Did Jesus Change the Law or Not?

[Gregory Wilson]

Hello Folks,

So in the past, I have believed in keeping Sabbath and the law, but I ran into a passage in the gospel of Mark that is causing some major difficulty. Thoughtful respones would be appreciated.

So, first, in Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

From this passage it seems Jesus is advocating keeping the least of the commandments in the law, to be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
But... Now, look at this passage in Mark:

Mark 7:14-23 --

After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 [If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”]

17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 And He *said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”
--
It seems like here Jesus is teaching that it doesn't matter what you eat - going against the Law, which He advocated keeping in the Matthew passage. Help?
Thank you, and I want to nevertheless honor my Lord Jesus - He is right, whatever He meant!! Thank you guys,

-Greg Wilson

 

[Steve Petersen]

How can you have him saying he didn't come to abolish the law, then a couple of sentences later abolishing it in regards to kosher food? You have to dig deeper into the context. It starts out with a conversation about washing the hands. Does eating with unwashed hands make a person unclean? There was then and later a debate within Jewish circles over this precise question. In fact, the Mishnah (3rd century collection of earlier traditions) has an entire section devoted to the discussion about hand washing (tractate Yadayim.)

Also, the section in Mark 7 (thus he declared all foods clean) is not found in other Greek manuscripts. The text is rendered 'thus purging all meats.' That is, the process of defecating rids the body of whatever is eaten.

 

[Steve Petersen]

There is a pretty good treatment of this subject here:

http://tv.ffoz.org/a-promise-of-what-is-to-come/all-foods-clean.html

 

[Soyeong]

Hello Folks,

So in the past, I have believed in keeping Sabbath and the law, but I ran into a passage in the gospel of Mark that is causing some major difficulty. Thoughtful respones would be appreciated.

So, first, in Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

From this passage it seems Jesus is advocating keeping the least of the commandments in the law, to be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
But... Now, look at this passage in Mark:

Mark 7:14-23 --

After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 [If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”]

17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 And He *said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”
--
It seems like here Jesus is teaching that it doesn't matter what you eat - going against the Law, which He advocated keeping in the Matthew passage. Help?
Thank you, and I want to nevertheless honor my Lord Jesus - He is right, whatever He meant!! Thank you guys,

-Greg Wilson

The context of Mark 7 is stated here:

Mark 7:3-4 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders.4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)

The Pharisees had many traditions that went beyond what is found in the Bible, that they followed so that food that was normally clean wouldn’t become unclean. So their objection in verse 5 was not that the disciples were breaking dietary laws found in the Torah, but that they were becoming ritually unclean by eating bread with unwashed hands.

Mark 7:16 “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”

This phrase in verse 16 was commonly used to indicate the end of a parable, and indeed the disciples asked Jesus about the meaning of the parable in verse 17, so the parable must have been verse 15.

Mark 7:15Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”

Jesus used a figurative parable about moral purity to contrast it with the issue of ritual purity. It’s not eating with unwashed hands that defiles a person, but about immoral thoughts and actions.

Matthew 15:19-20 For out of the heart come evil thoughts-murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.

The conclusion of the parallel account in Matthew 15 makes it clear that Jesus was still talking in contrast to ritual hand washing and never switched topics to eating unclean meat. So the hypocrisy of the Pharisees was that they were out of balance by being more concerned with their own traditions governing ritual purity than with what God said about moral purity. By adding their own traditions on top of what the Torah said they were obscuring it and completely missing the moral teaching. In verses 6-13, Jesus criticized them for setting aside the commands of God in favor of keeping their traditions, so it would have been very hypocritical if Jesus had turned around and set aside the commands of God a few verses later and declared everything was permissible to eat. That would have immediately disqualified him from being the Messiah and caused the Pharisees to try to kill him.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 If a prophet,or one who foretells by dreams,appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder,2 and if the signor wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods”(gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,”3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer.The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.4 It is the Lord your God you must follow,and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.


Any prophet who teaches God’s people to go against God’s commands is by definition a false prophet. Christians who claim that Jesus tried to turn the people from the way that God commanded them to follow are one of the biggest reasons why religious Jews reject him today.

Matthew 5:17-19 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Again, I have trouble reconciling these verses with the claim that Jesus was setting aside commands of God in Mark 7:19. Even if you think the Resurrection did away with the Law, this was said before that happened.

We still consider certain foods to be unclean, we just disagree about which ones they are. In Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, God told the Jews which things were permissible to eat as food and which things weren’t, so they didn’t even consider the things that weren’t to be in the same category as food, in a similar way that we don’t consider the meat of rats, bats, snakes, lizards, vultures, humans, etc. to be food. So when Jews talk about eating from the category of things that are food, it would be a mistake to assume they are also talking about eating unclean animals, unless it is specifically mentioned. It’s important to note that the Greek word koinais (“common”) is used in reference to manmade traditions and does not connote the same thing as the Greek word for what God has declared to be “unclean”, so there is no indication the food mentioned in Mark 7 is anything other than what the Torah permits Jews to eat.

There is some debate around the proper translation of Mark 7:19b. Some translators say it is parenthetical by Mark or Jesus, but it is important to note that there is nothing in the Greek that is anything like “thus he declared”, so is something they added. The Greek literally had “cleaning all foods” or “purging all foods”.

19 because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats. –YLT

The discussion in Mark 7 surrounds Jesus’ disciples not observing the traditional hand washing before eating bread that was instituted by the Pharisees. Jesus criticized them for being strict about ritual purity while at the same time neglecting concern over moral purity. They are unbalanced over something that ends up in the toilet anyway. On the other hand, the issue of moral purity does not pass through the digestive tract and out into the toilet, and it is that which defiles the heart.

However you interpret it, it’s important to keep the context in mind. Did Jesus, a devout Jew who was sinless and kept the Torah perfectly, make a radical statement that was against God’s commands that would have sent shockwaves through his audience, but which no one seemed to notice? Or did Jesus simply point out that their concern for ritual purity wasn’t balanced by their concern for moral purity?

 

[pinacled]

Eating herbs reminded me of Nebuchadnezzar.




Romans 14King James Version (KJV)
14 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.


Col. 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.



27"For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Prince of Peace.
Ezekiel 45

The Prince's Portion
7And a portion shall be for the prince on the one side and on the other side of the oblation of the holy portion, and of the possession of the city, before the oblation of the holy portion, and before the possession of the city, from the west side westward, and from the east side eastward: and the length shall be over against one of the portions, from the west border unto the east border. 8In the land shall be his possession in Israel: and my princes shall no more oppress my people; and the rest of the land shall they give to the house of Israel according to their tribes.
9Thus saith the Lord GOD; Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice, take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord GOD.
10Ye shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath. 11The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure, that the bath may contain the tenth part of an homer, and the ephah the tenth part of an homer: the measure thereof shall be after the homer. 12And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs: twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh.
Offerings and Feasts
13This is the oblation that ye shall offer; the sixth part of an ephah of an homer of wheat, and ye shall give the sixth part of an ephah of an homer of barley: 14Concerning the ordinance of oil, the bath of oil, ye shall offer the tenth part of a bath out of the cor, which is an homer of ten baths; for ten baths are an homer: 15And one lamb out of the flock, out of two hundred, out of the fat pastures of Israel; for a meat offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make reconciliation for them, saith the Lord GOD. 16All the people of the land shall give this oblation for the prince in Israel. 17And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.
18Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the first month, in the first day of the month, thou shalt take a young bullock without blemish, and cleanse the sanctuary: 19And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering, and put it upon the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court. 20And so thou shalt do the seventh day of the month for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple: so shall ye reconcile the house.
21In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. 22And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering. 23And seven days of the feast he shall prepare a burnt offering to the LORD, seven bullocks and seven rams without blemish daily the seven days; and a kid of the goats daily for a sin offering. 24And he shall prepare a meat offering of an ephah for a bullock, and an ephah for a ram, and an hin of oil for an ephah. 25In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he do the like in the feast of the seven days, according to the sin offering, according to the burnt offering, and according to the meat offering, and according to the oil.

 

[pat34lee]

Mark 7:14-23 --

After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 [If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”]
--
It seems like here Jesus is teaching that it doesn't matter what you eat - going against the Law, which He advocated keeping in the Matthew passage. Help?
Thank you, and I want to nevertheless honor my Lord Jesus - He is right, whatever He meant!! Thank you guys,

-Greg Wilson

First thing: (Thus He declared all foods clean.) is not part of the original.
It was added by anti-law Christians for 'clarity'. Read a few verses earlier and
you will see that none of this is about food, but ritual cleanness and washing
hands. Food wasn't in question. Telling Pharisees about clean food would be
like telling Eskimos about snow.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

I find it interesting that Peter was shocked when a voice came to him and said Rise, Peter; kill, and eat (Acts 10:13). He said back, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

In verse 17 Peter was trying to understand what the vision should mean, and in verse 28 he tells the interpretation of the vision, Peter says; God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. So peter, even after the vision did not believe that he was to eat unclean animals, but that he was able to go into the house of a gentile, which before that day hadn't happened.

(Mat 15:16, Mar 7:18)

 

[BukiRob]

I find it interesting that Peter was shocked when a voice came to him and said Rise, Peter; kill, and eat (Acts 10:13). He said back, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

In verse 17 Peter was trying to understand what the vision should mean, and in verse 28 he tells the interpretation of the vision, Peter says; God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. So peter, even after the vision did not believe that he was to eat unclean animals, but that he was able to go into the house of a gentile, which before that day hadn't happened.

(Mat 15:16, Mar 7:18)

Yep.... The Father was telling Peter that the goy were now not necessarily a source of ritual impurity

 

[BukiRob]

Hello Folks,

So in the past, I have believed in keeping Sabbath and the law, but I ran into a passage in the gospel of Mark that is causing some major difficulty. Thoughtful respones would be appreciated.

So, first, in Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

From this passage it seems Jesus is advocating keeping the least of the commandments in the law, to be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
But... Now, look at this passage in Mark:

Mark 7:14-23 --

After He called the crowd to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man. 16 [If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”]

17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18 And He *said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”
--
It seems like here Jesus is teaching that it doesn't matter what you eat - going against the Law, which He advocated keeping in the Matthew passage. Help?
Thank you, and I want to nevertheless honor my Lord Jesus - He is right, whatever He meant!! Thank you guys,

-Greg Wilson

Messiah did not do away with the Torah. We know and believe that the Holy Spirit (Ruach Hakodesh) will lead is in all truth. This begs an obvious question: 1) what is truth and 2) which or what truth?

Scripture makes it very clear that the Torah/Law IS TRUTH. Psalms 119:142 and 160 declare this. Psalms 119:151, 172, 1 John 2:4, 119:33, 119:60, Psalms 19:7

So indeed if the spirit is leading us to truth He will lead us to the Torah.

The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

I mean stop and think about how silly the anti Torah doctrine really is...

Scripture says that the Law of YHWH is PERFECT, restoring the soul... Scripture does not lie so question: why would I NOT want something that is perfect AND restores my soul? It also says that I can trust them... that they will take me from being a simpleton and make me wise. Yep who here says they dont want wisdom... Really, raise your hands please....

The psalmist says in 119:44,45 For I [p]wait for Your ordinances. 44 So I will keep Your law continually, forever and ever. 45 And I will walk [q]at liberty, for I seek Your precepts.

 

[Sheeple Shepherd]

The word 'fulfill' means to go forth or the bring forth or to preach fully or to bring into fully, to realize.

 

[Sheeple Shepherd]

Yep.... The Father was telling Peter that the goy were now not necessarily a source of ritual impurity

The goy were, are, Israel. Those who had lost their identity.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

First thing: (Thus He declared all foods clean.) is not part of the original.
It was added by anti-law Christians for 'clarity'. Read a few verses earlier and
you will see that none of this is about food, but ritual cleanness and washing
hands. Food wasn't in question. Telling Pharisees about clean food would be
like telling Eskimos about snow.

To me it doesn't matter who added that phrase. The fact is that it was added by a third party editor of the text, and was never claimed by Yeshua himself. Therefore, I don't see how it can be considered a legitimate part of the point He was trying to make.

I think this one is key:

Mattityahu 4:4

Man does not live on bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of YHWH.

It's not some, or a few, but EVERY last word He has spoken. One doesn't get to cherry-pick which commands to follow and which to ignore.

 

[Sheeple Shepherd]

To me it doesn't matter who added that phrase. The fact is that it was added by a third party editor of the text, and was never claimed by Yeshua himself. Therefore, I don't see how it can be considered a legitimate part of the point He was trying to make.

To me this one is key:

Mattityahu 4:4

Man does not live on bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of YHWH.

It's not some, or a few, but EVERY last word He has spoken. One doesn't get to cherry-pick which commands to follow and which to ignore.

Let them eat.


Isaiah 66
They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

 

[Soyeong]

I find it interesting that Peter was shocked when a voice came to him and said Rise, Peter; kill, and eat (Acts 10:13). He said back, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

In verse 17 Peter was trying to understand what the vision should mean, and in verse 28 he tells the interpretation of the vision, Peter says; God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. So peter, even after the vision did not believe that he was to eat unclean animals, but that he was able to go into the house of a gentile, which before that day hadn't happened.

(Mat 15:16, Mar 7:18)

When God had commanded Peter to kill at eat, Peter could have easily just eaten one of the clean animals, as the Torah permitted. The issue is that the Pharisees had laws that said that if something clean came in contact with something unclean, then it became defiled or common (Mark 7:3-4), so by saying that he had never eaten anything common or unclean, he was saying that he had never broken that man-made ritual purity law or God's dietary laws. In other words, he was disobeying God to obey man. God did not rebuke Peter for calling something unclean that was clean, but rather for calling something common that was clean, so Peter's vision was only in regard to the ritual purity status of clean animals. Similarly, even if we grant that the correct translation for Mark 7:19 was "thus he declared all foods clean", it would only be referring to the ritual purity status of clean animals.

 

[Sheeple Shepherd]

When God had commanded Peter to kill at eat, Peter could have easily just eaten one of the clean animals, as the Torah permitted. The issue is that the Pharisees had laws that said that if something clean came in contact with something unclean, then it became defiled or common (Mark 7:3-4), so by saying that he had never eaten anything common or unclean, he was saying that he had never broken that man-made ritual purity law or God's dietary laws. In other words, he was disobeying God to obey man. God did not rebuke Peter for calling something unclean that was clean, but rather for calling something common that was clean, so Peter's vision was only in regard to the ritual purity status of clean animals. Similarly, even if we grant that the correct translation for Mark 7:19 was "thus he declared all foods clean", it would only be referring to the ritual purity status of clean animals.

You realize this has nothing to do with clean/unclean animals/meats?

 

[Soyeong]

You realize this has nothing to do with clean/unclean animals/meats?

Idneed, when Peter said he had never eaten anything common or unclean, the "common" is referring to a man-made ritual purity law, the "unclean" is referring to clean and unclean animals. God didn't say not to call something unclean that He had made clean, but not to call something common that he had made clean, so God was only referring to the man-made ritual purity law. The context in Mark 7 is also about the same type of man-made ritual purity law, where something that was ritually clean (bread) was eaten with unwashed hands and became defiled/common/ritually unclean and the topic never switched to God's dietary laws. The parallel account in Matthew 15:20 shows that Jesus was still walking about being defiled by eating food with unwashed hands.

 

[Sheeple Shepherd]

Ineed, when Peter said he had never eaten anything common or unclean, the "common" is referring to a man-made ritual purity law, the "unclean" is referring to clean and unclean animals. God didn't say not to call something unclean that He had made clean, but not to call something common that he had made clean, so God was only referring to the man-made ritual purity law. The context in Mark 7 is also about the same type of man-made ritual purity law, where something that was ritually clean (bread) was eaten with unwashed hands and became defiled/common/ritually unclean and the topic never switched to God's dietary laws. The parallel account in Matthew 15:20 shows that Jesus was still walking about being defiled by eating food with unwashed hands.

Oh boy............

You really dont understand what was going on here...........

 

[ContraMundum]

First thing: (Thus He declared all foods clean.) is not part of the original.
It was added by anti-law Christians for 'clarity'. Read a few verses earlier and
you will see that none of this is about food, but ritual cleanness and washing
hands. Food wasn't in question. Telling Pharisees about clean food would be
like telling Eskimos about snow.

With or without the phrase it still means the same thing.

...and no, it wasn't "added by anti-law Christians"...if you think it was, please provide their names, the exact date that the addition allegedly occurred and explain why there was no outcry or even passing comment about such tampering with the Word- and then explain why God would allow it.

However, if you are sensible and wish to retract the comment as mere hyperbole and simply and calmly state that there is a textual variant that really has no theological bearing on the text than that would be a far more credible statement.

 

[Soyeong]

Oh boy............

You really dont understand what was going on here...........

Matthew 15:20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

Why do you think that Jesus was not still talking about being defiled by eating with unwashed hands?

 

[pat34lee]

With or without the phrase it still means the same thing.

...and no, it wasn't "added by anti-law Christians"...if you think it was, please provide their names, the exact date that the addition allegedly occurred and explain why there was no outcry or even passing comment about such tampering with the Word- and then explain why God would allow it.

However, if you are sensible and wish to retract the comment as mere hyperbole and simply and calmly state that there is a textual variant that really has no theological bearing on the text than that would be a far more credible statement.

Let's say that you are correct for a second, and he changed the law.
In that case, he was a fraud and anti-messiah and deserved to die for his own sin.
Read Deuteronomy 13.