Sinouhe wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 4:22 pm
But the Jesus of Mark grants little importance to the law. It is a Pauline gospel whose main interest, (in addition
to show that Jesus is the messiah), is to show that the new alliance is also intended for pagans.
But even Jewish Christian leaders intended Christianity for pagans. This is why they agreed that Paul should preach his gospel to them in Gal. 2:9.
It is almost universally recognized that Mark 7 begins with a dispute over rabbinical traditions but concludes more globally against dietary laws.
In this case I see the dispute as being over washing hands before eating, which is required by the oral Torah but not the written Torah, and Jesus is saying here that not washing your hands doesn't defile food. And given that these are Jews discussing this issue, I assume the food they are discussing is kosher. So the issue is whether or not eating kosher food with unwashed hands defiles it, as per the beginning of the chapter.
Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus, and they saw some of his disciples eating with hands that were defiled—that is, unwashed. Now in holding to the tradition of the elders, the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat until they wash their hands ceremonially.
As for the parenthetical remark in 7:19 ("Thus he declared all foods are clean"), I don't see that in the Greek.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/7-19.htm
Mark uses Genesis to contradict a mosaic law. Genesis does not legislate about divorce, Moses does. So Jesus goes against the law of Moses which authorizes divorce with a letter of repudiation. Invoking Genesis does not prevent it from contradicting a mosaic law.
Moses was regarded as having written Genesis, so in that respect all five books of the Torah were "Mosaic" law. But in any event, while Jesus sees it as
ideal for spouses to stay together, he does not actually forbid divorce in Mark either, only remarriage after divorce, as he explains in 10:10-12.
When they were back inside the house, the disciples asked Jesus about this matter. So he told them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
In this respect Paul is in line with Jesus, since he says in 1 Cor. 7:10-11:
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband.
And we still have the same thing with the ears of wheat. Invoking an episode from the Old Testament (besides he makes a mistake with the high priest) does not prevent Jesus' followers from breaking the Sabbath.
But this is only a debate about what constitutes working on the Sabbath and not about observing or not observing the Sabbath, with the Pharisees taking a stringent position and Jesus taking one that was less so (even if he bungles the OT citation). From Jesus' point of view he was not breaking the Sabbath.
It should also be noted that Jesus is pro-sacrifice in Mk. 1:40-44
Because the leper is a jew. Which is again very Pauline. Jews can practice law, Gentiles cannot. Jesus is found in pagan territory many times in Mark (the decapolis) but we never see him refer them to the law, which is obviously no coincidence.
But Paul preached that Torah observance was not necessary for Jews, e.g., Gal. 2:15-16 and 3:23-25.
We who are Jews by birth and not Gentile “sinners” know that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Before this faith came, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.