Posted on 07/03/2025 5:38:42 PM PDT by Angelino97
I have just finished reading “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?” by Dr. Robert Sungenis. It is a study debunking the notion, now regnant in liberal theological circles, that the Old Covenant still stands side-by-side with the New Covenant.
According to this novelty, in essence, God’s “A Plan” and God’s “B Plan” are both currently pleasing to Him and both fully in effect.
Opposed to this, the Catholic Faith teaches that the Old Law — itself good, holy, and of divine origin — was a preparation for the New, and that the New Law superceded and fulfilled the Old.
Indeed, as Dr. Sungenis shows, Pope John Paul II affirmed the traditional teaching in a not-much-quoted passage of Redemptoris Mater: “Christ fulfills the divine promise and supersedes the old law.”
Years ago, I made an effort at debunking this vogue theology in an article on the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Better Testament. Dr. Sungenis quotes from Hebrews, but he does not limit himself to this, as the pilfered quotations below adequately show.
The following is a series of scriptural, patristic, and magisterial citations from “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?“:
Hebrews 7:18: “On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness…”;
Hebrews 10:9: “Then he says, ‘Behold, I come to do your will.’ He takes away the first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant]…”;
2 Corinthians 3:14: “For to this day when they [the Jews] read the Old Covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away”;
Hebrews 8:7: “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another”;
Colossians 2:14: “Having canceled the written code, with its decrees, that was against us and stood opposed to us; He took it away nailing it to the cross”;
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para. 29: “…the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished…but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross”;
The Catechism of the Council of Trent: “…the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law…”;
Council of Florence: “that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law…although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began”;
Council of Trent: “but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom”;
Cardinal Ratzinger: “Thus the Sinai [Mosaic] Covenant is indeed superseded” (Many Religions – One Covenant, p. 70).
St. John Chrysostom: “Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law….And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace” (Homily on Romans, 6:12); “And so while no one annuls a man’s covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable” (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3);
St. Augustine: “Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. Jeremiah also prophesied thus in God’s name: ‘Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah…’ Observe what the prophet says, not to Gentiles, who had not been partakers in any former covenant, but to the Jewish nation. He who has given them the law by Moses, promises in place of it the New Covenant of the gospel, that they might no longer live in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit” (Letters, 74, 4);
Justin Martyr: Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ – has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy…Have you not read…by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…’” (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11).
Jews including Jesus would condemn bringing a pig into the synagogue. The idea is to not profane the temple. I pity you but do not condemn you. I refer you to 1 Cor. 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. NKJV
You guys crack me up.
In John 6 (54 - 56), Jesus says, "Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person."
These are some of the clearest words of Christ, and they describe the Eucharist. You guys look at these words and say, "No, He meant something else. I mean, it was as clear as day to everyone there, most of whom walked away from Him, but we really know He meant something else. Because."
Yet, you hold up a scriptural passage that says absolutely nothing about pigs and nothing about meat and you say, "Look, if you stand on your head and you hold this paper sideways in the light of a setting sun on a Sunday evening, you will see the word, 'bacon' in it, followed by the word, 'verboten'."
I just can't continue this conversation.
"Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”
You've been really careful buying your bread since you take everything so literal, right?
Yet, you hold up a scriptural passage that says absolutely nothing about pigs and nothing about meat and you say, “Look, if you stand on your head and you hold this paper sideways in the light of a setting sun on a Sunday evening, you will see the word, ‘bacon’ in it, followed by the word, ‘verboten’.”
I just can’t continue this conversation.
......
There are about 2,000 demon possessed swine described in the bible and few look at those demon possessed swine as synonymous with the ‘Church Age’ of doctrines of demons that shouldn’t be eaten or touched.
It’s always about a literal pig, never the spiritual swine flesh that they can’t help but gobble up and regurgitate out...Jews and Gentiles included.
There’s two covenants. the Old and the New.
The Old needed a temple where offerings and sacrifices were done.
Instead of a temple in Jerusalem, there’s a Golden Dome Islamic Shrine/Mosque prominently in Jerusalem.
That might be a sign that people should pay attention to.
The New needed no temple, but the one you were born into because the offerings and sacrifice to atone was Finished at the Cross.
And one under the New Covenant can stay away from bacon their whole life where it never enters literally into the temple, yet find themselves gobbling up every satanic lie, doctrine of demons over the last 2,000 years and see themselves as worthy.
Amazing Grace for Jews,Gentiles has zero to do with us humans.
And the about 2,000 demon possessed swine years, within Satan’s Legion of 6,000 years are almost up.
Then it gets real.
1. If Jews could be saved by the Old Covenant, there would have been no need for Jesus to preach to the Jews. He would have gone straight to the Gentiles.
2. If the Old Covenant, or merely being a "good person", could save people, His sacrifice on the cross would have been a cruel farce.
Consider Matthew 26:39
After walking a little farther, he quickly bowed with his face to the ground and prayed, “Father, if it’s possible, let this cup ⌞of suffering be taken away from me. But let your will be done rather than mine.”
God would have been saying to Jesus, "Sure, there are plenty of ways for people to be saved. Follow the Old Covenant. Or just be a good guy. But it's nice to give people a choice. So go ahead and suffer anyway."
I'm not Catholic so I don't put much weight to him or his denomination (especially after the Pachamama incident). But I believe God will all judge us all by our deeds according to the light we are given.
When exactly did God (preincarnate Christ) change his mind about unclean meat and the call to holiness of his people, new and old testaments...Be holy for I am holy?
Also, did God change his mind about allowing people into heaven that eat unclean meat, such as pork? Isaiah makes it clear that those persons will not be in heaven.
Only if that final destination is Christ, who is God.
I believe God will all judge us all by our deeds according to the light we are given.
If Christ is unnecessary for salvation, then His suffering and death was meaningless. And Christianity is a farce.
Not exactly what he said. That Pachamama ain't my idea of god.
If Christ is unnecessary for salvation
Stop right there. His blood is the only Sacrifice that blots out evil. His sacrifice was necessary. But God has Commands that weed out the people who are evil and will not obey Him. This obedience is crucial and they can only be achieved through our belief and love of Jesus. If you do not love Jesus, the Commandments are a burden and you will eventually fail.
What about Works without Faith in Christ?
I think I’ve already answered that question. So, you made a ‘faith of confession” vow many years ago and . . . what? God doesn’t expect you to do anything? He expects you to live by the Ten Commandments to show the world you have faith. Faith without works is meaningless. Read the Bible sometime.
He summoned the crowd again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand.
Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile."
When he got home away from the crowd his disciples questioned him about the parable.
He said to them, "Are even you likewise without understanding? Do you not realize that everything that goes into a person from outside cannot defile,
since it enters not the heart but the stomach and passes out into the latrine?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
I think it's fair to say that the 99.99% of humanity that doesn't have your speshul insight into Scripture might simply look at a sentence and take it for what it means.
However you ended up in the rabbit hole known as Protestantism where you decide which text is meant to be taken as a figure of speech and which text is meant to be discovered only by holding it upside down under an ultraviolet light, most people cannot take this "religion" seriously.
Oh you've got me good there. The problem is I read for meaning and context while you listen to your priest/bishop. Now if you would've taken the time to read the passage for yourself, you would have found out the leaven was the teachings and influence of these two influential Jewish groups, which Jesus found to be harmful and misleading. Leaven, or yeast, is used as a metaphor to represent how a small amount can spread and corrupt the whole.
Matthew 16:8 Jesus knew about their conversation and asked, “Why are you discussing among yourselves that you don’t have any bread? You have so little faith! 9 Don’t you understand yet? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand and how many baskets you filled? 10 Don’t you remember the seven loaves for the four thousand and how many large baskets you filled? 11 Why don’t you understand that I wasn’t talking to you about bread? Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees!”
12 Then they understood that He didn’t say to watch out for the yeast in bread, but to watch out for the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
So, it's not speshul insight but it's taking the time to understand Scripture which you are lacking.
Mark 7 has nothing to do with the Levitical laws of clean and unclean meat. It has to do with RITUAL traditions of the rabbis vs God’s commandments. It is specifically dealing with eating any food (not necessarily clean vs unclean meat) when not RITUALLY washing the hands first, thereby becoming “defiled”.
Is this a salvation issue? Yes, it is. The bible makes it very clear that eating unclean meat is an abomination. It removes us as His holy priests. Isaiah says that those who do knowingly eat unclean meat will not be in heaven (I’m assuming having heard the truth and refused to comply).
I suggest you make absolutely certain of your position, as compared to the bible.
My next post to you is commentary on Mark 7 and this issue. It is directly to the point.
I suggest you pay close attention to verse 19.
2: Defiled. Gr. koinos, originally meaning “common,” that is, shared by many people. Later it came to mean “vulgar,” or “profane,” and it is in this sense that Mark uses the word here (cf. on Acts 10:14).
——Unwashen, hands. Evidently writing for non-Jews (see p. 564), who might not otherwise understand the nature of the challenge the spies now posed, Mark defines what he means by “defiled.” Matthew, probably writing primarily for Jews (see p. 273), makes no such explanatory statement. The washing here referred to was strictly ritualistic, not sanitary. This rite is said to have consisted of pouring a small quantity of water upon the fingers and palm of first one hand and then the other with the hand titled so that the water ran from the palm to the wrist, but no farther (all the time care being taken lest the water run back into the palm), and then alternately rubbing one hand with the palm of the other hand. The minimum amount of water prescribed was that which could be contained in one and a half egg shells. It seems, however, that where water was not available a dry ablution was permitted in which a person would simply go through the motions of washing his hands in the prescribed manner.
3: Except they wash. See on v. 2. Oft. Gr. pugmē, literally, “fist”; in the form here used, “with the fist.” It has been suggested that pugmē may here mean “with a fist full [of water].” Textual evidence may also be cited (cf. p. 146) for the reading pukna, meaning “vigorously,” “diligently,” or “frequently.”
——Tradition. Gr. paradosis, literally “a giving up,” or “a giving over”; hence, “a tradition,” which is given over to someone by word of mouth or by writing. As used in the Gospels paradosis refers to the massive body of oral, rabbinical regulations that had grown up around the Torah (see on Deut. 31:9; Prov. 3:1). The traditions of the rabbis were the specific target of Jesus’ attacks upon the Jewish religious system of His day. The English word “tradition” means “that which is handed down [that is, from teacher to pupil, or from generation to generation].”
——In process of time this oral tradition, originally intended to protect the written law of the OT, came to be considered more sacred than the law itself (see DA 395). Presumably, by a mechanical obedience to the requirements of oral tradition, a person would automatically be keeping the written law, including the Ten Commandments. In other words, if a person complied with the letter of the traditional interpretation of the law, he need not concern himself with the spirit of the written law. This legalistic system reduced religion to a matter of form and banished the spirit of true worship and obedience, without which a man serves God in vain (see John 4:23, 24; cf. Mark 7:7). A system of righteousness obtained by the “works” of the law superseded the plan of salvation, through which God designed that men should attain unto the righteousness which is by faith (see Rom. 9:31, 32; 10:3).
——Christ sought to restore all God’s revealed instructions to their rightful place in the thinking and living of His people. He sought to accord the words of God priority over the words of men. He sought to do away with mere outward forms of religion and to cultivate the true spirit of religion in the heart.
——Elders. That is, the older rabbis or expositors of the law.
4: Market. That is, the market place in the open street, where produce was bought and sold (see on Matt. 11:16). Rabbinical thought considered it inevitable that a person mingling with the throng in the market place would come into contact with persons or things that were ceremonially unclean, and thus “defiling.”
——Wash. Textual evidence may also be cited (cf. p. 146) for the reading “purify.”
——Other things. Perhaps including vessels, clothing (see Lev. 11:32), hands and feet (cf. Ex. 30:19–21).
——Received to hold. Tradition is “handed down” by one generation and “received” to hold” by the next. It is given by the teacher and received by the student.
——Pots. Gr. xestai (singular xestēs), a Roman measure (sextarius) containing about half a pint (see p. 50). Xestēs is one of a number of words of Latin derivation found in the Gospel of Mark.
——Brasen. Literally, “bronze,” or “copper.”
——Tables. Literally, “couches,” or “beds.” However, textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 146) between retaining and omitting “tables.”
5: Walk. In a figurative sense, “live.” Compare Enoch’s “walk” with God (see Gen. 5:24). It was the disciples’ way of life, or manner of living, that disturbed the Pharisees and the scribes.
6: Esaias prophesied. See on Isa. 29:13. Isaiah’s words were descriptive of Israel in his own day, as the context makes clear, but they were equally true of the Jews in Christ’s day (see on Deut. 18:15). Thus when Christ said, “Esaias prophesied of you,” He did not mean that Isaiah predicted something true particularly and exclusively of the Jews of Christ’s day, but rather that Isaiah’s description of Israel in his day applied “well” (see Mark 7:6) to the people of Christ’s day also.
——Hypocrites. See on Matt. 6:2.
——Honoureth me. With a presence of obeying the will of God the “elders” (v. 3) were in reality “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (v. 7). It was a question of salvation by faith or by works. Jesus affirmed that those who worship God must do so “in spirit and in truth” (see John 4:23, 24). His emphasis on this truth brought Christ into bitter conflict with the Jewish leaders. The danger of exalting human precepts and even human interpretations of divine requirements above the “weightier matters of the law” (Matt. 23:23) is no less today than it was then.
7: Teaching for doctrines. Literally, “teaching [for] teachings.”
8: Commandment of God. The singular form, as here, refers to all that God has commanded—all His revealed will (see on Matt. 22:37, 39). God’s “commandment is exceeding broad” (Ps. 119:96); it includes “the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13). The ideal set before us is that of being “perfect,” even as our “Father which is in heaven is perfect” (see on Matt. 5:48).
——Tradition. The “tradition of men” stands forth in uncompromising contrast with the “commandment of God.”
——The washing. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 146) the omission of the remainder of v. 8, beginning with these words. The statement is, however, unquestionably true, for the same thought is expressed in vs. 4, 13.
9: Full well. Note the irony implicit in Christ’s words.
10: Moses said. The first part of Christ’s quotation is from the fifth commandment, and the second is from the civil code of laws (see Ex. 21:17).
——Die the death. The Greek of this phrase is a reflection of the Hebrew idiom meaning “surely die,” literally, “dying you will die” (see on Gen. 2:17). In other words, death was to be the inevitable penalty for an infraction of the fifth commandment.
11: But ye say. Jesus here gives a specific illustration of what He meant when He said, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition” (v. 9, RSV). Hence Jesus is here substantiating the fact that the Jews were worshipping God in vain (see v. 7). They accused Christ of abrogating the law, but He made it plain that they, by their traditional interpretation of the law, had, in fact, done the very thing of which they falsely accused Him (see on Matt. 5:17–19, 21, 22).
——Corban. Gr. korban, from the Heb. qorban, “a gift,” “an offering,” literally, “that which is brought near.” In Oriental lands one would never think of approaching or “drawing near” to a superior without presenting a “gift.” Anything over which a man pronounced the words, “It is Corban,” was thereby dedicated to God and the Temple.
——A gift. Apparently writing primarily for non-Jewish readers (see p. 564), Mark here interprets a word that had little or no meaning to them.
——He shall be free. The italics reveal that this entire clause has been supplied by the translators of the KJV, who apparently thus attempted to clarify the meaning for English readers.
12: Suffer. Rather “permit” (see on Matt. 19:14).
——No more to do ought. A man might thus defraud his own parents in the name of religion, with the approval of the priests and under the pretense that God required this of him.
——Anything over which the word “Corban” had been pronounced was thereby devoted to sacred—Temple—use (see on v. 11). The parents were not permitted to touch anything thus “dedicated,” yet the undutiful son was permitted to make use of it as long as he lived. He avoided his filial duty by a profession of superior piety. By this devious procedure the priests connived with their greedy parishioners to relieve the latter from the solemn obligation of providing for their parents.
13: Of none effect. That is, for all practical purposes, invalidating the fifth commandment. Jesus stood before the assembled throng as the champion of their rights, whereas the scribes and Pharisees were revealed in their true light as hypocrites (see v. 6) and as enemies of both God and their fellow men.
——Many such like things. The example Christ here employed was not an isolated one, as the scribes and Pharisees themselves well knew.
14: All. Gr. panta. However, textual evidence favors (cf. p. 146) the reading palin, “again.” This reading would imply that Jesus had been addressing the multitude when the scribes and Pharisees interrupted with their protest (see v. 2). Now that Jesus had silenced His critics He again addressed Himself to the people, with the purpose of making clear the true nature of the problem involved in the conflict over tradition (see on v. 3).
——Hearken. The people must give diligent attention if they would see through the hypocrisy of their spiritual leaders.
15: Nothing from without. Commentators generally miss the point of vs. 15–23 by applying them to the problem of clean and unclean flesh foods as differentiated in Lev. 11. The context makes emphatically clear that Jesus was not calling into question in any way precept of the OT, but rather was denying the validity of oral tradition (see on Mark 7:3), and here specifically the tradition that declared food eaten with hands improperly washed (in a ritualistic sense) became the cause of defilement (see on v. 2). It was always, and exclusively, “the commandments of men” (v. 7) against which Jesus protested, in sharp distinction to the “commandment of God” (v. 8) as set forth in the Scriptures. To apply vs. 15–23 to the matter of clean and unclean meats is to ignore the context completely. Had Jesus at this time eliminated the distinction between clean and unclean flesh foods it is obvious that Peter would not later have responded as he did to the idea of eating unclean flesh foods (see on Acts 10:9–18, 34; 11:5–18).
——It should be emphasized that the problem under discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees had nothing whatever to do with the kind of food to be eaten, but only with the way in which it was to be eaten—whether with or without ritual hand washing (see on vs. 2, 3). According to Jewish regulations, even meat that was clean according to Lev. 11 might still be considered unclean by reason of contact with unclean persons (see on Mark 6:43).
——Things which come out. For a list of the “things” Christ refers to see vs. 21–23. Here Christ affirms that moral defilement from breaking “the commandment of God” is of vastly greater consequence than ritual defilement, particularly so when the latter is based exclusively on “the tradition of men” (see on vs. 7, 8). Defilement of the soul, Jesus says, is a far more serious matter than ritual defilement of the body, occasioned by contact with persons or things that are ceremonially unclean.
——They that defile. See vs. 21–23. Even in the OT God specifically states that He is not pleased with the mere forms of ritual worship (see Isa. 1:11–13; Micah 6:6–8), practiced as an end in themselves.
16: Man have ears. Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 146) between including and excluding v. 16. However, Christ often used this expression (see Matt 11:15; etc.), and it is certainly appropriate to the context here.
17: The house. Rather, “a house,” possibly the house of Peter in Capernaum (see on chs. 1:29; 2:1). The remainder of this section was addressed to the disciples in private (ch. 7:17–23).
——His disciples. According to Matthew it was Peter, as usual, who acted as spokesman for the group (see on Matt. 14:28).
——Parable. See pp. 203-207. A parable might be only a pithy saying, however brief. Here it refers to the figure employed in v. 15, about things entering into a man and things coming out of a man. If this “parable” had proved to be a riddle even to the disciples, the multitude could hardly have grasped its full significance (see on v. 14).
18: Without understanding also. That is, like the crowd of people to whom the “parable” had been spoken. It was only reasonable to expect the disciples to be in advance of the common people when it came to understanding the truths of salvation.
19: His heart. That is, his mind (see on Matt. 5:8). In other words, eating with unwashed hands had no moral effect whatever upon a man.
——Into the belly. Ceremonially unclean foods (see on v. 15) went to the stomach, and there was no means by which the ceremonial uncleanness supposed to attach to them could be assimilated into the structure of the body.
——Draught. Gr. aphedrōn, “a privy,” or “a toilet.” The word does not refer, as is commonly supposed, to a part of the human body.
——Purging all meats. Literally, “making clean all foods [Gr. bromata, see on Luke 3:11].” In the KJV this statement appears to be a part of Christ’s instruction and to mean that the process of digestion and elimination has the result of “purging all meats.” The Greek, however, makes it clear that these are not the words of Christ, but rather those of Mark, and that they constitute his comment on Christ’s meaning. Accordingly, it is necessary to understand this expression in relation to the words “he saith unto them” of v. 18. Thus the latter part of v. 19 would read, “[this He saith unto them] making all foods clean,” or “thus he declared all foods clean” (RSV)—that is, irrespective of whether the eater had or had not performed the prescribed ritual ablution. This was the very point at issue (see on v. 2).
——In the second place, it should be noted that the Greek word bromata, translated “meats,” means simply “that which is eaten,” “food,” and includes all kinds of food; it never denotes the flesh of animals as distinguished from other kinds of food. To limit the words “purging all meats” to flesh foods and to conclude that Christ here abolished the distinction between clean and unclean flesh used as food (see Lev. 11) is to ignore completely the meaning of the Greek.
——In the third place, the context (vs. 1–14, 20–23) deals, not with biological uncleanness, but with uncleanness supposedly incurred from the omission of ritual washing (see on v. 15). The kind of food the disciples ate (vs. 2, 5) is not even referred to, but only the way in which they ate (see on vs. 2, 5, 15). Throughout, Christ deals with the problem of the “commandment of God” versus the “tradition of men” (see on vs. 5–15, 19). See on vs. 21–23.
20: Cometh out. See on vs. 15, 19. 21.
——From within. Jesus concludes His remarks with a statement of what does “defile the man” (v. 23). Defilement, He says, is moral, not ceremonial (see on v. 15). If affects the soul, not the body.
-—Evil thoughts. Jesus enumerates 13 different things that “defile” men. Compare the list here given with those of Rom. 1:29–31 and Gal. 5:19–21.
-—Fornications. Gr. porneiai, a general term including all forms of illicit sex relations.
22. Covetousness. Gr. pleonexiai, meaning “greedy desires to have more,” hence, “cupidity,” “covetousness,” or “avarice.” The idea of getting more and more has become a mania with persons of this character.
——Wickedness. Gr. ponēriai, wickedness in general, also more specifically, as is probably the case here, “malice.”
——Lasciviousness. Or, “licentiousness.”
——An evil eye. A Greek rendition of an idiomatic Hebrew expression (see Deut. 15:9) probably meaning “envy,” “jealousy,” or a “grudging spirit.”
——Blasphemy. Gr. blasphēmia, meaning “blasphemy” with reference to God, but “slander” when directed against men, as here. For the use of the word in the sense of “blasphemy” see on Matt. 12:31.
——Foolishness. That is, the quality of being “without sense.” “Folly” would be another possible rendering here.
23: These evil things. See on vs. 2–4, 15, 19. For lists of the positive traits of character with which the Christian is to replace these negative traits, see Gal. 5:22, 23; 2 Peter 1:4–8. Concerning the danger of attempting to remove the evil traits without cultivating the good traits in their place, see on Matt. 12:43–45.
SDA Bible Commentary Mark 7
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/unclean-foods-jesus.htm
“Did Jesus Declare All Foods Clean?”
Parallel passage to Mark 7 (Matthew)
The scribes and Pharisees condemn Jesus’ disciples for not washing their hands
Mat 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Jesus condemns the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees
Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Mat 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Jesus again condemns the scribes and Pharisees tradition with a parable
Mat 15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Mat 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
Mat 15:13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Jesus explains the parable
Mat 15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
Mat 15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
But the disciples understood the context in which Christ was speaking. (We have no disagreement here about what you have put here from Matthew.)
With regard to John 6, the question is why you don't take the words of Christ the way everyone described in the passage does.
(There is no similar passage in John 6 where "they" are recorded as understanding that Christ spoke figuratively and not literally. In fact, it's the opposite. John recorded that many left Him, and He simply watched them go.)
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.