Re: [TruthTalk] Ten Commandments Support

[Chris Barr]

\o/ !HALALUYah! \o/ Greetings Marlin et al in the Matchless Name of YahShua !!   ----- Original Message ----- From: Marlin Halverson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10/01/2003 10:22 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ten Commandments Support "....you are adding things in to the Romans passage that aren't there...." Some time ago, Slade, I believe, answered the question about Romans 14, and included the O.T. references.  --Marlin I find it sad yet amusing that the one making accusation about adding things in to the Romans passage that aren't there.... is guilty of the very accusation that he has falsely made of you.   Also Marlin, it was you that posted to TruthTalk the answers to the question about Romans 14 that included the O.T. references ...   FROM THE ARCHIVES ... for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear what The Spirit saith to the called out ones ...   ----- Original Message ----- From: Marlin Halverson To: Chris Barr Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01/11/2003 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Romans 14 Dear Chris,   Thanks for your reply to what I shared.  Time is so precious.  I see that you have already compiled some answers here to questions that were posed to me.  Since I do not have the time now myself, I shall share what you have written with the TruthTalk group.  I invite you to sign up for the list.  I might recommend a separate email address because sometimes the posts can pile up.   "If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed."   --Marlin ----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Barr To: Marlin Halverson Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Godly diet \o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua [that's the name Jesus was called by His mom, dad, brothers, sisters, disciples and others who loved Him] :) !!   In order to understand Romans 14 one FIRST has to KNOW Scripture (ALL OF IT -- not just "New Testament").  SECOND one has to OBEY Scripture (Jeremiah 29:13 / II Timothy 2:15).  THIRD one has to be HONEST in one's heart toward Scripture and MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL its SOURCE.   People who cite Romans 14 as against Sabbath keeping and/or for eating anything one wants are the ones trying to find a way AROUND Scripture rather than seeking to be obedient to Scripture. "To the law [torah] and to the testimony [tanak]: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is NO LIGHT IN THEM." Isaiah 8:20 There are more than a dozen Scripture references to those "doing right in their own eyes" ... there are exactly ZERO of these that are of a positive nature. The interpretation given by most to Romans 14 is that of inference.  It is a stand alone witness that goes against each and every Scriptural and direct reference without so much as a second witness (required by torah and ENDORSED by The SAVIOUR in the ReNEWed Testament). "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve ..." etc. NOW for some REAL answers for those seeking honestly after truth.  Remember Deuteronomy 8:3 / Matthew 4:4 / Luke 4:4 ... it is EVERY Word that proceeds from the mouth of Yah that we live by.  It does not say by EACH Word.  We don't just pick one here and/or there.  ALL Scripture will match up and agree if we have the right answer. Rav Shaul/Saul/Paul was a master of Torah.  The vast majority of his writings are right out of Torah but most people miss that because they are in darkness (Isaiah 8:20 / Matthew 7:13-14). The subject of Romans 14 is not Sabbath, vegetarianism, and clean foods (as nearly all teach that it does).  It is ONLY about ONE THING ...   "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." Matthew 15:6 ... WORDS of The Saviour   If one is looking for quick and trite answers DON'T READ ANY FARTHER!  If one is looking for II Timothy 2:15, II Peter 3:15-18, Jeremiah 29:13 answers then continue PRAYERFULLY ...   FIRST, the so-called vegetarianism/Sabbath beginning of Romans 14.   Many a "Statement of Faith" will not tolerate the observance of the 7th-day Sabbath. It is listed as "heresy". It is frequently referred to as "the 7th-day teaching". The "Bible authority" for this stand will simply refer to Romans 14. It is true that in Romans 14 such statements are found as, "One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day", "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind", and that one man eats one thing and "thanks God" while another eats in yet another fashion and "thanks God". Many infer from these statements that there is no Divine Law about the Sabbath at this time, and no Divine Law about foods either. This inference overlooks the real verdict of other Scriptures and the full body of Scripture, as well as the real statement of Romans 14. Paul is stating arguments of men such as "all days are alike", "one day is as another", "eat any way you please but be thankful to God", "every man must be persuaded in his own mind" and the like. He then positively warns that on each of these subjects every man is going to have to come before the judgment seat of God, and that therefore every one had better learn what God says about such and abide thereby for their own sake whence comes Judgment Day! (Romans 14:11-12) Practically every denomination judges as 'heretics' (and/or berates) those who walk joyously in the Sabbath that God made, or who heed His law about wrong foods equally joyously. They argue (just as Paul here reports them as doing) that one may do any way one likes as long as they "thank God" or "have faith". Yet at the same time they so argue, they also label and advertise as heretics (and/or berate) those who keep the Sabbaths of God, or observe His food laws. It is this that Paul is actually forbidding in Romans 14. Paul reminds us that as each one shall have to stand before God to be judged on these subjects, each one had better take what His Word says thereon rather than taking men's arguments thereon. It is these quotes of men's arguments that Paul lists at length. His purpose in Romans 14 is to give warning against these men and their arguments. Many churchmen use Romans 14:5-6 as proof that New Testament believers no longer have an obligation to keep the Sabbath day holy. So let us examine those two verses, just as a judge would consider evidence in his courtroom, and then decide whether or not they testify against Sabbath keeping. Paul wrote: "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth (observeth) the day regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." The judge would ask: "Where is the Sabbath mentioned in those verses?" The Sabbath is not mentioned there, nor in the entire book of Romans! No court in the land would allow verses that do not mention the Sabbath to be used as evidence in an argument against the Sabbath-- so why should we? You see, Paul could not have been talking about keeping the Sabbath day holy because obedience to God's Law is not optional. It is ludicrous to suggest that any of the Ten Commandments can be disobeyed "unto the Lord"! Think of the absurdity of saying, "He that stealeth, to the Lord he stealeth; and he that stealeth not, to the Lord he stealeth not". What then was Paul talking about? He was talking about fast days. The whole 14th chapter of Romans is about food and how people's beliefs about fasting should not be interfered with. The fast days could be observed according to each believer's conscience. A man could eat or not eat, keep the day or not keep it. Each man could observe FAST DAYS, or not observe them, according to his own convictions. He that does not eat, regards the day. He that eats, does not regard the day. The "days" that Paul was referring to were the traditional fast days mentioned in Zechariah 7:5-6. The Gentile Christians in Rome did not keep them because they had no cultural interest in the anniversary fasts that were observed during the Jews' captivity in Babylon. These are the four traditional fasts mentioned in Zechariah: 1. The fast of the 4th month, in remembrance of the breaking of the wall of Jerusalem. 2. The fast of the 5th month, in remembrance of the burning of the Temple. 3. The fast of the 7th month, in remembrance of the killing of Gedaliah, which completed the Dispersion. 4. The fast of the 10th month, in remembrance of the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem. (see Jeremiah 52:6, 12-13; 2Kings 1,3,8,25) It is of interest to note that those dates commemorate the judgements of God upon a people who refused to keep the Sabbath Day holy. (See Jeremiah 17:19-27) Even the Jews themselves had different convictions about the observance of those days--because those fast days were never commanded by God. After the Captivity (when the Temple was being rebuilt) the men of Bethel also wondered if they should observe these fasts unto the Lord. For example, they asked Zechariah: "Shall I weep in the fifth month and abstain, as I have done these many years?" (Zechariah 7:2-6) When you read Zechariah's answer, notice the striking similarity of his words to those of Paul to the church at Rome: Compare Zechariah 7:5-6 : "When ye FASTED and mourned in the fifth and seventh month, even those seventy years, did ye at all fast UNTO ME, even to Me (the LORD)? And when ye did EAT, and when ye did drink, did ye not EAT FOR YOURSELVES and drink for yourselves?" With Romans 14:6,7 : "He that regardeth the [fast] day, regardeth it UNTO THE LORD; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that EATETH, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that EATETH NOT, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us LIVETH TO HIMSELF, and no man dieth to himself." If you were the judge in the case of the Churchmen versus the Sabbath, would you be willing to say that Paul had cancelled one of the commandments of God based on the evidence you find in the 14th chapter of Romans? The evidence from Romans and Zechariah demands a verdict for Sabbath observance. The church must obey the Fourth Commandment, and that is the only decision that will uphold the Law of God. CASE CLOSED LAST, the "unclean" CON of Romans 14. The following statement in Romans, Chapter 14 also bears addressing: I know, and am persuaded in The Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. —Rom. 14:14 Some cite this passage to note "that nothing is unclean of itself", and that something is only unclean if a person believes it to be so. Are individuals to ascertain for their own sake whether The Scriptures mean what they say for each one as each one sees fit? Is Paul here writing in essence "do as you please"?  NO! The word "unclean" in each instance of verse 14 is the Greek word "koinos". This Greek word means "ordinary" and is usually translated "common", or means something that has been made or designated unclean that is not in and of itself normally unclean. This word is found in 10 other verses but ONLY in Romans 14:14 is it translated "unclean". Another related Greek word is "koinoo" that has a similar meaning of something that has been made or designated unclean that is not in and of itself normally unclean. In 11 other verses this word is NOT translated "unclean". The word "unclean" occurs in 28 other places from the Greek word "akathartos". This Greek word means something that is in and of itself unclean or profane. It is used to refer to demons and animals that The Lord has identified as "unclean". This is NOT the word Paul used in Romans 14:14! The Jews had added a designation to the clean food laws of Scripture that was NOT in Scripture. That designation was "common" animals. These are animals that are clean animals that Judaism labelled unfit because they came from a Gentile source, or did not meet a standard established by men of Judaism. That is why Peter in the vision of Acts 10 told The Lord, "I have never eaten anything that is common OR unclean". There is no Scriptural prohibition against that which is "common". That is what Paul was addressing in Romans 14:14, "nothing is common of itself" for that is an added designation by man—it is not of The Lord! That is why Paul followed this writing with, "to him who accounteth anything to be common,"—to whom?—"to HIM" the individual and not to The Lord! It is the individual who designates something common and not The Lord who does so! Paul then concludes, "to him it is common". Again, "to HIM" the individual who has so designated something common and not to The Lord! Romans, Chapter 14 has nothing whatever to do with the clean and unclean foods that The Lord Himself has declared in His Word! II Timothy 2:15 FINALLY, look back to Acts 10.   There is found the vision to Apostle Peter of the sheet let down from Heaven containing all manner of beasts. And there came a voice to him, "Rise, Peter; kill, and eat." 14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." 15 And a voice came unto him again the second time, "What God hath cleansed, make not thou common."—Acts 10:13-15 Explanation: The vision thus meant that God was speaking to Peter of something cleansed! Would that be "unclean food"? NO! Upon what authority do I make such a bold statement? Upon The Scripture itself! The Scripture declares The Truth for itself. No reference whatever is here intended to any physical food. Proof: Read and see. GENTILES were right then on the way to Peter to seek him to come into their homes with the Gospel. This chapter earlier told of this. [ 9 ] Now as they were on their journey [these Gentiles coming to see Peter] and drew nigh … Peter went up upon the housetop to pray … [ 10 ] and … fell into a trance. —Acts 10:9-10 Thus it was as these THREE GENTILE MEN "drew nigh" that the vision came. The voice spoke the same instruction THREE TIMES (verse 16). The Jewish notion was that Jews could not talk with Gentiles or associate with them. Read of Peter’s concern: And while Peter THOUGHT ON THE VISION, The Spirit said unto him, "Behold three men [Gentiles!] seek thee. Go with them"!—Acts 10:19-20 Note: The voice spoke the same instruction THREE TIMES as THREE GENTILE MEN "drew nigh". Just what is it that "God hath cleansed"? Peter knew the answer: … God hath shewed me that I should not call ANY MAN common or unclean. —Acts 10:28 Peter understood the vision to be instruction about MAN and not about FOOD! Was the redemptive work of Calvary for PIGS, SNAKES, SHARKS or any other VILE BEASTS of the field or sea? God forbid! Man was created to fellowship with The LORD and redemption was required because of the sin of man so that fellowship could be restored. The separate designation of clean and unclean animals was noted prior to the flood long before The Law was given. Therefore, no redemption of unclean animals to a "restored" clean state can occur for they were created as unclean in the first place! The final words of Peter on this vision and its interpretation follow: … Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:  but in every nation He that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to Him. — Acts 10:34-35 The vision thus meant that God is going to cleanse Gentiles with the Gospel as well as cleanse Jews with it! BONUS!   "For every creature of God is good" -- and some stop there and hastily say, "pass the pork!" -- "and nothing is to be refused" -- the same some stop there and say, "pass me some more pork!" -- "if it be received with thanksgiving: FOR it is sanctified thru The Word of God AND prayer." I Timothy 4:4-5 Now pause for a moment and flip over to II Timothy 2:15 and 3:16-17. I'll wait. OK? Now back to I Timothy 4:4-5 ... it doesn't say one or the other (that would be wrongfully "dividing the word of truth") but rather BOTH "The Word of God AND prayer" that sanctifies. Once again, DETAILS COUNT! Remember Isaiah 8:20, Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4! Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH,   Chris Barr