Friend: When the Lord removes and nullifies the purpose of a Law, does it also remove and nullify the existence and enforcement of the same Law?I think it's a very dangerous thing to suppose that God has removed or nullified the purpose of a law unless He explicitly says so. God's Law is very elegant (I'm an IT person, so forgive me if I'm not using the word "elegant" the same way most people do), in that it doesn't waste words, but makes every word serve multiple purposes. (See here for something I wrote on that last year: http://www.americantorah.com/2016/05/13/the-elegance-and-depth-of-torah/). If we say that the purpose for any particular commandment has been removed, we are supposing first, that we understand every purpose that God described, and, second, that God described every purpose for that commandment. Neither supposition is warranted unless God explicitly said so, and I'm not aware of anywhere in Scripture where He did that.
(Usual objection: Thus he declared all foods clean..." Context, context, context. But that's for another post.)
Friend: Leviticus 20:24-26 is the passage of scripture that defines the law concerning unclean foods and its purpose:Is it? From Leviticus 11:
- "they are an abomination to you..."
- "They shall be an abomination to you..."
- "you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination..."
- "they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination..."
- "shall be an abomination to you..."
- "By these you shall become unclean..."
- "It is unclean to you...."
- "These also shall be unclean to you..."
- "these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination..."
- Etc.
There are multiple passages that define clean vs unclean animals including the whys and wherefores
Friend: Leviticus 20: 24-26 says, "But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine."From Leviticus 11, you can see that that isn't entirely accurate. God also said he didn't want them to eat unclean animals because they are "abominable" and "unclean". Apparently, there's something about their meat that God really doesn't like.
As stated in the passage above, the only purpose the Lord stated for not eating certain foods (ie. "unclean meats") was for Israelites to remember to separate themselves from the Gentiles.
But about that separation... Paul wrote, "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God." (Romans 12:2) In other words, God wants us to be separate from the unbelieving world, just like He told the Israelites in the Wilderness. Even if that were the only purpose for the commandment--which it isn't--how then can we say that the purpose (separation from the world) has been removed when Paul said that the purpose of separation from the world still remains?
Paul also said that the distinction between Jew and Gentile is removed in Christ, which is what God told Peter also. But did either of them say that the distinction between believer and unbeliever has been removed in Christ so that the unrepentant and rebellious sinner is just as "saved" and part of the Kingdom as the repented and submissive servant of God? No, of course not. The distinction hasn't been removed, but amplified. We are to be in the world so that we can serve God in it, but separated in our behaviors and attitudes.
"11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." (Ephesians 2:11-13)
In Ephesians 2 and in Romans 11, Paul says that believing gentiles have been grafted into the tree of Israel, not the other way around. If we are to be separate from the world and if we are now made part of Israel, how exactly has the need for separation been removed? It hasn't in any way.
Friend: Let us keep this passage in mind as we consider Peter's explanation of his vision as described in Acts 10:9-17; In Acts 11, Peter explains his vision to the other brothers in Jerusalem:And that is exactly my point. Peter explains the vision. No one whom God has cleansed and brought near (adopted into the commonwealth of Israel) should be kept out by man-made traditions and ceremonies that God didn't command. All who call on the name of Jesus and repent from their sins are made clean and whole, no matter who their parents were, and no one has the authority to exclude them. This was the point of Peter's dream, not what a person should or shouldn't eat. God used unclean animals to illustrate the point because Peter was thinking of fellowship with men in the same category as eating unclean animals.
"And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven. And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house: And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."
Yeah, but the Council of Jerusalem very clearly reduced (in Acts 15: 19-20) the dietary restrictions on gentiles, allowing unclean animals as long as they had not otherwise been defiled to idols, strangled, or had blood still in it. The big controversy over the former requirements of the Law (i.e. circumcision and Levitical restrictions) was enormous. Dropping the laws distinguishing Israel as unique recipients of Salvation is a theological result of that Council, and the Hebrew food rules were decidedly unique. It would not have made any theological sense for God's Law, fulfilled, to keep resuscitating fulfilled (not dead, but fulfilfilled) laws. Israel had brought forth, by God's grace, the Everlasting Son of David. Keeping the food restrictions that were in place as a sign of the Coming Lord, would have been a statement from the Law that Christ had not yet come.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Peter, this vision and teaching is not about the food, but about the men. The issue was about the “unclean” Gentiles entering into a clean and holy community and the possibility of those PEOPLE causing defilement. The issue is that those whom YH has cleansed, because of their repentance from sin TO RIGHTEOUSNESS, they were no longer to be regarded as “untouchables”. The Acts passage you mentioned did not “reduce” food requirements for incoming Gentiles. These people were entering covenant life, and were as yet very untaught, unfamiliar with Torah, and again, the concern was allowing those formerly involved in idolatries and their practices to defile the holy community. These are valid concerns. The council decided that these four laws were enough to insure the incoming Gentiles were not still involved in idol worship. If you read the rest of the passage, the council’s decision was based on the assumption these Gentiles would be attending synagogue on the Sabbath, every week, to hear Moses read. Obviously they would be learning the food restrictions as they were read and from further involvement in the community. So no food rules were eliminated for Gentiles, but rather they were being given time to learn them. The in-house discussions on circumcision are entirely a different issue, dealing with the conversion procedures of the various sects of Judaism vs. scripture. Often the discussions concerning “the law” are a debate concerning the differences in what Torah actually says, and the thousands of rules the sects of the Pharisees added to the “law” to clarify the law or support their own, often errant, misinterpretations. In these cases, the term “the circumcision” referred only to a sect of Judasim, not to what all Jews thought. We find that many of these debates were between the two largest schools of Phariseeism, the school of Rabbi Hillel and the school of Rabbi Shammai. If one becomes acquainted with their teachings, the debate issues become quite clear. For example, Shammai taught that Jews should have NO contact with Gentiles, for fear of contamination from idolatry. Hillel was much more lenient, leaning toward the same decisions made by the Council.
DeleteLet me put it another way: the "unclean" laws were a symbolic distinction between "clean" Jews and "unclean" Gentiles. When Jesus dispenses with Pharisaical food restrictions, he frequently illustrates God's position on that aspect of the law by dealing directly with an unclean Gentile. During the course of Jesus' ministry, He foreshadows the union of Jew and Gentile and the resolution of post-Resurrection Cornelius event/controversy by lifting the clean/unclean restriction.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't that unclean animals were randomly unforbidden. It is that their forbiddeness was fulfilled in Christ. Gentiles were washed clean. It makes sense that the dietary symbol of their uncleanness was likewise washed clean.