As Dr. Brown travels back from Singapore, Dr. Frank Turek, author and apologist, guest hosts for the show today. As always, Dr. Turek welcomes calls from atheists and skeptics. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
For a limited time, Dr. Brown is offering the Let the Lion Roar: Bluray, DVD, and Book Combo Pack along with the Line of Fire (CD) interviews with the film’s cast and crew: such as Paul Wilbur, Jonathan Bernis, and more! This film is changing lives around the world and is being called a must see for every person! Get your resource package today for the special price of $30 postage paid! Order Online Here!
Other Resources:
Hi Frank – Great discussion just now on the amendment process of Article V of the Constitution. The illegitimacy of the Supreme Court’s decisions when it reads into the Constitution what is not there is so often overlooked.
Frank,
You were way out of your expertize about minute 36-38.
Neither in Mark 7 nor in Peter’s vision in Acts 10 is there anything that negates YHWH’s law.
Dr. Brown wrote:
“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:
If Messiah taught against YHWH’s law, He ceases to be the king of the kingdom. For the greatest in the kingdom keeps and teaches others to keep all of YHWH’s commandments.
Mt 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.
If something has to be repeated in the apostolic writings to be retained as binding on believers, as you seemed to be saying about the Sabbath, then we need not worry about taking YHWH’s name in vain. If there are no dietary laws, then we can eat humans.
There is no example of any believer not keeping Sabbath or eating unclean meat in all of the New Testament. All the time references in the NT are according to YHWH’s calendar, feast days and Sabbaths. Why would the apostles not use well known gentile time keeping in speaking to those gentile churches if YHWH’s calendar was not being kept by them? Why does the last book of the Bible speak of unclean animals if they were made clean?
Shalom
Bo,
As a Christian you don’t have to receive anything anyone says that would tend to darken the integrity of Jesus, or tarnish his character.
His vision to Peter was indeed a good example, one that can be followed.
Jesus (I assume by context) told Peter that God had cleansed meats that Peter had been shown. Peter had assumed them to be unclean because of his religious upbringing, by his instruction in the law of God, and it was a good example, not a poor one as some seem to suggest.
Not only did Peter receive revelation about the Gentiles because of this, there was also information about meats given, meats that God had cleansed.
So how did God do it? How did he make clean what he had told people previously that to them they were to be unclean?
I believe it was connected to the work of Christ, even his sacrifice of himself on the cross for redemption, a work which had effects that go far more than we often realize.
It was a good example Jesus gave Peter, one with integrity, truth that ran all the way through it, nothing unclean or impure in it at all.
Study it out for yourself and see if it is so.
I trust that Frank’s expertize in this goes further than you assumed.
Ray,
Ac 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.
There is no example of Peter, Paul or any NT believer eating any unclean animal flesh. Peter tells us what was revealed to him by YHWH from the vision. The only thing that the Bible says of the interpretation is that Peter was not to call any man common or unclean. This was not a change in YHWH’s dietary law, but a change in Peter’s prejudice caused by Jewish added man-made laws. There is nothing in YHWH’s law about not going into a gentiles house or keeping company with them.
Jud 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.
15 And it was so, when Gideon heard the telling of the dream, and the interpretation thereof, that he worshipped, and returned into the host of Israel, and said, Arise; for the LORD hath delivered into your hand the host of Midian.
Peter’s vision is symbolic. Dreams, visions and parables are all symbolic. They are not to be taken literally. Hopefully you do not think that the interpretation of the chief bakers dream in Genesis means that he was supposed to wear a basket for a hat so that the starving birds would have something to eat. Hopefully you do not think Pharaoh’s dream meant that YHWH was going create a new type of very thin cattle that ate fat cattle. Hopefully you do not think that Gideon was supposed to roll huge barley cakes into the tents of the enemy.
We know what YHWH’s interpretation of these things are because He tells us in no uncertain terms what we are supposed to get out of them. If YHWH has made unclean animals clean, He should no longer say that they are unclean. But He does in the book of Revelation.
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.
Ga 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
What uncleanness is Paul speaking of above? He has already listed every kind of sexual uncleanness. He lists unbridled lust (lasciviousness) directly after the word uncleanness. He lists idolatry and witchcraft. What other type of uncleanness is there if it is not what YHWH’s law calls uncleanness?
Le 20:25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.
The above passage tells us that YHWH is disgusted by those that practice eating unclean animal flesh. Unclean animal flesh makes us abominable. It was not just a law to keep Israel separate from other nations. It tells us of YHWH’s heart and design. He did not design all animals to be eaten. He did not change His mind about what disgusts Him.
Mr 7:19 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.
Mark 7 does not say that YHWH made unclean animals to be clean. It says that all dirt or contamination that our hands might transfer to what we eat eventually comes out and therefore does not defile us in heart. Unclean animals are not called food by Y’shua or His Father. Unclean animal flesh still defiles us.
Why? Because of what is in our hearts. Disobedience to what YHWH has commanded us defiles us. It is covetous to desire what YHWH has disallowed. It is deceit to only be hearers of the word. It is prideful to not humbly accept YHWH’s rules on diet. It is foolish to disobey YHWH. All these things that are in our hearts defile us when we rebelliously eat what YHWH has told us not to eat.
Messiah did not say that we are not made unclean by things on the outside. He said that we are not defiled by eating lawful food because of our unwashed hands.
2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
We are not to be unclean in anything whether in our hearts or in our flesh. We perfect holiness by learning and doing everything that YHWH has commanded. YHWH has some very specific commands about holiness. Abstaining from eating unclean animals is one of them. If we have the promise of being YHWH’s children we should pay attention to His instructions on what is not to be eaten. We should purify ourselves.
1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Just because we have been adopted into YHWH’s family, does not mean that we are automatically pure or holy or clean. We are required to learn His word and put it into practice. The above passage says that we sin when we transgress YHWH’s law. YHWH’s dietary laws are included in this. If we continue to go our merry way, ignoring what YHWH has commanded, we are of the devil. We are deceived if we think that we are righteous when we continue to violate YHWH’s law. We deceive ourselves when we do not do YHWH’s word, but only hear/read it.
Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
Mt 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
When we look into YHWH’s perfect law, that shows us the flaws in our life, and say, “I do not need to worry about all those splotches on my shirt or those tears in my pants. No bid deal, my hair always looks messy and dirty after work. I will be accepted at the wedding feast…YHWH invited me while I was working, surely He does not expect me to change clothes and clean up before I come.”
We can know when we are deceived. It is when we think that we do not need to do as YHWH instructed.
James 1
22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
But the real bride of Messiah makes herself ready by keeping YHWH’s commandments.
Re 14:12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.
Re 19:7 Let us rejoice and exult
and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;
8 it was granted her to clothe herself
with fine linen, bright and pure”—
for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.
1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law…
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Re 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.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Have we believed a lie? Do we love it? Do we invent it for ourselves by continuing to be hearers only? There comes a day when we will not have any more time to cleanse ourselves from filthiness/uncleanness. It happens quickly sometimes. Will be filthy still or righteous and holy? Will be granted into the wedding feast and to eat from the tree of life or will we be cast out into weeping and gnashing of teeth? If we are allowed in, will be great or least in the kingdom?
Mt 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.
There is grace and time for those that have not heard YHWH’s instructions. There is grace and time to put what we have heard into practice. There is even grace and time for those that fall and confess their lawbreaking as sin and repent of breaking YHWH’s commandments…till 70 X 7 in one day, even. But what of those that simply refuse to accept that YHWH’s instructions are for them?
Lu 13:6 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.
7 Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8 And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:
9 And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
We simply cannot continue to disobey and think that we are safe. We may only lose rewards in the kingdom of heaven. We may only lose out on being great in the kingdom. But we might lose everything. Sin is deceitful and takes us down roads that lead further from the narrow way. Some of us might hear, “Depart from me you lawbreakers.”
Mt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Hopefully this has added fertilizer to some fig trees and they will now bear more fruit. There certainly is enough evidence above that we should carefully consider if we have been taught wrongly or have believed a lie. There might be more at stake for us than we think.
Shalom
I was looking for a snippet from when Bo, myself and some others had a lengthy discussion about the dietary laws and sabbath, etc. and during my search I found a snippet from Bo in a completely unrelated thread about women in ministry, but it fit perfectly with what I was looking for.
Back in February, 2013, Bo expounded upon a great truth. In speaking about imagery and it’s significance he said,
“Both the spiritual reality and the physical picture must line up.”
-It’s a powerful point in which I fully agree.
(Quoted From)
http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2013/01/29/women-in-ministry/#comment-253462
A little over one year later, May 2014, in another topic I said something about that same truth.
“The reality of the symbolic command is important for the reality of the command it symbolized.”
(Quoted From)
http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2014/05/16/dr-brown-answers-your-questions-65/#comment-810332
The earlier quote from Bo was in relation to the Messiah and His bride, and my later quote found its context in relation to Peter’s vision of unclean foods and it’s relationship to Gentiles.
It’s an important thing to remember, and something that we should do consistently.
Dear reader,
Please note that Peter’s vision is not a command from YHWH to eat anything unclean. It is not a symbol that we live out like baptism, the “Lord’s” supper or marriage. I stand by my statement that Benjamin quoted. He just applies it incorrectly and tries to use it out of context to show that I am not consistent.
Are we supposed to kick out those that come to our weddings in clothes not to our liking? No. Certainly the parable is not a command for us to do such a thing, just like Peter’s vision was not a command to eat unclean animals. (And Dr. Brown agrees with me on this.) The symbolism is to teach a specific thing, not for us to emulate the symbolism.
Are we supposed to use barley cakes as weapons?
1Ki 22:19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.
Are we supposed to become liars to bring about YHWH’s plans?
Numbers 12
6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
So, if YHWH gives a vision and then an explanation of the vision, are we to try to do the symbolism? No, for a symbolic message in a vision is not to be taken literally. If YHWH gives us something directly from His mouth via Moses or Messiah, will He contradict such commandments via a vision? No. He does use symbolism that is extreme and even nonsensical to shock us or trouble us, so that we seek Him for an interpretation. This is what He did to Peter. Peter knew that the vision could not be taken literally because it violated YHWH’s commandments.
De. 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
If Peter is a dreamer of dreams or a prophet that had a vision and even if he has done miracles to boot, he is to be considered a false prophet if he teaches us to ignore YHWH’s commandments. Peter told us what YHWH showed him. He never taught that we can eat unclean animals. This is enough evidence for those that want to be obedient to YHWH.
According to verse 3 above, if Peter’s vision was telling us to go ahead and eat unclean animals, YHWH would be testing us to see if we really love Him by Peter’s vision. If we go with Benjamin’s idea, we prove that we do not love Him. If we go with what Peter said the interpretation is, we prove that we do love Him.
1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
If we are looking for ways to get out of YHWH’s commandments, we do not love Him. In this case we will be easily deceived into disobeying YHWH’s commandments…because we are not able to accept sound doctrine that Paul told Timothy to get from the Law and the prophets.
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
It is a fable that YHWH taught by Peter’s vision that we can eat unclean animals. Itching ears are not a good thing. Better to cut them off and look funny than to have two of them and be cast away.
Mr 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
Shalom
Shalom
Dear reader,
If we are going to take Peter’s vision a literal command to not keep YHWH’s dietary laws and take Peter’s statement literally that we are not to consider any man unclean, we should be just fine with eating people…esp. gentiles. But we know by context that we should not take either the vision or Peter’s statement as permission to eat humans.
Numbers 12
6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
The dark speech and similitude of Peter’s vision cannot be taken as a direct repeal of YHWH’s face to face command to Moses. Peter was perplexed by the vision that he had. He did not understand it until 3 gentiles came to get him. The sheet was let down 3 times. It was a similitude and had a dark/hidden meaning. Why are some not afraid to speak against what Moses wrote? Messiah never did. Paul never did. Peter never did. John never did. James never did. Who are we to think to try to make Peter’s vision mean something different than Peter said it meant…and especially in contradiction to Moses?
Mt 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.
Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
Shalom
Frank Turek,
I recently watched your debate with Michael Shermer. You did a great job and I liked that you did not let the issue go about “why is it wrong for these people to suffer?” since Mr. Shermer would not go deeper than that. He had to start with morals to defend his position and as you say “has to steal from God” in order to make an argument.
Good debate sir.
What we gain from Peter’s vision in Acts 10 may be an indicator of how we live by the word of
God. If we only get part of what Jesus said, it may be that it is because that’s how we have tended to live, by only a part of the scripture. In order to get to the whole truth that the holy spirit is willing to lead us into, we must be willing to receive the whole truth. This may mean that we will be required to give up something because we only received something in part. A part of a thing is not the whole, and in order for us to be whole, there are times we must do more, or receive more than just a part of the scripture. Some people still live as if they are under the law because they have not received the whole truth.
Bo,
See Proverbs 26:7 in the KJV.
Yep Ray, taking Peter’s vision in any way except what Peter said it meant is definitely foolish. There is simply no justification for thinking that it means any more of less than exactly what Peter said YHWH showed him. Living by every word of YHWH can never mean doing away with part of it. And thinking that YHWH has changed His mind about the animals He told us not to eat is thinking that Messiah came to destroy the law. It is thinking that YHWH’s law does not endure till heaven and earth pass away. It is stopping short of obedience.
Mt 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.
Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
Some people will just never accept what Messiah and the apostles taught. They will be remain unclean till the end.
Shalom
Bo,
What you are saying is quite lame. It’s the meat that the Lord showed Peter that Peter was not to call common or unclean. It was to go the same for the Gentiles.
Even a babe in Christ should see you coming for a country mile. Ever watch a man walk with one leg shorter than the other?
It’s been said by Jesus that people who came to hear him were the salt of the earth. It’s also a commonly known fact that salt has a purifying effect, as well as a taste that people tend to like who put in on and in their food.
But what if salt really wasn’t like that at all?
It’s also been said that salt can cause a sting to the flesh.
Ray,
You wrote:
“What you are saying is quite lame. It’s the meat that the Lord showed Peter that Peter was not to call common or unclean. It was to go the same for the Gentiles.
Even a babe in Christ should see you coming for a country mile. Ever watch a man walk with one leg shorter than the other?”
Well Ray, I guess Dr. Brown is just as lame and as much a baby as me. Here is what he says:
“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:
Page 274-275 actually
Ray,
You wrote:
“It’s the meat that the Lord showed Peter that Peter was not to call common or unclean.”
It never says that in the passage. Here is what it says:
Ac 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
It says not to call common what YHWH has cleansed.
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Peter was looking at “all manner” of animals. Some of them were clean and some unclean. Peter refused to kill and eat any of the animals on the sheet. He was calling all of them common and they were not all common. He was doing the same thing with the gentiles. He considered them all unclean. Not all of them are unclean, but many are. The only gentiles that are not common or unclean are those that fear YHWH and work righteousness. These are the ones that YHWH has cleansed. All others are still common and 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.
YHWH has not cleansed all gentiles and He has not cleansed all animals.
Shalom
Ray,
And for the record, he Greek word for common and the Greek word for unclean mean different things, esp. in Jewish thought. An unclean animal is something prohibited by YHWH’s law. An common animal was one that was clean by YHWH’s law but was not known to have come from a flock or heard that had been tithed from and had the firstlings offered to YHWH. The Jews were not allowed by the man-made commandments of Judaism to eat from a gentile’s animals because of this among other reasons. The voice in the vision said, “Call not thou common what I have cleansed.” It was saying that Peter was wrong to consider clean animals to be common. YHWH has cleansed some animals for us to eat and He has cleansed some gentiles. The majority of both are still not clean.
Shalom
I haven’t weighed in on these issues for quite some time, but to be perfectly clear, I find ZERO scriptural support for the idea that the New Testament mandates the keeping of dietary laws on Gentile believers.
Dear reader,
I find it strange that even though Dr. Brown does not see anything in the gospels or in Acts 10 & 11 that teach that unclean animals are now clean, that he still somehow thinks that there is reason to believe that Gentile believers continued to eat unclean things. I know that He thinks that the dietary laws were to keep Israel separate from the gentiles, but according to Paul, gentiles have been grafted into Israel. And according to Messiah, being great in His kingdom will be determined keeping and teaching others to keep even the smallest of YHWH’s commandments.
There is certainly no mandate for Jew or gentile to follow the dietary laws or any other law to become saved, but once we have become part of YHWH’s family, shall we bring things to the family table that YHWH says disgusts Him?
Messiah does not have two different bodies. Can anyone imagine the top (Jewish) lip saying to the bottom (Gentile) lip, “I am free to eat unclean things.”, and the bottom lip saying, “OK, as long as you do not let it touch me.”? Or can you imagine that the Head of the body ever ate anything unclean? Gentiles have been grafted into Israel and not the other way around. We certainly do not find any example of any believer, Jew or Gentile, eating unclean things in the NT. We do not even find an argument about it.
With no discussion about it in the NT, wouldn’t it become obvious that the Gentiles smoothly accepted what the only scripture that they ever knew about said to do?
Can it be true that Messiah only wants Jewish believers to be great in His kingdom and relegates the gentiles to least in the kingdom?
Mt 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.
Israel is supposed to be a light to the world. All of YHWH’s law is supposed to be kept by them. Did YHWH really intend that those on which YHWH’s light shined were to not accept parts of that light? Isn’t it because Israel failed to live by all of YHWH’s light that they were judged by YHWH?
De 4:5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?
8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
How can it be that the gentiles see Israel doing all of YHWH’s commandments and say, “Wow, these guys are wise and the law that they keep is the most righteous and YHWH is close to them. I sure am glad that I can eat what I want and continue to keep my pagan holidays. I sure am glad that we do not have to go by righteous judgments.”
Lu 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
How can it be that Messiah quoted from Deuteronomy in regards to the duty of man, and we say, “But we do not have to do every word of YHWH.”?
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah…
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
So, it is absolutely true that the New Covenant is supposed to put YHWH’s law upon our hearts.
Ga 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
On thing is for sure. A covenant cannot be changed once it is ratified by blood. Messiah instituted the New Covenant when He died. Nothing can be added that was not included before Messiah died.
Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
So, it is absolutely true that Messiah did not change one thing in YHWH’s law before His death. And it cannot be changed after His death.
Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ…
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
We are no longer gentiles and strangers. YHWH’s law is YHWH’s law. It is supposed to be written on our hearts. We will receive our position in His kingdom according to how well we have kept it and taught it. The new covenant is only to Israel and Judah. If we are not grafted into them, we have no covenant with YHWH. If we are grafted in, we have agreed to keep YHWH’s covenants. The Newest Covenant does not change or abrogate YHWH’s law.
Ro 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
If this is not what you have been taught, you have been taught wrong.
Shalom
Should have been:
Messiah does not have two different bodies. Can anyone imagine the top (gentile) lip saying to the bottom (Jewish) lip, “I am free to eat unclean things.”, and the bottom lip saying, “OK, as long as you do not let it touch me.”?
Bo,
I could copy and paste the responses to your above points from other topics given by various people, but that would be indulging the circles. And folks could just go and read the multi-hundreds and even multi-thousands of posts where the above points, issues have been discussed.
If they wish to, they can do a search for Law of Moses, Law of Christ, Dietary Laws, Sabbath, etc.
Benjamin,
There is nothing new under the sun. Pretty much everything goes in circles. Threads like this come up over and over because people still care about the topic. It evidently has not been settled, or no one would discuss it. Certainly there are new readers that would benefit from a new conversation. Maybe even some old dogs could learn something if they read carefully and try to digest what the others are saying.
As far as I am concerned, you took my statement that you quoted and put it into a context that does not apply. I addressed this in a post above. You can either agree that I answered well and have been truthful or you can try to prove how my statement was meant by me to mean what you say or you can just hope that the conversation goes away so that you do not have to answer. I wish you would have been a little more open to understanding what I said instead of inadvertently twisting my words to try to prove your point.
I certainly have shown that the scripture interprets dreams and visions for us so that we do not err by taking them literally. But you persist, though being proved wrong. I have shown that we should not emulate the symbolism of dreams, visions, and parables as if we are commanded to do them literally. You have shown no reason that we should take symbolism and consider it as literal commandments.
If your done, thanks for the time you have spent.
Shalom
Check this out. I just found it and thought that well meaning people might want to consider a few ideas. By no means am I endorsing the site that this comes from. This article has some thought provoking questions.
“Acts 10:
9 The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray.
10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance
11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth.
12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him: Rise, Peter; kill and eat.
14 But Peter said, By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice came to him again a second time, What God has made clean, do not call common.
16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.
17 Now while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision that he had seen might mean behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, stood at the gate
[18 and called out to ask whether Simon who was called Peter was lodging there.]
Open up most Christian commentaries on the book of Acts and you’ll see that most commentators interpret God’s words in verse 13 as a command for Peter to eat unclean animals, and verse 15 as a declaration that all foods are now clean. Thus, in this passage, God is hereby overturning all of the OT dietary laws, essentially nullifying two whole chapters of the bible (Leviticus chapter 11 and Deuteronomy chapter 14), and calling into question a great many passages in the NT, in which believers are told to avoid ‘uncleanness’ (Rom 6:19, 2 Cor 12:21, Gal 5:19).
The traditional interpretation of Peter’s Vision however, leaves a great many questions unanswered. For example:
Why does Peter refer to what is on the sheet with the words ‘common’ [koinos] and ‘unclean’ [akathartos] in verses 14 & 15, and what’s the difference between these words? Why does God only correct Peter’s use of the word ‘common,’ and not his use of the word ‘unclean’ in verse 15? When God tells Peter to kill and eat, why doesn’t Peter just obey God, take a clean animal from the sheet (like a cow or a chicken), kill it, and eat it? After all, the sheet contained “all kinds” of animals. And why, after walking with Jesus all that time, was Peter still under the impression that he could not eat anything unclean? And why does Peter still not understand his own [vision], even after having the sheet lowered three times? And lastly, why doesn’t Peter ever interpret his own dream as having anything to do with food?
The traditional interpretation of Peter’s Vision also raises many important hermeneutical questions. For example, one of God’s most important attributes is the fact that he does not change and always stays the same (Psalm 102:27, Malachi 3:6), and God does not change his mind, as a man would change his mind (Numbers 23:19, Psalm 110:4). So it seems to be a very important hermeneutical principle that in interpreting scripture and dealing with seemingly ambiguous passages, one errs on the side of maintaining God’s unchanging nature, rather than being quick to point out a fundamental change in God’s nature or his dealings with humans. A good example of this principle is found in Hebrews 7, where the author argues in a sustained way, that there is a logical necessity for a change in the priesthood (vv.11-14), and that there is a strong scriptural basis in the OT for such a change (Psalm 110:4), which the author quotes three times in the book of Hebrews (5:6, 6:20, & 7:17), going out of his way to defend the fact that “God does not change.” Now compare that careful analysis in Hebrews to Peter’s dream in Acts 10, where apparently, two whole chapters of the OT are nullified, yet nobody seems to mind. Luke doesn’t even mention this as being a challenge to the OT law, and Peter even retells his dream – to the circumcision party of all people. These were the ultra-conservative pharisaic believers in Jesus. And rather than question any change in the Torah, they heard about Peter’s vision and:
“they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18).
So what is the difference between common [koinos] and unclean [akathartos]?
14 But Peter said, By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common [koinos] or unclean [akathartos]. 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, What God has made clean, do not call common [koinos].
The Greek words ἀκάθαρτος [akathartos / unclean] and ἀκαθαρσία [akatharsia / uncleanness] occur around 200 times in the Septuagint (the first century Greek bible, aka. LXX), and around 40 times in the New Testament. In the LXX they refer to all manner of uncleanness, including the unclean meats in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Almost any time the word ‘unclean’ is used anywhere in the Septuagint, the Greek words akathartos or akatharsia are being used.
The Greek words κοινός [koinos, “common”] and κοινόω [koinoō, “to make common”] are used only 4 times in the canonized books of the LXX, each time referring to things “shared in common” (in the LXX, see for example, Proverbs 1:14, 21:9). So in the LXX, the Greek words koinos and koinoō are never used to refer to “uncleanness” or to something as “unclean.” Thus, it can be inferred that Luke would not have used these words interchangeably. They would have represented distinct concepts in his mind and in the minds of his Greek speaking audience.
This is strong evidence for the fact that referring to things as “common” (koinos) was a later pharisaic development (i.e. a manmade tradition), not found in the Law of God (Torah). A tradition which served to differentiate 1st century Jews from the surrounding gentile culture. If you’ve studied the history leading up to the first century, this might make more sense because it’s not until the book of Maccabbees that we see koinos/koinoō start to gain the connotation of ‘defilement’ or ‘unacceptableness’ that we see in Acts 10 — but this would be a separate study in itself.
So if “common” isn’t used in the LXX to refer to defilement or uncleanness, what did Jews in the first century understand this word to mean? Well in the NT, “common” [koinos / koinoō] is used around 25 times, but carries two different meanings. The first meaning is the same one used in the LXX, referring to things “shared in common” (see for example Acts 2:44, 4:32, and Titus 1:4). The second meaning of koinos, however, is more difficult to pinpoint. If you look up all the instances of the words koinos and koinoō in the NT, and compare them to the passages that use akathartos/akatharsia, you should get a pretty good sense of how the NT writers understood these terms. Here’s a rough definition of koinos/koinoō based on the verses they appear in:
Koinos refers to situations not covered in the Law of God (Torah), in which something clean (a pot, a utensil, a clean animal, or even a person) comes into contact with something unclean (an unclean animal, dirt, etc), rendering the clean thing defiled or unacceptable. The Pharisees viewed these previously clean things as now being “common” [koinos].
So in a sentence, the difference between koinos and akathartos (common and unclean), is that koinos (common) connotes the pharisaic belief (based in tradition) that a clean thing can be made ‘common’ through contact – whereas akathartos (unclean) connotes that which God has declared to be unclean.
Even though Mark 7 isn’t a part of this study, it deals with this exact problem (for a full explanation of Mark 7, read the article here). Remember this is where the disciples were eating with ‘common’ [koinos] hands, and the Pharisees reprimand them for not abiding by their traditions. Mark 7 isn’t about food – rather, it’s about Pharisaic traditions that were being put on par with the Law of God (the Torah). Thus, Jesus reprimands the Pharisees right back, telling them what really makes a person common. But I digress.
A better understanding of Acts 10
When the sheet comes down in front of Peter, on it are, “all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air” (Acts 10:12). In other words, clean and unclean animals, all writhing and tossing and turning over one another. This is the purpose of the image of a sheet coming down, held up by its four corners. It emphasizes that these animals aren’t just close to each other – they are squirming all over one another.
So even though there are clean animals on the sheet, Peter refuses to eat any of them because some were unclean, and the rest were clean, but they had been made common [koinos] according to the Pharisees, because they were in direct contact with unclean animals on the sheet. Keep in mind, there is no mention in Leviticus or Deuteronomy that an unclean animal can touch a clean animal and make that clean animal unclean, which makes this a Pharisaic prohibition very similar to the washing of hands in Mark 7, where it was taught by the Pharisees that all Jews must wash their hands before eating (and wash various vessels and utensils before ordinary use). In fact, you will notice that the term “common” [koinos] is also used in Mark 7:1, referring to the disciples’ dirty hands, because it was believed that dirt defiled their hands, and that this defilement would transfer to the individual if a person ate or drank with dirty (common) hands. This, in their eyes, would make the person common [koinos] or defiled – but please note that this is nowhere found in God’s Law (Torah).
Note that the image of a sheet being brought down by its four corners is crucial to understanding this passage because it emphasizes the fact that the animals were forced towards the center of the sheet, touching one another, crawling all over each other, etc. To a Jew who kept both the Torah and the traditions of the Pharisees, this would have made for a very disturbing presentation – thus Peter’s strong denial when God commands him to ‘take and eat.’
So this explains why Peter would not grab a clean animal from the sheet and eat it, and why God corrects this inclination in verse 15: “And the voice came to him again a second time, ‘What God has made clean, do not call common [koinos].’” Notice that God doesn’t correct Peter’s use of the word ‘unclean’ [akathartos] in verse 15. He doesn’t tell Peter “what God has made clean do not call unclean.” This is because God would be contradicting himself when he gave the food laws back in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. So in effect, Peter did not obey God because he was following the traditions of men – thus the rebuke.
It also explains why Peter, after walking with Jesus all that time, never understood him to have overturned God’s instructions on eating a holy (set apart) diet. Surely Peter would have realized at some point, “oh yea, God did away with all that food stuff.” And yet Peter’s interpretation of his own dream has nothing to do with food.
It also explains the connection Peter draws between his dream and his meeting with Cornelius. According to the Jewish traditions of the day, many products and practices of Gentiles were regarded as being “common” or conveying “commonness” to Jews. This is why Peter was not going to enter the house of Cornelius up until this point. Just like Pharisaic traditions prevented Peter from eating common [koinos] food, they also prevented him from meeting with common [koinos] people (i.e. Gentiles), shaking their common hands, entering their common home, sitting in their common chairs, eating at their common table, etc. But God used this dream to show Peter that he should not call any person common or unclean (verse 29) — effectively breaking down a large dividing wall that these manmade traditions had erected.
To quote Jesus, the Pharisees once again make void the word of God by the tradition that they have handed down (Mark 7:13), because God has always intended Israel to be a light to the nations (gentiles), so that salvation may reach the end of the earth, yet Israel’s own traditions kept her from doing just this. So God, then, used Peter’s Vision to break down a barrier (a dividing wall) that the Jewish traditions of the day had erected – a barrier that severely hindered the spread of the gospel to the nations.
This interpretation brings to light the fact that it was not God himself who was hindering Peter’s meeting with Cornelius and the spread of the gospel to the gentiles. God’s call for Israel to be holy (set apart) was never intended to negate her call to be a light to the nations (gentiles!):
Isaiah 42:6
“I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations,
Isaiah 49:6
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”
The food laws as they are given in the Torah were never intended to impede this. The Torah is intended to point out how God’s people might live holy (set apart) lives, by the power of the holy spirit. God’s intent was that by her light, Israel might draw the surrounding nations to herself. However, according to Acts 10 it was the manmade traditions of the day (many of which carried the force of law, cf. Acts 10:28) that kept Jews from associating with gentiles, and kept the gospel from traveling out into the nations.
As members of the Household of God then, let us be wise in the traditions we choose to keep and not keep. Traditions can be good if they enrich our lives and serve the will of God as it is revealed in scripture. But they can be a burden and a hindrance when they conflict with God’s greater purposes.
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this article in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way. We only ask that you please include the following statement on any distributed copy:
By Robert Roy
© Messianic Publications
Link: http://messianicpublications.com/robert-roy/a-hebraic-perspective-on-peters-vision-acts-10/
Shalom
It seems to me that the Lord was telling Peter to not call the meats that were previously set apart by God as unclean to his chosen people at one time under the law, common, or unclean by the tradition or manner of men, for God has made them clean by the fulfilling of the old covenant by Christ, by his own shed blood, and by bringing us into the new covenant, for the old is put away in him, to the extent that those who are in Christ and a part of the new, are no longer under the law, but under the grace of the new covenant instead.
Ray,
It seems to me that you have not read my posts. 🙂
It seems to me that we could paraphrase what the Lord told Peter by something like, “Don’t call anything in this meat group not kosher, because God cleansed it.”
It seems to me that if that if YHWH wanted to say something like that He would have…but He didn’t.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah…
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
So, it is absolutely true that the New Covenant is supposed to put YHWH’s law upon our hearts. There is nothing in the context above that speaks of a different law of YHWH than Jeremiah would have considered to be His law.
Ga 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
On thing is for sure. A covenant cannot be changed once it is ratified. Messiah instituted the New Covenant when He died. It was ratified with His blood. According to Paul, nothing can be added that was not included before Messiah died.
Mt 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.
So, it is absolutely true that Messiah did not change one thing in YHWH’s law before His death. And it cannot be changed after His death…till heaven and earth pass away. The dietary laws are intact in the law that YHWH wants to write on our hearts.
Shalom
Bo, I have not started so there is nothing to be done with.
You started, so I let folks know that your understanding has not gone unchallenged and pointed them in the direction to read those responses.
Just a courtesy post to bring that to light.
Benjamin,
And you don’t think that you took my statement out of context?
Shalom
Bo, Post 26 contains the jist of what Jesus said to Peter in Acts 10. It contains honest substance.
Remember that Jesus isn’t a gimp. See Proverbs 26:7 again (KJV)
Ray,
Jud 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.
15 And it was so, when Gideon heard the telling of the dream, and the interpretation thereof, that he worshipped, and returned into the host of Israel, and said, Arise; for the LORD hath delivered into your hand the host of Midian.
I am guessing that you think that the Gideon baked barley cakes and rolled them down the hill into the camp of the enemy to defeat them.
Proverbs 26
7 The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools.
No need in mincing words. No need in disguising an insult. Just call me a fool if that is what you think.
The scripture you reference shows that the fool is the one that says that the vision means something other than what Peter said the vision meant. A fool says that symbolic language is supposed to be adhered to literally.
I say that the vision means exactly what Peter said it meant. No fools in my house.
Shalom
Bo,
Cast the beam out of your own eye.
For the sake of moral clarity, I have this to offer:
As far as the purpose of Peter’s vision of Acts 10, people may have some differing perspectives on this. I’m thinking that there may be 3 main groups people may fall under on this. One group may be rather narrow minded, another possessing somewhat of a broader perspective, and a third something a bit broader yet.
Let’s look at this as a question.
Choose the best answer:
The subject of Peter’s vision in Acts 10 is
a. only about the Gentiles.
b. mainly about the Gentiles.
C. primarily about the gospel.
Let me quote Dr. Brown one more time.
Dr. Brown wrote:
“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 274-275:
It is not a matter of narrow mindedness, but of accepting what the scripture says the vision meant.
Shabbat Shalom
Some will sacrifice the word of God so that some meats can be unclean to them.
Some will ignore the divine interpretations found in scripture to justify and gratify their lust for what YHWH says is unclean.
Eph 4:19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20 But ye have not so learned Christ;
Bo,
It’s just not for me to call anyone common or unclean regardless of whether or not they had pop tarts for breakfast or whatever. It’s just not for me.
Some people lust after their own destruction, being full of their desire of injury to the just.
Ray,
Paul called some men unclean.
Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
If the shoe fits…do not wear it…repent.
Ray the Geneva Bible says:
5:5 {2} For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an {b} idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
(2) Because these sins are such that the most part of men do not consider them to be sins, he awakes the godly to the end that they should so much the more take heed to guard themselves from these sins as from most harmful plagues.
Some people get no rest unless they trouble the righteous.
Ray,
You wrote:
“Some people get no rest unless they trouble the righteous.”
Some people seem to be like the man that stood and was thankful that he was not like the sinners and publicans. Did he go away justified/righteous? Lu 18:10-14
You can stop troubling the righteous whenever you want Ray.
You wrote:
“Cast the beam out of your own eye.”
If all you can do is insult instead of discussing scripture, then I guess it is not so much the beam in my eye as it is the pearls that you are tripping on while turning to rend me.
Mt 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
If you are wanting to discuss scripture, I am up for that. If you are just going to be insulting and derogatory, you prove that you have no real answers.
5:5 {2} For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
(2) Because these sins are such that the most part of men do not consider them to be sins, he awakes the godly to the end that they should so much the more take heed to guard themselves from these sins as from most harmful plagues.
Some people just do not think that uncleanness is a sin. I thought that you liked the notes in the Geneva Bible. Don’t you make mention of the Geneva Bible’s notes from time to time?
Shalom
Bo,
Do you remember reading in scripture about how Jesus told Pilate that he who delivered him to him had the greater sin?
Why should the righteous deliver the truth to those who will do with it whatsoever they please?
What have I to do with those who will play games upon his vesture?
Cute Ray.
No truth, no logic, no dialogue, no facts…but cute.
1Pe 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
Where is it written?
Le 11:43 Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.
44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Peter evidently thinks that YHWH’s commands concerning holiness should not be ignored.
2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
We will be judged by our works.
1Co 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.
And if our works prove that we are in rebellion…
1Sa 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.
Ignoring YHWH’s law will deceive us.
Mt 7:23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
Mt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Twisting of words and turning to rend
Never accomplishes a rational end.
But when we are honest and open to learn
Without the nose lifted intending to spurn.
We might find real truth from a pearl casting friend.
And when the mud and the filth have been washed away,
We might, from the mire, be able to stay.
But if we turn from the holy command,
Dismissing the obvious truth out of hand,
We might find our end is not a good day.
We suffer the loss of reward or salvation
If we are convinced of the Torah’s cessation
For one thing leads to another they say.
And partial obedience is not just delay,
But rebellion and witchcraft that leads to damnation.
Let us be careful while saying, “Lord, lord”
That no holy commandment is being ignored
Lest in our haste in thinking we’re in,
We are found guilty of uncleanness and sin
That comes from not keeping His every last word.
Now we should learn from dogs and from swine…
That unclean animals are still not benign.
And we shouldn’t be quick to proffer our jewels
To the ungrateful and scoffers and fools
Who like the mire and old vomit just fine.
Shalom