Mark 7:19, is "Jesus declared all foods clean" in the original Greek manuscripts?

[Christian2]

Mark 7:18-19 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") (NIV)

Usually when something is put in brackets as the sentence in bold is above, it means that the sentence in not in the original Greek Manuscripts, or at least not in the oldest ones.

Also, there is usually a note in Bibles indicating that the sentence is not in the original Greek manuscripts; however, in both of my Study Bibles there is no note saying that the sentence is not in the original manuscripts.

Can someone tell me if the sentence:

"In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."

is in the oldest Greek manuscripts or not?

Thank you.

[John Goddard]

Mark 7:18-19 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") (NIV)

Usually when something is put in brackets as the sentence in bold is above, it means that the sentence in not in the original Greek Manuscripts, or at least not in the oldest ones.

Also, there is usually a note in Bibles indicating that the sentence is not in the original Greek manuscripts; however, in both of my Study Bibles there is no note saying that the sentence is not in the original manuscripts.

Can someone tell me if the sentence:

"In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."

is in the oldest Greek manuscripts or not?

Thank you.

It doesn't really answer your question but it's not in my KJV. I really doubt Jesus would tell Jews to eat pork so blatantly against Torah. Rather he was saying if you eat pork by mistake it's not going to make you go to hell, the sin would be in eating it in a defiance of God coming from your heart.

Matthew 5:18 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.

[John Reece]

Can someone tell me if the sentence:

"In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."

is in the oldest Greek manuscripts or not?

Yes, the sentence is in the oldest Greek manuscripts.

The only question about the sentence per se is whether (a) the sentence is inserted as a parenthetical editorial comment by Mark, or (b) the words were spoken by Jesus and quoted as such by Mark. The consensus is that the sentence is a parenthetical editorial comment by Mark.

It doesn't really answer your question but it's not in my KJV.

It is in the KJV — you just fail to recognize it because of the way KJV renders it ("purging all meats").

[John Goddard]

Yes, the sentence is in the oldest Greek manuscripts.

The only question about the sentence per se is whether (a) the sentence is inserted as a parenthetical editorial comment by Mark, or (b) the words were spoken by Jesus and quoted as such by Mark. The consensus is that the sentence is a parenthetical editorial comment by Mark.

It is in the KJV — you just fail to recognize it because of the way KJV renders it ("purging all meats").

Looks to me like Jesus is just saying what you eat goes into the toilet, not into your soul.

Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

All in all the proper interpretation, if Jesus also said that Torah stands until the end, is that Jesus was saying non-kosher food won't kill you, but willfully disobeying God will kill you. So he isn't giving a command to go eat it in defiance of God, but clarifying that the food had no magical qualities of its own to destroy your soul.

[Christian2]

Yes, the sentence is in the oldest Greek manuscripts.

The only question about the sentence per se is whether (a) the sentence is inserted as a parenthetical editorial comment by Mark, or (b) the words were spoken by Jesus and quoted as such by Mark. The consensus is that the sentence is a parenthetical editorial comment by Mark.



It is in the KJV — you just fail to recognize it because of the way KJV renders it ("purging all meats").

Thanks John. A note in the NET.bible site says it is a parenthetical note by the author. If true, then the author of Luke understood that Jesus was declaring all foods clean.

I am discussing the issue of whether Gentile Christians should follow the Torah with some Messianic Jews. They say yes. I say no.

I brought up Mark 7:19 and someone said it was not in the original Greek. You have confirmed that it is. However, my opponent said:

"This issue had nothing to do with food, but was about ritualistic hand washing."

I realize the context is hand washing but I think Jesus had a deeper meaning -- all foods are now clean.

I was given an article to read. When I have read it, I may come back with additional questions.

Thanks again for your help.

[John Reece]

Thanks John. A note in the NET.bible site says it is a parenthetical note by the author. If true, then the author of Luke understood that Jesus was declaring all foods clean.

You mean Mark, right? Yes, the author of Mark rightly understood the implication of the preceding verses 14-15 (see below).

I am discussing the issue of whether Gentile Christians should follow the Torah with some Messianic Jews. They say yes. I say no.

I brought up Mark 7:19 and someone said it was not in the original Greek. You have confirmed that it is. However, my opponent said:

"This issue had nothing to do with food, but was about ritualistic hand washing."

I realize the context is hand washing but I think Jesus had a deeper meaning -- all foods are now clean.

The question raised by the Pharisees was about ritualistic hand washing; however, Jesus deliberately broadened the controversy by injecting the subject of food ingestion:

Mark 7:14-15—(ESV)

And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him."

[John Goddard]

Gentiles aren't commanded to convert completely and be Jews, only a few specific commands from Torah as stated in Acts 15. Plus what we know by common sense, no lying, murder, etc.

But Jesus warned against teaching Jews to break even the least of commands in Matthew 5:19, so interpreting Mark 7:19 as allowing all foods for Jews doesn't seem correct.

[Johnny MacManky]

Theologically, I agree that "all foods are clean", e.g. I do not consider that I am bound by OT laws concerning pork (or haggis)! However, I think it its fair to point out that technically the earliest Greek ms. of Mark does not have this phrase, because the oldest extant Greek ms. of Mark (P45) is fragmentary and Mark 7:16-24 is missing. (Comfort & Barrett p168) - Yeah, call me "Johnny Pedantic", but that's the kinda guy I am. It would not be the first time I have seen someone utilise the fragmentary nature of the earliest mss. to mislead by claiming that "the original Greek doesn't contain that phrase".

The Greek Texts underlying Mark 7:19 in the KJV and the RV (Westcott Hort) are identical to the letter. You can check that out online at the Blue Letter Bible.

It may be worth further examination to explore why the parallel Matthew passage doesn't include the phrase (as far as I can tell at a quick glance). Assuming Matthew utilised Mark, and the phrase appears to be Markian (not Q), then why did Matthew refrain from including it? Could it have been the phrase wasn't part of the Mark autograph, or perhaps Matthew was using the logia to make a different theological point so the "all foods declared clean" was redundant? Ultimately this may be an argument from silence, which you should anticipate your opponent using.

I don't have copies of post 300AD mss. Can anyone advise which is the oldest extant containing Mark 7:16-24?




Comfort & Barrett = The Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts. Tyndale House. Wheaton, Illinois. 2001.

:johnny:

[Weboh2]

"all foods clean" means that foods don't cause and are not guilty of causing sin. They are clean, when it comes to sin. However I wouldn't go eating pork, because it is bad for one's gall bladder.

[Heirofhim]

Yeshua lived according to Torah 100%. He did not sin. Now if we say that he changed the food instructions we make Him a sinner.
We can argue if the Torah is valid after Yeshuas death and resurrection, but in this case it is clear that Torah is still what rules Yeshuas behavior.
SO anybody arguing that Yeshua didn't follow Torah, even the food instructions, can not claim to be saved. Because IF, note I am saying IF, Yeshua violated Torah he could no longer be the perfect sacrifice, right?
However Scripture says that Yeshua was tempted in everything, but He did not sin. Soooooo Yeshua did not declare all foods clean if you want to claim to be saved!
Sam

[technomage]

Soooooo Yeshua did not declare all foods clean if you want to claim to be saved!

You miss both the relevance and the context.

Most Christians of Jewish ancestry (as well as some "Sacred Name" folks) adhere to the Torah because it is part of the covenant that God gave the Hebrews. The Torah laws have never applied to gentiles--those who live outside of the Mosaic covenant.

The Gospel of Mark was not written to a Jewish audience: this can be seen where Mark explains Jewish customs to his Gentile readers.

Christians are not, and have never been, members of the Mosaic covenant--which makes sense, as "from Dan to Beersheba" would not accommodate all of the earth's Christians. Christian doctrine states that Gentile Christians are members of the Abrahamic covenant.

[Heirofhim]

Isn't the context that Yeshua is being approached by the scribes and teachers of the law?
They argue that the disciples have to wash their hands according to the tradition of the rabbis.
Has nothing to do with gentiles.
You missed my point.
However the important part is that Yeshua can not brake or violate Torah in any way. So for salvation to be available for jews and greeks, Yeshua must live according to Torah. Anybody arguing that Yeshua violated Torah can not claim salvation, since in that case Yeshua was not free from sin when he gave His life.

[technomage]

Isn't the context that Yeshua is being approached by the scribes and teachers of the law?

In this case, the context is actually Jesus being approached by scribes and teachers of the combination of the actual law of the Mosaic code and the added body of traditions. Jesus is not condemning the Law--he's condemning the added traditions, and most specifically he's condemning how those added traditions had been misused to pervert justice.

Anybody arguing that Yeshua violated Torah can not claim salvation, since in that case Yeshua was not free from sin when he gave His life.

Not ... quite. It can still be argued (and has been argued by some who were sincere but ignorant in their faith) that Jesus was not necessarily free from sin. If I were Christian, I would hold that someone who was in error, but was still striving to obey God's word, to be "Christian," but ignorant of the full truth of the Gospel. It would only be if that person had been taught the truth but had persisted in their error that I (again, if I were Christian) would be concerned about whether or not they were actually Christian.

We can see this in the narrative of the two thieves on the crosses on either side of Jesus. There can be no doubt that the repentant thief was ignorant of many facts of the Gospel, yet he is still assured by Jesus "This day you will be with me in Paradise."

[Heirofhim]

You are still missing the point
The way I view this, in context, is that in order for us to become saved, free from sin, blood has to be shed. In Torah that consisted of animals all the way back to Eden.
If we read Torah we can find that the animal that was to be sacrificed had to without blemish.

The definition of sin is found in Torah. John says that everyone that sins breaks the law, Torah.
So in context we find that Yeshua could not break the Law, Torah. If we argue that He did break the Law, He could no longer claim to have no sin.
That is what the commentator to Mark 7 did not realize.
Without a sin free Yeshua there could not be a sinoffering once and for all. Then we would still be sacrificing animals for our sins.
Therefore the conclusion is that whoever states that Yeshua broke the Law by altering YHWH's food instructions is cutting the limb they are sitting on.
Yeshua could not be the perfect sacrifice if He broke the Law. Which He would do if He altered YHWH's instructions regarding what is clean food and what is not.
No unblemished, sin free , sacrifice- no salvation. Yeshua did NOT alter the Law. He knew better.

Sam

[technomage]

You are still missing the point

No--I am stating that your argument of your point is ... not terribly clear.