Why Peter's Vision has to be about food
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2024
- Prof. Solberg does his best to accurately state the Hebrew Roots (Torah-observant) position on Peter's vision in Act 10, and and then works it out to its logical conclusion. And in the process, he exposes why Peter’s vision had to be speaking about both food and Gentiles being made clean. The key to this passage is understanding the relationship between food and people in the Torah.
WHAT GOD HAS MADE CLEAN (Book)
www.amazon.com/dp/B0CMKK7DFT
DONATE TO OUR MINISTRY
TheBiblicalRoots.org/#donate (Thank you!)
OUR LINKS
linktr.ee/rlsolberg
00:00 Introduction - Acts 10:9-16
01:40 The Hebrew Roots interpretation
03:14 Two big problems with the "Torah-observant" reading
06:00 Food and people in the Torah
08:35 Wrap it up, Professor
Enjoy!
Professor, you asked to be kept honest at the start of this video. You made a big error right from the beginning and built your whole teaching on that error. Your error was at 1:49 in your video were you said, “vision of unclean animals”, implying that all the animals on that sheet were unclean. You then build on that error. Acts 10:12 (KJV) clearly says, “Wherein were ALL manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth”. ALL would include the CLEAN and unclean animals that God created and defined. Peter also clearly identifies two types of animals in his vision when he said, “for I have never eaten any thing that is COMMON or unclean”. In Acts 10:15 Jesus said, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou COMMON.” With this statement Jesus is now bringing the focus of this vision on the COMMON animals, not the unclean animals. God never defined any animals as COMMON. The Jews defined a clean animal as a COMMON animal when it touched an unclean animal. They believed it defiled the clean animal. A good Jew like Peter would never eat a defiled animal. The point of this vision had nothing to do about changing the dietary laws that God said were forever. In Acts 11:28 Peter said the point of his vision was about man. Peter had not obeyed Jesus’ commandment to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations”. This vision motivated Peter to finally obey God and His commandments and not the Jewish law of staying away from “one of another nation”. We need to focus on the commandments and traditions of God and not on the commandments and traditions of man.
Boom.
Awesome brother!
But, it isn't about food. Peter said it is about people.
Partly true, God used something he knew Peter was rock solid on - dietary laws to teach him what he needed to know.
@@stephenfoster9009 Paul said eat anything sold in the meat market. We are not under the law of Moses.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 are you sure about that?
@@stephenfoster9009 Read it for yourself. Acts 11.1-18
🤷🤦♂. How hard is it to just acknowledge its clearly both .......the bible isnt a black and white kids book🙏
It’s interesting that the main thing that divides our body today, food laws, and sabbaths, are the things that are addressed in the Bible about not letting separate us. God knew this would be a point of contention and He doesn’t want us separating off of it, but rather following your convictions whether of little faith or much, and being one body in Christ. Just how I see it.
I agree with this interpretation in the video by the way brother!
Amen!!!
There is very much more that divides the body. Food and sabath is the most clear thing in the New covenant
Leviticus 11. For I am Yahweh who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: you shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. This is the law of the animal, and of the bird, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth; to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten.
@@stephenfoster9009 “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.””
Galatians 3:10-12 ESV
And also
“For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.”
Galatians 3:18 ESV
Your argument that God commanded Peter to sin if the food laws weren't done away with could also be applied to God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his child. This means that God can command it even if the thing commanded is sinful as long as God does not let it happen, or is meant to symbolize something. Therefore, God is not in the wrong when commanding peter to eat unclean animals even if the food laws are still to be followed.
Hi, Jeremie! I hear you. But there's a big difference. In the Abraham scenario the command to sacrifice Isaac was a test of Abraham's faithfulness and the Lord stopped Abraham from actually obeying it. Conversely, in the Peter scenario the Lord rebuked Peter (three times!) for *_not_* obeying it. "What God has made clean, do not call common" (Acts 10:15).
Blessings, Rob
In the next chapter of Acts we see that it was reported that Peter had eaten with the Gentiles...
Yups, that's what it's ALL about, "Grace" is giving to the "reborn" infants, givin time to grow.
@@scented-leafpelargonium3366
So the Lord lied to Peter about the food He commanded Peter to eat? I find Solberg’s explanation the vision has to be about food far superior to your narrative.
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
- Mark 7:19
@@othnielbendavid9777all food is clean... but what is biblical food?
Peter explains in ch 10 that he understands not to call others unclean and he now understands that God welcomes those from all nations who do what is righteous. The argument was made that God wouldn't message to eat something that he didnt want us to actually eat....what about john 6? Yeshua said if you want eternal life then eat my flesh.
@@fahcsib3214I like your thought on John 6. I never saw it that way before. Shabbat shalom.
@@othnielbendavid9777So with yours and Rob’s logic, I guess the Lord also lied to Abraham when he asked him to sacrifice Isaac? Those who say they walk like Jesus better make sure you are actually following the God of the Scriptures and not of your own imaginations. The Church is not doing the things Jesus and the apostles actually did. They are doing what the early church fathers did. Wake up.
DOES GOD YEHOVAH THE ALMIGHTY GOD CONTRADICT HIMSELF.
HOW CAN GOD ASK SOMEONE TO DO WHAT HE HAS FORBIDDEN
Thanks so much for this video. I am a former Seventh Day Adventist and they also teach that this vision pertained to associating with Gentiles because they uphold the old covenant dietary laws. This has cleared up a lifelong misinterpretation for me!
@1971_happylifedog I recommend you read Acts 11 Shalom
@@salvadorruiz3692 Actually that proves my point. Acts 11 says that it’s ok to eat all foods.
Let's keep it honest. So we need to remember:
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."-2 Peter 1:2
Having this in mind let us also remember:
""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 GOD HATH SHEWED ME that I should not call any man common or unclean.
So Peter tells us that Yahweh showed/taught (deiknyō) him the meaning of the vision, so any one trying to create a different private interpretation of this vision is rejecting the Word of Yahweh.
Amen brother! Let us pray for more understanding among us. Peter Cleary explained the meaning of the vision in Acts 10:34-35 and his other circumcised colleagues understood in Acts 11:18. Despite that clear explanation, we are still trying to twist the scriptures through philosophy. God explained it and it must be true, our explanation/interpretation cannot change the word of God.
Amen. Let’s go with Kepha’s interpretation (Given by Elohim) rather than RL’s.
Exactly! That’s what I have been conveying. Thank you.
Proverbs 28:9 If a person will not listen to Torah, even his prayer is an abomination.
If this vision meant that we are now permitted to eat pork/shellfish, then wouldn't it make sense for there to be some clear verse in the new testament saying that "Jesus fed the people pork" or showing that Peter here didn't just go to eat with the gentiles, but actually went to eat shellfish with them??? Were pork and shellfish even eaten by anyone in Judea??
But Yahweh is not the author of confusion. Because this vision could be misinterpreted, He gives the clear explanation in v 28.
I've watched a few of the videos on this channel and clearly, it's not supportive of the HRM. I believe there are people in the HRM who have a spirit of condemnation rather than reconciliation, which understandably turns people away or makes them get defensive. But to argue against the clear instructions in the Torah and saying that Yahweh's character changed when you have verses like Proverbs 28:9 is wrong. The problem is not the Torah, but people's inability to keep it. Praise be to Yahweh that he offers salvation through Yeshua.
When we are overly intellectual when reading scripture, we question clear explanations in scripture like in Acts 10:28. If it was about food, Peter would've added to v.28 "and Yahweh showed me I can eat crawling creatures, wild birds, etc..."
Also the argument he makes at the end of the video regarding v. 15 doesn't make sense. I agree with him that it doesn't say anywhere in the Torah that gentiles are unclean. However, Peter hears, "Stop treating as unclean what Yahweh has made clean". It is Peter, not the Torah, who is treating the gentiles as unclean. It's clearly about people and not food because in the next verse it says, "this happened three times'". He hears the voice three times. Three is the number for resurrection. The good news of Yeshua being raised and the hope that offers believers who have the same spirit in them (Rom 8:11) can now reach people who were wrongly being considered as unclean. It is people who have the hope of being resurrected and obtaining life, not unclean meats.
Final point for those who believe this is about food: Can we at least agree that the gift of salvation reaching the gentiles to then go out into the world is much more powerful than apparently being able to eat a bacon cheeseburger?
Shalom, Yah bless anyone who took the time to read this.
Don't forget Pr. 28:4 as well: Those who forsake the Torah praise the wrong, Those who guard the Torah strive with them.
But octopus, rat and donkey are not food. 🤔(Torah tells us so)
Lamb is food, beef is food, but in the meat markets these may have been offered up to deities other than our Elohim.
So I agree with what you say, all FOOD is clean.
Hi, Geerboks! The Bible consistently uses the word "food" (אָכְלָ֑ה or אֹ֜כֶל or βρώματος) in a neutral sense to refer to anything that can be eaten. Some food is clean, some food is unclean. For example, Lev. 11:34 shows one way that clean food can become unclean food: “Any food in it that could be eaten, on which water comes, shall be unclean.” And Hosea 9:3 says, “they shall eat *unclean food* in Assyria.”
Best, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots Hello Rob, you are correct. Lev 11:34 tells us ‘food that may be eaten becomes unclean’. Octopus rat and donkey (may) not be eaten, as we are to keep ourselves set-apart as YHVH is set-apart Lev 11:44-45, 1 Pet1:16. Shalom, Barry
What is your point?
Thank you! I am not Hebrew Roots and was also misunderstanding this passage, so thank you for clearing this up! It makes perfect sense now.
So you eat the trigonosis bacon 🥓 and the Shell fish poisoning crustaceans Based off Robs Religions Biascies???
@@6969smurfy no, because they taste good. Hail Hydra
What was your interpretation on this?
@@scented-leafpelargonium3366 the Hebrew Roots is the work of Satan
@@scented-leafpelargonium3366 still got the demon house word church in there...
LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN
NOT ALL VISIONS GET CLARIFICATION ON THE MEANING
PETERS VISION DOES
WHEN YOU GET CLARIFICATION ON WHAT A VISION MEANS IT SUPERSEDES ANY STUPID OPINION YOU CAN "ASSUME"
THERE IS CLARIFICATION OF WHAT THIS VISION MEANT AND ITS RIGHT THERE FINISHED ....THE VISION MEANS WHAT THE
👉CLARIFICATION👈 SAYS IT MEANS !
FINAL
I used to think it was about food but I now think it refers to something much more meaningful and doesn't negate the Torah... It seems that Cornelius himself would had to have kept the Torah and thus abstained from unclean foods. By the way he is described...
Acts 10:2 "a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, and made many charitable contributions to the Jewish people and prayed to God continually."
Acts 10:22 "Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man well spoken of by the entire nation of the Jews."
Remember the "Old Testament" including the Torah were the only scriptures he and any other "devout" Gentiles would have as a guide at this time. Keeping Torah would've been the "scale" by which his devoutness was measured.
So, there wouldn't have been a dietary issue between he and Peter. The issue was whether or not they could be recognized by God and become apart of the church.
Acts 10:34-36 Opening his mouth, Peter said:
“I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him. The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all).
Also, Peter does say, "Lord" when responding to the command but it is only referred to as a "voice" in scripture. There is the precedent of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Either way it seems to me that saying if it's not about food that Yeshua is "lying" to Peter is a bit harsh.
What do you think friends?
Good observation about Cornelius and what the standard was back then! Those who try and go against what God said, will inevitably find themselves contradicting scripture.
LOVE this channel
Highly underrated CZcamsr! I was just reading this last night and contemplating any hidden meaning.
It's not a hinden meaning. Its A meaning to help Unblind Man from Religous lenses...
And it goes through the OT and Repeats in the NT. Don't ADD or TAKEAWAY from Thy Fathers Word/ TORAH
AS Taught by YAHshua Messiah
@@6969smurfywhats up non Jewish judaizer
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4)
“So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.” (Galatians 3:24-25)
“…by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances…” (Ephesians 2:15)
It is not complicated. Jesus fulfilled all of the Law. The Old Covenant has been fulfilled. Observance of the Old Covenant Law is not a requirement, or even a recommendation, for New Covenant believers
The message is clear
Acts 10:28 Peter said to call no MAN common or unclean. Peter was Hebrew so many you have a problem with him but I think that is unjust
@@Jazbo777 worth the Distinction,
No Man YAH has sent to them. That's kind of important here....
@@6969smurfy whats up non Jewish judaizer again who doesn't even have the original name of the Lord correct , but saw a youtube video and so believes he knows. Jews for JESUS in Israel are an all Jewish organization that you cant even be a part of unless your Jewish by birth/blood and confirm and use YESHUA as the Hebrew name of the Lord , but recognize that the Lord has and does use JESUS as an authoritative name the Lord choose in the English world and English is the #1 spoken language in the world today 2nd is mandarin, but hey I'm sure your right.............🤔 you need to repent is what you need to do
There have always been those who balk at the idea of God’s salvation being offered freely to those who believe. They reason that such a grand gift as forgiveness from such a holy God must require some kind of payment from us. We thank God for His grace, but we understand that He expects us to somehow earn that grace-in other words, there must be something that we can do to pay off the debt we owe to God.
In the early church, those who taught a combination of God’s grace and human effort were called “Judaizers.” The word Judaizer comes from a Greek verb meaning “to live according to Jewish customs.” The word appears in Galatians 2:14 where Paul describes how he confronted Peter for forcing Gentile Christians to “Judaize.”
A Judaizer taught that, in order for a Christian to truly be right with God, he must conform to the Mosaic Law. Circumcision, especially, was promoted as necessary for salvation. Gentiles had to become Jewish proselytes first, and then they could come to Christ. The doctrine of the Judaizers was a mixture of grace (through Christ) and works (through the keeping of the Law). This false doctrine was dealt with in Acts 15 and strongly condemned in the book of Galatians.
At the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, a group of Judaizers opposed Paul and Barnabas. Some men who belonged to the party of the Pharisees insisted that Gentiles could not be saved unless they were first circumcised and obeyed the Law of Moses. Paul made the case that, in Christ, there was no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile, for God had purified the hearts of the Gentiles by faith (Acts 15:8-9). He said it plainly in Galatians 2:16: “A man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.”
To add anything to the work that Christ did for salvation is to negate God’s grace. We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, not by returning to the Law. “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing” (Galatians 2:21).
There are many groups today with beliefs/practices very similar to those of the Judaizers of the New Testament. The two most prominent would be the Hebrew Roots Movement and the Roman Catholic Church. The teachings of the Hebrew Roots Movement are virtually identical to those of the Judaizers whom Paul rebuked in Galatians. A primary focus of the Hebrew Roots Movement is to put followers of Christ back under the bondage of the Old Testament Law.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches a doctrine similar to that of the Judaizers of the New Testament in this way: its doctrine is a mixture of law and grace. At the Council of Trent in the 16th century, the Catholic Church explicitly denied the idea of salvation by faith alone. Catholics have always held that certain sacraments are necessary for salvation. The issues for the 1st-century Judaizers were circumcision and Sabbath-keeping. The issues for modern-day Catholics are baptism, confession, etc. The works considered necessary may have changed, but both Judaizers and Catholics attempt to merit God’s grace through the performance of ritualistic acts.
First Timothy 4:3 says that, in later times, false teachers will “forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.” This sounds suspiciously close to some of the teachings of Roman Catholicism, which requires priests to be celibate (“forbidding to marry”) and proclaims some food to be off-limits during Lent (“abstaining from certain foods”).The Judaizers upheld the Mosaic Law as necessary for salvation; Catholics uphold man-made tradition as necessary; both view Christ’s death as being insufficient without the active and continued cooperation of the one being saved.
The Bible is clear that the attempt to add human works to God’s grace overlooks the very meaning of grace, which is “undeserved blessing.” As Paul says, “If by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace” (Romans 11:6). Praise the Lord, “Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1).
Correct. It has to be true of the example for it to be true of the point. There's a reason we say "as black as the Ace of spades", instead of as "black as the Ace of hearts". Also, Jesus prepared his disciples for this by stating "it's not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, but what comes out".
The context clearly shows that Christ was speaking about unwashed hands(Matt. 15:2). There is no biblical justification for believing Christ was referring to kosher law when Lev. 11 shows God saying in very clear words that eating unclean meat is an abomination. Since when has God ever changed His mind about something being an abomination?
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Absolutely right!
it was not about food Peter explains later " god has told me not to call any man unclean . Dreams from the divine are never taken at face value . Peters exclamation " But I have never eaten anything unclean " Made him understand the dream was not about eating food . Verse 10:17 " Now while Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision which he had seen might mean, behold, the men that were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood before the gate " And this tells you he did not believe it was about food, he was perplexed at its meaning .he is asked and he tells you what the dream meant here note verse 26 " [25] When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.
[26] But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man."
[27] And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons gathered;
[28] and he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean" He tells you the vision is why he went into the gentiles right here "Acts 11:[1] Now the apostles and the brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
[2] So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him,
[3] saying, "Why did you go to uncircumcised men and eat with them?"
[4] But Peter began and explained to them in order:
[5] "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, something descending, like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came down to me.
[6] Looking at it closely I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air.
[7] And I heard a voice saying to me, `Rise, Peter; kill and eat.'
[8] But I said, `No, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.'
[9] But the voice answered a second time from heaven, `What God has cleansed you must not call common.'
If the vision were only meant metaphorically, that would mean that God used vile and grotesque imagery of a man interacting with uncleanliness to drive a holy point. That most certainly is not the character of God. The symbol must align with the substance.
The symbol does align. There were clean animals as well as unclean in the sheet!
@@nattybumppo4151 But God called the unclean animals...clean! Did you miss that?
@@kennethknott9138 Yeah I did…because it’s not there. lol You are just reading it into the text.
@@nattybumppo4151 Acts 10:14-15 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.” And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”
So...God effectually said that He had made the animals clean. "What God has MADE CLEAN..." (15). This is in direct reference to the otherwise unclean animals Peter saw in the vision. God said He had made them clean.
Later in verse 28, we see that the vision was intended for a broader application, i.e. that God wanted Peter to engage with the Gentiles. The HRM folks hang their hat on this verse, claiming "See, the vision was not about animals, it was only about people." However, they (and apparently you currently) fail to see that the symbol must be in alignment with the substance, and vice versa. That is ALWAYS how symbols work. And in the case of God, his character would not and could not allow otherwise - He would never show a grotesque, sinful image and suggest (command) one of his children to indulge in it, not even symbolically, especially when saying that the same image was no longer grotesque, when in fact it was.
Nobody would use porn, or poop, or pedophilia as a symbol for intended, righteous behavior. But that is in effect what you are saying God was doing by using grotesque animals and commanding Peter to kill and eat. The fact must be then, that the animals were no longer grotesque (because said he God declared them clean).
Symbols must reflect the substance, and vice versa. It just doesn't make any sense otherwise.
Are you available for interviews?
God said "Kill," which could only apply to animals, since God would not tell Peter to kill Gentiles.
God said "Eat," which could only apply to animals, since God would not tell Peter to eat Gentiles.
God said "Do not call unclean what I have made clean," which could only apply to animals, since God knew Peter was thinking only of the food animals he had been shown in the vision & not Gentiles.
Because gentiles are humans and Exodus 20:13 is you shall not commit murder which is referring to humans and not animals , and if God told Peter to kill gentiles then Peter will be breaking the law Exodus 20:13 which is why it's talking about unclean animals as food in acts 10.
Good word Kim and excellent points
Now read verse 17 where Peter clearly understood that God wasn't telling him that He made a mistake in telling ppl not to eat unclean meat.
If it were only this passage, one could think that God continued the food laws, but you gotta put your head in the sand to not see the truth of the Scripture. Genesis 9:1-3 God said all food was good… so the food laws were not from the creation… which means they’re not moral in any way or eternal. Then we come to Romans 14 and there’s a whole chapter on it. Plenty of verses in the Scriptures saying it’s not required any longer. You Torah people start with the false premise that God’s Torah was from the beginning of people and never stopped. That’s why you can’t see plain truth and why your hearts are unchanged by the love of Christ. One more passage to think on…
”Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;“
I Timothy 4:1-4 NKJV
Almost like Paul is saying your god is your flesh… like the Pharisees… right book, but a million miles from truth
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Now read Chapter 11 where Peter clearly took it to mean he could eat an unclean dinner with unclean Gentiles... except neither one is unclean now according to Jesus.
Rev 18:2 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 16:13 And I saw, coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs.
This is interesting, I can't wait to read this part. I'm reading the whole Bible over on my channel, starting in Genesis. It's gonna be a long haul, but it's already pretty fun! :)
Hi Professor,
I have a question regarding Messianic Jews. They argue as the Hebrew Roots do that the food laws were not repealed, even though they strongly oppose Hebrew Roots. I’ve even heard them say it’s a sin for an ethnic Jew to eat unclean food, which doesn’t sit right with me. I know you’ve acknowledged that they may have a different relationship to the Torah in the past, but my impression has always been that the wall between Jew and Gentile was completely torn down and that there is now no (mandatory) differences. Any help would be much appreciated.
I’ve got much of my information on their view from the channel Two Messianic Jews which I recommend as they seem charitable. Thanks!
Edit: I know this is partly going to depend on one’s views of the old covenant but that’s also something I’m uncertain of, although I’m currently leaning toward something like covenant theology.
Hi, Macho! I know Jonathan and Erik from 2 Messianic Jews, and while we don't always agree on everything, they are good men who love God.
Pretty much every Messianic Jew I've spoken with agrees that Gentiles are not, and have never been, under the food laws. But there are a range of views on the relationship between those laws and _Jewish_ believers in Jesus. Because the Old Covenant has come to an end and those food laws were inextricably linked to that Covenant, I do not believe that any follower of Jesus, Jew or Gentile, is under any obligation to eat kosher. Doing so does not add a thing to the righteousness that is ours through faith in Jesus. So I believe that Jewish believers in Jesus are permitted, but not required to eat kosher. However, I can certainly understand and respect why some might choose to maintain a kosher diet (or any of the Mosaic tradition) as a boundary marker of their Jewish identity.
As I see it, it all comes down to the heart motivation. If a Jewish believer chooses to eat kosher as a matter of cultural identity to honor the ethnicity that God created them to be, that's a beautiful thing. If they're eating kosher in an attempt to live a more righteous life or out of a perceived obligation, then I believe they are off the mark.
Shalom, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots Thanks for getting back :)
It’s really just your last sentence wherein the problem lies. When asked whether it’s a sin for an ethnic Jew to stop eating kosher, either Jonathan or Erik said it was, which means they view it as an obligation. They would agree with the HRM understanding of the passages in question, such as Jesus declaring all food clean.
Hi, Rob. Thank you for once again presenting the argument thoughtfully, and respectfully. I would like to share my thoughts on this subject and in no way intend this be argumentative or disrespectful. Just another point of view.
Deuteronomy 4 says that the other nations will look at Israel and their Torah and see them as an example of greatness. Also, Deuteronomy 30 says that the Torah was given for our good and that it is not too hard for us. Because of statements like these, I wonder why we try so hard to avoid it or “get out from under it.” God always only wanted Israel to follow his instructions out of love for him and for each other (The two greatest commands). He despised their efforts even when they were following it by the letter but without love in their hearts (Isaiah 1).
I don’t believe that God gives arbitrary commands and if he says something is bad to eat then it will always be bad to eat. Animals that are unclean seem to be that way for a reason. They are literally dirty, pigs are garbage disposals for the land, shellfish are filters for the ocean, carnivores and scavenger birds remove carcasses and sick or weak animals.
I don’t know why we try so hard to hold onto these things when it literally costs me nothing to not eat them (or for that matter keep a Saturday Sabbath or recognize Biblical feasts instead of traditional Holidays). Yes, it makes for awkward social conversations when eating out or in someone else's home but who cares!
If I am wrong, I would rather err on the side of following God’s instructions to the best of my ability than to stand before Him at the Judgement and try to explain why I wanted to do it my way instead.
-rob
Thanks, Rob! I really appreciate your thoughts on this.
I don't believe God's commands are arbitrary in actuality, but there are certainly some that seem arbitrary to our finite human minds! (The rabbi's refer to these commands as _chukkim_ .) If the food laws were given for reasons of nutrition/health or "grossness," the Bible makes no mention of it. The type of "unclean" (tāmē) spoken of in the Torah is about ritual purity. And the stated reason for the prohibited animals is holiness (set-apartness), not health (Deut 14:2-3). This is why, for example, the Israelites are not allowed to eat things that Gentiles are (Deut 14:21). God told Noah after the flood "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you" (Gen. 9:3). So "once bad always bad" doesn't seem to apply to eating animals.
All that to say, from my perspective, it's not about trying to "get out from under" something. As I said in a previous video, it's super easy to skip pork and shellfish, and instead eat steak and lamb chops. Yum! And if a follower of Jesus chooses to eat kosher, that's great. I see no problem with that. But they need to be very careful not to fall prey to the mistaken belief that eating kosher somehow makes them better Christians or more obedient. The Bible says our works can't add even a microgram to the righteousness that is ours through faith in Jesus (Gal. 2:16). So where the problem arises is when believers mandate a kosher diet for other believers. When a kosher diet is taught as a _requirement_ of following Jesus, it becomes an unbiblical burden that is never actually required of Christ-followers in the Bible (Acts 10:9-16; Rom 14; Col. 2:16-17, etc.)
Blessings, Rob
I am only trying to work these things out for myself with fear and trembling. While I will share my beliefs with anyone curious, I am very careful about teaching one way or another. The burden of a teacher is heavy, and I commend you for taking it on.
It does seem that a lot of the laws for "ritual" purity and cleanliness have to do with very human things. Expulsion of bodily fluids, flows of blood, disease, dead bodies, molds in houses, and even using the restroom outside of the camp to hide excrement from the presence of God. All of these things also tend to be related to the spread of disease through bodily fluids. It's still a good idea today to not come in contact with these things. Similarly I think to not eating certain animals.
An argument could be made that prior to God telling Noah to eat animals, humans were vegetarian. God gave Adam and Eve the trees of the garden for food and instructed Noah to bring green plants onto the ark for food. Many people don't know that not all animals on the ark were "two by two" but even prior to Moses a distinction was made for clean animals and more of them were brought onto the ark than unclean animals... this is something I never heard in Sunday School growing up. I have personally wrestled with God telling Noah to eat "all creeping things" and I believe that this was when God first told man to eat meat in general... within the distinction of clean and unclean animals on the ark. I do understand however that this is more me reading into the text than what is technically written (I admit the text seems to say ALL animal products). This reading to me however seems to be in line with a God that is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Thanks again for reviewing my comments and the detailed reply!
-rob
@@robjax3980I love that you see love as the highest commands. Bless you on your search bro!!
Never thought of it this way. Thanks.
As I read Acts 10, the only confusion I have is how people can not see the truth and why the Hebrew Roots people fight so hard to stay in bondage to the flesh laws.
Satan knows his time is short
Your Ignorant. I'm Not Hebrew Roots, but your "BONDAGE" is Not Knowing The "Heart of thy Matter".
1 tim 1:5
Now the PURPOSE of the COMMANDMENTS is LOVE from a pure HEART, from a good conscience, and from SINCERE faith,
Duet 30 10
if you OBEY the Adonai/LORD your YAH/God and keep his COMMANDS and DECREES that are written in this Book of the .Torah/Law and turn to the Adonai/LORD your God with all your HEART and with all your SOUL.
Proverbs 3 3
Let know LOVING commitment ant TRUTH forsake you-bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your HEART.
2 cor 3 3
And you show that you are a letter from Messiah/Christ DELIVERED by us, written not with ink but with the SPIRIT of the living YAH/God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human HEARTS.
Ezekiel 11 19-20
And I will give them one HEART, and a NEW SPIRIT I will put within them. I will remove the HEART of stone from their flesh and give them a HEART of flesh, that they may walk in "my statutes" and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my "PEOPLES", and I will be their YAH/God.
Jer 31 33
But this is the COVENANT that I will make with the HOUSE of ISRAEL after those days, declares the Adonai/Lord: I will put my TORAH within them, and I will write it on their HEARTS. And I will be their YAH/God, and they shall be MY PEOPLES ie YAHisrael.
Hebrews 8 7-13
Hebrews 10 16
This is the COVENANT I will make with them after that time, says the Adonai/Lord. I will put my TORAH/ law in their HEARTS, and I will write them on their MINDS.”
Daniel 7 28
Hitherto is the END OF THE MATTER. As for me Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed in me: but I KEPT the MATTER in my HEART
Eph 6:6 - not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as BONDSERVANTS of Messiah/Christ, doing the WILL of YAH/God from the HEART,
Isaiah 56 6-7
And FOREIGNERS who bind themselves to the Adonai/LORD to minister to him, to LOVE the name of the Adonai/LORD, and to be his SERVANTS, all who KEEP THE SABBITH without desecrating it and who hold fast to my COVENANT -
these I will bring to my HOLY mountain and give them joy in my HOUSE of prayer. Their burnt offerings and SACRIFICES will be ACCEPTED on my altar; for my HOUSE will be called a house of prayer for all NATIONS.”
~Now you.can understand~
Jeremiah 17-5
Thus says the Adonai/LORD: “Cursed is the man who "TRUST IN MAN" And makes flesh his strength, Whose HEART departs from the Adonai/LORD.
Rev 12-17 00
And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the COMMANDMENTS of YAH/God, and have the TESTIMONY of YAHshua Humasheoc/Jesus Christ”
Rev 14 12
Here is the patience of the Kadosh/qaddish/saints; here are those who keep the COMMANDMENTS of YAH/God and the faith of YAHshua/Jesus
Rev 22 14
Blessed are those washing their robes, that their right will be to the TREE OF LIFE, and they shall enter into the CITY BY THE GATES.
ECC 12 13
When all has been heard, the conclusion of the matter is this: FEAR YAH/GOD and KEEP His COMMANDMENTS, because this is the WHOLE DUTY OF MAN.
@@salpezzino7803 yups,
Rev 14 12
Here is the patience of the Kadosh/qaddish/saints; here are those who keep the COMMANDMENTS of YAH/God and the faith of YAHshua/Jesus
Better get to learning those pesky comandments....
Shalom
We are not in no age to the law. The law is a light to our path it is sweeter then honey, and it is peace.
@@Jazbo777 "we are not in no age of the law?
Yes, Torah/YAHshua/Ruach all led us to Fathers Love.
The Word "Law" is Greekish Word Fodder...
It's is not of a legalistic context YAH wants, HE wants it done from thy Heart.
That is the Heart Of Thy Matter.
I have spent a great deal of time both studying scriptures and listening to what scholarly people from both sides of many issues concerning that from Hebrew Roots and people like yourself , have to say. I do lean toward the perspective of Hebrew Roots. If this passage were really about food being made clean, it seems to me that Peter would have gone to the house of Cornelius and something would have been mentioned about a meal involving eating something that was previously admonished against. Especially also considering , as mentioned how important meals are for fellowship. Revelation 18:2, would have been an area to revisit for me to see what these things are thought of toward the end of the age. The unclean animals are still said to be unclean. But also noted is the mention of every unclean thing being imprisoned in Babylon. This we know has more to do with every thing that displeases God at the end of our present age . It seems to me that his choice of words would have changed if unclean animals were now clean.
Amen.
Whether the passage alludes to people or food, they go together. If he were to accept Gentiles, then he would have to accept their customs to be in any way effective. We cannot teach about Jesus while offending them at the same time. Peter ate with the gentiles.
Yup, just like Daniel accepted the kings food!
Very informative as always.
Thanks, Joshua!
Rob
Acts 10:9-28, 34, 35
“And on the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Kěpha went up on the house-top to pray, about the sixth hour. And he became hungry and wished to eat. But while they were preparing, he fell into a trance, and he saw the heaven opened and a certain vessel like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth, in which were all kinds of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping creatures, and the birds of the heaven. And a voice came to him, “Rise up, Kěpha, slay and eat.” But Kěpha said, “Not at all, Master! Because I have never eaten whatever is common or unclean.” And a voice came to him again the second time, “What Elohim has cleansed you do not consider common.” And this took place three times, and the vessel was taken back to the heaven. And while Kěpha was doubting within himself about what the vision might mean, look, the men who had been sent from Cornelius, having asked for the house of Shim‛on, stood at the gate, and calling out, they enquired whether Shim‛on, also known as Kěpha, was staying there. And as Kěpha was thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “See, three men seek you. “But rise up, go down and go with them, not doubting at all, for I have sent them.” So Kěpha went down to the men who had been sent to him from Cornelius, and said, “Look, I am the one you seek. Why have you come?” And they said, “Cornelius the captain, a righteous man and one who fears Elohim and well spoken of by the entire nation of the Yehuḏim, was instructed by a set-apart messenger to send for you to his house, and to hear words from you.”? So inviting them in, he housed them. And on the next day Kěpha went away with them, and some brothers from Yapho went with him. And the following day they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius was waiting for them, having called together his relatives and close friends. And it came to be, that when Kěpha entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and bowed before him. But Kěpha raised him up, saying, “Stand up, I myself am also a man.” And talking with him, he went in and found many who had come together. And he said to them, “You know that a Yehuḏi man is not allowed to associate with, or go to one of another race. But Elohim has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean… And opening his mouth, Kěpha said, “Truly I see that Elohim shows no partiality, but in every nation, he who fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.” (TS2009)
The problem
Christians take the thought that appears in this portion of Scripture without understanding its aim. They take the idea and try to make it appear that anything that one can stick in one’s mouth is edible since everything, allegedly, has been declared clean by their warped interpretation of this passage.
A resolution
This passage is straightforward if one reads it correctly.
Kěpha was merely shown something (going to all men who were considered “unclean,” rather than just Jews who were “clean”) by that which he already understood - the dietary instructions.
One thing (clean and unclean animals in a sheet) was mentioned as a point of reference. Initially, he was puzzled about what the vision meant (v. 17). Understand this point as essential. Why should Kěpha be puzzled about food, since adherence to the Torah is very clear on what matters concerning food? Would not the puzzlement come from a message within the visions - A message that required contemplation? If the vision was about food alone, the clear vision should have said, “Hey, eat what you want to eat from now on.” But we know that this was not the case.
The image came to him three times, so he knew it was necessary to understand. Men are not classified as food (although they are an “unclean animal,” and they can make choices to draw them out of an unclean life).
We are unaware of the finer points of Kěpha’s eventual justification other than his intellectual perception of what he “heard.” But, he finally put the pieces in place when Cornelius’ men arrived at Kěpha’s location. Notice that they arrived IMMEDIATELY after the vision.
Xtians regarding Kěpha’s vision, as they do, heads down the road of creating a logical non sequitur. As I state below, the simple fact was that the vision impelled Kěpha to understand a new development from a trustworthy, previously established source.
The vision was not about food, per se. If it were, then Kěpha would have understood it immediately, applied it directly to food, and probably would not have been bothered as much in going to Cornelius, although he still probably would have gone. It was a message that he should consider other people as he was, able to be accepted by the people of the Creator, Yisra'ěl.
Men are capable of thought. Men are capable of change. Men can come in from out of the darkness. That’s all there is to it. The vision was about all humanity and not about food at all. Again, Kěpha got the understanding through that with which he was very familiar and could deduce the meaning and apply it to men. His vision was a metaphor. One should study/research visual metaphors and their impact on cognitive linguistics to understand this. In short, a metaphorical vision uses symbols to represent deeper meanings or feelings found in visual stimuli, whether ocular or intellectual. Metaphorical vision helps express complex thoughts creatively and imaginatively. It’s like using pictures to tell a deeper story.
Rav Sha’ul later confirmed his understanding in another way. Rav Sha’ul took Yeshayahu 49:5-6 to heart in bringing the Creator’s message to the Nations (Goyim) - those considered unclean.
Kěpha and Rav Sha’ul’s understanding is twofold. First, it was to take the Word to the rest of Yisra'ěl in the diaspora (Rav Sha’ul’s primary calling, confirmed by Kěpha’s vision). Second, blessings would also fall on the world because of the diaspora. This second fact is what the gist of Kěpha’s vision entailed.
In essence, the Word’s time had come to fulfill its original intent (Bereshith 22:18). Just as the Creator initially gave the Word (Torah) to all at Ḥorěḇ/Sinai, we see at this later date the reiteration of the same principles in receiving the Word (Yehoshua) from the Creator. As a final thought, perhaps Kěpha dwelt upon the fact that all humanity begins in the image of Elohim (Bereshith 1:26). The natural follow-through would be restoring humanity to the Word. Look at Acts 15:7, 14-18, and Amos 9:11-12.
Xtian interpretation of Kěpha’s vision falls flat upon closer examination, taking on the shades and hues of a lie. Their misleading interpretations are just one of many ways in which Xtians have taken the set-apart text from the first century and perverted it, trying to bring Hebrews closer to what they view as unimportant or irrelevant. It is very subtle but destructive.
Dave Wilber uses Acts 10 as meaning specifically about people and relationships and not about food, yet he ignores ****Acts 11: 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers took issue with him, 3 saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and shared a meal with them.” ***** Wilber may ignore the fact that this was not about food but the early church were explicitly talking about food and eating a meal with a Gentile!
It had nothing to do with food , it had to do with preaching to the gentiles whom the Jews considered unclean ...
You should watch this video, Graham. You would agree with it more of it than you think!
Blessings, Rob
I can't believe all of this even needs to be explained. Hebrew Roots interpretations make my head hurt.
Go read the original language of the passage about Jesus 'making all foods clean' and see what entire sentence was just added to the text in translation. It's most likely because the original grammar was seemingly missing something. He was saying when you eat something, it passes through you and into the ____ (blank) probably missing the object because it was polite to leave out the porta potty word in their culture. His point was about the heart, but their word for "food" was literally only 'clean food' and, not both. So, even if someone believes the text added, they should still realize that it doesn't make sense to just make all 'clean foods' clean. Even if they don't know about that, they should know from the context what Jesus was talking about. Nothing Jesus did was to subvert the law, just the messing up of the law. Like healing a man's arm on the Sabbath - that's called restoration or 'rest' which you're supposed to do for yourself and others on that day. They were actually sinning by not doing that was the point.
Take two advil (or Motrin) and read my replies that I am starting to present in relation to this speaker's videos. See if what is offered doesn't make reasonable, rational sense. Otherwise, go lie down until your head stops hurting.
@@knowingyourmind Please take off your costume and stop LARPing. You are way too old for this.
@@billyhw5492 It's probably best that you do a study on self-projection. Making such general statements is only conducive to showing one's ignorance. I may, very well, be too old for you, which is clear, as you aren't able to put forth the effort to grow. Therefore, the only thing I might be able to offer you, in regard to advice, is to simply grow up, regardless of how old you may be, chronologically.
So Peter's interpretation of the vision is wrong and your interpretation is right?
Oh my, are you serious! Look back to passage on the sheet we’re All Kinds of animals- both clean and unclean. In Peter’s understanding of God’s instruction regarding what is food and what is not, since there were unclean animals as well as clean animals, the whole lot were thus unclean. God never rebukes Peter for eating kosher. He does correct him by saying not to call unclean what God has called clean. This bears fruit in two events in Acts. One in the vision the sheet was lowered down three times. How many Gentiles was there when Peter went to the Gentiles house (shocker!}? Three if you do not count the man servant. Secondly, when Peter reports to the Jerusalem Council, he doesn’t proclaim , Hallelujah God had just nullified his dietary instructions , now we can eat bacon! No. Hes tells them of the new thing God is doing by giving them the Holy Spirit.
Well put. Most people miss this fact that the sheet had both clean and unclean animals in it. They miss it because anti-nomians like RL focus only on the unclean animals. Peter would not eat any because he was following Jewish law and not God’s law. The same way he choose which humans to associate with. )Jews taught gentiles were unclean.
@@nattybumppo4151 Peter was following God’s Law.
@@stephenfoster9009 He was in the case of food, not in the case of human relationships. God was teaching him to be consistent.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Thank you sir for this teaching,From India
Thank you from the USA! Bless you, brother.
Rob
Jesus said John is the end of the law, and the prophets but the Hebrew roots and those that embrace the Sabbath ministry reject what Jesus says, yet they called themselves Cristian
You might want to look up that word END in the Greek. I think it means end goal, end result, what you will be like at resurrection with the law written on your heart.
I pray that God grants you more subscribers so that they can heart his Biblical Truth. Wonderful exposition.
I applaud your presentation Prof. but your conclusions are inherently wrong. Keep searching and you will find the truth. "It is the glory of G-d to conceal a matter,
but the glory of kings is to search out a matter." Mishlei 25:2
The thing about it he didn't show him people to eat , but animals. He told him to rise kill animals to eat. He said what God has cleansed not to call common. 😉😊🤗
I would be so very strange if God was telling him to kill and eat people, right? Imo, Jesus was telling Peter that he could fraternize with Gentiles which meant he could eat with them, as we see it he later did. Two fold meaning?
@@Gigi2four I think it is funny when these Cultists say it isnt about food, gut Gentiles, Yet Gentiles werent in the sheet. You can't find a dumber group of people today
@@Gigi2four he was telling him he was no longer the Leviticus food laws of abomination
The dietary laws in Torah are still in effect.
I'm not Hebrew roots, but disagree, nothing to do with Food Peter explains once to Cornelius and Apostles when he leaves Cornelius, what it means
The story actually continues into Acts Chapter 11.
What a great exposition of Acts10 which I agreed totally. Congrats, your job well done.
Yikes. Logically this cannot be true if you think about it. If Peter or Paul taught against the law given to Moses, they would have been tried and killed. In fact, they tried Paul many times because of rumors that he was teaching differently from the law given to Moses. Paul then went into the temple and shaved his head to show that this was not the case. He was never convicted. (read acts 21 from verse 17) Now, if God told Peter that all things were clean to eat, he would have immediately told the disciples to teach this and would have been tried and put to death. So why wasn't this significant enough to call a counsel and discuss the "changes" that God made? Why did Peter not preach that God told him that it was ok to eat swine and rat and abominations? Because this was a vision, and the context was not about food at all. One thing to consider is why does Isaiah emphasize in 66:17+ that when Jesus returns, he'll kill those who eat swine's flesh and rat? That prophesy has not yet been fulfilled...
You are a good example of a natural man explaining the spiritual things of GOD .
NO understanding .
You are one educated by man not GOD .
Let GOD teach .
Excellent!!
There were clean animals in the sheet too RL. Why would Peter call ALL the animals unclean?…..
I agree that there were also clean animals in the sheet, Natty. But of course, Peter wouldn't protest killing and eating those animals!
RLS
@@TheBiblicalRoots Really? So why wouldn’t he “rise, kill, and eat” a clean animal since the instruction did not specify which animal he needed to choose?
@@nattybumppo4151 Carefully read through and compare the words that are spoken when Peter was instructed to rise, kill, and eat; this is directed towards only the clean animals. He responds that he has never eaten anything "common" or "unclean"; this is when Peter is responding to not eating the clean animals because they are now "common", (they are common because they are with the unclean animals) and of course not eating unclean animals. Then the voice says that what Elohim has cleansed, call not thou common; again the focus is only on the clean animals and not calling them "common", there is no word about the unclean animals being cleansed.
@@user-me6zj9sq2n Exactly! The command to Shimon was open ended. He could have chosen a clean animal but he chose to classify the clean ones as “unclean” because of Jewish teachings and not according to Torah.
You know the answer, but by God you are going to have your bacon. Classic Eisegesis.
This is my first visit to this channel and I find it impressive and biblical. How refreshing is that? I don't use the ESV for this reason that like some of the Dispensational translations (Schofield), the ESV is trying to impose a "reformed" teaching of its Calvinist roots into the text. Which is why they cannot see that their 5 points are not true.
Welcome, Robin. I use a wide range of translations in my research. On this channel I am most often I'm reading from the NIV or ESV.
Blessings, Rob
Can’t believe I have to partly agree with the Hebrew Roots here 😅
But God has shown me that I should not call ANYONE impure or unclean.” (Acts 10:28)
Peter is clear that the vision was about people. I believe the vision isn’t either or but both. The primary point of the vision is gentiles because Peter says so but since God is true, it has to also lift food restrictions.
That's exactly my conclusion in this video, Micky! The _subject_ of the vision is food, but the _point_ has to do with Gentiles. Because all food has been declared clean, Peter can freely visit a gentle home.
Blessings, Rob
This vision was for Peter and his actions prove it. Peter never said he ate or will eat any unclean food. The only thing we know for sure is he called clean men clean based on his vision.
Shalom
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4)
“So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.” (Galatians 3:24-25)
“…by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances…” (Ephesians 2:15)
It is not complicated. Jesus fulfilled all of the Law. The Old Covenant has been fulfilled. Observance of the Old Covenant Law is not a requirement, or even a recommendation, for New Covenant believers
Acts Chapter 11 clearly states that Peter ATE with UNCIRCUMCISED MEN, which was upsetting to the Jews, because the men & their food would have been considered unclean prior to the cross.
@@kimartist 1¶Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
2And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him,
3saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”
4¶But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying:
The cirumcision party where accusing Peter “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”. When Peter explaind his vision they where silent. Peter made no mention of eating any food.
@@adamguy33
Romans is saying that Christ is how that law should be lived out.look up the word that is translated into end.( Telos )
Where in Galations do you see the law is done away with? your not under law is not the same as done away with.
@@Marwil23 Leviticus chapter 11 lists the dietary restrictions God gave to the nation of Israel. The dietary laws included prohibitions against eating pork, shrimp, shellfish and many types of seafood, most insects, scavenger birds, and various other animals. The dietary rules were never intended to apply to anyone other than the Israelites. The purpose of the food laws was to make the Israelites distinct from all other nations. After this purpose had ended, Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19). Later, God gave the apostle Peter a vision that implied formerly unclean animals could be eaten: “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” (Acts 10:15). When Jesus died on the cross, He fulfilled the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:24-26; Ephesians 2:15). This includes the laws regarding clean and unclean foods.
Romans 14:1-23 teaches us that not everyone is mature enough in the faith to accept the fact that all foods are clean. As a result, if we are with someone who would be offended by our eating “unclean” food, we should give up our right to do so as to not offend the other person. We have the right to eat whatever we want, but we do not have the right to offend other people, even if they are wrong. For the Christian in this age, though, we have freedom to eat whatever we wish as long as it does not cause someone else to stumble in his/her faith.
In the New Covenant of grace, the Bible is far more concerned with how much we eat than what foods Christians eat. Physical appetites are an analogy of our ability to control ourselves. If we are unable to control our eating habits, we are probably also unable to control other habits such as those of the mind (lust, covetousness, unrighteous hatred/anger) and unable to keep our mouths from gossip or strife. As Christians, we are not to let our appetites control us; rather, we are to control them (Deuteronomy 21:20; Proverbs 23:2; 2 Peter 1:5-7; 2 Timothy 3:1-9; 2 Corinthians 10:5).
😇🙏
All a Law keeper need do, is Read John 5:45 and The Hidden Gospel of Thomas and they’ll get it.
I would respectfully disagree. Peter's interpretation, while based on already being Torah observant, shows that his understanding of Jesus' teaching in Mark 7:19 was that He did not "make unclean foods clean." Otherwise, Peter would have already taken the liberty of indulging, which he clearly, by his own admission, had not. That is more evidence that the issue there is only about hand washing, not clean versus unclean animals.
YHVH commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. If Cain was banished for killing Abel, then killing an innocent is obviously understood as a violation of YHVH's Law, despite the Law having not yet been delivered. By definition, Abraham was instructed to break the Law.
The new converts in Acts 15 were told to not eat blood or things that had been strangled. Why would those dietary laws still be important if dietary laws had been abolished? In addition, they were told to abstain from "pollutions of idols." Observing the feasts that were originally ordained for pagan gods would be a prime example of such pollution. Observing the days decreed for other gods is de facto serving them. Romans 6:15-16
Colossians 2 speaks of being strong in the face of intimidation by heathens. Verse 16 says to not be intimidated by them regarding our observance of YHVH's lunar calendar and his Sabbaths. They are shadows of the Messiah. Only the days set apart by YHVH could be shadows of Messiah. Random days chosen by men cannot be. Like many passages, the message in this one has been completely inverted.
If Jesus had no sin, He walked the Torah perfectly. 1 John 3:4 says that sin is transgression of the Torah. 1 John 2:6 says that if we claim to abide in Him, we should walk as He walked. That would be Torah observance. Throughout the Bible, loving YHVH with all our hearts, souls and minds is equated to obeying him. Saying, "Oh Father, thank you for sending your Son to die for me, but, in spite of your Commandment, I'm still going to eat swine," makes no sense at all.
Matthew 7:21-23 is the famous passage ending in "depart from me, I never knew you..."
The ones He says he doesn't know are "ergezomenoi ten anomian," or "workers without Torah."
I may not be able to do all that the Torah instructs. But, I am certainly not going to tempt YHVH by erecting trees and eating swine. In Isaiah 66, it is clear that the vengeance taken against the rebellious in the Day of YHVH is going to be directed at those who do.
When you state about this vision is about real food, you are against Matthew chapter 5 about this strong statement the Law will not pass away even heavens and earth pass away!
Mat 5:18 “For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one yod or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done.f Footnote: f Luk_16:17.
The verse in Act states clearly the vision is about human NOT unclean animal to eat!
Act 10:28 And he said to them, “You know that a Yehuḏi man is not alloweda to associate with, or go to one of another race. But Elohim has shown me that I should not call any manb common or unclean. Footnotes: aThis was a man-made law. See Mat_15:3, Mat_15:9, Mar_7:7-8, Col_2:14, Col_2:20 and Col_2:22. bNot animal - See also Act_10:35.
I promise if you try beef bacon, you'll never go back to pork 🥓
Wonder if pascal can be applied here
More like Pavlov. My mouth watered when you said "beef bacon."
LITERAL OR FIGURATIVE
This theory only works if you assume the vision is "litteral". Thus, why you said Jesus would have told Peter to sin. Only works if you believe the dream was literal talking about making unclean food clean.
The flaw in this argument is that you can't prove the dream is literally talking about food, this is an assumtion not a fact.
There are many examples in the Bible of dreams that are not litteral. Joseph dream for example where his brothers were depicted as of sheaths of grain. In that dream men are depicted as food.
Peter never acknowledges or says the dream is about changing his dietary eating habits, not once, but he does give interpretation a couple times of what he says Jesus showed him that the dream meant. I am going to stick with Peter explanation of the dream Jesus gave him.
Solberg, you said "keep you honest".
Lets try it:
You were never under the old covenant that Moses mediated.
You were not born subject to or obligated to keep the Mosaic law.
You have never transgressed the Mosaic law.
You were never under the curse of the Mosaic law.
Christ did not redeem you from the curse of the law.
Lets keep you honest...
Do you disagree with any of those facts? Which one(s)???
Simply you got a clarification of what the true meaning was and you simply👉 denying👈 the clarification to try fit pauls nonsense
A rabbi jew said , once the messiah comes pig will be permitted as kosher
What an astute rabbi!
RLS
How could the Messiah have been commanding him to sin when it was just a vision? You are correct that there are no Torah laws about Jews not eating with Gentiles because they are unclean; this teaching came from the Talmud. Doctrines and commandments of men are what the Messiah was always rebuking in His interactions with the Pharisees (Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:7-13). Acts 11:18:"When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”" A call to repentance was going out to the Gentiles. He was sending them out to the Gentiles.
Brother this is twisting of the word
In this discussion the context will be very useful. How did the author and his audience understand this?
Peter was a Jewish Elder, or Rabbi as they came to be called, and as such he uses the standard Jewish terminology of his day. Common food is something that is permissible as food but that is considered not fit for consumption because it has become defiled. For instance, if you were to accidentally drop your turkey sandwich into a puddle of raw sewage. Or if you wrapped it in a dirty cloth you got off a man who just died of plague. Or if you left it on the counter for a few weeks. That sandwich has now ceased to be set apart as food so it is now common, not fit for consumption. It is not unclean. It is turkey, one of the kinds of animals that is food according to God's katizma (legal establishment).
Unclean refers to all the things God said are not food.
Now, long before this, there were some really problematic social issues going on. Everyone agreed they were a serious problem. One political faction, the house of Shammai thought they had the perfect simple solution to solve everyone's problems. A quick fix with guaranteed success. Their primary opposition party, the house of Hillel, thought the issue was more complicated and good solutions would take time and study. Many people thought that sounded like a lot of foot dragging and indecisiveness. They did not want to wait while the house of Shammai said they had a guaranteed solution that would work right now. So followers of the house of Shammai armed themselves and took control of the entrance of the government building after enough representatives from the house of Shammai were inside that they could count on a favorable ruling if it came to a vote. Then they refused to let anyone in or out until a vote occurred. The 18 laws they passed turned out to be a mess. They were overly harsh and produced so many social problems that many years later during the lives of the Apostles those laws were finally repealed to everyone's relief. The exact details of the laws were deliberately erased from the historical record as a bad idea and only a general overview of what they involved was preserved. They had to do with erecting middle walls of separation between gentiles and Jews, men and women,and their roles, between the people and the temple, and various other areas of society.
One of the things that is preserved is that according to the 18 laws of the house of Shammai, food being prepared in front of gentiles(any one from a different country) was also rendered common (spoiled).
Notice in verse 10 they are starting to prepare food. Then in the vision God lowers down a bunch of filthy animals.
Check out verse 28. In Judah, under the 18 laws of the house of Shammai, it was illegal to associate with or visit in a gentile's house or be visited by a gentile in yours.
Notice how Peter invites them inside as guests. Also he goes into a gentile's house as a guest.
In the eyes of the law of the land, the gentiles were seen as "filthy animals" that would contaminate everything around them.
In this chapter God lowers down all kinds of "filthy animals" that He has saved, and instructs Peter to prepare kosher food in front of them and eat it with them. If you keep reading Acts chapter 10 you will see that, according to Peter, this vision did not involve unclean animals, but people who were treated like filthy animals. According to the laws of the house of Shammai the food in the vision would now be common since it was prepared in the presence of gentiles. God's law and the systems of righteousness men implement are not equivalent. Peter explains his vision in verses 28 and 29. According to him this vision had nothing to do with God revoking His eternal word. It has nothing to do with eating unclean animals.
I will suggest that we not base our options on the opinions of other people. Instead we should interpret the text in the cultural context in which it was given. Find out the background. Read contemporary texts to develop an understanding of the discussion that was going on at the time so you can understand how our text answers the cultural issues of the day. There is a book called "How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth". It could be useful to you. Maybe find some more books like it. Learn some Greek and Hebrew. Here are some great resources.
biblicalhebrew.com/
www.koinegreek.com/living-koine-greek
www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/
czcams.com/video/FFylxe3FaqU/video.html
When God has defined something for us let's use it as he teaches. If you also want to come up with your own opinions fine, just keep them within the boundaries God has already established.
Now, I am not commanding you to stop eating pigs and other unclean animals or whatever else you come across. God didn't command you as a gentile not to eat things that aren't food. He commands us to show compassion mercy and leaniency on you about this issue. But, if we are honest, there is nowhere that God defines all things now to be food. But all the things that God has defined as food are clean. God isn't trying to take away from you but to add life to you. In Torah He allows non Jewish followers to eat things that He didn't define as food. You aren't supposed to be judged by other believers for it, nor are you to judge them for not doing things your way. It might not be in your best interest to eat whatever you happen to see, as God considers it but He knows you may not be in an ideal situation or understand everything He does. So God is merciful and abounding in grace. Exodus 34:6-7. Not just regarding issues of sin but also in every issue of life. The purpose of Torah is life and that life in a state of abounding. Now we may tease each other a little, and have fun, but don't let it get out of hand.
Refer to Colossians 2:16-23. If believers want to walk with God the way He taught, don't get judgemental on them. In the same way, they should not be judgemental of you when you live out your beliefs in this context because on this topic Torah and the new testament instruct both groups not to despise each other for what we eat.
This understanding is kinda stupid. I am sorry to say this but the verse that you yourself gave clearly says the complete opposite of what you say. Verse 28 , the interpretation of the vision by Peter according to what God has revealed to him specifically says " I should not call any person unclean or common." It doesn't say any person and/plus any animal. Don't insert your assumption. Last warning😂
“Eating unclean foods was prohibited in the old covenant law but fraternizing with gentiles wasn’t.”
Precisely
This prohibition came from the doctrine/laws of man, not god, which is what the purpose of the vision is. Man was determining that association with a gentile was unclean.
Very sad but you bring a wrong interpretation! It’s truly nothing about food but about gentiles and it’s not about taking away the laws about food to remove the boundaries between Jews and gentiles. You need to keep the things in context. True it started about a side issue that Peter was hungry. Note that he was not in the desert and starving and being allowed for a survival reason to eat an animal that would normally be considered as unclean. No, he was just on a rooftop while waiting for the food to be prepared. Act 10 gives clearly the context that it’s about gentiles if you read further. Also act 11 repeat this interpretation . Why need to interpret something in another way while nowhere in the rest of the text…it talks about food, but we get twice the correct interpretation in the same text.
Another thing is that visions are usually made of symbolic stuff. So you need to see what could represent those animals instead of taking it literally just as animals. For this, you need to read Hosea 2, and you will realize that the “symbolic” animals in act 10 (the animals from the field, the birds of the sky and the crawling animals) are also pointing to the gentiles in Hosea 2 ( the exact same animals!)
Another point I disagree is that you mentioned that nowhere in the Torah, it says that it’s unlawful for a Jew to be with gentiles and nowhere in the law it says that gentiles are unclean and for this reason it can ONLY be talking about unclean food, because there is nothing such as unclean gentiles for the judaic law, But this is not correct. The disciple in the same verses said that it was unlawful for them to be with gentiles (act 10-28), and no idea if the Torah mention about the gentiles to be unclean but the Talmud (oral law) does clearly mention it in abhodah zarah 22b (gentiles unclean because they were not at mount sinai), and schabbat 145b (gentiles unclean because they eat abominable food).
Last but not least, you asked why God would ask Peter to kill and eat those animals if he didn’t really mean that those animal were clean now. It would make God bring Peter in confusion and possibly sin, and that would not be in the character of God to bring Peter to make this mistake, but in the same way, God told Abraham to kill his son Isaac! Do you believe he really meant it when he asked him to offer Isaac?? Of course not!
So, with all sympathy to you as a brother in Christ, I pray for you to see the truth in this Peter’s vision. Who knows! May be a new topic for your next book 😊 . God bless and I really hope that people will accept this truth about clean and unclean food.
As a French guy, I used to eat pork…(a lot actually), it’s part of the French education. But after knowing the truth, i gave up pork for about 2,5 years now. You would think you can’t do that…it’s part of your diet but if I could do it…you can do it too! I after knowing the truth, I don’t miss it at all and I even feel disgusted if I see my beef or chicken being cooked on a plate just next to some pork at restaurants. Read your scriptures and you will realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and you need to keep it clean.
At the time God gave those dietary restrictions - it was due to disease during those years in certain animals. Obedience to these restrictions was indeed intended by God to point to something much greater, namely a fulfillment in their Messiah, Jesus.
Jesus came into the world, not to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17). Therefore, when He told the Jews in v. 11 that what enters a person's mouth is not what defiles that person but what "proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man," He was fulfilling the dietary laws spelled out by Moses in sections of the Torah like Leviticus 11. Essentially, Jesus told the Jews that a person can indeed eat with unwashed hands, eat pork, etc. and not be ceremonially unclean. This in no way abolished the law; rather, Jesus was fulfilling the law. One is not made morally clean by washing their hands but by placing their faith in their Messiah. Uncleanness is of the heart, and it can be made clean only by trusting in Christ.
it was never for health issues - 'shall be unclean until the evening'
I agree with your conclusions, I even agree with your reasoning.
What I don't get is how the 'God would not tell someone to sin' squares up with the Binding of Isaac.
I feel like I'm just missing something to bring understanding of that passage in regards to this point specifically. That God would not command a sin.
If anyone's got some insight, I'd love to hear it. I'm finding it harder and harder to find answers online these days what with all the various results from absolutely everyone/everywhere.
Abraham didn't understand what he was supposed to do. He assumed a blood sacrifice according to local culture
But that isn't exactly the command you find in the text
But then you still have to overcome commands for genocide
@@tbishop4961 You have to explain what to do with a nation that widely practices live infant sacrifice, constantly raids and kidnaps your people over multiple generations, and likely has rampant STDs from doing dirty deeds with animals.
Besides, those nations cropped up a few times after the 'genocide' wars, so figurative phrasing makes its appearance.
@@tbishop4961 The word for offering is specifically a Burnt Offering, as far as I was able to figure. But, again, it's why I am out here asking questions.
Know a good resource that deals with this phrase so I can look further into it?
@@SaintRegime look directly at the hebrew. Doesn't say "burnt offering"
So True, The Lord never lies or deceives ... but Allah does. ✝
You must disagree with Peter in Acts 10:28 that the vision was about gentiles not being impure or unclean and that Jews can associate with gentiles. Perhaps you can pray about it and come to the obvious conclusion. Food laws may not apply under the new covenant, but surely you can’t suggest God endorses the consumption of anything that crawls across your plate? Not too healthy.
Hi, Larry! You should watch this video. Its only 8 minutes long and it'll clear up your confusion about my position on verse 28.
Shalom, RL
Peter's understanding is correct. Clean and un clean animals come from Noa's ark. Here you find the reference. Yahshua did not to break the law but to uphold. Heavn and earth will pass away but not GOD s law. You logically put seeds of doubt to the hearts of people. Please don't do that.
So my question to you does chapter 10 of Acts start at verse 9, or 1, maybe they didn't teach you this in your theological schooling, but I learn that in the first grade. So maybe you need to call your professor and find it if you are correct to start at verse 9. but you won't, because your the deception continues. Can't you people on this post see the deception or are you still drinking his Kool-Aid. Notice where he starts with in Acts 10, making the subject matter and his objective, to continue his deception. Why jump to verses 9-16 and bypass 1-8? Because the subject and the objective are found in these verses, that's how Satan works-to bypass the subject and focus on one's own objective, in this case food, Was food the primary focus, or was bringing salvation to a gentile the focus?
Oh stop it with the Satan talk. These are brothers in Christ discussing the scriptures. Don't be ridiculous.
It's a really scary world out there not knowing how to love your neighbour and enemies and God. So much easier just to hate people who eat food you don't like.
@@AJTramberg so did you reply to me with kool-aid in one hand, or did you do a complete study on this chapter without the pretext Greek influence? Did you study how God declare unclean food as an abomination, and where it states that God does not alter his words, or are staying that Yeshua came to alter God's words. Have you ask yourself who's words is Yeshua speaking His own words, or did God predetermine the words out of the mouth of Yeshua?
@@luiscajigas5567“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4)
“So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.” (Galatians 3:24-25)
“…by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances…” (Ephesians 2:15)
It is not complicated. Jesus fulfilled all of the Law. The Old Covenant has been fulfilled. Observance of the Old Covenant Law is not a requirement, or even a recommendation, for New Covenant believers
@@AJTramberg Those in the Hebrew Roots are NOT brothers, they are Evil and teach a false gospel. If they are pushing Satan's lies on Social Media, they become false teachers, and they should be happy we are no longer under the law - Duet 18:20-22
After 7 years of being in the Hebrew roots, I don't believe the Torah's ceremonial laws are required to be kept under the new covenant. But I really struggle with the food laws. It's the one thing I just can't seem to let go of, and I really struggle to see these verses any other way than how Hebrew roots interpret them, it's the same with Mark 7.
As a former child who was groomed into the Hebrew roots movement and finally being freed from bondage, I was in the same boat as you. The way the spirit helped me was by looking at the new covenant and looking at specifically what the new covenant teaches on cleanliness and defilement’s as its own marriage agreement. The only things that I found would bring defilement to us was the fruits of the flesh that come from the heart, but other than that. The new covenant as a stand alone teaches nothing in this world by touch, eating, or doing can defile you.
“I know and am persuaded in the Master יהושע that none at all is common of itself. But to him who regards whatever to be common, to him it is common.”
Romiyim (Romans) 14:14 TS2009
“If, then, you died with Messiah from the elementary matters of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to dogmas: “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle” - which are all to perish with use - according to the commands and teachings of men? These indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed worship, humiliation and harsh treatment of the body - of no value at all, only for satisfaction of the flesh.”
Qolasim (Colossians) 2:20-23 TS2009
I was always told that these verse weren’t speaking about the cerimonial laws, but I came to find out that the only cerimonial laws we were ever taught come from the Torah.
This was one of the harder struggles for me because one of the main teachings and things kept in the Hebrew roots is the food laws.
To be frank some of us kept the food laws better than we loved our neighbors as our selves
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
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 by the word of God and prayer." 1 Timothy 4
It couldn't be more clear
@@aarons1789 amen, I think for us former Hebrew roots people who were in it for so long. It’s as if all of our traditions and ways of life has been flipped upside down. Still hard to fathom what we went through and where god brought us from.
I would recommend reviewing Genesis 9:3, and study the interlinear Hebrew definitions of the words used. You will see that although the Lord had Noah bring clean and unclean animals on to the ark, God's instructions to Noah in verse 3, says nothing of clean or unclean and instead language almost identical to Peter's vision . ✝
@pipinfresh…just to give you a different perspective…James 1:3. God does test us. “ knowing the testing of your faith ( testing how faithful we really are ) produces endurance ( those who endure to the end will be saved )…Genesis 22:2. God asks Abraham to offer his son as a burnt offering ( is this not what God told Israel not to do). This is just my opinion but a studied person such as Rob knows that God does not change He is the same yesterday, today, and forever and there is a huge difference between testing and tempting. Got Torah Got Truth
"Artificially constrained interpretation"?
That statement demonstrates the circular nature of the entire argument made here.
You can't really show that God's law has been made obsolete simply by claiming it to be true.
The conclusions are constrained by the rest of God's Word, just as they were for Peter. He was confused about how to interpret his dream. If it was about food and it seemed to be about food on its face and quite obviously, why would that take time and circumstances to unravel for him? Because He would not throw out the instructions of Scripture on his interpretation ofa dream. Thousands of years of commitment and identity for his people wouldn't be undone for him by one dream. But we're supposed to believe that it was suddenly clear to him that he did need throw out those instructions from Torah because he realized the social awkwardness it might create between jews and gentiles?
It's not a very compelling position on this.
Jesus.commanded Peter to kill and eat. The animals were alive on the sheet. Peter could have chosen to eat the clean animals on the sheet and he would not have violated the law. The only way Jesus would be telling Peter to sin is if he were to tell Peter to specifically eat the unclean animals. But peter had a choice. Peter was misinterpreting to he food laws. The key is in understanding the difference between common and unclean. Something that is common is inherently clean but has been defiled. Something that is unclean can never be clean because it is determined to be unclean by its physical characteristics. Ex. Cloven foot, doesn’t chew the cud. Those are still the characteristics of being unclean. So he looked at the sheet and didn’t see clean and unclean he saw common and unclean. He considered the clean animals to be common and understood that he would be defiling himself by choosing any of the animals on the sheet, either the clean ones or the unclean ones. The animal is not to be touched once the animal has died. See lev 11:8. Since the animals were alive on the sheet none of the clean animals were contaminated or defiled. They were not common. So God says do not call what I have made clean common. He doesn’t say do not call what I have made unclean clean. He said do not call what in have made clean common. The clean thing can be holy but the unclean thing can never be holy. However the clean thing can become defiled by coming in contact with an unclean things but only is it’s dead form, the carcas. So what is the purpose of the vision? It was so that Peter would no longer look at people as common but to consider that God could make them clean. Also another key to this is verse 28 like you read where it says that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate of to visit with anyone of another nation. There is no such Torah command. This hindered the apostles from going to the nations. They only went to Jews or Hellenized Jews. See acts 11:19. They weren’t fulfilling the great commission to go to the whole world because of their belief that gentiles were common/defiled. The vision corrected peters wrong view of the law of food in order to also correct his wrong view of how he looked at gentiles. God never said it was unlawful to visit with a gentile. This was a pharisaic tradition. Thanks.
Amen
If God made something clean by His death on the cross, then that which was formerly unclean is now clean, which Peter understood, because he immediately went & ate dinner with some Gentiles.
@@kimartist did Christ die to redeem animals or people? The definition of an unclean sea animal is that they do not have scales or fins. After Jesus died they those animals did not grow scales or fins. Based on the definition of what is unclean, that animal is still unclean after his death. Peter went to eat with the Gentiles because that was the purpose of the vision. Peter’s conclusion from the dream never had anything to do with eating unclean animals but rather everything to do with visiting with gentiles. The. I le tells us the interpretation belongs to God. God interprets the vision for us and tells us its meaning within the text. When we conclude that it’s about unclean animals becoming clean then really we are just justifying the behavior that we do and don’t want to change. Or we can submit to the revealed words of God in scripture and not to man’s interpretation.
Using your logic then when Jesus said this is my blood and this is my flesh .
So the disciples did drink his blood and eat his flesh .
If your logic applies in one place it must act the same throughout.
The professor says God would never ask anyone to violate anything that goes against his Holy Sacred character. It is written that YHWH told Abraham to offer Issac as a human sacrifice, something that He never intended Abraham to carry out, and YHWH stopped the act from happening. Important to realize that pagan gods of the ancient day did require their followers to do such things. What makes YHWH different is that human sacrifice is against the Holy Sacred character of the God of Israel. You can verify yourself in Genesis 22 that YHWH has tested his followers to test their devotion and faith. This is not an opinion but revealed fact. Either the professor is ignorant, or he is deliberately deceitful and a false teacher. If he is ignorant of this point, then he should willfully take down this teaching and reconsider his position. Let’s look at another important aspect of the professor’s style of teaching. He uses an improper form of hermeneutics that he should teach his students not to use, that of eisegesis. This method imposes their own biased interpretation by creating words that don’t exist in the text. In Peter’s story, remember he was one of the 12 unique Apostles, said he was “greatly perplexed” with the vision. This most likely because his Rabbi Yeshau/Jesus and all the his followers never ate unclean food even 30+ years post crucifixion. Even though Rob lists 4-5 passages on his blackboard giving you the impression there are other scriptures that show Yeshua changed what was now food, nowhere in scripture is there an actual recording of his disciples eating unclean food, ever! Unfortunately Rob goes further by omitting the words of Peter himself giving the correct interpretation from God of the vision in Acts 10:28b. In the Greek there are not any words that say anything about food, nor of them eating unclean food in this story. He and every other teacher have been imposing their fleshly biases and causing Christendom to not be Holy and setapart from the world and their false gods. As the title says, “…Peter’s vision has to be about food.” Sorry Apostle Peter, you got it wrong.
Hi, Martin! I hear you. But there's a big difference. In the Abraham scenario the command to sacrifice Isaac was a test of Abraham's faithfulness and the Lord stopped Abraham from actually obeying it. Conversely, in the Peter scenario the Lord rebuked Peter (three times!) for *_not_* obeying it. "What God has made clean, do not call common" (Acts 10:15).
Blessings, Rob
Rob, thanks again for the quick reply. I don't know how you can keep up with all this. Your response completely took me by surprise and astounds me. Thankfully there is still time for you to have your own Damascus Road experience. As mentioned earlier, I believe you are using eisegesis to interpret this passage. I am going to take the position and believe what the apostle Peter himself said. Acts 10:28b And he (Peter) said to them, “...God has shown me that I should not call any unholy or unclean." This story is about men, not food. Nowhere in the Greek NT is it recorded that any apostle or believer, that I am aware, ate unclean meat. Also it would be a weak position to think just because the apostles were eating with gentiles they also ate unclean with them. When I have a meal with people who eat unclean meat though I don't, I am not defiled by there choices.
Despite Peter ecplained the vision in Acts 10:34 and 35 you guys are still tryong to give it another meaning? Belover read the chapter again, it has nothing to do with food whatsoever...it is about people (the gentiles). What is a bit sad, it is because most of the subscribers agree with your conclusion. So saaad!
You should watch this video, Job. I think you might be surprised at the meaning of the vision we land on.
Blessings, Rob
Read Chapter 11 where Peter took it to mean he could immediately go & eat an unclean dinner with unclean Gentiles... except neither one is unclean now according to Jesus.
I appreciate your honesty but you went a bit too far in twisting the chapter 11 of the book of ACTS. Again it is not about food my beloved brother. Even the circumcised say in verse 18 of ACTS 11. Then hath God also to the gentiles granted repentance unto life...we gentiles are really grafted in! Glory to God. Try to convince me with scripture not through philosophy.
Peter basically explained the vision to the circumcised in the first half of Chapter 11 for them to understand. Read Chapter 11 in context, you can read until verse 18 more or less and you will see what it is all about....
Thank you again.
Your brother in Christ,
Job
Hmmmmmm, what about 2nd Corinthians 6:17? What about Isaiah 66:15-17? Clearly a reference to the second coming of Christ…..Are you saying that some of the items that God gave us to eat were unclean? Why would God give us bad food? Also, if your interpretation is correct, why didn’t God say so? Why does Acts 10:28 read so clearly contrary to your view? And why are the things that the Bible calls “unclean” still so bad for us? I work in a school where we teach high school age children to cook. One of the teachers regularly shows his students what happens to uncooked pork when you pour Coke or Pepsi on it. The kids get pretty grossed out when the Tricinae worms come out!
Hi Steve! Acts 10:28 is not contrary to my view at all. You should watch this video.
Shalom, Rob
RL Solberg aka Diotrephes :P
Interesting video but not backed up by the truth of Scripture. How is it that Peter did not know that the food laws (or any of God's other laws) were changed after spending 40 days with the risen Messiah? I would think if Yeshua was going to abolish any laws after His death and resurrection, that would have been a great time to tell His disciples. Also, if any of the commands were going to be done away with, it would have to be mentioned (prophesied) somewhere in the Torah, the Prophets or the Writings. I don't find any evidence for that. Please show me in the Scriptures where God says that He will change His food laws (or any other laws). God says that He reveals His plans through the prophets, He never changes and He makes the end known from the beginning. [Isaiah 46:9-11, Deuteronomy 7:9; 32:4, Malachi 3:6, Amos 3:7]
Careful reading of chapters 10 and 11 of Acts clearly teaches that Peter understands that God is teaching him about men and not food. When Peter comes to Cornelius' house he states "Truly I see that God shows no partiality, but in every nation, He who fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him." Act 10:34-35. This is confirmed in chapter 11:1-18. Peter is being opposed for going to Cornelius' house. Guess what, he retells the vision and what it meant. Verse 18- all those who had opposed Peter at the beginning now understand. "Then God has indeed also given to the gentiles repentance unto life."
It is wrong to change the Words of God and create new doctrine. That is what the antichrist does- leading people away from the Truth into damnation. Be careful what you teach Mr Solberg, you will answer to the Master. As for the rest of you- read ALL of God's Word so that you know the truth and are not led away by deception.
I don’t think God asked Peter to sin. Remember, it states there that all the animals, land and air creatures alike are there so that means a clean animals are also included but why still Peter refused to kill even the clean animals? We must understand culture of the Jews. The Jews don’t eat anything that is mixed in with unclean animals. If that is true part of message God intend for Peter to understand is that the unclean animals are clean, why did he mention the sea creatures? Also, if that’s the case, it means that Jesus came to clean the animals rather than the people? People has to seek forgiveness and repent to be cleansed but the animals doesn’t have to do anything but be themselves? How did God declared in the Old Testament regarding unclean animals? God was very specific and detailed so you mean to say that in the New Testament, the unclean animals just became clean?
""As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?' When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, 'So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.'"
~ Acts 11 : 15ff
I agree that I did not ask Peter to sin. When Jesus commanded Peter to "kill and eat" the animals, He was declaring them clean. So it would not have been sinful for Peter to eat them.
God defines "food" in Gen 9:3 as "every living thing that moves" and later restricts what His people can eat by providing restrictions in Lev. 11. But those prohibitions were always intended to be temporary (Gal. 3:23-25). And once they had served their God-ordained purpose and were no longer needed (because of the work of Jesus), God declared all food clean again.
Blessings, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots
Blessing Rob,
To make a comment on what you said that when Jesus ask Peter to kill and eat that, that was God’s way of declaring that all animals have been made clean. I humbly disagree with what you said.
When God commanded Peter to eat, knowing that he is not setting up Peter to sin, God was testing Peter how much he knows what God wanted him to understand. It more of a test of obedience. Jews have a very strict law when it comes to unclean animals. They won’t even touch a dead carcass of an unclean animals
In Genesis, God was very specific and detailed when he declared the animals both the clean and unclean. My question is, why are the animals declare by God to be unclean still has the same characteristics. For example. Pig/swine they still don’t chew their cud? It is very convenient for those who promote the teaching of all animals have declared clean. God is a God of clarity not confusion. If God wanted to really make the unclean animals good for consumption then he certainly can remove the characteristics of such animals that made him unclean in the first place. Don’t you think so?
As for Gal. 3:23-25…. That particular verse has nothing to do with the clean and unclean animals rather it is speaking about the law which is the 10 commandments. Is verse 24 is says there that the law brings us to Christ which is true and when we are with Christ (truly with Christ) then we are no longer under the law because we no longer take pleasure in sinning. When human kind continues to sin, we will always be under the law because the law is our guide. It’s the law that tells you that you have sinned.
Blessings, Nate
My messiah was a Hebrew and we are to walk after him.
You need to keep reading Peter. CONTEXT
The confusion being taught here is just sad. Not knowing that the teachers of Torah had corrupted the teaching is paramount in your misunderstanding. ( See Jesus correcting them) Peter was not taught proper doctrine. Other wise why would Jesus have to teach his disciples
Bro this has nothing to do with food this is all about the grafting in of the gentiles.
Thanks, Eddie! I don't deny that the proper application of the vision was the Gentiles. But the _meaning_ of the vision was about unclean animals/food. It was literally only about food. Gentiles aren't even mentioned in the vision. Jesus didn't tell Peter to "rise and kill" the Gentiles.
Watch the video and see what you think!
RL
@@TheBiblicalRoots i watched your video, I just can't comprehend how you come to that conclusion when the start of the chapter is about Cornelius sending men to Peter. Its all about context brother. Read Isaiah 68:13-15 the chapter is about prophecy and the things God said he was going to do in that chapter haven't been completed which means he will do it sooner or later.
So you're trying to tell me that after God had taken the time to describe what is unclean and what not to eat he suddenly changed his mind..... Even doctors tell you not to eat that such
Hi, Donovan! No, God didn't suddenly change His mind. The Old Covenant law was always intended to be temporary; it was only given until Jesus arrived (Gal. 2:23-25). Also, the designation of "clean" in the Torah has nothing to do with health or nutrition. It's all about Israel being set apart (holy).
Blessings, Rob
The clue you over look is the sheet was let down three times and when Peter went down stairs there were three men , gentiles, asking for him .
Also in
Isaiah 65:4 (KJV)
Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable [things is in] their vessels;
Isaiah 66:17 (KJV)
They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one [tree] in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
If these are end time prophecies
Which it appears to be
Your interpretation is FALSE .
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4)
“So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.” (Galatians 3:24-25)
“…by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances…” (Ephesians 2:15)
It is not complicated. Jesus fulfilled all of the Law. The Old Covenant has been fulfilled. Observance of the Old Covenant Law is not a requirement, or even a recommendation, for New Covenant believers
@@adamguy33
Matthew 5:17 (KJV)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Fulfill does not mean do away with , destroy .
He showed a common man can keep the law
so you have no more excuse for not keeping them .
Mark 3:35 (KJV)
For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
John 15:10 (KJV)
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
He did not add to or take away any of his FATHER’s commandments.
Clarified is all he did .
@@jimharmon2300 I see you are back on the bottle. Take a break
The ten commandments were not given to the world .but the gospel is which has new commandment Jesus says except you exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the sabbath keepers you shall nowise enter the kingdom of heaven
@@jimharmon2300 here is some information if you dont get it you are probably not a Christian, might not be saved and obviously dont understand the new covenant or the commandments christians are to follow. Galatians 6:2 states, “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (emphasis added). What exactly is the law of Christ, and how is it fulfilled by carrying each other’s burdens? While the law of Christ is also mentioned in 1 Corinthians 9:21, the Bible nowhere specifically defines what precisely is the law of Christ. However, most Bible teachers understand the law of Christ to be what Christ stated were the greatest commandments in Mark 12:28-31, “‘Which commandment is the most important of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The most important is, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” The second is this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” There is no other commandment greater than these.’”
The law of Christ, then, is to love God with all of our being and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. In Mark 12:32-33, the scribe who asked Jesus the question responds with, “To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” In this, Jesus and the scribe agreed that those two commands are the core of the entire Old Testament Law. All of the Old Testament Law can be placed in the category of “loving God” or “loving your neighbor.”
Various New Testament scriptures state that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament Law, bringing it to completion and conclusion (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15). In place of the Old Testament Law, Christians are to obey the law of Christ. Rather than trying to remember the over 600 individual commandments in the Old Testament Law, Christians are simply to focus on loving God and loving others. If Christians would truly and wholeheartedly obey those two commands, we would be fulfilling everything that God requires of us.
Christ freed us from the bondage of the hundreds of commands in the Old Testament Law and instead calls on us to love. First John 4:7-8 declares, “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” First John 5:3 continues, “This is love for God: to obey His commands. And His commands are not burdensome.”
Some use the fact that we are not under the Old Testament Law as an excuse to sin. The apostle Paul addresses this very issue in Romans. “What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!” (Romans 6:15). For the follower of Christ, the avoidance of sin is to be accomplished out of love for God and love for others. Love is to be our motivation. When we recognize the value of Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf, our response is to be love, gratitude, and obedience. When we understand the sacrifice Jesus made for us and others, our response is to be to follow His example in expressing love to others. Our motivation for overcoming sin should be love, not a desire to legalistically obey a series of commandments. We are to obey the law of Christ because we love Him, not so that we can check off a list of commands that we successfully obeyed.
This guy has a serious issue with those who are promonimian. And always takes scripture out of context and its intended meaning.
Just ask yourself, “Why? Would Peter get the vision”, that answers the whole question, it has nothing to do with food at all.
It’s seriously foolish for one to think that this relates to food. The food culture of this country is superior to biblical text.
If food isn’t an issue, then I have a personal challenge with R L Solberg, as I’m from India, I’d bring him food offered to idols, would he eat that? And would you eat that?
It’s truly a waste of time thinking that this particular vision is justifying us to eat anything what we want.
Even the word food in Greek and the word common in Greek have different meanings, I’m surprised he never even mentioned that.
“Eat anything that is sold in the marketplace without questions of conscience, for the earth and its abundance are the Lord’s. If an unbeliever invites you to dinner and you want to go, eat whatever is served without asking questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This is from a sacrifice,” do not eat, because of the one who told you and because of conscience - I do not mean yours but the other person’s. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I blamed for the food that I give thanks for? So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God.”
1 Cor. 10:25-31
@@TheBiblicalRoots dear brother, what are you trying to justify by sharing this verse? That we can eat food offered to idols?
@@darkzeroninja Yes, Puvin! We are free in Christ to eat "whatever is sold in the meat market" (1 Cor. 10:25), including food offered to idols. Why? Because "The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it" (Ps. 24:1, 1 Cor. 10:26). Idols are inanimate things (Isa. 44:18). Therefore, Paul says, "If I partake with thankfulness, why am I blamed for the food that I give thanks for? So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God.” (1 Cor. 10:30-31)
However, and this is important, this freedom we have in Christ is not to be abused or used to offend another's conscience.
Also, FYI, the Greek word for food is βρῶμα (broma), and it does not have a different meaning. It only means "that which is eaten, nourishment."
Blessings,
RLS
Hi,
Is Jesus contradicting Himself then? Because Heaven and Earth have not passed away....nor has His 2nd coming occurred. There is still much to be fulfilled. Yeshua may have fulfilled the Law perfectly while He lived but He has not fulfilled all prophecy just yet. Also, what Law is Isaiah referring to in Isaiah 2 wrt the millennium???
Jesus did not Contradict Him self, the Manned religions did that to HIM.
The Deciever was in the Garden whispering in THY eat. You don't have to fallow HIS instructions.
He now resigns in the religions....
SAD but true...
Huh?? Can you dumb it down for me a bit please.
@@6969smurfy
No it’s fulfilled.
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets, I did not come to abolish but to FULFILL. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is ACCOMPLISHED.”
Matthew 5:17-18
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.”
Luke 16:16-17
Lots of laws have passed away. Priesthood, sacrifice etc.
After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been ACCOMPLISHED, to fulfill scripture said, “I am thirsty.”….
When Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is FINISHED!” He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.
John 19:28-30
Either Jesus wasn’t correct or ALL has been fulfilled. The whole law has been fulfilled in Christ or NONE of it has.
“These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be FULFILLED.”
LUKE 24:44
THEN He OPENED their MINDS to UNDERSTAND the SCRIPTURES.
More than a jot was changed. The entire sacrificial system changed!
Luke 24:45
Hi, Tony. That's the big question about Matthew 5:17-18. In what sense did Jesus mean "until all is accomplished"? Did He mean "not an iota, not a dot, will pass" until every last thing that God is ever going to do has been completed? Because we know that some things _have_ passed. For example, the animal sacrifices for sin required in Lev. 16 are no longer required. Because of Jesus, "there is no longer any offering for sin" (Heb. 10:18). Does the passing away of the requirements for animal sacrifices count as an "iota or a dot"?
Rob
Hi Rob,
Thank you for responding. I know it seems odd but according to Isaiah 56:7 (Ezekiel and Jeremiah as well) there will be sacrifices in the millennium. For me, I have been unable to find anything that has been done away with.
@@TheBiblicalRoots
I would submit that Peter identifies both common and unclean animals. Common refers to clean animals that have been in proximity to, or touched, unclean animals. In the vision, there were clean animals that Peter would not eat because they were "common". It could be that his rejection of the command was because he interpreted Jesus as telling him to eat lamb or sheep that had become common. In the same way, even eating clean animals at a gentile's house was not permitted, traditionally, because they also ate unclean animals, and would therefore cause anything they prepared to be, at least, "common."
However, I don't think the Hebrew roots people have it completely right. Refraining from eating unclean animals is not about maintaining one's own righteousness under the law. Rather, it is a form of obedience that comes from faith. The Christian is not required to do it. Rather, the Christian should do it, simply because they now have the freedom to do it.
Thanks, Michael. I wondered the same thing! But I found a couple problems with that interpretation.
First, according to the Lev. 11, clean animals that have touched anything unclean are immediately unclean. If an unclean animal even touches a vessel or an oven, those things must be broken in pieces (Lev. 11:33-35). So if there was even one unclean animal on that sheet, they were all unclean. Which precludes the idea that Peter was referring to two different classes of animals (common and unclean) in his statement.
And, actually, the Greek shows that those descriptions were intended as synonyms in this passage. Using the Greek root words, Peter says "I have never eaten anything that is κοινός (koinos) or ἀκαθαρος (a-katharos)." Jesus responds, "What God has made καθαρος (katharos) do not call κοινός (koinos)." So _clean_ is the opposite of _common._ Therefore, in this passage _common_ (κοινός) is understood to mean the same thing as _unclean_ (ἀκαθαρος). They are used as synonyms.
Blessings, Rob
@@TheBiblicalRoots I would have to point out that that which was prohibited, or made one unclean, was eating of the meat or touching the carcass of an unclean animal. There is no prohibition against riding a horse or camel, or touching a live pig. However, the traditions of the Jews placed that which touched unclean animals in the status of common. Thus, sheep or goats in the vision were in a special, unbiblical status of common due to their proximity to unclean animals.
Peter said "iv never eaten unclean Lord " that's Torah positive.
But Peter was at fault of Torah negative And would not eat with the Grntiles, that is Not in Torah! It was noy about foods it was about common.
The lengths Manned religion goes to eat the Fleshly desires of Thy Trigonomosis bacon 🥓 .....
I thought it wasnt about food, now you admit Peter said 'eaten' double-minded much? BLAAAAAAAAAH
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4)
“So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.” (Galatians 3:24-25)
“…by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances…” (Ephesians 2:15)
It is not complicated. Jesus fulfilled all of the Law. The Old Covenant has been fulfilled. Observance of the Old Covenant Law is not a requirement, or even a recommendation, for New Covenant believers
@@salpezzino7803 ahh yea, I said he ]Peter was at fault about not eating with The Gentiles. The Men YAH sent to Him.
Ya know thy "Unclean", in this case "Common" "Gentiles" form that you "repent"ie turn from.
Being "REborn" into the Family structures of the "Father Son".
Growing in "knowlage" to be come the "richous" Man with thy "Grace" HE has givin. being in the "Faith" of Fathers, being One/Echad of "His Peoples " the Very definition of the Word YAHisrael/Isreal. "His Peoples " And the "Lost Sheep"
Yea, I did say it was Not about Food, but the unclean desires of flesh make it about foods in the "Decievers" religions!
BTW
When you see the Greek/Roman/Latin translation of "Food" is not always correct.
For unclean anything IS never mentioned as food in the Scriptures! There is ONLY clean foods, the Other options are called unclean not fit for consumption!
Slalom
@@adamguy33 technical you are Correct, the dreaded "word" the Deciever religions termed as "Law" is Not In effect. But the Word "Torah" "Fathers Instructions" are still, "for Heaven and Earth HAVE not passed away" Have they?
It's Not supposed to be a legal thing Anyways. It's supposed to be done of "free will" for Love and Honor of the Father, "Fulfilled" as YAHshua taught it to US.!
For 💯 % of YAHshuas teachings was from Thy Torah .
Every Single One!
Shalom
@@6969smurfy technically you are wrong because the Torah and the law are one in the same . the sacrafical law , the food laws, the feast laws, the new moon laws and the sabbath laws where done away with. The new covenant CHANGED many things in the Torah(law) the only things that stand are the same things that standed before the Torah was given and thats the moral laws and they are reiterated in the new testament. If you only had the Torah you would not know the way of salvation today. If you only had the new testament you would know thw way of salvation. Heck if you only had the book of ROMANS you could be saved. Torah wont give you that. The old Testament is in the new testament revealed and the new testament is in the old Testament concealed . you forget that JESUS said UNTIL all things are fulfilled, WELL ARE YOU THEN DENYING THAT JESUS FULFILLED ALL THINGS. Before the ressurection all things had not yet been fulfilled, well now they are. The Jews mostly or most of them deny this so they keep Torah and go straight to hell when they die. You are denying the same thing basically as the Jews and attempt to go under the old covenant all the while it does nothing for you except that your probably not part of the new covenant because the Holy Spirit would not lead people back into bondage to and old dead covenant.
No no no no no!!! The serpent ate dust, and death. Jesus tells us to eat flesh and blood. God told us that we could eat ANYTHING that moves. And it was LORD GOD that gave restrictions on what we cannot eat.
This is a false teacher leading others to wrong beliefs..Its very clear that Peter's vision is not about food Acts 10:28 Peter clearly said that ..its plain and simple no argument needed just open your heart and mind to the truth. (Isaiah 66:17 is about second coming.)..your interpretations creates more confusions than unity of the Bible..Finally ,you cannot consider all animals fit to eat scientifically and biblical..can you eat the vulture?or tell me someone who have eaten this animal?absurd interpretations you are one of the agent of the enemy of truth.
I do t understand why you speak English but then use Hebrew names? YHWH doesn’t even have vowels. Sometimes you say LAW, sometimes TORAH. Jesus & YESHUA.
It seems to me (yes..subjectively), that it serves to only attempt to show someone’s education.
BTW…just order Torahism. Can’t wait to read it
The audience of wretches that Prof Solberg is trying to reach talks like that because they think they are super-smart and better than everybody else around them.
He has to use the Hebrew words for clarity else the Torahists will be in here endlessly arguing about words, which the NT Bible says we're not supposed to do.
To what purpose does the pride of the flesh have to reject God's clear instructions for what the flesh desires.
All believers found throughout scripture understood the importance of practicing God's Torah, and they continued to do so to the best of their abilities throughout scripture even after the resurrection of Messiah Yeshua.
All of God's commands found in God's Torah of which we can fulfill as they are instructed to be done are still in effect as they are written. Furthermore, during the millennial reign of Messiah Yeshua all will be reinstituted in full once again.
With all due respect, you may be misunderstanding this because of your gentile mind perspective and understanding of Hasidic Judaism, or the hypocrisy of the Pharisees with all sorts of extra biblical man made laws and customs found in the oral torah.
Scripture is very clear when kept in historical, ethnic, and grammatical context.
Do you realize; to say God's instructions in HIS Torah for how HE desires HIS people to live are done away with leads all to destruction in the lake of fire. Like it or not, understand it or not, follow it or not, God's Torah and all of scripture establishes God's ways aren't done away with. None are done away with, God doesn't change. Disobedience of God's Torah instructions is sin.
To say God's Kosher diet is done away with is the equivalent of saying God's instructions against witch craft, homosexuality, adultery, lying, murdering, etc. are also done away with and it's all acceptable to God. Utter hogwash!
Your nonsense contributes to the clouding of God's Word and brings it into disrepute.
It's the same nonsense that religious Christian systems use to deceive countless people into believing you must tithe 10% to the church. Utter hogwash!
Go ahead, continue to write your books that oppose God for your own personal agendas. It didn't work out so well for the Israelites who worshipped YHWH like the pagans worshipped their gods, with a golden calf at Mount Sinai as they waited for Moshe, did it.
Shalom aleichem
@ShiaDiscourse Yeshua/God incarnate came to fulfill HIS promise of the remission of sin. Prior to that, Torah only covered sin, the blood of the lamb washes it gone, forgiven.
Yeshua/God didn't make the Abrahamic promise for salvation in order to do away with HIS Torah. In fact, in Yeshua's own words He said He hasn't come to do away with Torah or the Prophets.
Furthermore, scripture tells us the very definition of sin is disobedience to God's Torah.
@ShiaDiscourse You understanding of the mistranslation of Torah into Law is clouding your judgement and understanding.
First off, there are currently several Torah " instructions" which cannot be practiced. For example, animal sacrifices require the Temple and Levitical priesthood. However, the kosher diet as instructed by God is fully capable of being easily accomplished for those who desire to obey God. Yet the flesh still hungers for disobedience/sin by rejecting God's easy yoke, HIS Torah for their own ways. Shameful.
Many believers, namely those who are sucked into a harlot church system, have such a shallow ignorant understanding of Torah that they don't even realize that the Messiah Himself was incapable of practicing all of Torah, yet He was and is sinless as a perfect lamb for the ultimate sacrifice.
If you're a believer, what is it that causes you to reject and oppose God's beautiful Torah, as described in Psalms with such determination and selfishness?
@ShiaDiscourse
The fact you reference Romans 6:14 exposes your ignorance.
I recommend you research that passage more closely to understand what exactly it's referring to.
I will tell you, but you need to research and study it for yourself under the council of the Holy Spirit to know for yourself what the truth is.
The extremely poor translation of this particular passage has misled countless people into false doctrines, let alone the poor choice to use the word "Law" to describe Torah.
Exactly which precise law is Romans 6:14 referencing according to you? Is it the law you use to reference God's Torah, the law of the Pharisees, the Law of the curse of sin and death, the law of gravity, etc....
I'll tell you that Romans 6:14 is specifically referencing the law of the curse of sin and death. By God's grace you as a believer are no longer under the curse of sin. Verses 12-14 are urging believers to not continue to be ruled by sin. To be ruled by sin is to be a slave to sin.
The surrounding texts help us to see the difference between those who are slaves to sin vs those who are obedient to righteousness in Messiah. Then Shaul explains that he's using simple speech because those he is writing to are so weak in their human nature.
Then 7:5 explains that it was our old sin nature that worked through God's Torah to bring us to death because of our disobedience of God's Torah.
In fact, without God's Torah none of us would know what sin is. It is God's Torah which reveals to us our sin and need for salvation, and it's God's grace by which HE draws us to HIMSELF for salvation in Messiah Yeshua by which we are saved.
Look at 1 John 3:4
A good and proper translation is "everyone who keeps sinning is violating Torah -- indeed, sin is violation of Torah.
All of the apostolic books continue to point us to obedience of God's Torah as did the Messiah.
John 14:15
If you love me, you will keep my command;
What commands is He referring to? His disciples clearly by understood this as being God's Torah, which is why they heavily continued to point people to God's Torah, because it is by God's Torah that we see and know the Messiah.
John 5:3
Everyone who believes that Yeshua is the Messiah has God as his Father, and everyone who loves a father loves his offspring too. Here is how we know that we love God's children: when we love God, we also do what he commands. For loving God means obeying his commands. Moreover, his commands are not burdensome because everything which has God as its father overcomes the world. And this is what victoriously overcomes the world: our trust.......
And I urge you to continue reading. Examine the texts and see how much God's Word points us as HIS people to obey HIS commands, HIS Torah.
You're likely already obeying much of God's Torah, but it's your own ignorance of God's Torah that prevents you from fully understanding it and accomplishing what HE desires for you. He simply desires obedience, and it's your obedience God's Torah that makes you holy to HIM.
PLEASE understand, Torah never provided salvation, but it points us to the Messiah for salvation. We don't obey God's Torah for salvation, we obey God's Torah as a result of salvation in Messiah Yeshua.
Shalom, lyla tove
@ShiaDiscourse Lastly, then I must get to bed. I never claimed to be a Christian. Personally, I used to be part of the Christian system, however, after discovering the truth about God's Torah I no longer refer to myself as part of the Christian harlot system.
What I do practice, however, is what I consider true Judaism in Messiah Yeshua as presented to us throughout the TANAKH and the apostolic texts. Not the Judaism of the Pharisees which caused them to make countless legalistic fences around Torah, sincerely as it may have initially been to try to help them stay true to God's Torah, it ultimately lead them away from God's Torah to their own way of rejecting the Messiah. Messiah Yeshua confronted the Pharisees directly on this numerous times, and they HATED him for it but couldn't refute what He said.
On that note, I must bid you good night.
Thank you for your respectful dialogue.
Shalom
@ShiaDiscourse I am compelled to respond to you one last time.
You claimed to me that you practiced Orthodox Judaism. However, I am puzzled as to why you would claim to practice Orthodox Judaism, yet most of the videos on your channel are promoting Islam and death to Israel. Shame on you!
May YHWH Elohim open your eyes to HIS salvation in Messiah Yeshua. Those who curse Israel will be cursed.
U r one of the most confused bible teacher i have ever clme across.
I will say it again, if it was about food, then the Father is liar and He changes His mind about things. You can come up with all kinds of hermeneutical gymnastics as to "it was always part of His plan to reveal these changes" or "we are now in the New Covenant" reasoning....bottomline is you make the bible to filled with contradictions and the Father someone we can't trust when He decrees something.
And I'm flabbergasted why eating clean is such a big deal for people like you. Why you find the Law of the Father so offensive and burdensome. There are SO MANY things in this world that need to focused on - the fact that you have a dedicated channel to make light of His Law, is just the saddest thing I've come across.
Eating clean is no big deal, Réan. It's super easy to skip pork and shellfish and instead eat steak and lamb chops. Yum! And if a follower of Jesus chooses to eat kosher, that's great. I see no problem with that. They just need to be very careful not to fall prey to the mistaken belief that eating kosher somehow makes them better Christians or more obedient. The Bible says our works can't add even a microgram to the righteousness that is ours through faith in Jesus (Gal. 2:16).
What I have a problem with is when believers mandate a kosher diet for other believers. When a kosher diet is taught as a _requirement_ of following Jesus, it becomes an unbiblical burden that was never required of Christ-followers (Acts 10:9-16; Rom 14; Col. 2:16-17, etc.). And that's a problem.
RL
Adam didnt eat meat in the Garden and up until after the Flood, Abram ate pig he was a Gentile. Please stop, You reject Jesus and His work on the Cross. You know you are pushing a false gospel, Paul says you are Cursed. Be careful. God said No Greater Burden, YOU ARE CALLING HIM A LIAR - Fear Him.
@@TheBiblicalRoots"an unbiblical burden". Do you even hear yourself. You really don't get it, do you?
You have the biggest audacity to call our Father's instructions a burden. THAT is what is getting me every time I listen to your videos or read your comments.
@@reanmouton8413 you have the audacity to believe that we should sacrifice animals for sin still.
The Fathers instruction on sacrifice for sin is gone buddy. You reject Jesus you reject Him.
You guys quit listening to Sean Griffin and let the Spirit lead instead.
Talk about strain a gnat but swallow a camel.
@@davidmorris7476 girl please. At least I honour His Word when He says something is a permanent statute.
Sean is a great teacher. A real brave believer.
God told Ezekiel to bake his bread using human faeces as fuel. The prophet protested as he would be defiled and God allowed him to use cow dung instead. Ez 4. But there is a bigger problem. The prophet Zephaniah promises YHVH was going to overturn and restore unto the peoples a pure tongue so that all men could call upon the name of YHVH with one consent. Zeph 3:9. So there is going to be but one language on earth. We say the holy tongue is Hebrew as Jesus speaks Hebrew to Paul and Jesus' words are eternal. Since Jesus in Matt 5:17 promises to bring these and similar prophecies to pass, he has to end all foreign languages and see to it that Hebrew is restored. So, if there is a command in the eternal tongue to eat only kosher, can a profane, temporary language undo that command? And if Jesus is the Messiah come to destroy all languages save Hebrew, who is the christ falsely presenting Greek as the holy, eternal word?
Peter's own words in Acts 10:34-43 show that the vision had nothing to do with food where he talks about how Christ is the Lord of all and how God was extending salvation to the Gentiles. As a point of emphasis, he repeats this in Acts 15:7-9 that God's message had nothing to do with food. A person would have to be a fool to listen to this false teacher.
You missed the whole point…
@@gardengardenThe point is people are following what they are told, and not what is written. This is a very scary situation.
@@flyguymt correct
Do you believe Matthew 5:21-22 when Jesus, our messiah, says “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” God calls us to love Him with all our hearts and with all our souls and with all our strength and with all our minds….and, to love our neighbors as ourselves.
I understand your point. However, you are assuming that is the case, but it’s not. Praying for you, friend. May the Lord God bring us all closer to Him and help us honor each other as brothers in faith. Be blessed.
Absolutely true. The amount of passion and enthusiasm this person gives to many and misleading many is very disturbing. People live in a food culture, and especially those of European descent are proud of their food more to the point they would reinterpret the text.