Drew
Member
It is commonly held that in the Mark 7 encounter over purity laws (and the parallel account in Matthew), Jesus’ central aim is to critique the Pharisees for adding man-made traditions to the pure core of Torah. I suggest that this position rests on the extremely weak implicit supposition that since Jesus begins his critique with an attack on Pharasaic add-ons, that focus must be preserved throughout the encounter. There is obviously no “rule†that prohibits a person (such as Jesus) from shifting the target of his critique from one thing to another. And this is clearly what is happening in the Mark 7 encounter.
The person who thinks that Jesus is not overturning the Levitical food laws is faced with an enormous challenge: the Torah clearly asserts that eating certain foods make the Jew unclean, and yet Jesus says these things:
There is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man[/b]. 16If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?"
I am, frankly, mystified at why the argument does not end here – Jesus is clearly talking about food in this section and is saying that no foods defile. This is a direct challenge to the Levitical food laws. And yet some insist on trumping the plain meaning of what Jesus is saying by (apparently) appealing to the notion that the initial focus of Jesus’ critique – Pharisaic distortions to Torah – is still the central matter on the table. I am not sure how this really works – Jesus clearly is saying that all foods are clean in direct contradiction to the prescriptions of Torah.
Arguments can and do evolve – there is no rule that say “if you begin a discussion attacking item x, the rest of what you say in that encounter must be an elaboration of that critique of xâ€Â. Clearly the debate does indeed begin with a focus on Pharasaical add-ons to Torah. But when Jesus says that nothing that goes into the mouth defiles you, it is clear that Jesus is steering the conversation in another direction and is making the more general claim that the time of the Levitical food laws has come to an end. How can the food laws survive this claim by Jesus?
When we get statements like the following, it is obvious that the matter on the table is no longer Pharasaic distortions to Torah (which is clearly the focus of verses 1-13):
And He was saying, "(T)That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, (U)envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23"All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."
This is clearly not an argument against the Pharisees adding things on to existing rules about how foods defile. If Jesus is still concerned specifically with the addition of man-made traditions to Levtical food laws, why is He challenging the very premise of the Levitical food laws, which is that foods that go into the man defile him?
Clearly, Jesus is not still focused on the addition of distortions to food laws that are otherwise to be upheld. No – he is overturning the food laws. With the re-definition of the people of God to include Gentiles, there is no longer any room for symbols that set the Jew apart from the Gentile – and that is precisely what the food laws did. So now, they must be set aside. And this is what Jesus does.
The person who thinks that Jesus is not overturning the Levitical food laws is faced with an enormous challenge: the Torah clearly asserts that eating certain foods make the Jew unclean, and yet Jesus says these things:
There is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man[/b]. 16If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."] 17When he had left the crowd and entered (P)the house, (Q)His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?"
I am, frankly, mystified at why the argument does not end here – Jesus is clearly talking about food in this section and is saying that no foods defile. This is a direct challenge to the Levitical food laws. And yet some insist on trumping the plain meaning of what Jesus is saying by (apparently) appealing to the notion that the initial focus of Jesus’ critique – Pharisaic distortions to Torah – is still the central matter on the table. I am not sure how this really works – Jesus clearly is saying that all foods are clean in direct contradiction to the prescriptions of Torah.
Arguments can and do evolve – there is no rule that say “if you begin a discussion attacking item x, the rest of what you say in that encounter must be an elaboration of that critique of xâ€Â. Clearly the debate does indeed begin with a focus on Pharasaical add-ons to Torah. But when Jesus says that nothing that goes into the mouth defiles you, it is clear that Jesus is steering the conversation in another direction and is making the more general claim that the time of the Levitical food laws has come to an end. How can the food laws survive this claim by Jesus?
When we get statements like the following, it is obvious that the matter on the table is no longer Pharasaic distortions to Torah (which is clearly the focus of verses 1-13):
And He was saying, "(T)That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, (U)envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23"All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."
This is clearly not an argument against the Pharisees adding things on to existing rules about how foods defile. If Jesus is still concerned specifically with the addition of man-made traditions to Levtical food laws, why is He challenging the very premise of the Levitical food laws, which is that foods that go into the man defile him?
Clearly, Jesus is not still focused on the addition of distortions to food laws that are otherwise to be upheld. No – he is overturning the food laws. With the re-definition of the people of God to include Gentiles, there is no longer any room for symbols that set the Jew apart from the Gentile – and that is precisely what the food laws did. So now, they must be set aside. And this is what Jesus does.
