What about Peter’s vision of the sheet?

Big garden snail

Acts 10:13–15, Peter’s vision. In Peter’s vision of the sheet covered with unclean animals, the voice from heaven commanded him three times to kill and eat these unclean animals. Peter was confused by the meaning of this vision since being a Torah-law abiding Jew he knew that eating unclean meat was forbidden and in good conscience he could not do that which was contrary to YHVH’s Torah-law, for to do so was sin (sin is the violation of the law, 1 John 3:4).

Often visions are metaphorical in nature and not literal. There are many examples in the Scriptures of people receiving metaphorical visions. For example, read the books of Daniel and Revelation. Indeed, Peter’s vision was no exception, for no sooner had the vision ended when three Gentile men appeared at his door seeking the gospel message and the Spirit of Elohim bade Peter to go and to meet them. Peter then realized that the interpretation of his vision was that he should not call any man common or unclean; that is, the gospel message is for all people regardless of their ethnicity (verse 28). In Peter’s case, Bible itself interprets his vision. The issue is not about whether it is now permissible to eat non-kosher meat or not, but rather the Spirit of Elohim was directing the apostles to begin taking the gospel to the Gentiles, who by Jewish standards were considered common and unclean (verse 28).

Now consider this. If Yeshua had meant to say in Matthew 15:11 and Mark 7:18–19 that it was now permissible to eat all foods including those meats that the Torah prohibits to be eaten (e.g., pork, shellfish, etc.), presumably Peter would have known this, since he was present when Yeshua made the statement (see Matt 15:15). If Peter knew that Yeshua had given the okay for his disciples now to eat unclean meat, why then did Peter so strongly object when the voice from heaven commanded him to eat the unclean animals in the vision (Acts 10:13–14)? Obviously, Peter had not changed his opinion about not eating unclean meat, since Yeshua had never annulled the Torah command forbidding the eating of unclean meats in the first place.

 

New Video: The Biblical Dietary Laws: Godliness Is the Main Thing

Why are the biblical dietary laws still relevant today followers of Yeshua (Jesus)? As this video shows, it is primarily a godlines and holiness issue, and only secondarily a health issue. When giving his people the laws of clean and unclean meats, Elohim was wanting them to be holy as he is holy, and he still wants a holy people who live an unpolluted lifestyle today.

 

The Heart & Spirit Behind the Biblical Dietary Law

The Genesis creation account records that YHVH Elohim made man in his own image (Gen. 1:26). As such, the first humans, Adam and Eve, had spiritual communion with their Creator. Though man fell quickly to the temptation to sin, which separated him from a sinless, set-apart and righteous Creator, YHVH has desired to redeem man from the power of sin to be set-apart (kadosh) as he is set-apart (e.g. Lev 11:44).

kosher brown stamp isolated on white

Israel was redeemed from YHVH’s judgment against sin when they sacrificed the lamb on Passover and painted the blood on the door posts of their homes. YHVH then immersed Israel in the Red Sea (a picture of baptism for the remission of sins) and led them to the foot of Mount Sinai. YHVH revealed his Torah-truth (his instructions, teachings and precepts in righteousness) to the nation of Israel from Mount Sinai so that they could become a set-apart (kadosh) kingdom of priests (Exod. 19:6). He was showing them the pathway of righteousness so that after having been redeemed by the blood of the lamb—a direct prophetic picture pointing to Yeshua the Lamb of YHVH slain from the foundation of the world—they could have fellowship with him by avoiding sinning by walking in the straight and narrow path of righteousness.

Part of the walking in a loving relationship with a righteous and totally set-apart (kadosh) YHVH involves keeping his commandments as Yeshua said in John 14:15. To know and to love YHVH is to obey his commandments (1 John 2:3-6). Those who love him and back up their belief in him with the actions of obedience (faith without works is dead, Jas. 2:14-26) are better off than the demons who believe in Elohim only, but do not back up their belief with obedience to YHVH’s righteous commands. Those who love and obey YHVH Continue reading

 

Was Peter a pork eater?

Acts 10:13–15, In Peter’s vision of the sheet covered with unclean animals, the voice from heaven commanded him three times to kill and eat these unclean animals. Peter was confused by the meaning of this vision since being a Torah-law abiding Jew he knew that eating unclean meat was forbidden and in good conscience he could not do that which was contrary to YHVH’s Torah-law, for to do so was sin (sin is the violation of the law, 1 John 3:4).

Pig 33352434

Often visions are metaphorical in nature and not literal. There are many examples in the Scriptures of people receiving metaphorical visions. For example, read the books of Daniel and Revelation. Indeed, Peter’s vision was no exception, for no sooner had the vision ended when three Gentile men appeared at his door seeking the gospel message and the Spirit of Elohim bade Peter to go and to meet them. Peter then realized that the interpretation of his vision was that he should not call any man common or unclean; that is, the gospel message is for all people regardless of their ethnicity (verse 28). In Peter’s case, Bible itself interprets his vision. The issue is not about whether it is now permissible to eat non-kosher meat or not, but rather the Spirit of Elohim was directing the apostles to begin taking the gospel to the Gentiles, who by Jewish standards were considered common and unclean (verse 28).

Now consider this. If Yeshua had meant to say in Matthew 15:11 and Mark 7:18–19 that it was now permissible to eat all foods including those meats that the Torah prohibits to be eaten (e.g., pork, shellfish, etc.), presumably Peter would have known this, since he was present when Yeshua made the statement (see Matt 15:15). If Peter knew that Yeshua had given the okay for his disciples now to eat unclean meat, why then did Peter so strongly object when the voice from heaven commanded him to eat the unclean animals in the vision (Acts 10:13–14)? Obviously, Peter had not changed his opinion about not eating unclean meat, since Yeshua had never annulled the Torah command forbidding the eating of unclean meats in the first place.

 

Eating a biblically kosher diet isn’t as hard as you think

The other day, someone commented on this blog about the difficulty of eating a kosher diet without having a Jewish kosher food store nearby. I want to discuss this issue a bit and dispel this notion.

Kosher Certified-stamp

First off, there are two types of “kosher.” They are rabbinic kosher, and biblical kosher. One who doesn’t know better would probably think these two are the same, but they’re not. The biblical standards for clean and unclean meats (or eating kosher) are very minimal and are found primarily in Leviticus chapter eleven of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible). There we learn what animal meat is clean (and permissible to eat), and what meat is unclean (and not permissible to eat). Elsewhere in the Torah, we learn that YHVH’s also forbids his people from eating blood (Gen 9:4; 17:12, 14; Deut 12:23), organ fat (Lev 3:17; 7:23), and animals that die of themselves (e.g., because of disease or old age) or that have been killed by other animals ( Exod 22:31; Lev 7:24; 17:15; 22:8; Deut 14:21). Basically, these are the biblical dietary standards regarding clean and unclean meats.

What types of animals does the Bible permit us to eat? Simply stated, only land animals that have cloven hooves and chews their cud, only fish that have fins and scales, only fowl-type birds, and only insects that are in the grasshopper or locust family are permitted for human consumption

Some might wonder about the Jewish rabbinic tradition of not eating meat and dairy. This is based on the Torah-law that forbids the eating a kid (or young goat) that has been boiled in its mother’s milk (Exod 23:19; 34:26; Deut 14:21). This law has been understood to refer to any young kosher animal in addition to goats. The problem with this passage is that it has several possible interpretations. They are as follows:

  • It’s unlawful to eat a kid that hasn’t been weaned.
  • It’s unlawful to boil meat in milk from its mother.
  • It’s unlawful to eat any milk and meat products together.

The rabbinic Jews have primarily taken the third explanation for their interpretation of this law. However, this is a faulty interpretation in light of the fact that Abraham fed the three heavenly messenger (one of whom was YHVH — or the preincarnate Yeshua the Messiah) meat and dairy together (Gen 18:6-8). It’s highly improbable that Abraham who was Continue reading

 

Did Yeshua Advocate Eating Pork and Other Unclean Meats?

Matthew 15:11, see Mark 7:19, Thus He declared all foods clean. This phrase is excluded from the KJV, but is included in the NAS, NIV and some other modern translations. Some Bible teachers see this phrase as Yeshua’s endorsement for eating unclean meats such as pork. Even if this phrase were in the original  language, Yeshua would never have considered swine to be food—a very non-Jewish concept and out of context with a Torah-adherent society. Furthermore, the Jews in his audience would have strongly reacted against Yeshua saying such a thing. What’s more, earlier in this passage Yeshua upholds the Torah over men’s tradition (Mark 7:6–13), and so Yeshua wouldn’t be teaching anything against the Torah by saying we can eat swine!

Pig 33352397

The Hebrew Roots Version, which is a translation from the Aramaic, confirms the KJV rendering of this verse. However, some of the modern texts (e.g., the NIV and NAS) add the phrase to the end of this verse, “In saying this [Yeshua] declared all foods clean.” This variant phrase in the newer English translations is the source of the confusion in the minds of many who read this.

The KJV is translated from the Greek family of manuscripts called the Textus Receptus or Received Text, which until the end of the nineteenth century was accepted as the most authoritative and purest manuscripts by the Protestant church. On the other hand, the newer (e.g., the NAS and NIV) translations derive from another family of Greek manuscripts that were rejected by early Protestant scholars as being inferior to the Textus Receptus, but liberal scholars from England challenged these beliefs of earlier scholars and were instrumental in popularizing the variant and previously rejected family of Greek manuscripts (called the Western family of texts).

The debate has raged on for more than 100 years as to which family of manuscripts is the oldest and most reliable and in accordance with the actual autographs (which no longer exist). But since no one knows for sure, can we approach the issue of determining whether the added words in the newer English translations, “In saying this [Yeshua] declared all foods clean” are accurate or not per the original language? Was Yeshua saying here that the dietary laws delineated in the Torah are now nullified? If so, would this be consistent with the rest Yeshua’s teachings?

Briefly, what was Yeshua’s stand on the Torah? In Matthew 5:17–19 he said,

Think not that I am come to destroy the Torah-law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Yeshua here instructed his followers to not think that he had come to annul the Torah-law.

Then in Mark 7:9 Yeshua rebukes the religious folks of his day for nullifying the Word of Elohim by their man-made traditions. What did he mean by the phrase Word of Elohim? When he made this statement there was no “New Testament,” but only the Tanakh (or “Old Testament”). He was rebuking the Jews for changing YHVH’s Word of which the biblical dietary laws in the Torah were a part. So for him to rebuke the Jews for changing the Word of Elohim, and then a few verses later to be advocating the annulment of the dietary laws found in that Word would have made Yeshua not only a hypocrite, but a Torah-law breaker and thus a sinner (1 John 3:4). To suggest that Yeshua was a law-breaker is utter blasphemy(!) and nullifies the entire gospel message and the rest of the Testimony of Yeshua. Therefore, he could not have been advocating the violation of the Torah-law, and at the same time be the Word of Elohim made flesh and be YHVH’s sinless redemptive Lamb, as the newer translations imply by the addition of the phrase, “In saying this [Yeshua] declared all foods clean.” Therefore, we utterly reject this phrase as it appears in our modern Bibles as a corruption of the original text.

By looking at the context, we see that the issue in these passages in Matthew and Mark was not about eating kosher versus not eating kosher, but whether it was allowable to eat with unwashed hands or not. According to Jewish non-biblical oral tradition, it was imperative for one to go through an elaborate hand washing ceremony for mystical reasons before partaking of food. These commandments were rooted in traditions of men, not in the Torah-law of YHVH. Yeshua is taking the Jews to task for placing more emphasis on man-made traditions rather than on the pure and firm Word of Elohim. This seems to be a chronic problem in many religious circles even in our day. Sunday worship replaced the seventh day Sabbath. Christmas and Easter replaced the appointed feasts of YHVH such as Passover, Pentecost and the Feast of Tabernacles. And the list goes on.

Even beyond the issue of Jewish handwashing traditions, Yeshua was using this as a teaching opportunity to instruct the Jews on the issues of the heart. Whether one eats with unwashed hands or not is of less importance to Elohim than the unwashed condition of the carnal human heart. Religion has made a fine art of addressing surface issues or gilding the proverbial “garbage can,” while overlooking the contents therein. This is what Yeshua was really addressing in this passage.

 

An Analysis of NT Scriptures that Purport to Invalidate the Biblical Dietary Laws

Fasten your seat belts … here we go!

Matthew 15:11 and Mark 7:18-19

And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? (Matt 15:11, KJV)

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; because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) (Matt 15:11, NASV, emphasis added)

19238426

These are parallel passages in that they record the same events. Mark’s account reads, “And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?” (KJV) The Hebrew Roots Version, which is a translation from the Aramaic, confirms the KJV rendering of this verse. However, some of the modern texts (e.g., the NIV and NAS) add the phrase to the end of this verse, “In saying this [Yeshua] declared all foods clean.” This variant phrase in the newer English translations is the source of the confusion in the minds of many who read this.

The KJV is translated from the Greek family of manuscripts called the Textus Receptus or Received Text, which until the end of the nineteenth century was accepted as the most authoritative and purest manuscripts by the Protestant church. On the other hand, the newer translations derive from another family of Greek manuscripts that were rejected by early Protestant scholars as being inferior to the Textus Receptus, but Continue reading