Did Christ declare all foods clean? Misunderstandings regarding Mark 7:19

Living in an island nation, I was brought up as any other child in our country, to love our sea food. Prawn, Crab, Cuttlefish were the norm in our diet. A meal without seafood at least once a week was unthinkable. With the Dutch, Portuguese & English influences in our country, we had come to love Pork as well. I myself was a fan of Bacon and had prawn & cuttlefish regularly. I couldn’t think of a life without Seafood in my diet. Growing up, we were taught that God is now more loving than in the Old Testament. He was portrayed as the “God of Love and Grace” instead of the Old Testament version which was the “God who was a consuming fire”.

Furthermore, it was taught that Yeshua(Jesus’ true name) came with a New Covenant, a new teaching, new Laws and we were no longer under the Old Covenant Laws. This worked out fine with our lives, society and our diet, because most of what we ate was what God had told His People not to, in the Old Testament (ie; Pork & Fish without scales and fins which included prawn, crab, cuttlefish, shellfish, lobster, etc).

When I first started looking at the Scriptures as a whole, where no verse can go against or annul another, something dawned on me. Does this mean, we have to still eat and not eat according to what God said in Leviticus 11? But what about Paul’s writings? He seems to be saying that we can eat anything. And doesn’t the Gospels even show Messiah Yeshua declaring all foods clean?

Before I addressed Paul, I needed to see whether our Savior (who we are meant to follow) really did change the Food Laws given by God. The only place I could find Him saying something close to “We can eat anything we want” was in Mark 7.

Mark 7:19 was of particular interest. So I read through a couple of English Translations of the Bible, and most of the versions said that “Jesus declared all foods clean”. Interestingly enough, the KJV did not contain this part, while all of the other versions had this in brackets.

New International Version “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.)
English Standard Version “since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
New American Standard Bible “because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
King James Version “Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?”

Why didn’t the KJV, one of the earliest translations into English done in 1611, not contain this portion? And why did the rest of the versions carry it within brackets? As I dug into the issue, I found out an interesting piece of information.

The Original Greek Manuscripts do not even carry “(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean)” which is in Mark 7:19. You can check this for yourself here, in The Codex Sinaiticus.

This had been a later addition by some of the translators to give this verse more clarity. And this was the reason why the KJV Bible did not have this part included. Since this was cleared out, I now had to make sure whether the decision by the Translators to add “(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean)” was valid. Whether Yeshua was clearly stating that the Food Laws were no more. Looking at the context of the 7th Chapter of Mark leading upto verse 19 was essential to make this decision. Let us study Mark 7, from verse 1, and work our way down to the verses in question.

Mark 7:1-21Is it about eating any food or eating food without the tradition of washing the hands?
Reading Mark 7:1-4, I recognized that the story began with the Pharisees accusing some of Yeshua’s disciples of not washing their hands before eating bread. And Mark went on to note how the Pharisees and the Jews would not eat without washing their hands according to the “Tradition of the Elders”. And how they don’t eat without washing after coming from the marketplace and how they have a lot of these traditions like washing of cups, pots, brazen vessels and tables.

Now, some would associate the Pharisees with the Old Testament and conclude that these washings were from the Old Testament Law of God. But, praise God, I had been privileged to learn about the Pharisees and how they had their own Law & Teaching additionally to God’s Law.  (Learn who the Pharisees were, here).  This made all the difference as I understood what Mark meant by Tradition of the Elders” in verse 3.

In verse 5, the Pharisees ask Yeshua, why His disciple don’t walk according to the Tradition of the Elders”, eating with unwashed hands.

This is what Yeshua addresses in the verses that proceed. Not holding to the Tradition of the Elders & Eating with unwashed hands.

In verse 6&7, He starts by quoting Isaiah 29:13, showing their hypocrisy saying, that they honor God with their mouth but their hearts are far from Him and that in vain they worship Him, teaching “Commandments of Men” as “Doctrine”.

Verse 8-13, He further establishes and clarifies their mistake showing that they are laying aside God’s Commandments and are holding onto the Traditions of Men, which include washing of Cups and pots and such other things. He says that they reject God’s Commandments, so that they can keep their own Traditions. And that they make God’s Word of no effect by Their Traditions. (For more information on this verse, read “Who were the Pharisees”). Observe how Yeshua is pointing out the difference between God’s Commandments and Traditions of Men.

What is the context so far? is it Food? Or is it man made traditions? Isn’t the whole conversation revolving around eating food with unwashed hands which was the tradition in focus? Let us read on.

In Verse 14&15, He said, Nothing that goes into a person from the outside can make him unclean. It is what comes out of a person that makes a person unclean. What is Yeshua saying, if and when we take it in context? Is He saying that we can now eat whatever we want?

What Yeshua said was not a statement, but a Parable. In Verse 17, the disciples ask what He meant by the Parable.

Now we come to the verses in question
Yeshua answers the disciples in verse 18-23 saying, whatever enters into man cannot make him unclean, but only through sin that proceed from the inside of man. It is clear that He says that man is defiled by the Sin which is inside.

But is He in the same go, saying that God’s Food Laws are of no use because whatever we eat is purged out of the stomach? Is the same Yeshua that called the Pharisees, hypocrites for making God’s Law void, saying that God’s Food Laws are now void? Before we make a decision on this, I would like to focus your attention onto Matthew 15. In this chapter, Matthew is recording the same story which is in Mark 7. (I will not go into discussing the whole chapter from the beginning, though reading it for yourself will show that it is identical).

Let us read from Matthew 15:15
Just like in Mark, the disciples, in fact Peter(as Matthew records), asks Yeshua to explain the parable to them. Yeshua goes onto say the same thing “whatever enters into man cannot make him unclean, but only through sin that proceed from the inside of man”.

Matthew 15:20 is the Key
Yeshua, then explains what He was talking about the whole time. He says, “These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”
Doesn’t this single verse explain everything? Whoever uses Mark 7:18,19 to say that Yeshua gave us freedom to eat whatever we like, will have a hard time explaining Mat 15:20. What Yeshua’s whole argument was that “a person does not become unclean by eating with unwashed hands, but by the sin that comes out of the same person.

The fact is, that this whole conversation revolved around “eating with unwashed hands”. Mark 7 and Matthew 15 talks about the same instance and Matthew records Yeshua’s words to be regarding the issue of “Eating with unwashed hands”. There is no mention of God’s food Laws in these chapters and no translator has the authority to add phrases such as “(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean)” with or without a proper understanding of context.

I will not be addressing the verses written in Paul’s epistles on this post, which I am planning on doing on a later date. Even though the point of this study is not to prove that God’s Food Law still stands, I hope, you have adequately seen that Mark 7:18,19 cannot be used to prove that Yeshua did away with God’s Food Laws written in Lev 11.

Advertisements

56 thoughts on “Did Christ declare all foods clean? Misunderstandings regarding Mark 7:19

  1. Pingback: How many of each animal did Noah take into the Ark? Hint: It wasn’t 2 of each | Bible things in Bible ways

  2. Richards

    Apologies but the KJV does contain this part: “purging all meats” which in Old English meant cleansing all food.

    1. Col. 2:16 – Paul/Shaul reiterates Jesus’ teaching: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.”

    2. Ceremonial Laws all pointed to Yeshua or Christ. When Matthew 5:17-19 lists not one jot or tittle passing till all is fulfilled. Yeshua fulfills ceremonial law as the law kept in order to effect cleanliness or abstinence from sin. No law can now be kept to effect abstinence from sin without the Messiah. In other words commandment keeping is after Christ’s work not with his work.

    “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24)

    The law guided Jewish believers and Gentiles alike as to the necessity of Christ.

    All foods are clean. At least Christ declared it, the KJV has it, and all early manuscripts have that phrase.

    “What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith”

    Righteousness cannot come by obeying law, otherwise Gentiles would be required to obey the law before God to become righteous. Rom. 9:30

    We obey the parts of the law were unaffected by Christ’s coming (non-ceremonial) because they weren’t fulfilled by Christ. And we obey them because we are made righteous by Christ, and as fruit of our repentance.

    Reply
    1. rameshdesilva Post author

      Hi Richard,

      The KJV does contain “purging all meats”. In the post, I have not said that “purging all meats” is not found in the original manuscripts. Rather, what I wrote was that the words “Jesus declared all foods clean” is not there.

      What we must understand is the fact that there is a difference between “the stomach cleaning out the meat by putting it out of the body into the gutter” and “Jesus declaring that all meats are clean henceforth”.

      What the Original Manuscripts say is “because it goes not into his heart, but into his belly, and is cast out into the sink, making all meats clean.

      Please read the passage carefully my friend – What makes all meats clean? “Christ” or “the belly”?

      1. On the case of Col 2:16 – Please read the chapter again and examine whether you are reading into the passage. I used to read this passage as “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you (because you do not adhere laws) of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” But now I read it as “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you (because you do adhere laws) of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.” It’s basically how we have been trained to look at the passage. Please consider whether Paul was addressing a situation in which gentiles who were keeping these laws were now being judged by the Jews who did not believe in Yeshua.

      2. The word “fulfilled” has also been misunderstood in Mat 5:17-19. It does not mean “finish” but “fully preach”/”fill up” – for more info refer below post – https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/i-am-not-come-to-destroy-but-to-fulfil-what-is-the-definition-of-fulfill/

      3. You are right to point out passages such as Gal 3:24. We are absolutely made righteous and justified by our Faith and the Grace that God shows towards us through Yeshua’s death. WE ARE NOT SAVED BY OBEYING COMMANDMENTS. This was exactly what Paul was fighting against. But please consider that just because we are saved through faith and grace, we cannot say the commandments are done away.The purpose of the Law is not to save us – never has been. It is merely a guide to know what sin is. Breaking the law curses us. Keepin it blesses us. that is it. That is why it’s called a schoolmaster.

      4. Again I must reiterate that the KJV does not say “Christ declared all foods clean”! those words are not seen in the manuscripts. I feel the whole point of comparing Mat 15 has not been considered by you.

      5. You speak of ceremonial laws (tell me where does it say, which is which and what should be adhered today and what should not be). Please understand that I have been in your shoes. I have made the same arguments. But the usual Christian arguments tend to break down when you start reading the bible as a whole.

      Keep reading!
      Be a blessing to others!

      Reply
      1. David Dawson

        I also thought you made an error in the following statements from the post:
        “The Original Greek Manuscripts do not even carry “(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean)” which is in Mark 7:19. You can check this for yourself here, in The Codex Sinaiticus.”

        But you gave the following rebuttal regarding it.
        “In the post, I have not said that “purging all meats” is not found in the original manuscripts. Rather, what I wrote was that the words “Jesus declared all foods clean” is not there.”

        So your argument is that the English words “Jesus declared all foods clean” are not in the English translation that accompanies Sinaiticus at the given link?

        The KJV’s “purging all meats” is not there either. Instead it says “making all meats clean”.
        But this all seems irrelevant since the Greek words behind these translations are there.

        You then stated that “This had been a later addition by some of the translators to give this verse more clarity.” Usually such statements refer to textual variants in the original Greek. But you seem to be arguing that the English translation that accompanies Sinaiticus was changed by adding clarifying English words. It would be good to cite evidence that they were clarifications as opposed to more accurate translations of the Greek text.

        Note the quote by Lita Cosner in the article at http://creation.com/all-food-clean. It explains that “Jesus declared all foods clean” is a valid, and the most likely, translation of the Original Greek text.

      2. rameshdesilva Post author

        Dear David,

        I think my words are still not clear to you. Let me try to put it down again in another way.

        Purging all meats is what the KJV says in Mar 7:19. The word translated purge can mean clean/cleanse/purify. The word meat can also mean food rather than meat of animals. so making all foods clean does appear in the passage. But what it does not say, is that “He declared all foods clean”! My argument is that Christ never made a statement in which “He declared all foods clean”! What He said was that “it enters not into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the latrine, purging/cleaning all meats?

        Please refer the companion passage to Mar 7:19 in Mat 15:17-20.
        It cannot be clearer – when you read this. Is Christ even speaking of food? or is the whole context built around eating with unwashed hands? The argument is on whether eating with unwashed hands makes you unclean.

        “Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

        Dear brother David, I guess, at the end of the day, it comes down to a simple fact, whether you believe God’s Word is valid for today (all of it – inclusive of what is called the Old Testament) or not. I choose to believe that even the least commandment stands till heaven and earth exists. And God’s Word includes the instructions given regarding clean and unclean foods – I believe – as scientific experiments have showed in the past – that what He called unclean is not good for our bodies and wellbeing.

        Some may think I am reading my own opinion into the passage – while I believe the translators have done the same by separating part of Christ’s speech into a declaration which makes God’s Words null and void.

        May you be a blessing to all around you!

      3. David Dawson

        Dear Ramesh, thank you for explaining further. I think all you mean by your statements that I’ve questioned is that the Original Greek text will not bear the translation “Jesus declared all foods clean”. That’s fine. This is what the whole debate is about — which translation is valid. But I think the way you made your claim is misleading because you said those words were not there in the original and were added later. Just be aware that many who accept the translation “Jesus declared all foods clean” are arguing that it is the best translation of the Original Greek text. They are not coming up with it based on anyone adding anything or imagining something to be there that isn’t there. Lita Cosner’s quote mentioned above explains this. Another example is at https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Mark+7:19 which translates it as “(This means all foods are clean.)” and identifies it as a parenthetical note by the author. Neither of these 2 translators ascribe the original Greek words in question to Jesus as part of his quotation but instead treat it as an editorial comment by Mark. So they would at least agree with you that Jesus didn’t say it but would argue that Mark said it under inspiration of the Holy Spirit as valid conclusion. I understand that you disagree. I just think your statements that I’ve questioned misrepresent the viewpoint of your opponents. But based on your explanation, I think I now understand your point even though the way you stated it is misleading and does not accurately represent your opponents’ position. May God bless you as well.

      4. rrichardsjohn

        God bless you and thank you for your reply.

        1. Bro. Ramesh – please show me where Christian arguments break down when reading the Bible as a whole

        2. You’ll note the following: Purging all meats is rendered this way in the interlinear:

        “καθαρίζων” – purifying or purging or cleansing
        and also “βρώματα” (bromata) which is rendered in every other verse in the list as ‘food’
        http://biblehub.com/text/mark/7-19.htm (Interlinear)
        http://biblehub.com/greek/1033.htm (list of verses with ‘food’ as bromata)

        Therefore in Mark 7:19, Jesus has made it clear that it is not what goes into a man physically or what leaves a man(or woman) physically, but the thoughts and intents of the heart. Why else is he discussing the thoughts, intents of the heart in Mark 7:20-22?

        You’ll also note that Jesus in Matt. 15:10-12 clearly offends the Pharisees because he discusses dietary laws and how they cannot make a person impure. This is why the Pharisees were offended. Is there any other reason why they chose to find fault with him?

        Look at the specifics of this verse:

        “Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”

        Food doesn’t enter the heart, it enters the stomach, therefore it cannot defile a person. That’s the point of Jesus’ statement. He then goes onto to show in Mark 7:21-23 and in the exact explanation is also given in Matt. 15. This is why what goes through the mouth and inside the stomach cannot defile. But what comes out of the heart. Now these are the words of Jesus, and he clearly was explaining that food cannot make one unclean.

        In verse 16, he explains that food goes into the mouth, through the stomach and finally leaves the body. Therefore, it cannot remain in the body, whereas thoughts of the heart remain in the heart, and make a person impure. (see v.18 of Matt. 15).

        If you are to take the opinion that Jesus is talking about food, then the Pharisees could not have found fault with him or get offended. His argument about what goes in and what leaves also doesn’t make any sense, because he’s talking about the consumption of food.

        3. You said – “Please consider whether Paul was addressing a situation in which gentiles who were keeping these laws were now being judged by the Jews who did not believe in Yeshua.”

        I’m so sorry Ramesh, but this is incorrect. Paul begins that passage with this: “To give a human example, brothers:” – which clearly is a reference to his Christian brothers (who were Jews). He also begins Galatians clearly identifying the brothers as those with him (Christians) and addresses the letter to the churches:

        “Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—and all the brothers who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:”

        He’s talking to Christians, those who thought that after becoming Christians, they needed to observe Jewish law to be a follow of Christ.

        It’s even more clear here:

        “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” (Gal. 2:15-16)

        So, Jews by birth but also ‘we’ referring to his brothers – know that a person cannot be justified by works of the law but through Christ. Therefore, these are Christians, Jewish Christians.

        4. The original manuscripts you spoke of were dealt with by David Dawson, so I won’t go into those details.

        5. Col. 2:16 – Let’s look at the evidence. You are right Gentiles are being judged by Jews who kept the Sabbaths, and the food laws, and Paul informs them as Christ nailed the legal demands (Col. 2:14) to the cross. Therefore (v.16) there is no way any Jewish believer can judge a Gentile believer for not observing the Sabbath or the dietary laws.

        Hope this helps. God bless you brother.

      5. rameshdesilva Post author

        Dear brother john,

        1.what I meant by “reading the bible as a whole” is that you cannot pick and choose things that we believe is relevant to us today. For example many Christians believe that many of God’s Laws are done away with – which is in disagreement with many passages of the bible. I believe that each word that God has spoken will stand true till heaven and earth pass away.

        2. I have no objection on “bromata” – in fact it is better to translate it “food” than “meat”, as the context of the passage is not about dietary laws. But why is Christ discussing the thoughts and intents of the heart? For us to understand this we must understand what this argument was about. Many Christians think that “washing of hands” mentioned in Mat 15:2 & Mar 7:2, is a commandment of God. But the opposite is true. It was part of Pharisaic traditions (Mar 7:3-5, Mat 15:2,3) which is commonly known as the oral law written down in the Talmud/mishnah. Christ’s whole argument was about “how eating food with unwashed hands” could not make you unclean. Meaning, though you put your food in your mouth with unwashed hands, it does not make you unclean. It was the intentions of the heart that brought about true uncleanness. This had nothing to do with food – but all to do with eating food with unwashed hands. Again, context is everything.

        Why were the Pharisees offended? Yeshua just called them people who break God’s Law (Mat 15:3). Vain worshippers & teachers of manly laws, which they were teaching to be commandments of God (Mat 15:9). And that the intentions of the heart defiles man – but eating with unwashed hands (as per their law) does not (Mat 15:20)

        Looking at the specifics of the verse you highlighted: Mat 15:10-12 – why were the pharisees offended? Because Christ said that what goes in cannot defile, but what comes from within – this was a direct refute of their law – remember their issue “And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashed, hands, they found fault…. Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?” the context is not about the bread you eat… but about eating the bread with unwashed hands – please note that the issue starts with “unwashed hands”(mat 15:2) & ends with “unwashed hands” (mat 15:20)

        3. First of all, let me make this clear – the book of Galatians is foremostly dealing with just one issue “Circumcision to be saved” (this was the main issue discussed at the Jerusalem council as well – Acts 15:1) If you agree with this point, then you must ask yourself the next question – “who is Paul speaking to”? Is it Jews? Or gentiles? Jews were always circumcised on the 8th day after birth. So who are these people who are trying to be saved by becoming circumcised? Is it not gentiles? They are Christians – but have been gentiles by birth. (please understand that there may have been Jews in the Galatian Church – but the letter is mainly directed at the Gentile believers, as it tackles the “circumcision for salvation” idea.

        In Gal 2:15,16, – when Paul says “we who are Jews by nature” – he is simply saying “we are God’s Children (Jews) – not sinners (gentiles) anymore. This was connected to the question posed to Peter in the verse before – “Though you are a Jew, you live like a gentile and not like a Jew. So how can you insist that the gentiles must live like Jews?” – (living like a jew = living godly life) (living like a gentile = living ungodly life)

        4. I have replied to brother David Dawson’s question – I hope you have read my reply.

        5. On Col 2:14, I hope you read through it again. A common misconception is that Paul is saying that “the Law was contrary to us – and that it was nailed to the cross”. But this is not what it says. It says “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;”. The “handwriting of ordinances” is not the law of God. It is the curses that the law brings for being disobedient to God.

        Please note that the “curse of the Law” does not mean that the “Law is the curse”(Gal 3:10). The curse of the Law is what comes on people who break the law. God cursed people who break His Word, and blessed who kept it. (Deu 11:26-28, Deu 30:15,19, Deu 29:21, Dan 9:11, Jos 8:34)

        Saying that the Sabbath is not applicable to us – but only to Jews, is like saying “murder” is not applicable to us, but only to the Jews. I believe we cannot pick and choose God’s Word and what to obey and not to obey.

        Hope I have answered your queries adequately.
        May you be a blessing to all around you!

    2. nosa oyemade

      Dear Richard, when we lean on our own understanding rather than go to the author of the Word, the Holy Spirit, then we fail because we cause confusion and controversies. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God; in the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God(1 Cor 2:10,11) Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 4:1-5- The Spirit says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.————3)they forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4) For everything God created is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving 5)because it is consecrated by the word of God in prayer. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greek or the church of God(1 Cor 10:32) If you are offered food that was sacrificed to gods and you are aware of it you have the right to refuse it because they are sacrificed to demons. Please read more concerning this issue in Roman’s 14; 1Cor 8. Food does not bring us near to God;we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.(1 Cor 8:8) We as born again are citizens of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of God is about righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. So let’s read Mark 7again and pay attention to verses7-23. Thanks and stay blessed in the Lord.

      Reply
      1. rameshdesilva Post author

        all that matters is that we follow Him and obey God’s Word – the Holy Scriptures, in the eyes of Christ, His disciples and Paul.
        Be a blessing to everyone around you!

  3. rrichardsjohn

    1. If we cannot pick and choose which ceremonial law applies to us, then when keeping the OT law after being saved, we should be sure to stone adulterers.

    “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Lev. 20:10

    Ramesh, you have said that “I believe we cannot pick and choose God’s Word and what to obey and not to obey.”
    After all, we cannot pick and choose, correct? Why does Jesus reinterpret this law and let the adulterate woman go free? (John 8:1-11)

    We should stone. Stone, stone, stone.

    The point of the law is to show that sin is sin. The Judaistic believers missed the point of the law.

    2. I’m very sorry about this. But in terms of the washing of hands(before eating), it’s Biblically prescribed. You’ve made an error about this. I’ll illustrate immediately.

    (God through) Moses instructed that the Priests were to wash their hands before the offering – (hinted at in Lev. 15:11 with relation to the discharge, as priests came into contact with all sorts of people). In Exodus 30:19-21 ~

    “Aaron and his sons are to wash their hands and feet with water from it. 20Whenever they enter the tent of meeting, they shall wash with water so that they will not die. Also, when they approach the altar to minister by presenting a food offering to the Lord, 21they shall wash their hands and feet so that they will not die. This is to be a lasting ordinance for Aaron and his descendants for the generations to come.”

    A Potential rebuttal is that this applied only to Aaronic priests and the Levites. However, most practitioners of Judaism under Mosaic law took priestly washing requirements and applied them to the Jews according to Exodus 19:5:

    “‘Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; 6and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.”

    Remember that the sons of Aaron (the Kohanim) were to eat the remains of the sacrifice (Deuteronomy 18:1). Therefore, when Moses instructed the sons of Aaron (Levi) to wash their hands before the ‘food offering’ (which they ate later), this was applied to the sons of Israel as well.

    It cannot get any more explicit than that. That is where the Biblical command about hand washing comes from. The Pharisees and the teachers of the law used it to show that they were clean.

    Jesus discusses this and talks about the tradition of the elders (Matt. 15:8-9) as traditions that cannot defile you. Things on the outside. These traditions are that what you do on the outside (washing, deciding certain foods are clean or unclean) make you clean or unclean. It doesn’t refer to the washing as hands as the tradition of the elders, because this is commanded in Torahic law.

    You said, “Is Christ even speaking of food?” Yes he is. He says very explicitly: “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

    A. “Whatever enters the mouth” … this includes food: pork, kosher, halal or any other food cannot make a person clean or unclean. Whether washed hands or unwashed hands do not make unclean. Remember the word whatever, not lawfully sanctified Jewish Kosher food, but whatever.

    B. The food here leaves the body and cannot remain to make a person unclean. But, “But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.” Not the clean sanctified food that comes out from the mouth, but things that proceed from the heart to the mouth. He’s saying that the evil thoughts of the heart pollute the mind and person not the clean or food.

    *It’s okay not to agree, but just to see it from a different perspective. If there was no command to wash hands before eating in the OT, then I can see your point.

    3. It’s clearly to the Gentiles who were Christians but were convinced of converting to Judaism and obeying all the law to be righteous.

    A. Gal. 1:2 “To the Churches in Galatia” – denoting Christians
    B. Gal. 1:9″If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”

    They have already accepted the gospel, therefore they are Christians. Are they Jewish Christians?

    You say He was saying “You are a Jew” but this was solely addressed to Cephas (Peter) not to the Gentile audience. (Gal. 2:11-14).

    Then Paul writes,”But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.”

    The Gentile circumcision problem was what he was taking about. You are correct. But it doesn’t stop there. It goes on further.

    A. Paul now goes on to talk about the whole law: “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Gal. 2:21)
    He states “the law” not circumcision alone.
    B. (Gal. 3:13) “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us…” Now Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law not the curse of circumcision, but the curse of the law.
    C. Why was the law given? “Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.” (Gal. 3:19)

    The law was added because of transgressions until Jesus came.

    D. Now that Christ has come, we are no longer under this guardian that adds sins to our record.

    “Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.” (Gal. 3:23-25)

    5. Paul begins with saying the “handwriting in the decrees” [which can be taken to mean the law]. And then explains what those apply to in verse 16, where he explicitly interprets Christ’s victory over the enemies by permitting no judgment on those who break Sabbaths, new moons (a type of sabbath) and a Biblical feast (v.15-16). It’s pretty obvious. It is in the same context of the ordinances that he discusses Sabbaths, new moons and feasts.

    In Ephesians 2:15, it clearly specifies what the decrees are:

    “He made of no effect the law consisting of commands and expressed in regulations, so that He might create in Himself one new man from the two, resulting in peace” (Ephesians 2:15)

    http://biblehub.com/text/ephesians/2-15.htm

    The law in terms of commandments and regulations was made of no effect by the cross. Very simply, Paul expresses this same idea in Galatians. It is all of Paul’s teachings together.

    If you look at the 10 commandments, Jesus raised the bar higher. With adultery, he expressed the need to keep the heart and eyes clean, not just the bed. He did this with every other commandment except the Sabbath. Because keeping the Sabbath only pointed to Christ, now that Christ has come, we have already entered the Sabbath rest permanently when we accept Him. This is clearly expressed in Hebrews 4:9.

    Keeping the Sabbath is the only commandment Jesus did not talk about or command. If Jesus expressed parallels or raised the bar higher between the 10 commandments and his own commands, he failed to do so regarding the Sabbath or the Sabbaths. It’s sorely missing from the repertoire of Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament.

    My challenge to you is then why does Jesus say that the Sabbath is made for man rather than man for the Sabbath? (Mark 2:27) in the context of an absence of a command to obey the Sabbath?

    If we are to obey the law of Moses, then should we stone those who disobey the law of the Sabbath(Exodus 31:14-15)?

    “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

    33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

    34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

    35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

    36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”

    I’m discussing the command in verse 36, where the Lord commanded Moses to stone. Are we to stone those who disobey the law of the Sabbath, for this is what the Lord commanded? (Num. 15:32-36, Exodus 31:14-15)

    In the logic you mention, this doesn’t just apply to the Israelites, but to everyone. You may not pick and choose what you accept to obey. All the law must be obeyed if you follow the commands of God through Moses.

    The other option is to believe that Jesus fulfilled the law, for he has broken down every separation between God and man including the ability to fulfill the whole law. We obey the law of love because we are saved. We are free from the curse of the law(of Moses), that is cursed is everyone who does not do everything in the law(of Moses)Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10 If we are to obey the law of Moses, we have to do everything written in the Torah.

    God bless you brother!

    Reply
    1. rameshdesilva Post author

      Dear Brother John,

      1.Yes. I do believe we cannot pick and choose what we obey. So you are questioning me, why I do not stone adulterers according to God’s Law – fair enough – this is why:

      Many Christians believe that the children of Israel leading upto the Jews in the time of Yeshua were a barbaric bunch who went stoning anyone who had fault. This is how we have viewed the Old Testament and the laws of the Old Testament. If someone sins – they get stoned. This has even led some to believe God to be harsh and unforgiving in the Old Testament compared to the New Testament, where He is full of grace. The truth is that no one could just stone anyone, under God’s Law. This was capital punishment declared by God “the king” of Israel at the time, with judges who had to carry out necessary proceeding with witnesses. They could not stone anyone just because they were accused of adultery – there needed to be proper procedure adhered to.

      Please read below for more info: https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/could-anyone-in-old-testament-times-take-an-eye-for-an-eye/

      So why don’t I stone anyone? I am not a judge, or a person of authority to carry out judgement. Stoning someone for adultery, written in the scriptures, would be the same as punishing someone for breaking the law of any country today. Not everyone can do it. Policemen can take you into custody. Witnesses can give witness. And judges can give final sentences. And the person is punished accordingly. We cannot be vigilantes and take the law into our own hands. Some people may even do such things. But the law itself does not allow common people to do so.

      So why did Christ let the woman who committed adultery go free? Same reason, my friend – He was not a judge of Israel. This was not a proper court. Yeshua was teaching people, and some people want a woman punished just then and there? Christ knew that these things cannot be done in kangaroo courts. Furthermore, the Law stipulates the man to be punished along with the woman. Where is the man? And the law goes onto say that the witness should cast the first stone. Why don’t even the so called witnesses throw the first stones? So, now you should understand why John writes “This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.(John 8:6)” this was a plot to catch Yeshua in giving a wrong decision when it comes to the Law.

      Simply put- no one should Stone, stone, stone – as this would be illegal as per God’s Law.

      You are half-right when you say that the point of the law is to show that sin is sin. The point of the Law is three-fold “even today”. (1)God’s Law shows what sin is, (2)God’s Law blesses who obeys God’s words, (3)God’s Law curses who disobeys God’s words. Please read below for more info: https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/is-gods-law-a-curse/

      Please note that we should not generalize in saying that all Jews at the time of Yeshua missed the point of the law – I hope this is not what you are saying. This is not the case even today – We should not think Judaism as a whole is an unforgiving bunch who have missed the point of the Law. Just as we have different denominations in Christianity, they have different sects. We should not forget that Christianity (as it is known today) started out in the 1st century as a sect of Judaism, and not as a new religion or idea. Please read below for more info: https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/sect-of-the-way-the-nazarenes-christians-names-given-to-the-early-church/

      2. You were correct in guessing the potential rebuttal, in the case of washing of hands. Dear brother, your argument is that a certain Law prescribed for one set of people, to be applied to the whole. To put it in a crude way, it’s like saying that the law which says Drivers should not drive under the influence of alcohol – should be applied to everyone – so that no one can drink alcohol at all.

      Not only was Exo 30:19-21 directed only at the Aaronic priesthood, this was a command when entering the Jerusalem temple/tabernacle. This did not mean that the Aaronic priesthood had to eat food at home after washing their hands and feet.

      You have said “most practitioners of Judaism under Mosaic law took priestly washing requirements and applied them to the Jews according to Exodus 19:5” – who are these practitioners of Judaism you speak of? Is it the orthodox Jews who follow the Oral Law attributed to the Pharisees?

      Please note that no one can become a priest on earth, other than the sons of Aaron. Not even Christ according to Heb 7:14 & 8:4. If you know the story of Korah, this would be even more obvious to you. The priesthood, it’s duties & laws were prescribed only to Aaron and his sons – not even to the larger tribe of Levi.

      When God spoke in Exo 19:5, He offered the priesthood to all who obeyed Him. But, remember that He chose Aaron and his sons as priests and Levi to serve in the temple afterwards, because of their disobedience. There is no way that anyone can apply Exo 19:5 and say I am now a priest – they are basically becoming new age Korah’s. Even if they did, the Law of washing the hands and feet, pertained only when serving at the tabernacle/temple precinct – so how you apply this to day to day life and consumption of food is puzzling.

      The Pharisees and the teachers of the law, may or may not have used it to explain their own tradition. But this is far off from God’s Law.

      You have said that “It doesn’t refer to the washing of hands as the tradition of the elders, because this is commanded in Torahic law.” – So why do the Pharisees ask “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” Without saying ““Why do thy disciples transgress the law of Moses/Scriptures?” Dear brother, did not Yeshua start by comparing “their traditions” & “God’s Law” as 2 different things?(Mat 15:3) Please read below for more info: https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/who-were-the-pharisees/

      A. On “Whatever enters the mouth” – you are saying that the word “whatever” proves that the whole conversation is about any food. Basically eating anything whether prescribed by God’s Law as clean or unclean – rather than being the key point of eating anything with unwashed hands. Even if I agree with you, (which I do not – because of context of the passage) the question becomes what “whatever that enters the mouth” could be. As per you, and the majority of Christianity, “whatever” is pork, crab, lion, snake, frog, snail, cockroach, lizards, dog, cat, etc. I believe that “whatever” means what Yeshua would have believed food to be. I don’t think you consider dog as food. Neither did Israel consider pork and all unclean animals as food. If this was about food – couldn’t yeshua just say that the food laws given by God is null and void? (If He did, he would have been a sinner as per Deut 12:32, 4:2 & the least in the kingdom of God by His own words Mat 5:19)

      B. The whole argument is that “food you eat cannot defile you because you ate with unwashed hands – as it goes all into the gutter. Rather, what defiles you is what comes out of you” – the key is that the defilement happens because food is had without unwashed hands. Again, I stand firm on the point that Yeshua is not going against God’s Word & His Laws of clean/unclean food. You ask me to look at it from a different perspective – I was born looking at it from your perspective. I see things differently now, because I chose to put away my preconceived ideas and look at it differently. And again I must stress “THERE IS NO COMMAND IN THE OT FOR PEOPLE TO WASH HANDS BEFORE EATING”. It is a poor argument to use the law of washing hands and feet before entering the tabernacle/temple given specifically to the Aaronic priesthood, and apply it to this situation.

      3. I am happy that you see that Galatians was directed at Gentile and not Jewish followers of Yeshua. These followers were not trying to convert to Judaism, as “Christianity” as we call it today, was “the Nazarene sect” inside of Judaism at that time. To believe in Yeshua, was to come under the umbrella of Judaism. (Please do not misunderstand me on the point – Judaism at the time was the belief of the one true God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, even though there were many sects under it) Please read below for more info: https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/sect-of-the-way-the-nazarenes-christians-names-given-to-the-early-church/

      On the question whether it is the whole law, or circumcision – I implore you to read Galatians in one go. But let me make a few comments as well.
      Dear brother, the issue here is “justification through the Law”. Basically, being saved because of obeying the Law. And the law everyone was worried about was “circumcision”. Whether anyone is truly saved if they are not circumcised. That is why Paul takes the example of Abraham in the whole of Chapter 3 – because he was the one who God gave the covenant of circumcision to. And he was not circumcised for 25 years of walking with God. I hope you would take my advice and read Galatians as one letter from the first letter to the last – then you will see, that the core issue is none other than circumcision.

      A. (Gal. 2:21) You said that Paul states “the law” not circumcision alone. (Yes, but the context is Circumcision – and that is the Law he is trying to explain to the Galatians.

      B. (Gal. 3:13) You said Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, not the curse of circumcision. There is no such thing as a curse of circumcision – circumcision is part of the Law. And the curse of the Law is what you receive for disobeying God’s Words/Law. Please read the link below: https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/is-gods-law-a-curse/

      C. (Gal. 3:19) You said that the law was added because of transgressions until Jesus came. The usual reading of this verse is “the law was added because of sin, till jesus came and took it away – so there is no need for the Law now”. Yeshua did not come to remove the Law, but the “curse of the Law” (there is such a thing as the blessings of the Law & the curses of the Law) He came so that when we do sin, we do not need to pay the penalty for breaking the Law. It is vastly different to saying “the Law which is the curse has been removed through Christ” – this is not what Paul says [in fact Paul said that the Law is not Sin, but the knowledge of Sin (Rom 7:7), the law and the Commandments are holy, righteous and good (Rom 7:12,16), the Law is not what leads us to death (Rom 7:13), the Law is Spiritual (Rom 7:14), he delights in God’s law (Rom 7:22), He serves the Law of God (Rom 7:25)]

      D. You said “Now that Christ has come, we are no longer under this guardian that adds sins to our record.” Dear brother, if Sin is regarded as breaking the Law (1John 3:4) – whoever sins has to pay for it. The difference is when Christ came, He took on the penalty on himself – so that we can be free – not from the Law, but from the curse of the Law. We no longer have to pay for our own sins, but this does not mean that we have a free pass to keep on sinning (breaking God’s Law). So it is true that we are no longer “under” the law – but this does not mean that we are “free” from the Law. The Law is not a burden to be freed from – it is precepts and instructions to live a holy life to God. Christianity has made God’s Law seem to be heavy bonds & chains laid on people, when both David & James spoke of it as liberty (James 2:12, Psalm 119:45)

      I would also like to add another point here – Dear brother, what do you think the New Covenant is? In short, “it is the writing of God’s Laws in our hearts and minds” (Heb 8:8-10 quoted from Jer 31:31-33). Christ’s blood was the blood of this Covenant. If there is no Law as you, and mainline Christianity believes, there can be no New Covenant.

      5. On the “handwriting of decrees” – it cannot be taken as “God’s Law”. Why? Because the word decrees is an unusual word which is in only 5 places in the New Testament, 2 of them being in Paul’s letters in Col 2:14 & Eph 2:15. Paul’s use of words need to be taken seriously here – why does he use G1378 – Dogmah only in these verses, when there are more than 90 occurrences of “Law”? these questions need pondering brother, before we leap into conclusions that fit our theology. These 2 occurrences are speaking of the separation of Jew and Gentile through decrees that barred Gentiles from worshipping God among Jews. These were man-made decrees. Why do I say that they were man made? If you read Col 2:15, you see the mention of principalities and powers just before the mention of “therefore let no man judge you”. It is basically sandwiched between “decrees” & “judgement”. These were physical, fleshly principalities and powers Paul is speaking of. This is further proved by checking Eph 2:14-16 where he speaks of the “middle wall” in the temple court, which was added by the authorities even though it was not part of the temple design given by God. Please read below for more info: https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/the-middle-wall-of-partition-misunderstandings-regarding-eph-214-16/

      Basically, both Col 2:14 & Eph 2:14 speaks of man-made decrees that separated Gentile from coming into the fold of God’s flock.

      On Col 2:16, as I said before, Paul is asking the Galatians not to let anyone judge them “for keeping” the Sabbaths, etc. Mainline Christianity reads it as, not to let anyone judge them “for not keeping” the Sabbaths. The verse can be read both ways, if you look at it critically. But context reveals it can only mean that the Galatian Gentiles were being judged by non believing Jews(and perhaps some believing Jews as well) for keeping the Sabbaths, etc. Paul is telling them not to let anyone judge them as they are obeying God’s Law. If we read it the other way, that Paul is praising them for not keeping the Sabbaths,etc – we must explain how the Sabbaths, holy days, etc is connected to Col 2:8. Is Paul saying that God’s Law is Philosophy, vain deceit, traditions of men & rudiments of the world? I choose to believe he praised the Galatians for keeping God’s Law even when they were being judged for it.

      Dear brother, I hope you heed Peter’s words when it comes to Paul’s letters on the case of God’s Law. (2Pe 3:14-17 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.) Many Christians don’t see any difficulties reading Paul’s words. It all seems very straight forward – That’s not what Peter says, even in the time of the 1st century, there were misunderstandings circulating regarding Paul’s words. This is further highlighted by the words of james “Act 21:20-24 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.”

      Yeshua definitely raised the bar – this was a major part of His mission – He came to “fully preach” the Law. (The word “fulfill” in Mat 5:17 means fill/fill up/perfect/fully preach) – please read below for more info: https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/i-am-not-come-to-destroy-but-to-fulfil-what-is-the-definition-of-fulfill/

      You have said that he expressly raised the bar higher on all commandments other than the Sabbath, because it pointed to Christ according to Heb 4:9. Dear brother, Hebrews 4:9 is speaking of the Kingdom of God yet to come. This does not prove that the Sabbath is done away. All of mainline Christianity is following what we have inherited from Roman Catholicism. They are the ones who changed the day of rest from Sabbath to Sunday. (And they own up to this fact in some of their church documents, as they believe they have the authority to do so). The Reformation did help Protestants such as us to break away from some traditions, but their remains many traditions we inherited from them, that we eagerly try to explain using verses plucked from here and there.

      Keeping the Sabbath, was a “non-issue” in the 1st century amongst a Jewish audience. In fact, the Pharisees had made so many burdensome decrees around the Sabbath – that many of the quarrels Yeshua had with the Pharisees were because they thought He was breaking the Law. “Don’t pluck corn”, “Don’t heal”, “Don’t carry a bed” were not part of the commandment. It simply said 6 days you shall work, but rest on the 7th. It was solely about Monetary work, inclusive of buying and selling (Read Nehemiah chap 13 for more info). Healing, eating and carrying something was never considered breaking the Sabbath. (Note that the Orthodox Jews who hold onto the Oral Law adhere to all of these extra decrees pertaining to the Sabbath) This was also a reason Yeshua could say “my burden is light”, as the pharisaic authorities had made God’s law burdensome.

      I accept your challenge on explaining why Yeshua says “that the Sabbath is made for man rather than man for the Sabbath”. Context of the passage reveals the Pharisees questioning Yeshua “why His disciple do what is not Lawful on the Sabbath”. Where does it say that one cannot pluck and eat corn on the Sabbath? Not in the OT. But the Pharisees obviously regarded this as “work”. So Yeshua explains a key concept in God’s Word – Love – you cannot break one commandment to keep another. Abiathar encountered such a problem – to let David’s people die, or give bread which should not be shared with anyone outside the temple. He chose love. In the same way, Yeshua points at the Pharisees on looking at the Sabbath with the same lens. If I keep the Sabbath, can I let someone die or go hungry, because I want to keep a commandment? you cannot break one commandment to keep another. So coming to your question, why did he say “the Sabbath is made for man rather than man for the Sabbath” – simple – because the Pharisees were serving the Sabbath, when God intended the Sabbath to be a day of rest which served man. God made the Sabbath to serve man, rather than man serving the Sabbath.

      Now my challenge to you dear brother. Did yeshua say “the Sabbath is made for man rather than man for the Sabbath” or “the Sabbath is made for jews rather than jews for the Sabbath? If it was made for man – why do you not enjoy it as per God’s command? Question yourself brother – do you not keep it because you have been taught there is no such thing? Or that it’s done away? Does this verse really prove that Yeshua did away with the Sabbath? Questions to ponder on.

      As I said before, we cannot stone anyone without the proper authority. It’s the same as me trying to give the lethal injection to a person who has murdered. I cannot do it, as there are proper authorities and procedures for that Law. But is “murder” less of a crime, because I cannot enact justice? I hope you get my point. When Yeshua rules again, I believe God’s Law will be in effect once again – as we see that sin is wiped out completely only after the 1000 year reign (Rev 20:5-14)

      ALL THE LAW MUST BE OBEYED, AS IT IS GOD’S WORD! But we must read God’s Law first – In it there are general laws for everyone such as Food laws, ten commandments, holy days, etc. And there are specific laws given to fathers, daughters, men, women, levites, aaronic priests, judges, kings, soldiers, farmers, etc. The law that governs a woman can’t be applied to a man or vice versa. The law that governs an Aaronic priest can’t be applied to a levite. It’s similar with our own constitutions – where there are specific laws for businessmen, farmers, drivers, pedestrians, etc.
      There is no other option, my friend! At least for me, as I want to show my love to my Father in Heaven, by obeying His Word. I know that I cannot fulfill the whole law. I will fall. But that is the whole reason Christ came to this world. He has taken upon himself my penalty of death, so I can obey my Father to the best of my ability. Yeshua’s blood is God’s grace towards me – it reminds me that I have been purchased from sin.
      Many say that they obey the Law of Love – thinking it’s something different to God’s Law. Consider that the Golden rule “love God” & “love neighbor” comes from the OT – Deut 10:12 & Lev 19:18. Contrary to popular belief, it was a known fact that these 2 Laws governed the rest. (See how an expert in the law knew this fact in Luk 10:27)

      As I explained above, the curse of the Law is not God’s Law – it is the penalty you receive for breaking God’s Law. And again, let me reaffirm that we must obey all of God’s Law – as much as, we must obey the law of our own countries. Every Law in the constitution might not apply to me. But what applies, must be adhered to – that is, if we believe we are the Children of the God of Creation – the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob.

      Let me end this reply by thanking you for your long response, and having this discussion with me. I hope I have explained myself adequately, and have given you the necessary answers you require. Please note that I will not respond beyond this long explanation I have provided, as I do not believe it will benefit either of us, if this thread becomes a long list of arguments and counter-arguments. I thank you again, for your time.

      May you be a blessing to all around you!

      Reply
  4. Newton

    It is a joy to see others coming to the same understanding as I have come to. That Yahweh’s laws are still in effect. Also, these laws are being written upon the hearts of the rising Joshua generation of many ages and many backgrounds. Many will not be willing to follow, but few realize that there are certain prophecies that will be fulfilled. In essence to ignore the laws of God is to say that “We know better than God in how to live our lives” Also by ignoring the laws of God, you bring the plagues of Egypt upon you rather than the blessings that God would bestow upon you. Since beginning my journey to avoid unclean meats to the best of my ability. I have been blessed abundantly by God with good health. I am still finding ways to eat a Biblically kosher diet as in meats being properly prepared. There are places to go. But I will continue to purify myself as 1 John 3:3-4 states and I will acknowledge God in all my paths including the Master Physicians health recommendations. Did you know that the ancient Egyptians also had high rates of the so-called modern diseases? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/221204.php Much of our culture is often very close to the ancient Egyptian culture.

    Reply
  5. stevo Bath

    To me, it’s simple. Living in hot country with no refrigeration & maybe a lack of clean water, you’d be better off avoiding things that are likely to ‘spoil’. Shellfish etc. & certain animals that are hard to clean. Avoid them & you’re less likely to get food poisoning. Same with washing hands. It’s just good practice to wash ones hands before eating especially if you’re eating WITH your hands! It’s a practical thing. Even circumcision is down to common sense cleanliness, although I don’t necessarily agree with body mutilation!

    Reply
    1. rameshdesilva Post author

      Dear Steve,
      It is definitely practical! But I don’t think it had anything to do with the climate. Please see the post “Science proves that “God knows best”, when it comes to what we should and should not eat” https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/science-proves-that-god-knows-best-when-it-comes-to-what-we-should-and-should-not-eat/

      Washing of hands was not a commandment of God – this is a common misconception among Christians who think Pharisees were keeping a Commandment of God when they were bickering about the tradition of washing of hands. please read “who were the pharisees”
      https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/who-were-the-pharisees/

      Circumcision was also not about cleanliness (eventhough it is proven to be more hygienic). It was about a Covenant between Abraham, his children & God Almighty.

      I hope you don’t mind me making these clarifications…
      May you be a blessing to all around you

      Reply
  6. doug

    LUKE 11:40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you. 42 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.43 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. 44 “Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it.” 45 One of the experts in the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.” 46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.
    EVERYTHING!: pas
    pas
    Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: – all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

    ROMANS 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. 19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
    ALL: pas
    pas
    Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: – all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
    CLEAN: katharos
    kath-ar-os’
    Of uncertain affinity; clean (literally or figuratively): – clean, clear, pure.

    EPHESIANS 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
    ABOLISH: katargeō
    kat-arg-eh’-o
    From G2596 and G691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively: – abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.
    LAW: nomos
    nom’-os
    From a primary word νέμω nemō (to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), generally (regulation), specifically (of Moses [including the volume]; also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle): – law.
    COMMANDMENTS: entolē
    en-tol-ay’
    From G1781; injunction, that is, an authoritative prescription: – commandment, precept.
    REGULATIONS: dogma
    dog’-mah
    From the base of G1380; a law (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical): – decree, ordinance.

    COLOSSIANS 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
    CANCELED: exaleiphō
    ex-al-i’-fo
    From G1537 and G218; to smear out, that is, obliterate (erase tears, figuratively pardon sin): – blot out, wipe away.
    WRITTEN CODE: cheirographon dogma
    khi-rog’-raf-on
    Neuter of a compound of G5495 and G1125; something hand written (“chirograph”), that is, a manuscript (specifically a legal document or bond (figuratively)): – handwriting.
    dogma
    dog’-mah
    From the base of G1380; a law (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical): – decree, ordinance.

    1 TIMOTHY 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
    EVERYTHING!: pas
    pas
    Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: – all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
    GOOD: kalos
    kal-os’
    Of uncertain affinity; properly beautiful, but chiefly (figuratively) good (literally or morally), that is, valuable or virtuous (for appearance or use, and thus distinguished from G18, which is properly intrinsic): – X better, fair, good (-ly), honest, meet, well, worthy.
    NOTHING: oo-dice’
    Including the feminine οὐδεμία oudemia
    oo-dem-ee’-ah and the neuter οὐδέν ouden oo-den’
    From G3761 and G1520; not even one (man, woman or thing), that is, none, nobody, nothing: – any (man), aught, man, neither any (thing), never (man), no (man), none (+ of these things), not (any, at all, -thing), nought.
    IS TO BE REJECTED: apoblētos
    ap-ob’-lay-tos
    From G577; cast off, that is, (figuratively) such as to be rejected: – be refused.
    CONSECRATED: hagiazō
    hag-ee-ad’-zo
    From G40; to make holy, that is, (ceremonially) purify or consecrate; (mentally) to venerate: – hallow, be holy, sanctify.

    Reply
    1. rameshdesilva Post author

      Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
      Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
      Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

      pas
      Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: – all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

      —————-

      Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
      Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
      Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
      Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

      pas
      Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: – all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

      koy-nos’
      Probably from G4862; common, that is, (literally) shared by all or several, or (ceremonially) profane: – common, defiled, unclean, unholy.

      ak-ath’-ar-tos
      From G1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of G2508 (meaning cleansed); impure (ceremonially, morally (lewd) or specifically (demonic)): – foul, unclean.

      —————-

      Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

      kat-arg-eh’-o
      From G2596 and G691; to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively: – abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

      nom’-os
      From a primary word νέμω nemō (to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), generally (regulation), specifically (of Moses [including the volume]; also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle): – law.

      his’-tay-mee
      A prolonged form of a primary word στάω staō (of the same meaning, and used for it in certain tenses); to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively): – abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up).

      —————–

      Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

      nom’-os
      From a primary word νέμω nemō (to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), generally (regulation), specifically (of Moses [including the volume]; also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle): – law.

      en-tol-ay’
      From G1781; injunction, that is, an authoritative prescription: – commandment, precept.

      hag’-ee-os
      From ἅγος hagos (an awful thing) compare G53, [H2282]; sacred (physically pure, morally blameless or religious, ceremonially consecrated): – (most) holy (one, thing), saint.

      Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

      soon-ay’-dom-ahee
      Middle voice from G4862 and the base of G2237; to rejoice in with oneself, that is, feel satisfaction concerning: – delight.

      Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

      dool-yoo’-o
      From G1401; to be a slave to (literally or figuratively, involuntarily or voluntarily): – be in bondage, (do) serve (-ice).

      ——————-

      Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
      Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

      nom’-os
      From a primary word νέμω nemō (to parcel out, especially food or grazing to animals); law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), generally (regulation), specifically (of Moses [including the volume]; also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle): – law.

      ag-ath-os’
      A primary word; “good” (in any sense, often as noun): – benefit, good (-s, things), well.

      than’-at-os
      From G2348; (properly an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively): – X deadly, (be . . .) death.

      ——————-

      2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
      2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
      2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

      did-akh-ay’
      From G1321; instruction (the act or the matter): – doctrine, hath been taught.

      al-ay’-thi-a
      From G227; truth: – true, X truly, truth, verity.

      ——————–

      1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

      ham-ar-tee’-ah
      From G264; sin (properly abstract): – offence, sin (-ful).

      an-om-ee’-ah
      From G459; illegality, that is, violation of law or (generally) wickedness: – iniquity, X transgress (-ion of) the law, unrighteousness.

      ———————-

      2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
      2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
      2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

      am-ath-ace’
      From G1 (as a negative particle) and G3129; ignorant: – unlearned.

      as-tay’-rik-tos
      From G1 (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivation of G4741; unfixed, that is, (figuratively) vacillating: – unstable.

      streb-lo’-o
      From a derivative of G4762; to wrench, that is, (specifically) to torture (by the rack), but only figuratively to pervert: – wrest.

      plan’-ay
      Feminine of G4108 (as abstraction); objectively fraudulence; subjectively a straying from orthodoxy or piety: – deceit, to deceive, delusion, error.

      ath’-es-mos
      From G1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of G5087 (in the sense of enacting); lawless, that is, (by implication) criminal: – wicked.

      Be a blessing to all around you!

      Reply
      1. D

        You really could have stopped with your first scripture because you proved out the truth of Scripture. Christ did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it and that same law will not pass away until it is fulfilled. Ephesians 2 as well as Colossians 2 agree with you saying that the law was abolished on the cross, that is the fulfillment. It is not an end to the law it is a completion to that part of the law which is represented in the Old Covenant. What you fail to recognize entirely is that the New Testament is written to two groups of people Gentiles who had no Jewish background and converted Jews who had Jewish background and both groups are addressed separately, in various segments of Scripture.
        You can throw it doesn random scriptures that mention law or commandments but that does not make them correct contextually. Much of what you have written applies to Jewish believers who became Christians and had trouble separating the law from grace. Some also deal with Jews trying to opress Gentiles.
        I did not offer you my personal commentary. I offered you some bullet points of Scripture and in return I was hoping to hear your specific take on those specific passages that I cited.
        For some reason rather than a reasonable rational response I get a shotgun blast of scriptures. Should i infer from this that you have no answer for those passages i cited, and so you have chosen to sandbag me to ignore them?

      2. rameshdesilva Post author

        Dear Doug,
        I apologise if my response was not elaborate enough, as I did not see a reason to explain Scriptures, as there were no questions connected to it. You had mentioned a few Scriptures that (in my humble opinion) are misunderstood and misinterpreted by Mainline Christianity of today. Hence, I provided only a few Scriptures that showcase the complete opposite to the “Law is done away” or the “Law is not for the Gentiles” arguments that usually come my way. It was not an attempt to sandbag and evade from giving you an answer. I am sorry if it seemed that way. Let me explain.

        Luke 11:40
        I am sure that you are familiar with the “traditions of the fathers” mentioned in the gospels and by Paul. The so called “Laws” that the Pharisees kept (such as washing of hands/cups/etc) and are still kept by the Orthodox sect of Judism – are not part of God’s Law, but are “Traditions of their Fathers”. Yeshua’s whole issue was that they constantly broke God’s Law while trying to ahdere to their own Laws. The heavy burderns that these people put on the publice were these “traditions” that they saw (and even see today) as more severe than God’s Law. This is evident if you go to Israel – as keeping these traditions have made most people give up the faith altogether. Yeshua’s Yoke is Light – because it’s the unadulterated Word of God.
        (For a lengthy discussion with Scriptural proof Please read https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/who-were-the-pharisees/)

        Romans 14:17
        The common argument here is, that Paul is saying we can eat everything – as long as we don’t make anyone alse stumble. Reading the chapter from the beginning provides a bit more clarity. Here Paul is addressing a dispute in Rome. I believe God’s Word and Law cannot be called a “doubtful disputation”. As Paul himself walked orderly and according to God’s Law(Act 21:24). Rom 14:6 is clear – He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Some are eating, some are not eating. Some are regarding a particular day above the other. It sounds to me like a dispute about fasting. some eat. some fast. some fast on a particular day. some eat vegetables only(a kind of fasting like done by Daniel). So what is Paul’s advice? avoid doubtful disputes as there are no laws on fasting. let people eat or fast so that they do not make other brothers stumble. Making this about God’s Food Laws does not align with the entirety of Scripture.

        Ephesians 2:13
        I have done a complete separate study on this passage which you can read here
        https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/the-middle-wall-of-partition-misunderstandings-regarding-eph-214-16/

        Col 2:13
        Yeshua’ sacrifice brought forgivenes to us all – there is no argument there. Verse 14 has been lighltly touched in the above study on Eph 2:13 – but let me explain it a bit here. What were the handwriting of ordinances that was against us? which was contrary to us? Was it God’s Law which is His Word? handwriting of ordinances (khi-rog’-raf-on / dog’-mah) is a “handwritten decree”. Not God’s Law (Nomos). These were the decrees that kept Gentiles separate from Jew. Just like the partitioning wall – which was a manmade decree. This is why the next verse speaks of “principalities and powers” – not spiritual. but earthly – such as the sanhedrin and pharisees whi made these decrees. which leads to the next verse. Let no man(these principalities and powers) therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days. Many think that this verse means “Let no one judge you for breaking food laws, holydays and sabbaths”. I believe the opposite. that Paul is saying “don’t let these principalities and powers judge you – the gentiles – for keeping food laws, holydays and sabbaths” (The pharisees and most jews did not want gentiles to be part of them – it’s no wonder that they were judging them when they kept all of God’s Law including food laws, holydays and sabbaths properly.

        1Tim 4:1
        First of all God’s Law/Word cannot be “doctrines of Devils”. It cannot be a lie. Forbidding to marry, abstaining from meats are foreign teachings to God’s Law. God has never said not to marry. He has never asked His people to be Vegetarians. Paul is definitely not writing about the Laws of God or a dispute about Scripture pertaining to clean/unclean foods. It’s about people who say “you should not marry”. “you should not eat meat”. It’s a known historical fact that “Gnostics” made these claims. All that is made for us to eat (the clean meats) are indeed sanctified by the Word. and we should eat with thankful prayer – no two words about it.

        Hope my answer is sufficient
        Be a blessing to all around you

  7. thomasdohling

    In Genesis 1:25 it is written, “And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.” And in Romans 14:20 the Holy Spirit, through Paul, says, “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.” So, If you don’t want to eat something then don’t eat it, but don’t destroy the work of God for the sake of food by forcing your preferences on others and misusing Scripture passages out of context in the process in an effort to justify your position.

    Reply
    1. rameshdesilva Post author

      Dear Brother Thomas,
      You are definitely correct to say that God’s creation was all good. I am not saying lizards, rats, pigs and the sort are bad creations – all of them have a purpose and the environment would be unbalanced if they were not there. Most of the unclean animals are there to clean the earth – they are the natural recyclers of the eco system, and even science has proven that consuming what God branded unclean can let toxins into our bodies. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the “Clean”, “unclean” specification was there from the time of Noah (Gen7:2).

      Interestingly enough you have quoted Romans 14 – a study I completed and posted just a few hours ago. Dear Brother, Romans 14 revolves around a specif issue, which is fasting, and should not be confused with God’s Food Laws. (Please read following link if you need details – https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2015/07/15/food-laws-or-fasting-misunderstandings-regarding-romans-14/)

      I am sorry to see that you feel I am destroying the work of God by asking people to adhere to God’s commandments – the very thing Christ asked us to teach in Mat 5:19 – even the least of the commandments.I would like to reiterate that I am not forcing my prefernces on anyone – just trying to explain the scriptures that have been misunderstood for so long. I ask you to show me the instances where I have misused scripture and taken out of context to justify my position, as I am trying to do the exact opposite – trying to teach all who listen, to do Bible things in Bible ways using true context.

      Be a blessing to all around you!

      Reply
      1. thomasdohling

        Acts 15:5 : “…some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
        Acts 15:10: “Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” (Peter, the Apostle.)
        Acts 15:19, 20: “Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.” (James, the Apostle.)
        A letter was sent to the Gentile brethren wherein was stated the following:-
        Acts 15:28, 29. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

      2. rameshdesilva Post author

        Dear brother thomas,

        The reason the council gathered in Acts 15 is to discuss one issue. Whether new believers to the faith need to be circumcised to be saved(Acts 15:1). Yes, the believers who were from the sect of the pharisees did say “we should circumcise them, and command them to keep the law of Moses”. The council considered the matter in verse 6. It is important to note that nowhere does it say that a person needs to be circumcised to be saved. Circumcision is not even part of the Mosaic Covenant, but of the Abrahamic Covenant. A proselyte could not become part of the faith in the 1st century unless they got circumcised. (this is even in effect today). The believing pharisees were asking for the same adherence within the conregation of messianic believers. James’ judgement was to not trouble the gentiles who were turning to God. But He asked that they abstain from 4 things. He did not make this up out of thin air – He was quoting commandments from Lev chapter 17 & 18. The next verse, Acts 15:21 is overlooked by many. James said ask them to do these 4 things, “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” – in other words, ask them to adhere to these 4 precepts. all the others they will here every sabbath at the synagogues.

        I hope you read the study I have done on this: https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/gentiles-have-to-obey-only-4-commandments-misunderstandings-regarding-acts-15/

  8. thomasdohling

    The Old Covenant was between God and the Children of Israel. The New Covenant is between God and those who are in Christ. Thus, Hebrews 9:13 says, “In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” We who are in Christ are not under or bound by the Old Covenant with its rules and regulations (law given through Moses to the children of Israel). With ushering in of the the New Covenant by the blood of Christ Jesus, the Old Covenant has become obsolete and vanished away [no longer applicable in the new dispensation]. We are now under grace and the Law of Christ which is based on love.

    Reply
    1. rameshdesilva Post author

      Dear Brother Thomas,

      To the limited knowledge of the Scriptures I have, I do not know of any place that says the New Covenant was made between God and those who are in Christ. As I have read it, it says that the New Covenant is made with the House of Israel and House of Judah. Both Jer 31:31-33 & Heb 8:8-10 witness to the same. Furthermore, God’s New Covenant is that He will put His laws into ourr mind, and write them in our hearts. What is this LAW? Is it not God’s Law – the one Law that God said multiple times to not add to or diminish from (Deut 4:2, 12:22)

      Speaking of context brother, Hebrews has only one theme as you very well know – “the priesthood”. And Hebrews 8:13 says In that he saith, A new , he hath made the first old. If you read this passage with context of the whole chapter and even before, you will notice that the author speaks of the new priesthood in heaven and the old priesthood on earth. not about the covenant. In fact the word covenant is not even in this verse – please research this a bit more thoroughly. Also read this post if you want to – https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/old-covenant-abolished-by-new-covenant-part-ii-does-the-book-of-hebrews-prove-that-the-old-covenant-is-no-more/

      The apostle Paul was also a keeper of the Law according to Acts 21:24. If the Old covenant is done away as you say, then even the 10 commandments are obsolete. Christ Himself said “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5:18,19)

      There is one law for the native born and the alien, according to God’s own Law. Shall I tell you a secret? There is only one people of God – and they are called Israel. (The Jews are only part of this people) According to Paul and Roman 11, we are all grafted into that people.

      Reply
  9. Thomas Dohling

    I assume you are a Seventh Day Adventist [or a Jew?] and hence your adherence to the Old Testament / Covenant teachings which are a shadow of the New Testament / Covenant [Colossians 2:16,17; Hebrews 10:1].
    Colossians 2:16, 17: “So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.”
    Hebrews 10:1: “For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.”
    If you want to follow the Old Covenant, follow it in its entirety together with its animal sacrifices and “an eye for an eye” and other rules and regulations. Why pick and choose?
    I prefer to adhere to what the Bible says in Galatians 5:1: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.”
    My contribution to this post is concluded. Thank you for have me on board.

    Reply
    1. rameshdesilva Post author

      Dear Brother Thomas,
      I am neither a Seventh Day Adventist (Even though I observe the Sabbath) or a Jew (unlike Christ, the Apostles and even Paul). I consider myself a denominationless Christian who obeys the Scriptures of the 1st Century Church (Also known as the Old Testament). I noticed even though I had explained/addressed many questions/comments you put forward, they have somehow been shrugged off. I Consider it my duty to tell you the truth I see in the Scriptures. It is upto the reader to accept or reject it. A few final clarifications on the verses and questions you put forward.

      On the Animal Sacrifices: This cannot be done in your backyard, but only in the temple in Jerusalem – the one place God placed His name in. Did you know that Paul offered animals in the New Testament, when he purified himself – read the nazarite vow(Num 6/Acts 21:26/Acts 24:18).

      On the eye for an eye argument – this was a standard given to the judges, for judgement. not that anyone israel could hurt a person just because they were hurt by them. Such a sad thing that mainline Christianity has such a low regard about God’s Law – His Words.
      Read this study if you want to learn more: https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/could-anyone-in-old-testament-times-take-an-eye-for-an-eye/

      No one can pick and choose on what to adhere in God’s Law. But I believe one must read and understand it before they argue against it. A simple example is the “eye for an eye” argument. Shows how little people read and understand. I am not criticizing you, brother – but Mainline Christianity as a whole.

      On Galatians: I once again ask you to read this as one letter which was written from Paul to the Galatians. If you read it at one go, you will come to one conclusion. It speaks of one primary issue: becoming circumcised to be saved. This is not part of God’s Law: nowhere does God people to get circumcised to be part of his people – even Abraham walked with God for 25 years before receiving the covenant of circumcision. The yoke of bondage Paul speaks of, is the “tradition of the fathers” which required circumcision before being admitted to the congregation.

      Just like you brother, please understand that I will not write or post beyond this, as I do not believe it will benefit either of us, if this thread becomes a long list of arguments and counter-arguments. Thank you for having this discussion with me. I hope I have explained myself adequately, and have given you the necessary answers you require. I thank you again, for your time and ask one request of you. Please read the Bible without your preconceived notions – let the Scriptures translate Scripture – not any pastor or denomination.

      May you be a blessing to all around you!

      Reply
  10. karen

    Hi @rameshdesilva! Im not only amazed on how well you explain this misunderstanding in the scriptures but also on how you humbly and patiently answer all the questions/disagreements.
    You keep saying to them “be a blessing…” and yes! you just became a blessing to me. Thank you and Godbless! 🙂

    Reply
    1. rameshdesilva Post author

      Thank you for your encouraging words Karen… I believe each of us are called to “be a blessing”, just like Abraham(Gen 12:2) – as God blesses us anyway, if we are obedient to Him! God bless! and be a blessing! 🙂 ramesh

      Reply
      1. Bstric

        Very interesting discussion. I have come to the conclusion that The ceremomial commands were in deeds shadows of Christ. And that their purpose is fullfilled in Christ’s coming. Between the passage in Mark and even in Acts it seems God has made all foods clean. If I am wrong, I am open to change because I want to do what is pleasing to my savior.
        On a much more important note, why are we asking these questions? Is anybody in this forum relying on something in addition to the blood of Christ for their salvation? If you are relying on works (or works in addition to Christ) to get you to heaven, then you are not placing your full trust in Christ which is what Jesus commands us to do.

      2. rameshdesilva Post author

        Dear Bstric,
        I am so grateful to the Father that there are people like you, who can even say that they are ready to change if they are wrong. I feel too many of us think, what we know is right without considering all of the evidence. If someone goes through Mark & Acts without preconceived notions looking at the text critically and the Bible as a whole, most of these misunderstandings could be dealt with swiftly.
        On the point you highlighted, “why are we even asking this question” – I must say we are not trying to say that eating according to God’s Food Laws allows you to receive Salvation. It is very clear that we cannot earn Salvation, which has always been a free gift given by God. Nothing other than God’s Grace through the Sacrifice of Yeshua can help us receive Salvation. Then why are we considering the Food Laws? I believe that God’s Law was never done away in Christ. It is the curse of the Law which is done away. Most of us understood the Law to be a Curse – which is baseless. If God’s Law stands today as it has been from the days of Moses, it means we must obey His words. We must not eat what He specifically said not to eat. It is about Obedience and not Salvation. We obey because we are Saved. We do not obey to BE Saved.

        Further Reading:
        Did God tell Peter that he is free to eat unclean animals which He had banned before? Acts 10:1 – 11:18
        https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/did-god-tell-peter-that-he-is-free-to-eat-unclean-animals-which-he-had-banned-before-acts-101-1118/

        Is God’s Law a Curse?
        https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/is-gods-law-a-curse/

        Gentiles have to obey only 4 Commandments? Misunderstandings regarding Acts 15
        https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/gentiles-have-to-obey-only-4-commandments-misunderstandings-regarding-acts-15/

        Defining the terms “Sin”, “Law” & “Grace”
        https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/defining-the-terms-sin-law-grace/

        Paul – the misunderstood Apostle
        https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/paul-the-misunderstood-apostle/

        Be a blessing to all around you!

  11. Ronnie Notter

    We’re in a similar state today as Israel and Judah were in exile. They couldn’t possibly follow the entire Torah because there was no temple available to them to do so. Nonetheless, those who cared to follow the Father followed what they could. Grace has always been. We see reflection of that in the following:

    [1Ki 22:42-43 ESV] 42 Jehoshaphat was thirty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi. 43 He walked in all the way of Asa his father. He did not turn aside from it, doing what was right in the sight of the LORD. Yet the high places were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places.

    Jehoshaphat did right in the Father’s eyes but never took down the high places to idols. Because Jehoshaphat loved the Father and, at least, made a strong effort to follow after Him, the Father extended His grace in Jehoshaphat’s life where He could and remained just in admonishing Jehoshaphat where He wasn’t lining up with the Father’s instruction.

    As for the “moral” law, “law of Christ,” or whatever else one labels it, I haven’t met a person that even keeps that perfectly. I’ve yet to meet anyone who consistently prays for those who despitefully use them, or love those who hate them. It doesn’t happen. Why pick and choose from the “moral law?” We should follow all of it right? Yes, we SHOULD follow all of it, and we will in the Kingdom when our heart has COMPLETELY been turned to flesh and the Father rights His Law on our hearts. Many seem to not realize it, but animal sacrifice will be reinstated in the millennial kingdom. Eating of pig and rat is called abominable in prophecy of the millenial reign. The Feast of Tabernacles/Booths/Sukkot will be a required attendance by ALL MANKIND remaining upon Earth with strict warning their land will be stricken with drought if they do not make the annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

    These shadows of things to come and, obviously in the context of the future, things that were still stand and serve their purpose as a sign now as they did then and will in the future. To have a shadow, you must have an object to throw that shadow. If you have an object to throw the shadow, will it now ALWAYS throw that shadow? It will. It did. It does, and it will.

    Reply
      1. rameshdesilva Post author

        I Believe Ronnie is pointing at Ezekiel Chapter 40-46 where many references are expressly stated of various Sacrifices being made in the Temple in the time of the Millennial reign of Messiah. Also important to note are prophecies in Isaiah 56:6-8, Zechariah 14:16-21 and Jeremiah 33:15-18

        Be a blessing to all around you!

      2. Thomas Dohling

        Since I don’t agree with the blogger’s views on the topic under discussion, I don’t involve myself in them which I consider as an exercise in futility (for me). However, if anyone believes and propagates that “animal sacrifices will be reinstated”, willfully nullify the once-for-all ultimate sacrifice of Christ to their own peril. I’m presenting Hebrews 9 [NKJV] for meditation [you may source any Bible version for your study on this matter]. Let the Scripture speak for itself.
        ——————————————————-
        Hebrews 9
        The Earthly Sanctuary
        1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary.
        2 For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary;
        3 and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All,
        4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;
        5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
        Limitations of the Earthly Service
        6 Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services.
        7 But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people’s sins committed in ignorance;
        8 the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing.
        9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—
        10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
        The Heavenly Sanctuary
        11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.
        12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
        13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh,
        14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
        15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
        The Mediator’s Death Necessary
        16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
        17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
        18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.
        19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
        20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.”
        21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry.
        22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
        Greatness of Christ’s Sacrifice
        23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
        24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
        25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another—
        26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
        27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,
        28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

        To God be the glory!

      3. rameshdesilva Post author

        Dear Thomas,

        Lot’s of Christians approach these topics with the wrong attitude, and I hope you would keep an open mind before you reject anything. Let me try to explain it on regards of this topic. First of all no one here is saying that the Blood and Sacrifice of Messiah is replaced by the blood of animals. The sacrifice of Messiah is what wipes our sins away, so that we can recieve grace & salvation from the Father. WE ARE NOT NULLIFYING THE ULTIMATE PRICE PAID FOR US! But no one can disagree that the Animal Sacrifices will be back in the Millennial Kingdom according to various prophecies in Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Zecheriah & Isaiah.

        What most of us do not understand is that Animal Sacrifices could never take away sin(Hebrews 10:4). It merely covered our Sinful nature (The Hebrew word Atone literally means “cover”). And it was a means to show how disastrous sin is. Even though there is no physical way to know the depth of sin and it’s destruction, those days people knew the weight of sin literally, through the amount of sacrifices needed to temorarily cover sin.

        The sacrifice of Yeshua’s Blood is made in the heavens, in a heavenly temple by a heavenly priest(Messiah Himself) and He could not enact sacrifices on earth(Heb 7:13,14). The Hebrews author puts it perfectly when he says “Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” Our souls are cleansed by Yeshua’s blood sacrificed in Heaven. The flesh was covered by Animal blood sacrificed on earth when the earthly temple stood in Jerusalem. I do not believe we can just look away on so many prophetic verses that mention animal sacrifices in the Millennial kingdom where flesh and blood individuals who sin, will be living.

  12. Newton

    Rameshdesilva, Keep up the good work! But here are my thoughts on the Sabbath day; if ye love me, keep my commandments John 14:15 and Matt 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day:
    Furthermore, if we think that it doesn’t matter; what we eat. Then you will have a hard time explaining these two scriptures. Malachi 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. and Zechariah 14:16-18 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. 17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. 18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. But even more so, since I begin keeping the Sabbath ( which is from sunset Friday to sunset Saturday ), I have received more blessings than ever before. But I’d rather be poor and humble than rich and vain.

    Reply
  13. Pepe

    If the law si no longer binding then there wouldnt be sin any more, so it is clear that the law has not pass away. For believers the law is not binding because the law of the spirit binds us more. It is like you are a trapecist and there are two nets, one is the law of the spirit and the other is the law, so the law of the spirit should catch you first. There are commandments like giving to the poor, so if we follow the logic of some, that is a bad thing since it is written in the torah. It does not make any sense. We have to distinguish between trying to justify ourselves thru the law and being protected by following it. Among many things the law was given for our protection. God bless you

    Reply
    1. rameshdesilva Post author

      Dear Pepe,

      The metaphor you provided us was a very interesting way to look at God’s Law. It is definitely not done away. God does not change. His Word does not change.

      Be a blessing to everyone around you!

      Reply
    1. rameshdesilva Post author

      Dear fruitgal522,
      Bless you for being open with your thoughts. I know “Yeshua” sounds weird, compared to the name we have all got accustomed to for almost 2000 years. And it is definitely not there in the KJV which I read as well. But there is a valid reason I use the name Yeshua instead of Jesus. I will give you a few shreds of evidence to go check in the KJV and elsewhere if you are open to it.
      1.Read Acts 7:45 in KJV (compare with NKJV, NIV & any other version you may have) – who is the Jesus mentioned in this verse? why is Jesus used instead of Joshua?
      2. Read Heb 4:8 in KJV (compare with NKJV, NIV & any other version you may have) – who is the Jesus mentioned in this verse? why is Jesus used instead of Joshua?
      3. Look in a Greek Lexicon (printed or online) for the origins of the name Jesus as He was a Hebrew who spoke Hebrew and had a Hebrew name
      https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2424
      4. If you have watched Passion of the Christ and still have a DVD with you, watch it again – listen to the name which is used for Him.
      5. Read a short study i have done on the topic – https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/what-is-jesus-true-name/

      Be a blessing to everyone around you

      Reply
      1. fruitgal522

        It’s too complicated. Jesus says be as little children receiving Him. There’s 798 times in the Bible that it says Jesus. It’s common sense.

      2. rameshdesilva Post author

        Dear sister,
        It is man who has made it complicated. We must be like Children in attitude but not in knowledge. As the writer of Hebrews say ” For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”Heb 5:12-14

        You say it is common sense. I implore you to find out the real names of Mary, James, Matthew, John. These are all changed from there original names to more anglicized versions.

        At the end of the day, it is upto us whether we look at things critically or not. Whether we are open to look at another view, before discarding it.

        Be a blessing to everyone around you

      3. fruitgal522

        The things that you say aren’t milk. What you’re saying is very complicated and a stretch and that just isn’t God’s style. Jesus is Jesus. If He isn’t Jesus as my Bible says, my Bible is a lie and there is no Jesus or heaven.

      4. rameshdesilva Post author

        Dear sister, It is not milk for sure. What the Hebrews’ Author is talking about is that milk is for babies, when this congregation should have been teachers who can eat strong meat. Just an example, to show that having milk is not always the best thing for you.

        You say that these things are complicated. When I came to understand these truths, I was also like you. It was very hard for me to understand somethings at first… but the more you read, the more you learn and the more you understand.
        Complicated is very much relative as I have found out. I also want to make it clear that Messiah is very much the same. the only difference is that He was called “Yeshua” when He was on earth. You know that your Bible is a translation, right? Do you know the name by which He is known in the Greek Original manuscripts. Jesus is a transliteration. Not His true name from 2000 years ago. That said, I am not forcing anyone to call Him Yeshua. You are still able to call Him Jesus, if you think that is His name. But both History and the languages point out that He was called by only one name on earth – Yeshua!

        May you be a blessing to everyone around you!

      5. Fat Jack

        What does love have to do with it?
        Knowing what God loves is important to him. We should want to know what God loves so we can love what he loves also. God, please show me what you love and teach me to avoid the things you hate.
        The Scriptures in the bible do not contradict, and God does not lie or change. (Mal 3:6).
        Studying the scripture has led me to understand the importance and meaning of Love. I had not known love except through Jesus and his teachings from him, and about him. Many Christians profess love in the new covenant and it is true I agree, but many stop short of truly understanding what Jesus is defining in love. It is very frustrating and saddening to see this shortcoming many people have ignored. Jesus is perfect love and we may not be able to obtain that perfect form of love in the flesh, but we should not give up because our flesh has sinned.
        When people say “walk like Jesus”, do they realize how Jesus actually walked? What would Jesus do (WWJD)? What did Jesus do? Many Christians use those lines without putting thought into realizing what Jesus actually did do. How did Jesus teach? Well, Jesus obeyed his Father completely out of love, and we see that love covers all that God has commanded.
        Scriptures show us fruits and actions are important. Do we just say God knows our heart and not get up and push through the throng? Should Abraham have stayed seated when God commanded him to sacrifice his son and say “yes, God I’ll do it later”? That would be like telling God and our self we don’t have to get up and “do” because God knows in my heart I would? God may know our hearts but we must show the works and pick up the five smooth stones (1Sa 17:37-40), push through the throng (Luk 8:45-47), and throw off our beggars coat (Mar 10:50) as the scriptures state, to show God our faith is proven in deed out of love. Faith without works is dead. Un-contradicted Love is what we must have, and not just from our words. (1Jn 3:18) My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.
        We cannot accept Jesus into our hearts without love. We cannot purposefully live contradictory to love and have a relationship with our heavenly Father. Many Christians say we must love, but they stop short or don’t love at all. Is it possible to love our neighbor and steal from him? Can we love our spouse and sleep with many others? Is it scriptural to love God and test him at the same time? Did Jesus test his Father by doing something avoidable that he knew could harm him? (Luke 4:9 “cast himself down”) Calling out loud or praying to be saved from known avoidable, and hazardous actions that we do to our self or others is tempting God! (Mat 4:7) The KEY POINT to testing God is not to have “known, avoidable, hazards.” Can we love our temple or our children’s temple, and put unhealthy things in us that are known to be risky or harmful but pray for God to intervene to keep us safe? We can not pray blessings over a bowl of rat poison and then (cast ourselves down) spoon it into our mouth. Does our pride hinder us from the truth and embracing love defined in the scripture? Are we truthful to our selves or do we make justifications so that we may contradict love? Do we stand on principles regardless of the threat of the furnace, or do we kneel to the pressure? What I receive from the scripture is that God wants people with foundations that are solid and unmovable as a rock. We need to have principles of steel, and a heart of love to stand for what is right during our walk through life in a straight and tight manner.
        Jesus teaches us about the love in God’s commands and he shows us to avoid the traditions of men throughout the ministry of the Gospel (Mat 6:24, 1Co 10:21). It is contradicting to love, when many Christians follow non scriptural customs and traditions of men that are not in the scripture and specifically stated by God that he does not want us to learn, regardless of what lipstick meanings men paint on those traditions of men. If it’s NOT in the scripture, it’s man made.
        (Jer 10:2) Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
        (Jer 10:3) For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
        When Jesus sat down to eat with the Pharisees, they had an elaborate hand-washing custom (ma‘asim)
        (Mark 7:1-5) that was a traditional elder mandate, added as if was the law of God written in what they call the “takanot”, but Jesus deliberately ignored these elder mandated legalisms. When they questioned Jesus about it, He called them out on their hypocrisy. Jesus said, in (Mark 7:8) “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.!” Jesus confronted their “legalism” not because “washing hands” is a sin, but because it was a man made tradition being added as if it was part of God’s law. (Mat 5:18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Obviously we can see Heaven and earth has not passed and Jesus is being specific when telling us to follow God’s commands and do not add to God’s word or take away from it AT ALL. Jesus also gives us an example when we should listen to the Pharisees and why.
        (Mat 23:2-3) “Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.”
        Jesus shows us throughout his life not to contradict love by following traditions of men and the Pharisees outside of the seat of Moses, but to follow the commandments of our Heavenly Father out of love.
        What is the seat of Moses? Moses’ Seat is a symbolic physical seat within ancient Synagogues where the Chief or Elder Priest would sit. It is a seat of authority and judgment, usually beautifully and ornately carved and in a very prominent position within the Synagogue. It was, on the Sabbath (Gen 2:3 ),(Heb 4:8 -10) (7th day), where the LAW (Torah) was read. By the seat of Moses, it meant that they had the authority to teach the law. Jesus affirms that they should be listened to as they read Moses’ law for it was the Scripture from God. But then Jesus tells the people not to act the way the Pharisees outside the seat of Moses “for they say, and do not do.” They went beyond the law of God and added many heavy legalisms as if they were commands from God in the taka-not which are “traditions of men” Jesus rebukes.
        (Mar 7:8-9) For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
        These “traditions” that Jesus is talking about are the “legalisms” many confuse for the Torah/law of God.
        (Romans 13:8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
        We are all loved by God so much that he has given the opportunity to those that are not part of his original tree, a chance to be grafted into the olive tree supported by its roots (Rom 11:17-18). But what does this mean? God’s perfect love has dissolved lines between Jew and Greek when residing in his House. Being adopted under God’s roof is something very special and not to be taken for granted. Do you think God is pleased with Christians that poke fun at the house of Israel or those people that seek to study Hebrew originated scriptural traditions and foundations? Do we ignore that Jesus was a Jew with Hebrew traditions that God gave them? Why do many talk the walk, but not walk the walk? What walk? Do you mean …Jesus’ walk? Do you mean the walk of Jesus the Jew? We are to walk like Jesus walked in life. He is our example on how to live. (1Jn 2:6) He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
        Jesus IS the light: (1 John 1:7) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (Psalm 56:13; Psalm 89:15; Isaiah 2:5; John 8:12; John 12:35-36; 1Corinthians 11:1; Ephesians 2:10; Ephesians 5:1-2; 1John 3: 2-3)
        It’s one thing to extol God’s grace, recognizing that He loves on our good days and our bad days and that our relationship with Jesus is not measured by our latest spiritual accomplishment. But it’s another thing entirely to be polluted by the world in the name of liberty and to exalt the flesh in the name of freedom. Paul warned about this plainly, writing, (Gal 5:13)”You, brothers, have been called to liberty. Only do not use liberty to give an opportunity to the flesh, but by love serve one another”.
        Peter warned about it as well, writing, (1 Pet 2:16)”As free people, do not use your liberty as a covering for evil, but live as servants of God”.
        But there’s something even worse than abusing the freedom we have in Jesus, which, for the record, is freedom from sin, not to sin.
        (Mat 11:30) “For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
        Yes, the liberty of free will, to carry the light yolk of Jesus. Love is not burdensome and encompasses the commands of God and is much easier than all those additions made by man that complicate God’s law. (1 John 5:3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. Just think how heavy the numerous laws that men make. The further from God you get, the more laws there are. There are over three million words in IRS tax code alone, not counting the laws of men for just about any activity you can think of. Jesus personally rebuked the Pharisees only outside of the seat of Moses mandating many complicated legalisms of men added as if it was scripture. God’s law is simple and it’s summed up with one word… LOVE!
        It’s one thing to preach against legalism, which I define as externally imposed religion, meaning, laws without love, rules without relationship, and standards without a Savior. But many Christians do not embrace true love and confuse obedience [“love in deed”] for “legalism” when, the word “legalism” does not occur in the Bible. It is a term many Christians use to describe a doctrinal position emphasizing a justification for not using what Paul states is the “paidagogos” to point us to Jesus, but try to build a house without a foundation. We must have complete un-contradicting true love to have a stable structure. So called Christian proclaimed “Legalists” which I refer to as “believers”, live a strict literal contextual adherence to our unchanging God’s commands, and obedience out of love that leads us on the narrow path to God’s loving arms because we are given the liberty to do so. Jesus is our light, our guide, and the living word, and he is our example on how we should live. We must read the scripture and comprehend its literal context that states, precept upon precept.

        (Isa 28:13) But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
        “Precept” Stongs: H6673 tsav, tsawv From H6680; an injunction: – commandment, precept.
        (Heb 9:19) For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law,
        “Precept” Strongs: G1785; injunction, that is, an authoritative prescription: – commandment, precept.
        Before Jesus died on the cross for the sins of man, were those that did die before him exempt from a chance at salvation? Was there a line between the tormented and those that were not? When we read (Luke 16:19–31) it shows that, prior to Christ’s resurrection, the scriptures describes the two realms: a place of comfort where Lazarus was (Abraham’s bosom/Abraham’s side) and a place of torment where the rich man was (hell). The place of torment is called “Gehenna” in the Greek. In (Mark 9:45). Between the two districts there was “a great chasm” (Luke 16:26). The fact that no one could cross this chasm indicates that, after death, one’s fate is sealed for judgment. There had to be a form of acknowledgement and weights and measures before the Salvation of Jesus. How did God know how to separate between those damned to the torment side and those in the “bosom” that would be sanctified by Jesus? The message that Jesus is delivering in this parable is that faith and grace has always existed even before Jesus and that we will be accountable for following the instructions given to Moses for God’s people in his house out of love. (Luke 16:31) And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
        Before Jesus, God knew his people had faith not because they proclaimed faith or love from their lips, but in their deed. God separates out those that obey him out of love.
        What does God want? Love. Love guarantees belief and obedience but belief and obedience alone does not guarantee love. Should we obey God because Hell waits if we don’t, or should we obey God because we love him? Do our own children obey us because we have a “scriptural rod” or should they obey because they love us? “Believers” in the literal context of the living word have been accused of being opposed to grace, when it seems that those who are opposed to our unchanging God’s commands are being legalistic, and pointing out lawyer style justifications as to why they may “do as thou wilt” while traveling down the wide path agenda so they don’t have to give up their traditions of men and desires of the flesh. Are we really honest with our self? We do have liberty in the new covenant, the liberty to believe and love our heavenly Father. No longer under the curse (punishment) (Joh_8:11) of the law because we have faith in Jesus, and receiving God’s grace because Jesus is the living law that resides in our hearts and love encompasses all commands.
        (Rom 6:23) For the wages of sin is death…
        (1John 3:4) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

        If you (1John 3:4) without repenting then you will receive the curse (punishment) or the wages there of.
        Before Jesus, the wages of sin was death, usually by stoning. If you broke the law of God, you were killed. But as Jesus shows us the good news of the renewed covenant if we have faith in him, shown by our deed and not just our lips we are not under the punishment of the law which is death but have life through Jesus when we repent. Punishment of death for breaking the law represented the wages of sin being death in the physical and reveals a shadow of what punishment (hell) is to come in the spiritual without repentance, but with faith in Jesus we can accept the free gift, but we must “go and sin no more”. After accepting Jesus as the Messiah, it is then not a ticket for us to be able to (1John 3:4) as much as you see fit after calling on him into your heart.
        (Heb 10:16) This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them
        God writes it to renew your mind! (Romans 12:2)
        Believers of the living word understand the purpose of the Law (paidagogos) and that it can not save you, but it is to lead us to Jesus the master teacher, and savior. Do you mean fundamental understanding first? Is that what many Christians do? Or do they try to jump straight to grace and don’t build the foundation for their house?
        (Pro 19:2) Also, that the soul be without knowledge, it is not good; and he that hasteth with his feet sinneth.
        What is a paidagogos? Pronounced pahee-dag-o-gos’. And do we use it or just say we used it to get to Jesus or, now that I am here its ok to put the cart before the horse and keep it that way? Most people don’t know that in Greek culture the paidagogos was a guardian usually a slave. There is no thought of schoolmaster in the original word, paidagogos. The word, paidagogos, is built like this: the Greek word for child is pais – p-a-i-s. And the genitive of it is paidos. The Greek word for “lead” is ago, and the Greek word for “leader” is agogos. And you put the word for pais, paidos, for “child,” with the word for “lead,” and that’s the Greek word paidagogos: “one who leads a child.” Lead a child to Jesus? Yes.
        Now, the Greeks made a distinction, a very careful distinction between a paedagogue an “instructor, schoolmaster”, from a ho didaskalos, a “teacher,” and a paidagogos, a “tutor.” But a tutor, I’ll tell you what it means to the Greek and Romans. A paidagogos was the slave in the household of the Greek and Roman noble families that did many things including taking their child to the school teacher. When you research the Greek tasks of the paidagogos, he has full authority of the father given to the slave, including discipline, the guardianship and the care of the child. The child could not step out of the house without that paidagogos with him. The child could do nothing without that paidagogos, and the word co notates someone who is very stern and very severe. For example, in (1Corinthians 4:15), Paul uses the word paidagogos there. And when he uses it there, he makes a distinction between the paidagogoi, the plural, the paidagogos, and the father. As though the father were full of sympathy and understanding and love but the paidagogos was stern and unmoved, administering the exact rules laid out by the father.
        (Gal 3:25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a paidagogos.
        Faith means you believe with love not in lips but in deed. This verse is very important because we are made in God’s image, and it’s compared to the rules we have when we are children by our parents. The rod that was not spared to enforce the rules of Good parents provide a good foundation because they love their children and when children move out as adults, at that point they are no longer under or punished if they break those parental rules they had as children, but now as adults they have the liberty to carry them with them in their hearts and minds to be the people the parents taught them to be.
        (Heb 8:6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was *established G3549 upon better promises
        The Old Covenant of blessings and land (2 Corinthians 3:17-18; Hebrews 8:6-9) was upgraded by the Renewed Covenant with Jesus (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Hebrews 8:10; 8:13; 9:15; 12:24). The New Covenant with Jesus was “established G3549”…
        *Strongs: G3549 nomotheteō to legislate, that is, to have (the Mosaic) enactments injoined, be sanctioned (by them): – establish, receive the law.
        …upon better promises, because it fulfills the promises free from the penalty (is death) of the law (letter, physical) and the free gift of salvation and everlasting life (in the spirit). Remember God NEVER changes, before or after Jesus, because the wages of sin was and is always DEATH. Sin is clearly defined in the Renewed Testament and we are at liberty to decide if we want to pay those wages or allow Jesus to pay. It’s our choice. The Old Covenant was broken and a Renewed Covenant was made when Jesus died for our transgressions and the proof that it was “established G3549” has been proven by God to Israel and the world in 1948 that he “injoined” the Old into the New.
        . When we have Love/faith in Jesus and accept the new covenant, we should not contradict love.
        (2Jn 1:5) And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
        (2Jn 1:6) And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, that, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
        (1Jn 5:3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
        Jesus is the light, the way, the living word that “is written” and the example of how we are to live life.
        According to scripture, how did Jesus walk?
        – Jesus obeyed his Father’s commands completely out of love.
        – Jesus taught against adding to God’s law (the legalisms and traditions of men)
        – Jesus kept holy and rested on his Father’s set aside and sanctified seventh day.
        – Jesus observed the Lord’s Feasts and appointed times.
        – Jesus lived as a humble man and was crucified sinless so that we may use the blood from his death to cover the punishment we would have received from transgressing God’s first covenant. (“wages of sin is death” and “sin is the transgression of the law”)
        Now that we know, we should walk like he did.
        So why do people go to God with their cup already full of anything other than what He wants to provide, with no space for God to fill it with his answers? Why it is that people may have so much pride (Pro_29:23) they can not see the love or understand what love actually means. Love is not just a WORD or a feeling. When I look at my actions I try not to contradict love in any way.
        So what does love have to do with it? Everything!

  14. Pingback: Unclean Foods sanctified by God’s Word and Prayer? Misunderstandings regarding 1Tim 4:1-5 | Bible things in Bible ways

  15. Pingback: Lost in Translation – Are our English Bibles accurate? | Bible things in Bible ways

  16. Luke

    Ramesh, may YHWH our God bless you richly. Thank you for this site.

    May he bless you with kindness and patience, clarity and wisdom, and great measures of His Spirit.

    It is so clear, if we would dare to turn off our own bias. Why would Yeshua scold the Pharisees for nullifying God’s command for their own tradition, just to nullify God’s command himself? If God says pork, shellfish, bat, and snake are not foods, but rather “disgusting,” why should we doubt Him? Did snakes and bats change? Did human stomachs change? Did God love the Jews more than Gentile believers, and wish to protect them from “disgusting” meat, but not us?

    Reply
    1. rameshdesilva Post author

      Dear Brother Luke,
      True. He calls the eating of unclean animals as an “abomination”. The same word He uses for various kinds of sexual immorality. I don’t think His attitudes changed over night on either of these issues.
      Be a blessing to everyone around you!

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s