Posted on 04/18/2013 6:52:25 AM PDT by NYer
Let me add one more thing.....a small correction. Peter did not adhere to Hebrew dietary laws. Most of the dietary laws of the jews or the hebrews consisted of a plethora of man made rules and regulations. Peter did try to distance himself from those but struggled as Paul recounts in Galatian 2.
I think it's good to question assumptions also...which is why I believe as I do!
Take care and thanks for a good discussion.
re: “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.”
Ok, I agree with you that the primary purpose of the vision was about people, not food. I stated that to you in my last post. However, a secondary meaning of the vision is that the principle of what God calls “clean is clean” still relates to the Levitical dietary laws and Jewish “kosher” traditions. As I said before, if we only had this passage that spoke to clean, unclean, common foods, then I would say that, “yes, this passage in and of itself does not prove that we are not to observe Levitical dietary laws”. But, the passage does adhere to the principle that what we eat may be better or worse from a health perspective, but it doesn’t make us any more right with God.
Jesus spoke of this principle: “Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart, but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods? (Mark 7:19).”
Paul also taught, “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself (Romans 14:14). Therefore he could conclude, Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. . . Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.(Colossians 2:16-23).
So, while the Acts 10 vision story does not by itself prove that dietary laws are irrelevant, taken in context with other New Testament teaching, we do see the principle implied in the Acts 10 passages.
And, you still have not spoken to the decision by the Apostles in Jerusalem in Acts 15 to not require the Gentiles follow all the Levitical laws regarding circumcision and dietary laws.
But, beyond all of this, as I mentioned, arguing over the dietary stuff is small potatoes in contrast with WHO the person of Jesus is. It is what one believes about HIM that determines whether one is saved or not.
Look, I don't mean this to be insulting or derogatory, but what you're doing is repeating an old justification. There a a few scriptures, lifted out of context, that purport to show that Christ did away with the very same food laws he created. This is a prime example and when looked at in context you can see that:
Mar 7:19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"
Before getting to this what is it about? Clean and unclean foods or something else?
Mar 7:2 Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault.
Mar 7:3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mar 7:4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.
Mar 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?"
The context, the argument, the discussion isn't about clean and unclean meats which are a biblical command by the Lord Jesus Christ. It's about NOT WASHING HANDS IN A TRADITIONAL MANNER BEFORE EATING.
In other words, they're angry because Jesus and his disciples did not WASH according to tradition of men.
Mar 7:15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man.
Remember "koinos" and "akathartos"..ritually unclean versus inherently unclean? The Pharisees were hyper sensitive about making themselves "koinos". The figured if they didn't do these washings EXACTLY right that a little piece of dirt or something "akathartos" (inherently unclean) would get on the clean food they were eating and thus make them "koinos"...or ceremonially unclean which would require an elaborate ceremony and timeframe to remedy.
Mar 7:19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"
Christ was saying that the Pharisees were super sensitive about being contaminated by whatever. He was saying that these little specks of whatever they were worried about would be pooped out anyways.
The MAIN lesson was that the Pharisees were SO wrapped up IN TRADITION and that they had elevated these HUMAN TRADITIONS over GODLY THINGS. They had so focused on the HUMAN TRADITIONS that they had ignored their spiritual condition.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Mar 7:22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit,
lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man."
The Pharisees wanted a greater expansion of the list of unclean things and practices because they owned and charged admission to the ritual baths that one had to take to approach the temple. It had little to do with Scripture or tradition, but a lot to do with Jesus' driving the money changers out of the temple and healing the sick. Some historians say that the real reason the priests had Jesus killed was that He was bad for business.
Peace be with you.
Thanks for that information...I haven't studied it in depth so I can't contribute much. I remember at the that the Sadducees controlled certain things and the Pharisees other. I forget who presided over temple ceremonies.
I was basing my arguments on the words of Jesus and how they had elevated their tradition over scripture.
re: “Look, I don’t mean this to be insulting or derogatory, but what you’re doing is repeating an old justification. There a a few scriptures, lifted out of context, that purport to show that Christ did away with the very same food laws he created.”
DouglasKc, you are correct that context of any passage is important, and you are also correct that the question at hand was the one the Pharisees put to Jesus about them not washing their hands ritualistically. However, it is possible that Jesus went beyond the scope of their orginial question. I have found that there is tremendous disagreement among Biblical scholars (Christian and non-Christian) about the meaning of that final phrase “thus purifying all foods”. Some say that Jesus did not speak that phrase, that it was an insertion by Mark. Others say Jesus Himself said it. Those that say Jesus said it take the passage to mean that He was only referring to the body eliminating waste material from the body and that, thus, washing or not washing according to the “traditions” was of no consequence to one’s spiritual condition.
Those that say Mark inserted the comment, that he was saying that Jesus not only was referring to the washing/not washing question from the Pharisees, but that Jesus was also saying that all foods had no spiritual effect on the person - that it was what was it was what proceeded from a man’s heart that made him “clean or unclean” - therefore, Mark said that Jesus was declaring all foods are clean.
This “Markian” view is emphasized for clarity in several translations of that text. For example:
New International Version (©2011)
For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
New Living Translation (©2007)
Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.” (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.)
English Standard Version (©2001)
since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
For it doesn’t go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated.” (As a result, He made all foods clean.)
NET Bible (©2006)
For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
It doesn’t go into his thoughts but into his stomach and then into a toilet.” (By saying this, Jesus declared all foods acceptable.)
American Standard Version
because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said , making all meats clean.
English Revised Version
because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.
Weymouth New Testament
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and passes away ejected from him?” By these words Jesus pronounced all kinds of food clean.
So, depending on how one sided with the question of whether Jesus was speaking or Mark’s insertion of a comment, determines how one interprets that verse. So, for the sake of argument. I will withdraw the Mark 7:19 passage in favor of more clear passages that support my contention that Gentile Christians were NOT required to follow Levitical dietary laws, nor Jewish traditions. That would leave Acts 15 and Paul’s remarks in several of his letters.
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.