levy@uunet.uu.net (2656-Daniel R. Levy(0000000)0000) (07/05/90)
WARNING -- the following could prove a thorny stumbling block (how's that for mixed metaphors) to those of new or weak faith. If you are such, I advise you not to read it. A page of empty lines follows to give you a chance to hit 'n' or go to the next message. O.K., I warned you. I am extremely perplexed over what looks to be an inconsistency in Matthew 15 (repeated in Mark 7). In Mark 7:1-5, the Pharisees and scribes criticize Jesus and His disciples for eating with unclean hands. In Mark 7:6-10, Jesus retorts by upbraiding the Pharisees for "setting aside the word of God" by the way their tradition undermines God's commandment, through Moses, to honor one's parents. Now at this point, we get the distinct message that the Direct Word of God through Moses is _not_to_be_tampered_with_. (Pause for thunder and lightning and smoke) Right? WRONG. Jesus does a very puzzling thing. He first declares that the lack of washing hands is not a problem. This is easy to comprehend, since this requirement does not appear in the Old Testament text, but is seen as stemming from the "tradition of the elders" (Mark 7:5). But now the blockbuster comes. Jesus also declares that the Levitical dietary laws (which to all outward appearances are just as much transmitted from God through Moses as "thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother") are null and void! Mark 7:18-19: And He said to them [the disciples, afterward] "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him; because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?" (Thus He declared all foods clean.) [sic] Now, this lopsided emphasis, so heavily leaning on one part of the Word of God through Moses here, and so lightly disregardful of another part of the Word of God through Moses there, puzzles me no end. I understand that Jesus continues in Mark 7:21-23 to point out that many evil things emanating from the heart of a person defile that person, which is very very true, and arguably much more IMPORTANT than dietary laws, which are intended to prevent relatively trivial ritual contamination from without, but... how can that be taken as to INVALIDATE the dietary laws? Now at this point I am tempted to cast a skeptical eye on Mark's parenthetical statement. After all, in the parallel passage in Matthew 15, Jesus points out (in Matthew 15:20) that "_to_eat_with_unwashed_hands_" in specific "does not defile the man." Perhaps Jesus only meant to denigrate the importance of washing hands? But this poses the problem of viewing the Bible as the Word of God as imperfect (i.e., as saying this was only Mark's opinion of what Jesus meant, rather than an inspired communication of God's true intent). The next possibility in mind is that Jesus' having "come to fulfill the law" made the dietary law unnecessary. He was to take the penalty related to all believers' sin, including any violations of the dietary law, on the cross and afterward in His visit to Hell. O.K., that's plausible. But ... why doesn't that also make the law of honoring one's parents unnecessary? Unless ... because the Pharisees were not believers and His disciples (except for Judas) were believers ... the law of honoring one's parents WOULD be unnecessary for His disciples even though necessary for the Pharisees? But again... even if dietary sins are forgiveable sins... why would Jesus, the Righteous One, not speak against those sins? At this point, I'm stumped. If you have any ideas, please _send_me_email_. I will summarize if necessary. The reason I ask this is that, almost a year ago, I made a foolish promise to God in a state of perplexity and upset, that I would no longer read any of the religious groups on the netnews. So I will not be reading this group. -- Daniel R. Levy * Memorex Telex * Naperville IL * ..!uunet!tellab5!mtcchi!levy So far as I can remember, there is not one ... therefore be ye as shrewd word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. as serpents and harmless as -- Bertrand Russell [Berkeley UNIX fortune] doves -- God [Matthew 10:16]