JAS said
As I keep having to repeat, language is rarely so precise that this kind of close reading is really meaningful. This sentiment is even more true in translation, and over a long span of time.
And yet through the millennia I can feel Gilgamesh’s grief at the death of his friend Enkidu, and his terror at his own mortality. As I can be moved by Akhenaten’s humility and reverence in his great Hymn to the Aten. What a wonder!
I think the context of those prior internecine debates among the Jews over the law are important.
Look at someone like Hillel–a preminent pharisee: he can sound a lot like Jesus concerning the law.
And that tension, over the significance of the law (and really, over the importance of individual commands) is sort of baked into second temple judaism–how often do the prophets say that hashem doesn’t want the blood of animals. What do you mean he doesn’t want the blood of animals? Why did he give such clear and scrupulously detailed commands about how to offer him animals if he doesn’t care?
Stephen said
And yet through the millennia I can feel Gilgamesh’s grief at the death of his friend Enkidu, and his terror at his own mortality. As I can be moved by Akhenaten’s humility and reverence in his great Hymn to the Aten. What a wonder!
But you are looking at the overall picture, the broad strokes, not looking for images by connecting dots in the stippling. We get the big themes and “universal” situations that transcend mere cultural accoutrements.
JAS said
Stephen said
And yet through the millennia I can feel Gilgamesh’s grief at the death of his friend Enkidu, and his terror at his own mortality. As I can be moved by Akhenaten’s humility and reverence in his great Hymn to the Aten. What a wonder!
But you are looking at the overall picture, the broad strokes, not looking for images by connecting dots in the stippling. We get the big themes and “universal” situations that transcend mere cultural accoutrements.
But what is it all but a welter of words? yehi ‘or ! The light didn’t turn on until it was named. Words are the building blocks of reality. If not a close reading, then what?
The topic being discussed in Mark 7 is not the eating of foods prohibited by the Torah but ritual purity in terms of eating food with unwashed hands. With the emphasis throughout the story of the Pharisees’ “traditions of the elders,” the dispute here is a halakhic one, with Jesus rejecting their interpretation of the Torah (v. 3) that in his opinion fails to respect inner purity as much as outer purity. He is accusing them of being hypocrites by making rules on less important matters while failing to observe the most important precepts of the Law, thereby setting aside the actual Torah by paying more attention to their oral tradition. The Pharisees were not accusing Jesus and his disciples of eating meat (such as pork) that the Torah forbids. So this raises the question of the scope of πάντα τὰ βρώματα in 7:19. This is a parenthetical comment from the author. James Crossley in “** you do not have permission to see this link **: Revisiting the Question of ‘All Foods Clean’ “ (in Torah in the New Testament; A&C Black, 2009) argues that this comment has nothing to do with eating ritually unclean foods but contaminating clean foods via second-hand impurity:
you brought up the “ransom for many verse” but still didnt show it has anything to do with the pauline belief “believe that he was sacrificed for sins.”
“how do i inherit eternal life…”
the response is a list of commandments.
that makes no sense if it is BELIEF in a blood sacrifice which givees you eternal life.
quote:
The topic begins on the specific point about eating with unwashed hands but Jesus answers this with the more general statemen
because :
“hands were always more liable to contract impurity…”
“The topic being discussed in Mark 7 is not the eating of foods prohibited by the Torah”
The Pharisees were not accusing Jesus and his disciples of eating meat (such as pork) that the Torah forbids.
are you saying “general statement” includes foxes, dogs, pigs, rabbits, rats, kangaroo, blood, human flesh….?
jakejones said
you brought up the “ransom for many verse” but still didnt show it has anything to do with the pauline belief “believe that he was sacrificed for sins.”
To give your life as a ransom means to sacrifice yourself for others.
This is the view Paul said was passed down to him and he passed on to the corinthians
1 Cor 15:3 “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures”
The Pharisees were not accusing Jesus and his disciples of eating meat (such as pork) that the Torah forbids.
Right but Jesus still gives them his opinion on eating foods the Torah forbids. (Its not relevant how the conversation started).
Lev 11:4 “you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which have a divided hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not have a divided hoof it is unclean to you.” Lev 11:24 “By these you shall be made unclean”.
Jesus denies all this in his statement “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? (Thus he declared all foods clean.)” NRSV.
are you saying “general statement” includes foxes, dogs, pigs, rabbits, rats, kangaroo, blood, human flesh….?
Yes Mark/Matthew’s Jesus says nothing you eat can defile you. The reason you eat it is what defiles.
“To give your life as a ransom means to sacrifice yourself for others. “
when jesus told his disciples to “carry the cross” and give up their life , then the disciples were supposed to be a ransom for others aswell?
once again, there is nothing about BELIEVING.
quote:
Right but Jesus still gives them his opinion on eating foods the Torah forbids. (Its not relevant how the conversation started).
** you do not have permission to see this link ** “By these you shall be made unclean”.
Jesus denies all this in his statement “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? (Thus he declared all foods clean.)” NRSV.
there is a difference. eating an apple cannot defile you, when god says eating an apple is defilement, then the defilement is coming from the disobediance of gods command. jesus does not deny “all this.”
jesus is saying that drinking blood (physical stuff) cannot defile you, but when god tells you not to drink blood and you drink blood, then you are defiled.
there is a difference.
7 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 wash their hands,[** you do not have permission to see this link **]) 5 So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders but eat with defiled hands?”
“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.’
9 Then he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!
(brenc thinks jesus trashed the commands of god straight after )
“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.”
he is not talking about the commands of yhwh pertaining to food laws. he is talking about eating food with dirty hands.
food which is defiled because of dirty hands does not defile according to jesus, but deliverately disobeying yhwhs commands pertaining to food law does defile according to jesus because it is coming from the heart!
jakejones said
when jesus told his disciples to “carry the cross” and give up their life , then the disciples were supposed to be a ransom for others aswell?
once again, there is nothing about BELIEVING.
Mark 14:23-24 “Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.“
The covenant is in the blood of Jesus. By accepting this covenant you are accepting the blood poured out for many and are accepting Jesus as Lord.
This is what Paul means when he says “if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.“
jesus is saying that drinking blood (physical stuff) cannot defile you, but when god tells you not to drink blood and you drink blood, then you are defiled.
–
food which is defiled because of dirty hands does not defile according to jesus, but deliverately disobeying yhwhs commands pertaining to food law does defile according to jesus because it is coming from the heart!
This is more akin to Paul’s interpretation,
1 Cor 8:8 “It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge. Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.“
Mark’s Jesus says nothing from outside entering the body can defile a person. In direct contradiction to Leviticus 11. How can he be preaching obeyance of the mosaic food laws if he intentionally preaches against it?
brenmcg said
Steefen said
Jesus’ position on the Law is different from Paul’s position on the law.
Matthew Chapter 5
17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.
18 For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
“Do not think that I have come to destroy (or tear down) the law …”
The implication is that Jesus is doing or saying something which gives the appearance of tearing down the law. Here he says don’t see it that way see it as me fulfilling the law. The question is what was Jesus doing or saying that would lead people to think he was destroying the law.
The statement that not a single jot will change does not mean people are to obey the law. Paul believed that not a jot would change but thought it was no longer necessary to obey it.
The statement “these commandments” refers to the teachings Jesus is about to give – not to the law of Moses.
We agree to disagree.
I am not persuaded by what you have said and you do not agree with me.
We agree to disagree.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)