Daily Lesson for Tuesday 6th of August 2024

Following on the heels of the challenging passage in yesterday’s study, the story in this passage also raises troubling questions. Why does Jesus respond so harshly to this woman, in so many words calling her a dog?

Image © Bible Adventure Collection at Goodsalt.com

He does not openly explain, but two characteristics in His response to her suggest what He is teaching. In Mark 7:27, He says that the children should be fed “first.” If there is a “first,” it seems logical that there would be a “second.” The other characteristic is that Jesus uses a diminutive form of the word “dog,” not meaning puppies but rather, in context, dogs allowed inside the house in contrast to street dogs. The woman picks up on these two markers in her response to Jesus, which helps explain her response.

The woman’s response is rather pointed. She replies: “Lord, yet even the . . . dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs” (Mark 7:28, NKJV).

How did this woman come up with this response to Jesus? Certainly the love for her daughter drove her forward. But Jesus also encouraged her. He said “first,” implying there could be a “second.” Furthermore, He implied she was a dog under the table. Just as the dog was in the house under the table, so she was at Jesus’ feet pleading for her daughter. So, she claimed a dog’s right to the food that fell on the floor.

The woman’s response reveals her faith. Calling the mighty miracle of healing her daughter from a distance a “crumb” indicated both that Jesus’ power was especially great (if such a miracle were a crumb, what would a whole loaf be?) and that granting her request was a small matter for Him. Jesus was moved and granted her request.

“By His dealings with her, He has shown that she who has been regarded as an outcast from Israel is no longer an alien, but a child in God’s household. As a child it is her privilege to share in the Father’s gifts.”—Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 401.

(0)

Source: https://ssnet.org/blog/24c-06-crumbs-for-the-dogs/

Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.” (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.) Mark 7:19 NLT

Image © Lifeway Collection at Goodsalt.com

First let me say that I am explaining this with the NLT instead of the KJV, because most of our friends will be asking about this passage after reading it from the NLT and we can properly explain it using the NLT, so let’s do so. 

In Mark 7 the religious leaders are asking Jesus why He does not have His disciples follow the man -made tradition of washing of hands before eating. Jesus replies by defending the Old Testament Scriptures over man-made traditions. 

Jesus replied, “You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote, ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.’ Mark 7:6-7 NLT 

Jesus is using the Old Testament as the standard against man made traditions. So it is very clear that Jesus is not doing away with any Old Testament teachings about eating pork or not. He would not defend the Old Testament and condemn man-made traditions and then turn around and do away with the commands in Leviticus 11 all the same breath. That would not make sense. The context in both Jesus’ and the pharisees’ minds is ceremonial washing and not pork. Jesus explains that it is not what goes in and out of our bodies that make us clean or unclean, but what comes out of the heart. Jesus finishes by saying, 

Food doesn’t go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer.” (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.) Mark 7:19 NLT

Now in the KJV Mark 7:9 ends with “purging all meats” While the NLT says “every kind of food.” The NLT is actually more accurate here. The word  that the KJV used for meat is the Greek word, “bromata.” Bromata simply means food. It does not necessarily mean flesh. So the NLT is right. Jesus said the food that will come out of your body is clean, whether or not you did the traditional washing of hands. Clean or unclean flesh is clearly not the issue here. Jesus would not exalt the Old Testament over the traditions of man and then turn around and do away with what the Old Testament taught. He is doing away with the traditions of man.  “Bromata” simply means food, not flesh, of any kind though it could include flesh. So Jesus declared all foods clean, regardless of the ceremonial washing.

When the NLT says every food is acceptable in God’s eyes it is absolutely accurate. Pork was never considered food in this context, either by Jesus or the pharisees. We have to keep things in context. When you tell your kids there is no school today so you can do whatever you want, it goes without saying that they still can’t go rob a bank. When you said “anything,” the context was automatically understood. Likewise when it says “thus purging all meats” in the KJV or “declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes,” the context is automatically understood that the food is clean whether or not one did the ceremonial washing. The Ceremonial washing does not make the food clean or unclean. The context in this story has nothing to do with pork or other unclean flesh being made clean. Matthew makes the context even more clear:

For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander.These are what defile you. Eating with unwashed hands will never defile you.” Matthew 15:20 NLT

Matthew 15:19-20 makes it clear that  in Mark 7:19  Jesus is talking about washing with unclean hands and not unclean meats. Unclean meats were not the issue to any of the parties participating in the discussion in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. 

If Jesus had declared pork clean in Mark 7 then I would really be confused why later, in Acts 10, Peter was still following the regulations in Leviticus 11. And even then, Peter makes the context of the vision of Acts 10 clear in Acts 10:28 NLT “But God has shown me that I should no longer think of anyone as impure or unclean.”  Peter tells us the context of the vision was  about Jews and Gentiles and not clean and unclean meats. Also, in 1 Corinthians 8, when Paul is saying you can eat whatever you want, 1 Corinthians 8:1 makes food sacrificed to idols the clear context. Eating pork or other unclean flesh never crossed Paul’s mind while he was speaking or writing. 

Whether  we are Jew or Gentile, before the cross or after the cross, we all have the same stomachs, and we don’t need just the Bible to tell us how unhealthy pork is. Just ask you doctor. My doctor, who is not an Adventist, had a video playing in the waiting room, telling us that pork triples your chances of heart disease.

We should look at every Bible teaching, in the light of the cross. In Romans 12:1-2 we are told to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice. Just as Jesus gave His body for us on the cross, we give our bodies to Christ as a living sacrifice. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 10:31 that whatever we eat or drink we should do for the glory of God. That includes way more than just eating pork or not. This is a challenge for all of us, including myself especially. Let’s live and eat and drink in the light of the cross, and eat and drink to have healthy bodies to help us spread the Gospel of Jesus. 

For a video presentation of this topic click here. 

To study more about healthy living in light of the cross click here. 

(0)

Source: https://ssnet.org/blog/does-mark-7-tell-us-it-is-okay-to-eat-pork/