law of moses, yahweh's teachings
PART V: CLEAN AND UNCLEAN
WHAT DID NOAH EAT?
Ge 1:29
God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the
face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree
yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
This is the food
given to Adam in the garden before the fall.
Ge 9:3
Every moving thing (7431) that liveth (2416) shall be meat for you; even as the
green herb have I given you [all things].
It appears Yahweh
adds animal meat to man’s diet after the flood, whether it was given before this
is not mentioned. The words “all things” are not in the Hebrew, only implied,
meaning Yahweh has now given man “both” meat and herbs.
Ge 7:2
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female:
and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.
Noah knew the
difference between clean and unclean even before the flood, as well as which
animals were which. Yahweh would then have realized when He spoke to him in 9:3
that Noah was well aware of what was clean and what was an abomination.
Let’s look at Gen 9:3 and Lev 11:41, two verses which are creepingly similar.
Ge 9:3
Every moving thing (7431) that liveth (2416) shall be meat for you; even as the
green herb have I given you [all things].
#7431 remes:- AV - creeping thing 15, moving thing 1, that creepeth 1;
total 17. Definition: creeping things, moving things, creeping organism.
#2416 chay:-AV - live 197, life 144, beast 76, alive 31, creature 15,
running 7, living thing 6, raw 6, misc 19; total 501. Definition: living, alive.
Le 11:41
Every creeping thing (8318) that creepeth (8317) upon the earth [shall be] an
abomination; it shall not be eaten.
#8318 is from 8317
sharats:- AV - creep 6, bring forth abundantly 5, move 1, breed
abundantly 1, increase abundantly 1; total 14. Definition: to teem, swarm,
multiply.
The strange difference seems to be, Noah was given
“every moving (creeping) thing that liveth,”
whereas Moses was forbidden
“every
creeping (moving) thing that creepeth.”
Both Hebrew words
can mean “moving” or “creeping.” The difference could be that “liveth” indicates
animals on 4 legs that run (since it’s translated running 7 times) and
“creepeth” specifies creepy, crawly things that multiply abundantly. Taking Gen
9:3 to mean we can eat anything that moves is like taking Lev 11:41 and saying
everything that moves is forbidden; since #7431 is translated “moving thing”
only once and “creeping thing” 15 times and #8318 is translated in Gen 1:20 as
"moving creature."
Many Bible opponents use the strange wording of the scriptures to attack the
truth found in it, seeing as they are reading it without the spirit to guide
them and so it’s a bunch of foolishness to them.
If Gen 9:3 reads,
“Every ‘clean’
moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you,”
it would not be open to dispute, but since we know Noah was aware of what was
clean and unclean, even before the flood, the word “clean” is not included but
is understood to be. Yahweh knew Noah wasn’t going to think “every moving thing”
included rats, hornets, worms and jellyfish because Noah had obviously been told
earlier what was acceptable and what was not.
Even if Noah was permitted to eat anything, and since we know Moses wasn’t, and
the law of Moses stands between our day and Noah, then the instructions given to
Noah have no bearing on us anyway.
PETER’S VISION
Act
10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild
beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to
him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have
never eaten any thing that is common (2839) or unclean (169). 15 And the voice
spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou
common.
To understand this passage it helps to know the difference between “common” and
“unclean.”
#2839 koinos:-
AV-common
7, unclean 3, defiled 1, unholy 1; total 12. Definition: common i.e. ordinary,
belonging to generality; by the Jews, unhallowed, profane, Levitically unclean.
#169 akathartos:- AV - unclean 28, foul 2; total 30. Definition: in a
ceremonial sense: that which must be abstained from according to the Levitical
law, in a moral sense: unclean in thought and life.
A lamb would be thought of as common by the Jews if it was sacrificed to idols
or was touched by Gentiles, but would not be considered unclean unless it was
somehow blemished or died of itself. The Jews looked upon anything from the
heathen as common, despite no OT scriptures to back this up, and Paul tells us
“there
is nothing common of itself” (Ro 14:14).
Yahweh’s answer to
Peter is, what I have cleansed don’t call common. He didn’t say He made unclean
things clean. The OT never says the Gentiles are unclean or common, in fact
Yahweh tells them:
“The stranger
that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt
love him as thyself” (Le 19:34).
But look what Peter says,
“It is an
unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of
another nation” (28).
This might be unlawful in the eyes of the Pharisees but not Yahweh’s. Look at Ex
12:48; 1Ki 8:41-43 and Is 56:3-7, as well as Ruth and Jonah, and read how Yahweh
considered the foreigner. Remember Yahshua’s dealings with sinners and how he
was condemned for it by the Jews. It’s obvious Peter has yet to have this
prejudice knocked out of his head and you wonder if he ever did after reading
Gal 2:12 where he is still looking at Gentiles as common.
Verse 17 tells us Peter was left pondering what the vision meant when the men
from Cornelius arrived at his gate. Did it mean all animals are now made clean
through Yahshua, or is Yahweh telling the Jews He is bringing in all peoples
through the door that is Messiah? Yahweh said,
“What God hath
cleansed, that call not thou common.”
Its apparent Yahshua’s
blood covers humans, not animals and this is what Peter eventually realized was
the message of the vision.
Ac
10:28 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. 34 Of a truth I perceive that God is
no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and
worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Peter considered
Gentiles not only common but unclean as well. This was the Jewish mindset that
only they were called and acceptable to Yahweh, despite what we have read to the
contrary in the OT. This would explain Peter’s words
“God hath
shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”
Yahweh never said Gentiles were “unclean” and only tells Peter not to call them
“common.” It appears this vision had demonstrated to Peter that the Jews,
including himself, have been wrong for centuries now to falsely label anyone
“unclean” and now, through Yahshua, Yahweh is saying they are not even to be
classed as “common.”
Yahweh used clean and unclean animals as a metaphor to reveal, as an example to
Peter, that Gentiles also were being cleansed through Yahshua’s blood. The Jews
couldn’t fairly be compared to clean animals for they were just as unclean as
Gentiles and also in need of cleansing. Many people leap to conclusions and turn
this symbolism Yahweh uses into an opportunity to declare the clean and unclean
food laws obsolete, despite it never being mentioned.
NOTHING “UNCLEAN?” OF
ITSELF
Ro 14:14 I know, and am
persuaded by the Master Yahshua, that [there is] nothing unclean (2839) of
itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean (2839), to him [it is]
unclean (2839).
It is understood from the OT that pigs are unclean in and of themselves but here
Yahshua has convinced Paul that even pigs are not “unclean” of themselves. Long
before the KJV was translated Christianity had deemed the law to be done away
with and no longer valid, so it is not hard to see that the translators were
ignorant, or we should say blinded, to the difference between “common” and
“unclean.” It is still remarkable however that the Greek word “koinos,”
(see definition above) in all the times it’s translated in the NT, only in this
one verse is it rendered “unclean,” instead of the correct “common.” Paul is
saying nothing is ‘common’ of itself, he is not saying nothing is ‘unclean’ of
itself.
ABSTAIN FROM MEATS
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry,
[and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received
with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every
creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with
thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified (37) by the word of God and prayer.
#37 hagiazo:- AV - sanctify 26, hallow 2, be holy 1; total 29.
Definition: to separate from profane things and dedicate to God.
Paul tells us a group of sinners will be urging believers not to marry or eat
meat. He says they will have departed
“from the faith, giving heed to
seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having
their conscience seared with a hot iron”(1-2).
Do we know anybody like this? Does this sound
like the people today who support keeping the law?
“Commanding to abstain from meats.”
What meats Paul?
“Meats which
God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know
the truth.” Did God create dogs or horses
to be received with thanksgiving for to eat? How do we know which meats are
indicated? Verse 5 tells us those meats that are
“sanctified (37) by the word of
God.” Horses, dogs, rats and pigs are not
sanctified by the word of God, only clean animals are.
ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL UNTO ME?
1Co 6:12 All things [are]
lawful (1832) unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things [are] lawful
for me, but I will not be brought under the power (1850) of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it
and them.
#1832 exesti; AV - be lawful 29,
may 2, let 1; total 32. Definition: It is lawful, it is right (through the
figurative idea of being out in public). Vine’s Dictionary: an impersonal verb,
signifying it is permitted, it is lawful, or thou mayest.
Ac 2:29 Men [and] brethren, let
(1832) me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David.
Ac 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest
(1832).
Ac 21:37 As Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain,
May (1832) I speak unto thee?
This verse has nothing to do with
the Law of Moses! The word translated "lawful" is existi, meaning
"permitted" (see above). The first "are" is not in the original Greek. Does this
change the meaning? All things permitted to me, but not all things are
profitable. All things permitted to me, but I will not be mastered by anything.
“Be brought under the power,”
these five words are translated from the one
Greek word exousiazo (1850), it is from the Greek word exesti, see
above. Paul is doing a little play on words here: All things in my
power, but I will not be brought under the power of any of them. One
of these things is fornication (verses 15-16), he will not relinquish the power
he has over his body to a harlot (see in 1Co 7:4 how exousiazo (power) of
your body is given to your spouse). We as believers should control this power
not our behaviour and deeds controlling us.
“They themselves are the servants of
corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage”
(2Pe 2:19, also Jn 8:34, Ro 6:12 & 16).
1Co 6:12-13 is a refutation of the
two sayings of the Gnostics,
"All things permitted
me", and
"Meat for the belly,
and the belly for meat,”
basically the Gnostic version of, ‘if it feels good, do it” (Messianic
Jew, Dr. David H.
Stern). Paul was literally
rebuking this line of thinking, however, by turning his words on their head once
again the translators make Paul say the opposite of his meaning. It is ludicrous
to even think Paul believes everything is lawful to him, which would suggest
everything is lawful for us as well. Paul goes on in the next few verses to
admonish all to keep their bodies holy, and strongly rebukes such Gnostic
rubbish that we see proliferating in today’s society. This is an indication of
how feeble the anti-law argument is when they have to grasp onto verses such as
this.
NOTHING WE EAT CAN HARM US?
Mt 15:17 Do not ye
yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly,
and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those things which proceed out of the
mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the
heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false
witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat
with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Yahshua taught that we are judged from the heart not from what we do and he
condemned those who thought otherwise. He said,
“whatsoever entereth in at the
mouth,” he didn’t say anything that
enters your mouth is fine. Would poison go into your mouth and pass out of you
without harming you? See how he concluded his message,
“These are [the things] which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands
defileth not a man.” If anyone looks at
this passage to mean everything is permissible to eat they've missed his message
by a long shot.
HYGIENE AND DISEASE
In the law of Moses we find commandments dealing with hygiene and disease that
are often overlooked and in our modern times considered irrelevant.
Nu 19:11 He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.
Nu 19:16 Whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
Deut 23:12 Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad:13 And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee.
For those interested in Yahweh’s law it’s important you read the next two articles.
Kingdom Island Medical Center
Keep in mind that man's medical knowledge was
virtually abysmal until the beginning of the 20th century. The existence of
germs was unknown until around A.D. 1890. Yet the first five books of the Bible
known as Torah, or the Law, recorded by Moses approximately
1491-1451 B.C.,
reveal surprisingly advanced medical and scientific knowledge about hygiene and
sanitation.
There is a tendency for people to think that whatever the laws are in the Bible,
it is designed to restrict us from our freedom to enjoy life. Yet when we look
at some of the laws in the Bible given by Moses to the Jews, they are meant to
protect them from the fatal harm of disease. If the Jews followed the laws, they
were protected even though they did not know the entire mechanism behind the
laws as we do nowadays.
Take a look at this advanced medical knowledge and instructions written 3500
years ago. Unless what was written by Moses was inspired by God, it is
impossible to come up with these instructions without the knowledge of germs and
medicine.
An article in the Encyclopedia Britannica documents that Dr. Semmelweis, a
doctor in Vienna in 1845, realized a 15-30% of the mothers giving birth in the
hospital ended up dying. At that time, the existence of microscopic infectious
germs was unknown and unsuspected. However, Dr. Semmelweis insisted that the
doctors under his supervision wash their hands prior to examining patients.
Immediately, the mortality rate fell to less than 2%.
Until this century most doctors who did choose to wash their hands did so in a
bowl of water, which allow the germs to remain on their hands. However, Moses
instructed the Israelites to wash in "running water" back in
1500 B.C. How did Moses gain
such a foresight?
The laws of Numbers and Leviticus reveals an advanced system for the control of
infectious disease. The Bible commands that the priests act as medical control
officers, examining sick individuals and taking action to protect them and the
community. Even after a man recovered, the individual was subject to strict
medical isolation to ascertain he was truly healed.
Europe and Asia have been periodically engulfed by epidemics of leprosy and
plague in the medieval period, especially between A.D. 1200 to A.D. 1400. More
than 60 million people (1/3 of the population of Europe in the 14th century) are
estimated to have died by the Black Death (bubonic plague). Renowned doctors of
the time were unable to respond adequately due to the lack of knowledge. They
were reduced to offer advice such as "Stop eating pepper or garlic." In the
midst of fear and panic, several church leaders in Vienna began to search the
Bible and discovered Leviticus 13:46. People began to follow the ancient
biblical laws of sanitation and disease control that the epidemic was broken.
Until this century, all previous societies, except for the Israelites who
followed God's medication laws regarding quarantine, kept infected patients in
their homes - even after death, exposing family members and others to deadly
disease. "The laws against leprosy in Leviticus 13 may be regarded as the first
model of a sanitary legislation" (Arturo Castiglione, A History of Medicine,
p.71)
New Bible Dictionary, pp. 464.
One respect in which Jewish medicine was better
than that of contemporary peoples was the remarkable sanitary code of the
Israelites in Moses’ time (e.g. Le. 15). A. Rendle Short gives an excellent
short account of this (The Bible and Modern Medicine, pp. 37-46).
Although generally referred to as a code, the details are, in fact, scattered
throughout the Pentateuch (Gen.–Deut.).
The Jews, as a nation, might not have survived their time in the wilderness, or
the many other vicissitudes through which they passed, without their sanitary
‘code’. It deals with public hygiene, water supply, sewage disposal, inspection
and selection of food, and control of infectious disease. The most interesting
thing about it is that it implies a knowledge which in the circumstances of the
Exodus and the wilderness wanderings they could scarcely have discovered for
themselves, e.g. the prohibition, as food, of pigs and of animals which had died
natural deaths, the burial or burning of excreta, etc., and the contagious
nature of some diseases.
Burning of excreta (Ex. 29:14) was a particularly wise practice for a wandering
people, since there was no time for dung to do good as manure. The spread of
disease was thus effectively prevented. The origin of the word ‘quarantine’ is
the Jewish use of the period of 40 days of segregation from patients with
certain diseases (Le. 13:45) adopted by the Italians in the 14th
century because of the relative immunity of Jews from certain plagues.
In a number of respects the biblical outlook on the sick, and health in general,
has a bearing on modern medical practice, and is perhaps more up-to-date than is
generally realized. (D. H. Trapnell, Westminster Hospital, London)
Christianity has pounded into our heads that the law is a burden, a yoke and a curse, without a single scriptural verse to support such deception. Instead the Bible speaks of the law only in glowing terms.
For we read that the law is:
Righteous ~ De 4:8
True ~ Ne 9:13
Good ~ Ne 9:13, Ro 7:12, 1Ti 1:8
Perfect ~ Ps 19:7
Pure ~ Ps 19:8
Desirable ~ Ps 19:10
Sweet ~ Ps 19:10
A warning ~ Ps 19:11
A blessing ~ Deut 11:27, Rev 22:14
Right ~ Ne 9:13, Ps 19:8
Holy ~ Ro 7:12
Just ~ Ro 7:12
Spiritual ~ Ro 7:14
Delightful ~ Ro 7:22
Despite all the biblical evidence to the contrary we are told it was a good thing Yahshua did when he took that repressive weight off our backs and set us free to stand on our own.
If we ignore man for the
moment and believe how the Bible describes the law, the question is, why would
Yahweh take away from Christians the blessing, guidance and protection He gave
the Israelites through the law? Would the Christian world in the middle ages
have suffered the widespread diseases and overall poor health they did if they
had followed a few of the basic principles of the law? Israel was told to
dispose of their excrement outside the camp whereas European towns had open
sewers running down every street.
In many cities and towns Jews had their own district or ghetto and were
protected to a certain degree from the plagues that swept throughout the land.
However, this was not altogether a good thing. The Christians, seeing the plague
was not as devastating on the Jews as it was on them, through hatred and
frustration, often turned on the Jewish population as a scapegoat, blaming them
for the plague.
The Jews might have escaped the plagues but at least the Christians had that
burdensome old yoke off their back.
THESE ARE AN
ABOMINATION!
De 14:2 For thou art an holy
people unto Yahweh thy God, and Yahweh hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people
unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. 3 Thou shalt not
eat any abominable thing.
Le 11:44 For I [am] Yahweh 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.
Le 20:25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean,
and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable
(8262) by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on
the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.
#8262 shaqats:- AV - abomination 2, abominable 2, abhor 1, utterly 1,
detest 1, total 7. Definition: to detest, make abominable, count filthy, make
detestable.
With such crystal clear commandments how is it possible to lay them aside based
on such questionable verses we have looked at?
2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out
from among them, and be ye separate, saith Yahweh, and touch not the unclean
(169) [thing]; and I will receive you.
Paul quotes the OT as if he thinks it still applies.
PAUL CONFRONTS PETER
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to
Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
What was Peter blamed with? This is the
key.
12a For before that certain
came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles.
Was he to blame for eating with the
Gentiles? But read what Peter said.
Ac 10:28a 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;
Is this what Paul is blaming Peter with?
Let’s finish reading Act 10:28.
28b But God hath shewed me
(Peter) that I should not call any man common or unclean.
"But" - the word that turns things
around, now Peter knows he was wrong all along, as were and are the Jews,
Gentiles are not common by command of Yahweh but made common by the bias of the
uppity Jews. If Peter had followed the example of Yahshua he would have known
this, for the Pharisees accused the Messiah of associating with sinners. So
eating with a sinner or Gentile is not against the law.
12b But when they
(the Jews from James)
were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the
circumcision.
So Paul is charging Peter with
withdrawing from eating with the Gentiles and going over to eat with the Jews.
This paints a picture of a divided assembly, with the majority of Jews off to
one side eating and the bulk of the Gentiles eating in another area. We can
suppose Paul had this to contend with everywhere he went and what a
disappointment to find the apostle Yahshua gave the keys of the kingdom to
undoing all the work he had put into this assembly.
13 And the other Jews
dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with
their dissimulation.
Following the leader is what most of us
do best whether right or wrong. The word "dissimulation" is elsewhere, even in
the KJV, translated hypocrisy. Hypocrisy indeed is what it was, Peter saying one
thing in Acts and doing another here.
14a But when I saw that they
walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.
This is a clear testament to our weak
flesh, everything Peter went through in Acts 10 and 11, from the vision, to
Cornelius' conversion, to facing down the Jews afterwards, it is amazing to find
Peter crumbling here in Antioch because of a few men sent from James. They
"walked not uprightly"
because, in a very true sense they were implying the Gentile Christians were not
clean, and being Jews they had been taught (not by Yahweh) not to associate with
them. With this act Peter was proclaiming the Gentiles to be still without hope,
still "aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel," and if we read
Ep. 2:12-22 we find Peter was saying Yahshua was a failure.
14b I said unto Peter before
them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as
do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
"After the manner of Gentiles," all five
words being translated from one Greek word, #1483 ethnikos, this is the
only time it is used in the entire Bible. It is an adverb meaning heathenish,
heathen like or in heathen fashion.
"As do the Jews,"
these four words are also taken from one Greek word, #2452 ioudaikos, it
as well is only found here in all the scriptures. It's an adverb meaning
Jewishly or Jewish like.
"To
live as do the Jews," is likewise only
used here and all six words are translated from the one Greek word ioudaizo
#2450, a verb (not an adverb like the first two) meaning to Judaise or be
Jewish. Paul's question then to Peter is, you, being a Jew, live heathenishly,
and not Jewishly, why forcefully Judaise the Gentiles.
Does this single question of Paul's tell us Peter was living the life of a pagan
and the converted pagans were required by the apostles to be Jewish? If we take
Paul's question out of this context it could be understood that way. Most of
Christianity would have us believe the first part about Peter living like the
Gentiles is interpreted correctly but the second part about the Gentiles
following Jewish customs, oh no, that can't be right. Can we conceivably believe
Peter worshiped idols, ate swine and completely turned away from keeping the law
and then abruptly falls back into his Jewish habits when James' men arrive? Then
what did Paul mean, after all he lived as did Peter? What aspect of Peter's
heathen life was Paul referring to?
Let's see what we have. Paul is writing to the Galatians and tells of a time
when he was in Antioch, where he and Barnabas worked for many months, when Peter
arrived. Everything was fine until some Jews associated with James show up.
Peter then began to avoid the Gentile members during mealtime because he feared
the disapproval, whether real or imagined, of those from James. The Jews had
created through their own man-made ordinances what Paul calls in Ep. 2:14
"the middle wall of partition,"
forbidding them from eating with
Gentiles. This was still a part of the Jewish custom, certainly not given by
Yahweh or Moses but added because of Jewish arrogance and appropriately ignored
by Yahshua, which he was criticized for. If all Christians, including the Jews,
had for years now thrown out the law of Moses, why were they still fretting over
a minor point of the law such as this? This clearly demonstrate that the Jewish
believers had to still be keeping the entire law for such a minor point, that
had already be settled in the Jerusalem meeting (Acts 15), to still be causing
such a fuss. Why would Peter keep this part of the law if he believed the law
had ended? Why would he keep this minuscule fragment and ignore the major
commandments such as the Sabbath, the Holy Days or the clean food laws?
Paul points out to Peter that he is a Jew yet he lives "ethnikos,” in
Gentile fashion, not "ioudaikos,” Jewishly. Do we take from this that
Peter does everything heathenish and absolutely nothing Jewishly, or only acts
different from the Jews in regards to the subject matter. Peter was outside the
boundaries of Israel, in a foreign country, living among the Gentiles. Peter
differed from most Jews in that he ate, associated and worshiped with heathens.
In the eyes of the scribes and Pharisees Peter was a Jew but lived as a heathen.
Remember, Paul's charge was hypocrisy, Peter was saying the Gentiles were
acceptable but acting as though they were still filth and Yahshua had not
cleansed them.
Paul adds, if this is the case why force the Gentiles to "ioudaizo,"
Judaise. This verb is an action word, it describes what actions the Gentiles
were taking. In 14b the verb to describe Peter's actions was zao, livest
or living, whereas the Gentiles were forced to Judaise, live Jewish.
#2450 ioudaizo, AV - to live as do the Jews 1; total 1; Definition: to
adopt Jewish customs and rites, imitate the Jews, Judaise, one who observes the
ritual law of the Jews.
Paul is asking Peter, why make the Gentiles keep the law if you in turn treat
them like filthy Gentile sinners. Paul lived the same as Peter, eating with the
Gentiles and so looked on by Jews as heathenish. He would also be teaching the
Gentiles to Judaise (Ac 15:20-21; Ro 2:26; 1Co 11:2; 2Th 2:15; Heb 5:12), but
the big difference is that Paul considered them grafted in, citizens of the
commonwealth of Israel
(Ep 2:12 & 19) and ended this epistle by calling them the
"Israel of God" (6:16).
If you are a citizen of Britain you obey the law of Britain, if a citizen of
Israel you obey the law of Israel.
15 We who are Jews by nature,
and not sinners of the Gentiles.
You and I Peter are Jews from birth and
not descended from sinful Gentiles.
16 Knowing that a man is not
justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Yahshua Messiah, even we
have believed in Yahshua Messiah, that we might be justified by the faith of
Messiah, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no
flesh be justified.
Now Paul gives his lifelong theme. The
Gentiles are justified by Yahshua, everyone who has ever lived must be justified
by Yahshua, "even we"
he says, even you and I Peter must believe in Yahshua to be justified. The law
didn't justify Moses, or Daniel, or John the Baptist, only Yahshua could do
that. Yahshua justifies everyone equally, the Gentiles who put their trust in
Messiah are just as righteous and clean as the Jews, and so why do you not treat
them so?
To understand this passage it is important to always keep in mind what the
subject is all about. Paul uses this confrontation with Peter to introduce the
main thrust of his entire epistle, which is not to abandon your trust in Yahshua
for justification and fall back and try to become righteous by works, whether by
the law or otherwise.
THE SABBATH REST OF HEBREWS
What is the “rest” spoken of in
Hebrews chapters three and four? Is it the rest we find in Messiah when we
believe on his name? Could it be the rest given through the Holy Spirit after
being baptized? Some would even say it is the New Testament Sabbath, or Lord’s
Day, thought to be observed after the resurrection. Since this passage has been
so misconstrued, which has lead to many erroneous interpretations, let’s take a
long hard look at just what it does say.
He. 3:11 So I sware in my
wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.
This is a quote from Ps 95:11; go read Ps 95:6-11. The promised land was a
“type” of rest, rest from slavery in Egypt and rest from their wanderings in the
desert.
12 Take heed, brethren, lest
there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living
God. 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of
you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we are made partakers
of Messiah, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
Be careful you don’t slip into unbelief,
so exhort each other everyday lest any should sin. We will receive this rest
only if we hold what we have “steadfast unto the end.”
15 While it is said, “To day
if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation” (Ps
95:7-8). 16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that
came out of Egypt by Moses. 17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it
not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? 18 And to
whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that
believed not?19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
Very few entered the promised land; the
remainder “fell in the
wilderness …because of unbelief.” These
unbelievers not only failed to enter the promised land rest, which is symbolic
of the ultimate eternal rest, but they won’t partake of this eternal rest
either. Take note of the quote from Psalms.
He. 4:1 Let us therefore
fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should
seem to come short of it.
Again we are cautioned, for we also might
fall short of entering into this eternal rest. Remember this is yet future,
meaning we have not as yet enter or received this rest.
2 For unto us was the gospel
preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not
being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
In the Old Testament they were told the
gospel message but did not receive faith in order to believe.
3 For we which have believed
do enter into rest, as he said, “As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall
enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the
world.”
The KJV really muddles up this verse. “We
‘do enter into rest,’” in verse 1 he said the rest is still a promise but here
he seems to say we are already into the rest. What gives? “Do” is not in the
original Greek but is added, “enter” is from the Greek word eiserchomai, often
translated enter, go, come. But here it is in the “emphatic futuristic present
middle indicative” form (Robertson), meaning, “will enter” or at least should
simply be “enter into” or “come into” or even “go into.” Believers will enter
into eternal rest.
Then he quotes Ps 95:11 again, but even though the KJV got it correct in He
3:11, just 10 verses ago, they put in, “if they shall enter into my rest”
instead of “they shall NOT enter into my rest.” The KJV repeats this mistake
again in verse 5, all other major translations, including even the NKJV, correct
this error.
Verse 3 is simply saying, believers will enter into this rest and unbelievers
will not.
4 For he spake in a certain
place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all
his works. 5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
Verse 3-5 says, those unbelievers aren’t
going to enter His rest even though the work of creation is complete (however
Yahweh still works according to Jn 5:17 & 14:10). He rested the 7th day from the
work of creation but unbelievers won’t have rest, but we who have believed will
enter into rest.
6 Seeing therefore it
remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached
entered not in because of unbelief:
The promise remains (it’s not yet
realized, still future) that those with faith will enter in.
7 Again, he limiteth a
certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To
day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus (Joshua)
had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
In David’s day, after so long a time had
passed since Moses, the promised land rest had been realized, yet another day,
another rest was still future. Joshua had not given them the ultimate rest for
we read in He. 11:16
how the OT saints desired
“A
better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be
called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.”
9 There remaineth therefore
a rest (Strong’s #4520) to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into
his rest (#2663), he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
#4520 ~ sabbatismos; AV - rest 1, total 1. Definition: a keeping
Sabbath; from 4521 sabbath.
# 2663 ~ katapausi;s AV - rest 9; total 9. Definition: a putting to
rest, calming of the winds, a resting place.
There still is “sabbatismos,” a keeping of the Sabbath, and those that
rest on the Sabbath do as God did after creation. So the weekly Sabbath and the
promised land rest have been partaken of, still they are only symbolic of yet
another rest which is also promised as we see in the next verse.
11 Let us labour therefore to
enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
“Let us labour,” yet once more the author
points to the future, we have to continue to strive for this final rest, meaning
we have not received it yet. If we don’t continue to labour to acquire this rest
and capture it, we could fall, as did the unbelievers in the wilderness.
Mt. 11:28 Come unto me, all
[ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (373 same as Rev.
14:13).
Let’s assume for the moment that Mt. 11:28 is not eternal rest but the rest of
the Holy Spirit given through Messiah, and if so it could be classified as a 3rd
type of rest. Then the saints being written to here in Hebrews could be said to
have the rest of the Sabbath (1st), the rest of the promised land (2nd), and the
rest of the Holy Spirit (3rd). But they are told they must continue to work
toward still a final 4th rest we find spoken of in Re 14:13,
“Blessed
[are] the dead which die in Yahweh from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that
they may rest (373) from their labours; and their works do follow them.”
#373 ~ anapauo; AV - rest 4, refresh 4, take rest 2, give rest 1, take
ease 1; total 12. Definition: to cause or permit one to cease from any movement
or labour in order to recover and collect his strength, to give rest, refresh.
So we see the spirit filled believers in the 1st century assembly, who lived in
the promised land and kept the Sabbath, still were told to strive for that
final, ultimate, eternal rest given at the resurrection. John, in Revelation,
gave a description of this glorious rest.
They shall hunger no more,
neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more
death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the
former things are passed away (Rev. 7:16 and 21:4).
LAW OF MOSES REPLACED BY THE LAW OF YAHSHUA?
Many people convince themselves Yahshua instituted a new code of law with his
teachings and instructions, especially what they see in Matthew chapters 5-7.
What they call ‘the Law of Christ’ he calls
‘my sayings’
(Mt 6:24). However, if you don’t heed his sayings the penalty won’t be
punishment on Judgement Day as it is with the law of Moses, he only will
consider you a foolish man for rejecting such sound advise (6:24-26).
Let’s examine Matthew chapters 5-7 and see if Yahshua ushered in a new code of
conduct that replaces the law of Moses. Look at the following, are they
commandments or wise sayings? Both, because they come from someone who has
authority over us. But do they replace the commandments of Yahweh? No, they
enhance and help explain some of them.
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay
Resist not evil
Give to him that asketh thee
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you
When thou prayest, enter into thy closet, pray to thy Father which is in secret
Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven
Ye cannot serve God and mammon
Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink
Judge not, that ye be not judged
First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly
Neither cast ye your pearls before swine
All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law
Enter ye in at the strait gate
Beware of false prophets
Did Yahshua issue new commandments? Look at this commandment from Yahshua.
Mt 8:18 When Yahshua saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side.
Did this commandment replace any commandments from Yahweh? No more then the above wise sayings did.
Always remember who actually was responsible for Yahshua’s words.
Deut 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put MY WORDS in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto MY WORDS which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
Jn 8:28 Then said Yahshua unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Yahshua was a messenger bringing the words of Yahweh to Israel and the world, not bringing new laws.
613 OR LESS
The Jews count 613 commandments in the law of Moses, 365 don’ts and 248 dos. Many, however, are redundant, for they are in both the dos and don’ts, such as Lev 22:21 where one commandment is you don’t offer a blemished animal and another is you do offer an unblemished animal. Also De 24:19 is similar in that you don’t return to the field for a forgotten sheaf and you do leave a forgotten sheaf for the poor. So the number 613 the Jews claim as the official number of commandments is a bit misleading, also considering each commandment does not apply to everyone.
The law is found spread throughout the 2nd, 3th, 4th and 5th books of the Bible, often times repeated in Deuteronomy what was stated in one of the other books, or vice-versa. Each individual should read over and study the teachings Yahweh gave to Israel and determine for themselves, through prayer, what commandments apply to them and which ones don’t. And most don’t, unless you’re a priest and both a man and a woman, living in Israel, before Messiah, within the confines of the camp.
Let’s look at some of the commandments, with a viewpoint from the law’s many facets that guide, protect and bless us.
De 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto Yahweh thy God.
Le 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am Yahweh.
Here are two commandments that are never mentioned in the New Testament. Since we are told the law has been abolished it would seem what was once an abomination in Yahweh’s eyes He can now look on with approval. Men wearing women’s undergarments and dresses would no longer be repugnant to Him. Branding or making carvings and tattoos on your body He would now not find detestable. Since these commandments are not mentioned in the NT is it now ok to do this things or are they some of the commandments opponents of the law claim are impossible for us in our day to obey because of our modern social environment? Would we be charged with trying to impose Old Testament values on our twenty-first century culture? Maybe our answer should be, “I’d rather please Yahweh then have the approval of men.”
As we can see in the next two examples they also are not included in the so called Law of Christ but are enforced throughout Christendom (up to about 1975 anyway) as if the law was still valid.
Le 18:23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion (RSV & NIV - perversion).
There are actually two commandments in this verse (as there are in many others), men shall not lie with animals to defile themselves and women shall not stand before an animal to be defiled.
Le 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Le 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.
Homosexuality is an abomination and is forbidden.
The following are examples of commandments I don’t thing you are going to have to worry about. As I have said before some commandments only apply to a select group, time, or place, whereas others apply everyday to everybody, such as De 6:5 and Lev 19:18.
Ex 23:31 I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee. 32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.
Israel was commanded not to make a covenant with the seven nations of Canaan they were to overthrow.
Le 10:9 (To Aaron) Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:
The priests were not to be intoxicated or even to take a drink before serving in the temple.
Lev 21:21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of Yahweh made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
The priests were to be without blemish when serving in the temple.
Ex 20:25 If thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.
An altar was not acceptable which was made of stones broken by man’s tools.
Even though these commandments would not apply to us today, at the time they demonstrated Yahweh’s requirement of vigilance, dedication and purity. Yet they still have overlying principles for us today, for Ex 23:31 can be seen in Paul’s words to the Corinthians, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?” (2Co 6:14).
Here now are a few commandments that would apply to us today if the circumstances warranted.
De 20:19 When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field [is] man’s [life]) to employ [them] in the siege
They were not to destroy fruit trees in time of siege.
De 24:19 When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
Not to return for a forgotten sheaf but leave it for the poor.
Lev. 25:35-37 If thy brother be waxen poor… take thou no usury of him, or increase… Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
Not to lend at interest or take advantage of the less fortunate.
De 22:6-7 If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee in the way… thou shalt not take the dam with the young: But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.
Saving the environment by not wiping out the entire bird's nest (mother and young).
De 22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement (low wall or fence) for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.
Safety first even if it cost a little more.
Next is a commandment that will apply to only a select few people today, at least in our country.
De 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
Not preventing a beast from eating the produce while working.
Paul, in his defence of his apostleship and his right to partake as did the others, used this commandment, just as if he thought it was still valid, to demonstrate that Yahweh cared for the animals in the time of Moses and also in Paul’s day.
1Co 9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
If Yahweh still cares for the animals today would he expect us to obey or ignore this commandment? Obey it for sure, because, “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (Pr 12:10).
The two big ones.
De 6:5 Thou shalt love Yahweh thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Le 19:18 Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am Yahweh.
These are two examples of commandments that apply everyday, everywhere to everyone without exception, for all time. Take note that they are also examples of commandments that cannot be obeyed by the letter but only by the spirit. Any Israelite who diligently kept every commandment by the letter would fail to keep the law if his heart was not circumcised (De 30:6) and the law was not written on his heart (De 6:6, Isa 51:7), because he could not love Yahweh or his neighbour otherwise.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
ABBREVIATIONS:
OT = Old Testament
NT = New Testament
KJV or AV = King James Version
NKJV = New King James Version
RSV = Revised Standard Version
RV = Revised Version
ASV = American Standard Version
NIV = New International Version
NASB = New American Standard Bible
JB = Jerusalem Bible
SNB = Sacred Name Bible
WEY = Weymouth New Testament
BBE = Bible in Basic English
ED = Emphatic Diaglott