The issue presented in Mark Chapter 7 that offended the Pharisees was that of the ceremonial tradition of hand washing before eating. Not doing so would make what they were eating, as well as themselves, unclean. So the matter was not related to those of foods that are deemed unclean, but that of food that was naturally considered clean being made unclean by a tradition. Jesus rebuked this tradition, which didnt really make him a popular guy with the Pharisees.

You teach so well! Gotta admit I was caught in Monte Judah's web for a while, sensing I should free myself, but unsure because his conviction was convincing. I searched for direct guidance on this matter & found you. Being of Jewish origin with Hassidic relatives in Jerusalem, the path to truth hasn't been a smooth one. Yet, I've managed to coax my ninety-year-old mother along with me from the shadows to the Light. Thank you!

The best case one can make is this; neither Jesus nor the Pharisees would have considered pigs, vultures, or crabs as food being that they were all subject to Mosaic law, and since Jesus came to accomplish the law as a native Jew, that is to say He came to live it out without fault, He wouldn’t have eaten such a thing or encouraged others to do so. That said, He lived the Law of Moses perfectly, from birth to death, breaking the curse that all who were under Mosaic Law were recipients of. At His death, the old covenant was laid to rest. Upon His resurrection, the New Covenant went into effect. This covenant only requires that one trust that Jesus is who he said he is, and that he did what he said he did and that He will grant eternal life to all who confess with their mouth and believe in their heart that He is the son of YHVH and that YHVH raised Him from the dead. The food law only applied to those under the Mosaic Covenant, not gentiles, or even those of us under the New Covenant and since the Law of Moses was completed and put to rest, their remains no other means of restoration apart from what Jesus has done. All this being said, I still have my doubts about whether I should eat garbage disposals, water filters and anything else that Noah and his family may have eaten but the Lord has cleansed me and made me acceptable in His sight regardless of my menu choices. No food offered to lesser or false deities. Nothing strangled. No blood. That’s what we have to work with. Nothing wrong with eating like an ancient Israelite but it won’t save you. Only Jesus can do that.

You are so gracious, thorough and understandable in all of your videos - even whilst explaining theological and scholarly concepts, it’s great! Keep up the good work!

The humility and humbleness with which you present your ministry is just as important as the depth of the arguments. Praying for you and your ministry. I wish I could give more likes.

The Jewish man starts off by saying that the passage is speaking about how you defile yourself. Doesn’t eating unclean animals defile someone? Jesus was clearly teaching that what ever goes into the body doesn’t defile you but what comes out of the body (hate) which Jesus told us comes from the heart is what defiles you. If you hate a brother you are guilty of murder. If you lust you are guilty of adultery. It’s a heart issue not a stomach issue

In the closing remarks,Professor kind of fear to Say Peter instructed Mark to write that Yeshua declared all unclean animals clean. The problem with this line of reasoning is, Later as in Act 10, 15, the same Peter still considered unclean animals as unclean. How could that be if Peter had already learned that Pigs and Shellfish had been cleaned in Mark 7 :19

You know, Adventists teach that too. I learned that this phrase was added later. The fact that you found it in the earliest manuscripts is new to me and I love it!

Can you give the link in the description to online earliest NT?

I don't believe gentile Christians are bound to the OT laws myself, but as for Mark 7, it should be pointed out that the more accurate translation from the Greek is "purging all food", and there is no "thus he declared". It seems it was more that he was saying "food passes through the gut and is excreted, purging all the food". And I personally think this phrase isn't in context of saying all food is clean, since "food" arguably was a term that only applied to kosher items. But the context we see was the Pharisees complaining that the disciples didn't ceremonially wash their hands, and without doing that they believed their bodies were spiritually defiled and cursed when they ate the food, even if kosher food. And so it might be understood that Jesus was saying that one didn't need to wash their hands to be spiritually clean when eating, and that the food they ate is all purged anyway when passed through the body. So, he may have just been mocking the notion of being spiritually corrupted by the lack of the ceremonial washing of hands contaminating their kosher food. Whether that as a 'result' then implies he was saying all things you can eat are therefore kosher, is another matter.

I must commend you for your excellent exposition of Mark7 and alluding it to Lev11. Thank you.

Pharisees be like; how dare you to renew the things that the God of our ancestors has been stablished.! Jesus be like; im literally him

Thanks for not judging me. I stopped eating unclean animals when I saw the same setup in the end of Isaiah as in Matthew 24 and Revelations. And unclean animals are simply not food. Shalom!

Father God as a single mother things are hard on me. Jesus, lift me out of my debts and provide me financial stability. My husband passed years ago. I miss him dearly. Both of my sons are autistic. I’m constantly struggling to provide for them. I suffered an heart attack and I’m battling lupus. Father God hear my prayers. I constantly struggle to pay my bills. BUT I KEEP FAITH. Even though I want to give up. FAITH over fear is the only point of my message. Love and compassion is the christian way. I receive so much hate from others because of my situation. But “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” God your words give me encouragement. I praise you Father even as I fear homelessness please continue to give me strength. You have provided this far Heavenly Father and for that I’m so grateful. MY FAITH IS MY SHEILD!

Mark 7:15 where Professor build his Pork and Shellfish argument say this , Mark 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. (AKJ) This sounds present continuous tense. YESHUA is not claiming to start cleansing food from that day of argument in Mark 7 as Professor claims. It is known from Leviticus 11 that eating flesh of Unclean animals defiles, but Yeshua here is pointing at food which does not defile anyone, ie Clean meat eaten with unwashed hand. Vs 2-3 Look at vs 14-15 with an open mind There is no discussion of Unclean animals in Mark 7.

Hello! John 14:15 Yeshua says “if you love me, keep my commandments” what commandments do you follow?

I just found this channel and have learned a lot. Thank you for your work. I am researching different cults within Christianity. I have never been in HR movement myself, but have encountered people involved in it. It has not been anything but weird! As far as food itself, everything is made spiritually clean to eat for us, but that doesn’t mean it’s clean in the natural. Pork is still one of the filthiest meats anyone can eat and numerous studies have linked it to many diseases and parasites. 🐷 That’s why we don’t eat it, however we could spiritually. We are not condemned for eating a honey baked ham. So many Christians get so angry about their food. Strangest thing I notice, especially with pork, is that I can abstain for any other food (soy, wheat, milk, black jelly beans), but if I say I don’t eat pork…oh here come the claws out. People have a weird obsession and emotional attachment to pork. It’s not like any other food. There was even a whole show dedicated to bacon alone where a guy did nothing but travel and eat basin at different restaurants. He got heart disease. Still believe “all foods are clean” in the natural? Eat McDonalds 3X a day for six months. Take vitals before and after. God didn’t restrict the people from eating bad foods because it was only about the law. It was also a HEALTH issue. To abstain from these things based solely upon health reasons is a good thing. To abstain from them based on self sanctification is a BAD thing. We can’t eat our way to heaven, but we can send ourselves there sooner if we are not wise.

Awesome breakdown on this verse. Another thing I thought about was when he sent the disciples out in Luke 10:8 and told them not to reject the food placed in front of them. Christ knew they would be eating gentile foods as the gospel spread throughout the land, why would Christ want their missions hindered by focusing on Kosher foods? Just a thought. I don't see anything wrong with being mindful of what we put in our Temples and even asking God to help us navigate that with wisdom but we can't loose sight of the freedoms we have in Christ. Scripture is clear not to judge others by what they choose to eat or drink etc Romans 14:2 if peeps want to keep it Kosher, awesome if not it's still awesome we just wouldn't want to create a stumbling block in the process, that seems to correlate with the heart posture Jesus want us to operate in: Love. God bless yall in Jesus name. Amen

Shabbat shalom my Christian friends, can someone, even the Professor, explain to me why John in the Spirit records that there are still unclean animals in the end days? Revelation 18:2 2 With a mighty voice he shouted: “‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!’ She has become a dwelling for demons and a haunt for every impure spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable animal.” 🤔

Thank you, brother and praise God our Father, our Lord Jesus and our Helper His Spirit

It's so amazing how false teachers will talk as f they are experts and know what they're talking about. This guy knows nothing about textual criticism, he doesn't know anything about the Textus Receptus, and the sheer number of copies that were out there that have been collected and collated. I'm seeing more and more these self-proclaimed "authorities" who are making such fundamental blunders, and not even taking notice of their error, and certainly not admitting to them, even when confronted by someone who is better qualified than they in textual criticism and apologetics! The extent of false teaching on the basis of blindness and downright intellectual dishonesty is quite astounding!

Some English translations have added the words “making all foods clean”, which are NOT in any original manuscript, Aramaic or Greek. In the first century pork was not even considered food, and it is unthinkable in a completely Jewish environment to think that Yahshua is telling His disciples that they can eat pork and the Pharisees would simply let it pass and not even condemn Him for it. It is clear from the context and also the cross reference of Mat 15:16-20 that the subject is eating without washing according to Rabbinical tradition and not even about meat at all. Also, in Acts 10 with Peter's Vision, Peter clearly says that he never ate any unclean meat. This was probably 15 years after Yahshua spoke this in Mark 7. If pork and shellfish were made clean in Mark 7, Peter would not have been surprised when he heard the voice telling him to "Slaughter and Eat". (Peter's initial understanding was that the voice was telling him to eat unclean animals. However, nowhere did the voice tell him to specifically eat the unclean animals on the sheet, the voice could've just been referring to the clean animals on the sheet. Also, the true meaning of the vision was to declare the good news to the gentiles who could now be grafted into Israel).

The flesh is collateral to sin. Nothing can break the Spirit. I love y’all.

This "teacher" says that Jesus' commandments were the one about loving your neighbor and loving God. Yet in 1 John 5 it says to love your neighbor, you are to obey the commandments. And then to love God, you are to keep the commandments. So, clearly loving your neighbor and God are NOT the commandments that 1 John is referring to. But because I can refute his position, I'll probably get banned from commenting again. Read your Bible.

Thank you brother I'm slowly starting to see things I used to be in the Hebrew roots. May YHWH bless you

Amazing, thorough, and unquestionable video. Thank you!

It would be a little different maybe if Yeshua said therefore i declare all foods clean. No, Yeshua stops talking and the author then tells us what Yeshua did by the statements he had made. But it still makes no sense because the two have nothing to do with eachother. Clean vs unclean food have nothing to do with dirt. Unclean foods was not considered food. What upset them was challenging their hand washing customs and their power.

Awesome video! I have a coworker who was asking me about this exact question.

Um, That verse you quoted, "Thus he declared all foods clean", it isn't in the Greek texts. I checked. Most English Bibles have a notation that the translators added this in, commenting on the text. Your translator is telling you that he thinks the text ought to mean that anything you want to eat is food. What Mathew 15 does say, however, is that what you eat is cleaned out of your body when you defecate. Incedently this chapter is not talking about foods that God asked Jews not to eat. It is talking about judging and condemning others for how they prepare the food God told them they could eat. These, according to the text, were people judging others for the technique they used to wash the food, the utensils, and the hands preparing the food. There was, and still is, a tradition about repeatedly washing things while praying with each wash. These particular people taught that if someone didn't do the washings exactly as they said to, then it had not even been done. According to their ritual technique, it was important to use a water container of the right material size and shape. With the right amount of the right water. Each washing must be of the right amount of water and accompanied by the right exact prayer thanking God for providing those particular people to be in authority over us and tell us this exact technique or we could never have known how God wanted us to do this kind of washing, since He neglected to put it in the Bible. Now there were and are different groups, even within the same sects, that had variations of this ritual and at that time each group taught that their way was the right way and if you used one of the other traditions, or were poor enough not to be able to afford to do their tradition, then you had not done it at all, and your standing before God was in doubt. Now according to Jesus in this passage there is nothing wrong with washing things. There's nothing wrong with praying. But there is something wrong with leaders adding to what God says and then telling people that they will be judged by God or lose their salvation based on how well they obey those leaders. As far as eating the things God defined as not fit to be eaten by the descendants of Israel, the Torah does not require that people from other ethnic groups abstain from eating other things. According to Torah Jews are to allow none Jewish people to eat non-kosher foods if they want. Jews are even permitted to provide non-kosher food to and even sell pork to foreigners if they want it. Things God has defined as unclean are often the most nutritious thing that is available in some communities. It may not be ideal but that's what is available. In Torah, there are teachings about morale imperatives and there are teachings about morale ideals. If, for instance, a Jew eats something non-kosher, for some reason, he is to quarantine for a set time and bathe. After that he is clean again. Now if he commits adultery, he has sinned. The reason that God gave for asking Jews not to eat unclean food, is so that the person responding to God's request can live abundant life. It is not and was not an issue to send people to hell over. Nor is the concept of kosher food some abhorrent aspect of the divine nature that God had to come kill himself to free us from. Its just a blessing. If you want it, it's yours, and if you don't want it leave it where it is.

Did God give dietary laws or did he give laws of the clean and unclean? If the latter, why?

How do we know the verb says Jesus is acting on it and cleaning all foods and not the stomach? In fact the very site you linked translates it so: 19 because it goes not into his heart, but into his belly, and is cast out into the sink, making all meats clean.

I was working on a small project last year wherein I was cataloguing all verses in parentheses across translations. Genesis alone proves their theory very incorrect. Would they REALLY claim Genesis 14:18 isn’t true? That’s got monumental theological interpretations for later verses!!

Excellent explanation Professor Solberg. Is your book available in Spanish? thank you

It's pretty clear the Messiah taught: _"...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man."_ Matthew 15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? Matthew 15:18 *But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.* Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Deuteronomy 18.18 where does it say Jesus will change something. Isaiah 42.21 Christ will magnify the law

You not worry about people say you manipulate the Scripture since "Jesus declared all food are clean" is mentioned in ESV Bible? Where are the verses support your statement that after Jesus' declaration, the disciples are still having strict diet? Why would Romans 14:20 also not in unison with your statement?

Professor, Is the Passage, "Does he declare all #Foods clean" same as, "Does he declare all #animals / #beasts clean". If food eaten with unclean hands was to enter into the heart as by Yeshua statement, it would defile someone. If Yeshua is the one cleansing food but not the belly, would it be impossible for Him to cleanse food if that food was to go to the heart?

Not being funny, that Judah guy is strawmanning himself. The issue isn't that hundreds of years ago someone added to the text (guessing this implies the Greek?). The issue is do the Greek words that translate to "cleaning all foods" imply a prefix of "thus he declared" (not found in the Greek), or are they just a continuation of him speaking, as the kjv puts it? Thus matthew 15:20 being the conclusion of this. Why would Jesus be talking about them putting aside the commandments of God (which animals are valid as food are from God), to obey the traditions of men (ritual handwashing), and then nullify commands of God?

Italics, not parenthesis, are used in most versions to indicate words that are not in original manuscripts. Total phrases are almost always explained except in KJV.

I thought it wasn't done away with until after he died? Would he not be breaking the law thus making him imperfect thus making him ineligible to be messiah. This is why your side is hard pressed to use teachings of Yeshua for supporting their views of the law being done away with. He contradicts that in so many ways like i did not come to abolish the law, and when the rich man said he's keeping all the commandments did Jesus say, go home and keep the law no more? No, he said keep doing that, sell your stuff, give the money away and follow me is the only thing you are missing. That's why you must turn to Paul and his confusing wording on matters of the law. I hope you can see how Yeshua declaring foods clean at this point, before all things had been finished according to your viewpoint, would nullify his standing as a spotless lamb. Lastly, why doesn't Jesus give Peter the memo that he can now eat whatever he wants? It was well after the ascension of Jesus that Peter had that dream about the gentiles. Remember he was flabbergasted, why in the world would you have me eating all of these things you call an abomination to you? I have never in my life eaten that which was not clean. To his relief, as we find out the dream was not about food at all but about gentiles being ready to also receive the gospel. Why was he so surprised?

Paul wrote "these ARE a shadow of good things to come". Present tense thus still binding. And what is "still to come" is the day of atONEment. Let no one judge you...but the body of Christ.

God does Not Change. Again Jesus was talked about the tradition of hand washing Food being ritualy prepared. He Stated that unclean animals is food...

Your whole problem starts with the declaration that JC fulfilled the law, as the prophets tell us that *God's law and sacrefices including those for sin, will be observed after God will gather His people to their land (!) in a time of peace.* *God's law is eternal.*

Excellent Rob.. Thank you 🙏

I am noticing that on Shabbat you are posting videos deliberately, with full consciousness, trashing God's law. What you are doing is mocking God. By the way, satan is the one who is using you as a tool to trash God's law on Shabbat. Even though you will not respond to my posts, I will still respond to your videos.

In the New King James Version, in Mark 7:19, it says, "thus purifying all foods?" And in the King James it says "purging all meats?" Maybe I'm ignorant in some things But wouldn't this verse be speaking about simple digestion? And purging means to eliminate. Because the whole issue was about washing your hands cerimonially. That's why Jesus taught His disciples (in Matthew 15) that eating with unwashed hands, doesn't make a man unclean. And if Jesus "declared all foods clean", why then, when Peter was given the vision of the large sheet lowered from Heaven with all the "unclean" animals and told to eat them, if Peter knew that Jesus declared all foods clean, why would Peter object? "Not so Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean?" Of course we realize the lesson That the Holy Spirit was trying to get through to Peter was "God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Acts 10:28 (B) If you can answer this question for me, I would greatly appreciate it.

Why did this not start at Mark 7:2 where I think the whole context gets established? The Pharisees Noticed Some disciples didn't Wash Their Hands before Eating = that's the context. Not that Jesus got so frustrated with them (Pharisees) that He declared all foods clean, because they have dirty hands but not dirty hearts - so eat what you want. Redonkulous.

With all due respect, even though little respect on this channel is given to Torah observant believers... 1."Jesus declared all foods clean." as you know was added to the newer translations. 2. This passage has to do with a vision about gentiles coming to visit Peter and for him to accept them. If you continue to read, you'll see this is the conclusion that Peter came up with. 3. If the vision was simply about food, why did Peter ponder the meaning? Yet, we who did not have the vision simply know the answer... 4. When Yeshua said not one bit of the Torah would be done away with, is that not clear enough?

Nobody was offended because the food was clean or the food was unclean. These are a group of Jews who are in a discussion. It is obvious that all the food is clean. Because this is the only kind of food that they would eat. I think that this is pretty obvious. But what offended the pharisees was the idea that you did not have to do what the pharisees told you you had to do. That just because they made a rule doesn't mean you have to follow that rule. This is what was offensive because it dealt with their control. We do the same thing in America, we say. Well, we've passed a law, therefore you have to follow it because we passed it. This is why Hanukkah becomes so important. Because it makes the point just because you pass a law doesn't mean I have to follow it. Because the first individual that I need to follow is God. As long as it is okay with God for me to follow that law. Then I will follow that law. But if it goes against God, then you need to go somewhere else. Because it is not happening here.

Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

It would help is the HR people would make the distinction between “Positive Law” and “Moral Law”. Moral law: love your neighbor as yourself. (Unchanging and forever in every circumstance) Positive law: drive the speed limit (if someone’s life needs saving by getting them to the hospital it can be ignored and broken) There are Positive Laws I gave my 6year old that do not apply to my 16 year old. “Do not drive the car.” As his father, I am free to change the Positive Laws I have placed over him because I am his father. Now, if I told him to break Moral Laws, I have no authority to do so. “Boy, grab your gun and kill the family next door because they won’t turn down their music.” HR have elevated Kosher to Moral Law when it is Positive Law. They would even deny Jesus to his face, rejecting his authority because of their mistaken categories. They deny that God is free to change his Positive Law and in so doing deny Jesus, Peter, Paul, the early church, manuscript evidence, and translations. It is a grand conspiracy so people can eat bacon. Really?

What is the basis legalists picks and choose as to which Laws they believe are still required for today? Deuteronomy 13 is clear that nobody is to take away from, nor add to the Law, and yet today, the legalists teach only a small hand full of them as allegedly being valid for today by way of observance. Leviticus 12 commands circumcision. I haven't heard them commanding their male converts must be circumcised. What about putting "fingers" on the corners of clothing from Numbers 15, bind God's word on the head and the arm in Deuteronomy 6, to affix the mezuzah to the door posts and gates of their house from Deuteronomy 6, and to appear in the sanctuary as stated in Deuteronomy 16 on festivals? Invariably, they have told me that there's no temple for them obey that. Well, even if there were, I doubt they would all obey that Law. What about Uzzah, when he found out the hard way that there is no excuse for disobedience...I mean, after all, he was trying to do good, to find a justifying alternative to obedience to Yah when he placed his hand on the Ark with the best of intentions. Even the Jews, who could have had a tent tabernacle, still did not seek to obey, even they could have. Are the HR people any different? They too could have had a tabernacle in their locale, but they don't. Why? Isn't Torah supposed to be observed? This all smacks of hypocrisy. Singer and all his yammering seems to also make excuses for his and all their disobedience. Since when does it have to be a stone temple, when they had a tabernacle in the desert that traveled with them? Yah was flexible then, so they not now? As an Israelite, to my ears this all smacks of the sin of convenience to teach one thing, and do so much of all else...again, in the name of convenience and excuses that simply fail the tests of credible practice!

These are the words of Yeshua, there was no discussion of Unclean animals as Professor claim. Parallel to Mark 7:18-19 is Matthew 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Jesus says in Mark 7: 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?19 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.)

You are an intelligent man, how can you be so oblivious? So are you saying 1. God changed his mind on what his Torah is ? 2 what is the biblical definition of sin ? 3. Also "let no man judge you" BECAUSE you are keeping those things. 4 are you also saying that the disciples that knew Jesus best ate unclean animals after Jesus died on the cross or before even? Think about what you're saying if Jesus ate unclean animals ( not declared food by God himself) or changed the law ( not upholding the law ) he couldn't be our sinless sacrifice. Blessings on your future studies my friend. But be careful to not lead others into sin with the twisting of the truth, because teachers are judged more strictly.

Is this a re-upload?

What do I care if you both have your different oral law of interpretation. You are too focused on food interpretations along with Mr Judah. Your definitions are just as divergent. You have failed theology and so does he. Why not change the discussion to show that the new testament has no definition of what a true or false prophet is.... so according to you, we cant use torah definitions for the topic because "its not in the new testament". you have just as dangerous theology as him in a completely different topic

Why was some animals declared unclean for food? I think it was for our benefit, our health, Today it is not a salvation issue. Then why eat unclean food?

I find the arguing over this funny. Ever seen a pig? What they eat? The sewer line that runs down the best part - the loin - and out the bottom of the 'hoof' because they do not sweat. They really are disgusting animals... eat garbage, (they used to collect the food wastes from a chow hall I ran in Japan, garbage cans full of 'I ain't gonna eat this ship' - so we could eat it on the fried rice in town). And now I want a BLT. This verse is NOT about 'food' - it's about PROCESSED FOOD. So as to say... after you are done being healed by the stripes of a 'friend' - and fairhful are those wounds, you will find a broken vessel, shattered into pieces by an IRON ROD which is the (Word) or LAW of GOD. And ya know?? It's truly a miracle as to how much water that STONE JAR will hold, once you soften it up a bit. I think the jars are plenty soft these days, soft as 'sponges'... and they do nothing but suck up all the water for themselves and refuse to share blessings, effectively claiming and hogging it all for themselves, instead of being vessels from which unlimited living water flows. Maybe that is why things are the way they are. Any thoughts on that? Have left my number several times - and it still can't be herd. ~ prophet

Anyone can reply, even you, Robert Solberg, but I doubt if you would respond, so regurgitate it, and while you regurgitating it, maybe God will open your eyes. You Gentile believers who hate reading should read before responding. God told Adam, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food. Tell me, did God put a tree of the knowledge of good and evil to eat of? Remember that in Genesis 1:29 he said every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed he may eat? You might say that afterwards he gave a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Okay, let's assume you are right, so let's go to the next question: The manchineel tree is one of the world's most poisonous trees. Consumption of the fruits is potentially lethal and frequently causes burn-like blisters in the mouth and esophagus. Now in Genesis 1:29, God said that every tree, in which the fruit of a tree yields seed, is food to you. Tell me, is it okay to eat from the manchineel tree? Remember that God said every tree, and the Machineel tree was not mentioned. So, to respond to Genesis 9:3, just because it says every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you does not necessarily mean that God is permitting one to eat of the unclean beast, just like it says you can eat of every fruit tree in which beareth seeds does not mean that you should go eat of it (referring to the manchineel tree) unless you want to drop dead. Here are two other poison trees: Taxus baccata and the Eucalyptus tree. Tell me, being that God said that you can eat of every tree that bears fruits, does that include the three trees I just mentioned, and would you eat the fruits of those trees? Now go back to Genesis 9:3, read the verse again, and with the above, you should understand that God is not permitting one to eat of the unclean beast; if it does, why don't you then try the fruits of the poisonous tree I just mentioned, being that God said every fruit tree you can eat of?

Thank you I was confused about the unclean food. I understand now.. but lol! I don't eat pork anyway 😂

1 John says that if we abide in Him, we are to walk as He walked. He was Torah observant. He also said not one bit of the law would be done away with until all of heaven and earth were gone. He also commanded is to follow the instructions given from the seat of Moses, uhm that's Torah folks.

Great video as always. I enjoyed the interview that you had with vocab Malone. I can help but think about 1 Timothy 4:1-5 especially verse 3 "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer." Some within the Hebrew roots movement live out the scriptures below 1 Timothy 6:3-5 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the soundwords of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, 5and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain

I see where you are coming from especially when youbwent from the older text. you said it translates too Jesus made all foods clean, but werent they talking about dirty hamds make their clean food unclean. I would believe that a conversation between a group of jews the unclean animals were never considered food.

Straw-man arguments are your forté.

can u plz explain how dietary is a shadow of things to come?? you mean Yeshua came to die for Pig??

RL can you address Torahism, rebuking of Mark 7 by bringing up that if Jesus made all foods clean, why didn't Peter know this in Acts 10. TIA

Look, I’m a survivor of Torahism, so I do not think the dietary restrictions apply to us today. However…. this ain’t it, chief. If in that moment Jesus was truly declaring all food clean, he can not reasonably be said to have put himself under the Law as a perfectly obedient servant. It’s like saying “I bowled a perfect game,” while having changed the rules in my bowling alley to where it counts if I run up and knock down all the pins by hand that I missed. Acts, Galatians, and more all have stronger evidence that gentile converts weren’t meant to keep things like dietary laws. I’ve seen your discussions about this conflict with several videos, and you give the “well, it could be this… could be that.” If I was still Torah Observant, a video like this would only have bolstered my belief that non-TO people had no idea what they were talking about. If you can’t give a reasonable explanation that accounts for how he could simultaneously perfectly uphold the Law while changing it the middle of his life, or how this doesn’t completely contradict the bit from Matthew about not even a joy or tittle passing away until all had been fulfilled, then just stop making videos about this particular verse. As is, I have no doubt that any TO person who saw this would easily find their false practices strengthened. I apologize if this sounds harsh, I do not want to come across that way. I think you’re seriously making the best content out there to dispute this false religious practice, but this is the one verse I feel like just doesn’t gel well with your other content. For kicks, I’ll add that my view has evolved to one where I think it’s about the ritual elements where they think simply eating the food without following rabbinical traditions made one unclean, rather than Jesus redefining what “food” meant to his audience and changing the rules he was going to be “perfectly obedient to” mid-ministry. There is an argument to be made that this is a shadow of the full truth that will be revealed later, but that would be the furthest I think one could reasonably defend.

For sure, the Proverb that comes to mind? Proverbs 18:17...

Even here you see the deceit of Christianity. You have Rl solberg quoting Gods words in Leviticus saying these foods defile Israelites. Then you have him throwing it out saying “but Jesus says what really defiles a man.” You have Gods direct words and still deny it for Jesus.

If this weren't an additional insert, Peter wouldn't not have argued with God in his dream. God would have reminded him what Christ said.

This guy and other false prophets and false ministries make God schizophrenic. Malachi 3. 6 I change not. Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever. Ecclesiastes 3 14 what God has done man should fear it stands forever and ever

The context is obviously food laws and also go to the Gentiles read in correct context and with Jesus own words and other witnesses.

The original Greek actually states Mark 7 : 19 way more emphatically than was translated into English: "Katharizo pas ho broma" Cleansed all the food! Katharizo is used (biblically) in the following senses: • to cleanse, render pure, purify • to cleanse from leprosy • met. to cleanse from sin, purify by an expiatory offering, make expiation for • to cleanse from sin, free from the influence of error and sin • to pronounce ceremonially clean

is human meat ok to eat?

The only reason why we say that this Greek manuscript is the oldest Greek manuscript. Is because of the writing style. The writing style does not prove the age. It just proves that this is an old piece of work.

Hey Rabbi Solberg, Jesus said its not what you eat that makes you unclean! So then we have Christians thinking we can eat anything, when God clearly defines what food is! So Christians ignore The Father, thinking Jesus changed His law! This kind of reasoning is why the alphabet people think they're saved! They'll say because Jesus didn't directly teach against the alphabet agenda .... and because He's all about love, its okay to make love to members of the same sex! So they, just like many "" Rabbinic Christians"", change doctrine to suit themselves!

My KJB Bible does not have this phrase!

Awesome. Good video. I read the same passages & came to the exact same conclusions 👈😁👍

Monte Judah doesn't know the difference between round brackets and square brackets. Nor is he aware of the history of the development of punctuation.

Isaiah 65:4 (KJV) Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable [things is in] their vessels; Isaiah 66:17 (KJV) They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one [tree] in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD. You are in error .

As far as this Greek goes, if the catholics were using it to start there fire. This is how little regard that they had for this. Greek, why are we using it in our bibles? Unless we're trying to figure out a way or a we can sin.

I'm finding this really interesting because in the front of an NASB copy I have states 'ITALICS are used in the text to indicate words which are not found in the original Hebrew or Greek but implied by it. Italics are used in the marginal notes to signify alternate readings for the text'. In this version Mark 7: 19 is italicized & in parentheses. No extra notes provided so it would indicate NASB version is saying the meaning is implied only.

Eating unclean animals is defiling yourself (beginning at 17:48). For some reason you think unclean animals = food. This is not so. Unclean animals are not food. Jesus did not wash himself (according to the ceremonial washings required by the Jews) before eating in Luke 11 and Jesus' disciples did not wash themselves (according to the ceremonial washings required by the Jews) in Acts 15. Unclean animals are not food. FOOD is cleaned by the body and everything on it that is not food goes out into the toilette. All FOOD is clean. Scripture defines what food is. Isaiah says the Lord will destroy those eating swine's flesh, rats, and the abomination (other unclean animals like shrimp, lobster, camel, dog, cat, etc.) when he comes in flaming fire (2nd coming). They will meet their end altogether. Abraham *believed* God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness. God told Noah and those on the ark which animals were clean and unclean. If we truly *believe God* then those animals are unclean. Why would we eat them? Isaiah says those who do eat them will be destroyed when the Lord comes in flaming fire.

The codex saniaticus and all the original manuscripts does not have the entry that Jesus made all food clean, thst was added in by theilogian whi misintrepret the scripture by adding these words base on jesus words on what goes into mouth is clean. It does not say that Jeses made all food clean.

What’s sad is that a couple of years ago I would have believed him. I heard the same thing while in Hebrew roots when I didn’t have this knowledge. I just took the pastors at their word because I thought they were more educated.

1/3: Mark 7:18-19 18And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) [ESV] The parenthetical phrase “(Thus he declared all foods clean)” is not in any of the original manuscripts; this has been added to God’s Holy Scriptures by men. Jesus never spoke those words, nor did Mark ever write them! It’s not in any of the Greek or Aramaic texts whatsoever, and it’s not in any English translation printed before the 20th century. This parenthetical phrase, or variations of it, has only been added to ‘contemporary’ bibles [e.g., ASV, BBE, CET, CSB, ESV, GNT, GWT, HCSB, NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, RSV, WNT] in the last 100 years or so. We are being lied to! Whether it is deliberate or in ignorance is irrelevant, it’s still deception. The Greek text for Mark 7:19 in the ‘Textus Receptus’ is as follows: www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/textus_receptus_king_james/mark/mark07.htm Mark 7:19 οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου εις την καρδιαν αλλ εις την κοιλιαν και εις τον αφεδρωνα εκπορευεται καθαριζον παντα τα βρωματα οτιG3754 CONJ ουκG3756 PRT-N εισπορευεταιG1531 V-PNI-3S αυτουG846 P-GSM ειςG1519 PREP τηνG3588 T-ASF καρδιανG2588 N-ASF αλλG235 CONJ ειςG1519 PREP τηνG3588 T-ASF κοιλιανG2836 N-ASF καιG2532 CONJ ειςG1519 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM αφεδρωναG856 N-ASM εκπορευεταιG1607 V-PNI-3S καθαριζονG2511 V-PAP-NSN πανταG3956 A-APN ταG3588 T-APN βρωματαG1033 N-APN becauseG3754 CONJ notG3756 PRT-N enterG1531 V-PNI-3S hisG846 P-GSM intoG1519 PREP theG3588 T-ASF heartG2588 N-ASF butG235 CONJ intoG1519 PREP theG3588 T-ASF abdomenG2836 N-ASF andG2532 CONJ intoG1519 PREP theG3588 T-ASM privyG856 N-ASM dischargedG1607 V-PNI-3S purgingG2511 V-PAP-NSN allG3956 A-APN theG3588 T-APN foodG1033 N-APN The Greek text from ‘Codex Alexandrinus’ and ‘Codex Vaticanus’ says the exact same thing as the ‘Textus Receptus’ above, word for word; manuscripts.csntm.org/manuscript/View/GA_02, digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209?ling=en. The Greek text from ‘Codex Sinaiticus’ says the same thing as the ‘Textus Receptus’, ‘Codex Alexandrinus’ and ‘Codex Vaticanus’ except for one word; εκβαλλετε is used instead of εκπορευεται: codexsinaiticus.org/en Mark 7:19 οτι ουκ ειϲπορευετε αυτου ειϲ την καρδιαν αλλ ειϲ την κοιλιαν και ειϲ τον αφεδρωνα εκβαλλετε καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα. Strong’s G1544, is εκβαλλετε/ekballo, which Thayer’s Greek Lexicon states as: to cast out; to drive out; to send out. This is used instead of Strong’s G1607, εκπορευεται/ekporeuomai which Thayer’s Greek Lexicon states as: to go forth, go out, depart. As you can see, these are very similar terms. Again, the “Law-changing” words “(thus he declared all foods clean)”, were not spoken by Jesus, they are not in the original Greek! They are nowhere to be found in any manuscript! They have been added by contemporary men! It’s not a footnote, a side bar commentary, nor even noted as an opinion; it’s added right into the ‘verse’ itself, as if it were inspired Scripture! ‘Men’ added to the Word of God in order to promote man-made doctrine. The English words “all” and “food” are in the Greek text. βρωματα/G1033, brōmata, which is translated as “food”, is from bibróskó/G977, which means “to eat”. This is in reference to the “bread” that the Pharisees were complaining was being eaten without first “properly” washing the hands (Mark 7:2, 3 & 5), which is a ‘man-made tradition’ and not a Command of the Almighty. By the way, in five of the translations I listed above, the Greek word G740 ἄρτους/artous which is ‘bread’ in English, has been deleted from the Word of God, on purpose, twice! The topic of discussion is ‘bread eaten with unwashed hands’. The context is not meat/flesh, and whether or not pig, rat, camel or any other unclean animal is now ‘declared clean’; those words are NOT in the original text. By deleting words and adding words, the “translators” have purposefully steered you, the reader, away from the true context and message of the Word of God, in order to promote their own man-made doctrine. The parallel verse in Matthew verifies the actual context of what is truly being said in Mark 7:19.

The Father only cares about your heart. He doesn’t give a whit about your diet unless you feel it makes you closer to Him. Then have at it. He sure as hell doesn’t care what you do about the elbow skin on your accoutrement. The Father is never petty. There’s enough real issues to deal with. Try Mat 5:21-22 then just stop.

Deuteronomy 4.2. Ecc 3 14. Deuteronomy 12.32. You shall not add or take away

So does this really settle the entire discussion on if Jesus declared all foods clean? Well consider these points. In the three Gospels that record the trial of Jesus before the chief priests and Sanhedrin, nowhere is it recorded that Jesus was rightly found guilty of taking away or adding words to the Law of Moses (Deut 4:2) or leading others to disobey YHWH’s commands (Deut 13:4-5) which would make him a false prophet. Mar 14:55 “Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any.” They could only get false testimony against Jesus. That info was recorded by three different Spirit filled writers. Did they leave something out? Another point is, since several Apostles were present for that teaching in Mark apparently teaching all foods clean, why several decades later did Peter state to the Lord that he had not eaten anything unclean? The vision from God would have no impact at all because there was no more unclean animals? Or why at that time of Peter’s vision, again decades later, did the apostles have any issues eating with gentiles? Another point is, if nothing that you eat can defile a man, which is quite different from the point being made that NOTHING entering man can defile him, why then does Jesus in the book of Revelation chastise two churches for those EATING things sacrificed to idols and tell them to repent (Rev 3:14,20)? Is Jesus pulling a Biden here and forgetting what he said 2K years earlier? Another point is your Heavenly Father YHWH set the food rules of what is food and what is not food, not the Jews as Rob lightly stated. Since there are parentheses in the Mark 7:19 verse making it very unique and controversial, this Berean will go with the safer account in Matthew. “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man (Matt 15:19-20).

♥️🙏

An excerpt of my unpublished document regarding eating biblically clean: Dirty Animals or Dirty Bread? Mark 7:1-23 KJV 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 often, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they do not eat. And many other things there are, which they have received to hold, such as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen 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 unwashed hands? 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 Elohim, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of Elohim, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 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. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of Elohim of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such 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. 16 If any man has ears to hear, let him hear. 17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 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; 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. In the full context, the Pharisees were getting onto Yahshua because the disciples were eating food with hands that had not been cleaned as can be read four times in verses 2 through 5. Nowhere in scripture is there a mandate to wash your hands before the general eating of food. Any washing that has been prescribed in the Torah has been for washing after being found ritually unclean and for the priests to be ritually clean before attending the temple service. Yahshua then said that the Pharisees would rather hold to the tradition of men over the word of Elohim. What is the tradition of men in this example? Washing hands before eating. The premise was that the Pharisees would rather keep a tradition of removing even the smallest amount of dirt to keep to their predecessors’ traditions. A little dirt on a person’s hands does not make what the Bible considers to be food as unclean. The mentality that pressing a burden for others to have to wash their hands to be able to even eat bread properly was simply adding to the word of Elohim, which is warned against throughout all of scripture. “Has Elohim not said?” as asked by Satan in the garden of Eden. Do not add to or take away from the words of this book, Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32 and Revelation 22:18-19. So many past and present teachers and preachers will be found with portions of their heavenly rewards taken from them according to scripture. This passage in Mark 7 is not about permission granting the eating of any kind of animal flesh, let alone an unclean animal. To put this passage in the context of clean or unclean animals is to put a slant to scripture, twisting the scriptures to say something it isn't clearly and definitively saying. The primary rules of hermeneutics define context and similar, especially parallel, passages to be honored when dissecting a certain topic or verse. To quote Mark 7 in the manner that most Christian teachers or pastors will, that this passage declares all animals as food, takes it far removed from its result in the parallel passage found in Matthew 15:20 "These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashed hands defileth not a man." Yahshua, keeping it in context, puts the final meaning of the whole parable he spoke to His disciples. The matter of what food was according to our Savior and every other Jewish person harkens back to Leviticus 11 and 20 and Deuteronomy 14, nothing that was unclean was to be eaten. This was not a suggestion but a direct command in all places. Just like the poisonous green plants that bear seeds and can be eaten, we must, with wisdom, be careful in what we choose to eat. Like metal and rocks and various other materials, if it wasn't considered fit to eat, it wasn’t considered to be food. Let's look again at Mark 7:18-19. 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. 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? The idea is that a hand that is not washed has impurities attached to the meats or food in general. When the food passes through the body, the physical impurities are then removed or purged or purified. There is a Greek word for the above translated words, "purging" and "meat". They are the words katharizō and bromah: G2511 kath-ar-id-zo to make clean, cleanse from physical stains and dirt utensils, to cleanse by curing, to remove by cleansing, in a moral sense: to free from defilement of sin and from faults, to free from guilt of sin, to purify, to consecrate by cleansing or purifying, to pronounce clean in a Levitical sense G1033 bro'-mah that which is eaten, food The word katharidzo is defined as cleaning, purifying, and freeing from the guilt of sin, etc. The word bromah is defined as that which is eaten or simply, food. To a Jewish person in that time period, approved animals prescribed in Leviticus 11, 20:25 and Deuteronomy 14 are what was considered “food” and what they would have put in front of themselves for consumption. Again, you can find the parallel verses in Matthew 15 regarding the instance in Mark 7 that is stating the same fact that the whole interaction Yahshua had with the Pharisees and later the disciples was about eating from unwashed hands. Matthew 15:17-20 “Do ye not yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashed hands defileth not a man.” A major issue in stating Yahshua declared all animals clean for eating is the fact that Yahshua was sinless and the religious Jews had to find false accusations against Him for His crucifixion. Had He declared all animals okay to eat, Yahshua would be breaking Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 and I believe would have drawn the close of Matthew and Mark several chapters sooner and withdrawn himself from being without sin. The Pharisees sought ways to trap Him several times and desired to kill Yahshua for their perception of a sin worthy of death. Please see in context the following verses: Matthew 13:2,10; Matthew 16:1; Matthew 19:3; Matthew 22:18; Matthew 22:35; Mark 2:24; Mark 3:4; Mark 8:11; Mark 10:2; Mark 12:15; Luke 6:2,7; Luke 10:25; Luke 11:16; John 8:6,59. In each of these passages, Yahshua did not sin or break one commandment of the Father, Yahweh. Had Yahshua failed once in any of these instances, the Pharisees would have had plenty of reason to have Yahshua stoned. For Yahshua to be sinless, either He was not guilty of breaking any commands or the sins the Pharisees accused Him of were not scriptural.

But but but…those words in parentheses don’t change the meaning of Jesus’s words one iota. Get rid of the parenthetical and Jesus still eliminated all foods that could defile one’s heart. Jesus didn’t care a whit which Jews would call him an apostate or a blasphemer. His words came directly from the Father. Was The Father an apostate? The Father was “perfecting” the law. Keep the rest of The Fathers perfected laws. Like Mat 5:21-22. There’s bigger ideas to ponder than unclean food. Mountains of minutiae.

To put this in context, Jesus said some things like, your God is your belly, and I have food that you don't know about, and even railed the disciples 'because' they were focused on 'bread' and not the intended teaching. I can plug the Gospel of Thomas into the scriptures like a 1/4" mono audio cable - and intend to do so on my first live feed, or again... a phone call and discussion would be much more useful.

Respectfully, "Monte Judah" is a "Hebrew Roots" teacher (a group that I do not associate with), and a false prophet... he has made numerous false prophecies concerning the exact return of the Master. Most of us who strive to be Torah Observant steer clear from Monte and his nonsense. He does NOT represent Torah Observant/Pronomian Christians.

Jesus didn't die in the cross so we can have pork chops. whenever there’s an issue of lifestyle choices People always argue about that because it requires them to make choices that are uncomfortable.

So, Peter heard Yeshua say all food is clean and yet when God presented Peter with blanked of unclean animals, Peter refused to eat because he would defile himself, so was Peter delusional?

One needs to understand what Jesus's definition of food is! Wss it anything you decided to call food, or maybe just maybe He was talking about The Father's definition of food! Doesn't the word say many times that He doesn't change! If you think He changed then you have created a god that changes his mind. Its because of theology like this that the alphabet people think they're saved!

If Jesus declared all foods clean, then he changed Gods law. Adding or taking away from the law is sin, so you would be saying that Jesus sinned. If that's the case, then my 42 years of believing Jesus was the Messiah is wasted. I think you dont realize what's being said. Jesus was to be sinless in order to be Savior, my friend. Please reconsider your teachings. I humbly ask you. If not, we are not preaching the Jesus of the bible.

Psalms 19:7 the law is perfect. If you add to it take away from it it's no longer perfect