Posted on 04/18/2013 6:52:25 AM PDT by NYer
When we think of strange verses in the New Testament, the fantastic visions of Revelation immediately leap to mind. But Revelation isn’t the only place. From weird words used by St. Paul to the trance of St. Peter, here are six of the strangest verses in the New Testament.
Acts 10:11-12 – The Ecstasy of St. Peter
‘And he saw the heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great linen sheet let down by the four corners from heaven to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts, and creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air.’— Douay-Rheims translation (Unless otherwise noted, as here, Scripture quotations will be taken from The New American Bible, Revised Edition)
This reads like something lifted right out of Revelation, but there it is in Acts. In this trance, which Peter experiences, a voice tells him to kill and eat the beasts. Peter refuses because they are unclean—but he is urged to do so three more times, then the mysterious vessel vanishes. This vision has traditionally been understood to be a turning point in the history of the early Church—when St. Peter understood that the temporal laws of the Old Testament, like the ones on circumcision or unclean animals, were no longer binding. In other words, the gospel was for the Gentiles as well as the Jews. (This interpretation is certainly supported by the next chapter, where St. Peter defends himself against charges of having a meal with uncircumcised men.)
Acts 26:14 – ‘It is hard for you to kick against the goad’
Put simply, this verse doesn’t make much sense and the context only makes it stranger. St. Paul is recalling what Christ said to him on the road to Damascus. Immediately before the above sentence is the famous chastisement we all know: Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? The mystery deepens further when we learn that the kicking the goad phrase comes from a secular Greek poet named Pindar. (Click here to read it.) It is in the context of the original poem that the phrase starts to make sense—Pindar writes that it is futile to resist a god. Kicking the goad is an apt metaphor for this, as a goad is a rod used by a herder to guide cattle. (In fact, the Greek word for goad, kentron, has another meaning—the sting of a bee, or other creature, which certainly is another richly provocative metaphor for how Christ wounds our souls with heavenly love!) Now, it may seem scandalous that Paul quotes Christ as using a phrase from a secular poet—one that, moreover, is in the context of ancient Greek pantheism—but this comes hand in hand with the fact that the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek. It should come as no surprise that phrase and sayings from the ancient tongue would make it into the text as well.
Galatians 5:12 – ‘Would that those who are upsetting you might also castrate themselves!’
Well, this is a bit disturbing. Some translations put it more politely as mutilate. Others speak of a wish that the ones who persecute the faithful readers of this letter would simply cut themselves off. Either way, this verse poses an interpretative dilemma for us: aren’t we supposed to love our enemies, not wish self-harm on them? The Haydock Bible Commentary sees this as figurative language for excommunicating persecutors from the Church. But there’s a deeper meaning here, which St. John Chrysostom peels away for us in his commentary on the epistle. He notes that the chapter begins with a discussion about why circumcision—a requirement of the old law—is no longer necessary because of the Cross. (This makes sense after reading Acts above.) He suggests that there are some Galatians who believe circumcision still necessary, having fallen under the influence of the Manichean heresy, which held the body to be evil. So, according to Chrysostom, Paul is speaking in sarcasm, urging them to not stop at circumcision, but mutilate themselves completely.
Ephesians 6:14 – ‘So stand fast with your loins girded in truth’
This is the famous chapter which describes all the spiritual armor we need in our battle with Satan and sin. We are told righteousness is our breastplate, which seems fitting since that covers our hearts. Faith is our shield, salvation our helmet, and the Spirit our sword—again these all make sense. But why are our ‘loins girded with truth.’ This is not an area of the body we normally associate with truth—perhaps the head, heart, or even the eyes, but not the loins. The first clue, according to Chrysostom, is the verb ‘gird.’ This tells us, he says in a homily, that we sinners have been loose in life and ‘dissolved in … lusts.’ Girding our loins ensures we aren’t tripped up by the ‘garments entangling our legs’ but can move freely in Christ. As for the loins, perhaps we don’t give them as much credit as they are due. Chrysostom explains: “They are, as it were, a foundation, and upon them as the schools of the physicians tell you, the whole frame is built. … the foundation alike of the parts both above and below.” If we are founded in the truth, Chrysostom concludes, we cannot fall spiritually, because truth comes from above, not the earth.
Philippians 3:2 – ‘Beware of the dogs!’
No, St. Paul did not have a traumatic childhood experience with a dog. So what is he talking about here? We can surmise there must be a spiritual meaning to this, since the next phrase in the verse warns against evildoers. So, who are the ‘dogs’? This, according to commentators, is a colloquialism for the Gentiles. The Haydock Bible Commentary explains further: “The Jews called so the Gentiles; and St. Paul now applies it to those among the Jews who spread false doctrine, who privately snarled and publicly barked against the true apostles.”
Philemon 1:7 – ‘The bowels of the saints have been refreshed by thee, brother’ (Douay-Rheims)
Some translations render bowels as hearts, so where did the other translators get ‘bowels’?—a word repeated two other times in this one-chapter epistle. Well, for one thing, it’s a faithful translation of the original Greek word, splangkhnon, which does have the primary meaning of ‘bowels’ or ‘intestines.’ This can include the heart but it just as easily refers to other internal organs, like the kidneys. Here a dictionary helps us sort things out (this is from the lexical resources on GreekBible.com): “[T]he bowels were regarded as the seat of the more violent passions, such as anger and love; but by the Hebrews as the seat of the tenderer affections, esp. kindness, benevolence, compassion.”
Peter never ate. If it's your position that God wanted Peter to eat unclean animals then Peter disobeyed the Lord.
Again Peter TELLS us what the vision meant to him. He TELLS us what the Lord showed him:
Act_10:28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
That's ALL that God showed him in the vision. That's ALL that Peter told anyone else.
I understand that people ADD their interpretations to God's purpose, but hey, I can't stop that.
Another point..this vision happened anywhere from 10 to 15 years AFTER the death of Christ. What did Peter say?
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."
Peter was with Jesus Christ when he was walking on earth. Peter was personally taught by Jesus Christ. Peter knew Jesus Christ. Peter knew what Jesus Christ taught. Since Peter never ate anything unclean after Christ died it's clear that Jesus NEVER taught against his own food laws.
Anything else is simply addition to scripture.
Strange?????
Why are these verses strange? They should not be strange to anyone who has even a limited knowledge of the entire bible.
What I find strange is that someone finds them strange. Unless, or course they have no idea what contextual reading is all about.
Strange?????
Why are these verses strange? They should not be strange to anyone who has even a limited knowledge of how to read the entire bible.
What I find strange is that someone finds them strange. Unless, or course they have no idea what contextual reading is all about.
Better look @ All of Genesis 6, it’s pretty wierd too.
1 Peter 3:19-20
1 Peter 3:19-20
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
That's a fun one for pure speculation.
Lot's of strange verses like that...would be great to know the truth!
Good one.
Acts 2:37-38
re: “You said it was Peter’s recommendation, but in actuality it was James you quoted”
You are exactly right. Thanks for the correction.
Why are you trying to tell Catholics what they believe?
Go away, please.
re: “Peter never ate. If it’s your position that God wanted Peter to eat unclean animals then Peter disobeyed the Lord.”
Look, DouglasKc, if you want to follow the Levitical dietary laws and the Sabbath laws, go right ahead. The problem is when you start saying that following those laws are required for salvation.
Two points about the passage you quote in Acts. First, I agree that that passage alone does not say anything about whether or not Christians are supposed to follow the Levitical dietary laws. That wasn’t the point of the vision. The point of the vision was that whatever God calls clean, is clean - regardless of Peter’s previous instruction. The animals in the vision were obviously “unclean” according to Levitical law. God told Peter to kill and eat them. Peter refused each time. God’s message to him was the same each time, “Don’t call unclean what I have call clean.”
Two, you know for a fact that God didn’t really mean it when He told Peter to “kill and eat” those unclean animals? I see no reason to not take God at His word that He really meant what He said to Peter.
As I said previously, I really don’t think that was the point of the vision, but at the same time I wouldn’t interject my own view that God didn’t mean what He said.
As to the Levitical dietary laws, you still haven’t responded to Acts 15 and the Apostles telling the Gentiles that they did not need to follow all the Old Testament/Levitical laws. I’ve already gone through that passage with you. It’s pretty clear and not difficult to understand. If you want more passages, Paul goes into the subject somewhat in some of his letters.
The point of the Law was to teach us about our sin and to point us to Christ. It doesn’t mean that those laws aren’t relevant or unimportant - but, they cannot save. Only Christ as God the Son, “Emmanuel”, God come to us in the flesh, God become man - only He and what He did for us on the cross can save us from God’s wrath and the guilt of our sin.
If that Law could save then there was no need for Jesus and His sacrifice.
So, follow those laws if you want, but more importantly, you better make sure you believe in the right Jesus. It is what you believe about Him that either saves us or condemns us. There are a lot of false Christs and Jesus’s running around.
This has nothing to do with whether or not I want to follow God's food laws for not. It has to do with what scripture actually says and means.
What's happening in this case is that you're adding a primary meaning to what Peter said the vision meant. You're adding a primary meaning to what he told others his vision meant.
God told Peter to kill and eat them. Peter refused each time. God’s message to him was the same each time, “Don’t call unclean what I have call clean.”
Okay, let's look at scripture for a minute:
Act 10:15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common."
Act 10:16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.
Act 10:17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate.
THREE times the sheet was raised and lowered. Then God says "What God has cleaned though must not call common" (New King james). And then on his porch are THREE men. Peter starts to get it.
The fact that God used animals to make his point is relevant, but not not for the reason you think.
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."
Act 10:15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common.
Note that in verse 14 Peter says he's never eaten anything "common" or "unclean". They are two different greek words...koinos and akathartos. Koinos, translated here as "common" In scripture the inherent "uncleaness" of the animals that God designated as not edible (Leviticus 11, Duet 14) is "akathartos", not "koinos". This can be verified by looking in the LXX, or the Septuagint, and looking at what word is used to refer to those animals in Leviticus 11 and Deut 14.
"koinos" though was different. It meant "ritually unclean". In the case of meat it meant meat that was otherwise clean (not akathartos) that somehow had become ritually unclean (koinos). In jewish tradition (NOT scripture) koinos was VERY important. It's why there are so many kosher laws (again most of these are not scriptural).
What the jews had done was to make gentiles "koinos". They had a disdain for gentiles because they considered them "koinos", ritually unclean. It's hard to convey how deep this went into their culture but it was huge. It was illegal for Jews to even hang out with gentiles.
Act 10:28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
It wasn't AGAINST scripture for Jews to keep company with gentiles. It was against their man made rules.
So what did God tell Peter? He told Peter that what God cleansed, he should not call "common".
But akathartos is there still. Even IF you believe this was about animals, then akathartos is still here.
The vision is what the vision was.
It had nothing to do with food. This is and was an evolved tradition...even as the article point out:
"This vision has traditionally been understood to be a turning point in the history of the early Church"
It's tradition you believe this...it's not scriptural. I can't and won't argue tradition because it's not tangible. But scripture is another matter and if you choose to discuss that I'll be glad to engage.
He wasn't, directly. Not that that makes his assertions entirely proper.
The only difference seeming argued would be the potentially problematic retention of dietary laws remaining in effect for Jews, even as under Christ non-Jews were no longer to be considered unclean in themselves, for reason of not being Jewish. Yet in Hebrew religious law there was preexistence of consideration and guidelines towards wayingfaring strangers and sojourner's among them. How those strangers were to abide in regards to dietary laws specifically, I'm not well versed in...but I'm sure it's been argued in more than one way.
Go away, please.
Since Peter never ate anything unclean after Christ died it's clear that Jesus NEVER taught against his own food laws.
without reliance upon assumption that Peter carried forward with himself, to the end of his days, his own Hebrew traditions in regards to what he himself could or could not eat.
That assumption may be correct enough, but how do we prove it?
I suppose it may make sense for him to have done so, if we look towards his own ministry towards the Jewish diaspora of his own times? In that carrying forward their own traditions while among them, and privately too (for integrity's sake) could arguably avoid offending his own tribesmen (Jews) while he preached Christ crucified as divine fulfillment of Law, avoiding the labeling of Christ as over-turner of Law, or as outlaw as He was accused by [many] Jews of being.
Beyond that, which is admittedly assumption, what then?
I'm not sure I understand your question but I'll try to answer based on my assumption of what it is.
Most scholar believe the Acts 10 vision took place 10 or 15 years after the death of Christ.
In the vision Peter says to the Lord:
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."
Unless he's lying we have to take what he says as the truth. This is 10 to 15 years ago after Christ died and Peter still has never eaten anything common or unclean (koinos or akathartos).
Hope that helps...
10 or 15 years? Never heard that one.
Beyond the 10-15 years (if that be so) what of the rest of Peter’s life after that? Wouldn’t one need face there is only assumption to go on, afterwards?
Looking forward at chapter 11 of Acts Peter recounts the vision, the visit from the gentiles and the giving of the holy spirit to others. He never mentions to them that somehow God had rendered "akathartos" animals (inherently unclean for people) "clean".
It never comes up as an issue in Acts either. There's no hint of controversy. This was (and is) a biblical mandate from the Lord God, written down in scripture. If any of the disciples would have begun munching on pork chops there would have been a HUGE controversy. Compare that to circumcision which was a huge issue.
Consider this also:
Rev_18:2 And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird!
Most believe Revelaton was written around 90 AD, about 60 years after the death of Christ. Note the derogatory reference to "unclean and hated bird". Unclean here is "akathartos"...or inherently unclean...the same type of unclean that the Lord forbid people to eat.
There are also future prophecies of concerning the word of the Lord:
Isa 66:16 For by fire and by His sword The LORD will judge all flesh; And the slain of the LORD shall be many.
Isa 66:17 "Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine's flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together," says the LORD.
Peter was well aware of this. There's more but this post would take a long time but it makes a good study to read about "unclean" spirits (akathartos) and how clean and unclean food are a parallel for that.
Hope it helps and take care...
The trouble is:
That still leaves us in the realm of assumption concerning Peter adhering to Hebrew dietary laws to the end of his days. I could agree that it is reasonably possible he did so, perhaps even necessary as much for reasons I've touched upon, as any other.
I guess I'm looking for some confession, not the basis for the assumption, which I already touched upon from that different angle.
It's good to keep track of one's own assumptions. Although accounting for the basis for the same is called for, having that overwhelm the recognition that one is operating under assumption, can lead to arguing assumption as fact. So take care.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.