Not a member yet? Why not sign up today and start meeting our community.
Did Peter's Vision of the Sheet Mean People & Food?
02-20-2009, 08:35 PM
People often look at the vision of the sheet and reject the notion of it being about food and people, clean and unclean. Many only see it in light of the law of Moses and the specifics of God calling the children of Israel a "peculiar people."
For Christians, and since the New Covenant was enacted we need to remember that there is no difference between Jews or Gentiles in requirements. That is why Peter was told to "kill, eat", more than once by God.
Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
People often say that the Old Covenant is still in force, and they mean the covenant and commandments given specifically to the children of Israel through Moses and found in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
Forgotten or perhaps omitted in favor of a specific agenda is what God said to Noah, after the flood, where He called all living creatures food for all mankind. That is, they were edible, and consequently good for mankind to eat.
Genesis 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3-4 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 4. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
We see the comparison of what God told Noah, found in Acts 10, when speaking to Peter, and also when the apostles met in Acts 15.
Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
The source of doctrine is from God. It is merely allowing all to be under the same beliefs. Where those who believe Christ are no longer separated over such things as food. People still eat in varied ways, according to location, custom, availability, but no longer can it be according to clean and unclean that was specifically for the children of Israel.
It would have hindered the Gospel to have been concerned if someone was going to offer something to eat so they could talk about the things of Christ. If there was offence, it would limit the gospel.
And, the prohibitions for food and other laws were removed just as the wall of separation was taken down, and the New Covenant was brought into force, with all it contained on living for Christ. :10125:
3John 1:4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.
Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
10-31-2010, 12:12 PM
I have carried over the discussion from another thread on the topic of kosher food and the Mosaic Law to this thread, due to the content and discussion pertaining to the food issues. I copy and pasted post # 25, 26, & 27 of "Article: Under the Law" so that we could continue to talk about these issues here.
The source on Vic's website that discusses kosher in the HR Faqs is the following link - where further information to discuss is found:
10-31-2010, 12:22 PM
I do not believe that concept is in the Mosaic Law [more humane to slaughter kosher]. Kosher is not even a Biblical term - it has to do with Talmudic interpretation, not what God commanded Israel in the old covenant.
(10-29-2010, 12:38 PM)sheep wrecked Wrote: I am not familiar with the Law that states one must wash their hands before they eat in the Mosaic Law. Could you provide a verse for that? Thanx.
If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.
For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat. And the fat of the beast that dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn with beasts, may be used in any other use: but ye shall in no wise eat of it. For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people.
And whether it be cow or ewe, ye shall not kill it and her young both in one day.
Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank.
Please forgive me if this post is off thread- I haven't figured out how to start a new one. It is in regards to the article at http://www.seekgod.ca/hr/hrfaqs3a2.htm#kosher.
note: I do not post this post as one who is arrogant, or who knows it all, etc. I simply post it because having been a christian zealot a little over a decade ago, an outsider 'messianic' less than a decade ago, and an 'orthodox' Jew for the past number of years, I am aware that both sides [Christian and Jewish] often misunderstand each other. Perhaps it is due to a lack of objective thinking; perhaps it is due to a misunderstanding/or lack thereof of our common destiny/goal in this world. The Quran knows our interconnected relationship, as do the muslims, no offense to them; for I have a few religious muslim friends, and they too have their place in G-d's vision for the world.
We [primarily, Jews and Christians] often fight about who is right, or simply that the other side is wrong. I believe strongly that this is the wrong approach.
Likewise, it has been largely many years since I read the NT writings, though so much of its words are still embedded in memory. I joined this forum to gain a greater understanding of, and 'encouragement' [as so many in the christian world would say ]/to delve into G-d's ways.
Forums, like this, create discussion. Discussion causes us to ask the questions that we may not otherwise have asked on our own. And hopefully, we can all [despite our differences] come out better people, who are more rooted in both reality; and the service G-d and man. may it be His will.
Anyway, concerning the article:
[In the interest of not being winded, I will mention certain points; later, I will, with G-d's help, explain their sources in the Torah/TaNaKh/OT.]
The first few paragraphs are necessary preface, and the remaining paragraphs address the vision.
Myth: We need to keep all the Biblical feasts...etc...in order to...show we belong to G-d.
The Jewish sages do not teach this; many 'messianics/HR', however, try to teach this, because of their selective acceptance/rejection of the Jewish sages.
The sages have always taught, based on the distinctions of people mentioned in the Torah, that Israel is to keep 613 commandments [the Torah], and non-Israel is to keep 7 commandments [laws of the children of Noah]. The acquired slave/servant of an Israelite is an exception to this, in that they are circumcised and must keep the negative commandments of Torah, and certain positive commandments.
After the time of Solomon, Israel was divided into 2 kingdoms, Ephraim/North and Judah/south; such a split was often foretold in the Torah 'narratives'. This needs to be understood, because the North/Ephraim/Joseph is the subject of many prophecies, and labeled in them as a non-peoples, like the nations, etc.
The above concepts, from what I understand, underly much of the quoting passages from the TaNaKh/OT in the 'NT' writings, as well as in the passages mentioned in the post by Vicky, which leads to the second Myth.
If we look at the entire context of the story, it begins with cornelius, who it seems is not Jewish, but, perhaps, a ben noach [son of noah, one who keeps the 7 mitsvot: abstain from idolatry, no cursing G-d, no murder, no sexual immorality, no theft, no eating a limb from a living animal, setting up courts of law] based on what it says of him in Acts 10.1-2. He is sent to Peter to be told what he is to do.
Likewise, that Peter ultimately understood his vision in the context of people, not food, is made clear, by his recounting of the story:
look at verse 28 and 34...'You know how unlawful it is for a man, a Jew, to unite with or to come near one of another race. Yet, G-d showed me not to call a man common or unclean.' Compare his comment, with the words of the vision...10.15, 11.9 'what things G-d made clean do not call common' So the issue here is not the food, but people.
note: the issue of clean and unclean food, not 'sitting with the unclean' persons, and keeping the Torah commandments in general are a separate issue to be talked about elsewhere. Also, the incorrect statement about a talit being a holy garment, which is not true; the tsitsit are holy, and need be treated with respect. Halacha teaches us this, that the garment itself, when it becomes worn out, can be discarded like any other as long as the tsitsit are removed first. The tsitsit are to be treated with the utmost respect; after, they are the command. Anyway, this is a separate issue.
The main point here is in how Peter understood the vision...he doesn't explain his vision's interpretation in light of food, but in light of persons.
So, what actually happened to Cornelius, here, and what are the implications?
a) Cornelius was a 'son Noah' called a righteous of the nations.
b) the concept of 'baptism' is really the Torah concept of 'mikveh', which is a concept hinted at in the text of the Torah, but whose details are only explained by way of Oral Transmission.
c) who are the unclean persons?
If we look at the writings of Peter, such as 1 Peter for example...we see him quote several times, passages in the 'OT' that are explicitly to Israel, and more specifically some passages that are specifically addressed to the 10 tribes/lost tribes. For example, in 1 Peter 2.10, addressing his audience, he says, you who were then not a people but now are the people of G-d; the one not pitied but now pitied, this is a quote from the prophet Hoshea, concerning the lost tribes.
Likewise, the various other quotes, which refer to the people of Israel in general, 'be holy, for I am holy' in Lev 19 which is stated as specifically being to kol adat bney yisrael the entire assembly of israel...a holy nation, priesthood, a people set apart...in Ex 19, etc.
The unclean persons made clean refers to the 10 tribes being 'granted repentance'. They were the ones who wanted to be 'like the nations'.
the Lost tribes will again come to observe all the laws of the Torah, but not the other group of non-Israel persons.
Likewise, one should understand, Torah primarily refers to unclean persons as being the idolaters, not just any non-Israel. After all, a non-Israel who kept the 7 laws of Noah was permitted to live in the land of Israel, as well having a portion in the world to come [kind of like "heaven"]. The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneersohn tried to get Jews to speak to non-Jews of their duties to G-d, the 7 commands. Most Jews, unfortunately, do not bear this duty on their shoulders. I believe that it is largely a product of not recognizing the essential nature of our relationship to the non-jewish people of the world.
This post is kind of an addendum to the previous post, noting that I forgot to mention a few points, that are intricately connected to the story of the sheet, that may prove the point of the nations, tribes, sons of noah concept, and the whole issue that was going on back in the day.
Also, a loose end to be tied up, that I started to mention, but forgot to complete: that referring to baptism/mikveh as connected with the narrative of the sheet.
Why were they '*****', why did they go up to the counsel in Acts 15, and how does this connect to Acts 10-11 and the concepts explained?
Why are some '*****' and some not?
in the story of Joseph and his brothers, in genesis, this issue comes up as well; specifically Gen. 37.2, if one reads the commentary of Rashi on the Chabad website, concerning what this dispute was about. This also comes up in connection to the 10 tribes in the Gemara. What was the status of the children of Jacob, before the revelation at Mt Sinai? Based on this Rashi, we understand that one side believe that they were sons of Noah, while the other side believed that they were bound by the Torah. This is hinted at by the limb of a living animal, slaves, incest reference.
Likewise, the sages argued concerning the 10 tribes. What is their status? to keep Torah, at this time, or not? I believe that the halacha accords that they will need to convert when they repent, since they became 'like the nations' and their identity can't be positively identified.
However, in our section, we see how this dispute is being carried out.
One side [v1] is '*****' the non-jewish followers; the other [paul] is not. How do we deal with these new followers from the nations? Are they all members of the lost tribes [need to keep Torah], or no [righteous non-Jews, 7 laws]?
They decide to settle this dispute as described in Deut. 17.8-11.
The conclusion, it seems, is to teach them in the manner of the sons of Noah, and keep the 7 commandments. These commandments are hinted at in the rulings 4 provisions:
they abstain from pollutions of idols [idolatry], fornication, things strangled [ever min hachay- limb from the animal], and blood [murder]. The 3 missing are setting up courts, not to curse G-d, and theft; one could debate why these three are left out. However, if this is not the conclusion, why the 'things strangled'? Where is that in the commandments taught by Christians? This is the command that was added to the sons of Noah, Gen 9.3-4.
Jews are still Jews, and need keep Torah. They are not the subject of this ruling, as can be seen from Acts 15.14-17, which speaks of source of contention, perhaps.
To say the law/Torah was for a specified time, is not found in the Torah. Sin offerings, yes, because in the messianic times, sin will cease as the evil inclination will be removed. but burnt and peace offerings, will still exist with the Temple.
Concerning Cornelius, and the mikveh...I dare say that he seems to convert here, possibly, although there are difficulties with this thought...was he already circumcised? mikveh/baptism is the final step for a convert, performed after circumcision or hatafat dam brit [taking the blood of the covenant]. mikveh is always meant to denote a change of status; whether it refers to an unclean person becoming clean or a convert.
Peace be to all.
03-08-2011, 12:04 PM
I hope this isn't blasphemous to ask, but was God saying every animal is food for humans? There are several animals with flesh that will poison people, e.g. fugu (pufferfish) and many carnivores (people have died from eating polar bear liver because of the amount of vitamin A in it). After realizing that it was no longer a sin, I started eating crustaceans again once I got past their "bug-esque" look, but I would need to be famished to eat pork because pigs will eat anything, including human flesh and other pigs.
When one considers the dietary habits of the animals God forbade the Israelites to eat, it makes perfect sense because many of them are carnivores, scavengers, maneaters and/or cannibals. It may no longer be a sin to eat the animals forbidden in the Torah but is it healthy?
HOSTIS HVMANI GENERIS
VISUALIZE WORLD WAR
Quote:The Jewish sages do not teach this; many 'messianics/HR', however, try to teach this, because of their selective acceptance/rejection of the Jewish sages.Ben the jewish sages may teach this but that is rabbinic Judaism, a religion that arose and developed after the destruction of the Second Temple.It is not really based on the Biblical Torah but the Oral Torah, which as you know is separate from the Bible.I am not sure what it has to do with us.Similiarly with the ben noach thing.That is also a rabbinic concept.
Quote:f we look at the entire context of the story, it begins with cornelius, who it seems is not Jewish, but, perhaps, a ben noach [son of noah, one who keeps the 7 mitsvot: abstain from idolatry, no cursing G-d, no murder, no sexual immorality, no theft, no eating a limb from a living animal, setting up courts of law] based on what it says of him in Acts 10.1-2. He is sent to Peter to be told what he is to do.Peter and Cornelius would have had no knowledge of noahidism and other inventions that came long long after they were dead.
Quote:Likewise, that Peter ultimately understood his vision in the context of people, not food, is made clear, by his recounting of the story:
The two things being compared are different.The first which involves
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
There it is to do with people because it involved going to meet with Cornelius a non jew.
Act 10:22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
So Peter, a jew, by law could not associate with or go into the house of a gentile.Although he wouldn’t have been able to eat there either,he still wouldn’t have been able to go unless the Holy Spirit hadn’t told him to.
Act 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
Act 10:20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them
In the other verses the issue is indeed food.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Act 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
The words kill,eat and eaten show it is not to do with people but food.
And the fact that the voice says What God has cleansed shows that whatever it was was previously unclean but now God cleansed it.
Thus all foods are now ritually clean since the vision had all sorts of food.
Quote:I hope this isn't blasphemous to ask, but was God saying every animal is food for humans? There are several animals with flesh that will poison people, e.g. fugu (pufferfish) and many carnivores (people have died from eating polar bear liver because of the amount of vitamin A in it).
I dont think its blasphemous, its a great point question.
The thing is food wasnt given its kosher status because of how healthy it is or how good it may be for us. I once believed that kosher food was in fact healthier but then I thought about it some more and reasoned that a chicken can actually be more deadly than pork or seafood.Salmonella can kill the young and elderly.Campylobacter in cchickens can also cause nasty long lasting disease.E-Coli in beef can harm kidneys and also be fatal.There are many variables on how food is stored etc.But akosher rating isnt a health rating.What it denotes is ritual purity.When someone ate unclean food they were unclean until evening ,I think it was.So all it meant was that you couldnt go to Temple.Sex also made one unclean but that doesnt mean that they all had to avoid it.Being unclean wasnt such a big issue as some people make it out to be in many cases.
03-08-2011, 05:43 PM
I used to think it was only 'rabbinic' judaism also, until I searched a little. For example, interest is forbidden to another 'Israelite' [Dt 23.19], but not forbidden to a nocri [Dt 23.20] [non-Jewish, specifically idol worshipper], yet forbidden to a ger and toshav [Lev. 25.35-37]. A Ger tsedek [convert] has the same status as a natural born Israelite; why specify, then, that you aren't to take interest from them?
If that is not a good enough example, then how about:
Ye shall not eat [of] any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that [is] in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an ALIEN: for thou [art] an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.
There are several other such examples that can be cited...such as the that of Hebrew vs Canaanite slaves/servants. See both Ex 21.1- and Lev 25.35-46...one is permanent property [v45-46] the other has to go free by the yovel [v40-41].
Likewise, read Isaiah 61, with verse 5 highlighted. Why distinguish these other peoples here?
If it is Rabbinic, as you have said, such passages like these need some serious explaining.
As far as the dream, two supposed different issues?
Pharaoh dreamed about cows and corn...was it referring to cows and corn, or years?
03-08-2011, 06:03 PM
Hi Ben, Just some thoughts I have about the food issue. In Genesis 1, before sin entered, God said this:
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
So before sin entered God had given every herb and fruit bearing tree on the earth to mankind for food and all animals were given all herbs to eat as well. Then Adam and Eve sinned and from then on, everything changed. In fact, in the Mosaic law we see that much later, Israel was cautioned to not destroy trees used for food:
Deu 20:19 When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life) to employ them in the siege:
Deu 20:20 Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down; and thou shalt build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it be subdued.
So we see that the initial recognition of particular trees for food was kept by Israel, just as for all mankind as God had decreed to Adam and Eve.
When Noah made the ark, after God's judgment on mankind, every living creature that walked the earth including things that creeped, insects etc were saved.
When they disembarked from the ark, God said, first this:
Gen 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
So here we see the comparison of the original gift of all herbs on the earth were for all mankind for meat/food, to now including and being everything that was a moving creature, that is, all living creatures were commanded by God, to be meat/food for all mankind.
But we see in the Law given to Israel, this in Leviticus 11:1-47:
Lev 11:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
Lev 11:2 ***Speak unto the children of Israel,*** saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
So here is when things changed from what was allowed for all mankind as God commanded Noah and all to follow after him, to what God had now separated for Israel to abide by, as His chosen people. Just as He had said,
Deu 14:2 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
While the rest of mankind had freedom to eat of any living creature on the earth, Israel was now limited to what God commanded in the Law through Moses. Not unlike, in a way, the difference God placed on Israel and the differences of the priests. I believe this is crucial because before they were chosen by God, Israel ate the same as the rest of mankind, just as God had determined to Noah for all mankind.
When Peter saw the vision of the sheet, that he as a Jew knew the limitations placed by the law, not just with regards to people but food is clear. Just as Rose has stated. But Peter needed to learn that just as Jesus had already said, that it wasn't what a person ate that made them unclean:
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Keeping in mind also, that as Peter discovered that God meant both people and food were cleansed by Him, that the prophecy and mystery of it meant that the Gentiles could also come to Christ, and the very things that had separated them were removed by realising that God had made a way for all mankind to be made clean before Him, through salvation through Christ, the promised Messiah.
Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Peter, speaking to fellow Jewish believers, said in Acts 15:7 said, " Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith."
Isa 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
Amo 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
Amo 9:12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.
Isa 51:5 My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust.
3John 1:4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.
Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.
03-08-2011, 06:53 PM
Quote:I used to think it was only 'rabbinic' judaism also, until I searched a little.What is the it there? I am finding it hard to follow what you mean or what you are asking.
Quote:For example, interest is forbidden to another 'Israelite' [Dt 23.19], but not forbidden to a nocri [Dt 23.20] [non-Jewish, specifically idol worshipper], yet forbidden to a ger and toshav [Lev. 25.35-37]. A Ger tsedek [convert] has the same status as a natural born Israelite; why specify, then, that you aren't to take interest from them?
Let's go through these by looking at what the Bible said.First about the interest in Deut 23 and then the Lev Scriptures
Deu 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
Deu 23:20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
Lev 25:35 And if thy brother be waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee; then thou shalt relieve him: yea, though he be a stranger, or a sojourner; that he may live with thee.
Lev 25:36 Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.
What I see there is that in the Lev Scriptures its speaking of a brother( and here brother also means a stranger not just an israelite) who is fallen into financial problems.God first says to relieve him and then to charge them no interest so that they may be able to get off debt and a cycle of debt.
So theres no paradox or contradition.While you may charge usury to strangers or souourners, you may not if they are in financial distress.God is looking out for the interests of all here and didn't want anyone whether israelite or gentile to get locked into a never ending cycle of debt.
Quote:If that is not a good enough example, then how about:An example of what? I am a bit sleep deprived and may not be understanding you correctly.What I see here is that God is again mandating separation between israelite and non israelite in the food laws.
Quote:Likewise, read Isaiah 61, with verse 5 highlighted. Why distinguish these other peoples here?Again what do you mean by the it is rabbinic what is the it you refer to?
Isa 61:5 And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.
For me that verse shows how Zion will be(indeed is being ) built by both Israelite and non Israelite.
03-08-2011, 08:47 PM
"I used to think it was only 'rabbinic' judaism also, until I searched a little.
Rose of Shushan commented:
"What is the it there? I am finding it hard to follow what you mean or what you are asking."
In all due respect, Rose of Shushan, since the reply was to your post about the laws of the children of Noah being Rabbinic, then 'it' would only make sense that my comment on 'Rabbinic' is concerning [in this case] the laws of the children of Noah.
Concerning the passage in Deut. 23:
Notice the change of pace in the verse, unto your brother you may not lend interest. Unto a nocri you may lend interest; but unto your brother you shall not lend upon interest.
Is it difficult to see in this passage, that the nocri, whom we shall lend on interest to, and the brother, whom we shall not lend on interest to, are different? Also, the verb in 'future' form Tav- verb, which is used both for future, "You will do this" or commanding someone, "You will do this" or lo ta-... "You will not do this". Therefore, may is not correct translation. Often when there is an option, the word 'ki'- kaf yud, is placed before it. But the plain reading should suffice for the normal reader, that there is difference in the two.
As for Lev. 25, I understand your point concerning 'the brother', it is well said.
In continuance, ie as the paragraphs continue, what about the slaves? You will see here [Lev 25.39-46] the definite distinction, one is a heritage, and one returns, as well as in Ex 21.1- as well as the damages to a slave. Likewise, with the maidservant vs Hebrew maiden [who is not so much a slave, but rather a hand purchased ultimately for marriage for yourself or son. Also, slaves are sort of another category altogether in terms of laws, provided their are non-Israelite slaves].
concerning Dt 14.21, you yourself admit to the difference in Israelite vs non-Israelite. So then how are laws of the sons of Noah Rabbinic? Does not G-d want non-Israelite people to serve him also?
I am interested in hearing your response, particularly to this last point.
PS By the way, I am not saying that 'gentile' in the NT always refers to non-Israel; in fact, based on the quotes, and who they are addressing, it is often speaking to 'gentile' Yosef...the lost tribes.[/color]
|Users browsing this thread:|