Naimhe asked:

I understand the concept of Lent and the not eating meat but is it allowable to eat poultry? And why is fish okay? Is fish an option because of the fish link to Jesus?

No connection, as far as I know, specifically with Jesus and fish.

When the practice of giving up meat for Lent originated, meat (defined here as “anything that you might consider meat-like that isn’t fish”) was considered a “luxury” item, while fish was not. Fish was something that the common (read: poor) people ate. Lent was supposed to be a time of practicing self-restraint, discipline, and sacrifice, so they were asked to not eat meat during Lent. (This was eventually pared down to just Fridays.)

Lindsay recently told me about a book she was reading where the Benedictine monks (IIRC) came up with some kind of cheese that tasted like meat. Their idea, apparently, was “Well, we can eat cheese during Lent but we can’t eat meat.” (Apparently even monks look for loopholes.) Benedict responded by banning that cheese during Lent because the whole point of the practice of not eating meat was self-denial so making something that tasted like meat but wasn’t technically meat was really not kosher.

So to speak.

(Sorry I’m not sorry.)

Of course, today it is common for ‘Mericans to have a big ol’ fancy fish fry or some other gluttonous-but-fish-based dinner on Fridays during Lent, because moderation, self-discipline, and self-denial go against The ’Merican Way, and while many people might talk a good game about Christianity, what most people practice is The Religion Of The ’Merican Way. And when Christianity conflicts with TROTMW, Christianity always loses.

Aside: “How long is Lent? 40 days, right?”

Those of you who have given something up for Lent might be surprised to know that those “40 days” were actually 46 days. (This is worse than when women realize that despite being told that pregnancy lasts for “9 months” it’s actually “40 weeks” which is closer to 10 months than 9.)

For example, this year Ash Wednesday was on February 13th and Easter was on March 31. There were 28 days in February, 15 days starting on February 13th and then 31 days in March = 46 days.

The extra 6 days are the 6 Sundays between Ash Wednesday up to (and including) Palm Sunday. Because each Sunday is supposed to be a celebration of the resurrection, they are not considered part of Lent.

(This is usually the point at which someone says “Wait, does that mean that if I gave something up for Lent, I can cheat on Sundays and it won’t count as cheating?” Unfortunately for them my answer is no because if you gave something up “for Lent” then that’s expected to mean “starting on Ash Wednesday and ending on Easter Sunday” but you should definitely get credit for 46 days of sacrifice, not just 40.)

“Why ham instead of lamb?”

I know lamb is common for Easter in some places but ham seems to be a standard in the US. Do you suppose that the choice of pork is a way to distinguish between previously being Jewish and upon the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah, then became an acceptable dietary choice? That’s not really a question specifically for Catholics but maybe some of you have a theory.

That definitely sounds like a plausible theory, but http://www.foodtimeline.org/easter.html cites “Encyclopedia of Religion, (Mircea Eliade editor in chief [MacMillan:New York] 1987, volume 5 (p. 558))” with this theory:

“Among Easter foods the most significant is the Easter lamb, which is in many places the main dish of the Easter Sunday meal. Corresponding to the Passover lamb and to Christ, the Lamb of God, this dish has become a central symbol of Easter. Also popular among European and Americans on Easter is ham, because the pig was considered a symbol of luck in pre-Christian Europe.”

That sounds plausible, but so does this explanation from About.com:

In the United States, ham is a traditional Easter food. In the early days, meat was slaughtered in the fall. There was no refrigeration, and the fresh pork that wasn’t consumed during the winter months before Lent was cured for spring. The curing process took a long time, and the first hams were ready around the time Easter rolled around. Thus, ham was a natural choice for the celebratory Easter dinner.

Surprisingly, the websites I found which suggested that eating ham on Easter was a way to ‘stick it to the Jews’ mostly seemed to be crackpot conspiracy theory sites. I say surprisingly because it does seem to be a natural “Hey this is a way that we show we are Christians and not Jews” act, and that was a big issue in the early church because the first Christians were Jews (Christianity was seen a ‘sect’ of Judaism) and followed Jewish dietary laws as well as practices such as ritual circumcision. In the early days Christians would gather attend Jewish religious services and Sunday worship services until around 60 a.d (I might be wrong on the date) when the Christians apparently became annoying enough that the Jews threw them out of the temple and basically said “Pick a side.”

(Again: I was never very good at Church history and I have a crappy memory, but that’s my recollection of the history from my seminary days.)

Yes, this really is the kind of thing I think about because I’m a weirdo who is fascinated by religions and their history.

Well it’s understandable for one weirdo to be fascinated by organized weirdos religion. Early Christians were definitely seen as weirdos. People thought that Christians maybe ate babies, and were obviously cannibals. Apparently having the central part of your religious ceremony be a reenactment of the time when the head of your religion instructed His followers to “eat His body” and “drink His blood” was confusing to people. Imagine that.

My Favorite Fish Story

John was the only Protestant to move into a large Catholic neighborhood. On the first Friday of Lent, John was outside grilling a big juicy steak on his grill. Meanwhile, all of his neighbors were eating cold tuna fish for supper.

This went on each Friday of Lent.

On the last Friday of Lent, the neighborhood men got together and decided that something had to be done about John, he was tempting them to eat meat each Friday of Lent, and they couldn’t take it anymore. They decided to try and convert John to Catholicism.

They went over and talked to him. He liked them all so much and it seemed to mean so much to them that he decided to join all of his neighbors and become a Catholic.

They took him to Church, and the Priest sprinkled some water over him, and said, “You were born a Baptist, you were raised a Baptist, but now you are a Catholic.”

The men were so relieved–now their biggest Lenten temptation was resolved.

The next year’s Lenten season rolled around. The first Friday of Lent came, and just at supper time, when the neighborhood was setting down to their tuna fish dinner, came the wafting smell of steak cooking on a grill. The neighborhood men could not believe their noses!

They called each other up and decided to meet over in John’s yard to see if he had forgotten it was the first Friday of Lent.

The group arrived just in time to see John standing over his grill with a small pitcher of water.

He sprinkled some water over his steak on the grill, saying, “You were born a cow, you were raised a cow, but now you are a fish.”

My friend and colleague Richard Gaywood asked a very good question:

Even a religiously tone-deaf person like me recalls from school assemblies that Jesus rose after three days and three nights in the tomb. And I also know that we mark his crucifixion on Good Friday and his resurrection on Easter Sunday… …which is only a day and a half. Uhh, what?! Please to explain! (I found a page through Google that suggests there were annual ‘high’ Sabbaths that means Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday. Is that right?)

Jesus crucified on a Wednesday?! Never heard that one before. I’m not sure how that is supposed to help with the 3-days-until-Sunday problem. Are we supposed to count Thursday (1), Friday (2), Saturday (3)? That’s actually “4 days and 3 nights” at which point it starts to sound like a vacation package instead of, you know, being dead.

Not to mention that if Jesus died on a Wednesday then why do we celebrate it on “Good Friday”?[1] Which just goes to show you that you should never believe anything that you read on the Internet about religion.

Jesus’s death and Passover

Christians celebrate Christmas on December 25th, but we don’t have any specific Biblical reason for assigning that date.

However, when it comes to Easter, we can be a lot more specific. All four of the Gospels place Jesus’ death right at the time of the Jewish festival of Passover.

Why do I mention this? Because the Bible clearly mentions Jesus’ death as taking place near “Passover” (an annual event) and “the Sabbath” (a weekly event). There’s absolutely no reason to think that the Biblical writers would have used “Sabbath” to mean some sort of “high Sabbath” because they would have just said “Passover” which is what they did say.

But there’s actually even more evidence to suggest that this wasn’t any other day of the week.

Right before “the Sabbath day”

If you look at Matthew 27–28, Mark 15–16, Luke 23–24, and John 19–20 (that is to say, each of the 4 gospels considered to be official and canonical), it is pretty clear that they are all referring to “the Sabbath” as in “on the 7th day” aka Saturday.

According to all four of the gospels, Jesus died around 3:00 p.m. on the day before the Sabbath day.

The Sabbath day is Saturday, therefore, Jesus died on Friday.

So we have established two of the three days involved. But when did they realize that Jesus wasn’t in the tomb? We celebrate Easter on a Sunday, but could it have been on a Monday or a Tuesday instead?

Well, no. Here again we find agreement between the four gospels that the events took place “on the first day of the week.”

(Don’t just take my word for it, those four links at the beginning of the section also include the references to Easter morning.)

The Sabbath (Saturday) is the last day of the week, Sunday is the first day of the week. There’s really no getting around the timeline of Friday afternoon to Sunday morning.[2]

So how is that three days?

“On the third day”

First we need to look at a slight-but-important difference in wording. The Bible does not say that Jesus was in the tomb for three days and three nights.[3]

What the Bible actually says is that Jesus rose “on the third day.” That might seem like a minor difference, but it’s actually quite important. The easiest way to verify this is to search for the phrase ‘third day’ in the Gospels which will turn up about a dozen references like this one from Luke 24:6–7:

Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, • that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.

Now, to be fair, I should also point out that if you search for the phrase “three days” in the Gospels you will find some references like this:

Then [Jesus] began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. (Mark 8:31)

and

for [Jesus] was teaching his disciples, saying to them, “The Son of Man is to be betrayed into human hands, and they will kill him, and three days after being killed, he will rise again.” (Mark 9:31)

That makes it sound like “day of Jesus death plus three days” but this is most likely just a stylistic difference, found only in the Gospel according to Mark. After all, Mark wrote all of this after the fact (that is to say, the Gospel of Mark isn’t his diary, it’s recollection), and Mark’s gospel agrees with the others that Jesus died Friday afternoon and the tomb was empty before dawn on Sunday.

There’s also the Nicene Creed, a summary of Christian belief, which dates from 325 A.D., and makes it more explicit:

[Jesus] was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day …

“On the third day” is the Biblical answer to when Jesus rose from the dead.

Blame the Jews

It is factually (and morally) wrong to blame “the Jews” for Jesus’ death,[4] but it is accurate to “blame the Jews” for the weird time-keeping we’re about to run into.

You’ll remember that Jesus was a Jew, as were all of His original Apostles. Judaism doesn’t consider the days to start and end at midnight. Instead, days start and end at sunrise/sunset.[5]

So:

1. Jesus died at noon on Friday = First day.
2. sundown Friday to sundown Saturday = Second day.
3. sundown Saturday to sundown Sunday = Third day.

“On the third day” means anytime after sundown on Saturday and before sundown on Sunday.

(Is that answer a letdown? I hope not.)

Context is King

Richard’s question is a fairly excellent example of two basic principles of understanding the Bible:

1. Failure to know/understand the original context can cause confusion and/or misunderstanding of the text.

2. Occasionally someone will try to claim that the “plain sense” of a Biblical passage (i.e. “whatever it seems to means when I read it from my perspective”) is the most authentic, faithful, or “truest” way of reading the Bible. On the other hand, those who have actually studied the Bible usually agree that one cannot read the Bible without “interpreting” it. Sometimes we don’t even realize that we are interpreting, because our assumptions are such a part of us that we don’t even recognize them. After all, what could be more “obvious” than that “three days after Friday” would have to mean “Monday”?

Reading is interpretation. There’s just no getting around it.[6]

Thanks for the great question, Richard.

Oh, Richard also drew my attention to this helpful “infographic” which explains that Jesus was not a Zombie. You should bookmark that and save it for next year for when people start breaking out the “jokes” about “Zombie Jesus.”[7]

Footnotes

I had heard about this story several days ago, but only had time to read up on it today. Sit back and get comfortable, folks, we’re in for another ride.

Here’s how Christianity Today reported the story:

High-profile lawyer Gloria Allred has filed a lawsuit against San Diego Christian College alleging it fired a then-unmarried employee, Teri James, for having premarital sex with her fiancé and getting pregnant. James, who is now married and expecting her child in June, alleges she was wrongfully terminated; the college says James violated its moral code, which she had agreed in writing to uphold.

CT recently reported on the wave of school tussles over sex standards, including Dias v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, the case of a lesbian who was fired after undergoing artificial insemination. CT found that experts predict such lawsuits will continue to grow—but also that Christian schools are likely to continue their winning streak.

Other than the trial date, that’s pretty much the entire piece on Christianity Today. The article links to The Huffington Post and Today.com articles, but sömehow Christianity Today left out one aspect of the original report (mentioned in both of those articles):

After Teri James was fired for getting pregnant, San Diego Christian College offered her fiancé a job.

Go ahead, take a moment to let that sink in.

Ok. Let’s start from the bottom and work our way up, shall we? If you hired someone to write short news blurbs for your website and they wrote about this story but left off that one detail, would you consider him/her good at their job? Because I think I would call them into my office and have a conversation about “important details” which may have been overlooked.

Despite Hanlon’s Razor, I find it difficult to imagine that omission was accidental.

But it’s the comments on the Christianity Today article that will really get you going. The first commenter calls attention to this missing detail of the story, and the second commenter (Scott) says:

How do you know that they [SDCC] knew that. All I heard was that they offered a job to her boyfriend/fiancé after they let her go. You are making a lot of inferences there that may not be supported by fact.

Apparently Scott wants us to believe that by sheer coincidence San Diego Christian College just happened to offer a job to Teri James’ fiancé after she was fired. Because… you know… Small world!

It gets better. In the third comment on the page, “Nick” adds:

Sounds pretty gracious to offer her boyfriend a job. He should be working to take care of the mother & child.

Thänk you, Nick, for pointing out the error of our ways. See, we had been focused on the double-standard which says that a woman who has sex before marriage should be fired while a man who has sex before marriage should be hired. But Nick reminds us that what’s rëally important is that the woman stays at home with the baby while the man goes out to work. When you look at it this way, what San Diego Christian College did was actually help Teri James take her rightful spot back in the home and they provided her husband-to-be with the means to support his new family!

It’s actually kind of sweet, when you think of it that way.

Where by “sweet” I mean nauseating.

Another comment by Jim Ricker insists that institutions are innocent until proven guilty, and twice uses the phrase “if she is to be believed” to refer to Ms. James, which I believe is his way of saying that he will not believe anything that this pregnant slut says until he sees proof.

He adds:

Ultimately, she was rightfully fired, she violated her agreement and is NOT a role model for the kids.

WON’T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?

After all, these poor innocent children are only college students. I mean, just think of what might happen if Teri James was allowed to stay on campus! These children might accidentally be exposed to pre-marital sex! On a college campus! Shock! Horror!

Now it is true, as Mr. Ricker and others have pointed out, that Ms. James signed an agreement. Today.com describes it:

San Diego Christian College asks that its employees sign its “community covenant,” a two-page contract that asks its community, which includes employees and about 500 students on-site, to abstain from drugs, alcohol and tobacco and “abusive anger, malice, jealousy, lust, sexually immoral behavior including premarital sex, adultery, pornography and homosexuality, evil desires and prejudice based on race, sex or socioeconomic status.”

(n.b. I’m assuming that where Today.com says “asks” they really mean “requires”. I also wonder how many people have been fired for anger, malice, jealousy, lust, or evil desires. I bet the number is close to “none” which either means that they really only police sexual activity or they have somehow achieved a sinless work environment, in which case I bet others would like to know their secret.)

“We all had to sign it,” James said. “I needed a job in this economy and so I never thought that anything would happen – I just needed a job.”

Added Allred: “It does not say that you will be fired if you do not comply.”

I read that last sentence and thought it was a little strange. I mean, what did she think would happen if she did not comply? I mean, it’s not as if SDCC had any choice in the matter. After all, rules are rules, especially when it comes to sexual behavior. Has she never read the Bible? Jesus was very clear on this point. For example, in John 8 (NRSV):

[3] The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, [4] they said to [Jesus], “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. [5] Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”

[6] They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.

[7] When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” [8] And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. [9] When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.

[10] Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” [11] She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.”

I mentioned this passage in Episode 4 of Impolite Company, especially this segment:

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to [Jesus], “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery.

Did you notice what was missing from this scene?

Still no? Let me try again:

this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery.

Well, in case you’re still not seeing it, let me make it clear: it takes two to tango, it takes two to make a thing go right, and it takes two people to commit adultery.

If the scribes and the Pharisees caught this woman in flagrante, then where is the man with whom she was flagranting?

Well, apparently they had let him go.

Fortunately, 2000 years later, we are no longer shaming women for having sex and letting men get away with doing whatever they want.

Oh wait.

I realize that in some mythical land (in which SDCC and many other evangelical Christians believe they live), pre-marital sex is an aberration which can be overcome by sheer force of will. However, for those of us on planet earth, pre-marital sex is a reality for some 90+% of the population. (If I had the money, I would love to hire a private detective to investigate the sex lives of the administrators and board of trustees of SDCC to make sure that none of them had violated this rule.)

The courts may eventually decide that San Diego Christian College was within its legal rights to fire Ms. James. But what SDCC’s actions will not do is prevent people from having pre-marital sex. In fact, I would not be surprised at all to learn that news of this story will lead other women who find themselves in Ms. James’ situation to get an abortion because they can’t afford to lose their job.

If San Diego Christian College is determined to publish a strict set of moral behaviors and punish those who fail to live up to them, perhaps they should consider reconsider including the word Christian in their name. Or maybe they should spend a little more time reading the primary source material, where they’ll find many, many, many passages like this:

Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, how many times should I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Should I forgive as many as seven times?”

Jesus said, “Not just seven times, but rather as many as seventy-seven times.” (Matthew 18:21–22 (CEB))

I know, I know, it’s not nearly as fun to forgive people as it is to punish them, but if you claim to believe that:

The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are inerrant in relation to any subject with which they deal and are to be accepted in their natural and intended sense as of [sic] full authority over Christian faith and life. No other religious writings or supposed revelations are to be accepted as divinely inspired or authoritative. (Source: San Diego Christian College Doctrinal Position)

If nothing can overrule the authority of the Bible, and if Jesus forgave someone who was guilty of “sexual sin” – then why is SDCC treating their “community covenant” as if it holds more authority than the teachings of Jesus?

rascouet asked: I listened to the episode about evil, and of course, I came out with a thousand different questions. Here is the most burning one: certain philosophers of the 20th century have described evil as what fills the vacuum when decent people do nothing to stop it because they see it as "normal." See Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil." Simone Weil said true evil is boring, unimaginative. It is closer to habituation and resignation than to Maleficent. What does Christian theology say about indifference?

An excellent question.

Indifference is not an option. At least, not a Christian option. I think the best demonstration of this comes from the story of the Good Samaritan.[1]

Allow me to quote the story for those who may not know or remember it.

The Good Samaritan

From Luke 10:25–37 (NRSV):

[25] Just then a lawyer[2] stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” [26] He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” [27] He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” [28] And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.” [29] But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” [30] Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho,[3] and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. [31] Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. [32] So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. [33] But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. [34] He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. [35] The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ [36] Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” [37] He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

There are two important details of this story that we have to understand if we are to fully understand the story.

#1: Why didn’t the priest of the Levite help?

While it may seem strange to us that the priest and the Levite passed by on the other side, Jesus did not feel the need to explain it. Why?

Jesus’ original audience would have known that the priest and the Levite wouldn’t touch blood or a dead body because that would have made them “ritually unclean” meaning they could not be in the temple until they had been ritually cleaned and/or a certain amount of time had passed.

Jesus’ audience would have known that “of course” the priest and the Levite wouldn’t touch blood or a dead body for religious reasons.

#2: It’s important to understand that “Good Samaritan” would have seemed like an oxymoron to Jesus’ audience.

If you ask someone today what the word “Samaritan” means, they would probably say that it means “a good, helpful person,” but that is not how Jesus’ audience thought of Samaritans.

• He was the product of a mixed marriage – a ‘mudblood’ in Harry Potter terms – at a time when “purity” of blood was considered extremely important.

• Jews would not have been allowed to marry Samaritans, in fact, even interacting with them would have been discouraged.[4]

• So the Samaritan was “unclean” by birth and amount of ritual washing would ever make the Samaritan “clean” in the eyes of the law.

• This guy comes in and literally gets his hands dirty. He cleans the other man’s wounds, picks him up and puts him on his own animal, and pays to have someone look after him.

The paradox of Jesus’ message is that the “good” people did nothing and a “bad” person is the one to emulate.

Notice what Jesus has done here, he’s implicitly challenging two ideas:

1. that religious practice give you an excuse not to help someone

2. that you should judge people people based on who they are rather than what they do.

So let’s revisit the scene:

The lawyer asks Jesus a question about the law, and Jesus answers his question with a question. (This is something Jesus did all of the time when faced with someone who tried to challenge him on the law.) Effectively Jesus is saying “Why are you asking me this? Haven’t you read the law? What kind of lawyer doesn’t know the answer to this?” Luke makes it clear that the lawyer had been trying to test Jesus by putting him on the spot, but Jesus turned the tables on him, and suddenly the lawyer had to prove what he knew.

He gives the correct answer, which he has probably had memorized since he was a kid. Jesus replied (paraphrased), “Good job, you answered your own question. Now run along.” Jesus didn’t actually pat him on the head, but I think it was implied. If this guy was smart, he would have stopped there, which, of course, he didn’t do.

But wanting to justify himself,

Translation: “But wanting to ‘save face’ in front of everyone, and still not giving up on the idea that he might be able to ‘win’ this debate…”

(You’ve met people like this, right? Every time you answer one question they’re ready with another, and you get the sense that they’re less interested in your answer and more interested in trying to trip you up.)

he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

Jesus replies with a story which ends with “You know who gets eternal life? Not the religious people who have the law memorized (AHEM NUDGE NUDGE WINK WINK), but the people who get their hands dirty helping others.”

If you’re a Biblical scholar who has been trying to prove that you know the law better than this new Jesus guy, that’s your cue to sit down and shut up.

Jesus loved paradox.

The purity laws of the “holiness code”[5] defined a “good person” largely by what they did not do. Their understanding of “holy” was intimately connected with the idea of being consecrated which literally means “set apart”. So according to the law and tradition, the priest and the Levite were good, religious people and the Samaritan was a bad, unclean person.

It’s no wonder the good, religious folks were confused by Jesus. Their whole idea of what it meant to be good, holy, “godly” was to be clean and set apart. Then, along came Jesus: born in a stable (unclean!), conceived out of wedlock (bastard!), from a little backwater town (“Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”) If there was such a thing as a redneck hick in the 1st century, Jesus was it.

The “unclean” part of your body is NOT your colon.

Here’s one of my favorite passages that deals with Jesus talking about the law. It’s a little long, but I think it’s worth reading. From Mark 7:1–23 (NRSV):

Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, [2] they 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; [4] and 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. ) [5] So 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?”

If I was a Pharisee in the time of Jesus I’m quite sure I would have thought “OH COME ON! This guy can’t even get the basics right!”

But here’s where Jesus turns on them:

[6] He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; [7] in vain do they worship me, [6] He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; [7] in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’ [8] You 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! [10] For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ [11] But 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)— [12] then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, [13] thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.”

On many occasions, Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees were good at keeping some parts of the law, especially those parts which would be noticed.

Here he is calling attention to those who may have been great financial supporters of the Temple, but who had done so by taking money that would have been spent on caring for their parents and instead making a big contribution to the Temple. (Don’t forget that “honoring your mother and father” is one of the 10 Commandments.)

And maybe, just maybe, some “good, religious people” might avoid helping a guy bleeding to death on the side of the road by saying “Oh, well, you know, I’d like to help, but I can’t… gotta keep ritually clean and all.” But meanwhile they’re thinking “I’m not going anywhere near that guy. Glad I have a good excuse.”

[14] Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand: [15] there 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. [18] He said to them, “Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, [19] since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

Or as Jesus would say in my translation: “Hey ya ijits, stuff that goes in one end and comes out the other doesn’t make you unclean…” (Which I imagine would be news to people who lived in the days before toilet paper. But I digress.)

[20] And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles. [21] For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, [22] adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. [23] All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

BURN.

What makes you “unclean” is the fact that you have all of this evil in your heart that won’t go away no matter how many times you wash your hands.[6]

Are the “religious” people “evil”?

Although Jesus never actually came right out and said it, I think the implication is clear. If Jesus just wanted to say “Hey, help people who are in need” he didn’t have to mention the priest and the Levite or specify that the person who helped was a Samaritan. Including those details was a deliberate choice on Jesus’ part.

Yet there’s one more thing I want to point out: Jesus stopped short of explicitly condemning the lawyer. At the end of the conversation, Jesus said to him, “Go and do this from now on.” It’s not enough just to know the law. It’s not enough just to keep to yourself, unaffected by the world around you. “Keeping your hands clean” is not what’s important to God.

TL;DR: God wants you to help those in need, not make pious-sounding excuses.

Footnotes

brniidgrl asked: so, I've been watching The Bible on the History channel and I'm a bit confused. it seems as if Thou shalt not kill should have instead been Though shalt not kill.. unless God tells ya to. why is that?

We talked about this a bit in Episode 5: “The Purpose of Evil”.

The first problem we run into is that the word “kill” in “thou shalt not kill” can also be translated as “murder”. What’s the difference? Intentionality. Murder is planned, killing someone might be accidental (what we might call “manslaughter” today). Unfortunately, even going back into the original Hebrew doesn’t help us, because the same word (רצח) gets used to mean “murder” or “kill” depending on context.

One of my commentaries explains it this way:

“You shall not kill” (Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17) actually prohibits only antisocial killing, done in vulgar self-interest. It forbids killing that poses a threat to the existence of the community, not that necessary to maintain the community. Capital punishment of criminals and the killing of enemies in warfare are not only allowed, but commended elsewhere in the Torah.[1]

In that sense, thou shall not murder is probably a better translation than thou shall not kill and we generally don’t consider deaths in war as murder.

In the podcast episode I also mention the “Just War” Theory (where the word “just” is being used in the sense of “righteous”) that has been part of Christian theology since the time of Augustine. However, I feel compelled to point out that the “Just War” theory does not come from the life and teachings of Jesus, but from later church tradition.

When they came to arrest Jesus, not only did he refuse to fight (even in self-defense) but He actually healed one of His attackers who was injured by one of His followers:

[49] When those who were around him saw what was coming, they asked, “Lord, should we strike with the sword?” [50] Then one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. [51] But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him. — Luke 22:49–51 (NRSV)

But this is one of those times when even people who want to try to claim that America is a Christian Nation won’t even try to pretend that we follow the teachings of Jesus. Instead they’ll generally say something about how we have the right to defend ourselves, etc.

I’m not saying that I want to disband the military, and I’ll be the first in line to thank those who have served in the Armed Forces. But I do wish we’d stop trying to put some sort of “Christian Seal Of Approval” on violence and war since Jesus repeatedly renounced violence, even when it came to retribution.

For all of the literalism that often seems to be demonstrated by fundagelicals, here are two examples passages which they never seem to talk about:[2]

Matthew 5:21–22 (NRSV)

[21] “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ [22] But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.

Matthew 5:38–45 (NRSV)

[38] “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ [39] But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; [40] and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; [41] and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. [42] Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. [43] “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ [44] But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, [45] so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.