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
God fearing gentiles who became Christians followed the Lord's food laws as outlined in the scripture they were taught from. Just because some Christians today think it's okay to eat pork doesn't mean that Christians back then found it acceptable to buck (no pun intended) scripture.
“And if any animal which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until evening.” (Lev. 11:39)
The fact is that the law of clean and unclean animals was given in this context:
"But I have said to you, ‘You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey.’ I am the Lord your God, who has separated you from the peoples.” (Lev. 20:24).
These laws are all in the context of the promise of the ancient land of Israel to the ancient people of the Jews.
The Church, the new covenant people of God, is no longer restricted to one physical piece of land and one ethnic group. Christians who follow the teachings of the apostles understand that, and so we are not in bondage to these ancient, decayed food laws.
I can't seem to find that in the Bible anywhere. Now I know you are making stuff up on the fly.
I eat pork chops, shrimp, and all sorts of "moving things" because I have the freedom in Christ to do so. Just like Peter and Paul and Noah and Abraham.
No, I'm making logical conclusions. The Lord, in the bible, told them that they shouldn't eat certain animals. Thousands of years of tradition taught the newest Jewish Christians that they should only eat the animals the Lord said were good for food.
But of course they didn't have the benefit of your tradition to tell them to disregard the Lord's words.
I eat pork chops, shrimp, and all sorts of "moving things" because I have the freedom in Christ to do so. Just like Peter and Paul and Noah and Abraham.
Scripturally none of these people never ate anything that God designated as unclean. In the few scriptural examples we have, Abraham only at clean food. And call me when you eat a poisonous tree frog or a puffer fish.
This argument is getting more bizarre all the time.
Folks eat rattlesnakes and other poisonous things all the time. The Japanese eat fugu.
You must have something better than this.
What part of God’s Word (“every moving thing”) are you having a hard time with? Don’t you believe God?
Besides, the cultic food law had nothing to do with health. The evidence here is that the stranger in Israel was not bound by the same food laws as the native born. Cf. Lev. 17:10 where the only restriction for the stranger is the matter of blood we saw in Gen. 9:4.
“You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the Lord your God.” (Deut 14:21)
If the food laws were health oriented, to give something inherently unhealthy to your alien neighbor would be a sin.
If I raised food animals and I found one of them dead, I wouldn't touch it without having gloves on. You never know what might have killed it or what diseases it might have had.
You mean the Jewish Christians who were born and raised under the old covenant? You are here to force cultic laws limited to ancient Israel in the land upon all God’s new covenant people.
It is a fit that will not work, first of all because gentiles were never subject to these laws, and second, because we know that Christ has set us free from these things.
Abraham only at clean food.
C&V, s’il vous plait? Abraham was a gentile, the father of many nations. His faith became reality long before Mosaic food laws.
Argument from pragmatics, not from the Bible. I wouldn't dig a latrine upstream from my camp either, but not because it’s written in the Bible (which it isn't). It just makes sense.
I agree it's getting bizarre. You seem to be under the impression that humans can eat anything on the planet and not suffer any consequences. Diseased animals. Fine. Great. Nightshade. Yummy. Belladonna. Chow down! No restrictions I guess.
What part of God’s Word (“every moving thing”) are you having a hard time with? Don’t you believe God?
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Genesis 9:3 refers back to 1:29. Can man eat ANY plant? No and it's stupid to think we can. People die because of it. Or is it more likely that the Lord instructed them on what plants were good for food and what was not? And then wiht that reality it only makes sense that God designated animals as clean and unclean so that Noah would know what was good to eat and what was not. He TAUGHT Noah.
“You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your gates, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the Lord your God.” (Deut 14:21) If the food laws were health oriented, to give something inherently unhealthy to your alien neighbor would be a sin.
I never said they were exclusively health orientated. If you care to read back you'll see that there's various reasons for the food laws.
There's ample scriptural evidence that shows that the food designations created by Christ existed before the old covenant was struck.
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's also biblical evidence that shows that Peter respected the Lord's food laws 20 to 30 years after the death of Christ.
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
There is also scriptural evidence that the Lord's food laws are to be respected in the future:
Isa 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.
So in contrast to this evidence (and more which I've outlined quite a bit in this thread), I have you putting forth a philosophy, totally unsupported by scripture, based mostly on what tradition has taught you. No thanks. I'll believe scripture.
That is simply inaccurate. There is no bible basis for that statement at all.
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.
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.
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.
If there were such evidence I’m sure you would have produced it. Otherwise your claim is hollow.
Act 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
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?
There is also scriptural evidence that the Lord's food laws are to be respected in the future:
The prophets often speak in symbolic language. E.g.,
“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?
Nope, I’m afraid you’re missing the reality by missing the symbols.
I have you putting forth a philosophy, totally unsupported by scripture, …
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.
Did the Levitical laws exist prior to Noah?
Yes, but only in God’s foreknowledge.
Therefore when man could eat all manner of animals, etc, I believe that then he literally could do so.
After the flood, did anything change?
Yes. But did the 10 Commandments or Levitical law exist?
Yes, but only in God’s foreknowledge.
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.
Moses gave and helped interpret the law for Isreal as did the subsequent prophets and judges.
Fast forward to Jesus on Earth and some of those original laws had become bastardized into new man made laws.
Jesus came and fulfilled all of God’s law on behalf of mankind because mankind never could.
Then with his sinless life, crucifixion, death, resurrection, ascention and giving of holy spirit on Pentacost, ushered in a new era where Jew and Gentile could become one. This era is often called the Mystery. (Some accuse me of ‘hyper-dispensationalism’!)
This era also brought in a time where BELIEVERS are not to be ruled by laws but by the spirit of God (Christ in you, the hope of glory) within each believer. (At this point there is an interesting word study of ‘believe’).
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.
We who believe have freedom in Christ. Those who do not believe do not. In one sense both are right! However, the unbeliever have no business judging or condeming the believers.
So if you can’t eat pork due to your conscience and lack of understanding of how God cleansed all, that’s fine. Just don’t try to put that yolk of bondage on anyone else!
I’ll yield my soapbox with the understanding that I may step back up on it at any time! :)
They know that. They have never been able to produce a single verse to support the notion that gentiles were expected to and did, in fact, follow the cultic food laws of Israel.
This gets down to a case of trying to be holier than God. Gentiles eating like Jews, old covenant Jews for that matter. Following the traditions of rabbis rather than the teaching of Christ's apostles.
There is no reason for any Christian to observe food laws unless it is to avoid giving offense (Rom. 14:20,21).
“There is no reason for any Christian to observe food laws unless it is to avoid giving offense.
Hear, hear! You would have enjoyed the pulled pork I made last Saturday. The only offense given was trying to get the people away from the table so others could have their turn at the trough.
Hey, no foolin’? I made pulled pork last Saturday, too. It was great. Twelve hours in a slow oven. Ummm.
The only offense given was trying to get the people away from the table so others could have their turn at the trough.
My boys were over with friends and scarfed down the entire lot.
What a great thing it is for us today to be able to enjoy all the many blessings that God has put on the earth. And we should be thankful for the things Israel had to bear as a church under age that the Messiah might come into the world.
"Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (Acts 15:10).
"But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness." 29 "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience? 30 But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? 31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." (1 Cor. 10:28-33)
Everything is clean, unless it’s from China.
I am fully convinced that any logic that would have gentiles required to obey food laws would, of logical necessity, when applied to circumcision, also obligate gentiles to be circumcised.
It is the same logic these folks use when dealing with the sabbath.
This is why the Church does not practice Passover anymore, since it would require gentiles to be circumcised. We know that baptism, not circumcision, is the new covenant sign of inclusion for the people of God.
In other words, "If Latin was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"
[/sarcasm]
If you're looking for the real scoop on Leviticus, my advice to you is to consult the Hasidim. They can translate for you from Moses's original Hebrew.
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.