Most of us read newspapers or journals and magazines of some kind. There’s always a section I like to read, that is the reader’s letters to the magazine. But unless i know what those letter writers reacted to, their lines often make less sense to make, and some make hardly any sense at all. So if I want to really understand what those people wanted to say, I have to take the time to learn about the background of their letters, opinions, questions, appreciations or sometimes harsh reactions.
The same is true for the Bible. If we really want to understand better Torah, we have to take the time to delve into the times during which the Bible was written – which is quite a long time span. But all so often I see this dismissed as “too theoretical”, with the remark added that the “Bible is eternal” and speaks today the same as on the day it was written.
I don’t question at all the fact that God still speaks to us today through the Bible, and that his word is still as authoritative as it was, say, 2000 years ago – but I believe that to better grasp what the authors intended to say, and what happened, it is vital to learn about the historical and cultural background. Sometimes, even when words stay the same, their meaning can change, concepts evolve, things pass away and new understandings are born. Even if neither God nor the Bible have changed, our understanding of it and its concepts have changed, and if we don’t look at what certain things would have meant to the hearer or reader back then, there is a big danger to understand wrongly what was meant.
Why is Judaism called a historical religion? Because our story is grounded not just on some more or less vague metaphysical concepts, but on the manifestations of God in time, throughout history. It was at a particular moment in time that God told Abraham to leave Ur of the Chaldees, that he cut a covenant with the people of Israel through Moshe, and that Yeshua appeared taught, healed, called to repentance and “was crucified under Pontius Pilate”. This means also that to understand the life of Yeshua, or anyone else in the Bible, one must understand the historical context in which they lived, complete with their cultural struggles, practices, religious debates and so on.
There are different ways of learning about that time, even if it seems so far away from us. Of course, we cannot just jump the time-gap of more than 2,000 years, but there are ways and sources to make them seemingly come closer to us, and help us understand more the biblical times. There is, of course archeology and all the artifacts and historical places; there are the writings of contemporaries that have come down to us such as Josephus and Philo of Alexandria; there are, of course, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other writings such as First and Second Enoch, Talmudic Literature and Targumim, the Chreia, but also the religious traditions of the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and Mesopotamians which are relatively well documented.
The background for understanding Yeshua begins with the Tanakh, which christians generally call the Old Testament. I have often encountered christians who sort of imagined “Jesus reading the Bible, both New and Old Testament”, and the first christians of course as well. Each time they read “Scriptures”, the thought of the same Bible they had in their hands (or bookshelves). However, what were the Scriptures for Yeshua, for Paul, for all those first followers of Yeshua was the Tanakh, and the Tanakh only. Yeshua and his talmidim, his disciples, were familiar with the stories of Adam and Eve, of Abraham, of Moshe and King David, and would have know the prophets and other writings, and these were not just records of past events not mattering anymore, but seen as speaking to them in their own time, of events they were living through as well – which is made explicit by Yeshua stating in Luke 4:21: “Today, as you heard it read, this passage of the Tanakh was fulfilled” (CJB).
« … and write them on the door-frames of your house and on your gates. » (Devarim 6:9, CJB)
All foods clean?
26 11 2009I think that this passage is one of those passages who are frequently misunderstood and made to say something it doesn’t actually say.
In this passage, Yeshua eats with some Pharisees and Torah teachers. Some of his disciples didn’t wash their hands before eating, and some of the Pharisees took offense. Actually it was the priests who had the obligation to be ritually clean, and thus had to wash their hands ritually regularly. In trying to be some of the sanctity of the Temple to the home, amongst the pharisees it started to be customary to ritually wash the hands before eating, especially before eating bread. Hillel actually declared everybody to have impure hands, because one couldn’t be sure that one’s hands are clean (what had one touched? Or what had someone whom we have touched, touched?). The priest had to be in a ritually pure state also when he received and ate the Teruma, which was generally eaten in the form of bread – which is why washing before eating breads slowly became obligatory. It is very well possible that at Yeshua’s time not everybody did yet have the custom to ritually wash hands before eating, which could explain why some of Yeshua’s disciples washed, and some didn’t.
If your hands were indeed impure, and you touched the food with impure hands before eating it, the food would thus become impure, too (imagine impurity like a virus, or like dirt that spreads and contaminates whatever you touch unless it is purified again, disinfected so to say).
In such a context, Yeshua explains that it isn’t food that would have become impure in such a way that would make a human being unclean, but what makes someone unclean are the bad things that come out of his (or her) heart. This means that Yeshua did not mean to permit his disciples to eat any kind of food, such as pork or shellfish. The debate is not about kosher food, or what would make such permitted food unfit for consumption. In Matthew, Yeshua stated that the Torah won’t pass away -not even a yud- before heaven and earth have passed away, not even the least of the commandments. As far as I am concerned, heaven and earth have not yet passed away…
Another thing that can be considered here is language.
In hebrew, there is the word tamai which denotes an intrinsic uncleanness, and tahor, which means clean and/or pure. In greek, there are two words to express a certain kind of uncleanness, koinos and akathartos. Koinos means ritually impure (thus, a kosher food item could be koinos, ritually impure; just like a person could be koinos until purified again), whereas akathartos denotes the same intrinsic uncleanness as the hebrew tamai (something that is akathartos/tamai cannot be rendered clean or pure; animals considered tamai/akathartos are reptiles, pigs or bats and are contrasted from animals that are tahor, such as sheep or cows -animals that are acceptable for sacrifice).
The foods that the disciples ate were not unclean because they hadn’t washed their hands, according to Yeshua, not washing the hands before eating didn’t render the one eating unclean – but in my opinion, Yeshua speaks about what renders the human being ‘koinos’ – which are all the bad things that come out of his heart – the debate is not about kosher food.
Comments : Leave a Comment »
Categories : Commentary, Personal