What Romans 14 Really Means

Romans 14 is often used to justify willfully transgressing God's law concerning food (eating that which God says is not food), the Sabbath (by changing it to Sunday), and the Appointed Times (by replacing them with man-made holidays such as Christmas and Easter).  Romans 14 starts by saying, "Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not to have quarrels over opinions." [Romans 14:1; NASB]  Right away, we can see that Paul is writing about matters of opinion.  That is, about matters that Scripture does not address.  So whatever Paul says we are not to judge others for, we must interpret it in light of the fact that neither Torah, nor Yeshua (Jesus) has addressed it.  Of course, I wouldn't be writing a whole blog post on this if people were actually applying Romans 14 correctly.  And it turns out that, in typical fashion, the vast majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" use this chapter to claim that God's commandments are a matter of opinion.  And this time, they (usually) openly admit that they are saying that these commandments merely matters of opinion.

To further drive the point home, let's take a look at the next verse:  "One person has faith that he may eat all things, but the one who is weak eats only vegetables." [Romans 14:2; NASB]  The issue here is whether one should restrict oneself to eating only vegetables.  And in typical fashion, Paul doesn't give the full cultural context surrounding what it says.  It assumes that the reader knows the cultural context.  So what is the cultural context?  Simple:  In the Greek and Roman markets, some of the meats were sacrificed to idols, and many in the faith did not want to risk accidentally eating meats sacrificed to idols.  What I find interesting is how Paul is actually teaching people to do the opposite of what Daniel and his companions did concerning meats sacrificed to idols [Daniel 1:8:13].  There, Daniel and his companions are praised for refusing to eat meat that might have been sacrificed to idols.  But Paul says this is "weak in faith".  Torah does not prohibit one from eating meats that might have been sacrificed to idols, by the way.  But the fact that God rewarded Daniel and his companions in Daniel 1:8-16 should tell us how much God values going above and beyond what he requires.

Anyways, Romans 14:2 is twisted to justify ignoring God's dietary laws found in Leviticus 11.  Let's assume for a moment that Romans 14:2 is permission to eat pork in spite of God's very clear command not to.  What would that actually imply concerning Paul?  Well, Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 prohibits us from adding to or subtracting from God's commandments.  If the majority interpretation of Romans 14 is correct, then Paul is a false teacher for subtracting from God's commandments.  And they wonder why so many people are convinced that Paul is a false teacher.  Remember, Torah interprets the "New Testament", not the other way around.  Fortunately, since the very first verse of Romans 14 explicitly states that these concern only matters of opinion, Paul is not guilty of false teachings.

The next verse states:  "The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him." [Romans 14:3; NASB]  In other words, the ones who don't concern themselves with the fact that the market meet may have been sacrificed to idols, and the ones who do concern themselves with it, are to get along with each other.  Since the context is in matters of opinion, this applies to all matters not addressed by God's law.  And never applies to matters in which God's law explicitly permits, requires, or prohibits something.  The next verse likens judging others on matters of opinion to judging another person's servant.  In this case, it's God's servant you are judging, whom Paul says will stand, not fail, for God is able to make them stand.

Continuing onto the next verse (Romans 14:5), we read:  "One person values one day over another, another values every day the same. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. [NASB]".  Keeping in mind that Paul cannot subtract from God's law without becoming a false teacher, and that the passage concerns matters of opinion, these days that are or are not being valued over another are not the Sabbath or God's appointed times in Leviticus 23.  So what can they refer to?  How about what days we are to fast on?  That's right, Paul is addressing quarreling over which days are to be set aside for fasting.  By the way, in Luke 18:9-14, Jesus tells a story about two men praying.  One of which, a Pharisee, boasts about his self-righteousness.  And among the boasts is about the fact that he fasts twice a week.  Who told them to fast twice a week?  Certainly not God.  But since the Pharisees make such a big deal about fasting so often, it is not at all a stretch to think that people may have set aside specific days of the week to fast on, while others did not.  It's also not a stretch to conclude that people would quarrel about which days (if any) that one should fast on.  Romans 14:5 is clearly a condemnation of such quarrels.  But it cannot be a condemnation against condemning holidays that God did not appoint to serve God with.  The Israelites learned the hard way what God thinks of human beings appointing holidays on his behalf.  Twice!  By the way, Romans 14:6 proves that Paul is explicitly addressing fast days, as he outright states that the one who eats does so for the Lord, and the one who fasts does so for the Lord.

Romans 14:7-13 drives home the point that we will all give an account to God of ourselves and concludes that, "Therefore let’s not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this: not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s or sister’s way." [Romans 14:13; NASB]  But far be it for those who want to excuse sin to not take this prime opportunity to twist Scripture to do exactly that.  The plain meaning of this text, given the context, is to not judge others for having opinions that differ from yours, not to cause others to sin, not to cause distress to those who have differing opinions from you, and to not compel someone who go against their own conscience when their conscience is not contrary to God's law.  But instead of following Paul's instructions, they weaponize it.

So in what ways do they weaponize Romans 14:13?  First, we need to understand that they weaponize Romans 14:2 and claim that those who obey God's commands to abstain from pork are "weak in faith" while those who are unfaithful to God by willfully disobeying him are "strong in faith".  That alone tells you everything you need to know about where their heart is.  Obedience is labeled as "weak" while rebellion (which is idolatry) is labeled as "strong".  So for Romans 14:13, when is comes to stuff like enforcing unbiblical dress codes on everyone, they will say (for those instances) that men are weak, and that women who don't cover themselves are causing men to stumble.  In other words, they play the weak ones as a way to compel everyone to conform to their human standards.  And it's not just in areas such as "modesty", though that is the most common area that Romans 14:13 is weaponized.

So, when it's convenient for themselves, they condemn being "weak in faith" (while ironically claiming that they aren't condemning "weakness of faith").  And when it's convenient for themselves, they demand that we always conform to those who are "weak in faith" so that we "do not cause them to stumble".  But verses 2 and 13 aren't the only verses in Romans 14 that are weaponized.  We'll get to those in a moment.

In verse 14, the NASB says, "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to the one who thinks something is unclean, to that person it is unclean."  If you read the footnotes, you'll see that the word translated as "unclean" literally means "common".  So the NASB translators admit that they used the wrong word for this passage.  What's the difference?  "Unclean" is the word used by God to declare something as unfit for human consumption.  "Common" is the word used in that day by man to declare something as unfit for human consumption.  I do find it interesting that even then, the Pharisees distinguished between God's rules and their rules by using the word "common" for their own rules.  Otherwise, verse 14 would say something like "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing that God has not declared unclean is unclean in itself; but to the one who thinks something is unclean, to that person it is unclean."  If even the Pharisees didn't dare to conflate their own rules about what to eat or not eat with God's commandments about what to eat and not eat, then why have our translators and teachers done this by changing the very thing they say is literally the "word of God"?

By the way, verse 14 is used to justify eating things that God says we are not to eat, even though this would be a clear violation of the command to not subtract from God's commandments.  Here's how the NASB should have rendered this verse:

"I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is common in itself; but to the one who thinks something is common, to that person it is common."

And we can see from using the correct translation that Paul is not at all saying that God's dietary regulations have been abolished.  Rather, he is saying that we do not have to comply with human rules.

In verses 15 and 16, Paul says "[15] Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. [16] Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil" [NKJV].  These seem like contradictory instructions at first, to not destroy a fellow believer with one's choice of food and to not let that which is good be spoken of as evil.  But there is a hint at the beginning of verse 15:  "Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food..."  Perhaps this is because of what is being served to them.  We need to also keep in mind what was said at the beginning of the chapter:  "The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him" (Romans 14:3; NASB).  It is likely that Paul is instructing us to not compel others to go against their own conscience in matters of opinion.  The specific matters of opinion being addressed here are (a) which days of the week are fast days, and (b) whether one is allowed to eat meat that could have been sacrificed to idols, but one does not know for sure have been sacrificed to idols.

Once again, none of these passages apply to any matter that God explicitly commanded us to do or not to do.  If you do something that God's law forbids, then you sin.  If you do not do something that God's law requires, you also sin.  But if you do something that God's law does not forbid, or do not do something that God's law does not require, then you do not sin.  If two people have opposite opinions on something that God's law neither forbids or requires, then that is when Romans 14 applies.  It is in these cases where Paul is saying that neither person is to judge the other.  And if we take a look at Deuteronomy 4:2 or 12:32, we can see quite clearly that the real sin is adding to and subtracting from God's commandments.  If you require something that God's law does not require, or forbid something that God's law does not forbid, and call that requirement a command of God, then you sin.  Likewise, if you permit that which God's law forbids or make optional that which God's law requires, then you also sin.

Although we aren't quite done with Romans 14, if I were to summarize it, it would be this:  Romans 14 is correcting those who judge others for doing that which is contrary to their own opinion.  We can certainly discuss our opinions and why we have them.  But we should not be elevating them to the same level as God's commandments.  Instead, we should do our best to get along in spite of our differences in opinion.

By the way, Romans 14:17-19 tells us why we should do all of this:  "[17] for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. [18] For the one who serves Christ in this way is acceptable to God and approved by other people. [19] So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another" [NASB].  Our goal is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, not nit-picking on matters of opinion.  While it is clear here that it is wrong to go out of your way to offend those who's opinions differ from your own, it is also clear that it is wrong to compel others to conform to your opinion so that you are never offended.

Romans 14:20 says "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense."  The word translated as "offense" is also translated as "stumbling".  Using what we've learned so far in this chapter, "stumbling" here refers to going against your own conscience, even if what you are doing is permissible according to Torah.  And the next two verses reiterate that point, closing with, "[22] ... Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. [23] But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin." in verse 22-23.

If you approve of something that Torah is silent on, then you shall have no doubts about doing what you approve of.  If you do it with doubt, then you sin.  Not because you have transgressed Torah, but because you have done something contrary to your conscience.  And your conscience serves to keep you from transgressing God's commandments, and to keep you on the path of righteousness.

Some may try to claim that "whatever is not from faith is sin" means that we can do things contrary to Torah, so long as it's done "from faith".  But this line of reasoning quickly falls apart at the slightest bit of scrutiny.  For example, can we lie as long as it's "from faith"?  Can we steal as long as it's "from faith"?  Can we commit adultery as long as it's "from faith"?  If you answer "no" to any of these questions, then you answer "no" to everything that is contrary to Torah.  In fact, the definition of sin is the transgression of Torah (1 John 3:4).

If someone decides they should fast once or twice a week, they do it to the Lord.  And if someone never fasts, they do it to the Lord.  If someone decides to eat only vegetables, they do it to the Lord.  If someone decides to eat meat, they do it to the Lord.  Likewise, the woman who's standards of "dressing modesty" requires them to cover all of their legs, arms, and torso does so to the Lord.  And the woman who's standards of "dressing modestly" permits them leave their legs and arms uncovered, and show cleavage, does so to the Lord.  The one who uses technology on the Sabbath does so to the Lord, as does the one who abstains from using technology on the Sabbath.  The one who plays games on the Sabbath does so to the Lord, as does the one who abstains from playing games on the Sabbath.  And the same rule applies to all matters in which Torah is silent.

The one who is quick to judge and is easily offended should learn to get along and not be easily offended.  The one who seeks to offend others should stop seeking to offend others and learn to accommodate others where the accommodation asked for is reasonable.  And accommodation shall not be demanded outside of any setting that you are not in charge of.  That includes pressuring those who are in charge to demand accommodation.

Theistic Evolutionists vs Deuteronomy 13

I have used the phrase "Deuteronomy 13 Test" 9 times in previous posts so far, and have made at least one reference to 22 times in one way or another.  It is the number one most important test for detecting false teachers.  If you fail this test, then nothing else matters!  Why?  The premise of the Deuteronomy 13 Test is quite simple:  Obedience to Torah (aka: God's Law, aka: the Law of Moses) is the definition of loving and serving God and listening to his voice, while the rejection of his Law is the definition of idolatry (aka: following other gods).  Here, read Deuteronomy 13 for yourself!

Did you also catch that Deuteronomy 13 is as much God testing his people as it is his people testing the teachers/prophets?  If not, go read it again!  As those who love God and keep his commandments (the one who does not keep his commandments by definition does not love God), we are tested with false teachers and false prophets to see if we love God with all of our hearts.  If we listen to the false teacher or prophet, then we have failed the test.  And here are the most commonly-known ways for a false teacher or prophet to fail this test.

1. Openly lead people to serve other gods.
2. Teach people to reject keeping God's Law.

There are a couple of other ways that people are led to follow other gods that actually fall under the category of failing the Deuteronomy 13 test.  (Remember, Deuteronomy 18 is about when a prophet gets things wrong while speaking in the name of Yahweh, or prophecies in the name of another god.  For the Deuteronomy 13 Test, the prophet does not have to speak in the name of another god.)  One of which is to speak in the name of another god while simultaneously saying that it's Yahweh, but by a different name.  Either by butchering God's name, or by using the actual name of a false god as if it's one of God's names.  New-Agers are good at failing it that way, but that's a topic for another post.

The other way to fail the Deuteronomy 13 Test that's overlooked is to discredit God's Law by discrediting Genesis.  How does this fail the Deuteronomy 13 Test?  By causing people to not trust Genesis, you also cause them to not trust the rest of Torah (and also the rest of the Bible)?  And this is exactly what theistic evolutionists do.  And most probably know exactly what they are doing (in terms of getting people to not trust the Bible as a whole).  Remember:  Satan's goal is to keep people away from God and keep them from receiving the promise of eternal life (and to wipe-out humanity, which he cannot do directly, so he has fools in high places knowingly try to do that for him).  Part of keeping people away from God is to keep them from following God's Law.  The other part is by keeping people away from Jesus, which theistic evolution does quite nicely.  Keeping people from receiving God's promise of eternal life is accomplished by keeping people from having a Biblical faith in Jesus, which includes believing that Jesus, and the one who sent him are trustworthy, and which lease to obedience to the one whom they believe in.

Would it surprise you if I said that the "New Testament" is worthless if Genesis is not the historical account it claims to be or is not in any way an accurate historical account?  Well, the "New Testament" is indeed worthless if Genesis is not the historical account that it claims to be.  In fact, the "New Testament" is worthless unless Genesis is (a) the historical account it claims to be, and (b) is an accurate account of the beginnings of Creation.

Guess what:  The "New Testament" is also worthless if the rest of Torah is not to be trusted.  Most conservative denominations teach distrust of God's Law through the typical "Jesus fulfilled the law so we don't have to" type of claims, but theistic evolutionists do this by deceiving people into not trusting Genesis.  If we cannot trust Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy as containing the eternal commands of God, then all of the moral teachings in the "New Testament" completely collapse, for these teachings come directly from the Law of God.  And the Law of God (which includes Genesis) is completely dependent on Genesis being the truthful account of the origins of Creation.  By the way, Torah alone is the sole authority on right and wrong.  Every instruction in the Bible that comes after Torah ultimately either (a) comes from God's Law or (b) provides the correct interpretation of Torah.

To close, here's how you can identify the theistic evolutionists who know exactly what they are doing:  Anyone who says "we should reinterpret Scripture to fit the science", then goes about doing exactly that knows exactly what they are doing.  But do not assume that those who do not say that are ignorant of the issue at hand.  More than likely, they too know what they are doing.

Making Claims on the Bible's Behalf

If there's one thing that I've noticed while testing everything, it's the fact that the Church makes claims about what the Bible says about itself that, quite frankly, the Bible never makes!  These claims are made by the Church on behalf of the Bible, and if you dare to question whether the Bible makes these claims (or even claim that the Bible does not make them), then you are "undermining the authority of the word of God" (or something along those lines).  Responses like these are how the Church protects their doctrine from Biblical scrutiny.  Here are two of the claims that the Church makes about the Bible on the Bible's behalf:

1. The Bible claims to be the word of God.
2. The Bible claims to be inerrant.

Let's first take a look at the evidence that the Church provides to prove these claims about the Bible.  For the assertion that the Bible claims to be the word of God, some quote this passage:

For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. [1 Thessalonians 2:13; NKJV]

And that is how we get 100% proof that the Bible claims to be the word of God!  Never-mind the fact that Paul was referring to what he spoke to the Thessalonians when he was physically with them!  So what was Paul referring to?  Probably the Law of God and the writings of the prophets in order to prove that Yeshua is the Messiah, and also the Gospel of Yeshua the Messiah.

After reviewing all of the instances in the New Testament where the phrase "word of God" appears (71 times according to Bible Gateway), I have to conclude that every single one of those appearances is referring to the "Old Testament" or specific portions of the "Old Testament", such as the Law of God and the writings of the Prophets.  There is no evidence that the phrase "word of God" is used to refer to any of the "New Testament" writings.  And in fact, if you look at the book of Revelations, you will find that the "word of God" is actually distinguished from the "testimony of Jesus [the] Christ" (that is, the Gospel message of Jesus the Messiah).

On a side note:  While none of the "New Testament" writings claim to be the word of God, Yeshua did claim to be God and he proved his claims to be true.  This makes all of Yeshua's teachings the word of God by definition, even though the writers of the Gospels never claimed that their writings were the word of God.

In the so-called "Old Testament", we see the phrase "word of Yahweh" many, many times.  Each time, it refers specifically to something that God has spoken through his prophets, or sometimes the law of God.  And in the case of the writings of the prophets, the phrase "word of Yahweh" is used many times specifically to claim that what is being said (or is about to be said) is indeed the word of God.  But the phrase "word of God" in the "Old Testament" usually just refers to the Law of God.

Does the fact that these prophetic writings claim to be the word of God mean that the whole Bible is claiming to be the word of God?  Not at all.

By the way, some within the KJV only cult will use Proverbs 30:5 to prove that the KJV is the word of God.  The line of logic behind that claim is this:  "The KJV says every word of God is pure, therefore the KJV (and only the KJV) is the word of God."  With that line of logic, you might as well use every single appearance of the phrase "word of God" as proof that the Bible itself is claiming to be the word of God.

Another passage often used as proof that the Bible itself claims to be the word of God is this verse:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness [2 Timothy 3:16; NKJV]

What's the line of logic here?  The line of logic is that since the Bible is also called Scripture, this verse is the Bible itself claiming to be the word of God.  By the way, the word (singular) translated as "given by inspiration of God", literally means "God-breathed".  This fact is used to claim that God dictated every word that is in the Bible and that the Bible is therefore claiming to be inerrant.  But that's not what this passage is saying!  By the way, since we're on the topic of taking the Greek text literally, the word translated as "scripture" is the Greek word "graphe", which literally means "writing" or "document".  Have fun trying to explain that one away!

Actually, the "New Testament" outright tells us what it is referring to when it uses "graphe":

44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures [graphe]. [Luke 24:44-45; NKJV]

The "Scriptures" refer to the law of Yahweh, the writings of his prophets, and the Psalms.  Usually, when the word "graphe" ("writing") is used, it's referring either to the law of Yahweh or the writings of the prophets, but not the Psalms.  This passage is one of only a few exceptions to this rule.  In other words, the "New Testament" used the generic word for "writing" to refer only to the writings which were widely regarded as having a great deal of authority.  And we can see this usage clearly in 2 Peter 3:16.

Now, about the "God-breathed" part:  It does not necessarily mean that Yahweh dictated every word that's in the writings that Paul is referring to.  In fact, it is highly unlikely that this is the case at all.  While the parts that claim to be quoting Yahweh directly are this way (and probably a significant portion that is not claiming to be quoting Yahweh directly), there is no reason why this cannot simply refer to Yahweh guiding the process, or motivating those who seek truth to write what they have written.  Of course, there are places where Yahweh dictated what these documents should say.  And nothing that comes directly from the mouth of Yahweh is ever in error.  But the Bible never claims to be without error.

Now, is the Bible even capable of making claims about itself?  No.  Why?  Because the Bible is a book that was compiled from 66 individual books.  It has no content of its own and is therefore not able to make any claims about itself.  Instead, what we see is some of the books in the Bible claim to be the word of God.  And some claim that other books (which are also in the Bible) are the word of God.  But the Bible itself makes no claims about itself whatsoever.  In fact, even when all of the 66 documents which are now contained within the Bible were completed, the Bible still didn't exist until these documents were compiled into a single book.  Ironically, this compilation was done by the Catholic Church, which is pretty much the only work of the Catholic Church that has any instructional value on how to carry-out the will of Yahweh, as Yeshua warned.  Though the 66 documents that are in the Bible were widely accepted as having a high level of authority long before that happened.

The Indefensibility of the King James Only Doctrine

You will come across many untestable doctrines among Christians.  One of the most prominent of which is the one that claims that only the King James Version of the Bible is the written word of God, and is perfect, while all other translations are corrupt.  But all of the arguments used to support this doctrine assume that the KJV is perfect.  Remember this as we explore some common arguments used to support King James Onlyism:  All arguments start with the assumption that the KJV is perfect, rather than proving that the KJV is perfect.

Manuscript Conflicts

Some within the KJV only crowed will assert that the Textus Receptus, which is the Greek manuscript used to make the KJV translation, is perfect while the Alexandrian texts are corrupt.  This hides the assumption that the KJV is perfect, but the assumption is still there.  Because the Textus Receptus was used to write the KJV, they also assume that the Textus Receptus is perfect.  And since the Alexandrian texts do not perfectly match the Textus Receptus, they assume that those texts must be corrupt.  By the way, the Alexandrian texts come from Alexandria, Egypt.

For a moment, let's assume that the Textus Receptus is perfect.  The KJV does not perfectly reflect what the Textus Receptus says.  In fact, someone is making a list of every translation error of the KJV using the same texts used by the KJV.  I'm not going to take the time to count every item on that list.  But it's probably easily in the thousands range.

What about the conflict over the manuscripts?  Well, the Textus Receptus predates the KJV by less than 100 years!  It is derived from the Byzantine texts among others.  These manuscripts date back to the 5th century AD.  The other major line of manuscripts, the Alexandrian texts.  Many of these manuscripts date back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD.  There are older manuscripts which date back to the 1st and 2nd centuries AD.  By the way, this is just taking into account the manuscripts of the New Testament.

The Byzantine manuscripts (from which the Textus Receptus came) are considered to have pagan influence by today's scholars, and hold little weight when trying to determine what the original text says (we don't have the originals).  The Alexandrian texts however, are considered to be largely free of pagan influence.  That combined with the fact that they're much closer to the timing of New Testament events means that they carry a lot of weight when trying to determine what the original text said.

One of the manuscripts that the Textus Receptus is derived from is the Latin Vulgate.  If we take a look at the NIV's footnote for 1 John 5:7-8, we'll notice that late editions of the Vulgate add to the text.  So early texts say:

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. [NIV]

But the later texts (14th Century onwards), including Textus Receptus, say:

7 For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. [NIV footnote]

One argument used by the KJV only crowed is that the Alexandrian texts were changed and therefore corrupted.  If we apply the same logic to the line that the Textus Receptus came from, then we see that these manuscripts, and by extension, the Textus Receptus and the KJV, are also corrupt.  And this isn't the only place where newer editions of manuscripts added or changed something from the older editions.

Not-So-Divine Inspiration

The author of the Textus Receptus (literally "received text") believes that he was inspired by "some god" (that should tell you everything you need to know).  And the KJV only crowed believes that the translators for the KJV was inspired by God.  A view not shared by those who wrote the KJV.  Divine inspiration is nearly always conflated with divine guidance, and it is argued that God "would not inspire error".  That is to say, God would not guide people into error (which I agree with).  Note that I will distinguish divine inspiration from divine guidance, with inspire always meaning "to motivate" (so that we have a consistent definition), and having nothing to do with guidance.

So the KJV only crowed believes the translators for the KJV were guided by God to create a perfect translation of the word of God.  As mentioned earlier, this view is a view that even the authors of the KJV did not hold.  Both the preface and the marginal notes of the KJV prove that the the authors did not believe they were guided by God in any way.

Now let's take a look at who or what actually motivated the KJV.  As I said in my post exposing the conflation of inspiration with guidance, when God motivates someone to write something, he only motivates the one who wants the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  He will not motivate those who seek to push an agenda.  And the KJV is definitely politically-motivated.  For example:  When he gave instructions on how to translate the Bible, he stacked the deck against the Puritans, who were his political opponents.  And that's just scratching the surface of the political motivations behind the KJV.  Do I have to mention the fact that King Jame's Bible was the only translation allowed to be read in the Church of England?

Then there's the motivation of ego.  The name of one of Yeshua's disciples was Jacob.  But you won't know that from reading the KJV, which translates the Greek word "iakobos" as James instead of Jacob.  This word is the same as "iakob", which is a transliteration of the Hebrew word of "Ya`akov", which is Hebrew for Jacob.  The sad thing is that modern translations have not done anything to fix this deliberate modification of the Bible.  The same thing is probably true for the name of Yeshua's mother, which is Meriam.  The Greek word "Maria" is a transliteration of this Hebrew name.

Languages Change Over Time

Let's assume for a moment that the KJV is a perfect translation of a perfect manuscript.  What we now have is a translation that can be understood by those who read and speak 17th-century English.  But English has changed over the last 400 years.  Some words have drastically changed in meaning while others have been dropped from the English vocabulary altogether.  Even some of the English idioms that the KJV uses are no longer in use.  And if you do not understand certain words in the KJV, then the speaker has to tell you what those words mean.

Because Humans Say So

Many within the KJV only crowed don't even attempt to prove that the KJV is the "perfect word of God".  They expect you to believe it is because they say it is, or because teachers that came before them say that it is.  They also expect you to believe that all other English translations are corrupt and therefore not the word of God.  The proof that they are corrupt is the fact that they do not exactly match the KJV.  Some go so far as to claim that the manuscripts are corrupt, simply because they do not perfectly match the KJV.  They go even further and say that if you do not believe that the KJV is the perfect word of God, then you do not believe God's promise to preserve his word.

This type of argumentation is outright heretical!  For God never required us to believe anything without evidence.  Take a look at Deuteronomy 13 and Deuteronomy 18 for example.  God required people to test the prophets.  These tests are really quite simple:  Any teacher that speaks in the name of another god, or teaches those to walk in disobedience to God's Law, or who's predictions do not come true, are to be put to death.  In other words:  The prophets are to be believed based on evidence.  The same thing happened when Moses went to the elders of Israel after Yahweh sent him to bring Israel out of Egypt.  The elders were provided with evidence!  And let's not forget all of the things that Yeshua himself did to prove that he was the Messiah, and that his enemies tried to destroy the evidence!

Real faith requires evidence.  There is no such thing as blind faith.  And making KJV onlyism a "matter of faith" is nothing more than a cop-out to avoid having to prove that which you believe.  Such people do not have faith in the KJV.  They have merely blind belief in an unprovable doctrine.

Double Standards

One of the ways to "prove" that all English translations other that the KJV are corrupt is by applying different standards to these other translations than what they apply to the KJV.  One example is for when a translation uses the phrase "Jesus the Christ" instead of "Jesus Christ".  It's okay if the KJV uses the former, but if a different translation uses it, then it's proof that the other translation is "corrupted".

By the way, the phrase "Jesus Christ" implies that "Christ" is the last name of our Lord, which it's not.  "Christ" is a title, just like how "king" or "lord" is a title.  So the phrase "Jesus Christ" is always incorrect.  The phrases "Christ Jesus" and "Jesus the Christ" are correct.  The former because the title comes before the name, and the latter because the word "the" designates that the word that follows is not part of his name.  There is nobody in the Bible with the last name of "Christ".  And the same thing applies to the word "Messiah".  The difference between "Christ" and "Messiah" is that the former is derived from the Greek while the latter is derived from the Hebrew.

Another instance of hypocrisy among the KJV only crowed concerns their accusation that the translators of some of the modern Bibles (eg: the NIV) are sodomites.  Some make this accusation and use that as the sole basis for rejecting all modern translations.  Yet they do not use the same logic for King James (who is also accused of being a sodomite) and his Bible.  I have not yet seen any evidence that modern translators are sodomites (though it wouldn't surprise me if some of them are).  And there is only circumstantial evidence that King James was a sodomite (though it wouldn't surprise me if he was).  Either way, what makes a translation good or bad is how accurate the translation is, not whether the translators are accused of sexual immorality (or any other sin).

Degrading the Word of God

Many will claim that passages like Matthew 24:35 is a promise from God to preserve his word.  And they will use this in their assertion that you do not believe in God's promise if you do not believe that the KJV (and only the KJV) is the preserved word of God.  By the way, Matthew 24:35 is where Yeshua says "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."  What they fail to realize is how degrading this alleged promise is to the word of God!  Many who do not hold to the KJV only doctrine fall for the same trap for the Bible in general.

Yeshua said that Heaven and Earth will pass away, but his words will not.  By interpreting this passage as a promise from God to "preserve his word", then it inadvertently reduces the word of God to something that must be written onto material objects in order to exist.  Whatever God speaks is, by definition, the word of God.  The existence of the word of God is not dependent on whether these words are written down onto material things, or dependent on how accurately they are written down, or dependent on the continued existence of these material things which they are written on.  In fact, when Heaven and Earth pass away, these material things that we refer to as "the word of God" will pass away with the Earth.  Yet the word of God itself will not pass away.

It is convenient, and even accurate, to call the written record of what Yahweh has said "the word of God".  And it is accurate to call such writings "the written word of God".  And it is very clear that Yahweh always intended for the things he has said to be written down so that we may know what he has said.  But the word of God itself is immaterial, and exists independently of any material thing that records it.

Another thing to consider is this:  Even if passages like Matthew 24:35 is a promise to perfectly preserve the written record of what Yahweh had said, why would Yahweh preserve this record in a language that he did not speak his word in?  And only in this language that he did not speak in when his word was being recorded?  Why would he not have it preserved in the original language that he spoke to the people in?  Why would the people he chose to be a light to the nations not have his written word preserved in their native language?  Why would Yahweh wait 3,100 years to preserve his words in a language that didn't even exist when he was speaking to the Israelites?  The answer is simple:  He wouldn't.  His words would be written in whatever language he spoke them in, and it would be these writings which would be preserved.

Authorized by a Man

One point that the KJV only crowed brings up is the fact that it's the only "authorized" English translation of the Bible.  Guess who authorized it:  King James.  And as we've seen earlier, he had some political motivations for his Bible.  And it wouldn't matter anyways for several reasons.  The primary reason is that authorization by a human king is not the same as authorization by Yahweh.  And to the best of my knowledge, Yahweh has not said anything concerning which translation most accurately represents his word.  Also, the authorization only applies to the land of England, and possibly to territories controlled by England.  Finally, what happens if a future king of England writes a new English translation, and deauthorizes the KJV?  Will they say that we should only be reading from this new translation?  Or will they continue to stick with the KJV?

Lying for King James

Remember earlier when I pointed-out that the KJV only crowed assumes what they're trying to prove?  Well, using the KJV as the de-facto standard for what an English translation is supposed to say, the KJV only crowed will compare modern translations to the KJV and use the differences as proof that these translations are corrupted.  But the way they go about it is downright deceitful.

Have you ever heard of the "missing verses" of the NIV or other modern translations?  What the KJV only crowed doesn't tell you is that these "missing verses" are actually found in the footnotes, which explain that they are not found in the earliest available manuscripts, or that they are not found in some of the earliest available manuscripts.  In other words, the verses aren't "missing" at all.  In fact, not only are these verses still present in the footnotes, but these so-called "missing verses" are likely additions to the text made during copying.

So what's the reasoning for these modern translations not putting these "missing verses" in the text?  The reasoning is simple:  The earlier manuscripts have more weight than the later manuscripts.  And where multiple manuscripts carry the most weight, it is believed that people are more likely to add to the text than to subtract from it.  Of course, this doesn't matter to the KJV only crowed.  They want you to believe that all translations other than the KJV are part of a New Age plot to subtly introduce corrupted doctrines into the Body of the Messiah just because these translations are not the KJV.

In addition, some will make the KJV only doctrine a matter of salvation.  They will say that if you do not get your doctrines only from the KJV, then you are not saved because you are believing in a "corrupted" gospel.  Nevermind the fact that the KJV says that salvation is through faith in Yeshua ("Yeshua" is Hebrew for "Jesus" in case anyone gets any ideas).  So they make salvation a matter of believing in the KJV Bible rather than in Yeshua.

Meaning of Words

Here's one instance where I am partially going to side with the KJV only crowed.  Key word "partially".  That is on the point that if you change the words, you change the meaning of the text.  I say "partially", because this works both ways, and the KJV is not always the correct translation.  There are indeed many places where modern translations have a slightly different wording than the KJV which results in drastically different meanings.  But these changes make up for a very, very small percentage of the entirety of the Bible.

Different translations will have different places where these changes occur.  In probably the majority of cases, it's the KJV that is correct.  But there are some cases where the KJV is wrong.  For example, the word translated as "converted" in Acts 3:19 is "epistrepho", which means to "turn back" or "return".  There are many other cases where the change in meaning is inevitable due to how the English language itself has changed over time.  For example, the singular and plural forms of the word "you" is no longer in common use.  Another example is how certain words (eg: the word "suffer") change their meaning over time.  Suffer used to mean "to allow".  It doesn't mean that anymore.  In cases like these, the modern translations preserve the meaning of the passage.

The Dangers of Fake Faith Healers

In the previous post, I exposed how some false prophets/teachers use certain verses to protect their dangerous teachings from Biblical scrutiny.  In that post, I mentioned that some of these false teachers also claim to bring healing for those who need it, nevermind the physical injuries that may result from the other things that they do.  I thought it would be good to expose these self-proclaimed "faith healers" for what they really are:  Frauds!

The faith healing is actually one of the things that these people would have gotten right if they were going by what the Bible says.  For Yeshua gave his disciples the authority to heal in his name (Matthew 10).  And there are numerous places where he made it very clear that healing comes by faith.  For instance, Luke 8:48.  Too bad they're serving a false god with a counterfeit of the Holy Spirit.  Deuteronomy 13 definitely comes into play here.  And remember:  the Deuteronomy 13 Test is not just us testing the teachers.  It's also Yahweh testing us to see if we will keep his commandments or follow other gods.  So even when the healings are real, that doesn't mean that what the healers are doing is Biblical.  In fact, there's no guarantee that it's even from Yahweh.  For most of these "faith healers" are part of the New Age cult, which is 100% witchcraft.

I saw a video on YouTube once where a girl with one leg shorter than the other went to a "faith healer" for the shorter leg to grow to be the same length as the other leg.  Actually, this video was exposing the fraud of the faith healer.  One thing that stuck out to me though was how the preacher was saying this very lengthy prayer for the healing to happen, which for some reason included a description of the process of the shorter leg growing to the same length as the other leg.  Matthew 6:5-7 comes to mind here.  But instead of the prayer being lengthy because the preacher thinks that Yahweh will hear him.  The prayer is lengthy to distract from the fact that the healing is being faked right in front of everyone's eyes!  The preacher was making it look like the girl was being healed when in reality he was slowly pulling the shoe that was on her shorter leg to match the position of the shoe on the longer leg.  The girl's faith, along with the faith of her parents, was probably shattered by this fake healing.  But the audience believed that it happened and praised God.

In another instance that I saw, the preacher proclaimed a healing of a lame man in the name of Jesus and the man stood up in the isle with the attention of everyone in the Church.  The preacher then proceeded to throw the man's cane away.  There's just one problem with the whole thing:  The man that was allegedly healed wasn't lame in the first place and the cane was not his!  It belonged to the woman next to him, who was still lame after the service.  After the service was over, someone interviewed the man who was allegedly healed and he stated exactly that during the interview, but said nothing during the service.  Neither did the man next to him, who was probably too heart-broken to be able to say anything.  Oh, and these are instances where nobody was injured or killed from these healings.

By the way, I think I found one of the videos I was referring to.  This is a video of an investigation conducted by ABC in the early 1990s.

In one instance that I heard about, the preacher proclaimed healing to a person with epilepsy, and who was on medication to prevent epileptic attacks.  I do not remember if it was a man or a woman, but the person believed they were healed and stopped taking the medication.  Some time later, this person drowned in a pool after having an epileptic attack while swimming.

In another instance I heard about, a woman diagnosed with cancer was punched in the stomach by the preacher, with the preacher proclaiming "you are healed" in front of the congregation.  The woman fell to the ground as expected by the crowed (see last post).  After a few minutes, she got up with her and the whole crowed believing she was healed.  She died a few days later, and it is believed that the punch to the stomach is what finished her off.

Now, go read the Bible very carefully.  Also, take note of Matthew 11:20-24 about the purpose of all of the healings and miracles that Yeshua did.  All these things were intended to bring the people to repentance.  But the slightest bit of research will reveal that these "faith healers" just want to make a name for themselves, and use their fraudulent healings and ministries to get rich!  Glory to Yahweh comes second to these wicked people.  And there is no bringing people to repentance.  Neither is there any preaching of the Good News of salvation through faith in Yeshua!

By the way.  If you do have a medical condition that is healed, make sure to go to your doctor to get that healing on your official medical record. so you can provide proof to anyone who asks, and as a testimony to your doctor, so that he or she may believe in Yeshua and be saved.  And also so that if you ended up getting conned by the minister, then you will know it before your medical condition can threaten your life.

I myself have witnessed some faith healings.  At one Messianic congregation I used to go to, the preacher was a huge Todd Bentley fan, and towards the end of one of the services, people were going up to get healed.  I don't recall anyone falling over, though this was a long time ago, but I do remember there was one man who required an oxygen tank to breathe.  He went up for healing and a few seconds later, let his oxygen equipment fall to the floor.  This must have scared half the congregation because next week, the preacher addressed the congregation about how the doctors found that this man's oxygen levels were normal.  The man continued to attend after that as long as I can remember, but I never saw the oxygen tank again.  Also, unlike the video above, nobody was called up by name, and the prayers for healing was not blasted through the speakers.  In fact, I think the microphones were turned off and the speakers were playing some music.  Back then, I didn't know about the Deuteronomy 13 Test.  But after that healing service, the congregation went off the deep end and I never heard of any more healings from there again.  Then Todd Bentley got found out.

At another Messianic congregation I attended (this one referred to Todd Bentley condescendingly as "the angel worshiper"), there was an obese woman who was allegedly healed of some sort of knee condition.  And while I wasn't there to see her alleged healing, I was well aware of the alleged healing but didn't really know who it was.  Then one day I came into the building to see her collapsed on the floor with about 2 or 3 people standing around her, praying for her.  Later, I found out that she was the one with the alleged healing.  This congregation also went off the deep end, but more slowly than the first.  And I don't know of any real healings from that congregation, though there may be a very few that I do not know about.

So what's going on at these two congregations?  And I doubt that these are the only two congregations that this has happened to.  What I think is happening is that they recognize that there should be healings happening all over the place, as the Bible says.  And for a short time, healings do happen.  But let's think about what inspired these places to have the faith that results in these healings.  It was from the New Age movement, and these congregations didn't have the discernment necessary to distinguish between the Biblical and unbiblical teachings.  And the New Age movement uses Biblical teachings as part of it's deception.  So rather than staying true to Biblical doctrine once these healings start happening, they adopt the Biblical sounding heresies of the New Age movement and the healings stop.  Then nobody can figure out why the healings stopped because everyone believes that the heresies that they have adopted are Biblical.  As Hosea said in Hosea 4:6, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."  Also, these two congregations, while I was there, seemed to have no knowledge of the Deuteronomy 13 Test.  And neither did I while I was attending them.

Weaponizing Matthew 12:31

In Matthew 12:31, Yeshua states that blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.  For quite some time now, people have been claiming to have heard from the Holy Spirit various things.  Or claim that the Holy Spirit has done various things.  How do these people know it was the Holy Spirit?  They don't!  Because they don't know how to test the spirits.  Those who do know how to test the spirits will easily be able to find everything wrong with what the "Holy Spirit" is saying or doing, and prove that it's not actually the Holy Spirit saying or doing these things.  But what happens when these counterfeit spirits are exposed for what they really are?  Those who claim to have heard from the Holy Spirit invoke Matthew 12:31, and even 1 Thessalonians 5:19.  In other words, they will claim that you are blaspheming or quenching the Holy Spirit.

As with any doctrine that cannot withstand Biblical scrutiny, the wolves claiming that the Holy Spirit is speaking to them do not tolerate you testing the spirit to see if it's from Yahweh.  Instead, they claim that you have committed the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, or that you are quenching the Holy Spirit in order to silence those who know better, and to cause impressionable people to believe that whoever opposes them are in the wrong.  Of course, if any spirit claims to be the Holy Spirit but is not, then that spirit must be quenched and exposed for the fraud that it really is.  For no spirit that is from Yahweh will falsely claim to be the Holy Spirit.

Testing to see if a spirit is actually the Holy Spirit requires knowledge and a robust understanding of the Bible.  Especially of the Law of Yahweh, the Prophets, and the teachings of Yeshua.  A good understanding of what the Holy Spirit has done historically is also of great significance.  Particularly, what the Holy Spirit did as recorded in the book of Acts.  It's actually a shame that so few Christians have even read the Bible, let alone understand it.  And while I'm not claiming to have a perfect understanding of Scripture, I understand enough to know that the spirits claiming to be the Holy Spirit, are actually from the enemy!

Let me give you an example.  Paul's conversion.  What does Acts say happened to Paul during his conversion?  Acts 9:1-9 reveals that Paul fell to the ground!  The Bible does not reveal if it was the Holy Spirit that did this, but for the sake of the argument, let's say that it was (though I don't believe it was).  Notice that Paul was receiving correction from Yeshua when this happened.  If we take a look at instances in the book of Acts, instances where Yahweh isn't correcting anyone, we see that not one of them ever fell to the ground.  The only ones who fell to the ground were the ones receiving correction!  Think about that!  And also think about how those who allegedly have the Holy Spirit fall in such a manner that there is a very serious risk of injury.  Funny how the alleged proof that the Holy Spirit is doing those things can result in injury instead of healing, which is often what is promised.

When these counterfeit spirits aren't making an awe-inspiring display that fools the people into believing that they are the Holy Spirit, there's saying things which contradict what Yahweh revealed through his Law, the Prophets, and his son, Yeshua.  And they also contradict the accounts that the historical records give concerning the Holy Spirit's actions.  Records that Yahweh made sure were written by people of integrity!  These spirits are calling Yahweh a liar!  Among the lies that these spirits teach are vein repetition and counterfeit tongues (which numbs the brain, making them more susceptible to possession), that those who have the Holy Spirit can lose control over their bodies (that's actually demon possession), and prosperity gospel.

Of course, we can't forget the most basic test:

1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. [1 John 1:3; NKJV]

Nobody seems to test the spirit concerning this one basic thing, or other like it (eg: whether Yeshua is the son of Yahweh, or is the Messiah).  It's kind of important to get this information from the beginning, so that nobody will be deceived later on.

Semi-Victory for Life!

A few days ago, the United States Supreme Court finally overturned the unconstitutional Roe vs Wade decision that legalized the murder of unborn children nation-wide.  But this wasn't in the best way possible.  We'll get into that in a little bit, but first, let's talk about the good things that'll come out of this ruling.

While rape and incest are often used as excuses for murdering unborn children, the truth is that these reasons are the overwhelming minority of abortion cases.  Nearly all abortions are for the sake of convenience, where a woman wants to have sex, but doesn't want to live with the consequences of her actions.  Now, with murdering unborn children illegal is almost half the country, a woman is required to live with the consequences of her actions for at least the next 40 weeks.  After that, if she still doesn't want to raise her child, she can give it up for adoption, which should have been the case from the beginning, even in cases of rape!  Perhaps this will restore the very good cultural norm of marriage before sex, which is what Yahweh intended.

Of course, because some states have legalized murdering your unborn child, a woman who still doesn't want to live with the consequences of her promiscuity for the next 40 weeks will have to pay a lot of money in fuel to travel to a state that does allow such heinous acts of violence against children.  Upwards of thousands of dollars to travel up to a thousand miles to the nearest state that allows one to murder their unborn child!  Well, that would be the case if corrupt corporations weren't so eager to pay such travel costs when they "can't afford" to pay for what is actually good for their employees (eg: well-deserved raises).  I've got a solution to that evil:  If a woman goes to a state where murdering your unborn child is still legal, then arrest her for murder when she comes back after having done just that.  There shall be no excuse for murder!  None!

What about cases of rape or incest?  First off, the "incest" argument is complete nonsense.  The conflation of incest with rape is just another excuse for them to legalize the murder of unborn children.  And for cases of rape:  If the victim is married to another man, then the man who raped her is guilty of adultery and should therefore be put to death for adultery.  If the victim is not married, then the man who raped her should be required (at minimum) to pay for the upbringing of the child.  Ideally, the man shall be married to her for the rest of their lives, and shall never be allowed to divorce.  And the fact that the pro murder group would rather murder the unborn child instead of holding the man responsible for his actions tells you everything you need to know about that death cult.

Now, what did the Supreme Court get wrong in their ruling?  They ruled that the issue of abortion is for the states to decide on their own.  In other words, they ruled that the states have the right to legalize or criminalize the murder of unborn children.  While this is better than legalizing the murder of unborn children nation-wide, it's still wrong.  The Supreme Court must recognize abortion for what it is:  Murder!

By the way, one of the main justifications for legalizing the murder of unborn children is to claim that unborn children are not human.  The dehumanization of human beings is always used to justify the most evil acts imaginable.  And this is also the exact same tactic that the NAZIs used to justify the genocide and mass murder of the Jewish people.  And just like what happened before and during World War II, the people have been programmed to accept this dehumanization of human life as gospel.  Once people understand that the unborn child is a living human being from conception, there will be no more legalized abortions.  And those who perform or have abortions will be rightly called "murderers".

Devotion to God is Not What You Think!

What does it mean to be "devoted to God"?  Does it mean going to every church service and special event, and spending hours per day reading the Bible, praying, and worshiping?  If you think that those things are signs of a person being devoted to Yahweh, you're wrong.

First, about the church services and special events.  What are their purposes?  If they are not to learn or do the will of God, then attending the event or service is a waste of time if your goal is to devote as much of your time as possible to Yahweh.  And if the service or event does something that is contrary to the commands of Yahweh, then you must not attend such a service or event.  Devotion in this case would be lovingly point-out that such an event or service is sinful.

What about reading the Bible, as you should be doing regularly?  If this is not accompanied by putting what you read into practice, then you're just wasting your time.  And what about prayer and worshiping?  If your prayers and worship are done in a manner that Yahweh has forbidden, then you are wasting your time.  In fact, if you refuse to put into practice what you have learned, even if you are not praying or worshiping in a manner that Yahweh has forbidden, then your prayer and worship are abominations (Proverbs 28:9)!  Also, if your "devotion" in prayer, worship, or reading Scripture becomes a ritual, then you have completely lost sight of the purpose of such things!

All devotion to Yahweh starts with learning his commandments and putting them into practice.  Abstaining from that which Yahweh has forbidden, and doing that which Yahweh has required.  For anything that Yahweh has not forbidden or required, you have the freedom to choose to abstain from such things, or to partake of such things.  After obedience comes motive.  All things done as devotion to the Lord must be done to glorify God.  For example:  When you go to help those in need, do you help to be praised by those that see you helping?  Or do you help out of love, and in the hope to be able to win them over to the Lord Yeshua?  Only the latter is devotion to Yahweh.

The best form of obedience is the type that comes from the heart.  In fact, this is what Yahweh meant when he said to love him with all our hearts.  See Deuteronomy 6, 10, 11, 13, and 30 to see that this is the case.  Yahweh doesn't want just obedience.  He wants obedience from the heart.  And this is what devotion to him starts with.  It ends by going above and beyond what he requires of us.  And that is not limited to simply praying, worshiping, reading the Bible, or going to all of the church services and special events.  In fact, those things are minor in comparison to, for example, helping those who need help.  Or if you are a teacher, devotion is teaching people how to live according to the will of Yahweh.  And of course, all devotion is doing these things by the faith that we have in the Lord Yeshua, and not out of fear of Yahweh's judgement if you don't do these things.

Examining Acts 15

In a previous post, I refuted the claim that obedience is by definition, salvation by works.  Acts 15 is one example of this false claim influencing the interpretation of Scripture.  For example:

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." [Acts 15:1; NKJV]

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." [Acts 15:5; NKJV]

Here we have two parties making claims about what the believing gentiles must do.  The circumcision party said that they must be circumcised to be saved.  The Pharisees said it is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses, but said nothing about that being necessary for salvation.  This is an important distinction that most will not catch.  Also, if you read verse 5 carefully, you will notice that the Pharisees who said this were believers in Yeshua.  Another important detail that is often overlooked, especially in light of the fact that the other group is not referred to as believers.

The reason that these key details are overlooked is (as mentioned earlier) the false doctrine that the teaching of obedience is, by definition, salvation by works.  But if you read the three verses between 1 and 5, and the 2 verses immediately following 5, you'll notice that there is a 3-way dispute on what the gentiles need to do and for what purpose.

The fact that the circumcision party is not described as believers, and says that circumcision is necessary for salvation tells you everything you need to know about them:  They rely on their own works to be saved, rather than the Work of Yeshua on the cross.  It's also telling that they used the word "custom" instead of "law" or "command" when describing circumcision.  Is this a subtle admission that the Law of God does not require foreigners who join with the house of Israel to be circumcised?  And that this is a human tradition?

What about the believing Pharisees, who have the entirety of the Law of Yahweh memorized from early childhood?  They seem to have made a distinction between circumcision and keeping God's Law.  Is this another hint that God's commands concerning circumcision are not what we think they are?  Also, you may have noticed at the end of my post on Good Friday vs Passover that I said it's okay if you don't want to keep the Passover because of it's requirements.  But how can I say that and pass the Deuteronomy 13 Test unless the Law of Yahweh does not say what you think it says?  Let's examine what the Law says concerning circumcision, starting in Genesis!

9 And God said to Abraham: "As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." [Genesis 17:9-14; NKJV]

Anyone descended from Abraham, and those living in the house of someone descended from Abraham, whether born into said house or bought with money from a foreigner, is to be circumcised.  But what about the foreigner that is not living in the house of a descendent of Abraham?  That person does not have to be circumcised according to this passage.  But what about the other commandments?

43 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it. 44 But every man’s servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat it. 45 A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it. 46 In one house it shall be eaten; you shall not carry any of the flesh outside the house, nor shall you break one of its bones. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. 49 One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you." [Exodus 12:43-49; NKJV]

Any woman living by herself may eat the Passover, since there are, by definition, no males in that house that need to be circumcised (at least, I don't remember reading anything that says otherwise).  But if any house has any males in it, then all the males in that house must be circumcised before anyone in that house is allowed to eat the Passover.  And eating the Passover without all the males in the house being circumcised is wickedness.  Let's see what other rules there are concerning circumcision.

1 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. 3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.'" [Leviticus 12:1-3; NKJV]

This is basically re-affirming Genesis 17:12.  So not much extra information here.  We see another command to be circumcised in Deuteronomy 10:16, but this time, it's a circumcision of the heart.  And again in Deuteronomy 30:6.  Where have we heard of circumcision of the heart before?  That's right, Jeremiah 4:4!  Oh, you were thinking of "New Testament" passages?  Well, I just happened to find this one in Jeremiah and couldn't resist the bait and switch!  Romans 2:29 talks about circumcision of the heart.

Anyways, circumcision is a sign of the covenant between Yahweh and the physical descendants of Israel.  And only the physical descendants of Israel, along with anyone who is living in the house of a physical descendant of Israel, must be circumcised, along with all of their descendants after them forever.  This may be one of the reasons why the Apostle Paul circumcised Timothy in Acts 16:1-3.  The only exception to this rule is for the foreigner who wants to celebrate the Passover.  And of course, there is nothing stopping someone who is not a descendant of Israel from joining into the same covenant as Israel.  And concerning the New Covenant, there is no indication whatsoever of a gentile being required to be circumcised to be a part of the New Covenant.  At least, none that I can remember.

So, both the circumcision party and the Pharisees acknowledge that circumcision of the gentiles is not part of God's Law.  And when Peter testified in Acts 15:6-9 what happened to the gentiles that believed, that they received the Holy Spirit, though they had not been circumcised, and after Barnabas and Paul testified concerning the believing gentiles in Acts 15:12, and after James gave his testimony concerning what the prophets said in Acts 15:13-17, it was agreed by the entire assembly that the gentiles do not need to be circumcised to be a part of the New Covenant.  Literally the only reason a believer from among the gentiles has to become circumcised is be able to keep the Passover without becoming guilty of sin!

So what about the keeping of the Law?  Well, here's what the Apostle James said:

19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath. [Acts 15:19-21; NKJV]

Now here's where things get interesting.  There are four rules listed here.  Abstain from sexual immorality, and from eating blood, strangled meat, or foods polluted by idols.  The word translated as "sexual immorality" is the Greek word "porneia", which literally means prostitution, and is sometimes used to refer to sexual immorality in general.  The KJV translates this word as "fornication", which at the time that the KJV was written, also meant prostitution, but now means premarital sex.

So, does that mean that lying is now okay?  How about stealing or murder?  Some people, without thinking about the implications of what they say, interpret Acts 15:20 to mean we only have to follow the 4 rules mentioned in that verse.  Do you see the problem with that interpretation?  Also, who decides what is or is not sexually immoral?  Do we really want to leave that up to man to decide?  Of course not.  And if we translate the passage as saying "abstain from prostitution", then what about fornication, or adultery.  If we translate it as saying "abstain from fornication", then that also takes care of prostitution, but what about adultery, incest, or sodomy?  And although the rules are to abstain from eating foods polluted by idols, it doesn't say anything about not worshiping the idols!  Or using them to worship Yeshua.  Well, that's where verse 21 comes in.  The gentile believers are expected to attend the synagogues every Sabbath.  Either that or everyone in that assembly just failed the Deuteronomy 13 Test and are guilty of teaching idolatry.

As it turns out, in those days, the gentiles regularly met in the synagogues with the Jews.  For example, in Acts 13:42, there were clearly gentiles in the synagogues on the Sabbath (Saturday) eager to hear what Paul had to say from one Sabbath to the next.  Go ahead and read it and the verses after it.  Acts 14:1 is another example where the gentiles are clearly attending the synagogues every Sabbath.  And again in Acts 17:1-4, and Acts 17:10-12.  There are even more examples after that.  So it is expected of the gentile believers to attend the synagogues every Saturday to learn the Law of Yahweh, to keep it.

Notice that these believing gentiles are saved, though they do not know the law.  And as they learn the law, they are still saved though they now keep it.  These believers want to do what is right in the eyes of God.  And keeping God's Law is right in the eyes of God.  Like I've said before:  We don't keep the Law to be saved, we keep the Law because we're saved.

Remember, in Acts 15:1, these gentile were told that they must be circumcised to be saved.  In Acts 15:24, somebody added "saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law'—to whom we gave no such commandment—".  There's a good way to lead people into idolatry.  How do we know it was added?  Simple:  The gentiles were told "you must be circumcised to be saved" (Acts 15:1), not "you must be circumcised and keep the law".  Plus, not all manuscripts have the part that I just quoted.  Not to mention the Deuteronomy 13 Test that I mentioned earlier.  Notice that the believing Pharisees in Acts 15:5 did not tell the gentiles "you must be circumcised and keep the Law", but took up their petition with the Apostles concerning the gentile believers.  And they didn't dare say it was to be saved because they knew salvation was by faith!

We also know that the last part of Acts was added to because of the vast amount of evidence that that the gentiles were in the synagogues every Sabbath learning the Law of God, and that Acts 15:21 expects this norm to continue, thereby satisfying the believing Pharisees' beliefs that it is necessary to teach the gentiles to keep God's Law.

Now the Law is broken-up into large portions, which are called "portions" (but with the Hebrew word for "portions").  Over the course of a year, the Torah is read, one portion each week, until the entire Torah has been read.  Then they start over at the beginning once they have finished reading through the entire Torah.  So the gentiles will learn a small portion of Torah at a time rather than being required to learn it all at once and be overwhelmed by it.  The Apostles' letter to the gentiles addressed the four most important issues of the time as simply the starting point.  Notice that their letter said nothing about not having to stop attending synagogue, which they were already doing.

Swearing vs Cursing vs Profane Language

A while ago, I addressed a few instances of Yeshua saying, "but I say" in what appears, at first glance, to be him nullifying the Law of God.  One of those instances concerns swearing.  But what's the relationship between swearing and cursing?  And since the use of profane language is often referred to as "swearing" or "cursing", what's the relationship between profanity and the other two?

First, let's address the issue of swearing.  Swearing is making a promise to do something, or to abstain from doing something.  Leviticus 19:12 makes it very clear that we are allowed to swear, but that we are not to swear falsely.  And if that were not clear enough, Numbers 30:2 makes it all the more clear that one must do as they swear to do.  And Leviticus 5:4 warns us to be careful when we swear, lest we sin by failing to keep an oath we swore recklessly.  Notice that Yahweh only gave provision for swearing by him.  And also note how the Pharisees abused the "you shall not swear by My name falsely" of Leviticus 19:12 to say that if you swear by something other than God's name, you may do so falsely.  Yeshua didn't take too kindly to that rule.  By the way, James 5:12 is the same situation as Matthew 5:34.  The "not" is a qualified not.  The context proves that the proper qualifier is "falsely".  Both passages say "do not swear falsely".  Nowhere are we forbidden from swearing an oath.

Cursing on the other hand, is to declare harm or misfortune on someone or some thing.  It's not a promise to do something, it's calling on God (or a false god) to bring judgement on someone or some thing.  Just like with swearing, the "New Testament's" teaching on cursing is also misunderstood.  Of course, it doesn't help that cursing and swearing are often conflated.  For example, Romans 12:14 says "bless and do not curse" in the context of blessing those who persecute us.  And in James 3:9-10, James rebukes those who curse others.  The context of this rebuke concerns doing evil with the tongue.  But we also have instances such as Acts 8:20-23, where Peter curses a man who just recently came into the Body of Messiah.  Again, Peter cursed someone who just became a follower of Yeshua.  The reason for this curse?  This man thought that the Holy Spirit could be purchased with money.

So cursing isn't forbidden in all circumstances.  There are times where cursing is absolutely called for.  And like with swearing, it's not something to be taken lightly.  And as shown in several instances, people can die from being cursed.  And also, as shown in passages like Deuteronomy 23:5, Yahweh has the ultimate authority over curses and what happens as a result of said curse.

So that leaves profane language.  Or to put it in layman's terms:  "bad words" or "curse words".  The concept that a word, by itself, is bad, is not from the Bible at all.  It's from paganism.  Words, in and of themselves, are not good or bad.  It's the context in which they are used that is good or bad.  Christians are generally taught to be offended by certain words because such words are "bad words".  But this teaching does not come from Scripture.  Now, obviously words have meaning, and it is important to take into consideration the meaning of a word when it is used.  Using the wrong words in a sentence can convey a meaning that is not the intended meaning.  But even this does not make a word by itself good or bad, since words by themselves are not good or bad.  It just makes certain words not fit to convey a particular meaning.  Yeshua warned that we will be held accountable for every careless word that is spoken.

If words by themselves are not good or bad, then what about passages like Colossians 3:8, or Ephesians 5:4?  Those passages are not condemning words that culture says are "bad".  Rather, they are condemning something known in Hebrew as "the evil tongue".  And if you look at the context of both passages, you'll see that both concern abstaining from evil, including evil speech.  Remember Deuteronomy 12:32.  Examples of evil speech would be lying, deceit, defamation, speaking maliciously about someone, and swearing falsely.  All of these things God hates (and speaking the names of other gods)!  Not the use of words that humans consider "bad" or "offensive".