Did Christ declare all foods clean?

[Hobie]

Now there are many Christians who have a hard time to understand the truth about clean and unclean foods. In the Bible, God tells us not to eat things like Pork, crab, cuttlefish, shellfish, lobster, etc. God had to put these laws in the Bible so that we could know certain creatures are harmful to eat. We see it in Leviticus 11..
Leviticus 11:1-23
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5 And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8 Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Now some Christians think that Mark 7:19 changes this and claim it says you can eat anything you want. Well lets look at it.
Mark 7:19
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

Doesnt really say there is any changes to the clean or unclean foods that are set out, so where did this idea come in. Well lets look through a couple of the new versions of the Bible, Interestingly other versions had this in brackets, that "Jesus declared all foods clean".

New International Version "For it doesn't go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
English Standard Version "since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
New American Standard Bible "because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

So why did all the old versions of the Bible not contain this portion, and why do the new versions carry it within brackets? The Original Greek Manuscripts do not carry "In saying this, Jesus declared" which is in Mark 7:19.

This had been a later addition by some of the translators, its not what the Bible had, just a decision by the translators of the modern versions to add "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean)" was valid. Well lets look at the context of the chapter in Mark leading up to verse 19 and see if it is about eating any food, or eating food according to the traditions of man. We begin with Mark 7:1-4..
Mark 7:1-5
1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
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.
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?

We see here that the story begins with the Pharisees accusing some of Jesus disciples of not washing their hands before eating bread according to the "tradition of the elders". Now the Pharisees had their own laws they had made up and told others they had to follow in addition to God's Law, and this is what Christ addresses in the verses that proceed.
Mark 7:6-9
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.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
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.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

He starts by quoting Isaiah 29:13, showing their hypocrisy saying, that they honor God with their mouth but their hearts are far from Him as we see in 'honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.' And that in vain they worship Him, teaching commandments of men for 'doctrine'. Jesus goes further on their mistake showing that they are laying aside God's Commandments and are holding onto the 'traditions of men', which include their ideas of 'washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.' He says that they reject 'reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.' And He tells them they make God's Word of no effect by their traditions, 'Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.'

So what is the context, food or man made traditions? Lets go and give even more context starting at verse 13..
Mark 7:13-15
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
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.

[Hobie]

So what is Christ talking about, well we clearly see what it is in verse 13, and then He makes sure they are listening in verse 14 to the lesson about to be given. In verse 15 He declares, '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.' Is He saying that we can now eat whatever we want? No, He says that nothing that goes into a person from the outside can make him unclean. It is what comes out of a person that makes a person unclean.

Then in verse 17, the disciples ask what He meant as even they had questions..
Mark 7:17
17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

Now we come to the verses in question and Christ actually begins the answer in verse 18
Mark 7:18
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;

He answers the disciples saying, whatever enters into man cannot make him unclean, but only through sin that proceed from the inside of man. It is clear that He says that man is defiled by the sin which is inside. And you can see how He finishes with the same..
Mark 7:19-23
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Now is He saying that God's direction on clean and unclean foods are of no use because whatever we eat is purged out of the stomach. Of course not, as we can see the whole context He was talking of was the 'tradition of man' the Pharisees had added, and declaring them hypocrites for making what God had given on clean and unclean, as they had the Law, Void. Putting in their own 'traditions'.

[Texas Conservative]

All foods are clean for Christians.

Some churches teach to abstain from certain foods and teach doctrines of demons.

Have you not read Acts 10 & 11?

[Hobie]

All foods are clean for Christians.

Some churches teach to abstain from certain foods and teach doctrines of demons.

Have you not read Acts 10 & 11?

Yes and the truth that was being given...
Acts 10
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Acts 11
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

[Texas Conservative]

Yes and the truth that was being given...
Acts 10
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
Acts 11
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

If you understood this truth, you wouldn't be parroting the SDA doctrine of demons about abstaining from foods.

Acts 10

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

1 Timothy 4

4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

[Jaime]

[Jaime]

https://vineyardjc.com/was-gods-dietary-law-done-away-with/

[Texas Conservative]

https://vineyardjc.com/was-gods-dietary-law-done-away-with/

Lots of twisting of scriptures in this one.  God's dietary laws were for the Jews, not the Gentiles.

Are you falling into believing this crap?

Did you give up bacon?

[Texas Conservative]

Acts 10 uses food as an illustration of the introduction of the Gentiles to the gospel. 

All food is declared clean and the larger meaning is not food.  However, it is still there.

[Jaime]

This issue has ALWAYS bothered me. I think we have misunderstood Acts 10. I don't think Acts 10 is about what to eat. God never called the Gentiles unclean from what I have seen. The traditiona of man that the Pharisees held to DID consider the gentiles unclean. Jesus spent a great deal of time railing against these "traditions of men" or the oral Torah.

In Acts 10:28, Peter said:

28 "And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew zto associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but aGod has shown me that I should not call any PERSON common or unclean."

Peter realized God's actual purpose for the vision.

I am trying to minimize pork products. Not just for this reason. Though salamander is officially out of the question.

[Texas Conservative]

This issue has ALWAYS bothered me. I think we have misunderstood Acts 10. I don't think Acts 10 is about what to eat. God never called the Gentiles unclean from what I have seen. The traditiona of man that the Pharisees held to DID consider the gentiles unclean. Jesus spent a great deal of time railing against these "traditions of men" or the oral Torah.

In Acts 10:28, Peter said:

28 "And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew zto associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but aGod has shown me that I should not call any PERSON common or unclean."

Peter realized God's actual purpose for the vision.

I am trying to minimize pork products. Not just for this reason. Though salamander is officially out of the question.

I don't think God would have sent a vision about all food being clean to Peter for an illustration if it really wasn't all made clean.  It would be a type of lie.

There was a tearing of the veil after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that changed everything. 

[Jaime]

The vision was a type of object lesson as about the gentiles as Peter understood it and the context of Acts 10 supports. It was ALL about the Gospel for the Gentiles, to fulfill the promise made to Abraham in Genesis.

[Texas Conservative]

The vision was a type of object lesson as about the gentiles as Peter understood it and the context of Acts 10 supports. It was ALL about the Gospel for the Gentiles, to fulfill the promise made to Abraham in Genesis.

If the object lesson was a lie what does that mean?

So clearly not ALL.  If you dismiss the object lesson in the vision, how can you even be sure you understand the larger point?

[Jaime]

The object lesson was not a lie. Peter understood exactly what was meant! And the vision never mentioned gentiles.

[Texas Conservative]

The object lesson was not a lie. Peter understood exactly what was meant! And the vision never mentioned Gentiles.

Peter did not understand exactly what it meant at first.

17 While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon's house was and stopped at the gate.

It was only later that he understood.

28 He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?"

The small object lesson about how all food created by God is clean gave way to the larger lesson.

[Jaime]

It was not against God's law but it was against the Jew's Oral traditions of men that Jesus continually decried.

[3 Resurrections]

There was a tearing of the veil after the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ that changed everything. 

Apparently that change didn't apply to women in your book...

[Texas Conservative]

Apparently that change didn't apply to women in your book...

You will have to be more clear if you want to make statements. 

[Jaime]

TC, the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius (just as it did on Pentecost to the disciples) was confirmation to Peter that Hod had a plan for the Gentiles and they shouldn't consider them unclean as the Pharisee's oral traditions had dictated, but God never declared the Gentiles unclean. The food was the object lesson not the subject of the lesson. The entire context of Acts 10 up until and after the vision was Peter's acceptance or not of the Gentiles based NOT on God's word but of the Pharisee's traditions of men or their oral Torah. Peter then we t on to tell people that it was anout people in vs 28.

[Texas Conservative]

TC, the Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius (just as it did on Pentecost to the disciples) was confirmation to Peter that Hod had a plan for the Gentiles and they shouldn't consider them unclean as the Pharisee's oral traditions had dictated, but God never declared the Gentiles unclean. The food was the object lesson not the subject of the lesson. The entire context of Acts 10 up until and after the vision was Peter's acceptance or not of the Gentiles based NOT on God's word but of the Pharisee's traditions of men or their oral Torah. Peter then we t on to tell people that it was anout people in vs 28.

You are arguing about something I never said.

If the object lesson is given in that all food created by God is clean, perhaps you should agree with what God said and not some error preached by a Messianic group.

[Jaime]

But mothing in the context of the chaoter ever alluded to food. Only Peter's feelings about Gentiles was at issue. If food was the issue,  I would have expected a leadup issue with food. God was addressing the Gentiles to Peter without mentioning the Gentiles, it seems to me. THEN that was ratified in no jncertain terms with the Spirit falling upon Cornelius and his family exactly like it did on the disciples themselves at Pentecost.

[Cathlodox]

Yes.

[dpr]

This issue has ALWAYS bothered me. I think we have misunderstood Acts 10. I don't think Acts 10 is about what to eat. God never called the Gentiles unclean from what I have seen. The traditiona of man that the Pharisees held to DID consider the gentiles unclean. Jesus spent a great deal of time railing against these "traditions of men" or the oral Torah.

In Acts 10:28, Peter said:

28 "And he said to them, "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew zto associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but aGod has shown me that I should not call any PERSON common or unclean."

Peter realized God's actual purpose for the vision.

I am trying to minimize pork products. Not just for this reason. Though salamander is officially out of the question.

The vision of the blanket of unclean animals that God showed Peter is indeed... about the idea The Gospel also going to the Gentiles. And that is exactly what Peter explained to his brethren in Acts 11.

Apostle Paul is who actually defines the New Covenant doctrine about unclean food. In 1 Timothy 4:3 Paul is referring to God's healthy meat list that He "created to be received".

But in 1 Corinthians 10:25 Paul says to eat whatever is sold in the "shambles" (market), asking no question for conscience sake. And if someone bids us to dinner, to eat what they set before us, asking no questions, except if they say it was sacrificed to an idol, then do not eat it for the sake of the one who offered it.

All this means that God's law involving clean vs. unclean foods still is in effect. The difference is that we are no longer held to a must keep it manner like the old covenant.

Want your body to be healthier? then try to eat according to God's clean list, and that in balance too. Use olive oil for cooking and for salad dressing with vinegar instead of Ranch, etc. Olive oil actually helps to cut bad cholesterol, as does a glass of wine per day. Ask your doctor.

[Texas Conservative]

But mothing in the context of the chaoter ever alluded to food. Only Peter's feelings about Gentiles was at issue. If food was the issue,  I would have expected a leadup issue with food. God was addressing the Gentiles to Peter without mentioning the Gentiles, it seems to me. THEN that was ratified in no jncertain terms with the Spirit falling upon Cornelius and his family exactly like it did on the disciples themselves at Pentecost.

The context is Peter was hungry and desiring to eat, and fell into a trance.

Food was in the context of his vision.  It illustrates a point.

So Jaime, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."

Or should I say, don't buy into Messianic arguments and start to consider unholy.

[Jaime]

 O the whole point was to confirm to Peter the Gentiles are part of God's plan. God never considered them unclean. Only the Pharisees traditions of men that Jesus despised taught that the Gentiles were unclean. Peter's being bungrynpresented God an opportunity for an object lesson that needed to be addressed.

In Acts 15 in the Jerusalem counsel, the elders decided on 4 rules for the gentiles conversions.  why? Because they will get rest since Moses is taught each Sabbath in the Synagogues. (Vs 21) That would have been a good opportunity to say "as amended by God in Peter's vision."

This food issue has bothered me as long as I can remember. My denomination's view was like every other mainstream denomination. It bothered me probably 40 years before I knew there was such a thing as Messianic Jews.

Plus in Acts 10:28, Peter stated what God had shkwn jim in the vision, ie the object lesson. Rather than " Hey guys we can have bacon!"

[Texas Conservative]

O the whole point was to confirm to Peter the Gentiles are part of God's plan. God never considered them unclean. Only the Pharisees traditions of men that Jesus despised taught that the Gentiles were unclean. Peter's being bungrynpresented God an opportunity for an object lesson that needed to be addressed.

In Acts 15 in the Jerusalem counsel, the elders decided on 4 rules for the gentiles conversions.  why? Because they will get rest since Moses is taught each Sabbath in the Synagogues. (Vs 21) That would have been a good opportunity to say "as amended by God in Peter's vision."

This food issue has bothered me as long as I can remember. My denomination's view was like every other mainstream denomination. It bothered me probably 40 years before I knew there was such a thing as Messianic Jews.

Plus in Acts 10:28, Peter stated what God had shkwn jim in the vision, ie the object lesson. Rather than " Hey guys we can have bacon!"

The primary lesson is what was shown in Acts 10:28.  However, God would not lie in the vision and tell Peter to eat those foods that were considered unclean, unless he meant it.

The Messianic argument here is stupid.  It repudiates the character of God and makes Him to be a liar.

[Jaime]

No it's not stupid. How many times in scripture has God shown a dream like to Joseph that made a point other than what was shown on the surface of the dream or vision. I don't believe Peter took the vision at all like all the Catholic influenced Christianity has. Our inherited interpretation even as Protestants has never made sense to me, as I said BEFORE I even knew there was such a thing as Messianic Jews.

[Texas Conservative]

No it's not stupid. How many times in scripture has God shown a dream like to Joseph that made a point other than what was shown on the surface of the dream or vision. I don't believe Peter took the vision at all like all the Catholic influenced Christianity has. Our inherited interpretation even as Protestants has never made sense to me, as I said BEFORE I even knew there was such a thing as Messianic Jews.

I don't recall any vision in the OT where God says "hey go eat this food" but doesn't mean it.  It's a poor argument from the Messianics. 

The dietary law was a part of Israel being set a part from those around them.

As a gentile, I was never under the dietary law, and I still am not.

[Jaime]

The dreams Joseph had were metaphorical. Shocks of grain speaking and doing things to one another. Cows eating other cows. Those didn't set the standard of reality for anything. All I'm saying is I don't believe God changed the food laws here, he was using the food laws to demonstrate a truth to Peter about the Gentiles.

[Jaime]

As a side note, is there any place in the Bible where God called the Gentiles unclean? I couldn't find any place. And Peter said God had showed him in the vision not to call any man unclean or common (possibly because God had never referred to them or designated them as unclean and God was correcting him?)
It seems to me God's plan was to have Israel as the means of leading the world, including the clean Gentiles to Him via His Word, not to shun the Gentiles as unclean. And he demonstrated that to Peter im the vision, enough to enter a Gentile's house - Cornelius's, so that final confirmation of that to Peter and the Jews with the falling of the Spirit upon Cornelius. Which leads to Paul's revelation of the "mystery" of the Gospel was for Jews and Gentiles alike in the book of Ephesians. And the mystery was it was always that way in God's mind, not a new plan per se'.

[Amo]

As a side note, is there any place in the Bible where God called the Gentiles unclean? I couldn't find any place. And Peter said God had showed him in the vision not to call any man unclean or common (possibly because God had never referred to them or designated them as unclean and God was correcting him?)
It seems to me God's plan was to have Israel as the means of leading the world, including the clean Gentiles to Him via His Word, not to shun the Gentiles as unclean. And he demonstrated that to Peter im the vision, enough to enter a Gentile's house - Cornelius's, so that final confirmation of that to Peter and the Jews with the falling of the Spirit upon Cornelius. Which leads to Paul's revelation of the "mystery" of the Gospel was for Jews and Gentiles alike in the book of Ephesians. And the mystery was it was always that way in God's mind, not a new plan per se'.

Agreed. God has holy, pure, and righteous intentions for everything He does. That would include trying to tell us what we should or should not eat. This was for a blessing upon Israel, not just another list of rules to burden them. To be sure, it would not hurt anyone to follow these guidelines today, but no doubt be a healthy benefit. Though such advice is not any longer intended to be national law for any by His command. As no literal nation of this earth is called to be His representative today, but only Christ's church, spiritual Israel.

[Jaime]

I don't look at God's food instructions as burdensome but a blessing, as he intended. I also don't think Acts 10 rescinds his instructions, or removes a non-existent burden. The story of Peter's vision, in my opinion, was an object lesson for Peter regarding the Gentiles who God never said were unclean, as far as I can find. The Pharisee's oral Torah (THEIR instructions) or traditions of men, that Jesus spoke against often, erroneously categorized the Gentiles as unclean.

[Texas Conservative]

I don't look at God's food instructions as burdensome but a blessing, as he intended. I also don't think Acts 10 rescinds his instructions, or removes a non-existent burden. The story of Peter's vision, in my opinion, was an object lesson for Peter regarding the Gentiles who God never said were unclean, as far as I can find. The Pharisee's oral Torah (THEIR instructions) or traditions of men, that Jesus spoke against often, erroneously categorized the Gentiles as unclean.

The instructions to Israel were never for you.  And they still aren't for you or me.  We are not part of that audience. 

And for one it was to, a vision said to eat.

[Jaime]

And the person who saw the vision inderstood it was concerning how to treat the gentiles.

I'm not trying to bind you to the food instructions, I think they are good advice. God intended them for blessing and a good life. The instructions were not for imposing a burden.

In Acts 15 the compromise of the four requirements were for new gentile converts, not to require too much of them including circumcision since the Jews were making circumcision or unfamilar food instructions for the new gentile recruits as a prerequite for salvation. The Jews said, hey, they will get the rest of Moses eventually on Sabbath anyway. Why that statement if this was a new permanent paradigm. Implying to me these 4 rules only applied to brand new gentile converts as a compromise with the Jerusalem elders and the new converts would get the rest as they meet in the Synagogues each Sabbath. This was not a new rule for all times for gentiles, just the converts temporarily it seems to me. I fully realize this opposes the typical Christian narrative. It think that narrative not correct. I acknowledge your dismay.

Without the phrase in vs 21, my view would probably be different. At any rate, I don't consider God's food instruction as salvational at all, but just good advice. Any burden surrounding the food instructions AND relationships with Gentiles was perpitrated and furthered by the Pharisee's traditions of men, aka the so called oral torah.

[Jaime]

https://davidwilber.com/articles/did-jesus-reject-the-torahs-dietary-laws-mark

Additionally, scholars recognize that Luke makes use of Mark 7 in his account of Jesus dining with the Pharisee in Luke 11:37-41.[8] Like Mark 7 and Matthew 15, Jesus violated the Pharisaic handwashing ritual but not the Torah. If Luke understood Mark to be addressing the Torah's dietary laws in Mark 7, we might expect him to include that detail in his use of Mark's material, but he doesn't. Luke portrays Jesus as rejecting only extrabiblical traditions, not God's commandments,