The contemporary Christian interpretation of the passage found in Mark 7:19 seems incompatible with the greater context of the chapter as a whole. How can this be about unclean meat?
Mark 7:19 NASB
because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach and is eliminated. (Thus He declared all foods clean)
Is it true that the latter clause is missing entirely in the oldest manuscripts, (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex B, et al.) and is a marginal note that made its way into the Textus Receptus? There seems to be a tremendous amount of liberty taken to translate three Greek words.
It begins (Mark 7:2 & Matthew 15:2) with the Pharisaic criticism of the Disciples for not keeping the traditions (Gk. Paradosis) of the Elders when eating bread without ceremonial cleansing. (Emphasis mine.)
There is no mention of pork, shellfish, or any unclean creature in the entirety of the Chapter. Moreover, the only mention of swine in the entire Book of Mark is associated with the cleansing of the demoniac in chapter 5!
How do Christians reconcile Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees for "neglecting the commandments" (vs. 8), "setting aside the commandments" (vs. 9), and "invalidating the Word of God" (vs. 13) with a view that contradicts Leviticus 11?
Wouldn't Jesus be guilty of doing the very thing he rebukes the Pharisees of? Namely, setting aside the commandments of God?
If the Christian interpretation was so straightforward as to undermine the Torah of Moses, why are all of the Disciples so confused?
Peter is present for the explanation (ref. Matthew 15:15). Surely he would have received the correction the second go around. Yet we find Him quite dogmatic in Acts 10:14 regarding eating "what is unholy and unclean".
Wouldn't this instead be tied to the Pharisaic traditions and interpretations of the Levitical Purity Code? (i.e. Oral Law)