An example of how the whole law cannot be practiced today (discussion)

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I find nothing to disagree with there. That said, I only support this article from this website. Not everything, I have found they are SDA's.

SDA theology has a lot of good stuff in it. I enjoyed Mr Batchelor's teaching on eschatology. I found it very interesting, especially as he compares history from ancient times with Daniel's prophecy. Some of his views about what is going to happen in the very last days I accept as his opinion given that it is very difficult to interpret apocalyptic literature, such as the book of Revelation, which might have been better understood at the time when John wrote it, but much harder 2000 years later when through the mists of time we no longer have the significant keys for understanding it.

I do take issue with his view that unless we adopt the Saturday Sabbath we are not saved. He doesn't say it straight out, but he certainly implies it. He says that adoption of Sunday worship was an invention of the apostate RCC church and that worshiping on Sunday is celebration of the pagan Sun god. I don't agree, because it was the custom of the Gentile churches to meet on the first day of the week, which was Sunday, being the only day they did not have to work at their place of employment. Before AD70, the Jewish Christians worshiped on Saturday at the Temple, and often Paul went to the Synogague on the Sabbath to share the Gospel. He had no problem with worshiping on Saturday and Sunday, because when he was with the Jews he presented himself as a Jew, and when he was with the Gentiles he presented himself as a Gentile, so that he could be all things to all people order to be able to win some to Christ.

In fact, if someone invited me to an SDA church to worship on Saturday, I would have no problem with that, because I am free to worship God whenever and wherever I choose. I am not obligated to worship either on Saturday or Sunday to confirmed that I am genuinely converted to Christ. Because I am converted to Christ first, it doesn't matter what day I decide to go to church. If I found myself in a town where the only church available was the SDA, I would happily go there, because it is better to go to that church than no go to church at all. But to be absolutely clear, I wouldn't do the same if the only church was LDS or JW, for obvious reasons.

I also take issue with his teaching on tithing, that we are robbing God (that is, threatening our salvation) if we are not tithing the obligatory 10 percent. As has been pointed out on CF in the tithing threads, tithing was not about money. It concerned contributing farm produce to support the Levites, who had no land of their own to support themselves. The produce was not brought to the temple, but to separate storehouses that the Levites could access. The modern day equivalent would be for farmers to contribute their farm produce for the support of the church's full time pastors and workers and the produce is not brought to the church, but made available in premises in the same way that food banks distribute food to those in need. I would support church members agreeing to a set subscription to ensure that the full time pastor was paid a living wage. But I wouldn't call it a tithe, but a set subscription in the same way a club or gym would have a membership subscription. I know that the Gospel is free, but those full time pastors who preach the Gospel should not be giving their services free if they are not self supporting. I think that some church members use the free nature of the Gospel to be leaches and freeloaders taking what they can from the churches instead of giving their time, energy and money to support the life of the church.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

SDA theology has a lot of good stuff in it. I enjoyed Mr Batchelor's teaching on eschatology. I found it very interesting, especially as he compares history from ancient times with Daniel's prophecy. Some of his views about what is going to happen in the very last days I accept as his opinion given that it is very difficult to interpret apocalyptic literature, such as the book of Revelation, which might have been better understood at the time when John wrote it, but much harder 2000 years later when through the mists of time we no longer have the significant keys for understanding it.

I do take issue with his view that unless we adopt the Saturday Sabbath we are not saved. He doesn't say it straight out, but he certainly implies it. He says that adoption of Sunday worship was an invention of the apostate RCC church and that worshiping on Sunday is celebration of the pagan Sun god. I don't agree, because it was the custom of the Gentile churches to meet on the first day of the week, which was Sunday, being the only day they did not have to work at their place of employment. Before AD70, the Jewish Christians worshiped on Saturday at the Temple, and often Paul went to the Synogague on the Sabbath to share the Gospel. He had no problem with worshiping on Saturday and Sunday, because when he was with the Jews he presented himself as a Jew, and when he was with the Gentiles he presented himself as a Gentile, so that he could be all things to all people order to be able to win some to Christ.

In fact, if someone invited me to an SDA church to worship on Saturday, I would have no problem with that, because I am free to worship God whenever and wherever I choose. I am not obligated to worship either on Saturday or Sunday to confirmed that I am genuinely converted to Christ. Because I am converted to Christ first, it doesn't matter what day I decide to go to church. If I found myself in a town where the only church available was the SDA, I would happily go there, because it is better to go to that church than no go to church at all. But to be absolutely clear, I wouldn't do the same if the only church was LDS or JW, for obvious reasons.

I also take issue with his teaching on tithing, that we are robbing God (that is, threatening our salvation) if we are not tithing the obligatory 10 percent. As has been pointed out on CF in the tithing threads, tithing was not about money. It concerned contributing farm produce to support the Levites, who had no land of their own to support themselves. The produce was not brought to the temple, but to separate storehouses that the Levites could access. The modern day equivalent would be for farmers to contribute their farm produce for the support of the church's full time pastors and workers and the produce is not brought to the church, but made available in premises in the same way that food banks distribute food to those in need. I would support church members agreeing to a set subscription to ensure that the full time pastor was paid a living wage. But I wouldn't call it a tithe, but a set subscription in the same way a club or gym would have a membership subscription. I know that the Gospel is free, but those full time pastors who preach the Gospel should not be giving their services free if they are not self supporting. I think that some church members use the free nature of the Gospel to be leaches and freeloaders taking what they can from the churches instead of giving their time, energy and money to support the life of the church.

For the record, Pastor Doug has said many times there will be people saved who go to church on Sunday. He also says there will be people not saved who know the correct day of worship. It’s about our heart being changed by Jesus who enables us to keep His commandments. We are only judged based on our knowledge.

You should check out an SDA church, I am officially inviting you! If in Granite Bay CA you can go to Pastor Doug’s church, I was a member for 20 years before I moved, I miss it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

For the record, Pastor Doug has said many times there will be people saved who go to church on Sunday. He also says there will be people not saved who know the correct day of worship. It’s about our heart being changed by Jesus who enables us to keep His commandments. We are only judged based on our knowledge.

You should check out an SDA church, I am officially inviting you! If in Granite Bay CA you can go to Pastor Doug’s church, I was a member for 20 years before I moved, I miss it.

Being in New Zealand, I would be 12 or 18 hours away from Granite Bay CA. I have no doubt that if I went there I would enjoy it and know that I would be among believers who love the Lord. However, I would be disappointed if someone button holed me and demanded that I observe the Saturday Sabbath, or tithed my 10 percent. People can worship and conduct themselves any way they please, but they don't have the right to objectivize their personal ideals on others, as in the same way I don't force my personal ideals on others.

In the 10 years I worked as a Ministry of Justice victim advisor, I worked alongside a wonderful SDA lady who sincerely loved the Lord, but never lectured me about doctrine. I accepted her as she was, and she accepted me in the same way.

Actually, I was speaking at a conference of like minded people (not SDA) when I joked that because I am Presbyterian I have to be careful about opening my wallet so that my pet moth doesn't fly out. After the session, one the pastors came up to me and sternly lectured me about tithing! I felt guilty for all of 30 seconds. In my own church, there was the man who brought the offering plate around, and when he came to me and I didn't put any money in it, he would give me a very stern stare. After some Sundays with the same thing happening, I told him that next Sunday I will put a photograph of a forgery of a $50 note on the plate, would that satisfy him? He never worried me again.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Being in New Zealand, I would be 12 or 18 hours away from Granite Bay CA. I have no doubt that if I went there I would enjoy it and know that I would be among believers who love the Lord. However, I would be disappointed if someone button holed me and demanded that I observe the Saturday Sabbath, or tithed my 10 percent. People can worship and conduct themselves any way they please, but they don't have the right to objectivize their personal ideals on others, as in the same way I don't force my personal ideals on others.

Yes, that would be a bit far! God wants us to keep His commandments and to tithe through love, not force. The SDA church may preach the Sabbath is God’s holy day because God said so Isaiah 58:13 and one of His commandments Exodus 20:8-11, but He wants us to obey Him through love, not force. Anything else, is not coming from God.

In the 10 years I worked as a Ministry of Justice victim advisor, I worked alongside a wonderful SDA lady who sincerely loved the Lord, but never lectured me about doctrine. I accepted her as she was, and she accepted me in the same way.

We are only to plant the seed and let God do all the work, so it sounds like you two had a good arrangement.

Actually, I was speaking at a conference of like minded people (not SDA) when I joked that because I am Presbyterian I have to be careful about opening my wallet so that my pet moth doesn't fly out. After the session, one the pastors came up to me and sternly lectured me about tithing! I felt guilty for all of 30 seconds. In my own church, there was the man who brought the offering plate around, and when he came to me and I didn't put any money in it, he would give me a very stern stare. After some Sundays with the same thing happening, I told him that next Sunday I will put a photograph of a forgery of a $50 note on the plate, would that satisfy him? He never worried me again.

Our church collects tithes as we believe God owns 100% of our money but only asks for 10% back. No one should ever lecture you at church on what you give as that is between you and God. I can say for myself since I started tithing, my money has increased significantly. I do not tithe for the blessings, but God has been good.

 

[Soyeong]

If that is so, then congrats, Acts 10 is just as literal Or does God symbolize sinful acts?

Again, the fact that visions of symbolic does not mean that anything else is symbolic. Peter's vision had nothing to do with sinful acts.

Yes, but I disagree that men who shaved their beards - which I do not - are less holy then men who do not.

Are you familiar with something called discernment? How can I say Leviticus 19:27 is not for us, but Leviticus 19:28 is? Simple. Discernment. Tattoos are a result of a blood ritual. Shaving is not, for it is not a destruction of God's temple (1 Corinthians 3:17). The prohibition on shaving was made to set God's nation apart.

Something that is holy is set apart, so saying that the prohibition was made to set God's natiom apart contradicts your disagreement. Both Leviticus 19:27 and 28 set God's nation apart, so that is not showing discernment between them, and the fact that it sets God's nation apart is not a reason why it is not for us because God's nation is inclusive of followers of God. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to have a holy conduct for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that. Furthermore, in 1 Peter 2:9-10, Gentiles are included as part of God's chosen people, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a treasure of God's own possession, so it wouldn't make sense for a Gentile to want to become part of a holy nation while thinking that following God's instructions for how to live as part of a holy nation are not for them.

The Hebrew word "shachath" means "to destroy, devastate, ravage, ruin, spoil, waste, etc., none of which are words that I would use to describe trimming a beard. The action being described is done with violence and is more akin to starting with a neatly trimmed hedge and hacking away at it haphazardly with a chainsaw than to starting with an overgrow hedge and making its sides even. I think that it refers to people tearing out tufts of hair as part of a pagan mourning ritual, especially because it associated with the command against making cuttings on our flesh for the dead.

Likewise, no verse in the Mosaic law says "thou shalt not take drugs". Not even in the New Testament it directly prohibitions drugs. We however still know drugs are a sin because they are the opposite of sobriety.

I agree, but not sure what your point is.

Circumcision of the flesh also is not for today, nor did it exist prior to Genesis 17, yet it was commanded for a while.

In Acts 15:1, a group from Judea wanted to require all Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the purpose for which God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Mosaic Law by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect purpose, which should not be mistaken as being a ruling against obeying what God has commanded, especially because the Jerusalem Council did not have the authority to countermand God.

Uncleanness is still existant, but it's definition has changed according to 1 Corinthians 5

The Bible says nothing about its definition changing in 1 Corinthians 5.

. While Mark 7 indeed is about unwashed food, it still shows "unclean" food cannot defile us.

The Septuagint very consistently uses Greek word "akathartos" in regard to eating unclean animals and the Bible never uses it interchangeably with the Greek word "koinos", but you are interpreting Mark 7 as if Jesus had said "akathartos" instead of "koinos", so you are mixing and matching different concepts even though they both refer to a type of defilement. The Bible never refers to unclean animals as being food and never states that eating them can koinos us.

Why would Paul have needed to adress pork in Acts 15:28-29 if there is still a prohibition? Very simply. Christ had already taught them the two greatest commandments, as well as the Ten Commandments. It comes obvious that they were questioning what else they would have to keep.

Acts 15:28-29 is either an exhaustive list for everything that would ever be required of a mature believer or it is not. If it is, then it excludes everything else that was taught in the Bible, including most of what Jesus taught, but if it is not, then something does not need to be included in that list in order to still be a prohibition. The moment that you treat is as being a non-exhaustive list by saying that there are obviously other things that Gentiles should do such as the greatest two commandments is the moment that you can no longer treat it as being an exhaustive list by saying that things need to be included in it in order to still be a prohibition. In Acts 15:19-21, the list was not intended as an exhaustive list for mature believers, but as stated it was a list intended to not make things too difficult for new believers, which they excused with the expectation that they would continue to learn about how to obey Moses by hearing him taught every Sabbath in the synagogues.

Everything in the Mosaic Law is an example of how to love God and our neighbor, which is why Jesus said in Matthew 22:36-40 that those are the greatest two commandments and all of the other commandments hang on them, so they are connected. For example, if we love God and our neighbor, then we won't commit adultery, theft, murder, idolatry, kidnapping, rape, favoritism, and so forth for everything else in the Mosaic Law, so they are inclusive of all of the other commandments, which means that it is contradictory to think that Gentiles should obey them, but not the other commandments.

Some perhaps tried to reform what was not to be reformed. The prohibition on blood has stood since Genesis 9, and still does. The prohibition on pork only existed under the Levitical priesthood. Therefore, Paul was mostly going on food.

God's holiness is eternal, so the way to act in accordance with God's holiness is therefore also eternal, which means it doesn't make sense for you to interpret the Bible as God flip-flopping back and forth about whether eating unclean animals is an abomination against His eternal holiness.

As for fornication, we know adultery is a part on fornication, but fornication ("inappropriate contenteia") is not limited to adultery. The fornication that causes divorce in Matthew 19:9 is NOT adultery. So the gentiles, who did not only eat pork (especially boars), but even its blood and committed fornication, were wondering what they had to obey now. Hence why Paul taught it, adding "no greater burden than these".

Then keep attending synagogues every Sabbath to continue to learn what he taught.

Do we agree the laws are written into a Christian's heart?

The New Covenant is in regard to the Messianic era, though we do have a foretaste of it.

Were the 10 Commandments Around Before Moses?

Did God reveal His laws from the beginning, or were the 10 Commandments unknown until Sinai? Were God’s 10 Commandments in effect before Moses?

lifehopeandtruth.com

Therefore, I firmly believe, the seperation between the 10 commandments and the Mosaic law must be made

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so they all existed before Moses. The way to act in accordance with God's nature have existed for as long as God's nature has been eternal.

The word "Mosaic" is not in there It is not like there had been no law prior to Moses.

In Jeremiah 31:33, it uses the Hebrew word "Torah", which refers to the Mosaic Law/Law of Moses/Law of God.

 

[LW97Nils]

SDA theology has a lot of good stuff in it. I enjoyed Mr Batchelor's teaching on eschatology. I found it very interesting, especially as he compares history from ancient times with Daniel's prophecy. Some of his views about what is going to happen in the very last days I accept as his opinion given that it is very difficult to interpret apocalyptic literature, such as the book of Revelation, which might have been better understood at the time when John wrote it, but much harder 2000 years later when through the mists of time we no longer have the significant keys for understanding it.

I do take issue with his view that unless we adopt the Saturday Sabbath we are not saved. He doesn't say it straight out, but he certainly implies it.

The SDA church believes Sunday was the mark of the beast, even though every day of the week ("Saturday" = Saturn-day) has a pagan name.

 

[LW97Nils]

The Bible never refers to unclean animals as being food

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. Genesis 9:3

Now, I am aware that not every green herb is for food now. But it used to be the case in the very beginning.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. Genesis 1:29

Where had dietary laws been given to other nations apart of from OT Israel? Nowhere.

The Ten Commandments are shown in the OT also. The dietary laws are not. What was the purpose of clean and unclean animals?

And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. Genesis 8:20

Since animals were not given for food at that time yet - they were adressed in the previous chapter already - it was limited to sacrifices.

We see, the Holy Spirit does not contradict His own words.
When He means clean animals only, He says clean animals.
When He means all animals, He says "every moving thing".
Do you disagree?

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so they all existed before Moses. The way to act in accordance with God's nature have existed for as long as God's nature has been eternal.

Scripture does not say such. You quoted Psalm 119. It does say "law" 25 times, but which law, it does not adress. Certainly the law that never changes, therefore, it cannot be the ceremonical laws.

Is there really no New Covenant? Let's check...
but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jeremiah 31:33

This was certainly a reference to gentiles, for at the time they were not His people yet - while the word "gentile" does not seem to be per se the reference of "they", it is the only solution, for the blood Israelites (about whom we do not know who they are now) have been His people already.

Now, you did quote Psalm 119:160, which says:
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Do you not realize this is about judgements (4941 mishpat) and not the Mosaic Law ("commandments")?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The SDA church believes Sunday was the mark of the beast, even though every day of the week ("Saturday" = Saturn-day) has a pagan name.

The SDA believes no one has the mark of the beast right now and Sunday is not the "mark of the beast". It comes down to worship as shown in Revelation 13 and Revelation 14.


God did not name the days except day one, day two etc. with the exception of calling the seventh day the Sabbath and My holy day Exodus 20:10 Isaiah 58:13. The only day God set aside as sanctified, holy and blessed is the seventh day. God specifically commanded us to keep the seventh day holy Exodus 20:8-11 so regardless of what man named the seventh day, does not take away God's blessing when we honor the day He said to keep holy.

 

[trophy33]

God did not name the days except day one, day two etc. with the exception of calling the seventh day the Sabbath and My holy day Exodus 20:10 Isaiah 58:13. The only day God set aside as sanctified, holy and blessed is the seventh day.

In Europe, the 7th day is Sunday, because the first day of the week is Monday.

But SDA's in Europe still keep Saturday, i.e. the 6th day of the week. So its more about the name than about the number, for SDA.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

In Europe, the 7th day is Sunday, because the first day of the week is Monday.

But SDA's in Europe still keep Saturday, i.e. the 6th day of the week. So its more about the name than about the number, for SDA.

What man has done to the calendar changes not the weekly cycle. The first day will always be the first day and the seventh day the Sabbath, God’s holy day.

 

[trophy33]

What man has done to the calendar changes not the weekly cycle.

The week cycle is still the same - 7 days.

 

[Soyeong]

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. Genesis 9:3

Now, I am aware that not every green herb is for food now. But it used to be the case in the very beginning.

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. Genesis 1:29

Where had dietary laws been given to other nations apart of from OT Israel? Nowhere.

The Ten Commandments are shown in the OT also. The dietary laws are not. What was the purpose of clean and unclean animals?

And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. Genesis 8:20

Since animals were not given for food at that time yet - they were adressed in the previous chapter already - it was limited to sacrifices.

We see, the Holy Spirit does not contradict His own words.
When He means clean animals only, He says clean animals.
When He means all animals, He says "every moving thing".
Do you disagree?

In Genesis 4:7, God told Cain that sin was crouching at the door and that he must master it, which implies that he already knew what sin is and that he must have already been instructed laws in that regard. Likewise, in Psalms 119:29-30, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law and he chose the way of faithfulness, and in Genesis 6:8-9, Noah found grace in the eyes of God and that he was a righteous man, so God was gracious to him by teaching him His law and he was righteous because he obeyed through faith. In Genesis 7:2, Noah was told what to do with clean and unclean animals without being told how to tell the difference, so again, he must have already been instructed in that regard, which is why he also knew to offer a clean animal in Genesis 8:20. In Genesis 6:21, Noah was commanded to eat the same food as the animals while on the ark, which was for obvious reasons, and Genesis 9:3 is the lifting of this restriction. The Hebrew word used in 9:3 refers to prey animals, not to every moving thing, so it is speaking about clean animals.

Again, it does not make sense to interpret God has flip-flopping back and forth about whether it is an abomination to eat unclean animals, where it was prohibited during the Garden, permitted after Genesis 9:3, prohibited again at Sinai, and permitted again in Acts 10, but rather eating unclean animals is consistently against God's eternal holiness.

Scripture does not say such. You quoted Psalm 119. It does say "law" 25 times, but which law, it does not adress. Certainly the law that never changes, therefore, it cannot be the ceremonical laws.

Now, you did quote Psalm 119:160, which says:
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Do you not realize this is about judgements (4941 mishpat) and not the Mosaic Law ("commandments")?

The Bible never lists which are the ceremonial laws and never even refers to that as being a category of law, so of course Psalms 119:160 does not address a set of laws that you personally created. "Mishpat" is used many times in the Torah to refer to laws that are in regard to righteousness and justice, which is why "righteous judgements" is an appropriate translation. The reason why a set of laws for how to do righteousness and justice are eternal is because they are based on God's righteousness and justice, which are eternal, so it follows that God's other laws that are based on how to act in accordance with other aspects of God's eternal nature are therefore also eternal. Furthermore, Psalms 119:160 says that the entirety of God's word is truth, so it is clear that David was not saying that some parts of God's word are eternally truth while other parts become lies.

Is there really no New Covenant? Let's check...
but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jeremiah 31:33

This was certainly a reference to gentiles, for at the time they were not His people yet - while the word "gentile" does not seem to be per se the reference of "they", it is the only solution, for the blood Israelites (about whom we do not know who they are now) have been His people already.

In Jeremiah 31:33, it states that God is making a the covenant with the house of Israel, though Gentiles who become followers of the God of Israel become part of the house of Israel. In Deuteronomy 30:1-10, it prophesies about a time when the Israelites would return from exile, God would circumcise their hearts, and they would return to obedience to the Torah. Jeremiah 31:33 is in regard to the Israelites returning from exile and the New Covenant, so God putting His Torah in our minds and writing it on our hearts is describing the fulfillment of the prophecy of Deuteronomy 30:1-10, along with Ezekiel 36:26-27, which speaks about God taking away our hearts of stone, giving us hearts of flesh, and sending His Spirit to lead us in obedience to His law. In Jeremiah 31:34, it says that no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know God, from the least of them to the greatest, however, this is something that we have the foretaste of which will not be the present reality until the Messianic era.

 

[expos4ever]

In Mark 7, Jesus teaches that "nothing that goes into a man will defile him". I think this clearly overthrows the food laws from the Law of Moses. Pork, for example, is a thing that could go into your mouth, so how is Jesus not overturning the food laws?

Here is the objection I want to talk about: The Greek Septuagint very consistently uses a Greek word "akatharton" to refer to eating unclean animals and never uses the Greek word "koinos" to refer to the eating of such animals.

In case you did not know, "koinos" is the word rendered as "defile" in Mark 7:15:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;

The objector will say that if Jesus really were overturning the food laws, he would have used the word "akatharton" in Mark 7:15 since this, so the argument goes, is the word Jews used to referred to unclean animals. Furthermore, there is an appeal to Acts 10:14:

But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy ("koinos") and unclean ("akatharton").

The objector will say that Jesus is contrasting these two words, further solidifying the argument that if, in Mark 7:15, He uses the word "koinos" he cannot possibly be referring to things that are "unclean" in the "akatharton" sense.

This actually sound reasonable at first glance but here is something from Romans 14 where the word "koinos" was used:

I know and am convinced [j]in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean (koinos) in itself; but to the one who thinks something is [l]unclean, to that person it is [m]unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother or sister is hurt, you are no longer walking in accordance with love. Do not destroy with your choice of food that person for whom Christ died

In this text, context requires us to understand "koinos" as a reference to, yes, food. So, when, in Mark 7:15, Jesus refers to the fact that nothing that goes into a person's mouth does not "koinos" him, he certainly can, repeat can, be referring to food.

Now, if it were the case that "akatharton" was exclusively used in relation to a unclean food, the objection to my position that Jesus overturns the food laws in Mark 7:15 would perhaps have some merit: the objector would, of course, have to concede that "koinois" can refer to food and still ask why would Jesus not, in Mark 7:15, use the word "akatharton" since, unlike "koinos", this is a word that was exclusively used to refer to the state of food? But, if you investigate, you will see Akatharton is frequently used to characterize things that are not food as unclean.

Now there is one more way to challenge the position that Jesus is overturning the food laws in Mark 7:15. An objector could appeal to the distinction between "koinos" and "akatharton". They could claim that Jesus, in Mark, is talking about "defilement" in a sense that has nothing to do with the consumption of the unclean animals. For example they could argue that Jesus is repudiating the claim that the way the food is prepared is at issue here, not the actual food. However, look at the explanation Jesus offers after he makes his statement about defilement:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and [i]is eliminated?”

If Jesus is really focusing on a sense of defilement that excludes the consumption of foods prohibited by the law, he certainly has given us a very misleading explanation. After all, it is not just food that is prepared in an unclean manner that goes into the stomach and then comes out, it is all food.

 

[Soyeong]

In Mark 7, Jesus teaches that "nothing that goes into a man will defile him". I think this clearly overthrows the food laws from the Law of Moses. Pork, for example, is a thing that could go into your mouth, so how is Jesus not overturning the food laws?

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so to say that Jesus overturn the food laws is to say that he sinned and to deny that he is our Savior. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, so even if your interpretation were correct that Jesus was trying to overturn the food laws, then that would mean that by rejecting what he said we should be acting in accordance with what God has instructed His people to do, so we should still obey God's food laws regardless of whether or not Jesus was trying to overturn them.

Here is the objection I want to talk about: The Greek Septuagint very consistently uses a Greek word "akatharton" to refer to eating unclean animals and never uses the Greek word "koinos" to refer to the eating of such animals.

In case you did not know, "koinos" is the word rendered as "defile" in Mark 7:15:

there is nothing outside the person which can defile him if it goes into him;

The objector will say that if Jesus really were overturning the food laws, he would have used the word "akatharton" in Mark 7:15 since this, so the argument goes, is the word Jews used to referred to unclean animals. Furthermore, there is an appeal to Acts 10:14:

But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy ("koinos") and unclean ("akatharton").

The objector will say that Jesus is contrasting these two words, further solidifying the argument that if, in Mark 7:15, He uses the word "koinos" he cannot possibly be referring to things that are "unclean" in the "akatharton" sense.


This actually sound reasonable at first glance but here is something from Romans 14 where the word "koinos" was used:

I know and am convinced [j]in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean (koinos) in itself; but to the one who thinks something is [l]unclean, to that person it is [m]unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother or sister is hurt, you are no longer walking in accordance with love. Do not destroy with your choice of food that person for whom Christ died

In this text, context requires us to understand "koinos" as a reference to, yes, food. So, when, in Mark 7:15, Jesus refers to the fact that nothing that goes into a person's mouth does not "koinos" him, he certainly can, repeat can, be referring to food.

Now, if it were the case that "akatharton" was exclusively used in relation to a unclean food, the objection to my position that Jesus overturns the food laws in Mark 7:15 would perhaps have some merit: the objector would, of course, have to concede that "koinois" can refer to food and still ask why would Jesus not, in Mark 7:15, use the word "akatharton" since, unlike "koinos", this is a word that was exclusively used to refer to the state of food? But, if you investigate, you will see Akatharton is frequently used to characterize things that are not food as unclean.

Now there is one more way to challenge the position that Jesus is overturning the food laws in Mark 7:15. An objector could appeal to the distinction between "koinos" and "akatharton". They could claim that Jesus, in Mark, is talking about "defilement" in a sense that has nothing to do with the consumption of the unclean animals. For example they could argue that Jesus is repudiating the claim that the way the food is prepared is at issue here, not the actual food. However, look at the explanation Jesus offers after he makes his statement about defilement:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and [i]is eliminated?”

If Jesus is really focusing on a sense of defilement that excludes the consumption of foods prohibited by the law, he certainly has given us a very misleading explanation. After all, it is not just food that is prepared in an unclean manner that goes into the stomach and then comes out, it is all food.

In Acts 10:10-15, Peter was told kill eat, he objected by saying that that hr had never eaten anything "koinos" or "akatharton", and then God rebuked him for referring to what He had made clean as being "koinos", but He did not rebuke him for his use of the word "akatharton", so the words have distinct meanings that are not interchangeable, so there are two different types of ways that people can become defiled by eating something. In Mark 7 and Matthew 15, the disciples were considered to have "koinos" hands and Jesus spoke against his disciples becoming "koinos" by eating bread with unwashed hands, which is a different type of issue that eating unclean animals. So the fact that Romans 14:14-15 and Mark 7 use "koinos' in regard to eating food does not counter what I've said. Likewise, I did not claim that "akatharton" is used exclusively to refer to unclean animals, so the fact that it does not does not counter what I've said.

When you have one Jew speaking to a group of other Jews about eating food, then you should consider them to be speaking about the things that they considered to be food, namely the things that God said is food in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, not insert the things that you consider to be food. Jews did not even raise pigs, so the thought of eating pork would have never even crossed their minds, especially because it had nothing to do with the topic they were discussing. Jesus was the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so he should not be interpreted as transitioning from speaking against the traditions of men to setting aside the commands God, especially when the Septuagint never uses "koinos" to refer to the commands of God.

 

[expos4ever]

In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so to say that Jesus overturn the food laws is to say that he sinned and to deny that he is our Savior.

This is an easy one. Your reasoning follows a pattern that I have seen from those on the "law is still in force" camp. You take something that is prohibited for us and then reason that that same something is prohibited for God.

Surely, you must concede this conclusion is not justified - you are speculating.

Yes, it sinful for us to add or subtract from the Law; however, it does not follow that is sinful for God to do so.

And who is Jesus?

Answer: God.

Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the way that God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law, so even if your interpretation were correct that Jesus was trying to overturn the food laws, then that would mean that by rejecting what he said we should be acting in accordance with what God has instructed His people to do, so we should still obey God's food laws regardless of whether or not Jesus was trying to overturn them.

You are not really being faithful to the details of the text. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 identifies a false prophet as one who suggests you follow other gods, and as part of doing so, encourages the people to follow other gods. But Jesus most decidedly does not meet the condition of encouraging the people to follow another god!

In other words, your assertion that Deut 13:1-5 tells us that "God instructed His people to determine that someone is a false prophet who is not speaking for Him was if they taught against obeying the Mosaic Law" hides a critical caveat - that they must do so as part of a programme to get you to serve other gods.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The SDA church believes Sunday was the mark of the beast, even though every day of the week ("Saturday" = Saturn-day) has a pagan name.

I've heard that as well. I just take it with a grain of salt. The mark of the beast as alluded to in Revelation, is not defined. Many have tried to define it, for example, as a tatoo with computer like symbols on the wrist and forehead (as I saw in a post rapture movie). Others have described the beast as some big computer system somewhere suggesting that AI is going to be the basis of the new world order. There's plenty of fantasy fiction out there about it that folks can believe if they want to, but the book of Revelation doesn't define it, so we don't really know what it is. That's the trouble with apocalyptic literature, we don't know whether it is literal, metaphorical, figurative or whatever. It's one of those mysteries that will emerge one day. At my age, I don't think I will be here to find out.

 

[expos4ever]

In Acts 10:10-15, Peter was told kill eat, he objected by saying that that hr had never eaten anything "koinos" or "akatharton", and then God rebuked him for referring to what He had made clean as being "koinos", but He did not rebuke him for his use of the word "akatharton", so the words have distinct meanings that are not interchangeable, so there are two different types of ways that people can become defiled by eating something.

Agree, and I never posted anything that would suggest that these words are identical. However, like many words in english, these two words overlap in meaning. For example, consider the words "pure" and "refined". While you can use the word "pure" to denote the innocence of a 1 year old, you certainly could not use the word "refined". But, and this is the key point, you could say use either concept to refer to a process that removes impurities.

Your argument, denies this manifest fact of how language works - to support your position, you are forced to drive a complete wedge between the terms "koinos" and "akatharton". In other words, for your entire argument to work, it needs to be the case that "koinos" as used by Jesus in Mark 7 has to exclude defilement in the "eating pork" sense. But there is clearly no such necessity and we can see from Romans 14 that Paul uses koinos is a sense that certainly seems to denote defilement in this sense.

Also, the careful reader will see you evaded this part of my argument:

However, look at the explanation Jesus offers after he makes his statement about defilement:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and [i]is eliminated?”

If Jesus is really focusing on a sense of defilement that excludes the consumption of foods prohibited by the law, he certainly has given us a very misleading explanation. After all, it is not just food that is prepared in an unclean manner that goes into the stomach and then comes out, it is all food.

In Mark 7 and Matthew 15, the disciples were considered to have "koinos" hands and Jesus spoke against his disciples becoming "koinos" by eating bread with unwashed hands, which is a different type of issue that eating unclean animals. So the fact that Romans 14:14-15 and Mark 7 use "koinos' in regard to eating food does not counter what I've said.

But this is precisely where the part of my argument that you ignored comes in - the nature of Jesus' elaboration on His "koinos" statement shows that He must be addressing unclean animals as well since they most certainly "go in the mouth and come out the other end". And Jesus explains that such things do not defile.

Likewise, I did not claim that "akatharton" is used exclusively to refer to unclean animals, so the fact that it does not does not counter what I've said.

True, but my argument is not affected by this error on my part. But you are invited to try to show otherwise.

When you have one Jew speaking to a group of other Jews about eating food, then you should consider them to be speaking about the things that they considered to be food, namely the things that God said is food in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, not insert the things that you consider to be food. Jews did not even raise pigs, so the thought of eating pork would have never even crossed their minds,

Here you are forced to make the equally untenable move of trying to claim that the things prohibited by the kosher laws were not even considered to fall under the concept of "food" - a wildly implausible claim if ever there was one. I, as a vegan, consider meat to be "unclean from a health perspective. Does this mean I do not consider it to be food? Of course not.

In any event, we know from Genesis that there was indeed a time when God gave pigs, etc. as, yes, food:

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things

So even though the Law of Moses later restricted what you could eat, the concept of such things as food would certainly be there! If on Monday I am told I can eat hamburgers, they will be considered to be food by me. If on Tuesday, I am told that hamburgers defile me, they certainly do not cease from being food, they become a prohibited food.

Or look at this way. All the peoples around them ate pork. So the Jews would certainly have understood that pork was "food". Imagine how silly it would be for me, again as a vegan, to suggest the steaks are not food because I, in particular do not eat them. The fact that others eat them moves them into the category of food.

....especially when the Septuagint never uses "koinos" to refer to the commands of God.

This, while true, is a really weak argument. How does the fact that a Greek translation of Hebrew texts does not use the word "koinos" anywhere really make your case? The fact that we are talking about a translation introduces an element of uncertainty. Let's suppose the entire Bible were written in English. If, in that hypothetical scenario, the word "defile" was used only to refer to the kosher food laws in the Old Testament and never in the New, then, and only then, you might have the beginnings of case. But you would still face a problem that you guys systematically evade, as you have done in this very post: if Jesus is excluding things forbidden by the kosher laws, why does He explain his statement thusly:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and [i]is eliminated?

You and others have to evade dealing with this amplifying explanation since you know all too well that pork, shellfish etc. do indeed go into the stomach and come out the other end.

Or you have to try another move of exegetical desperation: redefine the very concept of "food" to exclude these things. Well, if they did not consider them to be food, why would God need to prohibit them in first place? Surely God did not need to tell the people "thou shalt not consume rocks" for the obvious reason that no sane person would consider rocks to be food. But God did need to tell them not to eat pork precisely because they considered pork to be a thing that could be eaten.

That is, food.

 

[LW97Nils]

In Genesis 4:7, God told Cain that sin was crouching at the door and that he must master it, which implies that he already knew what sin is and that he must have already been instructed laws in that regard. Likewise, in Psalms 119:29-30, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law and he chose the way of faithfulness, and in Genesis 6:8-9, Noah found grace in the eyes of God and that he was a righteous man, so God was gracious to him by teaching him His law and he was righteous because he obeyed through faith. In Genesis 7:2, Noah was told what to do with clean and unclean animals without being told how to tell the difference, so again, he must have already been instructed in that regard, which is why he also knew to offer a clean animal in Genesis 8:20. In Genesis 6:21, Noah was commanded to eat the same food as the animals while on the ark, which was for obvious reasons, and Genesis 9:3 is the lifting of this restriction. The Hebrew word used in 9:3 refers to prey animals, not to every moving thing, so it is speaking about clean animals.

Again, it does not make sense to interpret God has flip-flopping back and forth about whether it is an abomination to eat unclean animals, where it was prohibited during the Garden, permitted after Genesis 9:3, prohibited again at Sinai, and permitted again in Acts 10, but rather eating unclean animals is consistently against God's eternal holiness.

Actually, not. What you fail to understand is that it was considered an "abomination unto you". Not an "abomination unto the LORD thy God" like crossdressing is. It was never a universal commandment. Only for the physical nation of Israel that no longer exists now. All of the 10 commandments are found in the Books of Genesis and Job. The "dietary laws" are not, for they were a specific commandment.

Yes, I agree that eating meat was not permitted prior to Genesis 9:3. However, we must never accuse God of not picking His words wisely enough. When God says "every moving thing", he means it. If it was not so, then Genesis 8:20 also would need to say "every beast" if it simply meant "every clean one".

In Acts 10:10-15, Peter was told kill eat, he objected by saying that that hr had never eaten anything "koinos" or "akatharton", and then God rebuked him for referring to what He had made clean as being "koinos", but He did not rebuke him for his use of the word "akatharton", so the words have distinct meanings that are not interchangeable, so there are two different types of ways that people can become defiled by eating something. In Mark 7 and Matthew 15, the disciples were considered to have "koinos" hands and Jesus spoke against his disciples becoming "koinos" by eating bread with unwashed hands, which is a different type of issue that eating unclean animals. So the fact that Romans 14:14-15 and Mark 7 use "koinos' in regard to eating food does not counter what I've said. Likewise, I did not claim that "akatharton" is used exclusively to refer to unclean animals, so the fact that it does not does not counter what I've said.

The thing is, Acts 10 cannot simply refer to unwashed hands. Yes, it is adressed in Mark 7. Not in Acts 10. Peter himself was told to kill and eat, as you stated, so they could not be unwashed. Nor could they be a reference to people only, for if it was so, we had a problem. Even under the Mosaic Law, gentiles could join the nation, as Noah's father-in-law, Jethro, did. Cleansed can only be something that has been unclean before. If you think every single commandment given towards a nation was eternal, we stumble upon a problem. With that we would have to believe, Paul was unclean. I heard someone who believes the same thing about the "dietary laws" as you do, say this about Romans 14:

"- Some believe they can eat all things and some believe in only eating herbs. Both extremes are not correct because first, God never said we can eat all meats (clean or unclean). Second, only eating herbs isn't the best for health reasons. We need the protein from animals for strength (hence Paul said he is weak, see verses 1-2)."

Now, I am not saying you agree with him Maybe you are less confused about his beliefs than he is. (he is not a Judaizer tho, he opposes the feasts and ceremonical laws, in general, he is very inconsistent, and no, I'm not gonna name his name) But all I can say is that according to this man, it IS fine to eat "unclean meats".

Your idea is strongly based on superstitution. Do people who eat pork drop dead? No, don't think so. For if you were right, many things would have to be sin.

You actually have proven my point by stating that people know what sin is.

 

[LW97Nils]

Agree, and I never posted anything that would suggest that these words are identical. However, like many words in english, these two words overlap in meaning. For example, consider the words "pure" and "refined". While you can use the word "pure" to denote the innocence of a 1 year old, you certainly could not use the word "refined". But, and this is the key point, you could say use either concept to refer to a process that removes impurities.

Your argument, denies this manifest fact of how language works - to support your position, you are forced to drive a complete wedge between the terms "koinos" and "akatharton". In other words, for your entire argument to work, it needs to be the case that "koinos" as used by Jesus in Mark 7 has to exclude defilement in the "eating pork" sense. But there is clearly no such necessity and we can see from Romans 14 that Paul uses koinos is a sense that certainly seems to denote defilement in this sense.

Also, the careful reader will see you evaded this part of my argument:

However, look at the explanation Jesus offers after he makes his statement about defilement:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and [i]is eliminated?”

If Jesus is really focusing on a sense of defilement that excludes the consumption of foods prohibited by the law, he certainly has given us a very misleading explanation. After all, it is not just food that is prepared in an unclean manner that goes into the stomach and then comes out, it is all food.

But this is precisely where the part of my argument that you ignored comes in - the nature of Jesus' elaboration on His "koinos" statement shows that He must be addressing unclean animals as well since they most certainly "go in the mouth and come out the other end". And Jesus explains that such things do not defile.


True, but my argument is not affected by this error on my part. But you are invited to try to show otherwise.

Here you are forced to make the equally untenable move of trying to claim that the things prohibited by the kosher laws were not even considered to fall under the concept of "food" - a wildly implausible claim if ever there was one. I, as a vegan, consider meat to be "unclean from a health perspective. Does this mean I do not consider it to be food? Of course not.

In any event, we know from Genesis that there was indeed a time when God gave pigs, etc. as, yes, food:

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things

So even though the Law of Moses later restricted what you could eat, the concept of such things as food would certainly be there! If on Monday I am told I can eat hamburgers, they will be considered to be food by me. If on Tuesday, I am told that hamburgers defile me, they certainly do not cease from being food, they become a prohibited food.

Or look at this way. All the peoples around them ate pork. So the Jews would certainly have understood that pork was "food". Imagine how silly it would be for me, again as a vegan, to suggest the steaks are not food because I, in particular do not eat them. The fact that others eat them moves them into the category of food.

This, while true, is a really weak argument. How does the fact that a Greek translation of Hebrew texts does not use the word "koinos" anywhere really make your case? The fact that we are talking about a translation introduces an element of uncertainty. Let's suppose the entire Bible were written in English. If, in that hypothetical scenario, the word "defile" was used only to refer to the kosher food laws in the Old Testament and never in the New, then, and only then, you might have the beginnings of case. But you would still face a problem that you guys systematically evade, as you have done in this very post: if Jesus is excluding things forbidden by the kosher laws, why does He explain his statement thusly:

Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and [i]is eliminated?

Thank you brother. The problem the "dietary laws" believers have is that they hide a lie behind a truth, knowingly or unknowingly. They are right that mark 7 is about unwashed food, but they forget that this does not contradict with pork still being eliminated while beaing eaten.

Let's also not forget that dietary laws were given to only one nation. Nor were they, unlike the moral law, ever mentioned prior to Moses.

 

[expos4ever]

Thank you brother. The problem the "dietary laws" believers have is that they hide a lie behind a truth, knowingly or unknowingly. They are right that mark 7 is about unwashed food, but they forget that this does not contradict with pork still being eliminated while beaing eaten.

Let's also not forget that dietary laws were given to only one nation. Nor were they, unlike the moral law, ever mentioned prior to Moses.

Thanks for reading my post. When you say that "they are right that mark 7 is about unwashed food", I would express it this way "while the conversation in Mark 7 begins with a focus on unwashed food, and ends with a statement about unwashed food, it is clear that Jesus has used the issue of unwashed food as a springboard to, between the beginning and the end, make a more general point about what defiles which is that nothing, repeat nothing you eat defiles, which He then applies to the particular matter of unwashed food".

And, yes, I know the dietary laws were only ever given to one nation but, I suggest, so was the entire law given to one nation. I suspect you will disagree and say the "moral law", such as at least some of the 10 commandments, apply to all people everywhere. I have great sympathy with this, but think is not really true in the sense that matters. Yes, obviously, God wants no one to murder or steal. But, when it comes to the Law as a written code, the "thou shalt not commit murder" was only the Jews. Analogy: I am a Canadian and am not subject to American laws against murder. Does this mean I am not subject to some other law - Canadian law in this instance - against murder? Of course not.

You may wonder why I am making a big deal of this. Well, Paul, I suggest, sees the Law as a kind of national charter for the nation of Israel - something that sets them apart from the Gentiles. If we start saying that parts of the Law are universal, we undercut Paul's argument. This is pretty subtle but please be assured: even though I believe the entire Law of Moses was for Jews only, this does not mean I believe is cool with Gentiles murdering each other or taking liberties with each other's wives.