Mark 7: 19 should be "cleansing all foods" rather than "declaring all foods clean"

Mark 7:19 : The difference between "cleansing all foods" and "declaring all foods clean".

"There is no substantive difference between Codex Bezae and the majority of the manuscripts. Codex Bezae has: καθαριζει παντα τα βρωματα (katharizei panta ta bromata) Whereas most manuscripts have: καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα (katharizon panta ta bromata)
The difference is between "he declares all foods clean" and "declaring all foods clean." It's the difference syntactically between a main
clause and a subordinate participial clause, but still means practically the same thing."

shnarkle: My response to this would be to first point out that the Greek word "katharizon" and "katharizei" don't include the meaning "declaring" or "he declares".

2511 [e] katharizōn καθαρίζων purifying V-PPA-NMS

If one looks for the meaning of "clean, purifying, cleansing etc." there are some references of a Levitical pronouncement of cleanliness, but the context of this passage doesn't lend itself to that interpretation. Instead we see a comparison between the process of defilement and the digestive process. In the parallel passage in Matthew Jesus immediately points out that the Pharisees have made the commandments null and void through their traditions. For Jesus to then suggest that the law is now done away with by his pronouncement makes no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, the dietary laws aren't in view in this passage in the first place. When I point this out i am met with comments like this: "This is your problem, being concerned with the letter of the law to the point where you can't accept the Bible's own interpretation and application of the law."

Again, this comment collapses in on itself if one is to use the "declaring" version of this passage as it is the pronouncement of a Levitical priest, and Levitical pronouncements are explicitly concerned with the letter of the law.

Here's a list of translations I found online. They seem to be evenly divided in their interpretation of this verse. Notice that the majority of those that take the "declaring" interpretation have this phrase in parenthesis. Could this be because they are using the 5th century Codex Bezae? The oldest versions of the Codex Bezae and Sinaiticus have these words in the margins and later they migrate into the text. I don't see these words, "Thus he declared" in the older manuscripts. If so, where are these words in the earlier manuscripts? In the older manuscripts, the process of digestion is what is cleansing or purging the food, not some declaration. The only declaration likely to accompany this type of purging would be if one were to break wind. Notice, if you would; what I've included from online doesn't have these words, "Thus", or "he declared" I would really appreciate it if someone could find out where people are coming up with this meaning.

1519 [e] eis εἰς into Prep
3588 [e] ton τὸν the Art-AMS
856 [e] aphedrōna ἀφεδρῶνα draught N-AMS
1607 [e] ekporeuetai ἐκπορεύεται, goes out. V-PIM/P-3S
2511 [e] katharizōn καθαρίζων purifying V-PPA-NMS
3956 [e] panta πάντα all Adj-ANP
3588 [e] ta τὰ the Art-ANP
1033 [e] brōmata βρώματα; food. N-ANP

King James Bible
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

International Standard Version
Because it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then into the sewer, thereby expelling all foods."

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“Because it does not enter his heart, but his belly, and is discharged by excretion, which purifies all foods.”

Jubilee Bible 2000
Because it enters not into his heart, but into the belly, and the man goes out to the privy and purges all foods.

King James 2000 Bible
Because it enters not into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the drain, purging all foods?

American King James Version
Because it enters not into his heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the draught, purging all meats?

Douay-Rheims Bible
Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?

Darby Bible Translation
because it does not enter into his heart but into his belly, and goes out into the draught, purging all meats?

Webster's Bible Translation
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all kinds of food.

World English Bible
because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus purifying all foods?"

Young's Literal Translation
because it doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth go out, purifying all the meats.'

==

Weymouth New Testament
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and passes away ejected from him?" By these words Jesus pronounced all kinds of food clean.

English Revised Version
because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.

American Standard Version
because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said , making all meats clean.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
It doesn't go into his thoughts but into his stomach and then into a toilet." (By saying this, Jesus declared all foods acceptable.)

NET Bible
For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer." (This means all foods are clean.)

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For it doesn't go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated." (As a result, He made all foods clean.)

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.)

New Living Translation
Food doesn't go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer." (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God's eyes.)

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.)


What follows is yet another example of what I would call modern day Pharisaic evangelism from Timothy Keller. The Pharisees of 20 centuries ago are rolling over in their graves and slapping themselves silly wondering why they didn't think of this.

"n Matt. 5:18: 'I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.' This categorical statement doesn't seem to fit in with Mark 7;19 at all! But maybe we should look closer. Immediately before his statement about the Law in Matthew 5:18 Jesus tells us his relationship to it: 'I come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets...but to fulfill.' This means that Jesus did not 'declare all foods clean' by abolishing the clean laws, but by fulfilling them." --Timothy Keller; "The Gospel of Mark", pg. 80

Keller is taking a principle that was applied to the sacrificial system and applying it to the clean laws. The sacrificial system pointed to the sacrifice of Christ. Christ's perfect sacrifice is the only sacrifice that could remove sin; the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of the law for sin. The clean laws include Idolatry, profanity, and sexual purity. Jesus kept all the clean laws including those dealing with sexuality. Can we then conclude that Jesus declared all sexual activity clean? If a rapist conceives lust and violence in his heart, and rapes a woman. His heart is defiled, but the woman isn't defiled. Jesus would just as easily pointed out that her reproductive system cleans itself; her menstrual cycle cleans her. To then conclude that all sexual activity is now clean seems ridiculous. Is this not a non sequitur? And if it is a non sequitur, why is it not a non sequitur with regards to the dietary laws as well?

Once again I have to ask why do people insist on using only the 5th century version (Codex Bezae) of this passage? Could it be because it fits their doctrine perfectly? Could it be that it fits the doctrine of the 5th century redactor who inserted it into the text? If we look at the earliest manuscripts, it really doesn't fit their dogmatic assertions. The processes Jesus describes are that of what comes from within a person's heart, and what proceeds through the digestive tract and is "purged, purified, clean" by being expelled into the sewer. There is nothing in four centuries of manuscripts that state, "Thus he declared...". The digestive tract is not declaring anything.

"Then came together unto Him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they heard of his disciple whom had not performed the ceremonial cleansing after laying with his wife, they found fault. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why walk not Thy disciple according to the tradition of the elders, but refrain from washing after laying with his wife?". He answered and said to 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. Hobeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' For laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men" And He said unto them, "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, 'Honour thy father and thy mother;' and, 'Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:''. But ye say,'It is Corban, (that is to say, a gift), by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; ' he shall be free.'; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered; and many such like things do ye." And when He had called all of the people unto him, He said unto them, "Hearken unto Me every one of you and understand; There is nothing from without, that entering into can defile: but the things which come out, those are they that defile. Because it entereth not into one's heart, but is expelled during the time of separation,(Thus he declared all sexual activity clean)
For from within out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile, but to neglect washing does not defile." Mark chapter 7 NIPV (New Improved Pharisaic Version)

For those who think that one hasn't actually defiled themselves unless they commit the sinful act itself, Jesus points out that those who hate their neighbor/enemy are guilty of murder, and those who covet or lust after someone else's wife are guilty of adultery. He describes the Pharisees as tombs that are painted white on the outside showing that they haven't committed the sinful act, but are dead men's bones on the inside indicating that their sinful desires have left them spiritually dead.

So how does one escape defilement? How does one get clean? This whole planet is turning into a gigantic cesspool of filth and pollution. I buy a HazMat suit before I test drive a brand new car. Before I get home I burn my clothes before going inside, then I jump into a tub of 200 proof alcohol and light it on fire to disinfect myself. Then I'm clean....on the outside.


If I want to get clean on the inside I have to drink a quart of that 200 proof alcohol and then swallow a lit M100. As it makes its way through my digestive tract, in the end, as it announces its departure it simultaneously cleans and disinfects my entire bathroom. Thus making my entire home clean. Everything is therefore clean. Everything that is, except my heart. Only God can make that clean, and if I defile my heart there is nothing I can do to make it clean. My filthy rotten disgusting defiled heart can only do one thing--sin. That's what defiled, depraved hearts do. They don't make anything clean. Only one's digestive tract can make anything clean. One with a box of Colon Blow and a lit M100 incinerating and disinfecting everything that offends.

Your conflating the fact that Christ can cleanse us with the distinction between clean and unclean. In other words, Christ doesn't clean us by eliminating the distinction between clean and unclean. He makes us clean, but to make us clean when there is no such thing as unclean makes what he has done meaningless. There is no such thing as clean when there is no such thing as unclean. It would be no different than saying that since Christ has cleansed our hearts sexual acts(also part of the clean/unclean laws) of any kind cannot make us unclean; therefore fornication, adultery, sodomy, bestiality etc cannot make us unclean since as you say, "nothing can be 'unclean' for us" In effect what you are saying is that Jesus associated with prostitutes which were considered unclean. Jesus could have sex with prostitutes because he had already made them clean, and because nothing he touches will make him unclean.

I tihink the problem people don't realize is that Christ is pointing out that we are all in an ontological state of defilement, therefore nothing one does can defile them. In other words, nothing cannot defile that which is already defiled. However, if you want to go around touching corpses rotten with highly contagious disease go ahead, but I seriously doubt you wll not get sick.