expos4ever
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2008
- 10,655
- 5,767
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I would like to return to the whole thing about Jesus saying that nothing that enters a man makes him unclean. The immediate implications of this are clear:
1. The Law of Moses declares many foods unclean.
2. Jesus says that nothing that enters a man makes that man unclean.
3. Since food is a "thing" that can enter a man, Jesus is clearly saying that no food makes a man unclean.
4. Therefore, obviously, Jesus is challenging the Law of Moses.
Those who want to challenge the simple logic of this appeal to the fact that the conversation started with handwashing - which we all agree is an add-on to the Law of Moses - and that Jesus's point is that eating with unclean hands doesn't really make a man unclean.
But what an odd argument!
Jesus does not say that eating with unclean hands make a man unclean, He says that nothing that enters the mouth makes that man unclean.
The objector here is in an impossible position - his only recourse to save the idea that Jesus is not challenging the Law is to claim that logical structure of the account forces us to conclude that Jesus "mis-spoke" by saying "nothing" and really meant to say that "nothing that is otherwise clean according to the Law of Moses is made unclean by eating it with unclean hands"
A rather significant "error" on Jesus's part it would seem. Who would say "nothing that enters you makes you unclean" and yet also believe that a whole laundry list of foods do, in fact, make you unclean as the Law of Moses says.
But, in any event, the logic of the passage certainly does not force us to conclude that Jesus is still on the handwashing thing. It makes perfect sense for Jesus to be arguing thus: "You Jews have added on to the Law of Moses, and that was a mistake; however, since we are on the topic of what defiles you, I am here to tell you that a new chapter is opening in God's plan and all foods are now clean".
Now Jesus, of course, does not say this, but that is clearly not the point. The point is that, despite the protestations of those who insist Jesus really did not mean "nothing", the logic of the passage is perfectly consistent with us taking Jesus's words at their plain meaning: no food makes a man unclean.
And this, of course, challenges the Law of Moses.
1. The Law of Moses declares many foods unclean.
2. Jesus says that nothing that enters a man makes that man unclean.
3. Since food is a "thing" that can enter a man, Jesus is clearly saying that no food makes a man unclean.
4. Therefore, obviously, Jesus is challenging the Law of Moses.
Those who want to challenge the simple logic of this appeal to the fact that the conversation started with handwashing - which we all agree is an add-on to the Law of Moses - and that Jesus's point is that eating with unclean hands doesn't really make a man unclean.
But what an odd argument!
Jesus does not say that eating with unclean hands make a man unclean, He says that nothing that enters the mouth makes that man unclean.
The objector here is in an impossible position - his only recourse to save the idea that Jesus is not challenging the Law is to claim that logical structure of the account forces us to conclude that Jesus "mis-spoke" by saying "nothing" and really meant to say that "nothing that is otherwise clean according to the Law of Moses is made unclean by eating it with unclean hands"
A rather significant "error" on Jesus's part it would seem. Who would say "nothing that enters you makes you unclean" and yet also believe that a whole laundry list of foods do, in fact, make you unclean as the Law of Moses says.
But, in any event, the logic of the passage certainly does not force us to conclude that Jesus is still on the handwashing thing. It makes perfect sense for Jesus to be arguing thus: "You Jews have added on to the Law of Moses, and that was a mistake; however, since we are on the topic of what defiles you, I am here to tell you that a new chapter is opening in God's plan and all foods are now clean".
Now Jesus, of course, does not say this, but that is clearly not the point. The point is that, despite the protestations of those who insist Jesus really did not mean "nothing", the logic of the passage is perfectly consistent with us taking Jesus's words at their plain meaning: no food makes a man unclean.
And this, of course, challenges the Law of Moses.
Upvote
0