NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

Part I

NOTE: Some might think that the ensuing dissertation by Jesus involves only the legalistic aspects of Jewish Law and customs. But Christ is making a spiritual point which implicates our real attitude toward God. Just as the Pharisees were guilty of violating God’s commandments with the traditions of man, that helped them circumvent their vows, we are also often guilty of the same trespass when we worship God in obedience to forms and traditions that have become substitutes for the genuine article. There is little difference between ourselves and the Pharisees when we repeat memorized prayers, or repetitious creeds; give redundant testimonies, or sing songs by rote, and go through actions that have become nothing more than subconscious reflexes brought on by years of practice, without our hearts really being involved in what we bring to the Living God as worship. Unfortunately, in some churches services have become so perfunctory that any emotional outbursts of praise and adoration to God are frowned upon.

Verses 1-2: Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus. They came from Jerusalem and asked Him: “Why do your followers not obey the traditions we have from our great teachers who lived long ago? Your followers don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

It is apparent now that the news about what Jesus was doing up in Galilee had reached Jerusalem to such a degree that the religious leaders felt it was time to take action. These first two verses are not so much a recording of the incident as they are a setup for what Jesus had to share that would challenge these Scribes and Pharisees on their interpretation of the law. It is a case of commandment verses custom. Jesus and His disciples are accused of breaking a tradition instituted by man, not one instructed by God.

Early church theologian Origen sees it this way. He says: “Pharisees and scribes came to Him from Jerusalem. They did not come because they were amazed at the power in Jesus that healed people even if they ‘only touched the edge of his cloak.’ Instead, they came with a faultfinding attitude and brought an accusation before the teacher. The accusation did not concern the transgression of a commandment of God but rather the transgression of one tradition of the Jewish elders. Probably the charge of the faultfinders itself displays the piety of the disciples of Jesus, because they offered no grounds at all for criticism by the Pharisees and scribes in regard to transgressing the commandments of God. The Pharisees and scribes would not have brought the charge of transgressing the commandment of the elders against the disciples of Jesus if, indeed, they were able to get a firm hold on the ones who were being accused and were able to show that they were transgressing a commandment of God.”¹

Jewish scholars tell us that among the Jews, traditions were based primarily upon what were called “verbal teachings,” that had been successively handed down from Moses through each generation to Rabbi Judah the Patriarch,² who compiled and categorized them it into what is called the Mishnah.³ Another revered Rabbi gives an even more exhaustive list of 39 recipients from Moses down to the years 352-427 AD.⁴ The next few centuries added the Gemara.⁵ The Mishnah plus the Gemara equals the Talmud.⁶ There are two versions of the Talmud – the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The Jerusalem Talmud was finally composed circa 200-250 AD, so we can see that all of these teachings in Jesus’ day were already being transmitted through the spoken word. Once these teachings were written down, there was no longer any need to pass them on verbally. For those interested in further study, the venerable Jewish Rabbi Moses Maimonides shares some of these traditions in one of his Tractates.⁷

According to Jewish history, Rabbi Ashi, who reestablished the Academy at Sura (Babylon), was the first editor of the Babylonian Talmud. The esteem in which these were held by the Jews is seen in the following example: “The associates in the name of Rabbi Yohanan said, ‘The words of the scribes are as relative in importance to the words of the Torah, and as dear as the words of Torah.’ As it says, ‘And your palate desires the words of the scribes as much as it does the best wine of the Torah.⁸”⁹ Another respected Rabbi added this comment: “The words of the scribes…are more dear than the words of the Torah.”¹⁰ And then another Rabbi boldly remarks: “I will prove to you that the words of the scribes are more dear than the words of the Torah.”¹¹ He goes on to explain that a Rabbi named Tarfon¹² would have only been guilty of neglect had he forgotten to recite the Shema – “Hear, Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is one,” from the Torah. But when he violated the words of the scholars of Hillel,¹³ he was liable to be put to death. This shows that the words of the scribes are more important than the words of the Torah. This is what Jesus faced when He confronted them with what God said.

We find this conjecture became part of verbal tradition when a Rabbi admonished his son: “My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah, for in the laws of the Torah there are positive and negative precepts; but, as to the laws of the Scribes, whoever transgresses any of the enactments of the Scribes incurs the penalty of death.”¹⁴ So no wonder Jesus received such strong rebukes when He stated that the Word of God He brought was superior to the words of the scribes that they brought.

It appears this was the crux of the discussion and argument in this part of Matthew. Such doctrines and sayings were also transmitted from father to son by word of mouth, and thus preserved among the people. Such traditions constitute a large part of Jewish verbal teachings and many legal doctrines seek to trace their origin from Moses on Mount Sinai, which Jews call “Sinaitic Commandments.” There are other traditions, however, which refer to national and historical events, rather than to difficulties in the Jewish law, written or verbal. It was intended to fill in the gaps left by the written law, because the scribes and Pharisees did not think it told the whole story.

Here Jesus indicts the Pharisees for breaking the divine commandments of God. It is clearly pointed out that tradition, when contrary to true message, is vain and useless. Nonetheless, some self-righteous people in different parts of the world continue to be involved in activities that offend God, but they excuse it by calling it tradition. But the Word of God calls for holiness and purity. In some places, when sinners take things that are not theirs it is called, stealing, but when hypocrites do the same thing it is called, misappropriation; the sinner lies, but the hypocrite merely bends the truth; the sinner gossips, but the hypocrite is simply getting the word out. But when we become a new creature in Christ Jesus, it breaks those traditions because old things pass away and all things become new.

Violating a commandment because of tradition is without justification and therefore sin. The bone of contention here between Jesus’ disciples and these Pharisees and scribes was the washing of the hands before eating. On the surface it may appear that the disciples had not learned basic hygiene. But there is more to it than that. It is most likely that the Pharisees were more upset with the manner in which the disciples were washing their hands. We are told, that for Jews washing one’s hands before eating fruit was not required. As a matter of fact, it was considered pretentious to do so. But before priests were to eat any bread, we are told: “The hands are ritually washed with a cup that contains between 2.5-3.0 oz for the eating of non-sacred food, for tithes, and for offerings; and for the eating of consecrated food, the hands are immersed into 74 gallons of water; this is because if his hands become impure, his entire body becomes impure and he must immerse his entire body. If a person immersed in a pool for the eating of non-sacred food, and intended to remain pure for non-sacred food, he is forbidden to eat food given as tithes.”¹⁵

In the first written version of the verbal tradition, one Rabbi says: “Once the hands have been washed, one says a blessing over the bread, and that is the beginning of the meal.”¹⁶ More everyday requirements are also found in Jewish writings such as: “Washing hands between courses in the meal is a matter of choice. If one desires, one may wash; if not, one need not. There is no obligation to wash before partaking of unconsecrated fruit, whether before eating or afterward. To the contrary, whoever washes his hands before partaking of fruit is considered among the haughty. Whenever bread is eaten with salt, it is necessary to wash one’s hands afterward, lest it contain Sodomite salt or salt that resembles Sodomite salt, and after eating, one inadvertently pass one’s hands over one’s eyes and blind them. This is the reason why we are obligated to wash after eating.”¹⁷ The same Rabbi goes on the explain: “If the hands were immersed in drawn water, whether in a container or a pool, the person’s hands are not purified. Instead, drawn water poured from a container must fall upon his hands. For hands may only be washed from containers and using human effort.”¹⁸

It really sounds as though over the many centuries of commentary, each generation of Rabbis tried to “out holy” one another. I remember growing up in a strict Pentecostal organization where all manner of jewelry was outlawed in favor of external holiness. Ministers found themselves in hot debates over whether the wedding ring belonged to the category of jewelry. As a result of hardliners many were turned away from the church because they would not comply with removing their wedding band. Can you imagine a woman who just received Christ as her Savior, going home and telling her husband that she was not going to wear her wedding ring anymore because now she was a real born again Christian? It appears that this was the modern equivalent of verbal tradition winning out over the written word.

So it seems that the real crime here on the part of Jesus’ disciples may have been that they were washing their hands in a basin instead of having water poured over them. But these Pharisees and scribes were tame compared to some Rabbis. One particular Rabbi proclaimed: “Whoever washes his hands before the meal must lift them up lest the water pass beyond the finger joint and then flow back and render the hands unclean.”¹⁹ It is clear from these instructions that there was less interest in actually getting the hands clean than there was in fulfilling the details of the ritual. Unfortunately, this same spirit crept into Christianity over the centuries with regard to Communion and Water Baptism. There is more interest in fulfilling the mandate than in gaining what these ordinances are really intended to do. In some cases, like these Rabbi’s here, unless the Eucharist and Christening are done in a certain prescribed way, then the person administering these sacraments is to blame for misleading and defiling either the communicant or the convert.

Then, another Rabbi chimes in: “Whoever eats bread without previously washing the hands is as impure as if he just had intercourse with a harlot.”²⁰ But a different Rabbi goes even further: “Whoever makes light of washing the hands before and after a meal will be eliminated from the world.”²¹ Not only that, but there is an added factor. If one violated these rules on the washing of hands before giving or eating food, they might be in danger of being possessed by an evil spirit that endangers the health of those that eat the food their unwashed hands have touched.²² This evil spirit named, Sibetha, came in the form of a foul odor.²³ As a matter of fact, one Rabbi got a reputation of being good at concocting medicines. It was said: “Whenever he discovered some new medicine he would fill a water jug with it and suspend it outside above the doorstep and proclaimed: Whosoever desires let him come and take of it. Some say, he knew from tradition a medicine for the Sibetha disease, and he would suspend a jugful of water and proclaim, Whosoever needs it let him come and wash his hands so that he may save his life from danger.”²⁴

So committed were some Jews to this ritual that when one Rabbi was in prison he had only enough water to wash his hands, but that would leave him with nothing to drink, so he stated to the prison guard: “What can I do? When someone disobeys the words of the Rabbis they deserve to die. Therefore, it is better for me to die than to transgress against the opinion of my colleagues.”²⁵ So we can see what kind of opposition Jesus was up against on even the most minor of points such as on how one washes their hands before eating.

Early church preacher Chrysostom offers this view: “Now consider with me how they are convicted even by the very act of asking the question. For they do not say, ‘Why do they transgress the law of Moses?’ Instead they say, ‘Why do they transgress the tradition of the elders?’ From this it is clear that the priests were instituting many new practices, even though Moses with great fear and with dreadful words had commanded that one should neither add nor take away anything. For he says, ‘Do not add to this word that I am commanding you today, and do not take away from it.’ But this did not at all stop them from instituting new practices. The issue here provides an example: eating with unwashed hands, which they thought unlawful. They focused inordinately on the outward rites of washing cups and things made of bronze and the rules for washing themselves. By this time, they should have been released from needless observances. God’s timing had moved forward to that point. But just at that point they bound people up with many more observances. Why did they turn things upside down? Because they were afraid that someone might take away their power. They wanted others to be more afraid of them. They themselves had become the lawgivers. The issue of transgressing the traditions of the elders had gotten so inverted that they were insisting that their own commandments be kept even if God’s commandment was violated. They exercised so much obsessive control that the issue finally became a matter of formal legal accusation. But the indictment would instead fall against them in two ways. They themselves were instituting new practices and were devising punishments in regard to their own observances while placing no value on those instituted by God.”²⁶

When we look at the various denominations of the Christian church today we can see a variety of rites, rituals, ordinances, customs and traditions that influence the way the Gospel is preached, sinners are invited to receive forgiveness, praise and worship is conducted, water baptism is administered, foot washing is observed, etc., etc. What is most enlightening, is how many of them are not found in the Scriptures, but can be traced back to interpretations of scripture by preachers and scholars. But one of the most frightening factors is how God’s punishment is declared by one denomination on another when they do not adhere to the man-made customs and traditions they practice.