Acts 10 Controversy

[Mark]

Hi Firestorm,

The answers to your three contradictory passages are easy to explain with Strong's concordance. Simply look up the words that seem to be of concern.

In Mark 7:19, you'll find thatthere are no Strong's numbers next to any words in the phrase "and thus He pronounced all meats clean." That's because the phrase does not exist in the Greek text. In fact, if you look at any translation published before the 20th Century (King James for example) the phrase isn't there.

In Romans 14, the word that is translated "unclean" is actually the word "koinos" which means "common". It is not the word "akathartos" which is the word "unclean". These difference between these two words is commonly overlooked in Acts 10; and I believe that has already been addressed in this thread.

In 1st Timothy 4, the word "meats" is simply the word "food". Remember that Timothy, though he had a Greek father, was a Jew and had been trained in Jewish tradition (2nd Timothy 3:15). For a Jew, unclean meats simply were not a food item and was thus not even considered in the context of this phrase.

[Firestorm]

;D My translation doesn't have the words "and thus He pronounced all meats clean" but vv. 15 -18 are more problematic.

[Mishkan]

mark said:

In Mark 7:19, you'll find thatthere are no Strong's numbers next to any words in the phrase "and thus He pronounced all meats clean." That's because the phrase does not exist in the Greek text. In fact, if you look at any translation published before the 20th Century (King James for example) the phrase isn't there.

Mark,

I'm not quite sure about the idea that "the clause doesn't exist in the originals" is the best argument in this case. I'm looking at a UBS Greek text from 1983, so the footnotes might be a little outdated, but it shows that the clause exists in all the standard "best and oldest manuscripts".

The argument that I find much more persuasive is to note the premise of the discussion:

And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.... Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

In other words, the accusation regarded the pharisaic practice of trying to implement priestly washing regulations for the average "Joe Goldberg" on the street. Yeshua's response?

Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Now, let's think about that a moment. The standard interpretation of this passage is that Yeshua declared the Mosaic null and void. But that wasn't the point. His argument was with the oral tradition. The tradition of the pharisees sometimes clashed with God's commandments, and when it did, the oral tradition was generally given precedence. Thus, Yeshua demonstrates that the oral tradition is set above the , and that is not acceptable.

Now, for the rest of the discussion... Yeshua brings some illustrations that demonstrate the contradictory nature of the oral tradition. At the end, what does he say?

"Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Now, Yeshua has already asserted that the is not at issue. We assume that the actual commandments of God retain their authority. So what is the problem he is addressing? What did we read about at the beginning of the chapter? The issue is eating without engaging in Levitical washing ceremonies! Let us not forget that.

With these two assumptions in place, how are we to understand 7.19?

There are two implications. First, when Yeshua talks about "food", he is talking about kosher food. After all, the is considered inviolable. Leviticus 11 is still in place.

Second, the questionable matter that might enter a man, and go out through the bowels, is something that might otherwise be removed through handwashing. What material would that be? Simply... dirt.

It is dirt that, going into a man, cannot defile him. It is dirt that will be removed through natural processes, and be expelled from the body.

So, Mark 7 has nothing to do with defining acceptable foods. It is all about a rabbinic argument over the practice of washing hands prior to eating. But most Gentiles don't relate to this sort of detailed argumentation over the nature of washing rituals, and so they seek a point of contact with which they can relate. The result? They grasp at verse 19, thinking they have found an anti- text.

I find this thought process to be much stronger than challenging the textual evidence. It holds up, even if the text is accepted as original, and it demonstrates the principle of finding what one looks for--if we recognize rabbinic arguments, then we discover answers to those rabbinic questions; if we exclude the context, and insinuate our own assumptions, then we will "find" an answer to our own questions... whether the text meant to address those questions, or not.

Shalom,

Mishkan David

[Chizuk Emunah]

Firestorm,
Take a close look at verse 20. I believe it contains the key to Yeshua's message here.

And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man."

Let's step back and take a look at the big picture for a moment. If Yeshua was saying that one no longer had to keep kashrut, he would have to be denounced as a false prophet because he would be advocating against observance. This proclamation would also invalidate his claim of Messiahship. I do not believe that this is the case.

What I belive Yeshua was talking about here was in regards to evil speech (lashon hara) being that which defiles a person and only using food as an illustration to drive his point home. Come to think of it, I think I see a kol v'khomer (light and heavy) argument here. Does anyone else see it before I present it?

[Mishkan]

firestorm said:

My translation doesn't have the words "and thus He pronounced all meats clean" but vv. 15 -18 are more problematic.

I would disagree that 15-18 are problematic. I just wrote a response dealing with verse 19. Check that out, and see what you think.

Shalom,

Mishkan David

[Mishkan]

notzriyehudi said:

And He was saying, "That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man."

What I belive Yeshua was talking about here was in regards to evil speech (lashon hara) being that which defiles a person and only using food as an illustration to drive his point home. Come to think of it, I think I see a kol v'khomer (light and heavy) argument here. Does anyone else see it before I present it?

I think you are on to something, there. I'd like to see more along those lines. Please share with the class.

Shalom,

Mishkan David

[Wavy_Wonder]

Maybe a little Kal Va Chomer is present here.

It is true that nothing, not dirt or paint, or unclean foods can defile the inner man.

So the use of kashrut laws here may be his way of saying that even unclean foods may not defile the inner man. What's greater or weightier is how the inner man conducts himself than outer, mere ritualistic, mandated legalism. What's also weightier is abstaining from the works of flesh he mentioned. These wicked attributes cause one to break the commandments of YHWH, as did the Pharisees through tradition.

But I do not believe he declared all foods as clean in the sense that we may now eat unclean foods.

As Mishkan pointed out, he would be exposed as a hypocrite for nullifying his own statement in Matthew 15:6 and Mark 7:9, and would have been rightly crucified and hung on a tree for these simple reasons:

Deut 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
Deut 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Deut 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for YHWH your God proveth you, to know whether ye love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deut 13:4 Ye shall walk after YHWH your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
Deut 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from YHWH your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which YHWH thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.


And also, he would have rightly been classified as a rebellious son according to the law of a rebellious son and been lawfully hung on a tree:

Deut 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
Deut 21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
Deut 21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

(parents were, as we know, supposed to teach their children to obey the commandments, and Yeshua was called this according to Matthew 11:19)


Deut 21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

(the people tried to stone Yeshua several times)

Deut 21:22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
Deut 21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which YHWH thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

And of course we know, he was hung on a tree. I, for one, refuse to believe that YHWH Elohim, just and righteous and faithful, told his people to do this and yet sent his Son in direct contradiction to his very own commandments and told them to BELIEVE IN HIM. Nonsense. Sadly, this is what the majority of the Christian world would have us believe.

1 Timothy 4 and Romans 14 are easy. I can elaborate on what Mishkan said.

We must remember that the context is meat vs. vegetables according to Romans 14:2. If we compare 1 Corinthians chapters 8 & 10, we can find out that he is addressing a problem with meat offered to idols and whether or not you should abstain from meat altogether and just eat vegetables. So he told both the Romans and the Corinthians not to judge their brother in matters like these because we know that, although meat may have been sacrificed to an idol, we don't eat it for that idol. We eat it to YHWH because he created all things for us to eat. This is where we go to 1 Timothy 4:

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of YHWH is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Many stop here and say, "see!!!! every creature of God is good and nothing is to be refused!!! we can eat unclean foods, it doesn't matter!!!"

Man is also considered a "creature" in scripture (Rev. 15:13; Mk 16:15, for examples). Can we eat man? What about poison dart frogs? What about other animals that would KILL US if we ate them? But this is not the point. The key is in the next verses:

1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Some think all we have to do is pray over our food and it is acceptable. However, they skip over the "word of God" part. The only "word" at this time is . There is no new testament.

Only in are foods sanctified for us to eat. All foods cannot be sanctified. If they were all sanctified/set-apart, then no foods would be sancitfied. They'd all be the same and in the same category. To say every creature, including unclean foods, is sanctified is an oxymoron.

Also, in verse 3, he said in the last days some would forbid to marry and abstain from meats (not certain types of meats).

Marriage is also set-apart in , first in Genesis 2:24. These people are forbidding things that are sanctified in . Messiah agrees in Matthew 19:4-6.

So the people forbidding meats are forbidding meats as they are sanctified/set-apart in the Word/.

[Rick]

His argument was with the oral tradition. The tradition of the pharisees sometimes clashed with God's commandments, and when it did, the oral tradition was generally given precedence. Thus, Yeshua demonstrates that the oral tradition is set above the , and that is not acceptable.

Mishkan David, well said. The topic of Scripture vs Oral tradition in light of Yeshua's teaching, is one I find very interesting, and would like to learn more about. Would you care to elaborate further along these lines? (in an appropriate thread of course).

I find this thought process to be much stronger than challenging the textual evidence. It holds up, even if the text is accepted as original, and it demonstrates the principle of finding what one looks for--if we recognize rabbinic arguments, then we discover answers to those rabbinic questions; if we exclude the context, and insinuate our own assumptions, then we will "find" an answer to our own questions... whether the text meant to address those questions, or not.

Reminds me of a couple quotes;

"A text without a context is a pretext"
[unknown]

"The Bible, or written law, contains unexplained passages and hidden sentences, which can not be fully understood without the help of the oral law. Further, the written law contains generalities, whilst the oral law goes in for explanations in detail, and is consequently much larger in volume. Indeed, as a figure of speech we could apply to it the words in Job (iv. 9), "The measure thereof is longer than the earth and broader than the sea." The knowledge of this oral law can not be expected to be found amongst those who are bent on enjoying earthly life and worldly pleasures; its acquisition requires the relinquishment of all worldliness, riches and pleasures, and requires intellect aided by constant study."
[Midrash Tanhuma]

Rick

[Chizuk Emunah]

Wavy hit on it a little, but drew a general instead of a specific kol v'khomer.

The kol v'khomer used by Yeshua was this: If that which defiles a person comes from within and not without, then greater weight is given to demonstrating chesed (lovingkindness) than to observing kashrut. Both acts are valid mitzvot and fully binding, only greater weight is given to one over the other.

[Wavy_Wonder]

I like that. Never considered it in that light before.

[Chizuk Emunah]

wavywonder said:

I like that. Never considered it in that light before.

I hadn't either till it jumped out at me the other day.

[Mark]

Mishkan, please don't interpret my silence as disagreement or pendency. I appreciate your knowledge; and since my Greek lexicon is a hand-me-down from 1963 and the only Greek text I have is the Majority text (also published pre-Dead Sea Scrolls), I appreciate your bringing me up to date. It's a lot of fun to have someone show me that phrase in their NIV, then I silently hand them my KJV and look at their dumbfounded expression. With your permission I'll print off your response and work on adapting my method of apologetics.

It's very important to discuss these things on a peer level with our adversaries. If we are more scholarly, then we scare them away. If we are untrained, we get wiped out. It is best if we respond to those discrediting with an equal level of persuasiveness. Of course, we have the advantage, possessing the truth. This is why I don't bring up the original languages as an argument unless the other party of the discussion uses them.

Another point that is often forgotten about the eating of unclean meats is that it is no longer unhealthy for us to do so. Adonai didn't command us not to eat these meats because He wants us to be healthy. He commands us not to eat these meats because He wants us to be holy. (Leviticus 11:44, 45).

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

I believe scripture doesn't lie, but I'm hard pressed to explain Mark7:19, Romans 14 or 1Timothy 4 unless it means that one ought not to keep kosher laws as a way of earning salvation or "brownie points" with G'd.

Correct, not a way of salvation, but the passages do not condone eating unkosher. I believe we have separate threads dealing with those passages if you would like to further discuss them.

And while it may be sort of "hidden" in mystery understanding, I believe most of the people Paul and other NT writers wrote to were Israelites, although they were scattered out in the nations according to the scriptures.

Wavy, you have made some good points but, the above is characteristic of what "Two House Theology" teaches, and I believe it is very questionable to make statements like these. The letters in question written by Sha'ul (Paul) where indeed for the Gentile/goyim (those of the nations/non-Israelites) and Jews alike as he addresses them as "Jew" or "Gentile, "Circumcision" or "Uncircumcision". For further discussion on the Two House movement please visit the thread dedicated to the subject:

theloveofgod.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=messianic&action=display&n=1&thread=76&page=1

Shalom chaverim,

Reuel

[Nathaniel]

Shalom!

Edited by Admin.

Eat the meat and spit out the bones. Figurative statement!

Nathaniel

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom Nathaniel,

Instead of posting links to other sites to communicate your thoughts please post them here on the forum. Also, please refrain from placing links on this forum which promote Islam (as this was the nature of the website for the link that was removed).

Todah (thank you),

Reuel