Gateway To Freedom

New Testament Teachings - Foods

by Randy Schroeder

In December, 2009 I received a word of prophecy that told us that there would be a new assault upon the true Word of God in order to "deceive the very elect" and diminish their faith. This attack was going to come both from within and outside the church itself in several different ways:

1. Interpretation and translation

2. Legitimacy

3. Discrepancies

4. So-called scientific evidence contrary to it.

5. Turning to "experts" whose opinions are not based upon the Word of God.

During these times of impending darkness, more and more of God's people are allowing their light to shine. This is presently occurring by exposing their beliefs to family and friends. This move of the Spirit is resulting in a need for us to more perfectly understand our own beliefs so that we may, "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.." (I Pe 3:15). We are being assailed by false doctrines which have permeated virtually all denominations.

The original sources of these doctrines are from Westernized humanistic thinking and the Roman Catholic Church. These doctrines and interpretations have been taught as absolute truths - some twisting the scriptures 180 degrees. The Spirit of the Lord has urged me to review some of these doctrines and their scriptural supports so we are certain of our understanding about what we believe.

This is my only purpose in reviewing this first subject. I am not even implying disobedience if the Holy Spirit has not led you into obedience in one area or another. Remember, our spiritual growth is a process. In other words - just as I have stated many times, each of us comes into obedience at various stages of our walk with God as the Holy Spirit leads us into truth. In other words, these clarifications to New Testament writings are studies designed to give you insight, without judgment. We are all partially blind. For as the Word says:

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)

Foods by the Law of God

Before we can properly interpret New Testament objections to eating things according to God's commands, we must review defilement. There are many twists and turns in understanding the Hebraic mindset, but the summary is contained in the following scriptures:

If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment (NIV: "consecrated meat in the fold of his garment"), and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. (Haggai 2:12-13)

What is being taught here are simply these principles:

1. The holy (sanctified sacrificial flesh in his skirt) does not make the acceptable things (i.e. the "clean" foods listed) holy (sanctified), but

2. The unclean person (one who touched a dead body) does make the acceptable (i.e. clean) things unclean.

Example: If I were a holy sanctified ("oiled and watered" i.e. sanctified and mikveh/baptized) Jewish priest who touched a defiled thing with my feet along the pathway, (like dung or parts of a dead animal), I would have to wash my feet to become clean again. So a good Jew would wash his hands before eating "just to be safe." (Didn't Jesus say to Peter and the disciples:

.. He that is washed needeth not save (except) to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean... (John 13:10)

Notice, that YHVH didn't command hand washings before eating. It was only a commandment to Aaron, his sons, and his generations before entering the tabernacles' inner court (Exodus 30:19, 20). So this was adopted as a tradition or law of the Pharisees (oral law) which Yeshua spoke against. (Note: Messiah did not condemn all traditions (e.g. Feast of Dedication John 7:37), only those that were in opposition to God's laws.)

Never-the-less, the "tradition" of washing the hands before eating had nothing to do with being sanitary. It was a part of the Pharisaic laws, referred to as "tradition" or oral laws, which said that the hands could be defiled by touching unclean things in the marketplace. Therefore, according to the Pharisees, one should always wash their hands before eating so that the food would remain clean for consumption. Consuming unclean food would be sinning by breaking YHVH's commandments (1 John 3:4). Additionally, by not washing one's hands before eating they would also be in disobedience to the kashrut (kosher dietary) laws of the Pharisees - and consequently, rebelling against the authority of leadership.

(Note: A rabbi's "kosher blessing" of food was another tradition implemented centuries later to signify the acceptability of the product as "clean" or consumable food in accordance with the Jewish dietary laws. It denotes a supervision of the manufacturing process and ingredients to conform to those laws.)

Now that we have the basic background for the Jewish "tradition," let's look at the two passages which are used to justify the interpretive viewpoint that all foods are proper to eat (Because "they" say Yeshua did away with YHVH's laws regarding clean and unclean "meats.") Remember what Yeshua did say:

Think not that I am come to destroy the 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. (Mat 5:17, 18).

 

The First Contrary Proof Text:

Mark 7:1-23 is the first prime text used to try and negate YHVH's kosher laws. We read:

Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. (Mark 7:1-4)

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.  (Mark 7:6-7)

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:8-13)

And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. (Mark 7:14-16)

And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 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? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.     (Mark 7:17-23)

Let's get the complete picture and focus on the food aspect rather than on Yeshua's admonishment to breaking of God's commandments by the "traditions of the elders". While the traditions sometimes serve a purpose of reminding His people and honoring God (i.e. Purim, Feast of Dedication, driedels, etc.), when they enslave God's people or counter God's primary commands, Yeshua taught against them.

In this story, we have some religious leaders among the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem taking issue about the disciples' neglect of following the oral traditions of washing for the purpose of purification before eating bread. We know that their "bread" (as in a loaf) was "clean" because:

1) they were devout, Torah-abiding Jews and

2) if it were unclean, don't you think the critical eyes of the Pharisees and scribes would have made a more direct accusation of the impropriety?

This entire discussion has been about ritual purity as taught by the oral torah and not about the Torah commandments of YHVH. Conclusion: The food was "clean" according to YHVH's laws.

Yeshua's argument is one of spiritual prioritizing (v 11). He is teaching that purity is not primarily ritualistic or physical, but rather spiritual (vv 14-23) - of the heart. (Note that He also speaks of such prioritization in John 7:22, 23.) He declares (in my literal translation), "that which enters in through the mouth doesn't defile a man because it only passes through. It is that which is manifested by a man's words and actions that give evidence to spiritual impurity."

When we understand the background or Hebraic roots of such a discussion, doesn't it now seem bizarre that we could have believed that Yeshua was making all "meats" (e.g. potentially edible animals) clean from this passage?

Do we understand that we have been as guilty as the Pharisees! Haven't we also practiced (and preached) distorted views of what is acceptable and right with God by the Christian "traditions" taught to us?

 

The Second Contrary Proof Text:

The second proof text for declaring all foods are to be consumed is Acts 10:9-28 - Peter's vision of the sheet from heaven. The interpretation of this passage has likewise been twisted from its premise and purpose. Read Acts 10:1-28.

The entire story is about the acceptance of the gentiles into the kingdom. It begins with God's preparation of Cornelius, a devout, God fearing, gentile centurion, receiving a preparatory vision from God to seek out Peter and receive instructions. The following day Peter, who was "very hungry" fell into a trance and saw a vision of a sheet, drawn together at the four corners, containing both acceptable "meats" mixed with the unclean beasts, creeping things and fowls.

Then the Lord said to Peter, "kill and eat," and "what God has cleansed, call it not common (or unclean)." This was done three times to convince Peter that this was a "completion" of God's plans. (Three is the number of completion) Knowing that even Messiah did not do away with the commandments of YHVH, is it any wonder that, as the scripture reads: "Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean?" (v 17)

In other words, Peter could surmise from his own understanding that surely God didn't mean for him to make void the entire understanding of clean and unclean, holy and common. To do so would undermine the very foundation and definition of separateness from sin.

So while Peter was being troubled in his meditation, God immediately had the answer at his door, knocking (God's answer through "coincidence" - I say with a wink.) Peter lodged his visitors, went with them and entered into Cornelius' house - all against the tradition of the elders to keep separate from the gentiles who were considered "unclean". (Here we go again!) But why would he do this?

And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. (Acts 10:28)

Do you see what Peter said - what Peter understood? He went because:

1. God revealed to him

2. Not to call any MAN common or unclean.

God didn't show him not to call any potentially edible beast, creeping thing or fowl common or unclean. God showed him that no man is unclean in God's sight. Thus, Peter had understood that the vision was the beginning of the fulfillment of prophecies speaking of Messiah as a light to the gentiles: Behold my servant..

I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; (Isaiah 42:6) (also Isaiah 49:6, 60:3)

This was the "completion" God was speaking about by presenting the sheet three times - the bringing of the gentiles into the Israel of God. This was God's plan; to graft the gentiles into the olive tree of Messiah - into His salvation.

Conclusion: The passage is not about food per se'. It is about the move of God to:

1. Fulfill His Word

2. Prioritize God's Word above man's traditions.

Has the church done that? Unfortunately, we are a reflection of Israel. Our "priests" have profaned the movements of God through mixture, and made the holy movements and the "now" Word of God, common. Now again, God's Spirit is moving and awakening those who have ears to hear the truths of the Sabbaths, YHVH's instructions, Moadim (appointed feasts), clean and unclean eating and a set-apart lifestyle.

Let us understand what the Spirit is doing with us and be alert to the plans of the enemy in our lives. We must not allow life's tests or personal attack on our beliefs to distract us from His calling to holiness and the zeal of our hearts toward Him. May YHVH grant us the mercy and strength to be counted among the overcomers.

And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: (Revelation 2:26) Amen.

 

New Testament Teachings - Foods Part II

by Randy Schroeder

 

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: (Colossians 2:16)
 

If this verse were understood within its context, as revealed by the Holy Spirit, it would be a foundational apostolic encouragement that the believers in Yeshua should follow the dietary commands given through Moses. However, taken out of context, preached with the vigor of conviction, taught with the quotation of "experts" and used as a support for anti Semitic attitudes, this passage has been twisted to make the New Testament followers of Christ believe just the opposite.

Like many other such passages, its meaning is not clearly apparent as an isolated verse - as it is often presented and taught. If a verse is interpreted upon a misunderstanding of its context, it is even more necessary to follow Paul's admonition to:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 
(2 Timothy 2:15-16)

Although many Christians feel that they are either incapable or inadequate in understanding the bible, God has given us His Holy Spirit and an apostolic mandate to study in order to comprehend God's word. By simply taking the time to study this little teaching with a seeking heart you show forth the belief that the Spirit of Truth is able to guide you into truth - in spite of man's teachings:

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 
(John 16:13)

Bible scholars have developed some guidelines or principles to help assist in coming to the proper interpretation of scripture. These are called Hermeneutic Principles or simply principles of interpretation. Strict adherence to these principles can eliminate much error. Unfortunately, it seems that even the most notable scholars "take license" to ignore them when a passage doesn't agree with their own theology.

Following is an outline of the principles of interpretation (hermeneutics). As we'll soon discover, each is very relevant to the passage under study. (Colossians 2:16)

Hermeneutic Principles

1. Who was the writer?

2. To whom were they writing?

3. Is the choice of words, wording, or word order significant in this particular passage?

4. What is the cultural, historical context?

5. What was the author's original intended meaning?

6. How did the author's contemporaries understand him?

7. Why did he say it that way?

Source: http://www.theopedia.com

Additionally, there are few principles specific to the Bible:

Biblical Hermeneutic Principles

1. Divine Accommodation - Infinite translated to the finite

2. Progressive Revelation

Old Testament Is New Testament concealed

New Testament is Old Testament revealed

3. Harmony - No part of the Bible may be interpreted so as to contradict another part of the Bible.

Source: http//www.theopedia.com

Let us briefly address each one of the first seven principles.

1. Who was the writer?

The short answer to the question is the Apostle Paul. Let us review who the scriptures say Paul was:

- A Messianic (Christ believing) Jew trained as a Pharisee

- Well educated

- Encouraged believers to be doers of Moses Law:

For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
(Romans 2:13)

- He taught that the laws of Moses are not nullified by our faith in Christ:

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Romans 3:31)

- Taught that his flesh took the commandments for life and made them death through his own sin:

And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. (Romans 7:10)

- Taught that the law is holy, and its commandments are holy, just and good:

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. (Romans 7:12)

- Gave a depth of teaching whose understanding went far beyond simplistic faith:

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: (Romans 7:22)

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."(Romans 8:4)

- Testified by word and action that he kept the law after his conversion:

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. (Romans 7:25)

Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. (Acts 21:26)

Other examples of his lawful obedience include:

• Kept the Sabbath – Acts 13:42, 17:2, 18:4

• Observed YHVH's designated Feasts

- Passover 1 Corinthians 5:8

- Pentecost (Shavuot) – Acts 20:16

• Observed the Royal Law (10 Commandments) – Ephesians 6:2

• Defended his obedience to the law – Acts 28:7,

• Stated his belief in the written law and the prophets - Acts 24:14

• Took a Nazarite vow (Numbers 6;13-21) – Acts 21:23,24

This is who wrote the book of Colossians. Is this "man of the law" to be understood as teaching against the Mosaic laws - in this case - specifically food? Such a conclusion would be contrary to his lifestyle and stated life in Christ Jesus.

2. To whom were they writing?

Paul's letter was written to the believers at Colossae, a city only twelve miles east of Laodicea (to whom this letter was also to be read - Col 4:16) in Turkey. These believers were being negatively influenced by the doctrinal introduction of worshipping angels (Col 2:18) and elemental spirits (Col 2:8) a tradition historically held by residents of the area (i.e. "man's traditions"). Paul's letter specifically warned these believers against falling into such doctrines:

And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. (Colossians 2:4)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, (Colossians 2:18)

These concerns are why the commentary of the first two chapters is so rich and focused upon not only the gospel message of redemption through Yeshua HaMachiach (Jesus Christ), but also the power and singleness of God. For example:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell; (Colossians 1:16-19)

Isn't Paul expressing this preamble to specifically address worshipping multiple creations? In effect he is saying - why worship the creation when you have the fullness of it within the Creator's and His son? Just as most of his epistles, Paul was writing to correct heretical doctrine that was slipping into the church.

3. Is the choice of words, wording, or word order significant in this particular passage?

It is most definitely significant. At this point let us look at the first few words of the passage under study:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, (Colossians 2:16a)

Strong's concordance defines "meat" (brōsis) here as "From the base of G977; (abstractly) eating (literally or figuratively); by extension (concretely) food (literally or figuratively): - eating, food, meat." The same source defines "drink" (posis) as "From the alternate of G4095; a drinking (the act), that is, (concretely) a draught: - drink

In other words - let no man judge you in what food you eat or what beverage you drink/swallow. The rhetorical question is: would a "law abiding man" such as Paul consider forbidden (by the law) flesh as food or forbidden liquids as drink? Of course he wouldn't.

Notice that he combined eating and drinking in the declaration. This is very significant. Now they are tied together. Why would he do that except for clarity? By the laws of Moses, except wine for a Nazarite or Priest entering the tabernacle, there is only one forbidden drink. That drink is blood! (Lev 17:10, 11) Could Paul really be saying it is alright to eat anything and drink anything - including blood? That is absurd. All the apostles agreed that the first steps of the new gentile believers were to abstain from drinking blood.

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. (Acts 15:20-21)

Therefore, if Paul teaches that gentiles converts are to abstain from drinking blood, then isn't the interpretation: don't let any man judge you from (observing the teaching of) abstaining from blood? By extension this would also include eating flesh that isn't food by the law's definition.

4. What is the cultural, historical context?

The region containing Laodicea and Colossae was heavily infused with Jews when Antiochus the Great (241 - 187 BC) transported 2000 Jewish families from Babylonia to the area. Thus, the church was made up of both gentile and Jewish believers. As discussed in point two, the gentile converts of the church were most probably former worshippers of elemental (sun, rain, etc.) spirits as well as the ancient "gods". This is confirmed by both archeologically recovered idols and writings from before 200 BC. Laodicea, who also was to read this letter of doctrinal instruction, is often cited as the instigator of this doctrinal heresy. According to Wikipedia.org, "The city minted its own coins, the inscriptions of which show evidence of the worship of Zeus, Asclepius (medicine, son of Apollo), Apollo, and the emperors."

5. What was the author's original intended meaning?

Of course this is the issue of this study and subject to interpretation. I believe that applied hermeneutic principles indicate Paul was saying don't let any man judge you because you are showing your love for and obedience to Elohim by walking a holy life in obedience to His commandments.

6. How did the author's contemporaries understand him?

Of course this is also opinion, but I believe the apostles did understand him perfectly because they didn't try to turn his teachings from the foundation of who he was and what he stood for. And yet, even Peter commented that his writings were sometimes hard to understand by those who are unlearned and unstable:

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)

Besides the apostles, the other set of "contemporaries" could be his readers to whom the epistle was addressed. Although Paul never visited Colossae, I think the believers there understood that he was writing a warning - in the form of an admonishment of what had already crept in according to the report Paul had received. (Col 1:3, 8) Subtle admonition under the spirit of conviction hits the heart of a righteous sinner like a sledge hammer. Paul's speech was encouraging but not very subtle in pointing out the doctrinal errors that were creeping into the assembly.

7. Why did he say it that way?

Paul said things very precisely in order to avoid the very confusion which the modern church has put into his writings. By ignoring the precise phrasing, early church fathers were able to distance themselves from the "Jewish religion" by undermining its foundations. Instead of adopting the truth, the early church substituted their own doctrines - the doctrines of man. In other words, the church was falling into the same trap as the Sanhedrin when it added rule upon rule to God's commandments.

Now let us review the passage under the magnifying glass of the three additional biblical hermeneutic principles outlined earlier.

1. Divine Accommodation - Infinite translated to the finite

In this instance there is not really any application in this passage as Paul is authoring an epistle about a very concrete problem without using representative symbolism or allegorical language.

2. Progressive Revelation

Old Testament Is New Testament concealed

New Testament is Old Testament revealed

"Progressive Revelation" is a term that is supposed to mean greater revelation of God and His Word. The New Testament (B'rit Chadashah) often is a plain language declaration of Old Testament (Tanakh) symbolism, allegories and illustrations. Unfortunately, the pulpit has been used to redefine this concept into a meaning of negating the first covenants of God under the umbrella of the freedoms we have through the blood of Messiah. In other words, most teachers educated without strict adherence to principles of interpretation have a tendency to espouse doctrines apart from the understanding of the Old Testament - except when it serves their theology. I have heard several different speakers say, under auspices of "progressive revelation", that thus is so and so without the least regard for the Torah, Prophets, History or Psalms of the Old Testament. That is not the definition of "progressive revelation". Such a use is only a couching of man's opinion in well sounding phrase.

3. Harmony - No part of the Bible may be interpreted so as to contradict another part of the Bible.

Most people who expound the word of God would agree with this statement. However, in order to make a one-line, out of context "proof" for a doctrinal point, they seldom acknowledge non-harmonious scripture without some farfetched explanation or rationalizations for support. Nor will they easily consider their "proof text" in context if it is not harmonious with their point of view.

In reference to the traditional interpretation of the passage we are studying:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (Colossians 2:16)

By interpreting this passage (even as most "experts" do) to mean that we can eat or drink anything we have to negate the laws of God given through Moses. And yet, how can this interpretation harmonize with the words of our Savior and Lord:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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.
(Matthew 5:17-18)

The usual response to this is to rationalize that Messiah said this before His resurrection. After His resurrection He proved that He fulfilled all the requirements of the Law so it was done away with!? Of course that ignores the part about the prophets and about heaven and earth passing away, but that is the traditional rationale.

So instead of Messiah's words confirming the things which the author, Paul, said and did (which we exampled previously), the traditional reaction would disregard the passage as non conclusive so his theology would remain intact. It sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? Yet, everyone's blindness to the truth is caused, in great part, by our own inability to want to "see". Any of us can stand in the face of indisputable proof, on any subject, and seek another, or any other explanation, than the truth in order to deny its reality.

In Context

The reason that I didn't begin this little treatise with context is because if the foundation of the context has been wrongly perceived, then the verse under study also lends itself to incorrect understanding. In other words, if the proceeding passages are misunderstood, then the subject passage has a very good chance of being interpreted incorrectly as well. Such has often been the case with this verse. If we start with a falsehood, then can what follows be interpreted rightly? It is like asking, if I build a foundation that is 10 degrees off vertical, can I believe that the structure will be vertical? Of course not, it would be impossible for it to be vertical.

Likewise, let us look at the verses immediately preceding the scripture we are examining. Doing so should yield even further insight into why the subject verse about acceptable foods may have been so severely twisted 180 degrees from its true meaning.

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
(Colossians 2:13-15)

The subject is the cancelling of our trespasses by blotting out, or erasing the sins that were written down against us. That King James translation of the text is pretty accurate. However, it has been interpreted and taught by respected 19th century bible scholars as the laws of Moses have been blotted out - not the trespasses we've committed.

One such source document used in most seminaries is Marvin R Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament. He states, "As Paul declares this bond to be against us, including both Jews and Gentiles, the reference, while primarily to the Mosaic law," is to be taken in a wider sense...." (Ibid. pg 490) Even Mathew Henry's commentary doesn't go so far as to say it was the Mosaic law that was blotted out, but rather states that it was the "curse of the law."

In addition to scholarly commentaries presenting a biased opinion, we must recognize that the second most widely used bible translation of the 20th century, the New International Version, conveys a very subjective interpretation.

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
(Colossians 2:13,14)

"The written code, with its regulations" is an NIV translation with implied interpretation. It has been widely accepted in order to substantiate the claim to deny the laws of God and establish a false liberty about food and drink. In light of these claimed source materials, is it any wonder why most clergymen speak forth false doctrines learned in seminary?

To suggest that verse 14 says that the Mosaic Law is nailed to the cross and blotted out is also subject to interpretive principles. This interpretation would also be inharmonious with Yeshua's statement, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law.." (Matthew 5:17).

Additionally, if it were the law this passage is referring to, wouldn't it portray Yeshua as a lawyer who finds a loophole? You sinned? No problem. Messiah will just do away with the law you broke. What's wrong with this picture? Yeshua came to save us, not to do away with what the Father said.

Finally, such an interpretation disregards the definition of the specific words used and disregards the fourth principle of interpretation (hermeneutics) - What is the cultural, historical context?

The word translated "handwriting" (there were no printing presses) is the Greek word cheirographon. Although it is found in the bible only in this single incidence, it is found in many extra biblical documents that allow us to understand that it was a specific legal document. It is a term used to refer to a written evidence document of a person's guilt in the courtroom. In olden times, the accuser (or prosecutor) would read the cheirographon in the middle (tou mesos) of the courtroom. This is the exact phraseology Paul used when he said that the cheirographon was taken out of the way (mesos) or middle. In other words the sins you've committed have been removed from their place of legal accusation.

In the heavenly courtroom the prosecutor/accuser Satan holds the cheirographon, a written record of every sin you've been found guilty of. In the legal system this is an evidence document for the sentencing of the guilty. It is indisputable proof.

Fortunately for the believer, you have an advocate with the judge of the whole universe. His name is Yeshua HaMachiach, Jesus the Christ. (My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. )(1 John 2:1-2)

Your sin being acknowledged, He says, "The penalty has already been fully paid." He paid the penalty upon the cross when he bore the punishment for your sins. Thus, the judge must rule that the cheirographon is inadmissible and he will not see it, thus Messiah blotted out the cheirographon or written sins and commands that it be taken out of the middle - out of the courtroom. Yeshua nailed the cheirographon to the cross and thereby spoiled (the plans/accusations) of the principalities and powers, making of them an open show.

Now that we understand the concepts of what is being said in these verses and have dispelled the foundation that can lead us into error, we can better understand the following verses which we studied earlier.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 
(Colossians 2:16-17)

In our contemporary vernacular we might say, "Don't let anybody judge you regarding what you eat or drink or the days you celebrate except the Body of Christ." At the time of Paul's writing these Greek/gentile believers were converts/proselytes (instructed in Moses' Law) coming out of Sunday sun-worship and pagan holidays. They were what we would call Torah-observant believers. As such, this Body of Christ would judge according to the scriptures.

Let no man judge; Let no man beguile

Let no man judge you means exactly that. Don't let someone outside the Body of Christ judge you in keeping the ordinances of God: such as eating acceptable foods, proper drink (no blood, nor excess to drunkenness), or keeping the Feasts of the Lord (which was a statue forever), new moon observance, or Sabbath all of which prophesy things to come.

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? (Colossians 2:18-22)

Notice these are the commandments and doctrines of men, and not the Mosaic Law to which Paul is referring.

Summary:

The pure Torah does not put people in bondage, it liberates and yields blessing:

So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever. And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts. (Psalms 119:44-45)

We need to begin studying and disregarding what man has added to the commandments. Man's commandments turn the Law into bondage and a heavy yoke - a yoke that "neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" (Acts 15:10) But, Yeshua's yoke is easy and full of grace. The Pharisees would accuse the disciples of picking the ears of corn on the Sabbath, but Yeshua would point out that his Father's yoke is easy (and merciful) as even David ate the priests' showbread in the unusual circumstances of their hunger.  (Mark 2:26)

The cherographon has been thrown out of the courtroom and nailed to the cross because Yeshua has already paid the penalty. As he said to the adulterous woman, "Neither do I condemn thee; go and sin no more (John 8:11).

The law of the Lord is liberty to those who seek God's precepts. It is the essence of how we, who are saved by grace through faith in the blood sacrifice of Messiah, can show our love to our God.

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. (1 John 5:3)

 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (Rev 22:14)

How long can the body of Christ continue to believe that His commandments (Law) have been done away with? How long will the church preach that they are above the law? How long will believers grieve the Holy Spirit before He withdraws?

And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.  (Romans 13:11)

 

Gateway To Freedom Ministries
www.gatewaytofreedom.org