In chapter 14, which I've just now transcribed to the Paul, Modernly Speaking blog, is quite the interesting chapter. It covers religious people's tendency to condemn other people, why that is wrong.
As someone who believes in Jesus, but also as someone who often disagrees with much of modern Christian theology, Christians often point me to Romans 14 to chide me for my theology. (In particular, my belief that it is good to celebrate the Biblical holidays instead of the secular holidays, which Paul addresses in Romans 14.)
But as I studied Romans 14 -- literal translations, modern translations, and several transcribed Greek manuscripts -- it became apparent to me that many English translations of Romans 14, including NIV, NAS, KJV and others, try to paint Paul's words in chapter 14 as saying "everything is OK to do", when in fact it is not the focus of Paul's letter at all. Rather, Paul is saying to put love before differences. That's all. He's not commenting on theological positions of eating habits or holiday observations -- he's just saying "don't let it get in the way of loving other people and loving God".
I also found some interesting mis-translations from the Greek manuscripts. These may have been purposeful mis-translations due to it differing with Roman Catholic theology and the Protestant theologies it inspired. For example, take Romans 14:14 from the NIV translation:
As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.
From that, it sounds like Paul is saying all foods are OK to eat, which is an interesting predicament for Christians, given that Jesus' words in Matthew 5:17 contradict the above statement, and that Paul's agreement with the apostles in Acts regarding foods contradict his own words here.
But compare that with the manuscripts on which our English translations are based:
Da kai peismai kuri Ihsous de koino di logizome koino nai kei
Which could be read something like,
"I both know and am persuaded in
Jesus that nothing is common, [it is only for?] the one that considers it common."
The English translators most likely worked the words "clean", "unclean", and "food" into the verse in order to better fit with modern Christian theology, unfortunately.
In any case, it's a great piece of work by Paul, encouraging people to stop judging and condemning people and instead love other people. It's a great read, go have a look.
"From that, it sounds like Paul is saying all foods are OK to eat, which is an interesting predicament for Christians, given that Jesus' words in Matthew 5:17 contradict the above statement, and that Paul's agreement with the apostles in Acts regarding foods contradict his own words here."
ReplyDeleteJudah, you are incorrect on this ... as you are in so many points touching on the intersection of 'Christianity' and 'Judaism.'
But, let's not take my word for it. Let's look at what the Word says. Specifically, let's consider Luke 7:1-23, and let's zero in on that parenthetical statement in verse 19: "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")"
Ilion, firstly, let's take Paul's advice and debate this with love in the fore. No matter if we disagree, we still are under the same master, and we can be in unity there.
ReplyDeleteIlion, I wondered about that verse as well (I assume you meant Mark 7, not Luke 7). I looked up some of the literal translations, and it seems to read quite differently. Could you look it up and tell me what you think? For example, here's a link to Young's Literal translation of Mark 7. What do you think there, Ilion?
God bless, take care.
p.s. just to clarify, I Paul is not contradicting Jesus. On the contrary, I think Paul is quite in-line with Jesus, he just happens to be misinterpreted often because of his talks about how the Law does not save anyone.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, just wanted to clarify there.
Take care, Ilion.
Judah: "Ilion, firstly, let's take Paul's advice and debate this with love in the fore. No matter if we disagree, we still are under the same master, and we can be in unity there."
ReplyDeleteIlíon: Judah, do realize how this might come across? Do you realize how I *might* have taken the last sentence of your response to me some weeks ago? (see: here concerning my desire that you would have time to "vet" something of supreme importance before I posted it?)
But, I am confident that you do not mean these things the way I *might* have taken them, so I do not take them that way.
Now, as for me, I make it a conscious effort to try to be blunt and to the point. else I will invariably return to my natural mode, which is quite the opposite. Now, the point is, bluntness is not "hatefulness" or "lack of loving-kindness." So, to be blunt: you are wrong on this matter. That is blunt (which does not come naturally to me), that is un-compromising (this *does* come naturally to me); it is not "hateful."
Judah: "Ilion, I wondered about that verse as well (I assume you meant Mark 7, not Luke 7)."
Ilíon: Yes, I wrote "Luke," but I meant "Mark."
I'd like to make a comment about the phrase "about that verse" in your statement. It seems to me that this is where Christians in general (and you in this particular instance) so often lead themselves astray in their reasoning: the problem is that we pull a single verse, and as often as not merely a verse-fragment, out of context and base our reasoning on that out-of-contextness.
The truth is, for most of the things we argue about, a single verse is not sufficient to prove the point(s) we think (or desire) to be true. However, sometimes, a single verse is sufficient in its explicitness; sometimes a single verse is so to-the-point and so unambiguous-of-itself that it alone settles the matter. But not most of the time.
And, in this instance, a single verse -- and especially when seen in its context -- is sufficient to show that the reasoning you presented is erroneous. This single verse and its context may not show *why* your reasoning is erroneous, that is, it may not show where you took the wrong turn, but it does show that you arrived at the wrong destination.
Judah: "I looked up some of the literal translations, and it seems to read quite differently. Could you look it up and tell me what you think?"
Ilíon: Does it really read quite differently? I cannot see it. What I do see is that this "literal" translation has likely incorrectly placed the verse-fragment I wanted to draw your attention to into Jesus' mouth, when it makes much more sense to understand it as a parenthetical statement by Mark pointing out one of the implications of what he has just reported that Jesus had said.
In other words, if you want to see Young's "literal" translation as being "better" or "more authoritative" that the NIV I used, go for it! After all, for a Christian, what can possibly be more authoritative than the very words of Jesus?
I'm not at home (thus, I do not have an NIV with me), so I will reference Young's "literal" translation. This is Mark 7:18-19 as translated by Young: "(18) and he saith to them, `So also ye are without understanding! Do ye not perceive that nothing from without entering into the man is able to defile him? (19) because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.'"
The context of these two verses is Jesus speaking to his disciples privately, explaining (yet again) what he had said in public. The wider context is that certain scribes and Pharisees had found fault with him because some of his disciples were seen to be eating without ritually washing their hards.
Now, is I've already pointed out, the NIV translators see that last clause (translated by Young as "purifying all the meats") as a statement by Mark explaining an implication of what Jesus had said; whereas Young understands it as having been said directly by Jesus. I think the NIV translators are correct.
But no matter which translator(s) is(are) correct on just whose the phrase is, the phrase in its context is unambiguous: Christ -- whether explicitly (following Young) or implicitly (following the NIV) -- has "purified" all foods, has abolished the ritual distinction between "clean" and "unclean."
Judah: "p.s. just to clarify, I Paul is not contradicting Jesus. On the contrary, I think Paul is quite in-line with Jesus, he just happens to be misinterpreted often because of his talks about how the Law does not save anyone."
Ilíon: Of course Paul is not contradicting Jesus; *you* are, whether or not you yet realize it.
Judah, the problem is that you take *part* of what Jesus said ("Think not that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets ...") out of context. You not only take it out of the wider context of the Gospels as a whole, you even take it out if the context of the specific statement in which it was uttered ("... I came not to destroy, but to fulfill.")
That word translated as "fulfill" is the Greek 'plêroô,' it means "to make full," "to make complete." It means "to satiate" or "to satisfy" (or "to gorge"); it means "to pay in full." (see: plêroô and: plêroô)
Christ came to meet the demands of the Law, to pay the price that Perfect Justice *must* require. He came to pay the price for our abject (and continuing) failure to live up to the Moral Law; the Ritual Law (the "clean/unclean" distinctions) isn't even, and never was, a matter of morality ... as the Prophets (and Christ) make clear time and again.
=======
Judah, the problem is that you want to hold onto the ritualistic observances of modern-day Judaism -- I suppose (realizing this is a supposition) because, in the end, that's what "Jewishness" has become for most Jews. I don't have an easy answer for you. I don't have the magic pill that will enable you to hold onto your Jewishness while also affirming that Jesus is both Messiah and Lord/God.
I realize that through the centuries those Jew who have embrased Jesus as Messiah have become "lost" in the vast sea of Gentiles who comprise the mass of Christianity. My great-great-grandmother was a Jew (and, to tell you the truth, I really have no idea whether she ever considered herself a Christian), but I am not; and my "genetic" connection to Judaism is so tenuous that it means nothing. Believe me, I do see what you're concerned to not lose for yourself and your children; but I don't know the answer to your concern.
I know that the "answer" my great-great-grandmother would have received ("You can't be both a Jew and a Christian") is false. I also know that the "answer" you're trying to argue for ("You can't be a real Christian unless you observe the rituals of Judaism") is false.
I don't know the answer to that dilemma. I understand that the answer is (and must be) important to you. I don't know the "right" answer, but I do know the wrong one(s); and I tell you that you're pursuing a wrong one.
Ilion, I don't wish to return to the rituals of Judaism. Judaism is flooded with human-created rituals in the Oral Law (Talmud, not Scripture) and Paul addresses this much in his letters. Unfortunately, the distinction between God commandments (the Law) and rabbinic rulings (the Oral Law) is a distinction lost among many modern believers in Messiah.
ReplyDelete(For example, the ritual washings the Pharisees where chiding the disciples for is *not* a God-commandment, it was an oral law created by rabbis.)
Instead, what I am for is following
God's clear guidelines for right and wrong, laid out in the Bible. That's all.
Ilion, you say I am contradicting Jesus by this; you say Jesus has "abolished" these things. Can you look at Jesus' fundamentals-of-the-faith teaching in Matthew 5? In particular, look at verse 17-20 and the context. I hope you plainly see I am not contradicting Jesus after reading that chapter in context.
Regarding Mark 7, well, I prefer clarity over agreement, and I think the matter is clear to anyone reading the literal text.
Take care Ilion. Please let me know what you think of Matthew 5.
-Judah
Judah, do you sacrifice rams and bulls? Do you make sin offerings?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you not? The ordinances (the laws) on sacrifice were not established in the Talmud, but in the Torah, and at Sinai. Further, these laws are more important for righteousness than the dietary laws are. And you are not keeping these laws. Why *is* that?
What were Jesus' last words before his death?
Does the Bible as a whole self-contradict? Does Jesus self-contradict?
ReplyDeleteIlion, if you can answer my questions about Matthew 5, I'd gladly answer yours about sacrifice.
ReplyDeleteI am interested in this very question. The one about sacrifice. I have been teaching a class on Judaism at my church (a Christian Church). In discussing evangelism ideas with the class I brought up the fact that one would not expect God to allow the Temple to be destroyed without giving an alternative to the required sacrifices. It seems clear to me that Jesus and the new covenant are that alternative. That Jesus' ministry was 40 years before the destruction of the Temple is all the more proof in my mind.
ReplyDeleteI am also intrigued by your reference to Mathew 5:17. Do you like lobster Judah? I know my wife loves it. Shall I assume from that that she is doomed to Hell?
Pat O
Pat, Messiah came and died once and for all, the final sacrifice.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me Jesus did not destroy or abolish the Law (Matt 5), but instead only completed it. That is, his life and death fit into the Law -- a blood sacrifice for atonement -- just as God said it would be when spoke through Isaiah.
It is interesting, however, to read in Revelation that there will be a 3rd Temple in Jerusalem, complete with sacrifices going up to God.
Regarding eating certain foods, we're not doomed to hell by breaking the Law; Jesus freed us from that doom: Paul says clearly we're not under the penalty of the Law (that is, death) because of Jesus' death. The part I think most Christians miss is how Paul also says the Law is "good and holy counsel" (Romans 3) with a legitimate purpose: to show us what sin is. Paul puts it this way in Romans 3: "Without the Law's clear guidelines for right and wrong, moral behavior would be mostly guesswork. Apart from the succinct, surgical command, "You shall not covet," I could have dressed covetousness up to look like a virtue and ruined my life with it."
Now, it's true no human can follow the Law perfectly; if someone could, that would imply one can live a sinless life. And if the Law defines sin, as Paul says, it would imply that Jesus followed the Law perfectly if he was sinless as the Scriptures assert.
Despite the inability of anyone to follow the Law perfectly, I do follow the Law as best as I can. I try to follow the 10 commandments, which are a summarized version of the full 613 commandments. Jesus boiled it down even further, saying that of all the Law, the most important commands are to love God with all your heart & soul (Deut 6), and love other people as much as you love yourself (Lev 19). 1 John even then says, "My little children, we know we love him if we keep his commandments." Jesus goes even further, saying if you keep the Law and teach others to do so, you'll be considered great in the kingdom of heaven.
When put in this light, don't you think it may be wise to at least try to follow God's commandments? Not out of some legalistic goal to be saved by following the Law, but instead by following God's commands, living out the love of Messiah in your works.
Patrick, you asked about foods. God showed us some foods that are unhealthy to eat: buzzards, carrion-eaters, eels, swine, yes, even crustaceans. You may like some of those foods, I used to as well. We're not doomed to hell by eating them, just as were not doomed to hell if we, say, tell lie. But let's not belittle it: if our Father tells us some foods are not good to eat, why eat them? I know we enjoy such luxuries in our Western care-free culture, but those luxuries ought not to include the luxury of ignorance of God's Word.