Bible Study Articles

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" height=35 BGCOLOR="#000099" TEXT="#F7F7FF"> <div> <B>Bible Study Articles</B></div> <div> <B>Bible Study Articles</B>   |   <A HREF="id116.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Judaism and Armstrongism">Judaism and Armstrongism</A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=445 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <bR> <div> <B>Articles:</B></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#introduction_to_election" TITLE="Bible Study Articles"><B>Introduction to "Election as relationship and mission"</B></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#human_geography" TITLE="Bible Study Articles"><B>Human Geography - A spatial theology of holiness</B></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#the_principle_of_relative_negation" TITLE="Bible Study Articles"><B>The Principle of Relative Negation</B></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#two_calendars_for_passover" TITLE="Bible Study Articles"><B>Two Calendars for Passover at the time of Christ?</B></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#unclean_food_controversy" TITLE="Bible Study Articles"><B>T</B></A><A HREF="#unclean_food_controversy" TITLE="Bible Study Articles"><B>he "Unclean food" Controversy in Mark 7</B></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id116_judaism_and_armstrongism__laodiceanism__.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Judaism and Armstrongism"><B>Judaism and Armstrongism</B></A><A HREF="id116_judaism_and_armstrongism__laodiceanism__.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Judaism and Armstrongism"> (Laodiceanism?)</A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id68.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Biblical Financial Cycles"><B>Biblical Financial Cycles</B></A></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B> <A NAME="introduction_to_election"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></div> <div> <B>Introduction to "Election as relationship and mission"</B></div> <bR> <div> Eze 39:7 So will <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Georgia" ><B>I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel</B></FONT>; and<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FF0000" FACE="Georgia" ><B> I will not </B><I><B>let them </B></I><B>pollute my holy name any more</B></FONT>: <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#005000" FACE="Georgia" ><B>and the nations shall know that I </B><I><B>am </B></I><B>the LORD</B></FONT>...<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Verdana" > (</FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Verdana" >AV & NIV</FONT><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Verdana" >).</FONT></div> <bR> <div> "... the attack on God's people by Gog, prince of Magog, and the host of nations with him, followed by their utter and total destruction, has as its core message that the nations will come to know YHWH as God in all his glory by his signal and ultimate demonstration of his people from all who seek their destruction" (Christopher J.H. Wright, <I>The Mission of God</I>, p.472).</div> <bR> <div> While God's action against Gog in Ezekiel 38-39 has the immediate effect of Ezekiel 39:7, it is but a step in getting to really 'know' God.</div> <bR> <div> [Note: The defeat of Gog occurs during the second half of the Messiah's mission 'week'; that is, the 'seventieth' week of the 'telescopic' prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27].</div> <bR> <div> I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; (Isaiah 42:6).</div> <bR> <div> Israel will be the Messiah's 'conduit for 'a light to the Gentiles - through a 'renewed' covenant. </div> <bR> <div> Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.</div> <bR> <div> God is known through 'covenant'. Covenant is a relationship with God that grows over time.</div> <bR> <div> As a general observation, when there is an unsatisfactory outcome or failure of the covenant, the covenant is 'renewed' on "better promises" or provisions so that the mistakes made under the 'old' covenant are prevented or limited in the 'new'.</div> <bR> <div> This article, then, looks at the mission of God - that He may be 'known', in its fullest sense, by Israel and the nations; with the theme that a better or 'renewed' relationship, comes about through transformation of the covenant; (so that it may be called a 'new' covenant).</div> <bR> <div> The latter theme development is an introduction to a future article on transformed Israel of the Millennium:</div> <bR> <div> Eze 40:1 <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Georgia" ><B>In the five and twentieth year of our captivity</B></FONT>, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth <I>day </I>of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten, in the selfsame day the hand of the LORD was upon me, and brought me thither. </div> <div> Eze 40:2 In <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FF0000" FACE="Georgia" ><B>the visions of God </B></FONT>brought he me into the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain, by which <I>was </I>as the frame of a city on the south. </div> <bR> <div> "There is also another rhetorical response in this book. It is a strong antidote to nostalgia, to wishful thinking, to denial, to comforting memories of the good old days back home. If the Rhetor is harsh against Zedekiah and company [the last stage of the people to go into captivity], he is relentless against those who would take comfort in nostalgia. It has been common to use the language of "restoration" in writing about Ezekiel 40-48. Re-storation refers to <I>re</I>-vival, <I>re</I>-turn, <I>re</I>-building, <I>re</I>-making, <I>re</I>-newing, <I>re</I>-pairing, <I>re</I>-formation - to making something the way it was. However, what the Rhetor sees is not <I>re</I>-storation or <I>re</I>-formation but <I>trans</I>-formation. There is no trace of nostalgia in this Rhetor's vew of the world. The goal of the ideology of the Book of Ezekiel is not restoration to what was, but transformation to a new thing. The  power of a book is that it can create a new world" (Kalinda Rose Stevenson, <I>The Vision of Transformation - The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40-48</I>, p.149).</div> <bR> <div> The vision of transformed Israel, Ezekiel 40-48, was not only a message of hope for those of the southern Kingdom of Israel, who after defeat were languishing in captivity at the time of Ezekiel's vision, but much more so for those of modern Israel - the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic and kindred people - languishing in a future captivity after their coming defeat. (Type and antitype fulfillment).</div> <bR> <div> Ezekiel's "vision of transformation" will be seen in a new light by modern Israel especially through the commission of Elijah the prophet:</div> <bR> <div> Mal 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers...</div> <bR> <div> "... the leading sin of the nation at the time of our prophet was not family quarrels; but estrangement from God. The fathers are rather the ancestors of the Israelitish nation, the patriarchs, and generally the pious forefathers, such as David and the godly men of his time. The sons or children are the degenerate descendants of Malachi's own time and the succeeding ages. "The hearts of the godly fathers and the ungodly sons are estranged from one another. The bond of union, viz., common love of God is wanting..." (Hengstenberg). Turning the hearts of the fathers to the sons does not mean merely directing the love of the fathers to the sons once more, but also restoring the heart of the fathers, in the sons, or giving to the sons the fathers' disposition and affections..." (C.F. Keil, <I>Minor Prophets</I>, KD, Vol. 10, p.664).</div> <bR> <div> "Elijah will appear to rejoin ancestors and posterity in the benefits and blessings of the covenant relationship..." (Peter A. Verhoef, <I>The Books of Haggai and Malachi</I>, NICOT, p.345).</div> <bR> <div> Not only will there be a 'transformation' of Israel as a nation under God in the land, but there will be a 'transformation' or expansion of Israel's missional role of 'being' in the midst of the nations, under the 'Old' Covenant, to one that includes 'going' to the nations in the 'New', as this article will argue.</div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="human_geography"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></div> <div> <B>Human Geography - A spatial theology of holiness</B></div> <bR> <div> Overview of Ezekiel 40:1-48:35 by Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, <I>The Book of Ezekiel</I>, NIB, Vol.6, pp.1532-34:</div> <bR> <div> "In this, his fourth and final vision report, Ezekiel describes a perfectly ordered Israelite society living in a perfectly ordered homeland under the leadership of a perfectly ordered priesthood serving in a perfectly ordered Temple complex.</div> <bR> <div> [The leadership of Israel will also involve a human 'Melchizedekic' priest/prince, of the line of David].</div> <bR> <div> "Ambitious readers who determine to work through these chapters find themselves confronted with a morass of details and much confusion. I would venture that many an ancient reader would also have experienced a bewilderment and frustration at points. This is technical language - the argot of architecture and especially of ritual practice - and it undoubtedly was best understood by priests conversant with the structures, inner working, and rituals of cultic life.</div> <bR> <div> "How can moderns lacking such information make sense of this vision and understand the theology undergirding it? [Kalinda Rose] Stevenson offers three keys to unlocking Ezekiel's "vision of transformation" that are apropos in the context of this Overview. First, she argues persuasively that the vision is best construed when approached from the perspective of human geography. "Human geography shows that every society is organized in space," she writes. "Changing the spatial organization of the society changes the society. Ezekiel 40-48 is a vision of a new society organized according to a new set of spatial rules. <I>It is a temple society with controlled access to sacred space, based on a spatial theology of holiness."</I></div> <bR> <div> "Second, Stevenson maintains that the genre of Ezekiel 40-48 is territorial rhetoric. Territoriality, she explains, is a technical term used within the discipline of human geography. Robert Sack defines territoriality as "the attempt by an individual or group to affect, influence, or control people, phenomena, and relationships, by delimiting and asserting control over a geographical area". According to Sack, space becomes territory when an attempt is made to control access to it by means of a boundary of some sort - a structure, or even a password. Territorially is "place specific " and "always involves issues of power."</div> <bR> <div> "One way to assert territoriality, Stevenson maintains, is to describe areas, boundaries, and rules of access in a written text such as Ezekiel 40-48. Within the world of the vision, Yahweh asserts territoriality as the victorious divine king who returns from battle (chaps. 38-39) and is enthroned within his palace [Temple]. But the priests also assert territoriality by controlling access to sacred space and performing the most crucial religious rituals.</div> <bR> <div> "Third, Stevenson emphasizes "the shape of the holy." In Ezekiel's vision, the square is of primary symbolic significance. "In the landscape of Temple and land in Ezekiel," she writes, "the square is not simply an accident of design. It is rhetorically meaningful and is intended to be the material representation of a theology of holiness... the command to measure the proportion in 43:10 is part of a rhetorical strategy to restructure a society according to a theology of holiness." In the course of the temple tour, Ezekiel learns through the measurements of his guide that the outer court, inner court, Temple, <I>binyan</I> ("building," "structure"), holy of holies, and altar are all square in shape. Careful readers will discover that many of the measurements provided for these and other features of the Temple complex are multiples of five - five, twenty-five, fifty, etc...</div> <bR> <div> "This theology of holiness is much illuminated by Jacob Milgrom's extensive analysis of Israel's priestly cultic system. Like other ancient near Eastern theologies, this cultic system conceives of people, places, and things as holy or common, pure or impure. Milgrom insists that holiness is not, as many moderns might think, an abstract ethical quality. It is a "thing" a dynamic and contagious substance emanating from deities. Its antagonist is impurity, also a dynamic and contagious physical substance which emanates, in Israelite thought, from human beings. Because holiness and impurity are dynamic and contagious, contact with them renders persons or objects either holy or impure. (By contrast, the common and pure are stative, i.e., stating a condition or state, and non-contagious substances.)</div> <bR> <div> "Some moderns might view the concept of contagious holiness positively, but in the thought world of ancient Israel, illicit contact with the holy could have deadly consequences. One thinks, for example, of the hapless Uzzah, who reached out his hand to steady the ark as it was being carted to Jerusalem and died as a consequence (2 Sam 6:6-7). Or one thinks of Korah and his cohorts, Dathan and Abiram (Numbers 16), who believed that they should be able to offer incense to Yahweh and who confronted Moses and Aaron on the issue. Korah made a theological argument for his position: "All the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. So why then do you exalt yourself above the assembly of the Lord?" (Num 16:3). But as they stood with their censers and incense at the entrance of the tent of meeting, Yahweh threatened to destroy the entire "congregation of Israel." Moses intervened, and the congregation was permitted to distance itself from Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. But Yahweh is said to have caused the earth to "open its mouth"; and the men together with their families and possessions, "went down to Sheol."</div> <bR> <div> "Impurity has the power to pollute a temple. This potential is exceeding dangerous because, as Ezekiel's second vision report (chaps 8-11) makes perfectly clear, Yahweh's glory will not reside in a grossly impure temple. Ezekiel 5:11 warned of the consequences of temple defilement: "Therefore, as I live, says the Lord God, surely, because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your detestable things and with all your abominations - therefore I will cut you down; my eye will not spare, and I will have no pity." When God abandons the Temple, the land, its people, indeed, the Temple itself, are doomed to destruction at the hands of Yahweh's punitive instruments. Such, from Ezekiel's perspective, was the hard lesson of 586 BCE, when the Babylonian army broke through Jerusalem's walls, burned every large structure, including the Solomonic Temple, and either killed or exiled the majority of the city inhabitants. The sins of the past must not be repeated. And, Stevenson writes, one corrects the sins of the past by controlling access to space in the future. The concern for measurements, which the modern reader may find bothersome and irrelevant, is consistent with a "worldview in which the cultic abuses of the past were perceived as boundary violations of sacred space."</div> <bR> <div> "Although impurity is dangerous and unacceptable to God, temple impurity is inevitable. In his commentary on Leviticus 1-16, Milgrom notes that, from the perspective of the priestly pentateuchal authors, impurity pollutes the priestly tabernacle in three stages: (1) an individual's inadvertent misdeed or severe physical impurity pollutes the courtyard altar, which must be purged by daubing its horn with blood from the purification sacrifice...  (Ezekiel diminishes this possibility by placing the altar in the inner court, an area accessible only to priests); (2) an inadvertent misdeed committed by priests or people pollutes the Temple, which must be then purged by the high priest, again by blood from the purification sacrifice; (3) "wanton unrepented sin not only pollutes the outer altar and penetrates into the shrine but it pierces the veil and enters the adytum [innermost sanctuary], housing the holy Ark and ... the very throne of God." Purifying the Temple by means of the ongoing sacrificial system is the task of the priests.</div> <bR> <div> "The issues here addressed - human geography, territoriality, the shape of the holy, and the theology of holiness - enables modern readers more fully to understand Eekiel's vision of a perfectly ordered and temple-centered Israelite society in the midst of which Yahweh's glory dwells. The devil is <I>not</I> in the details! The details make possible God's abiding presence."</div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="the_principle_of_relative_negation"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></div> <div> <B>The Principle of Relative Negation</B></div> <bR> <div> * Christopher J. H. Wright, <I>The Message of Ezekiel</I>, BST, p.291: </div> <bR> <div> "<B>c. Defending God's holiness (36:22-23)</B></div> <bR> <div> "God, then, moves to clear his name. The exile had been a moral necessity. But paradoxically it had also produced an intolerable situation. Israel had been created in order to bring glory to Yahweh and to be the agent of the knowledge and blessing of God among the nations. Now they were scattered among the nations, but the effect was the precise opposite. Yet Yahweh's ultimate purpose remained - to be glorified among the nations. As the God and Lord of all the earth, all people must eventually come to recognize him for who he truly is. Accordingly, he must act to reverse the dishonour being caused to his name by the outworking of own just judgment. He would indeed restore his people.</div> <bR> <div> "But what would be the primary motivation of the restoration? Other prophets would make the point, movingly and often, that this restoration would indeed be for Israel's benefit, and out of God's loving care and compassion. But through Ezekiel, Yahweh corrects any expectation that his action would be based on mere sentiment. '<I>It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name'</I> (22).</div> <bR> <div> "(Footnote to verse 22):</div> <bR> <div> "Probably we should take the form of this sentence as <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Verdana" ><B>an example of what is sometimes called Hebrew 'relative negation'</B></FONT>.<B> </B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FF0000" FACE="Verdana" ><B>In order to indicate the relative priority of one thing over another, you would affirm one and deny the other</B></FONT>: e.g., 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice' (Hos. 6:6; the second line indicates the comparison).</div> <bR> <div> [Hos 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings]. </div> <bR> <div> "Thus Ezekiel here does not literally deny that the restoration was for Israel sake, but affirms that it was much more important to realize that it was primarily for the sake of Yahweh's name."</div> <bR> <div> <B>Application:</B></div> <bR> <div> This principle of "relative negation" should be employed in explaining these two verses in blue below:</div> <bR> <div> Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.</div> <bR> <div> There has not been a literal change in the priesthood. The author of Hebrews was establishing the "relative priority" of the Melchisedec priesthood over the Levitical priesthood - one is in heaven and one is on the earth.</div> <bR> <div> One scripture that illustrates that there has been no change in the priesthood, is from what is often called Jeremiah's 'Book of Consolation' - Jeremiah 30-33.</div> <bR> <div> Two chapters away from the promise of a future new/renewed covenant between God and the houses of Israel is another millennial prophecy:</div> <bR> <div> Jer 33:14 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. </div> <div> Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD;...</div> <div> Jer 33:18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. </div> <div> Jer 33:20 Thus saith the LORD; if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; </div> <div> Jer 33:21 Then may also my covenant be broken ... with the Levites the priests, my ministers. </div> <div> Jer 33:22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply ... the Levites that minister unto me.</div> <bR> <div> There was no end to the institutions of sacrifices and an officiating Levitical priesthood at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans anymore than there was an end to them at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.</div> <bR> <div> Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these <I>is, there is </I>no more offering for sin.</div> <bR> <div> The author of Hebrews is once again employing 'relative negation' was establishing the "relative priority" of Christ's once and for all sacrifice over animal sacrifices.</div> <bR> <div> Or using Hobart Freeman's terms, the author of Hebrews, was establishing the "relative priority" of "objective efficacy" over "subjective efficacy".</div> <bR> <div> The "subjective efficacy" in the Renewed Covenant, as it was in the Old, is revealed by God through Ezekiel:</div> <bR> <div> <B>Eze 45:15</B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000080" FACE="Verdana" > </FONT>Also one sheep is to be taken from every flock of two hundred from the well-watered pastures of Israel. These will be used for <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Verdana" ><B>the grain offerings, burnt offerings and fellowship offerings </B></FONT><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FF0000" FACE="Verdana" ><B>to make atonement for the people</B></FONT>, declares the Sovereign LORD. </div> <bR> <div> "The majority of dispensationalists have argued that the sacrifices are memorials to the sacrifice of Christ, with no atoning character. However,<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#008000" FACE="Verdana" ><B> the idea that these are memorial sacrifices is no where apparent in Ezekiel, and it is specifically claimed by Ezekiel that these offerings </B><I><B>will</B></I><B> make atonement </B></FONT>(45:15, 17, 20)" (Ian M. Duguid, <I>Ezekiel</I>, NIVAC, Muck, Terry, Gen. Editor, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999), p.521).</div> <bR> <div> <B>Eze 43:20</B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000080" FACE="Verdana" ><B> </B></FONT><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FF0000" FACE="Verdana" ><B>You are to take some of its blood </B></FONT>and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the upper ledge and all around the rim, <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FF0000" FACE="Verdana" ><B>and so purify the altar and make atonement for it</B></FONT>.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Eze 45:19</B> The priest is to <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Verdana" ><B>take some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on </B></FONT>the doorposts of the temple, on the four corners of the upper ledge of the altar and on the gateposts of the inner court.</div> <bR> <div> <B>Eze 45:20</B> You are to do the same on the seventh day of the month <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Verdana" ><B>for anyone who sins unintentionally or through ignorance</B></FONT>; <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FF0000" FACE="Verdana" ><B>so you are to make atonement for the temple</B></FONT>. </div> <bR> <div> "In vv 15 and 17 <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Verdana" ><B>the expiatory significance of the sacrifice is emphatically expressed</B></FONT>. In 43:20 and 45:19f it can be seen that <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FF0000" FACE="Verdana" ><B>the expiatory power is especially attributed to the blood</B></FONT>" (Walter Zimmerli, <I>Ezekiel 2 - A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel Chapters 25-48</I>, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). p.479).</div> <bR> <div> <B> <A NAME="two_calendars_for_passover"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></div> <div> <B>Two Calendars for Passover at the time of Christ?</B></div> <bR> <div> Mk 14:12 <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Georgia" ><B>And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover</B></FONT>, <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FF0000" FACE="Georgia" >his disciples said unto him</FONT>, <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#6000C0" FACE="Georgia" ><B>Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? </B></FONT></div> <div> Mk 14:13 And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him. </div> <div> Mk 14:14 And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#005000" FACE="Georgia" ><B>The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? </B></FONT></div> <div> Mk 14:15 And he will show you a large upper room furnished <I>and </I>prepared: there make ready for us. </div> <div> Mk 14:16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#E55400" FACE="Georgia" ><B>and they made ready the passover</B></FONT>. </div> <div> Mk 14:17 <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Georgia" ><B>And in the evening he cometh with the twelve</B></FONT>. (<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Georgia" >AV</FONT>).</div> <bR> <div> "<B>12 </B>... "And on the first day of Unleavened Bread." This reference is to the Passover day itself... By introducing in this way the story of securing the upper room and the meal that follows, the evangelist presents the last Supper as a Passover meal...</div> <bR> <div> "In ancient times, if biblical legislation was observed literally, the Passover lamb would have been cooked and eaten within the temple precincts themselves (inferred from Deut 16:7, "the place which the L<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Verdana" >ORD</FONT> you God will choose"). In late antiquity, the much larger population made this impossible. After the slaughter and the sprinkling of blood on the altar, the celebrant and his family would retire to a private setting within the city of Jerusalem to cook and eat the Passover lamb... The implication of the disciples' question is that the Passover lamb has just been slaughter, so there is now a need to retire to suitable quarters. They are asking where those quarters are.</div> <bR> <div> "<B>13</B> Jesus had made prior arrangements... Jesus sends his disciples ahead to take care of the Passover meal preparation..." (Craig A. Evans, <I>Mark 8:27-16:20</I>, WBC, p.373).</div> <bR> <div> "<B>16 </B>... "and they prepared the Passover". From this it is clear that the evangelist understands the Last Supper as a Passover meal... Preparation for the Passover meal entailed roasting the lamb and providing unleavened biscuits, bitter herbs, sauce, water, and wine...</div> <bR> <div> "<B>17</B> ... "and when it was evening, he comes with the Twelve." If the Last Supper was a Passover meal, then the ... "evening," begins 15 Nisan the night of the Passover (cf. Exod 12)..." (Craig A. Evans, <I>Mark 8:27-16:20</I>, WBC, p.375).</div> <bR> <div> Mk 14:12  On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FF0000" FACE="Georgia" >when it was <B>customary</B> to sacrifice the Passover lamb</FONT>, Jesus' disciples asked him, "<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#6000C0" FACE="Georgia" >Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover</FONT>?" (<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Georgia" >NIV</FONT>).</div> <bR> <div> Jn 18:28 Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover (<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Georgia" >NIV</FONT>).</div> <bR> <div> "A problem is posed by the fact that the Synoptic Gospels appear to record the Last Supper as a Passover meal (e.g. Mark 14:12ff.), while John seems to indicate that Jesus was crucified at the time when the Passover victims were being slain, so that the Last Supper preceded the Passover (John 13:1,29; 18:29; 19:31)" (Leon Morris, <I>The Gospel According to John</I>, Revised, NICNT, p.684).</div> <bR> <div> "The evidence is thus confusing, and it is in the least surprising that scholars have come to very different conclusions. I do not see how we can be dogmatic in our present state of knowledge. <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#005000" FACE="Verdana" ><B>The most natural reading of the Synoptists shows that the Last Supper there to be the Passover</B></FONT>. <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FF8000" FACE="Verdana" ><B>The most natural reading of John shows that Jesus was crucified at the very time the Passover victims were slain in the Temple</B></FONT>. While it is undoubtedly possible to interpret the accounts in such a way that we make them tell the same story, it seems best to see them as the result of following different calendars. According to the calendar Jesus was following the meal was the Passover. But the Temple authorities followed another, according to which the sacrificial victims were slain the next day. John appears to make use of this to bring out the truth that Christ was slain as our Passover" (Leon Morris, <I>The Gospel According to John</I>, Revised, NICNT, pp.694-695).</div> <bR> <div> "140. Cf. Bruce, "while John times his passion narrative with references to the official temple date of the Passover, our Lord and his disciples, following (it may be) another calendar. Observing the festival earlier" (p.279). So also I. H. Marshall, "Our conclusion, then, is that Jesus held a Passover meal earlier than the official Jewish date, and that he was able to do so as the result of calendar differences among the Jews" (<I>Last Supper and Lord's Supper</I> [Exter, 1980], p.75" (Leon Morris, <I>The Gospel According to John</I>, Revised, NICNT, p.695).</div> <bR> <div> <B> <A NAME="unclean_food_controversy"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></B></div> <div> <B>The "Unclean food" Controversy in Mark 7</B></div> <bR> <div> Mk 7:18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="558" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 16 WIDTH="88"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="16" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="88" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="225"><div> NIV</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="225"><div> KJV</div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 66 ><NOBR><div> Mk 7:19 (a)</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="225"><div> <B>For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body</B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Georgia" >."</FONT></div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="225"><div> <B>Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught</B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Georgia" >,</FONT></div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 ><NOBR><div> Mk 7: 19 (b)</div> </NOBR></tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="225"><div> (<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FF0000" FACE="Georgia" ><B>In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean.'</B></FONT>)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="225"><div> <B>purging all meats? </B></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <bR> <div> "<B>Thus he declared all foods ritually clean</B>, even if the participants have not washed their hands. But Yeshua did <I>not</I>, as many suppose, abrogate the laws of <I>kashrut</I> and thus declare ham <I>kosher!</I> Since the beginning of the chapter the subject has been ritual purity as taught by the Oral <I>Torah</I> in relation to <I>n'tilat-yadayim</I> (vv.2-4 & N) and not <I>kashrut</I> at all! There is not the slightest hint anywhere that <B>food</B> in this verse can be anything other than what the Bible allows the Jews to eat, in other words, <I>kosher</I> foods. Neither is <I>kashrut</I> abolished in Ac 10:9-29 or Ga. 2:11-16...</div> <bR> <div> "Rather, Yeshua is continuing his discussion of spiritual prioritizing (v.11 & N). He teaches that <I>tohar</I> (purity) is not primarily ritual or physical, but spiritual (vv.14-23)..." (David H. Stern, <I>Jewish New Testament Commentary</I>, p.93).</div> <bR> <div> Mk 7:20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.'</div> <bR> <div> "<B>7:19</B> ... <B>In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean"</B>: Most modern translations and commentators understand the Greek phrase this way. In Greek, the phrase is a participial clause, reading literally after the preceding sentence "cleansing all foods." The phrase here is taken as Mark's comment and the particle is taken as dependent on "he asked" in v.18. The phrase could also be understood as dependent on the immediately preceding clause thus: "and then goes on out of the body, cleansing all foods," meaning that all foods wind up in the same place! The KJV renders the phrase quite literally..." (Larry W. Hurtado, <I>Mark</I>, NIBC,  pp.113-14).</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <TABLE BORDER="2" CELLPADDING="1" CELLSPACING="1" WIDTH="691" BORDERCOLORLIGHT="#C0C0C0" BORDERCOLORDARK="#808080" FRAME="BOX" RULES="ALL" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" > <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 49 WIDTH="338"><div> Mk 7:18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="338"><div> Mk 7:19 (a)<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Georgia" ><B> </B></FONT>Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught,</div> </tD> </tR> <tR> <tD VALIGN=TOP HEIGHT= 33 WIDTH="338"><div> Mk 7: 19 (b) (<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FF0000" FACE="Georgia" ><B>In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."</B></FONT>)</div> </tD> <tD VALIGN=TOP WIDTH="338"><div> Mk 7: 19 (b)<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#FF0000" FACE="Georgia" ><B> purging all meats?</B></FONT></div> </tD> </tR> </TABLE></div> <bR> <div> ""(Thus he cleansed all foods)"... This comment raises two issues: to what does it refer and from whom does it come? Grammatically, this participle construction hangs awkwardly without obvious syntactical connection. Several, exemplified by Black ... have sought to link it more directly to what immediately precedes as done by the Sinaitic Syriac. By taking "foods" ... as singular and the particle as a passive, the sentence read, "... for it enters not his heart but his belly, <I>all the food being cast out and purged away</I>... Others view this as a possible anacoluthon ["want of syntactical sequence, when the latter part of a sentence does not grammatically fit the earlier" (<I>Chambers English Dictionary</I>)] drawing an obvious, if sarcastic, conclusion that the digestive process "cleanses all foods"...</div> <bR> <div> "The awkward construction has led some to suggest that its presence might reflect a later incorporation into the text of a scribal gloss... But most attribute it to he evangelist.</div> <bR> <div> "... But did Mark add it?</div> <bR> <div> "... Mark's interest in 7:1-23 appears to focus more on what defiles than on the narrower concern about food laws. Furthermore, this awkward participial construction not only uses a <I>hapax legmenon</I> ["a word or phrase that is found only once" (Chambers English Dictionary)] for "foods" but it fails to follow the normal pattern of the evangelist's parenthetical comments, generally a statement introduced by a conjunction..." (Robert A. Guelich, <I>Mark 1-8:26</I>, WBC, pp.378-79).</div> <bR> <div> "Jesus does not disown his dense disciples but follows his pattern of providing them with a further explanation when they do not understand. He illustrates his point by reminding them of what happens to food when it is consumed. It passes through the digestive tract and winds up in the latrine.</div> <bR> <div> "Many take 7:19b as the narrator's aside that crowns the argument. The NIV reflects this interpretation: "In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean.'" The phrase "In saying this, Jesus declared," however, is not to be found in the text. Literally the words used here translate, "cleansing all foods." The masculine nominative participle,"cleansing" (<I>katharizon</I>, with an omega), would modify the verb "he says" in 7:18. A well-attested variant reading, however, has a nominative neuter participle (<I>katharizon</I>, with an omicron). </div> <bR> <div> ["The distinction in the pronunciation of the long o and short o has disappeared in modern Greek, and it is likely that the two words would have been pronounced the same when the texts of the Bible were being copied. Scribes could have easily made an accidental mistake if they were copying texts as someone read aloud from the master copy].</div> <bR> <div> "It is the hardest reading and may be the best. It would affirm that the food has somehow become clean in the process of its elimination. This reading has two things to commend it. It would help explain why such a dramatic pronouncement from Jesus that declared all foods to be clean was not cited to settle the later debate over this issue in the churches.</div> <bR> <div> ["An appeal to Jesus' authoritative word would have been a knock-down argument in Acts 15; Gal. 2:11-14, and Rom. 14-15...].</div> <bR> <div> "Jesus' explanation does not explicitly declare that all foods are clean, only that they somehow come out clean.</div> <bR> <div> "Furthermore, the statement fits the rabbinic perspective on defected food. According to the <I>Mishnah</I>, excrement it not ritually impure though it may be offensive. This surprising judgment may be the key to Jesus' argument. With a droll twist Jesus argued that if food defiles a person, why is it not regarded as impure when it winds up in the latrine - at least according to the tradition of the Pharisees? Defilement must come from some other source than food. Jesus' logic derives from the Pharisees' own rules regarding clean and unclean, which sets up his concluding words on the real source of defilement. The only defilement that the disciples need worry about has to do with the heart, not the hands, with evil thoughts that leak out from within a person, not food that ends up in the latrine. What does not enter the heart does not make a person unclean. The heart is the core of motivation, deliberation, and intention..." (David E. Garland, <I>Mark</I>, NIVAC, pp.275-76).</div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> <A HREF="id80_m.htm" TITLE="Bible Study Articles">Top of Page</A>                       <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Future Watch">Home Page</A></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>