Did Christ declare all foods clean? Misunderstandings regarding Mark 7:19

Living in an island nation, I was brought up as any other child in our country, to love our sea food. Prawn, Crab, Cuttlefish were the norm in our diet. A meal without seafood at least once a week was unthinkable. With the Dutch, Portuguese & English influences in our country, we had come to love Pork as well. I myself was a fan of Bacon and had prawn & cuttlefish regularly. I couldn’t think of a life without Seafood in my diet. Growing up, we were taught that God is now more loving than in the Old Testament. He was portrayed as the “God of Love and Grace” instead of the Old Testament version which was the “God who was a consuming fire”.

Furthermore, it was taught that Yeshua(Jesus’ true name) came with a New Covenant, a new teaching, new Laws and we were no longer under the Old Covenant Laws. This worked out fine with our lives, society and our diet, because most of what we ate was what God had told His People not to, in the Old Testament (ie; Pork & Fish without scales and fins which included prawn, crab, cuttlefish, shellfish, lobster, etc).

When I first started looking at the Scriptures as a whole, where no verse can go against or annul another, something dawned on me. Does this mean, we have to still eat and not eat according to what God said in Leviticus 11? But what about Paul’s writings? He seems to be saying that we can eat anything. And doesn’t the Gospels even show Messiah Yeshua declaring all foods clean?

Before I addressed Paul, I needed to see whether our Savior (who we are meant to follow) really did change the Food Laws given by God. The only place I could find Him saying something close to “We can eat anything we want” was in Mark 7.

Mark 7:19 was of particular interest. So I read through a couple of English Translations of the Bible, and most of the versions said that “Jesus declared all foods clean”. Interestingly enough, the KJV did not contain this part, while all of the other versions had this in brackets.

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.)
King James Version “Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?”

Why didn’t the KJV, one of the earliest translations into English done in 1611, not contain this portion? And why did the rest of the versions carry it within brackets? As I dug into the issue, I found out an interesting piece of information.

The Original Greek Manuscripts do not carry “In saying this, Jesus declared” which is in Mark 7:19. You can check this for yourself here, in The Codex Sinaiticus.

This had been a later addition by some of the translators to give this verse more clarity. And this was the reason why the KJV Bible did not have this part included. Since this was cleared out, I now had to make sure whether the decision by the Translators to add “(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean)” was valid. Whether Yeshua was clearly stating that the Food Laws were no more. Looking at the context of the 7th Chapter of Mark leading upto verse 19 was essential to make this decision. Let us study Mark 7, from verse 1, and work our way down to the verses in question.

Mark 7:1-21Is it about eating any food or eating food without the tradition of washing the hands?
Reading Mark 7:1-4, I recognized that the story began with the Pharisees accusing some of Yeshua’s disciples of not washing their hands before eating bread. And Mark went on to note how the Pharisees and the Jews would not eat without washing their hands according to the “Tradition of the Elders”. And how they don’t eat without washing after coming from the marketplace and how they have a lot of these traditions like washing of cups, pots, brazen vessels and tables.

Now, some would associate the Pharisees with the Old Testament and conclude that these washings were from the Old Testament Law of God. But, praise God, I had been privileged to learn about the Pharisees and how they had their own Law & Teaching additionally to God’s Law.  (Learn who the Pharisees were, here).  This made all the difference as I understood what Mark meant by Tradition of the Elders” in verse 3.

In verse 5, the Pharisees ask Yeshua, why His disciple don’t walk according to the Tradition of the Elders”, eating with unwashed hands.

This is what Yeshua addresses in the verses that proceed. Not holding to the Tradition of the Elders & Eating with unwashed hands.

In verse 6&7, 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 and that in vain they worship Him, teaching “Commandments of Men” as “Doctrine”.

Verse 8-13, He further establishes and clarifies their mistake showing that they are laying aside God’s Commandments and are holding onto the Traditions of Men, which include washing of Cups and pots and such other things. He says that they reject God’s Commandments, so that they can keep their own Traditions. And that they make God’s Word of no effect by Their Traditions. (For more information on this verse, read “Who were the Pharisees”). Observe how Yeshua is pointing out the difference between God’s Commandments and Traditions of Men.

What is the context so far? is it Food? Or is it man made traditions? Isn’t the whole conversation revolving around eating food with unwashed hands which was the tradition in focus? Let us read on.

In Verse 14&15, He said, 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. What is Yeshua saying, if and when we take it in context? Is He saying that we can now eat whatever we want?

What Yeshua said was not a statement, but a Parable. In Verse 17, the disciples ask what He meant by the Parable.

Now we come to the verses in question
Yeshua answers the disciples in verse 18-23 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.

But is He in the same go, saying that God’s Food Laws are of no use because whatever we eat is purged out of the stomach? Is the same Yeshua that called the Pharisees, hypocrites for making God’s Law void, saying that God’s Food Laws are now void? Before we make a decision on this, I would like to focus your attention onto Matthew 15. In this chapter, Matthew is recording the same story which is in Mark 7. (I will not go into discussing the whole chapter from the beginning, though reading it for yourself will show that it is identical).

Let us read from Matthew 15:15
Just like in Mark, the disciples, in fact Peter(as Matthew records), asks Yeshua to explain the parable to them. Yeshua goes onto say the same thing “whatever enters into man cannot make him unclean, but only through sin that proceed from the inside of man”.

Matthew 15:20 is the Key
Yeshua, then explains what He was talking about the whole time. He says, “These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”
Doesn’t this single verse explain everything? Whoever uses Mark 7:18,19 to say that Yeshua gave us freedom to eat whatever we like, will have a hard time explaining Mat 15:20. What Yeshua’s whole argument was that “a person does not become unclean by eating with unwashed hands, but by the sin that comes out of the same person.

The fact is, that this whole conversation revolved around “eating with unwashed hands”. Mark 7 and Matthew 15 talks about the same instance and Matthew records Yeshua’s words to be regarding the issue of “Eating with unwashed hands”. There is no mention of God’s food Laws in these chapters and no translator has the authority to add phrases such as “(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean)” with or without a proper understanding of context.

I will not be addressing the verses written in Paul’s epistles on this post, which I am planning on doing on a later date. Even though the point of this study is not to prove that God’s Food Law still stands, I hope, you have adequately seen that Mark 7:18,19 cannot be used to prove that Yeshua did away with God’s Food Laws written in Lev 11.

149 thoughts on “Did Christ declare all foods clean? Misunderstandings regarding Mark 7:19

  1. K

    Amen. I recently just came to this realization alao. First after I read kjv cover to cover a few times, I realized there is no pre trib. Next I see that noah brought many more clean animals vs just male and female unclean. It was already common sense what was clean by Genesis chapter 7. So that puts the “it’s only for the jews arguement” out the window. Acts 10 and mark 7 are talking about diffetent subjects and not making piggy ok now. Great observation

    Reply
    1. John

      I have said this before in this thread, and it’s very simple and there is no need to parse scripture.
      The Lord never denies His people any good thing.
      He did deny them pork.
      On that simple reality, nothing more needs to be said.

      Reply
    2. Sister Lo

      But you can’t take what Paul addresses in 1Corinthians 8 concerning food that was sacrificed to idols and eating in its temple out of this conversation or article, because it has a lot to do with it, because Paul is talking about being free in knowledge knowing that there is but one God whom all things came and we live and but one Lord, Jesus Christ whom all things came, and we live. We must not offend our weaker brother or sister because of our knowledge of what we can and cannot eat. Note that in the Old Testament it was a reason why God told the Jews to stay away from certain animals. So, I encourage you to be persuaded in your own minds, because what we eat does not matter to God, only our hearts and deeds which we will be judged. Anything else is but tradition.

      Lord Help Us All,

      Reply
      1. RameshDeSilva Post author

        I don’t think it’s accurate to say that what we eat does not matter to God. If so God would have not said “Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine. Lev 20:25,26
        As per God, what we eat effects our soul, and we are to eat/not eat what He has said because it is part of been separated from all other peoples towards God.

        Food was also part of the 4 instructions given in Acts 15, which shows it is an important issue.

        Be a blessing to everyone around you
        Shalom!

      2. Sister Lo

        So, this is a Mosaic Law for the Jews and a restriction for the Gentiles who were spiritually adopted through grace by faith only, not a law? Due to the footnotes of Acts 15:20 of the King James Version it reads. “Though redeemed Gentiles are not under the Mosaic Law, four restrictions are place upon them. These are not the usual four prohibitions preached during the twentieth century, but they were amazingly comprehensive and were important to the first-century church. They involve religious, moral, and physical purity. They also concern the primary element separating Jews from Gentiles dietary regulations. These principles did much to remove offensive practices without establishing legalism. Paul more appropriately enunciates two timeless principles for governing Christian conduct apart from the Law: (1) Live by love. (2) Live by the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:13 -16).” Also due to the fact that we cannot be sure of how our meat that we buy in the store is prepared before it gets there is why we pray over it giving thanks to God and speaking of blood in our meat. I eat my meat well done lol. I’m not knocking anything anyone is saying to each its own is what I always say and live by your own convictions.

        Thank you for your response I do understand it. I’m just a Gentile saved by grace through faith.

        Lord Help Us All,

      3. RameshDeSilva Post author

        Dear Sister Lo,
        Are we saved by Grace through faith so that we continue in Sin? God Forbid as Paul says in Romans 6.
        What is Sin? It is the transgression of God’s Law – 1Jn 3:4. God does not have one Law for the Jew and and one law for the Gentile – Lev 24:22. When Paul speaks about living in Love in Gal 5;13 he says “For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh”. How do we know the works of the Flesh (aka Sin)? for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20). If we say we are saved by Faith and then live the lives we think are right in our own eyes – this is not the Holiness God has called us to. We are surely saved by Faith and none of the works we do are for Salvation. But God’s Word/Law does show the path of Holiness and what He deems right and wrong – including the food you eat.

        Rom 6:1,2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (The question is whether you believe God’s Law is the indicator of what Sin is, or whether we choose to define sin the way we see fit)

        Be a blessing to everyone around you
        Shalom!

      4. Lolita Toliver

        Are ypu serious right now??? Eating food that God provides for us is not a sin. Gen. 9: 1-4. We going to have to agree to disagree. I’m not going to go back and forth with the word of God. I’m saved and I believe your saved, so let’s keep it right there and we will imbrace each other in heaven.

        God bless family😇

        Lord Help Us All,

        Sister Lo

      5. RameshDeSilva Post author

        Dear Sister Lo,
        Eating Food that God provides us is not sin. The question is whether our cultures decide what “Food” is, or whether God decides on what “Food” is. All animals are not created as food. That is why God has separated Animals as Clean and Unclean. Clean for consumption and unclean for consumption.
        Lev 20:25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. Lev 20:26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine. (This is not a command only for the Jew – it is for the people who God has severed for Himself)

        May you be a blessing to everyone around you
        Shalom

      6. DARRYL Moorhead

        wrong! Isaaih 66:14/17 tells how when the lord returns many will be slain by him.Those selfrightous people eating swines flesh will be consumed.I am not gonna risk my eternity over bacon.

  2. Pingback: Have you heard the Parable of “Unwashed Hands”? | Bible things in Bible ways

      1. John

        There are a wide range of diseases that are contracted via Pork, Swine Flu among them. You are not smarter than God, and Paul isn’t either.

  3. John

    I believe there is mistake here. Christ clearly and unequivocally states that whatsoever goes into a man’s belly comes out in the privy. And he unequivocally states that what goes into a man’s mouth does not defile him.

    You said this is a parable. This is incorrect. The parable that Peter asks him to expound is the plants not planted by the Father being rooted up and the blind leading the blind. I believe this is actually the key missing context from Mark.

    In Mark when asked to expound on the parable he simply reiterates what he already said. That doesn’t make much sense. Peter asked him about the uprooting of the plants and the blind leading the blind. That is why he reiterated his original point, don’t you I’d erstamd what goes in your mouth can’t defile you?

    Regardless of the aforementioned. He clearly states in both passages, that what goes in your mouth cannot defile you. Yes he also says eating with unwashed hands can’t defile you but I don’t think one nullifies the other. They both are in accordance with each other.

    Reply
    1. RameshDeSilva Post author

      Dear John,
      Let me give you definite proof that this is in fact a Parable.
      This what Both Matthew and Mark Record:
      Mat 15:10,11 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

      Note that Christ says “Hear and Understand” before he says “what goes out in does not defile, but what goes out only defiles”. What does “Hear and Understand” mean?
      Look at Mat 13:13-15 Therefore speak I to them in “parables”: because they seeing see not; and hearing they “hear” not, neither do they “understand”. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall “hear”, and shall not “understand”; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and “hear” with their ears, and should “understand” with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
      What is “Hear and Understand”? is it not connected to “Parables” plainly in Mat 13? Did Christ say “Hear and understand” before He said “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind”? I will leave the evidence with you to make up your own mind.

      On the question of food, Yes… what goes into our mouth goes into our belly and to the privy. Does that mean we can eat whatever we want? The context is not what we can or cannot eat – rather, whether we can eat with unwashed hands. Making a case for eating whatever we want, when He clearly states the answer as “These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man” is unwise. But we are all free to do what we choose – God does not force us to be obedient to Him.
      1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
      Be a blessing to everyone around you
      Shalom

      Reply
  4. JM

    I was having a conversation/ debate on this very topic with a Catholic friend of mine. I ran across this and sent it to him. Bravo to you for such a excellent breakdown of the subject with actual scriptures to prove it. Thank you and YAH bless

    Reply
  5. Joell Smith

    Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”…. clearly here Paul teaches that our flesh will not make it into the kingdom so our temple is our soul (spirit) which can only be defiled by the sins it commits from the heart not the food or anything that goes into the mouth of the flesh!

    Reply
    1. RameshDeSilva Post author

      Dear Joell,
      Let me give you two verses to ponder upon. 1 from the OT and 1 from the NT.

      Lev 20:25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.

      2Co 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

      If we say, what we do in our Flesh, does not affect our Soul, then we can also say committing fornication, if done without the heart does not defile us. The Heart is there in what we love, whether in food or in fornication.

      Be a blessing to everyone around you
      Shalom!

      Reply
  6. Pingback: Mark 7 19 Unclean Meats What did Jesus say about unclean meat | Glassview Farm

  7. T.J. Pennell

    I am so grateful for this article. Praise Yah for using your platform. In your early comment you mentioned that the Bible doesn’t contradict itself. Although your aim was not to prove that the food laws still stand you make a good case that they do. Well done.

    Reply
    1. stanpattygraham

      When we care enough for truth and God’s will to seek it, He reveals and empowers us to be able to obey it. Truth is a valuable gift that so many will toss aside, just to remain in a state of rebellion. God loves people and will save those who trust the wisdom and goodness of his truth, which is called faith.

      Sent from my iPad

      >

      Reply
  8. Alan Wood

    Sir, when you say,

    most of the versions said that “Jesus declared all foods clean”. Interestingly enough, the KJV did not contain this part, while all of the other versions had this in brackets.

    that is not entirely accurate. The KJV does contain this part: it translates the same Greek words as ‘purging all meats’. As you have noted, most of the modern English versions have made a different translation choice – but they have not made up those words.

    The four Greek words (καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα) are:

    καθαριζων, a word that means ‘making clean’ (and implies that the one making clean is male);

    παντα, the word for ‘all’;

    τα, the word often translated ‘the’, but which is used more in Greek than in English so doesn’t need to be translated here; and

    βρωματα, a word for ‘foods’ (or ‘meats’).

    So, the question to be asked is, what does ‘making clean all foods’ mean here? The key to that meaning (‘declaring clean’ or ‘ purging’ or anything else) is who or what is doing the ‘making clean’.

    The KJV leaves this phrase hanging at the end of Jesus’ sentence (which is where it comes in the Greek text). Most modern editions of the KJV add quotation marks (which aren’t in the 1611 text) to tell us that it is in Jesus’ sentence. So, it should be either ‘the draught’ or the ‘thing from without’ that is ‘purging all meats’. If it refers back to ‘the draught’ (the latrine), it should have the word for ‘the’ in front of it – but it doesn’t. If it refers to the ‘thing from without’, it should have a neuter form in Greek – but it doesn’t, it is masculine. So neither is a good choice.

    If the phrase doesn’t belong in Jesus’ sentence, can it sit outside Jesus’ sentence? Yes. The next words in Greek can be translated, ‘Jesus also said…’, which suggests that Mark has broken off in the middle of Jesus’ words – which he has, if ‘making all foods clean’ is Mark’s phrase, not Jesus’.

    So, reading the phrase as sitting outside Jesus’ words makes sense. In that case, the one ‘making clean’ is Jesus, and Jesus was ‘making clean’ all foods. How was Jesus ‘making all foods clean’, when the only thing he was doing at that moment was talking to his disciples? Most modern English translators have decided that Mark must (or probably) mean that Jesus was declaring all foods to be clean. Adding the brackets, and adding words such as, ‘in saying this, Jesus was,’ is how the translators seek to be clear about what they think this passage means.

    Did Christ declare all foods clean? Most modern translators think that Mark says, ‘Yes, it was implicit in what he did declare.’

    This is not an attempt to fool anyone. The more recent translators weren’t being dishonest. They made a choice, based on ‘What can these words mean in this context?’ The KJV translators left four enigmatic words hanging at the end of a line, and left the reader to work out the meaning for him- or herself.

    Sometimes, when KJV has a phrase missing (or extra) it is using a different Greek text, but not this time. Where some manuscripts are different, that is because Mark is hard to understand at this point: even ancient Greek copyists tried to make things clearer. Origen and Chrysostom, both native ancient Greek speakers, read this verse as Mark saying that Jesus was declaring all foods clean.

    You are correct that the point of the first discussion was about handwashing and traditions. But after that, Jesus does make a broadcast announcement to the crowd in very general terms, the disciples question that announcement, and Jesus largely repeats it to them – and Mark adds four words, saying, ‘Hey reader, by the way, what Jesus said extends to all foods, it’s not just about handwashing.’ Matthew doesn’t bother to make that extended point, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore what Mark does say.

    On the wider question of whether Gentiles need to eat kosher, you probably should ask an expert on the Jewish Law, who has the Holy Spirit and the apostolic authority of Christ’s direct commission, and who was involved in the discussions around keeping the Law and table fellowship from the start of the Gentile mission. In other words, read Paul.

    Reply
    1. RameshDeSilva Post author

      Dear Alan,
      Yes. I agree with you on the 4 Greek Words. But aren’t the 4 words καθαριζον PURIFYING παντα ALL τα THE βρωματα FOOD.

      My question is how can we insert a 5th word saying “Declared” which means this is now a new way to look at food, which was not even part of the debate in Mark 7.

      I would like to know your opinion on the following:

      Have you heard the Parable of “Unwashed Hands”?

      Be a blessing to everyone around you
      Shalom!

      Reply
      1. Alan Wood

        Dear Ramesh,

        I think your reading of Matthew is correct. But I think you are wrong to apply that reading to Mark. Mark is not Matthew. Matthew used wording that clarifies and reinforces Jesus’ point within the Jewish context. Mark left intact Jesus’ point (which I’d have thought was clear enough, but you are right, many people think is about food laws, not handwashing and tradition) but he added a comment.

        I think Mark added the idea ‘purifying all the foods’ as his commentary on what Jesus said – he didn’t put words into Jesus’ mouth, but he pointed out that Jesus spoke in very general terms, and those general terms are ‘a new way to look at food’, which means that all foods are clean. You are right, it was not ‘part of the debate in Mark 7’ at the time. Mark added it for his readers.

        I think the KJV translators weren’t sure whether Mark or Jesus said those 4 words (i.e. whether they are in- or outside the quotation marks, which weren’t used in the 1st Century or in 1611). And they left it up to the reader to decide who said them, and who or what was doing the purifying – which determines what purifying means here. That’s why you don’t object to the KJV – because it’s unclear what it means, you could ignore it.

        I think the best way to read the Greek text is that it is Jesus doing the purifying – it can be read that way, though it is hard to read. The other two options (these are Jesus’ words, so it’s either the toilet or the food that is doing the purifying) would have a grammatical error – the text can’t be read in those ways without ‘correction’ (they also don’t make much sense).

        ‘Declared clean’ is an acceptable translation of καθαριζω – see e.g. Lev 13:6 and elsewhere in that chapter: ‘the priest shall pronounce him clean’. If you’d prefer the Strong’s reference, article 2511 gives 3 submeanings of the physical sense of ‘to clean’, then 5 submeanings of the moral sense, and then ‘to pronounce clean in a levitical sense’. Translating it that way is just picking the sense (out of 9!) that best fits the passage: if Jesus is cleaning all foods by talking, how can that be true except by his declaring them clean? He is not rinsing, scrubbing, sacrificing for or sprinkling blood upon anything. What he is doing is talking, about eating and defilement.

        If these are Mark’s words, not Jesus’, and if Jesus was ‘making clean’, then he was ‘declaring clean’. That is not ‘inserting a 5th word’, it is translating what καθαριζων means in this context.

        There is no mention of God’s food Laws in these chapters and no translator has the authority to add phrases such as “(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean)” with or without a proper understanding of context.

        Your argument isn’t with modern Bible translations, it is with Mark.

        The translators are not adding phrases on their own authority – they are translating the phrase that is there and interpreting it to make it easier to understand (not to make it easier to apply). Your language suggests the translators are biased and underhanded. That implication makes other Christians lose confidence in Bible translations that are genuinely very good.

        Second, nowhere above have you said what you think those four Greek words do mean in Mark 7. If you want to dispute the agreed reading of most modern translators – if you want to clear up (alleged) misunderstanding – you need to present your better understanding of what Mark wrote. If you want to assert, ‘There is no mention of God’s food Laws in these chapters’, you need to show that ‘purifying all the foods’ doesn’t refer to purity concerning food.

    2. Luke Jones

      Hi Alan, I see your point in the meaning of the “clean” verb allowing for the sense “declaring clean.” BUT, there are some other things to think about. 1. KJV, I think, rightly leaves the reader to draw his own conclusion. It is not the job of the translator to draw conclusions (interpret). This is the safest, and therefore most faithful-to-text strategy.

      2. If the “Thus he declared” phrase is correct, it would be the one and only time Jesus ever taught directly against the Torah (which, depending on your conviction, are either his Father’s words, or his own words). The whole episode has Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for nullifying God’s commands. Ending the conversation by nullifying God’s commands would be a terribly strained interpretation – Jesus directly claims he did not do this, several times [Matt 5:17-19, 23:3, 23:23, Mark 7:8, John 12:50, etc.

      3. The phrase being assigned to “toilet” as the subject is a great fit. First, it leaves Jesus speaking and leaves Mark’s commentary out (which is extremely rare). Second, he isn’t talking about particular foods (like veggies vs. meat (pig is not food, Lev 11)), but all food, any food, whatever is eaten (again, what would a faithful Jew consider “all food?”). The toilet purges/cleanses “all food”/whatever is eaten because it eventually leaves the body. The Pharisees are asserting that “eating with unwashed hands defiles a person,” and Jesus’ counter-claim is “only that which proceeds out of the man defiles the man,” because the toilet purges all foods from his stomach (not his heart) – even the food eaten with unwashed hands. Sin defiles, and the Pharisees do not have the authority to define sin.

      The logic of the toilet doing the cleansing addresses the Pharisees’ claim precisely. Again, no one is talking about particular foods, but rather food “defiled” (erroneously, by their tradition) by unwashed hands. Jesus’ counter-claim is 1) their traditions are in error, because 2) God wants obedience, especially 3) from the heart, and finally 4) eating with unwashed hands doesn’t affect the heart, because everything (all food) is cleansed from the body through the toilet anyway (and God never forbade it).

      The interpretation “declares clean” is not the best fit in the conversation and is out-of-character for Jesus. May God bless you as you seek Him in Spirit and Truth. “Seek and you will find!”

      Reply
      1. Carmine Scarpa

        Hi everyone, I have struggled with those two gospels and the added line on later bibles about how Jesus (Yeshua) made all foods clean.

         Here is the rub, If Jesus (Yeshua) made this statement or implied it to his disciples, why does Peter in Acts 10:14 after God told him to “Kill and eat.”,in a dream say, “Surely not, Lord! I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

        Most scholars say this happened 10 or so years after the crucifixion so how is it that Peter is still keeping the dietary law after what they say or added our Lord implied?

         You can read and see how puzzled Peter was with this dream and what God was saying to him. It wasn’t until later in the chapter, Acts 10:28, when he went to the gentiles home that Peter realized what God was trying to say to him. Again, it had nothing to do with food.

         I feel this conversation has more to do with what we do not want to give up instead of what we are willing to give for God.

          

         I like a good BLT but it has been a long time since I gave up pork. But I came up with a good substitute, Brisket, Lettuce and Tomatoes.

         Forever in our Lord, Jesus the Christ (Yeshua the Messiah)

Leave a reply to John Cancel reply