Isaiah 51:1-8

Blessings in Store for God’s People (Cp Gen 12.1-3)

51:1 Listen to me, you that pursue righteousness,

you that seek the LORD.

Look to the rock from which you were hewn,

and to the quarry from which you were dug.

2 Look to Abraham your father

and to Sarah who bore you;

for he was but one when I called him,

but I blessed him and made him many.

3 For the LORD will comfort Zion;

he will comfort all her waste places,

and will make her wilderness like Eden,

her desert like the garden of the LORD;

joy and gladness will be found in her,

thanksgiving and the voice of song.

4 Listen to me, my people,

and give heed to me, my nation;

for a teaching will go out from me,

and my justice for a light to the peoples.

5 I will bring near my deliverance swiftly,

my salvation has gone out

and my arms will rule the peoples;

the coastlands wait for me,

and for my arm they hope.

6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens,

and look at the earth beneath;

for the heavens will vanish like smoke,

the earth will wear out like a garment,

and those who live on it will die like gnats;

but my salvation will be forever,

and my deliverance will never be ended.

7 Listen to me, you who know righteousness,

you people who have my teaching in your hearts;

do not fear the reproach of others,

and do not be dismayed when they revile you.

8 For the moth will eat them up like a garment,

and the worm will eat them like wool;

but my deliverance will be forever,

and my salvation to all generations. (Isaiah 51:1-8, NRSV)

On January 27, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), comments were repeated with revision and supplement from January 29, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One). The revised comments are repeated here.

In this reading three successive stanzas begin with a call to listen, “Listen to me” (Isa. 51:1, 4, 7), each time introducing promises for Israel, so that Joseph Blenkinsopp can sum up today’s reading as “an announcement of future salvation” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Isa. 51:1-8). The voice that calls is that of the LORD speaking through the prophet. John N. Oswalt calls this section “commentary on the Servant’s words (Isaiah, The NIV Application Commentary, 2003, p. 563, on Isa. 51:1-8), which would make 51:1-8 commentary on 50:4-9.

“Listen to me, you that pursue righteousness,” says the LORD, “you that seek the LORD. / Look to the rock from which you were hewn, / and to the quarry from which you were dug” (Isa. 51:1). Oswalt says, “The ones being addressed are those among the Judeans who are inclined to put their trust in God. The others have been dismissed in 50:10 [50:11?]” (ibid.). The metaphor, the rock quarry, from which they were dug, becomes explicit as a reference to the ancestors. “Look to Abraham your father / and to Sarah who bore you; / for he was but one when I called him, / but I blessed him and made him many” (Isa. 51:2). Abraham and Sarah are parents of the nation, of course, not merely of Isaac. Blenkinsopp sees salvation expressed here “as the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, with special reference to land and descendants (Gen. 12:1-3)” (on Isa. 51:1-3). “For the LORD will comfort Zion; / he will comfort all her waste places, / and will make her wilderness like Eden, / her desert like the garden of the LORD; / joy and gladness will be found in her, / thanksgiving and the voice of song” (v. 3). Benjamin D. Sommer refers here to “the example of Abraham and Sarah,” adding that “they, like the current Israelites, were few in number, yet God multiplied their descendants” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Isa. 51:1-3).

The second call to “listen” points to teaching which comes from the LORD. “Listen to me, my people (ym09f1, ‘ammî ),” says the LORD, “and give heed to me, my nation (ym09Uxl4, l ^e’ûmmî ); / for a teaching (hr!OT, tôrāh) will go out from me, / and my justice for a light to the peoples (Mym09f1 , ‘ammîm, plural). D. Winton Thomas, on the basis of some manuscripts and some ancient versions, recommends reading “my people” and “my nation” as plural forms (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia [BHS], 1968, apparatus to Isa. 51:4, notes a and b); however the Septuagint, cited by Thomas, has laovV mou (laos mou, ‘my people’ [not cited; rather a few mss. and the Syriac is cited]), and oiJ basilei:V (hoi basileis, ‘kings’) which, though different, may support a plural form. The recent Jewish translation says “several mss. read ‘O peoples . . . O nations’; cf. end of this verse and v. 5” (NJPS 1985, 1999 text note a), though their text is similar to the NRSV, “Hearken to Me, My people, / And give ear to Me, O My nation” (Isa. 51:4a, b NJPS). In any event, the salvation discussed here is universal in scope. According to Blenkinsopp, “the enlightening of the nations by means of true teaching (Heb. ‘torah’ [cf. above]), especially ethical teaching, is a prominent theme in these chapters (42:3-4, 6; 49:6; cf. 2:3)” (op. cit., on vv. 4-6). He points to the larger scope of the deliverance promised in this stanza. “I will bring near my deliverance swiftly,” says the LORD, “my salvation has gone out / and my arms will rule the peoples; / the coastlands wait for me, / and for my arm they hope” (v. 5). The scope of the LORD’s deliverance is described in cosmic terms. “Lift up your eyes to the heavens,” says the LORD, “and look at the earth beneath; / for the heavens will vanish like smoke, / the earth will wear out like a garment, / and those who live on it will die like gnats; / but my salvation will be forever, / and my deliverance will never be ended” (v. 6). Benjamin D. Sommer sees here “two metaphors [which] emphasize the enduring nature of the salvation that God brings” (op. cit., on Isa. 51:6-7. He apparently refers to the “smoke” and the “garment” (v. 6). Oswalt, whose translation has the singular terms “my people” and “my nation” (v. 4a, b NIV), nevertheless emphasizes the larger scope of the deliverance here. He says, “Not only will the people of Israel wait for the mighty arm of God’s deliverance to be revealed (51:5; cf. 50:2; 51:9; 52:10; 53:1), but indeed the whole world waits. The ‘law’ of God and the ‘justice’ that is a consequence of it will go out to all the nations and become the light that the Servant brings to the ‘Gentiles’ (42:6; 49:6). What God will do for his people truly has universal impact” (op. cit., p. 565, on Isa. 51:4-6).

The third “Listen to me” stanza is addressed to faithful people, “you who know righteousness, / you people who have my teaching in your hearts” (v. 7a, b). They should “not fear the reproach of others,” nor “be dismayed when they revile you” (v. 7c, d). These revilers will be eaten by moths “like a garment,” and by worms “like wool” (v. 8a, b). But the LORD’s “deliverance will be forever, / and [his] salvation to all generations” (v. 8c, d). According to Oswalt,

The message that the Servant will reveal is for them [i.e. those ‘who know what is right’ and ‘have my law in your hearts’ (51:7)]–and it is a message of deliverance. But . . . the deliverance here is not [primarily from Babylon. Instead, it has both a universal (51:4-6) and a timeless (51:6, 8) quality.

This fact emphasizes again that Israel’s primary problem is not captivity in foreign lands. Rather, their ultimate problem is the same as that of the whole human race: alienation from God. Deliverance from Babylon without this other deliverance will accomplish little. Unless God can find a way to deliver from the bondage to sin that produces injustice and oppression, there is no final hope for humanity. Furthermore, it is plain that God’s deliverance goes beyond sincere obedience and well-motivated living. If those qualities of life could take away divine-human alienation, there would be no need for further deliverance. But in fact, it is particularly persons with those characteristics who will be able to receive that further deliverance. Their heartfelt commitment to the law of God does not deliver them from their alienation, but it means they are in a position to receive that deliverance if they will. (op. cit. pp. 563-564, on Isa. 51:1-8)

Could we say the same about forms of human bondage prevalent in the modern world, for example, total absorption in the process of striving for economic security, or severe psychological depression? I would not make light of the real issues related to these or other forms of bondage, but I might quote words from a seminary president’s chapel sermon. “The cure for neurotic guilt [guilt feelings not necessarily based in reality] includes the insight provided by processes of psychological counseling, but the cure for ‘real guilt’ is the atonement and remission of sin provided by Christ” (Dr. Frank Bateman Stanger, quoted here from memory and not exactly).

Galatians 3:23-29

23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:23-29, NRSV)

The following comments are based on earlier comments, for example, those of January 27, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), of August 26, 2007 (the Sunday closest to August 24, Year One), of December 24, 2007 (the Presbyterian reading), of June 7, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), and of earlier comments as noted on these occasions.

The discussion of salvation (justification) through faith in Christ rather than through works of the law continues. “Now before faith came,” says Paul, “we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed” (Gal. 3:23). In Galatians 3:24, the word paidagwgovV (paidagōgos), formerly translated as “schoolmaster” (KJV), is now translated as “disciplinarian” (NRSV), “guardian” (New Century Version) or “a kind of tutor in charge of us (NEB), in recognition of the fact that in the ancient world the paidagwgovV (paidagōgos) was a household slave with responsibility for the child. He was to bring the child to the teacher, but he was not the teacher himself. The original meaning of the Greek word paidagwgovV (paidagōgos) was “‘boy-leader,’ the man, usually a slave, whose duty it was to conduct a boy or youth to and from school and to superintend his conduct; generally he was not a ‘teacher.’ When the young man became of age, the paidagogos was no longer needed. In our literature [i.e. mainly, the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers] [it means] one who has responsibility for someone who needs guidance, guardian, leader, guide” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. paidagwgovV, paidagōgos). Today’s New International Version substitutes a verbal expression here: “So the law was put in charge of us until Christ came that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24 TNIV).

“But now that faith has come,” says Paul, “we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian (paidagwgovV, paidagōgos)” (v. 25). The point is that “in Christ [we] are all children of God through faith” (v. 26), which applies to Jews like Peter and Paul (2:15-16) or Gentiles like most of Paul’s converts at Galatia (and like most of us). “As many of you as were baptized into Christ,” adds Paul, “have clothed yourselves with Christ” (v. 27). For some, this is clearly a reference to baptism with water as a sign of one’s inner cleansing and conversion to Christian faith. G. N. Stanton says that “several scholars conclude that Paul is here citing an early baptismal liturgy. The person who is about to be baptized removes clothing, symbolizing the old order, and in baptism is clothed with Christ” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 1160, on Gal. 3:27-28). Another view, held by Quakers, is that baptism is an inward and spiritual experience. Robert Barclay’s “Proposition 12” includes the following:

Just as there is ‘one Lord, and one faith,’ so is there ‘one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), which is not ‘a removal of dirt from the body but . . . an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ (1 Pet. 3:21 RSV). This baptism is a pure and spiritual thing (Gal. 3:27), namely the baptism of the Spirit and of fire, by which we are ‘buried with him’ (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12) so that being washed and purged of our sins, we may ‘walk in newness of life’ (Rom. 6:4). (Barclay’s Apology in Modern English, 1967; Newberg, OR: Barclay Press, 1991, pp. 10, 301, cf. pp. 301-326)

This Quaker view may be set in contrast with the view that has been called “baptismal regeneration.” According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1263, “By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God” (on the Internet at http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1263.htm, accessed again January 28, 2009). Mark J. Bonocore offers a vigorous defense of the doctrine of “baptismal regeneration,” and concludes by saying, “So, according to the Scriptures, Baptism is regenerational, sacramental, and intrinsic to one's acceptance of Christ. For, as the Lord says, it cannot be otherwise” ( “Baptismal Regeneration,” on the Internet at http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a25.htm, accessed again January 28, 2009). A sermon of Charles Spurgeon criticizes the doctrine of “Baptismal Regeneration”: “I find that the great error which we have to contend with throughout England (and it is growing more and more), is one in direct opposition to my text, well known to you as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration” (A Sermon, (No. 573), Delivered on Sunday Morning, June 5th, 1864, by the Rev. C. H. SPURGEON, At the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington, on the Internet at http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0573.htm, accessed again January 28, 2009).

Many Christians hold to a mediating view, understanding baptism as “an outward sign of an inward work of grace.” According to George Allen Turner (of Asbury Theological Seminary),

Luther was an Augustinian monk and his policy was to retain practices of the Catholic Church unless the Scripture specifically forbade them. Luther, in 1518, believed that the infant was regenerated at baptism through the merit of the faith of its sponsors. But in 1520, he believed that in baptism the infants themselves believed. After 1528, Luther retained this belief, but based it upon such texts as Matthew 28:19 and Mark 10:14. Since Luther accepted the Augustinian belief that baptism removed Original Guilt, he also accepted the Augustinian belief that baptism removed Original Guilt in infants. But Zwingli believed baptism was the outward sign of an inward work of grace. As applied to infants, it was true only "in virtue of God's promise that the children of Christian parents are as much members of the Christian church as Jewish children were members of the Jewish church.(16) In other words, the validity of infant baptism for the Christian rests on the analogy of the Old Testament. With Calvin, John 3:5 was not to be interpreted literally any more than Matthew 3:11. In other words, water is no more necessary than fire to make the new birth effective. (“Infant Baptism in Biblical and Historical Context,” at the Wesley Center Online, http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/01-05/05-2.htm, accessed again January 28, 2009)

But Paul moves on to a fundamental principle in his understanding of the Christian community. If through spiritual baptism, however understood in relation to water baptism, we have clothed ourselves with Christ (Gal. 3:27), then “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (v. 28). Paul states a fundamental principle of unity and equality in the Christian community in terms of race, station in life (e.g. slave or free), and gender. The two or three Pauline statements in the New Testament used by some to promote the subordination of women to men and deny some roles to women merely on the basis of their gender (e.g. 1 Tim. 2:12) should be understood as specific instructions limited to specific situations and not generalized as universal principles on a level with the equality proclaimed in Galatians 3:28. Some of this advice, to women, for example, is no more a universal principle than the similar advice to slaves. It was an accommodation to cultural expectations in a time of potential persecution that would bring danger to the whole church.

Mark 7:1-23

The Tradition of the Elders (Mt 15.1-20)

7:1 Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, 2 they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. 3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; 4 and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.) 5 So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” 6 He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,

‘This people honors me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me;

7 in vain do they worship me,

teaching human precepts as doctrines.’

8 You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.”

9 Then he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, ‘Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban’ (that is, an offering to God)–12 then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.”

14 Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.”

17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 He said to them, “Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, 19 since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles. 21 For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, 22 adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (Mark 7:1-23, NRSV)

On March 1, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday of Lent, Year Two), comments were repeated with some editing from August 2, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 27, Year One), when comments were repeated from January 27, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when they were combined with some revision from January 29, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), and from March 25, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday of Lent, Year Two). The combined comments are repeated again here with some further editing:

As noted yesterday, Luke’s narrative ceases to follow the order of Mark for several episodes. G. W. H. Lampe explains the gap.

After [Luke 9:]17, Lk. omits Mk. 6:45-8:26. This consists mainly of a crossing of the lake, miracles in Gentile country (in Lk. the Gentile mission of the post-resurrection period has only some slight adumbrations in Christ’s ministry), the second feeding (probably representing a feeding of Gentiles), a miracle at Bethsaida (omitted also in Mt., perhaps because of the apparent difficulty involved in it), and an attack on Pharisaic traditions (perhaps inappropriate to Lk.’s readers). (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprint 1972, sec. 726 j, p. 832, on Lk. 9:17)

In light of this gap, it’s not surprising that Luke does not have a passage parallel to this reading from Mark, but only a few similar themes from other contexts, whereas Matthew does present a section which is largely parallel to this reading from Mark. For the parallels, see the separate file, Defilement, Traditional and Real.

The parallels that Luke does have, apart from Lk. 6:39, are set within the context of a dinner to which a Pharisee had invited Jesus (Lk. 11:37-41), whereas in Matthew and Mark, the challenge comes from the Pharisees and some scribes in a public setting (Mt. 15:1; Mk. 7:1), though there must have been some meal in the context for them to observe “that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them” (Mk. 7:2; cf. Mt. 15:2; Lk. 11:38). Matthew reports the controversy in direct quotations. “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?” say the Pharisees, according to Matthew. “For they do not wash their hands before they eat” (Mt. 15:2; cf. Mk. 7:5). And Matthew’s account moves immediately to Jesus’ criticism. He responds to their challenging question with one of his own. “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (v. 3). Mark's comment on how "the Pharisees and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders" (Mk. 7:3), refers to the teachings of the series of Rabbis which begins with those cited in the Mishnah Abot, in the Rabbinical tradition about the “men of the great assembly” who received Torah from Moses and Joshua through the elders and prophets. Instruction there includes “Make a fence for the Torah” (M. Abot 1:1, ed. J. Neusner, 1988). Rabbi Aqiba, a famed scholar, mystic and martyr (put to death by the Romans in 135 C.E.), is cited later in Mishnah Abot (3:13):

            (1)       “Laughter and lightheadedness turn lewdness into a habit.

            (2)       “Tradition is a fence for the Torah.

            (3)       “Tithes are a fence for wealth.

            (4)       Vows are a fence for abstinence.

            (5)       A fence for wisdom is silence.

The notion of the fence around the law was seen as a positive thing:

Now our Lawgiver [i.e. Moses] being a wise man . . . fenced us round with impregnable ramparts and walls of iron, that we might not mingle at all with any of the other nations, but remain pure in body and soul, free from all vain imaginations, worshiping the one Almighty God above the whole creation” (Epistle of Aristeas, 139, cited by Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians, Hermeneia, 1979, p. 165).

Jesus accuses the Pharisees of trying to avoid the Fourth Commandment, “Honor your father and your mother” (Mk. 7:10a and Mt. 15:4a, citing Exod. 20:12 and Deut. 5:16), and the related ruling, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die” (Mk. 7:10b and Mt. 15:14b, citing Exod. 21:17; cf. Lev. 20:9, references given by J. Andrew Overman, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Mt. 15:4). In Mark, the Pharisees’ question is followed by an explanation of the practice of the Pharisees in a parenthetical description (Mk. 7:3-4), that Matthew probably considered unnecessary for his mainly Jewish Christian readers. So Mark does not have Matthew’s rejoinder question (Mt. 15:3, above), but later he has a direct accusation, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!” (Mk. 7:9, this leads into Mark’s version of the criticism based on the Second Commandment (Mk. 7:10-13) which Matthew introduced earlier (Mt. 15:4-6). So the quotation from Isaiah 29:13 (LXX version cited in Mt. 15:7-9 and Mk. 7:6-7) comes after the discussion of the Fourth Commandment in Matthew, but before it in Mark. The fact that Matthew didn’t need Mark’s explanation of the Pharisaic tradition probably accounts for this difference in order. The quotation is introduced by reference to “you hypocrites” (Mt. 15:7; Mk. 7:6a). Jesus uses Isaiah’s words as fit for the occasion. “This people honors me with their lips, / but their hearts are far from me; / in vain do the worship me, / teaching human precepts as doctrines” (Mk 7:6b, 7 and Mt. 15:8, 9, citing Isa. 29:13 LXX). The term korba:n (korban, ‘corban’), which Mark explains as “an offering to God” (Mk. 7:11), is a Hebrew word (NB!r4q!, qorbān), defined as “offering, gift (in the vaguest and most general sense)” (William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament1971, 4^th impression, 1978, s.v. qorbān), but which later had a more specific sense. It is “something consecrated as a gift for God and closed to ordinary human use, gift to God, corban (cp. Jos., Ant. 4, 73 of the Nazirites . . .)” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. korba:n, korban). It’s only occurrence in the New Testament is in Mark 7:11. According to Overman, “Later rabbinic tradition agrees that need to support one’s parents overrides such a vow (m Ned. 9:1)” (op. cit., on Mt. 15:5). Mark’s comment on how “the Pharisees and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders” (Mk. 7:3), refers to teachings of rabbis such as those cited in the Mishnah and other early Rabbinic sources (as noted above).. The Rabbinical traditions later compiled in the Mishnah included a major section entitled "Purities" (Tohorot; cf. the following from the Internet page entitled “NationMaster.com - Encyclopedia,” http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Tohorot, accessed January 29, 2009). James Charlesworth describes the discovery of stone vessels by archaeologists in Israel as an illustration of what he sees as an obsession with ritual purity among some Jews during the period in which Jesus lived. He presents a picture of a stone table with small stone vessels, about the size of a modern folding “card table,” and a large stone vessel as tall as the table, and describes them as a “stone table and vessels from the ‘Burnt House’ in Jerusalem [‘a high priest’s house’ that was ‘torched by the Romans’ during the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70]. The widespread use of cumbersome and costly stone vessels,” he adds, “derives from the Jewish laws of ritual purity. Stone was not susceptible to ritual contamination, and therefore preserved its purity. Pottery vessels [on the other hand] became ritually unclean through contact with an unclean substance or object” (Jesus Within Judaism; New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries, The Anchor Bible Reference Library, 1988, illustration no. 13, among those between pages 110 and 111, and its description; cf. p. 106). In a lecture in Houston, Texas, some years ago, Dr. Charlesworth stated that such large stone vessels as the one pictured from the Burnt House are only found in Israel and only during the first Christian century, that is, during the lifetime of Jesus and the beginnings of Christianity. Such vessels represent a period of “obsession with ritual purity,” according to Charlesworth. “They remind us,” he says, “of the ‘six stone jars’ prepared ‘for the Jewish rites of purification’ (Jn 2:6), which Jesus reputedly found at the wedding at Cana in Galilee” (ibid., pp. 106, 108). Jesus apparently took note of an obsession with ritual purity on the part of some Pharisees. “The attitude of Jesus is not that such observances are wrong, but that they are receiving a disproportionate attention, to the neglect of things which really matter” ( R. McL. Wilson, Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1962, sec. 703a, p. 807, on Mk. 7:1-23).

For the crowd, Jesus explains: “Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile” (Mk. 7:14-15; cf. Mt. 15:10-11). Later, as Jesus is alone with the disciples, they ask him about the “parable” (Mk. 7:17; cf. Mt. 15:15). In Mark this seems to refer to the statement about what defiles (Mk. 7:15). In Matthew, Peter says, “Explain this parable to us” (Mt. 15:15). He may be referring to Jesus’ statement, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit” (Mt. 15:13-14; cf. Lk. 6:39). In both accounts, Jesus asks about their misunderstanding. “Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?” (Mk. 7:18-19a; cf. Mt. 15:16-17). “Thus,” says Mark parenthetically–in a remark that Matthew probably didn’t need to include for his Jewish Christian readers–“he [i.e., Jesus] declared all foods clean” (Mk. 7:19b). And Jesus explains: “It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, Licentiousness, envy, slander, pride folly” (Mk. 7:20-22; cf. Mt. 15:18-19). For emphasis, Jesus adds, “All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person” (Mk. 7:23; cf. Mt. 15:20; cf. also Lk. 11:39, 41).

Vincent Taylor suggests that Mark inserted the complex [Mk. 7:1-23] at this place in his Gospel

to provide an introduction for vii. 24-27 [ministry in the region of Tyre and Decapolis] and viii, 1-26 [Feeding the Four Thousand, various sayings and healing a blind man at Bethsaida], which are conceived by Mark as suggesting a Gentile ministry. . . .  It [the complex] deals with a burning issue between Judaism and early Christianity and its teaching must have been congenial to Mark’s mind. The greatest importance must have been attached to the saying: ‘There is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man’ (15). The question had far more than an academic interest, for the answer given to it decided the issue whether Christianity was capable of becoming a world religion. (The Gospel According to St. Mark, 1959, p. 96, in a section on “the Literary Structure of the Gospel)

Ritual purity has its place, but moral purity is especially important.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net