Did Jesus Declare All Foods Clean In Mark 7:19?

Did Jesus really declare and end to certain laws? Some translations include this wording while others do not. Why is there a disagreement and which is right? This article explores the evidence.

---

Let's start at the start.

It was a Pharisaical tradition to wash your hands in a special way before eating. It wasn't just for dirt's sake, but for ritual cleanliness. The Pharisees would often take a legitimate biblical idea then expand the boundaries around it to prevent anyone from crossing a legitimate line. The intentions were good. If you don't cross our new boundaries, then you are certainly safe from crossing the old boundaries. The idea with the hand washing was, if you had unknowingly touched something unclean, then washing your hands would remove the ceremonial uncleanliness before you had the chance to spread it to other things, like your food. And therefore food could not make your whole body ritually unclean.
But things like this resulted in pushback from Jesus.

It is important that you keep in mind this hand washing ritual was all about ceremonial cleanliness; clean and unclean; holy vs common. And ceremonial cleanliness was all about making a person or a thing fit to occupy sacred space, like the Temple. The closer you got to God's holy and pure presence, the more ritually clean you had to be. (We will go into this more a bit later.)

Jesus' did not encourage His disciples to wash in this way before eating. Certain Pharisees asked Jesus why not. Judging by Jesus' strong reaction, this must have been more than an innocent question by the Pharisees. Jesus' answer was about how the various washings and rituals were undoing God's intent not just for the ceremonial law but God's intent for Israel to understand what the real defilement was in their lives in the first place. Jesus then explained to the crowd how it wasn't what goes into you but what comes out of you that can truly defile you.

When the disciples asked Jesus about this, He explained that the real issue was matters of the heart: evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil look, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. God's greater concern was not with outward displays of ritual purity and various washings, but with inward moral character.
The Pharisees had been expanding boundaries in all the wrong places. Doing the one but leaving the other undone.

It is in Jesus’ explanation to the disciples that the disputed line appears in Mark 7:19.

CEREMONIAL VS MORAL

Now for the hard question:
What about Jesus' response indicates He was concerned with voiding ceremonial cleanliness laws?
I see nothing of the sort at all. The conversation was not about legitimate Old Covenant laws. The conversation was not about pork.

Just like with Mark 2:27, Jesus' answer can seem quite jarring if we aren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation, because it is easy to misunderstand.

The Pharisees had taken ritual cleanliness rules that applied to the priesthood and expanded them to the common person - with good intentions. But in focusing on the ceremonial, they lost sight of the moral. Jesus passed judgment on the Pharisees multiple times (read Matthew 23 or John 8). Rarely do we see a Pharisee responding with, "I did not realize, and I am sorry for my behavior." or "Wait! I did not do what you accuse me of." Rather, they reacted with offense and pride and anger. "How dare you, an illegitimate son from a back water village, judge us, the teachers of Israel?!"
That is the crux of the conversation. All the handwashing in the world did nothing to protect them from what really mattered. They had neither recognized God Himself in their presence, nor recognized their own sin that was bringing them to the point where they would murder the very Author of the Law they so treasured. And no amount of washing was going to help this.

Which of these makes more sense?

A) [Pharisees]: Clean foods defile you with dirty hands. [Jesus]: Dirt is secondary. Sins from the heart are what truly defile you.
-or-
B) [Pharisees]: Clean foods defile you with dirty hands. [Jesus]: Not any more they don't. Meats laws are gone. Peace out! [mic drop]

I'm going with A!

IS IT REALLY IN THERE?

You may have heard people claiming the words "Thus he declared all foods clean" did not come from the pen of Mark. That's not exactly true. This is considered to be a legitimate verse. The validity of the verse is not in dispute, it's the translation that's in dispute. Let's see two very different ways this verse is translated:

(MAR. 7: 19) [ESV] ...since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

(MAR. 7: 19) [NKJV] ...because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”

Same verse. Same Greek. Very different English.

At the heart of the difference in translation is what did Mark mean by 'all foods'. One translation takes it as a declaration about ending ceremonial clean and unclean meats laws. The other takes it as the continuation of Jesus' argument that lapses in ritual purity were never the real problem.

Both translations are technically acceptable ways to render the Greek. Yes! Both are technically acceptable translations. However, one of them does not cleanly follow the flow of the conversation.

I side with the NKJV's translation, and I think the parallel account in Matthew 15 supports this conclusion.

THE HEART OF THE MATTER

I said we would come to this later, and so we shall. Let's briefly remind ourselves why ceremonial cleanliness laws exist in the first place.

The ceremonial cleanliness rituals in Torah were not arbitrary. It wasn't a matter of health. It wasn't a matter of personal hygiene. It wasn't a matter of the nature of animals and pots and fluids. The rituals were about making a person or a thing fit to occupy sacred space. God is pure and perfect. (No. That's not strong enough.) God is absolutely pure, and utterly perfect. (Yes, that's better.) Things which enter His holy presence must be purified. Sometimes He makes allowances, such as when He met with Moses in the form of a burning bush and only asked Moses to remove his shoes. But when Israel was required to come into His holy presence, they had to perform far more complex purity rituals. The closer you got to God, the more ritually pure you were expected to be. There was another level for the priests who worked in the Temple. And there was still yet another level for the High Priest who went into the Holy of Holies once a year. All ceremonial cleanliness rituals were about making a person or object fit to occupy sacred space. Most of the sin offering rituals were not really about forgiving sin but rather about ritual purification. A disinfection, so to speak. This is what clean and unclean is all about; ceremonial purity and symbolizing fitness to be in God's presence.

In the time before Jesus' perfect and invaluable sacrifice purified to the uttermost all who accept it, there had to be a shadow of purification, a symbol. The Gentiles had absolutely nothing. And the Jews would also have had nothing, but God provided a means to symbolically purify them until Messiah could come.

The law did not require ritual hand washings before meals as a condition of entering sacred space. The law regulated what things could be eaten or worn or touched, and the law regulated certain priestly washings, but the law said nothing about regular Israelite's hands transmitting uncleanliness to regular food and then onto the body... which was what the Pharisees hoped to prevent when they made the rule about hand washing.
So, why would Jesus declare an end to one part of the legitimate law as a solution to an issue that had nothing to do with those legitimate laws, in a conversation that had nothing to do with those legitimate laws?

I see no good reason to agree that He did.

Jesus did not counter from the law but from common sense. You eat, you digest, you eliminate - but none of this touches the moral failures which begin in the heart.

Fixating on symbolism and requiring others to do so was distracting from the underlying meaning God enacted cleanliness laws for in the first place. All the purification rituals in Israel could never actually take away sin (HEB. 10:11). Jesus was speaking beyond holiness and onto righteousness. Jesus was cutting to the heart of the matter: sin is real, and it can have no part with a holy and righteous God, and the water was not literally washing away anything that truly mattered. Deal with your sin first (MAT. 23:25-26). Or, to put it another way, deal with righteousness first and then you are free to attend to holiness. This is the same lesson He gave in Matthew 5:

(MAT. 5:23-24) 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

And if you think about it, this is the same thing Jesus was addressing in the ritual foot cleansing during His final Passover with the Apostles (read John 13, especially verses 10 & 11).

Here is the crux of my argument: If ceremonies in the first place cannot solve the issue, then removing the ritual laws also does not solve the issue. Therefore, that isn't what Jesus was doing.

FINAL POINTS

When we look at it this way, the verse no longer reads like Jesus declaring an end to Old Covenant meats laws. Therefore, the NKJV translation fits the narrative better. That is not to say He could not have done so. He had the authority. But I do not see anything here that leads me to believe He intended to.

This is where I pull out an old favorite verse:
(MAT. 5: 17-18) 17 Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

I am not citing this selection to claim the law continues forever. I am citing it to demonstrate that it was not Jesus' intention to simply declare things away.

Jesus came to genuinely solve the issue. He did not come to circumvent by declaring an end to certain laws. He did not come to take the easy route. He was going to do it the hard way; the only real way. He did not permit Himself the option of simply making declarations. He came to fulfill fully, to keep Israel's end of the Covenant for them perfectly, as the true Israel of God, and when that was accomplished, He would die to cleanse us all and solve the issue at its very heart and root.

Lastly, let's skip ahead to Peter's Sheet Vision in Acts 10. When God said, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat," Peter responded, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” (v14.) Peter was quite adamant. This response would make no sense at all if Peter was fully aware that Jesus removed foods laws in Mark 7. The Gospel of Mark is traditionally considered to be Peter's version of events, after all.

CONCLUSION

Did Jesus declare all foods clean in Mark 7: 19?

No.

As Bereans Did has always said we would happily point out where Herbert Armstrong got things right, and we think he did here, at least to a degree.
However....
If Jesus did not declare meats clean in Mark 7, does that mean meats laws are still in effect for all Christians and we can proof-text Isaiah 66:17?

Also no.
...but not because of Mark 7:19.

The answer to that question can be found in Jesus' perfect sacrifice that permanently cleanses and truly takes away sin, which tore the curtain and opened our way straight to the Father, and which ended the Old Covenant with its terms and symbols and rituals and distinctions between Jew and Gentile. We go over this in other articles.

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Is Ceremonial Law Removed?

Something has been on my mind. It regards how Armstrongism treats the Old Covenant law. The way it binds itself to some parts of the law and excuses itself from all other parts. It has never sat right with me how things are had both ways.

We would regularly quote Matthew 5: 18 when referring to holy days or the other laws we wanted to keep. "Not one jot or tittle," we would exclaim! That was our proof-text. The law is eternal. But did we keep the whole law? No. We only kept a small percentage. When we did not want to keep a law, like travelling to Jerusalem three times a year (EXO. 23: 14-17, 34: 23-24; DEU. 16: 16), or building booths at the Feast of Booths, we would say those laws were gone. "Ceremonial laws are done away," we would state. Well, isn't that convenient! The law is eternal ... except the parts we don't like. And thus we had things both ways.

That is what I would like to write about today. Ceremonies and standards. Is the ceremonial law really as "done away with" as we said?

WHAT IS CEREMONIAL LAW?

The laws in the Old Covenant seem to fit into one of three groups: moral laws, national laws, and ceremonial laws. In Armstrongism, two of those groups are discarded - the national and the ceremonial. They are considered to be removed, abrogated, abolished.

Where does the Bible define what is a moral law versus a ceremonial law and a national law? The Bible does not tell us because these are divisions realized after the fact. The divisions are manmade. Some astute person was reading and realized, hey, it seems the law has three groupings. This dividing the law into three groups is not something specific to Armstrongism. It is a very old idea. And it's not just Protestant, either, as the Catholics also write about it in the Catechism.

Where is it stated the moral law remains but the ceremonial and national laws are gone? Nowhere. That is also manmade. It is simply part of the Armstrongist doctrine that certain terms of the Old Covenant come forward into the New Covenant. That's how we could make claims like, "Jeremiah 31: 33 says, 'I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts,' therefore the law cannot be gone," and yet turn right around and claim two of three groups of law were gone. Completely contradictory, yet we held both as true, depending on which we wanted at the time.

Have you ever said these words: "I only believe what the Bible says, I don't hold the traditions of men"? Yes? Except that you do hold some traditions of men. This is one of them.

So, what are the divisions? Very (actually overly) simply put --
Moral law: those laws which distinguish righteousness from evil (e.g., you shall not murder).
National law: those laws which were specific to the functioning of the nation of Israel (e.g., sanctuary cities).
Ceremonial law: those laws which prescribe the rituals of worship (e.g., animal sacrifices).

Simple. Right?

GREY AREAS

Now we get to the hard part. Things that don't cleanly fit the categories. Grey areas. An example would be the Ten Commandments.

Just about everyone believes the Ten Commandments are moral law. Hard to argue with "you shall not commit adultery" (even when someone is trying to excuse away their adultery). But then we have that weekly Sabbath. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." What really is moral about that? To rest is beneficial, but is it morally beneficial?

Let's compare the weekly Sabbath and see which one fits better.

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy" is:
A) Morally good versus evil.
B) Part of the rituals of worship.

Option B fits much better. So, why is it not gone?

Someone out there is thinking the day is holy, therefore it is moral. I want to remind you that holy usually means sacred, consecrated, set apart for a special ceremonial use. It is not exactly the same as morally good. Unholiness can be contracted through physical touch (LEV. 5: 3). Immorality cannot. Inanimate objects can be holy (EXO. 35: 19). Days can be holy (LEV. 23: 4). They cannot be moral. Almost everything that was called holy was part of the ceremonial law (holy place, holy oil, holy garments, holy sacrifices, holy altar, Holy of Holies, etc).

Is it true, then, that the Sabbath is somehow moral just because it is in the Ten Commandments? That's not one of the definitions of moral law that I've ever read. "Distinguishes righteousness from evil, or is one of the Ten Commandments."

What if there is a ceremonial law dropped in the middle of a list of moral laws? What then? Why do we see the Ten as one single unit? Why aren't the individual commandments categorized based on their own characteristics? They are the Ten Commandments, after all, not the One Commandments. Seems the only thing causing us to refuse to accept the Sabbath is ceremonial is ... tradition.

For the sake of argument, let's move forward granting that the weekly Sabbath is a moral law only because it is in the Ten Commandments. I grant that so we can complicate matters even further.

MORAL BY ASSOCIATION?

The weekly Sabbath is in the Ten Commandments, but only the weekly. What then of the annual sabbaths? Why are they not gone?

Does the supposed moral goodness of the weekly Sabbath bleed out into the annual sabbaths? How? If the weekly day of rest is only said to be morally good because it is in the Ten Commandments, then how can other days escape their ceremonial nature? Days cannot be morally good, so how can moral goodness extend to the annual days?

You will be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with Herbert Armstrong on the holy days. Just about every other church, including nearly every flavor of Adventism that existed prior to Herbert Armstrong, considers the annual holy days to be ceremonial. The Adventists don't keep "biblical days". The only thing that saves the weekly Sabbath from the same fate is its part in the Ten Commandments. Why mention the Adventists? Because Armstrongism is a branch of Adventism. Herbert Armstrong's ideas about the Sabbath come directly from the Seventh Day Adventists. Yet, they disagree with him on annual days. One of the reasons Herbert Armstrong was fired from the Church of God (Seventh Day) was for teaching the annual days are required. But where did he get that idea? Armstrong took his ideas from one G. G. Rupert. Rupert supposedly got his ideas from a small fringe-group that mixed Judaism and Mormonism.
Traditions of men?

So, the weekly Sabbath is only morally good because it is one of the Ten Commandments, but the holy days are also morally good because ...they are associated with the word Sabbath?? They are moral by association?

Again, that's not one of the definitions of moral law that I've ever read. "Distinguishes righteousness from evil, or is one of the Ten Commandments, OR has the word Sabbath associated with it."

Then what do we do with the holy days that are not annual sabbaths? The day of Passover is not, five of the Days of Unleavened Bread are not, the Day of Firstfruits is not, and six of the days of the Feast of Tabernacles are not. Why are those not abandoned as parts of ceremonial law? They aren't Sabbaths and they aren't in the Ten Commandments. So, they are moral by association with something that is moral by association?

Yet again, that's not one of the definitions of moral law that I've ever read. "Distinguishes righteousness from evil, or is one of the Ten Commandments, or has the word Sabbath associated with it, OR is associated with something that is associated with the word Sabbath."

Perhaps you think you can't just do away with any annual day once you start keeping annual days. You keep them all or nothing. Or perhaps you think you must keep Passover because it has significance with Jesus. Alright. But then, what of the Day of Firstfruits?

Armstrongism completely ignores Firstfruits. This day is every bit as annual as the others. And it has significance with Jesus. Passover is the day Jesus died; Firstfruits is the day Jesus was resurrected. Herbert Armstrong didn't believe Jesus was resurrected on Firstfruits, but even he taught the rituals of Firstfruits pointed to Jesus. According to the standard set above, does this not make Firstfruits a moral law? So, why is this day ignored while Passover is observed?

And don't get me started on the "Night To Be Much Observed" which is entirely made up. It is made up because Herbert Armstrong misread Exodus 12: 42. Passover is the Night to be Remembered. A made up day is observed, but a legitimate day is ignored?

So, Armstrongism does not teach the keeping of all annual days, or keeping all annual days that have significance with Jesus, but they do keep an invented day. Consistency, anyone?

And not just that, but as we saw in my last article, "Why Not Keep Biblical Days?", even when people say they're keeping a biblical day, they're not keeping it the way the law said to. The name of the day is kept, but nearly everything was removed that made the day what it was. How can the days themselves be moral, but all the things that made the days what they were are ceremonial? Can a day be both moral and ceremonial - at the same time? Parts are moral, like the obligation to "keep" it, but parts are ceremonial, like exactly what you were supposed to do to keep it. How on earth does that work?
And if a single day can be both, why can't the Ten Commandments?

I am at a complete loss. What is the standard here?

Can we get some form of consistency in here, please!

ARE TITHES CEREMONIAL?

There are some other issues besides days that fit this same pattern of being ceremonial but not gone. Take tithes, for instance. Why are tithes not gone?

The Levitical priesthood was entirely ceremonial. The whole Levitical priesthood is gone, the Temple is gone, and the system is gone - replaced entirely by Jesus and the church. In the Armstrongist system, can something that was replaced be moral law? No.
Tithes existed to support the Levitical priesthood because they had no other means. If the priesthood was not moral, why would the system initiated to fund the priesthood be moral? It is not. So why is it not gone? How do we justify saying the priesthood and everything associated with it was ceremonial, except the system for funding it?

Tithes were for Levites (NUM. 18: 21). If tithes remain, who can receive them? Where is the law that says churches can now accept tithes? I can't find that law anywhere. To make that adjustment, the unchanging law had to change. Are ministers Levites, then? I thought the priesthood was gone!

What is so moral about tithing, anyway? The amount? Nine percent is evil, eleven percent is neither here nor there, but ten percent - righteous! How does that make sense?

Are we to believe that being required to hand over money is moral? Then explain Paul's statement in II Corinthians 9: 7, "So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver." It says not out of necessity. A tithe is definitely by necessity. One does not "give" tithes and more or less than one "gives" taxes. Tithes are a requirement, not a gift. Charity and tithes are not synonyms.

Tithes were an offering (NUM. 18: 24). Tithes are closely associated with offerings in multiple verses. Almost all verses where tithes are discussed there is the connotation of an offering.

(DEU. 12: 6) There you shall take your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, your vowed offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. 

Offerings are ceremonial and gone. Why not tithes?

And what of second tithe? Armstrongism teaches not one but three tithes. The second tithe, we believed, was for funding one of the annual days - the Feast of Tabernacles. We had to travel and do activities, so we needed funding. Second tithe only exists because the annual days exist ...and we still don't quite know why the annual days still exist.

Yet again, that's not one of the definitions of moral law that I've ever read. "Distinguishes righteousness from evil, or is one of the Ten Commandments, or has the word Sabbath associated with it, or is associated with something that is associated with the word Sabbath, OR it is associated with something that is associated with something that is associated with the word Sabbath."

What's more, why was second tithe only associated with the Feast of Tabernacles? Because that was the one time per year church members were required to travel. Is that what the law says, though? No. The law required travel three times a year, not one.
Armstrong started out requiring travel three times per year, but it was too expensive, so he took that down to once per year. What then? Two of the three travel requirements were ceremonial? How does that make any sense? How is that justified? I was once told, "Herbert Armstrong changed the law out of necessity." Changed the law!??
The law is eternal ...except the parts that are gone, or that we've changed.

Hopefully by this point you see the absurdity of the standard here. Or, rather, the complete lack thereof.

Oh, but there's more!

ARE MEATS LAWS CEREMONIAL?

What about clean / unclean meats laws?

In the Old Testament, clean and unclean pertain to ritual purity. From the first mention, clean and unclean animals references ceremonial cleanliness for the purposes of sacrifice.

(GEN. 7: 1-2) 1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean [ceremonially pure; Strong's 2889] animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean [not clean; Strong's 2889] animal, a male and its mate.

CLEAN [Strong’s 2889, Heb. Tahor, from 2891]: pure (in a physical, chemical, ceremonial, or moral sense):- clean, fair, pure (-ness).

Do you think the animals were morally pure or impure? No. They are animals. By their nature, they cannot be held accountable for the morality of their actions. No, they were ceremonially pure or impure. This is entirely ceremonial. This can be confirmed by observing what Noah did with those animals.

(GEN. 8: 20) Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

He sacrificed them! They were clean for sacrifice. That is entirely ceremonial. And that is precisely their use throughout the Old Covenant.

For more, see our article "Clean and Unclean for Noah".

In Acts 10, God sends Peter the infamous Sheet Vision. God lets down a large sheet, filled with all sorts of unclean animals, and says, "Go, Peter, kill and eat." What did Peter take from that? Here was his conclusion:

(ACT. 10: 28) 28 Then he said to [Cornelius and his family], “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

There were a series of laws to keep the Jews separate from the Gentiles: meats laws, marriage laws, circumcision laws, and etc. God revealed a second purpose of the meats laws was to separate Jew from Gentile.
These are the two parts of meats laws: sacrifice and separation. Every separation in the church between Jew and Gentile is removed. Every animal sacrifice is removed. So why would meats laws remain? There is no purpose for it to remain.

For more, see our articles on the Sheet Vision.

God goes out of his way to get rid of meats laws and people cry, "No! No! I need to observe meats laws!" Why? It has been gutted. What purpose is left? Certainly not because they are moral laws. So why? I can't even repeat my "not one of the definitions of moral law that I've ever read" line here because meats have nothing to do with anything moral at all (MAR. 7: 18-23).

And before you say it - no, meats laws are not health issues, either. There is nothing in the Bible to substantiate that. There is nothing in the Bible about meats laws being about health or dirt or anything like that. The only thing you'll find are the two things I mentioned.

Do you want to know why Armstrongism teaches clean/unclean meats laws? The real reason? Its roots in Adventism. Ellen G. White was big on foods, and that came down to Herbert Armstrong. That is the reason. Traditions of men.

Can we get some form of consistency in here, please!

CONCLUSION

Today, we have seen the three divisions of the law, of which two are supposedly gone. Yet, we have seen several examples of ceremonial items that are not gone, according to Armstrongism. And so, we have asked -- is the ceremonial law removed or isn't it?

It seems the answer is no.
But why not?

In my experience, I have most often had people answer these questions with statements like, "Until heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle will pass from the law." But two complete sections have passed from the law. Or, "God changes not, therefore the law changes not". But the law has changed (HEB. 7: 12). Or, "Why would God initiate the law only to get rid of it?" But He did get rid of two full sections of it. Or, "The law will be written on our hearts." But which laws? The laws that are gone?

The point of those statements is to say the law will never be done away. But that offends reason and denies reality. Not a single person who says those things intends to keep the whole law. Every single person who says those things knows they are only referring to certain laws. So, those statements are absurd. Do those responses explain why one law is kept and another discarded? No. Do those responses explain why the examples we reviewed today are not ceremonial? No. Do you know what those statements will do? They show that we talked out both sides of our mouths.

Since those things we reviewed today are ceremonial, tell your Minister you're not going to do them anymore.
What? That makes you uncomfortable? Why? Are the ceremonial laws removed or aren't they?
Fine. Tell your minister the ceremonial laws are not removed.
What? That makes you uncomfortable?

There are more examples than this. I could go on about things like circumcision, the gateway to the law. But I think we've seen enough. I think the point is sufficiently made.

My point is really about the standard - the shifting standard -- the lack of standard. One standard is used here, another standard is used there. Keep this part of the law here, don't keep that part of the law there. Demand the law will never change here, demand the law has changed there. Say we don't like traditions of men here, keep traditions of men there.

Standards and ceremonies and traditions of men. It's a double-standard. And that has always bothered me.

I don't want to go without leaving you a solution to this dilemma. Dear reader, beloved by God, I pray God guides you to step into the New Covenant in faith.

p.s.
I suppose you could consider this part 1 in a series. Try out the next post: "Are the Ten Commandments Removed?"

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )

Acts 17:11

************

Word Games

English is a funny language. We use the same English word - love - to discuss our feelings for our spouse, our dog, our football team and our favorite pizza topping. And even those concepts are more closely related than some English words that share a common spelling.

Ancient Greek, however, is not like English. With half a dozen words that describe different aspects of love, it is a tad more precise than English. Obviously, like anything devised by men, it can be misunderstood. But I'm sure glad the New Testament was originally written in Greek instead of English. Wait, you knew that, right? Just wondering. Because apparently some Church of God splinters are a little shaky on that fact. Ahem, COGWA, I'm looking at you.

Since the COGs are in the midst of the Fall Holy Day season, I decided to study Colossians 2, particularly verses 13-17, in which Paul refers to the festivals (among other things) as a "shadow". Naturally, I turned to groups like COGWA, UCG and LCG to see what the COGs are teaching these days. One of COGWA's articles - Colossians 2:16-17:Did Paul Warn Against Keeping God's Law?, by Cecil Maranville, particularly interested me. Mostly because it turned out to be a whole lot of word games with very little scholarship backing them up. But I'm not just picking on COGWA. Similar articles with similar problems appear on many COG splinter web sites.

Before we get started, let's look at the verses in question, from the NKJV translation:

"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." Colossians 2:16-17

One of COGWA's first criticisms of Protestant Christianity's take on this passage is that biased translators supposedly misinterpret verse 17. No shock there, that's a common COG argument. What Maranville wrote next, however, did surprise me. He cited Paul's tendency toward writing long sentences and claims that the "but the body" statement in verse 17 should be connected with "Let no one judge you" from verse 16. As opposed to it being juxtaposed with the "shadow" concept earlier in the same verse, that is. He then asserts that Paul meant that no one should allow anyone to judge how they celebrate the New Moons, Sabbaths and festivals but, or except, the Body of Christ, the church.

"In other words, let no man or group of men judge you on how you are practicing the Old Testament laws and customs. Listen only to the body of Christ, the Church," Maranville says in his article.

Ironically, Maranville makes a mistake similar to the one he accused the translators of making - a biased misinterpretation based on what he wants the Greek to say. Remember, in English, one word can have many different, often unrelated meanings. This is not usually the case in Greek.

In Colossians 2:17, the word "but" is the word "de" in Greek, which can mean "also", "and," "moreover" or "now," according to Spiros Zodhiates' Complete Word Study of the New Testament. It can also be translated as "on the other hand" or "nevertheless," according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon. The particle indicates opposition and distinction, and is often added to statements opposed to a preceding statement, according to Thayer's.

We see examples of "de" being used in 1 Corinthians 2:15 (But he who is spiritual judges all things), Acts 12:5 (Peter was therefore kept in prison, but constant prayer was offered to God for him by the church), Acts 12:9 (Peter followed him out of the prison, and did not know that what was done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision) and Romans 4:5 (But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness), among other passages.

By comparison, the English word "but" that is synonymous for "except" is the Greek term "ei me" except, if not, more than, save (only). We see this term in verses like 1 John 2:22 (Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?), John 3:13 (No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven), Acts 11:19 (preaching the word to no one but the Jews only) and I Corinthians 8:4 (and that there is no other God but one), among others.  

So the Greek word meaning "but" in Colossians 2:17 can also be translated in ways like "moreover," "on the other hand" and often indicates distinction, opposing a preceding statement. This is the term we see in this passages - contrasting the shadow of the festivals with the reality of Christ. The word cannot mean "except" - it is a totally different Greek word with a different roots. Maranville's argument is like claiming that a man who plans to "lead" an expedition is really planning on poisoning them with the element "lead". The fact that two words are spelled the same in English doesn't mean they share a common Greek etymology.

So even though I've shown that the first half of COGWA's argument doesn't make any sense, I'll play along for the second part, where they address the phrase "body of Christ." To be fair, the Greek word "soma" (body) in Colossians 2:17 is sometimes used as COGWA claims. It can be translated as a flesh-and-blood body, the Church as the Body of Christ or a material or substance. Elsewhere in the Bible, the phrase used in Colossians 2:17 sometimes refers to the Church and other times refers to Jesus' literal body. Given this, let's look at the context.

Which makes more sense:

"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, on the other hand the Church."

"Which are a shadow of things to come, moreover the Church."

"Which are a shadow of things to come, nevertheless the Church."

Or...

"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, on the other hand the substance is Christ."

"Which are a shadow of things to come, moreover the body is Christ."

"Which are a shadow of things to come, nevertheless the substance is Christ."

Even a cursory reading shows us COGWA's translation makes no sense in context. Nor does it even have any connection to the word "shadow." When we consider that Thayer's explains the Greek word "de" is used to compare and contrast with a preceding statement, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Paul is contrasting the intangible nature of a shadow with a tangible object that creates the shadow. We'll explore more on that topic at a later time. For now, let's move on to COGWA's next questionable point of scholarship.

Next, COGWA asserts that the words "food" and "drink" in verse 16 are in the gerund form, so a more accurate translation would be "eating" and "drinking." For now, I'll ignore the fact that they never provide a source for this claim and move on to the gerund issue.

Now, before you get mad at me for getting picky about obscure parts of speech, I want to tell you that I didn't even remember what a gerund was. And I'm a writer. So I'm not the one trying to look all scholarly here. I had to look it up. (In case you're wondering, it's a word that's derived from a verb that functions as a noun. Basically you tack an "ing" on the end of a verb to make a gerund). But I'm glad I looked it up. Do you know why? Because that's how I learned there is no such thing as a Greek gerund. Latin has gerunds. English has gerunds. But Greek - the language in which the New Testament is written - does not.

Why is that important? Because it means that, for the second time in the same article, COGWA is assuming a conclusion based on its preferred English translation of a word and tries to make us interpret the original Greek text through that definition. If Maranville is talking about gerunds, he must be discussing English grammar, not Greek, because there is no such thing in Greek. If COGWA is going to make sweeping claims about biased translators while forcing their own biased translation on us, they should at least provide a source for their biased translation.

In the original Greek, the word "brosis" can either mean "eating" or "food," according to Zodhiates' Complete Word Study of the New Testament. The same book says in that specific verse, it is a noun that is part of an anarthrous construction. An anarthrous construction refers to a word or group of words which appear without a definite article. According to Zodhiates, it's often best to translate these constructions by supplying a definite article - by inserting "a," "an" or "the."

Ok, let's try it and see what makes logical sense:

"So let no one judge you in an eating...".

"So let no one judge you in a food...".

And, just for fun, let's try it in the King James Version, since many COG members consider any translation that's newer to be watered down.

"Let no man therefore judge you in a meat...". 
     Woops! I bet that NKJV is suddenly looking more attractive to them.

Biblically speaking, we do see "brosis" referring to the act of eating, as in 1 Corinthians 8:4. In verses like John 6:27, Hebrews 12:16 and 2 Corinthians 9:10, the word clearly applies to food. In the latter two, it's a noun that's part of an anarthrous construction. I'm not going to say it's impossible for Colossians 2:16 to mean "eating," but it doesn't seem to fit the pattern. At any rate, the word can mean "eating" but there's no reason, no evidence for Maranville to say that the word must mean "eating," except for that's what COGWA wants it to mean. 
And why does COGWA want "brosis" to mean "eating?". So that they don't have to explain why this verse could just as easily mean what they argue against -- not letting anyone judge believers in the specific foods they ate.

And now we get to the heart of the matter.

The COGs claim that Paul was refuting Gnostic ascetics in Colossians 2. Ascetics believed that indulging the fleshly desire for enjoyable food was sinful, and as a result, they highly restricted their food intake and the types of food they would eat. These ascetics, the COGs claim, were criticizing the brethren of the early church because of the physical feasting they did on Holy Days, the Sabbath and, apparently, the New Moon. 
Never mind that COGWA never explains how eating and drinking could be a shadow of Christ. The Sabbath and Holy Days I can see. I can even see clean and unclean meats as a shadow of the separation between Jew and Gentile. But eating and drinking? Those are one step away from bodily functions.
At any rate, to accept the COG's interpretation, we ALSO have to ignore the fact that the Sabbath and festivals are listed separately from matters of food and drink. 
I know, Paul's a wordy guy, we all know that, whatever, he was just being poetic.

I know, part of you is wondering whether you should believe me. What if I'm the one playing word games here and COGWA has it right? That's a fair question. I welcome you to test what I've written. Grab your Bible helps and read it for yourself. If you don't have the resources at home, web sites like biblehub.com have many free tools. Just to get you started, here's a link to Biblehub's interlinear Greek Bible for Colossians 2:16. At another free site, E-Sword, I believe you can download Thayer's. Check it out for yourself. We are each told to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. 

In my previous post on the shadows, we saw that many scholars believe the heresy Paul addressed at Colossae included elements of both Gnosticism and Judaism. Ascetic criticism of the way the brethren were eating could be a factor, but most believe that these heretics were trying to impose food laws from the Sinai Covenant on the gentile brethren in Colossae. Yet we never hear the part about Colossian Judaizing from the COGs. The COGs seem blind to the Judaizing element in the Colossian heresy, primarily because they accept many of the same practices.

Suppose Paul really is just rebuking the ascetics for judging the brethren regarding their feasting, and they are not being judged on matters of the Sabbath and Holy Days themselves. If so, we should see some evidence that the early church marked the New Moon with feasting as well.
But where would we find that? I mean, New Moon celebrations disappeared hundreds of years before Jesus was born, according to the COGs.

But what if there is evidence that Jews had a very specific tradition for marking the New Moon in Paul's day? A tradition that had been around for hundreds of years. A tradition in which those with Jewish leanings may have participated, and could have easily pressured the brethren at Colossae to join. A tradition that in no way involved food.

In my next post, we'll examine the New Moon ritual the Jewish community outside Jerusalem used to mark the beginning of each month. This ritual is well-documented, by historians like the highly respected than Flavius Josephus, and is quite likely what Paul was referencing when he mentioned New Moons in Colossians 2:16. 

------- Other posts in this series -------

[you are here]

New Moons - What Josephus Says They Were Really Doing

Shadows of the Fall Holy Days

Tabernacles - The Bittersweet Feast of Booths

Walk In The Light

************

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; ) Acts 17:11

************