Clean and Unclean Meats - Mark 7:19

[Rick W]

Matthew 15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.


Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Matthew 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Matthew 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

 

[codenamehsk]

Matthew 15:10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.


Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Matthew 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Matthew 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

This has nothing to do with clean and unclean meats, it talks about eating with unwashed hands.

 

[Rick W]

Eating with unwashed hands was the catalyst for what he said due to the Pharisees' objection. When asked about the parable he told his disciples the explanation and wrapped it up with the reason the subject was brought up in the first place.

If as you point out were the case then I could eat whatever I want anyway under the condition that I wash my hands before eating anything including pork. Washing your hands before eating is always a good idea anyway.

Whatever I eat "goeth into the mouth" and is "cast out into the draught". The whole point is what comes from the heart and it's that, the tongue, that is being addressed. For the tongue is as fire of which Paul speaks about extensively.


Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Romans 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

If you feel something is unclean then to you it's unclean and I'm not to partake in your presence. So believe as you please but you cannot impose a strict doctrinal restriction of eating certain foods upon others.

 

[LostSoul]

This has nothing to do with clean and unclean meats, it talks about eating with unwashed hands.

Scripture can be interpreted in many different ways....I do not believe this passage speaks though of clean and unclean foods myself. But I shall not elaborate. Seeing as of course the topic is clean and unclean meats.

Though I have been one to believe and feel rather firmly that the New Testament Covenant changed the laws even in terms of eating....it is something I am thinking of looking into again just to get a better understanding.

Not that I am saying anything either way....just think it is something worth reading into.

 

[codenamehsk]

If you feel something is unclean then to you it's unclean and I'm not to partake in your presence. So believe as you please but you cannot impose a strict doctrinal restriction of eating certain foods upon others.

I'm not trying to impose strick doctrine on anyone. Most unclean meats are not healthy, so I advice people not to eat things that cause harm to their bodies. I suppose you know what Paul says;

1 Corinthians 6:19,20
know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Causing harm to the "temple of the Holy Spirit" is not a good thing. So I advice people to take good care to what belongs to God. Every christian should live a healthy life so he can serve God better and longer.

 

[Rick W]

Let's back up to get some context for 1 Corinthians 6:19,20

1Co 6:15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
1Co 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
1Co 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Two become one flesh in union as representation of the union we have with Christ. The OT tabernacle of Moses was a shadow of the heavenly tabernacle so are our bodies temples for the Holy Spirit in union with Christ. Paul speaks of fornication in the joining of two for some pagan religious practices going on in some of the churches at Corinth. He speaks here of harlots, fornication. Again of the significance of the joining of two as one body, not eating meats or anything else. Nowhere is eating mentioned or health in those verses.

Yet I agree, Christians should care for their health for service to God. I have no problem with that. A healthy diet won't extend the number of your days for God numbers your days and when that allotment of time is up you will be called. But a healthy diet and exercise can make living a lot more comfortable until He does call you home.

 

[RND]

Rick, I think it is reasonable to conclude that a man like Paul that never broke the Mosaic law of his forefathers would not recommend to others to eat things that he would not have eaten. But just as you say the instances where food is discussed in the scripture has nothing to do with eating clean or unclean meats but always dealt with the manner in which those meats were eaten.

The clearest examples we have of this are 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14.

Paul suggests in both of these chapters that if what we eat was sacrificed to an idol, even though we know an idol means nothing, and we cause our brothers to stumble and become weaker then it is our job to look out for our weaker brothers and not to eat those things which offend (things offered to Idols).

1 Cor 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up but charity edifieth...4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.....13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the world standeth , lest I make my brother to offend

Romans 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably . Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of....21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak

 

[Rick W]

Agreed.

My responses were to "Well to God, bacon is an abomination."

My opinion is BACON RULES and nothing anyone says will change that, lol

Well to God, bacon is an abomination.

Isaiah 66:15-17
For, behold, the LORD will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

Considered ceremonially unclean yes, but what ceremonies are we commanded to partake of today? I don't know any churches burning a sacrifice or eating meat at the altar or any other sacrificial ceremonies those in the OT were to follow.
One must remember the roles the priests had along with the prophets. The prophets communicated God's will to the people while the priests performed sacrifices from the people to God, interceded between the people and God. Prophets - God to people... preists - people to God. But all that changed when the veil dividing the Holy of Holies from the people was torn from top to bottom and the Holy Spirit given to the people.

In short, we no longer participate in the ceremonies/sacrifices of the OT.
And that is just one of the many problems the Pharisees had with Christ.

 

[RND]

Considered ceremonially unclean yes, but what ceremonies are we commanded to partake of today? I don't know any churches burning a sacrifice or eating meat at the altar or any other sacrificial ceremonies those in the OT were to follow.

These animals weren't just considered "ceremonially unclean" they were something that was not to be ingested or even touched.

Deu 14:8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it [is] unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

One must remember the roles the priests had along with the prophets. The prophets communicated God's will to the people while the priests performed sacrifices from the people to God, interceded between the people and God. Prophets - God to people... preists - people to God. But all that changed when the veil dividing the Holy of Holies from the people was torn from top to bottom and the Holy Spirit given to the people.

Very clear.

In short, we no longer participate in the ceremonies/sacrifices of the OT.
And that is just one of the many problems the Pharisees had with Christ.

No doubt, but conversely that isn't a reason to begin eating things God considered unfit to eat. There would have to be some clear cut and cut and dried commandment that unequivocally tells me pigs and other unclean meats are now "clean" and I don't see any such decrees and accompanying proof in the Bible.

 

[LostSoul]

After doing some further reading and trying to perhaps come to a little more of an understanding of the changes between the OT and NT, I found a particular passage interesting of which can or may be interpreted in a light on this topic.

Could it be possible that Jesus himself deemed what was once unclean clean in the book of Mark?

Mark 7

Clean and Unclean

1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a]) 5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?" 6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." 9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,'[d] and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[e] 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that." 14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "[f] 17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For 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.") 20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

I am not necessarily implying that Jesus spoke that, but rather taking something from the NT that may shed light on this topic up for discussion. Could it not be possible with all the transitions occuring in regards from the OT to NT that such strict observance in terms of what we eat was also abolished? Though perhaps not something we should not necessarily completely neglect concern for? After all, though we can drink wine....there are still consequences of drinking excessively, right?

My appologies if my point here is missed....just thought I would try to shed some new possible light on this topic of clean and unclean meats and the like.

Here is yet another passage that can likely be interpreted in a light or two on this topic:

Romans 14

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' "[a] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. 19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. 22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

 

[RND]

After doing some further reading and trying to perhaps come to a little more of an understanding of the changes between the OT and NT, I found a particular passage interesting of which can or may be interpreted in a light on this topic.

Could it be possible that Jesus himself deemed what was once unclean clean in the book of Mark?

I am not necessarily implying that Jesus spoke that, but rather taking something from the NT that may shed light on this topic up for discussion. Could it not be possible with all the transitions occuring in regards from the OT to NT that such strict observance in terms of what we eat was also abolished? Though perhaps not something we should not necessarily completely neglect concern for? After all, though we can drink wine....there are still consequences of drinking excessively, right?

My appologies if my point here is missed....just thought I would try to shed some new possible light on this topic of clean and unclean meats and the like.

I honestly think the whole context of scripture must be taken into view before we can make a definitive statement as to whether Jesus was giving approval to eat pigs. One question that I've always asked is what meaning can be derived from the fact that after the demons were exorcised from the Demoniac they went into a heard of 2,000 pigs and drowned? This is just 2 chapters away from Mark 7.

Mark 5:13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

Also compelling to me is why would Peter be seen in vision denying he ever ate anything common or unclean if Jesus in His day had declared all foods clean. Wouldn't it be obvious that if Jesus declared everything good to eat then Peter would never had been able to make his claim?

Lastly, why is it that we find eating certain things eaten in other countries, especially those things seen on some of these travel shows, abhorrent? Bats, rats, mice, spiders, scorpions, snakes, eels, et al many people find hard to "shallow" shall we say? Pun intended. As long as we don't kill them ourselves are people now free to eat humans? If not, why not? I mean Jesus did say that it's what comes out of a man's mouth that defiles not what goes into it.

 

[LostSoul]

I honestly think the whole context of scripture must be taken into view before we can make a definitive statement as to whether Jesus was giving approval to eat pigs. One question that I've always asked is what meaning can be derived from the fact that after the demons were exorcised from the Demoniac they went into a heard of 2,000 pigs and drowned? This is just 2 chapters away from Mark 7.

Mark 5:13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

Also compelling to me is why would Peter be seen in vision denying he ever ate anything common or unclean if Jesus in His day had declared all foods clean. Wouldn't it be obvious that if Jesus declared everything good to eat then Peter would never had been able to make his claim?

Lastly, why is it that we find eating certain things eaten in other countries, especially those things seen on some of these travel shows, abhorrent? Bats, rats, mice, spiders, scorpions, snakes, eels, et al many people find hard to "shallow" shall we say? Pun intended. As long as we don't kill them ourselves are people now free to eat humans? If not, why not? I mean Jesus did say that it's what comes out of a man's mouth that defiles not what goes into it.

As I said in my prior post:

I am NOT necessarily implying that Jesus spoke that, but rather taking something from the NT that may shed light on this topic up for discussion. Could it not be possible with all the transitions occuring in regards from the OT to NT that such strict observance in terms of what we eat was also abolished? Though perhaps not something we should not necessarily completely neglect concern for? After all, though we can drink wine....there are still consequences of drinking excessively, right?

More or less I am just opening the door for further discussion. For like a number here, I do find this topic fascinating. Though I do also wonder....are we focusing too much on traditionalism?

 

[Joshua]

So what purpose do all these unclean animals serve? Do we not have authority over them? Why does that authority not include eating them?

 

[RND]

So what purpose do all these unclean animals serve?

Depends on the animal but most are scavengers that eat dead or decaying things. Pigs for example will eat their own dead babies.

Do we not have authority over them?

Indeed we do.

Why does that authority not include eating them?

Roman soldiers were once given authority of the Apostles. Did that 'authority' include the right to eat them?

 

[guibox]

I will be honest. I still struggle with eating unclean meats. Gosh, I love my bacon!

Some part of me feels that it might be possible that this was under the OC. I do believe in looking at all the evidence, that the bible does support the difference between clean and unclean animals., and that we should be eating only clean ones.

I do not believe that the NT says 'Hey, eat whatever you want! It doesn't matter!' I believe that many who quote Romans 14:5 and 1 Timothy 4:5 are abusing the context of the passages to support 'no more unclean foods'. We must not get carried away in a superficial reading of scripture simply because we don't believe in something and want to bolster our opinion.


1 Timothy 4:5 - For every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving

At first glance it would seem that this is supporting eating whatever you want, that there are no more clean or unclean meats. However we must look further:

for it is sanctified by the Word of God - vs 6

To 'sanctify' means to 'set apart'. Does the Word tell us what 'creatures' are 'sanctified'? Yes they do in Leviticus 11. Paul is saying that whatever are within the parameters is perfectly fine to eat.

What was the problem then?

Probably the same issue in Romans 14 and in Mark when Christ was talking about 'what goes in that defiles'. The problem is that the Pharisees were saying that even clean meats were polluted by ceremonial uncleanliness. Most likely there was also Gnostic influences as was the problem with Colossians 2 with ceremonies of fasting and what could or could not be eaten.

Romans 14:4-6, 15

Nowhere is the issue of 'cleanliness' the issue here. Paul is not talking about the ramifications of Levitical covenant principles of food and drink. Paul is addressing the issue of foods sacrificed to idols and the problems the Jews and Christians had with it.

What about vs 15?

I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean

The word 'unclean' is not the same as the Hebrew equivalent used in Leviticus 11. The issue here was not inherent uncleanliness, but ceremonial uncleanliness. Paul was saying that it is not offering food to idols that makes them unclean. They are not unclean of themselves for God has already declared them clean in Leviticus 11.

Remember that we are talking within the parameters of what the Word has sanctified not literally ALL THE MEATS IN THE ENTIRE KNOWN WORLD.

Paul's message today from Romans 14, would be akin to vegetarians telling meat eaters that it is a sin to eat meat.

Some will say,

"But the Leviticus 11 is Israelic covenant, not under the New covenant.

My answer to that would be to look at Genesis long before there was an Old Covenant or an Israelite nation.

Genesis 7:2,8

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female, and of beasts that are not clean, by two, the male and his female...of clean beasts and of beasts that are not clean

To me, this is the most compelling evidence that God considers them to be naturally unclean animals and that further reiteration by commands to not eat them cannot simply be reduced to an Israelite covenant.

This issue alone is enough to give me pause to say 'It doesn't matter what I eat'

What say you all about this passage?

 

[strathyboy]

This is a very interesting thread. And I'm glad everyone's been so civil with one another. This can be one of those silly issues that divides Christians.

One thing I've noticed here is repeated reference to Mosaic Law. I know this may be opening a big can of worms, but isn't it inconsistent to obey only part of Mosaic Law, while ignoring other parts? Seriously, for those of you who insist on not eating unclean meat because of Mosaic Law, do you obey the rest of it?

Also, I think care needs to be taken when using the "our bodies are a temple of God" argument. That can lead to a whole new brand of legalism where anyone who does anything remotely unhealthy is a sinner. Technically, drinking tapwater, driving cars, and breathing the air anywhere near a major city would be sins, then.

 

[St Francis]

At the end of Mark 7:19 most Bible translations say, "Thus He declared all foods clean." So its pretty clear that Jesus changed the old food regulations in Leviticus 11

 

[RND]

One thing I've noticed here is repeated reference to Mosaic Law. I know this may be opening a big can of worms, but isn't it inconsistent to obey only part of Mosaic Law, while ignoring other parts? Seriously, for those of you who insist on not eating unclean meat because of Mosaic Law, do you obey the rest of it?

I think it depends on one's understanding of which laws are still functional and worthy of obeying and which have been amended to fit within the framework of a more modern life. For example, (please forgive me for making this point, but hear me out) intercourse with a menstruating woman is still not only unsanitary but unsafe for the woman.

Many women's heath magazine's and websites will declare this is a "safe practice" for women and even beneficial in some way. And yet there are many medical and cynical studies that clearly demonstrate a risk of BV (bacterial vaginosis) by engaging in sexual intercourse during the menstrual cycle. The thinning of the vaginal wall during menstruation can also make intercourse painful for a woman.

Was God simply being a "stick in the mud" and taking away all the fun of being a human by reminding men and women of the risks of sex during the menstrual cycle or did God truly know what would happen and was generally concerned?

Also, I understand the point you make regarding being "inconsistent to obey only part of Mosaic Law" can be easily reversed as well.

For example the Ten Commandments says nothing about homosexuality, but the Mosaic law does. How is it that modern day Christians can say homosexuality is a sin when it was obviously a Mosaic law and most modern day Christians say we don't have to keep that law? That seems inconsistent and one where "picking and choosing" which law is which and which law to obey becomes rather curious.

Many Christians will say, "Well it was restated in the NT." OK, if that's the case then what "scripture" was Paul referring to in 2 Timothy 3:16? Also consider that rape, child molesting, bestiality and marrying one's sister are not "restated" in the NT either, are those now acceptable?

I have never understood the notion that "clean/unclean" was only given to the Jews considering 1) Noah wasn't a Jew, and 2) the law was never given to just the "Jews" but all the Israelites and any that would "sojourn" with them. I've also never understood how people think their physiology is somehow different from that of an "Israelite" or how that physiology may have changed the minute after Christ died on the cross.

 

[St Francis]

Any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lev. 11:1-8).

 

[RND]

Any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lev. 11:1-8).

That sounds great but there is no such command from Jesus declaring all foods clean. The parenthetical statement, "(By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable.)" that is found in many translations is of questionable origin. Also the statement is in no way is consistent with centerpiece of Jesus' teaching here, namely that "ritual" is unnecessary and unimportant.

The Dietary Laws

The Pharisees were doing their best to follow the strict letter of the Mosaic Law, including the dietary part. So far, so good. The problem was that they were relying on their strict outward observance of the rules to earn favor with Yahwehâ€â€Who sees what’s in our hearts. Yahshua wasn’t saying that it was wrong to follow the precepts of Moses, or that they had somehow been rendered obsolete by His coming. He was only saying that observance of the Law could not and would not reconcile us to a holy God. Just as “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath,†so was the rest of the Torah: the dietary laws were there for our benefit, not God’s.

But what about that incriminating parenthetical, “(By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable.)â€Â? Isn’t this saying that all bets are off, that we have been given divine permission to eat whatever we want? Not exactly. The primary passage defining the dietary laws is found in Leviticus 11. The summary verse reads, “This is the law of the animals and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.†(Leviticus 11:46-47) Two things, it says, have been defined in the preceding passage. First are those things which are clean (as opposed to unclean). If an Israelite were even to touch anything on this list, he would be ceremonially defiled, or “unclean until evening,†that is, temporarily disqualified from certain duties or privileges that required ceremonial cleanliness. Second, those things which are edible (as opposed to inedible) are identified. Thus any animal that was prohibited in the Leviticus 11 list was, by definition, not food. So Yahshua is not saying, “Go ahead and eat spiders and miceâ€â€I’m telling you it’s okay, never mind what the Torah said.†He is, rather, saying, “Nothing you put in your mouth can establish or destroy your relationship with Yahweh. Only the condition of your heartâ€â€your love, faith, and trust in Himâ€â€has any bearing on this relationship.†The things that were not considered “food†in the first place never even entered into the discussion.

I should point out that the New Living Translation is probably guilty of unwarranted extrapolation at this point: “(By saying this, he showed that every kind of food is acceptable)†isn’t actually in the Greek text in any recognizable way. It’s katharizo pas broma: the New King James simply renders it, “purifying all foods.†The Greek katharizo means to cleanse, purge, or purify; or to pronounce clean in a Levitical sense. The phrase is generally thought to be an editorial insertion by Mark, not that it matters. The bottom line is that the Mark 7 passage does nothing to abrogate the Levitical dietary laws: that which is not food is not purified.