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

[Paprika]

Paul is contrasting being justified by faith rather than righteousness being gained through the law, so what he died to is a perversion of the Torah into the legalistic system.

this law he says in verses 23-26 that "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."

Being "held captive" under the law counters your quotation from Psalm 119, by the way.

Now "the law" in Galatians may refer also to the oral traditions developed around the written law, but it doesn't refer to anything less than the latter. And to this law Paul writes that he has died to them. Yes, it is a polemic against righteousness through the works of the law, but it also has bearing on Paul's relationship on the law.

[Paprika]

Even after all our conversations I am still confused when you seem to say Gentiles ought to keep learning to observe all Torah after the initial necessaries of Acts 15, but you kind of waffle on the issue of circumcision which is also part of Torah.

[Soyeong]

Just because some scholars disagree, that does not mean that you should pick and choose those who happen to agree with you, without understanding how and why they disagree. When people merely do that, then it is indeed pointless to argue for the correctness of a true explanation. Frederick Field did not really say it is a waste of time to argue for various explanations, but that it is a waste of time "to notice and to refute the various explanations that have been given of the clause καθαρίζον πάντα τὰ βρώματα [katharizon panta ta brwmata], all of them equally repugnant to grammar and common sense." To date no one has advanced a good argument for this reading that is grammatically correct and meets the requirements of common sense.

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

[Paprika]

If you think God was fine with those who taught against keeping his commands as long as they didn't teach them to follow other Gods, then you must be reading something different than I am.

[Soyeong]

The first half is correct, but the conclusion is not so. I'm sorry, but I think you're holding on too tightly to your theory to fairly judge contrary evidence. All the evidence points to Paul talking about the Mosaic law, as evidenced by his quotations from Deuteronomy:

I wasn't saying that he wasn't talking about the Mosaic law, but that he was talking about a perversion of it.

Romans 9:30-32 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.

Their problem wasn't with the fact that they kept the law, but with the way they kept it.

Here it pops up again where those who rely on works of the law for their own righteousness are under a curse. If they are justified by their works rather than by grace through faith, then they need to keep all of the Law. The curse is in reference to Deuteronomy 27:26.

Now of this law he says in verses 23-26 that "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."

Being "held captive" under the law counters your quotation from Psalm 119, by the way.

The issue between these verses and Psalm 119 is not that they counter each other, but that they are both correct. When follow the law is followed correctly by faith is brings freedom, but when it is perverted and followed legalistically by works, it is a prison. Jesus' death and resurrection did not end the legal part of the Torah, but the need for Jewish people to try to earn God's favor through the system which results from perverting the Torah into legalism.

---

Again, Acts 15 may be talking about the oral law and traditions, but it is not talking about any less than the law of Moses, to which Peter replied "why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"

James 1:25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

James also reiterates that the Torah is perfect and is the law of liberty, so this is at odds with saying that it is a burden that no one could bear. Rather, the burden that no one could bear is rather the legalistic burden that the Pharisees had placed on people through the oral law.

[JohnnyP]

I state:

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

That's it. Not, you should go on to observe all Torah and give up bacon and stuff like that. Should, should, should, is what Soyeong and other Messianic Jews and Judaizers say. But it's not there! And no reply as to negative consequences in the afterlife, as I have asked and even demanded to know.

I may agree with Soyeong that we as Gentiles may gain a greater understanding if we try to observe all Torah. Beyond that, I would like to know what the consequences are if we don't.

Therefore I would say to Gentiles, explore Torah as you can, however, "Matthew 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all..."

Soyeong has already claimed to be Jewish by his mother, he has bound himself to Torah. Us Gentiles don't need to do the same but if we do, we better take it seriously.

[JohnnyP]

Now Soyeong, I will say for every mitzvot you do not fulfill but have vowed to do, it will be held against you.

Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

[Soyeong]

Just as you claim that certain Pauline passages about food are taken out of contexts, yes, you are taking the Deuteronomy passage as regards the death penalty out of context.

Consistently throughout the OT, God wants His people to be obedient, so teaching His people to follow other gods or to disobey his commands amount to the same problem. At the very least, Jesus would have been denounced as a heretic, but we don't even see a reaction to what he said or any evidence that anyone in his audience understood him to be saying that. The Bible repeatedly warns against false teachers and the best way to determine that is to compare what they say to Scripture. If a prophet can perform signs and speak against the commands, then determining whether or not they are a false prophet becomes problematic.

Then we have the gospel writers and Paul in various ways portraying Jesus as a second Moses, someone greater than Moses.

[Soyeong]

Even after all our conversations I am still confused when you seem to say Gentiles ought to keep learning to observe all Torah after the initial necessaries of Acts 15, but you kind of waffle on the issue of circumcision which is also part of Torah.

Sorry about the confusion. The only requirement in the Torah for Gentiles to get circumcised is in Exodus 12:48 where they are required if they want to participate in Passover and eat of the lamb. I think if Gentiles want to participate, then should get circumcised, but if they are trying to be justified through keeping the entire law, then they shouldn't.

Back to rewards or lack thereof in Olam Ha-Ba the afterlife: can you be more specific as to what happens to Gentiles who don't think they need to quit eating bacon and things like that and don't attempt to observe all Torah (which I will call non-observant for purposes of this conversation), vs. Gentiles who intend to observe all Torah even if they don't make it by the time of death (which I will call observant)?

Do observant Gentiles have some kind of higher rule or better place? Do non-observant Gentiles feel shame? Can you shed any light on what consequences Gentiles may face if they don't keep on trying to learn and observe Torah? Or is it all a mystery?

Eating unclean animals is an abomination to God, so it is a sin, and sinners fall under grace. We will be rewarded for our faithfulness in serving God and our perseverance for running the race, but we will place these crowns at the feet of Jesus.

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

The context is in relation to burdening them with the legalism of oral law, not the Torah. The Torah was never described as a burden that no one could bear, but a delight to keep.

That's it. Not, you should go on to observe all Torah and give up bacon and stuff like that. Should, should, should, is what Soyeong and other Messianic Jews and Judaizers say. But it's not there! And no reply as to negative consequences in the afterlife, as I have asked and even demanded to know.

No, the Jadaizers were teaching that you had to convert to Judaism and follow all of the written and oral law in order to be saved. I'm saying nothing of the sort. Rather, I'm going along with what Paul said in Romans 3:31 and Romans 6:15-18 that being under grace doesn't mean we shouldn't follow the Torah.

Therefore I would say to Gentiles, explore Torah as you can, however, "Matthew 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all..."

Huh?

Soyeong has already claimed to be Jewish by his mother, he has bound himself to Torah. Us Gentiles don't need to do the same but if we do, we better take it seriously.

I have done no such thing. I would be using the same arguments even if I were a Gentile because my herritage is irrelevant in this matter. Paul doesn't make a distinction between Jews and Gentiles when he says we should uphold the Torah.

Now Soyeong, I will say for every mitzvot you do not fulfill but have vowed to do, it will be held against you.

Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Context is always is important, time for you to go reread Romans 2.

[Paprika]

I wasn't saying that he wasn't talking about the Mosaic law, but that he was talking about a perversion of it.

Utter nonsense, given that Paul quotes directly from the Mosaic Law and not some perverted version.

I repeat: In Galatians Paul refers to the Mosaic law based on his quoting of it- he does not quote any oral law, and shows that while they had been held captive under the Mosaic law, Christ set them free from it. If you reject this, I do demand that you show from Galatians how Paul is referring to any law but that given by Moses, dealing with all the references to "the law".

Now for James:

James 1:25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

Paul says in Romans 8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death" and thus distinguishes between two laws, the law of the Spirit (which was sent on Pentecost, the festival commemorating the giving of the Mosaic Law on Sinai) and the law of Moses (The parallelism is very, very important). So there are two laws to which James could be referring to.

[Paprika]

I may agree with Soyeong that we as Gentiles may gain a greater understanding if we try to observe all Torah. Beyond that, I would like to know what the consequences are if we don't.

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

[Paprika]

The context is in relation to burdening them with the legalism of oral law, not the Torah. The Torah was never described as a burden that no one could bear, but a delight to keep.

No, the context is the question of burdening them with oral AND written law. The answer was no.

[Paprika]

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.

[Soyeong]

Utter nonsense, given that Paul quotes directly from the Mosaic Law and not some perverted version.

I repeat: In Galatians Paul refers to the Mosaic law based on his quoting of it- he does not quote any oral law, and shows that while they had been held captive under the Mosaic law, Christ set them free from it. If you reject this, I do demand that you show from Galatians how Paul is referring to any law but that given by Moses, dealing with all the references to "the law".

Avot 1:1 Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders to the prophets; and the prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah.

"Every interpretation of the Torah given by a universally recognized authority is regarded as divine and given on Sinai, in the sense that it is taken as the original divinely willed (gottgewollte) interpretation of the text; for the omniscient and all-wise God included in His revealed Torah every shade of meaning which divinely inspired interpretation thereafter discovered.... Therefore, every interpretation is called derash, 'searching' for what God had originally put there.... Every interpretation given by the scholars of the Talmud, Moses had received on Mt. Sinai, for he had received the Torah, and the interpretation was contained in it, not mechanically, but organically, as the fruit of the tree contained in the see from which the tree had grown...." (Saul Kaatz, Muendliche Lehre und Ihr Dogma, Berlin, 1923, p. 48, as quoted in George Horowitz, The Spirit of the Jewish Law, New York: Central Book Company, 11973, p. 92)

The Oral Torah was understood by the Jews to have been given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai at the same time as the Written Torah. The Torah sometimes refers only to the Pentateuch, which is the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. It also sometimes refers to the Tenak, which is an abbreviation that stands for the Torah, prophets, and writings. Lastly, it can also refer to the entire Hebrew Bible as well as the Talmud, which is a few centuries of rabbinic commentary on the Torah.

The oral law is essentially a fence around the Torah that was designed to prevent Jews from even getting close to breaking the Torah. For instance, the Bible says that we aren't supposed to work on the Sabbath, so what they wanted to do was meticulously define what counted as work and then put a fence around it so that they didn't risk doing anything that counted as work, such as rules about how far someone could walk. This started off with good motivations to be obedient to God, but it turned what was supposed to be a day of rest into a legalistic chore, which is what I mean by being a perversion of it. It wasn't that I'm talking about the Torah being altered or Paul referring to some other law, the perversion was that the way they kept it became about being justified legalistically by doing works, rather than being justified by grace through faith, as it was intended. It was this legalistic burden that became a prison; not God's commands.

Now for James:
Paul says in Romans 8:2 "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death" and thus distinguishes between two laws, the law of the Spirit (which was sent on Pentecost, the festival commemorating the giving of the Mosaic Law on Sinai) and the law of Moses (The parallelism is very, very important). So there are two laws to which James could be referring to.

That interpretation contradicts Paul's arguments in Chapters 3 and 7. Rather, the Torah of the Spirit is the Mosaic Law properly apprehended by the power of the Holy Spirit, which is the Torah's true meaning, and which is the Law of Christ. Verse 2 could be paraphrased as:

"The Torah, as understood and applied through the Spirit, thereby giving life in with Jesus, has set me free from the aspects of the Torah that stimulate me to sin (Romans 7:5-14), fill me with irremediable guilt (7:15-24), and condemn me to death."

--
Hopefully the above should clarify your objection. If you look in the OT, you will not find a single verse that requires Gentiles to be circumcised outside of Exodus 12:48, so they could only be referring to the oral law here.

[Paprika]

Hopefully the above should clarify your objection. If you look in the OT, you will not find a single verse that requires Gentiles to be circumcised outside of Exodus 12:48, so they could only be referring to the oral law here.

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.

Avot 1:1 Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders to the prophets; and the prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah.
...
The Oral Torah was understood by the Jews to have been given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai at the same time as the Written Torah. The Torah sometimes refers only to the Pentateuch, which is the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. It also sometimes refers to the Tenak, which is an abbreviation that stands for the Torah, prophets, and writings. Lastly, it can also refer to the entire Hebrew Bible as well as the Talmud, which is a few centuries of rabbinic commentary on the Torah.

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.

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.

That interpretation contradicts Paul's arguments in Chapters 3 and 7. Rather, the Torah of the Spirit is the Mosaic Law properly apprehended by the power of the Holy Spirit, which is the Torah's true meaning, and which is the Law of Christ. Verse 2 could be paraphrased as:

"The Torah, as understood and applied through the Spirit, thereby giving life in with Jesus, has set me free from the aspects of the Torah that stimulate me to sin (Romans 7:5-14), fill me with irremediable guilt (7:15-24), and condemn me to death."

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