicule those with differing ideas. While we must adhere to God's law, those non-essentials should not be used against our fellow believers.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
The Meat of Idols - Part 2
Previous:
From Acts 15 we learned that the Jerusalem Council had instructed the new Gentile believers to abstain from meats offered to idols. Yet, in 1 Corinthians, Paul seems to have contradicted the Council's ruling.
1 Corinthians 8:1-8 (KJV)
1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
Verse 1 set up Paul's argument. The topic of discussion is the eating of meats that had been offered unto idols. Paul then made a curous statement about knowledge and continued his line of thought through to verse 4, where he revealed that an idol, as a representation of a god, is really nothing. Paul based this on the fact that there is only one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If the gods don't really exist, then idols are nothing, since they represent something that doesn't exist. This understanding is the knowledge that Paul was referring to in verses 1 through 3.
To clarify, Paul was saying that everyone has knowledge of some kind. Basically, the Gentile believers knew that there were no other gods, beside God. Although this was a correct understanding, knowledge sometimes can cause arrogance and Paul felt that this knowledge about the gods could have this effect. On the other hand, charity or love can build up others. Verses 5 and 6 continue Paul's thought on the gods versus the one true God.
In verse 7 Paul recognized that knowledge exists on a spectrum. While the believers may have had a head knowledge regarding the non-existence of these pagan gods, some were not able to fully understand in their hearts. Their consciences would have convicted them if they ate any meat offered to an idol. Paul stated that these people had a weak or defiled conscience.
Finally, in verse 8 Paul clearly says that it doesn't matter what we eat.
Based on the words that Paul wrote, he was guilty of going against what the Jerusalem Council commanded, as well, as being guilty of going against the food laws in the Torah, where God said that what was eaten did matter!
However, remember that Peter had said that Paul's writings were difficult to understand. (See previous post.).
Paul was not a rogue apostle. There must be something else going on, or Paul should have been dismissed as a valid writer of Scripture. What is missing is that the concern was not really over meat that had been obviously offered to idols, since that was prohibited food according to the Jerusalem Council. Rather, the concern was over meat that had an unknown origin. Often meat that had been offered to idols was later put on sale in the marketplace. The purchaser wouldn't necessarily know the history of the meat. Also, when meat was served at someone's home, an invited guest wouldn't know where the meat came from. Many Gentile believers would be able to go ahead and eat the meat because they knew ultimately that even if it had been offered to an idol in the past, the idol and the god meant nothing. But not all believers were able to do that.
Paul's advice was as follows:
1 Corinthians 8:9-13 (KJV)
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
The believers with more complete knowledge of the status of the gods were not to be stumblingblocks to those with lesser understanding (verse 9). If the weaker believer saw the stronger believer eat meat that the weaker thought had been offered to idols, would that embolden the weaker to violate his conscience and then be guilty of sin against Messiah (verses 10-12)? Paul concluded that if he would offend any brother by his eating, he would eat no meat. This is the charity that Paul referred to in verse 1.
This passage is about eating meat of unknown origins, it is not about ending the prohibition against eating meat offered to idols as commanded by the Jerusalem Council, nor is it about ending any of the food laws of Leviticus 11 and 14. It was about applying the rules in a real-life situation. This is definitely a case of where reading between the lines is essential.
Next:
From Acts 15 we learned that the Jerusalem Council had instructed the new Gentile believers to abstain from meats offered to idols. Yet, in 1 Corinthians, Paul seems to have contradicted the Council's ruling.
1 Corinthians 8:1-8 (KJV)
1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
Verse 1 set up Paul's argument. The topic of discussion is the eating of meats that had been offered unto idols. Paul then made a curous statement about knowledge and continued his line of thought through to verse 4, where he revealed that an idol, as a representation of a god, is really nothing. Paul based this on the fact that there is only one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If the gods don't really exist, then idols are nothing, since they represent something that doesn't exist. This understanding is the knowledge that Paul was referring to in verses 1 through 3.
To clarify, Paul was saying that everyone has knowledge of some kind. Basically, the Gentile believers knew that there were no other gods, beside God. Although this was a correct understanding, knowledge sometimes can cause arrogance and Paul felt that this knowledge about the gods could have this effect. On the other hand, charity or love can build up others. Verses 5 and 6 continue Paul's thought on the gods versus the one true God.
In verse 7 Paul recognized that knowledge exists on a spectrum. While the believers may have had a head knowledge regarding the non-existence of these pagan gods, some were not able to fully understand in their hearts. Their consciences would have convicted them if they ate any meat offered to an idol. Paul stated that these people had a weak or defiled conscience.
Finally, in verse 8 Paul clearly says that it doesn't matter what we eat.
Based on the words that Paul wrote, he was guilty of going against what the Jerusalem Council commanded, as well, as being guilty of going against the food laws in the Torah, where God said that what was eaten did matter!
However, remember that Peter had said that Paul's writings were difficult to understand. (See previous post.).
Paul was not a rogue apostle. There must be something else going on, or Paul should have been dismissed as a valid writer of Scripture. What is missing is that the concern was not really over meat that had been obviously offered to idols, since that was prohibited food according to the Jerusalem Council. Rather, the concern was over meat that had an unknown origin. Often meat that had been offered to idols was later put on sale in the marketplace. The purchaser wouldn't necessarily know the history of the meat. Also, when meat was served at someone's home, an invited guest wouldn't know where the meat came from. Many Gentile believers would be able to go ahead and eat the meat because they knew ultimately that even if it had been offered to an idol in the past, the idol and the god meant nothing. But not all believers were able to do that.
Paul's advice was as follows:
1 Corinthians 8:9-13 (KJV)
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
The believers with more complete knowledge of the status of the gods were not to be stumblingblocks to those with lesser understanding (verse 9). If the weaker believer saw the stronger believer eat meat that the weaker thought had been offered to idols, would that embolden the weaker to violate his conscience and then be guilty of sin against Messiah (verses 10-12)? Paul concluded that if he would offend any brother by his eating, he would eat no meat. This is the charity that Paul referred to in verse 1.
This passage is about eating meat of unknown origins, it is not about ending the prohibition against eating meat offered to idols as commanded by the Jerusalem Council, nor is it about ending any of the food laws of Leviticus 11 and 14. It was about applying the rules in a real-life situation. This is definitely a case of where reading between the lines is essential.
Next:
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Being Told to Abstain From Certain Foods
Christian behavior should be characterized by obedience to the Word of God. This seems to be a given. Unfortunately, our world is complex and obedience can be dependent on many different factors. Too often, we analyze situations to the point that we rationalize why we don't have to obey. This is what often caused the Pharisees to violate the higher laws in favor of keeping secondary laws.
In today's Christianity we also have a similar problem, in that, we have a history of tradition and religion that we have bought hook, line, and sinker. It is time to view that tradition and the Word of God from a different perspective.
We're going to look today at another passage in Scripture that has been interpreted in a way that allows Christians to be disobedient to the Word of God. It comes from 1 Timothy 4.
1Timothy 4:1-5
1. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
In verse 1 we notice that this passage concerns the latter times. While we often associate the "latter times" with those things that will occur at the very end of time, the "latter times" in a way began in the first century. It is speaking about the fact that as time goes on more and more will fall away from the faith. This is what we see in our world today. Many so-called Christian churches are falling under the influence of seducing spirits and the doctrines of devils.
One of the admonitions resulting from listening to seducing spirits is the command to abstain from meats. Most of Christianity has believed that this proves that Christians can now eat anything they want, that the forbidding of eating meats comes from a seducing spirit. I believe this is a misinterpretation. If one understands that the Bible is one book and not two, and that the New Testament cannot contradict the Torah, there must be a better explanation.
This is what I believe 1 Timothy is trying to tell us, that in the latter days new/old religions are going to come along and espouse the abstinence of meats (and other foods) that God created for us to eat. For example, think about how the New Age movement has influenced the idea that vegetarianism is the most healthful lifestyle. But according to 1 Timothy this not an essential way of eating. It is this type of command that 1 Timothy is warning us against. It has nothing to do with the non-food items that God placed off limits to us in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Pigs are not food (meat) and are not the topic of 1 Timothy.
Verse 5 also tells us that the meat forbidden by these seducing spirits is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer. The unclean meats listed in the Word of God can never become sanctified by the Word of God and prayer. This is contradictory and God does not contradict Himself.
If we want to be obedient to the Word of God we must obey all of it! Let's not buy into the misinterpretations that have allowed disobedience to characterize the majority of Christianity.
In today's Christianity we also have a similar problem, in that, we have a history of tradition and religion that we have bought hook, line, and sinker. It is time to view that tradition and the Word of God from a different perspective.
We're going to look today at another passage in Scripture that has been interpreted in a way that allows Christians to be disobedient to the Word of God. It comes from 1 Timothy 4.
1Timothy 4:1-5
1. Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5. For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
In verse 1 we notice that this passage concerns the latter times. While we often associate the "latter times" with those things that will occur at the very end of time, the "latter times" in a way began in the first century. It is speaking about the fact that as time goes on more and more will fall away from the faith. This is what we see in our world today. Many so-called Christian churches are falling under the influence of seducing spirits and the doctrines of devils.
One of the admonitions resulting from listening to seducing spirits is the command to abstain from meats. Most of Christianity has believed that this proves that Christians can now eat anything they want, that the forbidding of eating meats comes from a seducing spirit. I believe this is a misinterpretation. If one understands that the Bible is one book and not two, and that the New Testament cannot contradict the Torah, there must be a better explanation.
This is what I believe 1 Timothy is trying to tell us, that in the latter days new/old religions are going to come along and espouse the abstinence of meats (and other foods) that God created for us to eat. For example, think about how the New Age movement has influenced the idea that vegetarianism is the most healthful lifestyle. But according to 1 Timothy this not an essential way of eating. It is this type of command that 1 Timothy is warning us against. It has nothing to do with the non-food items that God placed off limits to us in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Pigs are not food (meat) and are not the topic of 1 Timothy.
Verse 5 also tells us that the meat forbidden by these seducing spirits is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer. The unclean meats listed in the Word of God can never become sanctified by the Word of God and prayer. This is contradictory and God does not contradict Himself.
If we want to be obedient to the Word of God we must obey all of it! Let's not buy into the misinterpretations that have allowed disobedience to characterize the majority of Christianity.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Peter's Acts 10 Vision
The proof that the food laws of the Old Testament have been done away with, is found in the tenth chapter of Acts. At least, that's what the vast majority of Christianity believes. But is this truly the case? We are going to examine this issue today and I just ask that my readers have an open mind, set all assumptions aside for the moment, and go with me on this journey.
Acts 10:1-8 (KJV)
1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:
6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.
7 And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;
8 And when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.
Chapter 10 begins by introducing a man by the name of Cornelius. He was a centurion in the Roman army and lived in Caesarea. According to verse 2 he was a God-fearer that gave alms to the people and prayed to God. A God-fearer was an individual that followed the God of the Jews, but had not gone through ritual conversion. Since ritual conversion for men included circumcision, many more women actually converted than men. I can understand this! It also makes mention that all his household apparently were of like mind.
At the ninth hour of the day (3:00 p.m.) Cornelius had a vision. Why was the time mentioned? At the ninth hour of the day all the Jews were engaged in prayer. This speaks of Cornelius' devotion to Judaism. In the vision an angel appeared to Cornelius. God had noted Cornelius's prayers and alms. The angel then gave Cornelius some instructions. He was to send to Joppa for Simon Peter, who was lodging with Simon the tanner at the sea side. Peter would give him further instructions.
When the angel left, Cornelius sent two servants and a soldier to Joppa.
Acts 10:9-16 (KJV)
9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Meanwhile, as the party neared the city of Joppa, Peter had gone up onto the housetop to pray. Again, the time is mentioned. It was the sixth hour (noon). Not surprisingly, he became very hungry, but apparently, the food was not quite ready. He fell into a trance and saw a vision. Heaven opened up and a sheet like vessel descended down to him. In the sheet were all kinds of animals. A voice told Peter to "Rise, kill, and eat." But Peter's response was a refusal. He went on to say that he had never eaten anything that was common or unclean. Peter was basically saying that he had always followed the food laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. The voice spoke a second time telling Peter that what God had cleansed, Peter was not to call common. The voice commanded again and then the vessel went back into heaven.
Acts 10:17-23 (KJV)
17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.
21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?
22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
According to verse 17 Peter was confused about what the vision meant. As he was thinking this, the men from Caesarea arrived. They asked for Peter. Again in verse 19 Peter was still thinking about the vision, but the Spirit told him that three men were at the door seeking him. Peter was to go with the men doubting nothing, because God had sent them.
Peter went down to the men and asked what they wanted. They explained and then Peter brought the men into the house and lodged them. (Whoa! Wasn't it considered unlawful for Peter to do this?) On the next day Peter actually went with the men back to Caesarea with some of the brethren from Joppa. (Whoa, again! Even though Peter had been instructed by God to go with these men, wasn't that unlawful?)
According to the written Word of God there is no law that prevented Peter from lodging the Gentile men or from traveling with them. It was only in Jewish tradition where this was found as an unacceptable practice.
Acts 10:24-29 (KJV)
24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.
28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
Back in Caesarea Cornelius had gathered his kinsmen and close friends together to wait for Peter's arrival. When Peter entered, Cornelius fell down and worshiped him. Peter wouldn't allow this. He mentioned the fact that it was unlawful (but only according to Jewish tradition) for Peter, a Jew, to come into the house of a Gentile. He clearly stated that God had told him not to call any man common or unclean. So Peter had traveled with the men and he then asked what Cornelius had wanted.
This is the first time that Peter stated his understanding of the vision. It is about not calling any man common or unclean. Three Gentile men stood at the door. God gave Peter the vision that allowed Peter to change his thinking so that he would go with the men. This is the beginning of the Jews understanding that the Gospel message was not exclusively for the Jews, but also for the Gentiles. If Peter had not had the vision he would never have gone to see Cornelius. God had to intervene to make it happen.
Verses 30-33 explain Cornelius' experience and how he came to invite Peter to his house. Everyone gathered wanted to hear Peter speak.
Acts 10:34-35 (KJV)
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
As Peter began to speak he again stated the meaning of the vision. God is no respecter of persons. He accepts anyone who fears Him and works righteousness. Peter then went on give the Gospel message in verses 36-43.
Acts 10:44-48 (KJV)
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
While Peter was speaking the Holy Ghost fell on the people in Cornelius' house. The Jews that Peter had brought with him were astonished because the Gentiles were receiving the Holy Ghost just as the Jewish believers had. They even spoke in tongues and magnified God. In verse 47 Peter offered them baptism. They were baptized in verse 48 and then Peter tarried in Caesarea for certain days.
Acts 11:1-3 (KJV)
1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
When the apostles and brethren in Judea heard about the incident they confronted Peter. Their concern was that Peter had gone into a Gentile's home and had eaten with Gentiles.
Since Cornelius was a God-fearer and observed Judaism, the food was not likely to be a problem. He undoubtedly followed the food laws himself. From the Jerusalem elders' own words it is evident that the problem was not what Peter was eating, but rather the simple fact that Peter had gone to be with Gentiles.
Verses 4-16 repeat Peter's experience at Cornelius' house.
Acts 11:17-18 (KJV)
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
In verse 17 Peter ended his speech. In verse 18 the elders said nothing further and they glorified God and concluded that God had granted repentance unto eternal life to the Gentiles just as He had the Jews.
If the abolition of the food laws was the point in this whole account doesn't it seem strange that it is never mentioned? That would have been just as important to the Jerusalem apostles and brethren as the Gentile inclusion issue. But even as the elders were confronting Peter, nothing is said. The absence of evidence is overwhelming. Yet, we hear over and over again about how Peter's vision was about the accepting of Gentiles into the kingdom of God. Why read something else into this narrative when it is so plainly described?
It is my belief that Christianity has accepted this proof not so much because of Scriptural evidence, but because of our own traditions and assumptions. Close reading of the passage reveals its true meaning. Isn't it possible that the Christianity we've been handed could be mistaken on this point?
Acts 10:1-8 (KJV)
1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:
6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.
7 And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;
8 And when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.
Chapter 10 begins by introducing a man by the name of Cornelius. He was a centurion in the Roman army and lived in Caesarea. According to verse 2 he was a God-fearer that gave alms to the people and prayed to God. A God-fearer was an individual that followed the God of the Jews, but had not gone through ritual conversion. Since ritual conversion for men included circumcision, many more women actually converted than men. I can understand this! It also makes mention that all his household apparently were of like mind.
At the ninth hour of the day (3:00 p.m.) Cornelius had a vision. Why was the time mentioned? At the ninth hour of the day all the Jews were engaged in prayer. This speaks of Cornelius' devotion to Judaism. In the vision an angel appeared to Cornelius. God had noted Cornelius's prayers and alms. The angel then gave Cornelius some instructions. He was to send to Joppa for Simon Peter, who was lodging with Simon the tanner at the sea side. Peter would give him further instructions.
When the angel left, Cornelius sent two servants and a soldier to Joppa.
Acts 10:9-16 (KJV)
9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
Meanwhile, as the party neared the city of Joppa, Peter had gone up onto the housetop to pray. Again, the time is mentioned. It was the sixth hour (noon). Not surprisingly, he became very hungry, but apparently, the food was not quite ready. He fell into a trance and saw a vision. Heaven opened up and a sheet like vessel descended down to him. In the sheet were all kinds of animals. A voice told Peter to "Rise, kill, and eat." But Peter's response was a refusal. He went on to say that he had never eaten anything that was common or unclean. Peter was basically saying that he had always followed the food laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. The voice spoke a second time telling Peter that what God had cleansed, Peter was not to call common. The voice commanded again and then the vessel went back into heaven.
Acts 10:17-23 (KJV)
17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,
18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.
21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?
22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
According to verse 17 Peter was confused about what the vision meant. As he was thinking this, the men from Caesarea arrived. They asked for Peter. Again in verse 19 Peter was still thinking about the vision, but the Spirit told him that three men were at the door seeking him. Peter was to go with the men doubting nothing, because God had sent them.
Peter went down to the men and asked what they wanted. They explained and then Peter brought the men into the house and lodged them. (Whoa! Wasn't it considered unlawful for Peter to do this?) On the next day Peter actually went with the men back to Caesarea with some of the brethren from Joppa. (Whoa, again! Even though Peter had been instructed by God to go with these men, wasn't that unlawful?)
According to the written Word of God there is no law that prevented Peter from lodging the Gentile men or from traveling with them. It was only in Jewish tradition where this was found as an unacceptable practice.
Acts 10:24-29 (KJV)
24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.
28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
Back in Caesarea Cornelius had gathered his kinsmen and close friends together to wait for Peter's arrival. When Peter entered, Cornelius fell down and worshiped him. Peter wouldn't allow this. He mentioned the fact that it was unlawful (but only according to Jewish tradition) for Peter, a Jew, to come into the house of a Gentile. He clearly stated that God had told him not to call any man common or unclean. So Peter had traveled with the men and he then asked what Cornelius had wanted.
This is the first time that Peter stated his understanding of the vision. It is about not calling any man common or unclean. Three Gentile men stood at the door. God gave Peter the vision that allowed Peter to change his thinking so that he would go with the men. This is the beginning of the Jews understanding that the Gospel message was not exclusively for the Jews, but also for the Gentiles. If Peter had not had the vision he would never have gone to see Cornelius. God had to intervene to make it happen.
Verses 30-33 explain Cornelius' experience and how he came to invite Peter to his house. Everyone gathered wanted to hear Peter speak.
Acts 10:34-35 (KJV)
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
As Peter began to speak he again stated the meaning of the vision. God is no respecter of persons. He accepts anyone who fears Him and works righteousness. Peter then went on give the Gospel message in verses 36-43.
Acts 10:44-48 (KJV)
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
While Peter was speaking the Holy Ghost fell on the people in Cornelius' house. The Jews that Peter had brought with him were astonished because the Gentiles were receiving the Holy Ghost just as the Jewish believers had. They even spoke in tongues and magnified God. In verse 47 Peter offered them baptism. They were baptized in verse 48 and then Peter tarried in Caesarea for certain days.
Acts 11:1-3 (KJV)
1 And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
When the apostles and brethren in Judea heard about the incident they confronted Peter. Their concern was that Peter had gone into a Gentile's home and had eaten with Gentiles.
Since Cornelius was a God-fearer and observed Judaism, the food was not likely to be a problem. He undoubtedly followed the food laws himself. From the Jerusalem elders' own words it is evident that the problem was not what Peter was eating, but rather the simple fact that Peter had gone to be with Gentiles.
Verses 4-16 repeat Peter's experience at Cornelius' house.
Acts 11:17-18 (KJV)
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
In verse 17 Peter ended his speech. In verse 18 the elders said nothing further and they glorified God and concluded that God had granted repentance unto eternal life to the Gentiles just as He had the Jews.
If the abolition of the food laws was the point in this whole account doesn't it seem strange that it is never mentioned? That would have been just as important to the Jerusalem apostles and brethren as the Gentile inclusion issue. But even as the elders were confronting Peter, nothing is said. The absence of evidence is overwhelming. Yet, we hear over and over again about how Peter's vision was about the accepting of Gentiles into the kingdom of God. Why read something else into this narrative when it is so plainly described?
It is my belief that Christianity has accepted this proof not so much because of Scriptural evidence, but because of our own traditions and assumptions. Close reading of the passage reveals its true meaning. Isn't it possible that the Christianity we've been handed could be mistaken on this point?
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Can an Abomination Be Anything Else?
As I was reading Scripture this morning I began thinking about the choice of words used in the King James Bible. One of those good old "King James" words is "abomination". It is colorful! It even sounds like something bad! But it just isn't a word that is used much today. From Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, "abomination" means:
ABOMINA'TION, n.
1. Extreme hatred; detestation. 2. The object of detestation, a common signification in scripture. The way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. Prov.xv. 3.
Hence, defilement, pollution, in a physical sense, or evil doctrines
and practices, which are moral defilements, idols and idolatry, are
called abominations. The Jews were an abomination to the Egyptians; and
the sacred animals of the Egyptians were an abomination to the Jews.
The Roman army is called the abomination of desolation. Mat. 24:13. In
short, whatever is an object of extreme hatred, is called an
abomination.
"Extreme hatred" does sum it up pretty well. While human beings can have abominations, as shown above, Scripture usually uses the word in describing those things that God really, really hates. Doing a study of those things that God hates could be quite an eye opening experience. Do believers really want to know? I found the following list in the book of Proverbs.
Proverbs 6:16-19 (KJV)
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
This is a good representation of many of the things that God finds detestable or abominable. Pride, lying, murder, wicked imaginations, doing evil, being a false witness, and sowing discord make up this list. But these things are easy for the believer to understand. These are obviously wrong and sinful. Likewise, the believer knows that God will always find these things abominable. Sin will always be sin. There should be agreement that what God has called an abomination can never be anything but an abomination. This is a logical and reasonable statement based on the fact the God never changes.
Hebrews 13:8 (KJV)
8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
But what about some of the other things that God has said are abominations?
Leviticus 11:10 (KJV)
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
Leviticus 11:13 (KJV)
13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
Leviticus 11:23 (KJV)
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Leviticus 11:43 (KJV)
43 Ye 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.
Deuteronomy 14:3 (KJV)
3 Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
All of these verses refer to commands that God had given to His people regarding food. He calls them abominations. Christians traditionally believe that Yeshua's death and resurrection changed the status of these so-called foods, that now believers can eat them. But how does God change something He hates into something that He doesn't hate?
Isaiah 65:2-4 (KJV)
2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;
3 A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;
4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
In this passage God is speaking. In verse 2 He calls the people rebellious. He says they walk in a way that is not good. Verses 3 and 4 list those things that they do that provoke God to anger. One of the ways is by eating swine's flesh.
Isaiah 66:3 (KJV)
3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
The abominations listed here are slaying a man, cutting off a dog's neck, blessing an idol, and offering swine's blood. Again, the Lord says that they have chosen their own way and their soul delights in their abominations.
This is difficult for most Christians to understand. The prohibition of eating ham, shrimp, and other things doesn't make much sense. But if God has said that eating certain things are abominable to Him we need to understand it and obey. He will never change and He will never call it anything but an abomination. If believers want to be pleasing to God we need to look beyond traditions and Scripture interpretation that undermines the truth of God's Word and follow what it truly says.
ABOMINA'TION, n.
"Extreme hatred" does sum it up pretty well. While human beings can have abominations, as shown above, Scripture usually uses the word in describing those things that God really, really hates. Doing a study of those things that God hates could be quite an eye opening experience. Do believers really want to know? I found the following list in the book of Proverbs.
Proverbs 6:16-19 (KJV)
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
This is a good representation of many of the things that God finds detestable or abominable. Pride, lying, murder, wicked imaginations, doing evil, being a false witness, and sowing discord make up this list. But these things are easy for the believer to understand. These are obviously wrong and sinful. Likewise, the believer knows that God will always find these things abominable. Sin will always be sin. There should be agreement that what God has called an abomination can never be anything but an abomination. This is a logical and reasonable statement based on the fact the God never changes.
Hebrews 13:8 (KJV)
8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
But what about some of the other things that God has said are abominations?
Leviticus 11:10 (KJV)
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
Leviticus 11:13 (KJV)
13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
Leviticus 11:23 (KJV)
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Leviticus 11:43 (KJV)
43 Ye 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.
Deuteronomy 14:3 (KJV)
3 Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
All of these verses refer to commands that God had given to His people regarding food. He calls them abominations. Christians traditionally believe that Yeshua's death and resurrection changed the status of these so-called foods, that now believers can eat them. But how does God change something He hates into something that He doesn't hate?
Isaiah 65:2-4 (KJV)
2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;
3 A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;
4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;
In this passage God is speaking. In verse 2 He calls the people rebellious. He says they walk in a way that is not good. Verses 3 and 4 list those things that they do that provoke God to anger. One of the ways is by eating swine's flesh.
Isaiah 66:3 (KJV)
3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
The abominations listed here are slaying a man, cutting off a dog's neck, blessing an idol, and offering swine's blood. Again, the Lord says that they have chosen their own way and their soul delights in their abominations.
This is difficult for most Christians to understand. The prohibition of eating ham, shrimp, and other things doesn't make much sense. But if God has said that eating certain things are abominable to Him we need to understand it and obey. He will never change and He will never call it anything but an abomination. If believers want to be pleasing to God we need to look beyond traditions and Scripture interpretation that undermines the truth of God's Word and follow what it truly says.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
The Impossible Proof of Mark Chaper 7
The vast majority of Christianity believes that the food laws of Leviticus 11 are no longer applicable. One of the Scripture passages used to support this position comes from Mark 7, a passage where Yeshua himself seems to declare that all foods are clean. But is this the case? And if this is the case, doesn't this cause a theological problem?
Mark 7:1-9 (KJV)
1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
This passage is an example of one of the many times where the religious leaders came to Yeshua in an attempt to discredit Him by convincing the people that He was a false prophet that taught contrary to The Law. In this particular case Pharisees (representatives of a strict sect of Judaism) and scribes (copyists, editors, or teachers of authority that came to be called lawyers) came to Yeshua from Jerusalem. That they came from Jerusalem is a pertinent point in that customs and traditions varied in the differing areas of the country. People from Jerusalem were considered to be the "high society" of the nation whereas those from Galilee were considered "hicks". Verse 2 relates that the problem these men had with Yeshua had to do with the fact that some of the disciples ate bread with unwashed hands.
The fault finders go on to say that the Pharisees and ALL the Jews washed their hands before eating because this was a tradition of the elders.This statement is not totally accurate. Not all Jews held to this tradition. The Jews in Galilee were much less likely to wash their hands than the Jews in Jerusalem (http://www.cameronfreeman.com/index.cfm?Fuseaction=ArticleDisplay&ArticleID=354&SectionID=93). However, the statement is true in that the practice of washing hands before eating is a tradition. There is no law regarding this in The Torah.
In verse 4 these fault finders explain that Jews coming from the market would wash their hands before eating. Again, this hand washing is not proscribed in the Bible, but is influenced by Leviticus 11:32-38 where it describes how inanimate objects can become "unclean." Some Jews believed that by being in the market it was possible to pick up some "uncleanness" that needed to be washed away, just like when a carcase fell on a cup or pot that would have to be washed to be made "clean."
It is also important to note that the disciples were eating bread, a kosher food. This will come to play as this discussion continues.
The answer Yeshua gave to the religious leaders begins in verse 6. He called his opponents "hypocrites" because they gave God lip service, but their hearts were far from God. He further explained that these religious leaders were teaching tradition as if it were The Law of God, and in many cases they then violated The Law in order to fulfill their man-made traditions (verses 7-9).
In verses 10-13 Yeshua gave an example of how the religious leaders were setting aside The Law of God by their traditions and thereby making "The Word of God of none effect."
Mark 7:14-15 (KJV)
14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
Mark 7:21-23 (KJV) 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
In verse 14 Yeshua began to teach the people. The Pharisees complained that without washing their hands, the disciples could have become "unclean" by eating something that was "unclean". Since they were eating bread, which is kosher, they weren't talking about some "unclean" food entering into the disciples' bodies. Rather the concern was that they picked up something "unclean" on their hands. While washing their hands might be a good tradition it was not The Law and shouldn't have been treated as such. Yeshua brought the people's attention away from what the Pharisees were stressing and began talking about the weightier things of The Law that come from within a man that truly defile (verses 21-23).
Verse 19 could be considered as a summary of Yeshua's teaching.
Mark 7:19 (KJV)
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
This verse says that food taken into the body, after removing all the nutrients, leaves the body as waste. (The word translated "meat" means food in general, not meat specifically.) Then the end of Mark 7:19 says that this process "purges all meats." Traditional Christianity has determined that "purging" means to "purify" or "make clean". While these are acceptable meanings of "purge", it cannot mean that in this verse.
Deuteronomy 23:12-14 (KJV)
12 Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad:
13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:
14 For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.
This passage from Deuteronomy makes it clear that excrement was viewed as "unclean". So could this normal bodily function that is viewed as "unclean" somehow make something that had been eaten "clean"? Obviously, not. Therefore, the meaning of "purge" cannot mean "make clean". Rather, the meaning of "purge" that is most logical is "to remove". Yeshua's point here was that an unclean particle picked up by eating goes into the body and then is removed from the body and can no longer defile, unlike the wicked heart conditions listed that stay in the body and continue to defile. Remember, that non-kosher food was not the concern here, but rather the "uncleanness" that was picked up on the hands.
This passage, therefore, cannot be used to prove that the food laws are no longer applicable. However, other translations than KJV actually exacerbate the misunderstanding.
Mark 7:19 (NIV)
19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
In the NIV, as an example, there is an extra comment made at the end of this verse. This is the comment that really seals the idea in readers' minds that this passage was about Yeshua making all foods clean. This is in contradiction to the rest of the passage and is not in all versions of Scripture. In The English Aramaic New Testament Andrew Roth states that none of the earliest Greek or Aramaic manuscripts contain this last phrase (Netzari Press LLC. 2008. Mark 7:19 footnote #27, p 108). The inserted comment must be an alteration of the text and the NIV and other versions should not have included this in their translations.
Some reading this blog will still insist that this passage is teaching that all foods are now clean. Unfortunately, that creates a problem. Yeshua had to have obeyed the whole Law in order for Him to be an acceptable sacrifice for sin. Obviously, He never ate anything that wasn't kosher. Yet, according to traditional Christianity He declared all foods clean even before He had died on the cross. If it was Yeshua's death and resurrection that "changed" The Law, it couldn't have been changed before His death. If Yeshua so declared it, He was then in violation of the Law and again could not have then saved anyone from sin. It comes back to the fact that "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean" must be a spurious addition to the text and should be disregarded. This passage should no longer be used as a proof text regarding the abolition of the food laws.
Mark 7:1-9 (KJV)
1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
This passage is an example of one of the many times where the religious leaders came to Yeshua in an attempt to discredit Him by convincing the people that He was a false prophet that taught contrary to The Law. In this particular case Pharisees (representatives of a strict sect of Judaism) and scribes (copyists, editors, or teachers of authority that came to be called lawyers) came to Yeshua from Jerusalem. That they came from Jerusalem is a pertinent point in that customs and traditions varied in the differing areas of the country. People from Jerusalem were considered to be the "high society" of the nation whereas those from Galilee were considered "hicks". Verse 2 relates that the problem these men had with Yeshua had to do with the fact that some of the disciples ate bread with unwashed hands.
The fault finders go on to say that the Pharisees and ALL the Jews washed their hands before eating because this was a tradition of the elders.This statement is not totally accurate. Not all Jews held to this tradition. The Jews in Galilee were much less likely to wash their hands than the Jews in Jerusalem (http://www.cameronfreeman.com/index.cfm?Fuseaction=ArticleDisplay&ArticleID=354&SectionID=93). However, the statement is true in that the practice of washing hands before eating is a tradition. There is no law regarding this in The Torah.
In verse 4 these fault finders explain that Jews coming from the market would wash their hands before eating. Again, this hand washing is not proscribed in the Bible, but is influenced by Leviticus 11:32-38 where it describes how inanimate objects can become "unclean." Some Jews believed that by being in the market it was possible to pick up some "uncleanness" that needed to be washed away, just like when a carcase fell on a cup or pot that would have to be washed to be made "clean."
It is also important to note that the disciples were eating bread, a kosher food. This will come to play as this discussion continues.
The answer Yeshua gave to the religious leaders begins in verse 6. He called his opponents "hypocrites" because they gave God lip service, but their hearts were far from God. He further explained that these religious leaders were teaching tradition as if it were The Law of God, and in many cases they then violated The Law in order to fulfill their man-made traditions (verses 7-9).
In verses 10-13 Yeshua gave an example of how the religious leaders were setting aside The Law of God by their traditions and thereby making "The Word of God of none effect."
Mark 7:14-15 (KJV)
14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
Mark 7:21-23 (KJV) 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
In verse 14 Yeshua began to teach the people. The Pharisees complained that without washing their hands, the disciples could have become "unclean" by eating something that was "unclean". Since they were eating bread, which is kosher, they weren't talking about some "unclean" food entering into the disciples' bodies. Rather the concern was that they picked up something "unclean" on their hands. While washing their hands might be a good tradition it was not The Law and shouldn't have been treated as such. Yeshua brought the people's attention away from what the Pharisees were stressing and began talking about the weightier things of The Law that come from within a man that truly defile (verses 21-23).
Verse 19 could be considered as a summary of Yeshua's teaching.
Mark 7:19 (KJV)
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
This verse says that food taken into the body, after removing all the nutrients, leaves the body as waste. (The word translated "meat" means food in general, not meat specifically.) Then the end of Mark 7:19 says that this process "purges all meats." Traditional Christianity has determined that "purging" means to "purify" or "make clean". While these are acceptable meanings of "purge", it cannot mean that in this verse.
Deuteronomy 23:12-14 (KJV)
12 Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad:
13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:
14 For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in thee, and turn away from thee.
This passage from Deuteronomy makes it clear that excrement was viewed as "unclean". So could this normal bodily function that is viewed as "unclean" somehow make something that had been eaten "clean"? Obviously, not. Therefore, the meaning of "purge" cannot mean "make clean". Rather, the meaning of "purge" that is most logical is "to remove". Yeshua's point here was that an unclean particle picked up by eating goes into the body and then is removed from the body and can no longer defile, unlike the wicked heart conditions listed that stay in the body and continue to defile. Remember, that non-kosher food was not the concern here, but rather the "uncleanness" that was picked up on the hands.
This passage, therefore, cannot be used to prove that the food laws are no longer applicable. However, other translations than KJV actually exacerbate the misunderstanding.
Mark 7:19 (NIV)
19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
In the NIV, as an example, there is an extra comment made at the end of this verse. This is the comment that really seals the idea in readers' minds that this passage was about Yeshua making all foods clean. This is in contradiction to the rest of the passage and is not in all versions of Scripture. In The English Aramaic New Testament Andrew Roth states that none of the earliest Greek or Aramaic manuscripts contain this last phrase (Netzari Press LLC. 2008. Mark 7:19 footnote #27, p 108). The inserted comment must be an alteration of the text and the NIV and other versions should not have included this in their translations.
Some reading this blog will still insist that this passage is teaching that all foods are now clean. Unfortunately, that creates a problem. Yeshua had to have obeyed the whole Law in order for Him to be an acceptable sacrifice for sin. Obviously, He never ate anything that wasn't kosher. Yet, according to traditional Christianity He declared all foods clean even before He had died on the cross. If it was Yeshua's death and resurrection that "changed" The Law, it couldn't have been changed before His death. If Yeshua so declared it, He was then in violation of the Law and again could not have then saved anyone from sin. It comes back to the fact that "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean" must be a spurious addition to the text and should be disregarded. This passage should no longer be used as a proof text regarding the abolition of the food laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)