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
Mazol Tov
Acts 11: 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, "You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them."
Just glanced through it, but I don’t believe, or want to believe, that the prohibition against pork still stands.
Having said that, the Torah itself seems to argue that kosher is not mandatory for Gentiles living outside of the land of Israel, since God did not command Noah to eat only clean animals, even though Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean.
Not confusing anything, B-Man. Peter clearly had the chance to dispute the charge. Instead he justified the actions.
That’s always been very significant to me when it is coupled with Paul’s charge against Peter’s later hypocrisy in the Galatians.
Did Peter and Paul eat pork?
I’m betting on a BLT somewhere along the way....especially with Paul.
The Pharisees said much the same thing. They viewed their traditions as the "law of the Lord". They could not believe how everyone did not see things their way.
For 2000 years now, the Church has correctly taught that the food laws given to Israel were a temporary expression of typological significance. They were shadows that served to point us to Jesus Christ, the Bread of Life. They were used temporarily to make a sharp distinction between one physical nation, Israel, and all the other physical nations.
But that old Israel no longer exists. We no longer distinguish between physical peoples in the household of God. There are all nations tribes, tongues, and people found in the new royal priesthood and holy nation.
Fittingly, we have a new set of “food laws” under the new covenant. It’s called the Lord’s Supper and it is simply the universal expression of fellowship by the community of faith for those who have been washed in the Blood of the Lamb.
Those who rely on the food laws of old Israel to express their spirituality are denying the very coming into the world of Jesus Christ to make one new man, both Jew and gentile.
“For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.” (Eph. 2:14-16)
Paul and the other apostles deny this very cultic expression of the old covenant as being decayed and passed away.
I disagree that it's apples and oranges. God gave us written laws so that we would *know* when we were walking in his spirit...i.e. letting his spirit live in us.
Anyone who does walk by the spirit has no need for the law to tell them what is right and wrong. In fact, those that walk by the spirit don’t need to know the difference between right and wrong, but the difference between good and best.
Poppycock. Once again that's like saying we don't need any standards. We can determine our own standards. Because without an objective standard of what exactly "walking by the spirit" means...or what love means, than man is quickly deceived into doing what they think is best. It reminded me of this verse:
Jdg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Today, without adhering to a standard, there is no king in Israel. Every man is doing what is right in their own eyes.
It also reminds me of this:
Pro 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
The counsel in this case is scripture. The word of God.
ANYONE who trusts in the law for guidance or rules to live by is carnal and the carnal mind is at emnity with God.
Anyone who trusts in following rules in order to gain righteousness or salvation is of a carnal mind. But anyone who let's the spirit of Christ live in and through him will naturally keep God's laws. I think this is a pretty clear statement and is provable through scripture. I suspect the only reason why anyone is disputing it is that if true they would have to consider the possibility that God's laws are still in effect.
The more rules a church has the less they walk in the spirit.
Don’t eat this, don’t drink that, don’t dance, don’t watch TV, can’t wear make up, etc. shows lack of spiritual walk.
By that logic, then the church that has no rules is the most spiritually advanced. Your church has no rules? Can somebody show up naked? Can somebody stand up in the middle of a sermon and start swearing and shouting? Can somebody advocate sleeping with someone else's spouse? Or is it that the most spiritually advanced church will naturally be doing these things without the need to enforce the rules?
The big difference, as you said, is that they viewed THEIR traditions as the law of the Lord. The Lord himself was the one who designated which animals to eat and which ones not to eat.
For 2000 years now, the Church has correctly taught that the food laws given to Israel were a temporary expression of typological significance.
They were shadows that served to point us to Jesus Christ, the Bread of Life. They were used temporarily to make a sharp distinction between one physical nation, Israel, and all the other physical nations.
I don't think it's been 2000 years, but certainly that seems to be the tradition of traditional Christianity. Kind of like they're elevated their tradition to the the law of the Lord. Sounds familiar.
“For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.” (Eph. 2:14-16)
There you go again, mixing up the traditions of men with the word of God. The Lord's laws don't cause division or strife. The Lord's laws cause peace, harmony and love.
Absolutely WRONG!
So wrong I couldn't even read past that....
Peter had to VIOLATE the law in order to walk in the spirit.
The law is sense knowledge and those in the senses cannot walk in the spirit....walking in the spirit may mean you do things, go places, meet people that you'd normally never, ever consider if you obeyed the law. Ask Peter.
Joshua had to tear down the 'groves' which mean destroying someone else's property. Are you willing to tear down a church steeple if the spirit tells you to? The law says no. The spirit says yes. But YOU won't do it because of man's law.
Walking by the law guarantees you won't walk by the spirit.
You're a law keeper, so what does that tell you?
Which of course brings up a couple of points. The first is that God HAD created animals as clean or unclean. They weren't just "rules" he developed for Israel. They existed long before Israel came into being:
Gen 7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.
Gen 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
Gen 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
The second point is that if God didn't intend for Noah and everyone else to only eat clean beasts, then why have more clean beasts be on the ark?
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.
There is no record of Noah ever eating unclean animals. The Lord had designated that certain animals were clean and others were not. It's extremely doubtful that Noah would eat animals that the Lord had not designated as clean and still be righteous to God:
Gen 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
Peter violated NON SCRIPTURAL MAN MADE LAWS. I don't know why you can't understand the difference.
Yes, indeed!
However the church stepped up and suppressed the Lord’s approval of “Spam” and “White Castle Burgers” because both were considered “too much fun”
Moses was NOT amused...........
For ancient cultic Israel. A nation which no longer exists. Israel has been expanded to include men and women from every nation under heaven. As such cultic food laws such as God gave to ancient Israel are no longer appropriate.
The apostles and the Church built upon their teachings have understood that quite clearly for 2000 years. Food laws were a shadow. Folks who observe them live in the shadows, in the darkness that does not recognize the true appearing of Messiah and what that meant for His people.
Food laws only divide. That was their purpose for ancient Israel, to divide them from all the other nations. The new Israel demonstrates its commitment to the Lord Jesus by observing the Lord’s Supper, the true fellowship meal.
See post 171. These "cultic food laws" created by the Lord were in existence since at least the time of Noah...long before national Israel came into existence.
The apostles and the Church built upon their teachings have understood that quite clearly for 2000 years. Food laws were a shadow. Folks who observe them live in the shadows, in the darkness that does not recognize the true appearing of Messiah and what that meant for His people.
Those who ignore them ignore the clear word of the messiah and substitute their own understanding and tradition for his word.
Food laws only divide. That was their purpose for ancient Israel, to divide them from all the other nations. The new Israel demonstrates its commitment to the Lord Jesus by observing the Lord’s Supper, the true fellowship meal.
What's to divide?? Christ said "Don't eat certain animals". Either obey him or not but don't say that it's divisive to take him at his word and convey that word to others. I think it's more divisive to tell the Lord that he didn't know what he was talking about when he created these animals.
“I said to Peter before them all, ‘If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.’” (Gal. 2:14,15)
Peter was living like a gentile. No problem -- until he turned into a hypocrite.
Hilarious conjecture. Peter didn't have to be eating pork chops and shrimp cocktails in order to be violating manmade laws. In fact, Peter himself explains this earlier in Acts:
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.
Act 10:28 And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.(NASB>
Show me in scripture where the Lord says it's "unlawful" for a Jew to associate with or visit a gentile. It's not there. These were MANMADE, NON-SCRIPTURAL JEWISH RELIGIOUS REGULATIONS.
Peter's "crime" to the Judaizers was breaking these Jewish laws, not eating food that the Lord himself said shouldn't be eaten.
An argument from silence. There is no record of Noah eating any specific kind of animal, “clean” or “unclean”.
Now, let’s look a bit further to get the big picture.
“Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” (Gen. 9:3,4).
Note that Noah is given “every moving thing” as food. No distinction here between clean and unclean. “Every moving thing.” Pigs and cows, sheep and camels. The only “food law” is that it should be completely killed (drained of blood) before eaten.
But, we are not left to guessing why additional clean animals were taken on the ark. It was not for food, but for sacrifice.
“Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.” (Gen. 8:20)
So, after carefully examining the Bible, we see there is no law given or practice to support the idea of clean and unclean animals as food until the time of the giving of the cultic laws under Moses.
All you need to do is read the entire Bible to find the answers.
Nice theory, but you have yet to explain exactly how Peter was “liv[ing] in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews” in Antioch and not eating gentile food.
BTW, it does say they were “Judaizers”. It merely says there were men from James of the circumcision. The burden of hypocrisy is plainly on Peter, not the men.
True enough. But I could say the same thing about your conjecture that Noah was eating a side of bacon.
Now, let’s look a bit further to get the big picture. “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” (Gen. 9:3,4). Note that Noah is given “every moving thing” as food. No distinction here between clean and unclean. “Every moving thing.” Pigs and cows, sheep and camels. The only “food law” is that it should be completely killed (drained of blood) before eaten.
Really? Everything? He could eat poisonous fish and frogs? He could eat poisonous plants? Of course not. So you're trying to turn this into a verse that says Noah could chow down on anything he pleased doesn't hold water.
But, we are not left to guessing why additional clean animals were taken on the ark. It was not for food, but for sacrifice.
Gen 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
Gen 8:21 The LORD smelled the soothing aroma...
Yeah, okay. The Lord invented animals clean and unclean. He invented man in his own image. He demanded that man only sacrifice clean animals...in essence that God would only accept, ingest, clean animals. And yet man could ingest the unclean. That makes no sense at all. Unless of course you want to cling to the tradition that the bible is wrong and tradition is right.
So, after carefully examining the Bible, we see there is no law given or practice to support the idea of clean and unclean animals as food until the time of the giving of the cultic laws under Moses.
I hope that when you're before the Lord in the resurrection that you don't refer to his laws as "cultic laws". It just sounds like you've got a beef (no pun intended) over what he tells us do to.
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.