Acts 10 Controversy

[Tyler]

Thanks Mark!

[Mark]

Gentiles are specifically admonished to avoid the unclean in Galatians 5:19

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
(Gal 5:19 KJV)

One other note is that the New Covenant was not given to the gentile but to the Jew (Jeremiah 31:31), quoted in Hebrews 8:8-9. The "Christianity" of Paul and the original New Testament writers was a Jewish faith, not a off-shoot of Judaism but a sect within Judaism. Inclusion of the gentiles was exactly that: inclusion into a Jewish faith.

[Prodigal Girl]

Exactly.

[Tyler]

If you look at the context of Galatians 5:19 I think you will notice that it is speaking about sexual sin.

It is a bit of a stretch for me to sandwich "eating unkosher foods" between "fornication" and "unbridled lust".

Anyway, if you disagree, take a look at Strong's here: bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=167&version=kjv

You will see that whenever the Greek word for uncleanness is used the context is never referring to food.

[Mark]

Actually, the Greek word akathartos is what is used for uncleanness in Acts 10. Your response in regard to Galatians is the text-book antinomian answer; but fails to understand basic principles of English or Greek. The Galatians text is a simple list: each element of the list holds equal weight or value. You can't change the rules of how a sentence operates midway through the sentence... at least, not honestly.

[Prodigal Girl]

And Strong is textbook antinomian. I see your point about sentences. I like cats, dogs, and parakeets. They may all be animals, but that does not mean they are all the same animal.

[Mark]

There has been a careful manipulation, and in some cases, an adulteration of the English language in order distance our understanding from what the text says. It would be more logical, if a word were not clearly defined, one would seek to understand what the author would have likely meant. Since Paul is a Jew, the Christain hermaneutical approach has to take a different view. Uncleanness, to Paul would meet the Old Testament definition, if not otherwise qualified.

This is the method of exegesis that Peter endorses in 2nd Peter 1:20-21

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
(2Pe 1:20-21 KJV)

This is important for us to understand, especially in light of the writings of Paul, and the writings to the Galatians in particular because the Galatians were the intended recipient of 1st and 2nd Peter. It was in this same letter that Peter declares Paul's writings difficult to understand. (2nd Peter 3:15-16). We don't understand these things because we are not comparing them in consistency with the Scriptures of old.

Dallas Theological Seminary has decided that "no private interpretation" must mean that all biblical interpretation must agree with them. If you come up with a perspective other than what is believed by most Baptist preachers, you must have a "private interpretation". Yet, in the context, Peter is saying that any interpretation must line up consistently with the Old Testament prophets. The Church's position on the book of Galatians as a whole does not fit that criteria.

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
(Isa 8:20 KJV)

By the very prophet who declared that Adonai will extend mercy to the gentiles, the stands as man's beacon of light. Paul echos this sentiment in 1st Timothy 1, which tells us that the Law is not for the righteous man. He provides a list of a whole bunch of really bad things that we are so grateful that does not describe us; bu the Church position trails off before Paul concludes his sentence. Paul concludes the list in verse 10 ... if there be anything contrary to sound doctrine..." the establishes our biblical foundation for sound doctrine.

By this same strategy, the gentile Church distinguishes Jew from gentile to effectively create two different religions. The Christianity that Paul and Peter knew was considered a sect within Judaism (Acts 24:5, Acts 28:22). Paul, to the end of his life considered himself a observant Jew (Acts 28:17). The dominate Christian interpretation tries to separate the the thing that Paul's teachings work to bring together.

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
(Eph 2:11-13 KJV)

Distinction between what is appropriate for Jew versus gentile does not bring the gentile into the commonwealth of Israel. It rather re-inforces the wall of separation which does not allow the gentile into the court of the Jews.

The question can come down to simple practicality. How can we be in unity if we cannot even eat together? Are there two separate but equal peoples of God? This is the underlying conclusion that the Church has established. "Yes, Israel is the people of God... but we are, too." This is not the body of Messiah that is described in the Bible.

[Prodigal Girl]

I also maintain that it DOES NOT have to ALWAYS be an either/or thing: either you keep and offend, or you break and not offend. It is possible to explain, to have a good enough relationship that your explanation will work and you will be able to keep the , eat Kosher, and yet not offend. Daniel, perfect case in point. He truly felt strongly enough about, believed it important enough, that he was able to negotiate. Yet in another case, he did not negotiate, he and his friends offended and had to face persecution for it. I think we too easily just roll over, give in, without using our heads, without putting some effort into exploring all the alternatives. Particularly when it is something we really would rather do anyway; we'd rather just give up and eat those King's delicacies! Wouldn't want to offend, after all.
At any rate, Daniel and his friends STOOD OUT because they did not in either case just cave in and say "whatever". They were salt and they did not lose their flavor.
Yes, AS FAR AS IS POSSIBLE we try not to offend. But we have to be careful also to try MORE to be obedient to our Lord, not whatever earthly power that can harm us. I think often it is more a case not that we are afraid to offend, but that we do not want people saying bad stuff about us. We are trying to protect our own ego, rather than their feelings.

[lawrenceofisrael]

I agree very much that the almighty and wise never ordered Jews to stay away from Gentiles. Let us remember Ruth and may also the Lord remember this blessed women. She was a gentile but came to the holy land. And she was the grandgrandgrandgrand... mother of King David ( may the Lord remember him ).
Also we see in much Psalms that they call out for the Gentiles to believe in the Almighty and to worship our Creator. We also know from that the Lord instructed the Yisraelites to treat and love the foreigner living amongst them like they love their Yisraelite brother.
One of my slogans is. God is one, faith is one, body of moshiach is one, humanity in moshiach shall be one. That is also Yeshuas and Apostle Shimons urgent calling to us. We should call out to everyone and share the bread and wine with everyone regardless of Race, Skin Colour, Place of birth or the money on the bank account.
Shalom from your german brother.

[Mpossoff]

I just recently finished a study on this.

In short there were stringent laws about Gentiles because of the past; 'look at what happens when we mingle with Gentiles, we turn away from God and start acting like them in their pagan ways'.

Also stringent laws about becoming unclean when associating with Gentiles. Nowhere in the does it say you can actually get contaminated by uncleanliness.

But the often mentions the ger toshav; the 'good gentile' that lives among Israel.

So there are 'good' gentiles and 'bad' gentiles so to speak. Bad ones are pagans and heathens.

The man made law in that day was that a good gentile had to convert to become a Jew, change his ethnicity.

So as a result the sages and pharisees of the 1st century created man made laws concerning gentiles that are not in the written . Peter even made a comment to Cornelius which represented that attitude and laws concerning gentiles.

Really the battle was that gentiles are included in the commonwealth of Israel without becoming a Jew. This was the emnity that was nailed to the cross and throug the blood of Yeshua created one new man.

It boggles my mind because inclusion of the gentiles was foretold by the prophets and became fulfilled. Boggles my mind because the sages and pharisees couldn't see it. But it is written that inclusion of gentiles would happen and it did.

It's a that this attitude still exists today.

Marc

[azgdt5120]

"Again, the word in the Hebrew texts is "adam", not "ish"... thus Cornelius was a part of the dispersion. Maybe he didn't know it, but he WAS! Maybe many of you who are turning to (and I'm not saying this as factually) are a part of the dispersion"
Simchatorah

You are asuming facts that are not described in the book of Acts.
I personally see the need to get the real context and meaning of the words written but I won't conclude certain things as if they were, for interpretation purposes.
They were on a journey, do we know which city they were about to approach? I think that's an important element to see what kind of population lived in it. In my understanding Cornelius was a gentile. If not so Kepha would never said the expression " But G-d has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean"
I tend to go in this interpretation with Ruel's statement "Therefore, this tradition/law must have come from man" This showed Kepha to get into the teachings of the , not man's law.
I can say that this specific event in acts 10 is part of the fullfilling of Yeshua's command to the 12, teach the and the besorah of salvation to other nations (gentiles)

[Questor]

Aug 2, 2004 19:24:29 GMT -8 R' Y'hoshua Moshe said:

This is very interesting interpetation that may have some merit. No doubt we must understand this within the Jewish (Hebraic) context in which Kefa (Peter) would have understood it. And, what you have shared seems to give some additional insight. At any rate, the clear interpretation of Acts10 was that righteous Gentiles were not to be considered unclean in regards to fellowship.

You stated...

Again, specifically we can see that this is speaking of the Diaspora because in first century Judaism there was no halacha against a Jew associating with a gentile.

I would not necessarily say that this was the case as we have direct evidence in the Brit HaDashah that this was considered unlawful in regards to halacha...

"He said to them, "You yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man who is a Jew to join himself or come to one of another nation, but G'd has shown me that I shouldn't call any man unholy or unclean."
- Acts 10:28

I think that there probably is some halacha found in Talmud in regards to this. But, of course we do not see in the that it is unlawful for "a man who is a Jew to join himself or come to one of another nation". Therefore, this tradition/law must have come from man.

Shalom b'Yeshua,

Reuel

I think the law or tradition comes from the following:

Exodus 23:30-33 (CJB)
30 I will drive them out from before you gradually, until you have grown in number and can take possession of the land.
31 I will set your boundaries from the Sea of Suf to the sea of the P’lishtim and from the desert to the [Euphrates] River, for I will hand the inhabitants of the land over to you, and you will drive them out from before you.
32 You are not to make a covenant with them or with their gods.
33 They are not to live in your land; otherwise they will make you sin against me by ensnaring you to serve their gods.”

It does not forbid those in Israel from associating with Gentiles...but it sure wanted Gentiles well away from Jews, so it might be considered a law that was extended into all contact wherever possible.