Dr. Brown Interviews Walid Shoebat and a Debate about Dietary Laws

[Download MP3]

In the first hour, Dr. Brown speaks with former Palestinian Muslim — and Jew-hater — Walid Shoebat; in the second hour, Dr. Brown invites listeners to debate whether the dietary laws are binding on believers today. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.

 

Hour 1:

 

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: We have no excuse not to know who and what Islam is.

 

Hour 2: 

 

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: We might divide on the issue of the dietary laws, but whatever our view let us keep Jesus the Messiah central.

 

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!  

This week, get Heidi Baker’s life-changing new book, Birthing the Miraculous, highly recommended by Dr. Brown, along with her interview on the Line of Fire for $25! Postage Paid (US ONLY)!

Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!

Other Resources:

Who Is Saved and Who Is Damned?

Difficult Passages in the Torah and the Believer Today

Does It Matter to God If Christians Keep the Dietary Laws?

53 Comments
  1. I’ve been hoping that this interview would take place for about 3 years now, lol. What a blessing this is going to be!

  2. About all I know is that we who are saved by grace are not under the law but under the guidance and direction of the holy Spirit.

    Now if the Spirit of God quickens us to something in the law for us to follow, then that’s for us, but if not, it likely isn’t for us right now.

  3. I appreciated Dr. Brown’s push-back on Whalid Shoebat.

    Shoebat said that Islam is the antithesis of Christianity. Yet, Shoebat sounded like a whole bunch of Muslims who I’ve heard use the exaction same rationale for excusing violence. Nobody thinks they are the aggressor, everybody believes they are justifiably defending themselves. Like Shoebat, so many Middle Eastern Muslim have long and selective memories for past wars, using them to justify “self-defense” now.

    And the cycle of violence never ends.

    I honestly believe, with all my heart, that the peace teachings of Jesus Christ can stop the cycle of violence. But, we need more Middle Eastern Christians who take it seriously and don’t rationalize it away.

  4. Re: hour two.

    I thought Dr. Brown did an excellent job explaining dietary laws for the Christian. He was especially helpful in explaining good reasons why a Christian might still keep the dietary laws, despite clear instruction in the New Testament that we don’t need to.

    I didn’t hear all of hour two… did Dr. Brown explain why some animals are unclean and others are not?

    He said that it wasn’t nutritional, which seems clear. (what’s wrong with shrimp?) But why is some perfectly safe food on the list?

    I once read a manuscript by a well-regarded bible scholar arguing that the animals on the list were considered corrupted or deformed, according to a now-lost cultural standard.

    It’s the best explanation I’ve heard but I can’t say if it is valid.

  5. Hi Mike,
    I couldn’t disagree with you more regarding your position on the dietary laws. You say that the N.T. never said the Gentiles were obligated to obey the food laws. However, God never said in the N.T. that they DIDN’T have to obey. If Jesus(in Hebrews) said He is the same, yesterday,today and forever and also He said, to know the Father is to know me,And Jesus ALWAYS obeyed the laws,then Mike,you’re wrong in your reasoning for saying Gentiles AREN”T obligated. If one wants to be a TRUE follower of Jesus,and not a Fan,they MUST strive to keep these laws.Again, Just because God didn’t say it, dosen’t mean they DON’T have to try to do it. another example of the mainstream Church worshipping Jesus”The Christ” instead of YESHUA the JEW.

  6. If you look at a Cat scan of an abdomen you can not tell the race of the person. Why is unclean meat ok for anyone’s digestive tract. What the Torah teaches about everything from circumcision, meats,abortion,same sex attraction, sabbath, ect ect is light years ahead of what we think of as modern science. I will live by torah if for no other reason than it has a perfect track record. Although there are many other reasons to follow the one and only true God. The bible is like finding treasure, no, even better than that!

  7. Jon,

    Ps 19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
    11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.

    What are more to be desired than gold? Read verses 7-9. YHWH’s law, testimony, commandments, statutes, and judgments. Let me see…Jeremiah said that the New Covenant would have the effect of writing YHWH’s law upon our hearts. That idomatically means that we will love it. That means that we will desire it more than much fine gold…if we are being true to the new covenant…which is only made with Israel…not gentiles…for they must be grafted into Israel to partake of the covenants of promise. Paul says that we are no longer gentiles, but grafted into Israel. Now we are no longer strangers, but part of the commonwealth of Israel. Israel’s law is YHWH’s law. And there is one law for the home born and the son of the stranger that joins themselves to YHWH and that refuses to think of himself as separate from Israel, as YHWH commands.

    Isaiah 56
    3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
    4 For thus saith the LORD unto …
    6 …the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
    7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

    Shalom

  8. @Greg Allen

    What do you think about Paul in Acts 23?

    Paul used 200 soldiers 70 horsemen and 200 spearmen to protect himself from the group of the Jews that wished to kill him.

    Should Paul of refused the escort, should he have kept quiet and meekly allowed himself to be killed? He saw nothing wrong with the use of the authorities force and strength to protect himself from persecution.

    I suppose you could argue Paul never used force himself and so it was ok. But do you think paul would have consented to the escort if he thought that the use of force to protect him from persecution was wrong? Was paul a hypocrite? Was he going benefit from the sin of others in order to save his life? No. Paul saw nothing wrong with the use of armed protection.

    So why should we condemn those in those who are persecuted around the world for protecting themselves? It is very easy for us here in the west to say no violence when we risk nothing, it is a very different matter when you see your wifes head on the chopping block.

    Now an important nuance I think I should point out here is that those who wished to kill Paul where doing so illegally, it was not the state that wished to kill paul but rather representitives of the Jewish council. We see paul has a much different attitude to the lawful authority of the state e.g. in Acts 16.

    We are told to submit ourselves to the Governing authorities (Romans 13:1)and so armed rebillion against the state is not allowed, however those who themselves go against the authority of the state in trying to take our lives can be (in my opinion)fought against.

    In america you have the 2nd Amendment which allows you to arm yourself and use a gun in self-defence so if a man enters your home looking to harm you for your faith I think you would be perfectly within your rights to shoot him.

    If you look at the places where Christians today are fighting to defend themselves, it is not the state they are fighting but rather insurgent groups that are acting against the state themselves. Most people here I am sure would agree that if israel was facing certain destruction from an invading arab army it would be right for the united states to help the militarily and it would also be acceptable for individual israelis to take up arms to defend themselves. So why not our brothers and sisters in christ? Yes we must love the lost sheep of Israel and defend them but why do we deny the right we give the lost sheep to those in the fold?

    In addition to this I feel that Christian Nations have a responsability to protect christians who are being persecuted around the world. We mention the crusades and we denounce them vehemently and we list all the atrocities commited. This is true lots of evil was done during the crusades but that does not mean the motivation for the crusades was evil. Many evils were done during WW2 by bothsides the Americans and British killed many innocents as did the Germans. But was it wronf for us to go to war with Hitler? Wasn’t it a good thing to stop him from killing the jewish people? Of course it was. In the same way during the crusades much evil was done but they were not wrong in their motivation to protect the Holy Land and their brothers and sisters from the Muslim invasion.

    To conclude I feel that the western church today is guilty of much hypocrisy and double standards on this issue. We defend Israels right to defend itself with vigour yet we condemn christians who do the same. We defend our intervention in WW2 yet condemn the crusades and military intervention to save christians today. If it is noble to defend the lost sheep is it not also noble to defend those in the fold?

  9. Why are you dishonest? You parade around as a “Christian” organization, yet you lie, which is non-Christian.
    I submitted a comment on your website that expressed my views. This was through a public feature of the website. You then captured my IP address and prevented my access by posting a page that is a lie. The page has the statement, “AskDrBrown is down for mainteance please check back in 60 minutes.”. This statement is a lie.

    I simply went to another computer with a different IP address and acccessed the website, so “AskDrBrown” website is NOT “down for maintenance”.
    And, you further mislead the website visitor by displaying, “check back in 60 minutes,” when you know that is a lie too.

    Do you really believe lying is Christian behavior? Why don’t you be honest and upfront, and put up a message on the website saying:

    “The staff of the “AskDrBrown” website reserves the right to block access to all visitors who submit comments we do not like.” Then, if the unwanted visitor comes to the website again, put up a message that says, “You have been locked out of this website due to you submitting comments
    we do not like.”

    What are you afraid of? Isn’t honesty the best policy?

  10. This is my last visit to your website. I have to use this forum to send my message because you have blocked me out since I make statements that upset your agenda. That’s fine; it’s your prerogative.
    I could just reboot my computer and get another IP address, but I really do not want to comment on anything else.

    I do ask that you reflect on what you have done, and reflect on whether or not you are truly seeking the truth, and engage in Christian behavior.

    Reflect on your leader’s lavish lifestyle. Lavish when measured against the norm. There are people in need and yet he lives in what most poor people would call a mansion. Is this of Christ? Just reflect on that and the “eye of a needle.”

    Adios, look within yourself and ask, “Am I really being truthful? Am I really being honest? Am I really seeking the objective truth?” I hope you come up with the correct answers.

    Have a nice day.

  11. If you agree with this website then they’ll ignore the posting guidelines. Look at how the Christians attack my character, tell me to shut up and get away with it. Yes it does seem as though there is a double standard for ideas and behavior on this blog.

  12. Van, Come and get some of this gold- See Bo’s post above-

    Ps 19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
    11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.

    Van, you attack the very heart of G_d, then you feel those attacks are about you. I know your heart is empty, fill it up with gold treasure.. The change in your heart will be like sweet honey in a honeycomb. Your heart is empty, your cry is unto the Lord… Do not feel sorry for yourself and that you are being attacked. Your ideas are rejected out right, they are called foolish. It is because you reject the creator. Let him in and have a new heart.

  13. Van, I will be first to ask your forgiveness if my post are felt to attack your character. I will react to protect the heart of God when ever or who ever is defaming the character of the almighty.
    I have called you an intellectual terrorist for the claims that you have posted here. See below the post you put up-

    ^ I’m not going to listen to this show because I’ve heard enough nonsense from the people who want to turn back the clock on women’s rights and impose their oppressive religious authoritarian views on women. A women’s uterus is not public property. If the anti-choice crowd really wanted to stop abortion, they’d support access to contraception and comprehensive sex education, two things that have proved to reduce unwanted pregnancies. But the anti-choice crowd opposes these things too. Why? Once you see through their phony concern

    I will post a strong reaction to this for you will not even listen to a P.H.D (Which carries some weight in your world) on any subject that disagrees with the world Van view. Sure you will get a reaction to that. Intellectual dishonesty on your part for not even being able to weigh in on the debate, for you will not even listen. Forgive me for not lauding, and honoring your great opinion… Your posting on a website that I hope there are men and women who will stand up and protect the heart of God. Men that will not roll over to the world views. Men that will stand up and speak the truth. When you speak that truth Van I will stand up and bless and praise that truth. I will glorify and exalt the truth, until then Van- I may call a spade a spade, sorry its my job.

  14. Van,

    You poor poor thing. You decided to play with the big boys and got your feelings hurt because they would not put up with your childishness. No one told you to shut up. They probably said something like, “Since you were wrong, you need to admit it o[r] shut up.”

    When you spout statements like, “I know a lot more about the Bible than any believer does.” and “Any semi careful reading of the Genesis text shows the whole thing is a fabrication…It never dawns on the Christian reader, even the so-called scholars, that the Ishmaelites are Joseph’s first cousins, not some band of foreigners.” The arrogance and ignorance and dishonesty and childishness of your posts is deserves ridicule at best. You really should stop posting if you are going to continue your attacks in these ways. If you are capable of having an honest debate of the facts and are willing to address the substance of the posts and will admit when you have been shown to be wrong on your false and illogical statements, then maybe your feelings won’t get hurt so often. Maybe then, you will be taken more seriously.

  15. It is easy to set up straw men and knock them down with a little rhetoric. You know…”We do not stone adulterers so it doesn’t matter what we eat either.” or arguing from silence like, “There is no commandment about not eating unclean meat in the New Testament.” Why do we not go further? There is no commandment in the New Testament to not eat humans and if the dietary laws are not applicable, then why do we not solve the worlds hunger problem and stop using up so much land for cemeteries? Cremation is such a waste of fire. Let’s turn down the heat and stop wasting precious fossil fuels. Why not turn the crematoriums into barbecue pits? We do not wear tassels or practice leverite marriage, so why should we be worried about washing ourselves after examining, a human corpse or disposing of a dead German Shepard? Amazing where straw man arguments lead, isn’t it?

    It is harder to actually come to grips with what the whole Bible says about YHWH’s commandments, dietary or otherwise.

    Most believers pray/give thanks before they eat. There is no commandment to do so, but they honor Messiah by trying to do what He did. It has become, for all practical purposes, a food law to us. I do not doubt that it is pleasing in YHWH’s sight, but no apostle or prophet or even Messiah himself commanded it.

    One thing we know for sure. Messiah never prayed over any unclean animal meat as if it were food. Neither did Peter or Paul, according to their own testimonies. So are we really following Y’shua’s example? Has YHWH really provided unclean animals to us to kill, cook and spice in delicious ways and indulge our taste buds?

    Our offering of thanksgiving before our meals of unclean meat is much like King Saul’s animals that he saved for an offering to YHWH.

    1 Samuel 15
    13 And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the LORD: I have performed the commandment of the LORD.
    14 And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?
    15 And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.
    16 Then Samuel said unto Saul, Stay, and I will tell thee what the LORD hath said to me this night. And he said unto him, Say on.
    17 And Samuel said, When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the LORD anointed thee king over Israel?
    18 And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.
    19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD?

    But we persist in claiming that we are obeying YHWH, like Saul, by praying over the unclean animal meat that we eat.

    1 Samuel 15
    20 And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.
    21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal.

    And then we try to shift the blame to our culture or our gentile heritage or even the apostles by saying, “There is no commandment that says that we are not to eat unclean animals.” We are in essence saying, “The apostles took the spoil, er…um…I mean they OKed it. It is their fault. We are fine.”

    1 Samuel 15
    22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
    23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

    Rejected from ruling. Hmmm! That sounds familiar. Who will rule with Messiah in His kingdom? He had something to say about that. It covers every commandment of YHWH, even the least commandments like the dietary ones.

    Mattthew 5
    19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Did Messiah live up to being the greatest in the kingdom? Did He do and teach others to keep every last little commandment? Did He, by His Spirit, teach us against any least commandment? Are we really following His example?

    Matthew 23
    23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

    It is very important not to omit the greatest commandments, but we also should not leave the least commandments undone…at least if we plan on reining with the King of Israel. Are we forfeiting our place of ruling with Messiah or maybe our birthright for a morsel of meat?

    Hebrews 12
    14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
    15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
    16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

    Holiness! What is that made of? Well, scriptural holiness is made up of many things, one of which is what we eat or do not eat. Holiness, without it we will not get close enough to see YHWH. We will be the least in the kingdom at best. What is the root of bitterness that the Hebrew author of the book to the Hebrews is speaking of? I wonder if it has anything to do with keeping or not keeping YHWH’s commandments.

    Deuteronomy 29
    18 lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from Jehovah our God, to go to serve the gods of those nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood;
    19 and it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart, to destroy the moist with the dry.
    20 Jehovah will not pardon him, but then the anger of Jehovah and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and all the curse that is written in this book shall lie upon him, and Jehovah will blot out his name from under heaven. (ASV)

    The root of bitterness is the root that bears gall and wormwood. It is pridefully going against the commandments of YHWH and proclaiming that nothing bad will happen. It is blessing ourselves in our hearts when we are disobedient and thinking that we are at peace with YHWH. What is destroying/consuming the moist with the dry?

    It is doing anything we want whether there are commandments against such a thing or not. It is eating the clean and the unclean regardless of YHWH’s commandments. It is doing our own thing instead of applying ourselves to holiness. Look up the words holy and sanctify. See how submitting to YHWH in the small things like diet and cleanness are the details of holiness.

    To be continued

  16. Continued from above

    What is this bleating of sheep that I hear? What is this smell of smoked ham in my nose? Why do we think that following Messiah’s example in praying before we eat nullifies His commandment of what we are not allowed to eat? We should have done the first without letting the second go undone. Will we allow our lust for the flavor of unclean animal meat to relegate us to the least in the kingdom? Have we been tricked into selling our birthright?

    It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles the man. The unclean meat is just a symptom of the lust we have in our hearts that defiles us…the pride that causes us to not be able to subject ourselves to YHWH’s law. It keeps us from being great in YHWH’s kingdom. It makes us unprofitable servants.

    Romans 8
    7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

    Luke 17
    5 And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.
    6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
    7 But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
    8 And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
    9 Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
    10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

    We would be unprofitable even if we only did what we were commanded to do. How much more if we think that we can replace keeping YHWH’s commandments with some sacrificial behavior that supposedly shows our devotion? Our faith does need to be increased. It needs to be increased until it causes faithfulness.

    1John 3
    22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

    Praying before we eat should be added to submitting to YHWH’s dietary laws. It should not replace them. We should do both. We should keep YHWH’s commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. Then our faith will have increased and we will have the things we ask and speak unto mountains and see them move. Not because of how much we trust YHWH, but because YHWH will know that He can trust us. The small things prove our trustworthyness.

    Luke 16
    10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

    The law is revelation from YHWH on true love for Him, our neighbors and ourselves. Neglecting to do and teach the smallest commandments is breaking the cross threads (the woof) of our holy garments that hang upon the main threads (the warp) of the greatest commandments. And we do want to be wearing holy garments and not holey garments when He returns for his bride.

    Ephesians 5
    27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

    Revelation 19
    7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
    8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
    9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

    1 Samuel 15
    23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
    24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice.

    Hebrews 12
    17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

    Neither Saul or Esau were able to get back what they had lost by despising YHWH’s will for them. They were sorry for what they had done, but it was too late. One day it will be too late for us to change our actions. It happens in a twinkling of an eye or when we die. We will be judged for the deeds we did in our bodies. We will receive a reward for some and punishment for others. YHWH, our Father, desires for us to be great in His kingdom. Why not honor Him and live up to His expectations instead of giving lip service and deceiving ourselves by not being doers of His word?

    James 1
    22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

    Matthew 21
    28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
    29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
    30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
    31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

    Revelation 22
    10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
    11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
    12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
    13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
    14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

    1 Corinthians 3
    11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
    12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
    13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
    14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
    15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

    Matthew 5
    19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Do not disappoint your Father in heaven.

    Shalom

  17. James,

    In the Acts 23, it never occurred to me that Paul did that.

    Most Christians pacifists (me included) allow for the use of police, guards, etc. We aren’t always comfortable with it but it seems like a minimal nod to practicality. That seems like the situation in Acts 23.

    >> In addition to this I feel that Christian Nations have a responsability to protect christians who are being persecuted around the world.

    Well, for starters, I don’t believe America is a Christian nation. I don’t believe there should be state religion, Christian or otherwise.

    But, let’s say I accept your suggestion…

    A Christian nation needs to obey the commandments of Christ, right?

    How could a Christian nation love its enemies and still kill them?

  18. James,

    As I re-read your post to me.. I have one more question.

    What do you mean by “defend” Christians? Are you talking violence?

    I do think America could defend persecuted Christians. Persecuted Jews. Persecuted Muslims, Hindus, atheists… anybody.

    But there is a lot America can do, without violence.

  19. Hi Dr Brown,

    George is cross because be thinks the blog software is blocking him. It may be, though I expect if it is, it’s a bug and not something personal.

    I don’t think I can trust Mr Shoebat; he’s got an aggressive spirit, and an accent that sounds put on at times. An interesting interview none the less.

    Love the show!

  20. George:

    >> Reflect on your leader’s lavish lifestyle. Lavish when measured against the norm. There are people in need and yet he lives in what most poor people would call a mansion.

    Even fairly modest American homes are “lavish” compared to the poor in the developing world.

    I have no idea what sort of house Dr. Brown lives in but I would not begrudge him a typical middle class house.

    While there has been a lot of talk about Benny Hinn’s theology — his self-indulgence bothers me perhaps even more. A quick Google says he’s worth 42 million dollars!

    That just makes him a very good grifter, in my mind.

  21. Ron, what about Peter’s vision in Acts 10? Did the Lord cleanse / accept a food group as well as a people group or not?

    If he only accepted / cleansed a people group, why did he show Peter a food group?

  22. Greg,

    Don’t you think that it is rather hypocritical to accept the protection from police and other armed officials as a pacifist?

    The police and other officials you use will if necessary have to use violence to protect you. So whilst you are unwilling to sully your own hands in your own defence you are willing to let others do it for you? In a sense you are enjoying a luxury bought by the blood of others or at least their willingness to shed their blood and that of others in your defence.

    I do not think this is what Paul was doing. It seems to go against his very nature. Paul says in Romans 9 that he would be willing to be cut off from Christ in order for Israel to be saved. Do you think a man who is willing to be damned to save others from being damned would cause others to sin by using violence to protect him? I do not think so.

    Pacifism is not biblical, God countless times ordered people to use violence to accomplish things. The children of Israel used violence to conquer the land, David killed Goliath, Ehud killed Elgon King of Moad , Gideon etc… etc… with many other examples of God ordering people to use violence.

    Did God order people to Sin? No, because violence can be a legitimate option depending on the circumstance.

    Let us look at the commandments and examine this further.

    Thou shalt not kill. Exodus 20:13

    Taken by itself it seems pretty clear cut no killing under any circumstance. However we must never interpret a verse in isolation.

    so we see in Exodus 22:2

    “If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.

    and

    Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.

    Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.

    So God commands us not to kill but yet also commands us to kill. Is God schizophrenic? No, it is obvious that Gods injunction against killing means unlawful killing(Murder).

    I can give you many other verses that show God allows the use of violence but I would like to keep this as short as possible and I feel this demonstrate the point well enough.

    Paul’s acceptance of the guard was not a reluctant “nod to practicality” but rather an affirmation of the idea that lawful force can be used to prevent the actions of evil doers. In fact Paul himself says speaking of the authorities

    But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Romans 13:4

    Or in Hebrews when Paul praises those who fought for God.

    And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions. Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. (Hebrews 11:32-34)

    So you see Paul is being entirely consistent in his approach.

    >>>How could a Christian nation love its enemies and still kill them?<<>>But there is a lot America can do, without violence.<<<

    Please name me one effective action that will prevent the persecution of Christians that does not require a serious threat of force for it to work?

    Sanctions, negotiations etc… only work if you have military force as a consequence for non-co-operation.

    Try going to the terrorists in syria and saying "stop killing christians" they will respond "or what?"

    then what will you say

    "or we will sanction you"
    "or we will report you to the human rights court"

    They would laugh in our faces.

    As scripture says "There is a time for war, and a time for peace."

  23. A portion of my previous post was cut out I will post it below.

    >>>How could a Christian nation love its enemies and still kill them?<<<

    Yes we should love our enemies but they are still our enemies. When your enemy is in your control you are magnanimous. But if they are actively fighting against you, you can use force.

    The assumption that love never uses force is not true

    Jesus says "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

    If you and your friend are faced with an armed attacker the only way to save your friends life is to fight the assailant and thus laying down your life for your friend.

    What would you do? Would your "love" for your enemy trump your love for your friend? Would you refuse to use violence on your enemy and thus condemn your friend to death? This does not sound loving to me.

    Here is the argument of St. Cyril in his correspondence to the Muslims in his day:

    "Christ our God commands us to pray to God for all those who persecute us, and to do good to them, but He has also said to us: “Greater love hath no man than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends” [John 15:13]. And we therefore submit to the insults that our enemies cast at us individually, and pray to God for them, but as a group we defend one another and lay down our lives for one another, so that you [the Muslims] wouldn’t, by enslaving our brothers, take away their souls along with their bodies and kill them off completely. "

    Even Christ himself drove the money changers from the temple with a whip:

    And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. John 2:15

  24. Ray,

    Peter got this divine information from the vision and nothing more:

    Acts 10
    28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean…
    34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
    35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

    This is the divinely inspired interpretation of the vision. We should never take language, dreams and visions that are meant to be symbolic as literal or we might come up with ideas that are a mess. We would never think of concluding that Pharaoh’s, or the chief butler’s and baker’s dreams should be taken literally. We do not think that skinny cows eat fat cows. We do not think that if we eat fat cows that we will gain no weight. We do not think that we should all wear tiers of 3 baskets on our heads to feed the birds out of.

    And we know that YHWH still thinks some animals are unclean.

    Re 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

    Not every gentile is accepted. Some do not fear YHWH or work righteousness. They are still unclean. Not every animal is clean to eat. They still do not chew their cud and their hoofs are still not cloven. They still do not have scales and fins. Some birds are still as unclean as they ever were according to the last book of the Bible.

    Peter lumped all the animals together as unclean in the vision, but there were “all manner” of beasts on the sheet. It does not say that all the animals on the sheet were unclean beasts. But the answer to Peter was that what had been cleansed was not to be called unclean. Some of the animals on the sheet were still unclean. Some were not. Lumping all gentiles together as unclean is wrong. Lumping all animals together as unclean is also wrong. Of course lumping all gentiles or all animals together as clean is wrong too.

    Peter was in error because of the Jewish idea to not eat with Gentiles. The scripture does not teach this. Judaism does. Judaism also teaches that there are certain methods of killing and “koshering” before even clean animals can be eaten. Judaism did not allow Peter to simply kill and eat. YHWH was correcting Peter’s Judaistic mindset and restoring it to a Biblical mindset. But nothing is said about any unclean animals being made clean, just that whatever YHWH has made acceptable for our consumption should not be called unclean. It is the word of YHWH/His law that tells us what He has allowed us to eat. It is not simply our prayer that makes animals clean to eat, but the word of YHWH has to sanction them.

    Shalom

  25. I posted this awhile back:

    As I was meditating on the word today, A couple of passages were brought to my mind.

    Matthew 7
    9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
    10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
    11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

    I fully believe that Our Father is a good father. He would not give us something harmful to eat. If we ask for our daily bread, He gives us no stones. He gives us that which is food, not that which is not food. So has he made that which is not food into food?

    Matthew 4
    1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
    2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
    3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
    4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

    Here, we find the answer in principle form. He does not make stones into bread. He does not make food of nonfood. He gives us His word as to what is and is not food. We are to live by that word.

    So a good Father gave us instructions about what is food. He did not want us eating stones or swine flesh. When we ask Him to bless our eating of that which His word does not sanction, are we not, in essence, tempting Him to transform stones into bread?

    Now, we have seen what a good father does. What about a good son. When a good son is tempted to make food out of nonfood, he says, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of YHWH.” Does a good son ask his father for stones to eat? Or snakes? Or scopions? In our immaturity we may think we want to eat those things, but once we have learned the Father’s will we abstain from that which is poison or harmful.

    A good son believes what his father says. He follows the wise and good instructions of his father. He refuses the temptations of the devil. A good father does not give that which is not food to his son to eat.

    Shabbat Shalom

  26. One of my dearest friends, Taysir Abu Saada was born in Gaza and is a former PLO sniper who found Jesus in Kansas City. Today he has a ministry in Jerusalem and Jericho among Palestinians. His story is told in the book Once an Arafat Man. Although I know Tass well, I have never met Walid Shoebat but know that Walid and Tass, though both followers of Messiah today, are not in agreement. Tass would not elaborate. I wondered how there could be two individuals who are now following Messiah with former Islamic backgrounds, yet not be in agreement?
    The first few minutes of Walid’ s interview did nothing to clear up that question. But, as Walid continued, knowing Tass like I do, I began to understand exactly what their disagreement is. Walid is passionate, and persuasive. He raises very good points. I think the issue of contention is the one Dr. Brown was attempting to explore (without success) which is where does “self-defense” of our person or nation give way to violence that is NOT what we as believers are called to do? Not an easy question in a hot bed of danger such as the Middle East where simply being identified as a follower of Yeshua, much less as a former Muslim, elicits genuine threats of bodily harm.
    I can only tell you the position of Tass which I agree with. Tass believes that the minute his focus ceases to be on the Gospel but on politics, he will lose the blessing, and protection, of God. He is ready to suffer and die for the Gospel. He has many physical injuries which he would never talk about as result of going into Mosques to give his testimony. But he does NOT believe he is called to die or even suffer for a political position.
    I was just reading Philemon the other day and wondering once again over the subject of slavery and the New Testament. IF the New Testament was going to take a position against slavery, wouldn’t that have been the logical place for Paul to come out against it? Then it dawned on me. What if he HAD? Considering the financial and political repercussions of slavery in the Roman Empire, Paul from that moment would have been a marked man. He likely would have died as a “martyr”, but not for the Gospel. Not of bringing the message of eternal life through faith in Yeshua, but for attacking the established social, political, financial order. Furthermore, he as the spokesman for developing theology of the followers of Messiah would have put a target on ALL of their backs. NOT because of their faith in Messiah but because of their threat to the established order.
    IF we believers as cats had nine lives, we might justify spending one on the walls at Revolution Square in Kiev or Tahrir Square in Cairo. BUT since we ONLY have one, should it be spent fighting against one of a million social and political injustices, or completely and entirely on completing our part of the Great Commission.
    I believe the injustice blacks suffered in the South for 100 years after the Civil War were appalling. No godly believer could contribute to that wrong. BUT should a “Reverend” have given his LIFE for Civil Rights, and NOT the gospel? That’s between him and his Lord. I am only saying, these are questions we ought to ask. And, like Dr. Brown’s response on the theoretical break-in, these are NOT open and shut questions for believers, Jewish believers, former Muslim believers, today in 2014.

  27. Bo, Where does it say in the Bible that Peter got all the information that could be known from the vision, and that the vision only goes as far as people are concerned?

    The Lord said he made the animals clean didn’t he?
    And were they not previously unclean?

    Did Peter see the vision wrong? Were they the kind of animals that were always clean?

    I believe Peter saw the animals as unclean because that is what they were to a man who was under the dietary laws of the old covenant.

    Wasn’t the Lord speaking of the animals when he told Peter that he should not call them unclean, just as he was using the vision to reveal to Peter that the Gentiles should also not be considered by him to be unclean or common, as if they could not be received by God into a covenant or relationship with him by the work of Christ?

    It seems clear to me that just as the Lord declared the animals he showed Peter to now be something other than unclean or common, (because they had now been cleansed by him) that they should also be seen that way by Peter, and so they were now OK to be received and eaten by Peter.

    Nowhere did the Lord tell Peter that the animals were still really unclean, as if we are to think that he was only using the animals in the vision(by way of comparison) to show Peter what he did for the Gentiles by the work of Christ.

    Bo, do you believe the Lord was simply showing Peter what he thinks of the Gentiles now, by using unclean animals as a comparison, comparing them to the Gentiles who should be considered by Peter as clean, even though they are still like the animals in the vision, in the sense that the Lord called them cleansed but really they are not?

    I don’t share your perspective on this. On this matter we do disagree.

    Peace.

  28. Psalm 89:30 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:

    21 With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.

    22 The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.

    23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.

    24 But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.

    25 I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.

    26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

    27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

    28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.

    29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.

    30 If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;

    31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;

    32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.

    33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.

    34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

    35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.

    36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.

    37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.

    38 But thou hast cast off and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine anointed.

  29. Ray,

    You haven’t read the passage in Acts nor my posts closely. “All manner” of animals were let down on the sheet…both clean and unclean. The Jewish, not Biblical, law required that even clean animals be prepared in special ways before they would be considered edible. Peter relates this when he says, “I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” “Common” to him was a clean animal that was not prepared by “Jewish” requirements. The law of YHWH does not have these requirements.

    The voice told Peter not to call anything common that YHWH had cleansed. YHWH had, by His word cleansed all clean animals sometime after man was expelled from the garden of Eden. Noah knew which animals were clean and which were unclean.

    The Jews, by the time of Messiah, did not consider the meat cleansed unless they prepared it in certain ways. The voice does not say that the unclean animals were now cleansed. It only says not to group the cleansed animals with the unclean ones.

    This is a direct parallel to the Jewish belief about gentiles. They, contrary to what YHWH’s law states, considered all gentiles to be unclean. Peter learned from the vision that his Jewish upbringing had made him prejudiced against all gentiles. YHWH says that there are some gentiles that He considers cleansed. Specifically the ones that fear Him and work righteousness. The other gentiles are still unclean. Peter was not to call any man that YHWH had cleansed unclean. He was not to group all gentiles together as unclean. He was not to group all animals together as unclean.

    The other side of this is that there are still, according to Revelation and the rest of the Bible, unclean animals. We are not to call all animals clean nor all gentiles clean. Some of each are unclean.

    The vision was shown to Peter 3 times. 3 gentiles show up immediately and Peter realizes that he should accompany these gentiles that, just minutes ago, he would have considered unclean. The number of times the sheet is let down is the number of gentiles that come to him. This happens with the 7 cows that represent 7 years to Egypt. It happens with the 3 baskets that represent 3 days to the baker. It happens with the 11 sheafs that represent Joseph’s 11 brothers. All these symbolic incidents, including Peter’s vision, have a specific purpose and a specific meaning and the numbers in them are about specific things of the same number.

    Peter was still under the impression, before this vision, that he was to go by the commandments of men that Jews had invented about staying away from gentiles. He says that it is unlawful for a man that is a Jew to go into a Gentiles house. There is no law in the Bible that says this. It is just like the law that the Pharisees had about washing hands before eating bread. It is a commandment of men that turns us away from the truth of scripture.

    The Jewish Talmud states:
    R. ‘Awira expounded sometimes in the name of R. Ammi and at other times in the name of R. Assi: Whoever eats bread without previously washing the hands is as though he had intercourse with a harlot; as it is said, For on account of a harlot, to a loaf of bread.

    They wrongly deduce this by twisted logic from:

    Pr 6:26 For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.

    Messiah addressed this aspect of the added commandments of the Jewish leadership. The Holy Spirit is addressing more of these man made laws with Peter. There is nothing that either Messiah or the Holy Spirit teaches that is against YHWH’s Law. They are YHWH. They cannot go against themselves. They are one. Nothing in the law was being changed. In both instances, the added commandments of men were being condemned.

    To try to make Peter’s vision mean more than the direct, divine interpretation that is very specific, is the same as deducing that the 3 baskets on the bakers head had some other meaning than the direct, divine interpretation that YHWH gave Joseph. Anything else that we force into the text is no better than the Jewish twisting of the scripture to make something out of nothing. We cannot say that the baker actually should wear baskets on his head for the birds to eat out of. We cannot say that Joseph’s brothers should physically go out and lay their bundles of grain down in from of Joseph’s bundle. We cannot say that Peter should start eating unclean animals.

    The text of Scripture tells us what YHWH intended for Peter to get out of the vision. For us to go beyond the intended message is to create our own commandments of men that turn from the truth. Let’s just accept what is said…like Peter did.

    Shalom

  30. Bo, Do you think God would give Peter something not good to eat? Jesus said that God wouldn’t do that.

    Should I go along with Jesus, or should I go along with you?

    I will go along with what Jesus said. He told Peter that those things were now clean, and that they could be eaten.

    Jesus is the Lord.

  31. Bo, In your above post you deal with the word “common”, but not so much the word “unclean”.

    So how does God make things that are eaten clean which were once unclean?

    He does it by the obedience of Christ, by his sacrifice which through the obedience of one who is holy, fulfills the entire covenant, with all it’s required sacrifice and offering of blood, which resulted in the death of one holy sacrifice, one holy man, one holy Son of God, thus closing out one covenant, and beginning a new one.

  32. Thomas, To find a loving relationship with God, one may begin with the law, and even try to put oneself under it, but he can not stay there. He has to go on. He has to go further. He has to come to the cross, and continue on with it.

  33. Ray,

    YHWH made some animals to be food for us shortly after the fall of mankind. He did it by giving permission to eat them. Before this we had no permission and so they were unclean to us previously.

    You are not paying attention to what Peter said he learned the vision meant. It had a singular meaning. Also the voice did not say that anything that was unclean before was now to be eaten. It said, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” It did not say that everything on the sheet was cleansed. The sheet was the concept in Peter’s mind about gentiles…that they were all unclean. It was a wrong concept. Just like some animals were cleansed/sanctified to eat shortly after Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and Noah knew what they were at the time of the flood, so now Peter was to get the point that some gentiles were cleansed and acceptable to YHWH.

    Get this straight, Ray! Nowhere in the scripture does it say that all men are acceptable to YHWH. Nowhere in the scripture does it say that all animals are allowed to be eaten. Only the gentiles that were cleansed and the animals that YHWH has permitted are clean.

    If all animals were cleansed at the cross, why is there not one word describing or teaching this? Why did Peter continue to not eat unclean animals for around 10 years after the cross? Because Messiah taught no such thing. Because the Spirit taught no such thing.

    Ray, symbolic language is not meant to be taken literally. Peter’s vision was symbolic, not literal. It had a message. To take scriptural parables, dreams, and visions literally is a linguistic and theological mistake. To make them mean more than the scripture itself says they mean is to consider oneself smarter than the one that had the vision, the one that interpreted the vision, and the One that gave the vision.

    If Peter’s vision means that unclean animals are now cleansed, why do not the other visions, dreams and parables mean things different than the scriptural interpretation? Where is the precedent for such loose interpretation?

    Dr. Brown has no problem with believers eating unclean animals. He also realizes that the passage in question does not give us permission to do so. He knows that we are not allowed to take symbolic language literally.

    “Now, this has often been interpreted as a
    divine command for Peter to eat treif (i.e.
    unclean food), but the text says nothing of
    the kind. Rather, as Peter was soon to
    understand…”God has shown me that I should
    not call any man impure or unclean.” (Acts
    10:28b). but that is not the point I want to
    emphasize here. Rather, it is Peter’s earlier
    response to the visionary command to kill and
    eat unclean animals…If his Master and Teacher
    had revoked the dietary laws, as some have
    understood Mark 7:19, surely Peter would have
    understood, especially if Peter had been a
    primary source of mark’s information.”-Dr. Michael Brown, in “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus”, volume 4, says this of Acts 10:9-16 on page 27-275:

    Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses let everything be established. If Dr. Brown and I agree, it must be true 🙂

    And remember nowhere in the vision does it specify that all the animals on the sheet were cleansed. It only says not to consider the animals that have been cleansed to be unclean along with the others that are unclean…just like the interpretation was for Peter to not consider the gentiles that fear YHWH and work righteousness to be unclean along with the idol worshiping gentiles.

    If you are going to try to get some other message out of a vision that is not intended by the giver of that vision, at least be true to the details.

    And if you are going to take this vision literally, you should be consistent and do so with the other visions in the Bible.

    Judges 7
    13 And when Gideon was come, behold, there was a man that told a dream unto his fellow, and said, Behold, I dreamed a dream, and, lo, a cake of barley bread tumbled into the host of Midian, and came unto a tent, and smote it that it fell, and overturned it, that the tent lay along.
    14 And his fellow answered and said, This is nothing else save the sword of Gideon the son of Joash, a man of Israel: for into his hand hath God delivered Midian, and all the host.

    Maybe you should start taking down your tent with barley cakes. Maybe not!

    Daniel 4
    19 Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was astonied for one hour, and his thoughts troubled him. The king spake, and said, Belteshazzar, let not the dream, or the interpretation thereof, trouble thee. Belteshazzar answered and said, My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies.
    20 The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth;
    21 Whose leaves were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all; under which the beasts of the field dwelt, and upon whose branches the fowls of the heaven had their habitation:
    22 It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.
    23 And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over him;
    24 This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the most High, which is come upon my lord the king:
    25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.
    26 And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, after that thou shalt have known that the heavens do rule.
    27 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity.
    28 All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar.

    Did a tree really reach up into the heavens that everyone could see? Was Nebuchadnezzar actually a tree? Did that literal tree get literally cut down? In case you are baffled, the answer to these questions is…NO!

    You see Ray, symbolic messages from YHWH often have outrageous symbolism that grabs our attention. They trouble us. They cause us to wonder what they mean. We know that they cannot be literal. Peter knew it could not be literal. It troubled him. He was wondering what it could possibly mean because he knew it could not be true that he could be allowed to eat unclean animals.

    Acts 10
    16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
    17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,
    18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
    19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee…
    34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
    35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

    (Note: thrice and three are related.)

    There was AN interpretation…and it had nothing to do with the literal aspects of the vision. Of course we have had this conversation before. I write not to you, but to others that read and have ears to hear and eyes to see, so that they can run with the actual interpretation. Hopefully you will be one of them this time.

    Hab 2:2 And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.

    Shalom

  34. Bo, you are missing something the Lord said to Peter in the vision. He told Peter that those things that he showed him were clean and that he could eat.

    I am fully aware of the revelation to Peter about the Gentiles, which thing you pretend to be ignorant of.

    You know that I know Peter received information about the Gentiles being received by God as God used this vision to communicate such things to Peter.

    You need not pretend I am not aware of this.

    Do you suppose that the Lord showed Peter this vision 3 times for a purpose?

    I believe it was because it contained information that likely wouldn’t have easily been received, and because it was important.

    Do you suppose it’s always easy for men who are so conditioned to be under the law to receive some new things, or changes which God has made?

  35. Ray,

    You wrote:
    “He told Peter that those things that he showed him were clean and that he could eat.”

    Where?

    What law says for Jews to not go into a gentiles house? What law says that all animals are or gentiles are unclean? What law calls clean animals common if they are not prepared just so and so? Why did 3 men show up immediately after the sheet was let down 3 times? Why did Peter not know what it meant until then? Why did he not go downstairs and have a ham sandwich? Why doesn’t any writer of the New Testament ever say that unclean animals are now fit for food? Why do we never see anyone eating anything unclean in the New Testament? Why does Revelation still call some birds unclean some 5O years after Peter’s vision? Why do you not use a barley cake to take down your tent? Why do you not wear baskets on your head? Why are you grasping at straws?

    Shalom

  36. Ray,

    Your wrote:
    “Do you suppose that the Lord showed Peter this vision 3 times for a purpose?”

    Yes 3 times for a purpose. 3 gentiles came to get him. In Pharaoh’s dream the 7 cows and grain ears meant 7 years. The 11 bundles in Joseph’s dream meant his 11 brothers. In the baker’s dream the 3 baskets were 3 days.

    You wrote:
    “I believe it was because it contained information that likely wouldn’t have easily been received, and because it was important.”

    Yep it contained difficult information…that all gentiles were not to be lumped together as unclean. It went against his Jewish upbringing that was against what YHWH’s law taught.

    You wrote:
    “Do you suppose it’s always easy for men who are so conditioned to be under the law to receive some new things, or changes which God has made?”

    Do you suppose that Messiah said not to think that He was coming to change the law means anything? Do you suppose that He taught that it is fine to break the least commandments? Do you suppose that He is not the greatest in the Kingdom and therefore cannot teach for us to break even the least commandments?

    Matthew 5
    17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
    18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Heaven and Earth has not passed. Everything in the law and the prophets has not been fulfilled. When that time comes, we may find that a jot of tittle to have changed. Until then, we have got to stop thinking things that Messiah said not to think. We have got to stop having carnal minds that will misinterpret visions to mean something that is against what YHWH says they mean.

    Romans 8
    7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
    8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

    Shalom

  37. Bo, Not only was it difficult for many to understand that Gentiles also may be received by God because of the work of Christ, but it may also be difficult for men to understand how Jesus stood under the old covenant and also at the same time, began walking into the new covenant.

    This caused some changes to be made. He set the woman caught in adultery free because he was taking her sins upon himself, becoming her sacrifice for sin, which thing he did for her at the cross.

    She received her freedom from the penalty of the law (the stoning) before Jesus fulfilled his work as being her sacrifice, which thing he did on the tree.

    I trust Jesus was also making some changes from the old into the new when he spoke of how food that is eaten does not defile a man. That transition was taking place as he ministered the gospel.

    In the book of Acts, men were beginning to make that transition from the things of the old, into the liberty of the new, and it did take some time for them to receive those things.

    I do not believe that Jesus would have rebuked any of his disciples if they would have been eating some of the meat that was considered to be unclean under the old covenant, after hearing what he said in Mark 7:18,19, and Mat 15:11, rather it seems to me that I shouldn’t be surprised if he would have instead marveled at their faith, even building upon it.

    Can you imagine a disciple eating some meat that is unclean under the law, and Jesus rebuking him for it, and the disciple saying something like, “But Lord, didn’t you say that it isn’t what goes into a man that defiles him?…How then can a man be defiled by eating this?”

    I’m thinking he might respond by talking about how a man shouldn’t do things that might cause a brother to stumble, (see Rom 14) but I don’t imagine that he would have rebuked him for eating whatever kind of meat it may have been after he had taught things we read of in Mark 7 and Mat 15.

    It’s good for us to remember that Jesus not only was making the transition from the old into the new, talking of things that may be hard to receive, but also it’s important to remember that he is Lord over all the word of God, things both new and old.

    Bo, How do you imagine Jesus might have responded to such a disciple who would be eating something that was unclean under the law, who would bring up what Jesus said about what goes into a man through the mouth?

    What answer do you think he might have given?

    Do you suppose he would have said that he was only talking about eating with unwashed hands, otherwise eating certain meats even if their hands were clean, that certainly would have defiled them?

    Do you believe that’s what he meant by not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man? , as if there were still many things that a man could eat for food that would still defile him even if he believed they were OK to eat?

    Some people have lenses they look at everything through and it’s always law over everything else.

    Some walk through life with blinders on, seeing only the law and little else.

    Yes there are ditches, but there is also new ways to walk that Jesus was teaching, and there was a transition taking place by his ministry, from the old covenant into the new.

    Did the eating food with unwashed hands really make the food unclean? I don’t believe so. Not in a spiritual way, though a biologist with a microscope might show otherwise, in a physical way.

    Meat that is unclean in a physical way will simply be passed through the digestive system, unless of course it contains harmful parasites or some kind of organisms that might affect the body in some physical way, but spiritually, I believe it’s OK.

    Certainly Jesus was dealing with the matter about eating with unwashed hands, but where in the Bible does it say that’s all there is to what he said about “it’s not about that which goes into the mouth that defiles a man”.?

    In fulfilling the law, Jesus was also liberating men from being under it as they had been, and I believe this was a process that was taking place.

    Where the actual dividing line is as if there is always a clearly marked line, I can’t always find.

    Not long after the day the Lord spoke those things in Mark 7 and Matt 15, the dietary laws under the old covenant had clearly passed away.

    Mark 7: 18
    ….whatsoever thing from without…”

    .. seems to me to be much more than just simply whatsoever thing is eaten with unwashed hands.

  38. Ray,

    You are not answering any of my questions nor are you actually dealing with what is said in Acts. You are not dealing faithfully with Matthew and Mark and you are ignoring what Messiah said. You are thinking what He said never to think and basing your life on those forbidden thoughts. The New Covenant is supposed to put YHWH’s law in our hearts. Jeremiah intended the very same law that had always been YHWH’s law. The thing that you call the New Covenant is nothing like Jeremiah described.

  39. Ray,

    Here are the basics as to the incident that is described in Matthew and Mark. Most of this was posted originally a few years back.

    Matthew 15
    1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
    2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
    3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
    4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
    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;
    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.
    7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
    8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
    9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
    10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
    11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
    12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
    13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
    14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
    15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
    16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
    17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
    18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
    19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
    20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

    There are many aspects to this passage. But in limiting this post to the topic at hand, and trying to keep it short, my main points from Matthew 15:1-20 would be:

    1) Y’Shua summarized His teaching with vs. 20, “These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.” So eating with dirty hands or eating dirty food does not defile us, but the digestive process eliminates the dirt from our bodies. This is the explanation that Y’Shua gives for His statement in Vs. 17 that it, “is cast out into the draught.”

    2) Y’Shua’s statements above were in direct response to Peter asking what Y’Shua was trying to communicate to them.

    3) Peter, 10 years later in Acts 10, was still of the opinion that there were unclean animals that should not be eaten. So he must not have believed that Y’Shua taught that it is OK to eat unclean animals by what He said on this occasion.

    4) Y’Shua was totally opposed to any commandment/tradition of men that caused people to disobey YHWH’s commandments.

    5) We can make our worship vain by holding to teachings/traditions that contradict YHWH’s commandments. (One of YHWH’s commandments is to not eat unclean animals.)

    6) This passage does not refer to clean and unclean animals and because of this and the points above, it cannot be saying that unclean animals are approved to eat by YHWH.

    7) The discussion is about food, namely bread, and neither Messiah or His audience considered unclean animals to be food.

    8) The thing in a person’s heart that defiles him in eating unclean animal meat is that he is covetousness (See Mark 7:22), lusting for something that YHWH has disallowed. The lust defiles him from his heart. The pride (see Mark 7:22) of rebelling against YHWH’s command to do things our own way also defiles us.

    Mark 7:1-23
    1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
    2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
    3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
    4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
    5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
    6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
    7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
    8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
    9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
    10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
    11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
    12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
    13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
    14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
    15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
    16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
    17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
    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;
    19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
    20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
    21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
    22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
    23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

    The only significant differences concerning this discussion in Mark is in 7:19 where Mark adds “purging all meats” and the words “covetousness” and “pride” in verse 22. “Purging all meats” is referring to the digestive process eliminating the dirt/uncleanness from the unwashed hands that would have touched the food. It is obvious that Peter and the other disciples did not understand Messiah to be saying that unclean animals were now acceptable to eat as is stated in point 3 above. Also it is appropriate to note that the people hearing this would not associate any unclean animal with food. The KJV uses the term meats to mean foods not animal flesh unlike what we do. This can be seen by any look into modern translations. So unclean animal meat was not being discussed, let alone approved of for consumption, in this passage. The disobedient pride and coveting unclean meat to eat would defile us from our hearts.

    Shalom

  40. Ray,

    Your wrote:
    “This caused some changes to be made. He set the woman caught in adultery free because he was taking her sins upon himself, becoming her sacrifice for sin, which thing he did for her at the cross.

    She received her freedom from the penalty of the law (the stoning) before Jesus fulfilled his work as being her sacrifice, which thing he did on the tree.”

    This idea is ridiculous. According to Torah, the man and the woman had to be brought to trial in order to do any stoning. The witnesses had to testify against the man that was also caught in the very act. If they would not, they were false witnesses and would have the very punishment (that they had hoped would come on the woman) performed upon them. They refused to testify when Messiah asked them to with his idiomatic statement, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” The witnesses against any crime that deserved the death penalty were to be the first to lay hands on the guilty parties to put them to death. They had to produce the man and testify against both to be without sin in this matter. They all refused to implicate the man.

    But we have had this conversation before also. You get an idea in your head that has nothing to do with the passage and cannot read what is there or understand what was going on in the culture. To those interested here is a good discussion of the woman caught in adultery:

    http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

    Shalom

  41. Bo, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    The new covenant is not the same as the old.
    Jesus meant stones when he said stones.
    There is more to “whatsoever” than simply things eaten with unwashed hands.

  42. I wonder what happens to a man who goes about falsely accusing others.

    I suppose heaven looks at that, sees if the accusing one is guilty of doing the same, and if he has repented or not, and then what?

    Maybe he gets the penalty which might be the very thing he himself judged.

    I’ve heard it said that we get the very same thing we judge, that is, whatever it is we judge, we get.

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*