Now THAT is crunchy! Thank you!
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Law, commands, or instructions?
- Thread starter Verifyveritas76
- Start date
Now THAT is crunchy! Thank you!
It's the emphasis on Grace that gets people sidetracked. Just lazy today, so maybe some can find the verses, but the NT does seem to discredit the Law in some verses if you have a mindset to do it.
But, NT scripture does ask us if we should sin just so Grace should abound, and we get a hearty, " heck no".
We are also told that we wouldn't know what sin is if we didn't study the Law.
Most pew warmers couldn't tell the difference between a sin and a vice, or just plain unhealthy habit. If Rev. Bucks tells them polygyny is sin, they take it in.
Btw- If you looked hard enough in certain denominational branches, I'm sure there would be protest against celebrating Passover.
This in my mind is a huge issue. Sin is doing something against the law, pure and simple. Polygyny, along with a multitude of other things, is not against the law so is not a sin.
However, something not being in the law does not necessarily make it a good idea, we have to use common sense. It does frustrate me that some things that are good, and some things that are not a good idea, are put forth as sin. Sin is actually a pretty strong word with huge consequences and shouldn't be used lightly.
So... here are my thoughts about that article and I would appreciate being told where I might be off base.
First I want to respond to the author's initial questions that he says were not answered by the 'traditional' interpretation
1 ) why does Peter refer to what is on the sheet with the words ‘common’ [Grk: koinos] and ‘unclean’ [akathartos] in verses 14 & 15, and what’s the difference between these words?
I agree with the author that koinoo means something like "a thing that has become defiled" and akathartos means, an unclean thing. Totally helps my understanding to see that the normally clean animals were made defiled by contact with the unclean animals and were thus 'common', making Peter's statement tightly accurate to a degree I was unaware of. I'm irritated that this is another instance of inconsistent translation. That word is relied on everywhere else to mean 'defiled, polluted or unclean'. What made the translators think that now was a good time to go with common? This article pays for itself just with this!
2) Why does God only correct Peter’s use of the word ‘common,’ and not his use of the word ‘unclean’ in verse 15?
I really don't know. If I bleed out at any point, this will be the wound that does it! I'm open to ideas that satisfy this question.
3) When God tells Peter to kill and eat, why doesn’t Peter just obey God, take a clean animal from the sheet (like a cow or a chicken), kill it, and eat it?
Well... that's really obvious. The author is trying to be impressive that he understands the difference between koinoo and akathartos, so Peter's usage of both should be a really clear indicator that in Peter's mind he was being offered a package deal, (by virtue of literally coming in a package) and that eating the unclean animals was just as much as the intent as eating the clean animals which have unfortunately come into contact with them. If Peter thought that taking a clean animal from the sheet was what God wanted him to do, and that taking an unclean animal was not even part of the intent, Peter would have stuck with koinoo. Akathartos would be inappropriate. If I served you a burrito with bacon in it and offered it to you, would you assume that I intended you to pick the bacon out before eating it?
4) Additionally, why after walking with Jesus all that time was Peter still under the impression that he could not eat anything unclean?
I think scripture is actually quite clear that the disciples were, as a group (and with all due respect) fairly dense. I would even say that as far as scripture records, the densest member of the group is clearly shown to be Peter (again with all due respect). Peter was under... a lot of impressions. As I previously have made issue of Peter was likewise under the impression that I, a mere gentile, could not receive the gospel, and yet here I am.
5) And why does Peter still not understand his own, even after having the sheet lowered three times?
Because there wan't any good way to get this without being told something that seems to contradict the law? I think everyone agrees on this...
6) And lastly, why doesn’t Peter ever interpret his own dream as having anything to do with food?
Everybody on every side of this agrees that the food wan't the point.
One thing that was said in this I sort of take issue with:
"To quote Jesus, the Pharisees once again make void the word of God by the tradition that they have handed down (Mark 7:13
), because God has always intended Israel to be a light to the nations (gentiles), so that salvation may reach the end of the earth, yet Israel’s own traditions kept her from doing just this."
So what stopped the disciples from preaching the Kingdom to the Samaritans and the Gentiles? The Traditions of men? Or was it literally Jesus telling them not to? But how could God change his mind about preaching the gospel to the gentiles???
And finally my own question: In this vision what exactly do the clean animals represent, and what do the the creeping things and birds of the air represent and the rest of the unclean animals represent?
Because if I don't understand the picture I won't accept the explanation that relies upon it.
First I want to respond to the author's initial questions that he says were not answered by the 'traditional' interpretation
1 ) why does Peter refer to what is on the sheet with the words ‘common’ [Grk: koinos] and ‘unclean’ [akathartos] in verses 14 & 15, and what’s the difference between these words?
I agree with the author that koinoo means something like "a thing that has become defiled" and akathartos means, an unclean thing. Totally helps my understanding to see that the normally clean animals were made defiled by contact with the unclean animals and were thus 'common', making Peter's statement tightly accurate to a degree I was unaware of. I'm irritated that this is another instance of inconsistent translation. That word is relied on everywhere else to mean 'defiled, polluted or unclean'. What made the translators think that now was a good time to go with common? This article pays for itself just with this!
2) Why does God only correct Peter’s use of the word ‘common,’ and not his use of the word ‘unclean’ in verse 15?
I really don't know. If I bleed out at any point, this will be the wound that does it! I'm open to ideas that satisfy this question.
3) When God tells Peter to kill and eat, why doesn’t Peter just obey God, take a clean animal from the sheet (like a cow or a chicken), kill it, and eat it?
Well... that's really obvious. The author is trying to be impressive that he understands the difference between koinoo and akathartos, so Peter's usage of both should be a really clear indicator that in Peter's mind he was being offered a package deal, (by virtue of literally coming in a package) and that eating the unclean animals was just as much as the intent as eating the clean animals which have unfortunately come into contact with them. If Peter thought that taking a clean animal from the sheet was what God wanted him to do, and that taking an unclean animal was not even part of the intent, Peter would have stuck with koinoo. Akathartos would be inappropriate. If I served you a burrito with bacon in it and offered it to you, would you assume that I intended you to pick the bacon out before eating it?
4) Additionally, why after walking with Jesus all that time was Peter still under the impression that he could not eat anything unclean?
I think scripture is actually quite clear that the disciples were, as a group (and with all due respect) fairly dense. I would even say that as far as scripture records, the densest member of the group is clearly shown to be Peter (again with all due respect). Peter was under... a lot of impressions. As I previously have made issue of Peter was likewise under the impression that I, a mere gentile, could not receive the gospel, and yet here I am.
5) And why does Peter still not understand his own, even after having the sheet lowered three times?
Because there wan't any good way to get this without being told something that seems to contradict the law? I think everyone agrees on this...
6) And lastly, why doesn’t Peter ever interpret his own dream as having anything to do with food?
Everybody on every side of this agrees that the food wan't the point.
One thing that was said in this I sort of take issue with:
"To quote Jesus, the Pharisees once again make void the word of God by the tradition that they have handed down (Mark 7:13
), because God has always intended Israel to be a light to the nations (gentiles), so that salvation may reach the end of the earth, yet Israel’s own traditions kept her from doing just this."So what stopped the disciples from preaching the Kingdom to the Samaritans and the Gentiles? The Traditions of men? Or was it literally Jesus telling them not to? But how could God change his mind about preaching the gospel to the gentiles???
And finally my own question: In this vision what exactly do the clean animals represent, and what do the the creeping things and birds of the air represent and the rest of the unclean animals represent?
Because if I don't understand the picture I won't accept the explanation that relies upon it.
Actually, look at the history of the time leading up to what LATER became the Inquisition. (Constantine's Sword, by a former priest, James Carroll, is one of many sources that confirm the sordid truth.) Within a half-century of Nicea in 325 AD, persecution of those who “kept the law” (especially the seventh-day Sabbath and His 'moedim') was rampant. “Judaizers” were termed “anathema”, and keeping the Feasts of YHVH eventually became a capital offense. The 'tradition' of the Easter Ham arose in part because so that those accused of 'keeping the law' could prove they were NOT 'jewish' by demonstrating a willingness to violate Torah, both in terms of Passover and pork.
It might have been a "weird" jump, but it was mandated by one of the most powerful 'state-churches' in history, by design.
Nothing mysterious there at all, it's "good midrash" and utterly consistent with His Torah/Instruction. The general principle is that there are positive commands ('mitzvot' - things that should be done) and negative (don't do). For example, the "duty of a surviving brother" (aka the 'Levirate law', seen in the stories of Judah and Tamar, and Ruth and Boaz). The 'corners of your field' are to be left for the poor, and the later chapters of Leviticus lay out a 'duty to NOT stay silent' when we see our neighbor being abused, or to take care of his animal if we find it has gone astray. The 'watchman on the wall' has a duty to blow the shofar when he sees a 'sword coming upon the land'. And so on.
As we learn more about His Instruction, the circle expands. Yahushua observed the principle both directly and in parables, as "to whom much is given, much is expected."
But the question was asked in terms of "sin". Omission and commission are two different things, no? Can one be accused of NOT doing something that would be moral and have it be sin if there was no law written law?
Found this in the JewishEncyclopedia.com
As a matter of fact, the idea of the priestly sanctity of the whole people of Israel in many directions found its expression in the Mosaic law; as, for instance, when the precepts concerning unclean meat, intended originally for the priests only (Ezek. xliv. 31; comp. verse 14 and Judges xiii. 4), were extended to the whole people (Lev. xi.; Deut. xiv. 3-21); or when the prohibition of cutting the flesh in mourning for the dead was extended to all the people as "a holy nation" (Deut. xiv. 1-2; Lev. xix. 28; comp. Lev. xxi. 5); or when the Law itself was transferred from the sphere of the priesthood to every man in Israel (Ex. xix. 29-24; Deut. vi. 7, xi. 19; comp. xxxi. 9; Jer. ii. 8, xviii. 18).
Not saying that I agree with this explanation as the timeline seems to have variance, merely that the Pharisees are blamed by the authors of JE.com for extending the Levitical prohibitions contained in Leviticus to the nation as a whole in an attempt to fulfill Exodus 19 (a nation of kings and priests). I'm not sure I'm comfortable with blaming them for that as Deut. 14 seems to indicate it is for all Israel.
I hadn't thought of it this way before but IF Leviticus was written as being instruction strictly for the Levites, then the ordinances for the Levites as a substitute priesthood may be what is referred to as the ordinances that are contrary in Eph. 2:14-16For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one † new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: †. (This removes the wall between the court of the Gentiles and the Jews. All are made clean in Christ)
Col 2:14-23 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: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
Heb. 9 (comparison of deficient Old Covenant with perfect New Covenant and why the Levitical part is of no authority now per Col. 2:20-23 i.e. Dead in Christ = not under Levitical jurisdiction)
This would leave intact all civil and moral instructions as being codified Natural Law (which has always been) and only removing the authority and religious trappings of the Levitical priesthood which God had already done through Antiochus Epiphanes.
Forgive my stream of consciousness, but after looking at these NT passages (which are always the ones quoted as doing away with the law) the furthest extent that can be claimed from the empirical clues is the Levitical ordinances of the law or priesthood have been replaced by a Melchizedek priesthood and related ordinances per 1 Cor 11:2 (the Lords Supper)
It is also interesting to note in support of the idea that the Pharisees enlarged the commands from the Levitical to the Nation as a whole, Judges 13:4 seem to indicate that the abstention from wine as well as unclean food was an out of the ordinary prohibition. Also, Jer. 18:18 seems to indicate that he had prophesied that the law would perish from the priest.
In this, I must say you are very correct. Yet it is not insignificant the type of food or where it is to be consumed. This is specifically food that is butchered in the Temple, to be eaten by priests only and only in the Temple in a priests only area. How does it become unclean?
While there are several ways in which it could become unclean in the Temple, the sacrifices for the Temple were kept pastured separately even from other flocks pre Pharisees. Overkill? Commandments of Men? IDK?
The Melchizedek priesthood is a priesthood of the firstborn or the inheritor. The Patriarch of the family or kinsman redeemer unless otherwise designated like Levi.
1 Peter 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Rev. 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
In regards to the questions about Melchizedek, the reason I refer to it as Lord of Light is due to the emphasis placed on the name by the Dead Sea Scroll 4Q545 Frag.2 Col. 3 Titled the "Vision of Amram" in which Malki-Resha is compared against Malki-Zadok as the Lord/Angel of Darkness/Wickedness versus the Lord of Light, also referred to in the same passage as the Angel of Light and claims the title of Ruler of all Light and all . . (Manuscript missing) as well as those who follow Him will be known as Sons of Truth.
The scroll 11Q13 "The Coming of Melchizedek" lists him as atoning for all the Sons of Light and the people who are predestinated to Melchizedek. It also refers to Melchizedek as being the Anointed of the Spirit, of whom Daniel spoke, After the sixty two weeks, an Anointed One shall be cut off. The messenger who brings good news, who announces salvation is the one of whom it is written, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, the day of vengeance of our God;
The men of the community referred to themselves as the Sons of Light and were waiting for the Melchizedek.
It is entirely possible that the names Righteousness and Light were considered to be synonymous.
I'm not certain of its origin but it wouldn't surprise me if it were in reference to the Spoken Word in Gen 1 saying Let there be Light, and there was Light.
I'm not certain the case can be made for the sword. It is possible that Joshua killed him and then hung him on a tree, but I tend to think that this is another lost in translation moment. Rather that they were humiliated by the foot on the necks, then beaten, then killed by hanging on the tree. It's hard to say which. I did look it up in Jasher which is referred to in the Passage as having a record of the day. While it records the day, it does not record even this much info on how they were killed. I did find this associated with the kings. " thou didst not withhold their souls from death, and didst bring down their lives to the grave. . . . Therefore our hearts rejoice in thee, our souls exalt in thy salvation. Our tongues shall relate thy might, we will sing and praise thy wondrous works."
I'm struggling to follow you on this one. I have read all the verses in the Bible referring to Melchizedek, and I am not seeing this definition. I also read the rest of what you wrote, and I didn't see it there either. Admittedly, I might be looking over something. Can you help me understand how you are coming to this definition for the Melchizedek priesthood?
This is a remarkably accurate assessment according to Jasher. Jasher 16 :11 states that "Adonizedek king of Jerusalem, the same was Shem,". The Melchizedek chronology as I recall it is from Adam to Enoch to Noah to Shem to Eber to Isaac to Jacob to Levi. It goes to Enoch before Adam dies by appointment from Adam. The position was usually held until death but cases like Enoch and Levi were the exceptions. Shem and Eber were the kings of Jerusalem. After Ebers death, no record is known of who succeeded him as king. Isaac succeeded him as Melchizedek because Eber lived beyond the death of Abraham. By the time Joshua and the Israelites enter the land, it is a honorary title for the king of Jerusalem, not a proper name and has no other connection to the Melchizedek, Lord of Light/Righteousness.
The book of Jubilees records Levi as being Priest of the Most High, another name for the Melchizedek priesthood. Reuben is rejected from being the Melchizedek due to defiling Bilhah, Jacob's concubine. The Birthright is given to Joseph as the firstborn of the second wife, the Kingship is given to Judah and the Priesthood to Levi.
Interestingly, Isaac blessed the two sons of Jacob, Levi and Judah, Levi on the right hand as Priest and Judah on the left as King. Kind of gives additional meaning to what the mother of James and John was asking Christ.
Last edited:
Certainly. There is not a lot of info on this Biblically. My other sources are several Dead Sea Scrolls, and the accounts recorded in Jubilees/Little Genesis, and Jasher as well as some info from Book of Enoch though its been a while since I read through that one.
This is why Christ is emphasized as the only begotten, the firstborn etc. and why he is listed in Hebrews as a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
BTW. I have heard that the Mormons have some teaching on this subject. None of my info is from those sources. I have read most of the Book of Mormon though I don't recall it in there. I think most of their teaching on it comes from their D&C which I have not read.
Several years back I realized that there were probably some inaccuracies in what I had been taught concerning the Mosaic Law. I was in the process of re examining everything I thought I knew from fundamentalism. Long story shortened, I was on the verge of being entirely Torah observant. However, the deeper I studied the more I realized that the "instruction" I'd been getting was very partial in their interpretation of the law and in some instances either ignorant of the law or intentionally dishonest about its observance. My real wake up moment was when I was challenged to get rid of my Christian normalcy bias and study the law versus the life of Christ. My eyes began to be opened when I no longer dismissed many things (due to its acceptance as normal by Christianity) that Christ deliberately did that put Him at variance with the Law. I had to reconcile between the two. Either Christ was not who I understood Him to be because of these variances, or, being God in the Flesh, the instances being deliberate must have had a divine, appointed purpose. The more I studied, I began to understand that many of the issues or variances were actually Jesus Christ doing many of the same ceremonies or stating commands that were very similar to what Moses had done to initiate a new priesthood. Under the Mosaic Law, each and every one of these things were either an abomination, restricted to the Levitical priesthood upon pain of death, or outright breaking the Law with the sentence of being "cut off", killed or forever excommunicated (bad choice of wording) from the congregation of Israel. A strict following of Torah meant that Jesus Christ was not compatible with OC. I can only imagine the amount of faith it must have required on the disciples part to continue to do as He commanded and led. When I realized that the whole purpose of the Mosaic Covenant was to make me understand that it was designed to be impossible to keep, and even if I could keep it perfectly it was incapable of presenting me to the Father without spot or wrinkle, that just leaves faith. As partial observance seemed pointless due to Matt. 5:20, I had to reconcile what I'd been given with the Jesus of the New Testament. Basically, I went back through the Law to find out what Moses had done as Mediator of his covenant and compared it to Christ. Through understanding the Mosaic Covenant I was able to understand a lot of the minutia of the Gospels that I had thought inconsequential.
Mosaic Yeshua
New mediator. Yep
New Covenant. Yep
New Priesthood. Yep
New High Priest. Yep
New Instruction/ Commandments. Yep
New Sacrifice and offerings. Yep
New Identifier. Yep
New Tabernacle/Temple. Yep
New Baptism. Yep
New Feast Days. Yep
New History. Yep
New Judges. Yep
New Chosen. Yep
New Beginning. Yep
New Nation. Yep
New Holy of Holies. Yep
New tablets for the commandments. Yep
New Sabbaths. Yep
New ordinances. Yep
New dietary restrictions. Yep
New Authority. Yep
New Fountain. Yep.
New Elders. Yep
New census. Yep
And I could keep going but I'm sure you get the point.
In answer to your question, I have no issue with anyone attempting to follow truth to the best of their ability and I applaud it wherever it may be or in whatever direction it goes. To the best of my limited ability, I do try to show grace to anyone remotely attempting to follow truth wherever it leads them because I know what I had to go through to get where I am now. I do however, draw the line when someone is attempting to judge me or others in respect to feast days, sabbaths, meat or drink.
Except that that Paul followed the law and David didn't fail to to do all the God commanded him except in the case Uriah the Hittite and that's not even going back down the whole Christ didn't break the Law debate.
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day..." (Col. 2:16)
Ironically, this follows the verse that is so uniformly twisted to say the "law" was "nailed to the cross" -- rather than the indictments.
It is important to note that Shaul was writing to FORMER PAGANS who were still "milk drinkers." They were being exposed to 'peer pressure' for distancing themselves from pagan rituals they once observed with family and friends. As the intro synopsis from the Whittaker House KJV-ER Study Bible to the letter notes, "The Colossians had an exaggerated regard for the observance of rites and ceremonies, and they also indulged in some form of worshipping of angels...a heresy which seems to have had both Jewish and Gnostic [roots]..."
Like so much that has been literally "turned upside down" (calling evil, good, and good, evil) by the influence of 'feasts, sabbath, meat,' and pagan 'traditions of men,' Paul is warning against something which had become INSTITUTIONALIZED by the end of the 4th century.
This verse has been twisted utterly upside-down for longer than any of us here have been around. But, for every time I've heard someone quote it to me as an excuse for rejecting feast days (moedim) that YHVH Himself said to keep so long as heaven and earth exist, I've been "judged" many times over for turning down a pork chop or BLT at a pot-luck, and called names that I won't repeat (and that goes even for this site, a number of years ago, sadly) for eschewing 'Easter' or sun-day in favor of His real Sabbaths.
Having 'walked that walk,' it is more than a bit eye-opening to realize that this is what He meant with warnings about how the 'world will hate you' for the sake of His Word, and that a time would come when they would do worse. (John 16:2-3; I submit that here, too, there is "nothing new under the sun.")
Not really. He's been making that point since well before Deuteronomy 7:16 (and then 25-26).
Ironically, this follows the verse that is so uniformly twisted to say the "law" was "nailed to the cross" -- rather than the indictments.
It is important to note that Shaul was writing to FORMER PAGANS who were still "milk drinkers." They were being exposed to 'peer pressure' for distancing themselves from pagan rituals they once observed with family and friends. As the intro synopsis from the Whittaker House KJV-ER Study Bible to the letter notes, "The Colossians had an exaggerated regard for the observance of rites and ceremonies, and they also indulged in some form of worshipping of angels...a heresy which seems to have had both Jewish and Gnostic [roots]..."
Like so much that has been literally "turned upside down" (calling evil, good, and good, evil) by the influence of 'feasts, sabbath, meat,' and pagan 'traditions of men,' Paul is warning against something which had become INSTITUTIONALIZED by the end of the 4th century.
This verse has been twisted utterly upside-down for longer than any of us here have been around. But, for every time I've heard someone quote it to me as an excuse for rejecting feast days (moedim) that YHVH Himself said to keep so long as heaven and earth exist, I've been "judged" many times over for turning down a pork chop or BLT at a pot-luck, and called names that I won't repeat (and that goes even for this site, a number of years ago, sadly) for eschewing 'Easter' or sun-day in favor of His real Sabbaths.
Having 'walked that walk,' it is more than a bit eye-opening to realize that this is what He meant with warnings about how the 'world will hate you' for the sake of His Word, and that a time would come when they would do worse. (John 16:2-3; I submit that here, too, there is "nothing new under the sun.")
Not really. He's been making that point since well before Deuteronomy 7:16 (and then 25-26).
How do you guys explain Hebrews? Obviously written to those who are familiar with the law and yet cremated the idea that the Mosaic law is the perfect law of liberty
Rather that it was a poor substitute for the one that would come in the fullness of time
Rather that it was a poor substitute for the one that would come in the fullness of time
Surprise. I actually called that snipe before you let it fly. But at least you verified the veritas thereof.
Selectively, it would seem.
Evidently the difference between snowflakes and servants of the Most High is that we know that He warned us in advance, and walk in obedience anyway. You read "victimhood" into that in the same way you take other things out of context. And I shudder to think about what you'd call Shaul. (Set 'ignore' == "on")
You're right of course. I should have probably said something like your martyrdom is truly inspirational
Cut out the personal comments @Verifyveritas76 and @Mark C . If you are not commenting on the topic but rather making a jab at a particular individual, don't post it. It is completely unproductive and simply drives the other person to put more emotional walls around their existing viewpoint, so you are less likely to communicate your intended point to them. It also divides the Body into infighting factions, which is exactly what Satan wants. Let's set an example of how mature men can deal with disagreement. If you feel this statement is uncalled for, note that I am deliberately calling this early rather than waiting for it to deteriorate first.