PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Cornelius calls for Peter - Food V.s. Gentiles



jesse
Jan 9th 2012, 05:52 AM
Hi I just joined. My question is about Acts chapters 10 and 11; but also how they relate to the rest of scripture. Please note i am not a 7th Day Adventists.

These chapters appear to me to be about a dream Peter has that convinces him to have social dealings with a gentile named Cornelius. Peter eventually gives the interpretation of his dream in verse 27 of chapter 10.

27 While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”

The vision also includes a blanket that both comes down from heaven and is taken up again. It is not left on earth.

I have two questions. Firstly, if this is what the chapters are about, and Peter himself gives the interpretation, why do people use it as pertaining to foods that are able to be eaten or not eaten. That seems forced. Secondly, why are we allowed to eat unclean animals? Where does that idea come from? Thanks for all answers in advance!

Indueseason
Jan 9th 2012, 03:45 PM
Welcome to the board! :)

I don't necessarily use it to eat unclean animals, but I do use this verse that shows I can.

11 Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”

A diet with out these things is probably healthier, but cannot defile us.

blessings to you :hug:

LookingUp
Jan 10th 2012, 01:10 AM
Hi I just joined. My question is about Acts chapters 10 and 11; but also how they relate to the rest of scripture. Please note i am not a 7th Day Adventists.

These chapters appear to me to be about a dream Peter has that convinces him to have social dealings with a gentile named Cornelius. Peter eventually gives the interpretation of his dream in verse 27 of chapter 10.

27 While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”

The vision also includes a blanket that both comes down from heaven and is taken up again. It is not left on earth.

I have two questions. Firstly, if this is what the chapters are about, and Peter himself gives the interpretation, why do people use it as pertaining to foods that are able to be eaten or not eaten. That seems forced. Secondly, why are we allowed to eat unclean animals? Where does that idea come from? Thanks for all answers in advance!I like the above post by Indueseason. I have no idea how people can use that verse/passage as pertaining to foods that Jews can eat or not eat. It certainly does seem forced! Why are we allowed to eat unclean animals? I think a better question would be why were Jews not allowed to eat unclean animals? Remember, for 2,000 + years, no one had these limitations placed on them. It wasn't until God chose to separate Israel from the rest of the nations did that limitation arise. I assume that it was probably healthier at that time (reasons unknown to me) and/or was beneficial to Israel in some way (unknown to me). Additionally, God was trying to keep Israel "different" and separated so that He could use them to be a light to the rest of the surrounding nations.

jesse
Jan 10th 2012, 05:21 AM
I certainly don't want to seem argumentative and thank you for the answers. My question to both of you is this i suppose. Is not the verse from Matthew 15:11 a discussion about extra laws imposed by the jews?

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. Matthew 15:2

Jesus responds in his patented "answer a question with a question" technique. Asking why they do not honor their parents and teach others to not do so. He also gives a spiritual lesson about defiling yourself. And then he returns to the main point.

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. Matthew 15:20

His statement in verse 11 never touches on what the law says we can or can't eat. It is about washing your hands which was an extra law imposed by the jewish religious leaders. Even Jesus kept God's true law. That is why he was sinless. No? He didn't wash his hands but he also didn't eat unclean animals. Actually i would like to add that Jesus is not the accused who didn't wash his hands, his disciples were. Jesus may have washed his hands. But i digress.

As for the second answer. Fair enough but are not we also supposed to be separate?

Again i am not trying to be rude or argumentative and please forgive me if i come across as such.

david
Jan 10th 2012, 08:47 AM
I certainly don't want to seem argumentative and thank you for the answers. My question to both of you is this i suppose. Is not the verse from Matthew 15:11 a discussion about extra laws imposed by the jews?

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. Matthew 15:2

Jesus responds in his patented "answer a question with a question" technique. Asking why they do not honor their parents and teach others to not do so. He also gives a spiritual lesson about defiling yourself. And then he returns to the main point.

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. Matthew 15:20

His statement in verse 11 never touches on what the law says we can or can't eat. It is about washing your hands which was an extra law imposed by the jewish religious leaders. Even Jesus kept God's true law. That is why he was sinless. No? He didn't wash his hands but he also didn't eat unclean animals. Actually i would like to add that Jesus is not the accused who didn't wash his hands, his disciples were. Jesus may have washed his hands. But i digress.

As for the second answer. Fair enough but are not we also supposed to be separate?

Again i am not trying to be rude or argumentative and please forgive me if i come across as such.
Jesus declared "all foods clean" clearly overwriting the law that God gave earlier.
But these are the ones that you shall not eat: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, the kite, the falcon of any kind; every raven of any kind; the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind; the little owl and the short-eared owl, the barn owl and the tawny owl, the carrion vulture and the cormorant, the stork, the heron of any kind; the hoopoe and the bat. And all winged insects are unclean for you; they shall not be eaten. Deuteronomy 14:12-19

i believe mt 15.11 is saying that transgressing physical requirements of the law did not make you unclean. As a clear example, there are people of a certain religion today (don't remember which) who wouldn't even touch the buttons of an elevator (they hired others to punch the buttons for them) because they thought that by touching the buttons they would get defiled. But Jesus is saying that it is transgressing the moral requirements of the law that made you unclean (mt 15.19-20). The Pharisees, in contrast, were saying people were spiritually unclean for doing something that does not make them spiritually unclean (transgressing physical requirements).

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 10th 2012, 08:47 AM
I tend to favour the thought that there were many many man made laws added to the Law. At this stage, I have no real grounds for this but I do see that man tends to add stuff to what God say all the time. It appears that a simple truth is just to easy to accept...oi !

Aaron01
Jan 10th 2012, 12:27 PM
I was of the understanding that the vision had to do with the Gentiles being included in God's plan of salvation, which surprised the Jewish believers at first. The Gentiles were previously viewed as outcasts and unclean by the Jewish believers, God's vision was to reassure Peter that the Gentiles were included in his plan of salvation.

shepherdsword
Jan 10th 2012, 01:03 PM
This brings me some clarity to Peter's vision:

1Ti 4:1 . 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; 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding]to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4:4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

We can eat all things if we give thanks for it.

Brother Mark
Jan 10th 2012, 02:14 PM
As for the second answer. Fair enough but are not we also supposed to be separate?

Again i am not trying to be rude or argumentative and please forgive me if i come across as such.

We are indeed supposed to be separate. And the food laws are related to this. Peter speaks of holiness (which some call being separated) this way...

1 Peter 1:13-16

13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, 15 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16 because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."
NASU

First, Peter states we are to fix our hope completely on the grace that comes to us when we have a revelation of Christ Jesus. IOW, holiness is as much an act of grace as is salvation. Then he goes on to quote a verse from the OT food laws... "Be hol for I am holy". The standard for holiness is God's holiness! There is no way to meet that outside of grace! Here's the verse quoted from the OT.

Lev 11:41-45

41 ' Now every swarming thing that swarms on the earth is detestable, not to be eaten. 42 'Whatever crawls on its belly, and whatever walks on all fours, whatever has many feet, in respect to every swarming thing that swarms on the earth, you shall not eat them, for they are detestable. 43 ' Do not render yourselves detestable through any of the swarming things that swarm; and you shall not make yourselves unclean with them so that you become unclean. 44 'For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth. 45 ' For I am the Lord who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.'"
NASU

So Peter quotes the food laws when speaking of holiness! What in the world do food laws have to do with holiness? Well, Paul taught us something interesting about the Law.

Rom 2:29
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
NASU

and

Rom 7:6
6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
NASU

So we need to understand the Spirit of the Law and what God is saying with that instead of the letter of the law. Is there anything in the NT related to food?

Look at what Jesus said...

John 6:35

35 Jesus said to them, " I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
NASU

The first step in being holy is to eat the "Bread of Life"! He was born in Bethlehem (the house of bread) and laid in a manger (food trough) for all to come and eat! Salvation, as an act of grace, is the first step to holiness.

Remember when Moses saw the burning bush? God told him to "take off your shoes, you are on holy ground". What made that ground holy? It was the presence of God! So when someone gets saved, the presence of God moves into them and they are made holy by grace.

Jesus also said this...

Matt 4:4
4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"
NASU

The word of God (the bible and the spoken word to our hearts, when it becomes a revelation of who God is) is food for our spirit and souls! We are to eat that! As we have a revelation (an act of grace) we become more holy.

In another passage, we learn that deliverance is bread.

Mark 7:25-30
25 But after hearing of Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately came and fell at His feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race. And she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And He was saying to her, "Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." 28 But she answered and said to Him, "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs." 29 And He said to her, "Because of this answer go; the demon has gone out of your daughter." 30 And going back to her home, she found the child lying on the bed, the demon having left.
NASU

The woman wanted deliverance for her child and Jesus referred to this as bread! When we are delivered from the most vile things (lust, lying, steeling, and other strongholds) it is an act of grace that makes us holy! This is considered spiritual food.

What are some things we are to avoid? Well look at what Jesus said here:

Matt 16:5-12

5 And the disciples came to the other side of the sea, but they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6 And Jesus said to them, "Watch out and beware of theleaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 7 They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, "He said that because we did not bring any bread." 8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, " You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? 9 "Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? 10 "Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? 11 "How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of theleaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12 Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
NASU

Jesus referred to the teaching of Pharisees and Sadducees as leaven! Leaven is used in bread. It is not good food!!! It is used to change food. So it is bad "food" to be avoided. The sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. For them, religion may have been OK to make my life here better. But what of the afterlife? Today, we might call them the "liberal" scholars who doubt that Jesus is God or believe in an afterlife. The Pharisees were those that focused on doing all the time! They added to the law of God. They believed they could be good enough through obedience to make it into heaven. This food, this kind of thinking, makes us detestable before the Lord!

How does this work? As someone mentioned above, Jesus said it this way;

Mark 7:17-23

17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, " That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."
NASU

One can hear bad things. But if one eats them spiritually, and allows them into his heart, then they will come out of his heart and then he will be defiled or unclean! So we must be careful to eat clean spiritual foods. And to reject, through the shield of faith, all the food thoughts (lusts, unjust anger, coveteousness, self righteousness, salvation based on our own righteousness, etc.) that the enemy would have us eat. We capture these thoughts and bring them under subjection to Christ.

In this way, we keep the spirit of the OT food laws. It is not what a man eats physically that will make him unclean. It is what a man eats spiritually that is the real danger!

Grace and peace,

Mark

Sojourner
Jan 11th 2012, 07:49 AM
I believe the vision of the unclean animals was intended to teach Peter a spiritual lesson, not to abrogate Jewish dietary laws. We can deduce that Peter had a bit of prejudice against Gentles, which the Lord sought to address with the vision--which Peter understood. Knowing that Peter, as one of the chief Apostles, had this undesirable attitude, the Lord made some corrections. By means of the vision, and by sending him into "the belly of the beast," God made it clear to Peter, and the Jews with him, that He is no respecter of persons--and so then, neither should they be. When they saw the Gentiles experience the same outpouring of God's Spirit that they received, evidenced by speaking in tongues, they knew God had sanctioned the bringing into the fold of the Gentiles. So, while it would be a stretch to infer that Peter's vision represented a change in dietary laws for the Jews, it does carry the inference that those laws (with the exception of those stipulated in Acts 15) did not apply to Gentile believers--just as circumcision did not.

LookingUp
Jan 11th 2012, 07:51 PM
I believe the vision of the unclean animals was intended to teach Peter a spiritual lesson, not to abrogate Jewish dietary laws. We can deduce that Peter had a bit of prejudice against Gentles, which the Lord sought to address with the vision--which Peter understood. Knowing that Peter, as one of the chief Apostles, had this undesirable attitude, the Lord made some corrections. By means of the vision, and by sending him into "the belly of the beast," God made it clear to Peter, and the Jews with him, that He is no respecter of persons--and so then, neither should they be. When they saw the Gentiles experience the same outpouring of God's Spirit that they received, evidenced by speaking in tongues, they knew God had sanctioned the bringing into the fold of the Gentiles. So, while it would be a stretch to infer that Peter's vision represented a change in dietary laws for the Jews, it does carry the inference that those laws (with the exception of those stipulated in Acts 15) did not apply to Gentile believers--just as circumcision did not.Really great post!

LookingUp
Jan 11th 2012, 07:55 PM
I certainly don't want to seem argumentative and thank you for the answers. My question to both of you is this i suppose. Is not the verse from Matthew 15:11 a discussion about extra laws imposed by the jews?

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. Matthew 15:2

Jesus responds in his patented "answer a question with a question" technique. Asking why they do not honor their parents and teach others to not do so. He also gives a spiritual lesson about defiling yourself. And then he returns to the main point.

These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. Matthew 15:20

His statement in verse 11 never touches on what the law says we can or can't eat. It is about washing your hands which was an extra law imposed by the jewish religious leaders. Even Jesus kept God's true law. That is why he was sinless. No? He didn't wash his hands but he also didn't eat unclean animals. Actually i would like to add that Jesus is not the accused who didn't wash his hands, his disciples were. Jesus may have washed his hands. But i digress.

As for the second answer. Fair enough but are not we also supposed to be separate?

Again i am not trying to be rude or argumentative and please forgive me if i come across as such.I agree, I think, with what you've concluded. But are you asking if Gentiles should follow the laws that Israel was commanded to follow (i.e. dietary laws)?

jesse
Jan 12th 2012, 02:59 AM
I agree, I think, with what you've concluded. But are you asking if Gentiles should follow the laws that Israel was commanded to follow (i.e. dietary laws)?


I guess i am asking that. But i also suppose the answer would then be no. But then are jews supposed to keep the law? Was the apostle peter hanging out eating hamburgers at his local McDonalds shortly after his vision? And how could there be jewish believers during the end times if you can't become a jew via physical circumcision and most don't know their heritage and are probably khazarians anyways? And then if you say "well God knows who are real jews and even who belong to the lost tribes of Isreal" that is fine and good but what if I myself am one? And if i am shouldn't i be keeping the law? I don't know. Like i said, i am confused. But two of the least understandable things in the bible for me are, what is going on with Isreal/gentiles and what is going on with the Law/Grace. But that is pretty much all the bible is about so it is kinda a pain. :B

LookingUp
Jan 12th 2012, 03:24 AM
I guess i am asking that. But i also suppose the answer would then be no.Right, the apostles concluded early on that a Gentile is not required to become a Jew (i.e. be circumcised, etc.) in order to obtain eternal life (Acts 15). But neither does that mean a Jew, who follows the customs of Moses (i.e. circumcision), should abandon the customs that have been a part of who they are for centuries. Remember, following the customs and laws of Moses was a sign that you were a believer in the God of Abraham. But following the customs and laws didn’t save you. As a Gentile, following the laws that are written on my heart by God (i.e. our conscience which tells us what is right and wrong) as well as following the commands given to Gentiles by the apostles (i.e. Jews) is a sign that I am a believer in the God of Abraham and His son, Christ Jesus. But those things don’t save me; God does.


But then are jews supposed to keep the law?If they want to be considered a Jew according to the laws of Moses. I suppose they can turn to Gentile ways if they choose to, but it’s really up to them. It doesn’t affect their eternal life.


Was the apostle peter hanging out eating hamburgers at his local McDonalds shortly after his vision?No, I don’t believe so.


And how could there be jewish believers during the end times if you can't become a jew via physical circumcision and most don't know their heritage and are probably khazarians anyways?You are a Jew if you are born a Jew and continue in the laws and customs of Moses, I suppose. I suppose you can’t stop being a Jew genetically, but you can stop practicing the customs and practice the customs of Gentiles instead. Again, this doesn’t have an impact on your eternal life. The Jewish believers in the end times are Jews who follow Jesus and the laws and customs of Moses. That doesn’t mean they’re trusting in animal sacrifices to cover their sin; it means they’ve chosen to remain Jewish in their customs (imo).


And then if you say "well God knows who are real jews and even who belong to the lost tribes of Isreal" that is fine and good but what if I myself am one?I, personally, don’t think we’ll know who is from the lost tribes until after the second coming. I assume the end times believing Jews are from Judah. I imagine it will be great fun to find out who is from Israel and see the two houses joined.


And if i am shouldn't i be keeping the law? I don't know.Keep the heartfelt intent of the Law of God and you’ll be just fine (i.e. love God, love others). It would be cool if you were a member of one of the lost tribes, but it’s not your responsibility to figure it out just so you can keep the customs of Moses. I don’t think it’s possible anyway, is it?


Like i said, i am confused. But two of the least understandable things in the bible for me are, what is going on with Isreal/gentilesBe more specific. What do you mean what is going on with Israel/Gentiles?


and what is going on with the Law/Grace. But that is pretty much all the bible is about so it is kinda a pain. :BAgain, try to be more specific here. The Law and Grace do not oppose each other.

jesse
Jan 12th 2012, 03:29 AM
Also, as near as i can figure from what Brother Mark is saying, some people believe that the physical acts of the law are all spiritualized or also that some like the festivals are fulfilled in Christ. Which is fine and i guess i agree to a large degree. But some are obviously not. For example in Romans chapter 7 Paul begins to explain how we are dead to the law, but he does so by stating how if a woman's husband is dead she is free to marry. Which is a law. So he is using the law to explain and ultimately justify how we are dead to the law. And he does it by using a law that we are still required to keep?!? What? That is confusing. On the other hand if all the laws are spiritualized, but i have to keep them still, just this time keeping them in my spiritual side first and then in my physical life, how does that do away with dietary laws? Or to put it another way, now that i recognize not only that i shouldn't murder, but i shouldn't even hate, should i not also recognize that i should not only keep the dietary laws but also what they represented? (which i suppose is Holiness according to Brother Mark?) Or is it good to not hate but i can murder all i want? To be separated to God inwardly but not be separated outwardly (in dietary laws) ? Now do you see my confusion?

LookingUp
Jan 12th 2012, 04:16 AM
Also, as near as i can figure from what Brother Mark is saying, some people believe that the physical acts of the law are all spiritualized or also that some like the festivals are fulfilled in Christ. Which is fine and i guess i agree to a large degree. But some are obviously not. For example in Romans chapter 7 Paul begins to explain how we are dead to the law, but he does so by stating how if a woman's husband is dead she is free to marry. Which is a law. So he is using the law to explain and ultimately justify how we are dead to the law. And he does it by using a law that we are still required to keep?!? What? That is confusing. On the other hand if all the laws are spiritualized, but i have to keep them still, just this time keeping them in my spiritual side first and then in my physical life, how does that do away with dietary laws? Or to put it another way, now that i recognize not only that i shouldn't murder, but i shouldn't even hate, should i not also recognize that i should not only keep the dietary laws but also what they represented? (which i suppose is Holiness according to Brother Mark?) Or is it good to not hate but i can murder all i want? To be separated to God inwardly but not be separated outwardly (in dietary laws) ? Now do you see my confusion?Oh my goodness…you have me aching for you. You’re making it so hard on yourself. I hope we can show you how Jesus revealed that the burden was on him and not us. Did you read my post to you above yet? Maybe this will help a little bit.

It’s not that the physical laws suddenly turn into spiritual laws so you don’t have to attempt to do the “physical” laws any longer; it’s that the physical laws have always had a deeper, spiritual purpose. Like I said, if you simply enjoy and embrace the heartfelt intent of God’s Law, you will love God and love others. That is simple to understand, yes?

Please remember that when the citizens of Israel obeyed and enjoyed taking part in the various customs of Moses and feasts of the LORD, many did so because they believed in the God of Abraham. Sure, some may have partaken even though they didn’t put their trust and faith in the God of Abraham, but parking in it or not doesn’t affect one’s eternal life. Partaking is a sign that you believe, but it’s an outward sign to those who can’t see into the heart. Only God knows the heart.

OK, Romans 7. The law has jurisdiction over you (i.e. can condemn you if you break it) if you are living. The law can’t condemn you (i.e. hold you responsible) if you’re dead.

You have died with Christ and are raised up with him. The law has no jurisdiction over you any longer (i.e. it can’t condemn you or hold you responsible for breaking it). Does that mean the law was bad? Does that mean you should stop obeying the good law?

If you live in a city where the speeding limit is 65 miles per hour on the highways and you come to believe that it’s a good law and move to a city where there is no speeding limit, should you break the law you’ve learned to realize is a good law just because you won’t be fined? The law from your home city has no jurisdiction over you in this new city (i.e. it can’t condemn you), but does that mean the law was a bad law?

Butch5
Jan 12th 2012, 04:34 AM
Hi I just joined. My question is about Acts chapters 10 and 11; but also how they relate to the rest of scripture. Please note i am not a 7th Day Adventists.

These chapters appear to me to be about a dream Peter has that convinces him to have social dealings with a gentile named Cornelius. Peter eventually gives the interpretation of his dream in verse 27 of chapter 10.

27 While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”

The vision also includes a blanket that both comes down from heaven and is taken up again. It is not left on earth.

I have two questions. Firstly, if this is what the chapters are about, and Peter himself gives the interpretation, why do people use it as pertaining to foods that are able to be eaten or not eaten. That seems forced. Secondly, why are we allowed to eat unclean animals? Where does that idea come from? Thanks for all answers in advance!

Hi Jesse,

Welcome! The vision is not about the animals. God used the clean and unclean animal illustration because the Jews understood the Gentiles to be unclean and as such would not go into visit with them. God was showing Peter that the Gentiles were not to be considered unclean anymore.

The reason we can eat unclean animals is because the Law about eating clean and unclean animals was the Mosaic Law and it was given to the Jews, however, it has come to an end.

Butch5
Jan 12th 2012, 04:48 AM
I guess i am asking that. But i also suppose the answer would then be no. But then are jews supposed to keep the law? Was the apostle peter hanging out eating hamburgers at his local McDonalds shortly after his vision? And how could there be jewish believers during the end times if you can't become a jew via physical circumcision and most don't know their heritage and are probably khazarians anyways? And then if you say "well God knows who are real jews and even who belong to the lost tribes of Isreal" that is fine and good but what if I myself am one? And if i am shouldn't i be keeping the law? I don't know. Like i said, i am confused. But two of the least understandable things in the bible for me are, what is going on with Isreal/gentiles and what is going on with the Law/Grace. But that is pretty much all the bible is about so it is kinda a pain. :B

Hi Jesse,

Hey, it sounds like you are really confused. I think I can help you figure some of this out. click on my name in upper left part of this post and click on private message. It will be easier for me to discuss this with you as opposed to an open board.

Brother Mark
Jan 12th 2012, 03:13 PM
Also, as near as i can figure from what Brother Mark is saying, some people believe that the physical acts of the law are all spiritualized or also that some like the festivals are fulfilled in Christ. Which is fine and i guess i agree to a large degree. But some are obviously not. For example in Romans chapter 7 Paul begins to explain how we are dead to the law, but he does so by stating how if a woman's husband is dead she is free to marry. Which is a law. So he is using the law to explain and ultimately justify how we are dead to the law. And he does it by using a law that we are still required to keep?!? What? That is confusing. On the other hand if all the laws are spiritualized, but i have to keep them still, just this time keeping them in my spiritual side first and then in my physical life, how does that do away with dietary laws? Or to put it another way, now that i recognize not only that i shouldn't murder, but i shouldn't even hate, should i not also recognize that i should not only keep the dietary laws but also what they represented? (which i suppose is Holiness according to Brother Mark?) Or is it good to not hate but i can murder all i want? To be separated to God inwardly but not be separated outwardly (in dietary laws) ? Now do you see my confusion?

According to Paul, all the law is summed up in this...

Gal 5:14-15
14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
NASU

I don't know if this will help or not, but I will try to explain a little more about the law. There was the Law of Moses. This law was given by God and God used it to foreshadow his Son. It was part of the covenant between God and Israel. It was used to govern the nation of Israel and also used for moral and ceremonial purposes. All three (national, moral, and ceremonial) parts were included in the law of Moses. However, that does not make those laws eternal laws!

The 10 commandments are eternal commandments, IMO. God had them placed inside the ark, while the Law of Moses was placed outside the ark. But Paul summed up the entire law of Moses and 10 commandments as one word, that was contained in the second most important law "love". That word is contained in the greatest command and second greatest command according to Christ. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength" and the second is like unto it "love your neighbor as yourself".

So in the NT, we look back at the law of Moses and look for Christ in it. The laws are no longer needed for moral, ceremonial, or national purposes. Today, we have national laws to cover the nation portion. The moral laws are contained in "love God and love your neighbor" and spelled out in the NT, and the ceremonial laws are shadows of Christ. We keep them all in Spirit but not necessarily in the same way the Israelites kept them.

For instance, we still need a high priest, but our High Priest is Christ! And we can go into the Holy of Holies and into the presence of God!!!!

As to your question about divorce concerning law and Romans... look at this way, if I leave the US and move to England, I am not longer under the law of the US. I am under the law of England. Now, lets say it is against the law to steal in the US. Since I am no longer under the law of the US, am I now permitted to steal in England? No way! Because there is still a law but it's a different law. Jesus said "you have heard it said, and eye for an eye. But I say unto you, turn the other cheek." Jesus was quoting the law of Moses when he said "eye for an eye". He wants us to turn the other cheek. That is a greater law because it is the law of love.

Hope this helps some.

Grace to you.

Mark

shepherdsword
Jan 12th 2012, 03:40 PM
I believe the vision Peter received was definitely applicable to the food laws as well as staying separate form the gentiles. The law has been abolished for jewish believers as well. They do not have a different way to salvation. That being said,there is wisdom in the food laws and if they are kept for health reasons and not as an attempt to please God then there is nothing wrong with them.
This pretty much sums up for me the abolition of such laws:

1Ti 4:1 . 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; 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

Sojourner
Jan 12th 2012, 06:48 PM
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (Matt 22:34-39 NIV)

According to Jesus, the law and prophets--the entire foundation on which the Jewish faith rests--is summed up in:
1. an unconditional love and reverence for God, with every fiber of your being.
2. loving your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus says this because the law centers around our relationship first with God, and then, demonstrating that love, by loving those around us. The law and the prophets includes the ten commandments, and if you look at them carefully, you'll see that each one addresses one of those two relationships: the first four pertain to God, and the other six concern our interaction with people. Therein, we find the true spirit of the law and the prophets.

As born again Christians, filled with the Spirit of God, and fully obeying and trusting in Jesus, we have the spirit of the law written in our hearts. This negates the meticulous keeping of every element of the law. As Paul taught, it is "the law of the Spirit" within a believer that fulfills the law, and free us from the law of sin and death, in a way not otherwise possible (Rom 8:1-4). Obey Jesus, and you obey the law. Hope that helps.

JJsaint
Jan 12th 2012, 10:05 PM
Hi I just joined. My question is about Acts chapters 10 and 11; but also how they relate to the rest of scripture. Please note i am not a 7th Day Adventists.

These chapters appear to me to be about a dream Peter has that convinces him to have social dealings with a gentile named Cornelius. Peter eventually gives the interpretation of his dream in verse 27 of chapter 10.

27 While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”

The vision also includes a blanket that both comes down from heaven and is taken up again. It is not left on earth.

I have two questions. Firstly, if this is what the chapters are about, and Peter himself gives the interpretation, why do people use it as pertaining to foods that are able to be eaten or not eaten. That seems forced. Secondly, why are we allowed to eat unclean animals? Where does that idea come from? Thanks for all answers in advance!

Acts 10 is about Peter Judging between clean and unclean MEN. (Acts 10:28)
It is not about Clean and Unclean food.

Acts 10:13-14:13And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

A voice tells Peter to eat, but Peter refuses to eat unclean animals!

jesse
Jan 13th 2012, 05:24 AM
According to Paul, all the law is summed up in this...

Gal 5:14-15
14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
NASU

I don't know if this will help or not, but I will try to explain a little more about the law. There was the Law of Moses. This law was given by God and God used it to foreshadow his Son. It was part of the covenant between God and Israel. It was used to govern the nation of Israel and also used for moral and ceremonial purposes. All three (national, moral, and ceremonial) parts were included in the law of Moses. However, that does not make those laws eternal laws!

The 10 commandments are eternal commandments, IMO. God had them placed inside the ark, while the Law of Moses was placed outside the ark. But Paul summed up the entire law of Moses and 10 commandments as one word, that was contained in the second most important law "love". That word is contained in the greatest command and second greatest command according to Christ. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength" and the second is like unto it "love your neighbor as yourself".

So in the NT, we look back at the law of Moses and look for Christ in it. The laws are no longer needed for moral, ceremonial, or national purposes. Today, we have national laws to cover the nation portion. The moral laws are contained in "love God and love your neighbor" and spelled out in the NT, and the ceremonial laws are shadows of Christ. We keep them all in Spirit but not necessarily in the same way the Israelites kept them.

For instance, we still need a high priest, but our High Priest is Christ! And we can go into the Holy of Holies and into the presence of God!!!!

As to your question about divorce concerning law and Romans... look at this way, if I leave the US and move to England, I am not longer under the law of the US. I am under the law of England. Now, lets say it is against the law to steal in the US. Since I am no longer under the law of the US, am I now permitted to steal in England? No way! Because there is still a law but it's a different law. Jesus said "you have heard it said, and eye for an eye. But I say unto you, turn the other cheek." Jesus was quoting the law of Moses when he said "eye for an eye". He wants us to turn the other cheek. That is a greater law because it is the law of love.

Hope this helps some.

Grace to you.

Mark


Well as far as i can understand the whole law is summed up in a slightly broader sentence.

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:36-40

However, If all the other laws fulfill the first two, then how can some be done away with? Also, even if the law is only the ten commandments as you have put forth, that means many christians, myself included, break the laws regarding the Sabbath. I, of course, don't want to turn this into a discussion about the Sabbath, but even if only the ten commandments were eternal, then i am breaking the law on a weekly basis. No?

Similarly, I can't love God if i am not doing what he wants. No? So if he wants me to do something specific like keep dietary laws, or whatever he wants, i should do it. Not that i am saying what you are saying is wrong, but i am just thinking that because i need to love him does not mean i could love him while neglecting what he says. right? Not that he nessesarily says to keep dietary laws...

Other than that i guess i see what you are getting at but it still doesn't make perfect sense to me. Perhaps it is clearer than it was? I guess.

jesse
Jan 13th 2012, 05:30 AM
Oh my goodness…you have me aching for you. You’re making it so hard on yourself. I hope we can show you how Jesus revealed that the burden was on him and not us. Did you read my post to you above yet? Maybe this will help a little bit.

It’s not that the physical laws suddenly turn into spiritual laws so you don’t have to attempt to do the “physical” laws any longer; it’s that the physical laws have always had a deeper, spiritual purpose. Like I said, if you simply enjoy and embrace the heartfelt intent of God’s Law, you will love God and love others. That is simple to understand, yes?

Please remember that when the citizens of Israel obeyed and enjoyed taking part in the various customs of Moses and feasts of the LORD, many did so because they believed in the God of Abraham. Sure, some may have partaken even though they didn’t put their trust and faith in the God of Abraham, but parking in it or not doesn’t affect one’s eternal life. Partaking is a sign that you believe, but it’s an outward sign to those who can’t see into the heart. Only God knows the heart.

OK, Romans 7. The law has jurisdiction over you (i.e. can condemn you if you break it) if you are living. The law can’t condemn you (i.e. hold you responsible) if you’re dead.

You have died with Christ and are raised up with him. The law has no jurisdiction over you any longer (i.e. it can’t condemn you or hold you responsible for breaking it). Does that mean the law was bad? Does that mean you should stop obeying the good law?

If you live in a city where the speeding limit is 65 miles per hour on the highways and you come to believe that it’s a good law and move to a city where there is no speeding limit, should you break the law you’ve learned to realize is a good law just because you won’t be fined? The law from your home city has no jurisdiction over you in this new city (i.e. it can’t condemn you), but does that mean the law was a bad law?

I think i understand what you are saying but then i guess it doesn't change anything regarding dietary laws? If the law was good. Why should i not still obey it? It sort of leaves me with the same problem. Although, i guess it kind of strengthens the idea that it should still be obeyed. no?

jesse
Jan 13th 2012, 05:40 AM
"Again, try to be more specific here. The Law and Grace do not oppose each other. "

Sorry, it is late and i can only answer this question right now.

As for law v.s. Grace or Justice v.s Forgiveness. Well, lets say i have a wife and she commits adultery, the law says she should be stoned with stones until she is dead. But grace on the other hand says no, forgive her. So... Do i go with Justice offered by the law? Or do i go with forgiveness offered by Grace? They seem mutually exclusive because if i forgive her, there will be no justice. But if i demand justice, there will be no grace. So are they not at odds? P.S. i am not saying that Jesus death in anyway does not fulfill both justice and grace. Of course it does. Of course, it does seem unjust to allow an innocent and perfect man to die for the sins of the condemned. Not that i am not thankful. But the ideas themselves out side of Christ are at odds to say the least.

Sojourner
Jan 13th 2012, 06:03 AM
Of course, it does seem unjust to allow an innocent and perfect man to die for the sins of the condemned. Not that i am not thankful. But the ideas themselves out side of Christ are at odds to say the least.

It is this very paradox of the Judge taking the place of the condemned--in order to give life to the condemned, and pronounce Him "not guilty" that makes God's plan of Salvation so unfathomable to the human mind:

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. (1 Tim 3:16)

LookingUp
Jan 13th 2012, 07:09 AM
I think i understand what you are saying but then i guess it doesn't change anything regarding dietary laws? If the law was good. Why should i not still obey it? It sort of leaves me with the same problem. Although, i guess it kind of strengthens the idea that it should still be obeyed. no?

"Again, try to be more specific here. The Law and Grace do not oppose each other. "

Sorry, it is late and i can only answer this question right now.

As for law v.s. Grace or Justice v.s Forgiveness. Well, lets say i have a wife and she commits adultery, the law says she should be stoned with stones until she is dead. But grace on the other hand says no, forgive her. So... Do i go with Justice offered by the law? Or do i go with forgiveness offered by Grace? They seem mutually exclusive because if i forgive her, there will be no justice. But if i demand justice, there will be no grace. So are they not at odds? P.S. i am not saying that Jesus death in anyway does not fulfill both justice and grace. Of course it does. Of course, it does seem unjust to allow an innocent and perfect man to die for the sins of the condemned. Not that i am not thankful. But the ideas themselves out side of Christ are at odds to say the least.The laws were operative within a biblically functioning nation of Israel. The laws were, in essence, what made them a nation. The laws, as a whole, were the identifying factor of the nation of Israel. Even though these laws contained regulations that other nations weren’t required to keep (i.e. ceremonial, civil), of course, God would also have the nation Israel follow the moral laws. So, think of it this way, for the nation of Israel, God added onto what other nations were already expected to do.

Jesus already gave us the peace and wisdom in knowing that when we love God and each other, we fulfill the heartfelt intent of the entire law of God. So, the laws of Israel that you take with you as a believing Jew are those that have value and meaning for your life personally. Many of the laws would be impossible for one to keep and many of the laws would be meaningless outside of the nation for which they were specifically created. So, if you find the dietary laws possible to keep and meaningful to your life, keep them.