Problems

[robrecht]

Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

This translation does not work with the better attested Greek texts.

There is no interpretation by Mark without adding words that aren't there.

What you perceive as adding words in an English translation is easily understood in the Greek without any addition of words.

Meats are being purged from the body, so this is not setting aside God's commands, especially just a few verses after Jesus criticized the Pharisees for doing the same thing.

Again, this understanding simply does not work in the better Greek texts.

[robrecht]

There is much disagreement about the correct interpretation of Mark 7:19, but the context should quickly rule out the interpretation that has Jesus nullifying the dietary laws.

If that were the case, there would be no grounds for disagreement among scholars. Those scholars who understand the text in the manner I have explained are not simply ignoring the earlier context of Jesus' dispute and his teaching to the crowd.

Romans 7:14 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Deuteronomy 6:25 And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.’

Ezekiel 36:27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

The dietary laws are part of God's instructions for having a righteous and holy conduct and the role of the Holy Spirit is to lead us in obedience to God's instructions. The Holy Spirit is not at odds with what God has commanded, so by interpreting Romans 7:14 to be about dietary laws you're making it contradict itself.

No, I do not think Paul contradicts himself, 'though, being a follower of Jesus, he does have a later, fuller understanding of the law than Ezekiel and the author of Deuteronomy.

The Kingdom of God involves living in obedience to Him.

Yes, of course. Where did God or Jesus or Paul or anyone command Gentile followers of Jesus to abide by Jewish dietary laws and traditions? Even Paul, very much a Jew, did not even even always hold himself bound to the observance of all these laws and traditions. This is how the text of Paul is understood by the majority of scholars.

The topic of Romans 14 is about disputable matters of opinion, not the commands of God, so God's dietary laws were not even discussed. Meat that had be sacrificed to idols was often sold on the market, so if someone didn't know for sure whether meat offered at community meals had been sacrifice to idols, they might be of the opinion that it was all unclean and choose to eat only vegetables (Romans 14:2). They were judging others others who did eat meat at a community meal and were in turn being resented (Romans 14:3). So it is these sorts of disputes about food and drink that Paul was saying that the Kingdom of God was not about.

Here you are adding words to Paul's text. Paul does not say, "The Kingdom of God is not about eating [meat sacrificed to idols, or any meat at all when one cannot be sure] and drinking [wine sacrificed to idols]." One can understand the text in this way, but only by presuming that Paul is thinking things that he has not actually written.

[One Bad Pig]

Precisely. Thus the perspectives of Mark and Luke are presented in complementary ways. They complement each other, but with essentially the same perspective. Mark recounts Jesus' teaching, first in conflict with the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem, then to the crowd, and then with a fuller explanation to the disciples who had not understood. Finally, Mark himself interprets the implication of Jesus' teaching for his contemporary readers, 'with the result that Jesus' words are rendering all foods clean'. What may not have been clear at the time of Jesus' disagreement with Jewish authorities and in teaching the crowd and disciples is nonetheless rendered clear by Mark for his readers. Luke does not recount or interpret this teaching from the earthly life of Jesus, but it is nonetheless made clear in a later vision to Peter and the other leaders in Jerusalem. The two stories are not parallel but complement each other with the same perspective. Thus one need not say that one is a better than the other. They are not the same, but neither are they contradictory. Rather complementary.

I don't see them as complementary; they're about two distinct topics. One is decrying the excess purity requirements espoused by the Pharisees, and the other (Acts 10) is using the dietary laws analogically to promote the idea of Gentiles belonging to the church.

Some try to translate the last part of Mk 7,19 as part of a direct quote of Jesus, but I think it is much better understood as an aside by Mark interpreting one of the implications of Jesus' words for Mark's readers, a participle modifying and interpreting the verb of Jesus speaking, not actually spoken by Jesus. Thus, some call it an interpretive gloss, ie, Mark's comment to his readers about the words of Jesus.

I'm not disputing that. Either interpretation is still within the context of the passage.

Mt 15,20 is parallel to Mk 7,22 (7,23 in some texts). Matthew completely leaves aside Mark's interpretive comment in 7,19, preferring instead to tie Jesus' private teaching to the disciples back to the original context of Jesus' dispute with the Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes by adding to Mt 15,20 a phrase not found in Mark ('but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man'). Matthew is generally understood to be closer to the original Jewish context of the discussion where this issue of the law and rabbinic tradition would still be relevant to his audience, whereas Mark is speaking more directly to his community, which is generally understood as having a more significant Gentile component.

I see Mk 7:17-23 as parallel to Mt 15:15-20 - both passages are Jesus' private interplay with the disciples. Even if they're aimed at different audiences, I don't see why that would indicate two vastly different interpretations.

[robrecht]

I don't see them as complementary; they're about two distinct topics. One is decrying the excess purity requirements espoused by the Pharisees, and the other (Acts 10) is using the dietary laws analogically to promote the idea of Gentiles belonging to the church.

There are certainly major differences, but I believe they both share essentially the same perspective with respect to Jewish dietary law.

I'm not disputing that. Either interpretation is still within the context of the passage.

But one interpretation is better Greek.

I see Mk 7:17-23 as parallel to Mt 15:15-20 - both passages are Jesus' private interplay with the disciples. Even if they're aimed at different audiences, I don't see why that would indicate two vastly different interpretations.

I never said there should be two vastly different interpretations. But there are differing nuances that can be understood when one looks at the wording that is unique to each account.

[Soyeong]

You miss Paul's argument in your response. Paul wasn't weighing whether it was good to know sin or not. He was saying the disadvantage of learning the law is that it, instead, teaches you how to sin.

I suggest that 'sin' is not defined for Christians, because Christians are not under the law. But if you like sin (and being subject to wrath-- Rom 4:15), then go ahead and focus on the law.

When God gave instructions for how to live in an manner that is holy, righteous, and good, it necessarily includes teaching your how to live in a manner that is not holy, righteous, and good by doing the opposite, which is both a tremendous advantage and disadvantage. The law certainly brings wrath for transgressing it, but that is part of what holds us captive that we've died to, so we are left with just the advantage. Paul says both that the law gives us knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20) and that he would not know what sin was apart from the law (Romans 7:7), so it's a bit strange to say that "sin" is not defined.

Romans 6:15-16 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,[c] you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

How can this verse have any meaning for us if sin is undefined? Paul is saying that being under grace does not mean we are to do something, but what? How else are we supposed to know what we're not supposed to do other than by looking up what the law says about what sin is?

You are to die to the law. What does that mean? It means you no longer have a relationship with the law. I don't see what part of that verse isn't so obvious.

Clearly, if not "being under the law" doesn't mean we are to sin, then Paul is not including the holy, righteous, and good instructions of the law to be part of what he means by that phrase. In Romans 7:6 Paul specified that we are dying to what held us captive, which the holy, righteous, and good law was not doing. In contrast to sin, which is defined as the transgression of the law, Paul says we are set free from sin to become obedient slaves to the law, which leads to righteousness.

You missed Paul's argument again. He said only Jews were under law of Moses.

The whole word includes groups other than Jews and no amount of twisting will change that.

The mention of "whole world held accountable" was showing that Jews TOO were going to be found guilty -- and their guilt, specifically, was because of THEIR violation of the law. Paul was saying that Jews who proclaimed the law did not have a benefit of righteousness by that law. No instead... they would be found guilty of it. Note that gentiles were already assumed, under first century Jewish doctrine, to be unrighteous; Paul now was showing Jews automatically would be found unrighteous because of THEIR law.

Romans 9:30-32a What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness[d] did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.

The problem wasn't that the Jews pursued the law, but that they pursued it in the wrong way. They pursued righteousness through the law legalistically is if it were by works rather than pursuing it by faith, like the Gentiles were doing. David was declared righteous by faith and his obedience to the law was an expression of his faith. The order of having faith coming before works for salvation was important to Paul, but he also made it clear that works follow faith. The Israelites did works apart from faith instead of works because of a faith.

It is more subtle but 'good works' was the action of followers of Christ contrasted against actions of those seeking to follow the law.

Christ did nothing apart from the Father and was not at odds with what was command in the law, but rather he kept the law perfectly. The followers of Christ model their behavior after him and obey the law as he did. Jesus summarized the law as being about how to love God and how to love your neighbor, so "good works" are not anything other than what the law instructs.

You have good company in misunderstanding 3:31. The only reason Paul added this point was that gentiles would not hold unlimited contempt against the law; the gentiles were supposed to recognize that the law (i.e. the scriptures ) prophesied of the coming of Christ -- and hence the scriptures deserved some appreciation -- but not so far as to take on a law written for Jews.

Paul did not say our faith does not hold the law in contempt, but that our faith upholds the law.

You really have to add many unwarranted words ( i.e. "by leading us to obey it" ) to come to your conclusion. (Nor does your suggested interpretation seem to fit within any reasonable context established in the preceding verses.)

Hebrews 11 is all about faith leading people into obedience to God. James 2 is that faith without works is dead. Our faith should likewise lead us to obey God's instructions.

I'm sorry. You would have to show where scripture shows that the law was to show them how to live rightly.

Your interpretation of Israel is incorrect here. Can you show where gentiles had a race change? Where is a gentile equated to an Israelite? There are other people that make this false unjustified association.

Ephesians 2:12 says Gentiles were once alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and 2:19 says that they are now citizens.

1 Peter 2:9-10 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

You would need to find some verse somewhere to support your assertion here.

For example:

Galatians 5:2-4 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified[a] by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

The Galatians were already justified by faith, but they had begun listening to people who were telling them that they had to become Jews and keep the laws of Moses in order to be justified. In verse 4, Paul is not saying that following the law was bad, but that trying to become justified by the law was bad.

Your complaint should be addressed to Paul is you don't like his argument.

My complaint is not about Paul's argument, but about how you twisted it. Again, Paul didn't say that the mind set of flesh desired to obey God's law, but that it was hostile to God and didn't submit to God's law. Paul directly said the opposite of your interpretation.

The only way people ever followed the law was by the flesh.
Rom 7:14 is a weak verse to use for your argument until you identify exactly what Paul was arguing about in Rom 7.

No, the law was spiritual and was always intended to be followed spiritually. The problem was that Israel was following the law legalistically rather than spiritually by faith. Part of what Paul was arguing in Romans 7 was that we died to following the law legalistically. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for following the law while their hearts were far from God. In other words, the law was meant to be followed spiritually by faith in a way that builds a relationship between God and His people, but when the law is followed without the spiritual aspect, then it gets perverted into legalism.

This verse goes with the idea of the law being written on peoples' heart. It is God's Spirit doing the law here. We are freed from doing it.

In essence it seems that God was looking ahead when Christ would come and some people would recognize they had followed the law instead of God. The solution was that God would make it easy to follow Him -- without having the problems generated by the law.

God's holy, righteous, and good law is His instructions for how to follow Him, so it's rather strange that you would pit following God's law against following God. If the Spirit is following the law through us, then our actions should be in obedience to the law.

People sought righteousness by doing the law-- this is a standard effect.
People judge others for not doing the law. They violate James who said that being a judge of the law doesn't make you a doer of the law. (Ja 4:11)
People become focused on legal issues instead of loving issues.
Those who seek the law have the same mindset as those at Mt. Sinai who said "we don't want to go up the mountain into God's presence. Just find out what He wants and tell us what to do."

James is saying not to speak evil of others. Jesus summed up the law as being about how to love God and how to love your neighbor and Paul agreed that the essence of the law is love, so keeping the law as it was intended should lead to being focused more on loving issues. There are far more things that are good than what the law instructs and for more things that are sinful than what the law prohibits, so understanding that the law is spiritual should lead us to go above and beyond what it requires.

Trust in God is commonly shown by Paul to be opposite to seeking actions in accord with the Jewish laws. If you are a Christian and you are willing to give up the benefits of the Spirit, then disregard the warning inherent in Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Paul would disagree. He said in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds God's laws, not that faith is the opposite of them. The Spirit enables us to obey God's law, so I am not the one giving up the benefits of the Spirit. The warning in Galatians 3:3 was for those who were already justified by faith, but were seeking to be justified by works instead.

Ephesians 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Works play a role, but it is after justification, not for it.

[One Bad Pig]

There are certainly major differences, but I believe they both share essentially the same perspective with respect to Jewish dietary law.

And we disagree on that.

But one interpretation is better Greek.

Not sure why you're insisting on discussing this, as it's not material to the context. I am assuming your interpretation, at least for the sake of argument.

I never said there should be two vastly different interpretations. But there are differing nuances that can be understood when one looks at the wording that is unique to each account.

Declaring part of the Mosaic law void is not nuance.

[Scrawly]

"But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin." (Rom. 14:23).

Matthew Henry comments:

14:19-23 Many wish for peace, and talk loudly for it, who do not follow the things that make for peace. Meekness, humility, self-denial, and love, make for peace. We cannot edify one another, while quarrelling and contending. Many, for meat and drink, destroy the work of God in themselves; nothing more destroys the soul than pampering and pleasing the flesh, and fulfilling the lusts of it; so others are hurt, by willful offence given. Lawful things may be done unlawfully, by giving offence to brethren. This takes in all indifferent things, whereby a brother is drawn into sin or trouble; or has his graces, his comforts, or his resolutions weakened. Hast thou faith? It is meant of knowledge and clearness as to our Christian liberty. Enjoy the comfort of it, but do not trouble others by a wrong use of it. Nor may we act against a doubting conscience. How excellent are the blessings of Christ's kingdom, which consists not in outward rites and ceremonies, but in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost! How preferable is the service of God to all other services! and in serving him we are not called to live and die to ourselves, but unto Christ, whose we are, and whom we ought to serve.

source: http://biblehub.com/romans/14-23.htm

[robrecht]

And we disagree on that.

What exactly do we disagree on? That Mark and Luke have the same basic perspective on Jewish dietary law and traditions, more or less, as nearly as we can determine? If so, how do you think Mark and Luke differed regarding Jewish dietary law?

Not sure why you're insisting on discussing this, as it's not material to the context. I am assuming your interpretation, at least for the sake of argument.

I do not insist upon this point, or on discussing it. I am more than willing to be proven wrong. And, while you may not disagree, I think Soyeong might disagree, and he too is part of this discussion.

Declaring part of the Mosaic law void is not nuance.

I see Mark as merely making explicit that which is at least implicit in Jesus' words. That is a nuance, especially insofar as it is hardly the primary point of this pericope.

[robrecht]

And we disagree on that.

I'm still curious about what exactly you disagree with here? That Mark and Luke have the same basic perspective on Jewish dietary law and traditions, more or less, as nearly as we can determine? If so, how do you think Mark and Luke differed regarding Jewish dietary law?