What does Acts 10 teach about food laws?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 жов 2020
- What does Peter's vision in Acts 10 tell us about the dietary laws in the Torah? Are they still required? Let's examine some of the claims of Torahism (Hebrew Roots Movement) and see how they hold up against Scripture. Let me know your thoughts!
SUBSCRIBE TO MY CHANNEL:
ua-cam.com/users/RLSolberg?s...
FACEBOOK:
/ authorrlsolberg
MY WEBSITE:
www.RLSolberg.com
What you're doing for some years is so precious and lead us to focus on CHRIST and what He has done for us on the cross. Thanks a lot for defending the true gospel related to the eternal covenant available for jewish first and thanks to CHRIST to all nations and tribes on earth !
right God would NOT tempt one to sin
Praise be to God the Father for Jesus His son. Salamat Dr. Solberg😄
Your teachings deserve a wider audience!! Pray that the Lord will bring the increase as you remain faithful! bless you!
Thanks, Crystal! I've just started this UA-cam channel and have lots more teachings I am working on. Please feel free to share my videos and help spread the word! Blessings, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots absolutely!!! :-)
Very excellent Rob. It’s very clearly written in the Scriptures. I have no idea how they misinterpret those verses. Great job!
Hebrew roots heretics misinterpret holy writ because they view scripture as dead men. They have no spiritual discernment. They are dead spiritually.
I loved that you addressed the vision because it is misinterpreted by several Messianic ministries...First of all not all unclean animals are in this vision. Sea creatures are not in the vision and what is interesting that even today there are warnings in eating crabs and clams especially in periods of red tides. If you go into a little history, about the 3rd century B C, Romans learned how to cure meats like pig and rabbit meat.
Well done 👍
Thank you!
The food laws in the Torah aren't for the health benefit of believers, as much as many Hebrew Roots movement people would love to believe. I've heard the "pigs don't sweat and therefore are full of toxins" and "shellfish are sea bottom scroungers that eat decaying dead things" arguments all too often.
Just as the ritual washing of hands had nothing at all to do with hygiene, so too the food and other cleanliness laws had nothing at all to do with a healthy diet or catching a disease from touching a corpse. We are projecting our modern hygiene ideals upon the ritual/ceremonial cleanliness laws of the time and that was never the intention.
Nowhere in the Torah does it state that God intended the food laws to be a health benefit, rather they were a part of the ritual/ceremonial "cleanliness" that was to be maintained so as to clearly identify the Israelites from the pagan nations around them and to keep the Temple sanctified by keeping those ritually defiled out. These laws had nothing to do with sin nor the cleansing of sin, nor our health and hygiene.
Once Jesus appeared on the scene, this type of ritual purity was no longer relevant as the Temple was soon to be destroyed and the Levite priesthood left without purpose. While Jesus didn't oppose the old ceremonial/ritual cleansing laws, he most certainly was not bound by them.
The new covenant heralded new laws and a new eternal High Priest in Christ. As Jesus pointed out when he stated that it is not that which enters a man that makes him unclean, but rather that which is brought forth from his heart. We can see that there is a clear change in definition of what constitutes clean and unclean and the purpose of such states. Jesus gives us an example of the Pharisees washing the outside of their cups, while not cleaning the inside.
The old type of "cleanliness" laws and traditions were ritual/ceremonial and external by their very nature. Jesus was concerned with what is inside of the man, not what was on the outside. He was clearly talking about a cleanliness and purity of Heart... not the body.
Under the new covenant, "we" the body of Christ, are the Temple. Neither externalities nor the eating of foods of any kind can make us "unclean" in a sinful way and that is what Jesus is concerned with. That's why he states that it is what comes from a man's heart that is evil/sinful, not what we consume or touch.
So the old understanding of "clean and unclean" is inferior and different to the new. I think people have a hard time grasping this and that has led to confusion. One is about Ritual/Ceremonial sanctity and the other is about cleanliness of heart. An unclean heart will bring forth sinful thoughts which will result in sinful actions. .
God Bless!
Acts 11:3... Those of the circumcision contended with him, saying, ' you went into uncircumcised men AND ate with them !'.... Peter was free to go unto the uncircumcised and to eat THEIR FOOD ( not kosher) because both had been cleansed by God... Don't you think 🤔....praise the Lord... even the ones that contended with Peter praised GOd and understood...😁... God is wonderful...a new and living way
yes!
Satan is using you in a mighty way....... The interpretation of Peters vision, The first part is the Pharisees added tradition/commandment. That said, Jews were to have nothing to do with Gentiles. .
“And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation;.......but ABBA Father hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” Acts 10:28
We all began as sinners and found grace in Christ....why do we need to go back to the Torah if Christ work was and is complete? From work to grace and back to work? How are we so different from the sadducees and pharesees? I say, Jesus Christ is enough for me.
In Acts 10, God never instructs Peter to eat any unclean animals, either literally or symbolically. You can see this for yourself by watching our video entitled:
_Video 8: Peter's Vision - What Torah Keepers get WRONG!_
Furthermore, contrary to your assertions, there are no passages in the New Testament that support the doing away with the dietary Laws. Fortunately, for those willing to test all things, we have videos on nearly all of the passages you cited. The videos are entitled:
_Video 13: Double Trouble! (Understanding Romans 14)_ [This video also covers 1 Cor. 8-10]
_Video 22: Triple Play! Un-twisting Mark 7_
_Video 2: The Giant has Fallen! (The Defeat of Colossians 2:16)_
Additionally, with all due respect, it's more than a stretch for you to say what you did about Acts 15. At no time does that passage ever speak of doing away with the dietary Laws. In fact, it actually instructs the Gentiles to stay away from things polluted by idols, from anything strangled, and from blood - all of which are associated with the dietary Laws!
Moreover, one cannot suggest (as I believe you did) that just because there was no direct instruction given to the Gentiles to keep the dietary Laws (in Acts 15), that this must mean that they don't apply to them. As, mind you, there were also no instructions about murder or having other gods. Surely you wouldn't suppose that those Laws, _which are also from the Torah_ , don't apply to Gentile believers.
Shalom
It's true that in Acts 10, God does not say to Peter "Kill and eat unclean animals." Rather it says: "And there came a voice to him: 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat' But Peter said, 'By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean'" (Acts 10:13-14). Peter's objection tells us (a.) there were unclean animals on the great sheet, and (b.) Peter understood that the Lord was instructing him to eat unclean animals.
And I agree that Acts 15 does not directly speak about the dietary laws. But you'll notice that when the Council decided to give the Gentile believers "no greater burden" (v 28) than the four restrictions, it did not include a kosher diet. The Gentile believers were not forbidden from eating any of the foods listed in Lev 11.
Further, the Torah shows, in no uncertain terms, that God held the Jews to different dietary standard than He did the Gentiles. Yahweh commanded Israel, “You shall not eat anything that has died naturally. You may give it to the sojourner who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God" (Deut 14:21). The sojourners and foreigners (Gentiles) were not obligated to keep the kosher food laws.
The kosher food laws did not exist before Sinai (Gen 9:1-3). And when they were instituted, they were only given to Israel. Why? Because Israel "are a people holy to the Lord your God." And the word "holy" means "set apart." There is nothing inherently immoral about eating pork or shellfish. It's only wrong to do so if Yahweh forbids it for you. And if you're a Gentile, those foods have never been forbidden for you. And under the New Covenant, they are not forbidden for _any_ believer, Jew or Gentile.
Blessings, Rob
I used to argue that point that God wouldn't use what is false to teach what is true. But, I realized that was a weak argument. Recently I had a conversation that clarified in my mind the message of Peter's vision. It was a vision, not literal, so it is not necessarily required to be true. The best way I can explain it is God was merely trying to tell Peter he cant think of people like he thinks of his food. The laws of clean and unclean are not applied the same in regards to people as it is to food. There is still clean and unclean food, but if the Gospel were to reach the gentiles, Peter had to stop thinking of the gentiles as unclean. This did not change the laws in regards to clean and unclean food because the intent of the vision was to bring gentiles into the faith, not accomplish a change to the law.
Hi, Matt. I agree with you that the vision was symbolic, not literal. I did a search and couldn't find anything, but I'm curious if you're aware of anywhere in Scripture where a symbolic vision given by God makes a point that is contrary to God's Law? ~Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots I would have to restate that I do see your point as I held the same perspective at one time. After looking at it again, I concluded that the vision was an analogy. Analogies do not have to be true, they just have to get the point across. God used Peters practices of clean and unclean foods to challenge him on his view of clean and unclean people. When you replace food with people and eating with ministry, the analogy becomes true. I'm not sure that is a debated point that the vision is about people. This is why understanding that the vision is not about food but people is so important. If it's about food then it could be false according to Torah. But if its about people then its true. The problem with Peter is He thought gentiles we're unclean. So how else was God supposed to shift peters thinking except to illustrate clean and unclean. Any example of clean and unclean would have rung untrue if you don't consider the true meaning of the vision related to people. Also, if there is only one occurance of anything in the Bible, should we throw it out as not true?
@@mattclevenger8598 No, I'm with you, Matt. All it takes is one occurrence of any teaching, event, or revelation in the Bible to make something true. But when we're dealing with a once-only event, interpreting it requires a bit more care. If there were a precedent for God using something false to teach something true, it would lend some weight to your interpretation. That's why I asked.
When you factor in the holiness of God (in whom there is no falsehood), and the fact many other places in the NT teach that all food is now clean, it suggests that in Peter's vision in Acts 10 God was using a true thing to teach another true thing.
*Mark 7:19* - Jesus declared all food clean
*Acts 15* - The Gentiles were not required to keep a kosher diet
*Col **2:16**-17* - Don't let anyone judge you about food and drink
*Rom **14:14**-20* - No food is unclean, the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, don't destroy the work of God for the sake of food
*1 Cor 10:23-31* - We're free to eat "whatever is sold in the meat market," and whatever kind of food we are served by an unbeliever
And don't forget that Gentiles have never been required to keep the kosher food restrictions. They were only given to Israel. In fact, they were given to Israel to make her "holy," set apart from the Gentile nations. But under the New Covenant, for those who are in Christ, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Rom 10:12; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). So there is no more need for kosher food restrictions. Jesus made both Jew and Gentile one "and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility [between Jew and Gentile] by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two" (Eph 2:14-15).
Blessings, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots blessings to you Rob! Totally agree on looking at all the verses about the topic to interpret. But, we would disagree on the interpretation of those verses also, so that's why we land in different place on the debate.
Yes. Jesus offering His body and blood to eat and drink. Just a metaphor, and definitely against God's Law.
Since UNCLEAN animals were never called food for humans Peter had to wonder what this vision ment.
Peter used his discernment and came up with the correct answr
I choose to view all of these debatable issues in a different light. Not whether you have to do or not do certain things. When God gave the Torah it was for our benefit. He didn't say don't eat these unclean things as some sort of punishment. As in the case of Israel wanting a king like the nations God allowed them to do it. In the same way God may have allowed them to eat unclean meat. But I believe it is still his will that we don't do it. You do bring up some good points but there are other understandings to many of them. I like to listen to all points of view and see how they fit. For instance I spent a great deal of time on Jeremiah 31:31-34 because someone said it proves the law was done away. But after listening to many points of view I disagree with him. God said he would put his law in our hearts and our inward parts. But a lot of people miss a part of the new covenant. It was not an agreement like Sinai God said he would do it and forgive all of our iniquities. So I see it similar to the Abrahamic covenant. God made a promise and cleaned the slate so to speak. Then it became a matter of faith. So now we are to live by faith (which were supposed to do anyway). So God told Noah to build an ark etc. Now we are living by faith and he told us to keep his commandments. So we keep his commandments (if we love him) because of our faith not because it's against law.
“ our benefit?” Torah was not given to you, nor had God ever commanded you to observe the 603 laws with a 10 word table of contents of the entire Jewish book of law. God has commanded you to believe the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and choose love over and over again. Christianity is simple. No one needs to become a Jew to be a Christian. It doesn’t work that way
God’s will is that you choose love - His will had nothing to do with the lunch menu. You have feelings. Your feelings are irrelevant. What does scripture teach- that is what is relevant
Find an actual Christian fellowship with an actual Christian pastor/ teacher teaching holy writ in a contextual manner. God has not placed the law of the Jews in the hearts of new covenant new creations in Christ. Putting new wine in old wine skins never works. The entire Jewish system including the laws became weak, useless, and obsolete.
Torah was not for our benefit. There is no “ our.” Torah was written to escaped Hebrew slaves.
Here’s an important thing to remember. According to Torah, anyone who eats unclean food becomes unclean. If God declares Gentiles to be clean, then He has also declared the food that Gentiles who eat “unclean” food to be clean.
If Gentiles are clean, Gentile food must also be clean.
Does that mean everything a Gentile does is clean too?
Just because all trees are plants, does not mean that all plants are trees.
You have made an illogical leap.
Gentiles=Unsaved....... The Hebrew word תּוֹרָה "Torah" is defined in English as "direction", "instruction", and most commonly translated in the Bible as "Law".
• Many sects of Judaism teach that the Torah is only representative of the first 5 books of Moses. However, God's Laws are recorded and expounded upon throughout many books of scripture (including the New Testament).
• Some Laws are only for priests, others for kings, some are just for women, farmers, lepers, etc. But all the Laws of God are His own ways, behavior, and character. (Psa. 119:1-3) And all of His Laws are eternal (Psa. 119:160)
If you're a believer, you are keeping many Torah commandments every waking moment. 🙂
• Ecclesiastes 12:13 says "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."
They were worried about eating meat sacrificed to idols. Not eating shrimp/pork. Read it in context. I know bacon taste good. Please don’t twist it to your personal opinion. James, Paul, Mary, John and all in faith followed the Torah the best they could. Even after Yeshua rose. It’s the religious leaders that put the yoke on, not God. He didn’t take them out of Egypt to put His people back into bondage! He was instructing them how to live!! Did they fall short? yes! We all do. Please read your Bible and test everything and don’t take how you were raised to be true. Food may not be a big thing, but honestly, it’s what most people think about. We say..Does it taste good? Not asking what’s good for us and what is food from Yah’s word. We all run to diets from carnivore, to paleo, to no gluten, to weight watchers. Hypocrites!!
@@timw6110
Have you not read that eating food offered to idols is not inherently sinful? My original comment stands.
I Corinthians 8:4-8
“Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many Lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.
@@TonyYuEvangelism I agree with you it’s not a sin, but it was brought up several times in Paul’s letters because the believers truly wanted to be free from idols and follow Yah’s commands. Paul’s showing them the food (defined in Leviticus 11) was ok, and not to worry if it was sacrificed to an idol. He wouldn’t tell them to eat whatever. He followed the torah! (The Word became flesh) I heard that Kroger had halal meat sold without labeling it as such. Do I worry? No. Would Paul? No! Is it ok if a person chooses not to eat it for conscience sake? Yes. Does that mean to eat whatever you want? No! Paul didn’t eat meat not permitted in the Bible. Guarantee.
But Acts 15, and revelation 2 shows us it’s not ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols … “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.”
Revelation 2:14 KJV
Don’t take Paul’s letters outside The Word!
He would of never knowingly ate an animal slaughtered to Baal.
professor, you need to prove from Acts 10 that unclean animals were also cleaned. Don't jump to other non related verses to prove Peter's vision
Hi Kiruian! Here's a clip in which I show from the text of Acts 10 that animals were also declared clean: ua-cam.com/video/RIZyCg-KVyI/v-deo.html
Blessings, RLS
Rev 18:2 - And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every 👉unclean and hateful bird.👈 so how is this bird unclean if there clean
Hi, Estill! You actually left out the final line of the verse, which makes your point even stronger:
And he called out with a mighty voice, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every _unclean bird,_ a haunt for every _unclean and detestable beast."_ (Rev 18:2)
This verse comes from John's prophecy about the fall of Babylon in Rev 18. Do you think John is _literally_ talking about Babylon here?
Why not you did on the sheet vision and a second point if Jesus made a unclean foods clean why doesn’t it say that, it says 👉foods 👈look the word in Greek-Jesus did not see unclean animals as food and if he did make a change there’s a problem that would make him lie contradicting Matt 5:17-19 and on top of that he would of been changing the Torah and does it not say don’t add or take away so Jesus would be sinning right?
@@estilldotson2284 Hello, Estill! The phrase “He declared all food clean” in Mark 7:19 is can be read in Greek here: codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&chapter=7&lid=en&side=r&verse=19&zoomSlider=0 (That's the _Codex Sinaiticus,_ the oldest complete copy of the New Testament in Greek.) The phrase to look for is Καθαρίζων πάντα βρώματα (katharizōn panta brōmata), which means “to cleanse all/every food.” The Greek root word here is _broma,_ which refers to "food of any kind." (The Strong's entry for that word is here: biblehub.com/greek/1033.htm)
If you think about it, why would Jesus need to declare all clean foods clean? They were already clean.
@@TheBiblicalRoots Interesting reference. Looks like a great resource. However, in Matthew 7, the focused is a mans heart, not obedience. If you in a way reverse analyze this point, you could say: even if you obey every law, but still do what is wrong, then the laws will benefit you nothing. Bring it closer to the point, if a man eats biblically clean yet abuses his wife, he will still be judged by the evil he does and he can't think that because he ate clean he is excused from spousal abuse. Another context of Matthew 7 was traditions of man carrying more weight than the commands of God. The disciples didn't wash their hands. The law did not deem them unclean, man did. So it's the heart Jesus is addressing not the commands. In context, if all meats are clean, it's referring to the effects of meat on the heart or the intent of the heart of you will. The context of the passage also in no way suggests a change to the law but seeks to challange the traditions of man being put above the law. This is actually a great passage that illustrates the difference between Torah and Jewish law.
@@mattclevenger8598 Thanks, Matt! What's interesting is that the Pharisees originally questioned why Jesus’ disciples’ were not following the traditions of the elders and washing themselves and their cups and pitchers and vessels before taking food (Mark 7:1-5). But Yeshua ultimately responded with a much bigger answer and taught a bigger lesson. Namely, that it’s not what goes into a man’s mouth that makes him unclean, it’s what comes out of it (Mark 7:18-19). In other words, as you said, "it's the heart Jesus is addressing."
He is teaching that by following the “commandments of men” the Pharisees are missing the point and erroneously looking for purity and righteousness in outward physical signs and behaviors. The commandments of God, on the other hand, are concerned with the inward purity and righteousness of our hearts. Whether it’s from unwashed hands or unclean meat, Yeshua taught that eating food is not what defiles a man. Because all food “enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)” (v. 19)
-Rob
Gentiles=Unsaved....... The Hebrew word תּוֹרָה "Torah" is defined in English as "direction", "instruction", and most commonly translated in the Bible as "Law".
• Many sects of Judaism teach that the Torah is only representative of the first 5 books of Moses. However, God's Laws are recorded and expounded upon throughout many books of scripture (including the New Testament).
• Some Laws are only for priests, others for kings, some are just for women, farmers, lepers, etc. But all the Laws of God are His own ways, behavior, and character. (Psa. 119:1-3) And all of His Laws are eternal (Psa. 119:160)
If you're a believer, you are keeping many Torah commandments every waking moment. 🙂
• Ecclesiastes 12:13 says "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."
The meats were only unclean under the old covenant because It made them unclean ceremonial in the levitical priesthood, now we are not under that unclean food restrictions. God told Noah he could eat whatever moves, but not to cannibal.
Not sure I can agree with you on this, what have we missed? This happened about 13 to 15 years after Jesus resurrection and here he says plainly that he has never touched what is unclean.
About Acts 15 they are also not told anything even in the letter or when paul defends himself ( about keeping the Law)- anything about repentance baptism, grace or faith or even The Deity of Christ or what is sin?
Sorry but this Acts 15 statement sound like works and not faith or grace - can you see we have missed something?
in the context, FOOD is something commonly accepted in that culture as edible. unclean animals were never considered food. I thought you were a theologian, my friend. Define what food is first.
Hello, WC! Actually, Acts 10 defines what God considered edible food in the vision: "a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat” (Acts 10:11-13).
Shalom,
Rob
Notice, that it does not say... " in the sheet was all kinds of food"...
A metaphor is defined as a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
It's not meant to be true or untrue inside the metaphor, but teaches a truth. Notice that Peter never mentioned unclean animals now becoming food. In the next chapter, he recounts the story, and those people come to the same conclusion. No mention of unclean animals now ok to be eaten. If being obedient to God is heresy, I take joy in being a heretic of this man's religion.
Acts 5:29-32
[29]Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
[30]The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
[31]Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
[32]And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Acts 5:33
[33]When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.
Notice that Peter and the other apostles said the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey God, and not only the things Jesus said while He was in the flesh. Jesus IS God, and He gave ALL of the commands in His Word. When Jesus went into the wilderness and fasted for forty days, Satan tempted Him while He was hungry. What was His response?
Matthew 4:3-4
[3]And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
[4]But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
What does that mean? Most Christians guess, and think they understand without following Jesus' words back to their original context.
Deuteronomy 8:1-6
[1]All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers.
[2]And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.
[3]And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
[4]Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell, these forty years.
[5]Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the LORD thy God chasteneth thee.
[6]Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to fear him.
Believing we are supposed to walk as Jesus walked is called heresy. People like this keep saying that we are following other men, or are part of some labeled movement that has it's roots in men. Some that go by "Hebrew Roots" might, but not all. When I turned back to God, I had no idea there was any kind of movement like this. I still do not want that label, but many in that movement have very similar beliefs and a testimony like mine. When I read for myself, the whole Bible is cohesive and interconnected. No inconsistency. His rules are for His people, period. Ephesians 2 isn't a metaphor, but an adoption. Who would adopt a son and require more or less from the adopted son than they do from their own flesh and blood? Would not the adopted son have to follow the rules of the Father just the same? Would not the adopted son become as flesh and blood because of the love of the Father? I am using worldly parables because many believe that God is unjust and requires more of the House of Judah than He does of those grafted into Israel. The fellow making these videos is no longer fighting against people in error that judge others over how God's name is pronounced. He is now in a battle of whether or not God is in authority. The commands came from the mouth of God. Moses didn't make them up as he went along. Is the Hebrew Roots Movement from God? I don't know if it is, or if it's just another denomination in a sea of denominations. Either way, we should read the rest of Acts 5 where it says to leave them alone. If it is from men, it will join the other denominations in the long list. If it is from God, be careful that you aren't found to be fighting against God with your many videos and books. There is probably some passage somewhere that can be twisted to justify calling obedient children heretics.
I kindly disagree, and here's why.
The text uses akathartos/unclean and koine/common. God corrects Peter on not calling clean things common. He doesn't change what is clean and unclean. The law itself only says that the carcass of the unclean animal touching the carcass of the clean animal would make what is clean unclean to eat. But in the vision, God isn't showing Peter a sheet full of carcasses. He's showing him a sheet full of living creatures all over each other. Even Noah had to keep clean and unclean animals on the same ark. Peter's rabbinic understanding of living creatures being in association with each other was challenged. What is clean and unclean is God's domain. What is common through association is a man-made debatable matter, which Peter was called to break through.
I do not mean this in a rude manner at all, but it sounds as if you're trying to abolish a passage of scripture without understanding of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 4 and common versus unclean. God never told Peter to eat unclean. He told him to kill and eat. And Jesus declared all biblical food clean, but didn't declare they could eat anything.
So, God was true to the reality through the vision as well.
Be blessed and stay safe out there
Thanks for watching, M4L! And thanks for your respectful feedback. I really appreciate it.
As far as your comments, I believe the text shows that God _did_ change what is unclean under the New Covenant. “But Peter said, ‘By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.’ And the voice came to him again a second time, ‘What *God has made clean* , do not call common.’” (Acts 10:14-15). Peter refused to eat animals that were unclean. But God rebuked Peter and said ‘What *God has made clean* , do not call common.” In other words, the food that the Law of Moss said was unclean, had been made clean by God.
I agree with you that “in the vision, God isn't showing Peter a sheet full of carcasses. He's showing him a sheet full of living creatures all over each other.” But Peter was told to turn the living animals into carcasses and eat them, which would have been unclean under the Law of Moses. But under the New Covenant, it is not. God, in His sovereignty, changed what is considered clean and unclean under the New Covenant. This is explained a few verses later: “And [Peter] said to them, ‘You yourselves know how *unlawful* it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.’” God changed things.
This is why in Mark 7:19, Jesus could declare _all_ foods clean. There is nothing in the text (or context) that suggests Jesus only meant that all *biblical* food was clean. The Greek phrase used is πάντα βρώματα (panta brōmata), which means “all/the whole/every kind of food.” In fact, why would Jesus declare all _biblical_ food clean? It already was clean.
Blessings!
Rob
Cool. Thanks for replying!
Unfortunately, it appears that you've missed the point. It's not about Mark 7 and Matthew 15. It's about Acts 10, which you covered in the video.
In Acts 10:14-15, the following is said:
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”
Acts 10:14-15
The voice corrects Peter's understanding on what is common. The voice never corrects his understanding on what is unclean.
Now, as you pointed out Peter says it is unlawful for him to even be in this house. What law is he talking about? Where is the commandment of God that says this? The law Peter is talking of in this moment is Jewish law because I've found no such law spoken by God Himself.
Peter understands that we the people do not get to define clean and unclean. That is God's domain. Jewish law called people common and unclean and these standards went way beyond what God commanded.
The voice corrects him on what is common. Not on what is unclean. I'm not going to assume I know everything they called common 2000 years but I do know that they believed that eating food with both unwashed hands and food not raised by jews was common and should be avoided. Yet these are not commanded by God. These are traditions of man and is exactly what Jesus teaches against in Mark 7. I'm sad that you try to make Jesus nullify a commandment through a tradition when that is exactly what Jesus is teaching against.
For Christ to abolish a law conflicts with his teaching in Matthew 5:17. Also, according to Deuteronomy 13, if he taught against God's law, with sufficient witnesses, he would've rightfully been tried as a false teacher, which he is not. The Lamb of God was spotless and law abiding, not law abolishing.
Have an awesome night, and be blessed.
Romans 8:7
@@marriage4life893 Thanks, M4L. I hear you. But it’s clear from the context in Acts 10 that “common“ is used to mean “unclean“ Those two words are used as synonyms, not to denote separate concepts.
@@TheBiblicalRoots
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”
Acts 10:14
If I take your concept, here's how the verse would read:
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is unclean or unclean.”
What sense does this make?
There is a difference between Jewish halacha and God's law in this instance, and non-Jewish believers tend to miss this. I am not Jewish, but I am aware of Peter's defense of not eating what is common, as defined by Jewish halachic tradition, and him not eating what is unclean according to Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 4.
Pardon me, but it sounds as if you are not aware of this cultural context, and therefore, are making Peter and even the Father sound redundant.
Again, here is Peter's response:
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.”
Acts 10:14
And here is your version of Peter's response:
But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is unclean or unclean.”
Acts 10:14
Peace and grace to you
@@marriage4life893 I hear what you're saying, M4L. And thanks so much for the respectful debate!
There is really no warrant for introducing a distinction between halakhah and law in this verse. The point of the vision given to Peter is clearly related to the kosher food laws. Peter is shown a sheet full of unkosher animals and told to kill and eat them. How do we know they were unkosher? Because Peter protested, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” Peter instantly recognized them as animals prohibited in the Law. And the Lord responds, "What God has made clean, do not call common." He does not say "What god has made clean, do not call unclean." He says "common," which reveals that _common_ is used in this passage to mean the opposite of _clean_ . Or, said another way, in this passage _common_ means _unclean_ . Therefore, the most likely interpretation of Peter's comment in v14 is that he was using _common_ and _unclean_ as synonyms. This is similar to how we might say "I have never eaten anything that is hot or spicy."
Blessings,
Rob
Do you believe that if Jesus comes today, He would sit with you and eat dog meat
It always amazes me how these guys want to get rid of God's law
Hi, Elijah! I teach and believe that obedience is God’s “love language.” Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). And I'm sure you would agree that not every command that God has given applies to every person at all times. Some of His commands only apply to certain people (i.e., men, women, parents, Levitical priests) or for certain times (i.e., building an ark, gathering manna, while in exile). And I'm sure you would also agree that we are each only expected to keep the commands of God that apply to us. The NT teaches that the ceremonial commands given under the Law of the Sinai Covenant do not apply to Christians today. (ex. Repeated blood sacrifices for sin are no longer required (Heb 10:18).) We still serve God and obey His commands, “But now we are released from the law, having died with Christ to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code” (Rom 7:6).
Blessings, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots ten commandments apply to everybody Ecclesiastes 12:13 for this is the whole duty of man Fear God keep his commandments
@@TheBiblicalRoots once you become a part of Israel you keep God's law
@@TheBiblicalRoots Israel was supposed to teach the whole world
@@elijahirvin5911 According to Jesus the 10 commandments were sub-headings.
Drop mic scripture: Now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it - the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, for all are sinners who fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:21-23. End of argument. Hebrew roots heretics go home and sit on the porch and be quiet. Think about what you have done. The law and the prophets herald biblical truth that children of wrath are justified apart from the law of Moses. If a child of wrath can be supernaturally made righteous apart from law then why does the new creation in Christ need the law?
Hebrews 8:13 “ In speaking of a “ new “ covenant,” He has made the first one obsolete, and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.” ISV. When you are driving west toward the beautiful Pacific Ocean in beautiful southern Oregon where sumner temperatures reach 113- you can be in sun since sunrise, but about 2 miles from the ocean ( your mileage may vary), you run into fog, must, ( water vapor); and if your timing is just right you can park, or leave your tent, and walk toward the ocean just as the morning mist is fading away. You can literally see the mist rising at it becomes lighter, and solar effect takes place. So it was with the old, tires, weak, useless, and obsolete old covenant God made with escaped Hebrew slaves and their offspring. It serves no useful purpose except to give new covenant new creations in Christ a richer and deeper meaning of the mercies of of God, and the blessings and tender mercies of God as a propitiation for our sins, and especially the disgusting sins of pompous Pharisees who Jesus loathes. Merry Christmas. Happy Advent. Happy New Year, and mat the lives of Hebrew roots heretics and Seventh Day Adventists ( same corrupt root), become a living hell in 2024, until they are on their faces in repentance, crying out to God for mercy and forgiveness for their disgusting self righteousness, and attacks upon the Body of Christ, and the servants of the Body of Christ like professor Rob Solberg. Amen. Maranatha.
Anyone else weary of this ridiculous argument? What is so difficult to understand? It’s a three letter word- “ New.”
Pedagogue - a strict teacher. In some cases the paidagogos was a slave accompanying a child to school. The pedagogue finished the job a long time ago and retired. There is no need for a schoolmaster any longer. The lesson was taught; the job of the paidagogos completely accomplished. New covenant new creations in Christ live in the Spirit, and worship in the Spirit. They put no confidence in the flesh and glory in Christ Jesus alone. It’s mere Christianity in a pure form. Hebrew roots is a bastardized version of Christianity. It’s evil and cursed by God.
So…. What’s the Biblical definition of sin?
@@soybeanfarmer4576 sin is lawlessness. New covenant new creations in Christ live under the law of Christ. The law of Christ is to choose love. If you love perfectly you are obeying the law of Christ.
@@rayray4192Not according to Romans 3 and 7 and 1John. Btw, these are all written in the NT. Jesus is the Torah in the flesh. Also Jesus himself says not to sin. Law of Christ is the Torah. It is not a new anything. Lawlessness is transgression of the Torah.