Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 7:19
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
19. into the draught ] Comp. 2Ki 10:27, “And they. brake down the house of Baal, and made it a draughthouse unto this day.” Draught = latrina, cloaca, from Icel. draf, dregs, dirt, connected with A.S. drabbe, drfe. Comp. Shakespeare, Tim. of Ath. v. i. 105, “Hang them, or stab them, drown them in a draught.” “There was a godde of idlenesse, a goddesse of the draught or jakes.” Burton, Anat. of Mel.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 19. Into the draught] See Clarke on Mt 15:17.
Purging all meats?] For what is separated from the different aliments taken into the stomach, and thrown out of the body, is the innutritious parts of all the meats that are eaten; and thus they are purged, nothing being left behind but what is proper for the support of the body.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Because it entereth not into his heart,…. Which is the seat and fountain of all moral pollution; and if that is not defiled, no other part can be; and that that is not defiled by eating and drinking, unless in case of intemperance, is clear; because food and drink do not go into it:
but into the belly; it is taken in at the mouth, goes down the throat, and is received into the stomach, and from thence it passes through the bowels:
and goeth into the draught; , “the private house”, as the Jews call it, without going into the heart at all:
purging all meats; that which it leaves behind, is pure and nourishing; and whatever is gross and impure, is carried with it into the draught, so that nothing remains in the man that is defiling.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Making all meats clean ( ). This anacoluthon can be understood by repeating
he says () from verse 18. The masculine participle agrees with Jesus, the speaker. The words do not come from Jesus, but are added by Mark. Peter reports this item to Mark, probably with a vivid recollection of his own experience on the housetop in Joppa when in the vision Peter declined three times the Lord’s invitation to kill and eat unclean animals (Ac 10:14-16). It was a riddle to Peter as late as that day. “Christ asserts that Levitical uncleanness, such as eating with unwashed hands, is of small importance compared with moral uncleanness” (Vincent). The two chief words in both incidents, here and in Acts, are
defile () and
cleanse (). “What God cleansed do not thou treat as defiled” (Ac 10:15). It was a revolutionary declaration by Jesus and Peter was slow to understand it even after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Jesus was amply justified in his astonished question:
Perceive ye not? ( ;). They were making little use of their intelligence in trying to comprehend the efforts of Jesus to give them a new and true spiritual insight.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Draught [] . Liddell and Scott give only one definition – a privy, cloaca; and derive from edra, seat, breech, fundament. Compare English stool. The word does not refer to a part of the body.
Purging all meats [ ] . According to the A. V. these words are in apposition with draught : the draught which makes pure the whole of the food, since it is the place designed for receiving the impure excrements.
Christ was enforcing the truth that all defilement comes from within. This was in the face of the Rabbinic distinctions between clean and unclean meats. Christ asserts that Levitical uncleanness, such as eating with unwashed hands, is of small importance compared with moral uncleanness. Peter, still under the influence of the old ideas, cannot understand the saying and asks an explanation (Mt 14:15), which Christ gives in verses 18 – 23. The words purging all meats (Rev., making all meats clean) are not Christ ‘s, but the Evangelist ‘s, explaining the bearing of Christ ‘s words; and therefore the Rev. properly renders, this he said (italics), making all meats clean. This was the interpretation of Chrysostom, who says in his homily on Matthew : “But Mark says that he said these things making all meats pure.” Canon Farrar refers to a passage cited from Gregory Thaumaturgus : “And the Savior, who purifies all meats, says.” This rendering is significant in the light of Peter’s vision of the great sheet, and of the words, “What God hath cleansed” [] , in which Peter probably realized for the first time the import of the Lord ‘s words on this occasion. Canon Farrar remarks : “It is doubtless due to the fact that St. Peter, the informant of St. Mark, in writing his Gospel, and as the sole ultimate authority for this vision in the Acts is the source of both narratives, – that we owe the hitherto unnoticed circumstance that the two verbs, cleanse and profane (or defile), both in a peculiarly pregnant sense, are the two most prominent words in the narrative of both events” (” Life and Work of Paul, ” 1, 276 – 7).
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Because it entereth not into his heart,” (hoti ouk eisporeuetai autou eis ton kardian) “Because it does not enter into his heart,” does not penetrate his heart, affections, or center of moral and ethical values, 1Co 6:13.
2) “But into his belly,” (all’ eis ten koilian) “But (instead) it enters into the belly,” where digestion and assimilation for physical strength occurs.
3) “And goeth out into the drought,” (kai eis ton aphedrona ekporeuetai) “And it goes out into the drain,” or sewage,
4) “Purging all meats?” (katharizon panta ta bromata) ”Purging all meats,” all foods. Contrasting physical digestion and assimilation of food with that of the moral and ethical values of the law of the Lord, perverted by these apostates of Israel, Pro 30:6.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(19) It entereth not into his heart.The words are not in St. Matthew, and emphasise the contrast with what follows. The heart is, after the common Hebrew idiom, the symbol of the mind as well as the affections. (Comp. Pro. 7:7; Pro. 9:4; Pro. 9:16; Pro. 10:13, in all of which understanding stands for the Hebrew of heart.)
Purging all meats.This also is peculiar to St. Mark, and presents some difficulties. In the commonly received text, the participle is in the neuter nominative, agreeing with the nominative to the verb goeth out. But in this construction it is difficult to see in what sense that which goeth into the mouthitself an article of food, with no special charactercan be said to purge or cleanse all other forms of food. The better MSS., however, give the participle in the masculine. This has been explained by many as a grammatical anomaly, and the participle being treated as if it agreed (though in a different case) with the word draught or cesspool, the latter is said to cleanse all meats, as removing the excreta, or impure parts, from them, and leaving only that which nourishes the body. A far better construction, both as to grammar and meaning, is found by making the word purging, or better, cleansing, agree with the subject of the verb He saith, in Mar. 7:18He saith this . . . and in so saying, cleanseth all meats. So taken, the words anticipate, in almost the same terms, the truth of Act. 10:15, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. The construction is tenable grammatically, has the support of high authority both ancient and modern, and obviously gives a much better sense. It is a possible conjecture that the words cleansing all meats may have been, at first, a marginal note (like the addition in Mar. 7:16), attached to He saith, and have afterwards found their way into the text.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Ver. 19. And goeth out into the draught ] Or into the long and lowermost gut, as physicians use the word, : and as it is, 1Sa 5:9 ; 1Sa 5:12 . Robert Smith, martyr, made one of Bonner’s doctors that examined him, say, that his God must needs enter into the belly, and so fall into the draught. To which he answered, What derogation was it to Christ, when the Jews spit in his face? If the Jews (said Smith) being his enemies did but spit in his face, and we being his friends throw him into the draught, which of us deserveth the greater damnation? (Acts and Mon)
Purging all meats ] That is, leaving (by this separation) the nourishment of the body clear from the dregs.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
19. ] The masc. part. applies to , by a construction of which there are examples, in which the grammatical object of the sentence is regarded as the logical subject , e.g. , , Soph. Ant [28] 259. See Khner, Gramm. ii. 678. 1. There need not be any difficulty in this additional clause: what is stated is physically true. The is that which, by the removal of the part carried off, purifies the meat; the portion available for nourishment being in its passage converted into chyle, and the remainder (the ) being cast out.
[28] Antiochus of Ptolemais, 614
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mar 7:19 . : this negative statement is not in Mt. The contrast makes the point clearer. The idea throughout is that ethical defilement is alone of importance, all other defilement, whether the subject of Mosaic ceremonial legislation or of scribe tradition, a trivial affair. Jesus here is a critic of Moses as well as of the scribes, and introduces a religious revolution. (not – ) is accepted generally as the true reading, but how is it to be construed? as the nominative absolute referring to , giving the sense: evacuation purges the body from all matter it cannot assimilate? So most recent commentators. Or ought we not to terminate the words of Jesus at with a mark of interrogation, and take what follows as a comment of the evangelist? = ; , etc.: this He said, purging all meats; making all meats clean, abolishing the ceremonial distinctions of the Levitical law. This view was adopted by Origen and Chrysostom, and is vigorously defended by Field, Otium Nor., ad loc. , and favoured by the Spk., Commentary . Weizscker adopts it in his translation: “So sprach er alle Speisen rein”.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
draught = sewer. Syriac reads “digestive process”. purging all meats. Supply the Ellipsis thus (being the Divine comment on the Lord’s words): “[this He said], making all meats clean”, as in Act 10:15. The Syriac reads “carrying off all that is eaten”: making it part of the Lord’s parable.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
19. ] The masc. part. applies to , by a construction of which there are examples, in which the grammatical object of the sentence is regarded as the logical subject, e.g. , , Soph. Ant[28] 259. See Khner, Gramm. ii. 678. 1. There need not be any difficulty in this additional clause: what is stated is physically true. The is that which, by the removal of the part carried off, purifies the meat; the portion available for nourishment being in its passage converted into chyle, and the remainder (the ) being cast out.
[28] Antiochus of Ptolemais, 614
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mar 7:19. ) not polluting, but purging, whilst the wholesome nutriment remains, and the mere refuse so purged away goes out.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Because it entereth
Because it does not enter into the heart of him, but into the bowels is passed — purifying all the food.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Mat 15:17, 1Co 6:13, Col 2:21, Col 2:22
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
9
The reason it does not defile a man is because it is not retained, but is eliminated from the body along with other waste matter. A draught was similar to our modern sanitary stool.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
[The draught.] The house of the secret seat.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mar 7:19. Making all meats clean. The general thought of Mar 7:18-19, is the same as that of Mat 15:16-17, but besides the fuller form Mark gives, he inserts this new detail. The clause may be joined with draught; if then refers to the purifying process, which takes place in the impure matter coming from the body. God having thus provided for a purifying (physical) process, how absurd to make the spiritual condition depend on food, especially upon certain ceremonies connected with it. A grammatical difficulty, however, attends this view. Many therefore consider this an explanation of the Evangelist = This he saith; making all meats clean. This view is very old, but open to grave objections. The variation in readings is against it, there is no similar instance of interpretation, and it gives an unusual sense to the word purify, or make clean.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 19
It entereth not into his heart; it does not reach or affect the moral feelings.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, {h} purging all meats?
(h) For that which goes into the draught purges all meats.