Posted on 03/31/2021 8:42:15 AM PDT by Teleios Research
You almopst got it. Paul’s word on what is or isn’t unclean would bring you into agreement with the Word of God.
Does Paul’s statement in Romans 14:14 that “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself” mean the early Church made no distinction between clean and unclean meats?
An understanding of Greek terminology can help us here.
It is important to realize that the New Testament writers referred to two concepts of unclean in the New Testament, with different Greek words used to convey those ideas. Unclean could refer to animals God did not intend to be used as food (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14). Unclean could also refer to ceremonial uncleanness.
In Romans 14 Paul uses the word koinos, which means “common” (W.E. Vine, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, “Unclean,” p. 649). In addition to the meanings of “common” and “ordinary,” as used in English (Acts 2:44; 4:32; Titus 1:4; Hebrews 10:29; Jude 3), the word also applied to things considered polluted or defiled. This word, along with its verb form koinoo, is used in Mark 7:2, 15-23, where it obviously refers to ceremonial uncleanness in the incident when the disciples ate without having first washed their hands.
Through a concordance or similar Bible help you can verify that koinos and koinoo appear throughout the New Testament to refer to this kind of ceremonial uncleanness. Something could be “common”—ceremonially unclean—even though it was otherwise considered a clean meat.
An entirely different word, akathartos, is used in the New Testament for animals Scripture specifies as unclean. In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament in wide use in Paul’s day), akathartos is used to designate the unclean meats listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.
Both words, koinos and akathartos, are used in Acts 10 in describing Peter’s vision of the sheet filled with “all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air” (verse 12), both clean and unclean. Peter himself distinguished between the two concepts of uncleanness by using both words in verse 14. After a voice told Peter to “kill and eat,” he replied, “I have never eaten anything common [koinos] or unclean [akathartos].” Most Bible translations distinguish between the meanings of the two words used here. Peter used the same terminology in verse 28 and Acts 11:8 in discussing this vision.
When Paul said in Romans 14:14 that “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean [koinos, or ‘common’] of itself,” he was making the same point he had made earlier to the Corinthians: Just because meat that was otherwise lawful to eat may have been associated with idol worship does not mean it is no longer fit for human consumption. As seen from the context, Paul wasn’t discussing biblical dietary restrictions at all.
Paul goes on to state in Romans 14:20 that “all food is clean” (New International Version). The word translated “clean” is katharos, “free from impure admixture, without blemish, spotless” (Vine, “Clean, Cleanness, Cleanse, Cleansing,” p. 103). Clean meats as such aren’t addressed in the New Testament, so there isn’t a specific word to describe them. Katharos is used to describe all kinds of cleanliness and purity, including clean dishes (Matthew 23:26), people (John 13:10) and clothing (Revelation 15:6; 19:8, 14), “pure” religion (James 1:27), gold and glass (Revelation 21:18).
Realize also that, in both verses 14 and 20 of Romans 14, the word food or meat isn’t in the original wording. No specific object is mentioned relative to cleanness or uncleanness. The sense of these verses is merely that “nothing [is] unclean [koinos: common or ceremonially defiled] of itself,” and “all is clean [katharos: free from impure admixture, without blemish, spotless].”
Paul’s point is that any association of food with idolatrous activity had no bearing on whether the food was suitable for eating.
Lev:44For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
45For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
46This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.
Isaiah 66:17They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
SDA bible commentary: Eating swine’s flesh. See on ch. 65:4. These people openly defied God by partaking of things that were particularly abominable to Him. Both the swine and the mouse are listed among the unclean animals the Hebrews were forbidden to eat (Lev. 11:2, 7, 29, 44). The Jewish apostates exulted in throwing off all restraints and pretended to sanctify themselves by the very things God had said would defile them and render them unfit for fellowship with Him. In their affectation of a superior sanctity they had sunk to the lowest depths of degradation.
Profaning the 7th day Sabbath AND stuffing your face with food that JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF clearly states is an abomination TO HIM.......No bueno!
Because your chosen religion emphasizes works to obtain or retaining salvation, you are incapable of discerning the message of the scriptures. You will continue to filter all ‘spiritual’ issues through the works-reward syndrome.
Good luck with that excuse when you “meet your maker” and He asks you why you just couldn’t obey His word.
Yeah, good luck with your excuses. No abomination gets into heaven.
Deut 14:2For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.
3Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
Rev 21:27And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Interesting:
The call to holiness, the dominant theme in the book of Leviticus,
contains a strong emphasis and admonition for Christians in the New
Testament writings. The imitatio Dei is an ongoing demand. It issignificant
that Peter’s reason for being holy (1 Pet 1:15–16) is substantiated by the
text derived from the passage dealing with the Mosaic dietary laws (Lev
11:44–45).
1 Peter 1:15But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=jats
But to you, being holy means legalism and that just won’t do, now will it?
So what was the meaning of the vision Peter was given right before the men sent from Cornelius arrived where Peter was staying? Was the message to Peter, ‘The dietary laws are not now for you and the Believers in Christ?
When I ask my audience what kind of animals were in the sheet Peter
saw in his vision according to Acts 10, the typical answer is a “variety of
different kinds of unclean animals.” However, this answer is wrong,
because the biblical text shows that in the sheet were unclean as well as
clean animals. This observation leads to a crucial question: What was then
the problemfor Peter? He could pick up the clean animal and “kill and eat,”
but he refused. Bruce is right when he asserts that Peter “was scandalized
by the unholy mixture of clean animals with unclean; this is particularly
important when we recall the practical way in which he had immediately
to apply the lesson of the vision.” Thus, the real problem for Peter was 52
association of clean animals with the unclean animals otherwise he could
pick up a cow, sheep, or goat from the shown creatures and prepare it for
food. Peter felt he could not eat anything, because even the clean animals
became unclean by association with the unclean animals, a concept which is not supported by the Hebrew Scriptures (a living unclean animal is not
a source for uncleanness!), but only by rabbinic tradition.
God asked Peter to stop calling the clean animals koinos, i.e., defiled
by association with the unclean animals. This meant that he (a Jew) had to
stop considering himself unclean by associating with Gentiles. This goes
along with a different concept which was also developed during the
intertestamental period—the symbolic interpretation of animals into two
categories: clean animals represented the Jews and unclean animals
symbolized the Gentiles/pagans. This had tremendous implications for their
social life, because they needed to be constantly watching not to become
defiled by association with unclean pagans. If a Jew was in close contact
with a pagan he thus became polluted. In the time of Jesus and the apostles,
there were huge social barriers between Jews and Gentiles. They could not
eat together or visit each other in their homes for a variety of reasons (food
could have been offered to idols; connected with unclean animals;
prejudices). Through the vision, Peter was taught that the social barriers
between Jews and Gentiles had fallen down (he was now free to socialize
with them and visit the house of a pagan Cornelius), and not that a biblical
distinction between clean and unclean animals was no longer valid (see
Acts 10:28; 11:12).
Dang!
This argument could be turned against those that believe the Eucharist is...
If you want to try and help Phil, you might point out to him that the spirit told Peter to take, slay and eat of the previously (before the Cross curse removal) unclean animal species. But I doubt there is anything we could point out to him that he hasn’t reserved his ‘yeahbut’ for.
2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? (BTW, the DIETARY LAWS are a commandment of God)
9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (It would seem that this would apply to most of YOU who refuse to OBEY the words of Jesus Christ)
14Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. (Again, applies to most of YOU)
16And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
The Pharisees were being ridiculous and Jesus clearly pointed that out.
Can God now be declared not holy because you claim that the DIETARY LAWS no longer apply because of Christ's death on the cross? The DIETARY LAWS were not ceremonial or relate to "shadows". They are strictly a command from God to his people (that's us BTW) to BE HOLY, EVEN AS GOD IS HOLY.
You would have to be "BLIND AND WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING" not to see that Matthew 15 has nothing at all to do with the DIETARY LAWS.
Unfortunately, I believe that MHGinTN is spiritually blind. The jury is still out on you but if push came to shove, you would probably be included in that group (as with most of modern Christianity).
You refuse to keep the Commandments of God, out of love for him, because you consider that legalism.
God commands his people (us) to be holy and set apart from the world as Christians. Eating CLEARLY DEFINED unclean foods is an ABOMINATION. Is it ok for God's people to be HOMOSEXUALS? No it is not. That is also an ABOMINATION unto the Lord. Idol worship? Nope. Fornication? Nope. The list goes on and on and on.
MGHinTN "might say" Nah, all that stuff that God commanded in the old testament of his people about being holy and set apart to be holy unto Him, is "HOGWASH" (see what I did there?). That's just legalism. I can eat what I want and do what I want. I am sealed and that can never be undone. I'm going to heaven no matter what, keeping God's commandments is for suckers, see you in the clouds, 4D, atmosphere, no antichrist in almost 2000 years, Andy Woods is my prophet, anyone who doesn't think like me is a cultist, it's impossible for "born-againers" to sin and even if we could sin we are automatically forgiven, and lastly, THERE IS NO LAW, BECAUSE WE CANNOT SIN (where there is no sin, there is no law.....???)
Unbelievable, isn't it?
God commands us to be holy and we are set apart for holy use. We are a temple unto God. Doing things to, or ingesting things into our bodies that are clearly forbidden (commanded by God) is an ABOMINATION if we claim to be followers of Jesus Christ.
1 Cor 6:15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
Rev 21:27And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
MHGinTN specifically promotes breaking God's commandments and committing ABOMINATIONS unto God. How about you?
MHGinTN: If you want to try and help Phil, you might point out to him that the spirit told Peter to take, slay and eat of the previously (before the Cross curse removal) unclean animal species.
Elsie, if you want to help MHG, ask him to re read post 729 and point out that BOTH CLEAN AND UNCLEAN animals were on that sheet and that God certainly DID NOT COMMAND PETER TO SPECIFICALLY EAT ANYTHING UNCLEAN. If Peter’s vision was taken literally, WHICH IT WAS NOT, Peter would have undoubtedly eaten a CLEAN animal from that sheet.
The whole point of the vision was to now show that GENTILES WERE NO LONGER TO BE CONSIDERED COMMON OR UNCLEAN and that the Joooooooooooooooooooooooooos were not unclean by association. The vision had absolutely NOTHING to do with reversing God’s DIETARY LAWS for his people, in commanding them to remain holy, because He is holy.
So, how do I know this? BECAUSE PETER SPECIFICALLY TELLS US IN ACTS 10:
28And 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.
MHG “might say” Nope, Peter just forgot to also say that you can eat whatever unclean food you now wish so I’m just going to make that part of bible doctrine. I declare it, saith I, MHGinTN. Andy Woods told me so and he’s a prophet.
The 'explanation' would be that it is a parable; much like the seeds and sower one.
36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”
37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.
Elsie, please also point out to MGHinTN (if you want to help him) that 1 Peter 1:16 SPECIFICALLY refers to Leviticus 11:44 and the DIETARY LAWS (I’m reading from a standard KJV bible, self-pronouncing reference edition...references are centered in the pages).
15But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
43Ye shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creepeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby.
Leviticus 11:44For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
45For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
46This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth:
47To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.
Also, please let MHG know that THIS is a common theme throughout the Old and New testaments:
Lev 10:10And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;
Deut 14:2For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.
3Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
So, it sure does sound like Peter is saying to MHGinTN....What chu talkin bout, Willis?
14. Obedient children. Literally, “as children of obedience,” with the emphasis here on “obedience” (see on v. 2). Compare “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3), “children of light” (Eph. 5:8), and similar expressions (Eph. 2:2; 5:6; Col. 3:6; 1 Thess. 5:5). For comment on “children” (Gr. tekna) see on 1 John 3:1.
Fashioning. Gr. suschēmatizō (see on Rom. 12:2).
Lusts. See on Rom. 7:7; cf. on Matt. 5:28.
Ignorance. That is, the self-centered, world-loving experience of a man before his conversion, when he knows not God and His law, or Christ and His sacrifice (see on Acts 3:17; 17:30; Eph. 4:18). Newly converted Christians must have often been faced with the temptation to return to their old licentious ways of living. Peter acknowledges the force of the temptation, but strengthens his readers against its lure. 15.
But. Gr. alla, a strong adversative that contrasts the “former lusts” with the holy life required of Christians.
Called. See on Rom. 8:28, 30; 1 Cor. 1:9.
Holy. Gr. hagios (see on Rom. 1:7). The first clause of this verse may be paraphrased, “But contrarily, in harmony with that Holy One who called you.” God is absolutely holy; no sin or defilement can exist in His presence (cf. Lev. 11:44; 19:2; 20:7).
Be ye holy. That is, for your part be ye holy once for all. The earnest Christian decisively settles his standard of conduct; no future unholiness is contemplated. Man was made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26, 27) but lost the likeness through sin. The purpose of the gospel is to restore the divine image in man, that he may be holy as his Creator is holy.
Conversation. Gr. anastrophē, “conduct” (see on Eph. 4:22). Note the comprehensive nature of the standard held before the Christian—he is to be holy in all his conduct; every aspect of his life must be sanctified (cf. 1 Thess. 5:23). 16.
It is written. The ultimate authority to which the NT writers uniformly appeal is the OT (cf. on Matt. 2:5; Acts 2:16; Rom. 1:17; etc.).
Be ye holy. Quoted from Lev. 11:44; 19:2; 20:7. Textual evidence is here divided (cf. p. 10) between the use of the imperative “be ye” and the future “ye shall be,” but the intent is the same in that Peter is calling all Christians to holy living.
------------------------------------------------------
Not a parable. It was a VISION with a message. Please ask Marvin to read the text below and then ask his prophet, Andy Woods, what it means. Thank you. (LOL)
SDA bible commentary on Acts 10
14. Not so, Lord. Peter’s emphatic resistance even to a voice from heaven is quite in harmony with his character (see Matt. 16:22; John 13:8). His exclamation here is reminiscent of that of Ezekiel when he contemplated Israel’s eating of defiled food (ch. 4:14). Abstention from unclean flesh was one of the most characteristic marks of the Jew, and a distinction to which he held rigorously. It had been one of the basic issues between the Jews and the Syrians during the Maccabean War (see 2 Maccabees 6:18–31), an issue over which stanch Jews willingly laid down their lives.
However, the distinction between clean and unclean beasts, made definite in Lev. 11, preceded the Jewish nation. This distinction was made by God and respected by Noah when he supervised the entrance of the animals into the ark (Gen. 7:2; cf. ch. 8:20). Man’s original food consisted of fruit, grain, and nuts (Gen. 1:29). Before flesh foods were added to this diet (Gen. 9:2, 3), the distinction between clean and unclean animals already had been made clear. Thus there is no good basis for the position that the ban upon unclean foods was removed when the Jewish ceremonial law ended at the cross. In Peter’s vision these dietary restrictions had symbolic reference to Jewish distinctions between men—themselves and the Gentiles—and the abrogation of these distinctions was the point at issue (see on Gen. 9:3; Lev 11; Acts 10:15; Additional Note on Lev. 11).
Common. The use of the word “common” in the sense of “impure” according to the Mosaic ritual, reflected the Jewish attitude toward Gentiles. All who were not Jews were viewed as the “common” rabble, shut out from God’s covenant. The practices of these spiritual outcasts, different from those of the chosen people, were called “common” things, and as these “common” things were generally those forbidden by the law, all such prohibited things or actions became known as “common.” Similarly, when men’s hands were defiled ceremonially, they were known as “common hands” (a literal translation of the expression rendered “defiled … hands” in Mark 7:2).
15. What God hath cleansed. In the vision clean and unclean beasts stood on the same footing, being let down from heaven in the same sheet. They represented thus a general mixing of things, among which none was to be called common, or unclean. In interpreting the vision one should recognize that, although it was given in the setting of physical hunger (v. 10), it did not concern food, it concerned men. It was for the souls of men, of every kind everywhere, that Peter was to experience a hunger. Having learned this lesson, at least in part, Peter declared, “God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean” (v. 28). Gentiles, ordinarily considered unclean, were awaiting the spiritual ministration of Peter. He must not hesitate to serve them. They were no longer to be considered unclean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.