Sanctification in the Jesus Tradition 171 The same indifference towards the purity Torah underlies Jesus’ summons to his disciples to eat and drink what is provided (Luke 10,7- 8). Again, we will not have to assume that the disciples, wandering through Jewish territory, have ever been offered unclean animals as a meal. Here, too, we have to think primarily of food with second decree impurity. But it is striking that Jesus does not limit his statement to this effect, so that in principle it could be taken to include even unclean animals. In the same way Jesus’ words in Mark 7,15 imply that all foods are clean, thus rendering obsolete the Pentateuchal distinction, crucial to Israel’s holiness, between clean and unclean animals (cf. Lev 11,44-45; 20,25-26). We cannot overestimate the consequences of such a statement. Not only did it run counter to all strands of contemporary Judaism; its full implication declared permissible that which (for all we know) would have led to expulsion from Judaism(55). In abrogating the purity Torah, Jesus declared obsolete the division of the world into priests, Israel and the (unclean) nations, a division symbolized by those purity commands. The abolition of the latter, which had hitherto singled Israel out from the nations, effectively attributes to the Gentiles a share in Israel’s holiness (56). That Mark was aware of this implication is shown by the fact that immediately after this dispute he relates Jesus’ encounter with two Gentiles in Syrophoenicia and the Decapolis. c) Sabbath In looking at the stories about Jesus and the Sabbath, we need to keep in mind that the Sabbath command was the primary mark of Israel’s holiness, especially according to Ezekiel, Third Isaiah, and Jubilees. To treat it lightly would have meant to violate that holiness. Yet, Jesus heals a man’s hand on a Sabbath (Mark 3,1-6 parr.). For him, the restoration of a crippled woman and a man who had dropsy justifies the transgression of the Sabbath command (Luke 13,10-17; 14,1-6). As the ruler of the synagogue rightly states (13,14), there was (55) Cf. BRYAN, Jesus, 166: “For eating unclean prohibited food the conse- quence, though not specified in the priestly code, was presumably the same as for apostasy, namely, k˝rˇt (see e.g. Ant. 11.346-7)”. The verses preceding the commandments to abstain from unclean animals in the context of Israel’s sanctification (Lev 20,25-26), namely Lev 20,22-23, also seem to suggest this. The fact that the consumption of unclean animals was such an abominable thing in contemporary Judaism, explains why in spite of Jesus’ statement the early Christians found it so hard to follow it (cf. Acts 10,14). (56) Cf. WENHAM, “Christ’s Healing Ministry”, 119-122.