The passage under consideration today is Mark 7:14-23. In this passage, the Pharisees reproached Jesus for the conduct of his disciples, namely, that they were not eating with washed hands (vv. 1-5 of the chapter). Jesus then accuses them of substituting man-made commandments for God’s commandments (vv. 6-13). In other words, the entire attack of the Pharisees is based on the hypocritical substitution. The main problem with making a fence around the Torah, as the Pharisees did, was that the functional effect wound up pitting obedience to the man-made law over against obedience to God’s law. The “fence” commandment about the possibility of giving one’s “tithe” to the Temple (though the giver maintained possession and use of the money!) was a loophole for some not to take care of their parents. So, their approach is wrong.
However, it is much more than their approach that is wrong. Their argument is wrong, too. In saying what Jesus says here, He determines that nothing that goes into one’s mouth can defile a person any longer. This is a change in the law. The OT food laws directed that unclean foods made a person unclean. Jesus says that nothing going from outside to inside can make a person unclean (verse 15). This verse is usually ignored in the HRM. Instead, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them morally. In other words, there are no edible things that can defile us anymore.
Typically, the HRM wants to define food as being the clean animals of the OT, such that unclean animals are not even in view in the passage. This does not work, since then we wind up with a redundancy in verse 19, which would look like this: “Thus He declared all food (defined already as clean!) clean.” Jesus’ argument is much more comprehensive than this. He describes the human digestive cycle as proof that nothing that goes into a person can defile him.
Another exegetical move some make is that the participle katharizon is applied to the digestive process, instead of referring to something Jesus was doing by what He said. Thus, it would run something like this, “what enters the stomach is expelled, the process thus making it clean.” But this does not give them any purchase against the standard interpretation of the passage, since such a construction assumes that what goes into the mouth is unclean by OT definition, and then becomes clean by means of the digestive process. Besides this, the participle’s grammatical gender is masculine. If it referred to a process, it would have been neuter. As a masculine participle, it would refer to the closest grammatically masculine noun, which in this case is Jesus Himself. So the HRM interpretation of the phrase as referring to the process of digestion is not grammatically possible.
What Mark’s parenthetical comment does is draw out the implications of what Jesus said. It is incidental to the main point, to be sure, but saying that nothing can defile us by entering our mouths does have the force of declaring all edible things clean, and that the dietary laws no longer apply in the same way.
It should be mentioned here that not only do the dietary laws remain in the OT, but they still have much to teach us about holiness, even if they do not apply the same way. I mention this because the usual HRM reaction is to accuse folk like me of abolishing the law. This interpretation does nothing of the sort to any OT law whatsoever. All OT laws remain on the books and apply in various ways to us today. What we say is that the application of all civil and ceremonial laws changes when Christ comes, and it is the general equity within those laws that still applies. The literal meaning of civil and ceremonial laws only apply today in their teaching capacity. The moral law, of course, still applies in its literal form.
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
Hebrew Roots Movement, Part 6 | Green Baggins said,
January 9, 2024 at 12:55 pm
[…] Gentiles into the people of God, but not start eating “unclean” foods (though see the previous post for why they are no longer […]
Roger said,
January 10, 2024 at 12:53 pm
While I agree with your overall point, that believers in Christ are no longer obligated to obey the Mosaic ceremonial/dietary laws, I’m not sure why you are reticent to say that they have been “abolished” by Christ’s inauguration of the New Covenant in His blood. The Apostle Paul certainly wasn’t:
“For He is our peace, who has made both groups one and has broken down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of the commandments contained in ordinances…” (Eph. 2:14-15)
“He blotted out [or “destroyed” ἐξαλείφω] the handwriting of ordinances that was against us and contrary to us, and He took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.” (Col. 2:14)
Paul doesn’t merely argue that the ceremonial/dietary laws no longer “apply to us in the same way.” Rather, he argues that they have been “abolished” or “destroyed” by Christ’s sacrificial death, and therefore they no longer apply to us (i.e., as being obligatory commands) period. We should boldly use the same type of language as Paul.
greenbaggins said,
January 24, 2024 at 11:57 am
Roger, I hear you, but I would qualify it. The reason is that, canonically speaking, there is still value for us in the ordinances that have been abolished. They can still teach us. A non-qualified “abolished” might not communicate that important qualification. An example might be the Passover Feast. Paul tells us to celebrate the Passover Feast in Christ, since He is our Passover Lamb. Therefore, it is quite instructive to teach lovingly through all the Passover instructions so that we can see just how many ways it teaches Christ to us. It is also true that the OT ordinances are not eliminated. They are merely eclipsed. From the standpoint of what we do, there is no question but that they are abolished, so to that extent I agree. However, we must also acknowledge that they are still part of God’s Word, and in this sense they are not abolished.
Roger said,
February 5, 2024 at 9:50 am
Thanks for your reply. Of course, everything you’ve said here is correct, and I fully agree that terms such as “abolished” or “destroyed” ought to be qualified when appropriate. However, when dealing with the Judaizers, Paul didn’t seem to waste his breath trying to qualify these terms in any way. Rather, his emphasis was upon the fact that the ceremonial commands are no longer obligatory upon believers under the New Covenant period. Yes, they still exist in Scripture. Yes, their typical nature still teach us about Christ and how we ought to relate to Him properly. But their explicit obligations placed upon believers under the Old Covenant no longer apply to us under the New Covenant (e.g., We are no longer required to keep the Passover meal as it was commanded to be kept. Rather, we keep the Lord’s Supper commemorating His death for our sins in its place).
Therefore, if that was the proper apostolic emphasis to use when dealing with the Judaizers, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be the proper emphasis to use when dealing with HRM advocates, as their doctrines are essentially the same regarding the obligatory nature of observing the Old Covenant ceremonial commands. Perhaps I’m just being too nitpicky. But that’s how I see it. Peace brother!