Did Jesus really declare all food clean? Part 1

By Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Girzhel

Thank you to my friends for your support and encouragement!

Disclaimer: The following essay DOES NOT cover the question of whether or not the dietary laws apply to Gentile Christians. It focuses solely on Jesus’s inter-Jewish interaction about this topic.

The reason a particular Christian interpretation of Mark 7 could rightly be referred to as a watershed moment in the history of Early Christianity and its eventual departure from both Christian Judaism and Judaism as a whole has to do with the wrongful assumption that in it, Mark’s Jesus has cancelled the applicability of the laws of kashrut—one of the uncontested marks of Jewish observance.

This is the case because there is a near consensus that the Gospel of Mark was written first, followed by the other gospels. It is widely held that Matthew and Luke built on Mark by updating and expanding it (or its hybrid) to their versions of the gospel story. Many believe (wrongly) that Mark was a first-century gentile much like his audience and, as such, unfamiliar with the intricate details of Jewish thought and practice, being from outside of the Jewish community. If Christian interpreters generally believe this about the origins of Mark’s Gospel, then it makes sense to conclude that ultimately all synoptic gospels have non-Jewish origins (though hardly anyone puts it quite like that).

I will argue that just the opposite is true. Mark is a Jewish gospel, and as such, it provides a firm foundation to consider the following gospels as Jewish in origin. It is true that Mark writes for a mostly non-Jewish audience. This, however, does not preclude me from concluding that, given the overwhelming evidence that I will shortly present, he has a mastery of Jewish practices both in Galilee and Judea and is writing from within and not from outside of the Jewish community.

In order to decipher the deeply ambiguous meaning of Mark 7, we must acknowledge the significant challenges we face. This is because terminology used in biblical translations merges two separate systems in Judaism into one. Please, allow me to explain.

In Judaism, there exists one system of kashrut where certain foods are considered as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” for Israelite consumption. It operates in terms of something being “muttar” (permitted) and “assur” (forbidden). It has nothing to do with purity and impurity. The second system has to do with all kinds of things being “tahor” (pure) or “tuma” (impure) as it relates to coming into physical contact with something that could cause loss of purity/holiness or conversely ensure its preservation.

Daniel Boyarin, whose basic argument I am presenting here, writes:

“While all Jews always are forbidden to eat pork, lobster, milk and meat together, and meat that has not been properly slaughtered, only some Jews, some of the time, are forbidden to eat kosher food that has become contaminated with ritual impurity.” (Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (The New Press: New York), 2012, 113.)

There are several important insights to be gained by reading Mark 7 cautiously and, especially, translating the original text from Greek within the Jewish context and culture of this gospel.

Mark 7:18-19 has been the most powerful text leading people to think that Christ Jesus cancelled all laws related to the distinction of 1) pure and impure as well as 2) kosher (allowed) and forbidden, especially as it appears in most western and eastern translations, such as the NASB translation below. Here, Jesus is addressing his disciples, answering their questions about the nature of pharisaic innovations regarding food consumption, and says:

¹⁸ …“Are you so lacking in understanding as well? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the person from outside cannot defile him, ¹⁹ because it does not go into his heart but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thereby/Thus He declared all foods clean) (Mark 7:18-19, NASB).

It sounds like things are obvious. Jesus explains to his disciples that the laws of kashrut were never needed or justified. Using the opportunity, he set forth his clear teaching for the Israelites following him to live faithful lives before God, not needing to differentiate between the acceptable and unacceptable foods (laws of kashrut). But is Christian theology correct to have interpreted the words of the Jewish Messiah in this way? I am sure you have already guessed that I would argue otherwise. Please, kindly, hear me out.

Before we dive into the text of Mark’s gospel, I want to dispel another traditional myth about pharisees and Jesus. It is normal for Christians to think that Pharisees were the conservatives of the day, unwilling to change old ways and be open to the much-needed innovations that were propagated by Jesus. On the other hand, people generally think that Jesus was a spiritual revolutionary who sought to introduce new ideas and upgrade the faith of Israel to a higher standard, leading them away from their old concepts and outdated practices.

Nothing could be more inaccurate. I will argue that the Pharisaic movement was the movement of change and innovation, while Jesus was the conservative of the day. The views of the pharisees and Jesus were not always at odds. Occasionally, however, he felt that he needed to fight them to keep the purity of the old Israelite ways intact.

Within Judaism

As we continue to journey through Mark 7, we see that Jesus and his disciples were not far from Herzliya and Hadera in modern Israel (Mark 6:53) when the pharisees and some of the scribes (note that he does not say “some of the pharisees,” but only “some of the scribes”) came from Judea to observe him and his disciples in Mark 7:1.

¹ The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered to Him after they came from Jerusalem, ² and saw that some of His disciples were eating their bread with unholy hands, that is, unwashed. (Mark 7:1-2, NASB)

They quickly picked up on the obvious: Jesus’ disciples in the presence of their rabbi ate with unwashed hands. This went against extra-biblical tradition that the pharisees had pioneered a long time ago.

Though the translation incorrectly refers to them as “unholy/impure hands,” the Greek is far more precise. Instead, the so-called “unholy/impure hands” are called “common hands.” This fact is the first of many points that clearly establishes Mark’s perfect understanding of the Judaism(s) of his time.

To understand Mark and his portrayal of Jesus, we must become familiar with the Jewish concepts of commonness and holiness. One wonderful example with which modern Christians may relate is the concept of the Israelite 7-day week. In Hebrew (and the Hebrew Bible), the days of the week are numbered, not named. First day (יום ראשון) is our modern Sunday, the second day (יום שני) is Monday, the third day (יום שלישי) is Tuesday, and so on. One exception to this rule is, of course, Shabbat. It has a number (the seventh day) and a name, unlike the others. Israel’s God has commanded Israel “to honor it and keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8). Note that all days of God’s creation are good and blessed by God in some sense and in some way, but only the seventh day is set apart as holy (for example, Gen. 1:24-25). This day of the Israelite week is not only good but is also holy (the basic meaning of “holy” is the idea of otherness in being set apart from everything else).

The pharisees invented this idea of common and uncommon hands. It isn’t found in the Torah or the rest of the “Old Testament.” They believed that if the hands are washed, they regain the status of holiness/purity. This holiness can be lost by handling something impure. If this happens, the hands will be rendered “common” again. This is precisely what Mark 7:2 says in the Greek (κοιναῖς, pronounced koinais). This kind of nuance can only be known by a person who has a mastery of Jewish belief and practice, so I conclude that the author of this gospel was one such person.

In the NASB translation, which is similar to most others, we read in verses 3-4:

 ³ For the Pharisees and all the other Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thereby holding firmly to the tradition of the elders; ⁴ and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they completely cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received as traditions to firmly hold, such as the washing of cups, pitchers, and copper pots.  (Mark 7:3-4, NASB)

There are at least two serious inaccuracies in this translation, both stemming from an unfamiliarity with the Jewish context and culture of that time.

First, “pharisees and all other Jews” (οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) reads as if “pharisees” and all Jewish people are in view here. This is certainly false. “Jews” (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) in the first-century sense of the word specifically refers to the residents of the holy city of Judea and to those that thought themselves to be its large diaspora outside of both Judea (think “Jews” in Galilee) and even the territory of biblical Israel as a whole (think Apostle Paul in Tarsus).

Second, the text behind the NASB translation of “For the Pharisees and all other Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands” should read something like this: “For the pharisees and all Judeans do not eat unless they fist (πυγμῇ) wash their hands” (μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας). While this seems to be a very minor point, translating πυγμῇ (pronounced as pugmei), which means “fist,” as “carefully,” “thoroughly,” or even “appropriately” robs the unsuspecting reader of the understanding that the author of the Gospel of Mark was aware of the nuances of Judean religious practice. You see, forming a fist in the context of washing one’s hands refers to the traditional way for the pharisees and most Judeans of that time, as well as the religious Jews of modern times, to perform this cleansing ritual. Even today, a special cup with two handles is used in every bathroom in Israel and kosher restaurant in the diaspora, just as the Pharisees did in the first century.

Apparently, the Judeans (who came back from Babylon and most likely brought this new teaching to the Land of Israel with them) also believed that a similar kind of purity/impurity/holiness/commonness system applied to everything else that touches an Israelite. Hence everything must be washed at some point to gain the status of holiness/purity. It is not only hands that needed washing, but anything that came or may come into physical contact with the religious Judean. Some manuscripts also mention beds needing to be washed; the concept is not isolated to pottery, cups, or food-related vessels made of bronze (βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων {καὶ κλινῶν}).

Again, Mark’s knowledge of such a nuanced point regarding the precise way that the hand-washings were done testifies that the author of this gospel was intimately familiar with the Judaism(s) of his time.

Pharisaic traditions

The Judean group, consisting of pharisees and scribes coming from Jerusalem, then challenge Jesus, who, while residing in Jewish Galilee, was known to have been born within Judea’s Bethlehem, asking:

⁵ … “Why do Your disciples not walk in accordance with the tradition of the elders (Διὰ τί οὐ περιπατοῦσιν οἱ μαθηταί σου κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων), but eat their bread with unholy hands (κοιναῖς χερσὶν)?” (Mark 7:5)

This group challenges Jesus only because he is considered a Judean. Although coming from another gospel, the uncontested statement by the Samaritan woman establishes this point:

⁹ So the Samaritan woman said to Him, “How is it that You, though You are a Jew/Judean (Πῶς σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὢν), are asking me for a drink, though I am a Samaritan woman?” (John 4:9)

In general, in John’s gospel (read my book the Jewish Gospel of John to hear my full argument), Jesus is considered not just a Jew in the sense of belonging to the people of Israel, but a Jew in the sense of being Judean, both by birth and basic ideology. Jesus is specified to be a Jew (Ἰουδαῖος) also at his burial:

⁴⁰ So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews (καθὼς ἔθος ἐστὶν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ἐνταφιάζειν). (John 19:40)

Incidentally, when John 1:11 states that “his own people did not accept him” (οἱ ἴδιοι αὐτὸν οὐ παρέλαβον) I am persuaded that not Israel as a whole, but the Judeans (οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι) alone here are in view. What we see in Mark 7:1-18 is the same dynamic as in John 1:11.

As we continue, we read about Jesus accusing them of fulfilling the words of Isaiah, where the prophet spoke about the hypocrites in his day. Jesus primarily accuses them of merely acknowledging the significance of the written Torah while simultaneously creating their own unique teachings. Jesus actually refers to them as dishonorable “teachings and traditions of men” (ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων and τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων) not simply “traditions of the elders” (τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων), which has a positive connotation. (Mark 7:6-8)

To understand Jesus’ argument here, we need to keep in mind that honoring one’s parents was not about saying kind things to them, such as “Mom and Dad, I honor you and respect you,” but was about, among other things, financially supporting them in their old age, when they no longer could take care of themselves. As we will see later, the practice of taking a vow—a verbal proclamation of a formula that one’s possessions were a “corban” (sacrificial gift to God)—was well-known and practiced. Just to keep things clear, Jesus gave the Judean delegation, and others who were eavesdropping on this conversation, a clear example of the above-mentioned accusation. He provides an example of their pharisaic ruling, which permits pharisaic authorities to create a loophole in the Torah and bypass the clear commandment to honor one’s parents.

In later Rabbinic materials, we see other Jewish teachers discuss the same issue that Jesus does. It clearly shows that at least some in generations of Judeans before the codification/writing of the Mishna (3^rd century CE) took a vow to God that had to do with dedicating their possessions but later sought release from the obligation of the vow when the poor financial condition of one’s parents became evident. For example, we read:

Rabbi Eliezer suggests that when someone seeks to be released from a vow, the halachic authorities can bring up the impact of the vow on the person’s parents. They may ask, “Would you have made your casual vow if you knew your parents would be publicly shamed?” The other Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer. They forbid using this specific question when discussing the release of a vow.  (Mishnah Nedarim 9:1)

In the light of this, it is fair to suggest that Jesus’ argument was not with individual pharisees that took this extra-biblical vow, but with those in authority over them who would rule against their request to be released from this vow (probably using texts like Deut 23:21-23 calling to fulfill all vows unto the Lord) as the financial circumstance of their parents has deteriorated and now requires significant investment from their child, who simply could not afford both.

Jesus summed up this kind of ruling (Mark 7:12), accusing the delegation of “…invalidating the word of God (ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ) by your tradition which you have handed down” (τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε). He then highlighted that this was but one example of many (Mark 7:13).

Even though the traditions of the elders were meant to protect the Torah (the Word of God) from violation, they, at least in some notable cases, ended up working to sabotage it instead. At least, this is how Jesus seems to have seen it. Upon a closer reading, Jesus, as a staunch conservative, defends the purity of the Torah from the innovations of well-intended but misguided religious leaders of Judea. This essay was part 1 of a 2-part series (please, consider making your contribution today and then continue on to the second part).