Should Pork be on My Fork

Food Laws in the Gospel of Mark

The Bible is notorious for its dietary regulations Modern readers are amazed to find things like shellfish and pork being regulated by the Bible. Why can we eat beef but not pork? Why Tilapia or Sole but not Shell fish? It makes little sense to us but theists are free to ad hoc maneuver and say "God had his reasons" which we cannot dispute.

The gospel of Mark has a curious story where Jesus nullifies the food laws of the Old Testament. Here is the passage translated by the NIV:

Mark 7:5-19 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?" He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.

They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. 'You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")”

Textual Considerations

Stylistically, Mark’s gloss (v. 19b) intrudes on this passage. As Fredriksen notes (Jesus of Nazareth p.108), “[I]t is the equivalent of a film actor’s stepping out of character and narrative action and speaking directly into the camera, addressing the viewing audience (“Now watch this part closely!”).” At any rate, there are no serious textual reasons for disputing this passage. Its earliest attestation is from Origen (see number 98) who references it around 200-250 C.E. Most of the content "can be" traditionally Jewish if the conclusion is swiped (as those like E.P. Sanders reconstruct it). It is Mark’s added interpretation that is problematic. The gloss makes Mark’s point, not his main character’s. The point Mark makes is also consistent with other portions of Mark (criticizing the apostles) which means we have no valid theological (or textual) motivations for excising this passage. The only reason that could be given is that Matthew and Luke do not reprint or comment on it under the view of Marcan priority. This is not strong enough to force its exclusion from the earliest version of Mark. We must be content to say that Matthew and Luke ignored or omitted it rather than correct or comment on it directly where it stands.

This small little segment of scripture has a number of difficulties associated with it. The first of which is high on the irony meter.

1. The Commands of Men.

Astonishing as it may seem, just a few lines earlier in chapter 7 of Mark Jesus is found harshly criticizing the Pharisees as pushing aside the commands of God for the traditions of men. Mark 7:8-9 reads, “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”

Now this is sheer audacity on the author of Mark’s part--or Jesus's--depending on who you think this story comes from. Jesus is seen accusing people of pushing aside what he ostensibly propounds as “the commands of God” only to push aside an extremely clear mandate of the Torah. Jesus himself unequivocally nullified a clear command of God while chastising the Pharisees, incredibly, for doing this very act!

2. The Law Observant Jesus.

Underneath the Gospel of Mark’s food nullifying Jesus is a law observant Jew as is found in the other three Gospels. In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus says (5:17-19): "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. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus said not the smallest letter will disappear from the Law or the Prophets. He also stated that any one who breaks even one of the least of these commandments will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But in Mark Jesus nullifies, rather than fulfills the laws. He also teaches others to do the same. This is inconsistent with the larger corpus of law-observant material on Jesus. Therefore, it seems plausible that in light of the early food controversies that the author of Mark has interjected his or her own views onto the lips of Jesus.

3. Mark’s treatment of Jesus Apostles.

Evidence of the above view is furnished by Mark's overall treatment of the apostles. In Mark 7:18-19 Jesus asks his followers, “Are you so dull?" He goes on to say, "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean")”

Mark programmatically denigrates the apostles throughout his Gospel. Another article on this site outlines all the instances. Space restrictions prevent the repetition of that entire discussion here. A few examples will suffice.

The important part in Mark 7 to notice is that Mark has Jesus ask if the apostles are so dull for not understanding his statement as nullifying the food laws. This occurs embedded next to a huge number of other denigrating statements towards Jesus disciples in Mark (see 4:13 - 4:40 - 6:37 - 6:52 - 7:18 - 8:4 - 8:14-21 - 8:31-33 - 9:9-10 - 9:32 - 10:13-15 - 10:33-37 - 11:21 - 14:32-41 and so on).

The disciples repeatedly fail in Mark and Jesus repeatedly calls them dull. The disciples never realize despite all the wonderful miracles they see and Jesus' constant predictions. Even the women fail in the end. They go to anoint Jesus’ body with spices but they are too late. If they had understood Jesus they would have known he would not be in the tomb.

So Mark has a habit of attacking the disciples. The evidence from the other Gospels and Peter's vision and the controversy with Paul suggests that Jesus' disciples did not believe he nullified the food laws. This belief came later and this all makes sense as the voice of Mark. In order to make it clear that Jesus advocated this new belief from the beginning, Mark has to portray the disciples as nitwits.

The simplest explanation is that Mark has Jesus attacking the apostles for not agreeing with his own beliefs about the food laws that he projected back onto the lips of the historical Jesus. This shows that Mark is not writing strict history. He has an agenda and putting words in Jesus’ mouth is one way he will accomplish it.

4. Silence in the Gospels.

This view is confirmed by the silence in the gospels of Jesus' opponents. If Jesus had declared the food laws as null during his earthy ministry we would have expected a different sort of Gospel material to develop. This type of action would have produced an especially heated response to Jesus. We would expect more defending of this in the Gospels. But we find none. Where is the controversy over Jesus nullifying this clear mandate of the Torah in the Gospels? He was accused of plucking grain on the Sabbath when hungry. He was accused of dining with sinners and being a drunkard due to his unusual table-fellowship but there is no defense against accusations of overthrowing the commands of God in the gospels such as this.

Instead of there being polemic generated off of something as flammable as this,Mark has comparably minor controversies leading to plans for Jesus’ death (3.6). This entire situation is historically implausible and the silence of such material, though not conclusive in itself, does strongly suggest the view promoted above. Namely, that the author of Mark is putting his own views onto the lips of Jesus. This view is attested to by three separate passages in the New Testament that ill now be examined.

5. Peter’s Vision in Acts.

Did Jesus nullify the food laws? Luke actually has Peter believing the exact opposite. In Acts 10:10-16 Peter has a vision: "He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Peter, a very close personal disciple who followed Jesus for three years or so, who stayed with him day and night and learned under him has no idea that the food laws were nullified by Jesus. Did Jesus nullify the food laws as Mark suggests? Luke has Peter saying, “Surely not!” Peter was a pillar in the early church. If Jesus had did something as radical as nullify the food laws, surely Peter would show knowledge of this. This account in Acts strengthens the notion that the earthly Jesus did not nullify the food laws. Later authors appear to have put forth different ways in which this process occurred. Luke has a vision after Jesus' death whereas Mark sweeps the entire controversy under the rug by having Jesus definitively settle the issue from the beginning.

6. The Dispute on Food in Galatians.

If Jesus had nullified the food laws since the beginning the debate on Kosher food in Galatians would never have occurred. In Galatians Paul has to oppose Peter to his face due to his hypocritical behavior. Table fellowship was controversial in the early church as the Gentile mission was underway. As Raymond Brown notes (Intro to the NT. p 137) "The hard-fought struggle over kosher food attested in Acts and Paul would be difficult to explain if Jesus had settled the issue from the beginning."

Likewise, Paula Fredriksen relays similar thoughts to Brown in 'Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews' (p.108), "[W]e must take into account the controversy in Antioch, years after this supposed encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees, when Peter, the men sent from James, and Paul disputed about mixed Gentile-Jewish meals taken in community (Gal 2:11-13). If Jesus during his mission had already nullified the laws of kashrut, this argument never could have happened."

A further point could be gleaned from Romans 14:14-20 which explains acceptable behaviors for eating. Paul is careful to note that no food is unclean of itself but if it means a brother will stumble one should avoid a certain food. As verse 14 says, “But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.” This appears different from Jesus’ explicit nullification of the food laws in Mark. As the New Jerusalem Biblical Commentary puts it (p.612), “If Jesus had been so explicit about the observance of Jewish food laws, why were there so many debates on this matter in the early church (see Gal 2:11-14; Rom 14:14-20; Col 2:20-23; Acts 10:14-15; etc.)?”

Thus, the debates in the early church over this issue by the pillars of Christianity do not reflect the view that Jesus himself settled this issue. Rather, Jesus appears to have left this issue open and his followers hotly debated it as Gentiles started being included into the faith. Mark, we can very safely say, put his views onto the lips of Jesus.

Overview

Mark has Jesus declare the food laws void and then calls Jesus’ apostles idiots for not understanding this. Peter didn’t know anything about this according to Acts. He said “surely not” in regards to eating unclean food. The controversy in Galatians between Paul and James and company leans against Jesus definitively settling the issue from the beginning as Mark suggests he did. The silence in the Gospels if Jesus did something so controversial is inexplicable. Minor controversies lead to death plots (v. 3:6) but this one doesn’t? Embedded within the Gospels is a thoroughly Jewish and law observant image of Jesus who conducted a ministry to Jews (not Gentiles). This Jesus critiqued the Pharisees and leaders of the law harshly and severely for pushing aside the commands of God in order to follow the traditions of men. This same Torah defending Jesus is found in his next breath nullifying a clear mandate of the Torah.

We have a very clear example of how the author of the first gospel has sometimes projected his own views onto the lips of Jesus.

Vinnie