Unclean Animals and Laws on Uncleanliness in OT

In some ways it is like God establishing a cadence to show His times. There are many ambiguous cases in God's Word which take further study. For example… How many birds is God referring to when He says 7(clean/unclean) the male and the female? Is it 7 or 14? 7 years of prosperity followed by 7 years of famine. 7 years for Leah, 7 years for Rachel. Hezekiah's feast(7&7)? Solomon's dedication(7&7)? Again it is 7 and 7. The Quiz comes in this form. What is 3 sabbaths and then number 50 days? 3x7=21 21+50=71. Now when the word Pentecost comes in, the math is changed to 7 sabbaths and then number 50 days(49+1?). 7x7=49 49+50=99. Why were the "spies" that went into Jericho hidden underneath flax? Flax takes 100 days to grow (not 50).

justneedhelp said:

Hi, I'm reading Leviticus chapter 11 and was wondering if anyone could help me understand these laws about unclean animals and things like uncleanliness until evening. What is the purpose of the cleanliness vs. uncleanliness thing? If anyone has any understanding on this, input would be much appreciated, thank you.

Click to expand...

Hello,

Dietary laws, which are in regard to eating clean and unclean animals, are different from ritual purity laws, which are in regard to Temple practices. The biggest difference is that it is a sin to break dietary laws, while it is not a sin to become unclean. Sin is always an action that you take, but someone could easily become unclean through no fault of their own, so Jews regularly went through cycles of being ritually clean and unclean. For instance, someone who was in the same room as a person who died from a heart attack would become ritually unclean. They could go home and eat a kosher meal, which would also become ritually unclean because they touched it, but they wouldn't be sinning. Jesus became ritually unclean when was touched by the woman with severe bleeding or when he healed people to leprosy, but he never ate anything that was unclean. This distinction is seen more clearly in Peter's vision:

Acts 10:10-16 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

There were all kinds of animals that were let down, so there was a mix of clean and unclean animals. So why didn't Peter obey God's law and His command in his vision by simply killing and eating one of the clean animals? Why did he object? The answer is that the Pharisees had many ritual purity laws on top of what the law requires (Mark 7:3-4), where something that was clean would become common or defiled if it came in contact with something that was unclean, such as eat a kosher meal with unwashed hands, which would then make them ritually unclean. So because all of the animals were bundled together in the sheet all of the clean animals had become common from being in contact with the unclean animals. Thus when Peter objected by saying he had never eaten anything that was common or unclean, he was referring to all the animals that were there: all the clean ones that had become ritually impure and all the unclean ones. So when Peter refused to eat a clean animal as God had commanded, he was disobeying God to obey a man-made ritual purity law. God didn't rebuke Peter by saying not to call something unclean that He had made clean, but rather God said not to call something common that he had made clean, so God was only referring to the clean animals that Peter was calling common.

justneedhelp said:

Hi, I'm reading Leviticus chapter 11 and was wondering if anyone could help me understand these laws about unclean animals and things like uncleanliness until evening. What is the purpose of the cleanliness vs. uncleanliness thing? If anyone has any understanding on this, input would be much appreciated, thank you.

Click to expand...

For what its worth ... clean and unclean has it's roots in the tree of knowledge, just as it is seen in the dividing of the inheritance in the sons of Adam, or God creates light and darkness (when ever he shows up). In the beginning everything God created he called not only good, but very good. There were no clean or unclean, but it is through these things that he leads us back to a place that is past the duality of knowledge.

To the left or right of the cross hangs a thief ...

justneedhelp said:

Hi, I'm reading Leviticus chapter 11 and was wondering if anyone could help me understand these laws about unclean animals and things like uncleanliness until evening. What is the purpose of the cleanliness vs. uncleanliness thing? If anyone has any understanding on this, input would be much appreciated, thank you.

Click to expand...

In Lev. 11, note that God tells His people, whom He redeemed out of Egypt, that they must be holy because He is holy (v. 45). Part of that "like-God" holiness for His people involved the need "to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean animals" (v. 47, cf. 20:25f & Exo. 11:7 of God making a distinction between His people and the Egyptians in the killing of the firstborn), one of the tasks Aaron and the priests were especially charged with making (10:10-11) apparently in part as teachers of the Israelites (v. 11).

In the NT, the author of Hebrews characterizes the Mosaic demands (especially as related to the priesthood) as a "shadow" of the reality that was to come in Jesus, while Paul characterizes the law as a kind a of pedagogical disciplinarian employed by some well-to-do Romans of his day (presumably usually a slave of the family) to help ensure that the young of those well-to-do learned their elementary lessons--in other words that the law was preparatory for "adult" life in Messiah (Gal. 3-4).

Worth at least asking then is whether the Mosaic demands to make a distinction between clean and unclean animal foods (to say nothing of other clean/unclean distinctions) was not intended to teach something, something about what it means to be holy as God is holy--for our purposes, for the Christian. Was the ritual meant to teach a moral reality? A Messianic fulfillment (cf. Lk. 24:27)?

If nothing else, Paul's teaching seems to bring the question of clean and unclean foods to a head by accepting the proposition that Christians are cleansed from sin by means of the gospel of Jesus rather than for example by eating only clean foods (cf. Gal. 2:11ff, Rom. 14:1-12, 1 Tim. 4:3-5, also outside Paul in 1 John 1:7-2:2, John 13:10 & 15:3), an idea that Peter also apparently learned in Joppa and Caesarea when he went to eat erstwhile unclean animal food at Cornelius's house (Acts 10-11). God has "made clean" all the animals in the sheet (10:15, 11:9). There is no contextual indication rabbinic teachings were the crux for Peter or Luke (other than the purely Mosaic), while if no formerly ("Levitically") unclean animals were declared clean in the sheet, Peter would have hesitated to eat at (Roman) Cornelius's house (not to mention with Gentiles in Antioch) and the implied link between cleansing of formerly unclean animals and cleansing Gentiles from sin would have been lost on the Jerusalem apostles and elders (cf. 10:43-48, 11:14-18). As Jesus had taught, it is what goes out of a person that makes him unclean (e.g., the sins list of Mark 7:21-23), not what "goes into a person from outside" (v. 18) and enters his stomach (v. 19); in so saying, Jesus "declared all foods clean" (v. 19).

Now what? "What is the purpose of the cleanliness vs. uncleanliness thing?" Paul for one exhorts Christians to "touch no unclean thing" (2 Cor. 6:17) and to "cleanse ourselves from every defilement of the body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God" (7:1) at least by forsaking idols and practicing righteousness and by "making room" for apostolic teaching and example (again per context). There is of course nothing wrong with a Christian abstaining from eating Levitically unclean animal food provided the abstaining is "as to the Lord" and provided the abstaining in context does not imply that Gentiles must do the same in order to be holy before God (Gal. 2).

Thus my best theory to date is that the Levitical distinction between clean and unclean animal food was intended to point forward toward Messiah's (and His apostles') moral/ethical teaching (cf. Mt. 5:17, 28:20) and toward Jesus' propitiation of sin on the cross even if moral demands were also part of Levitical teachings, cf. e.g., Lev. 19 (as I might argue elsewhere, Levitical moral teachings also pointed forward to Messiah's moral teaching).

Look Up said:

If nothing else, Paul's teaching seems to bring the question of clean and unclean foods to a head by accepting the proposition that Christians are cleansed from sin by means of the gospel of Jesus rather than for example by eating only clean foods (cf. Gal. 2:11ff, Rom. 14:1-12, 1 Tim. 4:3-5, also outside Paul in 1 John 1:7-2:2, John 13:10 & 15:3), an idea that Peter also apparently learned in Joppa and Caesarea when he went to eat erstwhile unclean animal food at Cornelius's house (Acts 10-11). God has "made clean" all the animals in the sheet (10:15, 11:9). There is no contextual indication rabbinic teachings were the crux for Peter or Luke (other than the purely Mosaic), while if no formerly ("Levitically") unclean animals were declared clean in the sheet, Peter would have hesitated to eat at (Roman) Cornelius's house (not to mention with Gentiles in Antioch) and the implied link between cleansing of formerly unclean animals and cleansing Gentiles from sin would have been lost on the Jerusalem apostles and elders (cf. 10:43-48, 11:14-18). As Jesus had taught, it is what goes out of a person that makes him unclean (e.g., the sins list of Mark 7:21-23), not what "goes into a person from outside" (v. 18) and enters his stomach (v. 19); in so saying, Jesus "declared all foods clean" (v. 19).

Click to expand...

Galatians 2 doesn't say anything about eating clean or unclean animals, that's simply something that's inserted into the text. Living like a Jew is about keeping Jewish customs, not necessarily about keeping God's laws.

Romans 14 likewise isn't about clean and unclean animals either, but about disputable matters of opinion (14:1). Meat that had been sacrificed to idols was often later sold on the market, so if someone were at a community meal and did not know where the meat came from, they might be of the opinion that only vegetables should be be eaten (14:2). They were judging those who chose to eat everything at the meal and were in in turn being despised (14:3). God only commanded fasting on Yom Kippur, but as a matter of opinion fasting twice a week or to commemorate certain events was a common practice. Men who esteemed those days more than other days were judging those who didn't fast and were in turn being resented (14:5-6). Whether man esteems one day over another is an entirely different matter than whether God esteems one day over another. We aren't to keep the God's Sabbath and Festivals because we esteemed those days over others, but because God esteemed them and commanded us to keep them. So whether or not you choose to fast on other days is a disputable matter of human opinion, but whether or not you choose to fast on Yom Kippur is a matter of obedience to God. Romans 14 is about favoring each other in matters of opinion, not about whether we should obey God.

--
Are those teaching obedience to God's commands really giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1)? Is obeying God departing from the faith (4:1)? Would such teaching be considered lies and hypocrisy (4:2)? Are the same teaching others not to marry (4:3)? What things are stated to be consecrated by the word of God and declared to be food and to be received in thanksgiving (4:4-5)? Is Leviticus 11 no longer good doctrine (4:6)? Are God's commands old wives fables (4:7)? Are God's commands profane? (4:7) Are God's commands in Leviticus 11 not Godliness (4:7)? Is Leviticus 11 no longer Scripture and thus no longer instruction in righteousness or a basis for rebuking and correcting (2 Timothy 3:16)? If you think that 1 Timothy 4:3-5 is abolishing the teachings of Leviticus 11, then answering these questions becomes problematic.

2 Peter 3:14-18 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

In other words, Paul letters plus being ignorant and unstable equals the error of breaking God's law.

1 Timothy 4:3-5 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

What does it mean to know the truth in verse 3? God's law, which includes dietary restrictions, is declared by Scripture to be the truth (Psalms 119:142). If all animals are clean and not suitable for eating, then Leviticus 11 is no longer the truth, but Paul said that all Scripture is true and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Those who know the truth are those who know what animals God has given as food to eat, so verse 3 is talking about people are teaching people to abstain from eating meat that God has already said is good to eat according to the truth of His Word (Leviticus 11). So these false teachers were not telling people to abstain from eating pork, which is not defined as food in Scripture. Keep in mind that when this letter was written to Timothy, "Scripture" meant the OT. In verse 3, the greek word for "food" is "broma" which is used to refer to foods that have already declared to be clean.

In verse 5, what does it mean to be made holy by the word of God and prayer? For something to be holy, it means to be set apart, which is the opposite of common or profane. If all animals are clean, then the animals would not be holy or set apart because animals that are set apart for eating must be set apart or separate from animals that are not set apart for eating. By definition, the very fact that there are a group of animals that are holy means that there must be some other separate group of animals that are not holy. If all animals are made clean, then by definition they would all be common, unholy, or not set apart. If all animals are made clean and set apart, then what are they set apart from? It is an oxymoron to say that all animals are sanctified. So those who believe and know the truth, God's law, will understand the only creatures to be received with thanksgiving as food are creatures that have been set apart by the Word of God and prayer. This is why verse 4 uses the qualified "if" because the only animals to be received by prayer and thanksgiving are those listed as such in Leviticus 11. We are to be thankful for clean animals as food, not for unclean things. Why would we be thankful for eating animals God told us were unclean?

If we pull in even more context, then we run into more problems. Was Paul really saying that God's commands old wives fables, profane and ungodly? As absurd a that is, that's what must be asked if conclude that verse 4 is speaking against those teaching God's dietary commandments. In 1 Timothy 1:4, 2 Timothy 4:4, Titus 1:14, and 2 Peter 1:16, "fables" is contrasted with the truth, the law, and God's Word. The whole problem in the 1st century was false doctrines, traditions, and teaching of men that were nullifying the law of God (Mark 7:6-13). The commandments Leviticus 11 are not fables, common, unholy, ungodly and profane, and are not doctrines of devils, so 1 Timothy 4 is actually in favor of keeping God's dietary laws.
--

I talked about how Peter's vision should be understood in my previous post. In that same respect in Mark 7, Jesus was also dismissing man-made laws while upholding God's laws. The best translation of Mark 7:19 that expresses Jesus' thought is in the ISV:

19 Because it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then into the sewer, thereby expelling all foods.”

Soyeong said:

Galatians 2 doesn't say anything about eating clean or unclean animals, that's simply something that's inserted into the text. Living like a Jew is about keeping Jewish customs, not necessarily about keeping God's laws.

Click to expand...

"Eating with Gentiles" is part of Gal. 2:12 and not "inserted into the text." The contextual contrast is between eating which implies (1) "justification by works of the law" (v. 16) / "justification ... through the law" (of Moses, v. 21)--i.e., Peter eating with only Jews following his eating with Gentile Christians (too) before the Jerusalem contingent arrived--and (2) "justification by faith in Jesus Christ" (v. 16)/"justification in Christ" (v. 17). Thus the Jewish "customs" in context concern what the law of Moses says about eating some Gentile foods (i.e., Levitically unclean ones). Peter's changed/hypocritical (in Paul's view) eating with only Jews in Levitical fashion at Antioch was implying Gentile Christians needed to be justified by the works of the law rather than by faith in Jesus. If the issue concerned Jewish customs wholly divorced from God's law, justification by works of the law/through the law would not have been part of Paul's objection to Peter.

Soyeong said:

Romans 14 likewise isn't about clean and unclean animals either, but about disputable matters of opinion (14:1). Meat that had been sacrificed to idols was often later sold on the market, so if someone were at a community meal and did not know where the meat came from, they might be of the opinion that only vegetables should be be eaten (14:2). They were judging those who chose to eat everything at the meal and were in in turn being despised (14:3). God only commanded fasting on Yom Kippur, but as a matter of opinion fasting twice a week or to commemorate certain events was a common practice. Men who esteemed those days more than other days were judging those who didn't fast and were in turn being resented (14:5-6).

Click to expand...

I included the Rom. 14 passage as a cross-reference precisely for reasons such as you outline above; it is unfortunate that you did not consider the possibility. Your following views on the Sabbath and Festivals is another matter, and one too lengthy for me to address at the moment, though probably I would also need further clarification on your views.

--

Soyeong said:

... Is Leviticus 11 no longer Scripture and thus no longer instruction in righteousness or a basis for rebuking and correcting (2 Timothy 3:16)? If you think that 1 Timothy 4:3-5 is abolishing the teachings of Leviticus 11, then answering these questions becomes problematic.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I do not have the energy to do your questions justice, but they and your post also do not seem to display a careful understanding of my views (e.g., on the role of the law for the Christian) and evidence already presented--which understanding would seem to reshape the nature of your questions. We seem, for example, to agree on various points you raise (sometimes in the form of questions) despite your implying disagreement even if we seem to differ on the doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus.

Soyeong said:

1 Timothy 4:3-5 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

Click to expand...

Again you raise a variety of points with which I agree while on others we disagree; my point in cross-referencing 1 Tim. 4:3-5 was narrowly concerned with the implications of God creating all foods as "good" and meant to be received with our thanksgiving (regardless of the eschatological ascetic and deceiving-spirit back-drop). I still have to ask how Paul could be limiting "all" in context to merely Levitically "clean" foods (being unpersuaded by your claims to the contrary), but I will not elaborate further in this post in part since I think the focus of argument should be elsewhere, such as regarding the texts and arguments in my former post which you have not addressed as of this writing.

[[Later addition: The context of 1 Cor. 8 is meat markets in clearly Gentile Corinth, but where in context of eating meat the aphorism "everything is permissible for me" is provisionally accepted, Paul's qualifications concern conscience and not causing a brother to stumble over the use of meat offered to idols. What is tangibly absent is any qualification on the aphorism from Jewish or rather Mosaic dietary laws.]]

Soyeong said:

The whole problem in the 1st century was false doctrines, traditions, and teaching of men that were nullifying the law of God (Mark 7:6-13).

Click to expand...

While I tend to be nervous around superlatives and claims to the effect that "the whole problem was," surely Mark 7:6-13 describe a pervasive and fundamental problem Jesus addressed (as did prophets such as Isaiah which Jesus here cites) and one with plenty of unfortunate contemporary parallels.

Soyeong said:

The commandments [in] Leviticus 11 are not fables, common, unholy, ungodly and profane, and are not doctrines of devils, so 1 Timothy 4 is actually in favor of keeping God's dietary laws.

Click to expand...

I agree with what is in effect the "protasis" (Lev. 11--as God's law--is not ungodly, etc.), but do not see how the "apotasis" follows (therefore "all foods were created to be received with thanksgiving" in 1 Tim. 4 means only Levitically "clean" foods were created to be received with thanksgiving). See my former post, not to mention a variety of NT arguments and texts not there mentioned.

Soyeong said:

I talked about how Peter's vision should be understood in my previous post. In that same respect in Mark 7, Jesus was also dismissing man-made laws while upholding God's laws. The best translation of Mark 7:19 that expresses Jesus' thought is in the ISV:

19 Because it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then into the sewer, thereby expelling all foods.”

Click to expand...

1) You do not seem to offer rejoinder to my rebuttal of some of your arguments about Peter's vision. (2) I am not sure what point you are making from Mark 7:19 or why your translation omits the relevant verse ending "thus He declared all foods clean" (for example as translated in the ESV; I am unfamiliar with an "ISV" translation). If the ISV translates "clean" or "cleansed" instead as "expelling," it prefers the rare and redundant to the conventional and probable even according to NT use (per the lexical, commentary, concordance, and translation evidence before me). Why the ISV is the best translation has yet to be demonstrated [[later addition: in this case where the ISV stands in spite of strong evidence to the contrary]].

Hello,

Look Up said:

"Eating with Gentiles" is part of Gal. 2:12 and not "inserted into the text." The contextual contrast is between eating which implies (1) "justification by works of the law" (v. 16) / "justification ... through the law" (of Moses, v. 21)--i.e., Peter eating with only Jews following his eating with Gentile Christians (too) before the Jerusalem contingent arrived--and (2) "justification by faith in Jesus Christ" (v. 16)/"justification in Christ" (v. 17). Thus the Jewish "customs" in context concern what the law of Moses says about eating some Gentile foods (i.e., Levitically unclean ones). Peter's changed/hypocritical (in Paul's view) eating with only Jews in Levitical fashion at Antioch was implying Gentile Christians needed to be justified by the works of the law rather than by faith in Jesus. If the issue concerned Jewish customs wholly divorced from God's law, justification by works of the law/through the law would not have been part of Paul's objection to Peter.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that that eating with Gentiles was inserted into the text, but that there was nothing about eating clean or unclean animals. It's not mentioned what they were eating and I see no good reason to think that they were eating anything other than kosher food. The Circumcision group was teaching that Gentiles had to obey the law in the way they did according to their traditions or works of the law in order to be saved. Part of that was the Jewish custom that Peter mentioned in Acts 10:28 that prevented Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles. So by switching from eating with the Gentiles, his actions were essentially saying to them that what he had said to them was wrong and that they weren't actually saved, which is why Paul made it clear that justification was by faith in Jesus Christ. What they happened to be eating has no relevance to what was happening.

I included the Rom. 14 passage as a cross-reference precisely for reasons such as you outline above; it is unfortunate that you did not consider the possibility. Your following views on the Sabbath and Festivals is another matter, and one too lengthy for me to address at the moment, though probably I would also need further clarification on your views.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought you were talking about clean and unclean animals, Romans 14 has nothing to do with God's kosher laws. They had all sorts of opinions and disputes about how to obey God's laws, but they didn't dispute whether to obey them, so Romans 14 is not about whether to obey God's Sabbath and Festivals. Where Scriptures give clear word, opinion must yield.

Unfortunately I do not have the energy to do your questions justice, but they and your post also do not seem to display a careful understanding of my views (e.g., on the role of the law for the Christian) and evidence already presented--which understanding would seem to reshape the nature of your questions. We seem, for example, to agree on various points you raise (sometimes in the form of questions) despite your implying disagreement even if we seem to differ on the doctrine of justification by faith in Jesus.

Click to expand...

It seemed to me that you were citing those verse as coming against God's dietary laws, which I disagree with, sorry if I misunderstood you. I'm in full agreement with Ephesians 2:8-10 that we are saved by grace through faith, not by doing good works, but rather we are new creations in Christ for the purpose of doing good works. Good works are what God instructed in His law to Moses and Paul said in 2 Peter 3:15-17 that OT Scriptures are profitable for training in righteousness and equipping us to do every good work.

Again you raise a variety of points with which I agree while on others we disagree; my point in cross-referencing 1 Tim. 4:3-5 was narrowly concerned with the implications of God creating all foods as "good" and meant to be received with our thanksgiving (regardless of the eschatological ascetic and deceiving-spirit back-drop). I still have to ask how Paul could be limiting "all" in context to merely Levitically "clean" foods (being unpersuaded by your claims to the contrary), but I will not elaborate further in this post in part since I think the focus of argument should be elsewhere, such as regarding the texts and arguments in my former post which you have not addressed as of this writing.

Click to expand...

The word "all" often times is qualified by obvious exceptions to it. For instance:

John 8:2 "And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and ALL the people came unto him; and he sat down and taught them."

Does this mean every single person on the earth came to listen to Jesus? There are numerous other examples in the Bible where "all" is qualified, which I can list if you want. Or for example, if you have a guest staying in your house and you told them that they could eat anything that's in the fridge, did you give them permission to eat your tupperware and shelves, or do you have a common understanding of what was given as food? Even though we recognize that we could technically eat animals like vultures and rats, they don't belong in the same category of things that we consider to be food. God gave laws about which animals were considered to be food and which weren't, so the Jews did not consider unclean animals to be food, even though they recognized they could technically be eaten. So when they talk about all food, it is a mistake to assume that they are talking about all things that you consider to be food.

The issue in Mark 7 and Matthew 15 are the man-made traditions of the elders that said that something that was clean became common or defiled if it came in contact with something that was unclean and by eating it they would also become defiled. This took the form of them criticizing Jesus' disciples for eating kosher food with unwashed hands and explains Peter's refusal in his vision to eat anything that was common. God had declared clean animals to be fit for eating regardless of whether or not they came in contact with unclean animals, but that Peter had viewed the clean animals to be unfit for eating because they had come in contact with unclean animals, so God was telling Peter not to do that, and by extension he understood his vision to mean that he should not heed the man-made laws that said Gentiles were unfit for visiting or associating with (Acts 10:28). It's kind of hard to follow God's command to love Gentiles as themselves if they won't visit or associate with them (Leviticus 19:34).

[[Later addition: The context of 1 Cor. 8 is meat markets in clearly Gentile Corinth, but where in context of eating meat the aphorism "everything is permissible for me" is provisionally accepted, Paul's qualifications concern conscience and not causing a brother to stumble over the use of meat offered to idols. What is tangibly absent is any qualification on the aphorism from Jewish or rather Mosaic dietary laws.]]

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

Some Corinthians had misunderstood the freedom that they have in Christ as meaning that everything was permissible and that they were free to be partake in sexual immorality and such. Paul was quoting the aphorism to argue against it, much like how I'm quoting from your post before commenting on it.

I agree with what is in effect the "protasis" (Lev. 11--as God's law--is not ungodly, etc.), but do not see how the "apotasis" follows (therefore "all foods were created to be received with thanksgiving" in 1 Tim. 4 means only Levitically "clean" foods were created to be received with thanksgiving). See my former post, not to mention a variety of NT arguments and texts not there mentioned.

Click to expand...

On one hand, I can see how verse 4 by itself can be taken to mean that God's dietary laws are done away with, but I don't see how any of the surrounding context of 1 Timothy 4:1-14 is consistent with someone who is saying that God's commands in Scripture should be obeyed. There's also verse 4:13, where Paul encouraged them to devote themselves to the public reading of Scripture, which included Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. So either we say that the recipients of Paul's letter had a common understanding of what God had commanded as food or we say those those two chapters are no longer Scripture, and I find the latter much more problematic. I think consistently throughout the NT man's laws are rejected while God's laws are upheld (We must obey God rather than men). The Bereans checked every Paul said against OT Scriptures to see if it was true (Acts 17:11) and Paul said that our faith upholds the law (Romans 3:31), so if we interpret Paul as being against keeping God laws, then as 2 Peter 3:14-18 says, we have misunderstood Paul and fallen into the error of breaking God's law. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 13:4-6 warns them that anyone who teaches them against following God's commands is a false prophet, even if they perform signs and wonders, so if Paul had been speaking against keeping God's dietary laws, then they would have known to immediately disregard what he said.

1) You do not seem to offer rejoinder to my rebuttal of some of your arguments about Peter's vision. (2) I am not sure what point you are making from Mark 7:19 or why your translation omits the relevant verse ending "thus He declared all foods clean" (for example as translated in the ESV; I am unfamiliar with an "ISV" translation). If the ISV translates "clean" or "cleansed" instead as "expelling," it prefers the rare and redundant to the conventional and probable even according to NT use (per the lexical, commentary, concordance, and translation evidence before me). Why the ISV is the best translation has yet to be demonstrated [[later addition: in this case where the ISV stands in spite of strong evidence to the contrary]].

Click to expand...

19 because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.' (YLT)

The reason why the translation omits is because there is no "thus he declared" in the Greek, as Young's Literal Translation shows. I think it is clear that Jesus was talking about a digestive process, with the last step of it being that the food eaten with unclean hands is purged or expelled from the body. Throughout Mark 7:1-19 the discussion has centered around a man-made ritual purity law and the parallel account in Matthew 15:20 shows that at the end of the discussion Jesus was still talking about the ritual purity law and never switched topics to God's dietary laws.

There's also some problems because in Mark 7:6-9 Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God to keep their own traditions. If Jesus had set aside the commands of God just a few verse later, then that would have made him an even bigger hypocrite. It would have also put him in violation of Deuteronomy 13 and disqualified him from being the Messiah. It would have cause an uproar and his critics would have had for once a legitimate reason to try to stone him and wouldn't have needed to find false witnesses at his trial, but that wasn't even brought up. Setting aside the commands of God would have been a major doctrinal issue, not something relegate to a comment on the aside, which no one there even seemed to have noticed.

Hi Soyeong,

Thank you again for a lengthy response. Unfortunately again my health and energies limit what I can do on this post, but such as I can note, first I am glad that you agree with justification by faith alone in Jesus and that your implied observance of Mosaic dietary laws, Sabbath and Festivals (I presume etc., minus Aaronic priestly observances at the temple and plus Jesus-like-Melchizedek observances) is essentially grounded in your here-expressed views, meaning at least that they are "as to the Lord" according to God's law even while in my view you are still avoiding implications of my posts and relevant Scripture texts such that I remain unpersuaded by various of your conclusions--and agree with various other of your points (such as some of your remarks on the uses of words like "all" in Scripture). I have long, for (another) example, understood Paul in 2 Tim. 3:15-17 to suggest the whole OT and Torah canon in particular is for the church (for discipline, correction, training in righteousness etc.) even if we differ for example on the way the food laws are relevant to (esp. Gentiles in) the Christian church. If you do not understand why I can rejoice in your implied practice and yet differ with your views of certain passages we have discussed, I think there are aspects of my views you do not understand.

I have tried to limit my scope to Mosaic food laws in part because of the OP above and in part because the issue touches dangerously on rather massive and complex NT (for example) themes relating to the consequences of Jesus' coming, work, and teaching and apostolic teaching such as in regard to the relationship between the Mosaic and New Covenants. I say "dangerously" because the scope threatens to broaden at least beyond what seems appropriate for the thread. And yet one also cannot wholly ignore the larger issues in discussing the smaller dietary law ones. Making sense of the whole canonical evidence is my concern here as well as making sense of some of the pieces that help build the whole. The "my best theory" (per my first post on this thread) of the whole remains as it has been even if I have reason (from my perspective) still to question some of my own conclusions.

I scarcely know where to begin, and again can at best be but skeletal and suggestive. A few more remarks on Mark 7 (esp. v. 19) might prove useful in part because I disagree with some of your conclusions even though some of your supporting arguments seem very strong. For me the big and little concerns make the difference to the best of my ability to discern. Discussing both at the same time would seem to make more sense, but language does not permit more than a linear approach.

The anarthrous participle in Mark 7:19 usually translated by some form of or synonym to "make clean" comes from a verb used I think 31 times in the NT with various cognates and parts of speech also used (like the adjective "clean"). Of NT examples I have already cited some places where the verb is used, e.g., 1 John 1:7, 9, Acts 10:15, 11:9 and in Mark also 1:40f (a healing). Relationships between anarthrous participles in Greek and their contexts must be inferred based on a limited number of possibilities, here usually result (e.g., "thus")--some alternatives such as temporal ("when") or causal ("because") or attendant circumstance ("and") not fitting the context here as well, though there is nothing wrong with proposing probable alternatives. The ESV's "declared" is an inferential alternative; again the verb form means "make clean" or "cleanse," the implication being Jesus cleansed by declaring clean. And the participle is in the present tense, for what that may be worth. Woodenly perhaps one might translate the clause as "(so) cleansing all the foods." Again to translate as you have cited the ISV prefers a rare and barely possible translation which is both awkward in context (at best) and redundant (in effect, "going out into the latrine thus expelling all foods") which does not even sound like a Hebraism.

I realize this probable and well-accepted (by the early church) conclusion seems to make Jesus a hypocrite and otherwise be objectionable as you have proposed should the conclusion be adopted; such difficulty is little alleviated by inferring that the clause in question is a later commentary of Mark's to his largely Roman audience (per various evidence) as opposed to Matthew (ch. 15 parallel), who evidently wrote to a largely Jewish (or Jewish Christian) audience. But the translation I have proposed is where the plain exegetical evidence leads so far as I understand. And my larger picture of what the NT says about the continuity and discontinuity between the Mosaic and New Covenants (for example) suggests a view of Mark 7 which at least potentially avoids the conclusion that Jesus is being a hypocrite even if questions about the big picture and certain related conclusions remain.

Winnie the Pooh once claimed he had run out of run; my similar condition and again evidence in my view that you are avoiding certain implications (you probably think the same of me while I have some sympathy for your views) combine to discourage too much more to this post even if some of your remarks cry for attention. A suggestive note on Matt. 5:17 and "shorthand" brief bibliography may be the triage I can manage at present. If my views on Matt. 5:17 are accepted, they may partially alleviate the above Mark 7:19 difficulties, not that any of your views will necessarily change.

Sources on which I partially rely and which I recommend are Doug Moo's dense article "Jesus and the Authority of the Mosaic Law" (I recommend his commentary on Romans too) and on Matt. 5:17 especially Davies and Allison's comments in their commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (vol. I) in the ICC series--not that I am recommending all that Davies and Allison conclude in their three volume commentary.

As I understand Matthew 5:17 then, His fulfillment of the Law and Prophets in context concerns His teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew has the Sermon beginning with "And He opened His mouth and taught them saying ... " (5:2) and the Sermon concludes, "And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as One who had authority ..." (7:28-29). In chapter 5, six times Jesus "says" (things He demands) in contrast to what His audience has heard before (a mild sort of Messianic claim in hindsight): "You have heard it said, but I say unto you." These six examples of His teachings in ch. 5 illustrate how He fulfills the Law (v. 17) in particular.

Davies and Allison list eight exegetical grounds defending the view that the contents of the "You have heard it said's" is in all cases the law of Moses itself rather than a Pharisee or rabbinic hedge or teaching; the one debatable instance "you have heard it said ... hate your enemy" may be a summary of prescribed treatment of the nations that mistreated the paradigmatic wilderness wandering generation of Israelites per Deut. 23 or demands to execute Canaanites (cf. Josh 11:20 for example).

What is not at stake is Jesus' obedience of the law, not that one would argue that He did not observe the law, but again His teaching is at stake: His teaching is what fulfills the law (and the Prophets, both of which "prophesied until John," Matt. 11:13).

Furthermore, Messiah's teaching does more than just reiterate the law of Moses. Jesus' teaching is both consistent with the old and also in some way transcends it. Letting one's yes be yes does not break a vow, but raises the Mosaic bar (for example). The law foreshadows what Jesus says. If Jesus' fulfillment were mere establishment of the Mosaic, what of the change in sacrifice, priesthood ... and law and covenant per the book of Hebrews? Or Jesus' last Passover's, "This cup ... is the new covenant in My blood" (Luke 22:20)?

In various places, one cannot escape the apostolic conclusion that the food laws are no longer demanded of Gentile Christians. How does one explain that stunning conclusion? In the Matthean Great Commission, Jesus tells His disciples they are to teach their disciples to obey "whatsoever I [Jesus] has commanded them" (Mt. 28:20); they are not told to "teach to obey" whatever Moses has commanded even if continuities exist between what Jesus said and what Moses said (no Marcionite conclusions here about the NT god differing from the OT god). Paul claims not to be under the law of Moses but "enlawed to Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21). Ritual food laws may possibly be fulfilled in Messianic moral demands, making a distinction between right and wrong rather than clean and unclean (granting also that obedience to the food laws was moral because demanded by God)--see my first post.

The above here may help make better sense of my views as expressed on my first post on this thread. Granted again, my own questions remain. But this is much of the best I have been able to make of the sum of the available evidence to date. And I am too tired to do more or to be more careful in what I think and write, but commend my sources and the Scripture to you. I also recommend Richard Longenecker's commentary on Paul's epistle to the Galatians. I am not alone in my views. I hope the above makes some contribution even if it does not address many of your written concerns or change your views. May the God of Abraham give you peace and bless your comings and goings.

Hello Look Up,

Thanks for your candor and for your effort in posting.

Thank you again for a lengthy response. Unfortunately again my health and energies limit what I can do on this post, but such as I can note, first I am glad that you agree with justification by faith alone in Jesus and that your implied observance of Mosaic dietary laws, Sabbath and Festivals (I presume etc., minus Aaronic priestly observances at the temple and plus Jesus-like-Melchizedek observances) is essentially grounded in your here-expressed views, meaning at least that they are "as to the Lord" according to God's law even while in my view you are still avoiding implications of my posts and relevant Scripture texts such that I remain unpersuaded by various of your conclusions--and agree with various other of your points (such as some of your remarks on the uses of words like "all" in Scripture). I have long, for (another) example, understood Paul in 2 Tim. 3:15-17 to suggest the whole OT and Torah canon in particular is for the church (for discipline, correction, training in righteousness etc.) even if we differ for example on the way the food laws are relevant to (esp. Gentiles in) the Christian church. If you do not understand why I can rejoice in your implied practice and yet differ with your views of certain passages we have discussed, I think there are aspects of my views you do not understand.

Click to expand...

I recognize that people love God even if they don't think all of God's laws apply to them and that God blesses us spite of none of us having all of our theology straight. I appreciate and rejoice with you in God, though I don't understand how the OT can be useful for discipline, correction, and training in righteousness, and we are told to practice righteousness (1 John 3:10), yet some its instructions are not relevant to Gentiles.

The anarthrous participle in Mark 7:19 usually translated by some form of or synonym to "make clean" comes from a verb used I think 31 times in the NT with various cognates and parts of speech also used (like the adjective "clean"). Of NT examples I have already cited some places where the verb is used, e.g., 1 John 1:7, 9, Acts 10:15, 11:9 and in Mark also 1:40f (a healing). Relationships between anarthrous participles in Greek and their contexts must be inferred based on a limited number of possibilities, here usually result (e.g., "thus")--some alternatives such as temporal ("when") or causal ("because") or attendant circumstance ("and") not fitting the context here as well, though there is nothing wrong with proposing probable alternatives. The ESV's "declared" is an inferential alternative; again the verb form means "make clean" or "cleanse," the implication being Jesus cleansed by declaring clean. And the participle is in the present tense, for what that may be worth. Woodenly perhaps one might translate the clause as "(so) cleansing all the foods." Again to translate as you have cited the ISV prefers a rare and barely possible translation which is both awkward in context (at best) and redundant (in effect, "going out into the latrine thus expelling all foods") which does not even sound like a Hebraism.

Click to expand...

I think there is a different word used when God declared certain animals to be clean and unclean and when we declared something to be ritually clean or unclean.

As I understand Matthew 5:17 then, His fulfillment of the Law and Prophets in context concerns His teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew has the Sermon beginning with "And He opened His mouth and taught them saying ... " (5:2) and the Sermon concludes, "And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as One who had authority ..." (7:28-29). In chapter 5, six times Jesus "says" (things He demands) in contrast to what His audience has heard before (a mild sort of Messianic claim in hindsight): "You have heard it said, but I say unto you." These six examples of His teachings in ch. 5 illustrate how He fulfills the Law (v. 17) in particular.

Davies and Allison list eight exegetical grounds defending the view that the contents of the "You have heard it said's" is in all cases the law of Moses itself rather than a Pharisee or rabbinic hedge or teaching; the one debatable instance "you have heard it said ... hate your enemy" may be a summary of prescribed treatment of the nations that mistreated the paradigmatic wilderness wandering generation of Israelites per Deut. 23 or demands to execute Canaanites (cf. Josh 11:20 for example).

What is not at stake is Jesus' obedience of the law, not that one would argue that He did not observe the law, but again His teaching is at stake: His teaching is what fulfills the law (and the Prophets, both of which "prophesied until John," Matt. 11:13).

Click to expand...

I agree with this interpretation.

Furthermore, Messiah's teaching does more than just reiterate the law of Moses. Jesus' teaching is both consistent with the old and also in some way transcends it. Letting one's yes be yes does not break a vow, but raises the Mosaic bar (for example). The law foreshadows what Jesus says. If Jesus' fulfillment were mere establishment of the Mosaic, what of the change in sacrifice, priesthood ... and law and covenant per the book of Hebrews? Or Jesus' last Passover's, "This cup ... is the new covenant in My blood" (Luke 22:20)?

Click to expand...

The law is all about the Messiah and the Messiah is the goal of the law. The law is directed at the Messiah and the Messiah is the target at which the law aims. To fulfill the law means to fill the law up with meaning or to bring full understanding to the law, which Jesus did by teaching about the spiritual principles behind the law and by demonstrating through his actions how the law should be obeyed. Some of the purposes of the law is to instruct how to have a holy, righteous, and good conduct, to instruct that not having that conduct is sin, to make us aware that we don't have such a conduct, to provide a temporary remedy for our sin, and to point to the one who could provide a permanent remedy, so I think a change in the priesthood brought about the fulness of the law.

In various places, one cannot escape the apostolic conclusion that the food laws are no longer demanded of Gentile Christians. How does one explain that stunning conclusion? In the Matthean Great Commission, Jesus tells His disciples they are to teach their disciples to obey "whatsoever I [Jesus] has commanded them" (Mt. 28:20); they are not told to "teach to obey" whatever Moses has commanded even if continuities exist between what Jesus said and what Moses said (no Marcionite conclusions here about the NT god differing from the OT god). Paul claims not to be under the law of Moses but "enlawed to Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21).

Click to expand...

I'll have to disagree about whether one can escape that conclusion. The goal of a disciple was to learn how to think and act and keep the law like their rabbi, or to essentially become an imitation of them. Jesus taught how to keep the law both by word and by example and he was sinless, so he set a perfect example for how to obey the law, so his disciples certainly would have learned how to obey the law from him, which would have been included as part of everything that he had taught them in the Great Commission.

John 7:16 So Jesus answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.

Jesus only did the will of the Father and only taught what the Father taught, so I don't see a good reason to think that he taught a different set of commands. If there is any difference between what the Father commanded to Moses and what Jesus taught, it would be that Jesus taught a higher spiritual standard (which the law was meant to instruct), but one that was still inclusive of what was commanded to Moses.

1 Corinthians 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.

He said both that he was not outside the law of God and that he was under the law of Christ, so these are parallel statements. The law of Christ is how he taught to obey the law of God.

Ritual food laws may possibly be fulfilled in Messianic moral demands, making a distinction between right and wrong rather than clean and unclean (granting also that obedience to the food laws was moral because demanded by God)--see my first post.

Click to expand...

Eating is one of the most common things that we do and I think when we pause every time we eat something to consider whether it is something God would have us do, helps us to keep our focus on God and teaches us how we should live our lives. If you spiritualize it into just moral commands about right and wrong, then we lose the practical aspect of being trained to keep our focus on Him in all that we do.

The above here may help make better sense of my views as expressed on my first post on this thread. Granted again, my own questions remain. But this is much of the best I have been able to make of the sum of the available evidence to date. And I am too tired to do more or to be more careful in what I think and write, but commend my sources and the Scripture to you. I also recommend Richard Longenecker's commentary on Paul's epistle to the Galatians. I am not alone in my views. I hope the above makes some contribution even if it does not address many of your written concerns or change your views. May the God of Abraham give you peace and bless your comings and goings.

Click to expand...

Thanks again. I recognize that I'm going against the majority view, but I don't think the majority of Christians have done an in-depth study about the Jewish cultural context of the Bible, and my study over the last few years has compelled me to change my views about the law. I'll recommend this sermon series of going verse by verse through Romans and Galatians:

http://rabbiyeshua.com/kehilat-store/audio-teachings

http://rabbiyeshua.com/index.php/item/952-galatians-i

There's a lot of insight there, even if you don't agree with my conclusion.

There's also sermon series that has over 100 half-hour lessons about finding the Messiah in the Torah, which I recommend, but which isn't posted for free.

Soyeong said:

... I don't understand how the OT can be useful for discipline, correction, and training in righteousness, and we are told to practice righteousness (1 John 3:10), yet some its instructions are not relevant to Gentiles.

Click to expand...

In my best-I-can-make-out-to-date theory (again not that I am alone in my views),

1) by way of comparison there are Mosaic laws related to sacrifices and purifications and Aaronic priestly (and some argue civil, e.g., cities of refuge which merges priestly and civil) functions which in some sense seem "no longer relevant" from most Christian (Jesus = The Messiah) perspectives apparently on account of consequences of Jesus' sacrificial death and new "Melchizedek-ian" priesthood under a change in the law and covenant (e.g., Heb. 7:12, Rom. 7:1-4). That and for us the fact that the temple has sadly been out of the picture since the sack of Jerusalem under Titus (as apparently it would not have been were the Jewish response to Jesus more favorable). [[And circumcision?]]

2) There are also various ways much of the OT can reasonably be, for example, preached "for discipline, correction, and training in righteousness" even if a bit of work is needed to tease out the applications in some cases. Think of vistas opening when considering narratives from the creation to patriarchs to judges, prophets, and kings (good examples to follow and bad ones to avoid, for example). Think of the canonical prophets writings and wisdom literature, not only in terms of Messianic fulfillment but also paraenesis/moral exhortation.

3) Note also that various of the seminal ten commandments, the Levitical and summary "love your neighbor as yourself" and Deuteronomic "Love God" and Levitical "Be holy for I am holy" passages are cited in the Gospels and apostolic epistles as if assuming continuity of these things for new covenant believers in Jesus (while the largely pagan world is indicted in Rom. 1 on grounds much of which seem transparently related to various of the ten commandments & cf. Isa. 24:5 of the world/nations breaking the commandments and statutes of God).

4) If my understanding of Matt. 5:17 is correct, there are Mosaic priestly and sacrificial laws which are "fulfilled" in Jesus' teaching (even if not outlined in detail in the NT), suggesting that in some cases, their new covenant applications in some sense seem like abrogation; Karl Barth said, "When the sun goes out, the stars disappear"--meaning they are still there, but seem superseded.

5) Sometimes (not always) apparent inconsistencies or irregularities are just around the corner from a new insight. As we mentioned, Paul in 1 Cor. 9:21 and environs claims not to be under the law of Moses nor without law, but "enlawed to Christ" (on which we agree). In the same chapter he uses (an obscure?) Mosaic law concerning not muzzling the hungry ox as it works to tread out the harvest grain to defend his argument that he as an apostle of Jesus had a right to financial support (which he also declines from Achaia while accepting support from Macedonia). Never mind the saga for which I have some proposed explanation, but Paul for our purposes seems both to expect the church at Corinth to accept his argument and feels comfortable saying he is not under the law and that the law applies (or at least one of them) within the span of not many words in the same chapter. Why? And what are cleansing from childbirth regulations doing in Deuteronomy right after food laws?

6) I had made some suggestion regarding new covenant application of the Mosaic dietary laws even if my theory at that point leaves me less than dogmatic on the point.

... None of which is entirely satisfying concerning your perspective as related to Mosaic dietary laws--and not even entirely satisfying to me, though my remarks may be comforting to us both in some measure. Another avenue also seems to delve more deeply and carefully into the original dietary laws, not that in this case I am entirely satisfied either given my informal and limited attempts and sources, e.g., with regard to similarities and potential adumbrations in the creation and Flood narratives (the early Genesis narratives form an introduction to the Pentateuch and show various links within those narratives and to later in the Pentateuch).

Soyeong said:

I think there is a different word used when God declared certain animals to be clean and unclean and when we declared something to be ritually clean or unclean.

Click to expand...

Sorry I have not looked into what you might mean. I can at least say that in the paragraph to which the above quote is a response, the passages I cited all used the same word for "make clean"--here of course speaking of Greek in the NT rather than Hebrew (or Greek, the LXX) in the Pentateuch.

Soyeong said:

Eating is one of the most common things that we do and I think when we pause every time we eat something to consider whether it is something God would have us do, helps us to keep our focus on God and teaches us how we should live our lives. If you spiritualize it into just moral commands about right and wrong, then we lose the practical aspect of being trained to keep our focus on Him in all that we do.

Click to expand...

Good points, and perhaps not surprising given who's law is under consideration. And on such grounds I would not wish even to be perceived as discouraging your practice or similar practice of others in your theological situation. Yet the NT evidence seems strongly to favor views such as I have described above on Mosaic dietary laws. And one may ask if one practices moral right and avoids moral wrong if one does not succeed in "keep[ing] our focus on Him in all that we do" (given also that my proposal of this clean/morality connection is somewhat tentative).

And for better or for worse, two thoughts come to mind. One, the apparent purpose of the dietary laws in both Lev. 11 and Deut. 14 concern being holy as God is holy (cf. also Lev. 19:2), that is particularly as the one nation among all nations which the Creator God has set apart (similar concept to "holy") for Himself (as His sons, cf. Deut. 14:1-2). Dietary laws in Lev. 11 seem (per Christian Leviticus commentator Gordon Wenham) to follow the structure of creature creation in Gen. 1 assuming the creatures that crawl of Genesis 1 corresponds with the insects of Lev. 11, there being a more obvious similarity between the two chapters concerning the sea, land, and air creatures. Wenham then follows a theory of one Mary Douglas to the effect that the cleanness/uncleanness of the creatures in each case depends on some standards of means of locomotion ... but I don't entirely follow that even if Wenham says the theory covers the animals gamut unlike other theories such as hygiene or avoidance of pagan parallels.

More to the point, the food laws remind the Israelites of their separation from the Gentile world (that w/ NT parallels for Christians). "There is a parallel between the holiness looked for in man and the cleanness of animals" (Wenham, p. 170). There are clean and unclean animals. "Land and air creatures further subdivide into" clean and sacrificial animals, the sum paralleling unclean people (those outside the camp), clean laity, and priests.

--Better cut it off here. Facing computer problems, maybe a battery that is telling me to stop now. Apologies ...

[[Late addition: Assuming the computer holds, may I hastily add almost more by way of question than observation that in various places in the NT analogies are drawn between various OT priestly and sacrificial functions and various Christian practices (1 Peter 2, Heb. 13, Rom. 12:1-2, Phil. 4 and so on). These analogies usually don't sound as firm (if I can use that adjective) as "Christ our Passover Lamb has been sacrificed" typology ... but how far are we intended to push such analogies? On the other hand, Peter in telling us to offer "spiritual sacrifices" and Paul telling us to "present (our) bodies as living sacrifices" are both quite serious, one might say as serious as Paul claiming he was about to pour out his life as a drink offering. The Christian is still to be holy because God is holy.]]

Soyeong said:

http://rabbiyeshua.com/kehilat-store/audio-teachings

http://rabbiyeshua.com/index.php/item/952-galatians-i

There's a lot of insight there, even if you don't agree with my conclusion.

There's also sermon series that has over 100 half-hour lessons about finding the Messiah in the Torah, which I recommend, but which isn't posted for free.

Click to expand...

Bookmarked for now. Thanks.

justneedhelp said:

Hi, I'm reading Leviticus chapter 11 and was wondering if anyone could help me understand these laws about ... things like uncleanliness until evening.

Click to expand...

I may not get through this due to computer problems, but note that the early narratives of Genesis help form an introduction to the Pentateuch. Certain separations of the creation (light/dark, day/night) may foreshadow and be like the "unclean 'til evening / clean during evening" separation. But this is a guess based on a series of narrative ties in Genesis and between Genesis and the later Pentateuch, some of which are clearer, and here I'm not sure of the significance if the parallel here is intended. Separation has to do with holiness, being set apart for divine purpose.

justneedhelp said:

Hi, I'm reading Leviticus chapter 11 and was wondering if anyone could help me understand these laws about unclean animals and things like uncleanliness until evening. What is the purpose of the cleanliness vs. uncleanliness thing? If anyone has any understanding on this, input would be much appreciated, thank you.

Click to expand...

treat yourself to a cheap book called 'biblically kosher' by Aaron Eby and 'what about the sacrifices' by First Fruits of Zion.

Questions like the above do not tend to get balanced answers from Christians as we tend to have a very anti-Law position which is laced with an inherent contempt for the sacrificial system (even if we do not want to admit it).


Steve