I am so glad you explained the Mark parenthetical statement further in this video, I am trying to refute a study note from John MacArthur and you really cleared it up for me!
Classy and insightful response David. The traditional influence on Rob's interpretation is so clear. Scholarship on the passage is irrelevant to him. He continues to assume his interpretation is correct. I suppose now we can shake the "crap" off of our sandals and move on. haha
The Torah states that certain creatures are food or are *not* food. Pigs, for example, are detestable and are not food. In my understanding, those who keep kosher would not even refer to non-kosher creatures as "food" but may call it "treif" and never even call it "unclean food". It's either food (kosher, clean) or not food (non-kosher, unclean, "treif").
Super great rebuttals, David. I heard someone say recently, 'God isn't concerned about what we eat. It all comes out in the wash anyways.' The thing that comes out or that which is revealed, is our unwillingless to examine a topic with the attittide of: Abba show me! We resist in part due to faulty teaching but also because innately our hearts hate to submit. Being set-apart takes effort n diligence.❤
I think part of the problem we have with discussing Mark 7:19 and "thus He declared all foods clean" with folks who believe the dietary laws were done away with, is we never get anyone to define the meaning/definition of the word "food" in this passage. In Mark 7:2 they were eating bread with unwashed hands... As best as I can tell, and no reason to believe otherwise, it was clean/kosher food that was in question here and was only made unclean by eating it with unwashed "defiled" hands. If Yeshua did declare "all foods clean", wouldn't it stand to reason the "foods" in question would be food and not something unclean regardless of the cleanliness of one's hands? I don't see the Jewish leaders promoting bacon or shrimp as a food here.
@@MrChemenger I agree the general context of food is defined in Lev 11 . In Mark 7, Mat 15 , the context is dirty bread (food) that was the accusation .
If one were to honestly read the Tanakh, you will find that the Messiah was to be a Torah teacher (coming to the scriptures without any presuppositions). You will never find the messiah teaching this "spiritualizing" of the commandments that really just mean that they are to no longer be kept in the entirety of the Tanakh. can't we "spiritualize" adultery so that we can have multiple partners as long as we don't break the "spiritual" part of the command? Rob would obviously say that the physical and spiritual are linked. Well...why aren't they linked with the Sabbath or the dietary laws? Ultimately it's hyperbole and circles with this kind of theology. also, Rob is wrong in saying the gospel writer said "thus he declared all foods clean." Mark DIDN'T say this. That is an addition by the TRANSLATORS. The KJV translation is alot more loyal to the texts. It says 'purging the food'. In other words...what goes in doesn't effect your heart and it goes out (having been purged). Rob seems sincere so I am inclined to believe that he either doesn't know about this or has some kind of get around to say why we need to add words to the text in order to force it to say that.
It really frustrates the main streamers when you agree with them that all foods are clean and then point out that Leviticus 11 tells us which meats are not food. Leviticus 11:2 (New Living Translation) “Give the following instructions to the people of Israel.“Of all the land animals, these are the ones you may use for food." Note: Leviticus 11 is not forbidding any food it's telling us which animals are food and which animals are not food.
@@djdarklyceum I don't think it's that. I think it's the mindset of the Christian on food. Food to us is simply anything we eat. We don't look at that word the same way that they do because we never use that word the way they did. Heck, look at all the chemicals we pump into so-called "food" today.
Shalom and blessings David. Thank you for another excellent and edifying message, praise Yah. I have respect for Rob and enjoyed his debate with Singer. However, he is Biblically inconsistent. I know you are very busy with your studies but I would love to see you or JK McKee debate Singer. I pray for his salvation but he is very dangerous. Every blessing to you and your family. David (UK)
For me it is very simple. According to Leviticus 11, the "food laws" are a picture that God is the One who is sanctifying us. So as long as we believe this is true, the commandment should stand. It is even repeated by Peter in 1 Peter 1:16, which (vision of Peter) funny enough RL Solberg uses to prove we no longer have to keep it. Furthermore, if a law is written on my heart it translates in "I love to do it", not in "It's no longer required".
As we learn and grow into the Torah, we are wanting to observe the dietary laws. My question is, what to do with the frozen pork that we already have? Lots in the freezer. Do you suggest we trash it? Donate? Which may be difficult due to being perishable. I would appreciate guidance in this area. Be blessed
I love your respect for those in opposition. Especially your Dan McClellan rebuttal. Can I recommend something? Okay good... Could you do a kind of prologue at the beginning of your videos as if you were explaining this to a 7 year old? I can understand if you feel that simplifying the argument would cause people to say you were strawmanning them.
How is it that in this speculative debate never refers to Romans 14? The whole chapter addresses this issue. A small snippet: 3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
If you're interested in my perspective, I go through Romans 14 in depth in my book, "Remember the Sabbath." I also have a teaching on the 119 Ministries channel on Romans 14 titled, "Matters of Opinion."
I don't think we should despise anyone first of all, and as christians we should all agree! Also, I believe this is referring to eating vs not eating. Aka fasting. There's also verses about being a meat eater vs vegetarian. Neither of these things would be at odds with the God's Law to begin with, so of course we shouldn't judge one another on these matters. (Though Paul did say that he thought that vegetarians were weaker). God said not to add or take away from His commands. Where do these verses say that you can eat whatever we want? If I can eat anything what about magic mushrooms? Or poison ivy? I'm being hyperbolic here but I'm trying to make a point... All the way back at least as far as noah God makes a distinction between what is and isn't food. God gives these commands before ever entering the ark. So when Noah gets off the ark and God tells him he can eat anything, it seems obvious that God is talking about anything that God already told Noah was good for food... Every green thing does not include poisonous things, or mind altering things, right? Who are we to tell God what is or isn't food. He created the pig, what if the pig is not meant to be food? (As an aside: if Noah had eaten unclean animals when he got off the ark they would all be extinct so no one can argue that he ate Porky's ancestors 😅) If you read the laws given for food in Leviticus you will notice a common theme, all of the unclean animals are the wastebaskets of the earth, the garbage collectors and scavengers. Ever heard the term "you are what you eat"? I'm not saying that people are unclean who eat these things... God said to call no PERSON unclean in acts 15. I do think though that there is a discussion to be had on what exactly God declared food vs not food. Any verse therefore talking about food must be held in light of God's already established standard. Heaven and earth are still here... So the law still applies. They are the witnesses that God cites repeatedly throughout the old and new testaments for a *reason* . Because we can all argue about theology all day long... But we can all look around and agree that heaven and earth are still here! 😉 Shalom.
Perhaps Romans 14 isn’t addressed here because it’s context has nothing to do with that which is clean or unclean; rather, it is addressing fasting and is a response to a conflict between believers about such.
My personal interpretation… Is when Jesus said there was nothing outside of a person that could go into him and defile him..included the food laws.. why would Jesus make an over arching statement like that?!? “Nothing outside of a person.”
People like Mr Solberg seem to be missing a major issue when they believe that Jesus did away with the dietary laws in Mark 7:19. For Jesus to do away with this law or change it in any way would be a violation of the law of adding to or taking away. Thus he would be a sinner and not qualified to be the perfect lamb. Also, in Matt 5:19 Jesus own words would apply to himself of teaching people to break one command therefore Jesus would be called least in the Kingdom. There are so many contradictions in Solberg’s teachings.
The Perpetuity of Dietary Laws: A Biblical Outline Introduction - Thesis: Biblical dietary laws, particularly the distinction between clean and unclean meats, remain relevant and significant from the Old Testament through the New Testament and into eschatological teachings. I. Old Testament Foundations - Genesis 7:2-3: Noah's days distinction between clean and unclean animals (both for sacrifice and as food) signifies that it applies to all mankind. - Leviticus 11: Detailed dietary laws for Israel, setting apart clean and unclean animals further clarifies the distinction given to Noah. II. Jesus' Teaching in Matthew 15 - Context: Pharisees criticize disciples for not following ceremonial handwashing. - Jesus' Focus: Internal purity over external rituals. - Clarification: Passage addresses ceremonial handwashing, not nulifying dietary laws. III. Peter's Vision in Acts 10 - The Vision: Peter sees a sheet with clean and unclean animals. - Peter's Reaction: Refuses to eat, showing continued adherence to dietary laws, supporting the correctness of the interpretation of Matthew 15. - Explanation in Acts 10:28: Vision about not calling any person impure or unclean, emphasizing Gentile inclusion in the faith, and not dietary law changes. IV. Paul's Teaching in 1 Timothy 4:4-5 - Verse: "Everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." - Contextual Understanding: Promotes thanksgiving and prayer, but does not nullify the distinction between clean and unclean meats as defined by the Word of God (1 Timothy 4:5). V. Eschatological Significance in Isaiah 66 - Prophecy: Isaiah 66:15-17 warns of judgment for those eating unclean foods at the Lord's return. - Implication: Highlights the continued relevance and importance of dietary laws in the end times. VI. Conclusion - Matthew 15: Reaffirms focus on internal purity, not abolishing dietary laws. - Acts 10: Vision emphasizes inclusion of Gentiles, not changing dietary law practices. - 1 Timothy 4:4-5: Encourages thanksgiving, with the Word of God maintaining dietary law distinctions. - Isaiah 66: Eschatological judgment underscores the perpetual significance of dietary laws. This outline demonstrates that dietary laws concerning clean and unclean meats are consistently upheld throughout the Bible and remain pertinent even in eschatological contexts.
Mark 7 jesus says u laugh aside gods commandments for tradition of men. Jesus validates gods commandments twice on this passage. So how anyone can say otherwise wouldn't make sense
Regarding Jesus and the Pharisees, see Matthew 5:17-20, and especially Matthew 23:1-3, "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them." Note: Jesus is telling his followers to obey the Pharisees - the fathers of rabbinical Judaism - even though the Pharisees were hypocritical. And in following verses he describes some of these instructions as being excessive (Matt 23:4), and yet he does NOT say that because of their hypocrisy, that you can ignore their instructions. In Acts 15:19-21, the Jerusalem Council meets, and it's decided what the minimum commandments are for the Gentiles "who are turning to God..." and they have the following instructions, 1) abstain from things contaminated by idols, 2) do not fornicate, 3) do not eat animals that were strangled, and 4) do not eat blood. And then in verse 21 this is said, “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
Washing hands before eating food is not ritual hand washing. God commanded ritual hand washing to priests before offering animal sacrifice and entering the Tabernacle and not to common Jews/Israelites before eating food. (Exodus 30:20) Washing hands before eating food was man-made law by pharisses and not commandment of God.
Mark 7 context is not about what is clean or unclean. Jesus was not talking about broma or akarthaton. Mark 7 is about eating the literal bread where the disciples not washing the hands. period. it was about the tradition of men.
Jesus is not talking in absolutist terms even as being a Rabbi ment that Mary was living on Corban. But, "Law on their heart" is in the Reign of Messiah, may it be in our lifetime. I answer the objection this way, "If you are not under the Torah, you are under His Grace, the pope."
A message to all... Rob Solberg, in Deuteronomy 4:2, I agree that God is talking to the Jews, and though it applies to the foreigners of the land as well, he is talking to the Jews. Tell me, who was Yeshua talking to, the Gentiles? You continue to speak ambiguously and confusedly. As previously stated, you speak double-mindedly. Again, the word double-minded comes from the Greek word dipsuchos, meaning "a person with two minds or souls," and it also refers to being split in half, vacillating like a "spiritual schizophrenic." The word dipsuchos appears to reflect a person as having one soul directed toward God and the other toward Satan; one soul inclined to exalt God and the other inclined to turn away from God. What you were insinuating in Deuteronomy 4:2, is that because God was talking to the Jews and not the Gentiles, the law does not apply to the Gentile believers, right? Now, if you believe that Yeshua is God, then God spoke to the Jews in the Brit-Chadashah, right? 1) Can you see how you want nothing to do with the God of the Talnakh but want everything to do with the God of the Brit-Chadashah? 2) Can you see how the word "dipsuchos" fits you, vacillating like a "spiritual schizophrenic"? Let me make this clear: YOU ARE A FALSE PROPHET and are introducing a new cult called TORAHISM, a cult that wants nothing to do with the God of Israel. If anyone wants to read what I recently posted on Rob Solberg, go to his latest two videos on Galatians 3. Anyone that refutes Rob Solberg, should point out what he is according to the Scriptures. Rob Solberg wants nothing to do with the God of Israel, and the Yeshua that he serves is a prodigal son, one who rebelled against the Father. In other words, the Yeshua he serves is filling his belly with the husks of the swine.
Let's try to remove the scripture and everything about Yahweh. However, in the later part of our lives, doctors and health experts will soon tell us to stop eating it (unclean) unless you want to see the next life in advance lol. Shalom David.
But when did God declare pig clean? When did God conclude that the pig was food for us? Jesus said I declare all foods clean this statement wouldn't be necessary unless people were eating pig. My conclusion to this would be that the pagans who were coming to the knowledge of Christ we're still eating unclean food and it was a matter of fact to let the people know that what God has called clean not to call unclean that these people have not come to the full knowledge yet just as the Bible says don't call what I call clean unclean. Also The Bible says the one who is weak in faith should not do it
Ultimately, it matters not what Mark said, or Peter, or Paul or any other man. The Creator gave a clear instruction as to which animals are to ever be considered food. What HE said is what matters if one claims to worship Him. Don’t get me wrong, I love Mark, Peter, Paul and the other men our Father chose to reveal the scriptures, but there is only one Master. These men were but His servants.
In chapter 12 of Matthew verse 39 or 38 Jesus says a wicked and perverse generation seeking after a sign but there shall no sign be given except the sign of Jonah for as Jonah was in the fish's belly three days and three nights so shall the son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights the weekly cycle has never changed God created this Earth in seven days and each day consists of 24 hours if that be the case then Jesus had to be in the grave. Of 72 hours how can you fit 72 hours from Friday 3:00 p.m. when they say he gave up the ghost to Sunday morning if that be the case then the resurrection would have been on a Monday he was not crucified on a Friday he was crucified on a Wednesday Wednesday to Thursday 24 hours Thursday to Friday 24 hours Friday to Saturday 24 hours which adds up to 72 hours and anybody else that says otherwise is not telling the truth because Jesus who is God in the flesh that is the one thing he cannot do he cannot lie there are some Advantage who believe who is crucified on a Friday there is this pastor Seventh-day Adventist even more who says he was crucified on Wednesday their other 7-Day events believe he was a crucified on Friday therefore this divides his church and Paul says let there be no divisions in the church so what does that make the church it makes the church divided they are still not Unified so look it up and Daniel Daniel even says that he would cause a sacrifice in the midst of the week and the mist of the week is Wednesday not Friday missed means middle and the middle of our week is Wednesday the weekly cycle has never changed so I am sorry to go against my church against this belief but any nine-year-old could count what are those events I believe he was crucified on Friday think about this and it is already proven that he was crucified on a Friday when in actuality he was crucified on a Wednesday to fill the prophecy of Jonah I would like some responses to this thank you very much
Ok so if Israel is supposed to be a light to the world because they have Gods way why would people strive to follow his ways for thousands of years because they either love him or because they were backsliding and he threatened punishment just for him to turn around and overthrow the law. That does not seem like a God who has equal honest scales of justice. I can not respect a God that holds a man to a standard for blessing if obeyed (not salvation) and a curse for disobedience yet turn around and revoke his own ways. Sounds like a Whishey washey God who can’t be trusted. Praise God he never changed
You are not understanding what the role of the priesthood was. The priest offered sacrifices for sin. Sin is the transgression of the law. What law was transgressed that needed sacrifices? The law of God. What law was added because of transgressions? The penalty. The priest offered a substitution for the penalty in the form of a sacrifice. The change in the law referred to in Hebrews 7 is the priesthood. We no longer need a priest to offer animal sacrifices for sin because we have the messiah offering himself as our substitute. Hebrews 10 really clarifies this with a warning for believers Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
I am a Seventh Day Adventist and yet I feel and know that Jesus was not crucified on a Friday the Pharisees and the priests were always asking Jesus for a sign but he never gave one and then on Passover evening he finally did
I am a SDA too. What confuses you my sister? Have you read Luke 23? “And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.” Luke 23:54-56 KJV
![Yeat & Summrs - GO2WORK [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NEFEwfPcXRA/mqdefault.jpg)
Love that David calls him friend! It’s important that even though they disagree we are ultimately brothers in Christ.
Amein! We have one Spirit in Messiah!
I am so glad you explained the Mark parenthetical statement further in this video, I am trying to refute a study note from John MacArthur and you really cleared it up for me!
Classy and insightful response David. The traditional influence on Rob's interpretation is so clear. Scholarship on the passage is irrelevant to him. He continues to assume his interpretation is correct. I suppose now we can shake the "crap" off of our sandals and move on. haha
Excellent work, you pieced up his arguments nicely 👍🏼
The Torah states that certain creatures are food or are *not* food. Pigs, for example, are detestable and are not food. In my understanding, those who keep kosher would not even refer to non-kosher creatures as "food" but may call it "treif" and never even call it "unclean food". It's either food (kosher, clean) or not food (non-kosher, unclean, "treif").
Super great rebuttals, David. I heard someone say recently, 'God isn't concerned about what we eat. It all comes out in the wash anyways.' The thing that comes out or that which is revealed, is our unwillingless to examine a topic with the attittide of: Abba show me! We resist in part due to faulty teaching but also because innately our hearts hate to submit. Being set-apart takes effort n diligence.❤
Amen. Truth right there.
I think part of the problem we have with discussing Mark 7:19 and "thus He declared all foods clean" with folks who believe the dietary laws were done away with, is we never get anyone to define the meaning/definition of the word "food" in this passage. In Mark 7:2 they were eating bread with unwashed hands... As best as I can tell, and no reason to believe otherwise, it was clean/kosher food that was in question here and was only made unclean by eating it with unwashed "defiled" hands. If Yeshua did declare "all foods clean", wouldn't it stand to reason the "foods" in question would be food and not something unclean regardless of the cleanliness of one's hands? I don't see the Jewish leaders promoting bacon or shrimp as a food here.
Me thinks you are right the definition of food is that which is lawful to eat. Anything the Torah says cannot be eaten is not in the food category!
@@MrChemenger agreed
Great point!
Exactly and who in a Jewish table would be thinking about eating forbidden food ?😅 just read the room, the passage is clear
@@MrChemenger I agree the general context of food is defined in Lev 11 . In Mark 7, Mat 15 , the context is dirty bread (food) that was the accusation .
If one were to honestly read the Tanakh, you will find that the Messiah was to be a Torah teacher (coming to the scriptures without any presuppositions). You will never find the messiah teaching this "spiritualizing" of the commandments that really just mean that they are to no longer be kept in the entirety of the Tanakh.
can't we "spiritualize" adultery so that we can have multiple partners as long as we don't break the "spiritual" part of the command? Rob would obviously say that the physical and spiritual are linked. Well...why aren't they linked with the Sabbath or the dietary laws? Ultimately it's hyperbole and circles with this kind of theology.
also, Rob is wrong in saying the gospel writer said "thus he declared all foods clean." Mark DIDN'T say this. That is an addition by the TRANSLATORS. The KJV translation is alot more loyal to the texts. It says 'purging the food'. In other words...what goes in doesn't effect your heart and it goes out (having been purged). Rob seems sincere so I am inclined to believe that he either doesn't know about this or has some kind of get around to say why we need to add words to the text in order to force it to say that.
It really frustrates the main streamers when you agree with them that all foods are clean and then point out that Leviticus 11 tells us which meats are not food.
Leviticus 11:2 (New Living Translation)
“Give the following instructions to the people of Israel.“Of all the land animals, these are the ones you may use for food."
Note: Leviticus 11 is not forbidding any food it's telling us which animals are food and which animals are not food.
When your love of eating foods Yah deemed detestable/abominable is so great, logic goes out the window.
@@djdarklyceum Are you objecting to his comment?
@@djdarklyceum this comment that you’re responding to is not anti dietary law
@@djdarklyceum I don't think it's that. I think it's the mindset of the Christian on food. Food to us is simply anything we eat. We don't look at that word the same way that they do because we never use that word the way they did.
Heck, look at all the chemicals we pump into so-called "food" today.
Solid logic victorious again. Well done, brother.
Shalom and blessings David. Thank you for another excellent and edifying message, praise Yah. I have respect for Rob and enjoyed his debate with Singer. However, he is Biblically inconsistent. I know you are very busy with your studies but I would love to see you or JK McKee debate Singer. I pray for his salvation but he is very dangerous. Every blessing to you and your family. David (UK)
I would LOVE to debate Singer!
For me it is very simple. According to Leviticus 11, the "food laws" are a picture that God is the One who is sanctifying us. So as long as we believe this is true, the commandment should stand. It is even repeated by Peter in 1 Peter 1:16, which (vision of Peter) funny enough RL Solberg uses to prove we no longer have to keep it.
Furthermore, if a law is written on my heart it translates in "I love to do it", not in "It's no longer required".
As we learn and grow into the Torah, we are wanting to observe the dietary laws. My question is, what to do with the frozen pork that we already have?
Lots in the freezer. Do you suggest we trash it?
Donate? Which may be difficult due to being perishable. I would appreciate guidance in this area. Be blessed
donate it to anyone out of covenant. When we accidentally get pork pepperoni pizza when bring it to the neighbors .
I pray that Yeshua would continue to bless you with wisdom as this is a HUGE topic in the Christian/Messianic community. Keep it up brother!
I love your respect for those in opposition. Especially your Dan McClellan rebuttal.
Can I recommend something? Okay good... Could you do a kind of prologue at the beginning of your videos as if you were explaining this to a 7 year old? I can understand if you feel that simplifying the argument would cause people to say you were strawmanning them.
This is me - ruclips.net/video/nUfr195i_54/видео.html
The final clause was added into newer translations. It didn't exist prior to about 100 years ago.
How is it that in this speculative debate never refers to Romans 14?
The whole chapter addresses this issue.
A small snippet:
3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
If you're interested in my perspective, I go through Romans 14 in depth in my book, "Remember the Sabbath." I also have a teaching on the 119 Ministries channel on Romans 14 titled, "Matters of Opinion."
I don't think we should despise anyone first of all, and as christians we should all agree!
Also, I believe this is referring to eating vs not eating. Aka fasting. There's also verses about being a meat eater vs vegetarian. Neither of these things would be at odds with the God's Law to begin with, so of course we shouldn't judge one another on these matters. (Though Paul did say that he thought that vegetarians were weaker).
God said not to add or take away from His commands. Where do these verses say that you can eat whatever we want? If I can eat anything what about magic mushrooms? Or poison ivy?
I'm being hyperbolic here but I'm trying to make a point... All the way back at least as far as noah God makes a distinction between what is and isn't food. God gives these commands before ever entering the ark. So when Noah gets off the ark and God tells him he can eat anything, it seems obvious that God is talking about anything that God already told Noah was good for food... Every green thing does not include poisonous things, or mind altering things, right? Who are we to tell God what is or isn't food. He created the pig, what if the pig is not meant to be food?
(As an aside: if Noah had eaten unclean animals when he got off the ark they would all be extinct so no one can argue that he ate Porky's ancestors 😅)
If you read the laws given for food in Leviticus you will notice a common theme, all of the unclean animals are the wastebaskets of the earth, the garbage collectors and scavengers.
Ever heard the term "you are what you eat"?
I'm not saying that people are unclean who eat these things... God said to call no PERSON unclean in acts 15. I do think though that there is a discussion to be had on what exactly God declared food vs not food.
Any verse therefore talking about food must be held in light of God's already established standard. Heaven and earth are still here... So the law still applies. They are the witnesses that God cites repeatedly throughout the old and new testaments for a *reason* .
Because we can all argue about theology all day long... But we can all look around and agree that heaven and earth are still here! 😉
Shalom.
Perhaps Romans 14 isn’t addressed here because it’s context has nothing to do with that which is clean or unclean; rather, it is addressing fasting and is a response to a conflict between believers about such.
My personal interpretation… Is when Jesus said there was nothing outside of a person that could go into him and defile him..included the food laws.. why would Jesus make an over arching statement like that?!?
“Nothing outside of a person.”
People like Mr Solberg seem to be missing a major issue when they believe that Jesus did away with the dietary laws in Mark 7:19. For Jesus to do away with this law or change it in any way would be a violation of the law of adding to or taking away. Thus he would be a sinner and not qualified to be the perfect lamb. Also, in Matt 5:19 Jesus own words would apply to himself of teaching people to break one command therefore Jesus would be called least in the Kingdom. There are so many contradictions in Solberg’s teachings.
Romans chapter 14/ Acts 15:20
Acts 15:21
No lie could ever be the truth
So what, gentiles too are not allowed to eat pork?
If they are Christians, they should keep God's commandments.
The Perpetuity of Dietary Laws: A Biblical Outline
Introduction
- Thesis: Biblical dietary laws, particularly the distinction between clean and unclean meats, remain relevant and significant from the Old Testament through the New Testament and into eschatological teachings.
I. Old Testament Foundations
- Genesis 7:2-3: Noah's days distinction between clean and unclean animals (both for sacrifice and as food) signifies that it applies to all mankind.
- Leviticus 11: Detailed dietary laws for Israel, setting apart clean and unclean animals further clarifies the distinction given to Noah.
II. Jesus' Teaching in Matthew 15
- Context: Pharisees criticize disciples for not following ceremonial handwashing.
- Jesus' Focus: Internal purity over external rituals.
- Clarification: Passage addresses ceremonial handwashing, not nulifying dietary laws.
III. Peter's Vision in Acts 10
- The Vision: Peter sees a sheet with clean and unclean animals.
- Peter's Reaction: Refuses to eat, showing continued adherence to dietary laws, supporting the correctness of the interpretation of Matthew 15.
- Explanation in Acts 10:28: Vision about not calling any person impure or unclean, emphasizing Gentile inclusion in the faith, and not dietary law changes.
IV. Paul's Teaching in 1 Timothy 4:4-5
- Verse: "Everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving."
- Contextual Understanding: Promotes thanksgiving and prayer, but does not nullify the distinction between clean and unclean meats as defined by the Word of God (1 Timothy 4:5).
V. Eschatological Significance in Isaiah 66
- Prophecy: Isaiah 66:15-17 warns of judgment for those eating unclean foods at the Lord's return.
- Implication: Highlights the continued relevance and importance of dietary laws in the end times.
VI. Conclusion
- Matthew 15: Reaffirms focus on internal purity, not abolishing dietary laws.
- Acts 10: Vision emphasizes inclusion of Gentiles, not changing dietary law practices.
- 1 Timothy 4:4-5: Encourages thanksgiving, with the Word of God maintaining dietary law distinctions.
- Isaiah 66: Eschatological judgment underscores the perpetual significance of dietary laws.
This outline demonstrates that dietary laws concerning clean and unclean meats are consistently upheld throughout the Bible and remain pertinent even in eschatological contexts.
Mark 7 jesus says u laugh aside gods commandments for tradition of men. Jesus validates gods commandments twice on this passage. So how anyone can say otherwise wouldn't make sense
Regarding Jesus and the Pharisees, see Matthew 5:17-20, and especially Matthew 23:1-3,
"Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them."
Note: Jesus is telling his followers to obey the Pharisees - the fathers of rabbinical Judaism - even though the Pharisees were hypocritical. And in following verses he describes some of these instructions as being excessive (Matt 23:4), and yet he does NOT say that because of their hypocrisy, that you can ignore their instructions.
In Acts 15:19-21, the Jerusalem Council meets, and it's decided what the minimum commandments are for the Gentiles "who are turning to God..." and they have the following instructions, 1) abstain from things contaminated by idols, 2) do not fornicate, 3) do not eat animals that were strangled, and 4) do not eat blood.
And then in verse 21 this is said, “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
Torah commands Jews/Israelites to offer animal sacrifice. Do Jews/Israelites offer animal sacrifice ?
Washing hands before eating food is not ritual hand washing. God commanded ritual hand washing to priests before offering animal sacrifice and entering the Tabernacle and not to common Jews/Israelites before eating food.
(Exodus 30:20)
Washing hands before eating food was man-made law by pharisses and not commandment of God.
Yes I know-I explained all of that in my original video.
Mark 7 context is not about what is clean or unclean. Jesus was not talking about broma or akarthaton. Mark 7 is about eating the literal bread where the disciples not washing the hands. period. it was about the tradition of men.
Jesus is not talking in absolutist terms even as being a Rabbi ment that Mary was living on Corban. But, "Law on their heart" is in the Reign of Messiah, may it be in our lifetime. I answer the objection this way, "If you are not under the Torah, you are under His Grace, the pope."
A message to all...
Rob Solberg, in Deuteronomy 4:2, I agree that God is talking to the Jews, and though it applies to the foreigners of the land as well, he is talking to the Jews. Tell me, who was Yeshua talking to, the Gentiles?
You continue to speak ambiguously and confusedly. As previously stated, you speak double-mindedly. Again, the word double-minded comes from the Greek word dipsuchos, meaning "a person with two minds or souls," and it also refers to being split in half, vacillating like a "spiritual schizophrenic." The word dipsuchos appears to reflect a person as having one soul directed toward God and the other toward Satan; one soul inclined to exalt God and the other inclined to turn away from God.
What you were insinuating in Deuteronomy 4:2, is that because God was talking to the Jews and not the Gentiles, the law does not apply to the Gentile believers, right? Now, if you believe that Yeshua is God, then God spoke to the Jews in the Brit-Chadashah, right?
1) Can you see how you want nothing to do with the God of the Talnakh but want everything to do with the God of the Brit-Chadashah?
2) Can you see how the word "dipsuchos" fits you, vacillating like a "spiritual schizophrenic"?
Let me make this clear: YOU ARE A FALSE PROPHET and are introducing a new cult called TORAHISM, a cult that wants nothing to do with the God of Israel.
If anyone wants to read what I recently posted on Rob Solberg, go to his latest two videos on Galatians 3.
Anyone that refutes Rob Solberg, should point out what he is according to the Scriptures. Rob Solberg wants nothing to do with the God of Israel, and the Yeshua that he serves is a prodigal son, one who rebelled against the Father. In other words, the Yeshua he serves is filling his belly with the husks of the swine.
Let's try to remove the scripture and everything about Yahweh. However, in the later part of our lives, doctors and health experts will soon tell us to stop eating it (unclean) unless you want to see the next life in advance lol. Shalom David.
But when did God declare pig clean? When did God conclude that the pig was food for us? Jesus said I declare all foods clean this statement wouldn't be necessary unless people were eating pig. My conclusion to this would be that the pagans who were coming to the knowledge of Christ we're still eating unclean food and it was a matter of fact to let the people know that what God has called clean not to call unclean that these people have not come to the full knowledge yet just as the Bible says don't call what I call clean unclean. Also The Bible says the one who is weak in faith should not do it
Ultimately, it matters not what Mark said, or Peter, or Paul or any other man. The Creator gave a clear instruction as to which animals are to ever be considered food. What HE said is what matters if one claims to worship Him.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Mark, Peter, Paul and the other men our Father chose to reveal the scriptures, but there is only one Master. These men were but His servants.
Was the chapter Leviticus not written down also by the hand of a man? Was the Lord speaking more clearly through him than through Mark?
Acts 15 and 21 disproves robs stance
In chapter 12 of Matthew verse 39 or 38 Jesus says a wicked and perverse generation seeking after a sign but there shall no sign be given except the sign of Jonah for as Jonah was in the fish's belly three days and three nights so shall the son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights the weekly cycle has never changed God created this Earth in seven days and each day consists of 24 hours if that be the case then Jesus had to be in the grave. Of 72 hours how can you fit 72 hours from Friday 3:00 p.m. when they say he gave up the ghost to Sunday morning if that be the case then the resurrection would have been on a Monday he was not crucified on a Friday he was crucified on a Wednesday Wednesday to Thursday 24 hours Thursday to Friday 24 hours Friday to Saturday 24 hours which adds up to 72 hours and anybody else that says otherwise is not telling the truth because Jesus who is God in the flesh that is the one thing he cannot do he cannot lie there are some Advantage who believe who is crucified on a Friday there is this pastor Seventh-day Adventist even more who says he was crucified on Wednesday their other 7-Day events believe he was a crucified on Friday therefore this divides his church and Paul says let there be no divisions in the church so what does that make the church it makes the church divided they are still not Unified so look it up and Daniel Daniel even says that he would cause a sacrifice in the midst of the week and the mist of the week is Wednesday not Friday missed means middle and the middle of our week is Wednesday the weekly cycle has never changed so I am sorry to go against my church against this belief but any nine-year-old could count what are those events I believe he was crucified on Friday think about this and it is already proven that he was crucified on a Friday when in actuality he was crucified on a Wednesday to fill the prophecy of Jonah I would like some responses to this thank you very much
Ok so if Israel is supposed to be a light to the world because they have Gods way why would people strive to follow his ways for thousands of years because they either love him or because they were backsliding and he threatened punishment just for him to turn around and overthrow the law. That does not seem like a God who has equal honest scales of justice. I can not respect a God that holds a man to a standard for blessing if obeyed (not salvation) and a curse for disobedience yet turn around and revoke his own ways. Sounds like a Whishey washey God who can’t be trusted. Praise God he never changed
1. Old Testament Judaism: Leviticus 11; Hebrews 7:11
2. New Testament Christianity: Mark 7:14-19; Hebrews 7:12.
You are not understanding what the role of the priesthood was. The priest offered sacrifices for sin. Sin is the transgression of the law. What law was transgressed that needed sacrifices? The law of God. What law was added because of transgressions? The penalty. The priest offered a substitution for the penalty in the form of a sacrifice. The change in the law referred to in Hebrews 7 is the priesthood. We no longer need a priest to offer animal sacrifices for sin because we have the messiah offering himself as our substitute. Hebrews 10 really clarifies this with a warning for believers
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
I am a Seventh Day Adventist and yet I feel and know that Jesus was not crucified on a Friday the Pharisees and the priests were always asking Jesus for a sign but he never gave one and then on Passover evening he finally did
I am a SDA too. What confuses you my sister? Have you read Luke 23?
“And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.” Luke 23:54-56 KJV