In this coupling of verses, Christ says to the people that what enters a person from the outside cannot make them unclean. The rationale was that food enters the stomach and then passes into the latrine. And then in parentheses, it says that in saying this, Christ declared all foods clean. I am dubious as to what I should conclude from this verse. Are all foods pure? And if so, what exactly did Christ mean? I know in the book of Leviticus, it says not to eat that of the swine because it is impure. Perhaps he was referring to this and similar customs? Or did he literally mean that all foods are pure? Even if that's what was meant, it was not actually said by Christ himself. But was he alluding to it? I am perplexed. I know it seems derisory, but I am curious.
Christian Community Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate fully in the fellowship here, including adding your own topics and posts, as well as connecting with other members through your own private inbox!
Mark 7:18-19
- Thread starter andrew
- Start date
Moreover, in the book of Genesis, it says God instructed the first humans to eat only plant foods (Genesis 1:29). And it says that if humans had obeyed God, they would have lived forever as God intended (Genesis 3:22). But if it doesn't matter what one eats, this directly contradicts the latter two verses. However, Genesis was written by Moses, who is not the Son of God. Even so, it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. So which verses take precedence?
Context is key from the verses before and after the scriptures you listed. The key is anything that enters does not defile, but what comes out of man defiles. Food, IMO, is not the key here.
Mark 7:
14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”
17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. 18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods? 20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries,fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit,lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”
Good answer, Andy!
Andrew, this passage in Mark 7 has puzzled Bible readers and scholars from the earliest church until today. Many people take the final words of verse 19 to mean that Jesus was saying that ALL foods were clean, a foreshadowing of God's words to Peter in Acts 10:9-16. And that is possible.
However, everyone back then (as we do today) knew that what left the bowels was unclean. In the received text (Textus Receptus, based on the Byzantine text type or Majority Text) of the Bible, the participle "purifying" in verse 19 is in the neuter nominative, agreeing with the nominative to the verb “goeth out.” Therefore, if we view the final words of this passage according to the Greek grammar, then Jesus is saying that the expelled "draught" carries with it all uncleanness, thereby leaving only that which is pure. Put another way-- when a bowel movement occurs, that part of the food which is retained in the body is now free from impurity.
This is the view that makes most sense to me. And, for the record, I do not think it eliminates the possibility of the passage also foreshadowing the revelation to Peter in Acts 10. That said, it is important to note three things:
First, the words "in saying this" or "thus" with which most translations begin the final phrase of verse 19 ("in saying this Jesus declared all foods clean" or "thus purifying all foods") do not exist in the Greek. The Greek simply says καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα which literally translates to "cleansing/purifying all (or, all manner of) the foods." So to add the words "thus" or "in saying this", the translators are inserting an interpretation of the text in order to try to make sense of it. To repeat: those words do not exist in the inspired text.
Second, the verb katharizo comes from the adjective katharos which has the primary meaning of clean, as well as pure. Most translators tend to use "purify" for this particular sentence since Jesus was speaking of ritual defilement in terms of food in these two verses and therefore they believe the final phrase of verse 19 (all manner of foods) is the summarizing point of His teaching and therefore "purifying" is the proper answer to the "what defiles" of verse 18. It is equally possible that Jesus simply meant "cleansing all foods", which fits with what I said above.
Third, and finally, it is crucial to understand that Jesus said this before the Cross. In other words, He said this before the Law had been completed by Him. Since He could not break the Levitical Law but had to live perfectly according to it in order to fulfill that Law perfectly, it is unlikely that He would have told the people that at that point it was all right to break the Law: it was not. Not at that point.
Therefore, as I said above, I believe that (in these two verses taken together) Jesus was simply saying that what enters into a person from the outside is not what defiles them. Only what enters into the heart defiles. What enters into the body through the mouth travels out again through the bowels, taking with it any impurities and leaving only that which is clean behind. Yes, it could have contained a foreshadowing of what was to come in Acts 10 (which only those who were alive after that apostolic point would have understood) but it certainly could not have been the point Jesus was making.
I hope this helps.
Andrew, this passage in Mark 7 has puzzled Bible readers and scholars from the earliest church until today. Many people take the final words of verse 19 to mean that Jesus was saying that ALL foods were clean, a foreshadowing of God's words to Peter in Acts 10:9-16. And that is possible.
However, everyone back then (as we do today) knew that what left the bowels was unclean. In the received text (Textus Receptus, based on the Byzantine text type or Majority Text) of the Bible, the participle "purifying" in verse 19 is in the neuter nominative, agreeing with the nominative to the verb “goeth out.” Therefore, if we view the final words of this passage according to the Greek grammar, then Jesus is saying that the expelled "draught" carries with it all uncleanness, thereby leaving only that which is pure. Put another way-- when a bowel movement occurs, that part of the food which is retained in the body is now free from impurity.
This is the view that makes most sense to me. And, for the record, I do not think it eliminates the possibility of the passage also foreshadowing the revelation to Peter in Acts 10. That said, it is important to note three things:
First, the words "in saying this" or "thus" with which most translations begin the final phrase of verse 19 ("in saying this Jesus declared all foods clean" or "thus purifying all foods") do not exist in the Greek. The Greek simply says καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα which literally translates to "cleansing/purifying all (or, all manner of) the foods." So to add the words "thus" or "in saying this", the translators are inserting an interpretation of the text in order to try to make sense of it. To repeat: those words do not exist in the inspired text.
Second, the verb katharizo comes from the adjective katharos which has the primary meaning of clean, as well as pure. Most translators tend to use "purify" for this particular sentence since Jesus was speaking of ritual defilement in terms of food in these two verses and therefore they believe the final phrase of verse 19 (all manner of foods) is the summarizing point of His teaching and therefore "purifying" is the proper answer to the "what defiles" of verse 18. It is equally possible that Jesus simply meant "cleansing all foods", which fits with what I said above.
Third, and finally, it is crucial to understand that Jesus said this before the Cross. In other words, He said this before the Law had been completed by Him. Since He could not break the Levitical Law but had to live perfectly according to it in order to fulfill that Law perfectly, it is unlikely that He would have told the people that at that point it was all right to break the Law: it was not. Not at that point.
Therefore, as I said above, I believe that (in these two verses taken together) Jesus was simply saying that what enters into a person from the outside is not what defiles them. Only what enters into the heart defiles. What enters into the body through the mouth travels out again through the bowels, taking with it any impurities and leaving only that which is clean behind. Yes, it could have contained a foreshadowing of what was to come in Acts 10 (which only those who were alive after that apostolic point would have understood) but it certainly could not have been the point Jesus was making.
I hope this helps.
Everlasting Life
By grace, through faith in Jesus
I love how God brings clarity in other parts of scripture. Just saw this today:
......They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be eaten with thanks by faithful people who know the truth. Since everything God created is good, we should not reject any of it but receive it with thanks. For we know it is made acceptable by the word of God and prayer.
1 Timothy 4:3-5
......They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong to eat certain foods. But God created those foods to be eaten with thanks by faithful people who know the truth. Since everything God created is good, we should not reject any of it but receive it with thanks. For we know it is made acceptable by the word of God and prayer.
1 Timothy 4:3-5
TCC
Well-known
This is an absolutely great point. This whole thread and what is considered here is very thought provoking. I think i left this idea on the entrance way porch 30 years ago only to discover it is now a huge walnut tree. Fascinating observations in this thread. Thanks Andy for bringing it up. The radio-active part that stands out to me is that Jesus was stunned that the disciples did not know "already" what He was saying. This is an indicator of something. It maybe an indicator of more than one thing. So, what was it they were suppose to know? That the laws regarding food were not literally having the ability to defile, but for Jews to in being surrounded by cultures that did it, because God said it was unholy for them to do so, that is what made it unholy for the Jews? That because it was God's will for the Jews, for them to eat would be the disobedient attitude toward His word that made the food to them defiled (the food defilement being somewhat not just a way to separate Israel from the world, but also become a 3rd grade picture for Israel to ID what defilement looks like). Which if so, is somewhat an inverse of Pastor Adrian's pointing out that it would not seem that because Christ said something it made it pure. At least from scriptural context. I think this is a valid point. But also it might be that Christ would not need to say something is clean to bring to full fruition the reason the Father gave it to begin with...their need to be a separate people. Please see how the relationship of Messiah toward His own people already underway and forming had increasing earmarked values that this would be a time for "Jews separating from people era" was officially coming to a close--in the next post for something on this too.
I wanted to elaborate on that last point for hopeful clarity. But first I wanted to ask something in regards to Jesus being taken back that the disciples did not know this. Like, for that to be the case it is similar to Nicodemus not knowing about being born again. There is something in the Old Testament that would be understood clearly enough for Jesus to be able to wonder at them for not plainly seeing it. So, like, what in the Old Testament might Jesus have meant? And if so, why not point that verse or section out when sharing in the New Testament? I believe the way I am processing this is in some ways part of the point. Not that i am making it. But unmaking it looking for it to have been in the OT (perhaps this is a similar case with Nicodemus and what Jesus said there).
John 3:10-15
10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[e] 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”[g]
It would seem here with Nicodemus and also the event regarding food, in both cases Jesus tends to make His case on natural law. Or better, Self Evident General Revelation. Seemingly almost to have imbedded within it, the keys to unlock "Special Revelation." In the wrong hands, this is New Age Thought. In Jesus hands, this was what He expected those who profess to know God also consider. That General Revelation likely has a lot more authority embedded within it than we might likely be comfortable with. With reason. For to go too far into all that ends one up who knows where. Yet, even so, there seemed to be a part of faith and trust in God (even as Abraham was called God's friend for so doing) that would as one matures also make better sense of general revelation. This issue has for me a profound place. Because in the reformed world (at least the one I was in) Romans 1:18-20 is understood (at least in what radiates most) to clearly see the "judgements of God." For some reason they are kind of stuck on judgement judgement, judgement--would seem to be some sort of araldite rhetorical mode by which to insert oneself in as "teacher." Yet those verses don't show that. And Jesus when picking up this reality of how God has created things, would expect the spiritual people to be maturing also in this way. Where it would seem as intimidating as it might be in our day when the fundamentalist elements get a little too rigged...how much more intense the influence of that kind of thinking bringing the sharpest of minds under perhaps even a spell of sorts?
If they ate from the tree of life after sinning, would that have been defilement? The tree of life defiling would be too outside of a proper sense of category for it to be thought of as such (except when it becomes a person like Christ who although is the bread and tree of life, did we not consider Himself cursed upon a tree for us outside of what category can do....though?). Perhaps that is why there was not much discussion on that beyond God just placing angels in front of the tree so there would be no issue. No temptation. No need to get into further words on that.
But as for eating only plants, it would seem that ontology matters to God. He did not create animal life for men to kill and eat. For sine had not yet entered the world nor death. But would it not be true that if man eats plant in some sense the plant dies? lol. But instead of thinking of it that way, it just is seen as it being used for fuel. It had life and its life turned into energy. So i say ontological because a plant does not have personality. Animals are not created in the image of God. But they do have perception. Can a plant perceive? Or like we see with animals have agency of personality or attitude? So it would seem that even though animals are not created in the image of God, their ontological nature is too close (because of agency) to the nature of God to out right create them for men to eat.
Yet within the loving heart of God, the sense of story forward and Him knowing, would know that after the fall men would kill and eat. At that point, if food would defile, I suppose cows blood could have been alien acid blood had God meant for man to under no conditions eat. BTW Andy, thanks for posting this. Wow, i literally had to scratch my head and wonder if God ever ordained the eating of meat.
Genesis 9:1-3 provides the first explicit divine permission to eat meat: “So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.'”
So it would seem that general revelation that Jesus would expect us to get to a degree would be that which flows out of how God had ordered it to reflect His majesty, person, and being.
- In the garden before the fall
- After the fall
- After the flood
- During the law period
- After the cross
So was there some scientific change (like the canopy over the earth change and rain not had been a thing before) after the flood to permit for meat eating? Or a scientific change after the cross to eat previously defiling meat? No. To me it would seem it was just what God wanted for us and told us. In that though i like Pastor Adrian's break-down very much. As it seems to point to an area of interest i would have in God's insistence on special revelation having its special place and general revelation too. I suppose 1st century Israel is a way for us to see what it looks like when special revelation omits general revelation we could possibly say. It would also seem that part of general revelation's story has within it the DNA of God having also made changes in it for its time for its particular demonstration perhaps, as, "special" prisms of His majesty for the moment unto us. Along with an eco system that because of its newly refined borders within God's declared evolution of the how and why the story of general revelation works i reckon. Whatever the answer, what is sure is this: The story told that God wanted is the one we got. And that includes His sovereignty over the differing specifics from age to age (where we see there are specific differences). One of several themes I found problematic regarding Calvinism is its persistence in over-arching all of scripture to be about 3 covenants only. An approach that tends to drop the bottom out from God's intended use of Israel. Calvinism in ways is to some modern degree seemingly a more recent philosophical installment of trying to honorably apply coherence a-miss. When coherence becomes more important that just "what is," we get something like Calvinism. Turning themes of very specific Israeli interaction into edicts from eternity past in how all of mankind throughout all history is saved. Those are two different categories I would attest Calvinism forces into one in likely an honest attempt at harmonizing scripture. But instead idolizes coherence over truth and reality.
One last note on that...even though Jesus, as Pastor Andrian notes beautifully, would not come along and just have people violate the law of God, Jesus did transcend the law of Moses (being the Lord of the Sabbath). So in one sense the discussions you posted Andy might on some interpretive level help inform and suggest to our hearts having tilted toward God to perhaps press in a bit there when it comes to the struggle of what it is He is saying to the disciples. In some way it would seem these kinds of verses be the Lord of the Sabbath meets the Lord of General Revelation. Having never them being other than one agent. Meeting in the sense afresh to our perspectives. Not in respect to God evolving in any sense. If that makes sense. Blessings.
That is very interesting. Interesting in that it opens up an avenue of study that I think will bear worthwhile fruit (pun not intended). Clearly God's will as to how man should live in regard to food was different depending on the period in which man lived, as seen in the quoted part above. Again I say interesting. I'm going to have to spend some time walking down this road.
TCC
Well-known
In Mark 4, Jesus is reported to give everything in parables. The Matthean timeline for that would be after the confrontation with the Pharisees in Matt 12. It would appear that since Jesus miracle power was seen as from Satan by the Jewish leaders, Jesus no longer dealt with the spiritual leaders of Israel as the potentially observed and honored expected Messiah. But rather, a parable they could not figure out since they had no desire to see who He really was. And an extension of this on Judaism in general as an overflow of this seemingly divergent path after Matt 12. Did Jesus speak more plainly before this event recorded in Matthew 12? We see it in 11. As though almost the entire chapter be an anthem to what Jesus noticed already by then and that which culminated in the very next chapter. From doubt and suspicion to blaspheme they progressed. In Matt 10, Jesus sent out the 12 to Jewish villages apparently speaking plainly. In Matt 9 Jesus speaks plainly about forgiving a man's sins which the leaders thought to be blaspheme....etc.
So it would seem that by Mark 4 (in Mark's timeline) Jesus is already speaking in parables by Mark 7 except to his disciples. Yet in chapter 7 He seems to be speaking extremely in straight forward manner. Later He did expect His disciples to understand more than the crowd. But Jesus did address the crowd separately before too. Not expecting them to understand. But His disciples He did. The outsiders were just getting parables anyway (except when the Lord of the Sabbath seemed to not help Himself from being clear at times even though parables was the judgement at that time upon Israel unbelief toward the One Whom they should have been expecting).
I bring this up because i do think it matters some in our context. Because we get to see something helpful. We get to see Jesus telling people general revelation. Then we get to see Jesus expect His disciples by contrast to have been able to get it a bit more. In some ways we might see Jesus's orientation toward the Jews (as demonstrated before us by Special Revelation) as how deity may interplay with general revelation itself. For by Mark 4 & Matt 12 the reality for the Jews was that they were living in a space and time where their own Messiah was there FOR THEM yet they could not receive that because they got somehow blinded by their own sense of being well anchored religiously. And that attitude becoming increasingly stubborn met with the Jews only getting details in parables then. Causing them extra layers to try and figure things out.
So if we look at how Jesus's own arrival revealing the intricate person of God Himself to Israel and the world has a share in what reality in a general revelation sense looks like then, the way that looks now is our current middle east. Granted, the dance of humanity in its sinful state is hardly what we would call "General Revelation." For sinful mankind activity would be considered "other than" general revelation since it ls likely not meant in general revelation necessarily ratios of the fall. Yet even there, when Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus about being born again, it would appear that death within the fall (as special revelation champions death upon a cross) would be qualified as General Revelation enough to teach the master counselor of Israel, Nicodemus. And there we see the creative interplay General Revelation has with Special Revelation. For prophecy itself derives sequence out of the general revelation (made specific in Romans) of Israel being partially hardened. And this condition brining on so much of the conditions of the coming age of judgement including it being named for it, Israel's 70th Week. I'm hopefully not bringing this up to confuse the issue. It has always fascinating me, this interplay. I entered second stage college with this question: "Is there any other book in the world where prefigurings accurately portray the future other than the bible?" It was literally my thesis. Because I could not understand how at that time I was at a cessatoinist church, and yet God transcended them in a way to be quite the appearance of what a continueist might experience. Its just the kind of thing by how God uses "communication" that has rather floored me over the years. And of course in how God communicated regarding food and eating and how that works throughout history would all be properties i would see fitting into the category of His communicating to us how it all works. Thanks for letting me share that. Blessings.
VERSES AFFIRMING A CHANGE IN MESSIANIC MINISTRY ATTITUDE TOWARD THE VERY PEOPLE HE CAME FOR -- ULTIMATELY CHANGING A FOCUS ON THE JEW TO THE GENTILE WORLD TO THE EXLUSION (FOR A WHILE) OF A VERY NATION'S EXISITENCE (a nation's existing having a share in the demonstration of general revelation & in the case of Israel...Special Prophetic Revelation...as well...amen):
Mark 4:11
1 Cor 14:21
Acts 28:23-27
So it would seem that by Mark 4 (in Mark's timeline) Jesus is already speaking in parables by Mark 7 except to his disciples. Yet in chapter 7 He seems to be speaking extremely in straight forward manner. Later He did expect His disciples to understand more than the crowd. But Jesus did address the crowd separately before too. Not expecting them to understand. But His disciples He did. The outsiders were just getting parables anyway (except when the Lord of the Sabbath seemed to not help Himself from being clear at times even though parables was the judgement at that time upon Israel unbelief toward the One Whom they should have been expecting).
I bring this up because i do think it matters some in our context. Because we get to see something helpful. We get to see Jesus telling people general revelation. Then we get to see Jesus expect His disciples by contrast to have been able to get it a bit more. In some ways we might see Jesus's orientation toward the Jews (as demonstrated before us by Special Revelation) as how deity may interplay with general revelation itself. For by Mark 4 & Matt 12 the reality for the Jews was that they were living in a space and time where their own Messiah was there FOR THEM yet they could not receive that because they got somehow blinded by their own sense of being well anchored religiously. And that attitude becoming increasingly stubborn met with the Jews only getting details in parables then. Causing them extra layers to try and figure things out.
So if we look at how Jesus's own arrival revealing the intricate person of God Himself to Israel and the world has a share in what reality in a general revelation sense looks like then, the way that looks now is our current middle east. Granted, the dance of humanity in its sinful state is hardly what we would call "General Revelation." For sinful mankind activity would be considered "other than" general revelation since it ls likely not meant in general revelation necessarily ratios of the fall. Yet even there, when Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus about being born again, it would appear that death within the fall (as special revelation champions death upon a cross) would be qualified as General Revelation enough to teach the master counselor of Israel, Nicodemus. And there we see the creative interplay General Revelation has with Special Revelation. For prophecy itself derives sequence out of the general revelation (made specific in Romans) of Israel being partially hardened. And this condition brining on so much of the conditions of the coming age of judgement including it being named for it, Israel's 70th Week. I'm hopefully not bringing this up to confuse the issue. It has always fascinating me, this interplay. I entered second stage college with this question: "Is there any other book in the world where prefigurings accurately portray the future other than the bible?" It was literally my thesis. Because I could not understand how at that time I was at a cessatoinist church, and yet God transcended them in a way to be quite the appearance of what a continueist might experience. Its just the kind of thing by how God uses "communication" that has rather floored me over the years. And of course in how God communicated regarding food and eating and how that works throughout history would all be properties i would see fitting into the category of His communicating to us how it all works. Thanks for letting me share that. Blessings.
VERSES AFFIRMING A CHANGE IN MESSIANIC MINISTRY ATTITUDE TOWARD THE VERY PEOPLE HE CAME FOR -- ULTIMATELY CHANGING A FOCUS ON THE JEW TO THE GENTILE WORLD TO THE EXLUSION (FOR A WHILE) OF A VERY NATION'S EXISITENCE (a nation's existing having a share in the demonstration of general revelation & in the case of Israel...Special Prophetic Revelation...as well...amen):
Mark 4:11
1 Cor 14:21
Acts 28:23-27
TCC
Well-known
Thanks brother. I used to think that Jesus came and just grabbed the Sabbath out of the Pharisees hands. I used to think in earlier periods of Christianity that Jesus upended the Sabbath...lol. Like He came with a graffiti can or something. Perhaps a SouthPark head rendering. But when i had to really study it i had to violate the SouthParkness in my head. And the reason for me backing down was not so much technical. Philosophical. Intellectual. Hermeneutical, etc. What caused me to walk back SouthPark was the actual reason Christ gave. That the Sabbath was for man and not man for the Sabbath. If Jesus wanted to change that as being sovereign over it, He could. But I had to ask myself: So in the 10 commandments, did God the Father order the command for man to obey God because the Sabbath was for God too and He was just passing that on to us to follow? Because after all on the 7th day He rested. Or was it somewhat for man but because it was a commandment it was for man to obey God and therefore for God (what the Pharisees made it). No. I think it was always for man. God rested on the 7th day apparently for us. Wow. Like i don't think i have ever heard it said like that. So I appreciate your invitation on this sort of thing concerning the ceremonial food laws.
It would seem though that not to eat, then a vison for Peter to kill and eat were different instructions (not the same instruction as though God would say, I never told you not to eat that meat). So we do have that going on. Obviously changing the evangelical focus from "come and see the temple" to "go into all the nations" were different. One for coming and seeing. Another for going to them. The order of this God would have sovereignty over and they are different approaches for sure. We have actual changes in how God wants things done. AND we also have how Jesus is constantly clarifying what was "always meant" that man perverted. And perhaps on some levels those two (a) God makes changes and (b) God exposes man changing what He did not, together. Likely part of rightly dividing. Amen. But also, beyond our processing tending to be in danger of falling in love with technocracia, all of this teaching us about the nature, person, intimacies of our creator too. In live action real-time orientations one moment after another, amen.
