Let's Start with the Text Itself
Look at what Mark 7:19 actually says:
"For it doesn't go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated" thus he declared all foods clean.
That parenthetical at the end, "thus he declared all foods clean," is one of the clearest, most straightforward statements in the entire New Testament about food laws. Mark, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, draws an explicit conclusion from what Jesus said. It couldn't be simpler.
And yet, when Seventh-day Adventists read this verse, their first move is to immediately dismiss it. Their go-to argument? "Oh, Jesus wasn't talking about clean and unclean foods from Leviticus 11 at all. He was just rebuking the Pharisees' tradition of washing hands before eating bread."
Let's dig into that claim and show why it simply doesn't hold up.
What Adventists Actually Teach
To be fair, let's look at what Adventist sources themselves say about this passage. Their own scholars don't even agree on a clear explanation.
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary says this:
"Commentators generally miss the point of vs. 15–23 by applying them to the problem of clean and unclean flesh foods as differentiated in Lev. 11. The context makes emphatically clear that Jesus was not calling into question in any way [any] precept of the OT, but rather was denying the validity of oral tradition." [1]
The Andrews Study Bible (an SDA publication) adds:
"What Jesus is attacking is the belief that if pious Jews simply observed the ritual purity laws, they would thereby be morally clean. On the contrary, no food in and of itself can defile a person's character." [2]
And their official 28 Fundamental Beliefs book says:
"Mark's statement that Jesus 'declared all foods clean' does not mean that He abolished the distinction between clean and unclean foods. The discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees and scribes had nothing to do with the kind of food, but with the manner in which the disciples ate." [3]
So the official Adventist position boils down to this: Mark 7 is about handwashing before eating bread, nothing more. Any attempt to apply it to the Leviticus 11 dietary laws is, in their view, a mistake.
Here's the problem: that interpretation falls apart under scrutiny. Let me show you why.
The Real Question: How Did Mark Arrive at That Conclusion?
The key insight most people miss is that the statement "thus he declared all foods clean" in verse 19 is not the words of Jesus. It's Mark's editorial comment. Even the SDA Bible Commentary admits this:
"The Greek, however, makes it clear that these are not the words of Christ, but rather those of Mark, and that they constitute his comment on Christ's meaning." [5]
So Mark, guided by the Holy Spirit, looked at everything Jesus said in this passage and concluded: Jesus has declared all foods clean. The question we need to ask is where exactly in this passage did Mark get that conclusion?
There are three sections in Mark 7 to consider:
- Verses 1–13 — Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for their handwashing tradition
- Verses 14–15 — Jesus teaches the crowd publicly about what truly defiles a person
- Verses 17–19 — Jesus explains His teaching privately to His disciples in a house
Now, think about it. If Mark's conclusion, "he declared all foods clean," came from the handwashing argument in verses 1–13, then we have a real problem. Handwashing is an external ritual. Declaring all foods clean has nothing to do with whether your hands were washed. That connection simply doesn't make sense.
The natural source of Mark's conclusion is verses 14–19, where Jesus explicitly talks about what goes into a person's body, what enters the stomach, and what is then eliminated. That's the food discussion. That's where Mark draws his conclusion from.
The Bread-Only Argument Is Self-Defeating
Here's something Adventists never seem to notice about their own argument. They say, "Jesus was only talking about the disciples eating bread with unwashed hands."
But wait, bread was already clean for Jews! No Jew in the first century considered bread to be an unclean food under Leviticus 11. So if Jesus was only talking about bread, why would Mark need to write "thus he declared all foods clean"? You don't need to declare clean something that was already clean to begin with!
Think about the logic: If Mark's statement simply means "the bread the disciples ate with dirty hands is clean," then Mark is essentially saying, "He declared already-clean bread to be clean." That's completely redundant. It adds nothing. It's a meaningless observation.
The only way the statement "he declared all foods clean" carries any weight and meaning is if some foods were previously considered unclean, and Jesus was now overturning that distinction. And the only foods that were ever considered unclean under God's Law for Israel were the animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14: pigs, shellfish, certain birds, and so on.
What Does "Nothing" Really Mean?
Let's also pay attention to the word Jesus used in verse 15 and again in verse 18. In Greek, the word translated as "nothing" is oudeis, which means absolutely nothing. Not even one thing. As Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar explains, oudeis is the strongest possible negation.
"Nothing that goes into a person from outside can defile him." Mark 7:15 (CSB)
"Don't you realize that nothing going into a person from the outside can defile him?" Mark 7:18 (CSB)
Jesus didn't say, "Nothing except pork." He didn't say, "Nothing except shellfish." He said nothing, absolutely nothing that enters the stomach can defile a person spiritually. That is a sweeping, comprehensive statement. Mark recognized this and drew the logical conclusion: Jesus has declared all foods clean.
What About the Greek Word Bromata?
Adventists also like to argue that the Greek word for food used here, bromata, refers only to foods that are already considered clean, not to animals forbidden in Leviticus 11.
Here's the irony: their own 28 Fundamental Beliefs book contradicts this claim. They write:
"The Greek word for 'food' (bromata) used here is the general term for food that refers to all kinds of food for human consumption; it does not designate just flesh foods." [6]
So by their own admission, bromata is a broad, general word. It means all kinds of food for human consumption. It doesn't exclude pork. It doesn't exclude shellfish. It covers everything. And it's also in the plural panta ta bromata, meaning all foods. Not some foods. Not just the bread on the table. All.
But What Did Jesus Actually Have in Mind?
Now here's where it gets even more interesting. What laws about food entering the mouth and defiling a person were already familiar to every Jew in Jesus' audience? You guessed it, Leviticus 11.
Look at what God said to Israel in that chapter:
"Do not defile yourselves by any swarming creature that crawls on the ground... you must consecrate yourselves and be holy because I am holy." Leviticus 11:43–44 (CSB)
Notice the phrase: "do not defile yourselves." Now compare that with what Jesus said:
"Nothing that goes into a person from outside can defile him." Mark 7:15 (CSB)
Jesus is directly countering the very language of Leviticus 11. He's addressing the exact concern that had governed Jewish food practice for over a thousand years, the idea that eating certain animals would cause spiritual defilement. And He's saying: that is no longer true.
This would have been absolutely shocking to His audience. That's why even His own disciples, after hearing this in public, pulled Him aside privately and asked Him to explain it. This is why Mark concluded, "He declared all foods clean." Because Jesus essentially overturned the ceremonial food distinctions of the Mosaic Law. That's a massive statement, and the disciples knew it.
Peter's Vision in Acts 10 Confirms It
One of the most powerful pieces of evidence that Mark 7:19 is about the Leviticus 11 dietary laws, not just handwashing before bread, is what happened to the Apostle Peter in Acts 10.
Early church tradition, going all the way back to Papias of Hierapolis (around 140 AD), confirms that Mark wrote his Gospel largely based on Peter's preaching and testimony:
"Mark, in his capacity as Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he recalled of the Lord's words and deeds." [7]
So when Mark wrote "He declared all foods clean," that conclusion ultimately comes from Peter himself. And what did Peter experience? In Acts 10, God gave him a vision of a large sheet coming down from heaven filled with all kinds of animals, including those forbidden in Leviticus 11, and a voice said, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat."
Peter's response? "No, Lord! For I have never eaten anything impure and ritually unclean." (Acts 10:14)
And then God said: "What God has made clean, do not call impure." (Acts 10:15)
God repeated this three times. Peter was confused at first, but eventually, he understood. And here's the critical point: in verse 28, Peter explains what the vision meant:
"God has shown me that I must not call any person impure or unclean." Acts 10:28 (CSB)
Adventists like to use this verse to argue, "See! The vision was about people, not food." But here's what they miss: God never told Peter in the vision that Gentiles were unclean. The vision was literally of animals on a sheet. When God said, "Do not call impure what God has made clean," He was referring to the animals in the vision, the same animals that Peter had refused to eat his entire life because of Leviticus 11.
And Peter drew a secondary application from that vision. If God has cleansed things that were once considered ritually impure, then the Jewish custom of treating Gentiles as "untouchable" is also wrong. But it's important to note that there was never actually a Torah command forbidding Jews from associating with Gentiles. As Word Studies in the New Testament explains:
"There is no direct command in the Mosaic law forbidding Jews to associate with those of other nations. But Peter's statement is general, referring to the general practice of the Jews to separate themselves in common life from uncircumcised persons." [8]
In fact, the word Peter uses in Acts 10:28 for "unlawful" is not the Greek word nomos (which refers to the Mosaic Law). It's the Greek word athemitos, which refers to a common Jewish custom, not a divine command. So the Gentile separation was never God's law to begin with; it was a rabbinic invention. Gentiles were never called "unclean" by God. Only certain animals were. And those are exactly what the vision was about.
So when Peter said, "What God has made clean, do not call impure," he was talking about the dietary laws of Leviticus 11. And since Mark wrote his Gospel under Peter's teaching, his statement in Mark 7:19, "He declared all foods clean," carries the full weight of Peter's apostolic understanding.
What Does the Rest of the New Testament Say?
If the Adventist interpretation were correct, we'd expect to find the New Testament writers continuing to uphold the Leviticus 11 food distinctions for Christians. But look at what we actually find:
"I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself." Romans 14:14 (CSB)
"Do not tear down God's work because of food. Everything is clean." Romans 14:20 (CSB)
"Eat everything that is sold in the meat market, without raising questions for the sake of conscience, since the earth is the Lord's, and all that is in it." 1 Corinthians 10:25–26 (CSB)
"Therefore, don't let anyone judge you in regard to food and drink or in the matter of a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day." Colossians 2:16 (CSB)
"The Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will depart from the faith... They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods that God created to be received with gratitude... For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." 1 Timothy 4:1–4 (CSB)
"[These regulations] deal with food, drink, and various washings imposed until the time of the new order." Hebrews 9:10 (CSB)
Now, a crucial question for Adventists: Is there a single verse in the entire New Testament where the apostles reinstate the Leviticus 11 dietary laws for Christians? Is there one passage where Paul, Peter, John, or any other New Testament writer says, "Remember, don't eat pork, Leviticus 11 still applies"?
There isn't. Not one.
In fact, 1 Timothy 4 goes further than just allowing all foods; it calls the teaching that forbids certain foods a doctrine of demons. That's a sobering statement. Who are the ones forbidding foods? According to Paul, it's those who have "departed from the faith" and follow "deceitful spirits." Paul says every food God created is good and nothing should be rejected.
One More Point About Holiness vs. Health
Adventists often reframe the dietary laws as being about health; they'll say pigs are unhealthy and that's why God forbade them. But that's not what Leviticus 11 actually says. Look at the explicit reason God gave:
"You must consecrate yourselves and be holy because I am holy. Do not defile yourselves by any swarming creature that crawls on the ground." Leviticus 11:44 (CSB)
God said, "Be holy, for I am holy." He didn't say, "Be healthy, for I am healthy." The reason for the dietary restrictions was holiness and ritual separation, setting Israel apart as God's covenant people from the surrounding nations. It was a ceremonial law, not a universal health code.
And here's what's inconsistent about the Adventist position: they themselves acknowledge that ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Christ. They don't sacrifice animals, they don't keep the feast days, and they don't observe the priestly cleansing rituals. But somehow, the food laws, which are explicitly part of the same ceremonial system, are supposed to still be binding?
The moment they concede that the dietary laws of Leviticus 11 are ceremonial (which their own scholars implicitly do), they've already undermined the case for keeping them. Ceremonial laws pointed forward to Christ. Christ has come. The shadow has given way to the substance (Colossians 2:17).
Conclusion: Mark Was Right, and Adventists Know It
The statement in Mark 7:19, "thus he declared all foods clean," is not complicated. Mark, inspired by the Holy Spirit and writing under Peter's teaching, drew an explicit conclusion from what Jesus said: the ceremonial food distinctions of the Old Testament are no longer binding on God's people.
The Adventist argument that this passage is only about handwashing before eating bread fails on multiple levels:
- Bread was already clean, so declaring it clean is meaningless
- The word bromata (all foods) is general and comprehensive, not limited to bread
- The word oudeis (nothing) is absolute. Jesus said nothing, entering the body defiles
- Jesus' language directly echoes Leviticus 11, making the connection intentional and clear
- Peter's vision in Acts 10 confirms the meaning of Mark 7:19 from the apostle who inspired the text
- The rest of the New Testament consistently affirms that all foods are permissible for Christians
- The stated reason for the dietary laws in Leviticus 11 was holiness, not health, and that ceremonial function has been fulfilled in Christ
Adventists read Mark 7 with theological blinders on because they can't afford to let this verse mean what it plainly says. If Mark 7:19 means what it says, and it does, then their dietary restrictions have no New Testament warrant.
Brothers and sisters who are still in the Adventist system: the truth is right there in your Bible. Jesus has declared all foods clean. You don't need to live under a system of dietary laws that even Moses' contemporaries were set free from through faith in the Messiah. The New Covenant is better. Christ is the end of the ceremonial law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Romans 10:4).
References
[1] Nichol, Francis D., ed. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1980, p. 624.
[2] Dybdahl, Jon L., ed. Andrews Study Bible Notes. Andrews University Press, 2010, p. 1307.
[3] Ministerial Association General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines. 2nd ed. Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2006, pp. 326–327.
[4] Blanco, Jack. The Clear Word. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2007.
[5] Nichol, Francis D., ed. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1980, p. 625.
[6] Ministerial Association General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Seventh-day Adventists Believe: A Biblical Exposition of Fundamental Doctrines. 2nd ed. Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2006, pp. 326–327.
[7] Loeb Classical Library. The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. II. Edited and translated by Bart Ehrman, p. 103.
[8] Vincent, Marvin Richardson. Word Studies in the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887, 1:501.
FORMER ADVENTISTS PHILIPPINES
“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”
Former Adventists Philippines Association, Inc
SEC Registration No: 2025090219381-03
For more inquiries, contact us:
Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph
Partner with me in advancing this ministry. Be part of this mission! Your support helps us continue gospel-centered outreach and resources.
• GCash: 0969-514-3944
• PayPal: paypal.me/formeradventistsph
• Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/ronaldobidos
No comments:
Post a Comment