Were The Pharisees Questioning Food Or The Tradition Of Washing?

[Eccl.12:13]

There are many scriptures people have tried to used to say God’s Dietary laws were done away with. The vision that Peter had is one of them. But upon close examination of the scriptures you will find the following verse that is the real topic of Peter’s vision;

“…but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”

At no point was Peter’s vision ever about doing away with God’s dietary laws.

Well, the question the scribes and Pharisees asked of Jesus about His disciples not washing their hands, has also been used in the same way. Some will try to say God has done away with His dietary laws based upon the conversations about the washing of hands. But as we will learn from this lesson, that is just not the case. Let’s read, with understanding, just what was being discussed.

Matt.15
[1] Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
[2] Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Clearly the topic being discussed here is NOT about food. The problem the Pharisees have with Jesus disciples is the fact that they are eating bread without washing their hands. Let’s confirm this;

Mark 7
[1] Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
[2] And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

Again we see the problem is not with WHAT they are eating, but with the fact that the disciples are not washing their hands. Now let’s look at the 2[sup]nd[/sup] verse closer;

“And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.”

Above we were just given the definition of “defiled”, according to the context of this verse. Defiled - “that is to say, with unwashen hands.” At NO point was their discussion EVER about food. Now let’s confirm it just one more time;

[3] For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

So ALL of the Jews held the practice of washing their hands “oft”, or often, or they did not eat their food. Now was this a tradition of God? NO! Just as the verse said; “holding the tradition of the elders.” So this was NOT something that God told them must be done. This was a tradition of “man”. Now let’s read to see if it was just the washing of hands that had become a tradition of the “elders”.

[4] And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

So it wasn’t just hand washing they were consumed with. The Jews of the day had made a big deal about washing EVERYTHING!

But at what point is FOOD ever mentioned?

Can the scriptures be any more clear on the topic of conversation of the Pharisees and the problem they had with Jesus disciples?

“Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.”

Can the scriptures be any more plain about how the word “defiled” is used?

“…some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands,…”

Now that we know the subject of the conversation AND the definition of the word “defiled”, as used in the context of the verse, let’s now read Jesus reply;

Matt.15
[11] Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

We know the subject here is about, “unwashed hands”. So is Jesus speaking about the type of food being consumed, or the fact that a man eating with unwashed hands does not harm him? The answer is obvious. Jesus is speaking about the very thing the Jews of the day had made a big deal about, the washing of hands. But let’s confirm this. Let’s see if Jesus told His disciples something different when they came to Him in private about the same matter;

[12] Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?


It seem the Pharisees got a little upset when Jesus put them in their place and said all of their tradition of washing everything meant nothing. Let’s continue;

[15] Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
[16] And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

Understand that Peter and the rest of the disciples had been doing all of these “washing” traditions also, so they wanted to know just what did Jesus mean when he said what He said. Let’s read;

[17] Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

So the things that go into a man’s mouth are expelled.


[18] But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
[19] For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

But it’s what comes out of the mind that defiles man; evil thoughts, murders, adulteries etc. Now let’s read Jesus answer concerning the subject of unwashed hands;

[20] These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Again….eating with unwashed hands does not defileth a man.

Now at what point did Jesus say ANYTHING about His dietary laws being done away with? At what point did Jesus say anything about ANY food?

The subject matter from the very start was about unwashed hands, and that is how Jesus ended and answered the question.

So Peter’s vision was not about food. Neither was the conversation the Pharisees hand with Jesus concerning unwashed hands.

So how are people getting the notion that God’s dietary laws have been done away with?


Did you know Jesus will kill people for eating certain foods when He returns? Lesson to come soon.

 

[shnarkle]

So how are people getting the notion that God’s dietary laws have been done away with?

As Author Frantz Fanon notes, “Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”
===================================================================

Mark 7:19 : The difference between "cleansing all foods" and "declaring all foods clean".

The source of this confusion stems from altered manuscripts. The argument to support this alteration is as follows:

"There is no substantive difference between Codex Bezae and the majority of the manuscripts. Codex Bezae has: καθαριζει παντα τα βρωματα (katharizei panta ta bromata) Whereas most manuscripts have: καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα (katharizon panta ta bromata)
The difference is between "he declares all foods clean" and "declaring all foods clean." It's the difference syntactically between a main
clause and a subordinate participial clause, but still means practically the same thing."

shnarkle: My response to this would be to first point out that the Greek word "katharizon" and "katharizei" don't include the meaning "declaring" or "he declares".

2511 [e] katharizōn καθαρίζων purifying V-PPA-NMS

If one looks for the meaning of "clean, purifying, cleansing etc." there are some references of a Levitical pronouncement of cleanliness, but the context of this passage doesn't lend itself to that interpretation. Instead we see a comparison between the process of defilement and the digestive process. In the parallel passage in Matthew Jesus immediately points out that the Pharisees have made the commandments null and void through their traditions. For Jesus to then suggest that the law is now done away with by his pronouncement makes no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, the dietary laws aren't in view in this passage in the first place. When I point this out i am met with comments like this: "This is your problem, being concerned with the letter of the law to the point where you can't accept the Bible's own interpretation and application of the law."

Again, this comment collapses in on itself if one is to use the "declaring" version of this passage as it is the pronouncement of a Levitical priest, and Levitical pronouncements are explicitly concerned with the letter of the law.

The oldest versions of the Codex Bezae and Sinaiticus have these words in the margins and later they migrate into the text. In the older manuscripts, the process of digestion is what is cleansing or purging the food, not some declaration. The only declaration likely to accompany this type of purging would be if one were to break wind.

What follows is yet another example of what I would call modern day Pharisaic evangelism from Timothy Keller. The Pharisees of 20 centuries ago are rolling over in their graves and slapping themselves silly wondering why they didn't think of this.

"n Matt. 5:18: 'I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.' This categorical statement doesn't seem to fit in with Mark 7;19 at all! But maybe we should look closer. Immediately before his statement about the Law in Matthew 5:18 Jesus tells us his relationship to it: 'I come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets...but to fulfill.' This means that Jesus did not 'declare all foods clean' by abolishing the clean laws, but by fulfilling them." --Timothy Keller; "The Gospel of Mark", pg. 80

Keller is taking a principle that was applied to the sacrificial system and applying it to the clean laws. The sacrificial system pointed to the sacrifice of Christ. Christ's perfect sacrifice is the only sacrifice that could remove sin; the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of the law for sin. The clean laws include Idolatry, profanity, and sexual purity. Jesus kept all the clean laws including those dealing with sexuality. Can we then conclude that Jesus declared all sexual activity clean? If a rapist conceives lust and violence in his heart, and rapes a woman. His heart is defiled, but the woman isn't defiled. Jesus would just as easily pointed out that her reproductive system cleans itself; her menstrual cycle cleans her. To then conclude that all sexual activity is now clean seems ridiculous. Is this not a non sequitur? And if it is a non sequitur, why is it not a non sequitur with regards to the dietary laws as well?

Once again I have to ask why do people insist on using only the 5th century version (Codex Bezae) of this passage? Could it be because it fits their doctrine perfectly? Could it be that it fits the doctrine of the 5th century redactor who inserted it into the text? If we look at the earliest manuscripts, it really doesn't fit their dogmatic assertions. The processes Jesus describes are that of what comes from within a person's heart, and what proceeds through the digestive tract and is "purged, purified, clean" by being expelled into the sewer. There is nothing in four centuries of manuscripts that state, "Thus he declared...". The digestive tract is not declaring anything.

By simply substituting one clean law for another, the idiocy of this doctrine becomes obvious.

"Then came together unto Him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they heard of his disciple whom had not performed the ceremonial cleansing after laying with his wife, they found fault. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why walk not Thy disciple according to the tradition of the elders, but refrain from washing after laying with his wife?". He answered and said to them, "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This People honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me....
"Hearken unto Me every one of you and understand; There is nothing from without, that entering into can defile: but the things which come out, those are they that defile. Because it entereth not into one's heart, but is expelled during the time of separation,(Thus he declared all sexual activity clean)
Mark chapter 7 NIPV (New Improved Pharisaic Version)

For those who think that one hasn't actually defiled themselves unless they commit the sinful act itself, Jesus points out that those who hate their neighbor/enemy are guilty of murder, and those who covet or lust after someone else's wife are guilty of adultery. He describes the Pharisees as tombs that are painted white on the outside showing that they haven't committed the sinful act, but are dead men's bones on the inside indicating that their sinful desires have left them spiritually dead.

So how does one escape defilement? How does one get clean? This whole planet is turning into a gigantic cesspool of filth and pollution. I buy a HazMat suit before I test drive a brand new car. Before I get home I burn my clothes before going inside, then I jump into a tub of 200 proof alcohol and light it on fire to disinfect myself. Then I'm clean....on the outside.

If I want to get clean on the inside I have to drink a quart of that 200 proof alcohol and then swallow a lit M100. As it makes its way through my digestive tract, in the end, as it announces its departure it simultaneously cleans and disinfects my entire bathroom. Thus making my entire home clean. Everything is therefore clean. Everything that is, except my heart. Only God can make that clean, and if I defile my heart there is nothing I can do to make it clean. My filthy rotten disgusting defiled heart can only do one thing--sin. That's what defiled, depraved hearts do. They don't make anything clean. Only one's digestive tract can make anything clean. One with a box of Colon Blow and a lit M100 incinerating and disinfecting everything that offends.