Today I want to do a Scripture teardown of another classic set of verses the church INCORRECTLY uses to teach that the Kosher food laws were done away with.
Let’s read those verses below:
Then Yeshua called the people to him again and said, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand this! There is nothing outside a person which, by going into him, can make him unclean. Rather, it is the things that come out of a person which make a person unclean!” When he had left the people and entered the house, his talmidim asked him about the parable. He replied to them, “So you too are without understanding? Don’t you see that nothing going into a person from outside can make him unclean? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and it passes out into the latrine.” (Thus he declared all foods ritually clean.) “It is what comes out of a person,” he went on, “that makes him unclean. For from within, out of a person’s heart, come forth wicked thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, indecency, envy, slander, arrogance, foolishness…. All these wicked things come from within, and they make a person unclean.”-Mark 7:14-23
I have to agree that when read in a quick and casual manner, these verses do seem to be saying that Yeshua did indeed do away with any distinctions between clean and unclean foods.
However, that’s just the kind of interpretation you get when you take verses COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT.
And of course, it doesn’t help when gentile Bible Translators editorialize by inserting their own theological interpretations into the text.
In most Bibles, the phrase “and thus he declared all foods clean” is wrapped in parentheses.
Why?
BECAUSE THOSE WORDS WERE NOT IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT!
Those words were put there by anti-semitic theologians who lived during medieval times.
In fact, if you read the King James Version of the Bible, the phrase isn’t even there.
The words “and thus he declared all foods clean” is a boldfaced lie and reflects nothing but an INCORRECT assumption the Bible translators wrote into Scripture.
When Yeshua said “For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and it passes out into the latrine”, all He is saying is that food when eaten is digested and then passed out of the body.
That’s all He is saying.
In classic analogical terms, Yeshua is simply using metaphor and illustration to make his point.
And by the way, to use metaphor and illustration to demonstrate a pattern or make a point is the very definition of what a parable is.
There is absolutely no judgement being made about food here!
Consider the parable Yeshua gave about seed being scattered on hard ground, fertile ground, and rocky ground.
Recall He said that it is important to allow the tares (weeds) to grow up alongside the wheat before pulling them out lest we harm the wheat.
Now honestly, does anyone really think Yeshua was teaching us about how to farm properly or giving us a lesson on agricultural?
Of course not.
He was simply using wheat and tares and the different types of soil as an analogy to show what happens when the Gospel is presented to different kinds of people, and how some will accept the Gospel, and others will reject it etcetera.
Yeshua was doing the exact same thing here in Mark 10.
He was making an analogy.
He wasn’t abolishing anything.
Now let’s take a look at these verses in their proper context by reading from verse 1 of Mark Chapter 7.
Pay attention to the parts I bolded, enlarged, and underlined.
The P’rushim and some of the Torah-teachers who had come from Yerushalayim gathered together with Yeshua and saw that some of his disciples ate with ritually unclean hands, that is, without doing n’tilat-yadayim. (For the P’rushim, and indeed all the Judeans, holding fast to the Tradition of the Elders, do not eat unless they have given their hands a ceremonial washing. Also, when they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they have rinsed their hands up to the wrist; and they adhere to many other traditions, such as washing cups, pots and bronze vessels.) The P’rushim and the Torah-teachers asked him, “Why don’t your disciples live in accordance with the Tradition of the Elders, but instead eat with ritually unclean hands?” Yeshua answered them, “Yesha’yahu was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites- as it is written, ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from me. Their worship of me is useless, because they teach man-made rules as if they were doctrines.’ “You depart from God’s command and hold onto human tradition. Indeed,” he said to them, “you have made a fine art of departing from God’s command in order to keep your tradition! For Moshe said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say, ‘If someone says to his father or mother, “I have promised as a korban” ‘ ” (that is, as a gift to God) ” ‘ “what I might have used to help you,”‘ then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus, with your tradition, which you had handed down to you, you nullify the Word of God! And you do other things like this.”-Mark 7:1-13
So when read in its proper context, we can see that this entire discourse had nothing to do with clean and unclean foods.
Yeshua was talking about the comprehensive list of traditional purity laws the Jews had developed over the centuries.
In this particular case, He was pointing out that the ritual hand washing wasn’t even Scriptural, but just a manmade tradition.
According to Jewish tradition, before eating his CLEAN AND KOSHER food, an Israelite had to first undergo a ritual hand washing before he ate.
Otherwise his clean and kosher food would become defiled.
To that tradition, Yeshua basically said “get outta my face”.
“Clean and Kosher food remains clean and kosher whether somebody goes through a ritual hand washing or not.”
So we can discard yet another ridiculous attempt by the gentile church to somehow paint Yeshua as saying the Kosher food laws were done away with.
In fact, Kosher eating isn’t even being addressed here.
And why would it be?
Yeshua was one Jew talking amongst His fellow Jews.
There would never have been any inkling of doubt or questions raised concerning whether it was okay to eat pork or shellfish for example.
All parties concerned in this scene (including Yeshua) fully accepted the Kosher food laws as God established in Leviticus 11.
Again, Yeshua was only shooting down hand washing and other ritual traditions that didn’t jive with what Holy Scripture really said.
Do you want to know why mainstream Christianity misses the whole point of many things in the New Testament?
The answer is because they fail to see that Yeshua’s problem with the ruling religious elite in His day was always a battle over Torah observance.
It was the battle between Yeshua standing up for the Torah and Him being accused of breaking it.
In fact, it would be no exaggeration to say Yeshua’s whole mission was a constant battle proving that He did NOT break Torah every time He was accused of breaking it.
However, the church can’t see this and as a result break the Torah because they believe Yeshua gave them permission to break it.
Now how blasphemous is that?!
Daniele says
Dear brother, shalom.
I find your blog truly enlightening, especially for my Levitical studies.
I must also say that this particular article surprised me a little (in a positive sense) when I read that in the original texts Yeshua never made statements about the purity of all foods.
I made some inquiries, but I actually saw that several Greek manuscripts have the sentence in parentheses; so I wonder what “original text” are you referring to in particular.
I also noticed that many of your articles are also found in blogs of other authors, so I don’t know if you are actually the main source for others, or if other blogs are your source of reference. Having said that, if I were inspired by other authors, I wondered if BEFORE proposing an existing article I would check the claims made by another author, especially when it comes to original texts and ancient codes.
Is your statement “WHY THOSE WORDS WERE NOT IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT” previously checked against the original texts, or did you trust the word of others?
I would like to clarify the source of the original texts, because I seriously intend to re-evaluate my position in front of HaShem and observe kosherut without asking too many “why? In Greek style”.
Thank you, the Lord bless you!
richoka says
Hi Daniele,
Thanks for your interest.
Yes, I am going to other websites and blogs as well as a ton of other books for my inspiration for these daily posts. For the most part, to be honest I’m not double checking their sources.
However, I think what I wrote in this article is true. The fact that part was in parentheses shows it was later added back in to drive forward some agenda.
Thanks for reading.
Be blessed and shalom.
Daniele says
2.292 / 5.000
Risultati della traduzione
Thanks for answering me, brother.
The fact is that there is a certain difference between a square parenthesis and a round parenthesis.
The (round parenthesis) is used to indicate a personal comment by the biblical author, a sort of “note” which, instead of being inserted in the margin, is found right in the middle of the biblical text. Scholars call it “intervention”. While, the [square parenthesis] indicates an interpolation by the translators which is not present in the original text.
It remains to be noted which of the two parentheses is used in the official Bibles. I have seen the round one, but I admit that it is curious that the KJV omits this very sentence.
In your very nice article, however, you did not specify that it could be a late addition. You only specified that in the original texts the words attributed to Yeshua were not there. By “original text” perhaps you were referring to Marco’s original manuscript? Or to subsequent copies? This must be specified! Because until proven otherwise, the copies we have available have this sentence, so your comment may be equivocal for inattentive scholars.
I very much appreciate your attempt to make clear what our translations misunderstand (I’m Italian, and Italian translations are a mess too); for example, such as the correct rendering of HATTA-AT in “purification offering” rather than “sin offering”. On this you have been unequivocal. But the question of the “original text” is equivocal, and even more equivocal the reliability of your articles since you have just admitted that you don’t always check the sources of other articles.
For the sake of HaShem, My wish is to understand more about explanations based on careful research; otherwise we risk teaching (I am a Torah teacher too) misleading things without realizing it. It’s one thing to do things inadvertently, it’s one thing to do them on purpose. Then we would be impostors of the Word of God. But, in the light of the Torah, when we make an unintentional mistake and then realize it, it is right to acknowledge it and remedy it, thanks to the blood of Yeshua and His being our purifying water.
Anyway, I hope I didn’t bother you, but the real truth must always precede us, in the name of Yeshua!
richoka says
Thank you for your kind reply Daniele. I agree about the importance of doing proper research. I consider this blog to be more inspirational than authoritative. I wish I had more time to dig deeper. I have about 1 hour in the morning to do this blog, which also serves as my morning devotional, and that’s it. However, I think what I wrote in this article is correct because it aligns with everything else written in Scripture concerning clean and unclean foods. Anyways, thanks for reading. Be blessed and Shalom.