Saturday study 2/7/26

 Part 7: On food laws

Theme series in the form of this question: 

Did Jesus actually change the Law of Moses?

• The point is to see whether Jesus was merely repeating Moses…or whether, as the New Covenant lawgiver, he changed and even overturned Torah at certain points: 
• Today we look at the Jewish food laws and whether or not Jesus changed them. 

What was said? Leviticus 11; Deut 14

Later, in Leviticus 20:

24b I am the LORD your God, who has set you apart from the peoples.

25a You are therefore to distinguish between clean and unclean animals and birds. 

26 You are to be holy to Me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be My own.

• The real purpose for the food laws was 3-fold:

1. To separate Israel from other nations; 
2. To remind Israel they were God's special, chosen nation;
3. To test the obedience of His people.

For Health Reasons?

• Throughout history there have been claims that food laws were given for health reasons.
• I was surpirised to learn that one of the earliest proponents was a Jew, the noted Medieval scholar Maimonides. 
• His Guide for the Perplexed (c. 1190AD) influenced modern-day Jewish kosherlaws as well as Islam's food laws, known as halal. 
• Jewish food laws had nothing to do with health, noted by most scholars and historians today.
• The ESV Study Bible comment on Lev. 11.1-8:

“The diet of these animals is apparently not the basis of their cleanness or uncleanness. The passage itself says nothing about what the animals eat, and the camel, rock badger (hyrax), and hare are exclusively vegetarian but unclean.”

• Food laws for health reasons opens too many troubling questions.

Deut 14.21a NASB 1995

“You shall not eat anything which dies of itself. 

You may give it to the alien who is in your town, so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner, for you are a holy people to the LORD your God." 

• Did God want the rest of the nations to be unhealthy let alone poison themselves?

In Deuteronomy 12:21 God instructs certain clean animals to be slaughtered "as I have instructed you."

• Why if they're inherently healthier than unclean animals?
• Why would God not also give them laws for a healthy plant diet? 
• What about other animals not listed as "unclean" that might be dangerous to your health?
• The point is God did not want the rest of the nations to be unhealthy, let alone poison themselves! 
• And just because modern-science sees health benefits to some of the foods listed doesn't mean that's what the biblical writers were thinking too. 
• After all, any food selected properly and prepared can lead to a healthy diet.

But I say? Mark 7

• The Context has to do with later Jewish traditions that prescribed ritual washing of hands, utensils, and even furniture!
• But Jesus takes the opportunity to teach on the food laws.  

14 Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. “All of you listen,” he said, “and try to understand. 

15 It’s not what goes into your body that defiles you; you are defiled by what comes from your heart.”

• What goes into your body?
• As a result, Mark later says in v.19 that by saying these things Jesus had "declared all foods clean."

But what about? 

• Some recent scholars argue Jesus refers only to the digestive process (stomach "purifying" food by expelling waste into the latrine), based on the Greek and some ancient Jewish views of excrement as non-impure; 
• But this remains a fringe view with serious challenges mainly, the traditional-majority reading (Jesus declared "all foods clean") appears in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts and all major critical editions (Nestle-Aland 28, UBS5, SBLGNT, THGNT).
• And no significant textual variant omits or substantially alters the phrase;
• The noted Bruce Metzger in his Textual Commentary gives this reading an "A"rating (highest certainty).
• Jesus' core statement in Mark 7:15 (what you eat does not make you unclean), logically includes foods prohibited in Leviticus 11 & Deuteronomy 14—not just other added traditions.
• Regardless, if you follow the alternate interpretation, it would still mean that the digestive system “cleanses” all kinds of ritual impurity, including foods!

What did Jesus do?

• Jesus also practiced what he preached when he ate with sinners, i.e., non-Torah keeping Jews or Gentiles: Luke 5

30 The Pharisees and their scribes were complaining to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” 

31 Jesus answered, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; 

32 I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.” Cp. Matt 9:10-17; Mark 2:15-22

• This also serves as a prelude to the coming KOG on earth: Luke 13:

28 “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 

29 People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God."

• NOTE: the patriarchs did not keep food laws.

Apostolic church: Acts 15; cp. Romans 14; 

• Later apostolic preaching & practice confirm the words of Jesus. 
• Peter’s resistance to eating unclean animals in Acts 10, the divine vision explicitly connects food laws with the removal of Jew-Gentile boundaries. 
• The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 concludes that Gentiles are not required to get circumcised to keep the Law of Moses, note it's "a package deal";
• Paul recalls Jesus’ teachings with even greater clarity, read Rom. 14.
• Therefore, if you're a strong Christian you should put up with the weak Christian so as not to please yoursef but always with the goal that eventually all Christians must come to be like-minded in Jesus, read Rom 15:1-16.
• Note the clincher to Rom 14 in 15:

14 "But I myself am persuaded about you, my brothers and sisters, that you are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another."

• For Paul to reintroduce food laws would mean a weak Church because the barrier between Jew and Gentile has not been removed in Messiah (Eph. 2:14; Col. 2:16-17; Gal. 4:10).
• He warns in 1 Timothy 4:3–5:

“These people forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods which God created to be eaten with thanksgiving… For everything created by God is good, and no food should be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving…” 

• Paul even goes beyond the council's verdict declaring that meat offered to idols is “nothing” (read 1 Cor. 8). 
• Paul says this type of new "knowledge" (gnosis) comes with a greater level of responsibility, as Paul repeatedly warns throughout his letters;  

Summary

• OT purpose: national separation, identity, and obedience-test for Israel.
• Jesus is not simply repeating Moses; he is the New Covenant lawgiver(Moses redivivus).
• Jesus explicitly teaches: what you eat does not defile you (Mark 7:15).
• Later, Mark interprets this as Jesus declaring all foods clean; took awhile for some Apostles to grasp full NC ministry of Jesus, cp. Peter;
• Jesus’ practice (eating with “sinners”) anticipates the Kingdom, Jew-Gentile table fellowship.
• The Apostolic church verdict, led by the Spirit, verified Jesus;
• Paul’s letters go betond council verdict, meats sacrificed to idols are allowed;
• Paul's call for the “strong” to limit their liberty for the sake of the weak does not mean he’s partly re-establishing food laws in the church;
• Paul's goal is that, over time, everyone becomes like-minded in Messiah and understands the freedom he taught and won for his church;
• So in answer to the theme question: Yes, Jesus changed and effectively overturned significant parts of the Law of Moses, while fulfilling their deeper purpose in a new way.

One Yahweh Too Many: Genesis 19:24

A number of major commentaries (mostly Trinitarian) recognize that the double use of the Divine Name in Genesis 19:24 is simply an emphatic Hebrew stylistic feature—repetition employed for emphasis—to underline that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a direct act of God, not some natural fluke.

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers explains that “many commentators, following the Council of Sirmium, see in this repetition of the name of Jehovah an indication of the Holy Trinity, as though God the Son rained down fire from God the Father. More correctly Calvin takes it as an emphatic reiteration of its being Jehovah’s act.”

Keil and Delitzsch’s Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament calls the phrase “from Jehovah” an emphatica repetitio (emphatic repetition), and again cites Calvin to stress that it was not according to the usual order of nature, but a manifest, extraordinary act of God, ensuring no natural causes could account for it.

The Pulpit Commentary says:

Whether this Divinely-sent rain was "burning pitch" (Keil), of lightning which ignited the bituminous soil (Clericus), or a volcanic eruption which overwhelmed all the region (Lynch, Kitto), it was clearly miraculous in its nature....the phrase is regarded as "an elegancy of speech" (Aben Ezra), "an emphatic repetition" (Calvin), a more exact characterization of the storm (Clericus, Rosenmüller) as being out of heaven.

Matthew Poole's Commentary notes the phrase "From the Lord, i.e. from himself; the noun put for the pronoun, as Genesis 1:27 2 Chronicles 7:2. But here it is emphatically so expressed," and gives one of the reasons to "signify that it proceeded not from natural causes, but from the immediate hand of God."

Some English translations, like the NET, “streamline” the repetition into an explicit statement of divine causation—again, to remove any thought that this was just an unlucky natural disaster. This also explains why, in the parallel thought of Amos 4:11, some English versions use the first-person pronoun (“I”) instead of the word “God” (e.g., NIV, NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT).

Thus, this interpretation avoids reading two Yahwehs into the text (and thus any hint of polytheism) and instead follows a well-attested Hebrew idiom (cf. Hosea 1:6–7; Zechariah 3:2; 10:12). Nor is this usage reserved for the Divine Name: the same pattern appears with Solomon in 1 Kings 8:1 and 12:21. Similarly in Genesis 4:23, 1 Samuel 20:12–13; 25:22; 2 Samuel 3:8–9. In each case, the repetition of the personal name functions to heighten emphasis. So that Genesis 19:24 has nothing to do with introducing two Yahwehs, which would clearly break with the unitary Jewish creed of the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4.

Are the dead alive? Saul & the Witch of Endor

The story of Saul and the witch of Endor is frequently cited to support the idea that the dead continue as conscious, disembodied “souls” or “spirits” capable of communication with the living. However, a careful examination of the passage in its broader scriptural context points strongly in the opposite direction.

1 Samuel 28:8 says that Saul disguised himself and put on other clothing and left, accompanied by two of his men. They came to the woman at night and said, “Use your ritual pit to conjure up for me the one I tell you.” 9 But the woman said to him, “Look, you are aware of what Saul has done; he has removed the mediums and magicians from the land! Why are you trapping me so you can put me to death?” 28:10 But Saul swore an oath to her by the Lord, “As surely as the Lord lives, you will not incur guilt in this matter!” 11 The woman replied, “Who is it that I should bring up for you?” He said, “Bring up for me Samuel.” 12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out loudly. The woman said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!” 13 The king said to her, “Don’t be afraid! What have you seen?” The woman replied to Saul, “I have seen one like a god coming up from the ground!” 14 He said to her, “What about his appearance?” She said, “An old man is coming up! He is wrapped in a robe!” Then Saul realized it was Samuel, and he bowed his face toward the ground and kneeled down. 15 Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Saul replied, “I am terribly troubled! The Philistines are fighting against me and God has turned away from me. He does not answer me – not by the prophets nor by dreams. So I have called on you to tell me what I should do.”

Later, 1 Chronicles 10:13–14 states explicitly that Saul died “because he was unfaithful to the Lord and did not obey the Lord’s instructions; he even tried to conjure up underworld spirits.”

The NET Study Bible notes:

The text alludes to the incident recorded in 1 Sam 28. The Hebrew term אוֹב (’ov, “ritual pit”) refers to a pit used by a magician to conjure up underworld spirits. In 1 Sam 28:7 the witch of Endor is called a בַּעֲלַת־אוֹב (ba’alat-’ov, “owner of a ritual pit”).

This underscores the fact that Saul turned to forbidden occult means rather than to Yahweh, highlighting his unfaithfulness. In his desperation he was deceived by someone (or something) he believed was the dead Samuel, but in reality it was an elohim, a “god” (a title sometimes used for demons; see Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 95:5 LXX; cf. 1 Corinthians 10:20).

The Old Testament consistently portrays death as a state of unconscious sleep and silence, where the dead know nothing of earthly affairs, no longer praise God, and do not engage in activity (Psalm 6:5; 115:17; Ecclesiastes 9:5–6). Of note is Psalm 88:10–12, emphasizing the forgotten state of the rephaim (a word associated with “departed spirits,” demons in Isaiah 14:9; 26:14, 19). These are said to be in Abaddon; here it functions as a parallel concept to the pit or grave, i.e., Sheol—the destructive realm of death where God is no longer praised.

These texts rule out the possibility that the dead Samuel appeared as a conscious, disembodied spirit or soul from the grave.

Moreover, Yahweh repeatedly and severely prohibits necromancy and consulting mediums (Leviticus 19:31; 20:6; Deuteronomy 18:10–12, which lists such practices as abominations that defile the land; Isaiah 8:19–20, which urges people to seek God’s law and testimony rather than mediums and spiritists who whisper and mutter, as any word contrary to Scripture is darkness).

Given these clear prohibitions, it is theologically inconsistent for God to authorize or participate in such a condemned practice as a legitimate means of revelation—especially to a king already rejected for disobedience (1 Samuel 15:23, 26).

The narrative details in 1 Samuel 28 fit far more naturally with occult deception—likely demonic impersonation—than with a genuine, God-ordained prophetic encounter. The apparition rises “out of the earth” (v. 13), claims to be disturbed from the “rest” of the dead (v. 15), delivers a message of doom without hope or mercy (in contrast to God’s typical prophetic call to repentance and restoration), and aligns with Saul’s desperate rebellion rather than divine endorsement.

The story illustrates the peril of disobeying Yahweh and seeking the occult instead. Scripture consistently teaches that true revelation comes from God alone (Isaiah 8:20), that the dead await resurrection in unconscious rest (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28–29), and that any apparent contact with dead human persons is a dark delusion, contrary to God’s explicit commands.

Let us heed the warning: seek the living God, not the dead, with the resurrection of our Lord Jesus himself as the ultimate example:

Luke 24:1 At dawn on the first day of the week, the women went to the tomb, carrying the spices they had prepared. 2 They discovered that the stone had been rolled away from the tomb entrance, 3 so they went in, but they did not find the body of the lord Jesus. 4 As they were bewildered about this, suddenly two men in dazzling white clothes appeared. 5 The women were terrified and bowed down with their faces to the ground. They said to the women, “Why are you looking for the living among the dead?"

Luke 20:37 As to whether the dead will be raised, even Moses proved this at the burning bush when he called the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38 He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him.”

Jesus is what the word became

“The logos of the prologue became Jesus; Jesus was the logos become flesh not the logos as such.” Leonhard Goppelt, The Theology of the NT (Eerdmans, 1992), Vol. 2, 297.

Literal preexistence Christology claims that in John 1:1 “the Word” is a second divine Person — the Son — who existed “with God” the Father and who later became a man. English translations continue to assume this reading by capitalizing “Word,” followed by personal pronouns like “he” and “him,” as if John were describing an already existing Person called “the Word of God.” But if “the Word” was a Person, then John 1:14 would mean that that Person “became flesh” — that is, became another person, a human being. Yet neither John nor any other NT writer ever says that a divine person was incarnated “as a man.” The text simply says that God’s “word became flesh.”

In the Old Testament, “the word of the LORD” is never a second divine Person alongside Yahweh. It is His speech, His creative power, His promise and purpose going out from Him and achieving His will.

“By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host…For He spoke, and it was; He commanded, and it stood” (Psalm 33:6, 9).

This word comes to the prophets as a message, not as a visiting second Person:

“Now the word of Yahweh came to me, saying…” (Jeremiah 1:4; cf. 1 Samuel 3:1).

And Isaiah tells us that this word is God’s plan and promise, just as rain waters the earth, “so will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I delight” (Isaiah 55:11).

This is the Hebrew background John 1 has in mind. John is telling us that God’s creative, saving word — His plan and promise described as life and light — has now taken concrete, human form.

“The word became flesh and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14).

God’s own self-expression has become embodied in a unique human person, “the man Messiah Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). God, who “in many parts and in many ways spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets,” has “in these last days spoken to us in a Son” (Hebrews 1:1–2). The Son is the climactic way God speaks, not some eternal second Person who has always existed “with God.” That would be polytheism — two Gods!

Simply put, Jesus is what the word of God became.

The New Testament never records Jesus saying, “I am the Word," i.e., "the preexistent Word who became flesh.” Instead, he consistently presents himself as the agent of God’s words.

“But now you are seeking to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God” (John 8:40).

“My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me” (John 7:16).

He prays to the Father, “the words which You gave me I have given to them” (John 17:8). And he sharply distinguishes between himself and the message he carries:

“The person who does not love me does not obey my words. And the word you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me” (John 14:24).

John’s own first letter says that the apostles “heard,” “saw,” and “touched” “the word of life” (1 John 1:1) — that is, the life of the coming age as embodied in the human Jesus. The “word” there is not a second eternal Person, but the life-giving message now manifested in a human person. A "which" or "what was from the beginning," (1 John 1:1) not "he" or "who was from the beginning."

When we let the Hebrew Scriptures define “the word of God,” John 1 no longer supports a literal preexistence Christology. Instead, it harmonizes beautifully with the rest of the New Testament. The one God speaks, His word goes out, and in the fullness of time that word comes to expression in a uniquely procreated human Son in the womb, not from outside the womb (see Matthew 1:18–20; Luke 1:30–35). He now perfectly reveals the Father’s character and purpose.

Rather than reading later literal preexistence incarnation theories back into John 1, let us carefully read and understand John, who repeatedly echoes the unitary creed known as the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4).

John 5:44 “How can you possibly believe when you accept praise from one another, and you fail to seek the praise which comes from the only One who is God?” 

John 8:41–42 They said, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father – God.” Jesus said to them, “If God really was your Father, you would love me, because I came from God… I did not come on my own, but He sent me.” 

John 17:3 “This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus the Messiah whom you sent.” 

John 20:17 “I ascend to my Father and your Father and my God and your God.” 

1 John 5:19–20 “We know that we are from God and belong to God… And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding to know Him who is true. We are in Him who is true… This One is the true God and is the life of the age to come.”