Bible Study The Law of God - The Law of Moses - The Law

[Alabaster]

Jesus is my Sabbath, fulfilled. I rest in Him.

 

[Who Says]

To sum it up: It is about getting a balanced spiritual sense of God's laws.

I gave the example in an earlier post of Paul's words proving that he did not yet observe the laws command to be circumcised. These were the scriptures:

Galatians 5:2 "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."

I want you to see that if we dog someone for the mere casual use of a a four letter word describing their need to go to the bathroom and by so doing that cause them to see us as just picky and critical so that they then will not listen as we speak of more important things, we have violated love and are worse than the one we counseled.

Though Paul said that above about circumcision he yet had Timothy circumcised so as not to stumble Jews in the territory they were going to preach.

Acts 16:1 ¶Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
2 Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love."

And though Paul said: Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.


Colossians 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 ¶Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


Yet despite having that knowledge Paul said for the sake of love:

Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.


If we do not discern how to use the commandments of God in a loving way we violate those commandments through misuse. We break God's law of love and are guilty as if we did break those laws.

1 Corinthians 8:1b "... we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.
2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know."


1 Corinthians 13:1 ¶If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal.
2 And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing.
4 ¶Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil;
6 rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth;
7 beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 ¶Love never faileth: ...

 

[Who Says]

You don't think what??
[I don't think Rockie is saying that we do not meditate on the entire word and apply the spirit of what it teaches.]

You best read his [posts] then!

I am kind of fond of that moticon my self Elijah!

I don't blame you for finding every chance to use it you can. LOL

 

[Jake]

Does His Body keep the Sabbath? Yes... Rockie, it's true. Christ kept the Sabbath. We should too. We can. It's not impossible. It's not legalistic. It's our love for God that does it.

Nathan,Of course Jesus kept the Sabbath He was under the law, He wasn't crucified and resurrected yet. It wasn't the new covenant yet.

 

[Elijah674]

Elijah,

This is love? Calling someone brain dead? I am one of the VERY few on this forum who even understands what you write, at least I have some respect for you that I take the time to even read your posts, unlike most of the people on here who bypass what you write, but I take the time to do so, but now I will not. So take your preaching somewhere else because this post is not of Christ.

Yes kid'o, for me to say that that post (and most) had any 'spiritual' brain power in it, would be the tallest of copouts by me. At best, they fit in Heb. 5 class! (Hopefully! not Heb. 6:6) Ask yourself if you were Saul below, how would you fare in the Obadia 1:16's verse?

And your postings will never know what is Agape Love until you understand what Saul in Acts 9:6 was required to do! He too had been 'kicking against the Holy Spirit'. If Christ had not struck him down, who knows what would have been his fate? And surely one can see the difference between Sauls Acts 9:6 'posting' & yours, huh?

And according to your constant theological repeated posts, you in bottom/line are saying that Christ did not LOVE Saul by telling him that he was way past even being 'SPIRITUALLY' BRAIN DEAD????

And your posts constantly attack the person, (read it! and then again read what Saul replied!) but will not Obey Christ's commandments. And that is love?

 

[Elijah674]

Elijah here: This post I picked up from another site. (perhaps here in 2009?) The author name is at the bottom. I thought that some might find this informative about the TWO COVENANTS! See if this comes up?

http://biblelight.net/sabbath-laurie.htm

____________________________________


The law that was added due to transgression boys and girls was CEREMONIAL LAW.

It was the law concerning the priesthood of Israel (Levi) and Israel's interaction with the same.
The changing of the priesthood from Levi back to Melchizedek (Psalm 110) necessitated a change also in the ordinance.
For it is manifest that our Lord sprang from Judah, concerning which the law says nothing about.

Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

To put it simply, when Adam sinned he took out a sort of debt mortgage against the righteousness of God.
Man could not pay the principal for his sins so for a season Yah formed the priesthood of Aaron (Levi) and instituted a sacrificial system under a probationary portion of the covenant. This is like forbearance on a note. God took an interest in the priesthood of Aaron until the seed should come and make restitution for the sins of all and satisfy both the interest and principal in the debt that sin had incurred. The sacrifices and Ceremonial portions of the law "put off" the remembrance and penalty for sin from year to year on a national basis and from transgression to transgression on a personal one. The personal transgressions were atoned for from day to day and the national ones from Year to Year.

But they could not purge the conscience!
Once offered they should have had no more remberance of sin.
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

All of the other laws regarding the feasts themselves, the decalogue, civil laws, criminal laws, social laws, and dietary laws were mere codification's of that which had been already practiced by the Hebrews all the way back to Abraham and to a great degree dating back to the first simple offerings of tithes made by Cain and Abel.

We have a High priest, after the order of Melchizedek, even JESUS who made one offering and sat down at the right hand of God. So there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin.

Jeremiah 31:31 tells us that the new covenant is nothing strange or foreign but rather a transfer from the physical tables of stone to the minds and hearts of the people who will embrace it.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

So the new covenant is really nothing new after all, just new in the manner of how it is received.

This post has been edited by raysondawn: Jun 13 2009, 07:46 PM

 

[Who Says]

I have news for you. That article is flawed.

Ceremonial Law was fulfilled in Christ. It was not nailed to the cross with Christ which means it was set aside (taken out of the way). Cerimonial Law is yet being fulfilled in spiritual ways by the members of Christ's body who will serve with him as priests.

And if it were only Cerimonial Law that was set aside then neither Paul who murdered Christians nor Mary Magdeline who was a prostitute could have been forgiven. The condemnation of those types of things were not Ceremonial Law.


What was set aside? Romans 3:19a "Now we know that what things soever the law saith,

Why was it set aside? Because what it says: Romans 3:19b "it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

PS/ I need to go back and see what all of my posts were deleted but I had commented in one or two of them anyway, that God's Eternal Law is (1) spiritual (Romans 7:14) and (2) contains no hint of punishing anyone.

What was set aside was the penal Law. But that was the way the entire Mosaic Law was written, as a penal Law.

Even as the principle Paul gave of the Covenant promise with Abraham that a Law "which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect", neither could it change or affect God's Eternal Law based in love that carried no penal threat.

I made the point more than once that sin is unnatural and God's Eternal Law was not designed for sin. It was and always will be designed for love. That Old Covenant law was written for sin. The cerimonial parts that are yet being fulfilled in Christ's body will eventually get mankind to the point where sin has been completely destroyed, all who live granted immortality, and death swallowed up forever.

And from what Paul tells us God's Eternal Laws are summed up in the Ten Commandments but we only need to learn God's love to fulfill them.

Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

 

[Nathan]

I have news for you. That article is flawed.

Ceremonial Law was fulfilled in Christ. It was not nailed to the cross with Christ which means it was set aside (taken out of the way). Cerimonial Law is yet being fulfilled in spiritual ways by the members of Christ's body who will serve with him as priests.

And if it were only Cerimonial Law that was set aside then neither Paul who murdered Christians nor Mary Magdeline who was a prostitute could have been forgiven. The condemnation of those types of things were not Ceremonial Law.

By the way

What was set aside? Romans 3:19a "Now we know that what things soever the law saith,

Why was it set aside? Because what it says: Romans 3:19b "it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."

While I will agree the article is flawed, the simple truth of the matter is Paul declares EXACTLY what was nailed to the cross. There is no need to go looking in Romans to find it. ;)

Col 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. <---This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

The record of debt was our sins. Not the law. The legal demands that our sins had incurred were only going to be satisfied with death. Paul makes no correlation to the law with this passage other than what it had accused us of, and what we were found guilty of.

Eze 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Col 2:16-17 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. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

There were people, namely of the Pharisees, who would go on about how to bring the body under control was in the doing, not in faith. These people, "rulers and authorities", He put to open shame. How? Because He kept the law of God perfectly.

What they were looking at is the shadow, not the real deal. They were looking at a very close representation of the real thing, but they could not see the "substance" of that which they sought. They wanted to do it in their own flesh, not in Christ. This is the only draw back that is declared about them. That they pursued righteousness by the keeping, and not by faith.

If they had pursued it by faith, while at the same times not being 'lawless', then they would have obtained the promises just as the ones who had gone before them did. Even now. There is still a "shadow" that some follow. Except some are following the other side of the shadow. Some believe the "shadow" is gone. Not so. As long as their is light, there is a shadow. There is, however, coming a time when the light will be no more. Then will be revealed wickedness for what it is, and righteousness for what it is.

Paul makes it clear that he was just speaking of the fleshly desire for 'earning' righteousness. If we "flip the page" and proceed into the next 'chapter' we find that he indeed speaks highly of spiritual control over earthly flesh.

Col 3:1-6 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming.

What are the things above? Hmmm....Well, we know Christ is there. And the Father.

Col 3:8-10 But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.

Imagine that. Being renewed, in our minds, after the very image of Christ. But wait, if we are being renewed, changed into the image of Christ, would that not mean that as He thought we would too? Yes...No???

Call me a simpleton, but I would have to say thats a yes. Ask yourself this. Jesus came to fulfill the prophesies, yes? Ok. Where in the "OT" does it speak of God's Law being 'done away' with? Being 'no more'? Does anyone prophesy that Jesus would 'abolish' it? Take it 'away'? Am I missing something? If so, please show me where it is prophesied.

Jhn 17:11-21 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

 

[Nathan]

Satan is the only one you will find trying to destroy the word of God since day one.

 

[Who Says]

While I will agree the article is flawed, the simple truth of the matter is Paul declares EXACTLY what was nailed to the cross. There is no need to go looking in Romans to find it. ;)

Col 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. <---This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

The record of debt was our sins. Not the law. The legal demands that our sins had incurred were only going to be satisfied with death. Paul makes no correlation to the law with this passage other than what it had accused us of, and what we were found guilty of.

Eze 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Col 2:16-17 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. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

There were people, namely of the Pharisees, who would go on about how to bring the body under control was in the doing, not in faith. These people, "rulers and authorities", He put to open shame. How? Because He kept the law of God perfectly.

What they were looking at is the shadow, not the real deal. They were looking at a very close representation of the real thing, but they could not see the "substance" of that which they sought. They wanted to do it in their own flesh, not in Christ. This is the only draw back that is declared about them. That they pursued righteousness by the keeping, and not by faith.

If they had pursued it by faith, while at the same times not being 'lawless', then they would have obtained the promises just as the ones who had gone before them did. Even now. There is still a "shadow" that some follow. Except some are following the other side of the shadow. Some believe the "shadow" is gone. Not so. As long as their is light, there is a shadow. There is, however, coming a time when the light will be no more. Then will be revealed wickedness for what it is, and righteousness for what it is.

Paul makes it clear that he was just speaking of the fleshly desire for 'earning' righteousness. If we "flip the page" and proceed into the next 'chapter' we find that he indeed speaks highly of spiritual control over earthly flesh.

Col 3:1-6 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming.

What are the things above? Hmmm....Well, we know Christ is there. And the Father.

Col 3:8-10 But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.

Imagine that. Being renewed, in our minds, after the very image of Christ. But wait, if we are being renewed, changed into the image of Christ, would that not mean that as He thought we would too? Yes...No???

Call me a simpleton, but I would have to say thats a yes. Ask yourself this. Jesus came to fulfill the prophesies, yes? OK. Where in the "OT" does it speak of God's Law being 'done away' with? Being 'no more'? Does anyone prophesy that Jesus would 'abolish' it? Take it 'away'? Am I missing something? If so, please show me where it is prophesied.

Jhn 17:11-21 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.

While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

You have convinced me that there is no point in my discussing the matter further with you. In my estimation that is the worst reasoning I have seen you do yet. By this point in time that convinces me you are set inflexibly in how you desire to see it. And I am not trying to force you to see anything you do not wish to see.

Ezekiel remains true because as I said, that Law written against sin to expose (or to keep track of) sin was only set aside (not destroyed) and in earlier posts I clearly showed that the man that willfully sins places himself back under it because it is only set aside.

But in your anxiousness to defend how you wish to see it you have gone to the point of intimating that I have somehow given permission to sin. That is a very crude, untrue, and offensive approach.

Perverting Colossians 2:13-14 to say that the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands is sin rather than the Law which kept track of sin is something no one can refute as it is not an approach requesting any other view to weigh it. It serves one purpose and one only.

I am not even going to comment on the rest but to say you are full of surprises.

 

[Who Says]

Satan is the only one you will find trying to destroy the word of God since day one.

That almost makes me wonder what is in your coffee tonight that you level such subtle intimations against me.

So be it.

 

[Who Says]

Colossians 2:13 “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (KJV)

Colossians 2:14 Blotting out <G1813> the <G3588> handwriting <G5498> of ordinances <G1378> that <G3588> was <G9999> against <G2596> us <G2257>, which <G3739> was <G2258> contrary <G5227> to us <G2254>, and <G2532> took <G0142> it <G0846> out of <G1537> the <G3588> way <G3319>, nailing <G4338> it <G0846> to <G3588> his <G9999> cross <G4716>

handwriting <G5498> cheirographon -- neuter of a compound of 5495 and 1125; something hand-written ("chirograph"), i.e. a manuscript (specially, a legal document or bond (figuratively)): KJV -- handwriting.

of ordinances <G1378> dogma -- from the base of 1380; a law (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical): KJV -- decree, ordinance.

2 Chronicles 33:8 “Neither will I any more remove the foot of Israel from out of the land which I have appointed for your fathers; so that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses.”

John 5:45 "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust."

 

[Who Says]

We are aiming for the spiritual balance of God’s love.

We do not ignore God’s law of righteousness that preceded that handwritten Law of Moses; we establish it.

When we see only the letter of law our flesh cannot help but pervert it.


Here is but one more example of God’s love in process helping us see beyond:

1 Corinthians 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?
31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

Context, Context, Context. We cannot over emphasize that.

These last six verses of 1st Corinthians chapter 10, are part of the context which needs to be taken with 1st Corinthians chapter 11.

Head Covering for a female is not a requirement of God’s Law. What we see taking place in chapter 11 is something Paul requested for love’s sake.

Paul requested this for the sake of the angels. But the angels are certainly not going to stumble merely by a woman not covering her head. That is ridiculous to think.

Paul had these words of Jesus in mind: Matthew 18:10 “Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.”

Their angels would accuse you though if by not covering her head a woman stumbled a little one who might have otherwise been willing to listen.

Many of you will insist that I am treading on dangerous ground by saying this. You will exclaim, “Is it not better to just do we are told?”

That proves being stuck on the letter and in this case is blind obedience to what you only think is a law.

But by missing the point that it was not a law but a custom of which Paul openly admitted, “We have no such custom”, you miss the deeper more important lesson of love and prove that you are stuck on the letter of law.

Now go ahead and ponder chapter 11 of 1st Corinthians and fail to consider the entire context and miss the lesson Paul was giving concerning love and not stumbling unbelievers through disrespect of their customs, and feel free to criticize me for trying to point you the direction of that lesson.

Then, after we have given this a little while for you to stew about I will do this same thing with Paul’s counsel for women to not teach and be silent in church.

And all who are stuck on the letter of law will not see the lessons Paul gives concerning love and you will rip me apart with your words.

That is why they also gnashed their teeth upon Jesus and the disciples.

Worse than all that you will continue to violate love and cause those of our modern day culture to see Paul as a woman hater and push them to think the Bible is the false work of bigots.

But how will those that do not see come to see if someone is not brave enough to show them.

 

[Elijah674]

--Elijah here:
The Article finds more there that what one thinks that 'you' fully know!
Flawed?? Perhaps, but that was not the point. And the 'stuff' that we read here is not flawed?? Come on, GET AWAKENED!! Matt. 25

And when did 'others' LAWS beside the ONLY ONE GOD WROTE IN ETERNITY [[START?]] Lets check this two part one out for your flawed 'eyeglasses'?

Part One
Did Jesus Declare All Foods Clean?​

Let's compare two translations of scripture:

Mark 7:18 (NIV) "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?
Mark 7:19 (NIV) For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
Mark 7:18 (KJV) And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Mark 7:19 (KJV) Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
​

Those two translations do not say the same thing. The King James does not have Jesus declaring all foods clean, in the biblical sense. It is saying all food passes through the body and is expelled. Jesus is not removing the prohibition on eating unclean animals. Modern translations like the NIV that say Jesus declared all foods clean are in error, and are intentionally mistranslated in order to justify eating the biblically unclean animals. Note the following:

Dan 1:8 (KJV) But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.
​

This begs the question, was Daniel sadly mistaken in believing he would be defiled by the King's unclean food and drink?
If one takes the position that Jesus said no food was unclean, that everything could be eaten without discrimination, then why did Daniel believe otherwise? There seems to be a problem of contradiction between these two passages.
Noah was aware of a distinction God had made between clean and unclean animals, even before the flood (Gen. 7:2), long before the time of the Mosaic food laws of Leviticus chapter 11, which specifies animals that are unclean, an abomination, and are not to be eaten. The Hebrew word translated as unclean, from Strong's concordance:

H2931. tame', taw-may'; from H2930; foul in a relig. sense:--defiled, + infamous, polluted (-tion), unclean.
H2930. tame', taw-may'; a prim. root; to be foul, espec. in a cerem. or mor. sense (contaminated):--defile (self), pollute (self), be (make, make self, pronounce) unclean, X utterly.
​

Note that "unclean" animals are polluted, contaminated and foul. That the unclean animals were taken into the ark by twos, and the clean animals by sevens, shows that Noah ate no unclean animals after the flood, nor used them for sacrifices (Gen 8:20), because that would have meant automatic extinction for the unclean animals. When after the flood, Noah was given permission to eat animals (Gen 9:3), it was in this context of the clean and unclean, which Noah was already aware of, it did not permit him to eat the unclean animals.
Because the differences in clean and unclean animals were made known to Noah before the flood, before permission to eat animals was given to humanity, it was something known and obeyed even by Abraham:

Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
​

So Daniel, in Daniel chapter 1, was on very firm ground in his insistence that the King's unclean food would defile him, because from the time of Noah, to Abraham, and through the time of Moses, God had instructed his people to know the difference in clean and unclean food, and to observe the prohibitions against the unclean. Note that Daniel's obedience, with respect to not eating the unclean foods of the king, was handsomely rewarded with good health:

Dan 1:15 And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat.
​

In addition to the prohibitions in Leviticus 11, Daniel also had this earlier example in Exodus to guide him in keeping his health through his diet:

Exo 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.
​

While not explicitly stated there, I think it is reasonable to assume that the diseases spoken of would have been the result of not heeding the distinctions made by God in clean and unclean animals. In addition there was a spiritual benefit for Daniel in refraining from eating the King's unclean food:

Dan 1:16 Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse.
Dan 1:17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
Dan 1:20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.
​

Because Daniel would not eat the unclean food, or drink alcoholic wine, he was blessed with spiritual knowledge and wisdom. Now I ask, would Daniel still have been blessed by God if he had eaten the king's unclean food or drank his wine? I think not, and I see no reason that this principle would not apply to us even today. So now back to Jesus in the New Testament.
Question: In Mark chapter 7, did Jesus declare all animals clean, thereby declaring a change in the status of previously unclean animals, removing the prohibition against eating them?
My answer: The unclean animals were, and still are, unclean in the same manner that Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Daniel understood them to be from God. Nothing Jesus said changed the status of unclean animals. He did not repeal the laws prohibiting the eating of unclean animals, and unclean animals are never given the status of being fit for food.
Question: Were previously unclean animals now fit for sacrifices in the temple as a result of Jesus' declaration?
My Answer: No, they never were fit for sacrifice, and nothing Jesus said changed that.
Question: If one maintains that Jesus changed the status of previously unclean animals, and removed God's restrictions against eating them, then I ask you, did a change also physically occur in the animals themselves, such that they were now fit for consumption, when previously they were an abomination?
My answer: The unclean animals did not change in any respect as a result of Jesus' teaching. They were a health hazard in the Old Testament, polluted and intrinsically unfit for human consumption, and they remain so today.

(part two from Bible Lite will follow with their contact information at the bottom)

 

[Who Says]

Elijah,

Your post #234 is longer than I care to comment on at the moment but to say this Elijah.

You are without realizing it saying that God told man to do something bad as follows:

Genesis 9:3 "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

Compare Romans 14:14

Ponder Acts chapter 10 (even chapter 11) to see that the unclean animals under the Old Law pictured the uncleaness in men.

Eating them is as the opposite of eating of Christ's body. In being forbid to eat those unclean animals we were being taught not to become one with men of moral uncleaness adopting their ways.

That is what we know as Spiritual Fornication.

Genesis 7:2 cannot be what you say and that also by reason of Genesis 9:3.

So what we do when we find such dilemmas is we look for the real point of the scripture.

What is that real point in Genesis 7:2 ?


It is not a moral point at all. Many want it to be but it is not. And it is so simple they cannot see it as they are swayed by the letter of that Old Law which still has them hooked.


These were the animals that were physically more difficult to clean up after.

It is clear then that God did not tell them to do something bad at Genesis 9:3.

 

[Elijah674]

Part two
Question: Then what exactly did Jesus say? What was He teaching? Look at the parallel passage in Matthew:

The scribes and Pharisees condemn Jesus' disciples for not washing their hands​

Mat 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
​

Jesus condemns the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees​

Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Mat 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Jesus again condemns the scribes and Pharisees tradition with a parable​

Mat 15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Mat 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
Mat 15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Jesus explains the parable​

Mat 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
Mat 15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
​

Question: Did Jesus conclude that the biblically unclean foods were now clean?
My Answer: No, He concluded that a man is not defiled by unwashed hands. Repeal of the biblically unclean foods prohibitions was simply not under discussion in the context of the passage. If that were what the scribes and Pharisees had understood Him to say, they would have gone berserk in their condemnation of Jesus, and would have charged him with heresy in abandoning or contradicting the dietary restrictions of God, but this they never did, because Jesus never did say or imply any such thing.
Question: So according to Jesus, does food defile a man?
My Answer: No, it does not, not in the sense Jesus was speaking about.
Question: In the context of Jesus' teaching, what was meant by "defileth" in verse 11?
My Answer: The scribes and Pharisees were condemning the disciples for not washing their hands, implying that they were therefore defiled or unclean, because Jesus' disciples did not follow the traditions of the elders. Jesus replied by rebuking the scribes and Pharisees, saying that nothing a man puts into his mouth defiles the heart, defilement which He defined as "evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, [and] blasphemies". The scribes and Pharisees, and Jesus, were speaking on two entirely different levels, the scribes and Pharisees were concerned with the cleanliness of the hands, and Jesus the cleanliness of the heart. Jesus was saying that nothing a man eats results in an unclean (sinful) heart, rather what a man says and does reveals the state of his heart. In other words, there is no direct cause and effect between any food and "evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, [and] blasphemies", so neither does unwashed hands produce these things either. Yet Jesus was not saying that the biblically unclean foods were now changed, and now healthy to eat, nor was He removing the biblical prohibitions against eating them. They were and still are polluted, contaminated and foul, hazards to your health.
Question: So why is Mark 7:19 worded the way it is in the NIV and some other Bibles? (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
My Answer: We need to look also at the King James, which reads differently:

(Part three will follow)

 

[Elijah674]

Nate: (forum?) Surely one must understand why God CALED ABE to begin with. (Gen. 26:5) And God did not leave His creation not having health, sanitary + laws. So LAW's FROM GOD were other laws than that what HE HIMSELF WROTE! And who today would have a prayer for Gods Blessing over anti-freeze & claim when drinking it that all is well?? Yet, that is what 'SPIRITUAL'BRAIN DEAD ones do! Jim Jones & crew +.

This concludes this study which is very well done. On another site some months back we got into another 7th Day Sabbath 'ETERNAL REST' discussion. As the 'Winds' of Jude are coming out of the satan's termite woodwork, perhaps we might discuss that some also, what do you think?? ---Elijah
__________________________

My Answer: We need to look also at the King James, which reads differently:

Mark 7:18 (KJV) And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Mark 7:19 (KJV) Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
​

From what I have read, it is clear in the Greek (I don't know Greek) that the words "purging all meats" were not said by Jesus, but by the author of Mark as a comment, and that is why some Bibles that say "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean" have it in black and not red. They take the "And he saith unto them" from verse 18 and combine it with "purging all meats" from the end of verse 19, and this results in the statement in question in Mark 7:19 of the NIV and other bibles.
Note the word "purging" in verse 19. The word translated as purging has more than one meaning, and the differences are important. Jesus is teaching that it is significant that food passes through the body and ends up in the toilet. This observation would not be important if all food was intrinsically "clean" in the biblical sense before being eaten, since it would be clean going in, so to speak. Jesus is making the point that all food (clean or unclean) passes through the body, including that defiled by unwashed hands, and that it is not retained such that it corrupts a man's heart, causing him to sin. The food a man eats does not in itself cause a man to commit sin. All food is quickly expelled from the body, and this is what the comment at the end of verse 19 is observing, not that Jesus removed the prohibitions against biblically unclean foods.
In context, I suggest that this is the correct way to understand that passage:

Mark 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the toilet, (expelling all foods [from the body.])?
​

So the error in some Bibles in Mark 7:19, I propose, is that of intentional misinterpretation of the following word:

G2511. katharizo, kath-ar-id'-zo; from G2513; to cleanse (lit. or fig.):--(make) clean (-se), purge, purify.
​

If it is interpreted as "cleansing" the food, it results in all foods being cleansed in the process of consumption. If it is interpreted as "purging", in the sense of all foods being expelled from the body, it means something quite different. I suggest that the latter is the correct interpretation. Here is Merriam Webster's dictionary definition of "purge", which supports this conclusion:

Inflected Form(s): purged; purg·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French purgier, from Latin purigare, purgare to purify, purge, from purus pure + -igare (akin to agere to drive, do) -- more at [SIZE=-1]ACT[/SIZE]
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 a : to clear of guilt b : to free from moral or ceremonial defilement
2 a : to cause evacuation from (as the bowels) b (1) : to make free of something unwanted <purge a manhole of gas> <purge yourself of fear> (2) : to free (as a boiler) of sediment or relieve (as a steam pipe) of trapped air by bleeding c (1) : to rid (as a nation or party) by a purge (2) : to get rid of <the leaders had been purged> <purge money-losing operations>
​

It is the second definition that I suggest applies in Mark 7:19, and was the reason the King James uses it instead of "cleansing all meats". So with that interpretation of purging, Jesus was indeed teaching that no food you eat can corrupt your heart, such that it can be blamed for causing you to sin, but He did not remove the prohibitions against eating unclean animals, they remain an abomination, unfit for human consumption, and and a hazard to your health to this day. And as with Daniel, obeying God's prohibition against eating the unclean has not only physical, but spiritual rewards as well.

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
​

Does Prayer Sanctify Unclean Animals?

1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Tim 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1 Tim 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1 Tim 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1 Tim 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
​

Some will cite verses 4 and 5 as proof that anything you might eat is sanctified by prayer. However the context is found in verse 3: "... meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving ... ." Unclean animals were not created to be eaten by man, there is no way that God can ever sanctify something He explicitly condemns as an abomination (Lev. 11).

See Hogs And Other Hazards for more information.
​

http://biblelight.net​

 

[Elijah674]

That almost makes me wonder what is in your coffee tonight that you level such subtle intimations against me.

So be it.

And we see more PERSONAL MIND READINGS, huh? And that is your posting LOVING COVENANT DUTY?? Eccl. 12:13-14

And you are from W.VA. 'i' think that I read? (or was it Penn.?) Anyhow, I spent some time up in the Princton/Bluefield area, and some of my favorite folks are there. But they do not claim to be mind readers! Oh, and so be it.

--Elijah

 

[Who Says]

Nate: (forum?) Does Prayer Sanctify Unclean Animals?

1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Tim 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1 Tim 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1 Tim 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1 Tim 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
​

Some will cite verses 4 and 5 as proof that anything you might eat is sanctified by prayer. However the context is found in verse 3: "... meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving ... ." Unclean animals were not created to be eaten by man, there is no way that God can ever sanctify something He explicitly condemns as an abomination (Lev. 11).

See Hogs And Other Hazards for more information.
​

http://biblelight.net
​

You seem to think that if you cannot convince by calm and bite size portions of logic a flood will do the trick.


1 Tim 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

If what Nate says were true there would be no point in verse four saying, "nothing to be refused". He is reasoning imperfectly.

The fact that prayer sanctifies it is in the appreciation that prayer shows to God for anything he provides us, not just food.

Anything we take for granted and do not give God thanks for constitutes our unholy use of it.

Many of the cerimonial cleansing laws highlighted that spiritual point.

But Elijah if you feel you need to avoid meat because it is not healthy for you that is fine. There is no problem with that.

We all differ in what foods our bodies can handle an that is due to our bodies breaking down due to sin.

I cannot eat pork because I am prone to gout. But even meats that were considered clean under that Old Law give me gout.

Yes there is need for us to be wise about our choice of foods, not because what God gave us as food is unclean, but because our bodies are breaking down as we die due to sin.

 

[Who Says]

And we see more PERSONAL MIND READINGS, huh? And that is your posting LOVING COVENANT DUTY?? Eccl. 12:13-14

And you are from W.VA. 'i' think that I read? (or was it Penn.?) Anyhow, I spent some time up in the Princton/Bluefield area, and some of my favorite folks are there. But they do not claim to be mind readers! Oh, and so be it.

--Elijah

The education of God's spirit gives me much insight. I see much behind your words that I do not comment on though I know the thoughts are in your head.

That is part spiritual growth. And staying on track despite those things I see is also a part of spiritual growth.

I would rather love you than hate you even in my concealed thoughts. Because that is true faithfulness to the righteousness of God.