Does Mark 7:19 declare all foods to be clean?

[robrecht]

Galatians 2 is another great example where Christians have forced to be about kosher when it just isn't there. Paul was dealing with the same circumcision group here as he was dealing with in Acts 15:1 that was saying Gentiles needed to become Jews and keep all of the written and oral law in order to be saved. When peter switch to eating with them, his actions were essentially telling the Gentiles that it was no longer ok for Jews to fellowship with them and that they weren't actually saved unless they did as the circumcision group was saying. These are the customs that Paul calls him out on in verse 14. What they happened to be eating has nothing to do with the passage, but I see no particular reason why God-fearing Gentiles wouldn't be interested in keeping the laws of the religion they had joined.

You want to believe that the Gentile Christians in Antioch joined the religion of the Jews, kept kosher so that Kephas could eat with them, and that the controversy only concerned a symbolic interpretation of Kephas' eating habits pertaining to his implied change of belief about circumcision. None of that is in the text. Nor does it make sense. If the Gentile Christians joined the religion of the Jews, kept kosher, why did they not also accept circumcision? Peter supposedly changed his view about the necessity of circumcision, but he had been living like a Gentile. What does that mean, living like a Gentile, did he have his circumcision reversed? Did the other Jews and even Barnabas have their circumcision reversed? Peter (and the other Jews at Antioch) were "eating with the Gentiles and living like a Gentile and not like a Jew." Eating. Living like.

"... for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

You say that Christians have forced this to be about kosher, but it is about eating. Eating with Gentiles. And then no longer eating with Gentiles. Compelling Gentiles to live Jews even 'though Peter himself had not been living like a Jew for he had been eating with Gentiles. That is hypocrisy. Forcing others to live like Jews even though he himself had been eating with Gentiles and not living like a Jew. How had Cephas not been living like a Jew. Cephas was circumcised. That cannot be the issue of his hypocrisy. Just follow the normal plain meaning of the text without forcing it to supposedly say what you want it to say. Some Jewish Christians during Paul's time and Jewish Christians for a few centuries thereafter would continue to argue about how to understand Paul and his view that all things are clean. They did not make up this issue of contention in the early church. Just when do you think that Christians started misunderstanding Paul's text here?

There were of course disputes about how best to keep God's commands, but nobody was disputing whether or not they should keep them.

Sure they were. Jews eating with Gentiles? Jews living like Gentiles? Eating meat sacrificed to idols? Did the Law allow Jews to eat meat sacrificed to idols? Of course not. Did the law allow Jews to live like Gentiles and not like Jews?

... Indeed, the command not to eat meat sacrificed to idols is not found in the OT. ...

Seriously? Have you not read the 10 commandments? "You shall not have other gods besides me. You shall not make for yourself an idol or likeness of anything whatever is in heaven above and whatever is in the earth beneath and whatever is in the waters beneath the earth. You shall not do obeisance to them, nor are you to serve them."

They defiled the altar by sacrificing a pig on it and then tried to force them to eat, so I think it was both about ritual purity and eating unclean animals. Do you have any idea of how often the word is used to refer to ritual purity versus eating something unclean?

The text of Maccabees was not referring to only a single incident of a pig being offered on the altar. The Greek is clearly referring to multiple occasions and foods and equates 'eating unclean things' with 'being defiled by foods'. I don't think we should distinguish too strongly between eating something unclean and ritual purity. Both are matters of the law.

[Soyeong]

Yeah but perfect in what sense? It was perfect for the socio-historical context it was given in but not necessarily beyond that. It would change to adapt to different circumstances.

Each morning Orthodox Jews repeated in their prayers the Yigdal hymn which has a line that stated, "G-d will never amend nor exchange His law for any other one, for all eternity." I see no indication that God would ever repeal His instructions. God considers eating unclean animals to be an abomination, so at what point does God's opinion change?

Furthermore, Jesus said the law wouldn't pass away, so a different socio-historical context is irrelevant.

Yeah it gave them freedom. Doesn't necessarily give us freedom.
I don't know about Jews but I think that historically, Christians did. (this regards the distinction between the laws)
Also, from the context of James 2, I think it is the new Covenant law being the law that gives freedom.
The royal law is "Love your neighbor as yourself" which I doubt includes the dietary laws of the Torah.

The law gives everything freedom by teaching us how to live righteously.

Jeremiah 31:33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.

The new covenant involves the Torah being written on our hearts.

Yes and its place is that its not perfect but it is a shadow of good things to come (implying that the things are better than the Torah)

"We should not think slightingly of the shadow. It was no less than the divine promise of all the heavenly realities about to arrive. The shadow proved the actuality and even the nearness of the realities, for only an actual body and one that is not far away casts a shadow. So the shadow call out all the faith and the hope of the Old Testament saints in the impending realities and guaranteed that faith and that hope in the strongest way. By faith Abraham saw Christ's day and was glad (John 8:56); Isaiah saw Christ's glory and spoke of it (John 12:41; Isaiah 53)." (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and Philemon, p. 126)

The purpose of the is to point to Christ, and it is no less because of that.

Yep those who forbid us from eating stuff (like the unclean stuff in the Torah) are promoting self-made religion and the other stuff because God made that stuff clean.

Man did not create God's laws and following them cannot be a self-made religion. At no point did God ever make unclean animals clean. Every vision in the Bible has a figurative interpretation that is given, and we don't trying to reinterpret any of the other visions as being literal, so why do people try to do that with Peter's vision?

The context kinda indicates that this was in reference to prophecy of Jesus. And yes, the OT was/is important
Yeah the prophets didn't attempt to modify the commandments. But they weren't establishing a new covenant either and Jesus isn't exactly an ordinary prophet. Another thing would be that certain things (like circumcision) were not necessary so as to enter the covenant and certain things were also done away with (eg the sacrificial system). These represent changes in the Law since you no longer had to sacrifice animals for atonement.

There are multiple covenants in the Bible, and there is no indication that the new covenant has a different set of rules, rather the main difference is a far superior mediator, the Torah is being written on our hearts, and the new in the new covenant is you.

What about Acts 10?

The Jews had ritual purity laws that made them ritually unclean if they entered the house of a Gentile or associated with them. Peter objecting three times to being told to eat show that he had no understanding that kosher laws were abrogated in either Mark 7 or after the death and resurrection of Jesus, so this speaks against the Torah being changed.

Acts 10:15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.

What God has made clean (the word used referring to unclean animals) do not call common (the word used referring to being ritually unclean).

Acts 10:28 And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

Peter gives the interpretation of the vision as voiding those ritual purity laws. In no other sense should his vision be taken.

[Soyeong]

This is true and very unfortunate. For example, some claim that 1st century Jews were chacterized by a shallow legalistic view of the law, rather than seeing it as a gracious gift of God.

Romans 9:30-32 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness[d] did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.

That is precisely the problem that Paul cites. If it weren't an issue, then he wouldn't have spent so much times talking about being justified by works versus by faith. If you read the Talmud, 26 volumes amazon.com, you will see that they turned keeping the Torah into a legalistic nightmare.

Matthew 23:1-4 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.

It is precisely the problem that Jesus is talking about here, and precisely the burden that they did not want to lay on the Gentiles in Acts 15.

[Paprika]

Part 2 of split post

Absolutely I could be wrong, but you haven't dealt with Romans 3, 6, or what Paul just said in 7. James was not making a dichotomy between the law of Christ and the law of Moses, he was just saying that you shouldn't just listen to it, you should also do it. The law of Christ or the law of God is precisely what God instructed in the Torah, but kept by faith and not by works.

I'll be the first to admit that I am not certain or sure how to handle Romans. Not that I don't have some initial ideas about the meaning but I am aware that under different schema greatly divergent meanings can be obtained. Thus I do not want to handle Romans as a whole, because of my ignorance, and because I think one must lay out one's schema properly so that others may be clear where one is coming from, which will take quite some time and space. But if you insist, I'll try to cover as much as I am able to, with a almost non-existent understanding of Greek.

I'll start with Romans 1, bolding for emphasis:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,7 in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Now, I think we can agree that referrent of this extract is mankind in general. If so, we note that mankind in general "know God's righteous decree". What can this be? It is not the Mosaic Law, or the "law of faith" that those in Christ have. So we have a third "law" (my word, not Paul's) here (though it is the first mentioned) - Paul claims that there is a decree from God that some things are wrong that mankind in general are aware of, but they ignore it. In Greek it is dikaiwma. Now, why do I say that it is a 'third law' of sorts?

In Romans 2 amongst other things Paul mentions the law (nomos). He does say in 2:26 that "if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?", the part in bold being dikaiwmata tou nomou, where, I believe, dikaiwmata is the plural of dikaiwma. So we see that mankind in general knows righteous commandments from God, of which type also exists in the law (of Moses). This is important when taken in conjunction with another bit, that "all who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law". My point here is that it is possible to recognise sinful behavior apart from the Law of Moses and the Law of the Spirit. But the Jews have the written code, the grammatos.

Now for Romans 3. "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law". This appears to say that the law only holds only for those "under the law", ie the Jews, but I don't insist on this point. "Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith." Paul here, besides the dikaiwma in Chapter 1, and grammatos (of Moses) and nomos of Chapter 2, introduces the law of faith.

Okay, I think I have settled the preceding context as much as I can. On to the point you brought up from 3:31:
"Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."

The key question revolves around the meaning of 'nullify' and 'uphold', and for that we need to first know the semantic range of the Greek. 'Nullify' is katargoumen,

1) to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative 1a) to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency 1b) to deprive of force, influence, power 2) to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish 2a) to cease, to pass away, be done away 2b) to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one 2c) to terminate all intercourse with one

whereas 'uphold' is histanomen

1) to cause or make to stand, to place, put, set 1a) to bid to stand by, [set up] 1a1) in the presence of others, in the midst, before judges, before members of the Sanhedrin; 1a2) to place 1b) to make firm, fix establish 1b1) to cause a person or a thing to keep his or its place 1b2) to stand, be kept intact (of family, a kingdom), to escape in safety 1b3) to establish a thing, cause it to stand 1b31) to uphold or sustain the authority or force of anything 1c) to set or place in a balance 1c1) to weigh: money to one (because in very early times before the introduction of coinage, the metals used to be weighed) 2) to stand 2a) to stand by or near 2a1) to stop, stand still, to stand immovable, stand firm 2a1a) of the foundation of a building 2b) to stand 2b1) continue safe and sound, stand unharmed, to stand ready or prepared 2b2) to be of a steadfast mind 2b3) of quality, one who does not hesitate, does not waiver

With regards to this, I believe that faith establishes the law by fulfilling it, but not in its current form, as per Galatians: "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”…and the fruit of the Spirit is love,…" I don't think this interpretation is ruled out by 3:31; one needs to work one's way through the rest of the letter to confirm or deny it.

I may do that if I have the time and energy. Having worked this far, I am aware that I am getting further and further out of my depth if I attempt to keep whatever extracts discussed and comments I make in context. For example, Romans 7:22-23 is complex due to mentioning 3-4 different "laws" (nomw and nomon). I also think that in Romans 2, grammatos, that is, the written code of Moses is not necessarily coidentifiable with the more abstract nomos. I posit that nomos in general is not talking about the law of Moses in general, but it is the abstraction of that, a rough definition would be the way God wants man to live. Also, I suggest that if you can't deal with the subtleties and complexities of nomos and its conjugates, you may not want to conclude anything definitive about it.

robrecht: if you could spare a little time to give a critique of this post it would be very much appreciated.

[Soyeong]

What I do find many Christian's doing is highlighting the liberty we have in Christ and drawing out the implications of the gospel and what it means to be "in Christ". Sadly, I see how many "Messianic Jews" could misunderstand this as being anti-Torah. Indeed, I'm sure Paul's own autobiographical sketch of conversion would cause some Messianic Jews to stumble if they have a distorted view of the gospel and the changes that were wrought about by the ushering in of Christ and the New Covenant.

Romans 15-18 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,[c] you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

The liberty we have in Christ frees us from sin so that we can become slaves of righteousness, which involves being faithfully obedient to God through keeping His Torah.

For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— though I myself have reasons for such confidence.

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith. I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.

Paul is talking about his pride and legalistic zeal for his own works-based righteousness under the law, which he now considers rubbish. Righteousness for God does not come from keeping the law is if it were by works, by by keeping the law by faith.

Romans 9:30-32 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness[d] did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.

[TyRockwell]

The Old Covenant food laws were necessary for the health of the people. They still lived under the Curse, in an earth that was more a dangerous place before Christ. On this side of the cross, we Christians are free of the curse of Genesis 3. Did you notice that God had no dietary laws for Adam? There were none, until God made the Mosaic Covenent with His people. With the Law, came the curses for not keeping it, AFTER the blessings for keeping it. See Deuteronomy's 28th chapter. In the Ndew Covenant the blessings come upon us because we are in Christ, who krpt the law in our place and bore the curses away from us. In the faith, Jesus' words are our protecting sword and armor. We just don't eat blood to honor the principle that "the life of the creature is in the blood." It keeps us from being yucky barbaric eaters, too. As to Mark 7, Jesus said that what one eats does not defile the body, because it LEAVES the body (is eliminated) "out with the draughts." What defiles, are the evils that can come OUT of the mouth. Those are the ONLY things Jesus said defiles.

[Scrawly]

Romans 15-18 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,[c] you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

Grace transforms and grace enables us to live holy lives pleasing to God. Born again Christian's walk in newness of life with new desires - they walk in the Spirit and exhibit the fruits of the Spirit - love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Gal.5:22-25). Walking in the Spirit is far from a mindset that believes "Oh yay, I am not under the law so now I can sin all I want!", isn't it?

The liberty we have in Christ frees us from sin so that we can become slaves of righteousness, which involves being faithfully obedient to God through keeping His Torah.

No. We do not practice the law in its original form, but rather, the law as fulfilled and transformed by Christ as in accordance with the Kingdom of heaven. The validity of this understanding of Jesus’ fulfillment of the Old Testament is borne out when we look at Jesus’ exposition of the Law which follows beginning with Matt.5:21. Seven times, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said to the ancients . . . but I say unto you.” That which the ancients were told is the teaching of the Law and the Prophets, not the man-made traditions for which Jesus rebuked the Jews at other points (Mt. 15). While Jesus does not deny the truth or validity of the Old Testament’s demands; he expands upon that truth or validity of the Old Testament’s demands, he expands upon that teaching, developing it in accordance with the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Moreover, the liberty children of God have under the New Covenant and in Christ, is discussed in Romans 14.

Romans 9:30-32 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness[d] did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.

Correct.

[robrecht]

Romans 9:30-32 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness[d] did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.

That is precisely the problem that Paul cites. If it weren't an issue, then he wouldn't have spent so much times talking about being justified by works versus by faith. If you read the Talmud, 26 volumes amazon.com, you will see that they turned keeping the Torah into a legalistic nightmare.

Matthew 23:1-4 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.

It is precisely the problem that Jesus is talking about here, and precisely the burden that they did not want to lay on the Gentiles in Acts 15.

Don't leave off the end of verse 32 and verse 33!

The problem according to Paul is that they did not recognize and adopt the faith and faithfulness of Jesus.

Matthew's Jesus would have you do and observe whatever they tell you. Here Jesus is portrayed as endorsing Phariseeic/rabbinic authority, whereas in Mark 7 and the Matthean parallel, Jesus seems to be more like a Karaite. Different people had differing impressions of Jesus. His faith, teaching and behavior were not so easy to characterize and he was ultimately rejected, the stone of stumbling and rock of scandal as Paul would understand Jesus. His faithful interpretation of the Law, though utterly faithful, was seen as too radical. He could be both as lenient as Hillel and as zealous as Shammai. Paul understood him well and he was was rejected by many Jewish Christians, as Jesus had been rejected by Jewish authorities before him. Was Jesus cursed, hanging on a tree, cursed as the law would say? No, not if one trusts in the faith and teaching of Jesus.

The problem was not the Jews; the problem was Jesus. He challenged everyone, not just those one disagrees with.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Each morning Orthodox Jews repeated in their prayers the Yigdal hymn which has a line that stated, "G-d will never amend nor exchange His law for any other one, for all eternity." I see no indication that God would ever repeal His instructions. God considers eating unclean animals to be an abomination, so at what point does God's opinion change?

Good on those Jews! I really don't bother about them though.

Furthermore, Jesus said the law wouldn't pass away, so a different socio-historical context is irrelevant.

No he said that Until Heaven and Earth pass away the Law would not pass away. The Law therefore passes away in Matt 24.

The law gives everything freedom by teaching us how to live righteously.

Jeremiah 31:33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.

The new covenant involves the Torah being written on our hearts.

Well while the word for law is torah, it just means the teaching of God which doesn't necessarily include the dietary laws.

"We should not think slightingly of the shadow. It was no less than the divine promise of all the heavenly realities about to arrive. The shadow proved the actuality and even the nearness of the realities, for only an actual body and one that is not far away casts a shadow. So the shadow call out all the faith and the hope of the Old Testament saints in the impending realities and guaranteed that faith and that hope in the strongest way. By faith Abraham saw Christ's day and was glad (John 8:56); Isaiah saw Christ's glory and spoke of it (John 12:41; Isaiah 53)." (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and Philemon, p. 126)

The purpose of the is to point to Christ, and it is no less because of that.

Yes it is to point to Christ who is better than the law. And Christ did annul some laws of the torah (unless you want to suppose the sacrificial laws are still to be kept.)

Man did not create God's laws and following them cannot be a self-made religion. At no point did God ever make unclean animals clean. Every vision in the Bible has a figurative interpretation that is given, and we don't trying to reinterpret any of the other visions as being literal, so why do people try to do that with Peter's vision?
.

You're honestly sure about that? Even if the Bible doesn't talk much about it, what about the church traditions?
Yes man did not create God's laws. But God made those laws for a specific context. Just like the sacrificial laws.
Also, note that in Colossians keeping certain laws was not something you should be judged by (eg laws of religious festivals)

There are multiple covenants in the Bible, and there is no indication that the new covenant has a different set of rules, rather the main difference is a far superior mediator, the Torah is being written on our hearts, and the new in the new covenant is you.

There are no different rules in the new covenant? So you mean we still have to be circumcised and engage in the sacrificial laws (Which are part of the Torah)?

The Jews had ritual purity laws that made them ritually unclean if they entered the house of a Gentile or associated with them. Peter objecting three times to being told to eat show that he had no understanding that kosher laws were abrogated in either Mark 7 or after the death and resurrection of Jesus, so this speaks against the Torah being changed.

Acts 10:15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.

What God has made clean (the word used referring to unclean animals) do not call common (the word used referring to being ritually unclean).

Acts 10:28 And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.

Peter gives the interpretation of the vision as voiding those ritual purity laws. In no other sense should his vision be taken.

Ok then.

How do you propose we translate Mark 7:19 though
http://biblehub.com/mark/7-19.htm

All of these suggest it is the purifying of all meats.

[Soyeong]

No. We see in Acts 15 two groups, possibly coterminous but I don't see any reason to assume they are. 15:1 has "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”"

The circumcision group frequently came in conflict with Paul and were teaching the same things as Acts 15:1, so while they might not have been the same people, they very likely were part of the same group. You're right that there is no need to assume they were the same group, but they were teaching the same things, which was point point in making that statement.

15:5 has "But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”"

So as I've said, though some wanted the Gentile Christians to keep the Mosaic law (and possibly the oral law developed from it), Peter and the apostles and the elders decide that the burden of the Mosaic law on them.

You keep talking about 15:1; you ignore 15:5.

The Pharisees saw the oral law as part of what Moses had given them, so they didn't consider their own additions to be separate. This is evident by the fact that are including the conversion ritual to be part of the Laws of Moses, when it is not actually in the OT anywhere. It wasn't the Torah or circumcision that they were rejecting, the were rejecting this conversion ritual. It's in the same way that if I refused to be baptized into a Mormon church, my rejection is of Mormonism and not of baptism.

The Pharisaic burden they are rejecting is the same one Jesus is talking about in Matthew.

Matthew 23:2-4 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.

Matthew 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell[e] as yourselves.

Leviticus 26:15 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that you should not be their slaves. And I have broken the bars of your yoke and made you walk erect.

Deuteronomy 30:11-15 “For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it. 15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

God did not bring his people out of Egypt to put them back into bondage with His Torah. The Torah is for freedom, it is the oral law that are the burden.

[JohnnyP]

No he said that Until Heaven and Earth pass away the Law would not pass away. The Law therefore passes away in Matt 24.

Jumping back in for a minute, do you think it coincides with the following, and when does Judgment take place? In a future end, or did it start sometime in the past?

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

[Soyeong]

I am glad you now agree that in Galatians Paul is talking about the Mosaic Law.

I agreed since the beginning that he was talking about the Mosaic Law, but he was specifically talking about a perverted way in which it was kept.

To that, I have only to respond: "But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:6) This is not law viewed apprehended from Spirit, rather the way of the Spirit is distinguished from the way of the Law.

Let's look at the context:

So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

The Law and Sin

7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”[b] 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.

The Torah teaches us what sin is and how to live righteously before God, but the very act of being told that we shouldn't sin entices us to do that. The law is not sinful, so it is not the problem, sin is the problem. Jesus paid the penalty for our disobedience to the Torah, death, so we have been released from the aspect of the law that bore fruit for death (verse 5). We have died to and been released from our own propensity to turn it into a framework of legalism, irremediable guilt feelings which follow disobeying it, and the Torah's penalties for disobeying it. As a result, we are now free to serve God in a new way provided by the Spirit, who has written the Torah in our hearts (Jeremiah 30:31).

In order to argue against Romans 6:15-18, you need explain what Paul means when he says that we shouldn't sin even though we are not under the law and that we should continue to be obedient to God. Romans 7:7 tells us that the Torah is how we know what sin is, so not being under the law doesn't mean that we are free to transgress it. We are free from the aspects of the penalty of the law and the need for justification by it, but we are not free to be disobedient to it.

No. Go back to the Scripture. Some Pharisees ask Jesus whether it is lawful to divorce at all, Jesus asks them what did Moses say on the issue, they say Moses permitted, quoting from Deuteronomy. Jesus agrees that Moses said so, but gives them a new ruling.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Jesus didn't ask them what Moses said, Jesus explained why Moses gave the ruling, but didn't agree with it, and he gave the ruling same ruling as it has been since the beginning.

When?

Towards the end of Acts, around 21-26.

[Soyeong]

You want to believe that the Gentile Christians in Antioch joined the religion of the Jews, kept kosher so that Kephas could eat with them, and that the controversy only concerned a symbolic interpretation of Kephas' eating habits pertaining to his implied change of belief about circumcision. None of that is in the text. Nor does it make sense.

I'm sorry, I don't think there is anything strange about a new convert to Christianity being concerned about learning about what rules they are supposed to follow so that they can fit in, avoid offending other Christians, and so that they can be obedient to the one true God. On the other hand, what would make no sense would if a new convert was completely unconcerned with these things.

If the Gentile Christians joined the religion of the Jews, kept kosher, why did they not also accept circumcision?

God-fearing Gentiles were those Gentiles who were Torah compliant, but had not undergone the conversion ritual to become a proselyte. Circumcision as an adult is rather debilitating.

Peter supposedly changed his view about the necessity of circumcision, but he had been living like a Gentile. What does that mean, living like a Gentile, did he have his circumcision reversed? Did the other Jews and even Barnabas have their circumcision reversed? Peter (and the other Jews at Antioch) were "eating with the Gentiles and living like a Gentile and not like a Jew." Eating. Living like.

Living like a Gentile rather than a Jew is not being obsessed with ritual purity.

"... for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Peter's hypocrisy was telling the Gentiles that it was ok for Jews to eat with them and that they were justified by grace through faith, then through his actions contradicting those statements.

Galatians 2:15-16 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of 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[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Paul going on to talk about being justified by faith implies that Peter's actions were making a statement about being justified by works. Kosher laws don't fit the bill by themselves because saying that Gentiles should follow them out of obedient to God is not the same as saying they needed to follow them in order to be justified. Rather, the by moving to eat with the legalistic circumcision group, he was agreeing that Gentiles should be made to follow the Jewish customs of circumcision to become Jews and that they weren't justified unless they kept all of the written and oral law. (See Acts 15:1)

Some Jewish Christians during Paul's time and Jewish Christians for a few centuries thereafter would continue to argue about how to understand Paul and his view that all things are clean. They did not make up this issue of contention in the early church. Just when do you think that Christians started misunderstanding Paul's text here?

This is slightly off topic, but I think there's good evidence in Acts that the disciples never stopped following the Torah.

http://www.fogwhistle.ca/acts/evidence.html

Sure they were. Jews eating with Gentiles? Jews living like Gentiles? Eating meat sacrificed to idols? Did the Law allow Jews to eat meat sacrificed to idols? Of course not. Did the law allow Jews to live like Gentiles and not like Jews?

There were oral laws that made Jews ceremonially unclean if they entered the house of Gentiles, or associated with them. These laws were what Peter's vision voided and which changed how Peter lived with them in stark contrast to other Jews.

Seriously? Have you not read the 10 commandments? "You shall not have other gods besides me. You shall not make for yourself an idol or likeness of anything whatever is in heaven above and whatever is in the earth beneath and whatever is in the waters beneath the earth. You shall not do obeisance to them, nor are you to serve them."

Right, there was a commandment against idolatry, but it doesn't meticulously define which actions counted as that (See the Talmud). If you were at a pagan ritual and ate meat that you knew had been sacrificed to idols, then it was idolatry. However, if you were eating meat that had been sold on the market or at someone's house and you didn't know whether it had been sacrificed to idols, then you could eat that possibly had been sacrificed to idols with a clear conscious. A major concern for Jews was that they didn't know that for sure when they ate with Gentiles or with Gentiles that they could fall back into paganism. Paul was trying to clarify this issue in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, but at no point did he contradict the Torah.

The text of Maccabees was not referring to only a single incident of a pig being offered on the altar. The Greek is clearly referring to multiple occasions and foods and equates 'eating unclean things' with 'being defiled by foods'. I don't think we should distinguish too strongly between eating something unclean and ritual purity. Both are matters of the law.

The issue is that becoming ritually unclean was not a sin. Jesus became ritually unclean when he healed a leper or the woman who was bleeding. It was also not a sin to eat something that was ritually unclean. For instance, you weren't sinning if you went to a funeral and were in the same room with the body, but it made you ritually unclean. If you then went home and ate a kosher meal, the food would become ritually unclean as you touched it, but you still wouldn't be sinning. On the other hand, eating animals that God has declared to to be unclean is a sin.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Jumping back in for a minute, do you think it coincides with the following, and when does Judgment take place? In a future end, or did it start sometime in the past?

Start a new thread on it Johnny and we'll talk there

[robrecht]

I'm sorry, I don't think there is anything strange about a new convert to Christianity being concerned about learning about what rules they are supposed to follow so that they can fit in, avoid offending other Christians, and so that they can be obedient to the one true God. On the other hand, what would make no sense would if a new convert was completely unconcerned with these things.

God-fearing Gentiles were those Gentiles who were Torah compliant, but had not undergone the conversion ritual to become a proselyte. Circumcision as an adult is rather debilitating.

Living like a Gentile rather than a Jew is not being obsessed with ritual purity.

Peter's hypocrisy was telling the Gentiles that it was ok for Jews to eat with them and that they were justified by grace through faith, then through his actions contradicting those statements.

You're missing the point. All of this is your imagination; none of it is in the text.

Paul going on to talk about being justified by faith implies that Peter's actions were making a statement about being justified by works. Kosher laws don't fit the bill by themselves because saying that Gentiles should follow them out of obedient to God is not the same as saying they needed to follow them in order to be justified. Rather, the by moving to eat with the legalistic circumcision group, he was agreeing that Gentiles should be made to follow the Jewish customs of circumcision to become Jews and that they weren't justified unless they kept all of the written and oral law. (See Acts 15:1)

You believe your view is implied by what Paul says subsequently, but you ignore what is actually in the text, no need for it to be implied: Cephas ate with the Gentiles, lived like a Gentile and then separated himself from the Gentiles when the men from James came upon the scene.

This is slightly off topic, but I think there's good evidence in Acts that the disciples never stopped following the Torah.

http://www.fogwhistle.ca/acts/evidence.html

We already know from a much earlier eye-witness that Cephas ate with the Gentiles and lived like a Gentile.

There were oral laws that made Jews ceremonially unclean if they entered the house of Gentiles, or associated with them. These laws were what Peter's vision voided and which changed how Peter lived with them in stark contrast to other Jews.

When Paul tells us that Cephas ate with the Gentiles and lived like a Gentile, you wish that what he really said was that Cephas ate kosher with the Gentiles and he only lived like a Gentile with respect to some oral ceremonial laws but with respect to all of the other laws, Cephas did not live like a Gentile. Problem is, this is Paul's letter to the Galatians, not Soyeong's letter to the Galatians. No offense, but I will stick with the letter Paul wrote.

Right, there was a commandment against idolatry, but it doesn't meticulously define which actions counted as that (See the Talmud). If you were at a pagan ritual and ate meat that you knew had been sacrificed to idols, then it was idolatry. However, if you were eating meat that had been sold on the market or at someone's house and you didn't know whether it had been sacrificed to idols, then you could eat that possibly had been sacrificed to idols with a clear conscious. A major concern for Jews was that they didn't know that for sure when they ate with Gentiles or with Gentiles that they could fall back into paganism. Paul was trying to clarify this issue in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, but at no point did he contradict the Torah.

Nothing is unclean in and of itself, all things are clean. Face it, you don't find that in the Torah or the Talmud.

The issue is that becoming ritually unclean was not a sin. Jesus became ritually unclean when he healed a leper or the woman who was bleeding. It was also not a sin to eat something that was ritually unclean. For instance, you weren't sinning if you went to a funeral and were in the same room with the body, but it made you ritually unclean. If you then went home and ate a kosher meal, the food would become ritually unclean as you touched it, but you still wouldn't be sinning. On the other hand, eating animals that God has declared to to be unclean is a sin.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want about sin, but you are not able to say truthfully that Paul said eating something unclean was a sin. He does not say that. He says everything is clean. It is only a sin for those who believe it is a sin because they act against their conscience.