|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:47 pm
 |
|
|
 |
This originally was a conversation I had in PM's (about Paul's epistles, details in them, and in other scriptures, that get ignored). I figured it would be helpful to have this around in the guild as its own topic.
---
section #1
About Days We Can Keep (Romans 14 & others):
There are a total of seven details in this section.
- Detail #1: Paul does not allow believers to be convinced in their own minds, but judges them over the days they want to keep. Is this surprising to you? Because it was to me.
Quote: Galatians 4:8-11 (NIV) 8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces[a]? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you. Footnotes: a. Galatians 4:9 Or principles
He's not allowing the Galatians to be convinced in their own minds. He's not allowing the Galatians to esteem special days and months and seasons and years the way they want. Paul starts judging them and speaking negatively about what they chose to observe. It wasn't a disputable matter in Paul's mind (so, whatever he's referring to in Romans 14:1, about "quarreling over disputable matters", this is not one of them. This is not disputable to Paul, but something he strongly feels should not be done, at all, by believers. Paul, the way most people interpret Romans 14, is not doing what he said to do in Romans 14:22, "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God." He's doing the opposite, on a grand scale: writing letters about it, to be read and shared by others (not just leaving it up to God's knowing only), but to a whole group of believers. A church. So, whatever observances Paul condemns in Galatians 4, it is not the same kind of observance he's addressing in Romans 14. He's against one, but not the other. Telling us to not judge one, but, by his example, judge the others. What can that difference be?
First to define what he's against: and a note: I will admit that the Galatians also had a problem of wanting to be justified by the law instead of by their belief. But that's not all I noted: when we compare Galatians 4 to Colossians 2, we get a fuller picture of what it is Paul truly condemns.
- Detail #2: notice the same "forces" mentioned in Galatians 4:9 is repeated in Colossians 2:20.
Quote: Colossians 2:18, 20-23 (NIV) 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. [...] 20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
Thus, these worldly rules are what Paul is condemning in both Galatians and Colossians, and what the Galatians had gone back to. These are traditions and worldly philosophies that people impose upon themselves, that sound very religious, but were never commanded by God and violate God's laws (God's Law does not allow us to worship angels, nor treat our bodies harshly in our worship of him: contrast that to self-flagellation done in Catholic churches [link] and the Yazidis who worship the Peacock Angel named "Melek Taus" [link].
So, in verses 16-17, when Paul says, "16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ" (NIV) the implication here is: you want to observe God's sabbaths, don't let anyone judge you, because these are Christ-centered, they are truthful, and prophetic—unlike these other useless, human rules, that mankind invents and imposes upon themselves.
Next detail:
Detail #3: None of what you find in God's Law fits under the label: "human commands and teachings". They're the opposite. Jesus makes a clear distinction between the two (God's Law / The Law of Moses vs. traditions of men that nullify God's laws). He speaks the same as Paul, or rather, Paul speaks the same as Jesus (and this, amongst other things, is what we died to, were set free from, along with Christ: the world's rules, man-made traditions that nullify God's laws):
Quote: Matthew 15:3-9 (NIV) 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b ] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8 “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]” Footnotes: Matthew 15:4 Exodus 20:12; Deut. 5:16 Matthew 15:4 Exodus 21:17; Lev. 20:9 Matthew 15:9 Isaiah 29:13
Quote: Colossians 2:20 (NIV) 20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules:
Jesus does not want us breaking God's commands (the ones written in the Law of Moses), and is suggesting we should keep them (outright saying that in Matthew 23:1-3); so, God's laws are not the human traditions and commands that Jesus, Paul and Isaiah speak against. The Old Testament, as well, tells us God's commands are not of human origin:
Quote: Exodus 31:18 (NIV) 18 When the Lord finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant law, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.
Quote: Deuteronomy 9:10 (NIV) 10 The Lord gave me two stone tablets inscribed by the finger of God. On them were all the commandments the Lord proclaimed to you on the mountain out of the fire, on the day of the assembly.
Quote: Leviticus 11 (NIV) 11 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat: 3 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud.
Quote: Exodus 16:23, 26 (NIV) 23 He said to them, “ This is what the Lord commanded: ‘ Tomorrow is to be a day of sabbath rest, a holy sabbath to the Lord. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.’” [...] 26 Six days you are to gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any.”
None of what we find in the written Torah can be called "human rules and teachings" / "traditions of men" / "the world's rules". What's found in the written Torah are God's laws. God is unlike the world. Their rules/commands are not the same. Neither Jesus nor Paul speak against God's laws, but self-imposed traditions of men that contradict God's laws.
And if Isaiah is condemning human rules and traditions on the one hand, yet is supporting God's laws on the other hand, that's further evidence that God's laws are not "merely human rules and traditions" and should be kept—or else reap the prophesied consequences.
Quote: • Isaiah 66:17 (NIV) 17 “Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one who is among those who eat the flesh of pigs, rats and other unclean things—they will meet their end together with the one they follow,” declares the Lord.
It goes without saying, but we should not allow anyone to convince us that these, "special days, months, seasons and years", which Paul condemns in Galatians 4, is by extension condemning God's Holy Days, because...
Detail #4: Paul continued observing the weekly Sabbath (Acts 17:2); Passover, with Gentiles (1 Corinthians 5:7-8); and even Pentecost/Feast of Weeks (Acts 20:16).
Quote: • Acts 17:2 (NIV) 2 As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Quote: • 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 (NIV) 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Quote: • Acts 20:16 (NIV) 16 Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus to avoid spending time in the province of Asia, for he was in a hurry to reach Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost.
Paul is not going to say, "to observe God's Holy appointments is wrong; now excuse me while I go observe the very thing I'm condemning".
Nor does he say, "don't judge believers for the days they observe, but I'm going to judge believers for the days they observe". That's overly simplified and ignores the details. In reality, Paul is saying, "don't allow others to judge you for keeping God's holy days", and "I will judge believers who keep—and are being enslaved back under—pagan/idolatrous/self-imposed traditions, traditions that nullify God's way and have believers walking in fleshly piety—not true, Holy-Spirit-driven, Christ-centered piety, that crucifies the desires of the flesh—but instead just gives the appearance of it.
Quote: Colossians 2:23 (NIV) 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
Quote: Galatians 5:24-25 (NIV) 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.
Knowing what Paul truly condemns now, that only leaves one thing: what type of observances is there freedom to observe or not?
Pagan Days?
- Detail #5: Pagan days, that honor demons, are out of the question.
Quote: 1 Corinthians 10:18-22 (NIV) 18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19 Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. 22 Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
Conclusion: prohibited.
God's Days?
God's days, allowed of course. It depends on the temple's status, but Paul wouldn't have been referring to God's days in Romans 14:5 (be convinced in your own mind), since the temple was up in his days, and it was a definite "yes" for those in covenant with God—if they were ceremonially clean and not out of town, travelling, on the day it fell on. Not just definite "yes", but "come or else". If they were unclean or out of town (acceptable excuses), that individual's participation would be postponed by a month, but there's no "maybe I will participate" -attitude going on here. One's intention and effort had to be focused on observing it and doing your very best to be able to observe it on time. If you had no legitimate excuse, you'd be cut off from the community.
Quote: Numbers 9:6 (NIV) 6 But some of them could not celebrate the Passover on that day because they were ceremonially unclean on account of a dead body. So they came to Moses and Aaron that same day
Quote: Numbers 9:9-11 (NIV) 9 Then the Lord said to Moses, 10 “Tell the Israelites: ‘When any of you or your descendants are unclean because of a dead body or are away on a journey, they are still to celebrate the Lord’s Passover, 11 but they are to do it on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight. They are to eat the lamb, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
Quote: Numbers 9:13-14 (NIV) 13 But if anyone who is ceremonially clean and not on a journey fails to celebrate the Passover, they must be cut off from their people for not presenting the Lord’s offering at the appointed time. They will bear the consequences of their sin. 14 “‘A foreigner residing among you is also to celebrate the Lord’s Passover in accordance with its rules and regulations. You must have the same regulations for both the foreigner and the native-born.’”
Notice: under the old covenant, it says, "foreigner residing among you". But under the new covenant, the obligation is no longer limited to foreigners living in the land of Israel only; foreigners living outside of Jerusalem must pilgrimage to observe it at its appointed time. According to Zechariah 14, all nations will be obligated to keep Feast of Tabernacles—even if we, as foreigners, don't live amongst the Israelites in Israel. ("choice" is technically involved, but the alternative is to receive plague, no rain, if we don't go up).
Quote: • Zechariah 14:16-18 (NIV) 16 Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. 17 If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, they will have no rain. 18 If the Egyptian people do not go up and take part, they will have no rain. The Lord[a] will bring on them the plague he inflicts on the nations that do not go up to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles. Footnotes: a. Zechariah 14:18 Or part, then the Lord
...without a temple in Jerusalem, however, no one can really keep it right now. The reason I say that Zechariah 14 describes "new covenant" observance: under the old covenant, only foreigners who lived in Israel were told they could observe passover, and optional at that. The Feast of Tabernacles/Booths, under the old covenant, on the otherhand, only obligates the native-born Israelites, and makes it a point to say "native-born Israelites" are to observe this; if it was for everyone, dwelling in Israel, to observe, then they shouldn't have made that distinction (I'll quote verse 42 specifically, so you see what I mean; but for the whole description of Tabernacles you can open up Leviticus 23:33-44. There's no mention of foreigners for Tabernacles).
Quote: PassoverExodus 12:48 (NIV) 48 “A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it.
Quote: Feast of TabernaclesLeviticus 23:42 (NIV) 42 Live in temporary shelters for seven days: All native-born Israelites are to live in such shelters
Under the new covenant then, at most—until we reach the time of Zechariah 14, of worldwide observance, coming to Jerusalem yearly—we can only keep the elements of the commands that say: don't work, abstain from leavened bread, we can offer spiritual sacrifices (prayer, praise, etc...) instead of literally cooking animal sacrifices (since we can't sacrifice outside of Jerusalem).
Conclusion: & Detail #6: God's Days we are obligated (thus commanded) to keep. Not optional. & Most definitely not prohibited.
What's Left?
So, by process of elimination, what we're at liberty to observe or not in Romans 14:5, under the new covenant, can only be referring to extra-biblical days (like the many days of fasting the Jews placed upon themselves [link] , or festivities like Hanukkah and Purim) that we can freely observe unto the Lord (without condemnation) or freely choose not to observe (without condemnation) because God neither commanded them nor prohibits them (and there's no paganism/idolatry/traces of demon worship involved). That's what we're free to be convinced about in our own minds.
Conclusion: & Detail #7: we're free to choose when it's about extra-biblical days that are not idolatrous / demonic / unlawful.
In a nutshell, the details people don't consider when deciding "what days can we keep" / "what days are condemned":
#1: Paul judges believers for the days they keep
#2: there is a difference between "God's Laws" and "the human commands / traditions" which Paul speaks against in his epistles;
#3 Jesus, Paul and Isaiah juxtapose "God's Laws" against "human commands"; they're not the same thing
#4 Paul kept observing God's feasts days; they're not prohibited
#5 Days that give honor to demons are out of the question
#6 God's appointed days are not optional, but commanded, & most definitely not prohibited
depending on whether or not there is a temple in Jerusalem, most elements can't be obeyed literally right now,
but in the future we will be able to
#7: extrabiblical days, that don't violate God's Law, are the only acceptable days we're allowed to be convinced about in our minds.
section #2
About The Law That Was Set Aside in Ephesians 2:
Moving on to Ephesians 2 then: there was so much to excavate here. I was already puzzled, before even getting to verse 15, because in verses 11-12 (& again in verse 19), at face value, Paul seems to be saying that Gentiles couldn't covenant with God or share in the promises.
Quote: Ephesians 2:11-12 (NIV) 11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. [...] 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household,
Yet, prior to reaching this chapter, I had spent a great deal of time in the Old Testament and noticed:
Detail #8: Gentiles were covenanting with God, and having God make promises to them, and joining Israel long before Christ.
Abraham was a Gentile, born in Babylon / Ur of the Chaldees; he didn't wait for Christ's incarnation before he was brought close into covenant with God, to share in the promises of God.
Quote: Genesis 15:6-7 (NIV) 6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness. 7 He also said to him, “I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it.”
Quote: Genesis 15:18-19 (NIV) 18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the Wadi[a] of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates— 19 the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Footnotes: Genesis 15:18 Or river
After Abraham, in Moses' generation, there was a multitude of non-Israelites mentioned, that came out during the exodus from Egypt, along with the Israelites; thus, these Gentiles were amongst the Israelites when God descended on Mt. Sinai to give the commands / covenant with the people (ergo, Gentiles coming under covenant with God and sharing in the promises of that covenant).
Quote: Exodus 12:37-38 (NIV) 37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Sukkoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. 38 Many other people went up with them, and also large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds.
During Joshua's generation, after Moses dies, we have Rahab; she's a Gentile and she came under covenant with the Holy God of Israel to live amongst the Israelites.
Quote: Joshua 6:25 (NIV) 25 But Joshua spared Rahab the prostitute, with her family and all who belonged to her, because she hid the men Joshua had sent as spies to Jericho—and she lives among the Israelites to this day.
God commanded that we treat foreigners, who have come to live in Israel, as if they were native-born, living under the same laws.
Quote: • Exodus 12:49 (NIV) 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.” • Leviticus 16:29 (NIV) 29 “This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: On the tenth day of the seventh month you must deny yourselves[a] and not do any work—whether native-born or a foreigner residing among you— Footnotes: a. Leviticus 16:29 Or must fast; also in verse 31 • Leviticus 17:15 (NIV) 15 “‘Anyone, whether native-born or foreigner, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then they will be clean. • Leviticus 18:26 (NIV) 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things,
Getting back to Ephesians 2 then, here I am thinking, "Paul, what are you talking about? All these Gentiles were brought near to God before Christ came. What in the world are you referring to?" On paper, both Gentile and Israelite were brought into convenant and shared in promises. But—
Detail #9: whether Gentile or Israelite, mankind was hostile towards God's law, back then and today, thus needing to make peace with both those "who were far away and peace to those who were near" Eph 2:17 (NIV).
Quote: • Leviticus 26:21 (NIV) 21 “‘If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve. • Romans 8:7-9 (NIV) 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ.
God's law was not the dividing wall of hostility (because God's law always included Gentiles from the get go). The law of sin, in our flesh, is what keeps us—both Israelite and Gentile alike—in hostility towards God, divided from God, and divided against each other. The flesh has its own regulations contrary to God's. Thus, why Christ had to come: the nature in our flesh we inherited from Adam keeps us away, in rebellion and hostility towards God and his laws. He came to free us from that sinful nature.
Quote: • Romans 7:25 (NIV) 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature[a] a slave to the law of sin. Footnotes: a. Romans 7:25 Or in the flesh
Quote: • Romans 6:6 (NIV) 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— Footnotes: a. Romans 6:6 Or be rendered powerless
Quote: Colossians 2:11 (NIV) 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[a] was put off when you were circumcised by[b] Christ, Footnotes: a. Colossians 2:11 In contexts like this, the Greek word for flesh (sarx) refers to the sinful state of human beings, often presented as a power in opposition to the Spirit; also in verse 13. b. Colossians 2:11 Or put off in the circumcision of
We're suppose to be slaves to God's law like Paul. Dead to the nature we were born with, the fleshly, sinful nature, that is hostile towards God (and his law). Those who choose to stay in the flesh, as slaves to the flesh, and who choose to be guided by it, to please it, instead of pleasing the Spirit (which has a desire to walk in his law), stay hostile. There's no excuse anymore, however: he provided the way to come close to him again and rid the hostility: by giving us the Holy Spirit...
Quote: Ezekiel 36:27 (NIV) 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
On top of that, getting back to Ephesians 2 again, I noticed...
Detail #10: that five verses after Ephesians 2:15, Paul says our foundation is built upon the prophets too:
Quote: Ephesians 2:20 (NIV) 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
...the prophets are pretty adamant about keeping God's laws (sabbath observances and dietary distinctions of clean/unclean alike)
Quote: • Ezekiel 22:26 (NIV) 26 Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them. • Isaiah 65:2-4 (NIV) 2 All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations— 3 a people who continually provoke me to my very face, offering sacrifices in gardens and burning incense on altars of brick; 4 who sit among the graves and spend their nights keeping secret vigil; who eat the flesh of pigs, and whose pots hold broth of impure meat; • Isaiah 56:6-7 (NIV) 6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lordto minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating itand who hold fast to my covenant— 7 these I will bring to my holy mountainand give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”
I had to consider the statement in Romans 14:20, that "all food is clean" to be sure I wasn't going crazy with some twisted interpretation. Are details being ignored here as well? Come to discover: Yes, indeed. People subconsciously read, "all animals" into the phrase "all food".
But...
Detail #11: Paul says his food is consecrated by the word of God (in 1 Timothy 4:5), not just by prayer, but by the Word of God, that means that he didn't consider all animals to be food for him, but what God in his Word set-apart as food .
Quote: 1 Timothy 4:3-5 (NIV) 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
The areas of the Word of God that consecrate food for us, and that Paul would be referring to (since the New Testament wasn't compiled yet), is Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14:1-21 and Genesis 1:29.
Knowing that Paul still made clean/unclean distinctions between animals is what made me scrutinize the common passages people used to defend that we shouldn't make those distinctions any longer.
The vision of the unclean animals in the sheet, for example, which Peter saw three times. It apparently had nothing to do with eating animals, but accepting Gentiles who feared God and received the Holy Spirit (Acts 10). Had the vision been about, "eat all animals; they're all acceptable now", Peter would not have spent so much time thinking about the vision's true meaning.
Quote: Acts 10:9-17 (NIV) 9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. 17 While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate.
Detail #12: Had the vision been communicating a straighforward: "go ahead, eat bacon, vulture, human and rats", Peter would not have needed to wonder.
It's not acceptable to eat those things, according to the law and prophets, and Paul's own teachings. The true meaning of the vision is revealed by the Holy Spirit to Peter in verse 34-35.
Quote: Acts 10:34-35 (NIV) 34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.
And his suspicions are confirmed by what happens later in verses 44-48.
Quote: Acts 10:44-48 (NIV) 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues[a] and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days. Footnotes: a. Acts 10:46 Or other languages
God was consecrating the Gentiles who fear him by giving them the Holy Spirit.
Another popular example, which people use to support that "eat all animals" is New Testament doctrine, is the gospels stating that Jesus declared all foods clean. Well, now that we know what "food" is, Jesus was not talking about all animals. But everything that God consecrates as food is clean. Why would he need to state this should-be-obvious fact to anyone knowing the law? Because the Pharisees had this tradition: that if we don't participate in the netilat yadayim (hand washing) ritual prior to eating, the person becomes unclean/defiled all of a sudden (in Matthew 15/Mark 7)—which was a lie and a self-imposed tradition, one the Pharisees made up.
Quote: Mark 7:1-4 (NIV) 7 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a]) Footnotes: Mark 7:4 Some early manuscripts pitchers, kettles and dining couches
Jesus' conclusion:
Quote: Matthew 15:20 (NIV) 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”
Like I mentioned in my comment on the article, Jesus is adamant about teaching the crowds and his disciples to adhere to the Law of Moses / God's law too, even when the religious authority in charge of teaching/preaching it, starts nullifying it, instead of putting it into practice.
So, in a nutshell: when considering what is "the law" that brought about so much hostility and divided people from each other and from God, we must consider two main ones really (though I noted other important details):
#8 - Gentiles were covenanting with the Holy God of Israel—and having God make promises to them, and joining Israel—long before Christ. God's Law allowed Gentiles to come in and share of the blessings of being in covenant with Him.
#9 - that Paul's epistles, though not clearly delineated everytime, makes reference to at least two laws: the law of the flesh VS. the law of God; the law of their flesh, with its regulations, brought hostility to both the circumcised and uncircumcised people, separating them from God. The flesh was hostile towards God and his law. Those walking in the flesh could not submit to it. And that hostility stayed because of mankind's sinful nature; that fleshly nature has always been the problem, doesn't matter if you were near God and entrusted with his divine revelation (Israelites) or far from God (Gentiles, not living in Israel). Thus why both groups of people needed to be reconciled.
And those are the details, that once considered, drastically change our interpretation of Paul's epistles; those details allow Paul to be in agreement with himself, his other writings, and what the other disciples describe Paul doing (for instance, scheduling sacrifices after Jesus offers himself once and for all, in Acts 21:19-26), that allows Paul to be in agreement with the rest of the prophets, and with Jesus words. Peter warned us that Paul's epistles are difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:15-17) and that ignorant and unstable people were distorting his writings to live lawless. And this lengthy post is an attempt to communicate some of the details the Holy Spirit has allowed me to see. He's dropped the scales from my eyes that Satan and his minions have worked so hard to put up. I'm sure Satan has some of his children working on theology. They want to make us interpret God's Word in ways that violate God's Law to keep us divided and in hostility towards our Heavenly Father. Jesus came to undo that corrupt behavior and hostility.
If you made it to this part my post, I thank you, as well, for putting up with my lengthy explanations and tendency to go on tangents, lol, especially if you've already met with some [or all...?] of this information from my other replies in the guild. It was a challenge to organize this post because these thoughts exists as "dots" in my head that connect only when I need to make a decision or interpret verses as I read.
In short, I've come to learn that if there is an "apparent" contradiction, then faulty interpretation is present, or assumptions are being made about a verse, being read into a verse or is forcefully being jammed to fit a certain theology; otherwise, scripture gels perfectly with other portions of scripture.
May God open our eyes to the wonders of his law. May he humble our hearts to trust him and his words, all of his words. May he give us discernment, as he sees fit, eyes to see what he's doing with our lives, all those areas of our lives that we may interpret as "failures", but that are just what he needs (to affect the other pawns of his chess board in just the right way)—and give us inner peace and the grace to put up with the troubles of today, the fear of man, and the fear of death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2015 3:54 pm
|
|
|
|
This one from a conversation I was involved in on YouTube
---
Put it this way: when a bunch of Pharisees think "obeying the law" is what justifies them, it's not prudent to get circumcised with them around (thus, Titus in Galatians 2:3, refusing to get circumcised). The Pharisees must be proven wrong: how? Show them, I am justified by believing in Jesus, not by obeying the law of Moses, thus I'm not getting circumcised to prove it.
But when people start thinking that you teach, "don't keep Moses anymore", that's when you start scheduling sacrifices in the temple (i.e Paul in Acts 21:19-26).
Both groups of people were wrong; it's neither: "Moses done away with" nor "obey the law to be saved". All that the disciples are highlighting is WHO/WHAT justifies us: not the law, but our belief in Jesus. That does not mean that the laws have been done away with.
This is especially true when we still have prophecies—even the very apostle John's prophecy—suggesting a temple building will be up in Jerusalem, with courtyards, in the holy city, aside from its worshipers (so aside from the spiritual body of believers) i.e. Revelation 11:1-2. We cannot ignore Zechariah 14 about cooking sacrifices in that future temple, nor Ezekiel 40 describing in detail the rooms and tables where the animal sacrifices will be prepared and cooked.
That these prophecies involved foreigners, not living amongst the Israelites, is what proves these prophecies are talking about a time under the new covenant. All the Gentile nations who fought against Jerusalem will have to come to Jerusalem, year after year. They're making pilgrimages every year, to Jerusalem, to observe the Feast of Tabernacles—or else YHWH will send them no rain. Has that happened yet? No.
[...] |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:35 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:03 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:54 pm
|
|
|
|
Arachnoia Thank you for posting this heart
No problem. 3nodding
OtakuKat So is it okay to celebrate neutral holidays (or holidays that are considered neutral)? Also what about Halloween? I have always wondered if it's okay to celebrate as just a way to dress up and give/get candy...
For some reason, I wasn't alerted to your reply (I saw Arachnoia's, but not your's emotion_sweatdrop ); so, I'm sorry for the late response. Neutral holidays are fine, if they're truly neutral (edit: no such thing; it either violates his commands or adheres to his commands). For instance, if it did not originate to honor demons / other gods and goddesses, but something like, "National Grandparents' Day", "Pi Day", "National Public Gardens Day", then I don't think scripture prohibits that.
If you're including things like "New Years" as "neutral", I wouldn't. It originated to worship Janus (the two-faced god of "beginnings and transitions"); thus their New Year starts with January as their beginning month. And according to this reckoning of time, days begin at 12:00 a.m. midnight (the witching hour). By contrast, God's New Year takes place in the month of the Passover (Abib, according to Exodus 12:1-3; 13: 4; Deuteronomy 16:1; on the pagan calendar, that would mean God's start of the Year falls between the March and April months, thus 3-4 months later. YHWH considers spring to be the beginning of the year, when things are springing to life, starting anew (as opposed to the dead of winter [January]). Not to mention the drunkenness of the New Year holiday, the careless making of oaths (new year's resolutions) that people don't actually carry out. Totally contrary to scripture there too.
We're suppose to mean what we say, promised or not promised.
Psalm 15:4 (NIV)
4 who despises a vile person
but honors those who fear the Lord;
who keeps an oath even when it hurts,
and does not change their mind;
2 Corinthians 1:17 (NIV)
17 Was I fickle when I intended to do this? Or do I make my plans in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say both “Yes, yes” and “No, no”?
Lol...this verse brought a thought to mind: how people say, "Sorry, not sorry". Not related to new year's but, double-speaking (are you sorry or are you not? is it yes or is it no? are you going to do it or are you not? If not, then don't say you will or that you are).
Tangent aside: Everything from the actual dunken festivities even to the reckoning of time is contrary to scripture. It's not really the "New Year" in God's eyes, we shouldn't make promises we won't keep / say we'll do things if we won't, nor get drunk.
A lot of the major holidays over here (in the USA) are Roman / Irish / Norse (a.k.a. European) holidays; thus, are like New Year's—white-washed paganism. I don't associate with holidays that can be traced down to Februa/Lupercalia/Cupid, Saturnalia/Yule/Odin, nor St. Patrick's day: lucky talismans / four-leaf clover (idols), leprechauns (faerie spirits that give you gold if you find them), drunkenness, the pinching if you don't wear green (that's just mean-spirited and superstitious, which we're not suppose to be).
But if it's actually neutral, the only reason I would advise caution (or discouragement) is if the observance promotes ideals not in line with the bible and is all about sensuality (promiscuity, drunkenness, gluttony, idolatry, witchcraft, etc...) which would lead others to believe we act the same way as pagans (or find the behavior tolerable in any way); thus indicating that there really is no difference between us and the world, the only difference being a label.
Romans 13:13 (NIV)
13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.
1 Peter 4:3-4 (NIV)
3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4 They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you.
1 Timothy 4:7 (NIV)
7 Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.
Not surprisingly, I rule out Halloween as well: for the origins, the superstitions, the general mischievous and witchcraft-y spirit of it. I don't want to give the undiscerning world—the generation I'm currently living alongside with, and any future ones looking back—any encouragement to think we remotely worship the same things. Making up a Christian holiday, to be their "good" equivalent, to coincide with their holy day and has us participating in the same event together (giving / receiving candy + dressing up on Oct 31st) will confuse people: "if they worship the same things, in similar ways, on the same day, then, these are just sister celebrations". Like how the remains of Idolatrous Israelites of the past, has people today thinking YHWH has a wife (because of the artifacts left behind by the Israelites, Idolatrous ones, who wanted to be like the world). And who knows, maybe to some Israelites, they didn't worship Asherah, and just used her as a pretty ornament, but to generations later, digging stuff up in the desert, Asherah figurines in Israel would suggest: they worshipped her too (though if these archaeologists would just read the bible, they'd see that to worship like the pagans, to worship Asherah especially, to adopt their spiritual practices, was forbidden and YHWH expresses his hatred of such worship/traditions).
So, whether the costumes are sensual, morbid, or mythical creature: I think "pagan"—not Christian—when I see anyone dressed up on that day; nothing that says, "they must be in covenant with the Holy God of Israel". It's certainly not a neutral day. So, if it's not neutral, and it doesn't belong to God, then I want no part in it. Those Israelites probably didn't have a clue how much they'd damage YHWH's reputation, and I wouldn't be surprised if some didn't care at all, actually the bible suggests as much, they were just seeking fortune and pleasure (usually by eating and drinking, lol); they were not seeking his Will.
Isaiah 65:11 (NIV)
11 “But as for you who forsake the Lord
and forget my holy mountain,
who spread a table for Fortune
and fill bowls of mixed wine for Destiny,
Isaiah 5:11 (NIV)
11 Woe to those who rise early in the morning
to run after their drinks,
who stay up late at night
till they are inflamed with wine.
Exodus 16:3 (NIV)
3 The Israelites said to them, “If only we had died by the Lord’s hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death.”
Philippians 3:19 (NIV)
19 Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things.
I don't want to follow in their footsteps. This "syncretic" attitude towards culture, that likes to copy traditions and make it their own, is what almost made me dismiss Jesus as just another sun god (the yellow "sun-disk" halo's, the unbiblical Christian traditions and the Christian artwork of Jesus did not help me find the way; it was confusing). It wasn't until I saw a documentary showing that Jesus was not the sun, but he created the sun, verses straight from the bible, that I even considered the uniqueness of Christianity.
There really is suppose to be a glaring difference between us and paganism (not slight details, variances, but drastic differences):
2 Corinthians 6:14-15 (NIV)
14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[a]? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?
Footnotes:
a. 2 Corinthians 6:15 Greek Beliar, a variant of Belial
Knowing what is being celebrated on this day, that it originated with the Celts/Druids, why would I want to celebrate something that, when traced down, has evidences of demon worship? At some point, a Christian had to come along and say,"let's take this pagan thing and use it to honor the Holy God of Israel instead" and God prohibits that.
Deuteronomy 12:30-31 (NIV)
30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” 31 You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.
I don't want to perpetuate that particular Christian's sin. Again, I don't want to be like those Idolatrous Israelites.
The reality is: witches / pagans are celebrating Samhain on that day, which gives an entirely opposite view of reality than the bible's (that spirits and faeries can freely visit the earth on this night; the veil between their world and ours becomes thinner allowing them to cross over; the people wore costumes to hide from the "Aos Sí"—I doubt these are angels of God, whom we have no reason to hide from, and who won't be fooled by a mask; I doubt these are the fallen angels who, Satan being an exception, are locked up in Tartarus; I doubt these are the impure spirits described in the bible, that wander around in dry places; they too would not be fooled by a mask nor would wait for a special time of the year to go attack somebody).
Matthew 12:43-45 (NIV)
43 “When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45 Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”
They don't wait until all Hallow's eve to do this.
Contrasted further with the bible, we don't come out of Sheol/Hades/the realm of the dead, unless the angels bring us up or God allows us to come up (i.e. the dead prophet Samuel summoned up in 1 Samuel 28; the witch said she saw gods/elohim coming up out of the earth in verse 13, whether that's a direct reference to Samuel, an angelic escort of some kind, I'm not sure, but she was just as shocked). In the bible, our coming out of the realm of the dead has nothing to do with dates / a special time of year, happening year after year.
At its most rudimentary level, Samhain is the observance of a season. But if you look at its practices, it sounds like the Halloween we know today (even the day of the dead in Mexico).
Quote: Samhain (pronounced /ˈsɑːwɪn/ sah-win or /ˈsaʊ.ɪn/ sow-in[1] Irish pronunciation: [sˠaunʲ]) is a Gaelic festival marking the end of the harvest season and the beginning of winter or the "darker half" of the year. It is celebrated from sunset on 31 October to sunset on 1 November, or about halfway between the autumn equinox and the winter solstice. It is one of the four Gaelic seasonal festivals, along with Imbolc, Beltane and Lughnasadh. Historically, it was widely observed throughout Ireland, and later the Isle of Man and Scotland. Kindred festivals were held at the same time of year in other Celtic lands; for example the Brythonic Calan Gaeaf (in Wales), Kalan Gwav (in Cornwall), and Kalan Goañv (in Brittany). Samhain is mentioned in some of the earliest Irish literature and is known to have pre-Christian roots. Many important events in Irish mythology happen or begin on Samhain. It was the time when cattle were brought back down from the summer pastures and when livestock were slaughtered for the winter. As at Beltane, special bonfires were lit. These were deemed to have protective and cleansing powers and there were rituals involving them.[2] Samhain (like Beltane) was seen as a liminal time, when the spirits or fairies (the Aos Sí) could more easily come into our world. Most scholars see the Aos Sí as remnants of the pagan gods and nature spirits. It was believed that the Aos Sí needed to be propitiated to ensure that the people and their livestock survived the winter. Offerings of food and drink were left for them. The souls of the dead were also thought to revisit their homes. Feasts were had, at which the souls of dead kin were beckoned to attend and a place set at the table for them. Mumming and guising were part of the festival, and involved people going door-to-door in costume (or in disguise), often reciting verses in exchange for food. The costumes may have been a way of imitating, or disguising oneself from, the Aos Sí. Divination rituals were also a big part of the festival and often involved nuts and apples. In the late 19th century, Sir John Rhys and Sir James Frazer suggested that it was the "Celtic New Year", and this view has been repeated by some other scholars.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samhain
Halloween doesn't sound too far removed from its pagan roots by what gets celebrated today.
We're not suppose to conform to the world.
Romans 12:1-2 (NIV)
1Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
So, I don't think Christians should dress up, nor be receiving / giving candy on a pagan sabbath day, establishing our own ways to celebrate their sabbath (and it will never be the other way around, pagans mimicking us: no, these traditions are foreign to Jews, the chosen people of God, and existed before Christ). By participating, we fail to communicate that we're set-apart from the world's ways. When people get totally enamored with Halloween (as I was, as a heathen) they'll eventually look into the deeper things of Halloween as they get older (or maybe younger since kids have the internet as soon as they're born nowadays): I started off with "innocent" little things: Casper the friendly ghost, Matilda and the Olsen twins (lol), that one movie where they go visit their grandmothers, who turn out to be witches and twins too, and the evil one traps the good one in a mirror lol. Halloween movies, the myths around them, the occult, the magic, the telepathy, psychokinesis, the levitation. There's no separating them. I don't want to encourage people to find "joy" in these things by rewarding them with candy.
In a nutshell:
- truly "neutral" days like "National Public Gardens Day", "National Grandparents' Day", "Pi Day", I don't see anything wrong with in light of scripture.
- holidays with pagan origins, that happen within 1-2 days of a pagan/witch sabbath, that showcase similar practices, that other generations can misconstrue as us worshiping the same things as others and whose whole spirit is contradictory to biblical teachings and biblical details about reality, I find little-to-no justification for, especially for how it may affect YHWH's Holy reputation: he's set-apart / distinctly different from what the pagans worship. If his reputation is at risk, then it's not worth it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:04 pm
|
|
|
|
OtakuKat Dang I've always enjoyed Halloween. 8'V Wasn't St. Patrick's Day originally supposed to honor a Saint who used a clover to explain how the Trinity works?
Just goes to show you the nature of a pagan: synchronizes all things into one. Does not adhere faithfully to one only (which use to be me). We're commanded not to be like them; thus, why I repented and am exclusively putting YHWH/Jesus on display.
That's definitely not what the people around me are celebrating. It's about the leprechaun, his pot of gold, and the four-leafed clovers bringing in luck (not the three-leafed shamrock). The "pinching" has nothing to do with St. Patrick either and his color was originally blue. The "St. Patrick's Day" we know today is about the mythical creature, seeking good fortune, drunkenness and general mischief. Maybe if people went back to wearing blue (or orange because apparently Protestants wore orange) they wouldn't blend in and profane themselves (and God).
This is the spirit of St. Patrick's Day:
Quote: A leprechaun (Irish: leipreachán) is a type of fairy in Irish folklore. It is usually depicted as a little old man, wearing a coat and hat, who partakes in mischief. They are solitary creatures who spend their time making and mending shoes and have a hidden pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If captured by a human, the leprechaun has the magical power to grant three wishes in exchange for their freedom. Like other Irish fairies, leprechauns may be derived from the Tuatha Dé Danann[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun
All the more damaging to YHWH's reputation is what the leprechaun is based on: the Tuatha Dé Danann (the pre-Christian Gaelic deities). So what is being communicated when a Christian participates in the green (at least in the USA)? Not an accurate reflection of what our God commands: to be set-apart and not honor demons, but worship only him.
St. Patrick's, in that sense, is the opposite of Halloween and Christmas: it started out Catholic, and ends up Pagan. That's why I'm not a fan of man-made traditions, period. Once it gets contaminated, and that contamination spreads to the point of supplanting and overtaking the original "Christian" meaning, there is no justification in continuing to observe these extra-biblical, self-imposed traditions; unless you can save its reputation, it should be eliminated because at that point, the tradition threatens the very survival of the truth and God's distinctiveness (how he is nothing like what pagans worship; the moment the beliefs mix, we stop communicating that truth. If we can't stop it from mixing, we need to discard the whole thing). I'm reminded of the laws pertaining to how to deal with mold in a house (and YHWH himself inflicting the plague): if after you replace the affected stones (the infection) with new ones, and the leprosy still spreads, the whole house has to come down, all of its parts scrapped out: it'll infect every new one that comes in. If all trace of mold / sin / paganism can't be scraped out, it must come down.
Leviticus 14:33-45 (NIV)
33 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 34 “When you enter the land of Canaan, which I am giving you as your possession, and I put a spreading mold in a house in that land, 35 the owner of the house must go and tell the priest, ‘I have seen something that looks like a defiling mold in my house.’ 36 The priest is to order the house to be emptied before he goes in to examine the mold, so that nothing in the house will be pronounced unclean. After this the priest is to go in and inspect the house. 37 He is to examine the mold on the walls, and if it has greenish or reddish depressions that appear to be deeper than the surface of the wall, 38 the priest shall go out the doorway of the house and close it up for seven days. 39 On the seventh day the priest shall return to inspect the house. If the mold has spread on the walls, 40 he is to order that the contaminated stones be torn out and thrown into an unclean place outside the town. 41 He must have all the inside walls of the house scraped and the material that is scraped off dumped into an unclean place outside the town. 42 Then they are to take other stones to replace these and take new clay and plaster the house.
43 “If the defiling mold reappears in the house after the stones have been torn out and the house scraped and plastered, 44 the priest is to go and examine it and, if the mold has spread in the house, it is a persistent defiling mold; the house is unclean. 45 It must be torn down—its stones, timbers and all the plaster—and taken out of the town to an unclean place.
These man-made traditions, just like the man-made houses, are just that: man-made. It shouldn't hurt us to tear them down when it threatens the very health (physical and spiritual) of others, including ourselves. Those man-made traditions are not even commanded by God, and it's not like they're preserving God's holy reputation (if they were, then you'd have justification for fighting tooth and nail for its preservation) but the reality is, nothing we make up does that: only his commands do, commands given long ago:
Ezekiel 22:26 (NIV)
26 Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.
The opposite of "holy" (which means to be "set-apart") is "profane" (to be common, just like the others). YHWH's Holy Days, his distinctions between clean and unclean, are the only thing keeping him distinct from the spiritual practices of pagan people. His commands are the only things keeping us from deception. Sadly, whatever we invent ends up making him common (i.e. the birthdate festivity, on December 25th, leads the pagans to believe that he's just another sun god). Had we just stuck with his own feast days (Tabernacles) we'd be celebrating his birthday already with a feast day that speaks about the future just as much as it does about the past: commemorating how they dwelt in tents when they came out of Egypt, Jesus coming into the world dwelling with us in a tent [a body], and in the future, dwelling with God the Father face to face. Passover: commemorating when God's wrath passed over the Israelites because of the lamb's blood on their doorposts; Jesus' sacrifice as our passover Lamb; God's wrath passing over us in the future. His appointed times are cyclical; Christmas on the otherhand, obvious paganism aside, tries to document one static moment in history (can't prophesy about future judgment or document the Exodus journey at the same time), and it distorts details in the bible in order to be celebrated in the first place (he wasn't born in the winter; scripture says sheep were outside in the fields, with the shepherds, on the night of his birth yet it snows in Jerusalem during the winter months, and no one would be taking a census then, the reason why there was no room in the inn for Mary and Joseph). YHWH gave the perfect plan; if we add to it or take away from it, something about him gets distorted and his reputation (along with ours) gets profaned.
Once the holidays we invent end up getting paganized (infected), either the infection is cured or we cut it out of the body entirely. That tradition is nothing necessary and our mission is more important than a festivity: to declare the holiness (distinctiveness) of God:
Exodus 15:11 (NIV)
11 Who among the gods
is like you, Lord?
Who is like you—
majestic in holiness,
awesome in glory,
working wonders?
And that we must be holy too, not like the pagans:
Hebrews 12:14 (NIV)
14 Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy;
without holiness no one will see the Lord.
1 Thessalonians 4:7-8 (NIV)
7 For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8 Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit.
Pagans don't worship YHWH, so the commands not to hijack the traditions/customs of other cultures is not something they're going to respect. We however have no excuse. We do have such commands. And it's not about respecting their culture, but about failing to communicate that YHWH is holy / not like the things they worship, not blending in with the pagans.
BTW: I failed to contrast how, as opposed to their days starting at midnight, God's days end/begin at sunset (thus why I mentioned 12:00am). sweatdrop Again, the Holy God of Israel is so very different. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:13 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:41 am
|
|
|
|
I have some things to say...
First of all, all Scriptures quoted are taken from the ESV.
So...
I have to disagree with you on some things. First, there is the matter of the food restrictions. You should not impose such things upon believers.
Here is Colossians 2:16-23
16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
Paul's focus here is on legalism, particularly asceticistic legalism. Nevertheless, he says clearly: "Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink." And: "...why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations."
You quoted Matthew 15:20, but you completely missed the principle point of what Jesus is teaching, which is that it is not what goes in that defiles us but what comes from within. The point of the passage was to demonstrate that it is an unclean heart that defiles us, not any unclean thing that goes inside.
You also only quoted Matthew. But this teaching happens in Mark as well. I would like to quote Mark 7:14-23, now:
14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
And the parentheses are not mine, by the way, so you'll have to take that statement up with John Mark.
Additionally, I think people forget about a very important passage in Acts. The Jerusalem Council must make a determination on the matter of the Gentiles and how they are to act appropriately. It is sparked by Judaizers who claim that Gentiles must be circumcised in order to be saved. Here is what they decide on, found in Acts 15:19-21:
19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Things polluted by idols, what has been strangled, and from blood, in terms of consumption. They do not restrict "unclean" foods.
Here's where it appears in their letter, found in Acts 15:28-29:
28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Idol foods, blood, and animals that have been strangled. That's it.
Additionally, Paul says this in 1 Corinthians 10:25-31:
25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?
31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
Eat whatever is sold in the meat market. Eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. Paul is very clear about not eating food sacrificed to idols. Even then, however, the teaching has to do with the conscience of others. "For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?"
And because of this, "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. He goes on to say in the later verses to seek to give no offense to the Jews or Greeks.
And Paul says this in 1 Corinthians 8:8-9:
8 Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
Therefore, if I invite you over to my house and you believe it is wrong to eat "unclean" meat, I have a duty to make sure to serve "clean" meat, out of love for you. But that does not mean I am restricted to eat only meat that is regarded as "clean". There is nothing wrong, however, with eating "unclean" foods.
I realize that you seek to honor the Lord. It is fine if you wish to eat only "clean" foods because, according to your conscience, it is right. But do not bind other believers with your same standards when the Scriptures are clear. Keep Romans 14 in mind. I know that you mentioned it.
Here is Romans 14, cited here for convenience:
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.”
12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Do Not Cause Another to Stumble
13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
The principle teaching here is this: Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. This is in harmony with the teaching I quoted earlier, which is to do all things to the glory of God, whatever they may be. Paul also makes sure to mention, again, that we have freedom but we should not use that freedom to make others stumble. We must have consideration and love for our brothers and sisters.
So, there is nothing wrong with eating any food. I think I have demonstrated this clearly with the Scriptures.
Now, my second disagreement is on certain holidays such as Halloween. I wrote a journal entry on this last year around Halloween. I personally celebrate a form of Halloween. It's called "eat candy and watch movies day". I do not recognize, in my heart, any ceremony or regard to demons, and my heart is pure and clean in this. I do not, in my conscience, believe it to be wrong, and so I celebrate it in the fashion I see fit. I see that it is fit because there is nothing unGodly about it.
God seeks obedience of the heart. Outward action will proceed from that. God wants clean hearts, not just clean actions. Pious refrain from certain foods or holidays while having an unclean heart will not save you, nor will partaking of certain foods or holidays while having a clean heart condemn you.
If anyone would like to read my journal entry, you can read it by following this link.
I'm not going to kick and thrash as hard when it comes to Halloween and other holidays. But I must oppose the foisting of dietary restrictions upon believers, in the name of God, with love and gentleness.
Blessings upon you this day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 4:02 pm
|
|
|
|
Of course, to condemn a brother/sister or anyone for that matter, of eating a certain food is condemning myself unless I'm looking to reflect on my own soul not theirs. Choosing to do it out the great of my ability is the best thing for myself, but as soon as I point my finger at others that immediately shows my arrogance in God's sight. I have no right to judge, and after reading your post I'll remember not to do so! If by choosing to abstain from what I think of there being a possibility of being strayed from the path in my interpretation, I know I don't have the right to place myself on a seat above others. There's no glorifying Him in that, just gravely fooling ourselves into thinking we're better than the person beside us. Like you said it's the heart that matters more in any or no action being carried out: as long as none are in doubt over their deeds (both inside and out) and still hold God at the cradle in their hearts, I think it's just as enough for any to have it in the right feelings wherever they go to do/not do. No one can be as near-perfect as they'd like, we are still to each grow and do things according to the same undeniable faith we all have for the Lord. In that respect, it's also undeniable nothing is that different in His eyes and He accepts it out of the huge love He has for us.
So I will take it to heart to not condemn others the same that is the gracious outpour of His love and understanding, thanks for this post! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 9:52 pm
|
|
|
|
I presume you didn't finish reading the entire post before replying; but regardless, I'll address your concerns.
Scarlet_Teardrops I have to disagree with you on some things. First, there is the matter of the food restrictions. You should not impose such things upon believers.
Here is Colossians 2:16-23
16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
Paul's focus here is on legalism, particularly asceticistic legalism. Nevertheless, he says clearly: "Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink." And: "...why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations."
I agree that Paul is referring to severe ascetic practices as well, but you haven't refuted the logic: refraining from imposing God's law on believers cannot be what Paul is speaking against here because God's law does not fit the descriptions of what he's speaking against: A) worldly regulations B) human precepts and teachings C) self-made religion D) severity of the body. None of God's Laws fit under that description. God's Laws do not originate with "human precepts" and were not "self-made", nor does he ever command harsh/severe treatment of the body; these commands were handed to them from God and these commands provided rest for their souls (just like Jesus' yoke offers).
Jeremiah 6:16 (NIV)
16 This is what the Lord says:
“Stand at the crossroads and look;
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is, and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls.
But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.’
Matthew 11:29 (NIV)
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
It is the ancient path that offers rest for our souls. Not surprisingly, Jesus is teaching his disciples to obey the law of Moses in Matthew 23:1-3, and not follow the heavy yoke of the Pharisees (in v.4); the Pharisees are the ones who followed self-made religion / man-made tradition (e.g. the hand-washing ritual before eating). The kosher laws, for instance, add dietary restrictions which God's Law does not. Those can be considered self-made religion. Kosher laws prohibit the mixing of any and all dairy products with meat, and even from benefiting from the mixture, even if you don't eat it [link]. God's law, on the otherhand, only prohibits a very specific circumstance: boiling a young goat in its own mother's milk i.e. Exodus 23:19; Deuteronomy 14:21. Jewish law and what's commanded by God in the first five books of the bible are not the same thing. So no, Colossians 2 is not talking against God's Law, but man's (as always).
Scarlet_Teardrops You quoted Matthew 15:20, but you completely missed the principle point of what Jesus is teaching, which is that it is not what goes in that defiles us but what comes from within. The point of the passage was to demonstrate that it is an unclean heart that defiles us, not any unclean thing that goes inside.
No, I didn't miss the "principle" point: sin / transgression of the law starts in the heart, in the inner-being, before it ever manifests on the outside with physical action. A mere lust, craving, and emotion can defile you. That point was not lost on me.
However, nothing in this passage mentions unclean animals being present in the situation; unclean animals were never present on the table. What God declared as food (clean animals) is what the Pharisees were deeming defiled if the believers didn't participate in the hand-washing ritual prior to eating/touching the food. And if they ate with unwashed hands (unblessed hands), the Pharisees would consider them defiled. Ergo, Jesus having to declare as food what YHWH declared as food in Mark 7 (and I did mention Mark 7, I don't know why you're saying I didn't; again, I highly suspect you didn't read the entire post before replying).
Scarlet_Teardrops You also only quoted Matthew. But this teaching happens in Mark as well. I would like to quote Mark 7:14-23, now:
14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
And the parentheses are not mine, by the way, so you'll have to take that statement up with John Mark.
I quoted Matthew before I ever quoted Mark 7 because Matthew is the chapter that people majorly ignore, lol.
I'm aware of Mark 7. And I even addressed it when explaining how Jesus and Paul defined "food" and what people read into that.
Scarlet_Teardrops Additionally, I think people forget about a very important passage in Acts. The Jerusalem Council must make a determination on the matter of the Gentiles and how they are to act appropriately. It is sparked by Judaizers who claim that Gentiles must be circumcised in order to be saved. Here is what they decide on, found in Acts 15:19-21:
19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Things polluted by idols, what has been strangled, and from blood, in terms of consumption. They do not restrict "unclean" foods.
I'm aware. And the highly ignored verse here, in Acts 15, is verse 21. They would learn the rest of the law of Moses (God's Law) later because he's read every Sabbath in the synagogues. They're only being started off with 4 commands (not that Gentiles must only keep these four, and nothing else for all time, but upon newly converting, to start off with, make it easy for them, these are the ones to start putting into practice right away; they'll learn the rest eventually).
Scarlet_Teardrops Here's where it appears in their letter, found in Acts 15:28-29:
28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Idol foods, blood, and animals that have been strangled. That's it
Not, "that's it". Moses was going to be preached to them as they kept the Sabbath, in the synagogues with everyone else. Again verse 21, the verse everyone is ignoring when they read Acts 15.
Scarlet_Teardrops Additionally, Paul says this in 1 Corinthians 10:25-31:
25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?
31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
Eat whatever is sold in the meat market. Eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. Paul is very clear about not eating food sacrificed to idols. Even then, however, the teaching has to do with the conscience of others. "For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?"
And because of this, "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. He goes on to say in the later verses to seek to give no offense to the Jews or Greeks.
And Paul says this in 1 Corinthians 8:8-9:
8 Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
I'm not in disagreement with the above about foods sacrificed to idols. None of that touches upon how Paul defines food elsewhere in his epistles (consecrated by the Word of God AND prayer, not just prayer).
Scarlet_Teardrops Therefore, if I invite you over to my house and you believe it is wrong to eat "unclean" meat, I have a duty to make sure to serve "clean" meat, out of love for you. But that does not mean I am restricted to eat only meat that is regarded as "clean". There is nothing wrong, however, with eating "unclean" foods/
If the Word of God does not consecrate what you eat, you have no right to eat it. You must ignore 1 Timothy 4:5 in order to arrive at that conclusion. And how Genesis defines food. Again, I'm highly suspecting you didn't read the entire post.
Scarlet_Teardrops I realize that you seek to honor the Lord. It is fine if you wish to eat only "clean" foods because, according to your conscience, it is right. But do not bind other believers with your same standards when the Scriptures are clear. Keep Romans 14 in mind. I know that you mentioned it.
Here is Romans 14, cited here for convenience:
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.”
12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Do Not Cause Another to Stumble
13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
The principle teaching here is this: Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. This is in harmony with the teaching I quoted earlier, which is to do all things to the glory of God, whatever they may be. Paul also makes sure to mention, again, that we have freedom but we should not use that freedom to make others stumble. We must have consideration and love for our brothers and sisters.
Comparing a person who only eats vegetables to someone who eats meats and herbs is not addressing God's definition of clean and unclean. Paul upheld that God's Law consecrates food for us in 1 Timothy 4:5. What Paul speaks against is man's definition of clean/unclean (like the kosher laws). That's why it's a disputable matter, a mere quarrel over opinion (because it derives with man). God's law is not a disputable matter. Being vegetarian is not better than being omnivorous. Having a clean conscience to eat a meat sacrificed to an idol compared to someone who can't eat it because they think the idol is real is not equivalent to transgressing God's Law. And Paul said not to eat what's sacrificed to an idol anyway because it's offered to demons. Now if it's in a meat market, you don't know. So don't ask. But to suggest Paul is talking against God's definition of clean/unclean, and that you can eat pork, rat, cockroach, opossum, squirrel, etc... is unstable; it turns Paul into a hypocrite for telling Timothy that food is consecrated by the Word of God (1 Timothy 4:5), not any and every animal.
Scarlet_Teardrops So, there is nothing wrong with eating any food. I think I have demonstrated this clearly with the Scriptures.
You didn't. You tried to use Paul to contradict himself in his other letters.
And you didn't even address how prophecy still mentions the consequences of those choosing to eat unclean meats in the future, in the very same chapter where he addresses "the worm that dieth not" and all mankind coming to worship him from one Sabbath to another, from New Moon to New moon, not just Jew, but all mankind.
Isaiah 66:17 (NIV)
17 “Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one who is among those who eat the flesh of pigs, rats and other unclean things—they will meet their end together with the one they follow,” declares the Lord.
Same chapter as:
Isaiah 66:22-24 (NIV)
22 “As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,” declares the Lord, “so will your name and descendants endure. 23 From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,” says the Lord. 24 “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.”
See, this is the point behind this whole thread: if we have to ignore details to uphold an interpretation, and turn authors into hypocrites against something they said previously, then the interpretation is erroneous. Not true.
Scarlet_Teardrops Now, my second disagreement is on certain holidays such as Halloween. I wrote a journal entry on this last year around Halloween. I personally celebrate a form of Halloween. It's called "eat candy and watch movies day". I do not recognize, in my heart, any ceremony or regard to demons, and my heart is pure and clean in this. I do not, in my conscience, believe it to be wrong, and so I celebrate it in the fashion I see fit. I see that it is fit because there is nothing unGodly about it.
God seeks obedience of the heart. Outward action will proceed from that. God wants clean hearts, not just clean actions. Pious refrain from certain foods or holidays while having an unclean heart will not save you, nor will partaking of certain foods or holidays while having a clean heart condemn you.
If anyone would like to read my journal entry, you can read it by following this link.
I'm not going to kick and thrash as hard when it comes to Halloween and other holidays. But I must oppose the foisting of dietary restrictions upon believers, in the name of God, with love and gentleness.
Blessings upon you this day.
There's a contradiction with this part of your post though: on the one hand, you say you agree with Paul when he states, "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" but, on the other hand, are you really keeping this day for God? What made you say, "today is special"? God...? or the world/ungodly...? who are you glorifying really? and who would a gentile, with no discernment, lost in the world, think you're glorifying if they saw you watching movies and eating candy all day on that day? Would they think: "here's someone who clearly worships YHWH/Jesus, the Holy God of Israel, that biblical God; he doesn't value the things/deities/lack of deities like we do." Or would you just camouflage right in with the rest of the pagan/agnostic/atheist world by doing this? I don't know your heart; you and God surely do. Those are answers only you and God can answer. Nor am I asking you to answer them publicly in this thread, but are questions you should ask yourself to honestly analyze your motives. And I offer a verse for that introspection: the following is about fasting (the opposite of eating, lol) but this is about two self-imposed traditions (not holy days commanded by God in his law, but that the Israelites had placed upon themselves to observe), and this is what YHWH asked:
Zechariah 7:5 (NIV)
5 “Ask all the people of the land and the priests, ‘When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months for the past seventy years, was it really for me that you fasted?
That said, if I'm foisting dietary restrictions upon believers, then so is Paul for declaring that what we consider food is what God consecrated in his Word. And so is Isaiah for suggesting anyone who eats unclean animals will meet their end together with the one they follow (obviously following someone who doesn't follow YHWH's law, because YHWH prohibits such a thing), not just Jew but Gentile too.
I don't say this out of a bitter spirit either, but out of love as well, out of love for God and for your own well-being.
Blessings to you as well, and may all the glory go to God. Amen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2015 10:06 am
|
|
|
|
Okay...this is going to take a little while.
First of all, I did read the entire post. However, there was a lot to read, so I likely forgot some details. These things happen. Now...
Sister Cristobela However, nothing in this passage mentions unclean animals being present in the situation; unclean animals were never present on the table. What God declared as food (clean animals) is what the Pharisees were deeming defiled if the believers didn't participate in the hand-washing ritual prior to eating/touching the food. And if they ate with unwashed hands (unblessed hands), the Pharisees would consider them defiled. Ergo, Jesus having to declare as food what YHWH declared as food in Mark 7 (and I did mention Mark 7, I don't know why you're saying I didn't; again, I highly suspect you didn't read the entire post before replying).
It is true that there is a concern by the Pharisees that they hadn't washed their hands. I agree.
Sister Cristobela I quoted Matthew before I ever quoted Mark 7 because Matthew is the chapter that people majorly ignore, lol. I'm aware of Mark 7. And I even addressed it when explaining how Jesus and Paul defined "food" and what people read into that.
I know that you quoted Mark 7, but you did not quote what I quoted. That was my point. And I am doubtful about your logic regarding food. Here's why: It says, "Thus he declared all foods clean". If, in fact, Jesus was talking only about the foods that were acceptable in the Jewish law, why would He be declaring those foods clean? That seems a bit redundant. That's essentially saying, "All clean foods are clean." Well--yeah. That doesn't seem to be the straightforward reading of Mark 7 but, rather, a reinterpretation of the meaning of the passage so that it fits into your theological assumptions about dietary restrictions.
Sister Cristobela I'm aware. And the highly ignored verse here, in Acts 15, is verse 21. They would learn the rest of the law of Moses (God's Law) later because he's read every Sabbath in the synagogues. They're only being started off with 4 commands (not that Gentiles must only keep these four, and nothing else for all time, but upon newly converting, to start off with, make it easy for them, these are the ones to start putting into practice right away; they'll learn the rest eventually).
I wasn't ignoring verse 21, personally. It reads, "21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Textually speaking, "for" is another way of saying "because". It isn't that the Gentiles will be given more dietary restrictions once Moses is preached to them more thoroughly. But, rather, they are given the restrictions they are given because of Moses. Essentially, "We give them these restrictions because of the law of Moses..."
Additionally, by your interpretation it seems that the Jerusalem Council basically let the Gentiles continue to sin by eating "unclean" foods.
Yes, that seems to be it.
Sister Cristobela I'm not in disagreement with the above about foods sacrificed to idols. None of that touches upon how Paul defines food elsewhere in his epistles (consecrated by the Word of God AND prayer, not just prayer).
I know you're not in disagreement. But you seem to be missing the principle of the matter. Look at these specific verses,
25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.”
Eat whatever is sold in the meat market. Paul adds qualifiers to his statement. You could say, "well, Paul is referring only to the 'clean' meats, obviously", but I don't think that's how the text is supposed to be read, because...
27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
Are we to assume that one of the unbelievers will adhere to the Jewish dietary laws? I don't think so. So you see, the principle here is not so much adhering to strict Jewish dietary laws, but rather a matter of the Christian conscience and Christian freedom. The only qualifier he makes here is about the food being sacrificed to idols. Paul doesn't say, "or if it is an unclean food" not to partake. The only qualifier is a food sacrificed to idols. If Paul was concerned about unbelievers, who wouldn't adhere to the Jewish dietary laws, serving unclean food to the believers, he would have mentioned it, and it would have been a reasonable concern.
But he doesn't. He says "eat whatever is set before you". The only exception is meat sacrificed to idols.
Sister Cristobela If the Word of God does not consecrate what you eat, you have no right to eat it. You must ignore 1 Timothy 4:5 in order to arrive at that conclusion. And how Genesis defines food. Again, I'm highly suspecting you didn't read the entire post.
Here's 1 Timothy 4:4-5
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
Nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. You could say, yes, that the qualifiers here are that they must be made holy by the word of God and prayer. Since it seems that Jesus declared all foods clean, as seen in Mark 7, all foods are therefore clean. Furthermore, the emphasis here is on praying blessing over food, a thankful heart.
Sister Cristobela Comparing a person who only eats vegetables to someone who eats meats and herbs is not addressing God's definition of clean and unclean. Paul upheld that God's Law consecrates food for us in 1 Timothy 4:5. What Paul speaks against is man's definition of clean/unclean (like the kosher laws). That's why it's a disputable matter, a mere quarrel over opinion (because it derives with man). God's law is not a disputable matter. Being vegetarian is not better than being omnivorous. Having a clean conscience to eat a meat sacrificed to an idol compared to someone who can't eat it because they think the idol is real is not equivalent to transgressing God's Law. And Paul said not to eat what's sacrificed to an idol anyway because it's offered to demons. Now if it's in a meat market, you don't know. So don't ask. But to suggest Paul is talking against God's definition of clean/unclean, and that you can eat pork, rat, cockroach, opossum, squirrel, etc... is unstable; it turns Paul into a hypocrite for telling Timothy that food is consecrated by the Word of God (1 Timothy 4:5), not any and every animal.
We disagree on the understanding of Mark 7 and 1 Timothy 4. 1 Timothy 4:5 is not a problem for me with the understanding that comes from Mark 7, and other passages. Scripture interprets Scripture. And it seems to me that the principle in Romans 14 is about not passing judgment on one another for simple things such as these, but also not putting a stumbling block before others. Essentially: loving one another.
Sister Cristobela You didn't. You tried to use Paul to contradict himself in his other letters.
You're kind of snarky, aren't you? I think you may struggle with pride. This is not the first time I have noticed this. I didn't say anything because I thought that you were, perhaps, having a bad day, but I did find that you were rather undeservably coarse with our Calvinist brother. I hadn't noticed anything in that conversation to make you respond as you did to him. But I seem to be getting that same kind of treatment. You may want to pray about that and ask God to search your heart.
From my understanding of the New Testament writings on food, Paul hasn't contradicted himself at all.
Sister Cristobela And you didn't even address how prophecy still mentions the consequences of those choosing to eat unclean meats in the future, in the very same chapter where he addresses "the worm that dieth not" and all mankind coming to worship him from one Sabbath to another, from New Moon to New moon, not just Jew, but all mankind.
Prophecy is a tricky thing. It's tricky because there is a lot of symbolism involved with it. Or do you think that in the new heavens and new earth, a young man shall die at a hundred years old (Isa. 65:20)? What about childbearing (Isa. 65:23)? Or will we have eternal life, as is described in the New Testament?
Is it not possible that, from the Jewish understanding of that time, what the people would have seen there is not necessarily just the strict Jewish dietary laws but, rather, the marks of Godless people? Jesus does not contradict Isaiah, who came from a different time and spoke to a different audience, but rather, with the fullness of time, teaches about the freedom believers have in Him. The Scriptures do not contradict. We must remember to read the Scriptures according to their literary genre, their time period, and their audience.
So, I do not see a contradiction between Isaiah, Jesus, and Paul. At all.
We must also remember that the Jewish laws were created to set the nation of Israel apart in a world with many pagan traditions. This is why it is important to remember cultural, geographical, and chronological context. When the Old Testament speaks against tattoos, for example, it was referring to a very specific pagan practice. This pagan practice is no longer culturally or chronologically relevant. Tattoos have become nothing more than body art. The key principle behind getting a tattoo for the Christian, then, is what kind of art will honor God?
Based on what I've read and studied, it seems to me that the Jewish dietary laws were just another example of how the nation of Israel was to be separate from the peoples around it. The godless nations did those things, but Israel did not. And this is important when we look at the language in Isaiah and the prophets. At that time, in that culture, eating such foods were a sign of pagan practice.
It is much like head coverings and men with short hair, which is seen in the New Testament. It was a cultural thing. Christians operate on principles. These principles are informed by the two great commandments: love God and love others. Jesus says that all of the Old Testament Scriptures rest on these two commandments. We must always remember the various contexts of passages.
Interestingly, you mentioned Genesis. What is interesting is that Noah offers certain "clean" animals to be sacrificed in Genesis 8, but in Genesis 9 God gives mankind "every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything." (Gen. 9:3). The only qualifier, seen in verse 4, is that blood shall not be consumed. This is the same qualifier that the Jerusalem Council gave to the new believers who were Gentiles. But everything is given. Now we could say "God meant only every clean living thing", but God didn't add that qualifier. It reminds me of those who believe in Limited Atonement interpreting passages in John, when he says that God is the savior of the whole world, as merely being "all of the elect throughout the world".
If God meant it that way, why didn't He qualify it? He could have, but He didn't. And He even offered a qualification--no blood. Why not just slip "and no unclean animals" in there too?
I realize, of course, that the Jewish understanding may have been to assume "clean" meat only. But Genesis also took place before the Law was put into place. We must remember that, and remember the principle behind the Law--to set Israel apart from the surrounding pagan nations. So the Jews may have understood Noah and his family as having been able to eat any of those creatures before the Law. After all, Noah was righteous but wasn't circumcised. That came with the covenant made with Abraham. And it was for Abraham and his offspring.
Sister Cristobela I don't say this out of a bitter spirit either, but out of love as well, out of love for God and for your own well-being.
Okay. I understand if you do not try to say these things out of a bitter spirit. But you may want to consider your approach with people. You really come off as condescending.
God bless you. I am wary to continue this conversation further, since I do not believe that I will convince you, nor do I think you will convince me. I have not yet been convinced, nor have you. I doubt we will. You're not going to buy my understanding and I'm not going to buy yours, not necessarily because of rebellion from either party but simply because we're reading the Scriptures differently. It is true that there is only one interpretation of Scripture. But we both think that we have the right interpretation, and neither are persuaded by the other.
It may be that we'll just have to agree to disagree and love each other just the same. That is a key principle in the New Testament writings. To love everyone, even your enemies. To honor everyone, even the emperor. To do all things to the glory of the LORD and in consideration of others. Live at peace.
So, yes, I think this conversation will have to cease. I still think you are incorrect, but I can't seem to persuade you. And it isn't heresy, and I don't think it's necessarily sinful, so it's not like I have to get the Church involved. I'd also probably converse with you on this matter for a longer period of time if it was such a thing.
Feel free to reply, of course, but I won't be conversing further unless I see something that gives me serious pause. May God bless you and continue to grant you wisdom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:14 am
|
|
|
|
Excuse the delay. Gaia didn't alert me of there being a reply in the thread (and since you didn't quote my exact username, I wasn't alerted of being quoted either emotion_sweatdrop ).
Scarlet_Teardrops Okay...this is going to take a little while.
First of all, I did read the entire post. However, there was a lot to read, so I likely forgot some details. These things happen. [...]
True.
Scarlet_Teardrops Now...Sister Cristobela However, nothing in this passage mentions unclean animals being present in the situation; unclean animals were never present on the table. What God declared as food (clean animals) is what the Pharisees were deeming defiled if the believers didn't participate in the hand-washing ritual prior to eating/touching the food. And if they ate with unwashed hands (unblessed hands), the Pharisees would consider them defiled. Ergo, Jesus having to declare as food what YHWH declared as food in Mark 7 (and I did mention Mark 7, I don't know why you're saying I didn't; again, I highly suspect you didn't read the entire post before replying).
It is true that there is a concern by the Pharisees that they hadn't washed their hands. I agree.
Sister Cristobela I quoted Matthew before I ever quoted Mark 7 because Matthew is the chapter that people majorly ignore, lol. I'm aware of Mark 7. And I even addressed it when explaining how Jesus and Paul defined "food" and what people read into that.
I know that you quoted Mark 7, but you did not quote what I quoted. That was my point. And I am doubtful about your logic regarding food. Here's why: It says, "Thus he declared all foods clean". If, in fact, Jesus was talking only about the foods that were acceptable in the Jewish law, why would He be declaring those foods clean?
First, Jesus was talking about the animals that were acceptable according to God's Law, not "Jewish law" (Noah wasn't a Jew). Jesus had to declare them clean, because human tradition (Jewish Law) was contradicting God's Laws.
Second,
Scarlet_Teardrops That doesn't seem to be the straightforward reading of Mark 7 but, rather, a reinterpretation of the meaning of the passage so that it fits into your theological assumptions about dietary restrictions.
It is the straight forward reading once you realize that there is no such concept as "unclean food" in the bible. There are unclean animals, but never "unclean food". Do a keyword search, you will find one of two things:
1) you'll find "titles" like:
source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lv+11&version=NIV
source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+14&version=NIV
That's not how the body of the text refers to them as:
Leviticus 11:46-47 (NIV)
46 “‘These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves about in the water and every creature that moves along the ground. 47 You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.’”
If the animal is unclean/not to be considered a thing to be eaten, how can it be called "food"? "Unclean foods" don't exist. God never refers to unclean animals as food, so why do we...? That's like saying waterless water; if there is no water, how can it still be water? If it's not to be eaten how can it be called food?
2) you'll find the phrase "unclean food" appearing once in modern translations of Hosea 9:3.
...but the Hebrew of that verse does not say "food" anywhere at all:
source: http://biblehub.com/text/hosea/9-3.htm.
It literally says, "unclean" while "things" is implied ("food" is not present). Unlike what the modern versions have done, all the older translations that I find in the public domain get it right (of the ones I'm aware of).
source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hos9:3&version=YLT;KJV;DRA;DARBY
So, there is no biblical basis for the existence of the phrase "unclean food". It is not-biblical. It does not exist. The phrase is mere tradition, and a dangerous tradition because it is blinding our eyes to what God's word literally says.
This false traditional phrase ("unclean foods") is what makes people interpret Mark 7 as if Jesus were declaring all animals (including unclean animals) as clean by saying all foods are clean. That would be the twisting going on here: deviating from how the bible literally defines food in order to support their traditional interpretations that we can eat all animals. The reality of what's going on in both Matthew 15 and Mark 7 is how the Pharisees were over-restricting themselves, and others, by adding on to the dietary laws and Jesus came to undo that and submit it back to what God said. The self-imposed traditions of the Pharisees made the yoke heavy. God's yoke, the Law of Moses, never has been heavy and never did place heavy burdens.
So this...
Scarlet_Teardrops That seems a bit redundant. That's essentially saying, "All clean foods are clean." Well--yeah.
That's exactly the point! The Pharisees started to restrict above and beyond what is written in YHWH's Law (ergo, forbidding clean animals in the process as well because "whether or not you washed your hands beforehand" started to take precedence over YHWH allowing the animal to be consumed in the first place. And a ritual/tradition that came from where...? Not YHWH. So who cares? That was one of the points Jesus made.
This describes the Pharisees (and mainstream Christianity equally):
Ezekiel 22:26 (NIV)
26 Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them.
And, in addition to nullifying YHWH's commands of clean/unclean, their self-imposed ritual did nothing to keep them from becoming defiled in their hearts via evil thoughts. But something that people don't realize, and this is crucial: the moment we disagree with anything YHWH said, that's the moment we become defiled / have an evil thought: the moment we have a thought that is evil is the moment we become defiled [and what is evil? transgressing the law i.e. 2 Kings 17:13]).
2 Kings 17:13 (ESV)
13 Yet the Lord warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer, saying, “Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the Law that I commanded your fathers, and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets.”
Matthew 15:19 (ESV)
19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.
So, before you eat a piece of pork, you're defiled for wanting / intending to interact with YHWH's creations (both the pig and your body) in a way he said not to—so, not just for the use you're about to give the pig, but which of his creations you intend to feed the pork to: God's human creation; it's like feeding gasoline to a baby: man was not meant to use that as fuel for their body; only what God told man to fuel themselves with should be fed to them). If God forbids a certain act, who are we to suggest it's okay to do now...? Because Jesus did not say it was okay, neither did Paul say it was okay. And, as I already addressed about Peter's vision, neither did Peter say it was okay.
Scarlet_Teardrops Sister Cristobela I'm aware. And the highly ignored verse here, in Acts 15, is verse 21. They would learn the rest of the law of Moses (God's Law) later because he's read every Sabbath in the synagogues. They're only being started off with 4 commands (not that Gentiles must only keep these four, and nothing else for all time, but upon newly converting, to start off with, make it easy for them, these are the ones to start putting into practice right away; they'll learn the rest eventually).
I wasn't ignoring verse 21, personally. It reads, "21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Textually speaking, "for" is another way of saying "because". It isn't that the Gentiles will be given more dietary restrictions once Moses is preached to them more thoroughly. But, rather, they are given the restrictions they are given because of Moses. Essentially, "We give them these restrictions because of the law of Moses..."
The council—like the Pharisees, and like us today—have no authority to add or take from God's Law.
Deuteronomy 4:2 (NIV)
2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.
Had they held back those laws, they would have been subtracting from the commands of God (ergo, would have been transgressing the law, sinning; there's a command in the Law against adding or taking away from God's commands). Not only would they be sinning, but failing to protect the Gentiles. Those commands, if obeyed, will keep believers from joining whichever group of people Isaiah 66:17 is prophesying about, a group who eats unclean things, and are walking to their destruction. There is no such thing as "adding" laws to the Gentiles by expecting them to learn the rest of God's Laws in the synagogues. It would be disobedient not to teach it to them and unloving.
I agree, it is because of the Law of Moses, because what is the Law of Moses? The law of God. God's Words. it is because of God that we are to teach the Gentiles to avoid committing abominations (doing things that God finds detestable).
Matthew 4:4 (NIV)
4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’[a]”
Footnotes:
a. Matthew 4:4 Deut. 8:3
God's commands protect us, even the dietary laws protect us (and protects others) against false forms of worship. But, regardless of how ever many ways those dietary laws benefit us (health? environmental/food chain-balance? protection from false forms of worship? etc), it can all be reduced to one single reason:
Deuteronomy 10:12-13 (NIV)
12 And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to observe the Lord’s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?
It's for our own good.
If you loved your neighbor, you would warn them no to eat pork, rats and other unclean things.
You would warn them not to eat the fat of animals.
You would warn them not to eat blood.
You would warn them not to eat roadkill/animals found dead and strangled by wild animals.
And everything else the Creator of the Heavens and Earth prohibited man from eating for their own good.
Scarlet_Teardrops Additionally, by your interpretation it seems that the Jerusalem Council basically let the Gentiles continue to sin by eating "unclean" foods.
Again, unclean "foods" don't exist. Unclean animals do. And no they would not have allowed them to sin because they expected them to learn the rest eventually as they attended the synagogues every Sabbath (and a portion of the Law and the prophets is read without fail every Sabbath; they would come to learn by attending). Not only that, but the Gentiles would not find unclean animals at their gatherings. They would start noticing: these guys don't eat certain things. "Where's the bacon?" "Uh, it's prohibited in the Law, let me show you." There was ample opportunity—by what was preached in the synagogues, what was read from the law and the prophets, down to how they lived. No one would let them sin (if they loved God and their fellow neighbor as themselves); not unless they were only hanging out with Gentiles ignorant of the law—that's not what you'd find in the synagogues, especially on the Sabbath.
If eating blood is still prohibited, so is the eating of rats and pork, like Isaiah prophesied about. But just like I shouldn't have expected you to grasp every single detail of what I wrote all at once, neither would the council have expected the newly converted Gentiles to absorb every single detail of God's Law all at once. But by going through it bit by bit, they will understand. Eating unclean animals doesn't become less of an abomination (a disgusting thing to God) just because Jesus died on a cross as our propitiation. Just like lusting after (and having sex with) the same sex is still an abomination, so is the eating of pork and other unclean animals: it is still an abomination for mankind to do so.
Scarlet_Teardrops Sister Cristobela I'm not in disagreement with the above about foods sacrificed to idols. None of that touches upon how Paul defines food elsewhere in his epistles (consecrated by the Word of God AND prayer, not just prayer).
I know you're not in disagreement. But you seem to be missing the principle of the matter. Look at these specific verses,
25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.”
Eat whatever is sold in the meat market. Paul adds qualifiers to his statement. You could say, "well, Paul is referring only to the 'clean' meats, obviously", but I don't think that's how the text is supposed to be read, because...
27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
Are we to assume that one of the unbelievers will adhere to the Jewish dietary laws? I don't think so. So you see, the principle here is not so much adhering to strict Jewish dietary laws, but rather a matter of the Christian conscience and Christian freedom. The only qualifier he makes here is about the food being sacrificed to idols. Paul doesn't say, "or if it is an unclean food" not to partake. The only qualifier is a food sacrificed to idols. If Paul was concerned about unbelievers, who wouldn't adhere to the Jewish dietary laws, serving unclean food to the believers, he would have mentioned it, and it would have been a reasonable concern.
But he doesn't. He says "eat whatever is set before you". The only exception is meat sacrificed to idols.
He wouldn't have to repeat himself seeing as Paul addresses "what food is" in his other epistles. This chapter is just tackling the issue of meats sacrificed to idols, not whether it was an animal consecrated by the word of God or not.
This is precisely the problem I'm trying to bring to light about how Paul's epistles get over-generalized to the point that they negate his words and actions elsewhere, due to not realizing what exactly he argues against, specifically, in a certain letter. It will never be against God's dietary laws if in another letter, to Timothy, he's saying the Word of God consecrates what we eat. And on that note:
Scarlet_Teardrops Sister Cristobela If the Word of God does not consecrate what you eat, you have no right to eat it. You must ignore 1 Timothy 4:5 in order to arrive at that conclusion. And how Genesis defines food. Again, I'm highly suspecting you didn't read the entire post.
Here's 1 Timothy 4:4-5
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
Nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. You could say, yes, that the qualifiers here are that they must be made holy by the word of God and prayer. Since it seems that Jesus declared all foods clean, as seen in Mark 7, all foods are therefore clean. Furthermore, the emphasis here is on praying blessing over food, a thankful heart.
By the time you get to this, I think you should have already caught on to the subtlety Christians overlook (and that you've been glossing over): Jesus declared all foods clean, not all animals clean. Jesus had to sound redundant and state the obvious because the Pharisees' traditions started prohibiting even clean animals if food was being prohibited / considered unclean if they didn't wash their hands beforehand. Jesus had to state the law: all clean animals (& seed-bearing plants) a.k.a. foods are foods. Even if you don't participate in the hand-washing ritual, that doesn't change what our Father commanded/defined as food.
And that is exactly the kind of thing that Paul prophesied against in his letter to Timothy (in 1 Timothy 4): how people would teach to abstain from the eating of things that God said you could eat (not that these people, with seared consciences listening to doctrines of demons will start prohibiting animals that were once forbidden by our Heavenly Father himself in the Law of Moses, but things which YHWH, in his law, allowed us to eat, and that's what these demonic doctrines are teaching to abstain from; those who know the truth, God's law, will eat these things. They won't fall for the lie. For example, people nowadays seek to abstain from eating all meat and find more "humane" alternatives to slaughtering actual animals (and they teach others to as well) i.e. printing out a meat substitute via 3-D printers, and that article even ends on this note, "Of course, we could all just go vegan or vegetarian, too.").
Secular influences aside, I have even come across believers, those who believe Jesus is the Christ / Messiah, saying we should just flat out go vegan (no animal products whatsoever; this would also include forbidding others from eating honey too, since it comes from an animal) because eating meat is less holy. Their consciences are seared. They ignore God's law and that's why they fall into these doctrines of demons i.e. The Christian Basis for Veganism.
Quote: It is no wonder that more church leaders are finally beginning to view the production and consumption of meat as an outright sin. Eating meat is the worst way imaginable to sustain our bodies and our planet. It destroys both, and just as importantly, it inflicts incalculable anguish on the lives of innocent animals who were created by God to enjoy their freedom just as much as we humans. http://freefromharm.org/veganism/christian-basis-veganism/
That is straight up 1 Timothy 4:1-5. But because I know the truth, God's Law, I won't fall for such argumentation / deception. Nor will I allow others to fall into the deception, because God's Laws allow the eating of clean animals and I will make that known. If there is a Christian meat-eater out there, I would defend them to the bone from such lies (as long as the meat they want to eat is clean) because the truth, God's Law, allows it, consecrates it.
The Essenes are another group that falls under Paul's description. Their gospel (Gospel of the Nazarenes) suggests that Jesus taught us to be vegetarian and that he didn't eat the passover lamb [which, to anyone who knows the law, is a big fat accusation that he was a sinner / not sinless / but someone who transgressed God's Law]).
What YHWH commanded:
Numbers 9:1-3(NIV)
9 The Lord spoke to Moses in the Desert of Sinai in the first month of the second year after they came out of Egypt. He said, 2 “Have the Israelites celebrate the Passover at the appointed time. 3 Celebrate it at the appointed time, at twilight on the fourteenth day of this month, in accordance with all its rules and regulations.”
Numbers 9:13 (NIV)
13 But if anyone who is ceremonially clean and not on a journey fails to celebrate the Passover, they must be cut off from their people for not presenting the Lord’s offering at the appointed time. They will bear the consequences of their sin.
Compared to the Gospel of the Nazarenes (heresy, lies), 76:27...
Lection LXXVI verse 27 27. Now Judas Iscariot had gone to the house of Caiaphas and said unto him, Behold he has celebrated the Passover, within the gates, with the Mazza in place of the lamb. I indeed bought a lamb, but he forbade that it should be killed, and lo, the man of whom I bought it is witness. http://www.essene.com/NazareneGospel/Holy_12_8.html#gn76
In addition to other heretical teachings like "By the Shedding of Blood of Others Is No Remission of Sins"...
Quote: 1. Yeshua was teaching his disciples in the outer court of the Temple and one of them said unto him: Master, it is said by the priests that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Can then the blood offering of the law take away sin? 2. And Yeshua answered: No blood offering, of beast or bird, or man, can take away sin, for how can the conscience be purged from sin by the shedding of innocent blood? Nay, it will increase the condemnation.
Contradicts:
Hebrews 9:22-24 (KJV)
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Hebrews 13:11-13 (KJV)
11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.
12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.
2 Corinthians 5:21 (KJV)
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
These are the kinds of people Paul warned about.
The "Gospel of the Nazarenes" in no way, shape, or form, promotes truth. It denies the Law, Prophets, Gospels and the apostles' writings—all of YHWH's words. The Gospel of the Nazarenes, and Christians calling meat-eating sinful, are ideas taught by demons. Jesus ate fish. Jesus ate the passover lamb (otherwise, had he not eaten the passover lamb, he would've been a sinner/transgressing the law, and not a sinless sacrifice because passover took place before his crucifixion and had he not participated, he would have been in sin, and not a sinless atonement sacrifice by the time he was killed).
Those are accurate representations of what 1 Tim 4 and Mark 7 rebuke: man's ideas superseding God's commands. Neither Paul nor Jesus speak against God's definitions of clean/unclean, but man's.
Scarlet_Teardrops Sister Cristobela Comparing a person who only eats vegetables to someone who eats meats and herbs is not addressing God's definition of clean and unclean. Paul upheld that God's Law consecrates food for us in 1 Timothy 4:5. What Paul speaks against is man's definition of clean/unclean (like the kosher laws). That's why it's a disputable matter, a mere quarrel over opinion (because it derives with man). God's law is not a disputable matter. Being vegetarian is not better than being omnivorous. Having a clean conscience to eat a meat sacrificed to an idol compared to someone who can't eat it because they think the idol is real is not equivalent to transgressing God's Law. And Paul said not to eat what's sacrificed to an idol anyway because it's offered to demons. Now if it's in a meat market, you don't know. So don't ask. But to suggest Paul is talking against God's definition of clean/unclean, and that you can eat pork, rat, cockroach, opossum, squirrel, etc... is unstable; it turns Paul into a hypocrite for telling Timothy that food is consecrated by the Word of God (1 Timothy 4:5), not any and every animal.
We disagree on the understanding of Mark 7 and 1 Timothy 4. 1 Timothy 4:5 is not a problem for me with the understanding that comes from Mark 7, and other passages. Scripture interprets Scripture. And it seems to me that the principle in Romans 14 is about not passing judgment on one another for simple things such as these, but also not putting a stumbling block before others. Essentially: loving one another.
Until you acknowledge the subtlety of how the bible defines food and how the phrase "unclean food" is non-existent, we will continue to disagree on what Mark 7 and 1 Timothy 4 says.
And Romans 14 is about disputable matters as Paul opens up by saying, not speaking against YHWH's Law. That's what people ignore about this chapter; not the principle of not to pass judgment on believers for disputable things (for example, celebrating birthdays or not, which the law neither prohibits nor commands; being vegetarian or omnivorous—the law doesn't command you be either one, it's not sinful to eat animals nor sinful to abstain from eating animals and eat only vegetables).
Scarlet_Teardrops Sister Cristobela You didn't. You tried to use Paul to contradict himself in his other letters.
You're kind of snarky, aren't you? I think you may struggle with pride. This is not the first time I have noticed this. I didn't say anything because I thought that you were, perhaps, having a bad day, but I did find that you were rather undeservably coarse with our Calvinist brother. I hadn't noticed anything in that conversation to make you respond as you did to him. But I seem to be getting that same kind of treatment. You may want to pray about that and ask God to search your heart.
That would be my bluntness and my intolerance when people deviate from biblical definitions in favor of traditional definitions (whether defining terms like "elect" or resorting to phrases that do not even exist in the bible e.g. "unclean food" to pervert what Jesus does say). You quite literally didn't provide a clear demonstration, ergo my response, "you didn't". It isn't snark. It just quite literally is something you did not demonstrate and you made Paul contradict himself.
I believe in absolute truth, not "agree to disagree" and "tolerate differing ideas". I will submit all things to everything Christ said.
[continued below]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:15 am
|
|
|
|
[continued...]
Scarlet_Teardrops Sister Cristobela And you didn't even address how prophecy still mentions the consequences of those choosing to eat unclean meats in the future, in the very same chapter where he addresses "the worm that dieth not" and all mankind coming to worship him from one Sabbath to another, from New Moon to New moon, not just Jew, but all mankind.
Prophecy is a tricky thing. It's tricky because there is a lot of symbolism involved with it. Or do you think that in the new heavens and new earth, a young man shall die at a hundred years old (Isa. 65:20)? What about childbearing (Isa. 65:23)? Or will we have eternal life, as is described in the New Testament?
What symbolism? Isaiah says the same thing as the New Testament in Isaiah 25:8...
Isaiah 25:8 (NIV)
8 he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears
from all faces;
he will remove his people’s disgrace
from all the earth.
The Lord has spoken.
Isaiah's prophecies aren't going to contradict so whatever he meant by...
Isaiah 65:17-20 (NIV)
17 “See, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
20 “Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
the one who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach[a] a hundred
will be considered accursed.
Footnotes:
a. Isaiah 65:20 Or the sinner who reaches
...does not contradict Isaiah 25:8 ("he will swallow up death forever.The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces [...]") NIV. The New Testament doesn't present different ideas. They all come from the Old Testament; the New Testament just provides further commentary about them. So whatever is the Old Testament interpretation for Isaiah's passages (Isaiah 25:8 vs Isaiah 65:20), is how we should interpret the New Testament writings which prophesy about the same things. They can't contradict. They don't contradict.
So:
(1) both in Isaiah 25:8 and in the New Testament, he's going to swallow death up "forever" (or in "victory", depending on what that Hebrew term there ["netsach"] really means. But 1 Corinthians 15 addresses death being swallowed up in victory too, so both "forever" and "victory" are legitimate and in agreement with "netsach").
(2) Reaching 100 will be considered youthful, unlike today when reaching 100 is considered ancient [and a miracle in some cases]
(3) dying at 100 is considered a curse—which suggests to me inflicted with plague by God (not a natural death).
I suppose the problem lies in how we interpret "death", "death being swallowed up" and "death being swallowed up forever/in victory".
For example in Luke 20:36 it says,
Luke 20:36 (NIV)
36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.
What does the Greek term (G599 "apothanein"), translated "die", mean?
source: http://biblehub.com/text/luke/20-36.htm
source: http://biblehub.com/greek/599.htm
That fits perfectly with what Isaiah 65:20 is describing. If you'll be considered youthful at 100, then nothing is decaying/withering anymore, your skin isn't sagging, you're not drying up, you're still young-looking at 100 years of age. Does that mean God cannot kill anyone off? curse them to death? No, he can and we're given examples of that:
Those who take part in the first resurrection (those who died in Christ) get raised to life at the start of Jesus' millenial reign. But then, after the 1000 years, there are people coming against his city, and these people get devoured by fire. Death is still around:
Revelation 20:4-6 (NIV)
4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They[a] had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
Footnotes:
Revelation 20:4 Or God; I also saw those who
Revelation 20:7-11 (NIV)
7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
We're told about the second resurrection in the immediate verses that follow (Revelation 20:12-15), at which point this earth with these heavens disappear.
But let's get to the New Earth and New Heavens and my second point to consider, why do the nations need the leaves of the tree of life for healing if there is no death or disease?
Revelation 22:1-3 (NIV)
22 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him.
So instead of working the ground, we'll just be eating from the trees (like the conditions that Adam and Eve lived in prior to the earth being cursed, prior to their exile out of Eden), conditions in which no one died. They had the tree of life, but once they didn't have access to that, the life expectancy of man started to degrade.
Just what is it exactly that the New Testament has been saying? have we, because of tradition, been forcing it to say something it never meant to say? We should not be going crazy with interpretations that deny the Old Testament—of what's written in Genesis nor Isaiah. The decay of man will be swallowed up. But God can kill you / separate you from life-giving, healing-things, if he sees you sinning. Ergo, people outside the city, on this New Earth and New Heavens, who don't have access to the tree.
Revelation 22:14-15 (NIV)
14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
Inside the city, there seems to be no curse, but outside? That's where the rest of Isaiah 66 comes in, which is what Jesus was referring to in Mark 9.
Isaiah 66:24 (NIV)
24 “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.”
Mark 9:47-49 (NIV)
47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where
“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’[a]
49 Everyone will be salted with fire.
Footnotes:
a. Mark 9:48 Isaiah 66:24
That "hell" is Gehenna/lake of fire on earth, not Sheol/Hades realm of the dead. So, we have dead people / dead bodies on the New Heavens and the New Earth. It's safe to say that they were resurrected already (because previously in Revelation 21, the second resurrection took place).
Revelation 20:11-15 (NIV)
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
Ergo why it's called the second death. Your body is dying...again. And thus why it's called the resurrection to everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:2 (NIV)
2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
So, no, Isaiah doesn't contradict the New Testament concept of death being swallowed up in victory. It's the same thing. You won't be crying or dying if you're living with Jesus in the city. But outside?
Matthew 25:30 (NIV)
30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
By that same token, Isaiah 66:17 cannot be twisted to mean anything other than what it means: if you eat unclean animals, prepare to meet your end, you're in danger, and being deceived. There's nothing obscure or symbolic about it. He's saying those who eat pork, rats and other unclean things will meet their end along with the one they follow (whoever they follow is teaching them that it is okay to eat these animals). The way you want to interpret the New Testament denies the Old Testament definitions / the Father's definitions. I'm not doing that and neither did Jesus, nor his disciples. So, I would encourage you not to do that either.
Scarlet_Teardrops Is it not possible that, from the Jewish understanding of that time, what the people would have seen there is not necessarily just the strict Jewish dietary laws but, rather, the marks of Godless people?
First of all, "strict Jewish dietary law" is not what we find in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Kosher Laws (what would be considered "strict Jewish dietary law") add to what YHWH commanded through Moses in the Old Testament.
Second, you're trying to make a distinction between adhering to God's Laws and not bearing the marks of Godless people. But if you do one, you do the other. If you adhere to God's law, you don't bear the marks of the godless; if you bear the marks of the godless, you don't adhere to God's laws. Our Heavenly Father commanded against certain things to avoid being like the world around us, yes, because they misuse God's creation to please their senses. We're not to live by the desires of our flesh, but by every word that comes out of God's mouth, like Jesus, our model.
Scarlet_Teardrops Jesus does not contradict Isaiah, who came from a different time and spoke to a different audience, but rather, with the fullness of time, teaches about the freedom believers have in Him. The Scriptures do not contradict. We must remember to read the Scriptures according to their literary genre, their time period, and their audience.
You said a whole bunch of nothing with this, lol, because I agree. Not only do they not contradict, but they teach the exact same thing. God's law is the perfect law of liberty, that releases us from the deceitful desires of the flesh once our heart is made right and not hostile to him. The Pharisees did not adhere to God's law, they put heavy burdens on the people with their self-imposed traditions that they treated as if they were God's commands. The dietary laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 were God's law, not self-imposed. Those commands keep us free and protect us from deception (like that of the Essenes and the Christian veganism movement going on).
Scarlet_Teardrops So, I do not see a contradiction between Isaiah, Jesus, and Paul. At all.
Neither do I emotion_awesome
Scarlet_Teardrops We must also remember that the Jewish laws were created to set the nation of Israel apart in a world with many pagan traditions. This is why it is important to remember cultural, geographical, and chronological context. When the Old Testament speaks against tattoos, for example, it was referring to a very specific pagan practice. This pagan practice is no longer culturally or chronologically relevant. Tattoos have become nothing more than body art. The key principle behind getting a tattoo for the Christian, then, is what kind of art will honor God?
neutral Tattoos are not conducive to the well-being of our skin. That's why YHWH commanded against them because, on top of making us set-apart from the world, those commands protect our physical well-being as well. There was a topic on this not too long ago: Cancer and Tattoo Link. They were bad for you back then, and are still bad for you today.
And we're still not suppose to be like the world. Who gave us this notion that the skin is a profane piece of canvas upon which we can freely paint on? Not God. That idea did not come from him. We will be judged for everything we did in this body and to this body (it's not our own; this body belongs to God); this is the holy temple of God's Spirit. Would YHWH have allowed people to graffiti the tabernacle? It's vandalism. We're not suppose to treat the tent where he dwells as if it were a common/profane piece of paper. It doesn't belong to us. And paganism didn't stop 2,000 years ago.
Scarlet_Teardrops Based on what I've read and studied, it seems to me that the Jewish dietary laws were just another example of how the nation of Israel was to be separate from the peoples around it. The godless nations did those things, but Israel did not. And this is important when we look at the language in Isaiah and the prophets. At that time, in that culture, eating such foods were a sign of pagan practice.
And they still are a sign of pagan practice. Who eats unclean animals today...? Pagans: people who don't worship the God of Israel in spirit and in truth.
Scarlet_Teardrops It is much like head coverings and men with short hair, which is seen in the New Testament. It was a cultural thing. Christians operate on principles. These principles are informed by the two great commandments: love God and love others. Jesus says that all of the Old Testament Scriptures rest on these two commandments. We must always remember the various contexts of passages.
"Much like"...? Not at all similar.
(1) First of all, we don't find any commands in the Old Testament where God instructs the proper way for married women to pray and prophesy while they're in the temple/synagogue. (In contrast, we do find dietary laws from our Heavenly Father throughout the Law, and those clean/unclean distinctions mentioned again in the Prophets [by Ezekiel and Isaiah], commands upheld by Jesus and Paul, so many clear, outright commands).
(2) Second of all, married women have to cover their long hair to not dishonor their head (their husbands) and because of the angels, according to Paul. You're suggesting his second reason, "because of the angels" is a cultural thing? That's yet another detail of Paul's epistles that they ignore to force an interpretation onto the text. Who is ignoring context here? And the bit about dishonoring one's head (husband) is associated back to Adam and Eve; that's Paul's focus: not "because in the pagan temples, they do this, that, and the third". It has to do with YHWH's created order. Now, do I see indications in the Old Testament of women putting on veils and binding their hair to represent being under their head / accepting their head? Yes. (Rebekah in Genesis 24:64-65 as they rode up to Isaac [which suggests to me she accepted him as a husband] and the woman in Numbers 5:18-19, as part of the jealousy offering, if she was suspected of adultery, her hair was to be loosened to show the disgrace of dishonoring her husband/her head). But I do not find anything as explicit as a command coming straight out of God's mouth (the way dietary commands are found in the text).
Scarlet_Teardrops Interestingly, you mentioned Genesis. What is interesting is that Noah offers certain "clean" animals to be sacrificed in Genesis 8, but in Genesis 9 God gives mankind "every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything." (Gen. 9:3). The only qualifier, seen in verse 4, is that blood shall not be consumed. This is the same qualifier that the Jerusalem Council gave to the new believers who were Gentiles. But everything is given. Now we could say "God meant only every clean living thing", but God didn't add that qualifier.
[...]
If God meant it that way, why didn't He qualify it? He could have, but He didn't. And He even offered a qualification--no blood. Why not just slip "and no unclean animals" in there too?
Two things:
1) "I give you everything", in the sense that he can eat animals and plants. He couldn't do both while on the ark, because he was suppose to keep the animals alive. There's no qualifier here for "green plants" either yet we know it's just the seed-bearing kinds that YHWH allowed man to eat since the beginning.
Genesis 1:29-30 (NIV)
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
Poison ivy is also a green plant. Can we eat this? No.
Not just according to Genesis. Try it. It's not edible for us (actually don't try it).
Quote: You've just eaten poison ivy, also known as Toxicodendron radicans. If you are a human, here's what would happen to you: Resin released from inside the leaves and stems would bind to the membrane surfaces everywhere it touches — your lips, gums, tongue, throat, esophagus, and stomach.
After several hours, these membranes would begin to disintegrate, oozing blood and fluid from your cells. Blisters would form.
Nerve cells would be damaged, causing itching and burning
Nausea, fever, chills
Possibly shock, hypertension, renal failure, or development of ulcers ]http://www.explorecuriocity.org/content.aspx?contentid=196
But animals can eat it and they love it.
Quote: If you are a deer, goat, horse, rabbit, or bird that just ate poison ivy, here's what would happen if you: In fact, studies have shown that white-tailed deer prefer eating poison ivy over other plants. To most animals, poison ivy is delicious and nutritious. Poison ivy guru Jon Sachs (www.poison-ivy.org) says that "Everything I have ever read or heard says that no animals other than humans are affected by poison ivy - even chimps, which are 98% the same DNA as people." ]http://www.explorecuriocity.org/content.aspx?contentid=196
Exactly like Genesis 1 defined for us, this is food for animals, not man. If you were to take Genesis 9 to be an absolute statement, without comparing it to previous chapters like Genesis 1, then what's stopping you from eating Poison ivy? Nothing else in the Old Testament. Should we feel sorry for Moses because he didn't know? Actually he did know, because he didn't ignore Genesis 1 in light of Genesis 9.
Likewise, in the same manner that we cannot unstably handle Genesis 9 when it comes to eating green plants, as if Genesis 1 didn't exist, we cannot unstably handle Genesis 9 when it comes to eating animals, as if Genesis 7 and Genesis 8 don't exist. If YHWH is allowing animals to be eaten, then it will be what YHWH defined as clean.
2) This is another case where looking into the Hebrew reaps profits:
The word that appears there is "remes" which, in and of itself, does not refer to any and every kind of animal:
source: http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/9-3.htm
source: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7431.htm
It does not include every category of animal.
Genesis 1:24-25 (KJV)
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
So the interpretation that says: "it's all fair game, nothing is off-limits, eat what you want Noah, eat that donkey and that rabbit, go wild" never has been honest to the Hebrew at all. And just like YHWH gave criteria for which animals out of the livestock and birds could/could not be eaten, then "creeping things" have criteria too which Noah knew.
Scarlet_Teardrops I realize, of course, that the Jewish understanding may have been to assume "clean" meat only. But Genesis also took place before the Law was put into place.
Why are you assuming the Law of God wasn't around? Sin is being punished with world-wide judgment (flood); ergo, God's Law is around and known.
And Genesis has indications that God's servants knew his Law:
Genesis 26:5 (NIV)
5 because Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions.”
Scarlet_Teardrops We must remember that, and remember the principle behind the Law--to set Israel apart from the surrounding pagan nations. So the Jews may have understood Noah and his family as having been able to eat any of those creatures before the Law. After all, Noah was righteous but wasn't circumcised. That came with the covenant made with Abraham. And it was for Abraham and his offspring.
We are joining Israel. We are suppose to be set-apart from the pagan nations too (as I detailed in the OP). So not only will we be known by our love (what the bible defines as love) for each other, but also by how we don't conform to the world's ways in any area of our lives: not in the way we eat, dress, speak, think, use our time, etc... We're totally set-apart to give glory to God, in ways that don't violate his commands (in ways that are not sinful).
The Jews would not have alleged that Noah and his family could eat any of those creatures "before the Law". He knew the difference between unclean and clean. And the Hebrew word that appears in Genesis 9:3, "remes" is a far cry from "eat all animals".
Scarlet_Teardrops Sister Cristobela I don't say this out of a bitter spirit either, but out of love as well, out of love for God and for your own well-being.
Okay. I understand if you do not try to say these things out of a bitter spirit. But you may want to consider your approach with people. You really come off as condescending.
Well, I'll take that into consideration. If someone is reading my attitude as condescending then that means there is still room for improvement, and I have more to grow in the area of gentleness. May the Holy Spirit empower me to grow in this area so that no one will have any excuse to detract from what I said because of how I said it.
Scarlet_Teardrops God bless you. I am wary to continue this conversation further, since I do not believe that I will convince you, nor do I think you will convince me. I have not yet been convinced, nor have you. I doubt we will. You're not going to buy my understanding and I'm not going to buy yours, not necessarily because of rebellion from either party but simply because we're reading the Scriptures differently. It is true that there is only one interpretation of Scripture. But we both think that we have the right interpretation, and neither are persuaded by the other.
It may be that we'll just have to agree to disagree and love each other just the same. That is a key principle in the New Testament writings. To love everyone, even your enemies. To honor everyone, even the emperor. To do all things to the glory of the LORD and in consideration of others. Live at peace.
I cannot walk away saying that "agree to disagree", and "carry on and carrying on", is biblical. We cannot have unity honoring lies. "Remes" literally cannot mean "all". "Unclean foods" is a concept that does not exist, and never has existed. And the Old Testament does not contradict the New.
I cannot find biblical examples of agreeing to disagree. Dare I say, no one will be able to find one; we're told to separate from those who disagree, not stay and fellowship.
Romans 16:17 (NIV)
17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.
2 Thessalonians 3:13-15 (NIV)
13 And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good.
14 Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. 15 Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.
1 Timothy 1:20 (NIV)
20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.
1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (NIV)
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[a]
Footnotes:
a. 1 Corinthians 5:13 Deut. 13:5; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21,24; 24:7
Paul is not tolerating the presence of certain believers, and telling others not to tolerate them either, but expel them from the congregation. He does not "agree to disagree" when they're in sin. We need to strive for the truth and nothing but the truth. Do NOT grow weary! But I think I've offered all that there is to consider after this reply, so, if you still don't agree, then, yes, by all means:
Scarlet_Teardrops So, yes, I think this conversation will have to cease. I still think you are incorrect, but I can't seem to persuade you.
Scarlet_Teardrops Feel free to reply, of course, but I won't be conversing further unless I see something that gives me serious pause. May God bless you and continue to grant you wisdom.
I shall. And if you read up to this point, then I did, lol.
May this benefit anyone who is hungry for these kinds of details even if the intended recipient does not end up reading any of it. And likewise, may our Heavenly Father grant you, and everyone in this guild, with the riches of his wisdom. In Jesus' name, amen. heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
