οτι 3754 CONJ ουκ 3756 PRT-N εισπορευεται 1531 5736 V-PNI-3S αυτου 846 P-GSM εις 1519 PREP την 3588 T-ASF καρδιαν 2588 N-ASF αλλ 235 CONJ εις 1519 PREP την 3588 T-ASF κοιλιαν 2836 N-ASF και 2532 CONJ εις 1519 PREP τον 3588 T-ASM αφεδρωνα 856 N-ASM εκπορευεται 1607 5736 V-PNI-3S καθαριζον 2511 5723 V-PAP-NSN παντα 3956 A-APN τα 3588 T-APN βρωματα 1033 N-APN
Vincent's NT Word Studies
19. Draught (afedrwna). 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 (kaqarizwn panta ta brwmata). 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 (Matt. xv. 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 " (ekaqarise), 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," i., 276-7).
Robertson's NT Word Studies
7:19 {Making all meats clean} (kaqarizwn panta ta brwmata). this anacoluthon can be understood by repeating {he says} (legei) 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} (koinow) and {cleanse} (kaqarizw). "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?} (ou noeite;). 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.
