Heb 10:8 After saying above, “SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9then He said, “BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
This should probably say he kills the first covenant
I found this interesting as a sidenote the same word for the law and prophets hangs is of Jesus hanging on a tree
[Mat 22:40 KJV] - On these two commandments hang[2910] all the law and the prophets.[Mat 18:6 KJV] - But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged[2910] about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
[Luk 23:39 KJV] - And one of the malefactors which were hanged[2910] railed on him, saying , If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
[Act 5:30 KJV] - The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged[2910] on a tree.
[Act 10:39 KJV] - And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged[2910] on a tree:
[Act 28:4 KJV] - And when the barbarians saw the [venomous] beast hang[2910] on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live .
[Gal 3:13 KJV] - Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written , Cursed [is] every one that hangeth[2910] on a tree:
Yes, it seems to me too that Hebrews declares that despite being detailed in Torah’s Law, God has not desired the sacrifices it called for, and that this implies “taking away” the Mosaic covenant associated with it, and in Hebrews to explicitly replace it with Jeremiah’s promised “new covenant” in which God’s will and law is to be written on our hearts.
To amplify on Mark 7:19, maybe… declaring “all ‘foods’ clean” could be interpreted as saying that pork is not ‘food’ But Jesus also specifies the broader principle here**:** “NOTHING” ingested can defile you, and “WHATEVER” we eat cannot make us unclean**!**
Thus, using the clearest language possible, must not "Whatever" reasonably encompass everything, including swine (as being unable to dictate our heart, or thus make us “unclean”)?
Here’s a video from a friend of mine who holds to a Christian Jewish belief as Kelly does. His friend from 119 ministries has this video regarding Acts 15.
in Mark 7:8 Jesus states that the pharisees neglect the commandment of God for the sake of their father’s tradition. And in Matt 15:3 Jesus states that they were actually breaking God’s command for the sake of their tradition.
This leads me to wonder, Do those who hold to a literal holding of the Torah believe:
a) The Pharisees and teachers of the law, Jesus was speaking to, were actually eating unclean foods - they broke God’s command.
b) the Pharisees and teachers of the law broke God’s law by washing their hands before their meal.
Jesus should have been more careful with his words, according to Matt and Mark the Pharisees did not accuse the disciples of breaking God’s commands but rather asked why the disciples did not hold to the tradition of the elders.
Jesus seems the most confused of all, why is he launching an assualt of breaching the Torah when that is not the issue, the issue is of the tradition of the elders?
Truly my point is that Jesus was not confused at all, but in fact saw a deeper issue at stake and thus left the TRADITION OF THE ELDERS/WASHING OF HANDS behind and directed his attention to the true issue: The eating of unclean foods.
Thanks for the video. I think the teaching on Acts 15 is plain, honest reading comprehension of the passage.
Jesus is not confused at all. He is stressing that man made rules and man made traditions don’t matter. What does matter is obeying Torah.
Below is the commandment the pharisees were breaking . . . .
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” (Deu 4:2)
They added to and took away from the Torah. Jesus told them plainly they were wrong in doing this. And, I would add that it is still wrong when any other religious group does it.
Thanks! I enjoyed the video. It’s neat to see someone saying that it is still right to obey the God that never changes.
I have not looked at what this guy believes so, please don’t pigeon hole me into another persons belief system. I don’t consider myself “christian” in the modern american view or, a Jew necessarily either. My “religion” is to read, understand and live out the Bible in a common sense, honest way in an effort to glorify Yehovah. That is all.
I have the Holy Spirit, reading comprehension skills and a desire for truth. That is all. But, the video was in agreement with the plain reading of the text which, I think was an honest reading. Thanks for the vid. I’m going to check out the website.
I don’t see in Matt or Mark where Jesus agrees with you that they were adding to the Torah. They did not accuse the disciples of breaking the law but rather they asked why they did not hold to the traditions.
so I’ll ask directly:
Where in the Torah is it unlawful to wash your hands before eating?
Cool Kelly, please understand that sometimes we say things we don’t intend. I didn’t know how to describe your view or his so I called it as I saw it - a Christian Jewish view. I don’t know how else to frame it. So I didn’t mean anything by it.
I don’t see it as adhering to a “plain” reading of the text at all. For example, as Bob pointed out, “Whatever” means Anything.
That is the plain reading of the text.
Marks comment “BY SAYING THIS” means that Mark was reading deeper into Jesus’ words. The obvious of the text, which is why so many people accept it, is that Jeses declared that all foods were clean. As Bob pointed out, if he meant “all clean foods are clean” then Mark should have rephrased it to “All foods, which God has deemed clean, are not tainted by dirty hands” - But Mark clearly saw a deeper issue (hence the phrase by saying this) - that is if NOTHING on the outside, and ANYTHING we put into our mouths cannot defile us, then Mark realized, that it was not unlawful to eat those things because the reason the things were unlawful was because they were unclean.
And here we get into a fundamental differenct - what is moral. Is it immoral to eat a pig? A dog? A Cat? A human?
Do you think Jesus was provking the pharisees and Sadducees when he said “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood”, which is a total anti-law statement - both of those things were prohibited by God’s law. Now of course I’m not Catholic and I take those things symbolically. My point is Jesus used those terms for a particular purpose and it’s no wonder the disciples had such a hard time with such a saying. The same is true of his declaring that there is NOTHING you can eat that can defile you. And if nothing you eat can defile you then God must not care what you eat, leading to the very famous passage that ALL THINGS are indeed pure (regarding meat).
So I’m wondering, what is not plain to you in the text when Jesus says “whatever goes into your mouth cannot defile you”.
Perhaps I just don’t know enough about your view on this matter. Perhaps you believe pork does not defile you but disobeying God’s law to abstain from pork does. But if that’s the case then one has to test his interpretation when God says that pork is unlclean.
As I see it Paul and Jesua are consistent with each other: Meat is for the stomach (Jesus) and God’s kingdom is not of meat or drink (paul) and as Paul writes to Timothy “Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving” (1 Timothy 4:4).” - The plain reading of the text is EVERY CREATURE is good.
You don’t have to be concerned about offending me, Auggy. I understand things come across in a way we don’t always intend. I try to be plain and honest in what I say to avoid that but, it still happens. I’m sure a lot of it is, we just don’t know each other at all. The only representation of our real person is how someone reads what we say. I wanted to make it clear that I do not claim the title you gave me because it may be a misrepresentation of who I am. I also think all of the categories we put ourselves and others into aids in disunity, in my opinion so, I try not to do that to others. I just want to get to know a person as a person. That’s just how I think. Not that it’s right or wrong but, I think it’s fair and it allows me to try to see a person’s heart and not just their theology.
If I have a jar full of chocolate and I point the direction of it and tell you, “You can eat anything”, I wasn’t necessarily referring to the carpet or the table the jar is sitting on. You can ingest those things and maybe even enjoy the flavor but, that was not what I meant. If you assume the table was an option, that may work for you but, the table was not offered to you to eat.
Also, if I say you can eat “whatever” chocolate you want, I am still referring to the chocolate I have in my jar. I’m not saying any chocolate you find anywhere in the world at any time is for you.
Also, I believe my reference to “plain” reading of the text was a reference to Acts 15, and more specifically, your friend’s video on Acts 15.
Seems to me that He did say all I give you for food is clean, even if you don’t keep all the un Torah rules of the religious leaders. Their rules don’t matter.
The reason “so many people accept it” (the teaching that everything is clean to eat) is because that is what they are taught at church and you don’t wander too far away from church teaching without being ostracized or asked to leave.
I’m not clear on what you are saying here. Do you mean it is ok in God’s eyes for you to eat a pig, dog, cat or human for the sake of some other deeper spiritual message?
The disciples were Jewish. They ate only what Yehovah said was “food”. Of course, NOTHING they “CAN” eat can defile them. Regarding meat. They would not have considered anything other than what God gave them to for meat. This brings the whole issue full circle. Regarding meat, it is not unclean if you do not follow the stupid, un torah rules of the pharisees.
I understand some take the eating His flesh and drinking His blood literally but, He literally took bread (food) and wine (drink) at the supper with His disciples and said this is my body and blood. Do this in remembrance of me. What do we remember? That He is our sacrifice. He is the Passover Lamb. He also told us what was literal food for our earthly vessels for our good not, to be some cruel tyrant attempting to restrict our “freedom”. And, He solved the mystery of His body and blood at the “supper”.
1 Timothy 4:4 is speaking of foods sacrificed to idols and not marrying which were the practices of the Gnostic’s and other religious sects that forbade marriage and of eating food sacrificed to idols. The context does not lend itself to what God has given us for food because the (bromah) was clean already, even if it was sacrificed to an idol because an idol is nothing. You can read more about this in 1 Cor 10 concerning meat sacrificed to idols.
This reminds me of a story I heard about a pastor who was asked to bless the roasted pig at a church picnic. He said, “Lord if you can make clean what you have already declared unclean, then bless this swine to our body.” LOL! The irony made me laugh.
The list God gives us as food for our bodies is useful for our body. Having the Spirit of God in our earthly vessels, if we disregard what God says concerning the management of our flesh, and we throw off His commands or suggestions (however you see it), we are very sad beings indeed. The “plain reading of the text” to me, means the context of the whole passage and the whole of scripture. Taking a few sentences out of the whole Bible and using those to undermine what God has given us for wisdom seems foolish to me. How do we deal with the idea that Jesus is the God that gave us the commandments? That He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? How is it then, that He has changed? He is the Spirit of Torah. Perfect, holy, just, righteous, wise, love. The letter of Torah brings death because all sin but, the Spirit of Torah is life and truth.
Gen 9: 1And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2“The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. 3**“Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.** 4“Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5“Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man.
He changed the law here from only vegetation to every moving thing that lives, only not with the blood in it. Sounds kind of like what the rules given in Acts are. There is no distinction of what is clean or not, every living thing that moves is given of food.
I’m not sure if you already answered it last time I asked, but there was a lot of posts going on at that time so sorry if you already did (I believe you asked what verses I was quoting).
Why does the law given to moses which was a change (it was not the original law given, although there was an understanding of clean animals, but no distinction is made in the above), the law we should be obedient to especially considering
Why is the levitical law the correct law to follow?
Auggy- It seems like you are focusing solely on the one verse without reading the entire context.
Anyone could prove many things if I only focused on a verse or two that worked for their argument.
Example:
I was talking to some Jehovah Witnesses and they wanted to prove that Jesus wasn't as high as God and so they used Revelation 14:15, 16 “And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, “Thrust in You sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe” So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped.” They said “See, Jesus is taking orders from an angel. That means he's below God because God wouldn't take orders from an angel.”
So, you see, you can prove lots of things by only focusing on a verse you like.
The Pharisees come to Jesus and ask “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” They are worried about their little petty rules.
The LAST statement Matthew leaves us with is “These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”
What Jesus is teaching is that eating with unwashed hands doesn't *make the food* unclean. If the Pharisees had come up to Jesus and asked why the disciples were “pigging out” on pork it might convince me that your point is correct.
Another thing you could consider is that if Jesus was, in fact, claiming what you're saying He did, why didn't the Pharisees object to that? Why are they silent on the issue? Do they strike you as the type of people to bypass a very could opportunity to make Jesus look bad?
I'm sure if Jesus was really saying anybody could eat anything the Pharisees would have pounced on that. It's a even better argument against Him than their man made rule. Surely, all the people following Jesus who were Jews would object to Him teaching something against God's Torah. Not so much with the “heavy burdens” the Pharisees inflicted on them.
We have to remember their culture here as well. When Jesus said “food” what would immediately come to an Jew's mind? Anything that was considered food. Anything outside the Torah's list for food wouldn't be “food”. Linking this in with what's been discussed before:
The Pharisees were saying that if you ate with unwashed hands it made the food (animals that could be eaten according to the Torah) unclean. Therefore, when Jesus says “all foods are clean” it means that eating with “defiled” hands doesn't make the “clean” food “unclean”. Because “unwashed” hands according to the traditions of the elders isn't in the Torah, it's not an issue, Jesus is poking the hypocrites (Pharisees) in the eye.
For example, in modern times, if Paul would have been written an epistle to Japanese people and said “Greet one another in love.” a totally different idea would come to their minds than our American mind. It's imperative that we read the Bible in context and with their culture in mind to understand the real meaning of the text.
Jesus says in Matthew 15:6 “...Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.” What they were doing was going directly against God commanded in Deu 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” Also found in Deu 12:32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”
If you make it of “no effect” what are you doing? The command “nor take from it” and “you shall not...take away from” comes to mind.
Jesus asked “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” Why should He be more careful? He didn’t say God’s commandments were wrong and went on to say that their man made tradition broke God’s commands, which He did say was wrong. I don’t see how he broke any of God’s commands.
Because by having their tradition they broke the commands of God. So, yes, that is the issue.
I don't see Jesus leaving it behind. He says “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men- the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do...All too well you reject the commandment of God that you may keep your tradition.” Then he gives another example of how they disregarded God's Torah for their tradition. He turns to the multitude and says “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: There is nothing that enters a man from the outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”
The disciples ask him to explain the parable. And the last thing Jesus says in Mark is “All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”
So, the food isn't even the entire point. The points made are: the tradition of the elders has no authority, and actually goes against the Word of God, and, eating with the unwashed hands of tradition doesn't make a person unclean, it's what's inside them.
Heb 7:11Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12For when the priesthood is changed (3346), of necessitythere takes place a change of law also. 13For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. 15And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, 16who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.
metatithemi G346
1)** to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other)**
1a) to transfer
1b) to change
1c) to transfer one’s self or suffer one’s self to be transferred
1c1) to go or pass over
1c2) to fall away or desert from one person or thing to another
Metathesis 3331
Heb 12:27 Now this phrase “once more” indicates the removal(3331) of what is shaken, that is, of created things, so that what is unshaken may remain.
17For it is attested of Him,
“YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.”
18For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19(for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. 20And inasmuch as it was not without an oath
21(for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
“THE LORD HAS SWORN
AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND,
‘YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER’”);
22so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
The old covenant wasn’t done away with until Jesus’ death (he is the testator, the will is in His blood and name). Jesus was “under” the OC. He fulfilled it, then it was killed/put away/changed/removed, because it was weak and useless.
Kelly and all, with thanks to everyone for good interaction on a classic debate!
BTW, EvilMIA represents your widely held view well. But arguing the Gospels do not(?) show the Pharisees “pouncing on Jesus” out of their perception that he violated Torah’s Scripture seems incorrect. I find that he offended them deeply.
The central argument seems to be that when Jesus explains the principle as being that "nothing" eaten can defile because "whatever" comes inside of us passes through, you argue that it plainly is like he was pointing to a certain bowl (limited only to clean ‘chocolates’). I suspect you think this is obvious because the Mosaic Covenant taught that many foods would defile us. But I can not see it as plain at all that the universal principle Jesus and Mark spell out is only relevant to certain items. I don’t see how it would have been possible for him to use more plainly universal language. And unlike you, I see Acts and the epistles detail Jesus’ disciples’ struggle to apply Jesus’ approach to Gentile believers. And I think they follow Jesus’ lead and plainly declare that it would be disastrous to have them constrained by the Mosaic Law.
We’ve cited passages on circumcision, sacrifices, etc. addressing this question of whether Christians remain “under” Mosaic Law (cf. Rom. 6:14f; 1 Cor. 9:20; Gal. 3:23; 4:4f,21; 5:18). Do you indeed perceive that there are NO exceptions concerning the bindingness of the Mosaic codes? My sense is that Paul’s conclusion is that since the Spirit of Christ enables us to fulfill the law’s real purpose and demands, “Christ is the end (telos) of the Law” (Rom. 10:4). Thus it appears that Paul’s focus is that what we are now “under” is “the law of Christ” which centers on love as the fulfillment of the old covenant.
Sorry Auggy, I missed your question.
The washing of the hands in the special way (according to the traditions of men, of the elders) which, the pharisees accused the disciples of is not in the Torah.
The pharisees were a political/religious group that oppressed people by making up laws and forcing them to keep them. They were not following God with their hearts.
The pharisees today have laws as to which shoe you put on first and tie, their rules now are all consuming from the moment one wakes up until they go to bed. It is law after law on how to brush your teeth, how and in what order to get dressed, etc. None of which is Torah.
I think God made an allowance for Noah because there was no vegetation. “Food” was probably scarce. I believe it was an allowance like He made for the priests who, “worked” on the Sabbath yet were without sin. Both are special callings that opened up a need for an allowance.
I don’t agree with continuing in the sacrifices or the Aaronic priesthood. I understand that we have gone back to the Melchizedek priesthood and that Yeshua was the complete and final sacrifice for sin. I do think though that if there was a change in the Torah (outside the sacrifices and priesthood) it went something like this:
Yeshua said that it is not acceptable to commit adultery (Torah). In fact, He says that now (that He has come) you can’t even look at a woman lustfully because that is adultery according to Yeshua’s words. So, in the OT law, you couldn’t just not have relations with another woman besides your wife but now, you must not even look at her in a lustful way. If anything, I would say Jesus expands the Torah. Is this what it means to walk in the Spirit? You need Jesus for a right heart. He gives the Holy Spirit. Then you start keeping Torah like Jesus said, according to the Spirit with a good conscience toward God and with a right heart. Is it the letter Jesus is giving - don’t look lustfully? I don’t think so. By His grace and Spirit, anyone can have a right heart and be responsible in their walk with God. The letter does kill because we sin. The Spirit gives life but, if we walk in Spirit, shouldn’t we be “right” with our fellow man? What is right? I tend to think it is not committing adultery with his wife. (He knows when you look). I think it is not stealing from him. Or even thinking about it. Not killing him. Or even thinking about it. Isn’t this loving your neighbor? Isn’t it a responsible and admirable way for the people of God to live, considering the sacrifice made for them by Jesus and the deposit made in them - the Holy Spirit?
Can you please cite the places where Christ Quotes texts outside of our canon and calls them scripture.
I find some of your statements regarding the “Word of God” hard to understand.
I want to note that the term “Word of God” is used over 2000 times in the OT refering to scripture (OT scripture written by men).
The Term “Word of God” is used over 40 times in the NT in this same way. Refering to scripture as coming from God.
It seems to me this point is central to the whole arguement being made here. We can debate whether certain things God said are applicable for certain groups or certain dispensations so to speak, but calling for example the Words of Moses as Moses words instead of God’s words negates what Jesus himself points out.
Jesus Equates Moses commands as from God and contrasts them with the traditions of men.
Mark 7:8-13
Paraphrasing to show the contrast Jesus is making.
vs 8 “Laying aside the commandment of God you hold to the tradition of men”
vs 9 “You reject the commandment of God that you may keep your tradition”
vs 10 “For Moses said”
vs 11"But you say"
vs 13"making the** Word of God **of no effect through your tradition"
So Jesus himself calls Moses commands “the Word of God” contrasted with the words or traditions of men.
Just my 2 cents regarding this discussion…
The New Testament writers (James, John, Paul etc) all pick up the idea that the fulfilment of the Law of Liberty is to Love, but they also go to great length to Point out that we must uphold that law or our so called faith is dead, the whole faith without works discussion. If anyone here is trying to make a point that the New Testament Writers are calling us to a Type of Love that is outside the perfect law of God or “Word of God”, I think that person is mistaken and would benefit from rereading the NT epistles. As John said, He who says he has love but does not obey the commandments is a liar and the love of God is not in him. Works do not save or have anything to do with our standing before God, but we are called to uphold the law not do away with it.
But Jesus also specifies the broader principle here**:** “NOTHING” ingested can defile you, and “WHATEVER” we eat cannot make us unclean**!**