I made a point in a comment that, on reflection, should be expanded on and refined a bit. Consider Jesus’ explanation for why his disciples weren’t required to wash their hands before eating —
(Mar 7:1-8 ESV) Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.)
5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”
6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
The Law of Moses declared a person unclean if he touched a dead body or other unclean thing. See Leviticus 11, for example, for a listing of cleanliness rules. The Pharisees realized that the dust of the ground could have come from many things, including something unclean. Therefore, they insisted that the Jews wash their hands before eating so that they not accidentally consume uncleanness.
My mother would agree — but for reasons of sanitation. She never let me eat without washing up first! We certainly can’t dispute the wisdom of the result, and the logic seems not all that wrong. After all, to Western ears, many of the commands about uncleanness seem to reflect concerns about sanitation.
But Jesus and his disciples did not wash their hands before eating. Why not?
Jesus gave his reasons —
(Mar 7:14-23 ESV) 14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 16
17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
(V. 16 is missing because modern scholarship has concluded that there was no verse 16 in the original text written by Mark.)
Notice carefully Mark’s parenthetical: “Thus he declared all foods clean.” Really? I guess so, since Mark said so, but surely Jesus wasn’t breaking the Law of Moses by treating the unclean as clean. Jesus had not yet been crucified. The Law was still very much in effect.
Did Jesus repeal portions of the Law during his ministry? Some think so, but it sure seems unlikely. This is, of course, the same Jesus was stated,
(Mat 5:17-19 ESV) 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Notice that in Matthew Jesus condemns relaxing these commandment in “the kingdom of heaven” — which we take to refer to God’s work among men after Pentecost. And later in Matthew 15, we read a shorter version of the same account I quoted from Mark.
How can this be? How can Jesus declare all foods clean and yet insist that he is not relaxing the Law of Moses even by a letter? This is one place where Jesus is plainly challenging the Law of Moses itself, not merely the “traditions of the elders” or oral law. It’s the Scriptures themselves that create the distinction between clean and unclean.
Commenting on Matthew 15 in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, D. A. Carson explains,
Jesus insists that the true direction in which the OT law points is precisely what he teaches, what he is, and what he inaugurates. He has fulfilled the law; therefore whatever prescriptive force it continues to have is determined by its relationship to him, not vice versa.
I think that’s essentially right, but we have to go a little deeper to really get it. After all, it would hardly do to insist that Jesus was sinless and in perfect obedience to the Law while simultaneously holding that the Law was changed by Jesus’ work before the crucifixion. Yes, Jesus is above the Law and so not bound to honor his own rules, but how could he be sinless if he could violate the Law at will and not sin?
(1Pe 2:22 ESV) 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.
And so I’m not at all comfortable with the theory of some that Jesus changed the Law during his ministry on earth, that is, before the resurrection. What makes better sense to me is that he correctly interpreted the Law, as the Law should be applied in First Century Palestine. In other words, the particulars of the Law were binding on God’s people only so long as their purposes would be served by that particular.
Gordon J. Wenham, in “The Theology of Unclean Food,” Evangelical Quarterly 53.1 (January/March 1981): 6-15, writes,
Running through the biblical laws on clean and unclean foods there is a coherent and consistent theology. In Leviticus the divisions within the animal kingdom express in elaborate symbolism the divisions among men, the most important of these being that between Israel and the Gentiles. The laws reminded Israel what sort of behaviour was expected of her, that she had been chosen to be holy in an unclean world. The reality behind this symbolism was reinforced in the national consciousness by its experience among the nations. With the incorporation of Gentiles on an equal footing with Jews in the Christian church, the food laws and circumcision lost their symbolic significance and were therefore dropped within the church. It would be too much to claim that every Jew in biblical times fully understood the symbolism expressed in the food laws, but it is suggested that wherever the Bible discusses unclean foods it is related to the uncleanness of the Gentiles under the old covenant.
The practicalities of daily life meant that the food laws separated Jews from Gentiles, because the Jews could only eat kosher. After all, this was a culture where eating with someone symbolized acceptance. The Jews could barely shop in a Gentile marketplace without becoming defiled, much less eat a meal in a Gentile home.
But washing one’s hands had nothing to do with being separate from the Gentiles. And it had nothing to do with what foods were eaten. Rather, it took the food laws to an extreme, far beyond God’s purposes. It did not serve the purpose of holiness.
(Lev 11:44-45 ESV) 44 For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. … 45 For I am the LORD who brought you up out of the land of Egypt to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”
As Alexander has pointed out in the comments, the reason God himself often gives for his laws is the requirement that the Jews be “holy” — and “holy” means separated for a purpose. The purpose of the food laws was to force the Jews to be separate from the Gentiles because of the Jews’ unique place in salvation history.
Now, following the resurrection, this would become a critically important debate. The apostles came to understand that the food laws were not meant to be permanent and that they could not stand in the way of unifying all nations, especially Jew with Gentile.
And so, were the food laws repealed? Were they abolished? Just what happened?
Well, after the resurrection, the food laws served a purpose that no longer existed. After the resurrection, as the Prophets had long ago declared and as God had promised Abraham, the nations would be invited into the Kingdom. No longer would holiness be about separation from the Gentiles. It would be about separation from the world, that is, separation from all that competes with God for our devotion.
(2Co 6:16-18 NIV) 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.” 17 “Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” 18 “I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.”
And so, how should we read Mark 7? Here’s my take: Jesus allowed his disciples to eat without washing their hands because this did not violate the Law of Moses. When challenged by the Pharisees, rather than teaching a lesson on how they misread the purposes of the food laws, Jesus chose to condemn making up of laws “just to be safe” —
(Mar 7:8 ESV) 8 “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
But he then went beyond the needs of the moment to explain that the true purposes of the food laws —
(Mar 7:15 ESV) 15 “There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”
True defilement is how we act, not what we eat. The food laws are about defilement only because they enforce a more important law, the separation of Jews from Gentiles — a law that was always meant to be temporary.
Thus, when Mark writes, “Thus he declared all foods clean” (Mar 7:19 ESV), Mark is speaking of the time when Mark writes, after Pentecost. The truths taught by Jesus would ultimately result in the cessation of the food laws, not because Jesus repealed them but because their purpose was ended when the Kingdom finally arrived.
But this cannot violate Torah because it is the Torah itself the promises that all nations will be blessed through Abraham!
And this returns us to the original point. When did the food laws cease to bind us? When they no longer satisfied the underlying purpose for which they were given.
This reminded me of Peter’s experience (vision) prior to his being sent to Cornelius…Wasn’t it “food” that God used to illustrate the acceptance of the Gentiles ?? I never connected the dots with the purpose of food rules and Peter’s vision but it makes sense… enlightening.
Intersting for the rendering of Mark 7:19 I read in my Germanb Elberfelder Bible: (from German to English) … it goes ito the toilet thus cleaning all food.
?????????? ?????? ??? ????????.
cleansing all the food
There is no “thus” and no (explicit) “he”, and it is not an aorist that would indicate a clear statement (once and for all), but rather it describes the result of going to the toilet and letting the food out again. Maybe a bit drastic teh way jesus put it …
English translation that put it this way:
Ah, that explains the bullsh….comment earlier…
Oops I put the send-button too soon (and the Greek characters don’t show up … anyway I suppose you have a GNT handy.
Well, by this the translation “Thus he declared all food clean” stands on shaky ground.
Nonetheless the dietary laws were about to end. Yet, the dispute between the pharisees and our Lord was not the Law itself, but the traditions of the elders the pharisees held in higher esteem than the law. That’s a huge difference.
The dietary laws were a shadow, as Paul wrote. The body is Christ. Therefore – as all shadows became obsolete as the body appeared – the dietary laws were not continued either. But the dietary laws stand for something bigger than the letter itself expresses – and this what is bigger in them continues on.
First of all: the distinction between clean and unclean is still important, because we also are called not to touch any unclean thing:
As our Lord said, it’s what comes out of our hearts that makes us unclean. But also if we live and act like the world around us. Therefore we are called to separation. So these commands still have their value, and the dietary and other similar Laws show us how serious God is about it.
We need t be cleansed when we enter worship:
This is tabernacle-language. How will we understand these NT texts without knowing the Law, and knowingthe tabernacle? And we see that the Law still is relevant – each Iota of it – although not limited to the letter but on a higher level.
There are the analogies in the NT – as you quoted Gordon Wenham – that the dietary laws have to do with whom we associate. Now Gentiles are invited into the kingdom, so the divider that was markled by the clean and unclean foods, has been done away. BUT there is still a clear validity of these laws, when it comes – in the NT – with whom we are not supposed to eat:
Again the basics for these words are found in the Law – but not applied according to the letter, but in NT terms.
Maybe this helps a little to better undestand how Jesus could say not one Iota of the Law will be lost, while the Law today is not to be kept according to the letter. This seems pradox, but it isn’t.
Alexander
Alexander, here are several different translations. You can see that the KJV is different, translating “purging” rather than “cleansing.”
ESV Mark 7:19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
KJV Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
NAU Mark 7:19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
NET Mark 7:19 For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.)
NIV Mark 7:19 For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)
NRS Mark 7:19 since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
RSV Mark 7:19 since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
William L. Lane, in the New Int’l Commentary on Mark, translates “cleansing all [foods].” The identical verb form is found in —
(Lev 14:11 ESV) And the priest who cleanses him shall set the man who is to be cleansed and these things before the LORD, at the entrance of the tent of meeting.
The verb form is a present active participle. A common use of the PAP is to show continuous results from present action.
(Mar 1:4 ESV) John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
(1Ti 6:19 ESV) thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.
“Purge” is a mistranslation by the KJV translators.
My point was not about “purging” or cleansing”, but about the tense and that “Thus he declared all food clean” is not what is there in the Greek. I think it is a “biased” translationm even though many version are in favor of it.
Alexander
This is probably our strongest disagreement:
Is the body an interpretation ofthe shadow of the “fulfillment”? I see a shadow approaching, and I can interpret the shadow. But once the body is there all interpretations are ended.
Actually your statement lowers Christ to just an interpreter of the Law. But He is the author and essence of it.
And your limitation to the 1st century allows us to interpret the Law (!) over and over again as if christ had not come! Because if He interpreted the Law, then we are not to interpret Hios interpretation, but we’d always have to stick with the Law and come up with new interpretations for the 21st century. And who jas the authority to do this?
The Jews were split up into many different sects all having their own interpretation of the Law – was Chrsitianity just another sect offerning another interpretation?
Now if we were called to constantly re-interpret the OT-Laws where would we end up? In unity? Or with even more differernt sects than we already have?
But what does this mean?
Christ is God’s first (creation) and last (Gospel) word. His final word. If Christ was just an interpreter of the Law then Hebrews /written afe decades after Christ) wuld have said: And now the Spirit constantly reveals now interpretations. In fact that’s what the Roman Catholics claim and how they support their tradition.
And how about this one?
Calling Christ an “interpreter” of the Law makes Him essentially the ame as a scribe. But He was different, because He had authority.
Who among us has authority to reinterpret the Law (or even Christ’s words) forth 21st century? The scholars? The scholars of which school?
Where does this lead, Jay? If you make Christ that small, you put the scholars on almost the same level. Interpreter is interpreter.
This approach, Jay (watch out), added a new split among the Christians. This split is not just adding a new denomination, but it DOUBLES the denomination by splitting each one in two groups: Liberals/Progressives – Conservatives. Just by making Christ an interpreter and calling for new interpretations based on “recent scholarship”. Think about this fruit, Jay!
Alexander
P.S.: The Change of the Law /(what you are uncomfortable with) is based on the change of the covenants and the priesthood:
Note: Necessarily! And again: Not because of cultural changes, but because of dispensational changes!
Alexander;
It appears to me that in your post above that you have never found in scripture, Jesus identifying to the Jews that they had misunderstood the law or applied it incorrectly, and his communication with them was explaining the correct interpretation to them. I believe that there are many occasions recorded where Jesus performed this type of instructions to the Jews. Can’t Jesus be the author and yet also be an interpeter when men have misunderstood his instructions (law).
Larry
I find that those who see divisions among us are often also the ones looking for them in the first place.
Bob…perhaps…There will always be trouble makers and those that “cause” division…However, given the glaring divisions that presently exist it would hardly be wise to sweep them under the rug and pretend they don’t exist.
Wouldn’t it be better to bring the various positions out into the open and have a honest discussion? We might still walk away with differing opinions, perhaps both of us wrong, but at least we would have generated dialogue from which to hopefully build consensus.
It appears to me that in your post above that you have never found in scripture, Jesus identifying to the Jews that they had misunderstood the law or applied it incorrectly, and his communication with them was explaining the correct interpretation to them.
That’s a given, Larry. But did you realize what Jay is doing? Let me use a new term to describe it:
a “limited” interpretation, or a “relative” interpretation – limited or relative to the 1st century. This is not the way God reveals Himself! His revelatin is “dispensational” not “cultural” – maybe this hepls to understand the difference a bit better.
Jay misses the whole point! He overlooks the strong “I say unto you”, the authority behind His words. Jesus is not just an interpreter among many others. Actually I hoped I was so clear and direct on it that hardly anyone could miss the problem here.
Alexander
Price, you know that both Jay and I do their best to present and explain our positions. The question is if what develops from that is an open and honest discussion. This is depending on all who participate.
Alexander
Alexander–
As to Christ being both giver and interpreter of the law, perhaps a better word is “arbiter”. The one who gives the law is well able to determine what he intended that law to do. In the old days, the king was both legislator and judge. Who understands and applies the law more effectively than He who is worthy to create it in the first place? The Ruler of heaven and earth rather predates our customary “separation of powers”.
A scribe can only explain what he thinks somebody else whom he never met must have meant. Rather like too many Bible scholars, IMO. The King is much more direct and authoritative. In KJV parlance: “Hear ye Him!”
Alexander….LOL…I find that you attempt to present and explain the positions of both you AND JAY !!…..LOL
My point to BOB was that discussing what appears to be contradictions or divisions in theology isn’t all bad..in fact it could be very beneficial..
As long as one is able and willing to be corrected. I don’t believe in agreeing to disagree, because there is always truth to be found. And this means to deal seriously with the arguments and reasons of the others, but also to be self-critical enough to take a hint or two into the right direction. Therefore we should not LOL, but strive to undeestand what the others say. E.g. can you really sum up my position? In fact, i have a hard time summing up yours, because it is presented only in half-sentences and suggestions and a number of “IMHO”s. Charles Mac Lean does a far better job on this, and you maight see the difference in the discussion with him. Jay – as I feel it – escapes into new topics instead of really dealing with my arguments. OK, it’s his Blog. But you see from tzhese three examples that discussion is an art to be studied.
Alexander
Its not going to be “YOU ATE THE SHEW BREAD SO TO HELL WITH YOU!”
Its going to be:
You ate the shew bread, now, I want you to know I understand why, and it was OK!
Judgement by the all wise and knowing God, not just a sentencing.
Since this is an OT example, we should not forget that in the same OT a man was killed only because he tried to save the ark of the covenant as it was falling down the oxen-cart wherby he touched it.
I don’t think it was OK in general to eat from the shew bread. But I believe that God is free to extend mercy where judgment would have been justified.
Alexander
Alexander…I agree with your statement that God is certainly free to do what he wants… Wasn’t David transporting the Ark in a way that was not the way God told them to transport it ?? I remember that David was willfully disobeying God’s instruction… perhaps that might have been a significant difference but I don’t know.
I doubt that David disobeyed willfully, because that was not his attitude. He simply went at it without thinking about the law concerning the transportation. This shows that although we may have good intentions, a hert burning for God, we can make terrible mistakes when not knowing His word.
On the other hand, when he ate the shewbread, God showed mercy. Christ made the point in the discussion on the Sabbath that was made for men and not vice versa. Since the shew bread seems to have been the only food available, it raises the question whether “ceremonial laws” are more important that sustaining life. This was the same point withe Priest and the Levite who passed by the wounded man on their way to Jerusalem. They could not help him without becomiung ritually defiled – so they could not have served in the temple. But what was more important to the Lord? Ritual purity of saving lives?
This does not rule out all these “cermeonial laws” but puts them into perspective. If we conclude – and that’s a conclusions some draw – that the “ceremonial laws” (or their NT equivalents) can be dismissed altogether, we go too far to the other extreme.
Alexander
Near the end of the post we find the following: “True defilement is how we act, not what we eat.”
We also find this passage of scripture: 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
This may be a rather fine (nit picky?) point, but I must point out that the passage strongly supports the notion that man sins b/c he is depraved rather than he becomes depraved b/c he sins. The problem is the corruption of the heart of man that leads him to engage in defiling behavior. So perhaps true defilement is the condition of the heart rather than simply how we behave.
Of course this has relevance to the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian views versus classical Arminianism and Calvinism.
Hesed,
Randall
But either way it is a call to repentence.
Alexander
abasnar/Alexander wrote,
Exactly! You’ve extracted from Jesus’ teaching the implied conclusion: saving lives is more important than ritual purity. You’ve taken the teaching, found the eternal principle behind it, confirmed your conclusion from other scriptures (the Parable of the Good Samaritan), and could, very well, apply that same principle in other situations without creating a new command. Rather, you’ve allowed Jesus to teach you how to reason as he reasons. Amen!
And as you’ve noted, by understanding the principle we can confidently conclude that God did not repeal the law against eating the show bread for David’s sake; rather, God applied the higher command to override the lesser command.
We don’t disagree as to hermeneutical method. Nor do we disagree as to the point you make using our common method. Rather, I’ve suggested the further point that cleanliness laws were given for a reason — to separate the Jews from the Gentiles — a reason that expired when Jesus was resurrected and therefore those laws no longer apply.
You agree, I’m sure, that they no longer apply. The scriptures are quite clear on that point. Where I think we disagree is WHY that expired. To me, there has to be a reason and that reason needs to be consistent with Torah, as Jesus said he wasn’t going to abolish Torah but fulfill Torah. You evidently accept the more traditional answer, which is that we are under a different dispensation and so the Law has been repealed except to the extent found in the NT. (But I’m guessing and may have guessed wrong.)
I reject that approach because —
* Dispensational teaching can’t cope with Rom 4 and Gal 3 where Paul says we’re saved by virtue of God’s covenant with Abraham.
* Dispensational teaching simply replaces one legal system with another. At least, it sure did where I grew up.
So I’ve been looking for an understanding that shows that the food laws must have expired from Torah — out of my great respect for the consistency and foreknowledge of God. So that’s my theory.
But we agree on the overall approach — find the eternal principle behind the command and use that eternal principle to better define the scope and duration of the command. I know because that’s what you’ve just done in this comment.