EQ 74:4 (2002),291-311

DavidJ. Rudolph

Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment

of Mark 7:19b

A fresh interpretation of a difficult verse is proposed by Mr Rudolph, who is

an educator in the Messianic Jewish community and is about to undertake
post-graduate study at the University of Cambridge, after having completed
studies at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

Key words: Bible; New Testament; Mark 7; food; clean/unclean;

Jewish Christians; Gentiles.

Jesus' mashal in Mark 7:14-19a and Mark's editorial comment in

7:19b are often taken together to indicate that Jesus terminated
Israel's dietary laws. Booth (1986), Lindars (1988), Dunn (1990),
Raisanen (1992), Svartvik (2000), Holmen (2001) and others have
contributed critical reassessments of the traditional view but impor-
tant areas remain unexamined. This essay aims to fill in the lacuna;
it highlights the classic interpretation's deficiencies and suggests an
alternative reading that is more in line with the historical-literary
context of Mark 7.

Text of Mark 7: 19b

The NN7 Greek text of Mark 7:19b reads Ktdlap((wv mlvta ta ~p~ata
(literally: "cleansing all the foods"). Most English translations turn
this dangling participial clause into a Markan insertion by placing it
within parentheses and adding the words at the beginning' (Thus he
declared ... ), (NRSV) I or '(In saying this, Jesus declared ... )' (NIV).
The reader is left with the impression that Mark is summarizing the
significance of Jesus' teaching in the previous verses. In support of
such a translation, it should be noted that Ka9ap((wv (,cleansing') is
nominative masculine. Thus,Jesus is the one who is doing the cleans-

1 Unless otherwise noted, HB and NT quotations are from the NRSV.

292 The Evangelical QJtarterly

ing and not the body as indicated by the textual variant Ka6ap((ov. 2
Furthermore, as Origen and Chrysostom have noted, Ka6ap((wv
agrees grammatically with AEYEL in verse 18, thus suggesting that both
are comments by Mark. 3

I. The Purpose of Jesus' Teaching

The Classic Reading

Commentators since the Patristic period have considered verse 19b
to reflect the negative perspective Jesus held toward Jewish cere-
monies in general. Jesus here abrogated the ritual purity and dietary
laws of the Torah, a calculated step in the breaking away of Chris-
tianity from Judaism. This view, advocated by Bultmann, Kasemann,
Schweizer, Merkel, Hubner, Haenchen, Kummel, Lambrecht and
Stauffer, continues to resonate in NT scholarship:4
• Robert Gundry writes: 'In w 6-13 Jesus equated the Mosaic law
with God's Word and scolded the Pharisees for nullifying God's
Word with their tradition. Now Jesus himself is nullifying God's
Word with regard to food. But it is the prerogative of Jesus as
God's Son to change the Law.'5
• Larry Hurtado states that Jesus' teaching not only takes issue with
a major feature of traditional Jewish religious practice but also
rescinds a major body of OT material dealing with such ritual laws. '6

2 Based on the variant Kct9ctPL(OV (neuter), the KJV, NKJV, NEB and Phillips render
verse 19b as a continuation ofJesus' words: ' ...because it does not enter his heart
but his stomach, and is eliminate~, thus purifying all foods?' (NKJ). Kct9ap({OV
occurs in K., G, 33, 700, 2542 pm. However, Metzger notes that the 'overwhelming
weight of manuscript evidence' supports the reading Kct9ctPL(WV (masculine). See
B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1994),
81. Malina has argued for the neuter variant on the grounds that it is the more dif-
ficult reading for Gentile Christians unfamiliar with Jewish halakhah. He suggests
that a scribe changed the short '0' (omicron) to long '0' (omega) in order to 'har-
monize New Testament references to food rules and contemporary Gentile Chris-
tian practice.' See B.]. Malina, 'A Conflict Approach to Mark 7', Forum 3 (1988),
22-3. The argument suffers from a lack of textual support; we have no early MSS
with the neuter variant. The case also rests on fairly late Rabbinic texts. For a sur-
vey of alternative textual approaches to Mark 7:19b, see R. A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26
(WBC 34A; Dallas, 1989), 378.
3 Metzger, 81. See also C. H. Turner, 'Parenthetical Clauses in Mark',jTS26 (1925),
149; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Cambridge, 1963),241.
4 See H. Riisanen, Jesus, Paul and Torah (trans. David E. Orton; JSNTSS 43;
Sheffield, 1992), 132 n. 1;]. Svartvik, Mark and Mission: Mk 7:1-23 in its Narrative
and Historical Contexts (Stockholm, 2000), 21-5.
5 R. H. Gundry, Mark (Grand Rapids, 1993),356.
6 L. W. Hurtado, Mark (NIBC; Peabody, 1989), 111-12.
 Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7: 19b 293

• John Bowman concludes: Jesus is here not only annulling the

Rabbinical development of Kashruth but is setting aside the Writ-
ten Law."

A Modern Reassessment
Over the past twenty years, the classic interpretation of verse 19b has
undergone reassessment. It is 'historically unimaginable'H to an
increasing number of NT scholars that Jesus taught against the
Torah's dietary laws. 9 Forbidden foods in Leviticus 11 were not
merely tame' (unclean) but also sheqets (detestable) and linked to
Israel's national holiness (Lv. 11:45; 20:24-6). Sheqets is used seven
times in Leviticus 11 and expresses the mindset that Israel was called
to have concerning particular animals. This helps to explain why Jews
in the Hasmonean period surrendered their lives rather than eat
unclean food:
But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat
unclean food. They chose to die rather than to be defiled by food or to
profane the holy covenant; and they did die. (1 Macc 1:62-3)
A mother and her seven sons were executed because of their refusal
to eat pork (2 Macc 7). The oldest son declared, 'For we are ready to
die rather than transgress the laws of our ancestors' (2 Macc 7:2).
Another Jew, Eleazar, chose torture and death rather than eat pork as
Antiochus IV decreed (4 Macc 5:1-6:30).10 The annual celebration of
Hanukah in the first century Un. 10:22) no doubt recalled these mar-
tyrdoms, adding an emotional element to the observance of Israel's
dietary laws. DSS literature confirms that purity laws related to food
were integral to the sectarian lifestyle (lQS 5:12-16; 6:13-23; CD
10:10-13; 12:12-22).11 In Jesus' day, then, the dietary laws were an
important part of Jewish life. Sanders notes that in terms of 'day-in
and day-out Jewish practice, both in Palestine and in the Diaspora,
the food laws stood out, along with observance of the Sabbath, as

7 J. Bowman, The Gospel of Mark: The New Christian Jewish Passover Haggadah (Leiden,
1965),168.
8 P. J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gen-
tiles (Minneapolis, 1990),241. See also A. E. Harvey,Jesus and the Constraints of His-
tory (Philadelphia, 1982),39.
9 E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law FromJesus to the Mishnah (London, 1990),28.
10 See 3 Mace 4-7;Jdt 12:2, 9,19; 13:8; Tob 1:10 and other texts surveyed by Sanders
(1990),274-77.
11 Cf. J W. 2.129, 139; Ant. 18.22.
294 The Evangelical Quarterly

being a central and defining aspect ofJudaism.' 12 In light of this Late

Second Temple Jewish Sitz im Leben, it is difficult to imagine Jesus so
casually abandoning Israel's dietary laws as the classic interpretation
holds. There are seven additional problems with the classic view:
1. The center of the controversy (Mk. 7:1-5)
The pericope opens with a description of the setting. Pharisees and
scribes have gathered around Jesus, enquiring as to why his disciples
eat with KOLVCXI.C; XEPOLV ('defiled hands' [v. 2, 5]):
The argument concerns the authoritative place of Pharisaic tradition in a
matter of purity not explicitly legislated in the Torah, viz. that of ritual
handwashing to cleanse any acquired contamination before each meal.
Jesus' interlocutors appeal to a well-known Pharisaic principle of halakhah
that is not based on the Torah (and is not apparently attested at Qumran):
food is rendered unclean even at second remove, by derived impurity of the
hands (cf. e.g. m. Zab. 5.12; m. Yad. 3.1-2; m. Tohar. 2.2; NB impurity of
'hands' as distinct from the body). Biblical law, by contrast, recognizes only
direct sources of impurity, which affect the body as a whole (e.g. Lev 11:31-
35).13
Mark is careful to point out that the disciples have not violated the
Torah but the TTcxpaoooLV 'twv TTPEO~U'tEPWV ('tradition ofthe elders' [v.
3, 5]). The Torah required priests to wash their hands upon entering
the Tent of Meeting as well as prior to ministering at the altar (Ex.
30:17-21), and prescribed the washing of hands for an Israelite with
a discharge so as not to convey uncleanness to others (Lv. 15: 11). Fur-
thermore, when a corpse was found in an open field, the elders of the
nearest town were to wash their hands over the sacrifice of a heifer
(Dt. 21:6). Ritual handwashing before regular meals was likely a post-
biblical, Haberim/Pharisaic innovation.14 The pericope's introduc-
tion, then, offers no evidence that the Leviticus 11 dietary laws were
at issue in the controversy between Jesus and his opponents. The dis-
pute initially centered on ritual purity and the efficacy of handwash-
ing. 15

12 Sanders (1990),27. See S. Cohen, The Beginnings ofJewishness: Boundaries, Varieties,

Uncertainties (Berkeley, 1999),54,58-9,149; P. Schafer,Judeophobia: Attitudes Toward
theJews in the Ancient World (Cambridge, 1997),69-77; B. Lindars, 'All Foods Clean:
Thoughts on Jesus and the Law', in Law and Religion: Esays on the Place of the Law in
Israel and Early Christianity (ed. B. Lindars; Cambridge, 1988),67.
13 M. Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah and the Beginning of Christ-
ian Public Ethics (Edinburgh, 2000), 4. See Svartvik, 370-71.
14 R. P. Booth, Jesus and the Laws ofPurity: Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7
USNTSS 13; Sheffield, 1986), 155-203;]. Neusner, From Politics to Piety (Prentice-
Hall, 1973),83-6. Sanders (1990),30-1,39-40,160-63,228-31,258-71.
15 Tomson (1990),241.
 Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7: 19b 295

2. Jesus, a prophet of Israel (Mk. 7:6-13)

In the second section, Mark portrays Jesus as a prophet of Israel who
calls Israel's leaders back to the Torah. This is supported by literary
context. In Mark 6:4, Jesus states: 'Prophets are not without honor,
except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their
own house.' Additionally, Etc; 'tWV TTPoQ>T]'tWV ('one of the prophets') in
6:15 and 8:28 forms an inclusio that focuses on Jesus' prophetic min-
istry. As Isaiah ETTPoQ>~'tEUOEV ('prophesied'), Jesus also prophesies in
Mark 7:6-7: ' ... in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts
as doctrines' (Is. 29:13 LXX). This prophetic indictment centers on
a single point - the overarching priority of the Torah. The Pharisees
and scribes from Jerusalem placed the tradition of the elders on a
higher pedestal than the Torah and circumvented weightier com-
mandments by prioritizing lighter ones. As a result, they are said to
'abandon' (v. 8) God's precepts and are in a state of ,rejecting' (v. 9)
and 'making void' (v. 13) divine Law. Jesus called them to return to
'Moses' (v. 10) and to the priority distinctions inherent in the
Torah. 16 It is unlikely that Jesus made this pronouncement on the
inviolability of the Torah, rebuked others for neglecting God's com-
mandments (vv. 6-13), and then immediately after declared promi-
nent parts of the Torah abolished (v. 19b) Y
3. Ritual and moral impurity (Mk. 7:14-23)
In the third section,Jesus takes up the issue of ritual and moral impu-
rity. It is often suggested that the principles taught here by Jesus
undermine the continuing validity of ritual purity laws. In particular,
the wisdom saying in verse 15 (' ... there is nothing outside a person
that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what
defile') is said to dispense with the Torah's ritual purity system. IS The
argument rests on the assumption thatJesus' view of ritual purity dif-
fered from the Torah's - the Torah taught that ritual impurity led to
internal defilement; Jesus taught it did not. But is this an accurate
representation of both positions? In the Torah, ritual impurity is gen-
erally distinguished from moral impurity and no causal relationship
is noted. 19 Ritual impurity was regarded as natural, unavoidable and
even obligatory at times. 20 Menstruation, genital discharge, giving
birth to a child, contracting a disease and burying one's dead all

16 Bockmuehl,5-6.
17 Svartvik, 6.
18 ]. Marcus, Mark 1-8 (AB 27; New York, 2000), 453-54.
19 Svartvik, 354-75. Klawans makes a case for the dietary laws being between ritual and
moral. See]. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in AncientJudaism (Oxford, 2000), 31-2.
20 Klawans, 23-4.
296 The Evangelical QJtarterly

resulted in ritual impurity, not moral impurity (Lv. 15:1-33; 12:1-8;

13:1-14:32; Nu. 19:10-22), suggesting that there is 'nothing inher-
ently sinful about being ritually impure .... The ritual purity system
concerns itself with the status of an individual vis-a.-vis the sacred, and
not with an individual's moral statuS.'21 This notwithstanding, inten-
tional violation of ritual purity law was regarded as sin; it was a heart
issue. 22 All of this supports the view that Jesus' position on ritual
impurity did not differ from the Torah.
In the Second Temple period, the distinction between ritual impu-
rity and moral impurity was disputed. The DSS sectarian community
represented one end of the spectrum and held that a 'complete iden-
tification' existed between ritual and moral impurity.23 On the other
end of the spectrum, the Tannaim 'compartmentalized' ritual and
moral impurity, avoiding mention of the two in the same utterance;
they placed a massive emphasis on ritual purity issues and shifted the
focus from the Temple to the table. 24 In this historical milieu, the
Haberim mentioned in Tannaitic literature 25 arose as an association of
Pharisees devoted to eating meals in a state of ritual purity.26 Philo of
Alexandria (10 BCE - 45 CE) represented a middle of the road
approach to purity. For the Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher, ritual
impurity defiled the body and moral impurity defiled the soul. There
was distinction and association. Philo stressed an analogous relation-
ship between the two and emphasized the greater importance of
moral purity.27 His writings tended to focus on the individual's status
rather than the land and sanctuary.28
Jesus' antithetical parallelism in verses 14-23 is best understood in
the context of this intra:Jewish debate over purity laws. Jesus was
clearly opposed to the DSS sectarian view that ritual impurity
reflected moral impurity (Mk. 7:18-19a). He was also opposed to pri-
oritizing ritual purity over moral purity, a tendency he observed in

21 Klawans,25.
22 Klawans, 25. Sanders contends, 'Not intending to be observant is precisely what
makes one 'wicked'; but the wickedness comes not from impurity as such, but from
the attitude that the commandments of the Bible need not be heeded' (E. P.
Sanders, Jesus andJudaism [Philadelphia, 1985), 184-85). Neusner labels this view
'an intentionalist construal of judaism.' He grants, however, that ritual impurity
does not render one a sinner. See J. Neusner,Judaic Law: FromJesus to the Mishnah
(Atlanta, 1993),209-11, cf. 225-26.
23 Klawans, 75-91; Booth (1986),88-9.
24 Klawans, 93-4.
25 See t. Demai 2, m. Demai 2:2-3; y. Demai 22d-23a; b Bek. 30b-31a.
26 Klawans, 108-09; Booth (1986), 192-202.
27 Spec., 3; Migr., 89. See Booth (1986),84-5; Klawans, 64-5.
28 Klawans, 64-5.
 Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7: 19b 297

early Tannaitic-Pharisaism (Mk. 7:6-13; cf. Mt. 23:23-26; Lk. 11:37-

41). No evidence exists, furthermore, that Jesus supported Philo' s
doctrine of analogous relationships between ritual and moral
purity.29 This notwithstanding, Jesus' approach to purity was well
within the boundaries of first century Judaism.~o Jesus distinguished
between ritual and moral purity, affirmed the importance of both,31
prioritized the latter,32 spoke of the two together, and tended to focus
on the status of the individua1. 33 His view, rooted in the Torah,
reflected aspects of Philo, the Tannaim and Qumran.
Jesus' position may be contrasted with his Pharisaic interlocutors,
who prioritized ritual purity over moral purity. They were concerned
with handwashing while indifferent to the needs of their parents (Mk.
7:10-12). Neusner contends that ritual handwashing before regular
meals was normative for first century Pharisees. 34 Booth maintains
that the practice was only normative among particular Pharisees, the
Haberim. 35 The evidence would seem to favor Booth's position. 36
Jesus' point is that moral purity is more important than ritual
purity and demands greater attention. Dunn suggests that, in the
original Aramaic teaching, 'the "not ... but ... " antithesis need not
be understood as an "either ... or," but rather with the force of
"more important than" ... as in the other most closely related con-
frontation parallel (Mark 2.17 and parallels).'37 In this light, Jesus'

29 Klawans, 149.
30 Klawans, 149.
31 Cf. Mark 1:44. See H. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and its
Place inJudaism (Cambridge, 1999), 161. Watson asserts that Jesus' willingness to
touch the dead (Mk. 5:41; cf. Nu. 19:11) and a woman with a haemorrhaging prob-
lem (Mk. 5:27; cf. Lv. 15:25) is evidence enough of his disregard for ritual purity
laws (A. Watson, 'Leviticus in Mark: Jesus' Attitude to the Law', in Reading Leviti-
cus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas [ed.]. F. A. Sawyer; JSOTSS 227; Sheffield,
1996], 267-68). Bockmuehl, 11, however, explains that in 'each case the under-
standing seems to be that toharot concerns are suspended when it is purity rather
than impurity that is transferred by touch, from the pure to the impure (note
Mark 1.41; 5.30).' Cf. Ex. 29:37.
32 Klawans, 149.
33 Klawans, 149-50.
34 ]. Neusner, Judaism after the Destruction of the Temple', in Israelite andJudaean
History (ed.]. H. Hayes and]. M. Miller; Philadelphia, 1977),670; 'Scripture and
Tradition in Judaism', in Approaches to Ancient Judaism, II (ed. W. S. Green; Michi-
gan, 1980), 190.
35 Booth (1986),202.
36 Sanders (1990),228-36.
37 ]. D. G. Dunn,Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Westminster,
1990),51. Klawans, 147, concurs, 'Mark 7:15 does not necessarily suggest an abro-
gation of ritual practice any more than 2:17 suggests an exclusion of righteous
people from Jesus' following.' Cf. Mt. 8:21-2; 23:23; Phi\' 3:8. See S. Westerholm,
Jesus and Scribal Authority (Lund, 1978),83.
298 The Evangelical (btarterly

logion may be understood in a relative sense:

There is nothing outside a man which cultically defiles him as much as the
things coming from a man ethically defile him. 38
More simply put:
Nothing outside a man defiles him as much as the things coming from
him. 39
This reading of Mark 7:15 is consistent with the 'Semitic idiom of
dialectical negation'4O that one encounters in passages like Jeremiah
7:22-3 and Hosea 6:6, a congruency apparent to Holmen:
Grammatically speaking, Mark 7.15 - as well as the Old Testament passages
- may be understood as a "dialectic negation". As a Semitic idiom, the
formula 'not A, but B' (ou ... &).)..0:) can be rendered 'not so much A, but
rather B'. Though one aspect is categorically rejected by the emphasis of
the opposite, the purport of Mark 7:15 would in effect be: 'A man is not so
much defiled by that which enters him from outside as he is by that which
comes from within'. Thus it seems clear that no more than the quoted Old
Testament passages aim at abolishing the sacrifice cult does Mark 7:15
intend to abrogate the food laws or the cui tic laws on purity in general. It
only relativizes them in stressing the importance of morality.41
Even apart from the Second Temple Jewish Sitz im Leben in which
Jesus taught, the literary background of Mark 7 makes it untenable
that Jesus trivialized the Torah's ritual purity and dietary laws. Jesus
had just finished a prophetic indictment of Pharisees who circum-
vented and nullified the Torah. These he rebuked as 'hypocrites' (v.
6). It is hard to imagine that after this reprimand, Jesus went on to
exempt his disciples from whole sections of the Torah. In addition,
apart from Mark's editorial comment in verse 19b (which will be dis-

38 Booth (1986),214-15, notes that this translation is 'particularly possible since the
root KOLV- is probably translating an Aramaic tm 'which, if Palestinian Jews ofJesus'
day considered impurity in Biblical categories (as they probably did), had a simi-
lar meaning to the biblical tm '. The majority of uses of tm' as verb or adjective in
the OT are in a cultic sense, but religious and ethical uses are also cited by BDB,
and occasionally in the Priestly Code it is difficult to gauge which meaning is
intended. Thus, the Aramaic tm 'was probably used by Jesus in an over-riding sense
of "corrupt" or "harm",' See Booth (1986), 210-11, on the translation of the verb
koinou/nta as 'cuitically defile' and 'ethically defile,'
39 Booth (1986),219.
40 Marcus, Mark 1-8,453, notes the similarity to Philo, This would be comparable to
the way in which Philo says that the true defilement is injustice and impiety (Spe-
cial Laws 3.208-9) yet still advocates literal observance of the ritual regulations of
the Torah (Migration of Abraham 89-94). The spiritualization of the idea of ritual
impurity, then, does not necessarily imply abrogation of the literal purity laws of
the OT; inJudaism, rather, spiritualization and literal observance can go hand in
hand. . "
41 T. Holmen,Jesus andJewish Covenant Thinking (Leiden, 2001), 240-41.
 Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7: 19b 299

cussed later), there is no textual reason to believe that Jesus shifted

the focus from the 1Tapal'iooLv tWV 1TPEO~UtEPWV to biblical law (cf. Mt.
15:20). Taken together, all the evidence suggests thatJesus' mashalin
verses 14-23 was far from being a radical break with Judaism, and was
wholly consistent with the principles underlying the Torah's ritual
purity system.

4. Jesus, a Torah observant Jew (Mh. 6:56)

The literary placement of the Markan pericope is notable, occurring
immediately after the statement, 'And wherever he went, into villages
or cities or farms, they laid the sick in the marketplaces, and begged
him that they might touch even the fringe of his cloak; and all who
touched it were healed' (6:56). Matthew retains the same order of
events (cf. Mt. 14:36-15:1). Attention given to Jesus' Kpao1TEl'iov
(fringe; LXX [Nu. 15:38] for tsiytsit) in both gospels is key. The
Kpao1TEl'iov represented aJew's commitment to live according to all the
commandments of the Torah, including the dietary laws, 'You have
the fringe so that, when you see it, you will remember all the com-
mandments of the Lord and do them .. .' (Nu. 15:39; cf. Mt. 23:5).
It is possible that Mark and Matthew are concerned to portray Jesus
as a Torah observant Jew, even in matters of ritual such as the tsiytsit.
It makes little sense to mention this detail before the Mark 7 peri-
cope if the point of verse 19b is that Jesus has nullified the Leviticus
11 food laws. The literary placement would suggest that the classic
interpretation is foreign to the pericope. 42

5. Peter's testimony (Acts 10:14)

According to Matthew's gospel, Peter was present on the occasion of
Jesus' mashalin Mark 7:1-23 (Mt. 15:15). This is significant in light of
Acts 10. 43 Here Luke writes that several years after the masha~ Peter
saw a vision in which Jesus commanded him to eat unclean animals. 44
Peter replied, 'By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything
that is profane or unclean' (Acts 10:14). Peter's response is most
revealing. If Jesus had taught the acceptability of eating unclean
food, Peter would not have been shocked. 'The story presupposes
that Peter is not aware of a previous ruling by the historical Jesus to

42 Booth (1986), 3l.

43 On the historicity of Acts, see C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenis-
tic Histury (ed. C. H. Gempf; Tiibingen, 1989). A concise survey of the criticism of
Acts can be found in R N. Longenecker, Acts (EBC; Grand Rapids,I995), 4-12. See
also W. W. Gasque, A Histury of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids,
1975).
44 The vision's purpose is taken up later in this essay.
300 The Evangelical QJtarterly

the same effect. '45 His shock indicates that he had never received
such a teaching or example from Jesus over the three-year period
that he was with him.46 Peter was part of the inner circle of Jesus' dis-
ciples. If Jesus had terminated the Torah's dietary laws, it is reason-
able to assume that Peter would have known about it. 47

6. The Jerusalem Council and Paul

The Apostolic Decree assumes the continuing validity of the Torah's
dietary laws for Jewish believers (Acts 15:1-30; cf. 21:20).48 At the
same time it affirms that Gentile believers are not under this obliga-
tion and that non:Jews need only abstain from tWV aJ..LoYTU_LlltWV tWV
ElOWAWV Kat tflc; TIOpVELac; Kat tOU TIVLKtOU Kat tou a'(llatoC; (Acts
15:20).49 Booth and Svartvik make a compelling case that the com-
monality between these four pollutions (aJ..LoY~llata) is their con-
veyance of ritual defilement,50 thus suggesting that the 'Lukan
Decree not only acknowledges purity and impurity categories, but
even affirms their remaining validity. '51

45 Riiisanen, 144; Lindars, 67; Svartvik, 118.

46 If Jesus had taught contrary to Israel's dietary laws, it would have provoked a sus-
tained response by his opponents. The absence of any response noted in the NT
is consistent with the implications of Acts 10, that Jesus never gave such a teach-
ing. See Raisanen, 136-37; Harvey, 40.
47 Svartvik, 115.
48 R. Bauckham, james and the Jerusalem Church', in The Book of Acts in Its Palestin-
ian Setting (ed. R. Bauckham; Grand Rapids, 1995), 475; J. Jervell, The Theology of
the Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge, 1996),55-61; also Wyschogrod, ' .. .it is clear that
both parties agreed that circumcision and Torah obedience remained obligatory
for Jewish Jesus believers since, if this were not the case, one could hardly debate
whether circumcision and Torah obedience were obligatory for gentiles. Such a
debate could only arise if both parties agreed on the lasting significance of the
Mosaic Law for Jews' (M. Wyschogrod, 'Letter to a Friend', Modern Theology 11:2
[1995], 170).
49 Svartvik, 120-22, argues persuasively that the Alexandrian version of the Decree is
the older text.
50 R. P. Booth, Contrasts: Gospel Evidence and Christian Beliefs (Bognor Regis, 1990), 83-
6,94,106 n. 61; Svartvik, 122-26. Also, T. Callan, 'The Background of the Apostolic
Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25)" CBQ55 (1993),284,295.
51 Svartvik, 126; Bauckham, 459, links the Apostolic Decree to leviticallaw for the ger,
ritual defilement is not the common denominator: 'In Leviticus 17-18 (MT) there
are five occurrences of the phrase "the alien who sojourns in your/their midst"
(Lv 17:8, 10, 12, 13; 18:26, all using btokkem or btokem). Since two of these occur-
rences (17:10, 12) refer to the same prohibition repeated, there are in fact four
commandments in Leviticus 17-18 which not only the Israelite but also "the alien
who sojourns in your/their midst" is obliged to keep. These correspond to the
four prohibitions of the apostolic decree, in the order in which they occur in the
apostolic letter (Acts 15:29; cf. 21:25).' Booth (1990), 86-7, responds to Bauck-
ham's reading.
 Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7: 19b 301

Finally, Luke's account of the Jerusalem Council decision implies

that the leaders of the mother church and Paul were unaware of any
pronouncement from Jesus that rendered all foods clean:
In fact, there is no evidence that anybody, conservative or radical, ever
appealed to this saying in the course of the debates over Gentile mission
and table fellowship during the first two decades or so in the early church.
Paul never refers to it, although it could have aided him greatly in many of
his arguments. How effective it would have been to quote such a saying to
Peter (a person surely sensitive to words ofthe historicalJesus!) and others
in the heat of the Antiochian conflict (Gal. 2:lff.).52

7. The Patristic period

It is of note that the Jerusalem Council exemption did not result in a
complete abandonment of Israel's dietary laws by Gentile Christians.
Evidence exists that during the Patristic period some Gentile Chris-
tians observed clean/unclean food distinctions. The Didache states,
'And as regards food, what thou art able, bear' (Did. 6:3).53 It should
not be forgotten that the Jerusalem Council Decree (Acts 15:20, 29)
forbids Gentile Christians from a'(~a,o~ Kat. 1TVLK,WV as commanded
in Leviticus 17:10-14. 54 To obey the Decree, the martyrs of Lyons (177
CE) ate kosher food bought at aJewish meat market. 55 The Christians
of Mrica in the late second century took seriously the Decree; its
requirements were viewed as 'law' in the Church of the East. 56 The
prescriptions of the Apostolic Decree enjoyed almost universal assent
in the Church until at least the sixth century. 57 Moreover, the Leviti-
cus 11 dietary laws were observed as late as the fourth century in
some Gentile Christian quarters. Aphraates wrote, ' ... the minds of
ignorant and simple people are anxious about that which enters the
mouth, and which cannot make a man impure. And those who tor-
ment themselves about such things speak thus: "God gave instruc-
tions and commandments to His servant Moses concerning clean

52 Raisanen, 142-43. See Dunn, 39; Harvey, 39. Westerholm, 81-2, suggests that Paul
adopted Jesus' 'halakhic conclusion' in Rom. 14:14. Raisanen, 140-43, argues con-
vincingly that Paul was 'not referring to a saying of the historical Jesus.'
53 This refers obviously to the commandments and prohibitions regarding food in
the Old Testament and Jewish tradition' (K. Niederwimmer, The Didache
[Hermeneia; Minneapolis, 1998], 123). See P. J. Tomson, 'If this be from Heaven . .. ':
Jesus and the New Testament Authors in their Relationship toJudaism (Sheffield, 2001),
387. Bauckham, 464, views it as a reference to the Apostolic Decree.
54 Booth (1990),86,107 n. 67.
55 D. Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism
(Stanford, 1999), 12, 142 n. 44.
56 Simon, 334-36.
57 Bockmuehl, 167 n. 94.
302 The Evangelical (!}larterly

and unclean foods. "'58

There also existed communities ofJewish Christians who remained
faithful to the Mosaic Law. 59 From Eutychius, Bagatti notes that in the
time of Constantine 'the faithful while they were leaving the church
on Easter day, were forced to eat pork under pain of death ... the
Judaeo-Christians refused this in order not to transgress the Mosaic
law to which they held they were bound.'60
Incidental comments like these suggest that even after the Mark
7: 19b text was well attested in the Church, enough ambiguity sur-
rounded its meaning that many Christians, Gentile and Jewish, con-
tinued to abide by aspects of the biblical dietary laws. Svartvik's study
of Patristic sources confirms that the early church fathers regarded
Jesus' mashal as enigmatic:
Texts written by a dozen authors during a period of some 250 years have
been analysed above. Considering the vastness of the corpus patristicum it is
quite remarkable that it has been possible to discuss almost every
quotation of Mk 7:15/Mt 15:11 in no more than some thirty pages. This
fact in itself is an indication of the comparatively insignificant role the
church fathers gave this saying .... Another observation from the previous
discussion is that the range of interpretations constitutes a striking
reminder of the enigmatic character of the saying. The best example of its
vagueness is, no doubt, the correspondence between Athanasius and
Ammoun as late as the fourth century ... Chrysostom stated that the
saying is put forth as a riddle (WC; EV aLvLYlJ.Un).61

11. The Purpose of Mark's Parenthesis

An Alternative Reading
The above observations point out the weakness of the classic reading
of Mark 7: 19b based on historical-literary context. What follows is an
alternative reading of the passage that is more consistent with this
background.
A key to understanding the intent of verse 19b is to identity Mark's
audience. Most commentators agree that Mark had Gentile believers

58 M. Simon, VentS Israel: A Study of the Relations between Christians andJews in the Roman
Empire AD 135-425 (London, 1996),326. See Hom., 15, on the distinguishing of
foods.
59 R. A. Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the New Testament Period Until
Its Disappearance in theFourth Century (Leiden, 1988), 109.
60 B. Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision: History and Archaeology of theJudaeo-Chris-
tians Uerusalem, 1971), 14.
61 Svartvik, 201.
 Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment oJ Mark 7: 19b 303

in mind: 62 (a) Mark's editorial insertion in verse 3 is directed to Gen-

tile believers who are unfamiliar with Jewish customs. 63 This antici-
pates the second and only other insertion in the pericope, verse 19b;
(b) Immediately after the pericope, Jesus is portrayed as traveling
throughout Gentile territory and ministering to Gentiles. Mark's
'Gentile mission motif 64 is apparent;65 (c) The gospel includes seven
Aramaic names/expressions written in Greek that Mark translates for
his non:Jewish audience (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36; 15:22, 34).66
Dunn sums up the case for a Gentile mission reading of verse 19b:
It is also clear that this unit is directed towards a Gentile audience: verses
3-4 explain Jewish customs ('all theJews'!); and most commentators agree
that verse 19c ('cleansing all foods') is designed to point out or serve as a
reassurance to Gentile believers that the Jewish food laws were not
obligatory for them. This orientation of the pericope as a whole is
confirmed by the fact that in Mark it leads into and obviously serves as
introduction to a period of ministry by Jesus among the Gentiles (7.24 -
8:10).67
The date of Mark's gospel is likewise an interpretive key, with most
scholars placing it between 64-75 CE. 68 Assuming this is correct,
Mark's gospel was written subsequent to two key events in early
Church history: (a) The Jerusalem Council decision (49 CE);69 and
(b) The writing of Paul's epistle to the Romans (55-57 CE).70

The Post-Acts 15 Context

Mark wrote his gospel 15-25 years after the Jerusalem Council deci-

62 Sanders (1990), 28; Marcus, Mark 1-8, 458; Svartvik, 297-305. See M. A. Tolbert,
Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis, 1989),
36. Mark's audience must have included a large Jewish component given what the
reader must know to understand the gospel as a whole. This notwithstanding, the
context of the pericope suggests that Mark is writing to Gentile believers in par-
ticular (cf. Rom. 1l:13).
63 Booth (1986),35.
64 Svartvik, 301.
65 Matthew's parallel account preserves the Gentile mission context (15:21-39). Like-
wise, Gosp. Thos. 14 links Jesus' teaching on purity with mission: 'And if you go into
any land and travel in the regions, if they receive you, eat what they set before you.
Heal the sick who are among them. For what will go into your mouth will not
defile you, but what comes out of your mouth, that is what will defile you.' See
Lindars, 69.
66 R. Schneck, Isaiah in the Gospel of Mark, I-VII! (Vallejo, 1994), 6.
67 Dunn (1990),45.
68 Marcus, Mark 1-8, 37-9; Guelich, xxxi-ii; Schneck, 7-9. See also W. R. Telford, The
Theology of the Gospel of Mark (Cambridge, 1999), 12-3; M. Hengel, Studies in the
Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia, 1985), 1-30.
69 Hemer, 269.
70 J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC 38A; Dallas, 1988), xliii.
304 The Evangelical QJtarterly

si on recorded in Acts 15. It was common knowledge by then that

Gentile Christians were exempt from the Leviticus 11 dietary laws by
Apostolic Decree. Mark knew this and his Gentile readers knew this.
Nevertheless, questions remained and disputes arose (e.g. Rom.
14: 13, 20-21). As Riiisiinen correctly points out, the Apostolic Decree
was not based on Jesus' teachings; it was based largely on the
Church's experience. 71 Consequently, a theological vacuum existed:
According to Acts 15, sayings of Jesus played no part in the Jerusalem
meeting. What counted was the appeal to experience - Gentiles had
received the spirit without being circumcised . . .. It seems that the
acceptance of Gentiles into Christian congregations without circumcision,
as well as interaction with them without regard to food laws, began
spontaneously, without a 'theological' decision. 'Action preceded
theology. ,72
The motivation behind Mark's editorial comment in verse 19b is not
stated. However, in light of the historical context and given the Gen-
tile Christian audience of the gospel, the plausibility exists that Mark
was attempting to construct a theological basis for the Acts 15 food
law exemption in the teachings ofJesus. I would suggest that this is a
reasonable explanation for Mark's parenthetical statement.

Pauline Influence
An additional consideration is that Mark wrote his gospel 10-20 years
after Paul's epistle to the Romans had been circulated. Early Patristic
sources suggest that he wrote it from Rome and that his audience was
the same community that Paul addressed - the Roman church. 73 This
presents the likelihood that Mark was familiar with Paul's epistle to
the Romans and his halakhah on Gentiles and food.74 It is possible
that Mark was influenced by this epistle in the construction of his edi-
torial comment in verse 19b. 75 Amid numerous Markan-Pauline par-
allels,76 the similarity of Mark 7:19b and Romans 14:20 stands out: 77

71 J. Jervell, Luke and the People of God: A New Look at Luke-Acts (Minneapolis, 1972),
135-36; S. G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts (Cambridge,
1973),152; Svartvik, 127.
72 Riiisanen, 143-44.
73 Guelich, xxix-xxx; Hengel, 1-30. Marcus, Mark 1-8, 21-37, holds that Mark wrote
from Syria. Hengel, 28-30, takes up the Syrian argument.
74 Lindars, 69; Harvey, 39-40; R. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition
(Cambridge, 1975), 144-45.
75 Svartvik, 344-48, regards Mark as a 'Pauline Gospel.'
76 Riiisanen, 145; Banks, 221; Dunn, 39; Telford, 164-69, notes the 'striking' parallels
that exist between Mark's gospel and Paul's writings in general. See J. Marcus,
'Mark- Interpreter of Paul', NTS46 (2000),474 n. 5.
77 See Dunn (1990),50.
 Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7: 19b 305

Ka8ap[(wv mivta ta ppwj.Lata (Mark 7:19b)

Cleansing all the foods.
mivta [ppwj.Lata] j.LEV Ka8apa (Rom 14:20)
All [foods] are clean.
Both pericopes also employ the use of the Greek term KOLVO~ ('com-
mon, clean'}.7H KOLVO~ occurs three times in Romans 14:14 and seven
times in Mark 7. While direct influence cannot be proven,79 the tex-
tual affinity and Roman audience make it a reasonable hypothesis
that Mark has taken Pauline halakhah (specifically for Gentile Chris-
tians) and rooted it in Jesus' teaching in Mark 7. Marcus concurs that
'there might be good reasons why a later Paulinist such as Mark
might want to anchor Pauline theology in traditions about the
earthly Jesus ... Paul's theology was controversial; Mark, therefore,
may have been trying to defend it against its detractors by demon-
strating its conformity with the authoritative Jesus tradition. '80
It has been demonstrated so far that Mark's parenthetical state-
ment in verse 19b was directed at a Gentile Christian audience and
may have served as a theological justification for the Jerusalem Coun-
cil decision that exempted Gentile Christians from the Leviticus 11
dietary laws. Pauline halakhic influence is also plausible. 81 All of this
suggests that verse 19b is most accurately read: 'Thus he declared all
foods clean [for Gentile believers].'

The Jewish Christian Context

Most critical reassessments of Mark 7:19b have rightly emphasized
the redactional element in view of the Markan Gentile Christian
audience. This notwithstanding, almost all major studies to date have

78 The only other place where KOlVO, and aKa6aptO, occur together in the NT are
Matthew's parallel and Luke's account of Peter's vision (Acts 10:14-15, 28; 11:8-9).
In Apocryphal literature, see 1 Macc 1:47-48. Both words can refer to ritual purity
(Booth [1986], 120). Dunn (1988),826, however, notes that in contrast to KOWOC;,
the word cXKa8o:ptoc; had already developed a fuller moral significance (e.g. Job 4:7;
Isa 1:16; Ezek 36:25-26; Hab. 1:13; Ep. Arist. 2,234; T. Reub. 4.8; T. Ben. 6.5; 8:2-3;
Philo, Immut. 132; Mos. 2.24; Legat. 165) .. .'
79 Dunn (1990),51, rejects Markan dependence on Paul, arguing instead for a com-
mon 'line of theological reflection' which stemmed from Jesus' teaching on purity
and food. ef. Marcus, Mark 1-8,455.
80 Marcus, 'Mark - Interpreter of Paui' , 477. Marcus, 481Hl7, applies this reasoning
to Mk. 7:19b.
81 These two modes of influence should not be viewed as either/or (Acts 16:4). 'Each
time the decree is mentioned it occurs in a discussion about Paul and his mis-
sionary journey' Uervell [19721, 192). On the Apostolic Decree in Romans, see M.
D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul's Letter (Minneapolis,
1996),201-22.
306 The Evangelical QJtarterly

overlooked the Jewish Christian context, an important nuance for

understanding the early Church's reading of Mark's editorial com-
ment.
From the Jewish Christian perspective, as depicted in the Jerusalem
Council decision of Acts 15, Gentile Christians were exempt from the
Leviticus 11 dietary laws (Acts 15:19-29). This, however, was not
because these portions of the Torah had been abolished but because
their applicability was limited to Jews. The Mishnah similarly limits
the applicability of certain laws in Scripture on the basis of gender
(Qidd. 1:7; Sebu. 4:1). In this light, Mark 7:19b is most accurately
understood as a halakhic comment by Mark and not an 'apocalyptic
pronouncement that all foods are (now) clean. 'H2 What was effectu-
ally abolition from the Gentile Christian perspective was halakhic
application from the Jewish Christian perspective. Given this wider
picture of the early Church's ecclesiology, the use of abolition vocab-
ulary (e.g. 'revoked,' 'abrogated,' 'invalidated') by modern com-
mentators to explain the Markan parenthesis is certainly anachronis-
tic, for it disregards the validity of these laws for Jewish Christians
who were still well represented in the Church of Mark's day. One
need only consider Matthew's Jewish Christian community or the
myriads of Jewish Christians in the mother church who were (llAwtal.
tou v0I-10u (Acts 21:20). Abolition language also fails to account for
widespread acceptance of the Apostolic Decree as a ruling that
upheld two levels of obligation to the Torah. Bauckham is not with-
out support in challenging the scholarly consensus:
Only if the decree had the supreme authority of the mother church in
Jerusalem and were regarded, not as a pragmatic compromise, but as
formulating in principle the extent of the authority of the Mosaic Law for
Gentile Christians can the subsequent history of its observance be
explained . . .. All the evidence suggests that the apostolic decree was
generally accepted by Jewish Christians as authoritatively defining the
relation of Gentile believers to the Law of Moses. They did not think that
meant abolishing the Law . ... They understood it to be upholding the validity of
the Law, which itself distinguished between Jews, who were to keep the whole Law,
and Gentile members of the eschatological people of God, on whom it laid
only the four obligations specified in the decree. [emphasis mine]83

82 Marcus, Mark 1-8, 457.

83 Bauckham, 464, 475.
 Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7: 19b 307

Jervell, Tomson and others arrive at a similar position. 84 Gentile

Christians were 'exempted' from the Leviticus 11 dietary laws but not
Jewish Christians. This is a nuance of Mark 7: 19b often missed in con-
temporary scholarship. Consider the conclusions of several scholars:
• Morna Hooker states: 'For him [Mark], Jesus has not simply
declared that morality is more important than ceremonial cleans-
ing, but has swept the Mosaic regulations about what is clean and
unclean aside. '85
• Joel Marcus believes that the 'explicit revocation of the OT kosher
laws ascribed to Jesus by Mark in 7: 19b probably goes beyond what
the historical Jesus actually did; it needs to be borne in mind that
"declaring all foods clean" is Mark's in terpretation of the domini-
cal saying ... Jesus' saying questioning the power of externals to
defile, which was initially directed against the Pharisaic tradition
of handwashing, was later expanded into a challenge to the
dietary regulations of the written Law itself.'86
• Heikki Raisanen writes: 'Mark or his predecessors then under-
stand the saying in more radical terms than its original intention;
Mk 7.19 leaves no doubt about the repudiation of all food laws on
the editorial level. '87
• Hugh Anderson regards the parenthesis as a 'Marcan "footnote"
or a later marginal gloss, asserting that Jesus absolutely abolished
all food laws. '88
The abolition language apparent in these comments betrays a mod-
ern Gentile Christian reading of the Markan parenthesis; the Jewish
Christian perspective as portrayed in the Apostolic Decree is over-
looked. Moreover, the 'Gentile mission motif surrounding Mark 7 is
disregarded. It would be more accurate to factor in the intertextual
background: 'Mark finds in Jesus' teaching the basis for Gentile
exemption from the Leviticus 11 dietary laws. The Law remains
unchanged for Jewish Christians.' Dunn approximates such a state-
ment in writing that 'verse 19c ("cleansing all foods") is designed to
point out or serve as a reassurance to Gentile believers that the Jew-

84 Jervell (1972), 190-91, holds that the 'division of the church into two groups is the
presupposition for the apostolic decree .. .It is presupposed that Jewish Christians
keep the law... On the other hand, Gentile Christians need not keep the law in its
entirety.' Tomson (2001),234, concurs, ' ... non:Jewish followers ofJesus ... are to
keep a limited number of universal commandments, while their Jewish brothers
and sisters must observe additionally the rest of the law.'
85 M. Hooker, The Gospel According to Mark (BNTC; Peabody, 1991), 179.
86 Marcus, Mark 1-8, 458.
87 Riiisanen, 132.
88 H. Anderson, The Gospel of Mark (NCB; London, 1976), 188.
308 The Evangelical Qyarterly

ish food laws were not obligatory for them.'s9 The 'for them' qualifies
Dunn's statement and takes into consideration the existence of Jew-
ish Christians in the Church (such as James and Matthew)90 who
uphold the continuing validity of these laws. By taking this nuance
into account, the commentator places Mark's statement in its proper
ecclesiological context and avoids making a sweeping statement
about the biblical dietary laws that was never intended by the editor.

Matthew's Reading Confirms

Evidence in support of the nuanced reading is found in Matthew's
parallel account. It is increasingly held that Matthew wrote to a pre-
dominantly Jewish Christian audience. 91 He therefore had no need
for Mark's editorial insertion in verse 3 written to Gentile believers
and leaves it out. Likewise, and most relevant to this study, Matthew
drops verse 19b (Ka8apL(wv mivtIX to: ppwllatIX). As an alternative sum-
mary, he makes the last verse of his pericope read: to
oE aVL mOLe;
XEPOLV ljJaYELv OD KOlVOL tOV Iiv8pwTIOV ('but to eat with unwashed
hands does not defile').92 In doing this, Matthew forms an inclusio
between Matthew 15:1-2 and 15:20, and emphasizes thatJesus' teach-
ing from beginning to end is focused on the postbiblical practice of
ritual handwashing; the biblical dietary laws are not at issue. 93 By
stripping the Markan account of all its explanatory insertions for
Gentiles, Matthew restores an account of Jesus' teaching that is more
in keeping with Jesus' original intent.

Implications
Matthew's account raises two fundamental questions posed by Dunn:
If Matthew's rendering of Jesus' saying on purity more accurately reflects
Jesus' own teaching, can Mark's rendering properly claim the authority of
Jesus? Was Christianity's subsequent break out from Judaism an
inadmissible distortion of Jesus' own vision and intention?94
In answer to the first question, Gentile exemption from the food laws
was permitted ultimately because food does not render the heart
impure (Mk. 7:18-19), a truism fully consistent with the Torah as pre-
viously noted. If unclean food could affect heart defilement, no

89 Dunn (1990),45.
90 Jervell (1996), 59, describes James as 'the adherent of the law par excellence.'
91 A.]. Saldarini, Matthew's ChristianJewish Community (Chicago, 1994),8;]. A. Over-
man, Matthew's Gospel and Formativejudaism (Minneapolis, 1990),4; D. C. Sim, The
Gospel of Matthew and Christianjudaism (Edinburgh, 1998), 162-63.
92 Banks, 145, concurs that the omission was due to Matthew'sJewish Christian audi-
ence.
93 Saldarini, 134-41; Klawans, 147; Sim, 133-35.
94 Dunn (1990),51.
 Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7: 19b 309

exemption would have been possible. Thus, Mark was able to link the
dietary implications of the Apostolic Decree to a principle that Jesus
clearly taught.
For the second question, there is no evidence to believe that Gen-
tile exemption from the food laws was counter to Jesus' vision. Jesus
is silent on the matter of Gentiles and Torah, and on the few occa-
sions when he did minister to Gentiles, their lack of conformity to rit-
ual purity law was never at issue. For Jews, however, Jesus had a dif-
ferent standard:
We must note that Jesus participated in the Temple cult apparently without
questioning the need for ritual purity; he approved of the need for priestly
purification after leprosy (Mark 1.42) par.; Luke 17.14) ... it is also clear
that Jesus does promote a significant spiritual (Hasidic) reD1'ientatian of the
halakhic concept of purity, calling for a balance of moral and ceremonial
responsibility (note Matt 23.25 par.). Ritual and moral purity must go in
tandem, as Qumran and other Jewish renewal movements insisted at this
time (e.g. lQS 3.2-12; As. Mas. 7.7-9).95
All the evidence indicates that the historical Jesus affirmed the
importance of Jews living as Jews. He himself wore tsiytsit and cau-
tioned against violating God's commandments (Mt. 14:36; Nu. 15:37-
40; cf. Mt. 5: 17-19; 23:23). In regard to the dietary laws, in particular,
Luke records that Jesus' parents were pious Jews who sought to do
"everything required by the Law of the Lord" (Lk. 2:21-24, 39, 41).
We can presume, therefore, that Jesus was raised to observe these
laws like other GalileanJews of his time. 96
Luke suggests that Jewish Christians continued to abide by the
Leviticus 11 food laws after Jesus' death. As previously noted, Peter
was shocked at Jesus' instructions in Acts 10:14 to eat unclean food,
proving that Peter had never received such a teaching or example
from Jesus. To contend that Jesus' words in Acts 10: 14 were to be
taken literally and signaled an end to Jewish Christian dietary dis-
tinctions is to forget that unclean animals in the vision were symbolic
of Gentiles with whom Peter avoided contact. 97 Peter interpreted the
vision symbolically (Acts 10:28; cf. vv. 34-5). No indication exists that
Peter or the other apostles took the vision literally (11:1-18). Such an
interpretation would also run counter to Luke's portrayal of Jewish
Christians (Paul included) as fully Torah observant. 98 Consistent with
this view, Acts 15 assumes Jewish Christian Torah observance and
Acts 21 :20-26 confirms it.

95 Bockmuehl, 10.
96 B.J. Lee, The GalileanJewishness ofJesus (New York, 1988), 126-27, 145.
97 Tomson (2001),231-32, rejects a literal reading of Jesus' words. See also Lindars,
67; Svartvik, 128.
98 Jervell (1996), 58-61.
310 The Evangelical Qyarterly

Finally, most commentators accept that Matthew'sJewish Christian

community in the late first century was observing clean/unclean
food distinctions. 99 For them, 'Jesus' teaching is an affirmation and
fulfillment of the biblical purity and dietary laws. noo The preponder-
ance of evidence, therefore, suggests that the later Gentile Church
teaching that Jewish Christians were 'freed' from these laws on the
basis of Mark 7: 19b (and that eating unclean food was even a test of
their fidelity to Jesus!), 101 is spurious. Such a break with Judaism - on
the part ofJewish Christians - would have been a 'distortion ofJesus'
own vision and intention.'JO~

Conclusion
The classic reading of Mark 7:19b (Jesus' mashalterminated the food
laws) suffers from a number of historical-literary context problems.
The alternative reading (Mark found in Jesus' teaching a basis for
Gentile exemption from the Leviticus 11 dietary laws) does not share
these problems and is consistent with the available evidence, includ-
ing Matthew's parallel account. Mark's parenthetical comment was
specifically intended for Gentile Christians, not Jewish Christians (an
important nuance), and may have served to establish theological jus-
tification for the Apostolic Decree that exempted Gentile Christians
from the food laws. Pauline halakhic influence behind Mark's edito-
rial insertion is plausible. The study further suggests that Jesus was a
Torah faithful Jew who observed the biblical dietary laws and that his
disciples (all Jews!) did the same as well. The continuing validity of
Israel's dietary laws for Jewish Christians raises a number of com-
pelling questions for modern Christian theology, which continues to
associate clean/unclean food distinctions with legalism for Jewish
Christians. This reassessment of Mark 7:19b helps to correct such a
false association and offers a more balanced perspective on how
Jesus' teaching and Mark's editorial comment were perceived in the
early decades of the Church.

99 Mohrlang, Gnilka, Saldarini, Hagner, Overman, Davies and Allison hold that
Matthew's community observed the biblical dietary laws. See Sim, 134 n. 72.
100 Saldarini, 134.
101]. Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (New York, 1985),397.
102 See Wyschogrod, 167-71; L. Dean, Jews and Jewish Christians Must Follow Torah',
in Bursting the Bonds?: A Jewish-Christian Dialogue on Jesus and Paul (Maryknoll,
1990),176-82.
 Jesus and the Food Laws: A Reassessment of Mark 7: 19b 311

Abstract
The article proposes thatJesus' parable in Mark 7:14-19a and Mark's
editorial comment in 7:19b uphold the validity of the Torah's ritual
purity system. Prioritization, not abrogation, is the aim of Jesus'
teaching. The Markan insertion was likely intended as a historical-
theological justification for the Jerusalem Council's exemption of
Gentile Christians from the Leviticus 11 dietary laws; Pauline influ-
ence is also plausible. The article calls into question the use of revo-
cation terminology by commentators to explicate the parenthesis.
From the Jewish Christian perspective, as implied in the Apostolic
Decree, the dietary laws remained incumbent on Jews. Against this
Acts 15 backdrop, Mark 7: 19b is best understood as a matter of Gen-
tile halakhic application and not an apocalyptic pronouncement that
all foods are now clean. Recognition of this Jew-Gentile ecclesiologi-
cal variegation is essential to understanding the early Church's read-
ing of Mark 7.

NEW FROM PATERNOSTER

The King of God's Kingdom - A Solution to the

Puzzle of Jesus
David Seccombe
This book in part is an attempt to uncover and understand Jesus and his
vision. At the same time, Seccombe attempts to inspire confidence in the
historical Jesus, and overcome much of the confusion that has been
created in the last two hundred years. With conviction of the urgency of
these issues for the Christian faith today, he presents a solution to the
puzzle in the form of an accoun t ofJesus' ministry years.
Towards what goal did Jesus strive? Did he succeed or fail? Is he alive or
dead? Is his vision for the future still viable? Taking us from Jesus' first
public appearance, through to his execution and burial. these are some of
the big questions which Seccombe seeks to address.
David Seccombe is Principal of George Whitefield College in Cape Town and
Adjunct Professor of New Testament of Potchefstroom University of Christian
Higher Education.

ISBN: 1-84227-075-3/ 198x130 / P/b / 672pp / £17.99

Paternoster Press, PO Box 300, Carlisle, Cumbria CA3 OQS, UK