Does prayer a make unclean meats kosher?

1 Timothy 4:3–5, Foods. Many take this passage to mean that simple “prayer over the food” sanctifies nonkosher food. Were we to take this logic to its illogical conclusion, then we might suppose that prayer over skunk meat, certain poisonous types of frogs, snakes and salamanders as well as poisonous mushrooms would make them edible. Of course, this is ridiculous. Is this really what Paul, the orthodox Jewish Torah scholar, is teaching? Once again, understanding Scripture in its context is essential to obtaining its proper interpretation. These verses read:

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which Elohim has created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of Elohim is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the Word of Elohim and prayer. (emphasis added)

What does this passage really say? Does it say that the meat we eat is sanctified (i.e. set aside for special use) only through the act of prayer?

In verse five Paul teaches that the meat we eat is sanctified through prayer and the Word of Elohim. When Paul wrote this letter to Timothy there was no Testimony of Yeshua or New Testament—only the Tanakh  or Old Testament. Where in the Tanakh do we find which meats YHVH has set aside or sanctified for man as edible? Leviticus chapter eleven, of course. Furthermore, in verse three above Paul talks about “them which believe and know the truth.” How does Scripture define truth? Yeshua defined truth as the Word of Elohim (namely the Hebrew Scriptures, which is all that existed at that time) (John 17:7). The Tanakh define truth as the Torah-law of YHVH (which contain YHVH’s biblical kosher laws pertaining to clean and unclean meats; see Ps 119:142 and 151). 

So when examined in its proper context this passage in 2 Timothy in no way teaches that it is scripturally permissible for believers to indulge in unclean meats. On the contrary, this passage in fact validates the biblical kosher laws as outlined in the Torah and shows clearly, if we let Scripture speak for itself and define its own terms instead of reading into it our own meanings, that the biblical dietary laws are for believers today.

 

Reversing the Curse—The Exalted Place of Wives and Mothers

1 Timothy 2:15, Saved in/through childbirth. 

Saved is the Greek verb sozo meaning “to keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger, save from suffering or perishing.” The word in or through (depending on one’s Bible version) is the Greek preposition dia, which can have several meanings. In the Greek genitive case (possessive case) dia means “through, in the course of, during or throughout.” In the Greek accusative case (indirect object case), dia means “by reason or means of.” Seldom is dia found in the accusative case in the NT; usually it is used in the genitive case, as is the case here. David Stern, in his Jewish NT Commentary, says of this passage that here Paul has Gen 3:16 in view where YHVH put the curse of a painful child (among other things) upon Eve because of her sin at the tree of knowledge. Admittedly, Stern continues, Paul’s previous seemingly dismissive and condescending statements about women and their place in the church (vv. 8–14) doesn’t appeal to the modern, Western, mind. But in light of the curse that Elohim placed on women, Paul goes on to mitigate his previous statements about women by saying that Elohim would save a saintly woman from the curse of a painful childbirth by lessening the physical and emotional pain of this ordeal and, by implication, that of motherhood and rasing children. This is because the curse, in a sense, has been reversed through her faith in Yeshua the Messiah and his work at the cross as the one who bore upon himself the curse of man’s sin. By her godly demeanor (as Paul spells out in the previous several verses), and raising godly children, much of the pain and suffering to befall most ungodly women will be lifted from her, which is a great blessing. Stern goes on to point out that this verse in no way indicates a woman is saved or redeemed spiritually through the process of childbirth. Were this the case, the act of childbirth would offer an alternate plan of salvation making faith in Yeshua unnecessary. This is obviously not true according to Scripture.

Moreover, there is another glorious truth to be deduced from this passage of Scripture—a truth that exalts a woman from being a curse-causer to a curse-reverser. As a result of a godly woman’s place in Yeshua, the curse placed on her for introducing sin into the world resulting in her offspring being cut off from Elohim can now be undone. How is this? By raising godly children she now has the divine role of bringing her children back to Elohim. Who has more influence over a  child then a mother? Who spends more time teaching and training a child than a mother? The saying that “the hand that rocks the cradle moves the nation” exemplifies this truth. A saintly mother has the inimitable and glorious role of helping to turn a nation from enslavement to the world, the flesh and the devil back to Elohim and his Word as revealed in the Bible. 

In this passage (1 Tim 2:8–15), Paul is in no way demeaning or denigrating women, but exalting them. 

Not only this, but Gen 3:15 speaks of the seed of the woman bruising the head of the serpent, which is a prophecy that was clearly fulfilled by Yeshua’s death and resurrection resulting in the defeat of Satan, the serpent, and his defeat of death and the grave. When a godly woman raises up righteous, Elohim-loving children, she will be further reinforcing Yeshua’s defeat of the serpent and helping to expand the kingdom of heaven at the devil’s expense. Through Eve sin entered the world (1 Tim 2:14), now through a saintly women, righteousness can enter the world. This occurred through the birth of Yeshua through the virgin Mary, with the process continuing when a mother births children and brings them to faith in Yeshua.

Another aspect of the curse that came on woman when she sinned in the garden was her innate rebellion against authority—especially that of her husband (Gen 3:16b). When a woman demonstrates her willingness to submit not only to the authority of her husband (Eph 5:22), but to church leadership as well by conducting herself in modest and discreet manner (1 Tim 2:8–12), heaven’s blessing of an easier childbirth awaits her along with the further glories and exalted position of motherhood as previously noted above. 

Is it any wonder, then, that in our modern society there is an all-out war against woman, marriage and the family? Whether it be the political, educational, economic, entertainment or media establishment, they all seem to be hellbent on destroying the traditional family, marriage and the role of women as mothers and wives. We see this in the secular humanists pushing of abortion (the murder of children), pornography (the perversion of sex), pedophilia (the sexual exploitation of children), the sexualization of children (which undermines the family unit), homosexuality (the diminishing of childbirth), transgenderism (the destruction of the family and marriage), the women’s lib movement (engendering hatred for men and for motherhood) and the list goes on. When the traditional, Elohim-ordained role of mothers and families is undermined, if not obliterated, the process of the family acting as the means to help redeem mankind back to Elohim comes to a stop. Whose spiritual kingdom does this benefit the most? That of Elohim or the devil? The answer should be obvious. Therefore, who is the author of and driving spiritual force behind these ungodly, anti-biblical agendas? Satan the devil!

 

“Eat Pork,” saith your local Xtian pastor, while twisting Scripture

REALLY????

REALLY????

I’m tired of people (especially so-called Christian Bible teachers [who should know better]) twisting the word of Elohim to make it say what they want. It seems that their carnal or fleshly lusts dictate how to interpret the Bible. Their god is their belly, as Paul said elsewhere. The passage below is an example of a scripture they twist in the most illogical way to make it say something that it doesn’t say.

1 Timothy 5:3–5, Foods. Many take this passage to mean that simple “prayer over the food” sanctifies nonkosher food. Were we to take this logic to its illogical conclusion, then we might suppose that prayer over skunk meat, certain poisonous types of frogs, snakes and salamanders as well as poisonous mushrooms would make them edible. Of course, this is ridiculous. Is this really what Paul, the orthodox Jewish Torah scholar, is teaching? Once again, understanding Scripture in its context is essential to obtaining its proper interpretation. These verses read:

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which Elohim has created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of Elohim is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the Word of Elohim and prayer. (emphasis added)

What does this passage really say? Does it say that the meat we eat is sanctified (i.e., set aside for special use) only through the act of prayer?

In verse five Paul teaches that the meat we eat is sanctified through prayer and the Word of Elohim. When Paul wrote this letter to Timothy there was no Testimony of Yeshua or New Testament—only the Tanakh  or Old Testament. Where in the Tanakh do we find which meats YHVH has set aside or sanctified for man as edible? Leviticus chapter eleven, of course. Furthermore, in verse three above Paul talks about “them which believe and know the truth.” How does Scripture define truth? Yeshua defined truth as the Word of Elohim (namely the Hebrew Scriptures, which is all that existed at that time) (John 17:7). The Tanakh define truth as the Torah-law of YHVH (which contain YHVH’s biblical kosher laws pertaining to clean and unclean meats; see Ps 119:142 and 151).

So when examined in its proper context this passage in 2 Timothy in no way teaches that it is scripturally permissible for believers to indulge in unclean meats. On the contrary, this passage in fact validates the biblical kosher laws as outlined in the Torah and shows clearly, if we let Scripture speak for itself and define its own terms instead of reading into it our own meanings, that the biblical dietary laws are for believers today.

 

Wimps and Bullies Versus Godly Shepherds

Shepherd w- sheep 33398025

1 Timothy 3:3, Violent. This passage (vv. 3–7) lists the qualifications of an elder or leader of a congregation. One of the of character traits that he is not to posses is that of being a brawler (KJV),violent (NKJV) or pugnacious (NAS). What do the words brawler, violent or pugnacious mean here? It is the Greek word amachos meaning one who is by nature “a fighter, brawler, contentious, quarrelsome, one who causes strife, or one who is combative.” In modern terms, he’s a bully. Perhaps you remember the neighborhood bully from your years as a school child. An elder, overseer or shepherd of a congregation is not to be such a person. This is what Paul had in mind when he gave these instructions concerning the qualifications of an elder.

So let’s now explore this issue a little further. Is there ever a time when spiritual leaders may need to resort to forceful words or even to forceful actions to protect YHVH’s spiritual sheep? What, for example, did David mean when he asks the following question in Psalm 94:16?

Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? Or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?

What did Yeshua mean when describing a good shepherd versus an evil hireling shepherd when he said that unlike the evil shepherd, a good shepherd lays his life down for the sheep and protects them from those who come to kill, steal and destroy the sheep? He says that the good shepherd defends the sheep, Continue reading

 

Wimps Need Not Apply!

1 Timothy 3:3, Violent. This passage (vv. 3–7) lists the qualifications of an elder or leader of a congregation. One of the of character traits that he is not to posses is that of being a brawler (KJV),violent (NKJV) or pugnacious (NAS). What do the words brawler, violent or pugnacious mean here? It is the Greek word amachos meaning one who is by nature “a fighter, brawler, contentious, quarrelsome, one who causes strife, or one who is combative.” In modern terms, he’s a bully. Perhaps you remember the neighborhood bully from your years as a school child. An elder, overseer or shepherd of a congregation is not to be such a person. This is what Paul had in mind when he gave these instructions concerning the qualifications of an elder.

20119270

So let’s now explore this issue a little further. Is there ever a time when spiritual leaders may need to resort to forceful words or even to forceful actions to protect YHVH’s spiritual sheep? What, for example, did David mean when he asks the following  question in Psalm 94:16?

Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? Or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?

What did Yeshua mean when describing a good shepherd versus an evil hireling shepherd when he said that unlike the evil shepherd, a good shepherd lays his life down for the sheep and protects them from those who come to kill, steal and destroy the sheep? He says that the good shepherd defends the sheep, while the evil shepherd runs away (John 10:7–15). Another example of an evil shepherd is found in Ezekiel 34 where such a shepherd fails to protect the sheep from the beasts of the field (Ezek 34:7–10). How does a shepherd protect his sheep from the wolves who want to kill them? With nice words and platitudes, while singing Kumbaya, holding a candlelight vigil and then begging the wolf to leave and go elsewhere “pretty please, with cream and sugar on top”? Hardly, for the twenty-third psalm speaks of a shepherd who is armed with a rod and staff—and such brings comfort to the sheep (Ps 23:4) who know that the good shepherd has their best interests in mind. The staff was for leading and guiding the sheep, while the rod was for protecting the sheep against predators. On the sheep farm I was raised on, we used a rifle instead of a rod to protect our sheep. It’s interesting how the Bible prophesies that Yeshua, our Chief Shepherd (1 Pet 2:25; 5:4), will rule the world with a rod of iron in the Millennium (Rev 20:7–10).

Here are so more questions to consider. Was Phinehas, the son of Aaron the high priest, a Continue reading

 

A Violent Elder or Pastor?

1 Timothy 3:3, Violent. This passage (vv. 3–7) lists the qualifications of an elder or leader of a congregation. One of the of character traits that he is not to possess is that of being a brawler (KJV), violent (NKJV) or pugnacious (NAS). What do the words brawler, violent or pugnacious mean here? It is the Greek word amachos meaning one who is by nature “a fighter, contentious, quarrelsome, one who causes strife, or one who is combative.” In modern terms, he’s a bully. Perhaps you remember the neighborhood bully from your years as a school child? An elder, overseer or shepherd of a congregation is not to be such a person. This is what Paul had in mind when he gave these instructions concerning the qualifications of an elder.

So let’s now explore this issue a little further. Is there ever a time when spiritual leaders may need to resort to forceful words or even forceful actions to protect YHVH’s spiritual sheep? What, for example, did David mean when he asks the following question in Psalm 94:16?

Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? Or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?

What did Yeshua mean when describing a good shepherd versus an evil hireling shepherd when he said that unlike the evil shepherd, a good shepherd lays his life down for the sheep and protects them from those who come to kill, steal and destroy the sheep? He says that the good shepherd defends the sheep, while the evil shepherd runs away (John 10:7–15). Another example of an evil shepherd is found in Ezekiel 34 where such a shepherd fails to protect the sheep from the beasts of the field (Ezek 34:7–10). How does a shepherd protect his sheep from the wolves who want to kill them? With nice words and platitudes, while singing Kumbaya, holding a candlelight vigil and then begging the wolf to leave and go elsewhere “pretty please, with cream and sugar on top”? Hardly, for the twenty-third psalm speaks of a shepherd who is armed with a rod and staff—and such brings comfort to the sheep (Ps 23:4) who know that the good shepherd has their best interests in mind. The staff was for leading and guiding the sheep, while the rod was for protecting the sheep against predators. On the sheep farm I was raised on, we used a rifle instead of a rod to protect our sheep. It’s interesting how the Bible prophesies that Yeshua, our Chief Shepherd (1 Pet 2:25; 5:4), will rule the world with a rod of iron in the Millennium (Rev 20:7–10). Continue reading