List of Appendices
4.10. Historical Jesus and Purity
From the above discussions, it is demonstrated that there was a fundamental concern for issues of purity within the socio-historical context in which Jesus lived. According to Jewish religion and culture, Jesus would be expected to be a defensive person and avoid all contact with uncleanness. He would be expected to respect the lines and boundaries of Jewish observance, which are indicated in the maps of places, persons, things and times (Neyrey 1991: 11-12). There exist different assumptions about the Jesus of history presented in the gospels, however, the one element of continuity that spans the history of the quest from past to present, Kelber says, is “the diversity of Jesus images” (Kelber, 1994:142).
Craffert is of the opinion that everything that is known about the context of the worldview of Jesus of Nazareth shows that he lived in a world that is historically and culturally far removed from that of the modern Western reader (Craffert 2008:85).
Therefore, it becomes apparent that Jesus was a historical figure within a particular cultural system, which in this study is the Jewish culture. He further argues that looking at the gospels themselves, it is clear that a large amount of the materials ascribed to Jesus belong to the category of cultural events and phenomena or to the category of common human events (2008: 90).
Looking at Jesus and purity, it must be conceded that Jesus, even though he lived within the Jewish context of strict purity rules, did not accept the Pharisaic interpretation of the “clean” and “unclean” (Borg 1984:135; Luke 11:37-41). Borg explains that uncleanness was not simply a lack of cleanness but a power which positively defiled.
Jesus taught that holiness rather than uncleanness was to be understood as contagious. It is to be seen as the transforming power, not one that needs protection through separation.
Jesus’ understanding of purity was different from the idea of the Pharisees; his criticism of them in Luke 11:44 as hypocrites and unmarked graves was to show the holiness God expects from his people. The Pharisees were protecting the holiness of God from defilement and therefore separates the people of God from the contagion of uncleanness.
Jesus’ view was of freedom from legalistic traditions and concern for internal purity and
118
not outward pureness (Hargrove 1999:15). For Luke’s Jesus, human need overrides purity regulations but does not necessarily abolish them. Purity according to Jesus should be a concern of the heart, which is from the inside; his focus on issues of purity was on the internal or heart related part of man (body). Hence, according to Sanders (1985:266), Jesus ate and fellowshipped with people whom the Pharisees considered unclean. Jesus in the gospels fellowshipped and touched people regarded as “outcasts” or “untouchables”.
Thus, in the Jewish Pharisaic system of belief, these sinners caused Jesus to become defiled (Borg 1984:83).
Sanders, responding to Borg, argued that to equate the Pharisaic interpretation of purity with the entirety of the Torah is basically an error. Hence, to approach the question of purity is not the same as addressing the status of the law; such a position is based on a false premise, and can never arrive at a sound conclusion. Therefore, it is suggested that the issue of purity and the alleged system of work-righteousness in the Jewish context are not the overriding factors that define the relationship of Jesus to his contemporaries (Sanders 1985: 264).Jesus’ healing of lepers and the role of women and children in his ministry also reflect God’s care for the outsiders. Kung (1976:273) also argues that “....
for Jesus this fellowship at table with those whom the devout had written off was not merely the expression of liberal tolerance and humanitarian sentiment, it was the expression of his mission and message: peace and reconciliation for all, without exception, even for moral failures”. Jesus many times in his ministry broke the ‘fence’ of purity stipulated in the Jewish purity codes. In Borg’s analysis, Jesus practiced a “politics of compassion” rather than a “politics of purity”, and thus consciously and consistently challenged the boundaries of the Jewish purity as interpreted by the Pharisees. Jesus actions shattered the purity boundaries of his social world (Borg, 1984:85).
The words of Jesus, as presented by Luke, especially in the parables (Luke 15:11- 32) serve to show Jesus’ fellowship with tax-collectors and sinners. He did not observe any of the maps so important to the Judaism of his days: Jesus came in contact with unclean people (compare Luke 5:13 he voluntarily touched the leper). Jesus traveled in Gentile territory (Luke 17:11) thus crossing boundaries. Jesus was always in contact with the possessed (Luke 8:26-39), the blind (Luke 9:10), the lame and the deaf (Luke 11:14), tagged as unclean in Jewish Torah (Leviticus 21:16-24). Jesus seems not to have restrained his bodily boundaries as a strict religious Jew: he shared fellowship meals with
119
so called sinners and outcasts, touched lepers and walked freely among people who belong outside the gate in a Jewish religious context. Hence, to the cultural and religious norms of the times, Jesus was crossing forbidding boundaries (Luke 5:27-36, Luke 11:37- 40, Luke 6:6-11). Jesus’ understanding of holiness and hence purity was quite different to that of the Pharisees. His criticism of the Pharisees as leaven (Matt 16:6, 11-12, Luke 12:1, Mark 8:15) and unmarked graves (Luke 11:44, Matt 23:27-28) was to show that Israel was to be the people of God and thus criticized the Pharisees as defiling and corrupting Israel. One could also see that holiness was to be understood differently from the post – exilic quest after holiness. To the Pharisees, the holiness of God needed protection from defilement and the people of God needed to be separated from uncleanness and whatever is contagious.
Jesus in Luke’s narrative displayed a purity system which is expressed in rules of purity which differ from those of the Pharisees, the Pharisees were concerned with the external and surfaces (washing of hands, vessels and so on) but Jesus main concern has to do with the interior and the heart. The Pharisees guarded the external “fences around the Torah”, i.e. the traditions of the elders, but Jesus was concerned with the core or heart of the law.
To Jesus purity is measured by the keeping of God’s law and not in the traditional
“fences” of men. Hence, Jesus is not abrogating the idea of purity when he violates the rules of purity, but on the contrary Jesus is referring the rules of purity in line with what God wants and what makes whole, clean and holy (Neyrey 2002:32-39).
The idea of purity is an important anthropological concept for understanding the gospels (Malina 1981:112). It helps our understanding of the criticism of Jesus by the Pharisees on purity issues. According to the cultural and religious norms of the times, Jesus was crossing forbidden boundaries and had relationships with unclean people and outcasts. Douglas (1973) in classifying the differences between Jesus and the main stream system which structured Jewish life in the first century used two variables for locating and explaining diverse groups, namely “group and grid” (Douglas 1973:77-92) Group refers to the degree of societal pressure exerted upon individuals or subgroups to conform to the purity system, its symbols and rules. At the time of Jesus, they experienced strong pressure to accept and conform to the central values of Judaism. The second variable, grid refers to the degree of assent that people give to the symbol system
120
which is enjoined on them, its classification, definitions and evaluations. For example the Sadducees, as guardians and exponents of the Jewish purity system experienced a strong fit between the system’s aims and their life, hence a high grid. But the Pharisees attempted an extension of the system to non-priests acting as defining points, hence had a lower grid compared to the Sadducees. Jesus is portrayed as a reforming figure who contested many of the basic classifications, definitions and evaluations of the system and since his degree of dissent from the mainstream is greater than that of the Pharisees, his grid is lower.
Looking at the Jewish system of purity and Jesus’ standard of purity some differences could be highlighted generally. The core value of the Jewish purity system is God’s holiness. “Be ye holy as I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44), but Jesus points to God’s
‘mercy’ as the core value, “The Lord, the Lord, merciful and kind …. “ (Exodus 34:6-7).
For the Jewish purity system, holiness is symbolized in God’s act of creation (fundamental act of ordering) but for Jesus, God’s mercy is symbolized in God’s free election and God’s unpredictable gift of covenant grace (Deuteronomy 7:7-8, Exodus:
33:19). The structural implications of God’s holiness as ordering led the Jewish system to a strong purity system with a particularistic tendency, whereas God’s mercy as election leads to a purity system with an inclusive tendency. A defensive strategy flows from holiness as order, whereas a strategy of mission, hospitality and inclusiveness represent the appropriate strategy where mercy as election constitutes the core value. On the whole, the scriptural legitimations for holiness as order are found primarily in the Pentateuch, whereas election and covenant is found both in pre-Mosaic tradition and in the prophetic criticisms of Israel’s cult (Neyrey, 2002).
On the whole, from the view point of the religious, social and political context of Jesus’ time i.e. the Jewish context, the theological concerns of Jesus went beyond the interest and influence of the Jewish life of his time. Although Jesus disregarded the maps and bodily boundaries of Judaism, Jesus did not abrogate the idea of purity, he only revived the same in the context of love, mercy and justice of God.