What Defiles A Person

Mark 7 : 14 - 23

The message of this passage is self-explanatory. The Jews in Jesus’ time, of course, agreed that eating forbidden food could defile a person and that afterward a certain ritual cleansing was needed, as ordained according to the law. But here Jesus wanted to emphasize inner impurity rather than external or bodily impurity. It is this inner impurity that defiles a person. Christianity always emphasizes what is in the heart. Yet there is always a temptation for us to develop a religion from below, one that celebrates bodily gestures, rituals, external formalities, and the like. We may ask ourselves why these outward rituals are so attractive, even though they are complex and difficult to observe.

I think the answer is quite simple: such rituals are attractive because we cannot change our own heart. In the Reformed tradition, we often use the popular term total depravity, though the more historical and theologically precise expression may be total inability. We are totally unable to change ourselves, to change our own heart. Because of this inability, we need these kinds of external formalities to compensate for it. We may be full of pride, but we give tithes to the church. We may be greedy, but we have other moral qualities. There is always this compensating spirit within us. And at the very heart of this failure is, once again, our inability to change our heart.

We can speak at length about the human heart, which the Bible says is deceitful. We may have very sharp logic and we can come up with many reasons to justify ourselves. But the heart is deceitful. This is why, when Jesus came, he addressed the root problem of humanity, namely the problem of the heart, and not merely the problem of lack of information, political correctness, and so on. The real uncleanness, the real defilement, is a matter of the intention of our heart. It is not about external rituals or formalities. If we grow, then we should also grow in true self-knowledge and honest self-assessment, rather than remain in self-deception. This is not possible without the grace of God, for otherwise we will either fall into self-condemnation or continue deceiving ourselves, pretending to be better than we really are.

From verse 17 onward, there is a shift. This is typical of the Gospels, including the Gospel of Mark. We read that Jesus entered the house and left the crowd behind. This is not merely a change of physical location. It also carries spiritual meaning. A distinction is being drawn between the crowd and his disciples. In the church, crowds may gather for many different motivations. We see this especially on Easter Sunday or Christmas, when churches are often full. But the real question is whether those same people return to worship God on the following Sundays. I come from Asia, from Indonesia, and there too hundreds or even thousands of people may attend services like this. Yet the question remains, do the crowds have the intention to be discipled? Do they desire to follow Jesus?

Here in Europe, we often see a conflation of religion and culture. Religion certainly has cultural aspects and cultural influence. But to reduce Christianity to mere culture is disastrous. One may go to church because of its beautiful historical interior or architectural character. Even our own church building attracts many tourists. It was designed by an important architect, and indeed the whole Hansaviertel represents a revival of modern architecture, as a kind of West Berlin answer to the development along Frankfurter Allee in East Berlin. There can be a museal attraction in going to church. The same goes for the music, where in Germany we have to undergo serious training to be a church organist. Yet to reduce Christianity to a cultural phenomenon is to misunderstand its very heart, for it is entirely possible to take part in Christian culture without any transformation of the heart.

Jesus draws a distinction between the crowds and his disciples. The crowds come with mixed motives and, perhaps, many competing agendas. But Jesus explains the parable to his own disciples. He entered the house, and this carries symbolic meaning. We must be careful not to apply this kind of allegorical reading to every part of the Bible. That would be irresponsible, especially from the perspective of Reformed hermeneutics. But in certain passages, we may interpret in this way, because we believe that this is also the intention of the Gospel writers. What Jesus wants to show is that the parable is not to be understood from the perspective of outsiders, but from within, by entering into the story itself.

Many people try to understand Christianity from the standpoint of outsiders, and they certainly fail. There is a great difference between knowing the truth and knowing evil. If we want to know the truth, we have to enter into it. We have to be believers, because an outside perspective will not help at all. We cannot understand the truth from a standpoint of neutrality. That is a myth. On the contrary, when it comes to knowing evil, we must remain outside of it. Once we enter into it, we will be overtaken, overwhelmed by the power of evil, by the power of darkness, as we read in the story of the fall. Who understands evil better, the sinless God or we? This was the temptation of the old serpent when he invited Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. By eating it, they were overwhelmed by the power of darkness. This same temptation still works today. We are told that we cannot judge something if we have never tried it, and so we should try it at least once. But once we try it, we do not have the ability to come out again or to overcome the temptation into which we have entered.

Hence, according to Jesus, we cannot understand the parable without entering into it, without believing him. Sadly, even the disciples did not understand his teaching. He was quite indignant here, saying, “Then are you also without understanding?” He then went on to explain its meaning to them. The parable, of course, points to the life of Jesus, and he wants to teach the substance of Christianity. It is not merely a simple illustration, nor is it given only to make things easier to understand. There is a hiddenness here, a mystery of the kingdom that is not to be given to dogs. This reminds us of the dignity of the word of God and of the gospel. As one commentary puts it, the disciples in this moment are like a dog looking at its master’s pointing finger instead of looking at what the finger is pointing to. It is a sad image.

Is this not also our danger, that we hear a sermon or look at a church, yet fail to see further and deeper, fail to see God and to see Jesus? Instead, we look at the church building, at Christian culture, or at the imperfect and sinful people within the church. We need God. We need Jesus, and this is true in the deepest sense. If our heart is not satisfied in God, in Jesus himself, then it will place unrealistically high expectations on others. And this leads only to disappointment, because the expectations we have can be fulfilled only by God himself, not by our spouse, our children, or even the government. Who can love us as deeply as God does? Certainly no one. If we do not have a deep relationship with God, we will expect people or other things to provide the satisfaction that God alone can give.

Brother Rowanto shared earlier about the reports that there were more people coming to church last Easter. I agree with him that we do not know and we should not judge, but we should keep praying for a spiritual awakening in Europe. But again, many people are simply like a dog looking at its master’s pointing finger. Sadly, this is a very accurate depiction of many. If we do not see God, if we do not have a deep relationship with Jesus, then we will look only at Christianity from the outside, and at imperfect Christians who may disappoint us. We do not see further and deeper. We look only at the master’s pointing finger.

The issue of clean and unclean food was not new in early Christianity. It seems to have been a major issue, since it is addressed not only by Mark but also by Paul in his letters. Many who converted to Christianity came from a pagan background, and pagans, of course, could eat all kinds of food. The question, then, was whether they should also adopt the Jewish dietary regulations. In this context, Jesus’ teaching is especially important. It was a liberating teaching for former pagans who had become Christians. Jesus did not want to burden them with these rituals. Though these ordinances, of course, were given in the Old Testament, they always pointed forward to Jesus and carried spiritual meaning.

As we discussed two weeks ago, there is an opposition between human tradition, the tradition of the elders, and the teaching of Jesus. The difference is substantial, and the same contrast appears here as well. In Jesus’ time there was a group known as the Essenes. For them, purity was determined mainly by allegiance and loyalty to the community. Does that sound familiar? You show loyalty to a certain Christian group and are therefore regarded as pure, but the moment you speak with those outside the circle, your purity is called into question. That is closer to the Essene concept of purity than to the teaching of Jesus. We must therefore be careful about such a concept of purity. On the other hand, there were also the Pharisees, and for them purity largely consisted in observing rules and prohibitions, in the do’s and the don’ts. Jesus, however, is concerned more with the intention of the human heart, not with physical or external observances, nor with allegiance to a certain religious community.

We can reflect on the list of vices mentioned here. It is important because it exposes the real difficulty within the human heart. Once again, it is very easy to replace this list of human wickedness with a list of clean and unclean foods. That is basically what the Pharisees did, reducing everything to what may or may not be eaten, and to what may or may not be done on the Sabbath. Jesus, however, is more interested in pointing out evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

Take evil thoughts, for instance. What are evil thoughts? We live in a fallen world, and such thoughts may therefore seem quite normal for us. We often operate with what may be called a hermeneutic of suspicion. It seems safer to be suspicious first than to trust and then be deceived or betrayed. It is not in our nature to exercise a hermeneutic of trust. Many people live with a kind of paranoia at different levels. They struggle to trust other people, the church, religion, and so on. A person may still believe in some idea of God, but not in institutionalized religion.

Why is it so difficult to live with a hermeneutic of trust? Because trust makes us vulnerable. We ask, what if I am hurt, betrayed, or left with pain and disappointment because I trusted someone? Out of that fear, we often prefer to live an introverted life, not trusting anyone. We create our own world and isolate ourselves from others. Yet Jesus exercised a hermeneutic of trust, not because we are trustworthy, but because he loves us. True love carries with it a certain willingness to trust. This trust does not arise because the other person is worthy of it, but rather this is a sacrificial trust. In this sense, the very opposite of a hermeneutic of trust is the development of evil thoughts.

Then we have sexual immorality, and with it adultery, coveting, and sensuality. Sensuality comes from the senses. What, then, is wrong with the senses? After all, God created us with them. The problem is not the senses themselves, but sensuality, or sensualism, as a way of life in which a person believes that his highest happiness is found in sensory experience. Everything becomes a feast for the senses, whether through eating, listening, or seeing. I once lived in Jakarta, where there is not that much entertainment, so one of the main forms of entertainment is culinary experience. Here in Europe, one may feast the eyes in museums and the ears in concert halls. The horizon may be broader but we still assume that what can satisfy the heart is sensory experience.

This is precisely the problem. Sensuality cannot give full satisfaction. It is found in God alone. If we do not have a deep relationship with God, we will easily fall into this temptation. To be human is to enjoy. We cannot live without enjoyment. The real question, then, is what, or whom, we enjoy. If we fail to enjoy God, if we fail to delight in the life of Jesus, we will easily be drawn into the sin of sensuality.

And this is why Jesus directs his teaching to the intention of the heart rather than merely to external behavior or culture. If we are to grow, we must learn to detect carefully, even critically, the sins of the heart. Yet the beauty of the gospel is that God is able to forgive us. There is new life through the power of Jesus’ resurrection. As we reflected last Sunday, Paul says that if Christ has not been raised, we are still in our sins. There would be no hope at all. If Christ had not been raised, and if there were no life after death, then absurdism would indeed be right, just as Ecclesiastes says, long before Camus and other great philosophers spoke about this, everything is vanity.

Blessed are we, then, if we live in the power of the resurrection. For then we are able to have a true and honest self-assessment, a true knowledge of ourselves, including the evil intentions of the heart. But it does not end there. Jesus gives this list of vices, but we may also think of its counterpart, the corresponding Christian virtues. And these are available only in Jesus. (T.F.L.)