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

[Quantum Weirdness]

Romans 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

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.

1 John 3:4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
The Torah is perfect and holy, why would God change it? Sin is an affront to God's character, why we He change what was sin? Jesus said he came not to interpret the Torah in a way that undermines, but to interpret it properly. Teaching against keeping the kosher laws would have undermined it. There is consistent high praise for the Torah throughout the OT and NT and Jesus kept the Torah perfectly, so it doesn't strike as something that he would be annul. And if he had planned to annul some of his commands, it doesn't make much sense to instruct his people to kill anyone who taught against his people keeping them.


I think you're confusing the Old covenant with the Torah.

Yeah the law is overall holy and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Why can't the law be that way if changed? (BTW this doesn't mean it's perfect.)
Are you sure that the perfect law is the royal law (2:8)? Is the Torah really the law that gives freedom?
Yes everybody who sins commits lawlessness. But what is the law in this context? (I think it is the moral law)

We disagree on the Torah being perfect
Not so sure about the Law being in consistent high praise
1 Cor 15:56
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...56&version=NIV

Hebrews 10:1
For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year make perfect those who draw near
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/gwview.cgi?n=3551

Also Colossians 2:13-17
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.
15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+2&version=NIV

The Deut verses teach about killing a false prophet for preaching in the name of other gods and Christ was turning people to God by annulling these obsolete laws and making new commandments.
The Deut verses are essentially saying "I (God) command you to do this, don't listen to him". But can't God command something else through a prophet?

About your last line,
Isn't the Torah part of the Old Covenant?

[Soyeong]

It was used in Revelation to indicate the end of a teaching, not necessarily a parable.

True, but his disciples specifically ask him about the parable in the next verse.

[robrecht]

Soyeong, in your initial post, you discuss this issue at multiple levels, eg, that of the historical Jesus, as well as the texts of Mark and even Matthew. If you want to discuss the Greek text of Mark, and only the Greek text of Mark's gospel, I suggest that is the best place to start this discussion. There I think the answer is pretty easy to see, or at least much easier to discuss, at least for those who know Greek, and from there one is free to speculate on other levels, such as speculating about the historical Jesus, or to look at how Matthew has redacted the text of Mark.

[robrecht]

"Will anyone undertake to say what is meant by the last clause of the verse as it stands in the English version, and as it must stand, so long as καθαρίζον [katharizon] is read?"

- Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener

"It would be 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."

- Frederick Field

[Soyeong]

Soyeong, I want to clarify your stand: Christians are supposed to follow the OT laws recorded in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Is that accurate?

Romans 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.

Yes, being a slave to righteousness is being obedient to the Torah. Being under the law means being under its judgement and its justification. We are not under the Torah because we are justified by grace through faith and Jesus paid the penalty for breaking the law, however, Paul still says that we aren't free break it and that we should uphold the law.

[Paprika]

And if he had planned to annul some of his commands, it doesn't make much sense to instruct his people to kill anyone who taught against his people keeping them.

As much as you want to have it otherwise, the commandment to kill prophets referred only to prophets that advocated worshipping other gods.

[Paprika]

Romans 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.

Yes, being a slave to righteousness is being obedient to the Torah. Being under the law means being under its judgement and its justification. We are not under the Torah because we are justified by grace through faith and Jesus paid the penalty for breaking the law, however, Paul still says that we aren't free break it and that we should uphold the law.

Thanks for replying. I do want to give a longer response now but it's late and I should really be sleeping now. I do have a few questions for you until I get a full response up:

1) Should Christians keep the Passover, that is with unleavened bread and the rest of it?
2) Should Christians circumcise their male children?
3) If there is another Temple built in Jerusalem, should Christians go there to offer sacrifices?

Lastly, since we're throwing Bible verses around , I have one for you:

Galatians 2:19 "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God."

[Soyeong]

Soyeong, in your initial post, you discuss this issue at multiple levels, eg, that of the historical Jesus, as well as the texts of Mark and even Matthew. If you want to discuss the Greek text of Mark, and only the Greek text of Mark's gospel, I suggest that is the place to start this discussion. There I think the answer is pretty easy to see, or at least much easier to discuss, at least for those who know Greek, and from there one is free to speculate on other levels, such as speculating about the historical Jesus or looking at how Matthew has redacted the text of Mark.

"Will anyone undertake to say what is meant by the last clause of the verse as it stands in the English version, and as it must stand, so long as καθαρίζον [katharizon] is read?"

- Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener

"It would be 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."

- Frederick Field

I will admit to not being an expert in Greek. As Frederick Field said, it may be a waste of time to argue for various explanations, but my point is that there is disagreement among Greek scholars, so it doesn't need to be translated as a commentary by Jesus or Mark, but more importantly, even if it were, the context is strongly about a ceremonial law. Furthermore, there are good reasons why we wouldn't expect Jesus or any prophet of God to speak against keeping the commands of God, especially when Jesus criticized the Pharisees for keeping their traditions in favor of keeping the command of God just a few verses earlier.

[robrecht]

Romans 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law.

Yes, being a slave to righteousness is being obedient to the Torah. Being under the law means being under its judgement and its justification. We are not under the Torah because we are justified by grace through faith and Jesus paid the penalty for breaking the law, however, Paul still says that we aren't free break it and that we should uphold the law.

A much better Pauline parallel can be found in his letter to the Romans, Chapter 14:

14:13 Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean (ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι). 15 If your brother or sister is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let your good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not food (βρῶσις) and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 The one who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and has human approval. 19 Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. 20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean (μὴ ἕνεκεν βρώματος κατάλυε τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ. πάντα μὲν καθαρά), but it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat; 21 it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother or sister stumble. 22 The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God. Blessed are those who have no reason to condemn themselves because of what they approve. 23 But those who have doubts are condemned if they eat, because they do not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

[robrecht]

I will admit to not being an expert in Greek. As Frederick Field said, it may be a waste of time to argue for various explanations, but my point is that there is disagreement among Greek scholars, so it doesn't need to be translated as a commentary by Jesus or Mark, but more importantly, even if it were, the context is strongly about a ceremonial law. Furthermore, there are good reasons why we wouldn't expect Jesus or any prophet of God to speak against keeping the commands of God, especially when Jesus criticized the Pharisees for keeping their traditions in favor of keeping the command of God just a few verses earlier.

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.

[Soyeong]

Yeah the law is overall holy and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Why can't the law be that way if changed? (BTW this doesn't mean it's perfect.)

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.

Are you sure that the perfect law is the royal law (2:8)? Is the Torah really the law that gives freedom?
Yes everybody who sins commits lawlessness. But what is the law in this context? (I think it is the moral law)

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.

We disagree on the Torah being perfect
Not so sure about the Law being in consistent high praise
1 Cor 15:56
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...56&version=NIV

This verse is best understood in light of Romans 7:7-25:

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Hebrews 10:1
For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year make perfect those who draw near
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/gwview.cgi?n=3551

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

Also Colossians 2:13-17
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.
15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+2&version=NIV

Verses 18-23 give important context:

18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions,[d] puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

Not being judged for the things in verse 16 is referring to not being judged by those who were promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body.

The Deut verses teach about killing a false prophet for preaching in the name of other gods and Christ was turning people to God by annulling these obsolete laws and making new commandments.
The Deut verses are essentially saying "I (God) command you to do this, don't listen to him". But can't God command something else through a prophet?

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.

About your last line,
Isn't the Torah part of the Old Covenant?

No, the Torah actually contains a number of covenants.

[Soyeong]

As much as you want to have it otherwise, the commandment to kill prophets referred only to prophets that advocated worshipping other gods.

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]

Thanks for replying. I do want to give a longer response now but it's late and I should really be sleeping now. I do have a few questions for you until I get a full response up:

1) Should Christians keep the Passover, that is with unleavened bread and the rest of it?

The Feasts of the Lord are God's feasts, not Jewish feasts, and they teach important lessons about God, so I think Christians should be keeping them. We will be keeping them in the Millennium (as well as the Sabbath), so I don't see a particular reason why we shouldn't keep them now.

2) Should Christians circumcise their male children?

The Bible only commands Gentiles to be circumcised if they want to celebrate Passover and eat of the lamb (Exodus 12:48). However, the Bible does not give instructions for how a Gentile is supposed to become a Jew, so that is part of the oral law. The Jews adopted the practice circumcision for that purpose and in their theology a Gentile had to become a Jew and obey all of the written and oral laws in order to be saved (Acts 15:1).

It's not that circumcision is bad for Christians, but that it needs to be done for the right reason. If they think that they are justified not by grace through faith, but by keeping the entire written and oral law and that need to be circumcised because of that, then they are getting circumcised for the wrong reason. If Christians choose to get circumcised because they want to celebrate Passover and eat of the lamb, then I think they are getting circumcised for the right reason.

3) If there is another Temple built in Jerusalem, should Christians go there to offer sacrifices?

There will be sacrifices in the Millennium, so I think that it would be good. Sacrifices teach us an important lesson about the seriousness of sin when we have to slay an animal that is being sacrificed in our place and is taking the punishment that we deserved.

Lastly, since we're throwing Bible verses around , I have one for you:

Galatians 2:19 "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God."

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.

[JohnnyP]

The Bible only commands Gentiles to be circumcised if they want to celebrate Passover and eat of the lamb (Exodus 12:48).

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.

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?

[Soyeong]

A much better Pauline parallel can be found in his letter to the Romans, Chapter 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.

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.

14:13 Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean (ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι).

I think κοινὸν refers to things that are common rather than animals God as declared to be unclean. Paul is talking about ritual purity here and because that only applied to Jews, his statement was meant to ease to conscious of any Gentiles who were still bothered in regard to such matters.

15 If your brother or sister is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let your good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not food (βρῶσις) and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 The one who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and has human approval. 19 Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. 20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.

In Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, God told the Jews which things were permissible to eat as food and which things weren’t, so they didn’t even consider the things that weren’t to be in the same category as food, in a similar way that we don’t consider the meat of rats, bats, snakes, lizards, vultures, humans, etc. to be food. So when Jews talk about eating from the category of things that are food, it would be a mistake to think they are also talking about eating unclean animals, unless it is specifically mentioned.

Everything is indeed clean (μὴ ἕνεκεν βρώματος κατάλυε τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ. πάντα μὲν καθαρά), but it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat;

This needs to be kept in context, so we shouldn't assume Paul is speaking against what God has declared clean. God's word is not divided against itself. If you told a guest that they could eat anything they wanted in the fridge, you both have a common understanding of obvious exceptions for what is permissible to eat as food. They understand that you are not giving them permission to eat the shelves and the containers.

21 it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother or sister stumble.

Here, Paul is talking about meat sacrificed to idols.

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