Contending for The Faith!!! Part 2!!

Romans chapter 14




Today we are walking in: Contending for The Faith!! Part 2!!




Today we look to the word FAITH-- H529 emuwn--faithfulness, trusting, faithful









The Torah testifies...............




Deuteronomy 32:20



And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith H529











The prophets proclaim..................



Habakkuk 2:4



Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith H529.





The writings bear witness............



Contending for the Faith: An Example

As an example of contending for The Faith, let’s look at a common example most have heard today. Many theological seminaries put forth many twisted notions about the meaning of the apostle Paul’ words. For example, notice Romans 14:1-2:

Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. (Romans 14:1-2)

Some would claim that Paul is saying in Romans 14:1-2, that there are some who are weak in ‘The Faith’ because they choose not to eat the items forbidden to The Most High’s people as listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Using this false reasoning, they then put forth the notion that ‘Grace’ has somehow removed the prohibition against eating those things the Bible calls unclean.

So how do we test this notion? If in all of Scripture there is found any disagreement with the notion, or if the idea does not agree with all that the Prophets have spoken, or if there are not found two or three witnesses to establish the idea as true, then the notion is a false notion. Let’s notice what Scripture says:

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: 11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. (Leviticus 11:10-11)

Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing. (Deuteronomy 14:3)

I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts; 3 A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; 4 Which remain among the graves [they are spiritually dead], and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine’s flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels; (Isaiah 65:2-4)

They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD. (Isaiah 66:17)

These chapters in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the passages in Isaiah, tell us in great detail what is to be considered abomination to us, and that we are not to eat any abominable thing.

So if we think there is no longer any prohibition against eating those things the Bible calls unclean or abomination, we immediately see direct disagreement with these Scripture passages, for nowhere is it written in Scripture that these prohibitions have been ‘taken away’ or ‘abolished.’

To the contrary, we are told that the Scriptures are eternal (Deuteronomy 29:29; Psalms 119:44, 89, 160; Isaiah 40:8; 1Pet 1:25), and so they cannot be broken, annulled, nor done away with (John 10:35). Indeed, Messiah Himself reminds us that the Torah tells us that we live by every word God has spoken (Matt 4:4; Luke 4:4).

We conclude that the idea that the Bible no longer prohibits eating things the Bible calls unclean or abomination, is not in agreement with Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, nor with the words of the Prophets — and so it is a false notion.

Contrary to some of the popular teachings today, there is nothing cancelled under the New Covenant except our debt of sin, and nothing done away with or nullified, except the dogma, or decrees of men. Every part of the New Covenant relates to one or more aspects of Torah, as being fulfilled [but not ended], expanded in scope, or transferred from external to internal, where it is to be written on the heart. So we see this idea claiming that one is ‘weak in The Faith’ because he does not eat the ‘abominations’ of Scripture is a false notion, a “Doctrine of Men” we have encountered.

We are not to add to what Yahushua, or Paul, or the other writers of Scripture actually say. Much of Paul’s writings, like those of Peter, James, John, and Yahushua, may be hard to understand, according to 2Peter 3:16. Nevertheless, we do not have liberty to make these Scriptures into a teaching that opposes the entire ‘written’ Word of The Most High. What Paul actually says is what we must live by. It appears that what Paul is saying in Romans 14:2 is that the one who is ‘weak’ is what we call a ‘vegetarian.’ And in verses 3 and 4 Paul tells us that even though these vegetarians are weak, we are not to judge them.

“But what about…,” as many rightly protest. Very quickly we realise that each of these ‘twisted’ understandings of Scripture are interlocked with other twisted doctrines, in order to appear credible. So let us look at another related example.
Contending for the Faith: A Second Example

Following our same theme and line of reasoning in the above example, let’s notice that men have twisted the meaning of Romans 14, and have connected it to a twisted meaning of what Yahushua said in Mark 7:19. Notice the following passage:

And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him [‘render him unclean’]; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats [‘food’]? (Mark 7:19)

Some today claim that Yahushua’s statement in Mark 7:19 somehow abolishes the prohibition of eating what Scripture defines as abomination. But when we read carefully the verses in Mark chapter 7 in context, we see the true and clear meaning of the entire message. Notice that the subject of Yahushua’s answer given in verse 19, is seen in context in verse 2:

And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled [‘unclean’], that is to say, with unwashen hands, they found fault. (Mark 7:2)

Here we see the context for verse 19 is the question asked in verse 5, of whether a violation of a [man-made] Talmudic tradition of washing hands, and then eating food with these unwashed hands, would somehow ‘defile’ [make Biblically unclean] the eater. Yahushua gives the answer in the ensuing verses, with the conclusion in verse 19 — that all that is considered to be ‘food’ [Greek broma, Strong’s number is not defiled by unwashed hands.

Notice also that this explanation does not change the eternal, Biblical distinctions of what is to be considered as ‘food’ as spelled out in Torah, for two reasons.

The First reason, is that when we look at the definition of the Greek word broma, Strong’s number, we se the following definition:

1033 βρωμα broma

AV – meat, victuals

From the base of 977; food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonial) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law.

—Strong’s Greek Dictionary of the New Testament

Notice that throughout the Scriptures, what is considered ‘food’ is based only on what is allowed or forbidden in Torah — and this distinction appears in the Strong’s definition for the Greek word broma used above in Mark 7:19. This clearly re-affirms for us, that according to Scripture, anything forbidden by Torah is not to be considered as ‘food.’

So we see that Yahushua’s conclusion in Mark 7:19 merely answers the question asked in verse 5, that unwashed hands does not defile what is considered food.

The Second reason that the eternal, Biblical definition of ‘food’ as given out in Torah has not been changed by Yahushua, or by any of the New Testament writers, is more dramatic, and has far-reaching implications.

If Yahushua had advocated anything other than strict adherence to Torah in every respect, He would have disqualified Himself from being a sinless Saviour, and from being the promised Messiah of The Most High. He would then have rightly been put to death as a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). From this we know Yahushua did not change anything, nor did He implement anything new. He simply lived His life as an example for us, of how we are to live, and how we are to walk as He walked (1Peter 2:21; 1John 2:6).

So we see that the New Testament Scriptures regarding food are only a few of the many Scriptures that have been twisted by many teachers today. In order to find the Truth, we must contend, we must fight against the errors we hear, by studying the Scriptures for ourselves. Only in this way can we find the Truth. There is no substitute for reading the Scriptures for ourselves!

Let’s notice another example within these same passages of Romans 14.
Contending for the Faith: A Third Example

Another false notion commonly taught about the words of Paul in Romans 14 is seen below:

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. (Romans 14:5-6a)

Many claim that in the above passage, the apostle Paul says that the keeping of the Sabbath Day is no longer valid for Believers, and that one may regard or disregard the Sabbath Day, as one sees fit. In a slightly different line of reasoning, others claim that keeping ‘any one’ day out of seven days is acceptable to The Most High.

To test these notions, let’s see what the words of the Prophets have to say about this:

Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. (Isaiah 56:2)

And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God. (Ezekiel 20:20)

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: (Exodus 20:10)

Oops! The above passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel, and those in Leviticus chapter 23 and many others, tell us we are to hallow [“set apart as special”] The Most High’s Sabbaths, and that these Sabbaths are all on appointed, specific days, and not open for our choosing. The appearance of the manna (Exodus 16:16-30), and the incident of the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath Day (Numbers 15:29-36), both prove that the weekly Sabbath Day is specified as the seventh day of the 7-day week.

From these Scriptures alone, it is easily seen that the man-made idea of the Sabbath day being the ‘first’ day of the week, or even ‘any one’ day out of seven days, does not agree with Scripture.

So we must conclude that the days to which Paul refers in Romans 14 are not sabbath days commanded by The Most High, but are religious days practiced by men [but not commanded in Scripture], perhaps the fasting-days practiced by tradition, as the context in verse 2 alludes, and as the Prophets reveal (Zechariah 7:5, 8:19). But how does our conclusion agree with all of Paul’s words?
The Words of Paul Agree

Those who have carefully studied the apostle Paul’s writings for themselves know that Paul would never write anything in his epistles contrary to the written Word of Torah, for Paul himself delighted in the Torah (Romans 7:22), walking orderly, believing in and keeping all the Torah (Acts 17:2, 18:21, 21:24, 24:14; 1Co 5:8). We then see (1Corinthians 4:16, 11:1) that Paul exhorts us to do just as he did — by choosing to follow and imitate his example!

We must then ask this question: “Would Paul contradict himself?”

We see that the apostle Paul himself [as do James and the elders] tell us clearly, that Paul keeps and obeys the Torah, and Paul then exhorts us to follow him, and to imitate his example. Would this same Paul then instruct us in an epistle, that we should NOT keep and obey Torah? This would be a contradiction!



So we ask, “Does Paul contradict Paul?” I think not! The apostle Peter tells us (2Peter 3:16) that those who ‘twist’ the meaning of Paul’s writings, are those who misunderstand his writings, and also misunderstand all of Scripture. Peter then tells us this misunderstanding of Scripture leads them [and by implication, those who follow them] to destruction and ruin.

https://youtu.be/HWkM0pyOcX0