Most important to me, however, is his explanation of the parabolic ending that uses metaphors of in and out. The first thing that struck me from a Girardian viewpoint is that Jesus' metaphors of in and out do not coincide with that of mimetic desire, which essentially blurs the boundaries between inner and outer. Crucial are some of the verses omitted from the lection that speak about excrement, the digestive images making it clear that it is a matter having to do with food taboos. So, says Hamerton-Kelly, to make the metaphor work, one must restrict its negative reference to ritual having to do with food. Food goes into the belly and not the heart and therefore it cannot defile.
Bad intentions come from the heart and they defile.
The implication is that the Pharisees and scribes who challenge Jesus on these ritual matters are defiled by malice, while he and his disciples are undefiled because ritually impure food cannot defile. Reflections and Questions 1. What happens is the kind of discussion about sin that draws definite boundaries between inner and outer. These things from 'outside' are the source of sin. Others respond with the 'No, guns don't kill people, people do' sort of logic, placing the blame on our inner human nature.