FAQ - Mark 7 - Against Commandments of Men or Commandments of God?

Mark 7 is often a source of confusion generating a conclusion that is in direct opposition to Leviticus 11. Is
that a valid interpretation?

Here is what we need to determine as it relates to Mark 7.

Was Jesus (Y’shua) actually nullifying Leviticus 11 (God's dietary instructions) or simply correcting the
doctrinal error’s of the Scribes and Pharisees?

Understanding the answer to the above question is the same as understanding the teaching as a whole.

Let's proceed.

Mk 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.

Mk 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen,
hands, they found fault.

Mk 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition
of the elders.

Mk 7:4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there
be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

The audience is established to be the Pharisees and the Scribes (teachers of the Law)(1) and the disciples.
The problem at hand is that the disciples did not wash their hands before eating bread(2). There are two
important things to note here. First, they were eating bread-which is already clean according to God's
dietary instructions. Secondly, they were accused of not washing their hands-which supposedly defiled the
bread (made it unclean) according to the doctrine of the Pharisees and Scribes. This is the issue that will
need to be addressed.

Mark helps his readers understand that the Pharisees and Scribes had a "tradition" of washing their hands
before they ate. This tradition is found in what is known as the "oral law" (Talmud), which are
commandments of men, and not commandments of God. As noted by Mark, this is a very important
understanding to establish. Mark focuses on pointing this out for a reason. To not understand the doctrinal
position of the Scribes and Pharisees is to not understand the whole foundation of the situation Jesus
(Y'shua) and the disciples have found themselves in. One has to understand the debate to understand the
conclusion.

The Scribes and Pharisees would teach commandments of men ("tradition of the elders") as though they
were equal to or even greater than the commandments of God. For example, the "oral law" has over 1400
commandments for the Sabbath alone, whereas God's commandments have just a few. This is certainly a
problem for several reasons, which is why Jesus (Y'shua) is going to correct their false doctrine. This is
precisely why Mark said "and many other things there be" because the "oral law" was a list of thousands of
mens's commandments and traditions that Pharisee and Scribe leadership forced as burdens on the people.

So in just the first three verses we can clearly see that the whole context and problem at hand stems from
commandments of men (eating with unwashed hands), not commandments of God (Leviticus 11). Thus
when Jesus (Y'shua) addresses this situation,this is also what He will address.

Mk 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of
the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

Just as the above context and situation indicated would happen, this inevitable question was indeed asked
by the Pharisees and scribes, and was directed at Jesus (Y'shua). Again, the context and debate at hand is
related to the "tradition of the elders" which are commandments of man, not commandments of God. As we
continue trying to understand Mark 7 we need to continue asking this question. Was Jesus (Y’shua)
nullifying Leviticus 11 or correcting doctrinal error’s that was specific to the Scribes and Pharisees?

In response to the question Jesus (Y'shua) refers the Pharisees and scribes to an interesting prophecy in
Isaiah.

Mk 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written,
This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Mk 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

The above quote of Isaiah by Jesus (Y'shua) might only be two verses but it actually offers so much in
relation to the debate at hand. Not surprisingly, everything that Jesus (Y'shua) will state and teach to the
Pharisees and Scribes will now relate to what He just quoted.

In verse 6 it is clear that Jesus (Y'shua) is accusing them of practicing something outwardly (lips) that
contradicts their inward reality (heart). This type of worship is in vain (worth nothing) because God only
accepts worship that is of a true inward desire to actually worship Him. Apparently the evidence of this
problem is related to the fact that they teach their own commandments as true doctrine. Why is this a
problem? Obedience to God is the primary way we are to love God (1 John 5:3). If men are teaching others
to obey their commandments above and beyond God's commandments, then the focus is taken off of God
and placed on to the Pharisees and Scribes. God hates this, of course, but the Pharisees and Scribes love it.
This is the real issue at hand. The Pharisees and Scribes are in effect stating through their doctrine that they
want the people to worship and love them, not God. This is about as serious of an issue as it can possibly
be. (Later in the appendix, we will examine this major issue more closely in Matthew 23.)

So what does all of this mean? It means that at first the issue and debate was about commandments of men
("oral law" or "traditions of elders") verses commandments of God. However, Jesus (Y'shua) went beyond
the outward evidence and straight to the heart of the issue, literally. The heart of the Pharisees and scribes
was not for God but instead housed a corrupt desire for the selfish attention, worship, glory, respect and
praise of the people. They sacrificed Truth for positions of power and esteem.

Now Jesus (Y'shua) did not force His audience to interpret why He quoted those verses from Isaiah. Jesus
(Y'shua) tells them point blank exactly what we have already concluded.

Mk 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots
and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Mk 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own
tradition.

It is quite clear what Jesus (Y'shua) is teaching here. Traditions of men should NEVER replace
commandments of God. There are several directions we can go to apply such a teaching to today's modern
Christian doctrine, but that is another topic.

Rejecting the commandments of God is a serious matter. Jesus (Y'shua) offers an example of a
commandments of God as written by Moses and how the traditions of the Pharisees and scribes polluted
God's Truth. He stacks evidence against them.
Mk 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him
die the death:

Mk 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by
whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

Mk 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

What we have here is God's commandment stating that we are to honor our father and mother. In
opposition to such a clear commandment the Pharisees and scribes taught that it was acceptable to not
honor our father and mother if it was declared to be Corban. Corban simply means offering a gift in
dedication to God. To put it another way, they were teaching that if you dishonor your father and mother-
just state that your action was intended to be a gift and dedication in God in some way, and everything is
fine. It sounds absurd but this is the degree that the leadership of the Pharisees and scribes twisted and
destroyed God's law. There are hundreds of examples in their "oral law" of such false teachings. They made
the law serve their selfish interest instead of doing what it was designed to do-which is loving God and
loving others.

There is something that is really critical to note in verse 10. Jesus (Y'shua) clearly appealed to the Law of
Moses (God's Law) in his correction to the Pharisees and scribes. Given that Leviticus 11 (God's dietary
instructions) is part of the Law of Moses (God's Law) it would be quite absurd for Jesus (Y'shua) to be
condemning the Pharisees and scribes for rejecting the Law of Moses (God's Law) and then turn right
around and declare that Jesus (Y'shua) Himself decided to nullify Leviticus 11 (Law of Moses). That would
not make much sense, and we need to keep that in mind as we continue. So far, the debate is still about
commandments of man verses commandments of God, not Jesus (Y'shua) verses commandments of God
(Leviticus 11).

Thus Jesus (Y'shua) is not going to accuse the Pharisees and scribes of making the Word of God a "none
effect" and then turn around and declare that Leviticus 11 is now of "none effect."

Mk 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and
many such like things do ye.

It should also be noted that Jesus (Y'shua) is not just isolating this one particular tradition, but all traditions
that supersede or are in contrary to God's commandments. ("and many such like things do ye")
Remember, as taught by the two verses Jesus (Y'shua) quoted out of Isaiah, the whole root cause of the
problem is the status of the heart of the Pharisees and Scribes. If the heart of the Pharisees and Scribes were
actually in the right place (focused on God) then they would be focusing on the commandments of God, not
the commandments and traditions of men. This is the point Jesus (Y'shua) is trying to make. It is not only
the outside behavior that God wants. God wants a change of heart for Him which will then automatically
manifest into outward behavior that is in sync with obedience to His commandments, not obedience to
man's commandments and traditions. In addition, the outside behavior should reflect what God wants
(obedience), not what men want (tradition).

Jesus calls everyone around,

Mk 7:14 And when he had called all the people [unto him], he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one
of you, and understand:

and declares His simple debate ending summary statement.

Mk 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which
come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

This is exactly what Jesus (Y'shua) has been teaching the Pharisees and scribes since they earlier asked
Him why His disciples do not follow the tradition of the elders ("oral law").

If your heart is for God, then there is nothing you can eat that will defile you. If your heart is for God you
will want to follow and obey all of His commandments.

However, if you heart is not for God, but for men or other selfish reasons then what comes out of you will
be a reflection of your heart and that is what defiles you (even breaking Leviticus 11).

One's misguided heart is what defiles a person before it even becomes behavior as a physical breaking of a
commandment. This teaching is no different than when Jesus (Y'shua) taught that if you have lusted you
have already committed adultery. If you have hate then you have already committed murder. Not
surprisingly Jesus (Y'shua) was correcting the false doctrine of the Pharisees and Scribes then as well. In all
of these examples it is what comes out of the heart that defiles before the outward evidence even happens.
It is the inward state that defiles and eventually becomes outward sin. What comes into us is not what
defiles us because it does not impact our heart, the source of defilement.
Remember, this is all about eating a piece of bread with unwashed hands. There is nothing wrong with
one's heart for God if one's actions violate commandments of men ("oral law"). God could care less about
the commandments of men. God only cares about obedience to His commandments as an outward
demonstration of what already is supposed to exist inwardly. What Jesus (Y'shua) was doing was taking the
obedience to men away from them and placing it back to where it should be, obedience to God. Remember,
the whole point of the New Covenant is that God's Law is written on our heart and inward parts (Jer. 31:31-
33).

Is Leviticus 11 still obedience to God? Yes, absolutely. If one decides to knowingly violate God's dietary
commandments, it still is not the food that defiles the body, but the heart that was already against God's
commandments before the eating of an unclean thing even took place. Do you see how Jesus (Y'shua) takes
us to the root cause of all of our behavior, our heart? This is the whole definition of faith. If we have true
faith (commit/believe/trust) in God in our heart, then we will apply that faith by practicing His Word.

This is why Jesus (Y'shua) states if any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Mk 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

From a Hebraic perspective, this means that if you understand the whole Truth of scripture then you will
immediately understand His teaching.

That being said, the disciples still asked Jesus (Y'shua) the meaning of the teaching.

Mk 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the
parable.

So Jesus (Y'shua) begins to explain it to them in more depth stating the exact same thing that we have
already covered.

Mk 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that
whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

Mk 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all
meats?

Mk 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
Jesus (Y'shua) clearly teaches again that it is all about the heart. It is not what we eat that defiles us, it is the
status and focus of our heart. If our heart is not for God (like the Pharisees and Scribes) it will certainly
result in disobedience to God.

In other words, the food we eat does not change the status of our heart (make us defiled), but the status of
our heart (being against God meaning we are already defiled) could impact what food we eat (Leviticus
11). It is the evil from within that manifests into evil outwardly.

It was the absurd belief of the Pharisees and Scribes that food could defile you, whether it be the
commandments of men (tradition) or even the commandments of God (Leviticus 11). But that is not the
case. It is our disobedience that comes from the heart that defiles us. The disobedience of the heart comes
before the disobedience of the physical. If you know the law, before you eat an unclean animal you have to
choose in your heart to disobey God first. It is that choice in your heart that defiles you, not the actual act in
of itself. Your heart disobeys before your body does. Thus if you are already defiled from your heart, then
the actual action is not going to defile you any more. It might seem like we are splitting hairs, but this is
how sharp God's Word it its Truth.

Fortunately we do not have to use the above commentary to support our understanding. It is always
beneficial when scripture (in this case Jesus/Y'shua Himself) gives us the interpretation. It is all about the
heart that defiles us. Jesus (Y'shua)

Mk 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

Mk 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride,
foolishness:

Mk 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Thus our thoughts defile us before our actions even have a chance to. Does this sound familiar with several
other teachings from Jesus (Y'shua)? It should. When studying Mark 7, instead of simply reading it with
preconceived bias, then the intended teaching is quite clear, especially when Jesus (Y'shua) literally spells
out the interpretation for us.

There is one more point of confusion that often results in the reading of Mark 7 and is slightly more
difficult to address. In the NIV, NASB, ESV (for example) render "Thus He declared all food clean"
following verse 19. In the KJV, NKJV, YLT (for example) that phrase is absent.

The very fact that some manuscripts include this phrase and others do not, make it highly suspect that some
translator’s biased commentary could have entered the text at some point in history. That aside,
examination of the actual Greek does shed some light on the verse and it is found to be in complete
harmony with what Jesus (Y'shua) is teaching.

The following is a published work by "Tim Hegg • TorahResource • May, 2005"

Mark 7:19b – A Short Technical Note

The crux of the Mark 7:19 revolves around the last phrase of that verse, and particularly the word meaning
“to make clean,” kaqarizw, katharizo. First, the fact that there is a textual variant relating to this word has
given rise to different translations. The Textus Receptus, following the later manuscripts, has kaqarivzon
pavnta ta; brwvmata. 1 The verb, kaqarivzon, is parsed as a neuter participle. But the older and more
reliable manuscripts have kaqarivzwn pavnta ta; brwvmata, where the verb is a masculine participle. From
a text critical standpoint, we should conclude that the original reading is kaqarivzwn (masculine singular
nominative participle) rather than kaqarivzon (neuter singular nominative participle) on the obvious weight
of the textual evidence.

We may ask what would have prompted some scribes to change the masculine to the neuter form of the
participle. Apparently, the scribes had difficulty understanding what stood as the subject of the participle.
Since the obvious meaning seems to be that the elimination of excrement is the subject, the neuter gender
for the participle seemed the correct reading (corresponding to the unspecified noun sw`ma,“body” or to the
process of elimination itself). Thus, the preceding phrase, ejkporeuvesqai eij~ to;n ajfedrw`na, “it goes out
into the latrine,” has the bodily process of elimination in view, and thus the subject of the following
participle would be the unnamed “it” of the verb ejkporeuvesqai.

In this way, the final phrase means “it (i.e., body or the excrement itself) purges all foods,” and is reflected
in the KJV, “…and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats.” The Greek nouns utilized to describe
human excrement are kovprion (neuter), kovpron or kovpro~ (either neuter or masculine),2 and skuvbalon
(neuter), meaning “garbage, refuse,” but which can also refer to human excrement (cp. Sirach 27:4). Thus,
the impetus for changing the masculine form to read as a neuter would have been to clear up any ambiguity
as to the subject of the participle. It is the body itself or the process of elimination (or the excrement) that
brings about the purging or cleansing the body of that which is unclean.

The earlier manuscripts, however, almost universally have kaqarivzwn, which is masculine singular. In this
case, the closest antecedent masculine singular noun is ajfedrwvn, “latrine.” However, there is a
grammatical problem. Participles generally must agree in gender, number, and case with the noun to which
they attach. In the phrase ejkporeuvesqai eij~ to;n ajfedrw`na, the word ajfedrw`na is in the accusative
case, while the following participle, kaqarivzwn, is in the nominative case. When one first reads the
sentence, it would appear that the latrine (ajfedrwvn) is the logical antecedent of the nominative singular
masculine katarivzwn, giving the meaning “it goes out into the latrine, and thus the latrine purges all
foods.” But the fact that the participle does not agree in case with the word ajfedrw`na seems to render this
reading impossible, since ajfedrw`na, the object of preposition eij~, is necessarily in the accusative case.

Seeking for the subject of the participle kaqarivzwn becomes, therefore, the crux interpretum for the
passage. What or who “cleanses all foods?” Most modern translations add the words “thus He declared” to
the dangling participle phrase “cleansing all foods,” in order to inform the readers that the subject of the
participle, as far as the translators are concerned, is Yeshua. This interpretation goes back as far as Origen,
where the subject of the nominative masculine participle is traced in the context to v. 18 and the implied
subject of levgei, “He said,” i.e., Yeshua said. It is therefore suggested that Yeshua is likewise the subject
of the masculine participle, and the final participial clause is therefore understood to mean “He (Yeshua) is
cleansing all foods.” But how would Yeshua cleanse all foods? The answer is that He cleansed all foods by
declaring all foods clean, and thus the added “He declared all foods clean.”

Rudolph, in his article “Yeshua and the Dietary Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7:19b,”
Concludes that this is the only possible explanation for the nominative singular participle:
The NA 27 Greek text of Mark 7:19b reads kaqarivzwn pavnta tav brwvmata (literally: “cleansing all the
foods”). Most English translations turn this dangling participial clause into a Markan insertion by placing it
within parentheses and adding the words at the beginning “(thus he declared…” (NRSV) or “(In saying
this, Yeshua declared…” (NIV Prophecy Edition). The reader is left with the impression that Mark is
summarizing the significance of Yeshua’s teaching in the previous verses. In support of such a translation,
it should be noted that kaqarivzwn (“cleansing”) is nominative masculine. Thus, Yeshua is the one who is
doing the cleansing and not the body as indicated by the textual variant kaqarivzon. Is this true? Does the
fact that the participle kaqarivzwn is nominative masculine mean that its only possible subject within the
immediate context is Yeshua? Actually, there is another alternative. It is well known in Greek grammar that
the nominative singular participle may sometimes refer to something within the previous context or to
something implied in the context not explicitly mentioned, even though it may not be in the same
grammatical case.

Note the following examples:

Luke 24:47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations,
beginning from Jerusalem. (kai; krucqh`nai ejpi; tw`/ onovmati aujtou` metavnoian eij~ a[fesin aJmartiw`n
eij~pavnta ta; e[qnh, ajrxavmenoi ajpo jIerousalh;m). The participle in the clause “beginning from
Jerusalem” is nominative masculine plural, but there is no nominative masculine plural noun in the
preceding context to act
as its antecedent. It presumes an understood subject in the infinitival clause krucqh`nai…metavnoian, “to
preach…repentance,” something like aujtoiv khruvxousin…metavnoian…ajrxavmenoi ajpo jIerousalh;m,
“they preach…repentance…beginning from Jerusalem.” A similar construction is found in Acts 10:37
(where some manuscripts attempt to smooth out the incongruence).

2Thess 1:8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God (ejn puri; flogov~, didovnto~ ejkdivkhsin
toi`~ mh; eijdovsin qeo;n), where didovnto~, “dealing out” is masculine singular genitive, but refers to the
previous angels (v. 7, ajggevlwn), which is masculine plural genitive.

James 3:8 But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. (th;n de; glw`ssan
oujdei;~ damavsai duvnatai ajvqrwvpwn, ajkatavstaton kakovn, mesth; ijou` qanathfovrou ). Here, the
adjectival phrase, “restless evil” (ajkatavstaton kakovn) is nominative masculine singular, but it modifies
th;n glw`ssan, which is accusative feminine singular. Interestingly, the Greek Grammars (see footnote 7
above) also reference Mark 7:19b as an example of a nominative masculine participle that does not agree in
case with its apparent antecedent.

For those who take levgei, “He (Yeshua) said” as the antecedent for the participle kaqarivzwn, (thus, “He
(Yeshua) declared …”), appeal is made to the Lxx of Leviticus 13, where the priest pronounces a person
clean or unclean, depending upon the various attended circumstances. Here are two examples:

Lev. 13:6 “The priest shall look at him again on the seventh day, and if the infection has faded and the
mark has not spread on the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean (kaqariei` aujto;n oJ iJereuv~);
it is only a scab. And he shall wash his clothes and be clean. Lev. 13:23 “But if the bright spot remains in
its place and does not spread, it is only the scar of the boil; and the priest shall pronounce him clean
(kaqariei` aujto;n oJ iJereuv~).

In these instances, the verb kaqarivzw means “to declare someone clean,” and it is reasoned therefore that
the same verb in Mark 7:19 could bear a similar meaning. But this could only be the case if the final clause
is understood as the Evangelist’s own editorial comment.

Those who take the final phrase of our text as an editorial comment by Mark do so primarily on two
grounds:

1) that kaqarivzwn requires a masculine noun for its antecedent, and the closest such antecedent is the
masculine singular subject of levgei in v. 18, and

2) that Mark is known to interject his own explanatory comments, an example of which is the lengthy
editorial comment at the beginning of this same chapter (7:3–4).

Since Mark finds it necessary to explain the general halalchah of the Pharisees and Judeans, it is reasoned
that he must be addressing a Gentile audience, and this gives cause for his parenthetical comment at the end
of v. 19: Yeshua is reassuring the Gentile believers “that the Jewish food laws were not obligatory for
them.”

This, in a nutshell, is the conclusion of Rudolph’s article.

But paralleling the final clause of Mark 7:19 with the previous editorial comments (7:3–4) is a bit tenuous.
In the first place, the explanatory insertion in vv. 3–4 is lengthy, and is clearly part of the narrative
exposition, necessary for setting up the narrative scene to follow. But if v. 19b is also an editorial addition
by Mark, it is unclear how it functions in light of the pericope as a whole. The issue at hand was the
accusation against Yeshua’s disciples, that they fail to follow the halalchah of the elders, because they do
not wash their hands before they eat. Yeshua’s response is not to negate all of the traditions of the elders,
but to put them in their proper place, that is, subordinate to God’s commandments. His emphasis is upon
the weightier matters of the Torah that are being neglected in favor of the traditions of the elders. So, as
usual, He goes to the heart of the issue: loving God and loving one’s neighbor. He uses the fifth Word
(honoring father and mother) as His primary example because it bridges these two aspects of the Ten
Words.

Yeshua also notes what an evil heart brings forth: “evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness” (vv.
21–22). These are things that ultimately defile, not eating food with unwashed hands (cp. the parallel
account in Matthew 15). That is because what comes into the heart is not so easily purged, and also because
that which defiles the heart also causes others to be defiled, for it is duplicated through one’s actions and
speech. In contrast, that which enters the bowel is quickly purged, and if done so in the proper place, does
not defile others. So one wonders how, from this emphasis of Yeshua, Mark could come to the honest
conclusion that He was suspending the Torah laws of clean and unclean foods for the Gentiles?

To put it simply: if Mark has interjected v. 19b as his halachic deduction from Yeshua’s teachings, it seems
as though he missed the point. Moreover, Yeshua’s words take on a more universal aspect, for Mark
construes His teaching using a[nqrwpo~: “there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes
into him”

(Mark 7:15). This appears as a universal axiom, not something that is constrained by Jewish vs. Gentile
boundaries.

For Mark to have derived halalchah specific to Gentile believers from this saying of Yeshua appears to
have missed the heart of Yeshua’s teaching in this instance.

Secondly, in describing the particular action of the Pharisees and Judeans (oiJ jIoudai`oi) in the opening
narrative exposition (vv. 3–4), Mark uses indicative verbs (oujk ejsqivousin, “they do not eat,” used twice,
v. 3 and 4). He uses the participle (kratou`nte~ th;n paravdosin tw`n presbutevrwn, “holding to the
traditions of the elders”) to indicate normative or characteristic action of the Pharisees and Judeans. In the
supposed parallel to v. 19b, the participle kaqarivzwn should thus bespeak normative or characteristic
action on the part of Yeshua (at least from Mark’s perspective). Thus, the meaning would be “He (Yeshua)
regularly declared all foods clean.”

If in fact this final clause of v. 19 is the Evangelist’s own declarative statement regarding halalchah for
Gentile believers, we would have expected him to use the indicative rather than a participial form (and
most likely an aorist indicative). In fact, the modern English translations, in order to cast the final phrase of
our text as an editorial affirmation on the part of Mark, construe the participle in precisely this manner:
“(Thus He declared all foods clean),” (NASB, NRSV, ESV, ); “(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods
‘clean’),” NIV.

Therefore, to interpret Mark 7:19b as the halachic conclusion of the Evangelist himself, directed to the
Gentiles but not to the Jewish people, seems to raise more difficulties than it solves. But the need to
understand the final clause of v. 19 as Mark’s editorial conclusion is removed if, in fact, kaqarivzwn can
have an antecedent with which it does not share grammatical concord (as noted above). In this case, the
antecedent of kaqarivzwn could be either ajfedrw`na (“latrine”) or the excrement itself (which is spoken of
only euphemistically as that which goes out into the latrine). This allows the final clause of v. 19 to
function normally as the conclusion of Yeshua’s argument, namely, that as it pertains to food, what comes
forth from the bowel does not defile, because it goes out into the latrine and is properly purged. In contrast,
what comes out of the heart does defile, both the one from whom it proceeds as well as others. Therefore,
Yeshua’s teaching is that one should be more concerned about what goes into, and comes forth from the
heart rather than whether one eats food with hands that have not been washed. In the final analysis, even
though the best reading of the text is kaqarivzwn (masculine singular nominative), it can be understood as
essentially the same in meaning as the inferior reading kaqarivzon. Grammatically, it is perfectly warranted
to translate Mark 7:18–19 as follows:

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 goes out into the latrine, cleansing all foods (from the body)?

1. The UBS 3 lists the following data: kaqarivzwn ‡ A B L W X D Q f 1 f1 3 28 565 892 1009 1071 1216
1241 1242 1253 1546 1646 Byz pt l 49, 184, 211, 299, 950, 1761
Syr p, h cop sa, bo eth Origen Gregory-Nyssa Chrysostom // kaqarivzon K P 33 700 1010 1079 1195 1230
1344 1365 2148 2174 Byz pt Lect Diatessaron a // kaqarivzwn or kaqarivzon it a, aur, b,c,d,f, ff2, l,n,q vg //
kai; kaqarivzetai (1047 omit kaiv) syr
A // kaqarivzwn te l 70 // kai; kaqarivzei (D l 185 omit kaiv) it i, r1 (goth omit kaiv) arm geo

2. The ambiguity of kovpron/kovpro~ is noted by BDAG (ad loc.). Since kovpron may be parsed as either
feminine or neuter (where no other gender indicators are present), in some text it may function as a neuter
noun, like its corresponding noun, kovprion, as in Lk 13:8, though BDAG would favor the masculine
parsing.

3. Note the comments of Henrich Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospels of Mark and
Luke (Funk & Wagnalls, 1884), p. 89–90 [Reprinted by Hendrickson Pub., 1983].

4. Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Book 12, section 11.

5. David J. Rudolph, “Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7:19b,” EQ 74:4 (2002), 291–
311; updated and revised in “Yeshua and the Dietary Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7:19b,” Kesher 16
(Fall, 2003), 97–119.

6. Ibid., Kesher 16 (Fall, 2003), 97–8.

7. See F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature (Univ. of Chicago, 1961), p. 76, §137(3); James Hope Moulton and Nigel Turner, A Grammar of
New Testament Greek, 3 vols. (T&T Clark, 1963), 3.316; Maximilian Zerwick S. J., Biblical Greek
(Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963), pp. 5–6.2

8. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (John Knox, 1990), p. 45.

9. (see footnote 3 above)

10. What I mean by this is that the Ten Words may be grouped as those directed primarily to God (Words
1-4) and those pertaining primarily to one’s neighbor (Words 6-10). Thus, the Ten Words encompass
“loving God” and “loving one’s neighbor.” The 5th Word, the command to honor one’s parents, is the
“bridge” between the two halves of the Ten Words, for loving God as Father is first understood by a
recognition of one’s earthly father. Or to put it another way, honoring and submitting to the authority of
one’s parents is the first step in understanding what it means to honor and submit to God as one’s Father.

11. This use of a[nqrwpo~ may be understood as universal (=mankind) all the more because of Mark’s
repeated use of “son(s) of man” terminology, cf. Mark 2:10, 28; 3:28; 8:31, 38; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45;
13:26; 14:21, 41, 62; 15:39.

"Foods" Does Not Include Unclean Animals

For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus
declared all foods "clean.") (NIV)

Even in the absence of a eye opening linguistic study such as the above there is still one more important
matter to consider as it relates to the English translation.

Just as we do not consider horses, dogs, and cats food, His Jewish audience also did not consider pig,
shellfish, and lobster food. Even Strongs reconginizes this:

G1033 broma bro'-mah

from the base of G977;

food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonially) articles allowed or

forbidden by the Jewish law:--meat, victuals.

Thus when Jesus (Y'shua) stated He declared all foods clean He was referring to all things that Jews
consider food. Remember, the context was about eating bread with unwashed hands and the bread was
mistakenly declared unclean/defiled by the Pharisees and Scribes. Jesus (Y'shua) in keeping with the whole
context of the matter at hand is simply declaring the bread (and all other things Jews consider food) clean
regardless of unwashed hands.

Those who knew and applied God's law defined what was food or not food based on Leviticus 11. Just
because our society declares pig, lobster, shellfish, etc. food it does not mean that those in Mark 7 did as
well. We know for a fact that the disciples, Pharisees and Scribes, and Jesus (Y'shua) did not consider
unclean animals food.

Just ask a Jews today if pig is considered food. They would find that absurd. If we told a Jew that all food is
good to eat that would not include pig to them. The same applies here. Nothing has changed. When Jesus
(Y'shua) states all food is clean it would include things that the Pharisees and Scribes considered food. The
only reason Jesus (Y'shua) declared all "food" to be clean is because Pharisees and Scribes were declaring
"food" to not be clean with unwashed hands.

The only way we could conclude that pigs, shellfish, lobster, etc were now considered food or clean then
instead of reading this:

For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus
declared all foods "clean.") (NIV)

we would need the verse to state this:

For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus
declared all animals "clean.") (NIV)

...because we already know all food is clean. It was the Scribes and Pharisees that made such an error. This
verse states nothing about all unclean animals now being made clean yet that is what many make this verse
out to be.
Summary of Mark 7:

1. The Pharisees and Scribes follow (and still do today) the "oral law" (Talmud) which are simply traditions
and commandments of men. The particular commandment of man that the disciples intentionally ignored
(that ignited this situation) was the washing of hands before eating.

2. These traditions and commandments of men often conflict with commandments of God and also focus
the peoples' obedience to men instead of to God. This is a problem. When Jesus (Y'shua) was confronted
for breaking the tradition of the elders Jesus (Y'shua) instructed them in God's Truth.

3. Jesus (Y'shua) appeals (not abolishes) to God's Law (as written by Moses) to show them their error.

4. In addition, Jesus (Y'shua) quoted prophecy to demonstrate that the problem of the Pharisees and Scribes
was greater than their "oral law" that violates the Law of Moses, but that there was a problem of the heart
that was the root cause of all of their false doctrine and ways.

5. The focus of our heart (for or against God) is what defiles us before the heart even influences and
dictates our defiled behaivor (sin)(breaking God's Law). The breaking of commandments of men does not
defile us (eating bread with unwashed hands). Instead when our heart is against God's Law from within we
are then already defiled before any outward behavior results.

6. All of our behavior (outward) is a direct result of what we already have inward.

In a thorough examination of Mark 7 it should be very clear that Jesus (Y'shua) was correcting the
Pharisees and scribes false doctrine and not abolishing God's commandments (Leviticus 11). However, for
those that might still somehow not be convinced, let's examine the totality of scripture. Either Jesus
(Y'shua) is correcting the Pharisees and Scribes in their "commandments of men" or Jesus is abolishing the
"commandments of God" as written by Moses (Leviticus 11). Let's test the latter to just a sample of
scripture.

1. Peter

In the vision Peter has in Acts 10, Peter responds to the Lord stating clearly that he has never eaten
anything unclean or common.

Ac 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

This is a good fourteen years after the cross which is well beyond Mark 7. This means that Peter did not
conclude that Jesus (Y'shua) declared all animals to be clean because Peter still distinguishes between clean
and unclean animals. This also certainly means that none of the other disciples interpreted the teaching in
Mark 7 to abolish Leviticus 11 either, if Peter (one of the 12) still believes and teaches from the Law of
Moses.

2. Paul
If Leviticus 11 was supposedly abolished by Jesus (Y'shua) then it would be absurd to believe that anyone
would still be practicing and teaching the Law of Moses. However, we learn that Paul was often accused of
not practicing and teaching the Law of Moses because of His affiliation with Gentiles and his teachings
against the false doctrines ("oral law") of the Pharisees and Scribes. In every one of these documented
accusations Paul states in his defense that he practices and teaches the Law of Moses, which of course
includes Leviticus 11. If Paul was teaching against Leviticus 11 then the accusations toward Paul would be
true accusations, not false accusations like Paul maintained.

When Paul was accused of not believing, practicing, and teaching the Law of Moses, he made every effort
to prove everyone wrong.

Acts21:20-26 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how
many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed
that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away FROM MOSES, telling them not to
circumcise their children or live according to our customs.

What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men
with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so
that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is NO TRUTH in these reports
about you, but that you yourself are living in OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW. As for the Gentile believers,
we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood,
from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give
notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of
them.

In that instance alone, Paul proved to his accusers that he believed and practiced the Law of Moses. Should
we accuse Paul of not teaching and practicing the Law of Moses?

When Paul was continuously accused by the Pharisees for not believing, practicing, and teaching the Law
of Moses, how did he respond?

Acts 24:13-14 Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me. But this I confess to you, that
according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing (pisteuo) ALL
THINGS which are written in the Law and in the Prophets. (pisteuo = to believe, commit, and trust)

Did Paul keep the Law of Moses?

Acts 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews (Moses), neither against the
temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

3. Leviticus 11 is still scripture right?

ALL (not some) scripture is given by inspiration of God.

ALL (not some) scripture is profitable for doctrine.

ALL (not some) scripture is for rebuking and correction

ALL (not some) scripture is for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

When we understand and apply this, then and only then are we completely furnished unto all good works.

If Leviticus 11 is still scripture then it is still "profitable for instructions in righteousness" and thus Jesus
(Y'shua) could not have abolished it in Mark 7. If Leviticus 11 has been abolished then it can not be used to
correct, rebuke, or instruct in righteousness like scripture says we should.

4. Jesus (Y'shua) did not come to teach something different than what the Father had already
commanded.

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Jn 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you shall know that I am
he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

Jn 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is your Father? Jesus answered, You neither know me, nor my
Father: if you had known me, you should have known my Father also.

5. Matthew 5:17-19

If Jesus (Y'shua) really did abolish Leviticus 11 in His teaching in Mark 7, then Jesus (Y'shua) contradicted
His very own words. This would be a serious problem.

Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I do not come to destroy, but to
fulfill (with meaning).

Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all (law and prophets) be fulfilled.

Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he
shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus (Y'shua) stated Himself that not one of God’s commandments was to be “abolished” or “put an end
to” until all of the Law and Prophets are fulfilled and Heaven and Earth passes away.

Heaven and Earth passing away by being made new (renewed) is the last prophetic event foretold in
scripture.

Isaiah 65:17 "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be
remembered, nor will they come to mind.

Revelation 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had
passed away,

Please note that this event has clearly not yet happened.

Jesus (Y'shua) states that all of God’s law will exist at LEAST UNTIL the day that the Lord states:
Revelation 21:5-6 He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said,
"Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and
the Omega, the Beginning and the End.

Christ’s work on the cross for our salvation is finished (John 19:30), but the Lord is not yet finished with
what has been said in all of His Law and by His Prophets until He says “it is done” which is signaled by the
new Heaven and New Earth.

So if this scripture is true, then what scriptural gymnastics do some teachers employ to avoid
concluding that we should be obedient to all of God's Law?

Well, if they touch the verse at all, it creates quite an embarrassing mess.

Some teach that in Matthew 5:17 fulfill means “to put and end to” or to “finish.” This is done by their own
admission to avoid the clear teaching of Jesus that not one of God’s commandments are to pass away from
the law, and to preserve their misinterpretations of Paul’s letters.

If this interpretation is indeed true, we should be able to apply such teaching to scripture and it should make
logical sense, as God is not the author of confusion. We are commanded to test all things and only hold on
to what is good (1 Thes. 5:20) Let’s test the teaching that “fulfill” means “to put and end to” or “finish”
instead of “fulfill” simply meaning to “fill up the whole and complete meaning” of God’s law, evidenced by
Jesus walking out the true interpretation (not Pharisaical) of God’s law.

Can “fulfill” in Mt 5:17 mean “to put an end to?

Mt 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I do not come to destroy (the law),
but to “put and end (to the law")

Huh?

Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all (law and prophets) be fulfilled.

Double huh?

Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments (that I just put an end to), and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach
them (even though I put an end to them), the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Triple huh?

There are only two possible interpretations of “fulfill” in Matthew 5:17.

1) One is that Jesus came to “fulfill the real meaning of God’s law” which the Pharisees polluted through
their oral law. This makes sense because this was the complete point and purpose of every teaching of Jesus
when He was in proximity to the Pharisees. This is to correctly instruct us in the way God wants us to walk
in His law and not the way men want us to walk in God’s law.

2) Or “fulfill” in Matthew 5:17 means to “complete, finish, or put an end to.” All one has to do is insert that
definition into the context of the scripture to witness how such an interpretation is illogical and absurd.

Technically, ignoring context and word usage, based on a literal rendering of the Greek, either
interpretation is acceptable:

G4137 pleroo play-ro'-o from G4134;

to make replete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue,
diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a
prediction), etc.:--accomplish, X after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full(come),
fully preach, perfect, supply. (Strong's)

The only interpretation of “fulfill” that fits the context and avoids logical absurdities is to understand Jesus
is teaching that He will make full or fully preach God’s law.

Jesus (Y'shua) came to fully preach God’s law.

He taught us the full meaning of God’s law.

Does that not fit the ministry of Jesus(Y'shua) perfectly? Jesus taught, walked, practiced, obeyed and lived
the Law of Moses. Are we not commanded to walk as Jesus walked?

1Jn 2:6 He that says he abides in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is impossible to conclude that Jesus (Y'shua) was abolishing the dietary instructions found
in Leviticus 11 for countless reasons. This was just a sample. God's Law was the standard that Jesus
(Y'shua) was prophesized to follow according to Deut. 13 & 18. If He was teaching anything other than the
Law of Moses, then scripture declares Him to be a false prophet by God's own Word. This is why Jesus
(Y'shua) was tested often by those who knew God's Law, and Jesus (Y'shua) passed the test every time.

In addition, if He was teaching others to transgress the law (sin) then He was thus sinning Himself. If Jesus
(Y'shua) sinned (broke God's Law in any way) then He is not our perfect lamb and His sacrifice can not
cover our sin, leaving us with no hope.

Deut. 12:32 See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it

Jesus (Y'shua) can not be teaching to add to or take away from God’s law or He was directly breaking the
commandments of God’s law, thus again, you have Jesus being a lawbreaker. That is very concerning.

Ultimately this study should have shed some light on the subject of Mark 7 and the confusion that
surrounds it. The appendix of this study will examine the corrupted doctrine of the Pharisees and Scribes in
more detail by reviewing Matthew 23. The value of examining Matthew 23 is that it provides additional
understanding and clarity as to why Jesus (Y'shua) constantly had to correct the mainstream leadership
group of His day, and also it also provides further evidence that the foundation that Jesus (Y'shua) used for
His correction was God's Law, as written by Moses (because it was not abolished in any capacity.)

Jon Sherman
119Ministries.com
7/3/10 v1

Appendix 1
Matthew 23 - A Testimony Against the Pharisees and Scribes

Mt 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

Mt 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' Seat:

Mt 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their
works: for they say, and do not.

Out of Moses' Seat the Scribes and the Pharisees would teach the Law of Moses word for word. It should
be noted that Jesus (Y'shua) told us to observe and do the Law of Moses. Most ignore this command. (Click
Here) Jesus (Y'shua) followed up this command to not do the works of the Pharisees and the Scribes. The
reason for this is the same reason reviewed in Mark 7. The tradition of the elders (commandments of men)
nullifies God's Law (as written by Moses). The Pharisees and Scribes would literally teach the Law of
Moses like they should from Moses' Seat, and then upon leaving the seat (it is a literal stone seat), they
would go and teach their own commentary ("oral law"). Thus they would be polluting what they just taught
from Moses' Seat.

Jesus (Y'shua) then expounds on the works that the Pharisees and Scribes do that we are to not emulate.

Mt 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they
themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

They promote and enforce their "oral law" on the people, which was an absurd and unreasonable burden to
bear. For example, the Sabbath had over 1400 laws in the "oral law" verses just a few according to God'
commandments (as written by Moses).

Mt 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge
the borders of their garments,

Mt 23:6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

Mt 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

The Scribes and Pharisees do everything they do for their own selfish reasons and not for God.
Mt 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

Mt 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Mt 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

Mt 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

Mt 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be
exalted.

The Pharisees and Scribes elevated themselves above the people because of their education, which is
completely against the way God wants it to be.

Mt 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven
against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Mt 23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows'houses, and for a
pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Mt 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one
proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Mt 23:16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing;
but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

Mt 23:17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

Mt 23:18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is
upon it, he is guilty.

Mt 23:19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

Mt 23:20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
Mt 23:21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.

Mt 23:22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth
thereon.

Mt 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin,
and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done,
and not to leave the other undone.

Mt 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Mt 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of
the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Mt 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of
them may be clean also.

The Pharisees are told to clean the inside first so that the outside will also be clean. Is this not what Jesus
(Y'shua) tries to teach in Mark 7?

Mt 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which
indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

The outwardness is fake and what actually matters is dead.

Mt 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and
iniquity.

A parallel can be drawn here back to Mark 7. Jesus (Y'shua) was hitting the same exact points. It is the
inward that matters and should be what drives the outward behavior. The hearts of the Pharisees and
Scribes were corrupt to the core and any illusion of righteousness is rooted in their own self seeking glory
for themselves, not God.

Mt 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and
garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
Mt 23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them
in the blood of the prophets.

Mt 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the
prophets.

Mt 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

Mt 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Ouch!

Mt 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye
shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city
to city:

The Pharisees and Scribes are not interested in understanding and practicing Truth, but only perpetuating
their religious system as a means and tool to sustain their positions of power.

Mt 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous
Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Mt 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Mt 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee,
how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her
wings, and ye would not!

Mt 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Mt 23:39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in
the name of the Lord.

The Scribes and Pharisees were told nine woes all because of their selfish prostitution of God's Word. It is
not their ways we are to emulate, but the Law of Moses (Moses' Seat)
Ask yourself the hard questions. Ask others. Ask the Word. Test your faith. Challenge yourself. Test
everything.
119 Ministries
www.TestEverything.net