Does Mark 7:19 declare all foods to be clean?

[robrecht]

http://biblehub.com/thayers/2907.htm

I think this is a very forced misinterpretation of the obvious meaning of Paul's text, but that will have to be a discussion for another day.

[robrecht]

I agree, it should be clear in OP that I was not taking sides on what the Greek said, but looking at the more important matter of the context to help us decide what was meant. Do you think this article doesn't make a strong argument?

http://www.torahresource.com/English...9ShortNote.pdf

No, not at all! First of all, Hegg does not even argue for the neuter text so his arguments do not meet the criteria that that I proposed. Second, he attempts to claim that the common understanding of the meaning of Mark's text is problematic because of a different text of Matthew. Third, he is only arguing that an alternative, less grammatical, interpretation is possible (which no one denies), but this is not a strong argument that his interpretation is correct, only possible and less grammatically correct. Fourth, he ignores ὑμεῖς in Lk 24,48, and ὅς in Ac 10,38, assumes that ἀγγέλων in 1 Thes 1,7 is the ungrammatical antecedent of διδόντος in 1,8, rather than , which is completely grammatical, and he does not consider the possibility that ἀκατάστατον κακόν in Jm 3,8 is an adjectival substantive, not an adjective and hardly a participle (!), and that the phrase resumes in a feminine adjective with the very next word: μεστήIphigenia in Tauris.

As for context, I am saying that you need to understand Mark's ancient Greek text in the context of the ancient Greek language and Mark's own communal and authorial perspective that is rather clear throughout his gospel. It is Mark's meaning that you should care about first, and then move to more speculative issues.

[Soyeong]

I think this is a very forced misinterpretation of the obvious meaning of Paul's text, but that will have to be a discussion for another day.

I think the forced interpretation is reading into it that they're talking about kosher laws when it simply isn't there. A divide between Jews who kept the Torah and Gentiles who didn't need to bother with it would have been an insurmountable barrier to fellowship that would have dwarfed the conflicts that Paul is talking about here.

[JohnnyP]

Soyeong I apologize I assumed too much about your reasons for observance and for being too harsh and dramatic on the rest.

In reality I would not want to discourage Gentiles from observing if they choose to, so I support your goal there.

[JohnnyP]

There are no consequences.

From Soyeong's perspective I was trying to get at if he had idea of what specific rewards or lack of in afterlife for Gentiles who tried to observe or didn't. Or, if such specifics are unknown at this time.

This subject makes me feel defensive sometimes, and I take the idea that as a Gentile I'm doing wrong by not trying to observe all Laws too personally and get too excited over it. Shouldn't, but it happens.

[robrecht]

I think the forced interpretation is reading into it that they're talking about kosher laws when it simply isn't there. A divide between Jews who kept the Torah and Gentiles who didn't need to bother with it would have been an insurmountable barrier to fellowship that would have dwarfed the conflicts that Paul is talking about here.

I do not claim that Paul is only speaking about kosher laws here. But Paul's general terms are easily broad enough to include this. You are the one assuming that 'all food' means 'only kosher food'. And this issue between Jewish and Gentile Christians is certainly not an insurmountable barrier to fellowship for Paul, here or elsewhere (Gal 2,11-14).

Romans 14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.

The context of Romans 14 is addressing quarreling over opinions and disputable matters, not the commands of God.

False dichotomy. The matters that are in dispute are opinions which at times do indeed relate to the commandments.

Romans 14:2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.

The weak are not those who keep Jewish dietary laws because eating only vegetables is not one of those laws. Rather, this is referring to various fasting and ascetic practices. If those who were keeping those practices were looking down on those who were not, or if those who could eat everything [that was kosher] were looking down on those who limited what they ate or refrained from eating meat sacrificed to idols, then we have exactly the type of conflict that Paul is addressing in this chapter.

Romans 14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

Once again, Paul is talking about matters of opinion, not about whether God esteems one day over another. He is the one who blessed the seventh day and declared it holy.

κοινὰ καὶ ἐπεδέξαντο ἀποθανεῖν ἵνα μὴ μιανθῶσιν τοῖς βρώμασιν καὶ μὴ βεβηλώσωσιν διαθήκην ἁγίαν καὶ ἀπέθανον.
But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die.

See also 4 Macc 1,34
τοιγαροῦν ἐνύδρων ἐπιθυμοῦντες καὶ ὀρνέων καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ παντοίων βρωμάτων τῶν ἀπηγορευμένων ἡμῖν κατὰ τὸν νόμον ἀπεχόμεθα διὰ τὴν τοῦ λογισμοῦ ἐπικράτειαν.
Therefore when we crave seafood, fowl, quadrupeds and all sorts of foods that are forbidden to us by the law, we abstain because of the dominance of reason.

Here, Paul is talking about meat sacrificed to idols.

http://biblehub.com/thayers/2907.htm

Possibly, he does talk about this elsewhere. If he is, then note that he is not merely speaking about vegetarian practices in this context but he is also speaking about things related to the law. But he is not necessarily only talking about food sacrificed to idols here. He is not so specific as to say, as he does elsewhere, ὁ βρῶσις ὁ εἰδωλόθυτος.

[Quantum Weirdness]

If the law needed to be changed, then it wasn't perfect, and I see no apparent reason for why law would needed to be given a change in the first place. I don't think it is something God would do, but even if He did, it would have been a major teaching and not some off-hand comment.

Yeah but perfect in what sense? It was perfect for the socio-historical context it was given in but not necessarily beyond that. It would change to adapt to different circumstances.

Absolutely, the Torah is being referred here is the royal law. The Jews did not make a distinction between the Laws of Moses and the moral law.

Psalms 19:7-10

7 The law of the Lord is perfect,
refreshing the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
making wise the simple.
8 The precepts of the Lord are right,
giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant,
giving light to the eyes.
9 The fear of the Lord is pure,
enduring forever.
The decrees of the Lord are firm,
and all of them are righteous.
10 They are more precious than gold,
than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey,
than honey from the honeycomb.

Psalms 119

13 With my lips I recount
all the laws that come from your mouth.
14 I rejoice in following your statutes
as one rejoices in great riches.
15 I meditate on your precepts
and consider your ways.
16 I delight in your decrees;
I will not neglect your word.

33 Teach me, Lord, the way of your decrees,
that I may follow it to the end.[b]
34 Give me understanding, so that I may keep your law
and obey it with all my heart.
35 Direct me in the path of your commands,
for there I find delight.

43 Never take your word of truth from my mouth,
for I have put my hope in your laws.
44 I will always obey your law,
for ever and ever.
45 I will walk about in freedom,
for I have sought out your precepts.

70 Their hearts are callous and unfeeling,
but I delight in your law.
71 It was good for me to be afflicted
so that I might learn your decrees.
72 The law from your mouth is more precious to me
than thousands of pieces of silver and gold.

97 Oh, how I love your law!
I meditate on it all day long.
__

The praise for the law goes on, but it would be difficult to argue from the Psalms that they viewed the law as something that didn't give freedom.

Yeah it gave them freedom. Doesn't necessarily give us freedom.
I don't know about Jews but I think that historically, Christians did. (this regards the distinction between the laws)
Also, from the context of James 2, I think it is the new Covenant law being the law that gives freedom.
The royal law is "Love your neighbor as yourself" which I doubt includes the dietary laws of the Torah.

Ok fair enough.

The author is not belittling the Torah, but it is giving it is place in the unfolding of God's work in history.

Yes and its place is that its not perfect but it is a shadow of good things to come (implying that the things are better than the Torah)


Yep those who forbid us from eating stuff (like the unclean stuff in the Torah) are promoting self-made religion and the other stuff because God made that stuff clean.

The prophets had a consistent message of returning to God and obeying His commands, not modifying them. The Scriptures were the standard by which Jews would accept new teaching. When Paul went to the Boreans, they first checked everything he said about Jesus with what was written in the OT to see that what he had said was true, otherwise, they would have rightfully rejected his message.

The context kinda indicates that this was in reference to prophecy of Jesus. And yes, the OT was/is important
Yeah the prophets didn't attempt to modify the commandments. But they weren't establishing a new covenant either and Jesus isn't exactly an ordinary prophet. Another thing would be that certain things (like circumcision) were not necessary so as to enter the covenant and certain things were also done away with (eg the sacrificial system). These represent changes in the Law since you no longer had to sacrifice animals for atonement.

No, the Torah actually contains a number of covenants.[/QUOTE]http://www.studylight.org/desk/inter...i?ref=43010014http://www.studylight.org/desk/inter...3=str_nas&ns=0

[Soyeong]

There are no consequences. See Galatians: "Now the promises were made to Abrahamthe law, which came 430 years afterward [clearly the Mosaic Law]...Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." (bolding for emphasis)

In Galatians, the Mosaic Law is described as slavery. As the Israrelites were not supposed to return to Egypt, we are not supposed to return to slavery. "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law

The law gives us freedom because it teaches us how to live righteously before God, but it also be followed legalistically. Paul frequently contrasts following the law as if we are justified by works, which is a prison, and following it by faith, which gives freedom, but he also emphasizes that following it by faith doesn't nullify it or our need to follow it. Romans 3:31, Romans 6:15-18.

The law is not abolished by the sending of the Spirit, it is not obliterated, but we are no longer under it. I do not deny the tension here, but I would like to point out that Jesus did alter part of the Mosaic Law:

It is the Pharisees who incorrectly stated that it was lawful to divorce. Jesus corrected them by saying the law against divorce was the same since the beginning, so he didn't say anything new. It was always a sin and the woman was always defiled in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but it was a sin that God permitted temporarily to prevent a greater evil. It was always God's will that divorce not happen.

Technically no. If, as you say, Gentile Christians are supposed to follow the Mosaic Law (which includes Leviticus), then they are to circumcise their male children on the eight day. But you're just dodging the point. Since the Mosaic Law requires the annual celebration of the Passover, and the Mosaic Law also requires males to be circumcised to participate in the Passover, so by obvious extension the Mosaic Law requires male Gentiles Christians to be circumcised.

True, but concerns over Passover are not what is being discussed in Acts 15:1. They were teaching that Gentiles had to become Jews and keep all of the written and oral law in order to be saved.

I don't know if you saw this on Facebook, but I might as well copy it here:

In Jewish theology at the time, it was not possible for Gentiles to go to heaven, they first had to covert to Judaism and follow all of the law, including the oral law in order for that to happen. There is no method given in the Torah for what a Gentile is required to do to covert to Judaism and no requirement that they needed to be circumcised, so the topic given in Acts 15:1 is entirely about whether Gentiles should be required to keep the oral law.

Peter got up said that the Gentiles had been saved by faith, so they didn't have to follow the oral law stating that they had to become Jewish and get circumcised. Idolatry was a big concern for the Jews and the oral law contained a number of fences designed to prevent Jews from ever getting close to it, but if the Gentiles did have to follow these laws, then that posed a problem for Jews, because they could have no fellowship with Gentiles if they were still following pagan practices.

Paganism was pervasive in ancient Greek and Roman societies to the point where it was also part of the social and cultural setting. They couldn't burden the Gentiles with the oral law and it was impractical to ban them from participating in society, so the Council needed to create some laws that would allow Gentiles to enter the temple for financial transactions and whatnot, but would also require them to make a clean break from paganism. The solution they found was to have the Gentiles follow four laws that all directly related to prohibiting pagan practices. Acts 15:21 has the understanding that Gentiles would continue to learn to keep the laws of Moses by having it preached to them every Sabbath.

Paul never taught against keeping the Torah and in fact defended himself in trial against that accusation. Do you say that he lied in court?

When did this understanding come into place? Post-70 AD, or before? You're providing this new information about a Jewish understanding of the law that I'm not sure whether Paul would have shared.

Encyclopaedia Judaica: Torah

The Encyclopaedia Judaica says it was a traditional belief that stems for Exodus 34:27, but it doesn't say when it started, though it did become a fundamental tenet of belief of orthodox Judaism. It is also evident from most of Jesus conflicts with Pharisees concerning the law that they held the oral law on the same footing. Avot can be dated to 200 BCE.

See, this is why I tried to clarify in my first post on this topic. What do you mean by 'the law' that Gentiles are supposed to keep? What are the contents? It would be good to have a clear delineation before we proceed any further.

Sorry, I meant to state that. When I use the term, I mean the first five books.

I'm not sure how you derive the "properly apprehended", but I am interested to know what do you mean by it. What does it mean by apprehension through the Spirit, and how does it differ from other apprehensions of the law- oral, written, or both?

To properly apprehend goes back to what Jesus saying that he came not to interpret the law in a way that undermines it, but to properly interpret it the way that God intended it to be understood. Apprehending the law through the Spirit is keeping it by faith, which is contrasted with keeping it as you are justified by works.

Also, if my interpretation contradicts with yours, perhaps yours could be wrong?

Absolutely I could be wrong, but you haven't dealt with Romans 3, 6, or what Paul just said in 7. James was not making a dichotomy between the law of Christ and the law of Moses, he was just saying that you shouldn't just listen to it, you should also do it. The law of Christ or the law of God is precisely what God instructed in the Torah, but kept by faith and not by works.

[Soyeong]

Soyeong I apologize I assumed too much about your reasons for observance and for being too harsh and dramatic on the rest.

In reality I would not want to discourage Gentiles from observing if they choose to, so I support your goal there.

You're forgiven.

This subject makes me feel defensive sometimes, and I take the idea that as a Gentile I'm doing wrong by not trying to observe all Laws too personally and get too excited over it. Shouldn't, but it happens.

I don't mean for this to get personal, but I do think there are serious implication to what Paul is saying. I got defensive and resisted these ideas too, but when I gave an honest look at how Jews interpret the New Testament, I found that their interpretation was a much better fit culturally speaking. They don't all agree on how that should be done of course, but sometimes Christians interpret Paul as being almost anti-Semitic, and I don't think anything could be further from the truth.

[robrecht]

... sometimes Christians interpret Paul as being almost anti-Semitic, and I don't think anything could be further from the truth.

This is true and very unfortunate. For example, some claim that 1st century Jews were chacterized by a shallow legalistic view of the law, rather than seeing it as a gracious gift of God.

[Scrawly]

I don't come across too many Christian's who interpret Paul as bordering on anti-Semitic. If I did, I would simply direct them to Romans 9:1-4:



What I do find many Christian's doing is highlighting the liberty we have in Christ and drawing out the implications of the gospel and what it means to be "in Christ". Sadly, I see how many "Messianic Jews" could misunderstand this as being anti-Torah. Indeed, I'm sure Paul's own autobiographical sketch of conversion would cause some Messianic Jews to stumble if they have a distorted view of the gospel and the changes that were wrought about by the ushering in of Christ and the New Covenant.

[JohnnyP]

You're forgiven.

Thanks!

I don't mean for this to get personal, but I do think there are serious implication to what Paul is saying. I got defensive and resisted these ideas too, but when I gave an honest look at how Jews interpret the New Testament, I found that their interpretation was a much better fit culturally speaking. They don't all agree on how that should be done of course, but sometimes Christians interpret Paul as being almost anti-Semitic, and I don't think anything could be further from the truth.

I know, it's my problem taking things too personally sometimes. I fully agree Paul wasn't against the Law for Jews, I'll say that. Gonna hang back and follow this thread for now, thanks.

[Soyeong]

I do not claim that Paul is only speaking about kosher laws here. But Paul's general terms are easily broad enough to include this. You are the one assuming that 'all food' means 'only kosher food'. And this issue between Jewish and Gentile Christians is certainly not an insurmountable barrier to fellowship for Paul, here or elsewhere (Gal 2,11-14).

Galatians 2 is another great example where Christians have forced to be about kosher when it just isn't there. Paul was dealing with the same circumcision group here as he was dealing with in Acts 15:1 that was saying Gentiles needed to become Jews and keep all of the written and oral law in order to be saved. When peter switch to eating with them, his actions were essentially telling the Gentiles that it was no longer ok for Jews to fellowship with them and that they weren't actually saved unless they did as the circumcision group was saying. These are the customs that Paul calls him out on in verse 14. What they happened to be eating has nothing to do with the passage, but I see no particular reason why God-fearing Gentiles wouldn't be interested in keeping the laws of the religion they had joined.

False dichotomy. The matters that are in dispute are opinions which at times do indeed relate to the commandments.

There were of course disputes about how best to keep God's commands, but nobody was disputing whether or not they should keep them.

Indeed, I added that as clarification, but the context justifies is. It's talking about everything, as is not being limited by disputable matters of asceticism, fasting, or meat sacrificed to idols. Indeed, the command not to eat meat sacrificed to idols is not found in the OT. Paul even says in 1 Corinthians 8:8 that we're no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. The issue was that Gentiles who were at risk of falling back into paganism were still weak in their faith, so we should not look down on them for refraining from eating meat sacrificed to idols, but the decision was ultimately a matter of conscious.

Being convinced in your own mind only refers to matter on which the Scriptures are indifferent. However, where is gives clear word, personal opinion must give way. For instance, the Scriptures do not define what counts as work on the Sabbath, so there were disputes about that, but it gives clear word that they were supposed to follow the Sabbath, so whether or not to keep one of the 10 commandments was not a matter of opinion that someone can choose whether or not they want to esteem. Furthermore, there is no mention of the Sabbath or Jewish feasts in this chapter, the Sabbath was established as an everlasting covenant (Exodus 31:16), and this ignores what Paul said in Romans 3:28-31 about upholding the law or in Romans 8:7 where he says, "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot."

Rather, it is referring to days outside the law according to various ascetic or fasting practices, or for other days that new coverts were used to keeping. See: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...m/fasting.html

[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]κοινὰ καὶ ἐπεδέξαντο ἀποθανεῖν ἵνα μὴ μιανθῶσιν τοῖς βρώμασιν καὶ μὴ βεβηλώσωσιν διαθήκην ἁγίαν καὶ ἀπέθανον.
But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die.

They defiled the altar by sacrificing a pig on it and then tried to force them to eat, so I think it was both about ritual purity and eating unclean animals. Do you have any idea of how often the word is used to refer to ritual purity versus eating something unclean?

[Paprika]

Galatians 2 is another great example where Christians have forced to be about kosher when it just isn't there. Paul was dealing with the same circumcision group here as he was dealing with in Acts 15:1 that was saying Gentiles needed to become Jews and keep all of the written and oral law in order to be saved. When peter switch to eating with them, his actions were essentially telling the Gentiles that it was no longer ok for Jews to fellowship with them and that they weren't actually saved unless they did as the circumcision group was saying. These are the customs that Paul calls him out on in verse 14. What they happened to be eating has nothing to do with the passage, but I see no particular reason why God-fearing Gentiles wouldn't be interested in keeping the laws of the religion they had joined.

[Paprika]

The law gives us freedom because it teaches us how to live righteously before God, but it also be followed legalistically. Paul frequently contrasts following the law as if we are justified by works, which is a prison, and following it by faith, which gives freedom, but he also emphasizes that following it by faith doesn't nullify it or our need to follow it. Romans 3:31, Romans 6:15-18.

I am glad you now agree that in Galatians Paul is talking about the Mosaic Law.


To that, I have only to respond: "But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:6) This is not law viewed apprehended from Spirit, rather the way of the Spirit is distinguished from the way of the Law.

It is the Pharisees who incorrectly stated that it was lawful to divorce. Jesus corrected them by saying the law against divorce was the same since the beginning, so he didn't say anything new. It was always a sin and the woman was always defiled in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but it was a sin that God permitted temporarily to prevent a greater evil. It was always God's will that divorce not happen.

No. Go back to the Scripture. Some Pharisees ask Jesus whether it is lawful to divorce at all, Jesus asks them what did Moses say on the issue, they say Moses permitted, quoting from Deuteronomy. Jesus agrees that Moses said so, but gives them a new ruling.

True, but concerns over Passover are not what is being discussed in Acts 15:1. They were teaching that Gentiles had to become Jews and keep all of the written and oral law in order to be saved.

Paul never taught against keeping the Torah and in fact defended himself in trial against that accusation. Do you say that he lied in court?

When?

The Encyclopaedia Judaica says it was a traditional belief that stems for Exodus 34:27, but it doesn't say when it started, though it did become a fundamental tenet of belief of orthodox Judaism. It is also evident from most of Jesus conflicts with Pharisees concerning the law that they held the oral law on the same footing. Avot can be dated to 200 BCE.

All right.

This post is split into two. The other half will discuss the Law in Romans.