New Testament and the Food Laws 4: Paul's Letters

For most theologians, scholars, preachers, pastors, and laity that the food laws no longer apply to us is taken as a ‘simple and obvious’ fact. This is not too dissimilar to how much of society considers it a simple and obvious fact that dinosaurs never lived with humans. Because of years of being told that dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans through books, films, and education, the idea of creationism is mocked as nonsense. That Genesis describes humans and all animals (which would include dinosaurs) being created on the same day is ridiculous and obviously wrong. Similarly, when you might suggest that perhaps the food laws weren’t done away with, because of centuries of an inherited doctrine that the law was done away with, you’re obviously wrong. And just as the atheist will interpret the evidence through the lens of naturalism to defend their position that dinosaurs never lived with humans, most Christians will read Scripture through the lens of the inherited idea that the Law is bad and just for the Jews, despite the Bible saying otherwise, and as we have seen in our previous posts, read things into the text that aren’t even there. Commentator William J. Larkin Jr. brings the arguments that this post series have covered together quite succinctly in his discussion of Peter’s vision in Acts 10,

The voice comes again, this time providing the rationale: God has declared all foods clean. Peter is not to go on declaring some foods profane or "common." Jesus' teaching and behavior had certainly prepared the way for such a declaration (Mk 7:14-23; Lk 11:39-41), and the cross was the salvific basis for it (Eph 2:14-15; Col 2:14). The sheet from heaven and the voice both bear witness that all God's creatures are now to be viewed as clean and good, not to be refused (Gen 1:31; 1 Tim 4:3).

But as we have seen, Jesus did not bring an end to the supposed ‘ceremonial’ law (here), nor did he declare all foods clean to the Pharisees and the disciples, (here) nor specifically to Peter in Acts 10 via the Holy Spirit (here). In the latter two, the dispute was about the man-made purity category of common, which is distinct from unclean. A fact that is ignored (intentionally or not) when interpreting these passages.

To conclude this series on the food laws, we will continue looking at the apostolic period, this time considering Paul’s words on the matter. One of Paul’s key teachings on the matter is found in Romans 14, where Paul is dealing with disputes between ‘the weak’ and ‘the strong’ in regards to food. In verse 14, Paul states:

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.

So, there you have it. Nothing is unclean except for those who think it is. Food laws are now a matter of conscience, right? Would you be surprised (probably not) to learn that that is not what the Greek says. Let’s revisit an old friend to see what Paul really said:

I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is common (koinen) in itself, but it is common for anyone who thinks it common.

Therefore, what Romans 14:14 should really say is, food is not polluted by coming into contact with something unclean. In Acts 10, Peter was talking about Gentiles being common. Here, like Jesus, Paul is talking about food becoming common. What is interesting is that prior to 1611, virtually every English translation such as the Coverdale and Tyndale version all say ‘common.’ Even Luther’s translation of 1545 uses common (gemein) instead of unclean (unreines). But for some reason, since the publication of the KJV, we begin to see unclean being used instead of common. Could it be because older, more reliable manuscripts use ‘unclean’ instead? No. The oldest complete manuscript, Codex Sinaticus from the 4^th century uses common (koinen) instead of unclean (akathartos), which agrees with many other later manuscripts such as the Textus Receptus and the Stephanus New Testament. The fact that translators can use common in Acts 10, but not in Romans 14 makes the process quite questionable. Perhaps they were ignorant of the fact that, as we see in Peter’s declaration, that common and unclean are actually different. As Colin House explains, “Even though Peter consistently differentiated between ‘common’ and ‘unclean,’ it seems reasonable to assume that the various translators of the English Scriptures believed this distinction to be defunct.” Or perhaps it was more convenient to create a proof-text out of Romans 14:14 to reinforce either their freedom to eat whatever they want, or maintain a differentiation between us Christians, and those Jews. Either way, the translators knowingly mistranslated a word which is misleading to its readers. Therefore, Paul’s argument is all about the category of common, and not the abolishment of the food laws of Leviticus. And this is how we should define the ‘weak’ follower of Christ in Romans 14:2-3 about whom Paul writes:

One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.

The weak here are often assumed to be legalists. Those who have not yet grasped the concept of justification by grace, and that the food laws are done away with. For example, Calvin describes the weak as those who could not let go of the law, and “they would have thought otherwise, had they possessed a certain and a clear knowledge of Christian liberty." Similarly, Douglas Moo describes the weak as those who are unable to “accept… the truth that their faith in Christ implies liberation from certain OT/Jewish ritual requirements." And this is interesting because the Apostles at Jerusalem council in Acts 15 promoted the law's 'ritual requirements' of abstaining from blood etc…, and Paul underwent a Nazarite Vow in Acts 20. Therefore, according to Douglas Moo’s definition, the Apostles were weak Christians. The Augsburg Confession suggests that “they forbade it for a time, to avoid offense” (28.65), however that is assumed since Scripture makes no mention of that.  But notice in verse 2 Paul provides the explanation of those who are weak: the ones who "eat only vegetables." This means that the weak are those abstaining from all meats, not merely unclean meats. Moo suggests that the reason they do is because they cannot guarantee the kosher quality of meat in the marketplace, however, considering the discussion about common in verse 14, it is more than likely that the weak are those avoiding food sacrificed to idols from the marketplace since they believed this was a significant source of food pollution. Consider Paul’s similar wording in 1Cor 8:7, "…not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled…"

Also compare Paul’s advice given in both chapters

Rom 14:21 “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.”

1Cor 8:11,13 “…by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died… Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat.”

The weak, therefore, are those who would not buy meat from the market (1Cor 10:25) because they believed that meat offered to idols became ‘common’ and would therefore eat only vegetables as these were not offered to idols and sold in a different area. 

But didn’t Paul say that “Everything is indeed clean” (v20). Doesn’t this mean that clean and unclean divisions are done away with, meaning that all meat is clean now? Not necessarily. ‘All’, or pas (Gk) does not necessarily mean absolutely everything. For example, in speaking about John the Baptist, Matthew writes “all (pas) Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him.” Does this mean each and every citizen came out to see John? Perhaps, but not likely. In Romans Paul says that “all (pas) Israel shall be saved” (Rom 11:26). But we know that not every single Israelite ever will be saved. And later he writes “your obedience is known to all (pas)” (Rom 16:19). Did every single person know about the obedience of the Romans? To the Ephesians, Paul says that “Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all (pas) things” (Eph 6:21). Tychicus is going to tell them absolutely everything there is to know, including the laws of thermodynamics? And to the church in Colossae, Paul tells “Bondservants [to] obey in everything (pas) those who are your earthly masters” (Col 3:22). What if their masters tell them to sin by worshipping an idol? Because that part would be included in everything? So, while pas can mean absolutely all, this is not always the case. In fact, a clause is typically offered, “Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity” (Eph 6:24). If indeed all things are now clean (katharos), does this mean that the unclean (akatharos) spirits (Matt 10:1) and all unclean people (Eph 5:5) are now clean? Does that mean the defiled conscience of the unbeliever (Tit 1:15) is now clean? Because these are a part of all things. Or should we recognise that all can have limitations. When we consider the context of verse 20, we realise why Paul says that everything is clean; “because, as with the parenthetical comment of Mark 7:19, nothing within the parameters of ‘clean’ food should be thought of as being made ‘common’” (House, 153). In short, Paul is not saying ‘eating a ham sandwich is fine.’ This becomes particularly evident through Paul’s instruction not to “quarrel over opinions”, as food laws were not opinions. That pigs and prawns were unclean was not a matter of interpretation. God had laid out in Leviticus c.1500 years earlier what his people could and couldn’t eat. He is saying that the believers in Rome (and Corinth) need not worry that the meat they buy in the marketplace being polluted by idols, something scripture is silent on, thus requiring discernment and opinion.

The second passage of Paul and our final passage for consideration is found in Paul’s letter to Timothy:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (1Tim 4:1-5)

Here, it is understood, that Paul is warning Timothy about people who will impose the food laws upon people. As John Macarthur explains, “Paul knew that Judaizers were trying to force dietary laws on Gentiles. Paul identifies them as false teachers because there were no more dietary laws.” However, a close examination of the text reveals that this is not the case. Firstly, note that the false teachers will devote themselves to “deceitful spirits and teachings of demons.” Now, if Paul is talking about the Old Testament food laws, or even more generally the laws about clean and unclean, he has just declared that the one who gave the Law to Moses, as a deceitful spirit and a demon. Which would be strange, because earlier in 1Tim 1 and Romans 7, Paul describes the Law as good and holy. So either Paul is unstable and divided in his mind about the Law, or he isn’t talking about the food laws at all. What the situation appears to be describing is false teachers telling Christians that they should not eat any meat at all. Why? Either because of a connection to idolatry, such as what we looked at in Romans 14, although we don’t see the same language being repeated here. Or, and this seems to be more likely, because of the gnostic idea that creation is evil because it is made by an evil intermediary, they are rejecting food created by God to be received as food with thanksgiving. As Paul explains, food is “made holy by the word of God and prayer” (1Tim 4:5). God’s word defines what is to be considered food. We see this articulated in Genesis where God distinguishes between clean and unclean (Gen 7:2,8; Lev 11) where, through Moses, God spells out what is to be eaten and not eaten. So while the ‘gnostic’ says ‘sheep are evil’, scripture says that lamb is clean. But nowhere does it say in scripture that prayer can make a pig clean. Now, yes, everything created by God is good. But should I drink bleach or eat a vacuum cleaner if I’m grateful? After all, “nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.” Or should I recognise the goodness of things according to their purpose? Because not everything was created by God to be food. The pig and the prawn are basically natures vacuum cleaner. Therefore, what Paul is saying, is that no food (as defined by scripture) is to be rejected based on the traditions of man and false teachings.

So, as we have explored, the proof-texts which supposedly say that the clean/unclean division between food is done away with, do not actually say that. Rather, they are dealing with the traditions of man and false teachings. And some might say, ‘well, that doesn’t matter. Food laws are not repeated in the New Testament and are therefore unbinding on the Christian.’ There are two problems with this. The first is that it doesn’t have to. Laws against bestiality and pre-marital sex are not expressed in the New Testament, yet we accept them as binding. Now, it could be argued that because Jesus, James, and Paul speak against the ‘sexual immorality’ (Mark 7:21, Acts 15:29, 1Cor 6:18) the sexual laws can be considered to be carried over. Which makes sense. However, if you looked up Ephesians 5:5 as mentioned above, you would have found Paul declaring 

“everyone who is sexually immoral or impure [akathartos], or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” 

Here, Paul has just described someone as unclean. Why, if clean and unclean were done away with, is Paul using this term? If the sexually immoral are those who have engaged with sexual immorality, it makes sense that those who consciously and wilfully engage with those things God has declared unclean become unclean. Therefore, we do in fact find ‘unclean’ repeated in the New Testament. Interestingly, the ESV here combines immoral and impure as categories of sexual sin, however the Greek shows a distinction with the disjunctive conjunction E, meaning it should be translated as “everyone who is sexually immoral, or impure, or…” Ignorance, or an attempted cover-up to hide the active use of unclean in the New Testament? I’ll let you be the judge.

The second is that passages like Jeremiah 31, and Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 show that the Law, the Torah, God’s Torah, would still be in effect in the New Covenant, and that not even the smallest part which includes the food laws, would be done away with. Instead, God’s Law would be written on the believer’s heart to be lived out. And those who act or teach otherwise, will be considered least in the Kingdom. So, if in our reading of Paul’s letters we interpret him as doing away with the commandments of God, something Jesus rebuked the Pharisee’s for, in Mark 7, then we either need to reject Paul because he is contradicting the teachings of Jesus and other parts of Scripture (1Cor 14:32), or we need to reconsider our interpretation of Paul. 

When we understand the cultural context of the New Testament and hear the other side of the conversation, we will discover that the New Testament does not give us permission to eat food God declared unclean.

References

Calvin, John. Romans. (Kindle)

Larkin, William. “Peter’s Vision.” IVP New Testament Commentaries. 

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Acts/Peters-Vision

House, Colin. Defilement by Association: Some Insights from the Usage of KOINOS/KOINOU in Acts 10 and 11. Andrews University Seminary Studies. 2, 1983. P 143-153

John Macarthur, “Salvation Reaches Out.”

http://www.gty.org/resources/study-guides/40-5122/salvation-reaches-out

Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids. 1996.

Image from:

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/ws20150915/bible-trained-conscience-guide/

New Testament and the Food Laws 2: A response to J.Piper.

Did Jesus declare all 'foods' clean?

Without knowing the whole story, we are bound to misinterpret things. There is a TV trope known as ‘Out of Context Eavesdropping’ where one person hears only one side of a conversation and jumps to the wrong conclusion. For example, on an episode of the Simpsons Lisa overhears her crush talking to someone names Clara and thinks she is his girlfriend. But it is his sister. Or in an episode of Diff’rent Strokes, Willis and Arnold overhear their adopted father say that black boys should be with black families, and end up thinking that he doesn’t want them. But it turns out that he was just repeating what a white social worker had said before she was thrown out. Without understanding other cultures, misunderstandings are bound to arise too. Consider how in Japan, the common American act of tipping is actually taken as an insult. Or how in the Middle East a thumbs-up is the equivalent of giving someone the bird. Similar things happen in Christianity too. Many onlookers since the beginning have questioned why we ‘eat the body of our god’ because they misunderstand Communion. So, as we can see, it is important that we understand cultural context and get all the information, lest we come up with a misguided interpretation of what others are about. And this is also true when we approach the scripture. It is easy to unintentionally misread a passage of scripture because we import modern ideas or we are missing a key piece of historical/cultural information. We saw in our last post that this was true of Matthew 5:17, and as we will see in the following posts, it is also true of Mark 7.

In my last post, I agreed with John Piper that we as followers of Jesus need to listen to what Christ said about the Old Testament Law. Having considered textual, idiomatic, and linguistic context of ‘fulfil’ from the first example that he provided of Matthew 5, we saw that Jesus was actually teaching the opposite of what Piper suggested it meant, namely, that in fulfilling the Law, He was faithfully teaching and upholding it. We also saw that there was nothing in the law or the prophets that demonstrate that God had intended for the faux category of ‘ceremonial law’ to be only temporary.

There is, however, another teaching from Jesus that Piper quoted which looks very much like He did do away with the food laws, and that is from Mark 7:15-19:

 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.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 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, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled? (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

And reading that does make it look like a ‘done deal’. 'See, Jesus declared all foods clean.' And for Piper, “[this] is the key text…” But is this verse saying what we think it says? Did Jesus in fact annul and abolish the food laws in this dispute with the Pharisees? Let’s look at the textual and cultural-historical context before examining its linguistic context.

In verses 1-5, we are provided with the situational context and we discover that the dispute was about the washing of hands according to ‘the traditions of the elders’. As the Pharisees asked Jesus “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” (v5). As Mark explains, the Pharisees had taught all the Jews that they must wash (baptise) their hands and cups and crockery before eating, especially after being in the marketplace. This is not because they are germaphobes, but because of their understanding of clean and unclean. They believed that everyday things considered ‘clean’ can be contaminated by something inherently unclean. In this case, they believed that by being in the marketplace among the Gentiles that their hands would become contaminated. And if they did not ceremonially wash their hands, their food would become inedible through its defilement. When something clean became defiled, the Pharisees called it ‘common’, or in the Greek koinen. For example, the disciples were eating with ‘koinais hands' (Mark 7:2,5). The category of ‘common’ is often equated with the category of ‘unclean’ from the Law. However, in the Septuagint, unclean (e.g Lev 11:18) is never translated as koinen, but rather akatharta, further demonstrating that they are different categories.

Based on repeated use of koinen and the phrase ‘tradition of the elders’ in this passage, we find that, “Mark is careful to point out that the disciples have not violated the Torah but [rather] the… ‘tradition of the elders’” (Rudolf, p 294). Note too how Moses or pigs never come into this conversation at all. Therefore, any apparent challenge made to clean/unclean distinction of food in this dispute needs to be understood through the lens of this context, i.e. the traditional Pharisaical category of ‘common.’

The first apparent challenge the food laws is found in verse 15:

“Hear me, all of you, and understand: 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.”

This statement is often taken to mean that eating bacon doesn’t make you unclean anymore. And there is truth to this, because there is a difference between the nature of ‘unclean’ food and nearly every other unclean thing in Leviticus. When someone became unclean through excessive menstruation, childbirth, touching a dead body etc… a ritual was provided to make them clean again. But when it came to eating pig or prawns, there is no cleansing ceremony. There were no restrictions on access to the Tabernacle for those who had eaten unclean food. The only way they did make one unclean, is by touching their carcass (Lev 11:24-28), but this was true of clean foods too (Lev 11:39-40), meaning there is a difference between a carcass and prepared food. It is also important to note that here Jesus is talking about things that make you ‘common’ (koinen), whereas in Leviticus 11 only eating “the swarming things that swarm on the ground” will make you ‘unclean’ (akathartoi [LXX]). Thus, we can say that eating unclean foods (with one exception) never made you unclean or common. Moreover, in Matthew’s account of this discussion, Jesus concludes by saying:

But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile [make koinen] anyone (Matt 15:18-20).

This further reinforces that this debate is about the traditions of the elders and not the Levitical food laws. Therefore, we can better understand Jesus as saying in verse 15 that the eating of clean food with common hands will not render that food, or you, common.

This is also true of verses 18 and 19 where we find Jesus explaining to the confused disciples:

Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

To clarify his teaching, Jesus gives his disciples a lesson in biology lesson to let them know that whatever impurities the food ‘may’ have, God designed the human body to use that which is good and to remove that which is impure. Moreover, all food enters the stomach and the digestive tract, and not the heart - the source of sin - and its impurities are expelled. And again, Jesus is talking about the category of polluted, or ‘common’ food, not inherently unclean meat. So, as we covered with verse 15, He is not (and cannot be) talking about a pig making us unclean.

Then comes, as it appears in most English translations (except for the KJV), a parenthetical commentary statement from Mark:

“In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean” (NIV).

What is most interesting, is that this phrase isn’t in the Greek. Rather it merely says ‘purging all food’ (katharizon panta ta bromata). So how did modern translators get ‘Jesus declaring all foods clean’ out of ‘purging all foods’? Well, in most languages, verbs and nouns need to match grammatically. In English, we discern the relationship between words and ideas primarily through the use of word order, pronouns, and conjunctions. In languages like Greek, where word order is not as important syntactically, to know who is doing what and what word relates to what idea, one needs to match words through what is known as 'case endings.' The main word we are looking at in particular, purging: katharizon, is a singular masculine participle in the nominative case (the subject, or ‘main actor’ in the sentence). And because the closest matching singular masculine nominative is ‘Jesus’ all the way back in verse 18 (and He said), the translators concluded that Jesus must be the one doing the cleansing. There is, however, an exception to this rule:

“In Greek grammar… the nominative singular participle may sometimes refer to something within the previous context or to something implied in the context not explicitly mentioned, even though it may not be in the same grammatical case” (Hegg, 2)

This is what Daniel Wallace in his book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics calls a 'pendant nominative' which refers to a word that is independent of the grammatical arrangements of a sentence, but still related to the subject at hand. The Net Bible study notes explain that this construction occurs when "a description of something within the clause is placed in the nominative case and moved forward ahead of the clause for emphatic reasons." We see an example of this in Luke 24:47:

“that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

The verb ‘beginning’ is a nominative singular participle with no matching noun to act as its antecedent. However, we can tell that it is referring to the preaching of repentance. In the same way, the cleansing of foods is related to the previous clause of the body expelling what was eaten, but for the sake of emphasis - since the issue of purification was what drove the conversation - purify is changed to the nominative case. Therefore, we are not bound grammatically to attach ‘purging all foods’ to a noun 38 words prior. Instead, we can understand the phrase as the conclusion to Jesus’ biology lesson. 

But grammar is not everything. We need to consider context too. Earlier in in verses 6-8, Jesus’ response to the Pharisee’s question comes in the form of a reprimand and quotation of Isaiah, accusing the Pharisee’s of “rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish [their] tradition.” This is a rebuke against the Pharisee’s prioritisation of ritual impurity (as defined by their tradition) over ‘moral’ defilement (as defined by the commandments of God). By responding to the Pharisee’s challenge in this way, Jesus is reminding them that the commandments of God overrules their traditions, especially the ones that negate God’s Law. We see something similar in Matthew’s Gospel:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean. (Matt 23:25-26).   

Therefore, based on his rebuke, we see that Jesus’ argument “centres on a single point – the overarching priority of the Torah” (Rudolf, p 295), and his entire point in this encounter was to rebuke traditions that subtract from the word of God. Thus, when it comes to verse 15 and 19 it becomes extremely unlikely that after Jesus declared the sacredness of the Law, rebuked the Pharisees for hypocritically neglecting ‘the commandments of God’, He then goes and abolishes a significant part of the Law, the implications of which I discussed in my previous post. Some might argue that Jesus had the authority to modify the Law, but if He did, why was He later asking the Father if He could bypass the cross? That is one stipulation of the Law that I am sure Jesus would have wanted to change.

But let's say that Jesus was actually declaring all foods clean, I have two questions:

1. Why is there such a lack of reaction? Why was this never mentioned at Jesus’ trial? Changing a law like this would mean instant conviction. Instead, they needed people to lie to try and convict Him. Moreover, consider how in the mind of Jesus’ audience forbidden food was not simply unclean, but detestable. In fact, Many Jews in the Hasmonean period (140-116 BCE) “chose to die rather than be defiled by food…" (1Macc 1:62-63, 2 Macc 7). Although this is a kind of argument from silence, the silence is nonetheless worth noting. 

And 2. Why in Acts 9 was Peter - who was here and got the explanation - so adamant that they still unclean? I know that Peter had his slow moments, but this was post Pentecost. Granted he wrestled with the idea of the inclusion of Gentiles, but once explicitly explained to him, he got it. So for Peter to insist that unclean food still existed at the time of his vision makes no sense. (I will cover this more deeply in my next post.)

As we have examined Mark 7:1-19, we see that this conversation had nothing to do with Levitical food laws, but rather the traditions of the elders. This is the case for many of Jesus’ confrontations with the Pharisees. Therefore, based on the grammar and the context of this statement, we can conclude that Jesus was not doing away with the divine commandment to abstain from unclean food as proposed by John Piper and many others.

It appears that because the context and grammar of this encounter with the Pharisees were ignored and overlooked, the interpretation and translation of Jesus’ teaching is corrupted by ‘Out of Context Eavesdropping’, leading to the misunderstood conclusion that that the food laws were done away with.  Rather, Jesus was challenging the Pharisee’s preoccupation with ritual purity and man-made traditions over and against the commandments of God and the weightier matters of the Law.

Having considered the teachings of Christ as put forward by John Piper, we find that they are not actually saying what he claimed they were saying. I agree with Pastor John that we need to follow Christ’s teaching on how to relate to the Old Testament Law. But as we have seen, we have no record of Him teaching that the food laws are done away with. Although, that is not all the New Testament has to say on food laws. Maybe He did teach it and it wasn’t written down. Considering its significance that is surprising, but not impossible. I’m sure if John Piper had time in his podcast, he would have discussed Acts 10 and Romans 14 as well. These will be the focus of my next posts.

References

Blass, Debrunner, and Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Hegg, Tim. Mark 7:19b – A Short Technical Note. Retrieved:

       http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Mark7.19ShortNote.pdf

House, Colin. Defilement by Association: Some Insights from the Usage of KOINOS/KOINOU in Acts 10 and 11. Andrews University Seminary Studies. 2, 1983, p 143-153

Novation, On the Jewish Meats. Retrieved:

       http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.vi.iv.i.html

Reiscio, Mara & Walt, Luigi. “There is Nothing Unclean” Jesus and Paul against the Politics of Purity. ASE. 29, 2012, p 53-82.

Rudolph, David. Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7:19b. Evangelical Quarterly. 74, 2002, p 291-311

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OutOfContextEavesdropping
Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Zondervan, 1996. p51-53.

Zell, Paul. Exegetical Brief on Mark 7:19: “Who or what makes all foods clean?” Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly. 109, 2012, p 209-212.