Jesus and Sinners.

...

and sin

Do not forget that the concept of legal impurity in Judaism is clearly distinct from the concept of sin. Impurity is a legal situation that prevents participation in worship, but not necessarily a moral fault. One becomes impure in a series of actions or situations that may be beyond their control, such as wet dreams, skin diseases, menstrual flow, delivery or rubbing with a corpse. Moreover, in some cases there is an obligation to perform any of these actions even though as a result, one goes to be ritually unclean. This applies, for example, to the courtesy of burying the dead; not only is it not a prohibited action, but can be an obligatory action .The ritual impurity one may have incurred in does not exclude him from the alliance or of divine favor. The only thing he is excluded from is participating in temple worship, unless they have previously gone through the rite of purification corresponding to the nature of the impurity contracted.

In any case, ritual impurity was not itself a sin. The majority of people lived in a habitual state of ritual impurity. When you consider the contamination by contact with dead bodies, it can only be purified by sprinkling the ashes of a cow in the temple of Jerusalem. Until their next visit to Jerusalem, these people remained impure. Women, meanwhile, remain impure forty days after childbirth. As for other impurities, most disappear at sunset. Only a few cases of ritual impurity could be considered sinful such as sexual contact with a woman during her period. It is an action that requires a sacrifice and not a mere purification ritual (Nidah 2:2).This is also the case with food, specifically ones prohibited by law; for instance, the eating of animal blood. It is also considered a sin that a person in a state of ritual impurity, come near the temple or eat food sacrificed on the altar.

It is inevitable to avoid ritual impurity during ordinary life, and that does not constitute one as a sinner, but rather neglect or habitual disregard of standards of purity which led to a misunderstanding of the situation. As Sanders says, "Not being observant is precisely what makes one ’evil’ ; but evil does not come from impurity as such, but about the attitude that negates the need to implement the biblical commandments"

Summarizing the notions that we have handled so far, the sinners in question were simply the “amme ha-’arets” whom the Pharisees despised. Sanders strictly refuses to accept this interpretation. In reality Jesus’ conduct, even though it defies the transgression of the Pharisaic purity code, was not in opposition to the Torah, because it was not "wicked" in the theological sense of the word.

As we have seen, the common people were not irreligious. The institution of Judaism did not consider them unjust. They were not excluded from participation in the Temple, provided they passed the purification rites. Shaye J.D. Cohen, the Littauer Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations of Harvard University, says, “The laws most often at the heart of these sectarian disputes were the laws of the temple cult and related matters. With the disappearance of the temple, the focal point of sectarianism also disappeared” The total rejection of these unlearned does not occur in the institutional Judaism, but only in sectarian Judaism of marginalized groups such as Qumran.

Conclusion

The Gospel has preserved the memory of Jesus’ attitude toward sinners who caused a scandal at that time, and who continue to cause scandals in ours, but the gospel is also faced with new existential contexts in our communities which requires the adjustment of the Gospel in relation to the situation at hand. We will have to evaluate each new circumstance that comes in our ministry, to see how the memory of Jesus can guide our discernment; even if in some cases it may shock the most timid. But this memory should not promote tolerance or indulgence which would disfigure the boundaries between good and evil, and in the end cease the existence of moral evaluation of our actions.

Bibliography

Blomberg, C. L. “Jesus, sinners, and table fellowship”. Bulletin For Biblical Research, 2009

Cohen, Shaye J.D. The Significance of Yavneh and Other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 2010

Meier, J.P. A Marginal Jew, vol. III, 2009

Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism, Trotta, Madrid 2004

Sanders, E. P. “Jesus and the sinners” Journal For The Study Of The New Testament,