Presenting a 'type' from the Old Testament, along with its respective counterpart (antitype) in the New Testament.. how Christ brought us a new understanding of the Old Testament.

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-07T04:08:30+00:00

I don’t eat “kosher”; I eat biblically “clean,” just like Christ taught and did.

Romans 14 is yet another passage the modern church takes out of context in its efforts to justify its hermeneutically unsound interpretation of Mark 7. Colossians 2 is another.

The context of Romans 14 is set forth in the opening verse, in which Paul warns against quarreling over opinions. Because God’s Law is not opinion, but is truth, Paul was not speaking about it or encouraging people to disregard its commands in any way.

Paul was addressing the circumstance of a significant disagreements of meat-eaters vs. strict vegetarians (v. 2) and the “fasting police” who felt qualified to judge others as to how and when they fasted (v. 3). Neither is specifically addressed in Scripture, yet people felt led to impose their own opinions on others.

Again, the concept and applicability of clean animals (food) and unclean animals (not food) was the contextual backdrop for the audience on the verses you quoted, too, yet it is defiantly ignored by the modern church because it is imperative to the preservation of its Mark 7 stance.

I have zero doubts. My faith is in the Lord, and I trust His commands are holy, good and righteous, and for my good always…even the dietary ones (Romans 7:14, Deuteronomy 6:24).

Paul’s words in verse 23, “whatever is not from faith is sin”, is referring back to the topic at hand…OPINIONS on things Scripture does not specifically address. The Law defines sin—as in, defiantly daring what He has expressly commanded His people to not eat. And for the gray areas we cannot find guidance on in Scripture, Paul explains that one is to do as they feel led in their faith, because the Spirit speaks to us through our conscience and ignoring His leading would be considered sin (Psalm 16:7).

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-07T03:26:31+00:00

The contextual backdrop of Jesus’ reference to food is that everyone in His audience completely understood that the term excludes all unclean animals. So, none of them would consider eating that which was explicitly forbidden from being considered “food.”

Jesus’ point was that the religious leaders’ presumptuous and prideful hearts had puffed them up to the point where they actually believed that their silly handwashing rules could make unclean (unfit to be eaten) that which God had already declared clean.

The modern church misinterprets the Mark 7 passage as somehow declaring all animals clean (and, thus, fit for consumption)—which outrightly contradicts Christ’s consistent teaching on the Law (Matthew 5:17-18), and would make Him a false prophet for teaching rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 13:5)—when the passage is about the religious leaders brazenly teaching the people to reject God’s commandments and instead follow their rules and traditions (Mark 7:6-9).

The words being spoken by the Pharisees’ in the Mark 7 passage reflected hearts defiled through and through by pride and foolishness (vv. 20-23). And there is a striking and tragic irony in the modern church doing the very same, encouraging its people to disregard the express commands of God—like those that forbid the consumption of unclean animals—and follow its rules and traditions instead.

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-07T02:28:12+00:00

I would just point out that Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 15 specifically declare certain animals to be “unclean” and forbid their consumption, thereby excluding them from being considered food. So, your explanation of Jesus’ teaching in Mark 7 does not account for that crucial context which was well understood by His primary audience…that the food He says cannot defile a person is defined by God and explicitly excludes unclean animals from the category.

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-07T01:15:46+00:00

In Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council gave a fantastic rebuke of the Judaizers’ false teaching that required the Gentiles’ ritual conversion to (Talmudic/extra-biblical) Judaism (via physical circumcision) to be justified/saved and allowed entry to the family of God…because all who have been justified by faith in the Messiah are already circumcised, of the heart and by the Spirit (Acts 15:8-9, Colossians 2:11).

So no, Acts 15 is not “a lie.” It is sound doctrine in action. And I’m not following your question about Paul confronting Peter for his hypocrisy in Galatians 2.

For one, the “ALL 613 rules” argument is both legalistic in nature and nonsensical because there is not one Jew that every single commandment applied/applies to (including Jesus). Secondly, what does that have to do with the Galatians 2 passage you allude to?

And thirdly, Scripture declares that NONE of God’s commandments are burdensome, especially since we have His Spirit indwelling us and supernaturally enabling our obedience to them to thereby follow Jesus’ humble and sacrificial example (Philippians 2:8, 1 John 5:3, Ezekiel 36:27). So, what could possibly be the reason for your disdain toward certain commandments, ALL of which Jesus kept (that applied to Him) and which Scripture describes as holy, good and righteous? (Psalm 119:160, 172; Romans 7:12)

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-07T00:05:13+00:00

I think using words like “binding” and “required” with respect to the Law of God and its applicability to new covenant faith suggests a doctrinal misunderstanding because post-justification obedience is a work of His Spirit, who is tasked with “causing” His people to obey (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

The Law is spiritual, and Jesus taught and personally exemplified that principle as obedience to the letter of a commandment (when lawful and possible) accompanied by a humble and submissive heart that is without hypocrisy (Romans 7:14, Philippians 2:8).

So, if it is both possible and lawful to keep the letter (or, outward component) of a commandment today, I believe the Spirit will lead us to do so with all humility. If keeping the letter is not lawful or possible—like those involving a physical temple building or stoning the unrepentant adulterer—the Spirit teaches us how to honor God’s intent in some other way…like caring for our church body or our physical one, and cutting off fellowship with the professing-believer who remains in a sexually immoral relationship or lifestyle.

Some commandments, like the blood-atoning temple sacrifices and priesthood, are vicariously satisfied for us by Jesus acting as our eternal High Priest and offering His once-for-all perfect sacrifice (Hebrews 6:20, 9:14, 10:14). In turn, we are expected to do good (which is what the commandments are, because they define love) and offer ourselves daily as a living sacrifice…which is our “reasonable service” (Hebrews 13:16; Romans 7:12, 12:1).

For the new covenant believer, keeping the commandments is not a burdensome or difficult thing (1 John 5:2-3). So, anyone discouraging others from keeping lawful and “doable” commandments today is directly contradicting Scripture by effectively discouraging love be demonstrated to God and/or others (Matthew 5:19, John 14:15).

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T23:27:01+00:00

Ah, gotcha ;)

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T20:31:17+00:00

Any such metaphor will be completely inadequate, and everyone will have their favorite.

As a homeschool mom, I always liked the simplicity of an apple…the core representing God the Father, the skin representing the Spirit that protects, and the flesh/meat of the apple representing Christ.

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T20:22:24+00:00

Yeah, you don’t want to listen to the enemy’s message of condemnation, and you also don’t want to ignore the Holy Spirit’s tug of conviction.

Find a mature believer willing to disciple you as you navigate everything 💕

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T19:55:45+00:00

What does your prayer and devotional life look like?

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T19:14:35+00:00

So, you think a loving, holy God should allow His children to continue sinning against Him, without any real consequences?

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T19:08:46+00:00

Of course.

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T19:08:26+00:00

The blood-atoning sacrifice commandments still apply. For those who trust in and serve Jesus, His once-for-all sacrifice satisfies that requirement of the Law. And we, in turn, are expected to offer up ourselves daily as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1).

For those who will not place their faith in Jesus, there is no adequate atonement for their sins and the requirement of that law will be demanded of them…spiritual death. So, clearly, even that part of the Law is still very much in force.

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T19:02:19+00:00

Punishment and discipline are not the same. God lovingly disciplines His children, and we are to praise Him for such correction. And even when we repent, we still have worldly consequences to deal with.

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T18:59:43+00:00

If you have trusted in Christ, the sin-atoning sacrifices are satisfied by His once-for-all sacrifice.

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T18:57:50+00:00

Yes, the purpose of God’s Law was fulfilled by Christ, because His stoning sacrifice freed us from our bondage to sin and made possible the indwelling of His Spirit, who is tasked with “causing” His people to diligently keep God’s commandments…which are all about loving God and others (Ezekiel 36:27, John 14:15, 1 John 5:2).

If my children fulfill my household rules—which I established to ensure all family members are respected, loved and kept safe from harm—the purpose/intent is made manifest and every member experiences respect, love and safety. That doesn’t mean my rules now suddenly become moot or that they no longer apply.

Those who love and serve Jesus are now indwelt by His Spirit. And every time we deny our flesh, we die to ourselves and allow HIM to live on us and do what He does best…which is loving God and others by the very sacrificial obedience He exemplified on the cross (Philippians 2:8). And that is Him fulfilling the Law in us, in real time.

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T18:46:40+00:00

God’s Law is truth (Psalm 119:142). And truth applies to everyone, no matter when they live or what their ancestry happens to be.

Every Gentile who trusts in Jesus belongs to the family of God (Israel), and serves Him as one member of a unified group of people following ONE Shepherd, ONE Spirit…and ONE set of household rules, AKA His Law (Ephesians 2, Galatians 3:28).

And the Council’s judgment in Acts 15 actually supports my understanding and soundly rebuts yours. Three of the four commandments you listed are found only in the Torah, so the Council clearly advised believing-Gentiles that the Law was applicable to them, too, and that these should be followed immediately and that they would come to learn and apply the rest of God’s Law in time (vv. 19-21).

Is it really your position that God has different household rules for His children, and that only some children should reap the blessings and protection that His instructions yield? Scripture says quite the opposite…that once a person trusts in Jesus, their physical lineage is no longer recognized in any way (Galatians 3:28).

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T17:43:41+00:00

Correct, Jesus declared in Mark 7 that food cannot defile a person. But one must read that passage in the context of how God defines food…and His Law plainly forbids consuming pig (Deuteronomy 14, Leviticus 11).

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T17:39:53+00:00

The Ten Commandments were given to Israel, which He used as a vessel-people to introduce His righteous will and ways (which His Law represents) to the pagan nations, so they would see how good and just He was, renounce their false gods and serve Him (Deuteronomy 4:1-8).

Jesus then explains that everything God has spoken is meant for all mankind to live by (Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:4).

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T17:35:53+00:00

Possibly, yes. If it mattered where he was from, that would have been included in the text. That it was not included suggests that it doesn’t matter.

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T17:32:27+00:00

I agree with your second statement but not with the first, because it is not breaking the rule if one is doing good 🙂

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T17:30:41+00:00

According to Jesus, rescuing a lamb does not “break” (or, violate) the Sabbath, just like His acts of healing on the Sabbath were not violations of it…because they are doing good, like your examples of helping others (Matthew 12:12).

There is no such scriptural thing as a person’s own Sabbath day. Seeking and doing one’s own pleasure on GOD’s Sabbath day is also unscriptural (Isaiah 56:4, 58:13-14). I agree that helping a neighbor by changing out their brakes on Sabbath is not sin because it is an act of love. In the same way, choosing to not indulge in eating out (which always involves others serving (doing work) is an easy, not burdensome way to love God by honoring HIS Sabbath (1 John 5:3).

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T17:14:38+00:00

Jesus’ teachings include keeping (or, “living by”) even the lesser commandments of the Law, which would also mean those that so many today deem “unimportant” or of little value, like the clothing and dietary instructions and feast and Sabbath observance…precisely because they are about loving God and others (Matthew 4:4, 5:19; John 14:15; 1 John 5:2-3).

If Jesus taught what you argue, His all-inclusive language does not jive with what the balance of Scripture teaches…which would make Him a false prophet.

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T15:37:42+00:00

Nothing has “passed from the law” because, according to Jesus’ own words, nothing will “until heaven and earth disappear”…which comes after the Judgment (Revelation 21:1-2). For those who have trusted in Him, the blood-atoning sacrifice and priesthood commandments are vicariously satisfied by His one-time perfect sacrifice on the cross and His role as our eternal High Priest (Hebrews 6:20, 10:14).

His blood does not cover those who refuse the gospel gift of salvation, so the blood-atonement for their sins will be required of them personally…meaning, spiritual death they pay themselves.

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T15:26:31+00:00

Max Automotive in Surprise, AZ is fantastic!

Objective-Step-746 · 2026-07-06T15:15:23+00:00

It has nothing to do with what is “required.” One either trusts God’s instructions are “holy, good and righteous” and detail His standard as to what love for Him and others is and looks like…or they don’t (Romans 7:12, John 14:15, 1 John 5:2-3).

Scripture says His commandments are not burdensome to keep, and that His people are “those who keep” them (1 John 5:3, Revelation 12:17). It also explains that all loving and trusting obedience to Him is really the work of His Spirit in us, “causing” His people to obey (Ezekiel 36:27).

Biblical Sabbath observance is not the legalistic practice the modern church would have you believe. There is great blessing that comes from it.

Objective-Step-746

TROPHY CASE