The following Scripture passages are offered to aid beginning fellowships. The readings and commentary for this week are more in line with what has become usual; for the following will most likely be familiar observations. The concept behind this Sabbath’s selection is judging rightly.
Printable/viewable PDF format to display Greek or Hebrew characters
Weekly Readings
For the Sabbath of January 9, 2010
The person conducting the Sabbath service should open services with two or three hymns, or psalms, followed by an opening prayer acknowledging that two or three (or more) are gathered together in Christ Jesus’ name, and inviting the Lord to be with them.
___________________
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Rom 14:1–4)
___________________
Does Paul contradict himself? Paul seems to command disciples to judge other disciples when he writes, “For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor 5:3–5), and, “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside” (vv. 9–13).
According to Paul, a disciple cannot escape associating with the immoral of this world, whom God will judge, but disciples are not to associate with immoral disciples. They have the authority to purge immorality from the Church: within Christendom, the immoral are to be judged and delivered to the Adversary if they do not repent. So when Paul writes, “Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God” (Rom 14:10), Paul addresses a situation different from the situation he addresses at Corinth. Apparently those disciples he chides for judging one another are not immoral or swindlers. If they were, he would have seriously contradicted himself.
Therefore, when Paul writes,
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (1 Tim 1:8–11 emphasis added)
the law becomes the guideline by which the lawless are judged, the yardstick by which disobedient are measured. And if the law is used lawfully to judge the ungodly and sinners, with sin being the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), then those disciples who are not to be judged according to Paul instructions to the Romans are not ungodly or transgressors.
So when Paul writes, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God” (Rom 14:5–6), Paul does not negate Sabbath observance, for observing the Sabbath is not a matter of humanly esteeming one day as better than another but a matter of not being godless or a transgressor.
If Paul would have condoned esteeming the first day of the week (the first [day] after the Sabbath) as equal to the Sabbath, then Luke using the Sabbath as the week day reference more than two decades after Calvary (Acts 20:7) and John doing the same decades later (John 20:1) makes little sense when addressing Greek speaking converts, for Greeks had their own phrase for the first day of the week. Plus, for Paul to have condoned esteeming the first day equal to the Sabbath would have made Paul a transgressor, who, by his own testimony, he was not: before Festus, Paul testified, “‘Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense’” (Acts 25:8). Therefore, in using the law lawfully, Paul would not have condoned anything against the law, or against the temple.
The question of whether Paul negated Sabbath observance is of tremendous importance to Christians following the Second Passover; for the argument made by the visible Church is that Paul did, indeed, negate the Sabbath, but this is an argument that must be viewed through Peter writing,
Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them [Paul’s epistles] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. (2 Pet 3:14–17 emphasis added)
If the ignorant and unstable twist Paul’s epistles; if the twisting of Paul’s epistles is through the error of lawless people, then Peter really isn’t addressing those disciples who use Paul’s epistles to teach disciples to walk as Jesus walked, keeping the commandments as Jesus kept the commandments. Peter is really calling those who use Paul’s epistles to justify their own lawlessness ignorant and unstable.
If the ignorant will use Paul’s epistles to justify lawlessness, then what Paul writes about not judging disciples doesn’t pertain to the sexually immoral or to the swindler or to the Sabbath breaker, but rather pertains to the person who eats meat and vegetables versus the person who eats only vegetables, and to the person who keeps, say, Purim versus the person who does not.
If a person starts down the slippery slope of compromising with the law, saying that Paul allows disciples to do business on the Sabbath, to work for income on the Sabbath, then the person will also say that the person, the disciple, who “judges” the transgressor is without love, thereby making “love” for others into acceptance of sin and acceptance of the sinner who doesn’t transgress the law because of ignorance but because of unbelief. And this is what Paul addresses in his epistle to the Corinthians:
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. … Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Cor 5:1–2, 6–8 emphasis added)
Should disciples not mourn because within the Church are many disciples who transgress the Sabbath, introducing leavening (i.e., sin) into the congregations of Israel? Should not those who, out of love for others, boast of their tolerance (their appetite for sin) bitterly repent of the harm they do to congregations? Where is love for God in a disciple introducing sin into unleavened congregations? Should a disciple not put love for God ahead of love for fellow sinners? Does not the motivation for condoning or tolerating sin in others come from the disciple wanting to justify his or her own actions, which the disciple knows are wrong?
Instead of repenting, the disciple who most loudly preaches love to sinners while hating the sin seeks an enabler, and co-dependency.
Did Paul “hate” the man who was with his father’s wife? No, but Paul hated the tolerance of disciples at Corinth who, in boasting of their love for the sinner, permitted the transgression to corrupt the fellowship. And so should it be with endtime disciples who should not arrogantly tolerate transgression of the commandments as if keeping the Sabbath as opposed to breaking the Sabbath was an issue like that of whether to eat meat or to eat vegetables only.
A little leaven leavens the entire lump; a little tolerated sin transforms the entire congregation into willful sinners. And this truism was readily observed in the congregations of the former Worldwide Church of God in the 1990s.
In the same treatise that Paul writes, “Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother” (Rom 14:13), he also writes,
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things [that are worthy of death — see Rom 1:29–32]. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? (Rom 2:1–4)
If God’s kindness is meant to lead disciples to repentance, then the expectation of the household of God is that disciples repent from “all manner of unrighteousness” (Rom 1:29), which will include negation of the Sabbath; for it isn’t the righteous that negate coming before God on the Sabbath but the unrighteous.
If God’s kindness is meant to lead disciples to repentance, what happens if these disciples do not repent of the ways of this world and continue to live and act as Gentiles?
The person who judges must not be guilty of doing those things about which the person renders a judgment; hence, Paul who is not guilty of sexual immorality or of swindling a brother can righteously judge the matter of the man with his father’s wife. Likewise, disciples who do not practice sexual immorality, or greed, or are revilers, drunkards or swindlers can righteousness judge the Church is such matters, for they have repented of living as a son of disobedience and they have become faithful to God.
Paul does not contradict himself. Novices who have not yet grown large in grace and knowledge; who remain filled with unrighteousness, wickedness, greediness, evil, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; who are gossips, backbiters, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, boasters, inventors of bad things, disobedient to parents, senseless, faithless, unaffectionate, merciless—all such disciples are not ready to judge the Church. They must first righteously judge themselves, condemning in themselves all ungodliness, before they are able to in righteousness judge the Church. They will then act as guards at the gate to keep out of the congregation the leaven of the Adversary, not the disciple weak or strong in faith who eats only vegetable or who eats meat with his or her vegetables.
In twisting Paul’s epistles into instruments of their own destruction, ignorant and unstable disciples are unable to discern to whom Paul writes when he says,
For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:12–16 emphasis added)
Paul addresses Gentile converts at Rome when he writes that it is the one who does what the law requires that will be justified before God, not the one who either has the law but doesn’t keep it or the one who doesn’t have the law and doesn’t, by nature, keep it, meaning that regardless of whether a human being has the law or doesn’t have the law, the person will only be justified if the person does what the law requires.
Martin Luther taught contrary to what Paul wrote in his epistles. Actually, Luther, in trying to reform the Old Church, disclosed his lack of spiritual understanding in all matters.
If Gentiles who do not have the law—and by extension, Gentile converts who only have a token familiarity with the law—will be justified, according to Paul’s gospel, by whether they do what the law requires, how is it that the ignorant and unstable can get away with twisting Paul’s epistles to support lawlessness, especially in light of Paul adding,
For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. (Rom 2:25–29 emphasis added)
Paul would have the righteous judge the unrighteous; Paul would have the outwardly uncircumcised who keep the commandments judge the outwardly circumcised who do not keep the commandments, with this judgment not being of the person weak in faith, or of the person who esteems one day above another day, or of the person who drinks or doesn’t drink wine. But eating meat or only vegetables, drinking wine or not drinking are not the subject of the law. The commandments are about murder and adultery, lying and coveting. The commandments are not about eating pork and beans versus vegetarian beans. However, the person who covets commonality—who desires to be one with the world—transgresses the commandment against coveting, not a commandment about spurning those meats that distinguish the common person from the person who strives to be holy as God is holy.
Understand the logic for eating clean meats only: prior to the flood of Noah’s day, apparently humankind was an herbivore … the Lord told Adam, “‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but [for the tree of knowledge]’” (Gen 2:16–17), and the Lord told Noah, “‘And as I gave you the green plants [for food]’” (Gen 9:3). But because Cain murdered Abel, the Lord told Cain, “‘When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength’” (Gen 4:12) — exactly what the ground not yielding its strength means is open to speculation, with the usual answer being that the soil would not crop as abundantly as before for Cain, who was “a worker of the ground” (v. 2). However, the phrase can also mean that the crops harvested no longer had the food value as before, that proteins were incomplete and needed to be supplemented, as faith needs to be supplemented by virtue and faith plus virtue needs to be supplemented by knowledge and faith plus virtue plus knowledge needs to be supplemented by self-control, etc. (2 Pet 1:5–7).
The person today who chooses to eat only organically grown foodstuffs acknowledges that the soil has been depleted of certain trace nutrients by decades of over-farming: the movement to organic farming is an attempt to return health and vitality to the soil column in which human food plants are grown. Hybrid corn lacks a key nutrient, which causes some individuals concerned about their physical health to suggest that hybrid corn should only be used for ethanol production, and not used for either animal or human food.
If what the Lord told Cain about the ground not yielding its strength pertained to key nutrients being locked up in the soil and no longer available to plants grown on that soil, then the realm of religion is suddenly expanded in a direction previously unanticipated by most Sabbatarian disciples. The secular ideology that advocates eating only organically grown produce would fall under the rubric of earth worship, with this rubric’s most visible attribute being its flawed argument for human-produced global warming.
Understand, if the Lord could by speaking cause the soil to not yield its strength for Cain, and if Jesus by speaking could cause five barley loaves and two fish to produce enough food to feed five thousand, with twelve baskets of bread fragments taken up, then disciples (because of the indwelling of Christ) by speaking when blessing food supplies whatever is lacking in the food. The disciple need not eat organically grown foods to obtain trace nutrients and avoid agricultural toxins. The disciple need only believe the words spoken over the food when it is blessed. For the disciple in speaking in faith exercises authority over even the elements of the earth; it is the disciple who is weak in faith that eats only organically grown foodstuffs. And disciples are not to judge one another because one eats organically and one eats whatever is available.
But eating hybrid corn or feedlot beef is still not eating meats that are common to all of humanity—
If the ground not yielding its strength pertains to nutritional value, then there is a physical reason why the Lord told Noah, post flood, “‘The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything’” (Gen 9:2–3). The land that was soiled by righteous Abel’s blood was now doubly soiled by all air-breathing creatures being baptized into death so that the land could not grow herbs that would, by themselves, sustain human life.
Anthropologically, we see that as Mesoamerican cultures and the Cahokia culture in particular exhausted local meat supplies, these peoples suffered from malnutrition while having full bellies. It wasn’t that these Native peoples lacked adequate agricultural commodities; they lacked adequate food value in what was being eaten, primarily maize. These peoples lacked understanding why health was maintained by certain food combinations, such as corn and beans eaten together. Thus, these peoples needed to supplement their dietary intake with animal protein.
Therefore, post-Flood, all animal life, sans the blood, became food for the sons of Noah; animal flesh became “common” food for the people, with the people themselves having a common ancestry and common culture prior to the Tower of Babel confusion of languages.
Christendom has been quick to point to what the Lord told Noah about all beasts being food for Noah and his descendants: Christians traditionally eat that which is common to all peoples, thereby making no distinction between themselves and the nations. The usual justification for eating what is common comes from what Paul wrote in his treatise to the Romans: “One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables” (14:2) and “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean” (v. 14) and “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble” (vv. 20–21).
A few extra words have been added to the last citation to “help clarify” what Paul wrote: if the passage were more literally translated, it would have Paul saying that all things indeed clean, but evil to the man stumbling by eating. If a man can stumble by eating, or can cause another to stumble by eating flesh—and in the context of the law used lawfully and the uncircumcised person who keeps the law being justified by his faith (except by faith, the uncircumcised wouldn’t keep the law)—then the eating that causes a man to stumble is not eating what would cause the man to be common rather than holy as God is. Eating what would cause a man to be common would not cause the disciple strong in faith to stumble; for the disciple who is strong in faith would simply not eat that which is common, but would by his faith eat only what would cause the man to be holy as God is holy.
That which is common is not holy. The person who is common is not holy. The inner new self that has come from heaven through the person receiving a second breath of life is holy … this inner new self doesn’t eat meat or vegetables, but ideas and knowledge. But when this inner new self dwells in a tent of flesh it is dependent upon continued cellular oxidation of simple carbohydrates; thus, this tent of flesh will eat meat and vegetables as a necessary condition for survival of the tent.
If the tent of flesh rules over the inner new self, this tent will eat whatever it wants, whenever it wants: human dieting is about the inner self (old or new) ruling over the tent of flesh in some manner. This rule can take the form of restricting caloric intake, or the form of restricting foods eaten. When the Lord delivered to ancient Israel laws concerning which foods were to be eaten, the Lord added the caveat that Israel would eat only these cleans meats so that Israel would be holy as the Lord was holy. Therefore, the old self of the Israelite was to rule over the tent of flesh in which this old self dwelt by eating only clean meats, thereby causing Israel to separate itself from the commonality of humankind even though the male tents of flesh were outwardly circumcised.
Circumcision was one form of separation, but for most Israelites, it was an involuntary form, having been done to the infant male on the eighth day. Females were excluded, for so-called female circumcision is not of God. Therefore, what a person eats throughout his or her lifetime becomes a daily form of separation that becomes a habit representing being holy. An Israelite did not and does not eat common or unclean meats so that the Israelite is holy as God is holy.
Although health reasons have been cited for not eating unclean meats—and these reasons seem valid, but they are not why Israel was commanded not to eat, for these health reasons could be addressed by a prayer of faith—the reason Israel did not eat pertained to godly separation from the commonality of human kind so that the nation would be holy as God is holy.
Should the Christian Church be holy as God is holy? The Christian Church is not (in this era) outwardly separated from the world by physical circumcision, but inwardly separated by circumcision of the heart following receiving a second breath of life, a breath of life that transforms the dead inner self into a living new self that is a son of God. Thus, Christians should be separated from the commonality of humankind by what comes out of their mouths and by how they live their lives, how they conduct their business affairs, how they act in public, even in how they dress the tents of flesh in which they dwell. No Christian should wear immodest apparel. No Christian should be marked by vain displays of plaited hair or jewelry. Clothes do not make the Christian; if anything, clothes unmake the Christian. Therefore, the tent of flesh in which the inner new self dwells needs to be covered for reasons of protection and modesty, but not for reasons of attracting the opposite sex. One sex will find the other sex without signboards or flashing neon lighting.
If Christians are to dress the tents of flesh in which the inner new selves dwell in modest apparel as an outward display of inner holiness, then what disciples eat to sustain the life of these tents remains as important for Christians as it was for physically circumcised Israel … if the inner new self, as a son of God, is to rule over the tent in which this son of God dwells, then this inner new self will strive to make the tent holy as God is holy. Although this inner new self will not be defiled by what goes into the mouth but by what comes out from the mouth, for what comes out of the mouth are the thoughts of the mind and desires of the heart, this inner new self will not covet commonality, so this inner new self will have the tent of flesh eat only foods that are not common.
Paul, in Romans chapter fourteen, does not address weakness of faith and eating as clearly as he does in First Corinthians:
Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.
Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (1 cor 8:1–3 emphasis added)
The casinos in Las Vegas used to be known for their very inexpensive food buffets: a person could eat a full course meal for what a drive-through hamburger cost. And apparently pagan temples in Hellenic Asia Minor had similar buffets for similar reasons (to attract customers). So a situation existed in the 1st-Century that does not today, especially since the casinos cut back on their almost-free meals. Apparently in the 1st-Century a Christian could enter a pagan temple, eat his or her fill, then leave. So the situation Paul addresses isn’t one of a disciple eating swine’s flesh, but of a disciple strong in faith taking advantage of the free beef offered to the public in pagan temples; for it was the thigh bones of oxen that were offered by Greeks to Zeus and to Poseidon. Being practical heathens, these Greeks didn’t waste the meat of sacrificed bullocks, but held feasts open to whomever was passing by.
The disciple strong in faith, knowing that Zeus was nothing and that Athena springing from the forehead of Zeus was simply another bad idea, would enter the temple and eat the sacrificed meat, whereas the disciple weak in faith might well believe that Zeus really existed … a similar case exists among endtime disciples who, being weak in faith, fear that the linguistic icon “Jesus” is a corruption of “Zeus” or “son of Zeus” as if Zeus were a real god and a real threat to Christendom, when in reality Zeus is a simple letter combination to which ancient Greeks assigned deity in a similar manner as “g-o-d” is a letter combination to which English speakers assign deity. Zeus is of so little importance to the Christian strong in faith—to the Christian who knows that the Hebrew linguistic icon for god, “el,” is adequately translated into the Greek icon for god, “theos—” but that the plural Hebrew icon Elohim cannot be properly translated into Greek as Theos or into English as God, for both the plurality of the icon [its mem ending] and the imbedded aspiration [breath] are missing when Elohim is translated as Theos or as God—that the Christian strong in faith will not be troubled by Jesus addressing the Father as El (Matt 27:46), and will use the English icon “God” for the Father, and will use the icon “Jesus” for the Son, for Zeus is less than nothing.
Now, if there is weakness of faith the inner new self will not come near eating meat offered to idols; so the subject of what Paul wrote in Romans 14 isn’t eating clean versus unclean meats, but eating meat and vegetables versus vegetables only, when the meat is from an unknown source and possibly from a bullock sacrificed to an idol.
Not all flesh is truly acceptable food for the disciple strong in faith. If the person will be holy as God is holy, then the person will mentally restrict the things the disciple mentally ingests to those things that edify the disciple. Likewise, the disciple will physically restrict those things the disciple physically ingests to what causes the disciple to be holy as God is holy, a subject about which Peter says,
Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” (1 Pet 1:13–16)
Where does Scripture say, You shall be holy, for I am holy?
Every swarming thing that swarms on the ground is detestable; it shall not be eaten. Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, any swarming thing that swarms on the ground, you shall not eat, for they are detestable. You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, and you shall not defile yourselves with them, and become unclean through them. For I am the Lord your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. You shall not defile yourselves with any swarming thing that crawls on the ground. For I am the Lord who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. /This is the law about beast and bird and every living creature that moves through the waters and every creature that swarms on the ground, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean and between the living creature that may be eaten and the living creature that may not be eaten. (Lev 11:41–47 emphasis added)
The issue is, in this reading, judgment of disciples; therefore, if the person unsure of him or herself (the person weak in faith) who will only eat vegetables, the pre-Flood condition of humankind, has no standing before the Church to judge the person who, strong in faith, will eat whatever meat is offered in the shambles, assuming the meat is not from a common creature. But the person weak or strong in the faith who has repented of his or her former ways does have standing to judge the sexually immoral person—and must judge the sexually immoral disciple or the disciple who swindles his or her brother in Christ.
Judgment is a matter of discernment: if a disciple cannot recognize sin when it appears in a congregation, then the disciple will not be able to recognize sin in the person’s own life. This person is not fit to judge anyone in the congregation, including him or herself. This person is especially unfit to judge angels. Thus, this person needs to return to the writings of Moses, read them, and believe them, so that the person can hear the voice of Jesus. Until the person believes the writings of Moses and is able to apply Moses to his or her own life, then this person absolutely cannot hear the voice of Jesus … if this person hears a voice, it will not be the voice of Jesus, but of a demon claiming to be the Christ.
Whereas the 1st-Century disciple strong in faith would eat the flesh of an animal that might or might not have been offered to idols, the disciple weak in faith will fear “the things polluted by idols” (Acts 15:20) and will spurn eating all meats just in case the flesh of the animal has come from an idolatrous sacrifice. How is the disciple to know? There are no FDA meat inspectors? If the meat was not killed by a kosher butcher—there were no kosher meat markets in most 1st-Century cities of Asia Minor; the Jew did his own killing—then what assurance could be given that the flesh offered for sale did not come from an ox sacrificed to Zeus? Was the Christian to believe the butcher, who was preparing rump roasts known to have come from a bullock whose thigh bones were offered to Apollo?
Noah and his sons ate flesh after the land dried and air-breathing creatures had been baptized into death, with this baptism manifested in the animal kingdom by humankind becoming the top predator … humankind was given the prerogative of killing any beast for food post-Flood, for all were consigned to death. Harm filled this world. The fear of man was placed in animals because man would kill any of them that he could. He would ambush them, stalk them, drive them over cliffs—how he killed his prey was less important than the effectiveness of the means used. Hunting was the usual means of obtaining meat, hides, bones, antlers, those things needed for a non-metal culture to function. And as hunting technology developed, the distance at which a life could be taken increased. Today, with the advances made in rifle accuracy, a hunter will snuff out the life of an animal at or near a thousand yards [a kilometer] away. Military snipers can and have killed enemy combatants at a mile and a quarter (2,200–2,400 yards), with the projectile taking more than four seconds to reach the target.
But when the world is baptized into life—when the spirit of God is poured out on all flesh (Joel 2:28)—the prophet Isaiah records, “They shall not hurt or destroy / in all my holy mountain; / for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord / as the waters cover the sea” (11:9) … how can human beings eat the flesh of animals when there shall be no hurt in the Lord’s holy mountain? Is it only on His holy mountain where there shall be no hurt?
The prophet Ezekiel records,
The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, when the house of Israel lived in their own land, they defiled it by their ways and their deeds. Their ways before me were like the uncleanness of a woman in her menstrual impurity. So I poured out my wrath upon them for the blood that they had shed in the land, for the idols with which they had defiled it. I scattered them among the nations, and they were dispersed through the countries. In accordance with their ways and their deeds I judged them. But when they came to the nations, wherever they came, they profaned my holy name, in that people said of them, ‘These are the people of the Lord, and yet they had to go out of his land.’ But I had concern for my holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they came.
“Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes. I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord God; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel. (Ezek 36:16–32 emphasis added)
When the Lord summons the grain and makes the grain abundant and fruit trees bear fruit, then Israel (a nation that will be circumcised of heart) will suffer no famine; will not be hungry. Nothing is said about increasing flocks, except for the following: “‘Thus says the Lord God: This also I will let the house of Israel ask me to do for them: to increase their people like a flock. Like the flock for sacrifices, like the flock at Jerusalem during her appointed feasts, so shall the waste cities be filled with flocks of people. Then they will know that I am the Lord’” (Ezek 36:37–38).
In moving what Paul writes about not judging the disciple strong or weak in faith so that the Church is not destroyed in this endtime era and specifically to the Sacred Names Heresy, the person weak in faith should be borne by the disciple strong in faith (Rom 15:1) for as long as possible. But the person weak in faith does not have the latitude of speaking heresy within the assemblies of Israel. If the disciple weak in faith is fearful that by saying the word “Jesus” the disciple has called the Son of God the son of Zeus, then let the disciple use whatever word that this person chooses to use for Christ Jesus. However, this disciple, because he or she is weak in faith, does not have the right or authority to teach others to be similarly weak in faith. Rather, this person is to keep silent and learn.
Christians are to judge righteously, beginning with themselves then extending that righteous judging to the congregation. They are to use the law lawfully to purge unrighteousness from the assembly of the Lord, and they are to suffer the disciple weak in faith without placing a stumbling block before the disciple, a situation made difficult by those who are weak in faith succumbing to the Sacred Names Heresy, which will have the weak judging the strong and polluting infant sons of God. If the person who is weak cannot keep quiet in services, then this person must be put out.
Disciples gather together on the Sabbaths of God to learn from those disciples who are mature in the faith. If a disciple is not there to learn, then the disciple is in the wrong place on the Sabbath.
The problem inherent with the Sacred Names Heresy is that this heresy has the Father being the creator of all that has been made; this heresy has the Father being the God of the Old Testament; therefore, this heresy becomes a denial of Christ and of His divinity prior to when the Logos entered His creation as His only Son. And the person who denies Christ will be denied by Christ before the Father; hence, the Father cuts the person from the Root of Righteous and the person cannot be recovered. By the person’s weakness of faith, the person condemned the inner son of God to the lake of fire.
If the disciple weak in faith is not borne by those disciples strong in faith, then those who are strong are without love. But no disciple can carry another into the kingdom: the one who is weak must grow strong although that growth is without a time limit. Thus, the danger of the Sacred Names Heresy isn’t to the disciple who is strong, but is the continuing downward pull that comes from weakness … the disciple who believes that Zeus is real will forever remain fearful of using any name for God that might have a connection to Zeus, but the disciple who knows that Zeus was nothing but a means by which intelligent Greeks could discuss the hypothetical, such as what happens in marriages when adultery occurs; that no educated Greek believed in the pantheon by the 5th-Century BCE if any ever believed; that the antics of the pantheon made for good theater as CSI makes for good television—this disciple will not be afraid of Zeus, of discussing Zeus and the pantheon, of reading the poetry of Homer, or of saying the word “Jesus.”
The danger of the Sacred Names Heresy is its elevation of weakness of faith to iconic status; to where weakness of faith is celebrated as wisdom, thereby trapping the weak in a lie that becomes the undoing of the weak. It is not the person who is strong in faith who will bite into the poisoned Sacred Names Heresy, but the disciple who is weak but declares him or herself strong.
*
The person conducting the Sabbath service should close services with two hymns, or psalms, followed by a prayer asking God’s dismissal.
* * * * *
"Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright ©2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved."