Was Jesus An Animal Lover? Studies in Mark, Pt. 61

To read Mark’s Gospel is, in some ways, to meet an interesting cast of creaturely characters. In chapter one there is mention of camels, locusts, wild beasts, snakes and fish (which are mentioned at a few other points in the narrative). In chapter four birds are focused on. In chapter five, the reader encounters pigs and one chapter later there is mention of sheep. The seventh chapter claims mention of a dog, the ninth a worm, the eleventh both a colt and a dove and the thirteenth a rooster. In chapter 14, a lamb is spoken of and once again a rooster. In chapter 16, we find the last mention of an animal, which is a snake.

Perhaps PETA could try to make some kind of case from all of this that Jesus was an animal lover (although he did send some pigs over the cliff—but then again, some pigs can swim!). Anyway, this has all led me to ponder a bit more deeply, Jesus’ statement to the Syro-Phoenician woman in 7.27 who interrupted Jesus (probably while eating) and begged Him to drive a demon out of her child. There, Jesus remarks: “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” She replies, “Lord, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

Now, I must admit, the portrayal of the dog in this episode seems quite negative; it is under the table, it only gets fed scraps, it is below even the children, etc. The interesting thing to me, however, is that the dog is in the house and under the table in the first place. Is it possible, then, that this is something positive rather than negative?

Every scholar I’ve read is in consensus on this passage: Jesus’ negative portrayal of the dog, a lower-class being, is representative of the Gentiles who, in Jewish thought, were lower-class beings as well. But is there reason to pause and look again? I think so. In the end, Jesus fulfills the woman’s request and even more, in a most miraculous way—from a distance (how far, we do not know). Further, given the very fact that Jesus let His meal be interrupted for this woman seems to suggest that He Himself considered her to be just as human as anyone else (see also Mk. 2 where Jesus eats with Levi and the “sinners”—probably Gentiles).

It could be that Jesus is just testing the woman to see if she will stick up for herself. Or, it could be that He is engaging her in a sort of joking manner (e.g. “You dog you, you’re interrupting my meal”…“I know it but you’re letting that dog eat with you…so, I don’t want to hear it Mr.”). I think tone-of-voice could influence one’s interpretation here. But I also think that owning up to the fact that in antiquity, as G. Miller has pointed out, dogs were not really seen as the parasites they have typically been made out to be.

In the ancient world, there are pottery chards that have children playing with dogs, riding dogs and dogs pulling carts. There were also guard dogs. In the Phoenician city of Ashkelon, a massive canine burial site has been uncovered (it is believed to contain over 1,000 dogs). Some dogs were even used in healing rituals (recall the passage in the NT about licking sores!); they are not mentioned in the laundry list of unclean animals in Dt. 14 either!. If such things do not show an affinity for dogs, I’m not sure what does! Of course, there are some OT passages that speak badly of dogs (I’m thinking Jezebel’s death here and/or the psalmists characterization of evildoers as dogs). Job, on the other hand, seemed to like dogs for their sheep-herding abilities (something I repeatedly saw firsthand as I traveled all over the Mediterranean last year).

The image of Jesus rounding up the “sheep without a shepherd” in Mk. 8 might even portray Jesus Himself as a dog (although, if we’re looking for a metaphor there, it is probably more correct to think of a commander). Taking into consideration that dogs weren’t seen as scoundrels and parasites throughout the Mediterranean, I propose that when we read Mk. 7, we read the “dog” analogy as a positive one. I think that it is possible that the Syro-Phoenician woman was one who remained a follower of Jesus throughout the rest of His ministry (see: Mk. 15.41).

As I pointed out, it is worth noting that the dog is 1) in the house, 2) under the table, 3) getting scraps and 4) in close proximity to Jesus and others during mealtime. I don’t know that we should read everything in the dialogue as metaphorical here (e.g. the reference to “food” as a reference to “the Gospel” or the mention of “dogs” as representative of the Gentiles and the same with the “children” and “Israel”). Perhaps scholars have reached too far here.

I wonder if, when the woman came up to the door, the dog got up to come see who was there and that’s how she saw it? Or, what if Jesus was looking at the dog that, during the conversation, had recovered a scrap? Or, what if one of the kids threw it a scrap and Jesus saw it? Did He try to use that to make a point? Was He teasing or being funny? Maybe Jesus thought it rude to leave the place where He had been invited to eat, before everyone finished. So, He implores the woman, “Let’s let the children eat all they want and then I’ll come.” Just then, He sees the child throw a scrap down. He looks at the lady again, her having seen it too, and says: “That’s not right what that child just did; he’s wasting food that his parents worked hard for.” The lady responds, “And while they’re wasting food feeding the dogs, I’m wasting time waiting on them because my child is sick. So, could you please come now; they’re not going to eat anyway.” And in the end, Jesus takes her point well and heals the child from a distance.

Was Jesus an animal lover? I have no idea. He doesn’t seem adverse to animals though. In the Markan story I focused on above, it appears to me that dogs aren’t viewed negative (although many people read the story that way!). It appears that Jesus sees children feeding the dog, concedes to the woman’s point and then fulfils her request. Thus, she could return home to “find her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone” (7.30).

The Mes-Sigh-ah : Studies in Mark, Pt. 26

In back-to-back stories in Mark’s Gospel, it is recorded that Jesus “sighs deeply” (from στεναζω). Mark 7.34 reads: “…and Jesus looked up to heaven, sighed deeply and said…” Mark 8.11-12 says: “And the Pharisees came forth and began to question Him, seeking a sign from heaven from Him, trying Him and He sighed deeply in His spirit and said…” When studying these two passages, I could not help but notice the similarities between them. Both are prefaced with a remark about heaven, both include Jesus sighing deeply and both have Jesus saying something immediately after the deep sigh. For my part, I do not think this is mere coincidence, not least because these two stories are side-by-side. So, what is the point?

Actually, I think that in locating these stories in such close proximity and by telling them in such similar ways, Mark was trying to be humorous. I’m not sure that many people would agree with this and it may seem rather simplistic but it does make sense. Besides, can’t the Gospels be comical? The comedy or better yet, irony, I think lies in the fact that Mark was juxtaposing these two scenes. In one, Jesus looks to heaven, sighs deeply and speaks a healing word. In the other, the Pharisees want Jesus to look to heaven but He doesn’t, He sighs deeply and in speaks an exhortative word. In other words, what Mark has done here is set the reader up for a laugh.

It would be expected that, as in the first instance, once Jesus sighed (an ancient mannerism that was typical of healers or miracle-workers just before they did their thing; there are other accounts of other persons doing this), the crowd expected Him to do something miraculous. However, Jesus sighs and does nothing except offer a rebuke. In short, Jesus sets the people up for thinking that He’s going to do something amazing but He doesn’t. To be rather colloquial, it’s as if Jesus was just messing with these guys. They thought He was going to do something but He didn’t. Why He didn’t, well, that is an answer for another post on another day—perhaps some day quite soon.

Anyways, I couldn’t help but laugh once I realized what was going on here. Sadly, I know of no other commentator who makes such a suggestion—perhaps I’m just way off base—but either way, I had a good laugh with this. And I'm not too bothered if some of you think that I’m crazy and you are just sitting there, well, sighing!

A Limerick on the Lord's Day

(based on Mk. 7.24-30)

There once was a woman from Tyre

She had a daughter with demons inside her

She saw Christ and fell down

Then He called Her a hound

Good thing she wasn't a biter

“What Comes Out of You is What Defiles You” : Studies in Mark, Pt. 24

In Mk. 7.20, a scene where the religious leaders had just challenged Jesus on food regulations, Jesus teaches the crowds and His disciples that, “all foods are clean.” Now, the immediate context of this scene and of Jesus’ words has to do with food. However, there is a general, ancient principle underlying His statement: “What comes out of you is what defiles you” (7.21). Let me give an example.

Right after His statement in 7.21a, Jesus, in 7.21b-22 gives a laundry list of sins that originate from within. One of those sins that He mentions is “envy.” Actually, in the language of the New Testament that term is “οφθαλμος πονηρος,” which literally means “eye of evil” or “evil eye.” In the times of Jesus, the evil eye was a serious issue. One of the ways to bring disaster or misfortune on your enemies was to cast the evil eye on them. Now, to most Westerners, the evil eye sounds more like a superstition than anything. But lest we act like cultural imperialists or elitists, we should remember that to Jesus, in His culture, this was no small issue.

I should note that there are still cultures in the world today that believe strongly in the evil eye. Many Hispanic cultures adhere deeply to the evil eye principle. Because most Western Christians will never travel over to the Mediterranean, they are not likely to realize that even today, the evil eye is still a cultural phenomenon there. No matter where you go in Turkey, you will see the evil eye. In the pictures I have posted (below) from my trip to Turkey last January, you can see that our bus driver had one on his dashboard and that a restaurant owner placed one over the door frame of his store; they had done this for protection.

The blue and white medallion is thought to be a type of reflective charm. That is, if someone casts the evil eye on your (e.g. on your bus or on your business), the charm will act as a mirror and reflect the evil eye back on the one casting it. Thus, in the end, they have cursed themselves. One way to block or deflect the evil eye was to spit at the one casting the evil eye (hence the story where Jesus spits and heals the man’s eyes) or to strive to prevent persons from becoming envious of you. David Fiensy points out that, in the Talmud, there is a passage concerning the evil eye that says:

“If anyone is going up into a town and is afraid fo the evil eye, let him take the thumb of his right hand in his left hand and the thumb of his left hand in his right hand and say, “I, so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, am the offspring of Joseph and the evil eye has no power over us…If he is afraid of his own evil eye, he should look at the side of his left nostril” (Beracot 55b).

Again, we should not downplay this belief just because we do not practice it. Evidently, Jesus Himself understood it to be an issue of paramount importance; He did not want people to cast the evil eye on others—it was representative of wishing evil or disaster on someone.

So, what does this all have to do with Jesus’ statement that “What comes out of you is what defiles you”? Well, it actually has a lot to do with it. In the ancient world, there were four ideas about how the eye worked—none of them like our medical theories today. However, there was one prevailing theory, one that was the most common among those who lived in the ancient Mediterranean world. Plutarch, in one of his works, mentions this view: “Indeed, I said, you yourself are on the right track of the cause (of the effectiveness of the evil eye) when you come to the emanations of the bodies…and by far living things are more likely to give out such things because of their warmth and movement…and probably these (emanations) are especially given out through the eyes” [Moralia V.7,680). In the next verse of this work, Plutarch talks about how the emanations from a jaundiced eye can kill flowers and cause great harm.

Elsewhere, Plutarch records, “Man both experiences and produces many effects through his eyes; he is possessed and governed by either pleasure or displeasure exactly in proportion to what he sees” (Quaestionum convivialium 5.7). Aristotle wrote that “Sight is made from fire and hearing from air” (Problems 31, 960a), “Vision is fire” (Problems 31, 959b) and “in shame the eyes are chilled” (Problems 31, 957b). Scores of other evil eye citations could be given but that is unnecessary here. So, we can see that the common thought was that evil could emanate or come out of the eye. In other words, the evil came from within and went out through the eye. Thus, while Jesus is in the main speaking about food rules in Mk. 7.1-20, the underlying principle that He purports (“What goes out of you is what defiles you”) also applies to the moral topos that makes up Mk. 7.21-3.

One of the items in the topos, as we have seen, is the evil eye—a glance of envy that by its powerful emanations could bring disaster on those one held ill feelings towards. One of the points I wanted to make by writing this study was to show just how easy it is to read the Scriptures and to miss their ancient context. And when we miss the context, we ultimately misinterpret and from time-to-time lead others or ourselves astray. Context, then, is incredibly important. Another thing this reminds us of is that when we read the Scriptures, we cannot be cultural imperialists. We cannot act as though our culture because we have different understandings and beliefs, is better than the ancient Mediterranean culture was. No, we need to acknowledge the differences and take them for what they are. Sometimes we can accept ancient understandings but sometimes we must move past them so that we are not confined to ancient cultural norms. It is not an all or nothing approach to the Bible. We constantly need to be reminded that reading and interpreting the Bible is hard work and it must be done with sensitivity, open-mindedness and to the best of our abilities, accuracy.

Jesus the Priest: Studies in Mark, Pt. 21

When one reads Mark’s account of the Gospel, especially the first few chapters, they see Jesus going around from synagogue to synagogue teaching, preaching and doing supernatural things. In Mark’s account Jesus also causes a stir among the scribes and priests. He heals on the Sabbath (3.1-6) and He eats with unclean persons (sinners; 2.15ff). He also plucks grain on the Sabbath (2.23-8). And when He is plucking grain on the Sabbath, He tells a story about the time when David entered the Holy of Holies and ate bread. Of course, when David did this, it was not the norm; this bread was reserved only for priests. Jesus likens this story to He and His disciples picking grain. He says, “In the days of Abiathar the high priest David…entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions” (2.26).

I am not going to deal with the issues surrounding the accuracy of Abiathar’s priesthood, needless to say, I believe what Mark recounts here is correct. I may offer an explanation in another post. What I want to focus on here is the idea that by telling this story and making this statement, Jesus is associating Himself with the priesthood; He is referring to Himself as a priest. Why is this so overlooked though (I myself have overlooked this so many times while studying Mark’s account)? In this episode, Jesus who is talking with the Pharisaic priests considers Himself a priest. Of course, Jesus is not in the line of Levi (the priesthood) but of Judah, so, how can He do this? How could He be a priest?

Usually, when people want to talk about the priesthood of Jesus, they go to Hebrews. That is a good place to go and there is much to be offered there but I would suggest that Mark’s account also portrays Jesus, while at odds with the established priesthood, as a priest too. However, He is not like the Judaic priests in office; He is different. This raises a few questions: What was Jesus’ understanding of a priest (as Mark portrays it)? And, How is Jesus different?

It appears that Jesus’ understanding of a priest was someone who was of God. A few verses before this encounter with the priests, Jesus heals a leper and tells Him, “Go show yourself to the priests and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded…” (1.44). If we work backwards in this statement, we see that Jesus understands the priests to be affiliated with Moses. Of course, Moses received the commands from God and brought them to the people. From these two passages early on in Mark’s account, we see that central to Jesus’ understanding of a priest, then, is that a priest is someone who is from God, who brings the word (commands) of God to the people, who serves them the bread consecrated to God and lives a life of sacrifice for the community of God.

Now, when we get to chapter 7 of Mark’s account, we see these roles appear again. In the beginning of this chapter, Jesus has another run in with the religious leaders. On the surface, the whole issue looks like it has to do with cleanliness rituals. However, it has much more to do with who is truly a priest, than anything else. Really, the Pharisees have an almost legitimate reason to wonder about Jesus being a priest. Remember, they heard Him refer to Himself this way in 2.26 and now they see Him doing something that doesn’t quite line up with what their understanding of being a priest was: Jesus is eating with unclean hands.

Now, I need to make a clarifying note here. Mark 7.3 reads, “The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing…” It should be noted that as in many cases in Mark, the word “all” is not meant to be taken wooden literally. For example, in the opening verses of his account, Mark said that “all of” or “the whole Judean countryside and of Jerusalem” went out to the Jordan River. We should not think that every person left Jerusalem and made the long voyage to where Jesus was at; Mark is using a figure of speech here, which we use all of the time too. He does it again in 1.32 where “all” the sick and demon-possessed are brought to Him. This is Mark’s way of saying a lot. So, in 7.3 the reader should not take Mark’s phrase overly seriously. In fact, it was only required for priests to wash their hands before eating, not just any normal Jewish person (see: 30.18-21; 40.30-2). And that is an incredibly significant point! Did the leaders' challenge to Jesus on hand washing issues imply that they were interpreting Him, in some way, as acting or attempting to act in the role of a priest? Where could they have gotten such an idea but from 2.26? They were trying to catch Him breaking one of the priestly roles so that they could discredit His claim to being a priest.

Jesus doesn’t break the hand washing command of the priests because the command only calls for washing before entering the tent of meeting or before approaching the altar (see: Ex. 30 & 40). What the religious leaders had done was add to that law; they tacked on their own extra rules and stipulations. This is what Jesus has a problem with! In fact, He gives a prime example of this when He talks about Korban. Jesus then goes on to tell how they created Korban, a rule that allowed them to place their money in a treasury so that they did not have to use it to take care of their parents. They called it Korban, which meant “funds devoted to God” to make it seem like a holy action. However, Jesus sees right through that act and deems it unholy. He points out that the priests developed Korban under the guise of something holy, in order that they could do something unholy—break the 5th commandment. This is what Jesus explicitly means when He says they nullify the word of God; they nullify it by adding to it so they don’t have to keep it.

Contrary to a surface reading that might make Jesus seem anti-Law, Jesus actually affirms and keeps the Law here. In fact, He blasts the priests because they don’t. What is proven is that Jesus is the one who has fulfilled the role of priest, the only one. There are other allusions to this in Mark. For instance, Jesus bringing the word to the people! Mk. 1.14-5 makes this clear. Jesus also serves the bread that is consecrated to God (in fact, He serves bread many times!). Jesus also is a person from God, as Mark makes clear in the opening verses and is attested all throughout the Gospel. Jesus is also a person who serves among the people (and serves the people). Even a cursory reading of Mark reveals this as Jesus is going all over the place meeting people’s needs. Lastly, Jesus is the one who makes the sacrifice of sacrifices: He gives Himself up to be slaughtered as an offering.

One last thing, it might be the case that all throughout Mk. the priesthood and the Herodians are shown as teaming up (esp. 3.6) because Mark wants to highlight that not only is Jesus, the King of kings but in line with the priestly Christology of Hebrews, He is also The Priest of priests; Jesus is what a real king or priest looks like. Sadly, to my knowledge, this has not been picked up on yet. In fact, many commentators on Hebrews make statements such as, “Neither Paul nor the Gospels portray Jesus as a priest.” It is time, though, that such remarks are corrected.