Posted on 04/21/2007 9:24:38 AM PDT by DouglasKC
In this series of articles we have examined statements of Jesus Christ that when understood correctly are surprisingly different in meaning from the way they are commonly understood. In the case of dietary restrictions recorded in the Bible, the surprise may be the result of understanding not just what Jesus said but what He did not say in the Gospel of Mark.
Many believe that in His encounter with the Pharisees recorded in Mark 7:1-23, Jesus abrogated the laws of clean and unclean meats revealed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. In fact, many modern translations of the New Testament insert additional words into the text of Mark 7:19 to reflect this understanding. For example, the New International Version ends the verse with: "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean')."
The New King James Version has "thus purifying all foods" and includes the marginal explanation: "NU [an abbreviation for the text used by many New Testament translations] sets off the final phrase as Mark's comment, that Jesus has declared all foods clean."
But is this textual variation correct? Does it capture the meaning of the passage in question? What exactly did Jesus mean by His statement?
One of the foundational principles for understanding a scriptural passage is to examine the context. What is the topic of discussion here?
We should first notice that the subject is food in general, not which meats are clean or unclean. The Greek word broma, used in verse 19, simply means food. An entirely different Greek word, kreas, is used in the New Testament where meat—animal flesh —is specifically intended (see Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 13:8). So this passage concerns the general subject of food rather than meat. But a closer look shows that more is involved.
The first two verses help us understand the context: "Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault" (verses 1-2). They asked Jesus, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" (verse 5).
Now we see the subject further clarified. It concerns eating "with unwashed hands." Why was this of concern to the scribes and Pharisees?
The covenant God made with Israel at Mount Sinai was based on many laws and other instructions that ensured ritual purity. Jewish observance, however, often went beyond these in embracing the "oral law" or "tradition of the elders"—passed on by word of mouth and consisting of many additional man-made requirements and prohibitions tacked onto God's laws. Verses 3-4 of Mark 7 provide a brief explanation of the specific practice the Pharisees and scribes were referring to in this account: "For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders ..."
Notice that food laws are not in question here. The topic is ritual purity based on the religious traditions of the oral law. The disciples were being criticized for not following the proper procedure of ceremonial hand-washing prescribed by these revered religious traditions.
The Jewish New Testament Commentary, explaining the background of verses 2-4, offers a description of this custom: "Mark's explanation of a ... ritual handwashing, in these verses corresponds to the details set forth in Mishna tractate Yadayim [the Mishna is a later written version of the oral tradition]. In the marketplace one may touch ceremonially impure things; the impurity is removed by rinsing up to the wrist. Orthodox Jews today observe [ritual hand-washing] before meals. The rationale for it has nothing to do with hygiene but is based on the idea that 'a man's home is his Temple,' with the dining table his altar, the food his sacrifice and himself the cohen (priest). Since the Tanakh [Old Testament] requires cohanim [priests] to be ceremonially pure before offering sacrifices on the altar, the Oral Torah requires the same before eating a meal" (David Stern, 1995).
By the time of Christ many had made these additional practices a top priority and in so doing sometimes overlooked and even violated the fundamental principles of the law of God (Matthew 23:1-4, 23-28).
After decrying the hypocrisy of this and other religious traditions and practices of the day, Jesus gets to the heart of the matter. He explains that what defiles a person (in the eyes of God) comes not from the outside—by what one puts into his mouth—but from within (verse 15).
He said it is far more important to concentrate on what comes out of your heart than what you put into your mouth. Jesus explains: "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man" (verses 21-23).
Some of these same qualities are listed in Galatians 5:19-21 as "works of the flesh." They are contrasted with the "fruit of the Spirit" (verses 22-23). "Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness [and] self-control" are qualities of a spiritually purified heart.
The ceremonial washings and purification practices of the Old Covenant were physical representations of the spiritual purification to be offered in the New Covenant (Hebrews 9:11-14). Hebrews 9:23 tells us: "Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens [referring to the tabernacle, altar, priests, etc.] should be purified with these [ceremonial purifications], but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these." So the apostle Paul writes that Jesus "gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works" (Titus 2:14).
"Blessed are the pure in heart" is one of the fundamental teachings of Christ (Matthew 5:8).
In Mark 7 Jesus explains that ceremonial washing is not necessary for spiritual purity or sound spiritual health. He points out that "whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods" (verses 18-19).
Jesus is simply stating here that any dirt or other incidental impurities not removed through elaborate hand-washing will be purged out by the human digestive system in a manner that has no bearing on the heart and mind of a person. Since spiritual purification involves the heart, ceremonial washings are ineffective and unnecessary in preventing spiritual defilement.
Several Bible scholars recognize the error of interpreting this passage as an abrogation of the laws of clean and unclean meats. Certain grammatical factors, as well as the context of Scripture, determine how to properly translate verse 19. The Greek word translated "purifying" is a participle and must agree in grammatical gender with the noun it describes. Because this participle has a masculine ending, it cannot refer to "stomach," which is in the feminine gender in Greek. Thus many scholars instead relate "purifying" back to "He said."
However, another alternative provides a better explanation. The expression "is eliminated" in the New King James Version is a euphemistic rendering of what the original King James Version translates as "goeth out into the draught." "Draught" (draft) is an archaic way to translate the Greek word aphedron, which means "a place where the human waste discharges are dumped, a privy, sink, toilet" (BibleWorks software). Aphedron is a masculine-gender noun, so "purifying" can refer to the end result of human waste, the toilet.
The Commentary on the New Testament: Interpretation of Mark explains the passage on the basis of this pertinent information: "The translation ... 'This he said, making all meats clean' makes the participial clause ['purifying all foods'] a remark by Mark ... that Jesus makes all foods clean— a remark ... that we cannot accept ... He is explaining to his disciples how no food defiles a man ... As far as this thought is concerned, Jesus expresses it already in the preceding clause: 'and goes out into the privy.' What he now adds is that the privy [the end result of the digestive process] 'makes all food clean' ... for all foods have their course through the body only, never touch the heart, and thus end in the privy ... Since the disciples are so dense, the Lord is compelled to give them so coarse an explanation. In this, however, he in no way abrogates the Levitical laws concerning foods" (R.C.H. Lenski, pp. 297-298, emphasis added).
The Jewish New Testament Commentary, in its note on verse 19, summarizes well the overall meaning of this passage: "Yeshua [Jesus] did not, as many suppose, abrogate the laws of kashrut [kosher] and thus declare ham kosher! Since the beginning of the chapter the subject has been ritual purity ... and not kashrut at all! There is not the slightest hint anywhere that foods in this verse can be anything other than what the Bible allows Jews to eat, in other words, kosher foods ...
"Rather, Yeshua is continuing his discussion of spiritual prioritizing (v. 11). He teaches that tohar (purity) is not primarily ritual or physical, but spiritual (vv. 14-23). On this ground he does not entirely overrule the Pharisaic/rabbinic elaborations of the laws of purity, but he does demote them to subsidiary importance."
Can we find other biblical evidence that this view is correct, that Jesus never changed the biblical food laws? We find a telling event from the life of Peter well after Jesus' death and resurrection.
Peter is a central figure in the early Church. Jesus charged Peter to strengthen the brethren (Luke 22:32). Peter delivered a powerful sermon that led to the conversion of thousands (Acts 2:14-41). His boldly claiming the name of Christ resulted in the miraculous healing of a lame man. He powerfully preached on repentance to those who gathered to witness the miracle (Acts 3:1-26). Later the mere passing of Peter's shadow over the sick resulted in dramatic healings (Acts 5:15).
Surely Peter would have understood something as fundamental as whether Jesus had repealed the laws of clean and unclean meat. Yet, years after Christ's death and resurrection, when he experienced a vision of unclean animals accompanied by a voice telling him to "kill and eat," notice Peter's spontaneous response: "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean" (Acts 10:14, emphasis added throughout).
Ironically, many believe the purpose of this vision was to do away with the dietary restrictions regarding clean and unclean meats. Overlooked is the significance of Peter's initial response. He obviously did not consider these laws as having been rescinded by Christ!
This strange vision came to Peter three times, yet he still "wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant" (verses 16-17) and "thought about the vision" (verse 19). Peter did not jump to conclusions as too many do today. He already knew what the vision did not mean. Later God revealed the true meaning: "God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (verse 28).
Peter came to realize that the significance of the vision was that God was opening the way of salvation to gentiles (non-Israelites), so Peter shortly thereafter baptized the first uncircumcised gentiles God called into the Church (verses 34-35, 45-48). Peter was never to eat unclean animals, but he did learn this vital lesson in the plan of God.
The moral of this story is that food laws and righteousness are not mutually exclusive. God gave His food laws for sound reasons. True righteousness entails submission and obedience to all of God's Word (Psalm 119:172; Matthew 4:4; 5:17-19). GN
No, but it was a teaching of Paul that observance of the Law given in the Torah was of no value to non-Jews. This is the thesis of his letter to the Galatians.
The Bible statement was definitely a joke. I know the King James Bible. I just make outlandish comments every now and again. However, it did say that insect are not allowed to be eatten and that is definitely a difficult thing to obey when you are in the middle of the jungle and have nothing to eat.
Well, you'll just have to take that up with God. =]
depends on what you see floating in them.
No problem. I am sure there are many other things he will be “discussing” with me...lol.
There is ample historical and logical evidence that when coupled with biblical examples show this to be show. For example:
Act 10:22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by a holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
Cornelius had a "good report" among the Jews. It's doubtful that Jews would think so highly of Cornelius unless he were obeying the laws that the Lord gave them.
In fact, the opposite is demonstrably true in that the Acts passages about Peter, Cornelius, the evangelization of the gentiles, and the Council of Jerusalem ALL indicate the acceptance of gentiles without ANY legal requirements other than those specifically mentioned in Acts 15. No blood, no road kill, no sexual immorality, and no idol worship.
I think we discussed this already and we agreed that this is not an all inclusive list of things expected of gentiles. It can't be unless gentiles were "allowed" to kill, steal and commit any other sin not listed.
Peter's hypocrisy most specifically says that Peter was living just as gentiles do, and that strongly implies far more logically that he had set aside food laws even for himslf than it would ever suggest that the gentiles were now bound up by old Jewish food laws.
I'll bet he did set aside food laws. Food laws that were created and instituted by the Jewish religious system. But I'll guarantee that he respected the food laws created by the Lord.
This is simple common sense, and it is impossible for anyone to prove this point wrong. They are free to observe dietary restrictions all they desire, but they cannot claim that such a lifestyle is biblically required for gentile Christians. IT is unscriptural, illogical, and trending toward bondage rather than toward freedom.
What's unscriptural is the idea that we are to go against the express wishes of the Lord and consume animals that he said not to. What's illogical is to believe that brand new Christians would ignore thousands of years of tradition and the word of the Lord in absence of any tradition, apostolic teaching or scripture to the contrary. And it's not bondage to follow the desires of the Lord whose spirit lives in us.
Thirty years might be too high, but most scholars agree that the events in Acts 10 occurred anywhere from 10 to nearly 20 years after the death of Christ.
Act 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
At this point in time, Peter had NEVER eaten anything common (koinos) OR unclean (akathartos).
Up to that particular point in time that may have been true. BTW, when Peter said he never ate what was “common” what did that mean? What is the biblical basis for that claim?
It wasn't "may" have been true. It was true. Peter HAD never eaten anything common or unclean. Never. Ten to twenty years AFTER the death of Christ.
Here's why this is significant: Peter knew Christ personally. Peter was personally TAUGHT by Christ. Taught by Christ when incarnate and TAUGHT by the resurrected Christ.
Peter NEVER ate anything common OR unclean. That means that the Lord, Jesus Christ, never taught that the food laws he had created were now obsolete.
Look at it again.
It WAS not and IS not a teaching of Christ that the scriptural food laws the Christ created are done away with. It simply wasn't done.
“Then they shall bring all your brethren for an offering to the Lord out of all nations, on horses and in chariots and in litters, on mules and on camels, to My holy mountain Jerusalem," (Isa. 66:20)
If this is still far in our future, how do you explain the language using ancient implements of transport? Do you really expect us to believe that Jews from all over the world, millions of them, will come up to Jerusalem in horse-drawn wagons and with mules and camels? Is El Al going to stop flying?
It's certainly possible. And even if this is figurative it represents transportation.
One of us is following the traditions of the rabbis, and one of us if following the commandments and examples of Jesus and His apostles. I’ll stick with Jesus.
You're just wrong. I've shown you that it wasn't a teaching of Jesus or his apostles. It's a teaching of the early Roman church that wished to distance itself from anything that resembled Judaism. This is the tradition you follow.
God's laws about what is good for food and what is not are NOT Levitical food laws. By that I mean they are not laws that are dependent upon the Levitical priesthood to exist. There is no dependence upon the Levitical priesthood in order to observe them. That is another reason why they still exist under the new covenant.
The law of clean and unclean animals did not just exist in God's foreknowledge during Noah's time. They existed as reality:
Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
It wasn’t until Sinai that God actually codified that it was wrong to steal, murder, lie, or cheat. And those laws were only given to the children of Isreal. Was it wrong for other tribes to do the same? Probably but God wasn’t dealing with them through Moses and the law he gave to Moses.
Not probably. Absolutely. Everyone died since Adam because everyone violates God's laws. I think too that these laws were codified and shared with select individuals. Noah, Abraham and others. There are indications that this is so:
Gen 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
They ARE spelled out in Exodus to Israel BECAUSE God struck a covenant based upon these laws. It's also probably that after 400 odd years of captivity in Egypt that Israel had forgotten these laws and needed them to be retaught.
BELIEVERS have freedom in Christ and are not ruled by law nor are they obligated to live by law other than the law of love. Unbelieving believers, those saved but without the knowledge or faith to live by the spirit, often still live by ancient or comtemporary laws and traditions. Paul speaks very directly and loudly about this in Galations and Colossians.
I hate to keep rehashing this, but there is a huge difference in obeying the Lord's laws BECAUSE the Lord observed them and BECAUSE the Lord lives in us and leads us to them AND obeying them for the sake of obeying them or with the idea that they're "works" of our own.
So it was the Cornelius events you had in mind. I thought you were speaking of some much later event.
Here's why this is significant: Peter knew Christ personally. Peter was personally TAUGHT by Christ. Taught by Christ when incarnate and TAUGHT by the resurrected Christ.
OK, so if Peter had all this face time with Jesus, why then did God need to speak to Peter in a vision for him to get the correct perspective on the gentiles almost a decade after the resurrection?
If, in spite of all those years with Jesus, Peter didn't get the gentile connection correct, how do we know that he got the food issue correct?
Your argument cuts both ways.
It WAS not and IS not a teaching of Christ that the scriptural food laws the Christ created are done away with. It simply wasn't done.
And I say it was, and most scholars agree with me.
It's certainly possible. And even if this is figurative it represents transportation.
Thanks for the admission. And by the same reasoning “Jerusalem” represents figuratively the new Jerusalem, the Church, not the old earthly Jerusalem. God punishes those who come against His people, the body of Christ.
You're just wrong.
Could be, but you have not proven that to be true at this time.
No, Jesus did NOT repeal the health laws. Why would HE? He wants HIS children to be healthy of mind and body. Let’s say only the consecrated Christian returns to the original diet, it would have a great effect on the health of this planet, if not its occupants.
Beats me, but I suspect it was a timing issue. The Lord wasn't ready before then to have non-Israelites come into the church of God before this time. Therefore he didn't this sin of Peter's to him until this time.
If, in spite of all those years with Jesus, Peter didn't get the gentile connection correct, how do we know that he got the food issue correct?
I find it incredible that you're questioning Peter and what the Lord taught him. Granted Peter wasn't perfect, but it seems absurd that you would think that Peter was somehow too dense to understand what would have been a major doctrinal, cultural and lifestyle change.
It WAS not and IS not a teaching of Christ that the scriptural food laws the Christ created are done away with. It simply wasn't done.
And I say it was, and most scholars agree with me.
I feel confident in believing Peter, someone who was actually there and offered up his testimony in holy scripture.
Seems fairly obvious doesn't it?
Paul was a pharisee of the pharisees...it took him 14 years to understand the church of one body, Jew and Gentile...it wasn't an easy doctrinal issue for Peter to learn quickly.
But somehow Peter violated Jewish law and tradition by living after the manner of Gentiles.
His down fall wasn't living after the manner of Gentiles, it was going back to the law and traditions.
Do the both of you observe either Levitical or Kosher dietary laws?
What happens if you slip up either accidentally or through weakness?
What happens if you are a guest and you are only served food items that aren’t on your approved foods list?
Or as I suggested, the Lord wasn't yet ready to reveal this to them because he wasn't yet ready to give his spirit to non-jews until this time. So he allowed them to continue in their sinful and unscriptural attitudes toward gentiles.
But somehow Peter violated Jewish law and tradition by living after the manner of Gentiles.
Jewish NON-SCRIPTURAL law and NON-SCRIPTURAL tradition.
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
Again, this wasn't a scriptural law that Peter is referring to.
His down fall wasn't living after the manner of Gentiles, it was going back to the law and traditions.
Yep, going back to non-scriptural laws and traditions.
I don't eat the animals that the Lord said not to eat. That's pretty much the extent of the Lord's law in scripture.
What happens if you slip up either accidentally or through weakness?
Accidents do happen occasionally. When I realize that I've accidentally eaten something then I privately ask for forgiveness, although it's probably not necessary because I'm sure the Lord realizes it's an accident.
Weakness is never an issue. I don't have any desire to eat these things. When I first started keeping the Lord's food laws the hardest part was overcoming habit, not desire.
What happens if you are a guest and you are only served food items that aren’t on your approved foods list?
It's rare that ONLY meat is served. On occasion I have been served pork, shellfish or whatever with our meals. How we handle it is just to skip the meat and eat everything else. I don't make a big scene out of it. Rarely does anyone know that anything is "wrong" and I won't say anything unless someone asks. If they do ask, I'll say I don't eat pork (or whatever) for religious reasons. If they want more of an explanation I'll explain it to them a little more deeply. Mostly people are just curious and in effect it's not much different from how a vegetarian would handle it.
The original Twelve Apostles had been selected by our Lord [Mark 3:13-19] from a group of many disciples and their commission was: [Matthew 10:5-6] These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
When Peter received his vision it was difficult for him to comprehend as his ministry was directed to the circumcised [Galatians 2:7]. Paul had recently been converted but at this time was probably still in Arabia [Galatians 1:17] and therefore unavailable for this special mission to the Gentiles. No one probably would have believed him anyway [Acts 9:26].
So....enter Peter. Contrary to popular opinion the Apostles were not aware of the fact that Our Lord was going to include the Gentiles in his plan for salvation. It is quite evident when reading these scriptures that they were astonished at Peter's actions. [Acts 10:45] The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. [Acts 11:1-3] The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.
The early Church was thoroughly Jewish and these things that Peter was being asked to do [Acts 10:28] went against everything he had ever been taught. Peter was being asked basically to do an about face and even years later he still had problems accepting this [Galatians 2:11-13].
This is why Our Lord selected Paul....an educated, Jewish, Roman citizen. If any one could tackle this Gentile ministry, and be successful, Paul and his associates could. But....the ministry to the House of Israel and Judah still belonged to the twelve. [Matthew 15:24]
Luke 8
30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is your name? And he said, Legion; because many demons had entered into him.
31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss.
32 And there was there a herd of many pigs feeding on the mountain. And they begged Him that He would allow them to enter into them. And He allowed them.
33 And coming out of the man, the demons entered into the pigs. And the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake and were choked.
Unclean spirit, unclean animal. 'nuff said. Would you like some fries with your demon sandwhich?
Dude, you ask forgiveness because deep inside you believe that you are sinning!
You are obeying law to earn righteousness and you will ALWAYS fail at that.
Your sin isn't eating the wrong food it is denying the works of Christ and substituting your works for his.
When Jesus said that the truth would set us free, it was freedom from condemnation (read Romans) freedom from the Law (read Romans and Galations) and it was freedom to walk in the love and spirit of the Lord (Read Ephesians).
What other burdens of law do you carry?
In what other ways are you still trying to earn God's acceptance?
Dude, you ask forgiveness because deep inside you believe that you are sinning!
You are obeying law to earn righteousness and you will ALWAYS fail at that.
Your sin isn't eating the wrong food it is denying the works of Christ and substituting your works for his.
When Jesus said that the truth would set us free, it was freedom from condemnation (read Romans) freedom from the Law (read Romans and Galations) and it was freedom to walk in the love and spirit of the Lord (Read Ephesians).
What other burdens of law do you carry?
In what other ways are you still trying to earn God's acceptance?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.