-
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.
Question re: Isaiah 66
- Thread starter Paul not the apostle
- Start date
Steve,
Take for a moment Paul's specific words: "One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. . . .I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love" (Rom. 14:2,&14).
The two key ideas are: (1) a universal declaration of everything to be clean in the Lord, and (2) a recognition by Paul that on a personal individual basis some people will think some foods are unclean.
That dual statement can only be harmonized with Acts if we look at Acts as instruction on how two different peoples, Jews and Gentiles, were to interact when around each other. In other words, the issue is resolved by contextual analysis. We have to ask ourselves, what was going on in Acts 15? It was a meeting to discuss how Jews and Gentiles could get along with each other. We see this specifically stated in Acts 15:2 where we find that the law issue created "no small dissension and debate with them." Thus by context we see there was a breach in unity among the believers so this Council came together for that purpose to resolve a breach in unity.
And furthermore, if we believe in the law of non-contradiction (which I'm fairly certain you do), i.e. that God does not contradict himself and that something cannot be "A" and not "A" at the same time then we have this issue:
Premise # 1= A universal all encompassing statement that nothing in itself is unclean which in reverse a positive statement that all things are then clean.
Premise # 2= A statement concerning fellowship between Jews and Gentiles on food issues.
Premise # 3 = A problem in the Jewish and Gentile relations evident which led the council to seek a solution and goal in how they could get along in Christ
Conclusion = Nothing is unclean in itself but in some cases it can be wrong by someone's personal conscience and thus wrong to eat something that causes another to be injured is wrong not because the food itself is unclean but because the act injured another.
Here is what Dr. John MacArthur says about this text and he gets the contextual point that has to be taken into account. The context of the reason for the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is the guide as to how we read it. He says:
"James turned to practical matters of fellowship. He and the other leaders were concerned not only that the Jews not trouble the Gentiles, but also that the Gentiles not trouble the Jews. The danger was that the Gentiles, reveling in their freedom in Christ, would pressure the Jewish believers to exercise that same liberty and violate their consciences. To forestall that, James proposed that they write a letter to the Gentiles ordering them to abstain from four practices: things contaminated by idols, fornication, and from what was strangled and from blood . . . .things contaminated by idols refers to food offered to pagan gods and then sold in temple butcher shops. Idolatry was repulsive, blasphemous matter to the Jews. . . .fornication describes sexual sin in general, and the orgies associated with the worship of pagan gods in particular . . . . Although fornication is obviously a moral issue, in a broader sense it is also an issue of consideration to Jews. In all their marriage relations and conduct with the opposite sex, the Gentiles were to do nothing offensive to God's law of Jewish sensibilities. Abstaining from what was strangled and from blood involved the dietary laws (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:12-14; 19:26; Deut. 12:16,23; 15:23; 1 Sam. 14:34; Ezek. 33:25). While certainly not imposing those laws on Gentiles believers (cf. Acts 10:9-16), James set forth these as minimum requirements for fellowship. As noted above, freedom in Christ does not grant the right to sin, or to offend another believer" (The MacArthur NT Commentary, Acts 13-28, p. 70-71).
This subject might be getting too far into something that needs to be moved over into the private forum on "Messianic" issues and if so we can move the thread over that forum so we do not cause a stir here.
Yet, at least for the moment I'll add this much here. If we need to we can move this thread over into another forum so we do not forever get bogged down here in a "law" debate.
It is not my goal, nor should it be for any saint today, to try and make someone eat something or drink something that their personal conscience is against. It is my goal and should be every saint who does have freedom to eat anything to defend those who are not yet able to do so in their own conscience. Any mature believer ought to be able to also abstain from something for a time if he or she knows that eating something another is not free to eat will offend that one who does not have that freedom. The exercise of liberty must be balanced with an awareness of those who may not yet have the same freedom.
Yet on the other hand, those whose consciences are weaker/unable (which does not per se imply a morality weakness as the term simply means without the inner freedom to do something, or if the term throws you then substitute the term unable) and cannot in good conscience eat meats then they have the freedom to abstain. But what they cannot and should not do is to try and take what is a personal issue for them and make it a universal law for all people. When they do that they have acted in a way that injures those who, like Paul, believe all foods are clean and have that liberty in Christ.
This, as I have noted in other articles, is also how the Hebrew Christians of the Association of Messianic Congregations teaches on these issues. As Jews in Christ they see the historical issue as one of conscience and freedom issues that have to be balanced as Paul set forth in Romans 14 which coincides with Acts 15. Acts 15 took place sometime around AD 40 to AD 50. The letter to the Romans was the practical application of that in doctrinal teaching format. Romans was written sometime in the 60's. In other words, what we read in Romans 14 about how to handle these food issues was the didactic or teaching sessions to explain the Acts 15 conclusion. We thus use Romans 14 as the commentary on the earlier decision made in Acts 15. It was Paul's elaboration on the conclusion in a more detailed format for the Jewish and Gentiles Christians in Rome.
Take for a moment Paul's specific words: "One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. . . .I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love" (Rom. 14:2,&14).
The two key ideas are: (1) a universal declaration of everything to be clean in the Lord, and (2) a recognition by Paul that on a personal individual basis some people will think some foods are unclean.
That dual statement can only be harmonized with Acts if we look at Acts as instruction on how two different peoples, Jews and Gentiles, were to interact when around each other. In other words, the issue is resolved by contextual analysis. We have to ask ourselves, what was going on in Acts 15? It was a meeting to discuss how Jews and Gentiles could get along with each other. We see this specifically stated in Acts 15:2 where we find that the law issue created "no small dissension and debate with them." Thus by context we see there was a breach in unity among the believers so this Council came together for that purpose to resolve a breach in unity.
And furthermore, if we believe in the law of non-contradiction (which I'm fairly certain you do), i.e. that God does not contradict himself and that something cannot be "A" and not "A" at the same time then we have this issue:
Premise # 1= A universal all encompassing statement that nothing in itself is unclean which in reverse a positive statement that all things are then clean.
Premise # 2= A statement concerning fellowship between Jews and Gentiles on food issues.
Premise # 3 = A problem in the Jewish and Gentile relations evident which led the council to seek a solution and goal in how they could get along in Christ
Conclusion = Nothing is unclean in itself but in some cases it can be wrong by someone's personal conscience and thus wrong to eat something that causes another to be injured is wrong not because the food itself is unclean but because the act injured another.
Here is what Dr. John MacArthur says about this text and he gets the contextual point that has to be taken into account. The context of the reason for the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is the guide as to how we read it. He says:
"James turned to practical matters of fellowship. He and the other leaders were concerned not only that the Jews not trouble the Gentiles, but also that the Gentiles not trouble the Jews. The danger was that the Gentiles, reveling in their freedom in Christ, would pressure the Jewish believers to exercise that same liberty and violate their consciences. To forestall that, James proposed that they write a letter to the Gentiles ordering them to abstain from four practices: things contaminated by idols, fornication, and from what was strangled and from blood . . . .things contaminated by idols refers to food offered to pagan gods and then sold in temple butcher shops. Idolatry was repulsive, blasphemous matter to the Jews. . . .fornication describes sexual sin in general, and the orgies associated with the worship of pagan gods in particular . . . . Although fornication is obviously a moral issue, in a broader sense it is also an issue of consideration to Jews. In all their marriage relations and conduct with the opposite sex, the Gentiles were to do nothing offensive to God's law of Jewish sensibilities. Abstaining from what was strangled and from blood involved the dietary laws (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:12-14; 19:26; Deut. 12:16,23; 15:23; 1 Sam. 14:34; Ezek. 33:25). While certainly not imposing those laws on Gentiles believers (cf. Acts 10:9-16), James set forth these as minimum requirements for fellowship. As noted above, freedom in Christ does not grant the right to sin, or to offend another believer" (The MacArthur NT Commentary, Acts 13-28, p. 70-71).
This subject might be getting too far into something that needs to be moved over into the private forum on "Messianic" issues and if so we can move the thread over that forum so we do not cause a stir here.
Yet, at least for the moment I'll add this much here. If we need to we can move this thread over into another forum so we do not forever get bogged down here in a "law" debate.
It is not my goal, nor should it be for any saint today, to try and make someone eat something or drink something that their personal conscience is against. It is my goal and should be every saint who does have freedom to eat anything to defend those who are not yet able to do so in their own conscience. Any mature believer ought to be able to also abstain from something for a time if he or she knows that eating something another is not free to eat will offend that one who does not have that freedom. The exercise of liberty must be balanced with an awareness of those who may not yet have the same freedom.
Yet on the other hand, those whose consciences are weaker/unable (which does not per se imply a morality weakness as the term simply means without the inner freedom to do something, or if the term throws you then substitute the term unable) and cannot in good conscience eat meats then they have the freedom to abstain. But what they cannot and should not do is to try and take what is a personal issue for them and make it a universal law for all people. When they do that they have acted in a way that injures those who, like Paul, believe all foods are clean and have that liberty in Christ.
This, as I have noted in other articles, is also how the Hebrew Christians of the Association of Messianic Congregations teaches on these issues. As Jews in Christ they see the historical issue as one of conscience and freedom issues that have to be balanced as Paul set forth in Romans 14 which coincides with Acts 15. Acts 15 took place sometime around AD 40 to AD 50. The letter to the Romans was the practical application of that in doctrinal teaching format. Romans was written sometime in the 60's. In other words, what we read in Romans 14 about how to handle these food issues was the didactic or teaching sessions to explain the Acts 15 conclusion. We thus use Romans 14 as the commentary on the earlier decision made in Acts 15. It was Paul's elaboration on the conclusion in a more detailed format for the Jewish and Gentiles Christians in Rome.
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.
i agree with you as pertains to meats offered to idols, it is about unity and the weaker concience.
abstaining from fornication is obviously not about unity of believers, it is just plain wrong and the command is to not do it.
abstaining from things strangled and blood? for the life of all flesh [is] the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
His blood was shed for you and me. i cannot help but see it as important to the Almighty.
i can only believe that paul was speaking in a limited context (meats offered to idols). the blood thing is just too important to be dismissed out of hand.
we might as well just leave it there as we are not going to agree anytime soon.
i agree with you as pertains to meats offered to idols, it is about unity and the weaker concience.
abstaining from fornication is obviously not about unity of believers, it is just plain wrong and the command is to not do it.
abstaining from things strangled and blood? for the life of all flesh [is] the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
His blood was shed for you and me. i cannot help but see it as important to the Almighty.
i can only believe that paul was speaking in a limited context (meats offered to idols). the blood thing is just too important to be dismissed out of hand.
we might as well just leave it there as we are not going to agree anytime soon.
I understand and see you are focusing in on that key point of "strangulation." Some commentators have argued that something that is strangled and then served would be a sanitary or health issue, i.e. eating something that still has the blood in it (strangulation instead of slaughter where the blood is drained out) which could kill you because it has not been properly prepared.
Those ideas could very well be key points and certainly mandatory. In such cases it would not be that the food in and of itself was corrupt or unclean but that the way it was prepared was bad and thus in those cases to be avoided. Everyone should be able to agree with that much.
Certainly that fits with overall sanitation rules but it does not rule out someone eating all meats, just only those meats that are not prepared correctly or when served in such a way that the blood is still present in the meat being ate. Many health professional have for many years now noted that eating raw meats can indeed be dangerous to one's health. The proper slaughter of an animal and also the proper cooking of it is something that is important.
Anyway, good discussion overall.
People who have come to understand that we have been lied to by 'the church' concerning what MARRIAGE is should find it less threatening than others to realize that the meaning of a word like "marriage" is hardly the only thing we have been lied to about.
That is why, I contend, Jer. 16:19-20 prophesies that we will one day, and indeed now ARE coming from the "ends of the earth" to proclaim that we have inherited lies from our fathers; teachings from false gods which are (charitably) "unprofitable".
Even more ominous, however, to those with "eyes to see" are the MULTIPLE warnings of Isaiah 66, which are and will be revealed to us in these days! Deception, bondage, and exile are not new, and they are certainly not unique to some presumed "dispensation". Fruit follows seed.
And Kefa (aka "Peter") also warned that the writings of our "beloved brother" Shaul would be twisted "by the unlearned and untaught" (as they do "the rest of Scripture...unto their own destruction". II Peter 3:15-16)
For those who are willing to read what the Word actually SAYS - as opposed to what "you have HEARD it said" - this, too, is "not too hard for you." To demonstrate the process, substitute one idolatrous pagan concept for another. Here is an example -- again from Paul, as 'wrested' in this very thread - of how it can work. The trick is to understand how the Adversary, and those who serve him, or can be deceived by him as Eve was, twists the meaning of words. It is indeed part of the reason why I contend strongly that unless we are willing to "study for ourselves" what the words mean IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT, in context, we, too can and will be deceived. After all, if "even the elect" can be so deceived, how much more so those who won't even turn from eating "abominations" like the pig and the mouse - much less trying to "teach others to do so" (Matthew 5:17-19).
Consider this:
Hey, doesn't Hebrews say "the marriage bed is NOT defiled"? That MUST mean that every MARRIAGE that WE decide to call "marriage" is OK!
(Just like every union that WE decide to call "NOT marriage" is Verboten! That is, of course, why the Almighty State is given license to prohibit, and utterly destroy, that "which God has joined together", no doubt.)
I can assure you that the man who wrote that line would not have called a so-called "civil union" of gay men a "marriage" any more than he would have called pig flesh "food". BOTH were called abomination, and Paul knew that! Those who "wrest" his words, in order to "add to" and "subtract from" what is Written do likewise.
Paul was a consummate Torah scholar. He KNEW, because he knew that "all Scripture" is not only "breathed of Yah" but because the Savior confirmed that NOT the tiniest bit of it was to be "done away with", that things which YHVH DID NOT CREATE to be FOOD were simply NOT food! (Would you eat vomit or dog excrement if someone called it 'food'? It almost certainly won't kill you immediately, and might have some nourishment, even.)
Paul knew better. He advised those who wanted to be "like the Bereans" to study for themselves, so they would have discernment. After all, isn't "Moses taught in every synagogue, every Sabbath, in every city." (Acts 15:21, in context!) Once those "whom Yah has cleansed" (from the gentiles) get a handle on the "four minimum conditions" to get through the door, they can learn the rest! Just like the Savior advised in John 14:15, Paul EXPECTED those who knew what their "reasonable service" was to study, not to "reject knowledge". (Hosea 4:6, Isaiah 66, AND so on!)
The point is simple, for those with "eyes to see". YHVH created the world, He created us, and He designed us to eat what He called "food". (If someone who couldn't design a car, repair one, or even bother to "read the owner's manual" tells you that sugar water is great "food" for your car -- after all, YOU can put it in your mouth and swallow it -- would you believe them?) On the day that Yahushua gave Himself for us, and for our sin of rebellion to Him -- did our "old bodies" get changed? Did the bodies of pigs or shellfish change? He evidently made them to be the "garbage recyclers" of His creation - on land and sea. Did THAT change? (Science is STILL learning what Scripture gave us hints about thousands of years ago, even. Did you know that the reason the VAST majority of human pandemics come originally from swine is because our DNA is so similar to the pig that most viruses which attack pig cells readily "jump the species barrier" and, unlike cows, or goats, or sheep, then easily infect US? Or that swine's flesh is full of enzymes to do the job of digesting dead things? Science has given them names, too...like "putrescene" and "cadaverene". Yummy.)
The claim that God changes His mind in some "dispensations" is just such a lie; at least, if you believe Him when He says He "changes not", and is the same "yesterday, today, and always." Yes, certain things are sealed from view until the 'end' (as both Yahuchanan, aka "John", and DanYaEl were told). After all, nations have, and do, go into bondage when they deny Him and His Truth. But, "[It is] the glory of Elohim to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings to search out a matter." (Psalms 25:2) So search already, especially if we intend to be "kings and priests" for Him!
Don't be fooled, folks. Whether we LIKE the fact that "male and female He created us", and that He gave us His "teaching and understanding" (pronounced 'torah' in the Hebrew) about how His creation works, so that we could "choose life", and walk in "blessing", rather than "cursing" -- the things He told us STILL APPLY! After all, "heaven and earth" STILL exist, and so do rainbows! Indeed, our Savior said so OVER AND OVER AGAIN, in spite of the attempts of fallen men to claim otherwise, and twist His Word:
That is why, I contend, Jer. 16:19-20 prophesies that we will one day, and indeed now ARE coming from the "ends of the earth" to proclaim that we have inherited lies from our fathers; teachings from false gods which are (charitably) "unprofitable".
Even more ominous, however, to those with "eyes to see" are the MULTIPLE warnings of Isaiah 66, which are and will be revealed to us in these days! Deception, bondage, and exile are not new, and they are certainly not unique to some presumed "dispensation". Fruit follows seed.
And Kefa (aka "Peter") also warned that the writings of our "beloved brother" Shaul would be twisted "by the unlearned and untaught" (as they do "the rest of Scripture...unto their own destruction". II Peter 3:15-16)
For those who are willing to read what the Word actually SAYS - as opposed to what "you have HEARD it said" - this, too, is "not too hard for you." To demonstrate the process, substitute one idolatrous pagan concept for another. Here is an example -- again from Paul, as 'wrested' in this very thread - of how it can work. The trick is to understand how the Adversary, and those who serve him, or can be deceived by him as Eve was, twists the meaning of words. It is indeed part of the reason why I contend strongly that unless we are willing to "study for ourselves" what the words mean IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT, in context, we, too can and will be deceived. After all, if "even the elect" can be so deceived, how much more so those who won't even turn from eating "abominations" like the pig and the mouse - much less trying to "teach others to do so" (Matthew 5:17-19).
Consider this:
Hey, doesn't Hebrews say "the marriage bed is NOT defiled"? That MUST mean that every MARRIAGE that WE decide to call "marriage" is OK!
(Just like every union that WE decide to call "NOT marriage" is Verboten! That is, of course, why the Almighty State is given license to prohibit, and utterly destroy, that "which God has joined together", no doubt.)
I can assure you that the man who wrote that line would not have called a so-called "civil union" of gay men a "marriage" any more than he would have called pig flesh "food". BOTH were called abomination, and Paul knew that! Those who "wrest" his words, in order to "add to" and "subtract from" what is Written do likewise.
Paul was a consummate Torah scholar. He KNEW, because he knew that "all Scripture" is not only "breathed of Yah" but because the Savior confirmed that NOT the tiniest bit of it was to be "done away with", that things which YHVH DID NOT CREATE to be FOOD were simply NOT food! (Would you eat vomit or dog excrement if someone called it 'food'? It almost certainly won't kill you immediately, and might have some nourishment, even.)
Paul knew better. He advised those who wanted to be "like the Bereans" to study for themselves, so they would have discernment. After all, isn't "Moses taught in every synagogue, every Sabbath, in every city." (Acts 15:21, in context!) Once those "whom Yah has cleansed" (from the gentiles) get a handle on the "four minimum conditions" to get through the door, they can learn the rest! Just like the Savior advised in John 14:15, Paul EXPECTED those who knew what their "reasonable service" was to study, not to "reject knowledge". (Hosea 4:6, Isaiah 66, AND so on!)
The point is simple, for those with "eyes to see". YHVH created the world, He created us, and He designed us to eat what He called "food". (If someone who couldn't design a car, repair one, or even bother to "read the owner's manual" tells you that sugar water is great "food" for your car -- after all, YOU can put it in your mouth and swallow it -- would you believe them?) On the day that Yahushua gave Himself for us, and for our sin of rebellion to Him -- did our "old bodies" get changed? Did the bodies of pigs or shellfish change? He evidently made them to be the "garbage recyclers" of His creation - on land and sea. Did THAT change? (Science is STILL learning what Scripture gave us hints about thousands of years ago, even. Did you know that the reason the VAST majority of human pandemics come originally from swine is because our DNA is so similar to the pig that most viruses which attack pig cells readily "jump the species barrier" and, unlike cows, or goats, or sheep, then easily infect US? Or that swine's flesh is full of enzymes to do the job of digesting dead things? Science has given them names, too...like "putrescene" and "cadaverene". Yummy.)
The claim that God changes His mind in some "dispensations" is just such a lie; at least, if you believe Him when He says He "changes not", and is the same "yesterday, today, and always." Yes, certain things are sealed from view until the 'end' (as both Yahuchanan, aka "John", and DanYaEl were told). After all, nations have, and do, go into bondage when they deny Him and His Truth. But, "[It is] the glory of Elohim to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings to search out a matter." (Psalms 25:2) So search already, especially if we intend to be "kings and priests" for Him!
Don't be fooled, folks. Whether we LIKE the fact that "male and female He created us", and that He gave us His "teaching and understanding" (pronounced 'torah' in the Hebrew) about how His creation works, so that we could "choose life", and walk in "blessing", rather than "cursing" -- the things He told us STILL APPLY! After all, "heaven and earth" STILL exist, and so do rainbows! Indeed, our Savior said so OVER AND OVER AGAIN, in spite of the attempts of fallen men to claim otherwise, and twist His Word: