Re: ARE ALL FOODS CLEAN?
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:32 am
I wish that SDAs could simply stand back and look objectively at the nature of their biblical arguments—especially when addressing their advocacy of the Old Testament sabbath and food laws.
There are several stages to the argument against the SDA position:
1) Though Jesus said that He did not come to "destroy the law" (as the SDAs often point out), yet the Bible does clearly affirm that there was a "change in the law" (Heb.7:12). Though the context of Hebrews 7 is focused on that specific change seen in the priesthood, the statement in verse 12 is extrapolating from this change in the priesthood to a broader change in the law (there would be no other object in making the statement in verse 12). If this was all that we had on the subject, we would be left to speculate in the dark as to what specific kinds of changes in the law have been brought about by the coming of Christ. But we are not left to guess.
2) The sabbath was the first, and most conspicuous change in the law to appear in the New Testament. First, by Jesus indicating that His coming, as one "greater than the temple" actually supersedes the sabbath, as the work associated with the temple itself supersedes the sabbath. On this basis, Jesus justified His disciples' violation of the sabbath because they were on His business, just as the priests can violate sabbath because they are doing temple business. He said that it was no more serious than David violating the ceremonial law of showbread (Matthew 12:1-8).
On another occasion, He said that He works every day (in violation of the sabbath commandment) for the simple reason that His Father works a seven-day work week, and He imitates His Father (John 5:16-19), just as we are commanded to do (Eph.5:1).
Jesus plainly stated that it is lawful to do good on the sabbath (Matthew 12:12), which is the only kind of behavior that we are allowed to do all week long (Gal.6:10/Eph.2:10/1 Tim.6:18/Heb.13:16/James 4:17/1 Peter 2:20; 3:6, 11). Since it is lawful to do the same thing on the sabbath, it removes any difference between the observance of the sabbath and the observance of any other day.
This is why Paul tells us that some Christians "observe every day alike," which he does not condemn (Rom.14:5). Paul also lists sabbath days with other laws which were a shadow (Col.2:16-17) given by God to anticipate Christ (just as did the tabernacle and its ceremonies—Hebrews 8:5).
Paul said that, when the Galatians began to "observe days and months and seasons and years" that he feared that their conversion had not taken hold (Galatians 4:10-11). The SDA suggestion that Paul was referring to something other than the Jewish holidays is refuted by noting that Paul's concern was with Christians putting themselves under the Jewish law (Gal.4:3-6; 5:1-4), not pagan practices.
How do the SDAs respond to this volume of New Testament data? Their case is almost 100% negative. It consists in taking each of these key passages and trying to argue that not one of them means what the average reader would think that they mean.
Do the SDAs have a single positive case for the New Testament upholding the sabbath obligation? Only Hebrews 4:9, which describes a "keeping of sabbath" still incumbent on the people of God. This "keeping of sabbath" is described by the author as a "rest" that Christians must "strive to enter"—even though the Book of Hebrews has not one line advocating the keeping of the Jewish law, and, in general, is primarily directed toward discouraging Jewish believers returning to the practices of Judaism. Why would he break ranks with his own argument in order to interject a statement about the need to observe the sabbath?
The "rest" that Hebrews 4 recommends is not the observance of an Old Testament commandment, but a "rest" that was predicted in the Old Testament (in Psalm 95). That "rest" is seen as foreshadowed in God's resting on the seventh day of creation and also in Israel's entrance into Canaan. However, the author clearly points out that the "rest" of which he speaks was something the Israelites did not enter (they did observe the seventh-day sabbath). The rest recommended by the author of Hebrews was only anticipated in the Old Testament, and has become a reality in Christ. Jesus speaks of this "rest" as a "rest to your souls" (Matthew 11:28-30).
To mistake this "keeping of sabbath" for advocacy of observing the seventh-day sabbath (rather than the spiritual rest that is prefigured in the Old Testament sabbath) is as great a mistake as to take the exhortation, in 1 Corinthians 5:8, that we should "keep the feast" (that is, the Feast of Unleavened Bread) as an advocacy of our keeping the Jewish feast by that name, or Paul's reference to our "having been circumcised" (Col.2:11) as a reference to the physical operation.
3) Then, when we go to the New Testament looking for its teaching about the Jewish dietary restrictions, we find the case to be no different. We first find Jesus declaring that one cannot be defiled by what goes into the mouth—an idea that directly contradicts the Jewish teaching that certain foods are inherently unclean and defiling to the eater (Matthew 15:11, 17).
In Luke 10:8, when Jesus sent His disciples out to evangelize, He told them to eat anything that was served to them (something no Jew observing the dietary laws could do), which can mean little else than that they might, at times, be served foods that they, as Jews, would otherwise regard as unclean.
When Peter was told that the animals which he was calling "unclean" should not be given that pejorative label, because "God has cleansed" them (Acts 10:15), he only later learned that there was an intended application to "unclean" Gentiles. He was not expected to realize that application at the time of the vision, but was supposed to regard the unclean animals in the sheet as that which God had cleansed, and which he was being commanded to eat. The cleanness of Gentiles was a secondary (and intended) application.
When the Jerusalem Council was deciding how many of the Jewish scruples should be accommodated by Gentile Christians, they conspicuously left sabbath keeping and kosher diet off their list of "necessary things" (Acts 15:28-29). "No other burden" of the law was to be added.
In the decision of that Council, some of the restrictions that were enjoined were of a dietary nature, but they were the things related to involvement in idolatry, not to a kosher diet. The same concern is expressed in Revelation 2:14 and 20.
Paul never spoke of dietary laws, except to say that they were unrelated to Christian obligations, and should not be advocated. He said that rules about "meat and drink" (along with sabbaths, new moons and festivals) were among the Old Testament shadows that prefigured Christ. A few verses later, he said that food restrictions are on no spiritual value (Col.2:20-23). Elsewhere, Paul said that those who restrict believers from eating certain meats were teaching "doctrines of demons" because "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused (1 Tim.4:1-5).
What is the SDA response to this data? Again, entirely negative. They expend all of their energy trying to prove that these verses do not teach their obvious meanings. Where do they find a single New Testament verse that positively advocates the observance of dietary regulations? I have never seen one. Even if they can contrive clever ways of arguing against the plain meaning of the relevant passages, the simple facts remain that, in order to prove the obligation of Christians to keep a kosher diet, they can show no positive teaching in the New Testament, and must rest their whole case on undermining the meaning of every relevant passage.
The SDAs do not do biblical studies as the rest of us do. They do not go to the New Testament to discover the teaching of Jesus or Paul about keeping the sabbath or dietary laws (else they would have no difficulty seeing the clear teaching). They begin with the assumption that their doctrine is correct, and that the New Testament writers must agree with them, and then go to the New Testament to engage in damage control, trying to prove that the teaching there is not really refuting them, as it appears to do in every place.
This is no different than the approach taken by the Roman Catholics to the subject of their doctrines about the Virgin Mary. They assume that certain things are true about Mary, and assume that the New Testament must agree with them. When every relevant New Testament text refutes their assumptions about Mary, they must expend all of their energy doing damage control, and trying to make "black" appear to be "white." The arguments are not only unimpressive (though sometimes quite ingenious), but they do not bear the marks of an honest inquiry into the teaching of scripture.
Now I know that RND will post a point-by-point "answer" to each sentence in this post—as per his regular practice. I am going to place this requirement upon any such response: it has to be worth posting. For example such statements as,
and
Are not worth the time it takes to read them. Adding a smiley face does not make them any more worthy of the space they occupy. We are desiring grown-up discussions here.
To avoid wasting my time, and in keeping with our standards here, I am going to ask that any response from RND actually contain arguments based upon scriptural exegesis. For the sake of myself and the many people who have complained to me about RNDs lengthy and vacuous postings, I will delete any that are mere negations without argumentation, or that are statements depending on nothing but humor for their validity. We do not need merely more verbiage—though real biblical exegesis—and pertinent humor— are always welcome.
There are several stages to the argument against the SDA position:
1) Though Jesus said that He did not come to "destroy the law" (as the SDAs often point out), yet the Bible does clearly affirm that there was a "change in the law" (Heb.7:12). Though the context of Hebrews 7 is focused on that specific change seen in the priesthood, the statement in verse 12 is extrapolating from this change in the priesthood to a broader change in the law (there would be no other object in making the statement in verse 12). If this was all that we had on the subject, we would be left to speculate in the dark as to what specific kinds of changes in the law have been brought about by the coming of Christ. But we are not left to guess.
2) The sabbath was the first, and most conspicuous change in the law to appear in the New Testament. First, by Jesus indicating that His coming, as one "greater than the temple" actually supersedes the sabbath, as the work associated with the temple itself supersedes the sabbath. On this basis, Jesus justified His disciples' violation of the sabbath because they were on His business, just as the priests can violate sabbath because they are doing temple business. He said that it was no more serious than David violating the ceremonial law of showbread (Matthew 12:1-8).
On another occasion, He said that He works every day (in violation of the sabbath commandment) for the simple reason that His Father works a seven-day work week, and He imitates His Father (John 5:16-19), just as we are commanded to do (Eph.5:1).
Jesus plainly stated that it is lawful to do good on the sabbath (Matthew 12:12), which is the only kind of behavior that we are allowed to do all week long (Gal.6:10/Eph.2:10/1 Tim.6:18/Heb.13:16/James 4:17/1 Peter 2:20; 3:6, 11). Since it is lawful to do the same thing on the sabbath, it removes any difference between the observance of the sabbath and the observance of any other day.
This is why Paul tells us that some Christians "observe every day alike," which he does not condemn (Rom.14:5). Paul also lists sabbath days with other laws which were a shadow (Col.2:16-17) given by God to anticipate Christ (just as did the tabernacle and its ceremonies—Hebrews 8:5).
Paul said that, when the Galatians began to "observe days and months and seasons and years" that he feared that their conversion had not taken hold (Galatians 4:10-11). The SDA suggestion that Paul was referring to something other than the Jewish holidays is refuted by noting that Paul's concern was with Christians putting themselves under the Jewish law (Gal.4:3-6; 5:1-4), not pagan practices.
How do the SDAs respond to this volume of New Testament data? Their case is almost 100% negative. It consists in taking each of these key passages and trying to argue that not one of them means what the average reader would think that they mean.
Do the SDAs have a single positive case for the New Testament upholding the sabbath obligation? Only Hebrews 4:9, which describes a "keeping of sabbath" still incumbent on the people of God. This "keeping of sabbath" is described by the author as a "rest" that Christians must "strive to enter"—even though the Book of Hebrews has not one line advocating the keeping of the Jewish law, and, in general, is primarily directed toward discouraging Jewish believers returning to the practices of Judaism. Why would he break ranks with his own argument in order to interject a statement about the need to observe the sabbath?
The "rest" that Hebrews 4 recommends is not the observance of an Old Testament commandment, but a "rest" that was predicted in the Old Testament (in Psalm 95). That "rest" is seen as foreshadowed in God's resting on the seventh day of creation and also in Israel's entrance into Canaan. However, the author clearly points out that the "rest" of which he speaks was something the Israelites did not enter (they did observe the seventh-day sabbath). The rest recommended by the author of Hebrews was only anticipated in the Old Testament, and has become a reality in Christ. Jesus speaks of this "rest" as a "rest to your souls" (Matthew 11:28-30).
To mistake this "keeping of sabbath" for advocacy of observing the seventh-day sabbath (rather than the spiritual rest that is prefigured in the Old Testament sabbath) is as great a mistake as to take the exhortation, in 1 Corinthians 5:8, that we should "keep the feast" (that is, the Feast of Unleavened Bread) as an advocacy of our keeping the Jewish feast by that name, or Paul's reference to our "having been circumcised" (Col.2:11) as a reference to the physical operation.
3) Then, when we go to the New Testament looking for its teaching about the Jewish dietary restrictions, we find the case to be no different. We first find Jesus declaring that one cannot be defiled by what goes into the mouth—an idea that directly contradicts the Jewish teaching that certain foods are inherently unclean and defiling to the eater (Matthew 15:11, 17).
In Luke 10:8, when Jesus sent His disciples out to evangelize, He told them to eat anything that was served to them (something no Jew observing the dietary laws could do), which can mean little else than that they might, at times, be served foods that they, as Jews, would otherwise regard as unclean.
When Peter was told that the animals which he was calling "unclean" should not be given that pejorative label, because "God has cleansed" them (Acts 10:15), he only later learned that there was an intended application to "unclean" Gentiles. He was not expected to realize that application at the time of the vision, but was supposed to regard the unclean animals in the sheet as that which God had cleansed, and which he was being commanded to eat. The cleanness of Gentiles was a secondary (and intended) application.
When the Jerusalem Council was deciding how many of the Jewish scruples should be accommodated by Gentile Christians, they conspicuously left sabbath keeping and kosher diet off their list of "necessary things" (Acts 15:28-29). "No other burden" of the law was to be added.
In the decision of that Council, some of the restrictions that were enjoined were of a dietary nature, but they were the things related to involvement in idolatry, not to a kosher diet. The same concern is expressed in Revelation 2:14 and 20.
Paul never spoke of dietary laws, except to say that they were unrelated to Christian obligations, and should not be advocated. He said that rules about "meat and drink" (along with sabbaths, new moons and festivals) were among the Old Testament shadows that prefigured Christ. A few verses later, he said that food restrictions are on no spiritual value (Col.2:20-23). Elsewhere, Paul said that those who restrict believers from eating certain meats were teaching "doctrines of demons" because "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused (1 Tim.4:1-5).
What is the SDA response to this data? Again, entirely negative. They expend all of their energy trying to prove that these verses do not teach their obvious meanings. Where do they find a single New Testament verse that positively advocates the observance of dietary regulations? I have never seen one. Even if they can contrive clever ways of arguing against the plain meaning of the relevant passages, the simple facts remain that, in order to prove the obligation of Christians to keep a kosher diet, they can show no positive teaching in the New Testament, and must rest their whole case on undermining the meaning of every relevant passage.
The SDAs do not do biblical studies as the rest of us do. They do not go to the New Testament to discover the teaching of Jesus or Paul about keeping the sabbath or dietary laws (else they would have no difficulty seeing the clear teaching). They begin with the assumption that their doctrine is correct, and that the New Testament writers must agree with them, and then go to the New Testament to engage in damage control, trying to prove that the teaching there is not really refuting them, as it appears to do in every place.
This is no different than the approach taken by the Roman Catholics to the subject of their doctrines about the Virgin Mary. They assume that certain things are true about Mary, and assume that the New Testament must agree with them. When every relevant New Testament text refutes their assumptions about Mary, they must expend all of their energy doing damage control, and trying to make "black" appear to be "white." The arguments are not only unimpressive (though sometimes quite ingenious), but they do not bear the marks of an honest inquiry into the teaching of scripture.
Now I know that RND will post a point-by-point "answer" to each sentence in this post—as per his regular practice. I am going to place this requirement upon any such response: it has to be worth posting. For example such statements as,
Well TK, I suppose in taking that logic to the next step one could say Peter was actually being disobedient to God because he didn't "kill and eat" the gentile men that came to his door that day!
and
Christ didn't die on the cross for people to eat whatever they felt like eating.
Are not worth the time it takes to read them. Adding a smiley face does not make them any more worthy of the space they occupy. We are desiring grown-up discussions here.
To avoid wasting my time, and in keeping with our standards here, I am going to ask that any response from RND actually contain arguments based upon scriptural exegesis. For the sake of myself and the many people who have complained to me about RNDs lengthy and vacuous postings, I will delete any that are mere negations without argumentation, or that are statements depending on nothing but humor for their validity. We do not need merely more verbiage—though real biblical exegesis—and pertinent humor— are always welcome.