Tradition of the Elders

In Matthew 15 and Mark 7 the scribes and the Pharisees from Jerusalem asked Jesus a very significant question. “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” (Matthew 15:2, Mark 7:5) This question reveals a very central difference between Jesus and the Pharisees. Jesus did not always keep the “Oral Traditions” which evolved into the Mishnah, the Gemara and the Talmud.

The “tradition of the elders” differed from the Law of Moses. For example, Mark leads into the question the Pharisees asked Jesus by explaining: “For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.” (Mark 7:3-4) They “received” (orally) and maintained special purity laws that went far beyond the Law of Moses.

The “tradition of the elders” was a body of knowledge the Pharisees invented. It gave rabbis unquestioned authority. They were concerned about building what they considered to be a “fence” around the Law. Very famous rabbis, such as Hillel and Shammai, emerged because of this fence. Building this fence required diligent study and hard work. But on the positive side, at least for Rabbinical Judaism, it was a very strong cohesive force. It contributed to a strong sense of family, community and worship.

Many groups have emerged that use these extra-biblical sources (Talmud). For example, Hasidic Jews (ultra-orthodox) and Orthodox Jews emphasize them. Some groups even emphasize mystical sources such as the Kabbalah. (For example, they may study astrology where Aries has a personality associated with the characteristics of “fire.” Therefore, Aries would not have had the patience to write this blog.) Other Jews, such as the Karaite Jews, completely reject extra-biblical sources. But, as we have noted, many Jews give them great importance.

Jesus went out of his way to break down or diminish some of the extra-biblical traditions. He did this in his famous Sermon on the Mount.(Matthew 5) He also purposely violated Sabbath traditions. Even today there are many acts of forbidden work. Many of them have nothing to do with ordinary daily tasks. For example, some Jews today will not even turn on a light switch because it is associated with construction. (A circuit is constructed when someone turns on a light switch.) They would rather walk up three flights of stairs than push an elevator button. Jesus did not do away with the Sabbath, during his earthly ministry, but he did contest unreasonable definitions of work. He performed compassionate acts on the Sabbath. It is not surprising that some of the Pharisees thought he was breaking the Law. In reality he was just breaking some of their traditions.

The teachings of Jesus, in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, prove that Jesus disagreed with some of their purity traditions. Their very question reveals that even they knew his disciples were just violating some of their purity regulations. “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” (Matthew 15:2) Jesus responded with this question: “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3) First, Jesus' answer to their question with his own reveals that he respected the commandments of God. Second, it reveals that it was some of “their” traditions (and not God's commandment) that he protested.

Some Christians suppose that Jesus used his authority to justify his own breaking of the Law. For example, some have concluded that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus taught against the Law; and they suppose that his teachings became effective after the cross. Therefore, his teachings could not violate the Law because they applied later. This is wrong for two reasons. First, Jesus was opposing Jewish traditions (not the Law). Second, his opposition was not prospective. We understand that Jesus could teach prospectively (as when he instituted the the Lord's Supper). But the Lord's Supper has nothing to do with Jewish traditions. Jesus could teach about current Jewish issues and future kingdom issues because he had the capacity to walk such a fine line without breaking the Law.

It would be hypocritical of Jesus to condemn the Pharisees for violating the commandment of God and then do the same thing himself. Jesus never lived by such a double standard. Jesus said to the Pharisees: “...hypocrites, as it is written: …. in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do. … All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” (Mark 7:6-9) Jesus accused them of “...making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down....” (Mark 7:13) This tradition was “handed down” orally. Rabbinical Jews say it started with Moses. This is a false claim. We cannot find where such a tradition was ever mentioned in the scriptures. But it originated at some point. And it was certainly enhanced by such renowned rabbis as Hillel who according to Wikipedia was born in Babylon c. 110 BCE, and died 10 CE (Common Era) in Jerusalem. (That would make him 120 years old.)

It is interesting to compare the attitude of some Jews about the New Testament with their attitude about the Talmud. We were listening to a rabbi claim in a video debate that if he could find just one error in the New Testament, the whole thing would be invalidated. Therefore, he asked, "Why bother with it?" He cited the differences in the genealogies found in Matthew and Luke.

This is a very difficult subject (especially since the public records have been destroyed). Nevertheless, we believe those records were available when Matthew and Luke were inspired. These genealogies were never successfully refuted. But there were likely some endless debates over them. Genealogies were very important for many reasons. For example, they were needed to establish Jewish identity. Was someone really a Jew? Were they qualified to be a Priest? Could they be the Messiah? Therefore, there were public and private records. But they were destroyed.

In any case, the rabbi said he found about twenty five discrepancies between the two genealogies. (The idea that Matthew presented Joseph's genealogy while Luke presented Mary's genealogy did not sway him. There are other ideas.) Therefore, the Jewish Rabbi asked, "Why bother with the New Testament?"

But what could we say about the Talmud? There are multitudes of opinions and discrepancies about nearly everything. Should we advise him that (by his own criteria) the Talmud has been invalidated? In fact, the Talmud is invalidated by the Old Testament. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2) Jesus knew this about his law, so he disputed with the Pharisees.

Are we to believe that Jesus disputed with the Pharisees “for laying aside the commandment of God” and then proceeded to put away the Jewish Kosher Food Laws? It seems so very hypocritical and unreasonable. But this is what some commentators, Jews and Christians say. Some believe that in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 Jesus used his authority to make all foods clean. Therefore, he eliminated the Kosher Food Laws. But why would Jesus switch from the subject of "false purity traditions" to Kosher Food Laws?

Jesus continued his discussion of the traditions. If we compare Matthew 15:11-20 with Mark 7:15-23, we can see plainly that Jesus continued talking about purity traditions and not the Kosher Food Laws. (Note the comments under Matthew 15:20)

Matthew 15:11-20	Mark 7:15-23
11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man;but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. (This was said to the multitude and included the Pharisees. It offended the Pharisees. “Not that” has less of a universal connotation than “nothing.” We should keep in mind that Jesus is talking about food that has been eaten with unwashed hands. The Pharisees thought this would defile a man. He is not introducing any new law. He is refuting the “tradition of the elders” in front of a mixed audience of Pharisees and disciples.)	15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. (This was said to the multitude including the Pharisees. “Nothing” has a universal connotation. This could lead some to believe that both clean and unclean foods were allowed. Some believe Mark wrote to the Gentiles and was emphasizing that all foods are clean. However, this would distort what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew. “Nothing” can refer to the class of all clean foods.)
17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? (This was what Jesus said to the disciples in the house. Jesus is giving additional explanation. “Whatsoever” has a universal connotation. It could lead his disciples to think any food is okay. However, it referred to whatever clean food they put in their mouth without washing their hands. “Whatsoever” can refer to the class of all clean foods.)	18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? (Verse 18 is basically the same as verse 17 in Matthew. “Purging all meats” at the end of verse 19 is not found in Matthew. Some commentators say Jesus is making all meats clean by “purifying all meats.” Some translators actually use the word “purifying” instead of “purging.” “Purging” comes from the Greek word katharizon which means “cleansing.” This word can be taken literally or figuratively. It should be taken literally as part of the digestion process that extracts nutrition from the food and makes it all come out the same. Some translators have become commentators with a Christian bias on this passage. For example the Amplified Bible reads: 19 Since it does not reach and enter his heart but [only his] digestive tract, and so passes on [into the place designed to receive waste]? Thus He was making and declaring all foods [ceremonially] clean [that is, [h]abolishing the ceremonial distinctions of the Levitical Law].)
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. (The last part of verse 20 is really the clincher. Jesus explains: “but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.” Therefore, we know that Jesus was talking about ritualistic purity traditions instead of the Jewish Kosher Laws. Matthew gives us no room to interpret this passage any other way. Therefore, Mark 7:19 cannot mean the abolishment of the Jewish Kosher Laws.)	20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

If Jesus abolished the Jewish Kosher Laws in Mark 7:19, Peter was totally unaware. In fact, some eight to ten years after Pentecost, Peter responded to the heavenly command: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” with “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” (Acts 10:13-14) Peter had always observed the Kosher Food Laws. Peter must not have had “ears to hear” when Jesus refuted the “tradition of the elders.” However, such a significant change in lifestyle would not have gone unnoticed.