Help understanding Greek Lexicons

Here's a hard truth: While Vines & Strongs have their place in a Bible study, they aren't really Lexicons, and while you can use them to scratch the surface for a quick word study, a true word study can only be done if you can actually read Greek and understand words in their grammatical context and usage. For that, you need a REAL Greek Lexicon, such as the infamous BDAG. But you can only really use that if you can really read Greek. Otherwise, you will not be able to make sense of why the same Greek word can have such a vast array of usage and be translated in so many ways. Likewise, you will not really understand that sometimes those words that are in italics are demanded when translating something, because they are highly implied by the grammar.

I know this may not help you like you'd like it to help. But, it's a truth I realized once I started actually studying Greek in seminary.

reformer,

Strongs lists all the definitions of the word that occured.
The word BROMA means all kinds of food in Mark 7:9.
But that same word also occured in Hebrews 13:9, and here the context suggests that it means ceremonial food, which were merely about clean and unclean meats.
That is why Vines translates it meats.Because the ceremonial law did not speak of clean and unclean grains, fruits and vegetables, but only clean and unclean meats.

However, the word literally means food ( all kinds of food ) and that is what Jesus meant by it in Mark.

Jesus point was: if you eat something unwashed or dirty, you did not become unclean because Jesus was not concerned with becoming "germ free" but rather becoming " sin free".

The other part of your question about whether the phrase " thus making all food clean" has been added. The answer in no. words that are in parenthesis are not added, but only words that are italicized or tilted.

Reformer: It seems to me that your messianic friends are making a mistake of trying to read into a passage of scripture a pre-determined meaning. It is as if they are saying, "Well, since we are messianic believers and believe that the old covenant prohibition against unclean meats is still in effect, then Jesus must have been speaking only of clean meats." In approaching the scripture this way they have totally overlooked the point that Jesus was trying to make. This as with all other scripture must be taken in context. Jesus is dealing with the Pharisee's complaint that His disciples were breaking the Talmudic tradition of washings before partaking of food (this tradition was and still is held as binding as the law itself). Jesus makes the point that what a person eats is purged or cleansed by the body and comes out as excrement. It is purely a physiological process of stripping nutrients from the food and wasting the rest, so the eating of food with unwashed hands does not spiritually defile a man. You see, the Pharisees taught that eating with unwashed hands could defile a man's spirit. Jesus uses this as an example of the separation between a purely physical process and true spiritual defilement. So Jesus was neither speaking of clean nor of unclean meats. He teaches absolutely nothing of clean or unclean meats in this instance. Rather He is showing them that it is not the outward that defiles the spirit. If anything He is making the point that sin is not a result of the outward actions, but of the inward heart.

As to lexicons, one has to understand that they are only as reliable as the opinion of the author. They are a valuable resource and I use them frequently, but they are subject to the interpretive bias of the one or ones who wrote them. The best commentary on scripture is scripture itself. I never let one text stand alone, but rely on other scriptures to help interpret the one, and always in context. If the issue is clean and unclean meats, Paul is very pointed about that issue in Col 2:13-17 where he describes the law as a handwriting of ordinances against us or contrary to us. Paul says not to let any judge you in respect to meat and drink. Since food laws were simply part of the old covenant then we can take any blanket statement about the old covenant or the law and include food in that statement. Romans, Hebrews, Galatians, Colossians, etc. all speak of the abolition of the law by the new covenant. Foods are simply not an issue with God. The OT prohibitions were a picture of purity and separation. They were a shadow of the reality that is come through the Spirit and the rebirth.

I am a but surprised that your Messianic friends have not seen this. The messianic believers I know of in this area are not at all bound by the OT law. They still have shabbot service on Fri. night at sundown, but not out of observance of the law, rather out of personal preference. They celebrate the feasts, but not out of law. They do so to celebrate Christ, the fulfillment of the representation of the feast. If they are still bound up in keeping the law, they are in reality in the same place as the church at Galatia that Paul rebuked so strongly in Galatians.

Hope that helps.

twayneb you raised a thought about the New Covenant, something I have asked myself. Does a covenant replace an existing covenant? I might be incorrect in my analogy, but equate it to laws we have here. New laws all the time, the original laws are still laws, but new one enhance the old ones. Did I just answer my own question?! :)

Actually, Paul (if that is who you think the writer of Hebrews is) is probably the best to answer that question.

Hebrews 7:12-18
(12) For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
(13) For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
(14) For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
(15) And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
(16) Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
(17) For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
(18) For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

It is not at all a case of simply adding new laws on top of old laws. The new covenant was not about laws at all, but about rebirth and relationship of spirit through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Paul is making a pretty strong point. The old covenant had to be completely done away with, otherwise Christ cannot be our high priest. If the old covenant is in effect at all, it must all still be in effect. This would preclude Christ from priesthood as the priesthood of the old covenant came only through Levi. But Christ is of the tribe of Judah, meaning His priesthood comes from a new and different covenant. The old has been abolished and the new is in force.

Eph 2:15
(15) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

According to Paul in Ephesians, the law had not only been taken out of effect, it has been abolished...completely.

Sometimes we think Greek and Hebrew words are special spiritual words, when in reality they are a word. How many different meanings are there to the word meats. It sometimes refers to the context, part of speech, place in the sentence, is it the object, subject, predicate, etc. Of course sometimes only certain words are used to clarify what is being spoken about. For example: was it a pear or a pair. Also some words are different, have similiar meanings, but the author was clear on which word he used.

One nice thing about Greek is you can usually tell how the word is used in the sentence by the way it is spelled, where in English it is much more difficult.

Paul never talked about the law being abolished, but instead said things about the law and God's commandments like: 1. "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good . . . for we know that the law is spiritual. . ." (Rom. 7.12, 14) 2. ". . .God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit . . . Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (Rom. 8.3-4, 7) 3. "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. (I Cor. 7.19)

I am by no means a Greek or Hebrew scholar. I sometimes wish I were, and other times am a bit thankful that I am not. I would, however, like to add my opinion on these passages.

Romans 7:12-14. Paul is making much that same point here as the writer of Hebrews, although in a little bit different context. He had been teaching for most of the letter to the Romans about the purpose of the law and because of that purpose the fact that the law could never make one righteous before God but rather served only to set in stone the guilt of every man and give them no way out in their own flesh. The law was a HOLY standard by which man was measured and found wanting. So it is true that the law was just and good and holy, but it was impossible that the law could bring righteousness as the law of sin was still at work in our members. Paul tried to be right with God through the law, pharisee of pharisees, and he came up short because the law was weak through the flesh (it was left up to us to keep it on our own with no supernatural help). Rom. 7 describes Paul's vain attempt to keep the law through the flesh. It led only to wretchedness. So, Rom. 7 does not speak to the idea that the law was not abolished, but only to the idea that the law was unprofitable for righteousness.

Romans 8:3-4,7. Simply a continuation of Paul's thought.

1 Cor. 7:19. This is an interesting passage. Circumcision was itself a commandment of the law, and a very explicitly stated one at that. Lev. 12:3. So is appears almost as if this passage in Cor. is saying that keeping the commandment of God profits nothing, but rather we should keep the commandments. So it is apparent from that Paul is not advocating keeping the OT law. In his letter to the Galatians Paul said that we have a liberty in Christ and that we should stand fast in that liberty and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage (in context the OT law). He said a few sentences later in the letter that we should not use our liberty as an occasion unto the flesh, and that the law is fulfilled in the statement "love your neighbor as yourself." God said He would write His laws in our hearts. Believers are governed by the laws of God that have been written in their hearts. Matt. 5 gives a great picture of the purpose of the law as a purely carnal (I mean simply of the flesh here and not sinful by any means )representation of the law in contrast to the laws God writes in our hearts.

It becomes easier then to see what Jesus meant in Matt. 5 when He said
(17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
(18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Jesus did not come to destroy but to fulfill. He fulfilled the law in that He was the one that the law pointed to. Romans 3:21 says that the righteousness without the law was witnessed by the law and the prophets. A thing is fulfilled when its purpose is accomplished, and the purpose of the law was accomplished in Christ. See Gal. 3:23.

The terms destroy and abolish also witness this. Destroy means just that, to utterly destroy. But abolishment means a cancellation. The term disannul in Heb. 7 means to put away as it does in Heb. 9. The carnal commandments of the law have been put away, disannulled, not destroyed. The law still serves a purpose, but not the purpose of righteousness. The law is still a standard by which men can be measured and found wanting, but it is not the code of conduct to be kept by Christians. God's law has now been written on our hearts. We will keep that law out of love for and relationship with God through Christ. Yes, we should keep the commandments of God, and we will through the grace of God, not through carnal ordinances. Titus 2:11-12. Walking in the Spirit and not obeying the lust of the flesh will cause changes in the external things we do. I am not talking simply of some supposed "spiritual obedience while the flesh does what it wants." My behavior will change and I will walk in holiness and purity as the life of God works itself out from my spirit to my flesh, not as I read a commandment and strive to obey it in my flesh. And the holiness that comes forth will exceed that of even the scribes and pharisees because I am doing it not out of my flesh, but empowered by the Spirit of God.