The Gospel for Saturday, March 20, 2004
Mark 7:1-23
The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered round him, and they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with unclean hands, that is, without washing them. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, keep the tradition of the elders and never eat without washing their arms as far as the elbow; and on returning from the market place they never eat without first sprinkling themselves. There are also many other observances which have been handed down to them to keep, concerning the washing of cups and pots and bronze dishes. So the Pharisees and scribes asked him, ‘Why do your disciples not respect the tradition of the elders but eat their food with unclean hands?’ He answered, ‘How rightly Isaiah prophesied about you hypocrites in the passage of scripture: This people honours me only with lip–service, while their hearts are far from me. Their reverence of me is worthless; the lessons they teach are nothing but human commandments. You put aside the commandment of God to observe human traditions.’ And he said to them, ‘How ingeniously you get round the commandment of God in order to preserve your own tradition! For Moses said: Honour your father and your mother, and, Anyone who curses father or mother must be put to death. But you say, “If a man says to his father or mother: Anything I have that I might have used to help you is Korban (that is, dedicated to God),” then he is forbidden from that moment to do anything for his father or mother. In this way you make God’s word ineffective for the sake of your tradition which you have handed down. And you do many other things like this.’ He called the people to him again and said, ‘Listen to me, all of you, and understand. Nothing that goes into someone from outside can make that person unclean; it is the things that come out of someone that make that person unclean. Anyone who has ears for listening should listen!’ When he had gone into the house, away from the crowd, his disciples questioned him about the parable. He said to them, ‘Even you—don’t you understand? Can’t you see that nothing that goes into someone from outside can make that person unclean, because it goes not into the heart but into the stomach and passes into the sewer?’ (Thus he pronounced all foods clean.) And he went on, ‘It is what comes out of someone that makes that person unclean. For it is from within, from the heart, that evil intentions emerge: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, malice, deceit, indecency, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within and make a person unclean.’ -- The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. 1996, c1989. Thomas Nelson: Nashville
A Study
This passage, in some parts verbatim, is reflected in Matthew 15:1-20, but Luke ignores it, as does John, and
is another of those places in the Gospel where things don't line up very well.
Mark is probably written to Romans suffering Nero's persecution of Christians and others at some time shortly after the destruction of the Temple. (ca. 70AD). Judging from his often spotty knowledge of Palestinian geography, many have concluded that he was not a Palestinian Jew, and probably was not directly familiar with Palestine, its people, or the customs of the times. This to some degree reinforces the theory that Mark is writing down Peter's recollections, although there is considerable variation in the credence assigned to this theory, as well.
In particular, "the Jews" did not go through ritual washing before eating. That custom was required of the priests, although some Pharisees may have taken it up as an "extra" purity step. If we believe that Jesus and his disciples were Pharisees, or kept most Pharisaic customs, then Mark's charge rings somewhat true. But most scholars agree that the blast that Mark leveled using Jesus -- "hypocrites" -- is hardly justified even if the Pharisees did keep such a custom. The same appreciation is given to Korban, in that most Jewish scholars staunchly disagree with Mark's interpretation (and finding staunch agreement among Hebrew Bible scholars is often very difficult!).
The general dispensation given to observation of the dietary laws appears to be in severe conflict with the "food fights" that the first century Christians were having among themselves, as to whether and which dietary laws should be upheld. Such a sweeping pronouncement by Jesus would have ended such arguments before they began.
A Reflection
Do we not all embellish the Gospel whenever we talk about it, or preach it? I hesitate to speculate on the motivations of those that talk about the Gospel or preach it. Not my job. But we have all heard, witnessed, or committed such acts of embellishment either innocently or with a just or -- sadly sometimes -- a corrupted purpose.
The Gospel (Greek euaggelion: good [eu] + messenger [aggelos]) of the Christian Canon accepted by most denominations is a unique literary form that is almost biography, almost narrative, almost .... But not wholly any one form.
The Jerusalem Bible's text of Mark is 19 pages of single-spaced 12-point type, if you choose to represent it in that fashion. Back when we wrote newsy letters to each on typewriters, its volume of words might represent six or seven such communications.
Don't light the fire right now, but I do not believe that God wrote the Bible. In particular, the Hebrew Bible seems to me to be much more the efforts of diligent people, over the period of four to five hundred years, to write down and edit and re-write the oral tradition of Israel's tribes and their relationship to their God. The Hebrew Bible forms, for me, the context into which Jesus entered as incarnate human. It is the literary attempt of a people to describe their relationship with YAHWEH. Only.
Eastern thought is much more admitting to ambiguity than are we westerners, and I include the Greeks of the first century, AD, as western thinkers. Whereas there is nothing particularly upsetting to eastern thought about there being two different representations of the creation story in Genesis, we westerners have our heads start hurting once we recognize that fact. And many of us grew up in a time when such facts were swept under the carpet to avoid embarrassing questions from Sunday School classes. Sweet Mrs. Smith would probably have swooned if she were to be asked about the dichotomy, and she was the only one we could talk into teaching the elementary class this year.
And now, when we encounter material that is self-inconsistent in the Gospel, even within the same author, we wonder who may have been tinkering with what was originally written. Or we may wonder whether what was originally written contained some additional flavor that the author thought necessary for his audience in a certain time and a certain place. Our preachers don't point out the inconsistencies. We hope that those in the Anglican tradition have been to seminary and learned about these idiosyncratic bits in scripture. But they never preach about it. How many times have you heard this Gospel reading for today? (Hint: It comes up every three years on Sunday -- Proper 17 for Year C, last used August 31, 2003 -- and every two years in the Daily Office.) Did the preacher ever bother to tell you that maybe Jesus didn't say these things, after all, but they're still some nice sayings that have moral value? This, by the way, is not "new news" to modern seminary graduates (i.e., those alive today).
I, for one, would like to hear the preacher's word pictures about Mark and his times and his motivations, even if they're properly labeled as speculations, by the preacher. We can learn about Jesus, and the God in whom he is One, from an adult talking to adults and exploring what the preacher thinks about Mark. Many of the megachurches and others who have stolen the name "fundamentalist" (more about that another time) have taken refuge in the King James translation as Holy Writ, and teach it as dogma. They thunder from their pulpits about Moses taking his people south to the Red Sea, and parting it. Except the real translation is "Sea of Reeds," which is north.
I disagree with sugar-coating scripture or making excuses for it. The longer you maintain strong belief in what is only myth -- the tooth fairy, for example -- the more difficult it is to believe, ever, in its source again. And the source is our Living God as revealed in Jesus, and described by humans with all the baggage that goes with human descriptions.
Blessed Lord, who caused all holy Scriptures to be written for
our learning: Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn,
and inwardly digest them, that we may embrace and ever
hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which you have
given us in our Savior Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with
you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
10:46:00 PM 
|
|
