Did Jesus really declare all food clean? Part 1

Did Jesus Cancel the Laws of Kashrut?

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 wrongful assumption that in it, Mark’s Jesus has cancelled applicability of laws of kashrut – one of uncontested marks of Jewish observance.

The reason this is so, is because there exists a near consensus that the Gospel of Mark was written first, followed by others. It is widely held that Matthew and Luke built on Mark, by updating and expending 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 this is the general stance that Christian interpreters have about the origins of Mark’s Gospel, then it makes sense to conclude that ultimately all synaptic gospels are not Jewish in their origin (though hardly anyone puts it quite like that).

In this section of the book (that may be the longest), 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 mostly non-Jewish audience. This, however, does not preclude me to conclude, that given the overwhelming evidence that I will shortly present, he has a mastery of Jewish practices both in Galilee and Judea and, writing from within and not from outside of the Jewish community.

For us to untangle greatly confused meaning of Mark 7 we must realize that we have an up-heel battle to fight. The reason for this is that terminology used in biblical translations merge 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 a 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 very carefully and, especially, translating the original text from Greek within the Jewish context and culture of this gospel.

Of the texts that have led 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 not kosher (forbidden) none has had such a powerful force as Mark 7:18-19 where in most western translations, and in the majority of the Eastern ones, we read something like 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 very clear. 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 that sought to introduce new ideas, seeking to upgrade the faith of Israel to a higher standard, leading a way from its old concepts and outdated practices.

Nothing is further from the truth. I will argue that the pharisaic movement, in spite of the traditional views, 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. Sometimes, 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 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 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 is the first of many points that clearly establishes Mark’s perfect understanding of the Judaism/s of his time.

To understand Mark, and hence His Jesus, we must become familiar with the Jewish concept of commonness and holiness. One wonderful example with which modern Christians may easily relate to is the concept of the Israelite 7-day week. In Hebrew (and in the Hebrew Bible) the days of the week do not have names, but rather are numbered. First day (יום ראשון) is our modern Sunday, second day (יום שני) is Monday, third day (יום שלישי) is Tuesday and so on. One exception to this rule is of course Shabbat. While it also has a number (it is the seventh day to be sure) it has its own name, unlike the others. Israel’s God has commended 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 a part 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 exactly 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 most definitely not the case. “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”, I think it robs the unsuspected reader from knowing 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, for the pharisees and most Judeans of that time as well as the religious Jews of modern times, way to perform this cleansing ritual. Even today, in every single bathroom in Israel or kosher restaurant in the diaspora you will see a special cup with two handles still being used in the same way that the pharisees used it 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) believed also 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 own day. His accusation mainly has to do with people paying lip service to the high importance of written Torah, while inventing their own new teachings. Jesus actually referrs 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)

In order to understand Jesus’ argument here we need to keep in mind that honoring one’s parents was not about saying nice 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 gives them the example of their pharisaic ruling that allows pharisaic authorities to create a loophole in the Torah and circumvent the clear commandment of honoring one’s parents.

In later Rabbinic materials, we see other Jewish teachers discuss the same exact issue that Jesus does. It clearly shows that at least some, in generations of Judeans before the codification/writing of 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 the individual, “If you had known that your parents would be publicly shamed because of your casual approach to your vow, would you still have made the vow?” 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 vow’s 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 staunched conservative, defends the purity of the Torah from the innovations of well-intended but misguided religious leaders of Judea. We read in a parallel passage Jesus comparing the Judean innovators and those who follow them to the “blind leading the blind”. (Matt 15:14)