Tuesday, June 15, 2010
sortof Hiatus
Sorry I havent posted in a while there are lots of changes goin on in my personal life right now and so I am on a sortof Hiatus tell it all settles down. THose that are following my blogg I should b e back to posting very soon. THanks for your patients and understanding. Peace and G-D bless
Sunday, June 6, 2010
The Spirit and the The Law
note the shape of the tablets
THE SPIRIT & THE LETTER OF THE LAW
When excusing themselves from keeping the Sabbath on the seventh day as God commanded, many Christians say “We Are Only Required to Keep the Spirit of the Law, Not the Letter.” Here is exactly how and why this reasoning is fatally flawed:
“But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.” (Rom 7:6)
The letter of the law is transgression of exactly what the law defines. For example, the letter of the law says “thou shalt not kill.” (Exo. 20:13) Jesus said the spirit of this law was not even to be angry.
“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..” (Mat 5:21-22)
First let me ask a question. Which is more difficult law to obey, the letter or the spirit?
The letter of the seventh commandment says “thou shalt not commit adultery.” (Exo. 20:14) Again, Jesus defined what the spirit of the seventh commandment is.
“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Mat 5:27-28)
Which is more difficult to obey? The letter of this law which says not to commit adultery, or the spirit of this law which says not even to lust?
The biggest misunderstanding that leads people in the wrong direction, is believing somehow the spirit of the law is easier to keep than the letter of the law. When Christ says we are to keep the spirit of the law, is He not saying that our righteousness and obedience must exceed the letter of the law? The spirit is not easier to keep than the letter. In following the spirit, Christ is raising the bar, also saying our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees whose habit it was to keep the letter “to the T.”
“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Mat 5:20)
The problem was not that the Pharisees practiced keeping the letter of the law, but in doing so they completely disregarded the purpose and spirit for which the law was given. The fourth commandment for example says “remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” The Pharisees obeyed this commandment not out of holy reverence for God or communing with Him during this time, but they kept it in a legalistic manner with the goal of not breaking it. In this way, the Pharisees kept the letter of the law but did not keep the spirit of the law. In not keeping the spirit of the law, the keeping of the letter was of no effect.
This is why Paul writes we are called to serve in newness of the spirit of the law, and not the letter. The spirit of the law is the essence for which the letter of the law was written. Even from the other perspective it is impossible to break the letter of the law while keeping the spirit of it.
People who say we don’t have to keep the letter of the law anymore, would be hard pressed to explain how one can keep the spirit of the law while breaking the letter. If the letter of the law says “thou shalt not kill,” and Jesus says the spirit of the law is not to hate, does this mean it is okay to kill someone as long as we don’t hate them? Or is it permissible then for a person commit the physical act of adultery as long as they don’t lust? It is an impossible feat to keep the spirit of the law while breaking the letter of the law. Attempting to keep the spirit of the law while breaking the letter of the law would be like trying to eat a cake without touching the frosting, or building a house from the roof down. The spirit of the law and the letter of the law are inseparable, with the spirit of the law being the higher calling and the letter of the law the root thereof.
Following the letter of the law is akin to obedience of the mind by way of our actions. Following the spirit of the law requires a motivated heart which governs not only our actions and our mind, but our thoughts as well. Like a machine programmed to assemble automobiles on a factory line, I imagine it would be possible to obey all ten commandments without having an ounce of love for God. The Pharisees seemed to prove that. Serving the spirit of the law however requires a person’s heart and mind both, be in submission to God’s commandments.
The parables of the Pharisees and the words of Christ Himself so often have demonstrated that adherence to God’s commandments can become a mechanical process void of spiritual meaning, so we must not make it our ambition to solely serve the letter of the law. If we are serving the spirit of the law as Christ has commanded, we will also be keeping the letter of the law without serving it.
If I owned a hundred acres of land and built a house on it for a family member in need, this might seem like a very generous thing to do. If however I do it to raise the property value and increase my investment, the gesture was just out of selfish motive. Now in the spirit of the law, we ought to keep God’s commandments because we love Him and want to please Him. Perhaps it could be said the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law is whether it is motivated by a “DO” or a “DO NOT.”
The motivating factor is key. If a person is serving the spirit of the law, they obey the letter of the law because they believe in the reasons for which it was written. They do not lie because they believe in truth. They do not kill because they believe in life. They do not keep break the Sabbath because it is a sign between them and God that they worship the Creator (Eze. 20:12,20). A person who serves the letter of the law does so because they do not want to break the law. They do not lie, not because they believe in truth, but because the law says do not lie. They do not kill, not because they believe in life, but because the law says “thou shalt not kill.” They keep the Sabbath not because they believe want to worship God as the Creator but because they fear His wrath. They are slaves to fear. Such a fear will lead to all sorts of absurd laws like not carrying anything in your hands on the Sabbath or tying knots in fear that it might be work, etc. Being called to serve the spirit of the law, we are called to believe in the liberties and truths the law was written to establish and preserve. Thus, serving the spirit of the law is a matter of a converted heart coming into agreement with God’s heart which His laws define.
“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” (1Jo 5:3)
Keeping the letter of the law because of a belief in its truths, is serving the spirit of the law. Therefore, obedience to the ten commandments and serving the spirit of the law are not contradictory or separable as some believe.
The spirit of the law and the letter of the law are not contrary to each other, nor can they be separated. The spirit of the law magnifies the letter of the law.
“The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honorable.” (Isa 42:21)
The letter of the law being magnified by the spirit thereof, we are called to obey the commandments not only to the letter of the law, but more so in newness of spirit (Rom. 7:6).
“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17)
How to observe the Sabbath
How do we Keep the Sabbath?
Just how are we to keep the Sabbath? The scribes and Pharisees tried to legislate in minute detail all that was acceptable or unacceptable to do on the Sabbath. In doing so, they made the Sabbath a great BURDEN which was something God never intended (cf. 1 John 5:3). God gave the Sabbath in Exodus 20 and magnified it in other places in His Word with some specifics, but mainly by expounding broad, spiritual principles. So what does God tell us about Sabbath day observance?
God wrote and spoke these words in the fourth Commandment, “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates” Exodus 20:10. So you are not to do any kind of real work on the Sabbath be it your occupation, personal business, housework or any laborious activity. And neither are those in the environment over which you have control. Of course, preparing or cleaning up after a light meal would not be wrong as we find a number of occasions when Jesus enjoyed a Sabbath meal with others. And He never condemned the practice of hospitality on the Sabbath (cf. Luke 14:1-6). Since Jesus said in Matthew 12:10-12 “…it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath”, such as rescuing an animal or healing the sick, that would no doubt include Essential Services such as Doctors, Nurses and Ambulance etc. Finally, to really understand how God intended the Sabbath to be used, look at what He said in Isaiah 58:13-14 “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on My holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight...not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words, then you shall delight yourself in the Lord; and I will cause you to ride on the high hills of the earth…” So we are not to be doing our own pleasure on God’s Holy Day. That does not preclude doing any enjoyable things on the Sabbath whatsoever, for we are to find delight in it. The point is that, whatever we do, God must be an intrinsic part of it. A family walk through a natural setting for example, is a wonderful way to get in touch with God who made the beautiful creations we see. When the seventh day arrives, we must stop pursuing our “own ways” (the things we normally do), seeking our “own pleasure” (your normal things of enjoyment) and speaking our “own words” (the everyday things we talk about that do not involve God). This last one is often very hard to follow because “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” Matthew 12:34. To truly keep the Sabbath in the spirit, we must focus our minds on God and those things He wants us to be concerned with during His holy time. Then, as God promises, we will be truly blessed. And since it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, we can make encouraging phone calls or write letters to the sick or visit Christians who are lonely. It may also be possible to visit the sick or others in need on the Sabbath or to have them over for an evening meal. Matthew 25:34-36. The Sabbath is also a “…sabbath of rest, an holy convocation” (Leviticus 23:3) and is therefore ideal for worship services. When we fellowship with other people in whom God dwells, we are in fact also fellowshipping with Him (cf. 1 John 1:3, 7). So we should not think of the Sabbath as the day we can’t do this or that! Rather, we should approach this very special day as a period when we can and should really take time to deeply study and thoughtfully analyse the scriptures. It is a time when we can sit quietly, meditating over and thinking through the truly big issues of life. In addition, the Sabbath is the perfect time for unhurried, thoughtful, heartfelt prayer to our Father in heaven to commune with our Creator, to worship Him, to get to know Him intimately. This is how to keep God’s Sabbath holy.
Another way to establish how the Sabbath should be kept is to imagine spending the day with someone you are absolutely head over heels in love with and that you have the opportunity to spend this one specific day with. You would have as many things as possible prepared the day before so you could spend as much time as possible with that person because you are so in love with them and you want every available moment to spend with them. This is NOT legalism - it is LOVE. This is what the Sabbath is all about. Are you head over heels in love with God? If you are then do the same for Him.
The Sabbath is and always has been the real test Commandment (cf. Exodus 16). Many can accept the other nine but the fourth Commandment is quite different. It means living differently from the society around you, perhaps even being looked upon as odd or weird. Yet Jesus said in Luke 14:26-27, “Those who come to me cannot be my disciples unless they love me more than they love father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and themselves as well.” Does this mean giving up some personal activity on the Sabbath? The answer lies in what your conscience tells you and what the Holy Spirit lays upon your heart. The main consideration is the rest our bodies and minds need and the most beautiful part is that it is a day that we devote entirely to God, i.e. in everything we do, God should be an intrinsic part. How spending one day a week with God who we claim to love could ever be called legalism or a burden is beyond me. Our relationship with Jesus is supposed to be one of faith and trust believing He will always provide our needs when we trust and obey Him. The sacrifice of moving an activity to another day is nothing in comparison to what Jesus did for us in His sacrifice. He was beaten, scourged and nailed to a cross for us. If the only thing that He asks in return is to keep the Sabbath holy then I think our sacrifice is no comparison. “For this is the love of God, that we keep his Commandments: and his Commandments are not grievous.” 1 John 5:3
In Daniel 3, King Nebuchadnezzar made a gold image with dimensions equal to 666 that he commanded all to worship. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would not disobey God’s Commandment and refused to obey the king. Since they refused, the king threw them into a blazing furnace heated seven times hotter than usual. The King in amazement said, “Why do I see four men walking around in the fire? They are not tied up, and they show no sign of being hurt and the fourth is like that of the Son of God. Praise the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego! They disobeyed my orders and risked their lives rather than bow down and worship any god except their own. There is no other god who can rescue like this.” As a result, the king promoted them to higher positions in Babylon. Here is a beautiful example of obedience to God. This example is a parallel of Revelation 14 showing how we need to respond in end times, i.e. is we should obey God rather than man and not worship the Beast or his image. So do we worship God on the day specified by the Beast and get the mark of the Beast or on the day God commanded and receive the Seal of God? Do you love the “praise of men” more than the praise of God? Or do you have the FAITH and the COURAGE to obey God’s Commandments, even if you were to lose your job and perhaps a few of your friends?
12 Biblical Concepts on how to keep the Sabbath
1.The Sabbath is a day to cease our creating, working with the creation and appreciate what God has done in the world and is doing in us. Genesis 2
2.Elaborate food preparation is to be done on the day before the Sabbath so that there is no baking or major cooking on the Sabbath. Exodus 16
3.The Sabbath is a time to lay our burdens down and rest. We should not do any servile work on the Sabbath. This includes our entire family, even our servants and beasts of burden and strangers who live among us. Jeremiah 17; Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5
4.The Sabbath is an holy convocation. We should meet and worship with others. Leviticus 23
5.We should be reverent and show God that we love, honor and respect His authority. Psalms 89:7, Habakkuk 2:20
6.The Sabbath should be a day of delight and rejoicing, a day which we forsake our thoughts and words for God's thoughts and words. Isaiah 56, 58
7.The Sabbath is a time of healing. Matthew 12, Mark 1, 3, Luke 13-14
8.We are not to buy or sell on the Sabbath. Nehemiah 13
9.The Sabbath is a time to do good and visit and comfort the sick. We should do spiritual work on the Sabbath, serving others. John 5
10.The Sabbath is a time of prayer. Acts 16:13
11.The Sabbath is a time to reason with others about spiritual principles and for ministers to teach the word of God. Acts 17:2, 18:4, 11
12.The Sabbath is a time for Singing. Ephesians 5:19-20, Colossians 3:16, Psalms 92 is called the “Sabbath Psalm”
Sabbath Truth Summary
The Sabbath was not changed in honour of the resurrection. Scripture says the Papacy would change God’s law and History confirms this. God will not accept any day in seven demonstrated by Exodus 16:4-31, which is before Jews and the Commandments being written in stone. God blessed and made holy ONLY the seventh day and that is why we have a seven day week. God’s law of love did not become obsolete at the cross and can no more change than God’s character can. He is the same yesterday, and today, and forever. It is not a special law for one nation only. It is eternal and so was made at creation for all man before sin and Jews and ALL FLESH keep it in the New Earth. God is all knowing and the Sabbath was not made one of God’s eternal Commandments by some oversight. If it were for Israel only, God would have placed it in the ordinances which were for Israel only and ended at the cross. There is no new law in Christ based on Matthew 22:37-40. Jesus was quoting the Old Testament and He said ALL the law hang on these two commandments just as they did also in the Old Testament. Loving your neighbour as yourself means obeying the last six Commandments (Matthew 19:18-19, Romans 13:9) and to love God with all your heart means to obey the first four. The Law is LOVE. If you truly Love God, you would not have other gods before Him or worship idols and you certainly would not take His name in vain. And speaking of Loving and Worshipping God with all your heart, that is EXACTLY what the Sabbath is all about. “Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a PERPETUAL covenant. It is a SIGN between Me and the children of Israel FOREVER…” Exodus 31:16-17. All Commandments show our allegiance but the fourth is a special SIGN of loyalty that we may know we truly love and follow God as His people. We are also children of Israel as is Abraham. Galatians 3:29 “And if you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” We are and need to be children of Israel as both covenants were made with the house of Israel. Hebrews 8:10, “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel…says the Lord: I will put My Laws into their mind and write them in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” See also Romans 2:28-29, Romans 9:6-8, 1 Corinthians 10:18, Galatians 6:16 and Daniel 70 weeks.
The Bible unmistakably shows that the real test of love is obedience to God. These following scriptures are just three of many that could be quoted. John 14:15 “If ye love me, keep my Commandments.” or 1 John 2:4 “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his Commandments, is a LIAR, and the truth is not in him.” and 1 John 5:3 “For this is the love of God, that we keep his Commandments: and his Commandments are not grievous.” This last verse says we should keep God’s Commandments because we love God so much that it is our heart’s desire to do so as Psalms 119 shows and not because we feel obligated to do so. Devoting a whole day to God should be to us a most beautiful and gratifying experience and should be our hearts desire, not something we call a burden or legalism. Jesus spoke of those who said, “Lord, Lord,” but did not do the will of the Father. Then He described many who would seek entrance to the kingdom claiming to be workers of miracles in the name of Christ. But He would sorrowfully have to say, “I never knew you: depart from me.” Matthew 7:21-23. This is terribly sad because Jesus is saying, “Not everyone who calls me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the Kingdom of heaven.” Revelation 22:14 describes those who will live with God the Father and Christ throughout eternity in the New Jerusalem: “Blessed are those who do his Commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.”
1 John 3:4 GNB says that, “Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God’s law, because sin is a breaking of the law.” So if there were no requirement to keep God’s Commandments, then there would be no sin and if there were no sin, then Jesus did not need to die on a cross for us and therefore the Gospel would be immaterial as would be Christianity and we would be no different to anyone else in this secular world. Do you see how absolutely absurd this is? Some have twisted this the other way by saying if we still have to obey the law then Jesus died for nothing. This is a very distorted view of the Gospel. Jesus redeemed us by His blood and paid the penalty for our sins which was death. He died on the cross so by faith and Grace we can repent and go on living, not go on sinning! This is Satan’s attempt at deceiving us into believing that since we are under Grace we no longer have to keep God’s Commandments. Jesus said if you love me keep my Commandments. He did not say I died for you so you can disobey my Commandments. Paul clarifies this well in Romans 6:14-15, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” It really is just this plain and simple. The ceremonial laws that have evidently confused so many were temporary and are gone. The Ten Commandments are Eternal and if we love God and man then we obey ALL of them FOREVER. They are NOT the Ten Suggestions and they are NOT the Nine Commandments and the One Suggestion. The Sabbath is the real test of love for God, yet never have I seen so many people twist and distort the word of God and fight so hard to justify why they can dodge this one Commandment. God is saying that He wants us to fully devote one day a week to Him because He loves us so much and people respond by searching for every excuse under the sun as to why they do not have to spend this time with God. I pray with all my heart that you are not one of them.
Isn’t it interesting that the only part of the Bible specifically written by God’s own hand, His Law, is the part so many people want to excuse away? And isn’t it interesting that the only part of that Law some say is for the Jew only, is the one Commandment that states it was for the “stranger” also? And isn’t it interesting that it is the only Commandment that specifically states it was instituted at Creation long before sin or Jews or ceremonies? And isn’t it interesting that it has not only been kept since creation but will also be kept in the new Heaven and Earth? And isn’t it interesting that the only Commandment man wants to forget is the one God specifically says to “remember?” Jesus said, “For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law…” and Jesus then went on to say “…whoever shall relax one of these Commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the LEAST [by those] in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called GREAT in the kingdom of Heaven.” The thought of being called least by those in Heaven because I have not taught or have relaxed even one of God’s Commandments definitely does not appeal to me in the slightest. There are the most wonderful blessings beyond comprehension both now and in eternity for obeying God’s Commandments and especially when it is done in love for our heavenly Father and our fellow man.
How Sunday Became the Popular Day of Worship
How Sunday Became the Popular Day of Worship
Contrary to what many Christians believe, Sunday was not observed by New Testament Christians as a day of worship. They kept Saturday, the seventh day of the week.
The question of how Sunday, the first day of the week, replaced Saturday, the seventh day of the week, as the main day of Christian worship has received increasing attention in recent years. One widely acclaimed study, for example, suggests that the weekly Christian Sunday arose from Sunday-evening communion services in the immediate postresurrection period, with Sunday itself being a workday until after the time of Constantine the Great in the early fourth century.[1] Eventually, however, Sunday ceased to be a workday and became a Christian Sabbath." Some simpler and more popular views are that either (1) Sunday was substituted immediately after Christ's resurrection for the seventh-day Sabbath, or (2) Sundaykeeping was introduced directly from paganism during the second century or later. But is either of these views correct? What do the actual source materials tell us?
Both Days Observed.
One thing is clear: The weekly Christian Sunday--whenever it did arise--did not at first generally become a substitute for the Bible seventh-day Sabbath, Saturday; for both Saturday and Sunday were widely kept side by side for several centuries in early Christian history. Socrates Scholasticus, a church historian of the fifth century A.D., wrote, "For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries [the Lord's Supper] on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this."[2] And Sozomen, a contemporary of Socrates, wrote, "The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria."[3] Thus, "almost everywhere" throughout Christendom, except in Rome and Alexandria, there were Christian worship services on both Saturday and Sunday as late as the fifth century. A number of other sources from the third to the fifth centuries also depict Christian observance of both Saturday and Sunday. For example, the Apostolic Constitutions, compiled in the fourth century, furnished instruction to "keep the Sabbath [Saturday], and the Lord's day [Sunday] festival; because the former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection." "Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath-day [Saturday] and the Lord's day [Sunday] let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety."[4] Gregory of Nyssa in the late fourth century referred to the Sabbath and Sunday as "sisters."[5] And about A.D. 400 Asterius of Amasea declared that it was beautiful for Christians that the "team of these two days comes together"--"the Sabbath and the Lord's day,"[6] which each week gathers together the people with priests as their instructors. And in the fifth century, John Cassian refers to attendance in church on both Saturday and Sunday, stating that he had even seen a certain monk who sometimes fasted five days a week but would go to church on Saturday or on Sunday and bring home guests for a meal on those two days.[7] It is clear that none of these early writers confused Sunday with the Bible Sabbath. Sunday, the first day of the week, always followed the Sabbath, the seventh day. Furthermore, the historical records are clear in showing that the weekly cycle has remained unchanged from Christ's time till now, so that the Saturday and Sunday of those early centuries are still the Saturday and Sunday of today. Later in this article we will return to data from early church history of the second and subsequent centuries to trace the manner in which Sunday eventually eclipsed the Sabbath, but first it is important here to take a look at the New Testament evidence, inasmuch as the New Testament is normative for Christian practice.
How did Christ and the apostles regard the Sabbath and Sunday?
Sabbath in the New Testament. According to Luke 4:16, it was Christ's "custom" to go to the synagogue on the Sabbath day. Moreover, at the time of Christ's death and burial, the women who had followed Him from Galilee "rested the sabbath day according to the commandment" (Luke 23:56), indicating that there had been no instruction from Him to the contrary. They were still observing the seventh day of the week! We may, in addition, take note of the fact that the implication of this text is that when Luke wrote the account several decades after Christ's crucifixion he took for granted that no change in Sabbath observance had occurred. He reports this Sabbath observance "according to the commandment" in a totally matter-of-fact way, with no hint that there had been any new day of worship added in the interim. On the other hand we must also recognize, of course, that Christ was accused of Sabbathbreaking by the scribes and Pharisees. We may take, for example, the incident where Christ's disciples plucked grain as they walked through a grain field, rubbed it in their hands, and ate it (Matthew 12:1-8). And we could also notice several instances of Christ's healing work that ran counter to the Sabbathkeeping views of the Jewish leaders--perhaps most strikingly the incident regarding the man with a withered hand (verses 10-13). What do these experiences mean? In order to understand the situation, one must recognize that Jewish Sabbath observance in Christ's day did not mean simply following Scripture laws but also adherence to strict regulations in Jewish oral tradition. The Mishnah, wherein multitudinous regulations of this so-called oral law were written down about A.D. 200, gives an idea of what Sabbath observance was like among the scribes and Pharisees.
There were both major laws and minor laws.
Additional Sabbath regulations. The thirty-nine major laws listed in the tractate (or section) of the Mishnah entitled "Shabbath" are given as follows: "The main classes of work are forty save one: sowing, ploughing, reaping, binding sheaves, threshing, winnowing, cleansing crops, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, shearing wool, washing or beating or dyeing it, spinning, weaving, making two loops, weaving two threads, separating two threads, tying [a knot], loosening [a knot], sewing two stitches, tearing in order to sew two stitches, hunting a gazelle, slaughtering or flaying or salting it or curing its skin, scraping it or cutting it up, writing two letters, erasing in order to write two letters, building, pulling down, putting out a fire, lighting a fire, striking with a hammer, and taking out aught from one domain into another. These are the main classes of work: forty save one."[8] These thirty-nine laws had many variations and ramifications. It would make a difference, for instance, whether two letters of the alphabet were written in such a way that they could both be seen at the same time. If water were to be drawn from a well in a gourd, a stone used as a weight in the gourd would be considered as part of the vessel if it did not fall out. However, if it should happen to fall out, it would be considered as an object being lifted, and therefore the individual with such an experience would be guilty of Sabbath-breaking.[9] Objects could be tossed on the Sabbath, but there were regulations pertaining to allowable distance and as to whether the object went from a private domain to a public domain, for example.[10] The foregoing are but a very few of the specifics mentioned in the tractate "Shabbath." And in addition to the laws mentioned in that tractate, the Mishnah contains other Sabbath regulations, the largest number of which deal with the Sabbath day's journey. (These are treated in the tractate "Erubin.")
In the context of this sort of casuistry regarding Sabbathkeeping, it is obvious why Christ's disciples were being accused of Sabbathbreaking by their picking and rubbing kernels of grain. One of the thirty-nine major Sabbath laws was "reaping"; another was "threshing." Thus Christ's disciples were both reaping and threshing--breaking two of the major laws of the Sabbath. If they blew the chaff away, they could also possibly have been considered as engaged in "sifting"--in which case they would have broken three different major Sabbath laws. Such "Sabbathbreaking," it must be emphasized, was not against God's commandments as given in Scripture but was purely and solely against the Jewish restrictions. In considering the various miracles that Christ performed on the Sabbath for the purpose of alleviating suffering, it is interesting that Christ Himself never accepted the Pharisees' criticism that He was breaking the Sabbath. Indeed, in connection with the case of the man with the withered hand, He raised a question, "What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days" (Matthew 12:11, 12). After this, He proceeded to heal the man. Thus He emphasized the lawfulness of this kind of deed on the Sabbath.
How about the apostles?
But now, what can we say about apostolic practice after Christ's resurrection? The book of Acts reveals that the only day on which the apostles repeatedly were engaged in worship services on a weekly basis was Saturday, the seventh day of the week. The apostle Paul and his company, when visiting Antioch in Pisidia, "went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down" (Acts 13:14). After the Scripture reading, they were called upon to speak. They stayed in Antioch a further week, and that "next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God" (verse 44). In Philippi Paul and his company went out of the city by a riverside on the Sabbath day, to the place where prayer was customarily made (Acts 16:13). In Thessalonica, "as his manner was," Paul went to the synagogue and "three sabbath days reasoned with them [the Jews] out of the scriptures" (Acts 17:2). And in Corinth, where Paul resided for a year and a half, "he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks" (Acts 18:4; compare verse 11). Thus the evidence in the book of Acts is multiplied regarding apostolic attendance at worship services on Saturday.
The Lord's day.
Some believe that "the Lord's day" mentioned in Revelation 1:10 refers to Sunday. However, when we read the passage, we find no hint of it being either a Sunday or a worship day. John here simply states that he "was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." Although it is true that eventually the term "Lord's day" came to be used for Sunday, no evidence indicates this was the case until about a century after the book of Revelation was written![11]
Most pointedly of all, there is neither prior nor contemporary evidence that Sunday had achieved in New Testament times a status that would have caused it to be called "Lord's day." Another day--the seventh-day Sabbath--had, of course, been the Lord's holy day from antiquity (see Isaiah 58:13) and was the day on which Christ Himself and His followers, including the apostle Paul, had attended religious services, as we have seen.
In fact, there is not one piece of concrete evidence anywhere in the New Testament that Sunday was considered as a weekly day of worship for Christians. Rather, Christ Himself, His followers at the time of His death, and apostles after His resurrection regularly attended worship services on Saturday, the seventh day of the week.
Moreover, when widespread Christian Sunday observance finally did become evident during the third to fifth centuries, this was side by side with the seventh-day Sabbath, as we have seen. The question now arises as to when and how Christian Sunday observance arose.
The first clear evidence for weekly Sunday observance by Christians comes in the second century from two places--Alexandria and Rome. About A.D. 130 Barnabas of Alexandria, in a highly allegorical discourse, refers to the seventh-day Sabbath as representing the seventh millennium of earth's history. He goes on to say that the present sabbaths were unacceptable to God, who would make "a beginning of the eighth day [Sunday], that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead."[12] About A.D. 150, Justin Martyr in Rome provides a more clear and direct reference to Sunday observance, actually describing briefly in his Apology the worship service held on Sunday: "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things." Next follow prayer, communion, and an offering for the poor.[13] The same writer in his Dialogue With Trypho the Jew manifests an anti-Sabbath bent in a number of statements, including the following: "Do you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths? Remain as you were born."[14]
Rome and Alexandria. Thus both Barnabas of Alexandria and Justin Martyr in Rome not only refer to the practice of Sunday observance, but they both also manifest a negative attitude toward the Sabbath. Interestingly, it is precisely these same two cities--Alexandria and Rome--that are mentioned by two fifth-century historians, Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen, as being exceptions to the general rule that worship services were still held on Saturday throughout the Christian world as late as the fifth century. What particular circumstances could have led Rome and Alexandria to their early adoption of Sunday observance? Moreover, why was Sunday observance soon (at least by the third century) so readily accepted throughout the rest of Christendom, even when the Sabbath was not abandoned? Obviously, the evidence thus far presented shatters the theory that Sunday was substituted for the seventh-day Sabbath immediately after Christ's resurrection. But likewise incorrect is the opposing view that the Christian Sunday was borrowed directly from paganism early in post-New Testament times. Not only does this theory lack proof, but the sheer improbability that virtually all Christendom suddenly shifted to a purely pagan practice should alert us to the need for a more plausible explanation. Especially is this so when we remember that numerous early Christians accepted martyrdom rather than compromise their faith. Justin himself was such a Christian, suffering martyrdom in Rome about A.D. 165.
Not a substitute for the Sabbath.
At such a time as this, would a purely pagan worship day have suddenly captured the entire Christian world, apparently without any serious protest? Furthermore, if this were the case, how would we account for the fact that the Christian Sunday, when it did arise, was regularly looked upon by the Christians as a day honoring Christ's resurrection, not as a Sabbath? This latter point deserves special attention. In the New Testament, Christ's resurrection is symbolically related to the first fruits of the harvest just as His death is related to the slaying of the Paschal lamb (see 1 Corinthians 15:20 and 5:7). The offering of the wave sheaf (grain sample) of the first fruits of the barley harvest was an annual event among the Jews. But in New Testament times there were two different methods of reckoning the day for this celebration. According to Leviticus 23:11, the wave sheaf was to be offered in the season of unleavened bread on "the morrow after the sabbath." The Pharisees interpreted this as the day after the Passover sabbath. They killed the Paschal lamb on Nisan 14, celebrated the Passover sabbath on Nisan 15, and offered the first-fruits wave sheaf on Nisan 16, regardless of the days of the week on which these dates might fall. Their celebration thus would parallel our method for reckoning Christmas, which falls on different days of the week in different years.
The Resurrection Festival
On the other hand, the Essenes and Sadducean Boethusians interpreted "the morrow after the sabbath" as the day after a weekly Sabbath--always a Sunday. Their day of Pentecost also always fell on a Sunday--"the morrow after the seventh sabbath" from the day of the offering of the first fruits (see Leviticus 23:15, 16).[15] It would be natural for Christians to continue the first-fruits celebration. They would keep it, not as a Jewish festival, but in honor of Christ's resurrection. After all, was not Christ the true first fruits (see 1 Corinthians 15:20), and was not His resurrection of the utmost importance (see verses 14, 17-19)?But when would Christians keep such a resurrection festival? Would they do it every week? No. Rather, they would do it annually, as had been their custom in the Jewish celebration of the first fruits. But which of the two types of reckoning would they choose--the Pharisaic or the Essene-Boethusian? Probably both. And this is precisely the situation we find in the Easter controversy that broke out toward the end of the second century.[16] At that time Asian Christians (in the Roman province of Asia Minor) celebrated the Easter events on the Nisan 14-15-16 basis, irrespective of the days of the week. But Christians throughout most of the rest of the world--including Gaul, Corinth, Pontus (in northern Asia Minor), Alexandria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine (even Jerusalem itself)--held to a Sunday-Easter. Early sources indicate that both practices stemmed from apostolic tradition.[17] This is a view more plausible than that the Sunday-Easter was a late Roman innovation. After all, at a time when Christian influences were still moving from east to west, how could a Roman innovation so suddenly and so thoroughly have uprooted an entrenched apostolic practice throughout virtually the whole Christian world, East as well as West?[18] A reconstruction of church history that sees the earliest Christian Sunday as an annual Easter one rather than as a weekly observance makes historical sense. The habit of keeping the annual Jewish first-fruits festival day could be easily transferred into an annual resurrection celebration in honor of Christ, the First Fruits. But there was no such habit or psychological background for keeping a weekly resurrection celebration. It is probable that the weekly Christian Sunday developed later as an extension of the annual one.
Various factors could have had a part in such a development. In the first place, not only did almost all early Christians observe both Easter and Pentecost on Sunday, but the whole seven-week season between the two holidays had special significance.[19] As J. van Goudoever has suggested, perhaps the Sundays between the two annual festivals had special importance too.[20] If so, elements already present could have aided in extending Sunday observance to a weekly basis, spreading first to the Sundays during the Easter-to-Pentecost season itself and then eventually throughout the entire year.[21] Thus the annual Sunday celebration could have furnished a source from which the early Christians in Alexandria and Rome inaugurated a weekly Sunday as a substitute for the Sabbath. But there is no reason why this kind of weekly resurrection festival had to supplant the Sabbath. And indeed, elsewhere throughout Christianity we find it simply emerging as a special day observed side by side with the Sabbath.
Sunday replaces Sabbath in Rome.
But what factor or factors prompted the displacement of the Sabbath by a weekly Sunday in Rome and Alexandria? Undoubtedly the most significant was a growing anti-Jewish sentiment in the early second century. Several Jewish revolts, culminating in that of Bar Cocheba in A.D. 132-135, aroused Roman antagonism against the Jews to a high level--so high, in fact, that Emperor Hadrian expelled the Jews from Palestine. His predecessor, Trajan, had been vexed too with Jewish outbreaks; and Hadrian himself, prior to the Bar Cocheba revolt, had outlawed such Jewish practices as circumcision and Sabbathkeeping.[22]
Especially in Alexandria, where there was a strong contingent of Jews, and in the Roman capital itself would Christians be prone to feel in danger of identification with the Jews. Thus, especially in these two places would they be likely to seek a substitute for the weekly Sabbath to avoid being associated with the Sabbathkeeping Jews. Moreover, with respect to Rome (and some other places in the West), the practice of fasting on the Sabbath every week also tended to enhance the development of Sunday observance by making the Sabbath a gloomy day. This obviously had negative effects on the Sabbath and could have served as an inducement in Rome and in some neighboring areas to replace such a sad and hungry Sabbath with a joyous weekly resurrection festival on Sunday. As the weekly Sunday arose side by side with the Sabbath throughout Christendom, elsewhere than at Rome and Alexandria, perhaps it was inevitable that eventually the two days would clash quite generally, as they had done as early as the second century in Rome and Alexandria. This did in fact happen, and later in this article we will survey the process by which Sunday finally displaced the Sabbath as the main day for Christian worship throughout Christendom.
A brief summary of the facts ascertained thus far will now be in order:
1. The New Testament silence about the weekly observance of Sunday, in contrast to the recurring statements about the Sabbath, provides convincing evidence that there was no such Sunday observance in New Testament Christianity. (Moreover, the second-century silence regarding the Sabbath and Sunday, except for Rome and Alexandria, is in large part a result of the fact that basically no controversy had developed over the two weekly days except in those two places.)
2. The mushrooming literary evidence from the third through fifth centuries reveals that at last a weekly Sunday had become quite generally observed. Furthermore, throughout most of Christendom it was observed side by side with the Sabbath.
3. The background from Judaism for an annual "first-fruits" celebration on Sunday provided the basis for an annual resurrection celebration among Christians. This was undoubtedly the first step toward a weekly Sunday resurrection festival.
Increased reference to both Sabbath and Sunday.
It is a curious fact that the references dealing with both Sabbath and Sunday increased sharply in the fourth century A.D. and that many of these had overtones of controversy. In some instances, there was an emphasis to keep both days (as, for example, in the Apostolic Constitutions).
On the other side, however, stood the anti-Sabbath church leaders. For example, John Chrysostom, a contemporary of Gregory and Asterius, went so far as to declare, "There are many among us now, who fast on the same day as the Jews, and keep the sabbaths in the same manner; and we endure it nobly or rather ignobly and basely"![23] Earlier we noted that the Sabbath fast--which made the Sabbath a sad and hungry day--helped bring about the rise of Sunday observance in Rome and in some other places in the West. Indeed, as early as the first quarter of the third century Tertullian of Carthage in North Africa argued against the practice.[24] About the same time Hippolytus in Rome took issue with those who observed the Sabbath fast.[25] However, in the fourth and fifth centuries evidence of controversy on this matter heightened. Augustine (died A.D. 430) dealt with the issue in several of his letters, including one in which he gave rebuttal to a zealous Roman advocate of Sabbath fasting--an individual who caustically denounced those who refused to fast on the Sabbath.[26] As another evidence of the controversy, Canon 64 of the Apostolic Constitutions specifies that "if any one of the clergy be found to fast on the Lord's day, or on the Sabbath-day, excepting one only, let him be deprived; but if he be one of the laity, let him be suspended."[27] The interpolater of Ignatius, who probably wrote at about the same time, even declared that "if any one fasts on the Lord's Day or on the Sabbath, except on the paschal Sabbath only, he is a murderer of Christ."[28] (On the Paschal Sabbath, the anniversary of the Sabbath during which Christ was in the tomb, Christians considered it appropriate to fast.) The last two sources noted may indicate that the controversy had extended beyond Western Christianity; but as far as the actual official practice was concerned, only Rome and certain other Western churches adopted it. John Cassian (died about A.D. 440) speaks of "some people in some countries of the West, and especially in the city [Rome]" who fasted on the Sabbath.[29] And Augustine refers to "the Roman Church and some other churches . . . near to it or remote from it" where the Sabbath fast was observed. But Milan, an important church in northern Italy, was among the Western churches that did not observe the Sabbath fast, as Augustine also makes clear.[30] Nor did the Eastern churches ever adopt it. The question remained a point of disagreement between East and West as late as the eleventh century.[31]
The increase in references about the Sabbath--both for and against--indicate that some sort of struggle was beginning to manifest itself on a rather widespread basis. No longer did the controversy center in only Rome and Alexandria. What could have triggered this struggle on such a wide scale in the fourth and fifth centuries?
Undoubtedly, one of the most important factors is to be found in the activities of Emperor Constantine the Great in the early fourth century, followed by later "Christian emperors." Not only did Constantine give Christianity a new status within the Roman Empire (from being persecuted to being honored), but he also gave Sunday a "new look." By his civil legislation, he made Sunday a rest day. His famous Sunday law of March 7, 321, reads: "On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."[32] This was the first in a series of steps taken by Constantine and by later "Christian emperors" in regulating Sunday observance. It is obvious that this first Sunday law was not particularly Christian in orientation (note the pagan designation "venerable Day of the Sun"); but very likely Constantine, on political and social grounds, endeavored to merge together heathen and Christian elements of his constituency by focusing on a common practice. In A.D. 386, Theodosius I and Gratian Valentinian extended Sunday restrictions so that litigation should entirely cease on that day and there would be no public or private payment of debt.[33] Laws forbidding circus, theater, and horse racing also followed and were reiterated as felt necessary.
Reaction to early Sunday laws.
How did the Christian church react to Constantine's Sunday edict of March, 321, and to subsequent civil legislation that made Sunday a rest day? As desirable as such legislation may have seemed to Christians from one standpoint, it also placed them in a dilemma. Heretofore, Sunday had been a workday, except for special worship services. What would happen, for example, to nuns such as those described by Jerome in Bethlehem, who, after following their mother superior to church and then back to their communions, the rest of their time on Sunday devoted "themselves to their allotted tasks, and made garments either for themselves or else for others"?[34] There is no evidence that Constantine's Sunday laws were ever specifically made the basis for Christian regulations of the day, but it is obvious that Christian leaders had to do something to keep the day from becoming one of idleness and vain amusement. Added emphasis on worship and reference to the Sabbath commandment in the Old Testament seem to have been the twin routes now taken. Perhaps a first inkling of the new trend comes as early as the time of Constantine himself--through the church historian Eusebius, who was also Constantine's biographer and keen admirer. In his commentary on Psalm 92, "the Sabbath psalm," Eusebius writes that Christians would fulfill on the Lord's day all that in this psalm was prescribed for the Sabbath--including worship of God early in the morning. He then adds that through the new covenant the Sabbath celebration was transferred to "the first day of light [Sunday]."[35] Later in the fourth century Ephraem Syrus suggested that honor was due "to the Lord's day, the firstborn of all days," which had "taken away the right of the firstborn from the Sabbath." Then he goes on to point out that the law prescribes that rest should be given to servants and animals.[36] The reflection of the Old Testament Sabbath commandment is obvious.
With this sort of Sabbath emphasis now being placed on Sunday, it was inevitable that the Sabbath day itself (Saturday) would take on lesser and lesser importance. And the controversy that is evident in literature of the fourth and fifth centuries between those who would honor it reflects the struggle. Moreover, it was a struggle that did not terminate quickly, for as we have seen, the fifth-century church historians Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen provide a picture of Sabbath worship services alongside Sunday worship services as being the pattern throughout Christendom in their day, except in Rome and Alexandria. It appears that the "Christian Sabbath" as a replacement for the earlier biblical Sabbath was a development of the sixth century and later. The earliest church council to deal with the matter was a regional eastern one meeting in Laodicea about A.D. 364. Although this council still manifested respect for the Sabbath as well as Sunday in the special lections (Scripture readings) designated for those two days, it nonetheless stipulated the following in its Canon 29: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord's day they shall especially honour, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ."[37] The regulation with regard to working on Sunday was rather moderate in that Christians should not work on that day if possible! However, more significant was the fact that this council reversed the original command of God and the practice of the earliest Christians with regard to the seventh-day Sabbath. God had said, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work" (Exodus 20:8-10, RSV). This council said, instead, "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday but shall work on that day."
Work forbidden on Sunday.
The Third Synod of Orleans in 538, though deploring Jewish Sabbatarianism, forbade "field labours" so that "people may be able to come to church and worship."[38] Half a century later, the Second Synod of Macon in 585 and the Council of Narbonne in 589 stipulated strict Sunday observance.[39] The ordinances of the former "were published by King Guntram in a decree of November 10, 585, in which he enforced careful observance of the Sunday."[40] Finally, during the Carolingian Age a great emphasis was placed on Lord's day observance according to the Sabbath commandment. Walter W. Hyde, in his Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire, has well summed up several centuries of the history of Sabbath and Sunday up to Charlemagne: "The emperors after Constantine made Sunday observance more stringent but in no case was their legislation based on the Old Testament. . . . At the Third Synod of Aureliani (Orleans) in 538 rural work was forbidden but the restriction against preparing meals and similar work on Sunday was regarded as a superstition.
"After Justinian's death in 565 various epistolae decretales were passed by the popes about Sunday. One of Gregory I (590-604) forbade men 'to yoke oxen or to perform any other work, except for approved reasons,' while another of Gregory II (715-731) said: 'We decree that all Sundays be observed from vespers to vespers and that all unlawful work be abstained from.' . . . "Charlemagne at Aquisgranum (Aachen) in 788 decreed that all ordinary labor on the Lord's Day be forbidden, since it was against the Fourth Commandment, especially labor in the field or vineyard which Constantine had exempted."[41] God's Sabbath never forgotten. And thus Sunday came to be the Christian rest day substitute for the Sabbath. But the seventh-day Sabbath was never entirely forgotten, of course. This was true in Europe itself. But particularly in Ethiopia, for example, groups kept both Saturday and Sunday as "Sabbaths," not only in the early Christian centuries but down into modern times.
Nevertheless, for a good share of Christendom, the history of the Sabbath and Sunday had by the sixth through eighth centuries taken a complete circle. For most Christians, God's rest day of both Old Testament and New Testament times had through a gradual process become a workday and had been supplanted by a substitute rest day. God's command that on the seventh day "you shall not do any work" had been replaced by the command of man: Work on the seventh day; rest on the first. However, all Christians who consider the New Testament as the normative guide for their lives, rather than the decisions of men hundreds of years later, will ask whether the worship day of Christ and the apostles--Saturday, the seventh day of the week--should not still be observed today. We believe it should.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Womens Role
What The Bible Says About
The Role of Women
[Editorial Comments Bracketed in Bold]
Isa 3:12 — As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
1 Tim 2:8-11 — I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. [Men are to lead; women are to be modest, learning quietly, and in submission; in this way, they prove their claim to godliness.]
1 Tim 3:14,15; 2:11-15 — These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. [What follows are God’s instructions for a woman’s functioning in the formal services of the local church, which would include Sunday School] ... Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I [Paul, as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, with full authority of one inspired by God] suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [A woman cannot teach with authority; e.g., in Sunday School classes, Bible conferences, etc. When a woman stands before a mixed crowd that includes men and opens the Bible and preaches or teaches, she is taking authority.] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [The woman was created after the man to be his helpmeet, not his head. Obviously, this is NOT a cultural matter, but is based upon the order of creation; this establishment of the principle of order transcends culture!] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived [“quite deceived” (NASB—Gen. 3:13)] was in the transgression. [Therefore, the woman was not spiritually qualified to teach because of (1) the order of creation, and (2) the facts of the Fall.] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, [i.e., she will be occupying herself with the duties of the home and family (as evidence of her salvation given through the birth of the Messiah), and will receive her fulfillment/purpose in life in that arena] if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety [“self-restraint” (NASB)].
1 Tim 5:9,10,14 — Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. [Faithful service in “home-related” activities necessary to qualify widows to receive church support.] … I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, [be the “ruler” or “despot” of the home, but under the leadership of her husband] give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
Titus 2:3-5 —The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; [See further: women teaching “home-related” activities to younger women, not Biblical doctrine.] That they may teach [“encourage” NASB] the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children [agape love, since a person can not be “taught” to have “feelings”], To be discreet, chaste, keepers [“workers” NASB] at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, [this alone would preclude a married woman from working outside the home, because outside work necessitates her to be under someone else’s authority, man or woman, other than her own husband] that the word of God be not blasphemed.
Prov 6:20; 2 Tim 1:5; 3:15 — My son, keep thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: … When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also. … And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [The person teaching becomes the authority; since the parent is already the authority, as God intended it to be from creation, there is no problem in women teaching doctrine to their own children.]
1 Cor 14:33b-35,37 — As in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. [Not a cultural factor, but established by God thousands of years ago.] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame [“improper” (NASB)] for women to speak in the church. [Women are to look for input and leadership from the man.] … If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Eph 5:18, 22-24 — And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; ... Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. [Can’t submit to husband if don’t submit to Christ.] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
1 Pet 3:1-6 — Likewise, ye wives, [same as in submissiveness to government authorities (1 Pe 2:13-17)] be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; [God is saying that even for an unbeliever, submissiveness to God-supported authority is a hard and fast rule, not situational, circumstantial, or cultural.] ... Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time [i.e., not “cultural”] the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, [Outward adornment should not be the focal point of a woman’s life—rather her life is to emphasize godliness.] being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord (Gen. 18:12) [2000 years earlier; therefore, not cultural]: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
1 Cor 11:3-10 — But I would have you know, that the head [i.e., authority (Jdg. 11:10; Eph. 1:22)] of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. [Therefore, no inferiority is implied in submissiveness, only different God-ordained roles.] Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth [direct revelation (which is no longer an active gift for anyone, men or women), not normal preaching/teaching (prophesying and teaching were two distinct gifts—Eph. 4:11)] with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head [an abnormal situation for woman to pray or prophesy in public, and therefore, she must have a visible sign of authority over her]: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause [the created order] ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. [Paul again refers back to the order of creation, and that the angels are watching (Eph, 3:10), for his authority, not because of the curse of the Fall as some so-called “Biblical feminists” contend.] [Paul is speaking here of conduct in meetings outside the church; he doesn’t speak to church conduct until verse 18; 1 Cor. 6:12-11:17 deals with personal conduct outside of corporate church meetings.]
Prov 12:4; 14:1 — A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones. ... Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.
Prov 31:10-31 — Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it [in order to plant and grow food for her family]: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. [providing wine part of the provisions of the home, just as is providing of the food; i.e., she was not a “real estate lady” as the so-called Biblical feminists teach today—she barters food, wine, garments, and sashes (vs. 24)] She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise is good [bartering food and drink, not real estate speculation]: her candle goeth not out by night. She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple [a wealthy household, yet she works hard—no idleness]. Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. [Her faithfulness in the home and with the home is very significant in her husband’s success.] She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. [The issue of working women is not income; the focus must be the home, and income generated through the home, not outside of it.] Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. [She has made provision for the future.] She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. [The real credit comes to a woman from her children and from her husband.] Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.
The Role of Women
[Editorial Comments Bracketed in Bold]
Isa 3:12 — As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
1 Tim 2:8-11 — I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. [Men are to lead; women are to be modest, learning quietly, and in submission; in this way, they prove their claim to godliness.]
1 Tim 3:14,15; 2:11-15 — These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. [What follows are God’s instructions for a woman’s functioning in the formal services of the local church, which would include Sunday School] ... Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I [Paul, as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, with full authority of one inspired by God] suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. [A woman cannot teach with authority; e.g., in Sunday School classes, Bible conferences, etc. When a woman stands before a mixed crowd that includes men and opens the Bible and preaches or teaches, she is taking authority.] For Adam was first formed, then Eve. [The woman was created after the man to be his helpmeet, not his head. Obviously, this is NOT a cultural matter, but is based upon the order of creation; this establishment of the principle of order transcends culture!] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived [“quite deceived” (NASB—Gen. 3:13)] was in the transgression. [Therefore, the woman was not spiritually qualified to teach because of (1) the order of creation, and (2) the facts of the Fall.] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, [i.e., she will be occupying herself with the duties of the home and family (as evidence of her salvation given through the birth of the Messiah), and will receive her fulfillment/purpose in life in that arena] if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety [“self-restraint” (NASB)].
1 Tim 5:9,10,14 — Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. [Faithful service in “home-related” activities necessary to qualify widows to receive church support.] … I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, [be the “ruler” or “despot” of the home, but under the leadership of her husband] give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
Titus 2:3-5 —The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; [See further: women teaching “home-related” activities to younger women, not Biblical doctrine.] That they may teach [“encourage” NASB] the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children [agape love, since a person can not be “taught” to have “feelings”], To be discreet, chaste, keepers [“workers” NASB] at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, [this alone would preclude a married woman from working outside the home, because outside work necessitates her to be under someone else’s authority, man or woman, other than her own husband] that the word of God be not blasphemed.
Prov 6:20; 2 Tim 1:5; 3:15 — My son, keep thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: … When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also. … And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [The person teaching becomes the authority; since the parent is already the authority, as God intended it to be from creation, there is no problem in women teaching doctrine to their own children.]
1 Cor 14:33b-35,37 — As in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. [Not a cultural factor, but established by God thousands of years ago.] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame [“improper” (NASB)] for women to speak in the church. [Women are to look for input and leadership from the man.] … If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
Eph 5:18, 22-24 — And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; ... Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. [Can’t submit to husband if don’t submit to Christ.] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
1 Pet 3:1-6 — Likewise, ye wives, [same as in submissiveness to government authorities (1 Pe 2:13-17)] be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; [God is saying that even for an unbeliever, submissiveness to God-supported authority is a hard and fast rule, not situational, circumstantial, or cultural.] ... Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time [i.e., not “cultural”] the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, [Outward adornment should not be the focal point of a woman’s life—rather her life is to emphasize godliness.] being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord (Gen. 18:12) [2000 years earlier; therefore, not cultural]: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
1 Cor 11:3-10 — But I would have you know, that the head [i.e., authority (Jdg. 11:10; Eph. 1:22)] of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. [Therefore, no inferiority is implied in submissiveness, only different God-ordained roles.] Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth [direct revelation (which is no longer an active gift for anyone, men or women), not normal preaching/teaching (prophesying and teaching were two distinct gifts—Eph. 4:11)] with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head [an abnormal situation for woman to pray or prophesy in public, and therefore, she must have a visible sign of authority over her]: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause [the created order] ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. [Paul again refers back to the order of creation, and that the angels are watching (Eph, 3:10), for his authority, not because of the curse of the Fall as some so-called “Biblical feminists” contend.] [Paul is speaking here of conduct in meetings outside the church; he doesn’t speak to church conduct until verse 18; 1 Cor. 6:12-11:17 deals with personal conduct outside of corporate church meetings.]
Prov 12:4; 14:1 — A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones. ... Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.
Prov 31:10-31 — Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it [in order to plant and grow food for her family]: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. [providing wine part of the provisions of the home, just as is providing of the food; i.e., she was not a “real estate lady” as the so-called Biblical feminists teach today—she barters food, wine, garments, and sashes (vs. 24)] She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise is good [bartering food and drink, not real estate speculation]: her candle goeth not out by night. She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple [a wealthy household, yet she works hard—no idleness]. Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. [Her faithfulness in the home and with the home is very significant in her husband’s success.] She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. [The issue of working women is not income; the focus must be the home, and income generated through the home, not outside of it.] Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. [She has made provision for the future.] She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. [The real credit comes to a woman from her children and from her husband.] Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.
Clean And Un clean foods as per the Bible
Does God forbid us to eat pork, rabbit, oysters, clams?...
Are Some Meats Unfit To Eat?
Are the Old Testament dietary laws of clean and unclean meats out-dated? Should Christians eat pork and shell-fish? Is eating them unhealthy? Is eating them sin? Here's what God's Word has to say.James McBride: Served a delicious-looking pork roast, or a plate of mussels or oysters, or a tasty ham sandwich - has it ever crossed your mind that there could be anything wrong in eating them? A strange question, perhaps, in a world where anything that moves is eaten somewhere! But it's one that sometimes puzzles Christians.
Sooner or later a Christian will encounter the Bible's "dietary laws". These are a list of meats which God instructed Israel not to eat, found in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Do these "Old Testament" restrictions on what may be eaten apply to Christians today? Are they merely 'ceremonial' - and "done away in Christ"? Or is it still wrong to eat them?
Let's examine the evidence from Scripture - both Old and New Testament - to find God's mind on these questions. Many Christian writers claim that certain New Testament texts annul the original food laws, making them obsolete. Others argue that these laws continue to this day. Later we will look at the opposing views.
The food laws, of course, are in Scripture linked to the so-called "laws of uncleanness". 'Clean' animals were suitable for both sacrifice, and for food. The 'unclean' were prohibited for both. But were these laws of uncleanness first introduced by Moses?
Before The Flood
It's important to realize that these laws of uncleanness did not originate with "the Law of Moses" around 1500 B.C. They are not 'Jewish' but an inheritance for all mankind. In fact, they were known to Noah eight hundred years before Moses! Read Genesis 7:1-5: "Take with you [into the ark]" God instructed Noah, "seven of every kind of clean animal ... and two of every kind of unclean animal". That is, before the Flood the notion of "clean and unclean" was already understood. From the early dawn of history a clear distinction is made. Some creatures were "clean". Some were not. Some were for eating and some were not. Some animals were defined by the Creator as suitable for sacrifice, and some were not.
Abel sacrificed "the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions" (Gen 4:4) and - as with many of the types of sacrifice - it's likely that he would have eaten a portion of it as part of the "sacrificial fellowship" with God. These sacrifices were of the 'clean' animals only.
From the Flood until Moses, then, the people of God are recorded as eating and sacrificing only the clean animals: of the 'flock' - sheep or goat - (Gen 4:4), or cattle (18:7f), or birds. Noah, after the Flood "took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl and offered burnt offerings" (8:20). it's logical that, as in later times, these sacrificial foods were also those designed to be eaten.
Within the dietary laws Noah was warned only that he should not eat flesh - with the blood still in it. A caution, this, with which any modern dietician would agree!
Moses later recorded for us what these clean and unclean animals, fish, birds and insects are. They have not changed since! However, in a few instances there may be some doubt as to which creature is referred to, though those foods normally used as food are clearly defined.
| ABRIDGED LIST OF SCRIPTURALLY "CLEAN" FOODS: [see Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14] | ||
|---|---|---|
| MEAT: They chew the cud & have a divided hoof Beef Antelope Elk Buffalo Lamb Deer Goat | FISH: They must have both fins and scales Cod Haddock Mackerel Salmon Bream Tuna | FOWL: Chicken Turkey Quail Pheasant Goose Grouse Duck Dove (and related) |
| Insects: Those listed in Scripture are not easily identified with our familiar insects. But you could, with John the Baptist, try locusts. [see Leviticus 11:20-23.] Modern outdoorsmen warn, however, to carefully inspect the locusts for parasites before ingesting! | ||
Merely Ceremonial?
It's well-known - even in our world of hi-tech refrigeration and high standards of hygienic food-handling - that certain foods are likely to cause illness. High on the list of meat with a medical health warning are the so-called "unclean" foods listed in Scripture! This does not mean that other meats are automatically safe. 'Mad Cow Disease', caused by forcing cows to be carnivores, is an example of how humans can turn the edible into the inedible. Humans, however, can never treat the inedible as edible without the risk of dire consequences. As I write, ninety people locally are seriously ill because of eating mussels - a kind of scavenger shell-fish that delightedly feeds on raw sewage! In 1990, and again several times since, shell-fish from the east coast of England were banned from the shops for several months because they were contaminated. Such incidents are not uncommon. Not infrequently they kill. And doctors, of course, frequently prescribe "no pork" to patients for health reasons. Another example is the hare which was, even among the ancient Britons, avoided because of its well-known loathsome disorders!
In the Middle Ages, Jews were accused of sorcery because they escaped many of the sicknesses that afflicted others. It is now known that this was because they observed the laws of "cleanness". The laws of uncleanness also include other (obvious to us) instructions such as avoiding contact with blood, contaminated water, skin diseases, rats and fleas, and not touching dead bodies.
So anyone who expresses respect for these Bible laws, is doing himself a favor! Isn't it logical that a God who created man, who loves mankind,,will also have given guidance on the best "fuel" for his body? And what to avoid?
In fact, an open-minded study of Scripture forces only one answer to our title question: Yes - some meats are unfit to eat! And Christians especially, in whom dwells the Spirit of God, who are His "Temple", who are Christ's Body, ought to give heed to the Bible's dietary laws!
The Penalty for Breaking the Laws of Clean and Unclean
Obviously somebody has to touch dead bodies, clean up blood after an traffic accident, and treat patients with skin diseases. Breaking the cleanness laws is not automatically a sin, but there are penalties. In ancient times, the usual penalty was that you became "unclean until sunset." This meant that you were not allowed to enter the Temple that day. This was not a severe penalty, unless you were a priest on duty. This is probably one of the rationalizations that the priest used in the parable of the Good Samaritan when he "passed by on the other side." So uncleanness was a short term inconvenience. However, we can now see that there are also long-term penalties not mentioned in the Bible. For instance touching HIV-infected blood is a major hazard for medical personal.
Of course, it's almost impossible in today's world to avoid the intake of what are known as "unclean meats". Clearly, to unknowingly eat a portion of pork roast, or swallow a shrimp with the soup, or down a prawn won't exclude us from the Kingdom of God. We are not saved by our works! Nor need we sift every spoonful of soup for particles of pork fat, nor minutely inspect every lettuce leaf for a maggot, nor wonder what's in the toothpaste! Wrote Paul, "For the Kingdom of God does not consist in eating and drinking..." (Romans 14:17).
The questions is: "What if we deliberately decide to break the Cleanness laws as a rejection of Scripture?" Now we are not talking about accident or ignorance or necessity. We are talking about refusing to follow clear instructions in the Bible.
Consequences
Before God created man (the pinnacle and purpose of the material creation) He made His creation fitted to man's physical and psychic constitution. Man fits perfectly into the grand scheme of the fundamental laws of the Universe. That 'set-up' includes gravity, the laws of motion etc. Man to survive has to conform to these laws!
In Eden, man's diet - perhaps for environmental considerations - was largely vegetarian (Genesis 1:29-30). But because of sin, the ensuing disruption to the seasons and the curse on agriculture (ch. 3:17-19), certain plants were, or became, inedible. Hence there is today a wide range of plants which experience shows are unfit to eat - or even poisonous. Some mushrooms, for example are notoriously deadly. Since there is no doubt about these, there has been no need for God to give us special instructions. Similarly - and not quite so clear through our experience - certain animals are not fit to eat. To help us, God has identified these for us in His dietary laws.
To transgress the laws of gravity or inertia may land you in hospital - from a road accident, for example, or falling down stairs. But it doesn't deprive you of eternal life. It is not a sin that necessarily has spiritual consequences! This is, too, the case with the eating of 'unclean' meats. There are well-documented physical consequences (including heart disease, cancer, food poisoning, etc.). But their inadvertent ingestion doesn't lead to the second death. As the apostle Paul wrote to the Roman Christians "There is nothing unclean [common] of itself" (ch. 14:14).
In other words, to eat unclean foods has consequences for our health. But it is not - usually - sin!
On the other hand it's also emphasized in Scripture that God gives the Holy Spirit (without which we are not Christ's) to those who obey Him (Acts 5:32). To deliberately and knowingly flout any part of the Law of God instills and encourages an attitude of rebellion which could lead to the quenching from within us of the Spirit of God. That has real spiritual consequences! A true Christian constantly says to God "Your will be done"! Whether it hurts or not. God works with those who "tremble" at His Word!
Idolatry
Why, then, do so many who claim to be Christian get so angry about this part of God's revelation to man?
Desperately, they search for Bible texts to somehow "get round" God's instruction! For example, Paul's words within his short treatise on idolatry (in I Corinthians 10) are used to justify, eating unclean foods when eating out. He said "If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising questions of conscience" (v.27). There you have it! You wouldn't want to embarrass your host (never mind yourself), would you? So with a clear conscience should you just tuck into the juicy pork chop - or the grilled octopus, or frogs legs, or barbecued rat, mouse, snake or dog? (All are relished somewhere in the world!). But, with his avowed attitude of deep respect for God's Law, would Paul sanction this major departure from it? He did say, you will recall, "the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good" (Romans 7:12).
What is Paul talking about? Look at the context. He nowhere implies that he is discussing health implications of unclean meat. He is discussing the religious implications of eating "clean" meats sacrificed to idols - idolatry - that is, any religion divorced from the Word of God. In Paul's times, the Temples were also the slaughterhouses, and it was difficult to find meat from animals not slaughtered in some religious ritual.
Notice his words: "Anything that is sold in the market eat, and ask no questions for conscience sake. If an unbeliever invites you [for dinner!] and you consent to go, eat whatever is put before you. and ask no questions for conscience sake [but, of course, you can ask questions for health sake, and many already do: low sodium diets, fat-free diets, allergies etc.]. But if anyone tells you, 'This food has been offered in sacrifice', abstain from eating it for the sake of him who warned you, and for conscience sake - I mean his conscience, not your own" (v. 25-28). Best to courteously warn your host ahead of time as to your food preferences - just as the Queen of England does!
Remember that the apostle Paul was writing to Christians whose sole "Scripture" was what we term the Old Testament! His teaching to the Corinthian Church was founded on the writings of the Old Testament. They were thoroughly familiar with the division of food into "clean and unclean"! As Paul wrote to Timothy: "Cling to the truths that you have learned and of which you are convinced, knowing who your teachers were, and that from infancy you have known the sacred writings which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Timothy 3:14-17).
With their respect for the Old Testament they would take some convincing that Paul was telling them to flaunt God's Laws! Especially, too, in view of Jesus' attitude to God's Law - "I have not come to abolish [the Law and the Prophets]..." (Matthew 5:17). Anyway, in thirty-five odd years of keeping these food laws I have yet to meet anyone who told me the roast that we were about to eat - clean or unclean - was part of a sacrifice to idols. Nor, I bet, have you!
Peter's Dilemma
The apostle Peter once faced a dilemma on this matter of clean and unclean. Some ten years after the resurrection of Jesus he had a vision of "all kinds of quadrupeds. reptiles and birds" - dogs, cats, horses, frogs, alligators, snakes, spiders etc - being lowered before him in a huge sheet. A voice said "Rise, Peter, kill and eat". A shocking command. For as Peter makes clear:
"On no account, Lord, for I have never yet [this was, remember, ten years after the resurrection!] eaten anything unhallowed or unclean". (You can read the account in Acts 10.)
Peter knew the vision could not relate to food, so he was perplexed, but, as events unfolded, Peter came to understand the point of the vision: all men are equal in the eyes of God. Regarding salvation, there is neither Jew nor Gentile (vv.28-29). Peter was not to consider any man (Gk: anthropos) "unclean"! He did not say "any thing". In the vision God was telling him that salvation is open to all men. The vision had nothing to do with food!
To make these unclean foods suitable for mankind to eat, their - or man's - very anatomy and physiology would need restructuring. The digestive tracts of dogs and rats and pigs and oysters and crabs and vultures would have to be totally changed to properly process their flesh to be fit for human consumption. Yet all these unclean creatures are the same today as they were thousands years ago when the cleanness laws were written down! Where, in Scripture, has God 'cleansed' - indeed changed the very nature of - His long list of prohibited foods?
Holy Meat?
Indeed Paul told Timothy that in our day "some will fall away from the truth, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons" (I Timothy 4:1). That's a strong warning - and surely one we ought to investigate! What is he referring to? "They insist on abstinence from foods which God has created to be partaken of with thankfulness by those who believe and know the truth". Clearly some of the brethren were listening to a false teaching of avoiding certain foods which are acceptable in God's eyes for man to eat. But which? He explains: "for it is made holy by the Word of God [the 'truth'] and by prayer" (v.5).
Now, what foods are "made holy" - that is, separated for a particular use - by the Scriptures, the Word of God? There's basically only one place to look - and that is Leviticus 11, repeated in Deuteronomy 14! In other words, the "clean" foods. Paul specifically points out that certain substances, defined by God's Word, are set apart for use as food. Some are not. So around 60 A.D., almost 30 years after Christ's resurrection, the apostle Paul still hadn't got the message that Jesus had "made all meats clean"!
Note that Paul calls the false teaching demonic. It is today a well-known tenet of the Satan-inspired "New Age" teachings that "all animated life is sacred". The extension of this is that God dwells in all creatures - and we ought therefore, for this reason, to eat only vegetable foods. It is, of course, a Satanic lie! One result, for example, is the populous nation of India, where poverty and malnutrition is widespread largely due to the refusal to kill vermin such as rats and mice - which in consequence devour half the stored grain - or to use cattle for food. Any of those creatures, it is believed, might be re-incarnated people, or gods! This false concept is beginning to grip western society!
Did Jesus Change Animal Nature?
But didn't Jesus "make all foods clean"? This is "quoted" from Mark 7:19 and is often taken to mean that Jesus overturned the Bible dietary laws.
Recall that Jesus constantly upheld the Law of God! But he did, of course, have something to say about "uncleanness". He blasted Pharisees for their obsessive pre-occupation with ritually washing the objects they used daily. However, to use this text in Mark 7 to prove that at that precise moment Jesus took it on himself to a) change the nature of animals, or b) change the human digestive system, and to c) forever after do away with God's perfect Laws is a travesty of Scripture!
Let's read the passage: "And he said to them. Are you also still ignorant? Do you not perceive that what enters into the man from without cannot pollute him? Because it does not reach the intellect [KJV 'heart'] but passes into the bowels: which eliminate all foods [KJV: 'purging all meats']". Late glosses on the text interpreted these words as "This said Jesus, making all meats clean". But even this statement is only saying "making all food clean" - i.e., a bit of mud does not make clean meat unclean. The conversation with the Pharisees involved only their concern with the cleanliness of otherwise clean meats.
The logical meaning of Jesus's statement is in connection with the digestion of food in the human body. Notice the view of W. Walsham How in his Commentary: "'Purging all meats' - That is, cleansing the foods eaten from all that is not suitable for nourishment". It is a physiological statement as true today as two thousand years ago! The human digestive system eliminates all unwanted roughage, etc.
Jesus, in this passage, goes on to show that the true uncleanness or pollution is "from within, from man's intellect": from vile thoughts, adultery, fornication, murder, theft, avarice, wickedness, deceit, etc. (vv. 21-23). In other words, man is 'unclean' by breaking the Laws of God.
We have seen, then, that right from man's earliest days there is a God-inspired distinction between meats that are edible as food and those that aren't. Indeed in a prophecy for our time at the end of this age (v. 15) Isaiah relays God's message: "On the whole world the Eternal will pass sentence with his fire and sword. Any who ... eat the flesh of swine, of mice and crawling vermin, their rites and devices shall perish by the Eternal's order" (Isaiah 66:15-18 Moffatt).
Clearly God still holds the eating of unclean flesh as an abomination! Anciently God's Temple was desecrated by the sacrifice of an unclean animal on the altar. Very soon there will be a Temple (of some sort) again standing in Jerusalem. Again that Temple will be desecrated. Is it possible that the coming Antichrist will enforce the ritual eating of swine's flesh? That once again God's altar will be defiled by the sacrifice of a pig upon it? That a required part of the coming universal religion will be the eating of "the abomination"? If so, then it will surely be Sin to eat the unclean!
However, in the new Temple which the returned Jesus Christ will construct, all the sacrificial animals conform to the Laws of Clean and Unclean (Ezekiel 43 etc). An instruction to the Priests and Levites who will officiate in those days in the future is "They must teach the people the difference between what is sacred and what is unconsecrated [i.e., ritually], and show them how to distinguish what is unclean and what is clean" [i.e., inherently] (ch. 44:23). The former refers to sacrifices, the latter to food.
Foul Language What does the Bible Say ??
Today’s question is “What does the Bible say about foul language?” I am going to make a confession as we begin. I have some fear about this lesson. First, because it is hard to speak on this subject clearly without crossing the very bounds of propriety I’m trying to preserve. Second, since what I will say is not going to coincide with the traditional lessons on this topic, I fear some of you will be upset with me. However, I am 100% convinced what I am going to tell you is the truth. As I have always said, I don’t believe I have all the answers but I do believe the Bible does. If, when I am done, you think I have missed the boat on something, I would be happy to learn from you what you believe the Bible teaches.
Discussion:
I. What the Bible doesn’t say.
A. In the 1980s, George Carlin became famous for his very vulgar skit about the 8 words not allowed on television. I wish this lesson were that simple. I wish I could turn you to a passage that gave us the list of bad words. But I can’t. There just isn’t one.B. We have often heard preachers go to Matthew 26:74 where it says Peter began to curse and swear to speak against bad words today. However, in the first place, this text is not talking about cussing in the sense of bad words as we usually mean it. Rather, it means he either cursed the people he was talking to or himself. That is, not that he used “curse words,” but that he uttered curses against them. And then he swore, that is, he called on the name of God to take an oath that he was not one of the apostles. But even if this was a passage that referred to bad words, it doesn’t tell us what they would be.C. The fact is, there is not one single verse that provides us any teaching that declares that any particular word is inherently bad. In fact strictly speaking, there is no biblical concept of bad words. Don’t misunderstand, the Bible does speak of corrupt speech, what we might call using words badly. However, there is no decree from God that lists even one single word as bad simply because the word is bad. We need to be honest, when we tell someone a certain word is bad, we are not doing so because God has defined that word as bad. We are doing so either because we have decided that word in our culture violates some principles of God’s word or because our society and culture has determined the word is bad.
II. What the Bible does say.
A. While the Bible does not give us a list of words to avoid, it does provide some principles to guide our speech. I will share those principles with you and let you be the judge of what words you should and should not say.B. Principle #1: No corrupting talk (Ephesians 4:29)—Instead of words that tear down, we are supposed to use words that build up. The building up here does not refer solely to spiritual edification. This doesn’t provide a list of words to remove from our speech. But it does point out that belittling speech, shaming speech, berating speech, name-calling and other forms of speech that tear people down rather than build them up is foul in the Christian’s mouth.C. Principle #2: No careless words (Matthew 12:36-37)—This statement is somewhat difficult to nail down. But the word here means idle or lazy. I think the ESV gets the heart of its meaning when it says “careless.” That is, no matter what we say if we are speaking lazily, that is without careful consideration and thought, we will be judged for it. We could say “thoughtless speech.” Have you ever been in an argument and had to back up and say, “I didn’t mean that, it just came out.” That is speaking without thinking, without care. Jesus tells us not to do it.D. Principle #3: No irreverent or profane words (I Timothy 4:7; 6:20; II Timothy 2:16)—Where the ESV says “irreverent,” other translations say “profane.” In our day “profanity” has come to encompass all “bad words.” But profanity in the Biblical sense actually means to treat the holy in a low, base, light and irreverent manner. This includes taking the Lord’s name in vain. But it goes beyond that. Should we speak of the holy heaven in such a light manner as those do when they say, “For heaven’s sake” or “My heavens”? We should not treat lightly the holy teachings of Christ as some do when they joke about the Lord’s words.E. Principle #4: No cursing (Romans 12:14; James 3:9-10)—This is not about “cussing,” but rather calling curses down upon men. No doubt, we are allowed to warn of God’s curses on men, but it is not our job to curse men. When we say things like “damn you” or “go to hell” we are cursing men. That shouldn’t come from our mouths. However, this is not merely limited to those magic words that have been deemed curse words by our society. If we cursed a man saying “a pox upon you” as was popular in past centuries, we would be violating this principle.F. Principle #5: No filthy, foolish or crude speaking (Ephesians 5:4)—For the longest time, I tried to figure out the difference in the three terms used here. However, in the context of Ephesians 5:3, 5, 11-12, I am convinced Paul is not telling us about three different bad forms of speech but rather emphasizing one point by using parallelism. He is talking about the light and crude discussion of sinful activities, especially of sexual immorality. This is not simply talking about some words for sex our society deems base and vulgar. It also cautions us against speaking of immorality as if it is a joke or joking about it. It forbids what we would call dirty jokes as well.G. Principle #6: No malicious words (Ephesians 4:31)—We must not speak words that intend to harm either to someone’s face or behind their back. Let me make a point here. In our society, we are told the word for female dog is bad. And when using it as a derogatory attack on someone, it most definitely is. But for some reason, the word for female horse or female cow is okay. But is calling someone a nag or heifer any less malicious than the word we have declared bad?H. Principle #7: Speak honorably in the sight of men (II Corinthians 8:20-21)—This point is somewhat different than the others, but no less important. The passage we are reading is not talking about speech. It is talking about the use of money. However, please note the important principle that we want to do what is honorable not merely before God, but also before men. We do not want to leave ourselves open to accusations from men. We are not allowed to merely say that what others think is unimportant. If our society has declared that a word or phrase is bad, we should not use it because we leave ourselves open to an accusation from men. Rather, we need to speak in a way that will be deemed honorable among men.
III. A few comments about euphemisms.
A. According to Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, a euphemism is “the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensively harsh or blunt.” Since I became a Christian, I have heard numerous things about euphemisms ranging from “Christians should never, ever use euphemisms because that is just as bad as really cussing” to “what’s the big deal about euphemisms, Christians don’t have to worry about those at all.” I think both extremes are mistaken. I will make three comments about euphemisms and, as before, allow you to make the applications you deem fit.B. We cannot make blanket statements against euphemisms. Sadly, the statements that sweep with too broad a brush, discarding “euphemisms” as wholly sinful simply demonstrate ignorance about what a euphemism is. The fact is the Bible uses euphemisms. For instance, in I Samuel 24:3 when the ESV says Saul went in to relieve himself and the KJV says “cover his feet,” the Bible used a euphemistic phrase to avoid saying that Saul was defecating. Further, even those who have made such blanket rebukes of “euphemisms” use them and would laud their use at times. Have you ever heard someone say, “he used a four-letter-word”? “Four-letter-word” is a euphemism so the person relating the story can avoid actually saying the word and we with sensitive ears appreciate that euphemism. Finally, if we are going to make a blanket statement against any and all words described as euphemisms, we are going to be in some real trouble. According to The Online Etymology Dictionary (etymonline.com) the words “assemble” and “fellowship” were viewed for several centuries as euphemisms for sexual intercourse.C. However, you need to consider your intent. While we cannot make the blanket statement that anything considered a euphemism is wrong, we shouldn’t take the opposite approach of saying God never said euphemisms were wrong so we don’t have to worry about them. Because of our magic “bad word” mentality, we sometimes think if we chose a word society doesn’t think is bad we are okay. But, we need to remember God is not as concerned with the actual words as what is intended by those words. For instance, I think each and every one of us would say I was violating the principle of “no cursing” found in Romans 12:14 and James 3:9-10 if I said “God damn you” to someone. But, brothers and sisters, if instead I looked at that person and said, “Gosh darn you,” was my intent any less to curse them just because I didn’t use the words our society has defined as bad? Yes, we do need to take care. Using a euphemistic phrase does not change the intent of our heart and the motivation of our speech. If our motivation violates one of the principles, the words may not be considered bad, but the speech is corrupt.D. You need to consider the insinuation. Euphemisms are a kind of insinuation. That is, instead of directly saying something, we are indirectly saying something. For instance, when we say someone “passed away” we are using a euphemism that means they died. We are insinuating their death. When we use euphemisms that indirectly mean or sound like “bad words” we are often insinuating those words and if nothing else leading others to think those words. If you say, “Oh my gosh” what do you think you insinuated in the minds of those who heard you? The same could be asked about words like “dang,” “heck,” “geez,” and others. As Christians, we do need to give careful consideration to the words we use because of the insinuations we make in the minds of those who hear. I know that doesn’t give us a list of bad euphemisms, but it gives us a principle I believe we need to consider as we choose our words carefully.
Conclusion:
Again, I wish this could have been as simple as here are the eight magic words you just aren’t allowed to use. But God didn’t give that to us. Rather, He gave us principles and we had better take care to consider them as we choose our words, phrases, jokes and other speech. We will be judged for every thoughtless, careless idle word we speak (Matthew 12:36-37), so we had better think before we speak. I hope this was helpful. As I said, I know it does not coincide with everything you have probably ever heard in the traditional lesson on these topics. If you believe I missed something or did not represent accurately how the Bible answers this question, I hope you will share that with me. May God bless us as we strive to surrender our speech to Him
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
