-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
L
I am new here.
and have read this post and do not agree with most of the comments.
Here is why:-
We all agree that not everything is food which is edible.
God clearly tells us what is to be eaten, and we should be honest enough to realize that God knows best.
1 Cor. 6:19, 20 We are to glorify God in our body.
How can any Christian partake of food stuffs which God tells us is injurious to our body when we are to glorify God in our bodies?
1 Cor. 3:17 tells us that God will destroy those who defile God's temple - our bodies.
We should co-operate with God in our habits and customs for the development of our characters.
and have read this post and do not agree with most of the comments.
Here is why:-
We all agree that not everything is food which is edible.
God clearly tells us what is to be eaten, and we should be honest enough to realize that God knows best.
1 Cor. 6:19, 20 We are to glorify God in our body.
How can any Christian partake of food stuffs which God tells us is injurious to our body when we are to glorify God in our bodies?
1 Cor. 3:17 tells us that God will destroy those who defile God's temple - our bodies.
We should co-operate with God in our habits and customs for the development of our characters.
In 1 Cr 6:13 (back a few verses) he starts off with meats for the belly and the belly for meats, and fornication is what it is speaking of
1Cor.6
[13] Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
[14] And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
[15] Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
[16] What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
[17] But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
[18] Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that commiteth fornication sinneth against his own body.
[19] What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
[20] For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
--------------------------
The other verse
1Cor.3
[16] Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
[17] If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
There is no meats mentioned around this one either.
1Cor.6
[13] Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
[14] And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power.
[15] Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
[16] What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
[17] But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
[18] Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that commiteth fornication sinneth against his own body.
[19] What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
[20] For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
--------------------------
The other verse
1Cor.3
[16] Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
[17] If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
There is no meats mentioned around this one either.
I
Jesus did not come to cleanse swine, rather it was men that He sought to cleanse.
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Job 14:4
Jesus never cleansed swine, He never declared pigs clean,
Jesus allowed the 2000 swine to drown in the sea. Where is the rehabilitation here?
The owners would have used them for food.
Read the post on Matt 15 and Mark 7
If you count the posts that are in favor of pepperoni, you would be among the many.
There is however no assurance in those numbers, it is God's word that matters.
To eat the unclean is to 'build on sand' no question.
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Job 14:4
Jesus never cleansed swine, He never declared pigs clean,
Jesus allowed the 2000 swine to drown in the sea. Where is the rehabilitation here?
The owners would have used them for food.
Read the post on Matt 15 and Mark 7
If you count the posts that are in favor of pepperoni, you would be among the many.
There is however no assurance in those numbers, it is God's word that matters.
To eat the unclean is to 'build on sand' no question.
S
As an Armstrongite for over a decade as a young believer, I observed the Sabbath, festivals, and clean/unclean meat laws..in fact I considered non-observers to be unsaved, and considered my salvation to depend on observance of these laws.
I no longer hold that position. The Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect, and the clean/unclean laws are part of it. Obviously, some of the commandments are moral in nature, and/or employ spiritual principles, but I am convicted that the Sabbath, festivals, and clean/unclean laws are not moral in nature. They were shadows or types that conveyed spiritual truths in a physical manner. For instance, Jesus is our spiritual rest that the Sabbath pointed to.
I no longer hold that position. The Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect, and the clean/unclean laws are part of it. Obviously, some of the commandments are moral in nature, and/or employ spiritual principles, but I am convicted that the Sabbath, festivals, and clean/unclean laws are not moral in nature. They were shadows or types that conveyed spiritual truths in a physical manner. For instance, Jesus is our spiritual rest that the Sabbath pointed to.
I
Bro. Sparkman, We are in some agreement, the old covenant is indeed no longer in effect, having been annulled and superseded by the New Covenant. You must accept that the 'clean/unclean laws predated what Moses wrote at the time of his writing it in the Pentateuch. If you avail yourself of my previous posts, you will see how i made the case that the concept of clean/unclean originates in the Creation, it was not at all a late addition. God explained to Adam His will regarding the clean/unclean. This was known by Noah.
All the Commandments as remarked by Jesus in Matt 15:3,4 are moral in nature. Any commandment that has the death penalty attached is by definition moral in nature. God declared this so by His own words in Isaiah 66:15-17 "thus saith the Lord."
He equates holiness with being undefiled. Unclean is most definitely a NT concept as the word is used scores of times, we are exhorted not to defile ourselves. We must be clean from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit. 2 Cor 7:1 read ch 6:14-18
There were four categories of laws, the Ten Commandments, the civil laws, the levitical/Mosaic law, and the dietary/health laws.
Which law was it, of the four, that has regulations regarding meat and drink offerings, types, shadows, and blood sacrifices?
You would agree that would only be the levitical/Mosaic law.
Since we are no longer under a theocracy, the civil law is handled by governments.
The Ten commandments are immutable as Jesus emphasized above.
The dietary/health laws have never been rescinded either. There will be an ultimate penalty for their transgression. see Isaiah 66:15-17 God Himself explains to us in Lev 11:43-47 It is His word you would violate, not Moses.
Jesus is indeed our everything, but that doesn't mean His Law is abrogated.
All the Commandments as remarked by Jesus in Matt 15:3,4 are moral in nature. Any commandment that has the death penalty attached is by definition moral in nature. God declared this so by His own words in Isaiah 66:15-17 "thus saith the Lord."
He equates holiness with being undefiled. Unclean is most definitely a NT concept as the word is used scores of times, we are exhorted not to defile ourselves. We must be clean from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit. 2 Cor 7:1 read ch 6:14-18
There were four categories of laws, the Ten Commandments, the civil laws, the levitical/Mosaic law, and the dietary/health laws.
Which law was it, of the four, that has regulations regarding meat and drink offerings, types, shadows, and blood sacrifices?
You would agree that would only be the levitical/Mosaic law.
Since we are no longer under a theocracy, the civil law is handled by governments.
The Ten commandments are immutable as Jesus emphasized above.
The dietary/health laws have never been rescinded either. There will be an ultimate penalty for their transgression. see Isaiah 66:15-17 God Himself explains to us in Lev 11:43-47 It is His word you would violate, not Moses.
Jesus is indeed our everything, but that doesn't mean His Law is abrogated.
S
Typically Lawkeepers claim that the Mosaic Covenant is still in effect, in full or in part, but specifically they are fixated on the Sabbath, festivals, and clean/unclean meat laws. Some extremely weird people claim physical circumcision is still required. These things are all "boundary markers" that were associated with the nation of Israel to identify themselves as God's chosen people, in a physical way that distinguished them from the neighboring Gentiles. They are part of the "wall of hostility" that God placed to accentuate their unique relationship, and this has been removed in Christ (Ephesians 2:13-16).
The clean/unclean designation at Noah's time had to do with ceremonial uncleanness, not eating. Those animals were fit for sacrifice.
Even if I'm wrong on that, God gave them all moving creatures for food after the Flood:
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
Regarding the assertion about the death penalty, failure to physically circumcise a child carried a death penalty as well..because it was a violation of the covenant sign of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 4). Remember that God was going to kill Moses at one point because Moses failed to circumcise his son. Using your reasoning consistently, you would need to say that physical circumcision is still required, and we know that it is not..in fact Galatians 5 says that if a person is physically circumcised for religious purposes they have fallen from grace (actually physical circumcision is a sign of coming under the Mosaic Covenant but this is a side topic).
Regarding Isaiah 66:15-17 note that the context is pagan worship, not eating specific meats. In addition, these marks must be viewed in light of Romans 14 and Mark 7. Romans 14 says that no food is unclean, and Mark 7 says nothing that a person eats defiles him. The parenthetical statement of Mark 7:19 also indicates that Christ cleansed all foods. I realize there are disputes regarding different manuscripts on this phrase, though, but Mark 7 clearly states that nothing a man eats defiles him.
The Mosaic Covenant defined some animals as unclean to Israelites. The Mosaic Covenant was an agreement between God and Israel, not God and the rest of mankind, which is an important point. Gentiles were never bound by the Mosaic Covenant, except for a small number who became so through joining the community.
The issue regarding the weekly Sabbath is a more complex discussion because many people ASSUME that the Ten Commandments is THE STANDARD for moral behavior. This is not true; God's holiness is God's standard, and it's best reflected in Jesus Christ. He was the fullest revelation of God's holiness. The Law is only a faint glimmer...and it included much that is not moral in nature anyways...the Law is full of shadows and types which are non-moral in nature. Shadows and types are physical reminders of spiritual realities. For example, physical circumcision pointed toward regeneration, and animal sacrifices pointed toward Christ's coming sacrifice.
The Sabbath and festivals pointed toward aspects of Christ's work and the fact that he is our spiritual rest ( Colossians 2:16-17, Matt 11:28-30, and Hebrews 4:9-10). Once the Reality came, the shadows and types lose their significance, as their prophetic value has been fulfilled.
Most Christians assume that the Ten Commandments in their entirety are still valid while the rest of the Mosaic Covenant is not. The truth is that the Ten Commandments were (basically) a summary of the Mosaic Covenant. There were other things involved in the Book of the Covenant, such as laws regarding sacrifice and civil laws, that are not easily related to one of the Ten Commandments, but in essence the Ten Commandments are a summary of the Old Covenant. In other words, there are not two separate laws....there is one Torah and the Ten Commandments are the summary and the "Book of the Covenant" are the details or elaborations.
And, the Mosaic Covenant, INCLUDING the Ten Commandments, are not in effect as a whole. Obviously any MORAL elements within the Mosaic Covenant reflect God's holiness, which is the pursuit of all true believers, but the Mosaic Covenant is not in effect. I will point the reader to Acts 15, II Corinthians 3, Galatians 3-4, Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 7:1-7 and Hebrews 8-9. READ THESE VERSES CAREFULLY. Note the references to being "written in stone" and the "tablets". The references to being "written on stone" or "tablets" is referring to the Ten Commandments, which is talking about the Ten Commandments, that are emblematic of the whole covenant itself. Also read the book "Treaty of the Great King" by Meredith Kline on this issue. He lays out the structure of the Mosaic Covenant, which was similar to the structure of other Near East treaties involving a conquering nation and its agreement relating to ruling over the conquered nation over it.
Besides the fact that the Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect, the Sabbath is explicitly associated with shadows and types of the Old Covenant in Colossians 2:16-17. Compare these verses with Hebrews 10:1-2 and Hebrews 9:9-11. A comparison of Colossians 2:16-17 and Hebrews 10:1-2 is very useful because the Sabbath is called "shadow of things to come" in the first set of verses, and the elements of the Mosaic Covenant, including animal sacrifices, is called the same thing. A comparison of Colossians 2:16-17 and Hebrews 9:9-11 shows that "food and drink", which refers to food and drink offerings of the Mosaic Covenant (Numbers 28:6-7), which were things imposed until the "times of reformation" (v. 10) which is defined in v. 11 as being "when Christ appeared".
By the way, Seventh Day Adventists try to exclude the weekly Sabbath from these verses, but it is evident that the weekly Sabbath is included. The word "sabbaton" used for Sabbaths has a weekly context..in fact, the word is translated "week" in some cases..for instance "mia ton Sabbaton" in Greek is the same as saying Monday..it is basically "first of week"...the first day of the week. In addition, the progression is from festivals (seasonal), New Moons (monthly), and Sabbaths (weekly). This progression is used in other places in the Old Testament text, either in ascending or descending order. Their attempts to take the weekly Sabbath out of these verses are futile and rather comical, as they know it would mean the end of their main doctrinal emphasis and their organization as a whole.
So, explicitly Sabbath keeping is no longer required under the New Covenant..it was part of the "boundary markers" of the Mosaic Covenant which distinguished Israelites from Gentiles. Jewish Christians continued to keep elements of the Mosaic Covenant, even including physical circumcision, as a matter of preference even after the crucifixion, when the New Covenant came into effect. A common appeal is that such incidences prove that Christians must keep the Sabbath or festivals, but thisis bogus because Jewish Christians kept these things as a matter of preference in the early Church (and by the way, some of the "Gentile" churches had a population of Jewish believers in them because Jews lived outside of Palestine..this is part of the poor reasoning that the Armstrongites employ to convince people that the early church, Jew and Gentile, kept the Sabbaths and festivals as a requirement).
In regards to the Sabbath, I would suggest reading "Sabbath in Christ" by Dale Ratzlaff. It covers the covenants very well, and will clarify the thinking of "Lawkeepers" if they are truly open minded. Otherwise, it is fruitless to argue with such individuals and not a worthy investment of time.
To clarify the above remarks for those who may misinterpret them, I DO believe there is a moral law that is still applicable to the New Covenant Christian. The commandments of this moral law include all of the teachings of Scripture that apply to THEM, not the nation of Israel. SOME of the Mosaic Covenant reflected moral law, and a Christian who is empowered by the Holy Spirit can read the Torah with spiritual eyes and see the underlying spiritual and moral principles underneath the specific applications that God gave to ancient Israel, and these spiritual and moral principles can provide guidance to them. However, the specific applications no longer apply. And, many of the commandments were types and shadows that pointed to a spiritual reality, in many cases Jesus Christ and aspects of his work.
I will also note that eating unclean meats, Sabbath-breaking and festival non-observance was never mentioned in any of the sin lists to the Gentiles whatsoever, and no guidance was given to them on these laws. So, the assertion that they are still binding is without basis. If they were still binding, then we would have expected to see some instruction from Paul on observing these elements. Instead, we see nothing, even though every base sin which is much more obviously wrong is explained in detail in such lists.
Specifically related to the clean and unclean meat laws, I would suggest reading Mark 7 and also Romans 14. Mark 7 says there is nothing a person eats that defiles them..nothing..and Romans 14 says that Paul knew there was no food which was unclean. Romans was written to a mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles, so these differences of opinion would have been natural. Note also that the issue of observance days was also mentioned.
However, the main issue is that the Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect. It was like kindergarten level spirituality, meant to acquaint the Israelite with basic concepts about Christ in a simple manner so they would be prepared to identify and receive Him. When the Reality came, they lost much of their significance, except for their amazing prophetic value, and a strong reaffirmation of our faith.
As an additional note, I respect the efforts of any Christian to be diligent in obedience, even though I disagree with their understanding on these issues. Read Romans 14 in this regard. The real issue is when individuals treat others as unbelievers based on these issues, as I did when I was an Armstrongite. The person I am responding to used "brother' to describe me so that indicates he does not hold such a view. I honor a person who is serious about their obedience to God, even if I disagree on their understanding related to these topics. I have held the same position in the past, only I judged others as being unbelievers for non-observance (due to poor teaching and the exclusivist attitude of the organization I was involved with). In addition, their focus was not on Jesus Christ, but was on their peculiar teachings and looking at other Christians as unbelievers and ignorant. I find that's a real trap with many of these groups. One only needs to look at their videos on youtube to see that many of them are very prideful and divisive..and ironically their basis for pride is a shallow understanding of the underlying issues.
I also believe observance can have value in terms of a constant reminder of certain concepts, but they are not requirements of salvation. The big problem is that so many of the groups who observe these things are heretical in other core doctrines, such as denying the full deity of Jesus Christ, the Trinity doctrine, justification by faith alone, and the writings of Paul. I would not mind being a part of a fellowship which reaffirmed core doctrines and observed the Sabbath and festivals IF they were not judgmental, divisive, and had sound doctrine in other ways..but there is no such group that I know about. In addition, the resurrection is a key theme of Christianity and Sunday observance points to that.
Regarding historical arguments for the Sabbath, I'm already aware of those, and will simply state that Sabbathkeepers largely have a distorted view of Church history. By AD140, the vast majority of Christians were not Sabbathkeepers, even the Jewish Christians. The idea that the Roman Catholic Church or Constantine changed this is bogus, despite their vehement claims. Even the SDA historian Samuele Bacchiocchi, who studied this issue extensively, failed to find ANY connection with the alleged claims of Ellen G. White and the SDA church in this regard. These claims are constantly repeated by Sabbatarians and they have no basis in fact. I have outlined my understanding of the history regarding these events on other threads.
One last remark..Matt 5:17-19 is commonly sited to "prove" that the Mosaic Covenant (or the en Commandments) are still applicable. Firstly, the phrase "Law and Prophets" is definitely talking about the entire Torah, and not just the Ten Commandments. The phrase is commonly used to refer to the whole Old Testament writings. Secondly, if they are consistent, they need to claim that physical circumcision and animal sacrifices are still applicable, because the verses say "not one jot or tittle" will pass...whatever happened to the "jot and tittle" part if they interpret these verses consistently? The context of these verses is that Christ was speaking to Israelites, under the Mosaic Covenant, and he was convicting them of their sin and their need for Him. The Mosaic Covenant DID end when all things were fulfilled at his crucifixion...it was fulfilled. So appeals by "Lawkeepers" to these verses to prove continuance of these elements are bogus...usually they only focus on particular elements of their "cafeteria plan" Old Covenant anyways..for example they don't throw their wives and daughters out of their homes during their menstrual cycle to avoid their furniture becoming unclean.
The clean/unclean designation at Noah's time had to do with ceremonial uncleanness, not eating. Those animals were fit for sacrifice.
Even if I'm wrong on that, God gave them all moving creatures for food after the Flood:
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
Regarding the assertion about the death penalty, failure to physically circumcise a child carried a death penalty as well..because it was a violation of the covenant sign of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 4). Remember that God was going to kill Moses at one point because Moses failed to circumcise his son. Using your reasoning consistently, you would need to say that physical circumcision is still required, and we know that it is not..in fact Galatians 5 says that if a person is physically circumcised for religious purposes they have fallen from grace (actually physical circumcision is a sign of coming under the Mosaic Covenant but this is a side topic).
Regarding Isaiah 66:15-17 note that the context is pagan worship, not eating specific meats. In addition, these marks must be viewed in light of Romans 14 and Mark 7. Romans 14 says that no food is unclean, and Mark 7 says nothing that a person eats defiles him. The parenthetical statement of Mark 7:19 also indicates that Christ cleansed all foods. I realize there are disputes regarding different manuscripts on this phrase, though, but Mark 7 clearly states that nothing a man eats defiles him.
The Mosaic Covenant defined some animals as unclean to Israelites. The Mosaic Covenant was an agreement between God and Israel, not God and the rest of mankind, which is an important point. Gentiles were never bound by the Mosaic Covenant, except for a small number who became so through joining the community.
The issue regarding the weekly Sabbath is a more complex discussion because many people ASSUME that the Ten Commandments is THE STANDARD for moral behavior. This is not true; God's holiness is God's standard, and it's best reflected in Jesus Christ. He was the fullest revelation of God's holiness. The Law is only a faint glimmer...and it included much that is not moral in nature anyways...the Law is full of shadows and types which are non-moral in nature. Shadows and types are physical reminders of spiritual realities. For example, physical circumcision pointed toward regeneration, and animal sacrifices pointed toward Christ's coming sacrifice.
The Sabbath and festivals pointed toward aspects of Christ's work and the fact that he is our spiritual rest ( Colossians 2:16-17, Matt 11:28-30, and Hebrews 4:9-10). Once the Reality came, the shadows and types lose their significance, as their prophetic value has been fulfilled.
Most Christians assume that the Ten Commandments in their entirety are still valid while the rest of the Mosaic Covenant is not. The truth is that the Ten Commandments were (basically) a summary of the Mosaic Covenant. There were other things involved in the Book of the Covenant, such as laws regarding sacrifice and civil laws, that are not easily related to one of the Ten Commandments, but in essence the Ten Commandments are a summary of the Old Covenant. In other words, there are not two separate laws....there is one Torah and the Ten Commandments are the summary and the "Book of the Covenant" are the details or elaborations.
And, the Mosaic Covenant, INCLUDING the Ten Commandments, are not in effect as a whole. Obviously any MORAL elements within the Mosaic Covenant reflect God's holiness, which is the pursuit of all true believers, but the Mosaic Covenant is not in effect. I will point the reader to Acts 15, II Corinthians 3, Galatians 3-4, Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 7:1-7 and Hebrews 8-9. READ THESE VERSES CAREFULLY. Note the references to being "written in stone" and the "tablets". The references to being "written on stone" or "tablets" is referring to the Ten Commandments, which is talking about the Ten Commandments, that are emblematic of the whole covenant itself. Also read the book "Treaty of the Great King" by Meredith Kline on this issue. He lays out the structure of the Mosaic Covenant, which was similar to the structure of other Near East treaties involving a conquering nation and its agreement relating to ruling over the conquered nation over it.
Besides the fact that the Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect, the Sabbath is explicitly associated with shadows and types of the Old Covenant in Colossians 2:16-17. Compare these verses with Hebrews 10:1-2 and Hebrews 9:9-11. A comparison of Colossians 2:16-17 and Hebrews 10:1-2 is very useful because the Sabbath is called "shadow of things to come" in the first set of verses, and the elements of the Mosaic Covenant, including animal sacrifices, is called the same thing. A comparison of Colossians 2:16-17 and Hebrews 9:9-11 shows that "food and drink", which refers to food and drink offerings of the Mosaic Covenant (Numbers 28:6-7), which were things imposed until the "times of reformation" (v. 10) which is defined in v. 11 as being "when Christ appeared".
By the way, Seventh Day Adventists try to exclude the weekly Sabbath from these verses, but it is evident that the weekly Sabbath is included. The word "sabbaton" used for Sabbaths has a weekly context..in fact, the word is translated "week" in some cases..for instance "mia ton Sabbaton" in Greek is the same as saying Monday..it is basically "first of week"...the first day of the week. In addition, the progression is from festivals (seasonal), New Moons (monthly), and Sabbaths (weekly). This progression is used in other places in the Old Testament text, either in ascending or descending order. Their attempts to take the weekly Sabbath out of these verses are futile and rather comical, as they know it would mean the end of their main doctrinal emphasis and their organization as a whole.
So, explicitly Sabbath keeping is no longer required under the New Covenant..it was part of the "boundary markers" of the Mosaic Covenant which distinguished Israelites from Gentiles. Jewish Christians continued to keep elements of the Mosaic Covenant, even including physical circumcision, as a matter of preference even after the crucifixion, when the New Covenant came into effect. A common appeal is that such incidences prove that Christians must keep the Sabbath or festivals, but thisis bogus because Jewish Christians kept these things as a matter of preference in the early Church (and by the way, some of the "Gentile" churches had a population of Jewish believers in them because Jews lived outside of Palestine..this is part of the poor reasoning that the Armstrongites employ to convince people that the early church, Jew and Gentile, kept the Sabbaths and festivals as a requirement).
In regards to the Sabbath, I would suggest reading "Sabbath in Christ" by Dale Ratzlaff. It covers the covenants very well, and will clarify the thinking of "Lawkeepers" if they are truly open minded. Otherwise, it is fruitless to argue with such individuals and not a worthy investment of time.
To clarify the above remarks for those who may misinterpret them, I DO believe there is a moral law that is still applicable to the New Covenant Christian. The commandments of this moral law include all of the teachings of Scripture that apply to THEM, not the nation of Israel. SOME of the Mosaic Covenant reflected moral law, and a Christian who is empowered by the Holy Spirit can read the Torah with spiritual eyes and see the underlying spiritual and moral principles underneath the specific applications that God gave to ancient Israel, and these spiritual and moral principles can provide guidance to them. However, the specific applications no longer apply. And, many of the commandments were types and shadows that pointed to a spiritual reality, in many cases Jesus Christ and aspects of his work.
I will also note that eating unclean meats, Sabbath-breaking and festival non-observance was never mentioned in any of the sin lists to the Gentiles whatsoever, and no guidance was given to them on these laws. So, the assertion that they are still binding is without basis. If they were still binding, then we would have expected to see some instruction from Paul on observing these elements. Instead, we see nothing, even though every base sin which is much more obviously wrong is explained in detail in such lists.
Specifically related to the clean and unclean meat laws, I would suggest reading Mark 7 and also Romans 14. Mark 7 says there is nothing a person eats that defiles them..nothing..and Romans 14 says that Paul knew there was no food which was unclean. Romans was written to a mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles, so these differences of opinion would have been natural. Note also that the issue of observance days was also mentioned.
However, the main issue is that the Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect. It was like kindergarten level spirituality, meant to acquaint the Israelite with basic concepts about Christ in a simple manner so they would be prepared to identify and receive Him. When the Reality came, they lost much of their significance, except for their amazing prophetic value, and a strong reaffirmation of our faith.
As an additional note, I respect the efforts of any Christian to be diligent in obedience, even though I disagree with their understanding on these issues. Read Romans 14 in this regard. The real issue is when individuals treat others as unbelievers based on these issues, as I did when I was an Armstrongite. The person I am responding to used "brother' to describe me so that indicates he does not hold such a view. I honor a person who is serious about their obedience to God, even if I disagree on their understanding related to these topics. I have held the same position in the past, only I judged others as being unbelievers for non-observance (due to poor teaching and the exclusivist attitude of the organization I was involved with). In addition, their focus was not on Jesus Christ, but was on their peculiar teachings and looking at other Christians as unbelievers and ignorant. I find that's a real trap with many of these groups. One only needs to look at their videos on youtube to see that many of them are very prideful and divisive..and ironically their basis for pride is a shallow understanding of the underlying issues.
I also believe observance can have value in terms of a constant reminder of certain concepts, but they are not requirements of salvation. The big problem is that so many of the groups who observe these things are heretical in other core doctrines, such as denying the full deity of Jesus Christ, the Trinity doctrine, justification by faith alone, and the writings of Paul. I would not mind being a part of a fellowship which reaffirmed core doctrines and observed the Sabbath and festivals IF they were not judgmental, divisive, and had sound doctrine in other ways..but there is no such group that I know about. In addition, the resurrection is a key theme of Christianity and Sunday observance points to that.
Regarding historical arguments for the Sabbath, I'm already aware of those, and will simply state that Sabbathkeepers largely have a distorted view of Church history. By AD140, the vast majority of Christians were not Sabbathkeepers, even the Jewish Christians. The idea that the Roman Catholic Church or Constantine changed this is bogus, despite their vehement claims. Even the SDA historian Samuele Bacchiocchi, who studied this issue extensively, failed to find ANY connection with the alleged claims of Ellen G. White and the SDA church in this regard. These claims are constantly repeated by Sabbatarians and they have no basis in fact. I have outlined my understanding of the history regarding these events on other threads.
One last remark..Matt 5:17-19 is commonly sited to "prove" that the Mosaic Covenant (or the en Commandments) are still applicable. Firstly, the phrase "Law and Prophets" is definitely talking about the entire Torah, and not just the Ten Commandments. The phrase is commonly used to refer to the whole Old Testament writings. Secondly, if they are consistent, they need to claim that physical circumcision and animal sacrifices are still applicable, because the verses say "not one jot or tittle" will pass...whatever happened to the "jot and tittle" part if they interpret these verses consistently? The context of these verses is that Christ was speaking to Israelites, under the Mosaic Covenant, and he was convicting them of their sin and their need for Him. The Mosaic Covenant DID end when all things were fulfilled at his crucifixion...it was fulfilled. So appeals by "Lawkeepers" to these verses to prove continuance of these elements are bogus...usually they only focus on particular elements of their "cafeteria plan" Old Covenant anyways..for example they don't throw their wives and daughters out of their homes during their menstrual cycle to avoid their furniture becoming unclean.
Last edited:
Good grief.... this is worse than the KJV only debacle.
How do you convince someone whose mind is rock-solid made up (incorrectly) and they keep repeating the same mis-understood scriptures to back up their position? You can't. All that can be done is present them with the proper understanding, and let them go for the Spirit to work on them.
How do you convince someone whose mind is rock-solid made up (incorrectly) and they keep repeating the same mis-understood scriptures to back up their position? You can't. All that can be done is present them with the proper understanding, and let them go for the Spirit to work on them.
I
Brother Sparkman, you have brought forth many issues that certainly deserve comment, however much i would like to deal with everything you have brought up, time and clarity demands that we stick to the topic at hand if possible. Let us solve this issue first before we deal with the rest.
Typically Lawkeepers claim that the Mosaic Covenant is still in effect, in full or in part, but specifically they are fixated on the Sabbath, festivals, and clean/unclean meat laws. Some extremely weird people claim physical circumcision is still required. These things are all "boundary markers" that were associated with the nation of Israel to identify themselves as God's chosen people, in a physical way that distinguished them from the neighboring Gentiles. They are part of the "wall of hostility" that God placed to accentuate their unique relationship, and this has been removed in Christ (Ephesians 2:13-16).
Let us agree that the Mosaic law has been annulled.
Let us also agree that the civil laws are handled by secular governments, not a theocracy..
The 10 Commandments are still in force, no sensible person doubts this.
The Law of the beasts is also still in effect. Lev 11:46,47
Boundary markers" a curious term?, are you saying Christians are not the chosen of God? Is there a wall of hostility?
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:” 1Peter 2:9
The clean/unclean designation at Noah's time had to do with ceremonial uncleanness, not eating. Those animals were fit for sacrifice.
Even if I'm wrong on that, God gave them all moving creatures for food after the Flood:
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
We must not conclude that our God is a dithering God. That He changes His mind constantly, one moment forbidding, the next allowing the unclean, that is foolish surmising, thinking that God changed Him mind 5 times. The first we hear of clean and unclean is at the loading of the ark, prior to the destruction of the world. We are not told how, but obviously Noah knew. God saved the clean animals by sevens and the unclean by two's. He had a purpose, all you need to propagate the species are a male and female of each animal. God commanded the clean animals to be saved by seven's in order to provide food for the survivors since all vegetation was destroyed. If, as you falsely conclude, God allowed the eating of the unclean in Gen 9:3
why go to the trouble of saving the clean by sevens? That does not making any sense.
Every moving thing is now made legal for Noah to eat with the exception of the unclean. Notice the caveat, (even as the green herb i have given you all things). You cannot eat every green herb, many are poisonous.
We know from Lev 11 how God views the unclean, He did not just make it up as Moses wrote, it is a concept that comes from the very beginning. Adam only would have sacrificed clean animals, and his faithful descendants would not have eaten any flesh until given permission by God to Noah. The disobedient, wicked people of course would have always been eating meat.
Regarding the assertion about the death penalty, failure to physically circumcise a child carried a death penalty as well..because it was a violation of the covenant sign of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 4). Remember that God was going to kill Moses at one point because Moses failed to circumcise his son. Using your reasoning consistently, you would need to say that physical circumcision is still required, and we know that it is not..in fact Galatians 5 says that if a person is physically circumcised for religious purposes they have fallen from grace (actually physical circumcision is a sign of coming under the Mosaic Covenant but this is a side topic).
It is always a moral issue to obey God. You are making a straw man argument. You are muddying the waters by putting forth an annulled covenant. Circumcision is meaningless now because it represents a failed covenant.
Regarding Isaiah 66:15-17 note that the context is pagan worship, not eating specific meats. In addition, these marks must be viewed in light of Romans 14 and Mark 7. Romans 14 says that no food is unclean, and Mark 7 says nothing that a person eats defiles him. The parenthetical statement of Mark 7:19 also indicates that Christ cleansed all foods. I realize there are disputes regarding different manuscripts on this phrase, though, but Mark 7 clearly states that nothing a man eats defiles him.
The context is not pagan worship, though it conceivably could be. The context is Judgement! All three verses contain it.
It is most certainly dealing with eating the unclean, it even says so, "eating swines flesh and the abomination."
We must believe the meaning of the words.
You are in error regarding Romans 14. Paul in his opening remark stated that what he would be dealing with was doubtful disputations, meaning disputable matters. If he is dealing with disputable matters, then he is certainly not speaking about doctrine. This needs to be understood or you will be tripping along the way through the chapter.
God has unequivocally stated that He will destroy those who eat the unclean and you contradict God with your misunderstanding of Mark 7.
Neither Mark 7, Matt 15, or Act 10 deal with the unclean. You must understand this or you will never come to the truth.
The operative word in these chapters is the word Koinos and not the word akarthos. The word Koinos is translated as common.
The word akarthos means unclean and is never used in the conversation. The word Koinos is of Jewish origin and is not a biblical concept. Jesus denied that a man could become Koinos. You are making an assumption that they are talking about the unclean, no, it is never mentioned. see my previous post for a detailed explanation.
For those who believe Jesus cleansed all meats in Matt 15/Mark 7 Peter asked for an explanation from Jesus, Vs15 Peter certainly never reached the conclusion you do, see His horror at being told to eat what he knew to be unclean or common in Acts 10. See my post explaining Acts 10 Peter's conclusion of the vision mentions nothing about animals being cleansed.
You are jumping to your own conclusions.
Later, the Mosaic Covenant defined some animals as unclean to Israelites. The Mosaic Covenant was an agreement between God and Israel, not God and the rest of mankind, which is an important point. Gentiles were never bound by the Mosaic Covenant, except for a small number who became so through joining the community.
The law of the beasts is not part of the Mosaic law, as it predates it. It was in existence we read at the time of Noah. Is Isaiah 65 not dealing with gentiles? God is chastising them for eating the abomination.
The issue regarding the weekly Sabbath is a more complex discussion because many people ASSUME that the Ten Commandments is THE STANDARD for moral behavior. This is not true; God's holiness is God's standard, and it's best reflected in Jesus Christ. He was the fullest revelation of God's holiness. The Law is only a faint glimmer...and it included much that is not moral in nature anyways...the Law is full of shadows and types which are non-moral in nature. Shadows and types are physical reminders of spiritual realities. For example, physical circumcision pointed toward regeneration, and animal sacrifices pointed toward Christ's coming sacrifice.
Matt 15:3 Why then does Jesus say,"Why do you also transgress the Commandment of God by your tradition."
"For God commanded, saying, Honor your Father and your mother.
Jesus is lifting up that which you would tear down as a faint glimmer.
There is no shadows or types in the ten commandments. You keep referring to circumcision, why????
"
The Sabbath and festivals pointed toward aspects of Christ's work and the fact that he is our spiritual rest ( Colossians 2:16-17, Matt 11:28-30, and Hebrews 4:9-10). Once the Reality came, the shadows and types lose their significance, as their prophetic value has been fulfilled.
It is my desire to stay on topic, this is not part of it.
Most Christians assume that the Ten Commandments in their entirety are still valid while the rest of the Mosaic Covenant is not. The truth is that the Ten Commandments were (basically) a summary of the Mosaic Covenant. There were other things involved in the Book of the Covenant, such as laws regarding sacrifice and civil laws, that are not easily related to one of the Ten Commandments, but in essence the Ten Commandments are a summary of the Old Covenant. In other words, there are not two separate laws....there is one Torah and the Ten Commandments are the summary and the "Book of the Covenant" are the details or elaborations.
And, the Mosaic Covenant, INCLUDING the Ten Commandments, are not in effect as a whole. Obviously any MORAL elements within the Mosaic Covenant reflect God's holiness, which is the pursuit of all true believers, but the Mosaic Covenant is not in effect. I will point the reader to Acts 15, II Corinthians 3, Galatians 3-4, Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 7:1-7 and Hebrews 8-9. READ THESE VERSES CAREFULLY. Note the references to being "written in stone" and the "tablets". The references to being "written on stone" or "tablets" is referring to the Ten Commandments, which is talking about the Ten Commandments, that are emblematic of the whole covenant itself. Also read the book "Treaty of the Great King" by Meredith Kline on this issue. He lays out the structure of the Mosaic Covenant, which was similar to the structure of other Near East treaties involving a conquering nation and its agreement relating to ruling over the conquered nation over it.
Besides the fact that the Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect, the Sabbath is explicitly associated with shadows and types of the Old Covenant in Colossians 2:16-17. Compare these verses with Hebrews 10:1-2 and Hebrews 9:9-11. A comparison of Colossians 2:16-17 and Hebrews 10:1-2 is very useful because the Sabbath is called "shadow of things to come" in the first set of verses, and the elements of the Mosaic Covenant, including animal sacrifices, is called the same thing. A comparison of Colossians 2:16-17 and Hebrews 9:9-11 shows that "food and drink", which refers to food and drink offerings of the Mosaic Covenant (Numbers 28:6-7), which were things imposed until the "times of reformation" (v. 10) which is defined in v. 11 as being "when Christ appeared".
By the way, Seventh Day Adventists try to exclude the weekly Sabbath from these verses, but it is evident that the weekly Sabbath is included. The word "sabbaton" used for Sabbaths has a weekly context..in fact, the word is translated "week" in some cases..for instance "mia ton Sabbaton" in Greek is the same as saying Monday..it is basically "first of week"...the first day of the week. In addition, the progression is from festivals (seasonal), New Moons (monthly), and Sabbaths (weekly). This progression is used in other places in the Old Testament text, either in ascending or descending order. Their attempts to take the weekly Sabbath out of these verses are futile and rather comical, as they know it would mean the end of their main doctrinal emphasis and their organization as a whole.
So, explicitly Sabbath keeping is no longer required under the New Covenant..it was part of the "boundary markers" of the Mosaic Covenant which distinguished Israelites from Gentiles. Jewish Christians continued to keep elements of the Mosaic Covenant, even including physical circumcision, as a matter of preference even after the crucifixion, when the New Covenant came into effect. A common appeal is that such incidences prove that Christians must keep the Sabbath or festivals, but thisis bogus because Jewish Christians kept these things as a matter of preference in the early Church (and by the way, some of the "Gentile" churches had a population of Jewish believers in them because Jews lived outside of Palestine..this is part of the poor reasoning that the Armstrongites employ to convince people that the early church, Jew and Gentile, kept the Sabbaths and festivals as a requirement).
Specifically regarding clean and unclean meats
In regards to the Sabbath, I would suggest reading "Sabbath in Christ" by Dale Ratzlaff. It covers the covenants very well, and will clarify the thinking of "Lawkeepers" if they are truly open minded. Otherwise, it is fruitless to argue with such individuals and not a worthy investment of time.
To clarify the above remarks for those who may misinterpret them, I DO believe there is a moral law that is still applicable to the New Covenant Christian. The commandments of this moral law include all of the teachings of Scripture that apply to THEM, not the nation of Israel. SOME of the Mosaic Covenant reflected moral law, and a Christian who is empowered by the Holy Spirit can read the Torah with spiritual eyes and see the underlying spiritual and moral principles underneath the specific applications that God gave to ancient Israel, and these spiritual and moral principles can provide guidance to them. However, the specific applications no longer apply. And, many of the commandments were types and shadows that pointed to a spiritual reality, in many cases Jesus Christ and aspects of his work.
I will also note that eating unclean meats, Sabbath-breaking and festival non-observance was never mentioned in any of the sin lists to the Gentiles whatsoever, and no guidance was given to them on these laws. So, the assertion that they are still binding is without basis. If they were still binding, then we would have expected to see some instruction from Paul on observing these elements. Instead, we see nothing, even though every base sin which is much more obviously wrong is explained in detail in such lists.
Specifically related to the clean and unclean meat laws, I would suggest reading Mark 7 and also Romans 14. Mark 7 says there is nothing a person eats that defiles them..nothing..and Romans 14 says that Paul knew there was no food which was unclean. Romans was written to a mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles, so these differences of opinion would have been natural. Note also that the issue of observance days was also mentioned.
However, the main issue is that the Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect. It was like kindergarten level spirituality, meant to acquaint the Israelite with basic concepts about Christ in a simple manner so they would be prepared to identify and receive Him. When the Reality came, they lost much of their significance, except for their amazing prophetic value, and a strong reaffirmation of our faith.
As an additional note, I respect the efforts of any Christian to be diligent in obedience, even though I disagree with their understanding on these issues. Read Romans 14 in this regard. The real issue is when individuals treat others as unbelievers based on these issues, as I did when I was an Armstrongite. The person I am responding to used "brother' to describe me so that indicates he does not hold such a view. I honor a person who is serious about their obedience to God, even if I disagree on their understanding related to these topics. I have held the same position in the past, only I judged others as being unbelievers for non-observance (due to poor teaching and the exclusivist attitude of the organization I was involved with). In addition, their focus was not on Jesus Christ, but was on their peculiar teachings and looking at other Christians as unbelievers and ignorant. I find that's a real trap with many of these groups. One only needs to look at their videos on youtube to see that many of them are very prideful and divisive..and ironically their basis for pride is a shallow understanding of the underlying issues.
I also believe observance can have value in terms of a constant reminder of certain concepts, but they are not requirements of salvation. The big problem is that so many of the groups who observe these things are heretical in other core doctrines, such as denying the full deity of Jesus Christ, the Trinity doctrine, justification by faith alone, and the writings of Paul. I would not mind being a part of a fellowship which reaffirmed core doctrines and observed the Sabbath and festivals IF they were not judgmental, divisive, and had sound doctrine in other ways..but there is no such group that I know about. In addition, the resurrection is a key theme of Christianity and Sunday observance points to that.
Regarding historical arguments for the Sabbath, I'm already aware of those, and will simply state that Sabbathkeepers largely have a distorted view of Church history. By AD140, the vast majority of Christians were not Sabbathkeepers, even the Jewish Christians. The idea that the Roman Catholic Church or Constantine changed this is bogus, despite their vehement claims. Even the SDA historian Samuele Bacchiocchi, who studied this issue extensively, failed to find ANY connection with the alleged claims of Ellen G. White and the SDA church in this regard. These claims are constantly repeated by Sabbatarians and they have no basis in fact. I have outlined my understanding of the history regarding these events on other threads.
One last remark..Matt 5:17-19 is commonly sited to "prove" that the Mosaic Covenant (or the en Commandments) are still applicable. Firstly, the phrase "Law and Prophets" is definitely talking about the entire Torah, and not just the Ten Commandments. The phrase is commonly used to refer to the whole Old Testament writings. Secondly, if they are consistent, they need to claim that physical circumcision and animal sacrifices are still applicable, because the verses say "not one jot or tittle" will pass...whatever happened to the "jot and tittle" part if they interpret these verses consistently? The context of these verses is that Christ was speaking to Israelites, under the Mosaic Covenant, and he was convicting them of their sin and their need for Him. The Mosaic Covenant DID end when all things were fulfilled at his crucifixion...it was fulfilled. So appeals by "Lawkeepers" to these verses to prove continuance of these elements are bogus...usually they only focus on particular elements of their "cafeteria plan" Old Covenant anyways..for example they don't throw their wives and daughters out of their homes during their menstrual cycle to avoid their furniture becoming unclean.
Typically Lawkeepers claim that the Mosaic Covenant is still in effect, in full or in part, but specifically they are fixated on the Sabbath, festivals, and clean/unclean meat laws. Some extremely weird people claim physical circumcision is still required. These things are all "boundary markers" that were associated with the nation of Israel to identify themselves as God's chosen people, in a physical way that distinguished them from the neighboring Gentiles. They are part of the "wall of hostility" that God placed to accentuate their unique relationship, and this has been removed in Christ (Ephesians 2:13-16).
Let us agree that the Mosaic law has been annulled.
Let us also agree that the civil laws are handled by secular governments, not a theocracy..
The 10 Commandments are still in force, no sensible person doubts this.
The Law of the beasts is also still in effect. Lev 11:46,47
Boundary markers" a curious term?, are you saying Christians are not the chosen of God? Is there a wall of hostility?
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:” 1Peter 2:9
The clean/unclean designation at Noah's time had to do with ceremonial uncleanness, not eating. Those animals were fit for sacrifice.
Even if I'm wrong on that, God gave them all moving creatures for food after the Flood:
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
We must not conclude that our God is a dithering God. That He changes His mind constantly, one moment forbidding, the next allowing the unclean, that is foolish surmising, thinking that God changed Him mind 5 times. The first we hear of clean and unclean is at the loading of the ark, prior to the destruction of the world. We are not told how, but obviously Noah knew. God saved the clean animals by sevens and the unclean by two's. He had a purpose, all you need to propagate the species are a male and female of each animal. God commanded the clean animals to be saved by seven's in order to provide food for the survivors since all vegetation was destroyed. If, as you falsely conclude, God allowed the eating of the unclean in Gen 9:3
why go to the trouble of saving the clean by sevens? That does not making any sense.
Every moving thing is now made legal for Noah to eat with the exception of the unclean. Notice the caveat, (even as the green herb i have given you all things). You cannot eat every green herb, many are poisonous.
We know from Lev 11 how God views the unclean, He did not just make it up as Moses wrote, it is a concept that comes from the very beginning. Adam only would have sacrificed clean animals, and his faithful descendants would not have eaten any flesh until given permission by God to Noah. The disobedient, wicked people of course would have always been eating meat.
Regarding the assertion about the death penalty, failure to physically circumcise a child carried a death penalty as well..because it was a violation of the covenant sign of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 4). Remember that God was going to kill Moses at one point because Moses failed to circumcise his son. Using your reasoning consistently, you would need to say that physical circumcision is still required, and we know that it is not..in fact Galatians 5 says that if a person is physically circumcised for religious purposes they have fallen from grace (actually physical circumcision is a sign of coming under the Mosaic Covenant but this is a side topic).
It is always a moral issue to obey God. You are making a straw man argument. You are muddying the waters by putting forth an annulled covenant. Circumcision is meaningless now because it represents a failed covenant.
Regarding Isaiah 66:15-17 note that the context is pagan worship, not eating specific meats. In addition, these marks must be viewed in light of Romans 14 and Mark 7. Romans 14 says that no food is unclean, and Mark 7 says nothing that a person eats defiles him. The parenthetical statement of Mark 7:19 also indicates that Christ cleansed all foods. I realize there are disputes regarding different manuscripts on this phrase, though, but Mark 7 clearly states that nothing a man eats defiles him.
The context is not pagan worship, though it conceivably could be. The context is Judgement! All three verses contain it.
It is most certainly dealing with eating the unclean, it even says so, "eating swines flesh and the abomination."
We must believe the meaning of the words.
You are in error regarding Romans 14. Paul in his opening remark stated that what he would be dealing with was doubtful disputations, meaning disputable matters. If he is dealing with disputable matters, then he is certainly not speaking about doctrine. This needs to be understood or you will be tripping along the way through the chapter.
God has unequivocally stated that He will destroy those who eat the unclean and you contradict God with your misunderstanding of Mark 7.
Neither Mark 7, Matt 15, or Act 10 deal with the unclean. You must understand this or you will never come to the truth.
The operative word in these chapters is the word Koinos and not the word akarthos. The word Koinos is translated as common.
The word akarthos means unclean and is never used in the conversation. The word Koinos is of Jewish origin and is not a biblical concept. Jesus denied that a man could become Koinos. You are making an assumption that they are talking about the unclean, no, it is never mentioned. see my previous post for a detailed explanation.
For those who believe Jesus cleansed all meats in Matt 15/Mark 7 Peter asked for an explanation from Jesus, Vs15 Peter certainly never reached the conclusion you do, see His horror at being told to eat what he knew to be unclean or common in Acts 10. See my post explaining Acts 10 Peter's conclusion of the vision mentions nothing about animals being cleansed.
You are jumping to your own conclusions.
Later, the Mosaic Covenant defined some animals as unclean to Israelites. The Mosaic Covenant was an agreement between God and Israel, not God and the rest of mankind, which is an important point. Gentiles were never bound by the Mosaic Covenant, except for a small number who became so through joining the community.
The law of the beasts is not part of the Mosaic law, as it predates it. It was in existence we read at the time of Noah. Is Isaiah 65 not dealing with gentiles? God is chastising them for eating the abomination.
The issue regarding the weekly Sabbath is a more complex discussion because many people ASSUME that the Ten Commandments is THE STANDARD for moral behavior. This is not true; God's holiness is God's standard, and it's best reflected in Jesus Christ. He was the fullest revelation of God's holiness. The Law is only a faint glimmer...and it included much that is not moral in nature anyways...the Law is full of shadows and types which are non-moral in nature. Shadows and types are physical reminders of spiritual realities. For example, physical circumcision pointed toward regeneration, and animal sacrifices pointed toward Christ's coming sacrifice.
Matt 15:3 Why then does Jesus say,"Why do you also transgress the Commandment of God by your tradition."
"For God commanded, saying, Honor your Father and your mother.
Jesus is lifting up that which you would tear down as a faint glimmer.
There is no shadows or types in the ten commandments. You keep referring to circumcision, why????
"
The Sabbath and festivals pointed toward aspects of Christ's work and the fact that he is our spiritual rest ( Colossians 2:16-17, Matt 11:28-30, and Hebrews 4:9-10). Once the Reality came, the shadows and types lose their significance, as their prophetic value has been fulfilled.
It is my desire to stay on topic, this is not part of it.
Most Christians assume that the Ten Commandments in their entirety are still valid while the rest of the Mosaic Covenant is not. The truth is that the Ten Commandments were (basically) a summary of the Mosaic Covenant. There were other things involved in the Book of the Covenant, such as laws regarding sacrifice and civil laws, that are not easily related to one of the Ten Commandments, but in essence the Ten Commandments are a summary of the Old Covenant. In other words, there are not two separate laws....there is one Torah and the Ten Commandments are the summary and the "Book of the Covenant" are the details or elaborations.
And, the Mosaic Covenant, INCLUDING the Ten Commandments, are not in effect as a whole. Obviously any MORAL elements within the Mosaic Covenant reflect God's holiness, which is the pursuit of all true believers, but the Mosaic Covenant is not in effect. I will point the reader to Acts 15, II Corinthians 3, Galatians 3-4, Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 7:1-7 and Hebrews 8-9. READ THESE VERSES CAREFULLY. Note the references to being "written in stone" and the "tablets". The references to being "written on stone" or "tablets" is referring to the Ten Commandments, which is talking about the Ten Commandments, that are emblematic of the whole covenant itself. Also read the book "Treaty of the Great King" by Meredith Kline on this issue. He lays out the structure of the Mosaic Covenant, which was similar to the structure of other Near East treaties involving a conquering nation and its agreement relating to ruling over the conquered nation over it.
Besides the fact that the Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect, the Sabbath is explicitly associated with shadows and types of the Old Covenant in Colossians 2:16-17. Compare these verses with Hebrews 10:1-2 and Hebrews 9:9-11. A comparison of Colossians 2:16-17 and Hebrews 10:1-2 is very useful because the Sabbath is called "shadow of things to come" in the first set of verses, and the elements of the Mosaic Covenant, including animal sacrifices, is called the same thing. A comparison of Colossians 2:16-17 and Hebrews 9:9-11 shows that "food and drink", which refers to food and drink offerings of the Mosaic Covenant (Numbers 28:6-7), which were things imposed until the "times of reformation" (v. 10) which is defined in v. 11 as being "when Christ appeared".
By the way, Seventh Day Adventists try to exclude the weekly Sabbath from these verses, but it is evident that the weekly Sabbath is included. The word "sabbaton" used for Sabbaths has a weekly context..in fact, the word is translated "week" in some cases..for instance "mia ton Sabbaton" in Greek is the same as saying Monday..it is basically "first of week"...the first day of the week. In addition, the progression is from festivals (seasonal), New Moons (monthly), and Sabbaths (weekly). This progression is used in other places in the Old Testament text, either in ascending or descending order. Their attempts to take the weekly Sabbath out of these verses are futile and rather comical, as they know it would mean the end of their main doctrinal emphasis and their organization as a whole.
So, explicitly Sabbath keeping is no longer required under the New Covenant..it was part of the "boundary markers" of the Mosaic Covenant which distinguished Israelites from Gentiles. Jewish Christians continued to keep elements of the Mosaic Covenant, even including physical circumcision, as a matter of preference even after the crucifixion, when the New Covenant came into effect. A common appeal is that such incidences prove that Christians must keep the Sabbath or festivals, but thisis bogus because Jewish Christians kept these things as a matter of preference in the early Church (and by the way, some of the "Gentile" churches had a population of Jewish believers in them because Jews lived outside of Palestine..this is part of the poor reasoning that the Armstrongites employ to convince people that the early church, Jew and Gentile, kept the Sabbaths and festivals as a requirement).
Specifically regarding clean and unclean meats
In regards to the Sabbath, I would suggest reading "Sabbath in Christ" by Dale Ratzlaff. It covers the covenants very well, and will clarify the thinking of "Lawkeepers" if they are truly open minded. Otherwise, it is fruitless to argue with such individuals and not a worthy investment of time.
To clarify the above remarks for those who may misinterpret them, I DO believe there is a moral law that is still applicable to the New Covenant Christian. The commandments of this moral law include all of the teachings of Scripture that apply to THEM, not the nation of Israel. SOME of the Mosaic Covenant reflected moral law, and a Christian who is empowered by the Holy Spirit can read the Torah with spiritual eyes and see the underlying spiritual and moral principles underneath the specific applications that God gave to ancient Israel, and these spiritual and moral principles can provide guidance to them. However, the specific applications no longer apply. And, many of the commandments were types and shadows that pointed to a spiritual reality, in many cases Jesus Christ and aspects of his work.
I will also note that eating unclean meats, Sabbath-breaking and festival non-observance was never mentioned in any of the sin lists to the Gentiles whatsoever, and no guidance was given to them on these laws. So, the assertion that they are still binding is without basis. If they were still binding, then we would have expected to see some instruction from Paul on observing these elements. Instead, we see nothing, even though every base sin which is much more obviously wrong is explained in detail in such lists.
Specifically related to the clean and unclean meat laws, I would suggest reading Mark 7 and also Romans 14. Mark 7 says there is nothing a person eats that defiles them..nothing..and Romans 14 says that Paul knew there was no food which was unclean. Romans was written to a mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles, so these differences of opinion would have been natural. Note also that the issue of observance days was also mentioned.
However, the main issue is that the Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect. It was like kindergarten level spirituality, meant to acquaint the Israelite with basic concepts about Christ in a simple manner so they would be prepared to identify and receive Him. When the Reality came, they lost much of their significance, except for their amazing prophetic value, and a strong reaffirmation of our faith.
As an additional note, I respect the efforts of any Christian to be diligent in obedience, even though I disagree with their understanding on these issues. Read Romans 14 in this regard. The real issue is when individuals treat others as unbelievers based on these issues, as I did when I was an Armstrongite. The person I am responding to used "brother' to describe me so that indicates he does not hold such a view. I honor a person who is serious about their obedience to God, even if I disagree on their understanding related to these topics. I have held the same position in the past, only I judged others as being unbelievers for non-observance (due to poor teaching and the exclusivist attitude of the organization I was involved with). In addition, their focus was not on Jesus Christ, but was on their peculiar teachings and looking at other Christians as unbelievers and ignorant. I find that's a real trap with many of these groups. One only needs to look at their videos on youtube to see that many of them are very prideful and divisive..and ironically their basis for pride is a shallow understanding of the underlying issues.
I also believe observance can have value in terms of a constant reminder of certain concepts, but they are not requirements of salvation. The big problem is that so many of the groups who observe these things are heretical in other core doctrines, such as denying the full deity of Jesus Christ, the Trinity doctrine, justification by faith alone, and the writings of Paul. I would not mind being a part of a fellowship which reaffirmed core doctrines and observed the Sabbath and festivals IF they were not judgmental, divisive, and had sound doctrine in other ways..but there is no such group that I know about. In addition, the resurrection is a key theme of Christianity and Sunday observance points to that.
Regarding historical arguments for the Sabbath, I'm already aware of those, and will simply state that Sabbathkeepers largely have a distorted view of Church history. By AD140, the vast majority of Christians were not Sabbathkeepers, even the Jewish Christians. The idea that the Roman Catholic Church or Constantine changed this is bogus, despite their vehement claims. Even the SDA historian Samuele Bacchiocchi, who studied this issue extensively, failed to find ANY connection with the alleged claims of Ellen G. White and the SDA church in this regard. These claims are constantly repeated by Sabbatarians and they have no basis in fact. I have outlined my understanding of the history regarding these events on other threads.
One last remark..Matt 5:17-19 is commonly sited to "prove" that the Mosaic Covenant (or the en Commandments) are still applicable. Firstly, the phrase "Law and Prophets" is definitely talking about the entire Torah, and not just the Ten Commandments. The phrase is commonly used to refer to the whole Old Testament writings. Secondly, if they are consistent, they need to claim that physical circumcision and animal sacrifices are still applicable, because the verses say "not one jot or tittle" will pass...whatever happened to the "jot and tittle" part if they interpret these verses consistently? The context of these verses is that Christ was speaking to Israelites, under the Mosaic Covenant, and he was convicting them of their sin and their need for Him. The Mosaic Covenant DID end when all things were fulfilled at his crucifixion...it was fulfilled. So appeals by "Lawkeepers" to these verses to prove continuance of these elements are bogus...usually they only focus on particular elements of their "cafeteria plan" Old Covenant anyways..for example they don't throw their wives and daughters out of their homes during their menstrual cycle to avoid their furniture becoming unclean.
I
Brother Sparkman, As i have rethought my response, i am thinking that it would be unfair to not respond to your thoughts on other issues as they are or maybe interrelated. I understand that you must make your case as a whole so allow me to respond to what you have written. Because of it's length i will have to submit it in three parts. It is still my desire to primarily focus on the topic of the unclean and come to a resolution that is bible based and honors our God.
Typically Lawkeepers claim that the Mosaic Covenant is still in effect, in full or in part, but specifically they are fixated on the Sabbath, festivals, and clean/unclean meat laws. Some extremely weird people claim physical circumcision is still required. These things are all "boundary markers" that were associated with the nation of Israel to identify themselves as God's chosen people, in a physical way that distinguished them from the neighboring Gentiles. They are part of the "wall of hostility" that God placed to accentuate their unique relationship, and this has been removed in Christ (Ephesians 2:13-16).
-- First of all, how is the "Mosaic Covenant" being defined? God's covenant with His people has never abrogated His Moral Law. Never. It exists in both the OT and the NT. God's grace is a power which He provides to His people, a power which changes their hearts and minds and impels them to keep His Moral Law---from the heart, because that is the kind of people they are becoming: like Christ.
The nation of Israel, in the OT, was the church of the day. God's Moral Law has never changed; not for Jew, not for Gentile, not for this covenant or that covenant, OT or NT. Morality is based on God's character, and He does not change.
The clean/unclean designation at Noah's time had to do with ceremonial uncleanness, not eating. Those animals were fit for sacrifice.
-- Why were they ceremonially unclean? Why were they not fit for sacrifice? We need to look a little deeper into the "why"---which comes out, later, when God gave permission to eat the clean animals for food and describes the unclean ones as 'abominable' for eating and sacrificing purposes.
Even if I'm wrong on that, God gave them all moving creatures for food after the Flood:
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
-- "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." -Genesis 9:3
How shall the word, "every", be interpreted in this text? Did God really give "every moving thing" to us for food? Or, was there a context which Noah understood right well? Does God give permission for cannibalism? No? Why not? Other human beings are certainly included in the phrase, "every moving thing", are they not?
Did God really give 'every green plant' for food? Or, again, was there a context which Noah understood? Again, how about the poisonous plants? Were they given for food? Do "new covenant" Christians want to eat such plants today, because, after all, they are 'not under the law'? No? Does the cross purify those plants for eating?
Regarding the assertion about the death penalty, failure to physically circumcise a child carried a death penalty as well..because it was a violation of the covenant sign of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 4). Remember that God was going to kill Moses at one point because Moses failed to circumcise his son. Using your reasoning consistently, you would need to say that physical circumcision is still required, and we know that it is not..in fact Galatians 5 says that if a person is physically circumcised for religious purposes they have fallen from grace (actually physical circumcision is a sign of coming under the Mosaic Covenant but this is a side topic).
-- The above statement denies the reality of the different categories of law, given by God to His people when they were a theocracy, a sovereign nation under Him. Religious circumcision was/is truly a religious ritual, a ceremony designed for the time before the cross. Before the cross. Paul is very clear on this, and, on the motives of Judaizers with whom he had to deal. Many ritual expressions were to cease at the cross...the realities of the Moral Law did not. As God lived, morality lived...and still does today.
Regarding Isaiah 66:15-17 note that the context is pagan worship, not eating specific meats. In addition, these marks must be viewed in light of Romans 14 and Mark 7. Romans 14 says that no food is unclean, and Mark 7 says nothing that a person eats defiles him. The parenthetical statement of Mark 7:19 also indicates that Christ cleansed all foods. I realize there are disputes regarding different manuscripts on this phrase, though, but Mark 7 clearly states that nothing a man eats defiles him.
--for the sake of our discussion let me agree, the context of Isaiah 66:15-17 is associated with pagan worship...which included the eating of unclean meat. That was a part of paganism. Pagans thought nothing of defiling their bodies, minds, and souls by eating things which were poisonous and unfit for consumption. We are what we eat. The Holy Spirit is repulsed by human beings stuffing garbage into their mouths as food or drink. Their spirits and souls are crippled and debilitated by such material, and Satan wins a victory.
Occultism defiles (Leviticus 19:31). Sexual wickedness defiles (Leviticus 18). Careless waste disposal defiles (Deuteronomy 23:13, 14). Infectious vectors and diseases defile (Leviticus 13:46). Eating things unfit for human consumption defiles (Leviticus 11:44, 5; Daniel 1:8). Sin defiles (Isaiah 59:3). All these things are elements which defile a human being.
"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. For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy." -Leviticus 11:44, 45
The prerequisites of holiness are as eternal as the God who is holy. Nothing has changed.
Later, the Mosaic Covenant defined some animals as unclean to Israelites. The Mosaic Covenant was an agreement between God and Israel, not God and the rest of mankind, which is an important point. Gentiles were never bound by the Mosaic Covenant, except for a small number who became so through joining the community.
-- These animals are unclean to human beings---of which Israel was a part. The rest of the world didn't care...but God intended that His people would care, and make the appropriate distinction in this area. The "Mosaic Covenant" was an agreement between God and those who would be His people, Jew or otherwise. It always was immoral for a Jew or a Gentile to commit murder. It still is. Unclean animals always were extra poisonous for human beings to eat...and they still are today. Scientific research has proven this to be fact.
Elements of the "Mosaic Covenant" have changed. Which elements? First, the ceremonial rituals of the temple and the sacrificial system have ceased, because of the cross. Second, the enforcement of civil laws by the church has ceased, because God's people ceased to be an independent, sovereign, theocratic nation a long time ago. Christians are still living under the jurisdiction of the "Roman Empire".
The Moral Laws have never changed. The health laws are simply good science, then and now. They should be researched.
The issue regarding the weekly Sabbath is a more complex discussion because many people ASSUME that the Ten Commandments is THE STANDARD for moral behavior. This is not true; God's holiness is God's standard, and it's best reflected in Jesus Christ. He was the fullest revelation of God's holiness. The Law is only a faint glimmer...and it included much that is not moral in nature anyways...the Law is full of shadows and types which are non-moral in nature. Shadows and types are physical reminders of spiritual realities. For example, physical circumcision pointed toward regeneration, and animal sacrifices pointed toward Christ's coming sacrifice.
The Ten Commandments is certainly the standard for moral behaviour. Without question. God's holiness is described, for human imitation, in the Decalogue. Trying to promote a conflict between the Moral Law and Holiness is a lost cause from the start, and is disingenuous. The Holy Spirit installs His power and presence within the believer, and this grace and love immediately impels the believer to keep the Moral Law, in thoughts, in feelings, and in actions.
"Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." -Romans 13:10
This "fulfilling" means observing, or, keeping. The Moral Law (10 Commandments) is descriptive of God's character of love. That will never, ever change. Love keeps the law!
And yes, Jesus kept the Moral Law and showed us how to do it...and, that it must be done. If it did not need to be kept, sin does not really exist, and the cross was unnecessary.
We must continue to make the distinction between the Moral Law, and the other auxiliary bodies of law. The Moral Law is no shadow.
The Sabbath and festivals pointed toward aspects of Christ's work and the fact that he is our spiritual rest ( Colossians 2:16-17, Matt 11:28-30, and Hebrews 4:9-10). Once the Reality came, the shadows and types lose their significance, as their prophetic value has been fulfilled.
The weekly Sabbath can be used as a metaphor for the rest Christ gives, yes. But that illustration does not nullify its literal Moral Law imperative. To make it do so is to use human imagination to develop doctrine, not God's Word. When the Reality came, the shadows and types ceased, yes. No element of the Moral Law is a shadow or type to cease at the cross.
Most Christians assume that the Ten Commandments in their entirety are still valid while the rest of the Mosaic Covenant is not. The truth is that the Ten Commandments were (basically) a summary of the Mosaic Covenant.
The Ten Commandments are the Moral summary, yes. And the morality they enjoin is reality today, as much as it ever has been. Not all elements of the other bodies of law are invalid. Christians assuming things is unnecessary and problematic.
There were other things involved in the Book of the Covenant, such as laws regarding sacrifice and civil laws, that are not easily related to one of the Ten Commandments, but in essence the Ten Commandments are a summary of the Old Covenant. In other words, there are not two separate laws....there is one Torah and the Ten Commandments are the summary and the "Book of the Covenant" are the details or elaborations.
-- This statement fails to realize how the Moral Law is applied in various circumstances. Applications in various circumstances may change, but the foundational morality does not change.
The Ten Commandments existed before Moses and Hebrews ever existed, as surely as God lives and good and evil are a reality.
And, the Mosaic Covenant, INCLUDING the Ten Commandments, are not in effect as a whole.
-- False. The Ten Commandments are a complete moral statement (singular), and are as binding on human beings today as they were in ages past.
James, speaking of the "royal" Moral Law, in the NT, says it very clearly: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." -James 2:10
Obviously any MORAL elements within the Mosaic Covenant reflect God's holiness, which is the pursuit of all true believers, but the Mosaic Covenant is not in effect. I will point the reader to Acts 15, II Corinthians 3, Galatians 3-4, Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 7:1-7 and Hebrews 8-9. READ THESE VERSES CAREFULLY. Note the references to being "written in stone" and the "tablets". The references to being "written on stone" or "tablets" is referring to the Ten Commandments, which is talking about the Ten Commandments, that are emblematic of the whole covenant itself. Also read the book "Treaty of the Great King" by Meredith Kline on this issue. He lays out the structure of the Mosaic Covenant, which was similar to the structure of other Near East treaties involving a conquering nation and its agreement relating to ruling over the conquered nation over it.
-- The Decalogue is the moral raison d'etre of the whole Mosaic law, of course. However, the Bible is clear that certain parts of the Mosaic law were temporary, as ceremonies, rituals, symbols, shadows, and types. The Moral Law, written on stone instead of clay or leather or paper, was shown to be a permanent structure of reality for all.
--Acts 15: The question of continuing ceremonial-law observances (circumcision) are here under consideration, as well as health law (eating of blood), and, Moral Law---sexual sin and acts perceived by the public as honoring an idol. The ceremonial law is declined, the health law is upheld, and the Moral Law is upheld.
--2 Corinthians 3: The ministration of the Spirit and the Moral Law are not in conflict. The ultimate and inevitable consequence of breaking God's Moral Law was---and still is---death. That has never changed, and will never change, for anyone. What contrast is Paul talking about? 1) Attempting to keep the Moral Law in merely human strength, and failing, earning the penalty of death, vs. 2) being empowered by the Spirit and grace of God, Who will keep the Moral Law in His people---as they freely choose to cooperate with Him.
The Moral Law cannot give power to a human being to keep it. It can only describe reality, and, the penalty for breaking its fundamental rules. It is 'a letter which kills'. But, the power of the Spirit gives life---because through the Spirit's power human beings, as the angels of Heaven, become Law-keepers, successfully, with the power of God possessing them.
--Galatians 3-4: Here, Paul is addressing two mistakes concerning "law". First, the false teaching that law-keeping, itself, saves from sin and earns salvation---salvation by works (Galatians 3:2, 11, 12). Second, he is addressing the falsehoods taught by Judaizers, who were always trying to obligate the Christian church members to the observance of ceremonial/ritual laws---negated by the cross (Galatians 3:19; 4:3, 9, 10). Nothing is said about nullifying the legitimacy of the Moral Law...only about abusing the Law by attributing to its observance a function it cannot fulfill.
Typically Lawkeepers claim that the Mosaic Covenant is still in effect, in full or in part, but specifically they are fixated on the Sabbath, festivals, and clean/unclean meat laws. Some extremely weird people claim physical circumcision is still required. These things are all "boundary markers" that were associated with the nation of Israel to identify themselves as God's chosen people, in a physical way that distinguished them from the neighboring Gentiles. They are part of the "wall of hostility" that God placed to accentuate their unique relationship, and this has been removed in Christ (Ephesians 2:13-16).
-- First of all, how is the "Mosaic Covenant" being defined? God's covenant with His people has never abrogated His Moral Law. Never. It exists in both the OT and the NT. God's grace is a power which He provides to His people, a power which changes their hearts and minds and impels them to keep His Moral Law---from the heart, because that is the kind of people they are becoming: like Christ.
The nation of Israel, in the OT, was the church of the day. God's Moral Law has never changed; not for Jew, not for Gentile, not for this covenant or that covenant, OT or NT. Morality is based on God's character, and He does not change.
The clean/unclean designation at Noah's time had to do with ceremonial uncleanness, not eating. Those animals were fit for sacrifice.
-- Why were they ceremonially unclean? Why were they not fit for sacrifice? We need to look a little deeper into the "why"---which comes out, later, when God gave permission to eat the clean animals for food and describes the unclean ones as 'abominable' for eating and sacrificing purposes.
Even if I'm wrong on that, God gave them all moving creatures for food after the Flood:
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
-- "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." -Genesis 9:3
How shall the word, "every", be interpreted in this text? Did God really give "every moving thing" to us for food? Or, was there a context which Noah understood right well? Does God give permission for cannibalism? No? Why not? Other human beings are certainly included in the phrase, "every moving thing", are they not?
Did God really give 'every green plant' for food? Or, again, was there a context which Noah understood? Again, how about the poisonous plants? Were they given for food? Do "new covenant" Christians want to eat such plants today, because, after all, they are 'not under the law'? No? Does the cross purify those plants for eating?
Regarding the assertion about the death penalty, failure to physically circumcise a child carried a death penalty as well..because it was a violation of the covenant sign of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 4). Remember that God was going to kill Moses at one point because Moses failed to circumcise his son. Using your reasoning consistently, you would need to say that physical circumcision is still required, and we know that it is not..in fact Galatians 5 says that if a person is physically circumcised for religious purposes they have fallen from grace (actually physical circumcision is a sign of coming under the Mosaic Covenant but this is a side topic).
-- The above statement denies the reality of the different categories of law, given by God to His people when they were a theocracy, a sovereign nation under Him. Religious circumcision was/is truly a religious ritual, a ceremony designed for the time before the cross. Before the cross. Paul is very clear on this, and, on the motives of Judaizers with whom he had to deal. Many ritual expressions were to cease at the cross...the realities of the Moral Law did not. As God lived, morality lived...and still does today.
Regarding Isaiah 66:15-17 note that the context is pagan worship, not eating specific meats. In addition, these marks must be viewed in light of Romans 14 and Mark 7. Romans 14 says that no food is unclean, and Mark 7 says nothing that a person eats defiles him. The parenthetical statement of Mark 7:19 also indicates that Christ cleansed all foods. I realize there are disputes regarding different manuscripts on this phrase, though, but Mark 7 clearly states that nothing a man eats defiles him.
--for the sake of our discussion let me agree, the context of Isaiah 66:15-17 is associated with pagan worship...which included the eating of unclean meat. That was a part of paganism. Pagans thought nothing of defiling their bodies, minds, and souls by eating things which were poisonous and unfit for consumption. We are what we eat. The Holy Spirit is repulsed by human beings stuffing garbage into their mouths as food or drink. Their spirits and souls are crippled and debilitated by such material, and Satan wins a victory.
Occultism defiles (Leviticus 19:31). Sexual wickedness defiles (Leviticus 18). Careless waste disposal defiles (Deuteronomy 23:13, 14). Infectious vectors and diseases defile (Leviticus 13:46). Eating things unfit for human consumption defiles (Leviticus 11:44, 5; Daniel 1:8). Sin defiles (Isaiah 59:3). All these things are elements which defile a human being.
"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. For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy." -Leviticus 11:44, 45
The prerequisites of holiness are as eternal as the God who is holy. Nothing has changed.
Later, the Mosaic Covenant defined some animals as unclean to Israelites. The Mosaic Covenant was an agreement between God and Israel, not God and the rest of mankind, which is an important point. Gentiles were never bound by the Mosaic Covenant, except for a small number who became so through joining the community.
-- These animals are unclean to human beings---of which Israel was a part. The rest of the world didn't care...but God intended that His people would care, and make the appropriate distinction in this area. The "Mosaic Covenant" was an agreement between God and those who would be His people, Jew or otherwise. It always was immoral for a Jew or a Gentile to commit murder. It still is. Unclean animals always were extra poisonous for human beings to eat...and they still are today. Scientific research has proven this to be fact.
Elements of the "Mosaic Covenant" have changed. Which elements? First, the ceremonial rituals of the temple and the sacrificial system have ceased, because of the cross. Second, the enforcement of civil laws by the church has ceased, because God's people ceased to be an independent, sovereign, theocratic nation a long time ago. Christians are still living under the jurisdiction of the "Roman Empire".
The Moral Laws have never changed. The health laws are simply good science, then and now. They should be researched.
The issue regarding the weekly Sabbath is a more complex discussion because many people ASSUME that the Ten Commandments is THE STANDARD for moral behavior. This is not true; God's holiness is God's standard, and it's best reflected in Jesus Christ. He was the fullest revelation of God's holiness. The Law is only a faint glimmer...and it included much that is not moral in nature anyways...the Law is full of shadows and types which are non-moral in nature. Shadows and types are physical reminders of spiritual realities. For example, physical circumcision pointed toward regeneration, and animal sacrifices pointed toward Christ's coming sacrifice.
The Ten Commandments is certainly the standard for moral behaviour. Without question. God's holiness is described, for human imitation, in the Decalogue. Trying to promote a conflict between the Moral Law and Holiness is a lost cause from the start, and is disingenuous. The Holy Spirit installs His power and presence within the believer, and this grace and love immediately impels the believer to keep the Moral Law, in thoughts, in feelings, and in actions.
"Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." -Romans 13:10
This "fulfilling" means observing, or, keeping. The Moral Law (10 Commandments) is descriptive of God's character of love. That will never, ever change. Love keeps the law!
And yes, Jesus kept the Moral Law and showed us how to do it...and, that it must be done. If it did not need to be kept, sin does not really exist, and the cross was unnecessary.
We must continue to make the distinction between the Moral Law, and the other auxiliary bodies of law. The Moral Law is no shadow.
The Sabbath and festivals pointed toward aspects of Christ's work and the fact that he is our spiritual rest ( Colossians 2:16-17, Matt 11:28-30, and Hebrews 4:9-10). Once the Reality came, the shadows and types lose their significance, as their prophetic value has been fulfilled.
The weekly Sabbath can be used as a metaphor for the rest Christ gives, yes. But that illustration does not nullify its literal Moral Law imperative. To make it do so is to use human imagination to develop doctrine, not God's Word. When the Reality came, the shadows and types ceased, yes. No element of the Moral Law is a shadow or type to cease at the cross.
Most Christians assume that the Ten Commandments in their entirety are still valid while the rest of the Mosaic Covenant is not. The truth is that the Ten Commandments were (basically) a summary of the Mosaic Covenant.
The Ten Commandments are the Moral summary, yes. And the morality they enjoin is reality today, as much as it ever has been. Not all elements of the other bodies of law are invalid. Christians assuming things is unnecessary and problematic.
There were other things involved in the Book of the Covenant, such as laws regarding sacrifice and civil laws, that are not easily related to one of the Ten Commandments, but in essence the Ten Commandments are a summary of the Old Covenant. In other words, there are not two separate laws....there is one Torah and the Ten Commandments are the summary and the "Book of the Covenant" are the details or elaborations.
-- This statement fails to realize how the Moral Law is applied in various circumstances. Applications in various circumstances may change, but the foundational morality does not change.
The Ten Commandments existed before Moses and Hebrews ever existed, as surely as God lives and good and evil are a reality.
And, the Mosaic Covenant, INCLUDING the Ten Commandments, are not in effect as a whole.
-- False. The Ten Commandments are a complete moral statement (singular), and are as binding on human beings today as they were in ages past.
James, speaking of the "royal" Moral Law, in the NT, says it very clearly: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." -James 2:10
Obviously any MORAL elements within the Mosaic Covenant reflect God's holiness, which is the pursuit of all true believers, but the Mosaic Covenant is not in effect. I will point the reader to Acts 15, II Corinthians 3, Galatians 3-4, Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 7:1-7 and Hebrews 8-9. READ THESE VERSES CAREFULLY. Note the references to being "written in stone" and the "tablets". The references to being "written on stone" or "tablets" is referring to the Ten Commandments, which is talking about the Ten Commandments, that are emblematic of the whole covenant itself. Also read the book "Treaty of the Great King" by Meredith Kline on this issue. He lays out the structure of the Mosaic Covenant, which was similar to the structure of other Near East treaties involving a conquering nation and its agreement relating to ruling over the conquered nation over it.
-- The Decalogue is the moral raison d'etre of the whole Mosaic law, of course. However, the Bible is clear that certain parts of the Mosaic law were temporary, as ceremonies, rituals, symbols, shadows, and types. The Moral Law, written on stone instead of clay or leather or paper, was shown to be a permanent structure of reality for all.
--Acts 15: The question of continuing ceremonial-law observances (circumcision) are here under consideration, as well as health law (eating of blood), and, Moral Law---sexual sin and acts perceived by the public as honoring an idol. The ceremonial law is declined, the health law is upheld, and the Moral Law is upheld.
--2 Corinthians 3: The ministration of the Spirit and the Moral Law are not in conflict. The ultimate and inevitable consequence of breaking God's Moral Law was---and still is---death. That has never changed, and will never change, for anyone. What contrast is Paul talking about? 1) Attempting to keep the Moral Law in merely human strength, and failing, earning the penalty of death, vs. 2) being empowered by the Spirit and grace of God, Who will keep the Moral Law in His people---as they freely choose to cooperate with Him.
The Moral Law cannot give power to a human being to keep it. It can only describe reality, and, the penalty for breaking its fundamental rules. It is 'a letter which kills'. But, the power of the Spirit gives life---because through the Spirit's power human beings, as the angels of Heaven, become Law-keepers, successfully, with the power of God possessing them.
--Galatians 3-4: Here, Paul is addressing two mistakes concerning "law". First, the false teaching that law-keeping, itself, saves from sin and earns salvation---salvation by works (Galatians 3:2, 11, 12). Second, he is addressing the falsehoods taught by Judaizers, who were always trying to obligate the Christian church members to the observance of ceremonial/ritual laws---negated by the cross (Galatians 3:19; 4:3, 9, 10). Nothing is said about nullifying the legitimacy of the Moral Law...only about abusing the Law by attributing to its observance a function it cannot fulfill.
I
--Ephesians 2:8-10: Exactly so. We are saved by grace through faith, and it is the gift of God. What does that grace produce in the one who receives it? Morality, or, immorality? Paul is quite clear in what he teaches: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." -Romans 3:31
The Moral Law is unchangeable, and it is kept by the power of God's grace, through faith. Keeping it earns nothing for the sinner. But as the sinner beholds Christ, and receives His Spirit, he is changed into Christ's likeness...and Christ keeps His own Law.
--Romans 7:1-7: Here, again, Paul is speaking about spiritually dead people trying to keep God's spiritual, Moral Law, trying to become deserving of forgiveness and salvation---while remaining spiritually dead. It doesn't happen. Spiritually dead people cannot keep the Moral Law. It isn't possible. All that happens is that they sin, breaking the Law continually with their hearts, minds, and hands.
And the Moral Law has only one thing to say to such folks: they are as good as dead. They will reap what they have sown, for "the wages of sin is death". Romans 6:23.
But, the body of Christ delivers us from 'dead works', which cannot help us in any way, and He provides us the Spirit and His grace, by which the Law is planted in the Christian's heart and mind, renewing him, converting him, saving him/her from sin and its penalty, and from sinning...."...that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." -Romans 7:6
Nothing there about nullifying the proper function and place of the Ten Commandments. Jesus said, "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." -John 4:24
--Hebrews 8-9: What was the fault of the 'old covenant'? First, the blood shed was only symbolic. It did not have any real power to forgive sin or save the sinner. The better promise was Christ's blood, blood which could really forgive and cleanse the believer from guilt and sin. Second, the OT church defaulted into 'salvation-by-works' theology, something which God never instituted, nor taught, for Jew or Gentile. God's plan was to put His Moral Law in the hearts and minds of His people---changing them from the inside into Holy Spirit-filled Lawkeepers...as His children were always designed to be, from Creation. Deuteronomy 5:29.
Paul is here teaching the finer points of the change-over from the ceremonial services and rituals to the Christian era, where the symbols are discarded for the realities, and shadows give place to the substance. There is no negation of the Moral Law and its importance. The Moral Law does not provide power...but it is not negated because of that.
"Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." -Galatians 3:21
Besides the fact that the Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect, the Sabbath is explicitly associated with shadows and types of the Old Covenant in Colossians 2:16-17.
-- Paul's point, here, is not that the weekly Sabbath is not in effect. His concern is that Judaizers are laying man-made burdens and false theology on the Christian believers. Judaizers were continually advocating circumcision as necessary for Christians to be saved, the annual OT feast days, and how to eat/not eat, drink/not drink at those times---including upon the 7th day Sabbath. Judaizers were loading the weekly Sabbath down with false burdens and theological inventions---just like the ideas Jesus had to deal with so often from the Pharisees.
"...why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using) after the commandments and doctrines of men?" -Colossians 2:20-22
In the very next chapter, Chapter 3, Paul encourages the Christians to remain spiritually alive and connected to Jesus---and to have the fruits of Divine grace...Moral Law keeping (Colossians 3:5-10, 12-15)
Compare these verses with Hebrews 10:1-2 and Hebrews 9:9-11. A comparison of Colossians 2:16-17 and Hebrews 10:1-2 is very useful because the Sabbath is called "shadow of things to come" in the first set of verses, and the elements of the Mosaic Covenant, including animal sacrifices, is called the same thing. A comparison of Colossians 2:16-17 and Hebrews 9:9-11 shows that "food and drink", which refers to food and drink offerings of the Mosaic Covenant (Numbers 28:6-7), which were things imposed until the "times of reformation" (v. 10) which is defined in v. 11 as being "when Christ appeared".
-- The 7the day Sabbath was/is a 'shadow of things to come'...in the sense that it can be used as an illustration for the salvation-rest the true believer has in Christ. The realities of salvation in Christ relieve the understanding believer of the mistaken and fearful burden of trying to earn God's forgiveness/salvation with 'good works'. The grace of God is a powerful gift given to the believer by which the supernatural change is made in him, and he becomes 'born-again', freed from breaking the law and sinning---as long as the connection of grace is maintained, on his side, by his freely made choices.
By the way, Seventh Day Adventists try to exclude the weekly Sabbath from these verses, but it is evident that the weekly Sabbath is included. The word "sabbaton" used for Sabbaths has a weekly context..in fact, the word is translated "week" in some cases..for instance "mia ton Sabbaton" in Greek is the same as saying Monday..it is basically "first of week"...the first day of the week. In addition, the progression is from festivals (seasonal), New Moons (monthly), and Sabbaths (weekly). This progression is used in other places in the Old Testament text, either in ascending or descending order. Their attempts to take the weekly Sabbath out of these verses are futile and rather comical, as they know it would mean the end of their main doctrinal emphasis and their organization as a whole.
-- This is a good point, and deserves our attention. I believe the context of the chapter reveals Paul's true concern, and why he mentions the 7th day Sabbath in his list. He was not declaring the Sabbath a nullified part of the ceremonial law; he was denouncing the abuses of all law that Judaizers were committing as they made continual raids upon the Christians, trying to deceive and dominate them with falsehoods from every angle.
So, explicitly Sabbath keeping is no longer required under the New Covenant..it was part of the "boundary markers" of the Mosaic Covenant which distinguished Israelites from Gentiles.
-- That is not what the Bible teaches. The Moral Law is what distinguishes God's people from Lucifer's people, in any age. The Moral Law is the foundation of God's throne and government throughout the Universe. It is an eternal, universal 'boundary marker' between those who choose to obey God, and those who choose to disobey Him. The 4th Commandment is right in the center of that Law---and it says we are not to forget it! Our relationship with our Creator---with which the 4th Commandment is concerned---is of the utmost importance. It is to be remembered by those wishing to belong to God.
"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." -Revelation 22:14
Jewish Christians continued to keep elements of the Mosaic Covenant, even including physical circumcision, as a matter of preference even after the crucifixion, when the New Covenant came into effect. A common appeal is that such incidences prove that Christians must keep the Sabbath or festivals, but thisis bogus because Jewish Christians kept these things as a matter of preference in the early Church (and by the way, some of the "Gentile" churches had a population of Jewish believers in them because Jews lived outside of Palestine..this is part of the poor reasoning that the Armstrongites employ to convince people that the early church, Jew and Gentile, kept the Sabbaths and festivals as a requirement).
-- This is a mixture of truth and error. The truth: Yes, Jewish Christians had a difficult time understanding how to separate from religious rituals and customs which had become useless, types which had met anti-types in Jesus Christ. They did not move ahead as fast as God wanted them to move. This caused much confusion at times, and Satan seized the opportunity to try to deceive people, of course. The error: The weekly Sabbath is not in the ceremonial category with the annual feast days. This fact is not difficult to see. However, many like to mis-categorize the 7th day Sabbath as a ceremonial sabbath in order to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'.
Specifically regarding clean and unclean meats
In regards to the Sabbath, I would suggest reading "Sabbath in Christ" by Dale Ratzlaff. It covers the covenants very well, and will clarify the thinking of "Lawkeepers" if they are truly open minded. Otherwise, it is fruitless to argue with such individuals and not a worthy investment of time.
-- Mr. Ratzlaff is not a trustworthy source of theological understanding.
To clarify the above remarks for those who may misinterpret them, I DO believe there is a moral law that is still applicable to the New Covenant Christian. The commandments of this moral law include all of the teachings of Scripture that apply to THEM, not the nation of Israel. SOME of the Mosaic Covenant reflected moral law, and a Christian who is empowered by the Holy Spirit can read the Torah with spiritual eyes and see the underlying spiritual and moral principles underneath the specific applications that God gave to ancient Israel, and these spiritual and moral principles can provide guidance to them. However, the specific applications no longer apply. And, many of the commandments were types and shadows that pointed to a spiritual reality, in many cases Jesus Christ and aspects of his work.
-- This statement certainly demonstrates the confusion antinomianism creates in the Christian world. This statement would give to the human being the prerogative of 'picking-and-choosing' whatever they would like of God's law to keep, and abandoning the rest---based on their personal impressions. This is actually an occult attitude toward God's authority. It is very serious.
How is it, Sparkman that in your statement above, you not comprehend the "spiritual and moral principles" of the Ten Commandments? How do you not comprehend that they apply to you with all the force and obligation God's Word can convey? Why do you insist on confusing the Moral Law with types and shadows?
I will also note that eating unclean meats, Sabbath-breaking and festival non-observance was never mentioned in any of the sin lists to the Gentiles whatsoever, and no guidance was given to them on these laws. So, the assertion that they are still binding is without basis. If they were still binding, then we would have expected to see some instruction from Paul on observing these elements. Instead, we see nothing, even though every base sin which is much more obviously wrong is explained in detail in such lists.
-- The Apostles rarely needed to deal with problems concerning clean/unclean meats, Sabbath-breaking, and annual OT festivals because the truth on these subjects was widely known and accepted---until Judaizers made trouble, of course. To assume that a lack of material indicates the negation of these truths is just that---an assumption.
It is important to note that some of the laws God gave to Israel were directed, specifically, at certain practices the Gentiles were committing---and that God called those things defiling abominations, not just for the Jews, but for the Gentiles, too:
"Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things, for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you; and the land is defiled, therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants." -Leviticus 18:24, 25
"And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them." -Leviticus 20:23
The 7th day Sabbath is not an "element". Let us not ignore the context and violate Paul's meaning. What are the "elements" Paul is referring to? "(Touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using
after the commandments and doctrines of men?" -Colossians 2:21, 22 The "elements" Paul is mentioning concern ceremonial observations regarding food, drink, and "touch". Judaizers were attempting to obligate Christians with so-called "important" requirements concerning rituals involving these physical things, "elements". Verse 16 further supports that fact; annual feast days, new moons, and how they treated the weekly Sabbath were all the tools of Judaizers, intent on deceiving the Christians and taking control of the churches, negating Paul's work of the Gospel.
I
Specifically related to the clean and unclean meat laws, I would suggest reading Mark 7 and also Romans 14. Mark 7 says there is nothing a person eats that defiles them..nothing..and Romans 14 says that Paul knew there was no food which was unclean. Romans was written to a mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles, so these differences of opinion would have been natural. Note also that the issue of observance days was also mentioned.
--Mark 7: The statement above describes the usual misunderstanding. Does consuming methamphetamines defile a person? Or, is Jesus declaring that this poisonous drug is "clean" and suitable for human consumption? The subject of Jesus' discussion has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the topic of clean/unclean meat. It is not the subject of the Pharisees' concern, either.
What is the context? The Pharisees are complaining that the disciples are not observing all their hand-washing requirements before eating. They seem very concerned about this matter...and Jesus takes the opportunity to warn them of their great hypocrisy: worried over washed hands, but not concerned with the evil and suffering they promote out of a wicked heart which negates God's Moral Law with man-made laws.
Jesus then states that if someone eats food with dirty hands they are not defiled...it all comes out in the toilet---the food and dirt are purged from the body. But, the spiritual evil which comes out of a wicked heart is much more concerning...yet, the Pharisees seemed oblivious to this fact in their enthusiasm for their additional rituals and rules.
There is absolutely nothing in this reference stating that all meats are clean and healthy to eat. Nothing. If there had been, the Pharisees would have been all over Jesus accusing Him of defying Moses. And there is not a peep from them on the subject. They knew that clean/unclean meats was not the discussion they were having. It behooves Christians to understand the same fact.
--Romans 14: Again, the context is being ignored and Paul's point is missed. His topic has nothing to do with God's distinction between clean/unclean meat for human consumption. What is Paul's conversation about?
------the difference between meat-eating and vegetarianism amongst Christians, either as a permanent diet, or, as a feature of a special time/observance.
------days of fasting: some Christians were, some were not.
------eating meat blessed by/offered to pagan idols. Paul knew it meant nothing, in reality; however, some Christians of weaker faith would be quite offended to see Paul eating a beef steak which he had purchased from the worshipper of the goddess Diana, down the street. They would consider the meat "unclean" because it was offered to an idol. They would understand that eating it was giving worship to the idol, not as being inconsequential, as it was in scientific reality.
This is the manner of 'uncleanness' Paul is speaking of in this reference. He was not declaring God's Word on the matter of clean/unclean animals null and void.
Read 1 Corinthians 8 to hear Paul explain himself in his own words.
However, the main issue is that the Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect. It was like kindergarten level spirituality, meant to acquaint the Israelite with basic concepts about Christ in a simple manner so they would be prepared to identify and receive Him. When the Reality came, they lost much of their significance, except for their amazing prophetic value, and a strong reaffirmation of our faith.
-- True...however, the Ten Commandments are not subject to times and places. They are immutable facts applicable to all men, and all angels, and all beings throughout the Universe. The Moral Law of Love is universal and timeless. But, yes, God gave extra explanations of applications to OT Israel, as they were dark of mind and understanding. They were carried on His wings like children.
As an additional note, I respect the efforts of any Christian to be diligent in obedience, even though I disagree with their understanding on these issues. Read Romans 14 in this regard. The real issue is when individuals treat others as unbelievers based on these issues, as I did when I was an Armstrongite. The person I am responding to used "brother' to describe me so that indicates he does not hold such a view. I honor a person who is serious about their obedience to God, even if I disagree on their understanding related to these topics. I have held the same position in the past, only I judged others as being unbelievers for non-observance (due to poor teaching and the exclusivist attitude of the organization I was involved with). In addition, their focus was not on Jesus Christ, but was on their peculiar teachings and looking at other Christians as unbelievers and ignorant. I find that's a real trap with many of these groups. One only needs to look at their videos on youtube to see that many of them are very prideful and divisive..and ironically their basis for pride is a shallow understanding of the underlying issues.
-- Whether one is a genuine believer or an actual unbeliever depends on the choices they make, not necessarily the claims they make. Talk can be cheap. Antinomianism is occult heresy, however much its proponents may claim to be Christian believers. The devils believe, and tremble. James 2:19.
I also believe observance can have value in terms of a constant reminder of certain concepts, but they are not requirements of salvation. The big problem is that so many of the groups who observe these things are heretical in other core doctrines, such as denying the full deity of Jesus Christ, the Trinity doctrine, justification by faith alone, and the writings of Paul. I would not mind being a part of a fellowship which reaffirmed core doctrines and observed the Sabbath and festivals IF they were not judgmental, divisive, and had sound doctrine in other ways..but there is no such group that I know about. In addition, the resurrection is a key theme of Christianity and Sunday observance points to that.
Why would we recommend a mixture of sound doctrine and the commandments of men? Isn't this what the Pharisees did? How did Jesus regard their attitude toward God and His Word? Yes, the Christian world is overflowing with heresies and apostasy. This comes from mixing truth and error together. The solution is not to mix more truth and error together...it is to seek only pure truth.
Regarding historical arguments for the Sabbath, I'm already aware of those, and will simply state that Sabbathkeepers largely have a distorted view of Church history. By AD140, the vast majority of Christians were not Sabbathkeepers, even the Jewish Christians. The idea that the Roman Catholic Church or Constantine changed this is bogus, despite their vehement claims. Even the SDA historian Samuele Bacchiocchi, who studied this issue extensively, failed to find ANY connection with the alleged claims of Ellen G. White and the SDA church in this regard. These claims are constantly repeated by Sabbatarians and they have no basis in fact. I have outlined my understanding of the history regarding these events on other threads.
-- This is opinion and interpretation based on selected information. Bacchiocchi is not a trustworthy source of theological understanding.
One last remark..Matt 5:17-19 is commonly sited to "prove" that the Mosaic Covenant (or the en Commandments) are still applicable. Firstly, the phrase "Law and Prophets" is definitely talking about the entire Torah, and not just the Ten Commandments. The phrase is commonly used to refer to the whole Old Testament writings.
-- True enough...
Secondly, if they are consistent, they need to claim that physical circumcision and animal sacrifices are still applicable, because the verses say "not one jot or tittle" will pass...whatever happened to the "jot and tittle" part if they interpret these verses consistently? The context of these verses is that Christ was speaking to Israelites, under the Mosaic Covenant, and he was convicting them of their sin and their need for Him. The Mosaic Covenant DID end when all things were fulfilled at his crucifixion...it was fulfilled. So appeals by "Lawkeepers" to these verses to prove continuance of these elements are bogus...usually they only focus on particular elements of their "cafeteria plan" Old Covenant anyways..for example they don't throw their wives and daughters out of their homes during their menstrual cycle to avoid their furniture becoming unclean.
Again, Sparkman you do not want to distinguish between ceremonial and moral bodies of law. The symbols and types pointing to Jesus were, indeed, fulfilled by Him, and the observance of those rites and ceremonies was to cease at the cross. Jesus "fulfilled" the Moral Law, however, by obeying it, and never breaking it. He kept it. That Jesus was including the Moral Law in His comments is obvious by the context---He speaks of murder and adultery.
If we are to adopt the antinomian position of the author of these statements, we can conclude that the Ten Commandments were "Mosaic Covenant", "ceremonial law", and, therefore, are not obligatory on Christians---nor the world, for that matter. Then we may also conclude that Christians may freely murder and commit adultery and steal, etc. Either the Moral Law is in effect, or, it is not.
The Holy Spirit, who inspires Christians with God's grace and love, inspires them to give free, heart-true obedience to God's Moral Law, the Law of Love. The Spirit and the Law agree. The Spirit re-makes and conforms the willing, surrendered Christian believer into the likeness of God---and God is love.
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deuteronomy 6:5
"And Jesus answered him, 'The first of all the commandments is, "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength." This is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." There is none other commandment greater than these." -Mark 12:29-31
And such are the Ten Commandments---including the 4th. The Moral Law of Love, for God and our neighbor.
--Mark 7: The statement above describes the usual misunderstanding. Does consuming methamphetamines defile a person? Or, is Jesus declaring that this poisonous drug is "clean" and suitable for human consumption? The subject of Jesus' discussion has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the topic of clean/unclean meat. It is not the subject of the Pharisees' concern, either.
What is the context? The Pharisees are complaining that the disciples are not observing all their hand-washing requirements before eating. They seem very concerned about this matter...and Jesus takes the opportunity to warn them of their great hypocrisy: worried over washed hands, but not concerned with the evil and suffering they promote out of a wicked heart which negates God's Moral Law with man-made laws.
Jesus then states that if someone eats food with dirty hands they are not defiled...it all comes out in the toilet---the food and dirt are purged from the body. But, the spiritual evil which comes out of a wicked heart is much more concerning...yet, the Pharisees seemed oblivious to this fact in their enthusiasm for their additional rituals and rules.
There is absolutely nothing in this reference stating that all meats are clean and healthy to eat. Nothing. If there had been, the Pharisees would have been all over Jesus accusing Him of defying Moses. And there is not a peep from them on the subject. They knew that clean/unclean meats was not the discussion they were having. It behooves Christians to understand the same fact.
--Romans 14: Again, the context is being ignored and Paul's point is missed. His topic has nothing to do with God's distinction between clean/unclean meat for human consumption. What is Paul's conversation about?
------the difference between meat-eating and vegetarianism amongst Christians, either as a permanent diet, or, as a feature of a special time/observance.
------days of fasting: some Christians were, some were not.
------eating meat blessed by/offered to pagan idols. Paul knew it meant nothing, in reality; however, some Christians of weaker faith would be quite offended to see Paul eating a beef steak which he had purchased from the worshipper of the goddess Diana, down the street. They would consider the meat "unclean" because it was offered to an idol. They would understand that eating it was giving worship to the idol, not as being inconsequential, as it was in scientific reality.
This is the manner of 'uncleanness' Paul is speaking of in this reference. He was not declaring God's Word on the matter of clean/unclean animals null and void.
Read 1 Corinthians 8 to hear Paul explain himself in his own words.
However, the main issue is that the Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect. It was like kindergarten level spirituality, meant to acquaint the Israelite with basic concepts about Christ in a simple manner so they would be prepared to identify and receive Him. When the Reality came, they lost much of their significance, except for their amazing prophetic value, and a strong reaffirmation of our faith.
-- True...however, the Ten Commandments are not subject to times and places. They are immutable facts applicable to all men, and all angels, and all beings throughout the Universe. The Moral Law of Love is universal and timeless. But, yes, God gave extra explanations of applications to OT Israel, as they were dark of mind and understanding. They were carried on His wings like children.
As an additional note, I respect the efforts of any Christian to be diligent in obedience, even though I disagree with their understanding on these issues. Read Romans 14 in this regard. The real issue is when individuals treat others as unbelievers based on these issues, as I did when I was an Armstrongite. The person I am responding to used "brother' to describe me so that indicates he does not hold such a view. I honor a person who is serious about their obedience to God, even if I disagree on their understanding related to these topics. I have held the same position in the past, only I judged others as being unbelievers for non-observance (due to poor teaching and the exclusivist attitude of the organization I was involved with). In addition, their focus was not on Jesus Christ, but was on their peculiar teachings and looking at other Christians as unbelievers and ignorant. I find that's a real trap with many of these groups. One only needs to look at their videos on youtube to see that many of them are very prideful and divisive..and ironically their basis for pride is a shallow understanding of the underlying issues.
-- Whether one is a genuine believer or an actual unbeliever depends on the choices they make, not necessarily the claims they make. Talk can be cheap. Antinomianism is occult heresy, however much its proponents may claim to be Christian believers. The devils believe, and tremble. James 2:19.
I also believe observance can have value in terms of a constant reminder of certain concepts, but they are not requirements of salvation. The big problem is that so many of the groups who observe these things are heretical in other core doctrines, such as denying the full deity of Jesus Christ, the Trinity doctrine, justification by faith alone, and the writings of Paul. I would not mind being a part of a fellowship which reaffirmed core doctrines and observed the Sabbath and festivals IF they were not judgmental, divisive, and had sound doctrine in other ways..but there is no such group that I know about. In addition, the resurrection is a key theme of Christianity and Sunday observance points to that.
Why would we recommend a mixture of sound doctrine and the commandments of men? Isn't this what the Pharisees did? How did Jesus regard their attitude toward God and His Word? Yes, the Christian world is overflowing with heresies and apostasy. This comes from mixing truth and error together. The solution is not to mix more truth and error together...it is to seek only pure truth.
Regarding historical arguments for the Sabbath, I'm already aware of those, and will simply state that Sabbathkeepers largely have a distorted view of Church history. By AD140, the vast majority of Christians were not Sabbathkeepers, even the Jewish Christians. The idea that the Roman Catholic Church or Constantine changed this is bogus, despite their vehement claims. Even the SDA historian Samuele Bacchiocchi, who studied this issue extensively, failed to find ANY connection with the alleged claims of Ellen G. White and the SDA church in this regard. These claims are constantly repeated by Sabbatarians and they have no basis in fact. I have outlined my understanding of the history regarding these events on other threads.
-- This is opinion and interpretation based on selected information. Bacchiocchi is not a trustworthy source of theological understanding.
One last remark..Matt 5:17-19 is commonly sited to "prove" that the Mosaic Covenant (or the en Commandments) are still applicable. Firstly, the phrase "Law and Prophets" is definitely talking about the entire Torah, and not just the Ten Commandments. The phrase is commonly used to refer to the whole Old Testament writings.
-- True enough...
Secondly, if they are consistent, they need to claim that physical circumcision and animal sacrifices are still applicable, because the verses say "not one jot or tittle" will pass...whatever happened to the "jot and tittle" part if they interpret these verses consistently? The context of these verses is that Christ was speaking to Israelites, under the Mosaic Covenant, and he was convicting them of their sin and their need for Him. The Mosaic Covenant DID end when all things were fulfilled at his crucifixion...it was fulfilled. So appeals by "Lawkeepers" to these verses to prove continuance of these elements are bogus...usually they only focus on particular elements of their "cafeteria plan" Old Covenant anyways..for example they don't throw their wives and daughters out of their homes during their menstrual cycle to avoid their furniture becoming unclean.
Again, Sparkman you do not want to distinguish between ceremonial and moral bodies of law. The symbols and types pointing to Jesus were, indeed, fulfilled by Him, and the observance of those rites and ceremonies was to cease at the cross. Jesus "fulfilled" the Moral Law, however, by obeying it, and never breaking it. He kept it. That Jesus was including the Moral Law in His comments is obvious by the context---He speaks of murder and adultery.
If we are to adopt the antinomian position of the author of these statements, we can conclude that the Ten Commandments were "Mosaic Covenant", "ceremonial law", and, therefore, are not obligatory on Christians---nor the world, for that matter. Then we may also conclude that Christians may freely murder and commit adultery and steal, etc. Either the Moral Law is in effect, or, it is not.
The Holy Spirit, who inspires Christians with God's grace and love, inspires them to give free, heart-true obedience to God's Moral Law, the Law of Love. The Spirit and the Law agree. The Spirit re-makes and conforms the willing, surrendered Christian believer into the likeness of God---and God is love.
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deuteronomy 6:5
"And Jesus answered him, 'The first of all the commandments is, "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength." This is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." There is none other commandment greater than these." -Mark 12:29-31
And such are the Ten Commandments---including the 4th. The Moral Law of Love, for God and our neighbor.
L
This discussion is like blowing bubbles in the wind!!
if the readers would just like the bible interpret itself there would not be any such discussion.
God is crystal clear.
Some animals are suitable for food and others are scavengers, the vulture, swine and shellfish for example - see Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I will let you find the chapters!
if you believe God and correctly study the bible there is no way any believer could eat what God has called unclean.
Jesus said, if you love me keep my commandments - that includes God's commandments on healthful living.
if the readers would just like the bible interpret itself there would not be any such discussion.
God is crystal clear.
Some animals are suitable for food and others are scavengers, the vulture, swine and shellfish for example - see Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I will let you find the chapters!
if you believe God and correctly study the bible there is no way any believer could eat what God has called unclean.
Jesus said, if you love me keep my commandments - that includes God's commandments on healthful living.
S
One funny story from a pastor of the radical Sabbath/festival/clean meat law organization I belonged to....a group of teenagers from the church were having a drunken party and ordered pizza. The pizza place made a mistake and sent them pizza with pork on it. They scolded the delivery boy harshly and sent him packing back to the pizza place with the porky pizza.
The teenagers were found out concerning the drunkenness, and during a counseling session, one of them said, "Well..at least we didn't eat the pork".
The teenagers were found out concerning the drunkenness, and during a counseling session, one of them said, "Well..at least we didn't eat the pork".
S
This makes as much sense as saying physical circumcision or animal sacrifices still apply. There are numerous references in the NT regarding this subject, as well as many other Scriptures saying that the Mosaic Covenant is no longer applicable.
See Mark 7 and Romans 14, as well as II Corinthians 3, Galatians 3 and 4, Ephesians 2:13-15, Romans 7:1-7, Hebrews 8 and 9.
By the way I am a former Sabbath/festival/clean meat law observer so I have studied the subject in depth.
See Mark 7 and Romans 14, as well as II Corinthians 3, Galatians 3 and 4, Ephesians 2:13-15, Romans 7:1-7, Hebrews 8 and 9.
By the way I am a former Sabbath/festival/clean meat law observer so I have studied the subject in depth.