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.

The Importance of Repentance

I haven't mentioned repentance much on this blog.  In fact, a quick search will reveal only four posts where I use the word "repent" or "repentance" (not counting this one).  But while I may not mention it much, I have actually been teaching it the whole time, but not directly.  How?  It has to do with the definition of "repent".  In Ezekiel 14:6, God defines repentance as turning away from idolatry.  And in Ezekiel 18:30, God defines repentance as turning away from your transgressions of his law.  So repentance is defined as forsaking your ways that are contrary to God's law.  If you had asked me what the definition of repentance was a year ago, I would have said that it's regret or remorse over your sin, which is actually not far from the truth.

One interesting thing to note about these passages is that the Hebrew texts literally say "turn back, turn back".  The word for "turn back" is used twice in a row, which is a classic Hebrew idiom emphasizing the importance of what is being said.  The Hebrew word in question is "sub", which is used not only in the context of turning from sin, but also in literal contexts.  The translators, in translating the passages as saying, "repent and turn back", are preserving the definition of repent.

In my post about sins not covered by the blood of Jesus, I ask, "But if anyone uses that [forgiveness by stopping rebellion against God's law] as an excuse to start deliberately doing what they know is sinful, because they can later 'stop and repent', is that repentance even genuine?"  The answer to this question is actually another question:  Do they genuinely hate the fact that they used God's mercy as a license to sin?  Like what I said in that post, genuine believers do not want to sin.  So the one that says, "I can sin now and repent later", follows through with their plan to deliberately sin, and asks for forgiveness afterwards, but without forsaking their "I can sin now and repent later" mentality, then that person's repentance is not genuine.  Only when they forsake that "sin now, repent later" mindset will that person be truly repentant of their sin.

In another post, where I refuted the claim that Christians sin every day in thought and deed, I noted that a Christian who does not yet know God's requirements may indeed sin every day, but those who know God's commandments will rarely sin.  I even mention repentance at the end of that post when I say that when we become aware of our sins and repent, God forgives us.

I should make a quick note that I probably should not have stated that the blood of Jesus covers sins.  Since Jesus does not cover sins, but takes them away entirely.  There is a big difference.  In those posts, when I used "cover", I used it to indicate the types of sins that are eligible for forgiveness, and did not give any thought about the implications of the other type of covering.  What I did correctly point out in those posts, is that repentance is a prerequisite for forgiveness.

Now that I've mentioned that repentance is required for forgiveness, I'm liable to get an objection from someone who will say, "that is works salvation", or, "salvation is by faith alone".  Neither of those assertions are actually true.  I'll summarize here:  Jesus said, "unless you repent, you will likewise perish" [Luke 13:3 & 5].  Paul taught that salvation is by faith apart from works [Romans 3:28], not by faith alone.  And the only time we find "faith alone" in Scripture is when James refutes it [James 2:24].  Maybe that should be a future post.  Besides, nobody is saying that your works are what saves you.  But works can certainly keep you from being saved, as the Bible makes very clear in many places.  Read the Bible carefully.

Also, consider the Parable of the Prodigal Son.  The prodigal son represents someone who forsakes God, then later comes back to God and is accepted back into the family even though the son is not deserving of such acceptance.  The father in the parable represents our Heavenly Father, who will accept those who return to him and even celebrate our returning to him, though we do not deserve it and even acknowledge that we do not deserve any such favors.

There are many more instances in Scripture warning us to repent, which I encourage you to search for yourself.  In conclusion, without turning from disobedience to obedience to God's commandments, there is no forgiveness of sins or salvation.  But also that God will accept, and even celebrate, all who come to him in repentance, and believe in his son.

Is it Ever Acceptable to Break God's Law?

For those who have read a significant number of my blog posts, you might think that I will answer a definite "no".  But there is one problem with that:  The purpose of Yahweh giving his Law in the first place.  That purpose is to promote life.

Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers is giving you. [Deuteronomy 4:1; NKJV]

You shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God has commanded you, that you may live and that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which you shall possess. [Deuteronomy 5:33; NKJV]

Every commandment which I command you today you must be careful to observe, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land of which the Lord swore to your fathers. [Deuteronomy 8:1; NKJV]

You shall follow what is altogether just, that you may live and inherit the land which the Lord your God is giving you. [Deuteronomy 16:20; NKJV]

And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. [Deuteronomy 30:6; NKJV]

in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. [Deuteronomy 30:16; NKJV]

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; [Deuteronomy 30:19; NKJV]

If the purpose of the Law is to promote life, which it is, then it should stand to reason that if a situation comes up where obedience would put a life in danger, then the preservation of life would take precedence over God's Law and we would not be guilty of sin.  And that the exception to this rule would be if a person or animal committed a capital offense.  So, are there any instances in the Bible where people broke the Law to preserve life and not guilty of sin?  As a matter of fact, there are.

In 1 Samuel 21:1-9, David and the men who were with him ate from the holy bread in the House of God, which is against God's Law, but were not guilty of sin.  If we take a look at the chapter before, we find that David and his men were fleeing from King Saul, though they had done nothing wrong.  They ate the consecrated bread because that was the only thing available.  In Matthew 12:1-8, when the Pharisees asserted that it is against the law to glean the fields on the Sabbath (human law, by the way), Jesus responded by pointing out what David did, and said that he was innocent.  He also made mention of the fact that the priests on Sabbath duty actually break the Sabbath, but are also innocent.  Later on, Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, saying that God's Law allows us to do good on the Sabbath, citing the fact that a person would help their animal out of a ditch on the Sabbath.  That by the way, is something else the Pharisees forbade (for the people, not for themselves).

In another instance, in 1 Samuel 25:2-35, Nabal's wife Abigail rebelled against her husband after he refused David's request, and went to David and his men with gifts and an apology, saving the lives of every male in Nabal's house.  For David intended to destroy him and his house by morning.  The Law of Yahweh makes it very clear that a woman is under the authority of her husband.  But had Abigail not broken God's Law by rebelling against her husband, every male in the house would have died by the hand of David.  By the way, Nabal had a heart attack when he heard what David had intended to do.  And he died ten days later, but was the only one in the house to die.

So not only is it acceptable for the preservation of life to take priority over God's Law, but it is also acceptable for a person's well-being to take priority over God's Law.  This does not mean that a person deserving of the death penalty should be spared such a penalty (which would pervert justice), or that it's okay to set aside the commandments of Yahweh because it is convenient to do so.  It does mean that we should not abstain from doing good in instances where it would break one of God's commandments, because a person's life and well-being take priority.  But when a person's (or animal's) life or well-being is not in danger, then we must not by any means set aside God's commandments.

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.

5 Inconsistencies in Church Doctrine

When it comes to doctrine, a lot of what the Church teaches (at least concerning conservative and fundamentalist churches and ministries) is perfectly consistent with other teachings by the Church.  And many of these teachings I actually agree with, even if a lot of my posts do spend a lot of time criticizing the Church for a lot of its teachings.  But I've also found, over the years, many teachings that are inconsistent with other teachings.  We will take a look at five of these inconsistencies and look to Scripture for the resolution.  This list is in no particular order, and there will be overlaps!

1. Obedience to God's Commandments

Most mainstream ministries will teach that because we have Yeshua, there is no need to keep God's Law.  They will often label this the "Old Testament Law" to further cement this point.  However, there are many commandments within the Law of God that the Church expects you to keep.  For example, "do not lie", "do not commit adultery", "do not covet", and "do not worship idols".

One "resolution" to this inconsistency is to assert that we only need to keep the commands that were reiterated in the "New Testament".  But those who make such claims fail to realize that if the Law no longer needs to be kept, then whether they are reiterated in the "New Testament" is irrelevant.  This rationalization however, proves that they know that there is a need to keep at least some of God's Law.  Bit it is still inconsistent with the doctrine that we don't need to keep his Law.

Another rationalization is to divide the commandments within the Law into three laws:  The "moral" law.  The "civil" law.  And the "ceremonial" law.  The claim is that the "moral" law applies to everyone, the "civil" law applies only to the land of Israel, and the "ceremonial" law only applied before Yeshua's work on the cross and that it's this law that we don't need to keep.  But this too conflicts with the core teaching that the body of the Messiah does not need to keep the Law of God.

Some will say that we only need to keep the Ten Commandments.  But every Christmas they put up a nativity with an image of Jesus in direct violation of the Second Commandment, which forbids the creation of an image of anything, anywhere!  Whoever sets up an image of Jesus is worshiping the image, not Jesus.  They also change the Sabbath (Fourth Commandment) from the seventh day (Saturday) to the first day (Sunday), which is literally named after the sun in the sky.  Whoever observes the first day of the week as the Sabbath worships a ball of plasma!  And changing God's Law is rebellion, not obedience!  And once again, if the Law is no longer needed, then neither are the Ten Commandments

In order to resolve the inconsistencies in the first two doctrines, the have made three additional teachings which also conflict with the first.  As I mentioned earlier, Christians know in their heart that that there are some laws that must be kept, proving false the doctrine that we don't need to keep God's Law.  So it's the heart and mind of man that testifies against this doctrine.  But we're going to look into Scripture to see for sure what we are supposed to do.  And just to prove the point, I will only use "New Testament" passages to prove just how false this doctrine really is.

Jesus himself said in Matthew 4:4 that man is to live on every word that comes from the mouth of God.  And in Matthew 5:17-20, he made such obedience mandatory for membership in God's Kingdom.  Note in verse 17 how "destroying the Law" and "fulfilling the Law" are framed as being mutually-exclusive.  If he didn't come to do away with it, then he must have come to teach it (I'm ignoring the Hebrew idiom here).  He also said in Matthew 19:17 that keeping the commandments is a requirement for "entering life".  And you can find numerous places where Jesus called-out the Pharisees for nullifying the Law of God for the sake of their traditions.  For example, Mark 7:5-13.  So according to Yeshua himself, we are to keep the Law of God.

What about Paul, whom the Church practically worships (funny how it's not Jesus who is treated as the ultimate authority of the Christian)?  In Romans 2:13, Paul says that it's those who keep the Law who will be justified before God.  In Romans 3:20 and 7:7, he says that the Law defines sin.  And in Romans 3:31, he states that we who believe in Jesus uphold the Law of God.  So much for Paul teaching against God's Law.

Let's see what James says.  In James 1:22-25, he says we should look into the perfect Law of liberty with the intent of obeying it.  And that if we do, we will be blessed in all that we do.  James 2:12 says we should act as if we will be judged by this law.  So James also teaches obedience to the Law.  Of course, if Jesus and the Apostles were teaching from the Law with the expectation for us to obey it, then we should expect to find many of the commandments being reiterated throughout the "New Testament".  And if the Law did not have to be followed (or should not be followed), then they would not be reiterating any of the commandments.

2. Biblical Inerrancy

One of the most blatant inconsistencies between two doctrines has to do with the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.  Which doctrine runs afoul of Biblical Inerrancy?  The doctrine that forbidding the consumption of certain meats (eg: pork) is a "doctrine of demons."  God's Law forbids us from eating pigs or even touching the dead bodies of pigs (Leviticus 11:7-8).  And Isaiah prophecies against such people in Isaiah 65:4 and 66:17, declaring that they will perish.  Yet because Paul wrote about those who forbid "certain foods" in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 (among other passages that are twisted by the Church), the Church insists that anyone who says we shouldn't eat pork (or other animals that God said to not eat) is teaching a doctrine of demons.

Think about it:  If the command not to eat certain animals is really a doctrine of demons, then it means that the Bible is in error about the origins of such commands, and the prophecies against those who break such commands.  If there is even one error in Scripture, then the Bible is by definition, not inerrant, and the inerrancy doctrine is therefore wrong.

On a related note, if 1 Timothy 4:1-5 means what the Church claims, then Paul is going against his own teachings that we should keep the Law of God.  We already went over this in the previous section.  It would also mean that if the Law and the Prophets are correct about the origin of the commandment and prophecies against those who break it, then Paul is the one who is wrong, and the Bible is not inerrant.  And if Paul is teaching both obedience to the Law and rebellion against it, one of those teachings is wrong by definition and the Bible is also not inerrant.  And it also lends credence to those who claim that Paul was a deceiver.  And if Paul was a deceiver, then the Bible is definitely not inerrant.

Peter warns us in 2 Peter 3:16 that Paul is hard to understand, and that uneducated people twist his words to their own destruction.  So the solution is an interpretation that is hard to see just by reading the passage, but is consistent with Paul's teaching of obedience to God's Law.  We'll start with the definition of "food".  Since Paul taught obedience to the Law of God and the Law of God tells us what is and is not food for us, the definition of food that Paul (and the other Apostles, and Jesus) is using is that which God's Law defines as food.  And guess what:  The Law explicitly states that pigs are not food.

Now that we know the definition of food that Paul is using, we can see that the "creatures of God" refers to the clean animals that God gave for us as food.  Although God made all animals, both the clean and the unclean, only the clean animals are referred to here as the "creatures of God".  Finally, we see that these animals are set apart by the word of God and by prayer.  If everything is set apart, then nothing is set apart.  The words "sanctified" and "holy" lose all of their meaning if everything is said to be set apart.  And the word of God (which is referring specifically to God's Law in this instance) did not set apart pigs as food.  What Paul is actually teaching against are teachings about food that are contrary to God's Law.

3. The Shame of Nakedness

I've covered the topic of nakedness a lot on this blog.  And a search through my posts will reveal that quite quickly.  But what about the shame of nakedness?  The Church teaches that before there was sin, there was no shame in being naked.  In fact, we read in Genesis 1 and 2 that mankind was designed to always be naked and that this nakedness was very good.  But in Genesis 3, Adam and Eve sinned, became ashamed of their nakedness, and after they failed to provide adequate clothing for themselves, God himself provided them with clothing.  The Church teaches that ever since then, there has been a universal shame of nakedness.  So where's the inconsistency:  Well, Jesus took away our sins by his blood, wiping-out the record of our transgressions.  Since our sins have been taken away, so has the source of our shame of being naked.  And the Bible says in numerous places that those who believe in him shall by no means be put to shame (1 Peter 2:6).  And in Romans 8:35, Paul says that nakedness is incapable of keeping us from God's love.

While I have been teaching for a long time on this blog that there is no requirement in Scripture to be clothed (except for the priests when they are performing their duties), I still didn't realize the inconsistency about the shame of nakedness before finding this article on the topic, which also inspired me to write this post on 5 of the Church's doctrinal inconsistencies.  If sin truly is the only source of the shame of nakedness as the Church teaches it is, then those who have had their sins taken away should not be ashamed of such a thing.  But the Church still teaches us to be ashamed of being naked because of sin.  The very sin that the Church rightly says is taken away by the blood of Jesus just by believing in him!  In my post on Genesis 3, I proved that it was the serpent who told Adam and Eve that they were naked.  That, by extension, means that the source of the shame of nakedness came from the serpent, not from the sin that they had just committed.

Just like with the first inconsistency I pointed-out, for this one, I'm only going to use the "New Testament" to expose the magnitude of this inconsistency.  And I'm also going to do it using the view that sin is the only source of the shame of nakedness.

When Yeshua came to Jerusalem on a donkey, many in the crowd took off their garments and laid them on the road before Jesus.  This is recorded in Matthew 21:8, Mark 11:7 (the Disciples put their garments on the donkey for Jesus to sit on), and Mark 11:8.  Many of these only had a single garment, yet took it off for Jesus, and Jesus accepted it.  This of course, is perfectly consistent with the teaching that the shame of nakedness comes from sin, because they were not actively sinning when they greeted their Savior and our Savior at the gates of Jerusalem.

In John 13:4, Jesus himself set aside his garments in front of the Twelve and proceeded to wash the feet of his Disciples.  This too is consistent with the doctrine that sin is the source of the shame of nakedness because Jesus never sinned and therefore had nothing to bring him shame.

In John 21:7 (after the resurrection of the Lord), Peter is fishing with his friends naked (go read the context).  This was actually common place back then, for a laborer to work without clothing.  And this may have also been the reason why Mary mistook Jesus for the gardener in John 20:15, for Yeshua left all of his grave clothes behind when he rose from the dead (Luke 24:12, John 20:6-7).  This of course is perfectly consistent with the doctrine that sin is the source of the shame of nakedness.

4. Avoiding Salvation by Works

It is often said that anyone who keeps God's Law is by definition, trying to work for his or her salvation.  And whoever teaches obedience to God's Law is by definition, teaching works-based salvation.  For some reason, the Church absolutely hates the idea of keeping God's Law and actively teaches that such things are not only not necessary, but also evil.  Now this overlaps with the first inconsistency listed in this post, because the Church actually teaches obedience to some of the commandments in God's Law (chiefly, the Ten Commandments) along with most, if not all, of Leviticus 18, among some other commands also found in God's Law.

Interestingly enough, nobody says that obedience to Yeshua's commandments is salvation by works, even though his commandments seem more difficult to keep than the Law of God.  For example, as pointed-out in my post on what Jesus meant by "but I say", Jesus linked coveting your neighbor's wife with committing adultery with her.  He also linked bearing a grudge against your neighbor with committing murder.

Now, when writing this post, I realized I made a mistake on the post I just linked.  I accidentally wrote:

So according to Jesus himself, anyone who nullifies the Law of God is guilty of sin.  This means that it can't be that Jesus is nullifying Deuteronomy 24:1 by forbidding adultery.

But I meant to say this:

So according to Jesus himself, anyone who nullifies the Law of God is guilty of sin.  This means that it can't be that Jesus is nullifying Deuteronomy 24:1 by forbidding divorce.

I'm going to be leaving that mistake in because I have a policy that once a blog post is published, it does not get any edits done to it for any reason.

Speaking of divorce:  As mentioned in that post right after the mistake, I mentioned that the intent of Deuteronomy 24:1 is being ignored.  The intent of the verse is to give provision to terminate a marriage in very specific situations (eg: a woman hiding any premarital indiscretions from her husband).  The Pharisees twisted it to allow for divorce for any reason.

So not only is Jesus teaching obedience to the Law, he's linking commandments together that are usually considered separately, making the Law harder to follow simply by keeping Jesus's commands.  But Jesus didn't make the Law harder to follow.  He simply exposed the intent of the Law and gave the correct interpretation of the Law, which is harder to follow simply because of human nature.  So if keeping our flawed understanding of God's Law is "salvation by works", then so is keeping Yeshua's commands.

But how exactly do with solve this inconsistency of obedience being salvation by works?  Simple:  There is absolutely zero Biblical support for the assertion that obedience to the Law of God is by definition, works-based salvation.  None!  In fact, those who make such assertions prove that they do not know God, and are lying when they claim to know him (1 John 2:3-4).  The Bible also says that keeping God's Law is by definition, loving God (1 John 5:2-3).  There's also the passages referenced for inconsistency #1.  And James 2:14-26 explains in detail how faith is made complete by our works and how works prove our faith.  It also refutes the "faith alone" doctrine, which is used to justify rebellion against God.  So we keep God's commands because we love God, not to somehow earn our salvation.  And this keeping of God's Law proves our faith.

5. To Sin or Not to Sin

One common objection to the teaching that Christians should keep God's Law is that we allegedly cannot keep it, so we shouldn't even try.  This overlaps with inconsistencies 1 and 4 quite a bit.  You might have heard the phrase, "you will sin every day in thought or deed", which I covered in a previous post.  Often, this saying will have a context that implies, "you're going to sin anyways, so don't even try to not sin".  These same people will also rightfully say that we should not lie, steal, murder, or commit adultery, for example.  Other examples of things that they will tell us not to do include "lusting" after a woman, becoming drunk, or judging others.  In some cases, they have many additional rules in place to try to avoid sinning, which are themselves considered sinful to break.

On one hand, they teach that we shouldn't try not to sin, because will will sin anyways, or because trying not to sin is "salvation by works".  And on the other hand, not only say that we should not sin, but that we should any situation where we could potentially sin at all costs.  But what does the Bible say?

Jesus said "sin no more" [John 5:14] and Paul said "do not sin" [1 Corinthians 15:34].  In John 9:21, we read that God does not listen to the sinner.  That explains the lack of healings in the Church.  And in Romans 6, we are told not to allow sin to have any power over us because we have been freed from sin.  In fact, he states that sin does not have any power over those who believe in the Lord Yeshua.  And 1 John 5:8 says that whoever is born of God does not sin.  Now who is it that says "you will sin every day in thought or deed"?  Oh right, the one who's mind is driven by the flesh instead of the spirit.  Such a person is unable to submit to God's commandments [Romans 8:7].  And that explains why conservative Christians have so many heretical rules to try to avoid sin.  They're treating the symptom instead of the cause.  The one who is delivered from will naturally keep God's Law and be able to avoid sinning.  And even when such a person does stumble (which is contrary to that person's nature), that person has an advocate with the Father [1 John 2:1].