Ep. 45: Traditions of the Elders

CLICK HERE for the corresponding devotional in Yeshua Adored

MATTHEW 15:1-20, MARK 7:1-23

Let’s recap. Jesus and his disciples left Capernaum for Bethsaida on a Thursday and the miraculous feeding of the multitude took place that evening, followed by the passage of the disciples to the other side of the lake and him walking on the waters, in the night of Thursday to Friday.

This was followed by a search for him in Capernaum on the Friday. Finally, we have the final teachings of Jesus on the Saturday in Capernaum and in the synagogue. Early that Friday morning the boat carrying Jesus and his disciples arrived at the sandy beach of the plain of Gennesaret. As news spread of his arrival and of the miracles which had so lately been witnessed, the people from the neighbouring villages and towns flocked around him and brought their sick for the healing touch. This took up most of the morning. Then came the Pharisees and Scribes ‘who had come from Jerusalem’ with the purpose to watch, and, if possible, to plot his downfall.

As we understand it, they met Jesus and his disciples on their way to Capernaum. This is when they turned on him. This was followed by an open discussion with them. Finally, there would have been his concluding explanation, after they had entered the house at Capernaum. So, what was all the fuss about?

The opening remarks by the Scribes may have been provoked by seeing some of the disciples eating without first having washed their hands, but we can also imagine that it reflected on the miraculously provided meal of the previous evening, when thousands had sat down to food without ‘following the ritual’. Neither in that case nor in the present, had Jesus defended himself. He was, therefore, guilty of participation in their offence. So, this was all that these Pharisees and Scribes could see in the miracle of Christ’s feeding the multitude - that it had not been done according to Law!

But, in another aspect, the objection of the Scribes went a lot deeper. In truth, it represented one of the great charges which the Pharisees brought against Jesus and which determined them to seek his destruction. It has already been shown that they accounted for the miracles of Christ as being through the power of Satan, whose special representative they declared Jesus to be. This would not only turn the evidence provided by these signs into an argument against Jesus but also justify the resistance of the Pharisees to his claims.

The second charge against Jesus was, that he was ‘not of God;’ that he was ‘a sinner.’ If this could be established, it would, of course, prove that he was not the Messiah, but a deceiver who misled the people and whom it was the duty of the Sanhedrin to unmask and arrest. How they attempted to establish this was by proving that he broke the traditional law and encouraged others to do so too. This, according to their fundamental principles, involved heavier guilt than sins against the actual Torah!

The third and last charge against Jesus will come into play much later on in the story, his ‘blasphemous’ claim to equality with God, the very Son of the Living God.

To each of these three charges, of which we are now watching the opening skirmishes, there was only one answer; faith in his person. And in our time, also, this is the final answer to all difficulties and objections.

It was in support of the second of these charges that the Scribes now blamed Jesus for allowing his disciples to eat without having previously washed their hands. At the outset, we must realise that this practice is expressly not a Law of Moses but ‘a tradition of the elders.’ Still, for them, to neglect it was like being guilty of the worst carnal defilement. Its omission would lead to bodily destruction or, at least, to poverty. Bread eaten with unwashed hands was as if it had been filth. Indeed, a Rabbi who had held this command in contempt was actually buried in excommunication. Thus, from their point of view, the charge of the Scribes against the disciples is very far from being an exaggeration.

It is difficult to account for the origin of this Law. It seems to have been first formulated to ensure that sacred offerings should not be eaten in defilement. When once it became an ordinance of the elders, this was, of course, regarded as sufficient ground for obedience. Scriptural support was sought for it. Some based it on the original ordinance of purification in Leviticus 15:11 while others saw in the words ‘Sanctify yourselves,’ the command to wash before meat; in the command, ‘Be you holy,’ that of washing after meat. The former alone was, however, regarded as ‘a commandment’ (Mitsvah), the other only as ‘a duty’ (Chobhah), which some, indeed, explained on sanitary grounds, as there might be dirt or such stuff on the hands which might hurt the eyes.

This washing before meals is regarded by some as referred to in Talmudic writings by the expression ‘the first waters’ (Mayim rishonim), while what is called the ‘after waters’ (Mayim acharonim), is supposed to represent the washing after meals. As the purifications were so frequent and care had to be taken that the water had not been used for other purposes, or something fallen into it that might discolour or defile it, large vessels or jars were generally kept for the purpose. These might be of any material, although stone is specially mentioned.

The hands were deemed capable of contracting Levitical defilement, which, in certain cases, might even render the whole body ‘unclean.’ This idea of the ‘defilement of the hands’ received a very curious application. According to one of the eighteen decrees, which date before the time of Christ, the Torah scroll in the Temple defiles all kinds of meat that touched it. The alleged reason for this decree was that the priests often kept the Terumah (preserved first-fruits) close to the scrolls, sometimes resulting in them being nibbled by mice! The Rabbinic ordinance was intended to avert this danger. To increase this precaution, it was decreed that all that renders the Terumah unfit, also defiles the hands.

Hence, the Holy Scriptures defiled not only the food but the hands that touched them and this not merely in the Temple, but anywhere. What a strange concept, when you think about it! This gave rise to interesting discussions, whether the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, or Esther were to be regarded as ‘defiling the hands,’ that is, as part of the Canon. The ultimate decision was in favour of these books; ‘all the holy writings defile the hands; the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands.’ Even a small portion of the Scriptures was declared to defile the hands if it contained eighty-five letters because the smallest ‘section’ (Parashah) in the Law consisted of exactly that number.

The tradition of the Elders was not yet so established as to command absolute and universal obedience, while the disputes of Hillel and Shammai, who seemed almost on principle to have taken different views on every question, must have disturbed the minds of many. We have an account of a stormy meeting between the two schools, attended even with bloodshed. It was agreed that there were to be eighteen decrees in total. Such importance was attached to them, that, while any other decree of the sages might be altered by a more grave, learned, and authoritative assembly, these eighteen decrees might not under any circumstances be modified.

The eighteen decrees were intended to separate the Jew from all contact with Gentiles. Any contact with a heathen, even the touch of his clothes, might involve such defilement, sometimes forcing him to wash thoroughly. Only those who know the complicated arrangements about the defilements of vessels, as these are described in the Mishnah (Tractate Kelim), can form an adequate idea of the painful scrutiny with which every little detail is treated.

Earthen vessels that had contracted impurity were to be broken; those of wood, horn, glass, or brass immersed. If vessels were bought from Gentiles they were to be immersed, put into boiling water, purged with fire, or at least polished. Let us now try to realise the attitude of Jesus concerning these ordinances about purification and seek to understand the motives behind his answers.

He neither approved of the conduct of his disciples nor apologised for their breach of the Rabbinic commands. Here we can see his indifference towards traditionalism. This is the more noticeable since the ordinances of the Scribes, in general, were declared more precious and of more binding importance than those of Holy Scripture itself. We must realise the infinite distance between Christ and the teaching of the synagogue.

Rabbinism, in the madness of its self-exaltation, represented God as busying himself by day with the study of the Scriptures and by night with that of the Mishnah. And how, in the heavenly Sanhedrin, over which the Almighty presided, the Rabbis sat in the order of their greatness and the Halakhah was discussed and decisions taken in accordance with it.

As terrible as this sounds, it is not nearly all. It was carried beyond the verge of profanity, when God is represented as spending the last three hours of every day playing with Leviathan and it is discussed, how, since the destruction of Jerusalem, God no longer laughs, but weeps. Also that, in a secret place of his own, the Almighty roars like a lion in each of the three watches of the night. The two tears which he drops into the sea are the cause of earthquakes! Surely this is madness and no wonder Jesus distanced himself from such ramblings!

This explains how Jesus could not simply show indifference towards traditionalism. His attitude to traditionalism was never more pronounced than in what he said in reply to the charge of neglecting ‘the washing of hands.’ he proceeded to show that in ‘many such like things’ the Halakhah was utterly incompatible with Scripture, that, indeed, they made ‘void the Word of God’ by their traditions which they had received.

In explaining for the first time the real character of traditionalism and setting himself in open opposition to its fundamental principles, Jesus also made clear, for the first time, the fundamental principle of his own interpretation of the Law. That Law was not a system of externalism, in which outward things affected the inner man. It was moral and addressed itself to man as a moral being, to his heart and conscience. As the spring of all moral action was within, so the mode of affecting it would be inward. Not from outside to inside, but from inside outwards; such was the principle of the new Kingdom, as setting forth the Law in its fulness and fulfilling it. ‘There is nothing from without the man, that, entering into him, can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man, those are they that defile the man.’

This highlights the fundamental principles of Christian practice in direct contrast to that of Pharisaic Judaism. It is in this essential difference that the unspeakable difference between Christ and all contemporary teachers appears. Nor is this everything! For, the principle laid down by Jesus concerning that which enters from without and that which comes from within, covers, in its full application, not only the principle of Christian liberty regarding the Torah but also touches far deeper and permanent questions, affecting not only the Jew but all men and to all times.

This is an extract from the book, Jesus : Life and Times, available for £10 here (Finalist for Academic Book of the year at 2023 CRT awards)