168 Hanna Stettler The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector also illustrates that what matters before God is not ritual purity but a right heart (Luke 18,9-14). It is striking that in all these instances, even though Jesus does not speak out against the purity Torah directly, he does draw a contrast between ritual and ethical holiness. He emphasizes ethical purity, while at the same time denying ritual purity any significance of its own. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus blesses those who are “pure in heart”; to them he promises that “they shall see God”, i.e. the very essence of what people would have expected from the Temple cult (Matt 5,8; cf. Ps 42,3). The one instance where Jesus does speak out against the purity Torah is his statement reported in Mark 7,15 (par. Matt 15,11), that nothing that comes from outside can defile a person or diminish a person’s holiness. What does compromise one’s purity and holiness is the evil within a person (cf. the ethical description of evil in Mark 7,21-22 par. Matt 15,19). This saying of Jesus is generally considered to be authentic (41). A number of scholars have interpreted it to mean that Jesus only attaches different importance to the respective commandments. This would amount to a devaluation of ritual purity over against ethical purity (42). However, if it were interpreted in this —————— (F.F. BRUCE, “Render to Caesar”, Jesus and the Politics of His Day [ed. E. BAMMEL – C.F.D. MOULE] [Cambridge 1984] 254f). Cf. M. HENGEL, Die Zeloten (Leiden – Köln 1961) 134–136, 144: According to the radical interpretation of the first commandment by Judas Galilaeus — who had numerous supporters amongst the people — the person who paid taxes to Caesar ceased to be a true Israelite; he was to be looked upon as a Gentile and a tax collector. What is at stake, therefore, is not only Jesus’ popularity with the people, but his religious integrity in the eyes of the Zealots and their supporters. The passage shows that Jesus’ concept of holiness differed greatly from that of the Zealots. He follows the line of the prophets, who taught to interpret suppression by their enemies as a judgement of God on the sins of his people, and who therefore obliged the people to pay taxes (Ezek 21,25-32; Jer 27,4-22; cf. BRUCE, “Render to Caesar”, 255-256). (41) Some scholars, like H. RÄISÄNEN, “Jesus and the Food Laws”, JSNT 16 (1982) 79-100, deny its authenticity. See, however, N.T. WRIGHT, Jesus and the Victory of God (London 1996) 397: “Double dissimilarity (the proposal is scandalous for Jews, the secrecy unnecessary for the early church) is balanced by double similarity (the dispute presupposes the Jewish context; the new outlook was eventually and gradually worked out in the early church, with Mark 7.19b as one important step in that process). It must be regarded as highly likely that Jesus said, cryptically, something much like this”. (42) Cf. e. g. DUNN, Jesus and Holiness, 188, who considers the version in Matthew 15 “closer to what Jesus actually said... If this is the case then we cannot