Good point, Rick, but let's remember that Matthew 5:1-2 says that Yeshua spoke the Sermon on the Mount to the crowds and disciples, and that Paul's letters are addressed to "all who are beloved of G-d in Rome," "to the congregation of G-d which is at Corinth," "to G-d's people who are at Ephesus," et cetera. By this criterion, then, would not these teachings and instructions be specific to these specific audiences? Just because the Lord told Moshe to speak to the sons of Israel only means those were the people he was literally talking to. It doesn't mean it only applies to them.RickD wrote:Cheezey, do you see anything in Leviticus 11:2-4 that may lead you to believe that the law was given to Israel specifically? Let's see:
“Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth. 3 Whatever divides a hoof, thus making split hoofs, and chews the cud, among the animals, that you may eat. 4 Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you.
Perhaps, the part that says, "speak to the sons of Israel, saying" might give us an idea that the message was for the sons of Israel, not everybody. No, I guess I'm reading into the text. "sons of Israel is just a generic term for gentile believers in Christ. What was I thinking?
We may judge by certain laws, but you do as well, my friend, and so does Scripture. Yeshua (and Paul) said to kick out members from the congregation if they persist in their sin (Matthew 18:15-18; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5). Torah perscribed even death for those who committed sin. So, while we may judge with different standards, we're both judging by a set of laws. So we could both be said to be legalistic.RickD wrote:Ok Gman let's look at legalism:You and I both believe that salvation is not gained through works, so let's look at #2.Legalism
Theology. 1. the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works.
2. the judging of conduct in terms of strict adherence to precise laws. — legalist, n. — legalistic, adj.
both you and cheezerrox are judging conduct of believers by adherence to the law, when you say we sin if we don't follow the sabbath laws, and when cheezerrox says we sin if we don't follow Jewish dietary laws. So, who's being legalistic?
Is it possible that the sabbath and dietary laws were given to the nation Israel. And when scripture says that all Israel is not israel, it means that there is s spiritual Israel that is not the same as national Israel? And perhaps this spiritual Israel is the one that gentile believers are a part of?
And it is certainly possible that the Sabbat and dietary laws were given to national Israel. In fact, I would agree. I would only add they weren't given ONLY to national Israel. And I would agree that there is a spiritual Israel distinct from but not entirely separate from national Israel. Spiritual Israel consists of all of G-d's people, both Jews and Gentiles who trust in Mashiach. Those who are Israel through the flesh are not a part of spiritual Israel by default; thus, when the rabbinical sages said in the Talmud that "all Israel has a place in the World to Come" (a belief held in Yeshua's day), they were wrong.
I certainly agree, brother, our Lord was giving a much more important lesson than simply one of Scriptural laws versus traditional laws. But you have to look past the literal and see the SIGNIFICANCE of what He's claiming to these Orthodox Jewish men. He's disowning the laws considered just as much Torah and just as much Divinely ordained as the written Torah. Pharisees and all Orthodox Jews, in Yeshua's day as well as today, believe that the Oral Torah, the rabbinical laws, are just as authoratative and inspired as Scripture itself, and that they were given to Moshe on Sinai and he handed them down to Joshua, who handed them down generation after generation. So to claim that these ritual purity laws were not valid, had MUCH significance, more than "which laws to follow." It was the THEOLOGY behind it. Thus making it a hard word for his hearers. In fact, wouldn't making this conversation simply about what foods you can and can't eat take away the impact of this teaching a bit?PaulSacramento wrote:Well, speaking of context:
You are correct that what caused the conversation to start was the unclean hands comment, but...
Jesus replied with text:
‘(H)This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘(I)But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
and parable:
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your (K)tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘(L)Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘(M)He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is (N)Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your (O)tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
The Heart of Man
14 After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 [If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”]
And after all that he explained to his followers:
17 When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 And He *said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared (R)all foods (S)clean.) 20 And He was saying, “(T)That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, (U)envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”
Seems to me that it was a far greater lesson then simply one of "tradition".
