A 23 Tom Bradford's Torah Class - Acts Chapter 10
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- Peter recoiled from the instruction to kill and eat because he says that he has never eaten food that was of this kind. And what was this kind? The passage says in Greek that it was koinos and akathartos. Our CJB says it means it was unclean and treif. Treif is Hebrew thatliterally means torn, in the sense of an animal that was torn to death by a wild beast. And such meat, even if it was a type of animal that was normally permissible for food, is not to be eaten according to the Law of Moses if it was attacked and killed by a wild beast. However the CJB translation is a poor one. Koinos means common, and akathartos means unclean. Common means something that is not holy. Unclean means something that is not ritually pure. Common and unclean are entirely separate issues and are treated differently by God’s laws. However in reality what we see here is Peter making a response that likely is a combination of citing God’s Torah law and citing Tradition; but also as we’ll shortly see, there is a disconnect between the terms Peter uses and the kosher status of the animals offered as food. To begin with there is nothing in God’s law against eating something common (in fact the term “common” is not used in reference to food; that is, “common” is not a food classification). Yet, we find that word used here in this conversation. On the other hand there is indeed a prohibition against eating something unclean. In a few verses (next week actually) when we see what the conversation between Yehoveh and Peter meant, if we understand both the Greek terms koinos and akathartos and we understand Halakhah, it becomes much clearer. (maybe)
Tom Bradford
Amen brother, a simple study of the Greek words koinos and arkathartos kills the mainstream teaching on this matter.
do you like sharing information? Be Borean about it try to find errors or missing material.
But doesn’t The Angel say don’t call “common” (which should still be unfit to eat?) what God has “cleaned” (Katharodized) referring to all the food in the sheets? Also in Romans 14 Paul says, with the context being food earlier, “ALL is Kathartos?” Also the Jerusalem council ruling that keeping the law of Moses has no impact on the salvation of a Gentile (and with enough implication from the rest of the New Testament, neither does it for Jews), only faith in and obeying Jesus and his law?
Also Peter says the man shouldn’t be called Akathartos, indicating in the vision he understood the Unclean animals to be cleaned too.
In Peters vision, if God hadn’t cleaned the Akathartos (tref/unclean) food and only the Koinos, why does Peter say that he can’t call any man Koinos OR Akathartos?
ie: God cleaned all the animals in the sheet, both the common ones and the unclean ones. God has made clean do not call unclean. And so Peter realizes he should not call any man common OR unclean for both had been cleaned in the vision.
Hello yks. I'm just curious, how could Peter say he had never eaten anything "common"? (Bread, vegetables...)
@@yamyamama1325 Koinos was in reference, most specifically, to describe the animals dropped in the sheet. No vegetables or bread were dropped in it. Also, common, IF (and only if) it was a completely distinct concept from Akathartos as Peter is using it here, wouldn’t just be applied to bread and vegetables....(though understandably the LXX uses Akathartos for unclean, however this is not a full proof indication that the Jews in the first century also did the same. I mean we see them use Koinos for things that are unclean or have become unclean in the New Testament itself.
As for “why”. Because up until that point he hadn’t eaten non-kosher which would include kosher items that had become unkosher through defilement. Because Jesus teaching was never outright “Hey the law is done as a full binding highest authority covenant because mine now exists and overrides it in authority”. But certain things he said were understood later to point to this and provide the basis for this understanding“thus he cleaned all foods”. Notice Paul in Galatians says Peter stopped living like a Jew and was OK with eating at a table with gentiles (which presumably did not contain an all kosher food group). Indicating that Peter did learn starting from this event, that the food laws were not salvation/covenant binding scruples.
@@youngknowledgeseeker What do you know about Rabbinical ritual hand washing?
@@yamyamama1325 Nothing past hearsay. In context the statement is in response to hand washing however upon reflection the church accurately realized such an incredible statement has broader implications about the food laws by nature. “Nothing that goes in” therefore of course if you don’t wash your hands it’s ok. But he said “Nothing” and it is from within that religious Defilement occurs.
Nothing, not unwashed hands, not common food, not Mosaically Akathartos “animals”.
But please enlighten me on rabbinic hand washing, especially of that time. I always love to learn
@@youngknowledgeseeker I'm not sure how much I can enlighten you on the subject. But , I always wondered how Kefa/Peter could say he had never eaten anything common. My conclusion is this, Peter/Kefa was still performing the Pharisaical ritual handwashing when he received the sheet vision. According to this belief, even things YHWH said are clean to eat, would become defiled or unclean when touched by ritually unwashed hands. (This is of course nonsense)
Thus the sheet vision, as interpreted by Peter is about the pharisaical nonsense that prevented Jews from eating and socializing with non-Jews. (Acts 10:28) Peter interprets the vision as being about men and not animals.
It is interesting that YHWH through the Prophet Hosea refers to the gentiles as unclean animals
Hos 2:18 And I have made to them a covenant in that day, with the beast of the field, And with the fowl of the heavens, And the creeping thing of the ground,