Jesus didn't wash his hands

[BrainInVat]

Mark 7:1-23

“Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, 2they 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; 4and 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.) 5So 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?’ 6He said to them, ‘Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,
“This people honours me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching human precepts as doctrines.”
8You 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! 10For Moses said, “Honour your father and your mother”; and, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.” 11But 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)— 12then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, 13thus 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: 15there 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. 18He said to them, ‘Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, 19since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20And he said, ‘It is what comes out of a person that defiles. 21For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, 22adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. 23All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.’ “

Luke 11:38 has something similar. So Jesus says you don’t need to wash your hands, but you need to kill children who speak ill of their parents. Apparently Jesus didn’t know about germ theory. He thought that illness is caused by sin. I supposed you Christians are going to tell me that Jesus didn’t mean that you don’t need to wash your hands just that it is more important to be moral than to wash your hands, but Jesus actually gives some very flawed reasoning as to why you don’t need to wash your hands.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Luke 11:38 has something similar. So Jesus says you don’t need to wash your hands, but you need to kill children who speak ill of their parents. Apparently Jesus didn’t know about germ theory. He thought that illness is caused by sin. I supposed you Christians are going to tell me that Jesus didn’t mean that you don’t need to wash your hands just that it is more important to be moral than to wash your hands, but Jesus actually gives some very flawed reasoning as to why you don’t need to wash your hands.

Judaism contained--and contains--a number of instances where one is to use water to ritually purify oneself or possessions.

The Christian Sacrament of Baptism has its origins in the Jewish mikvah, the ritual bath.

The point of such washings wasn't to get grime off the skin, but to make oneself ritually clean.

Jesus is taking issue with those who argue that not abiding by certain traditions--such as ritual hand washing--made one ritually unclean; whereas Jesus is saying that it's our behavior, how we act, the things we do and say that determines whether we are spiritually pure or not, not whether we abide by certain traditions or customs.

This seems to me to be a pretty obvious thing in the text. How you got germ theory in there, I don't know.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BrainInVat]

The point of such washings wasn't to get grime off the skin, but to make oneself ritually clean.

Luke 11:40
"You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?"

Jesus is saying that nothing you put in your body can hurt you since it was made by God, so you don't need to wash your hands. This is patently absurd; germs and poisons will kill you. Contrary to what Mark 16:17-18 has to say.

"17And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.’"

How you got germ theory in there, I don't know.

The purpose of washing your hands is to wash away and kill germs, so that you don't get sick. Ancient Jews may have noticed that people who washed their hands tended to be healthier and then came up with crazy religous reasons for it.

 

[hedrick]

Luke 11:40
"You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?"

Jesus is saying that nothing you put in your body can hurt you since it was made by God, so you don't need to wash your hands. This is patently absurd; germs and poisons will kill you. Contrary to what Mark 16:17-18 has to say.

Again, "defile" has a specific religious meaning. This is religion and ethics, not medicine. He's rejecting the kosher laws.

"17And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.’"

This is almost certainly not present in the original text. However it's referring to miraculous protection, not medicine.

The purpose of washing your hands is to wash away and kill germs, so that you don't get sick. Ancient Jews may have noticed that people who washed their hands tended to be healthier and then came up with crazy religous reasons for it.

That's one guess where the ancient laws come from. But it's just at guess. The problem is that not all of the laws were so useful. E.g. they are understood as requiring households to keep two sets of cookware, to avoid cooking meat and milk together. When taken together, the laws were not practical for some people, e.g. poor people, to carry out. This resulted in people being looked down upon, and regarding themselves as hopeless from a religious point of view.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Luke 11:40
"You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?"

Jesus is saying that nothing you put in your body can hurt you since it was made by God, so you don't need to wash your hands. This is patently absurd; germs and poisons will kill you. Contrary to what Mark 16:17-18 has to say.

Again, this is concerning religious purity, not hygiene.

"17And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.’"

Is about supernatural protection, e.g. the episode when Paul was shipwrecked and was bitten by a venomous snake but was unharmed and those who witnessed it saw it as a wonder, a supernatural act.

This later addition to Mark was never taken by the Church to mean one can go around drinking poison and it can't hurt you because nothing we ingest can hurt you.

The purpose of washing your hands is to wash away and kill germs, so that you don't get sick. Ancient Jews may have noticed that people who washed their hands tended to be healthier and then came up with crazy religous reasons for it.

That's a theory, but it remains beside the point. Ritual washing wasn't about hygiene.

Again, the Christian Sacrament of Baptism has its origins in the Jewish mikvah, but neither it nor the mikvah was about hygiene.

Holy Baptism isn't about removing dirt from the body, but about new birth, new creation, becoming joined to the person of Jesus and entering into the Spiritual life of God. Yet it is still a βαπτισμός, a washing.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BrainInVat]

Again, "defile" has a specific religious meaning. This is religion and ethics, not medicine. He's rejecting the kosher laws.

Many people at that time including Jesus believed that illness was caused by sin. Here is an example from Luke 5:28

“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he said to the one who was paralysed—‘I say to you, stand up and take your bed and go to your home.’”

Here it is implied that the paralyzed man is paralyzed, because he has sinned, and that Jesus cures his paralysis by forgiving his sins. Ancient Jews may have believed that objects and people carried sin, sins could be transferred from objects and people to other people, and that washing could wash away sins. Jesus is saying that a person cannot absorb the sins that the things he puts into your mouth carry, because they do not go into the heart, but the sewer. Thus there is no need to wash your hands before you eat.

"17And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.’"

This is almost certainly not present in the original text.

I think you are making a good case against Christianity here. You admit that the passage in Mark in which Jesus meets the apostles after his resurrection is a fabrication.

Ancient Jews may have noticed that people who washed their hands tended to be healthier and then came up with crazy religious reasons for it.

That's one guess where the ancient laws come from. But it's just at guess. The problem is that not all of the laws were so useful. E.g. they are understood as requiring households to keep two sets of cookware, to avoid cooking meat and milk together.

You certainly wouldn't expect all of the ancient Jewish laws to be useful if they did not come from God, but you would expect them to be useful if they were made by God. If the laws did come from God why did God change the laws? Another question you have to ask yourself is why did Jesus not tell people to wash their hands, because it is healthy for them to do so? How many millions (billions?) of people have died painfully and needlessly in the past 2,000, because they did not wash their hands? Jesus could have prevented all of that, by telling people to wash their hands.

 

[candle glow]

Some good answers from ViaCrucis and Hedrick.

 

[BrainInVat]

This later addition to Mark was never taken by the Church to mean one can go around drinking poison and it can't hurt you because nothing we ingest can hurt you.

What was it taken as then?

 

[BrainInVat]

Nobody has responded to the fact that Jesus said that children who do not honor their parents should be killed.

 

[candle glow]

BaV, it really does sound like you are just trying to pick a fight. Jesus didn't say that children should be killed.

I wonder if you can see what he actually said.

 

[intojoy]

Nobody has responded to the fact that Jesus said that children who do not honor their parents should be killed.

So what? Big deal man. It was part of the law.

 

[BrainInVat]

So what? Big deal man. It was part of the law.

You think that is reasonable? Do you think it should still be part of the law? Would you kill your children if they did not honor you?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nobody has responded to the fact that Jesus said that children who do not honor their parents should be killed.

Because, quite frankly, it wasn't worth addressing as it seemed pointlessly hostile. But if you insist,

Jesus was quoting the Torah to Torah-observant Jews to demonstrate the importance of God's commandments over and against what He regarded as the mere customs and traditions that had arisen within rabbinic culture.

Jesus didn't say children who don't honor their parents should be killed. Jesus was referencing the commandment in the Torah. And if you'd like to know how Jews (including Jesus) have historically understood that commandment, you should probably go and understand how Jews and Judaism go about reading their own Torah.

I'll help you out though: According to Jewish teaching the rebellious son isn't a child, but a grown adult; and this isn't about a grown man not cleaning his room or talking back to his folks, but is of a far more severe nature; and further, according to Jewish teaching, the strictures upon how the Jewish courts are to apply punishments and how the rebellious son is defined has led virtually all Jewish scholars throughout the ages to conclude that no one was ever put to death for this commandment.

Only a Jewish court of law--a bet din--could and can enforce such penalties, and there are strict, strenuous guidelines that govern such affairs, there must be witnesses, there must be sufficient evidence so as to leave no doubt about the guilt of an offense, and so forth and so on.

These are the facts involved. If you disagree, research it yourself. If you don't like it, then I can't help you.

-CryptoLutheran

Link about the Rebellious Son from the Jewish Virtual Library: Here

 

[ViaCrucis]

What was it taken as then?

The accidental ingestion of poison most likely. Scholars tend to take the view that this portion of Mark is not Markan original, but a later addition; and that has in mind events remembered in the Church's tradition (such as St. Paul being unharmed when bitten by a venomous snake recorded in the Acts).

Nobody went around drinking poison or handling snakes or eating poison ivy or drinking paint or whatever. Modern snake handlers from Appalachia are just that--modern.

The text is talking about the wondrous--not being harmed from poison or venomous snakes would be remarkable precisely because either of these things does hurt us.

This remains for me still one of the strangest set of questions I think I've ever heard. And I've heard some pretty impressive things. So, color me skeptical, but I'm having a hard time believing that there is a legitimate interest in your questions; but rather an attempt to prove something by intentionally mangling Christian holy texts.

I take it as a given that you're far more intelligent than to actually believe the texts mean what you're suggesting they mean.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BrainInVat]

Link about the Rebellious Son from the Jewish Virtual Library: Here

This link lists a whole bunch of loopholes that the Jews used to get out of enforcing their law against unruly children. It was loopholes such as these that Jesus was objecting to. I quote again Mark 7:9-13

"Then he said to them, ‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! 10For Moses said, “Honour your father and your mother”; and, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.” 11But 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*)— 12then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, 13thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.’"

 

[BrainInVat]

I take it as a given that you're far more intelligent than to actually believe the texts mean what you're suggesting they mean.

Taking Mark 16:17-18 as an example again:

"17And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.’"

I don't really find any interpretation of this passage sensible; literal or metaphorical. That is why I asked you how you interpreted it. The interpretation that it applies only to accidental poisonings doesn't seem sensible. Have no Christians been poisoned? Have no Christians accidentally poisoned themselves? You also suggest that it might only apply to a very small number of Christians, like Paul. You are inserting something into the passage which does not exist in it to make it more sensible, but it is still not sensible.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Taking Mark 16:17-18 as an example again:

"17And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.’"

I don't really find any interpretation of this passage sensible; literal or metaphorical. That is why I asked you how you interpreted it. The interpretation that it applies only to accidental poisonings doesn't seem sensible. Have no Christians been poisoned? Have no Christians accidentally poisoned themselves? You also suggest that it might only apply to a very small number of Christians, like Paul. You are inserting something into the passage which does not exist in it to make it more sensible, but it is still not sensible.

It also says "they will speak in new tongues", a reference to the moments of glossolalia which took place in the Acts and one of the charisms mentioned in Paul's letters, specifically chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians. Yet not every follower of Jesus spoke in a foreign language which they were not trained, there were charismatic occurrences, sporadically and a charism which some had; but even the author of this latter portion of Mark would have been aware that such things weren't normative, but remarkable for their being abnormal. It is precisely because of their remarkableness that they are mentioned in the text.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

This link lists a whole bunch of loopholes that the Jews used to get out of enforcing their law against unruly children. It was loopholes such as these that Jesus was objecting to. I quote again Mark 7:9-13

"Then he said to them, ‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! 10For Moses said, “Honour your father and your mother”; and, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.” 11But 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*)— 12then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, 13thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.’"

Yes, He was critical of trying to exempt oneself from the commandments and justifying it using custom and tradition.

That's the point He's making.

He is not summarily tossing out all Jewish ritual and tradition, but engaging in rabbinic dialogue with other rabbis over matters of Jewish practice and halakhah.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BrainInVat]

It also says "they will speak in new tongues", a reference to the moments of glossolalia which took place in the Acts and one of the charisms mentioned in Paul's letters, specifically chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians. Yet not every follower of Jesus spoke in a foreign language which they were not trained, there were charismatic occurrences, sporadically and a charism which some had; but even the author of this latter portion of Mark would have been aware that such things weren't normative, but remarkable for their being abnormal. It is precisely because of their remarkableness that they are mentioned in the text.

I don't see the passage as applying to only some Christians. Jesus says "And these signs will accompany those who believe...", not "And these signs will accompany, you, my apostles...". Secondly it would seem a little redundant if it only applied to his apostles, as his apostles had already cast out daemons and cured the sick.

Yes, He was critical of trying to exempt oneself from the commandments and justifying it using custom and tradition.

That's the point He's making.

I agree. The commandment here being the one about killing children who do not honor their parents.

He is not summarily tossing out all Jewish ritual and tradition, but engaging in rabbinic dialogue with other rabbis over matters of Jewish practice and halakhah.

I never claimed that Jesus summarily tossed "out all Jewish ritual and tradition".

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't see the passage as applying to only some Christians. Jesus says "And these signs will accompany those who believe...", not "And these signs will accompany, you, my apostles...". Secondly it would seem a little redundant if it only applied to his apostles, as his apostles had already cast out daemons and cured the sick.

I didn't say it applied only to the apostles, I said that these were things recognized as being remarkable because they weren't common or normative.

Not everyone spoke in languages not their own, that would have been common knowledge to the post-Markan author who wrote and/or appended this section to Mark; or even if this were legitimately Markan (though it almost certainly is not), it would have been common knowledge to Mark's author. And even if it were written by St. John Mark the Apostle, missionary companion to St. Paul and cousin of St. Barnabas the Apostle (which is unlikely), it would still have been something well known and common knowledge to him.

-CryptoLutheran