Context of Scripture

[CHB]

Few would consider Judas Iscariat as remaining among the original apostles of the Lamb, but then again, maybe he represents God's saving work beyond this life.  Was Paul the replacement for Judas?  As a replacement he seems more likely than casting lots for Matthias.

(Matt. 19:28) And Jesus said unto them, {Judas was among them} Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Judas was amo9ng those that Jesus was talking about.

Scripture says, "All is yours," not just earth or the heavenlies. 
Ephesians 2:1-7 (CLV) . . .

Who was Paul talking to here?

1 And you, being dead to your offenses and sins,
2 in which once you walked, {flesh} in accord with the eon of this world, in accord with the chief of the jurisdiction of the air, the spirit now operating in the sons of stubbornness {psychical, that is, soulical realm}

The sons of stubborness, ah who were they but the children of Israel.

3 (among whom we also all behaved ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the will of the flesh and of the comprehension, and were, in our nature, children of indignation, even as the rest),
4 yet God, being rich in mercy, because of His vast love with which He loves us
5 (we also being dead to the offenses and the lusts), vivifies us together in Christ (in grace are you saved!) {spiritual regeneration}
6 and rouses us together {soulical awakening} and seats us together among the celestials, in Christ Jesus, {this is where we are now, even as we walk on the dirt}
7 that, in the oncoming eons, He should be displaying the transcendent riches of His grace in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus.

Yes, the one's Paul was referring to are in the heavenlies.

CHB

[jabcat]

From the Concordant website:


".....attributed to both Miles Coverdale and John Wycliffe. It is worth knowing and should be copied into one's copy of the Bible for constant reference and for constant application to all studies made of the Sacred Scriptures.

THE GOLDEN RULE OF SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION

"It shall greatly helpe ye to understand Scripture,
if thou mark not only what is spoken or wrytten,
but of whom, and to whom, with what words,
at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances,
considering what goeth before and what followeth after."

[jabcat]

"Articles on Various Subjects...Correct Partitioning"... http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/index.html

[bobf]

I believe when taken in context and rightly divided, all scripture reconciles.

I agree that all scripture rightly divided reconciles.  I just don't beleive that "taking things in context" the way to rightly divide God's world.

For example:

• Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Here is the quote:

• Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. 2 As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images.

According to OT context God called His son Israel out of Egypt.  Nothing in the context says anything about Jesus Christ.  And when God called His son they rebelled and sacrified to false gods.  Certainly that does not apply to Jesus Christ.  IMO the gospel writer rightly divided the Word by quoting part of the context and ignoring the rest.

Well, Brother Bob, thanks for being so clear.  This particular thread is not the place to continue pursuing this discussion, we're getting close to hijacking Paul's thread  .  Briefly, I believe we need to rightly handle the Word of God whether in this thread, or other areas of our life.  Probably none of us has that completely figured out.  However, IMO, not doing so causes and adds to confusion.  I have a thread called "Context of Scripture" if any of us would like to pursue this particular topic further, or of course, please feel free to start your own

Yes anyone will agree that we need to rightly handle the World of God and not doing so causes confusion.  The question is whether adherence to rules of "good hermeneutics" leads to rightly dividing the Word of Truth.  I believe it does not.  I believe the scriptures are veiled and only unveiled by Jesus Christ, not by context.

[jabcat]

I especially agree with your last line.  But if I say "Bob, Jesus told you that you would tear down the temple, but that He would rebuild it in 3 days.  Would it possible that I might be speaking out of turn, not in the Spirit, or at least, without spiritual understanding?

As to "called out my son", I would think that was initially spoken primarily in a context, but with deeper spiritual meanings, including a foreshadowing of things to come.

As for good ole' Herman Nutix, I don't even know that guy :laughing7:.

Question I've been thinking about.  God told the Israelites some very specific things wrt the Levitical Laws.  If you weren't told later in scripture that Jesus fulfilled the Law, would you think it was you being told to obey the Levitical Laws, or would you agree that it was spoken primarily to a specific group other than you?

God's blessing, James.

[jabcat]

"If I told you Bob, Jesus told you that you would tear down the temple"...

I've seen people actually do things similar to this, if not worse...and have probably done it myself! 

[bobf]

I especially agree with your last line.  But if I say "Bob, Jesus told you that you would tear down the temple, but that He would rebuild it in 3 days.  Would it possible that I might be speaking out of turn, not in the Spirit, or at least, without spiritual understanding?

Of course it is possible for me to speak out of turn and not in the spirit.  But I do believe that I crucified Christ, seeing as I commited my sins, and my sins were laid on Christ, and Christ bore the penalty of my sins, and Christ died on the cross because of my sins.

As to "called out my son", I would think that was initially spoken primarily in a context, but with deeper spiritual meanings, including a foreshadowing of things to come.

But no one could ever derive from the context of that passage that it was referring to Christ.  The context dictates that that is not talking about Christ since Christ is not Israel and since Christ never sacrified to idols.  So how was the gospel writer justified in quoting that?  Because He was driven by the Spirit of God.

Question I've been thinking about.  God told the Israelites some very specific things wrt the Levitical Laws.  If you weren't told later in scripture that Jesus fulfilled the Law, would you think it was you being told to obey the Levitical Laws, or would you agree that it was spoken primarily to a specific group other than you?  God's blessing, James.

Many do try to apply the letter of various OT laws to themselves.  They argue about which laws do and do not apply.  So yes, I might think that.  If I did, I'd be reading the OT in a veiled fashion.

On the other hand I believe the book of Leviticus was written TO and FOR us.  Even PRIMARILY.  Just not in the letter.  Each physical law is a picture of some spiritual truth (not that I know what they are).

Here is a scripture:

• 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works

Let me rewrite it:

• 2 Timothy 3:16 The book of Leviticus is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works

If I am a man of God then the book of Leviticus is for me
- as instruction in righteousness
- to be profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction
- so that I may be perfect

Here is an example of Jesus applying the book of Leviticus:

• Mark 9:49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.

The "sacrifices" in Leviticus were not human yet Jesus applied "every sacrifice" to men.  The "fire" in Leviticus was literal fire but Jesus spoke of judgement fire.  The "salt" in Leviticus was literal salt but Jesus spoke of spiritual salt.

Jesus was rightly dividing the word.  He did not get that from the context in Leviticus.

[jabcat]

IMO, for instruction, profitability, reproof, and correction, does not necessarily mean every scripture was written primarily to you.  I don't think we're exactly discussing the same thing here.  I have clearly specified that I believe there are layers of scripture, spiritual layers...there is profit in them for our learning, spiritual principles in every scripture.  However, to primarily take the primary meaning and message of each and every scripture to say that it is primarily directed at Bob or James, I just understand at this time to be in error and to, at times, perpetuate confusion. 

I'm using what I believe are obvious, simplistic examples...even perhaps to a point of silliness to make a point.  I believe there are MANY more that are not so obvious, and actually pose a higher risk to encourage confusion.  But to make the point,  when Jesus told the disciples to get the donkey...you or I weren't there...we couldn't, nor were we intended to go get that donkey.  I don't think we should go get one now, sit by the road, believing Jesus wants to come riding into our town on a donkey.  Now, is there profit and instruction there, layers within the scripture from which we can benefit?  I believe, certainly.  We learn of His humility, we learn of the fulfillment of prophecy, we see the disciples' obedience and we should be obedient as well.  But I haven't gone to get a donkey, and I'm not sure, but I'd just guess you haven't either.

God said some very specific things to the Israelites about the Levitical Laws...don't eat shellfish, don't do certain things with their land, laws concerning ritual cleanliness after childbirth,  laws concerning bodily discharges (such as blood, pus, etc.) and purification, etc.  So to try to apply those things to yourself personally, I hear you saying would be to read them in a veiled fashion.  I don't disagree with that.  However, my distinction and assertion would be, part of your reading them in a veiled fashion (not just YOU, but also me, whoever) would be because you were taking their meaning out of context, and directly/primarily attempting to apply them to yourself, rather than understand who was the primary intended recipient.

Again, I almost get the feel that we're talking, at least in part, about at least slightly different things.  I certainly believe God veils/unveils.  Perhaps part of that process is teaching us how to apply scripture, and part of that process is the following, as I've posted before...I love this, by the way, and for anyone who uses a dispensationalist label, especially in a diminishing fashion, both of these fella's were a LONG time before Darby and Scofield.  I've never considered myself a dispensationalist anyway...I do try to understand and rightly divide and apply the Word of God, as I know do you.

Attributed to both Coverdale and Wycliffe;

THE GOLDEN RULE OF SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION

"It shall greatly helpe ye to understand Scripture,
if thou mark not only what is spoken or wrytten,
but of whom, and to whom, with what words,
at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances,
considering what goeth before and what followeth after."

[bobf]

IMO, for instruction, profitability, reproof, and correction, does not necessarily mean every scripture was written primarily to you.

If I am a man of God, the primary purpose of any scripture is for MY instruction in righteousness so that I may be perfect.  If you notice Paul quotes many OT scriptures which are ostensibly TO Israel and then teaches doctrine about the church from them.

I don't think we're exactly discussing the same thing here.  I have clearly specified that I believe there are layers of scripture, spiritual layers...

IMO those layers are the primary meaning.  For example,

• Galatians 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Now if I go back to Genesis and read the letter of the sciprtures Paul is referring to, am I going to get instruction in righteousness so I can be perfect?  Suppose Israel read the letter of those Genesis scriptures.  Would they be getting instruction in righteousness?  Paul said "do ye not HEAR the law" and then proceded to give the REAL MEANING of those scriptures and applied that meaning as instruction in righteousness TO the church.  That is the primary meaning of those scriptures.

...there is profit in them for our learning, spiritual principles in every scripture.  However, to primarily take the primary meaning and message of each and every scripture to say that it is primarily directed at Bob or James, I just understand at this time to be in error and to, at times, perpetuate confusion.

If by "primary meaning" you mean "literal meaning" then I agree we should not apply the literal meaning of every scripture to ourselves.  But the literal meaning is not the primary meaning.  So yes, I believe the primary meaning of every scripture is primarily directed AT EVERY man of God.

I'm using what I believe are obvious, simplistic examples...even perhaps to a point of silliness to make a point.  I believe there are MANY more that are not so obvious, and actually pose a higher risk to encourage confusion.  But to make the point,  when Jesus told the disciples to get the donkey...you or I weren't there...we couldn't, nor were we intended to go get that donkey.  I don't think we should go get one now, sit by the road, believing Jesus wants to come riding into our town on a donkey.  Now, is there profit and instruction there, layers within the scripture from which we can benefit?  I believe, certainly.  We learn of His humility, we learn of the fulfillment of prophecy, we see the disciples' obedience and we should be obedient as well.  But I haven't gone to get a donkey, and I'm not sure, but I'd just guess you haven't either.

No, I would not apply the letter "go get a donkey" to myself.  Nor would I be careful to literally salt some animal sacrificies in fire according to Leviticus.  God told Abraham to "cast out the bondwoman".  Does that mean Bob is supposed to "cast out the bondwoman" ?  Yes, actullay it does, if one HEARS the law according to Paul.

God said some very specific things to the Israelites about the Levitical Laws...don't eat shellfish, don't do certain things with their land, laws concerning ritual cleanliness after childbirth,  laws concerning bodily discharges (such as blood, pus, etc.) and purification, etc.  So to try to apply those things to yourself personally, I hear you saying would be to read them in a veiled fashion.  I don't disagree with that.

If I tried to apply the letter of those things to myself it would be veiled.  And "Don't go eat shellfish" was not instruction in righteousness for Israel since not eating shellfish is neither here nor there.  But that scripture IS instruction in righteousness some way some how.

However, my distinction and assertion would be, part of your reading them in a veiled fashion (not just YOU, but also me, whoever) would be because you were taking their meaning out of context, and directly/primarily attempting to apply them to yourself, rather than understand who was the primary intended recipient.

Well that's what we're discussing here.  I believe the opposite: To think that any scripture is not primarly give for your instruction in righteousness is to miss the boat. 

THE GOLDEN RULE OF SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION

"It shall greatly helpe ye to understand Scripture,
if thou mark not only what is spoken or wrytten,
but of whom, and to whom, with what words,
at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances,
considering what goeth before and what followeth after."

I'm not trying to be disparaging here.  I'm just going to be very blunt about what I believe about that ^^^ rule.  I believe that rule is the golden calf of scriptural interpretation.  It replaces Jesus Christ.

• 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The natural man can certainly follow each of the steps in the golden rule above:
- marking of whom it is written
- with what words it is written
- at what time it is written
- where it is written
- to what intent it is wirtten
- with what circumstances it is written
- what goes before
- what goes after

But the natural man still can not know the things of the Spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned.

The sciptures are revealed by Jesus Christ by faith, not by following certain rules.

• 2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away

<br>

• Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.

[jabcat]

Quote -"Don't go eat shellfish" was not instruction in righteousness for Israel either."

I didn't say that...it was however spoken.  And I believe, to someone primarily besides Bob or James.

Quote - "To think that any scripture is not primarly give for your instruction in righteousness is to miss the boat."

I will accept that's your opinion.  I would say some particular scriptures were given primarily for various audiances, yet with universal spiritual application for our instruction and edification.  God can speak through every 'thou shalt not' if He so chooses.

Quote - "The sciptures are revealed by Jesus Christ by faith, not by following certain rules."

I agree God reveals, but IMO, God revealing doesn't exclude proper context and primary meaning.


I don't have perfect understanding, far from it.  However, I try to examine people's doctrinal opinions to see if they (as best as I can understand) line up with accurately translated, properly divided, Spirit revealed scripture.  I encourage everyone to do the same.  But as we've both said, in the end, God veils and reveals.

I've pretty much said what I believe on this topic, and I don't believe in arguing for the sake of arguing, though it is my carnal nature.  Probably doing much more than what we've done would just mostly be an exercise in strife...maybe someone else would like to reply, or maybe you have more to say.  Unless prompted, I may just mostly back out for awhile.  Also, as a mod, I believe it only behooves me to be involved in many topics only up to a certain point, unless of course, a topic becomes an actual mod issue.  So, let's both pray for guidance and keep our eyes on the Savior;  Who IS our primary focus.

[firstborn888]

God veils and reveals.

:thumbsup:

[jabcat]

God veils and reveals.

:thumbsup:

Amen, Bob and I agree on that!  Hello, Byron!

[bobf]

Quote -"Don't go eat shellfish" was not instruction in righteousness for Israel either."

I didn't say that...it was however spoken.  And I believe, to someone primarily besides Bob or James.

I realize you didn't say that jab.  I wasn't trying to say that you said that.   I was making a point based on what Paul said.

1. Paul said every scripture is instruction in righteousness for the man of God.
2. We disagree on which "man of God" the commandment "do not eat shellfish" is primarily for.
3. But whomever that commandment is primarily for, it still must be instruction in righteousness based on what Paul said.

And since Jesus said:

• Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

then the commandment "do not eat shellfish" as a literal commandment to physical Israel can not be the primary meaning.

I will accept that's your opinion.  I would say some particular scriptures were given primarily for various audiances, yet with universal spiritual application for our instruction and edification.  God can speak through every 'thou shalt not' if He so chooses.

I think there is a particular audience too jab, just a different one that what you think.  I think the particiular audience is always the seed of Abraham, those of his faith in Christ.

The OT scriptures, at least in part, testified of us and were not even ministering to physical Israel:

• 1 Peter 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.  12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into

I don't have perfect understanding, far from it.  However, I try to examine people's doctrinal opinions to see if they (as best as I can understand) line up with accurately translated, properly divided, Spirit revealed scripture.  I encourage everyone to do the same.  But as we've both said, in the end, God veils and reveals.

I've pretty much said what I believe on this topic, and I don't believe in arguing for the sake of arguing, though it is my carnal nature.  Probably doing much more than what we've done would just mostly be an exercise in strife...maybe someone else would like to reply, or maybe you have more to say.  Unless prompted, I may just mostly back out for awhile.  Also, as a mod, I believe it only behooves me to be involved in many topics only up to a certain point, unless of course, a topic becomes an actual mod issue. 

Fair enough jab.

I would just encourage you to test your belief that "properly dividing" means "those scriptures are to Israel and these are to me" by examining how Paul applies OT scriptures.

So, let's both pray for guidance and keep our eyes on the Savior;  Who IS our primary focus.

Amen jab & God bless.

[bobf]

...I believe I saw the lack of that yesterday in a sermon at my wife's "church"...the pastor using Jesus' teaching about the broad way, narrow gate, destruction, to mean most will be lost and go to hell for eternity...He used the "not everyone that says Lord, Lord, but him that does my will"...my thought was, so is salvation through works?  That's not what he believes, yet he was using that scripture...he's a grace guy, although an ET'er...(also, I believe most will be saved through destruction, so this may not be the best example of mixing, maybe more so of interpretation/understanding).  I just think it gets all mixed up though, so the same person can be giving 2 different messages...we're saved by grace, "to him that doesn't work it's accounted to him for righteousness", but then only those that do the right works avoid hell.  Huh?

Hey jab... I think Jesus gave a similar mixed message below.  First works then grace.

Works Based

• Matthew 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Really Works Based

• Matthew 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Grace Based

• Matthew 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Is see a parallel between Christ saying "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" regarding works and what Paul said "not of works lest any man should boast... for we are His workmanship created unto good works which God hath ordained that we should walk in them" in Eph 2.

[NinjaWizards777]

I think even "in context" it in itself doesn't prove a lot because everything can be interpreted and intendid different ways

[jabcat]

I think even "in context" it in itself doesn't prove a lot because everything can be interpreted and intendid different ways

I agree, as you say, not "in itself"..only one of the factors..even in context, God still has to open our eyes  :thumbsup:

[reFORMer]

Other than you won't die from allergic reaction to shellfish if you don't eat it...it is unclean because, though it is holy, set-apart from its environment by its shell(s), it can only move without guidance, only by squirts.  A clean fish has scales, so is sanctified from the world; but, it also has fins, meaning it has internal guidance...not tossing a coin, not trapped by another, but able to excercise the inner motive to go somewhere else.  God writes His laws in our hearts and minds that we love and approve of His will, doing it without having to be told or externally brought into bondage, subjected to another's will.

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: That's good reFormer.....I never understood some of the dietary laws except that some of them were bottom feeders, ie. eating that which is decaying (things of corruption). Blessings....

[bobf]

Other than you won't die from allergic reaction to shellfish if you don't eat it...it is unclean because, though it is holy, set-apart from its environment by its shell(s), it can only move without guidance, only by quirts.  A clean fish has scales, so is sanctified from the world; but, it also has fins, meaning it has internal guidance...not tossing a coin, not trapped by another, but able to excercise the inner motive to go somewhere else.  God writes His laws in our hearts and minds that we love and approve of His will, doing it without having to be told or externally brought into bondage, subjected to another's will.

:thumbsup:

[Doc]

:cloud9: That's good reFormer.....I never understood some of the dietary laws except that some of them were bottom feeders, ie. eating that which is decaying (things of corruption). Blessings....

Actually, all of the dietary laws can be proven scientifically as well.

For example, As you alluded to, the shellfish absorb toxins from their environment; part of their job. They were not meant for food.

[martincisneros]

Barnabas interpreted the food laws as related to the types of people that we associate with, rather than as anything that God ever meant to be dietary:


10:1 But forasmuch as Moses said ;
10:2 Ye shall not eat swine nor eagle nor falcon nor crow nor any fish which hath no scale upon it, he received in his understanding three ordinances.
10:3 Yea and further He saith unto them in Deuteronomy ;
10:4 And I will lay as a covenant upon this people My ordinances.
10:5 So then it is not a commandment of God that they should not bite with their teeth, but Moses spake it in spirit.
10:6 Accordingly he mentioned the swine with this intent.
10:7 Thou shalt not cleave, saith he, to such men who are like unto swine;
10:8 that is, when they are in luxury they forget the Lord, but when they are in want they recognize the Lord, just as the swine when it eateth knoweth not his lord, but when it is hungry it crieth out,
10:9 and when it has received food again it is silent.
10:10 Neither shalt thou eat eagle nor falcon nor kite nor crow.
10:11 Thou shalt not, He saith, cleave unto, or be likened to such men who know not how to provide food for themselves by toil and sweat, but in their lawlessness seize what belongeth to others,
10:12 and as if they were walking in guilelessness watch and search about for some one to rob in their rapacity,
10:13 just as these birds alone do not provide food for themselves, but sit idle and seek how they may eat the meat that belongeth to others, being pestilent in their evil-doings.
10:14 And thou shalt not eat, saith He, lamprey nor polypus nor cuttle fish.
10:15 Thou shalt not, He meaneth, become like unto such men, who are desperately wicked, and are already condemned to death, just as these fishes alone are accursed and swim in the depths,
10:16 not swimming on the surface like the rest, but dwell on the ground beneath the deep sea.
10:17 Moreover thou shalt not eat the hare.
10:18 Why so?
10:19 Thou shalt not be found a corrupter of boys, nor shalt thou become like such persons;
10:20 for the hare gaineth one passage in the body every year;
10:21 for according to the number of years it lives it has just so many orifices.
10:22 Again, neither shalt thou eat the hyena ;
10:23 thou shalt not, saith He, become an adulterer or a fornicator, neither shalt thou resemble such persons.
10:24 Why so?
10:25 Because this animal changeth its nature year by year, and becometh at one time male and at another female.
10:26 Moreover He hath hated the weasel also and with good reason.
10:27 Thou shalt not, saith He, become such as those men of whom we hear as working iniquity with their mouth for uncleanness, neither shalt thou cleave unto impure women who work iniquity with their mouth.
10:28 For this animal conceiveth with its mouth.
10:29 Concerning meats then Moses received three decrees to this effect and uttered them in a spiritual sense;
10:30 but they accepted them according to the lust of the flesh, as though they referred to eating.
10:31 And David also receiveth knowledge of the same three decrees, and saith Blessed is the man who hath not gone in the counsel of the ungodly-even as the fishes go in darkness into the depths;
10:32 and hath not stood in the path of sinners-just as they who pretend to fear the Lord sin like swine;
10:33 and hath not sat on the seat of the destroyersas the birds that are seated for prey.
10:34 Ye have now the complete lesson concerning eating.
10:35 Again Moses saith;
10:36 Ye shall eat everything that divideth the hoof and cheweth the cud.
10:37 What meaneth he?
10:38 He that receiveth the food knoweth Him that giveth him the food, and being refreshed appeareth to rejoice in him.
10:39 Well said he, having regard to the commandment.
10:40 What then meaneth he?
10:41 Cleave unto those that fear the Lord, with those who meditate in their heart on the distinction of the word which they have received, with those who tell of the ordinances of the Lord and keep them,
10:42 with those who know that meditation is a work of gladness and who chew the cud of the word of the Lord.
10:43 But why that which divided the hoof?
10:44 Because the righteous man both walketh in this world, and at the same time looketh for the holy world to come.
10:45 Ye see how wise a lawgiver Moses was.
10:46 But whence should they perceive or understand these things?
10:47 Howbeit we having justly perceived the commandments tell them as the Lord willed.
10:48 `To this end He circumcised our ears and hearts, that we might understand these things.

[Doc]

Multiple levels, Martin. The physical is always the shadow of the spiritual.

[Cardinal]

:cloud9: That's good reFormer.....I never understood some of the dietary laws except that some of them were bottom feeders, ie. eating that which is decaying (things of corruption). Blessings....

Actually, all of the dietary laws can be proven scientifically as well.

For example, As you alluded to, the shellfish absorb toxins from their environment; part of their job. They were not meant for food.

:cloud9: Which begs the question........why then, did He make them taste so good with a little shrimp sauce?  :mblush: :winkgrin:   Blessings....

[reFORMer]

Because we eat demons for breakfast!  Death is swallowed up by victory!

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: roflol...... :thumbsup: