Jesus is quite explicit that his primary goal was to bring back into 'the fold' Jews who had become as "lost sheep". Thus he declares "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15.24). But, remarkably, on occasion, Jesus acts beyond the confines of Judaism. The attitude of the Roman centurion, before his servant is healed, draws from Jesus the comment "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel" (Matthew 8.10; Luke 7.9). And to the Syro-Phoenician woman from Canaan "Jesus answered " 'O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt'" (Matthew 15.28; compare Mark 7.29).

But it is in the matter of observance of the minutiae of Jewish ritual that the liberalism of Jesus's position is above all evident. Jesus's approach to ritual is characterized by an emphasis on 'inner meaning' rather than 'outward form'; thus the hypocrisy of putting on a show of piety for the sake of appearance, characteristic of the Pharisees, is deserving of particular disapproval (Matthew 23.1-33, Luke 11.37-54). Observance of ritual demanded thorough washing before meals. Jesus, manifestly, was lax in regard to this injunction (Matthew 15.1-20; Mark 7.1-23; Luke 11.38): inward cleanliness of mind and spirit was even more important than the mere observance of outward forms.

A similar ritual, for those of strict disposition, involved "the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables" (Mark 7.4). The Pharisees are singled out for particular criticism in this regard (Matthew 23.25-26). Again Jesus illustrates the danger of mere outward formality : "Jesus said, 'Why do you wash the outside of the cup? Do you not understand that he who made the inside is also he who made the outside?'" (Gospel of Thomas, Saying 89).

A third, analogous, question was that of ritual cleanliness in the Temple Court. An extract of an unidentified Gospel in Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 840, which I have previously suggested is from 'original' John, illustrates well Jesus's emphasis on 'spirit' rather than 'form':

"And Jesus took the disciples with him into the place of purification itself and walked about in the Temple court. And a Pharisaic chief priest fell in with them and said to the Saviour: 'Who gave thee leave to tread this place of purification and to look upon these holy utensils without having bathed thyself and even without thy disciples having washed their feet? On the contrary, being defiled, thou hast trodden the Temple court, this clean place, although no one who has not first bathed himself or changed his clothes may tread it and venture to view these holy utensils?' Forthwith the Saviour stood still with his disciples and answered: 'How stands it then with thee? Thou art forsooth also here in the Temple court. Art thou then clean?' He said to him: 'I am clean. For I have bathed myself in the pool of David and have gone down by one stair and come up by the other and have put on white and clean clothes, and only then have I come hither and have viewed these holy utensils'. Then said the Saviour to him: 'Woe unto you blind that see not! Thou hast bathed thyself in water that is poured out, in which dogs and swine lie night and day, and thou hast washed thyself and hast chafed thine outer skin, which prostitutes also and flute-girls anoint, bathe, chafe and rouge, in order to arouse desire in men, but within they are full of scorpions and of badness of every kind. But I and my disciples, of whom thou sayest that we have not immersed ourselves, have been immersed in the living water which comes down from heaven'".

With this passage we may compare Mark 11.27-28, which contain a bare outline of the same scene, without the specific detail relevant in this context.

Fourthly, the question of "keeping holy the Sabbath" was a constant source of disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees (see Matthew 12.1-14; Mark 2.23-3.6; Luke 6.1-11; and 13.10-17; John 5.2-16): "By the Jewish law given at Sinai the seventh day was to be a day of rest, in which no secular work was to be done, and which was to be kept holy to God. At a later period the simple Jewish law of early days was added to by the traditions of the elders, until the Sabbath rules became burdensome, and, in some cases, foolish. It was against this, and not against God's law of the sabbath, that Jesus set himself in his teaching and healing" (Cruden's Concordance). Jesus' plea for observance of the spiritual meaning of the Sabbath, rather than of the empty shell of the legalistic formalities, is evident in Saying 27 of the Gospel of Thomas: "If you do not make the Sabbath the true Sabbath, you will not see the Father". We may compare Luke 6.5, which survives in fuller, and no doubt original, form in the manuscript D: "When Jesus saw a man doing work on the Sabbath, he said to him: 'Man, if thou knowest what thou doest, blessed art thou! But if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law'"

Fifthly, we may consider Jewish ritual laws of fasting. Matthew tells us that Jesus is asked a question : "Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, 'Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?'" (9.14; compare Mark 2.18 and Luke 5.33). Jesus's answer (Matthew 9.15-17, Mark 2.19-22, Luke 5.34-39) gives three illustrations, all tending to establish the position that we should study fitness and propriety in everything; for his doctrine cannot be vested in the form of the Jewish ceremonial. Again we find in the Gospel of Thomas an emphasis on the idea that the only real value of a practice, such as fasting, lies in its spiritual dimension and application : " If you do not fast from the world, you will not find the Kingdom (Saying 27). Jean Doresse has noted that, in the Gospel of Thomas, pious practices seem to be rejected as almost useless and as inferior to the internal dispositions of the soul". That is a good summing-up of Jesus's liberal religious attitude.

Sixthly, there is the question of forbidden foods. For the pious Jew, the list of such things, enumerated in Leviticus 11, was extensive and, in certain circumstances, burdensome. Jesus (in the Gospel of Thomas, Saying 14) Proposes a remarkable modification which, for those travelling, and thus away from their own domestic arrangements, seems to legitimise the eating of anything set in front of them: "If you go into any land and walk about in the regions, if they receive you, eat what is set before you. For what goes into your mouth will not defile you: but what comes out of your mouth, that is what will defile you".

A seventh element of ritual practice is the paying of tithes. Thus the Pharisees "pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin" (Matthew 23.23; compare Luke 11.42): they were scrupulously exact in paying tithes, even of such insignificant herbs as those here specified. But at the same time they "have omitted the weightier matters of .... mercy and faith" (Matthew 23.23; compare Luke 11.42): inner spiritual attitudes must take precedence over factual niceties of ritual.

An eighth question revolves around Mary Magdalene. I have argued elsewhere that various factors point to the likelihood that Mary was one of the original members of the Twelve. The appointment of a woman to a position of this kind represented extreme liberalism by the normal standards of contemporary Judaism, and the more traditional Peter and Andrew were consistently and resolutely opposed to the idea (Gospel of Mary Magdalene, fragments; Gospel of Thomas, Saying 114).

The implementation of such a spiritual and liberal view of law and ritual and practice as Jesus proposes in his teaching was always likely, within Judaism, to be a problematical matter. During Jesus's life and ministry, it was his overwhelming spiritual charisma that made real his vision as a practical possibility. It was inevitable that, his public ministry over, many of his followers, both individually as disciples and collectively within the Jerusalem Community, should have reverted to a more pronounced formality. Jesus himself had suspected the likelihood of something along these lines, according a to a saying which survives in the Actus Vercellenses: "Those who are with me have not understood me". (A.V.10). Not without reason Professor J. R. Lumby has observed that the Epistle of James "was written to Christians who had been converts from Judaism, but to whom their ancient faith was still of the very highest importance, indeed, of somewhat more importance than it ought to have been. The language of this epistle partakes".largely of the character of the preaching of John the Baptist". This last point deserves particular note in view of the earlier connection between John the Baptist and Andrew at least, who was initially his disciple (John 1.40).

The real dangers of too rapid and eager move towards Jesus's liberal position are amply illustrated by the case of Stephen. Although the accusation against Stephen, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God" For we have heard him say that this Jesus..... shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us" (Acts 6.11, 14), is a travesty of Stephen's actual position, outlined by him in Acts 7, we can plainly perceive in the accusation the basis of traditional Jewish reservations and distaste. Stephen's alleged "blasphemy against Moses", namely that "Jesus shall change the customs which Moses gave", picks up a discernible preoccupation on Jesus's part with the nature and applicability of the Mosaic law (see, in the synoptic Gospels alone, Matthew 19.7-8/Mark10.3, Matthew 23.2, Mark 12.26/Luke 20.37, Luke 16.29,31, Luke 24.27); Stephen's 'fault' therefore, is to be wholeheartedly imbued with Jesus's teaching and message.

The real heir of Jesus's liberal outlook - with the single and important exception of Thomas - was Paul. Paul's liberalism was of the same kind as that of Jesus, a willingness to break with tradition and form if the dictates of spirit demanded this.

Dr. Martin Pulbrook
27th January 2008