Is the Law God gave through Moses still in effect today???

[whirlwind]

I am not entirely sure what whirlwind's point is in respect to the 1 Timothy passage. Here it is in context:

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude;

Paul is clearly criticizing those who advocate for restrictions on what can be eaten. Paul would only say such a thing if he believed the kosher food laws have been overturned.

You seem to be reading the qualifier "which God has created to be gratefully shared" as if it implies that the family of all foods is comprised by a subset which are clean and a subset which are not. That is a possible reading if the the sentence is taken in isolation. But this is not what Paul means and the sentence need not be taken as implying such a distinction - it can be read as saying that all foods are "created to be gratefully shared". We know that Paul thinks all foods were created as acceptable to eat - "For everything created by God is good".

Everything created by God is good...but is not to be eaten. :o Paul is reprimanding those that tell you to abstain from meats for, I assume, religious purposes. But the caveat he used was...WHICH GOD HATH CREATED TO BE RECEIVED. No where will you see where it is hunky-dorey to eat swine, and creatures that clean dead things from the ocean. They take in poisons so we don't. The deeper meaning of course is spiritual and that we shouldn't take in the poisons of the world....false doctrine but still....He never did away with food laws. They are for our health, not to deprive us.

Blood ordinances are no longer in affect...as He fulfilled them. But, what of the commandments, statutes and judgments? I see the words..."it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations," written. Did "for ever" change when Christ was born?

Leviticus 26:3-4 If ye walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments, and do them; Then I will give you rain in due season.........(9) For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish My covenant with you.

Deuteronomy 5:31 But as for thee, stand thou here by Me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statues, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.'

5:33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.

 

[Drew]

Everything created by God is good...but is not to be eaten. :o Paul is reprimanding those that tell you to abstain from meats for, I assume, religious purposes. But the caveat he used was...WHICH GOD HATH CREATED TO BE RECEIVED.

I have already addressed this - you are reading a caveat that is not really there as I have explained in detail. Since I do not know how to make my point any clearer, I can really add nothing,

 

[Drew]

One reason why we should understand Jesus as abolishing the food laws (even though it is otherwise clear that He has done so through his statements about how food does not defile, e.g.twice in Mark 7) is that it explains why Jesus incited such rage in the Pharisees.

The Pharisees often debated how to interpret the Torah and they did not kill each other over such disputes. So if Jesus were simply accusing the Pharisees of stretching things too far with their handwashing laws, that would hardly be anything over which to seek his death. That kind of thing happened all the time.

If, as I and others are stating, Jesus was saying the Torah was now abolished, that would explain why Jesus wound up on the cross.

 

[whirlwind]

Everything created by God is good...but is not to be eaten. :o Paul is reprimanding those that tell you to abstain from meats for, I assume, religious purposes. But the caveat he used was...WHICH GOD HATH CREATED TO BE RECEIVED.

I have already addressed this - you are reading a caveat that is not really there as I have explained in detail. Since I do not know how to make my point any clearer, I can really add nothing,

No Drew....you didn't address it for you fail to see what it tells us. But, if you see it as okay to eat swine flesh then...okay. I would add. With all the very detailed restrictions on unclean food don't you think He would have been clearer on lifting the restriction? Consider too...that as the foods were to keep our bodies healthy and our bodies haven't changed, nor have the unclean food, then....why are they suddenly good for us?

 

[Drew]

No Drew....you didn't address it for you fail to see what it tells us.

No. I have addressed your objection as fully and clearly as I can - one cannot (Iegitimately, anyway) read the 1 Timothy text as endorsing the view that some foods are unclean.

But, if you see it as okay to eat swine flesh then...okay.

Well if pigs are good enough for Paul to eat, they are good enough for me:

For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is (K)received with gratitude;

With all the very detailed restrictions on unclean food don't you think He would have been clearer on lifting the restriction?

Jesus was very clear that the food restrictions were overturned:

there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16"If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." 17When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,

Consider too...that as the foods were to keep our bodies healthy and our bodies haven't changed, nor have the unclean food, then....why are they suddenly good for us?

You seem to assume that the restrictions were put in place for the sake of our health. Can you substantiate that biblically?

 

[whirlwind]

No Drew....you didn't address it for you fail to see what it tells us.

No. I have addressed your objection as fully and clearly as I can - one cannot (Iegitimately, anyway) read the 1 Timothy text as endorsing the view that some foods are unclean.

But, if you see it as okay to eat swine flesh then...okay.

Well if pigs are good enough for Paul to eat, they are good enough for me:

Where is it written that Paul ate swine?

For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is (K)received with gratitude;

With all the very detailed restrictions on unclean food don't you think He would have been clearer on lifting the restriction?

Jesus was very clear that the food restrictions were overturned:

there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16"If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." 17When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,

Jesus is talking about the silly traditions of men. They have nothing to do with whether or not someone is SPIRITUALLY clean or unclean. To defile is to make one profane, unclean...spiritually. You can eat a buzzard if you wish and God will still love you...will you still be healthy? If yes, then what if you snack on buzzard week after week after week? Do the toxins build up?

Consider too...that as the foods were to keep our bodies healthy and our bodies haven't changed, nor have the unclean food, then....why are they suddenly good for us?

You seem to assume that the restrictions were put in place for the sake of our health. Can you substantiate that biblically?

I did...but will again.

Deuteronomy 5:31 But as for thee, stand thou here by Me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statues, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.'

5:33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.

I will repeat....the deeper lesson in these food laws is the spiritual aspect.

 

[Drew]

Where is it written that Paul ate swine?

It is clear from this text that Paul thinks all animals are acceptable to eat:

For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is (K)received with gratitude;

Jesus is talking about the silly traditions of men.

That is not his main point. When Jesus says that nothing that goes into a man defiles him, he is directly overturning the Levitical food laws that say that some foods do indeed defile.

I am, frankly, mystified at how you, or anyone else, can reconcile Jesus' statement about how no food defiles with Levitical statements some foods do indeed defile. Can you comment on this please.

They have nothing to do with whether or not someone is SPIRITUALLY clean or unclean. To defile is to make one profane, unclean...spiritually. You can eat a buzzard if you wish and God will still love you...will you still be healthy? If yes, then what if you snack on buzzard week after week after week? Do the toxins build up?

You are introducing a "spirit - flesh" distinction that is simply not there in the first place. Plus you assume that the food laws were instituted for the sake of health - I see no scriptural evidence for this. It almost seems that you are avoiding the challenge of Jesus' words by trying to split the domain of consideration into a "spiritual" domain and a "physical" domain.

The Hebrew mind knew nothing of such distinction. The Levtical laws says certain foods make you unclean, Jesus says no food makes you unclean. This seems awfully straightforward to me - you have to either stick with the Levtical laws or accept that Jesus has overturned them.

 

[Drew]

I did...but will again.

Deuteronomy 5:31 But as for thee, stand thou here by Me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statues, and the judgments, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.'

5:33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.

I will repeat....the deeper lesson in these food laws is the spiritual aspect. whirlwind

There is no clear evidence here that the food laws were put in place to promote the phyisical health of the Jew. By contrast, God tells us why the laws were put in place - to mark out the Jew as distinct from the Gentile:

'You are therefore to keep all My statutes and all My ordinances and do them, so that the land to which I am bringing you to live will not (T)spew you out. 23'Moreover, you shall not follow (U)the customs of the nation which I will drive out before you, for they did all these things, and (V)therefore I have abhorred them. 24'Hence I have said to you, "(W)You are to possess their land, and I Myself will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey " I am the LORD your God, who has (X)separated you from the peoples. 25'(Y)You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean. 26'Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I (Z)have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.

God is not in the business of creating a people who "eat healthy" while the rest of the world does not. He is doing something much more profound – he is marking out the nation of Israel as a people set apart – and the food laws are a major marker of this. God is not simply taking care of the health of the Jews and letting the rest of humanity get poisoned by unhealthy food – what kind of a God would do that?

I do not see how your argument about a “spiritual focus†changes the clear statements Jesus makes about food. He says that nothing that goes into your mouth makes you unclean. The Levitical laws state otherwise. I do not see how you can “spiritualize away†the implications of this.

Was, or was not, the author of Leviticus setting forth laws about real physical food? Clearly, the answer is yes.

Was, or was not, Jesus talking about real physical food when He said (several times) that nothing that goes into the body defiles you? Clearly, again, the answer is yes.

 

[Drew]

5:33 Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.

Read as an isolated item, perhaps, one can see this as being about "promoting health through eating". Incidentally, I have never encountered the line of argument you seem to be advancing - that the food laws were instituted to make the Jews "healthy". Its an interesting line, but not one that I have encountered.

I suggest that, in the above text, the issue is not "physical / digestive" health but something more long-term. Paul certainly did not see Torah as being about issues of health. Note his argument from Romans 10:

5 For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6But (G)the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "(H)DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down), 7or 'WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE (I)ABYSS?' (that is, to (J)bring Christ up from the dead)." 8But what does it say? "(K)THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that (L)if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and (M)believe in your heart that (N)God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Clearly Paul sees the Old Testament Law (verse 5) as dealing with something other than physical well-being. Instead, the "life" at issue is life in the age to come. And that is why Paul caps this famous text with the great Christian truth – “life’ is attained by faith in Christ. Now, clearly Paul is not saying it is through Christ that you will have the healthy bodies that the Old Testament law was promoting. The Deuteronomy text is not about attaining physical health – it is about having a share in the age to come.

 

[whirlwind]

Where is it written that Paul ate swine?

It is clear from this text that Paul thinks all animals are acceptable to eat:

For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is (K)received with gratitude;

I see.... :D Not only did you make the statement that Paul ate swine and can't back it up, you write "nothing is to be rejected if it received with gratitude." That is not what is written. The quote is....."which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving..."

Certain things, although good, were not CREATED TO BE RECEIVED. That aren't good for us.

Jesus is talking about the silly traditions of men.

That is not his main point. When Jesus says that nothing that goes into a man defiles him, he is directly overturning the Levitical food laws that say that some foods do indeed defile.

Of course it's His main point Drew. The Pharisees see their stupid religious trappings as having something to do with saving man's soul. That is substantiated in that same chapter about what enters a man....

Mark 7:20-23 And He said, "That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within and defile the man.

His "main point" is the sheer stupidity of man's thoughts on what makes one spiritually pure...or not. Kneel here, bow here, cross yourself, tithe this much, sit in this pew, etc., etc., etc.

I am, frankly, mystified at how you, or anyone else, can reconcile Jesus' statement about how no food defiles with Levitical statements some foods do indeed defile. Can you comment on this please.

The difference is in the spiritual and physical. We are told that if we don't eat foods not created to be eaten then it will be well with us and we will live a long life. Jesus is telling us that what you think, and do, what comes from your heart is what defiles us. Our spiritual life is the most important aspect of His teachings.

They have nothing to do with whether or not someone is SPIRITUALLY clean or unclean. To defile is to make one profane, unclean...spiritually. You can eat a buzzard if you wish and God will still love you...will you still be healthy? If yes, then what if you snack on buzzard week after week after week? Do the toxins build up?

You are introducing a "spirit - flesh" distinction that is simply not there in the first place. Plus you assume that the food laws were instituted for the sake of health - I see no scriptural evidence for this. It almost seems that you are avoiding the challenge of Jesus' words by trying to split the domain of consideration into a "spiritual" domain and a "physical" domain.

The Hebrew mind knew nothing of such distinction. The Levtical laws says certain foods make you unclean, Jesus says no food makes you unclean. This seems awfully straightforward to me - you have to either stick with the Levtical laws or accept that Jesus has overturned them.

More is being said then you are seeing Drew. It is all about the spiritual and the physical laws are given as a type of the spiritual.

 

[Drew]

I see.... :D Not only did you make the statement that Paul ate swine and can't back it up, you write "nothing is to be rejected if it received with gratitude." That is not what is written. The quote is....."which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving..."

Certain things, although good, were not CREATED TO BE RECEIVED. That aren't good for us.

When Paul says everything is "good to eat, that obviously include pigs. I have aleady shown that the 1 Timothy 4 text cannot reasonanbly be read you see it. If I thought I could make my explanation clearer, I would.

 

[Sparkey]

One reason why we should understand Jesus as abolishing the food laws (even though it is otherwise clear that He has done so through his statements about how food does not defile, e.g.twice in Mark 7) is that it explains why Jesus incited such rage in the Pharisees.

The Pharisees often debated how to interpret the Torah and they did not kill each other over such disputes. So if Jesus were simply accusing the Pharisees of stretching things too far with their handwashing laws, that would hardly be anything over which to seek his death. That kind of thing happened all the time.

If, as I and others are stating, Jesus was saying the Torah was now abolished, that would explain why Jesus wound up on the cross.

I can't disagree with this more. Jesus was not crucified because of his own offense, he was spotless and pure and never sinned. He was put to death innocent because the religious leaders of his day didn't heed what he clearly taught them. It was the things found in them (not Him) that resulted in the murdering of the only begotten son of God. <I'm not anti-semitic, I'm merely anti-semantics.>

If Jesus sinned by throwing away those things that HIS FATHER established, he would have failed to honor his Father.

I must NOT be understanding you correctly when you say that Jesus was crucified because he abolished the Torah. :crazy

 

[wavy]

First, Thanks for taking the time to look at the Greek and confirming that you understand that the original Greek ends with the phrase "purging all foods" [and nothing more] -- if in fact you did so.

First, I would like to criticize you for speaking on matters of which you haven't the slenderest inkling. The anacoluthon is translated 'Thus he declared all foods clean' because the participle 'cleansing' agrees with 'he said' from verse 18, and is therefore probably an explanatory comment by the author and the way it's written in English bibles is the natural way to render it.

Or were you thinking you were aware of something that hundreds of translators seem to have overlooked?

Btw, what exactly is your manuscript evidence for any additions to the Greek text?


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Drew]

Of course it's His main point Drew. The Pharisees see their stupid religious trappings as having something to do with saving man's soul. That is substantiated in that same chapter about what enters a man....

Mark 7:20-23 And He said, "That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within and defile the man.

His "main point" is the sheer stupidity of man's thoughts on what makes one spiritually pure...or not. Kneel here, bow here, cross yourself, tithe this much, sit in this pew, etc., etc., etc.

Jesus' main point here is not a critique of the Pharisee's interpretation of the Law.

A little historical knowledge is helpful here. As I have already stated, Pharisees argued over how to interpret the law all the time, and there is no evidence at all that they killed each other over such disagreements.

So why does Jesus need to retreat inside a building to explain himself to his disciples?:

When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable.

And, more broadly why do the Pharisees ultimately seek the death of Jesus? Because he challenged their interpretation of the Law? Hardly.

What riled up the Pharisees was Jesus’ clear overturning of Torah.

Whirlwind, would you please answer these questions:

1. Does the Levitical Law state that eating some foods make you unclean?

2a. Did Jesus say this: “there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into himâ€Â:

2b. Is He talking about food?

 

[stovebolts]

If, as I and others are stating, Jesus was saying the Torah was now abolished, that would explain why Jesus wound up on the cross.

Hi Drew!

From my historical studies on Judaism, (to which I am far from being a historian), it seems to me that within the context of Torah and abolishment thereof, to abolish the Torah was always representative of the gross misinterpretation of Torah. In other words, when one misinterpreted Torah, he was said to have abolished Torah.

As far as Jesus' take on foods, he seems to side with the House of Hillel.

Jeff

 

[wavy]

I'd like the opportunity to prove myself wrong, if possible.

Opportunity fulfilled. See my previous post.

Now a transliteration of the Greek by Westcott and Hort: (word by word literal)

What you wrote down was a translation, not a transliteration. Anyway, I should like to know where you copied/pasted this from. The internet? Bible software?

At any rate, we know you didn't translate it, so please courteously disclose your tools to us.

Surely the doctrine in dispute can not be said to mean that foods become clean in the purging (when we are going to the toilet). He is specifically saying that it is not what enters a man (in contrast to what the nit-picking Pharisees thought and confronted him about - not our eating without first washing our hands) because those things go in through the mouth - they pass through the "cavity" (which is an excellent description of the Alimentary Canal - ["Imagine that you put one end of a hose in your mouth and kept threading it through until it came out of your butt. That's more or less what the alimentary canal is." <--- quote from http://coloncancer.about.com/od/glossaries/g/AlimentaryCanal.htm] and into the sewer.

No, the ending of verse 19 is what the author inferred from Jesus statements. In other words, in addition to the original context, the author perceived a secondary application, which was that kosher customs were being dispensed with here.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[Drew]

I can't disagree with this more. Jesus was not crucified because of his own offense, he was spotless and pure and never sinned. He was put to death innocent because the religious leaders of his day didn't heed what he clearly taught them. It was the things found in them (not Him) that resulted in the murdering of the only begotten son of God.

If Jesus sinned by throwing away those things that HIS FATHER established, he would have failed to honor his Father.

I must NOT be understanding you correctly when you say that Jesus was crucified because he abolished the Torah. :crazy

Now perhaps you assume that abolishing the Torah is sin. Well, on that position, we differ. Jesus, as God has the right to bring the age of the Torah to its end.

And even though we have not been talking about Paul, the case is clear that Paul sees the written code of Torah as having been abolished, having achieved its purpose:

For (D)Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to (E)everyone who believes

Therefore the Law has become our (AO)tutor to lead us to Christ, so that (AP)we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a (AQ)tutor.

by (AT) abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is (AU) The Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might (AV)make the two into (AW)one new man, thus establishing (AX)peace,

The reason why the Pharisees sought Jesus’ death was essentially this: Jesus re-defined the true people of God in a manner that placed the Pharisees on the outside and He also announced coming judgement for the Israel that was under their leadership. As part of his programme to announce that salvation was not limited to ethnic Jews, He did the very thing that symbolically enacted this – He overthrew the written code, so precious to the Pharisees as the thing that marked out the Jew from the Gentile. That was what drove the Pharisees to seek his death.

 

[Drew]

From my historical studies on Judaism, (to which I am far from being a historian), it seems to me that within the context of Torah and abolishment thereof, to abolish the Torah was always representative of the gross misinterpretation of Torah.

Hi Jeff:

Do you not see Paul as asserting the abolition of the written code of Torah (e.g. as per the 3 texts I posted just a minute ago)?

 

[Sparkey]

lol - I'm trying to compose replies to -- i don't know --- three different people? slow down a bit, please?

Or that's okay if you want to continue to discuss - but I'd ask that before any more comments are directly addressed to me i be given the chance to reply.

 

[Drew]

He was put to death innocent because the religious leaders of his day didn't heed what he clearly taught them.

This is a reason to crucify someone? That they didn't want to do what Jesus told them? I find this very hard to believe.

I think it is far more likely that the Pharisees saw Jesus threatening their agenda of national aggrandizement by achieving freedom from Rome through violent revolution. Jesus challenged Israelites to abandon their agenda (the Pharasaical agenda) of revolution and national liberation so that Israel can fulfill its destiny to rule the world. Instead, He challenged Israel to adopt his - one of "turning the other cheek" and seeing their destiny as something entirely different - a destiny where their vocation is for the sake of the world, not their own empowerment. Plus, of course, Jesus repeatedly announced coming judgement on the Isreal of His time. And He was proved right, in 70 AD.