Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
2. the tradition of the elders ] The elders, or presbyters, were the Jewish teachers, or scribes, such as Hillel and Shammai. The traditions were the rules or observances of the unwritten law, which they enjoined on their disciples. Many of these were frivolous; some actually subversive of God’s law; and yet one Rabbinical saying was, “The words of the law are weighty and light, but all the words of the scribes are weighty.”
when ] Rather, whenever.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 2. Elders] Rulers and magistrates among the Jews.
For they wash not their hands] What frivolous nonsense! These Pharisees had nothing which their malice could fasten on in the conduct or doctrine of our blessed Lord and his disciples, and therefore they must dispute about washing of hands! All sorts of Pharisees are troublesome people in religious society; and the reason is, they take more pleasure in blaming others than in amending themselves.
The tradition of the elders] The word , tradition, has occupied a most distinguished place, both in the Jewish and Christian Church. Man is ever fond of mending the work of his Maker; and hence he has been led to put his finishing hand even to Divine revelation! This supplementary matter has been called , from , to deliver from hand to hand – to transmit; and hence the Latin term, tradition, from trado, to deliver, especially from one to another; – to hand down. Among the Jews TRADITION signifies what is also called the oral law, which they distinguish from the written law: this last contains the Mosaic precepts, as found in the Pentateuch: the former, the traditions of the elders, i.e. traditions, or doctrines, that had been successively handed down from Moses through every generation, but not committed to writing. The Jews feign that, when GOD gave Moses the written law, he gave him also the oral law, which is the interpretation of the former. This law, Moses at first delivered to Aaron then to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar; and, after these to the seventy-two elders, who were six of the most eminent men chosen out of each of the twelve tribes. These seventy-two, with Moses and Aaron, delivered it again to all the heads of the people, and afterwards to the congregation at large. They say also that, before Moses died, he delivered this oral law, or system of traditions, to JOSHUA, and Joshua to the ELDERS which succeeded him-THEY to the Prophets, and the PROPHETS to each other, till it came to JEREMIAH, who delivered it to BARUCH his scribe, who repeated it to EZRA, who delivered it to the men of the great synagogue, the last of whom was SIMON the Just. By Simon the Just it was delivered to ANTIGONUS of Socho; by him to JOSE the son of Jochanan; by him to JOSE, the son of Joezer; by him to NATHAN the Arbelite, and Joshua the son of Perachiah; and by them to JUDAH the son of Tabbai, and Simeon, the son of Shatah; and by them to SHEMAIAH and ABTALION; and by them to HILLEL; and by Hillel to SIMEON his son, the same who took Christ in his arms when brought to the temple to be presented to the Lord: by SIMEON it was delivered to GAMALIEL his son, the preceptor of St. Paul, who delivered it to SIMEON his son, and he to Rab. JUDAH HAKKODESH his son, who compiled and digested it into the book which is called the MISHNA; to explain which the two Talmuds, called the Jerusalem and Babylyonish Talmuds, were compiled, which are also called the Gemera or complement, because by these the oral law or Mishnah is fully explained. The Jerusalem Talmud was completed about A. D. 300; and the Babylonish Talmud about the beginning of the sixth century. This Talmud was printed at Amsterdam in 12 vols. folio. These contain the whole of the traditions of the elders, and have so explained, or rather frittered away, the words of God, that our Lord might well say, Ye have made the word of God of no effect by your traditions. In what estimation these are held by the Jews, the following examples will prove: “The words of the scribes are lovely beyond the words of the law: for the words of the law are weighty and light, but the words of the scribes are all weighty.” Hierus. Berac. fol. 3.
“He that shall say, There are no phylacteries, though he thus transgress the words of the law, he is not guilty; but he that shall say, There are five Totaphot, thus adding to the words of the scribes, he is guilty.”
“A prophet and an elder, to what are they likened! To a king sending two of his servants into a province; of one he writes thus: Unless he show you my seal, believe him not; for thus it is written of the prophet: He shall show thee a sign; but of the elders thus: According to the law which they shall teach thee, for I will confirm their words.” – See Prideaux. Con. vol. ii. p. 465, and Lightfoot’s Hor. Talmud.
They wash not their hands] On washing of hands, before and after meat, the Jews laid great stress: they considered eating with unwashed hands to be no ordinary crime; and therefore, to induce men to do it, they feigned that an evil spirit, called Shibta , who sits on the hands by night, has a right to sit on the food of him who eats without washing his hands, and make it hurtful to him! They consider the person who undervalues this rite to be no better than a heathen, and consequently excommunicate him. See many examples of this doctrine in Schoettgen and Lightfoot.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
2. Why do thy disciples transgressthe tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when theyeat bread.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?…. Having observed, for some little time, the conduct of Christ and his disciples, they thought proper to take no notice of him as yet, but of them; and of them, not as transgressing any command of God, but of men; not being able to charge them with any breach of the law of God: and could they have done this with any show of truth, yet they might choose rather to accuse them of breaking the rules of the elders; by whom they mean, not the elders of the present sanhedrim, but Hillell and Shammai; the two heads of their famous schools, and other ancient doctors; from whom were delivered by one to another, certain rules and laws of their own devising, which had no foundation in the word of God; and of these the Scribes and Pharisees were more tenacious, than of the Scriptures; and indeed they preferred them before them: most extravagant are their praises and commendations of these unwritten traditions; thus they say d,
“Know then, that “the words of the Scribes” are more lovely than the words of the law: for, says R. Tarphon, if a man does not read, he only transgresses an affirmative; but if he transgresses the words of the school of Hillell, he is guilty of death, because he hath broke down a hedge, and a serpent shall bite him. It is a tradition of R. Ishmael, the words of the law have in them both prohibition and permission; some of them are light, and some heavy, but “the words of the Scribes” are all of them heavy–Mynqz
, “weightier are the words of the elders”, than the words of the prophets.”
And elsewhere e, this advice is given;
“My son, attend to “the words of the Scribes”, more than to the words of the law; for in the words of the law, are affirmatives and negatives; but the words of the Scribes
, “everyone that transgresses the words of the Scribes”, is guilty of death.”
This is what they charge the disciples with here, and could they have had their wills, would have put them to death for it: the particular tradition, they accuse them with the breach of, follows,
for they wash not their hands when they eat bread; common bread, an ordinary meal; for, for eating of holy things, more than bare washing was required, even an immersion of them in water; but the hands were to be washed before eating common food, whether they were known to be defiled or not: “bread” is particularly mentioned, as including all sorts of food, and as distinct from fruit; for, for eating of common fruit, there was no need of washing of hands; he that washed his hands for eating fruit, was reckoned an ostentatious man f, who were the first authors of this tradition, it is not certain; it is said g, that
“Hillell and Shammai decreed , “concerning the purification of the hands”; R. Jose ben R. Bon, in the name of R. Levi, says, so was the tradition before, but they forgot it; and these two stood up, and agreed with the minds of the former ones.”
“However, it is a certain point, that the washing of the hands, and the dipping of them, are , “from the words of the Scribes” h.”
The breach of this rule was reckoned equal to the most flagitious crimes i: R. Jose says,
“whoever eats bread without washing of hands, is as if he lay with a whore: and, says R. Eleazer, whoever despiseth washing of hands, shall be rooted out of the world.”
And elsewhere it is said by them k, that
“he that blesseth (food) with defiled hands, is guilty of death.”
And again l,
“whoever does not wash his hands as is fitting, although he is punished above, he shall be punished below.”
And to fright people into an observance of this tradition, they talk of Shibta, a sort of an evil spirit, that hurts such as eat without washing their hands: they say, he sits upon their hands, and upon their bread, and leaves something behind, which is very dangerous m; and it is recorded n, to the praise of R. Akiba, that he chose rather to die, than to transgress this tradition; for being in prison, and in want of water, what little he had, he washed his hands with it, instead of drinking it. Eleazar ben Chanac was excommunicated for despising the tradition concerning washing of hands; and when he died, the sanhedrim sent and put a great stone upon his coffin, to show, that he that died in his excommunication, the sanhedrim stoned his coffin o: but of this, See Gill “Mr 7:3”.
d T. Hieros. Beracot, fol. 3. 2. e T. Bab. Erubim, fol. 21. 2. T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 4. 2. f Misn. Chagiga, c. 2. sect. 5, 6. Maimon. Praefat. ad Tract. Yadaim, & Hilch. Beracot, c. 6. sect. 3. g T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 3. 4. h Maimon Hilch. Mikvaot, c. 11. sect. 1. i T. Bab. Sota, fol. 4. 2. k Zohar in Deut. fol. 107. 3. l lb. in Gen. fol. 60. 2. m Gloss. in. T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 77. 2. Taanith, fol. 20. 2. & Cholin, fol. 107. 2. n T. B. Erubim, fol. 2l. 2. o T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 19. l.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The tradition of the elders ( ). This was the oral law, handed down by the elders of the past in ex cathedra fashion and later codified in the Mishna. Handwashing before meals is not a requirement of the Old Testament. It is, we know, a good thing for sanitary reasons, but the rabbis made it a mark of righteousness for others at any rate. This item was magnified at great length in the oral teaching. The washing (, middle voice, note) of the hands called for minute regulations. It was commanded to wash the hands before meals, it was one’s duty to do it after eating. The more rigorous did it between the courses. The hands must be immersed. Then the water itself must be “clean” and the cups or pots used must be ceremonially “clean.” Vessels were kept full of clean water ready for use (Joh 2:6-8). So it went on ad infinitum. Thus a real issue is raised between Jesus and the rabbis. It was far more than a point of etiquette or of hygienics. The rabbis held it to be a mortal sin. The incident may have happened in a Pharisee’s house.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Wash not their hands. Washing before meals was along regarded as a commandment; washing after meals only as a duty. By and by the more rigorous actually washed between the courses, although this was declared to be purely voluntary. The distinctive designation for washing after meals was the lifting of the hands; while for washing before meat a term was used which meant, literally, to rub. If “holy,” i e., sacrificial food was to be partaken of, a complete immersion of the hands, and not a mere “uplifting” was prescribed. 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 discolor or defile it, large vessels or jars were generally kept for the purpose (see Joh 2:6). It was the practice to draw water out of these with a kind of ladle or bucket – very often of glass – which must hold at least one and a half egg – shells (compare draw out now, Joh 2:8). The water was poured on both hands, which must be free of anything covering them, such as gravel, mortar, etc. The hands were lifted up so as to make the water run to the wrist, in order to insure that the whole hand was washed, and that the water polluted by the hand did not again run down the fingers. Similarly, each hand was rubbed with the other (the fist,) provided the hand that rubbed had been affused; otherwise, the rubbing might be done against the head, or even against a wall. But there was one point on which special stress was laid. In the “first affusion,” which was all that originally was required when the hands were not levitically “defiled,” the water had to run down to the wrist. If the water remained short of the wrist, the hands were not clean. See on Mr 7:3 (Edersheim, ” Life and Times of Jesus “).
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
2. Why do thy disciples transgress? When we speak of human traditions, this question has no reference to political laws, the use and object of which are widely different from enjoining the manner in which we ought to worship God. But as there are various kinds of human traditions, we must make some distinction among them. Some are manifestly wicked, for they inculcate acts of worship which are wicked and diametrically opposed to the word of God. Others of them mingle profane trifles with the worship of God, and corrupt its purity. Others, which are more plausible, and are not chargeable with any remarkable fault, are condemned on this ground., that they are imagined to be necessary to the worship of God; and thus there is a departure from sincere obedience to God alone, and a snare is laid for the conscience.
To this last description the present passage unquestionably relates; for the washing of hands, on which the Pharisees insisted, could not in itself be charged with wicked superstition; otherwise Christ would not have permitted the water-pots to be used at the marriage, (Joh 2:6,) if it had not been an allowable ceremony; but the fault lay in this, that they did not think that God could be properly worshipped in any other way. It was not without a specious pretext that the practice of washings was first introduced. We know how rigidly the Law of God demands outward cleanness; not that the Lord intended that this should occupy the whole attention of his servants, but that they might be more careful to guard against every spiritual defilement. But in washings the Law preserved some moderation. Next came teachers, who thought that they would not be reckoned sufficiently acute, if they did not make some appendage to the word of God; (394) and hence arose washings of which no mention was made in the Law. The legislators themselves did not give out that they delivered any thing new, (395) but only that they administered cautions, which would be of service to assist in keeping the Law of God. But this was immediately followed by great abuse, when ceremonies introduced by men began to be regarded as a part of divine worship; and again, when in matters that were free and voluntary uniformity was absolutely enjoined. For it was always the will of God, as we have already said, that he should be worshipped according to the rule laid down in his word, and therefore no addition to his Law can be endured. Now as he permits believers to have outward ceremonies, by means of which they may perform the exercises of godliness, so he does not suffer them to mix up those ceremonies with his own word, as if religion consisted in them. (396)
For they wash not their hands. The ground of offense is explained more fully by Mark; but the substance of his explanation is, that many things were practiced by the scribes, which they had voluntarily undertaken to keep. They were secondary laws invented by the curiosity of men, as if the plain command of God were not enough. God commanded that those who had contracted any defilement should wash themselves, (Lev 11:25😉 and this extended to cups, and pots, and raiment, and other articles of household furniture, (Lev 11:32,) that they might not touch any thing that was polluted or unclean. But to invent other ablutions was idle and useless. (397) They were not destitute of plausibility, as Paul tells us that the inventions of men have an appearance of wisdom, (Col 2:23😉 but if they had rested in the Law of God alone, that modesty would have been more agreeable to Him than solicitude about small matters.
They were desirous to warn a person not to take food while he was unclean, through want of consideration; but the Lord reckoned it enough to wash away those defilements of which they were aware. Besides, no end or limit could be set to such cautions; for they could scarcely move a finger without contracting some new spot or stain. But a far worse abuse lay in this, that the consciences of men were tormented with scruples which led them to regard every person as chargeable with pollution, who did not on every occasion wash his body with water. In persons who belonged to a private rank they would perhaps have overlooked the neglect of this ceremony; but as they had expected from Christ and his disciples something uncommon and extraordinary, they reckoned it unbecoming that ceremonies, which were traditions of the elders, and the practice of which was held sacred by the scribes, should not be observed by the disciples of a master who undertook to reform the existing state of things.
It is a great mistake to compare the sprinkling of the water of purification, or, as the Papists call it, blessed water, with the Jewish washing; for, by repeating so frequently the one baptism, (398) Papists do all that is in their power to efface it. Besides, this absurd sprinkling is used for exorcising. (399) But if it were lawful in itself, and were not accompanied by so many abuses, still we must always condemn the urgency with which they demand it as if it were indispensable.
(394) “ Sinon qu’ils adioustassent a la parole de Dieu quelques repetasseries de leur invention;” — “if they did not add to the word of God some patches of their own invention.”
(395) “ Les premiers autheurs de ces loix ne disoyent pas qu’ils voulussent commander rien de nouveau;” — “the first authors of these laws did not say that they intended to issue any new command.”
(396) “ Qu’elles soyent meslees avec sa Parole, et mises en mesme rang, comme si quelque partie du service de Dieu gisoit en icelles;” — “that they should be mixed with his Word, and put in the same rank, as if any part of the worship of God lay in them.”
(397) “ C’a este un amusement de gens oisifs, et qui ne scavoyent que faire;” — “it was an amusement of persons that were idles and did not know what to do.”
(398) “ Le Baptesme, qui suffit une fois receu;” — “Baptism, which is enough when once received.”
(399) “ En apres, ceste badinerie d’eau beniste est appliquee a faire exorcismes et coniurations, et ils croyent fermement qu’elle a vertu d’effacer les pechez;” — “Besides, this foolery of blessed water is applied to exorcising and conjuring, and they firmly believe that it has power to blot out sins.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) They wash not their hands when they eat bread.St. Mark (Mar. 7:3-4), writing for Gentiles, explains the nature of the tradition more fully. What the Pharisees insisted on was not cleanliness as such, but the avoidance of ceremonial pollution. They shrank not from dirt, but from defilement. If they had been in the market, they might have come in contact with the heathen or the publican. If they ate or drank out of a metal or earthenware cup, the last lip that touched it might have been that of a heathen, and therefore that too needed purification. The pride which led them to stand aloof from the rest of mankind showed itself in this, as in all their other traditions. Indifference to their rules in peasants and fishermen, as suchas belonging to the crowd whom they scorned as the brute people of the earththey could afford to tolerate. What shocked them was to see the disciples of One who claimed to be a Prophet or a Rabbi indulging in that indifference. According to their traditions, the act of which they complained stood on the same level as sexual impurity, and exposed those who were guilty of it to the excommunication of the Sanhedrin, or great Council.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Tradition of the elders That is, of the ancient commentators, the teachers of the Mosaic law. The written law of Moses is contained in the Old Testament. But besides, the Jews had oral law, which they pretended was handed down from Moses by verbal tradition. At the time of our Saviour this was not reduced to writing. But it was afterward compiled in The Talmud, now extant; of which the two parts are called the Mishna, or Text, and the Gemara, or Commentary.
Extravagant were the praises lavished by the Pharisees upon these Traditions. “The written word is water, said they; but the interpretation, and that which is added to it, is wine.” “If the scribes say the right is left, hear them.” Thus the foundations of morality were undermined. Wash not their hands The Pharisees select for debate a point with which morality has very little to do, and the law of God nothing. But the washings here mentioned were very positively insisted upon by the Jewish doctors. The Talmud says: “He who eats bread with unwashen hands is as bad as if he were to commit fornication.” The Rabbi Akiba was once imprisoned, and only water sufficient to drink allowed him. But he chose rather to die of thirst than to eat anything with unwashen hands. How enormous, then, to their view, must have been this crime of our Lord’s disciples! They wash not their hands! They had better break any command in the decalogue. And though the Jews open this quarrel with the disciples, it is plain they intend a blow at the Master himself. A subject for a decisive issue is now laid open.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
The challenge of the deputation was immediately concerning what they saw as His most important failure, that of maintaining ritual purity among His disciples in accordance with the rules laid down by the Elders (leading men of old) of the past. Their charge was not against Him as such, which suggests that He usually (although not always – Luk 11:38) scrupulously sought to follow the principles that they saw as necessary. He did not want to cause offence unnecessarily. The charge here was that He was lax in not ensuring that His disciples did the same, and must therefore take responsibility for it.
This was not describing a hygienic washing of hands to remove dirt, but a formal ceremony of pouring water over the hands in a certain way which was thought to remove ritual defilement resulting from contact with defiled people or things, and was repeated throughout the meal. The belief was apparently that ritual ‘uncleanness’ obtained through contact with an ‘unclean’ world (which did not ritually purify itself) could be passed on to the food, which when eaten then made the inside of a man ‘unclean’. This was not Scriptural teaching. It took Scriptural teaching to extremes. The closest the Scriptures came to this was that eating an animal that ‘died of itself’ rather than being properly slaughtered resulted in uncleanness. But there it was temporary uncleanness. The Pharisees saw the world as permanently unclean and feared partaking of that uncleanness when they ate. They overlooked the fact that Scripture had been concerned by its laws of uncleanness to inculcate wholesomeness of living to a fairly unsophisticated people, and to indicate that all that was in one way or another connected with death was unwholesome. They had instead turned the world into a permanently ritually unclean place.
Note on the Washing of Hands.
‘They do not wash their hands.’ This lay at the centre of the argument. It was not, of course, a question of whether to wash the hands before meals for hygienic purposes (although it undoubtedly aided hygiene), but was rather a question of ritual washing to remove ‘religious defilement’, that is, what resulted from contact with what was ritually doubtful and ceremonially unclean. Indeed they laid great stress on these requirements. But in fact this particular ritual washing described here was an addition to the Law, for it was nowhere commanded in the Old Testament.
So rather than being excited about this new interest in God which was being aroused by Jesus, and the new sense of sin which was bringing men to repentance and morally and spiritually changing their lives, they had come to drag Jesus down into the pool of detailed ritualism.
Of what then did such defilement consist? To the Pharisees all Gentiles were unclean for a start, for they did not observe any of the rules of ‘cleanness’ and ‘uncleanness’ (Leviticus 11-15) and were not careful about contact with dead things. Furthermore anything touched by them also became unclean (hollow vessels only if touched on the inside). And similar defilement was seen, although not to the same extent, as being connected with ‘sinners’. A ‘sinner’ was someone who did not tithe rightly or who did not follow the strict purification requirements of the Pharisees, or someone whose occupation resulted in regular uncleanness (e.g. a tanner). Thus while such people may mainly have observed the requirements of the Books of Moses, they did not do so in the terms laid down by the Pharisees. To come in contact with either of these two groups, Gentiles and ‘sinners’, was thus to be defiled. So their views necessarily excluded them from close contact with the majority of people.
According to them if a man went to the marketplace he may well accidentally be ‘contaminated’ by contact with such people (although he would make every effort to avoid them) and would therefore need afterwards to make himself clean in accordance with the teachings of the Pharisees. But the idea had been added that that uncleanness could then be passed on to the food that they ate and thus become internal. In order to avoid this therefore they needed to follow out the procedures for ritual washing before they ate each part of their meals. It was a world of religious isolation.
It should be carefully observed that this argument is not about the strict Levitical requirements with respect to cleanness. The Levitical requirements were mainly involved in a rather complicated way with the avoidance of anything tainted by death (or blood). God was the living God, and the wholesome way was the way of life. So anyone who touched a dead body became unclean, as did anyone who touched a woman after child birth or a skin-diseased person, or a woman during her period, or a leper, or an unclean animal. And anyone who touched anyone who had touched any of these was unclean, and so on. If such an unclean person had touched cups, or pots (measures) or brass vessels these utensils too might have become unclean depending on where they were touched. These too had to be specially cleansed. And of course, if there was any doubt at all they had to be cleansed. In some cases, such as contact specifically with death, the cleansing took seven days, for others it only lasted until the evening, but these ideas were not primarily what the argument was about. Both sets of people, disciples and Pharisees, conformed with these requirements. There was no dispute about that. It was the question of daily ritual washings of the hands that was in question here, and whether a man could become ‘unclean’ as a result of the food that he ate, and of whether such things should be central to the teaching concerning the Kingly Rule of God.
The Pharisees believed that because of the possibility of unknown contamination by persons who were ritually unclean, and the way that that could be passed on, it was necessary to wash both before every meal and in between courses. And this involved a very complicated process. The water for washing had to be taken from large stone jars which had been kept ‘clean’ so that the water itself was kept clean. Such water could be used for no other purpose. First all dirt had to be removed (a good principle). Then the hands might be held with the fingers pointed upwards and water was poured over them and had to run down to at least the wrist. Then while the hands were wet each had to be cleansed, seemingly with ‘the fist’ of the other. Probably by the joint action of rubbing the palm over the fist. But the water was now unclean so the hands were then held downwards and water poured over them again so that it began at the wrists and ran off the end of the fingers. That was one way of doing it. Alternately this might all be done by dipping the hands up to the wrist in a vessel containing clean water, again apparently rubbing on ‘the fist’. Then the hands were clean.
And if you went on a journey you had to ensure that you had the means to do this. This was what the Pharisees required, and this was what these accused disciples had failed to do (the phrase ‘your disciples’ may not necessarily mean that the twelve were included. ‘Disciples’ can mean the twelve, but it can also include the wider group. It is not a strictly defined number).
‘The traditions of the elders.’ These included past decisions of scribes, some made long before the time of Christ, on the teaching in the first five books of the Bible (‘The Torah or Law’). These formed the oral law and were remembered by rote and passed on, and would subsequently be recorded (as considerably expanded later) in the Mishnah in the second century AD. They covered many aspects of life in great detail and had to be assiduously learned by the pious Jew to ensure he always did the ‘right’ thing. The question was not necessarily of being morally right as we shall see, but of being religiously right. There were over six hundred of these ‘instructions’. Some were very helpful, but others were at the best pedantic and at the worst ridiculous. (So by citing some of these instructions we can make the Rabbis appear very wise, for they said some very sensible things, or totally foolish because they had often allowed themselves to stray into saying things that seemed right at the time but were in fact rather inane, as can so easily happen to regulations when pressed too far).
What began as a helpful interpretation of Scripture had slowly developed into a hotchpotch of regulations which so interpreted the Law as to make it seemingly attainable, although only with great effort, and crowded out consideration of more important matters. And sadly it was often a manipulation of the Law in order to enable them to ‘keep the covenant’ faithfully, and establish their own righteousness to their own satisfaction.
Paul had been like this. He pointed out that he had striven to attain ‘the righteousness of the Law’ and had seen himself as almost there, as blameless (Php 3:6). And then he had come across the commandment, “You shall not covet” and had looked in his heart and had discovered that he was still guilty (Rom 7:7), and that all his carefully built up righteousness had come crashing down. He had recognised that all his careful observances of ritual law had not made his heart and will pure, and that all his efforts had therefore been in vain.
End of note.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 15:2 . ] , Hesychius. The Jews, founding upon Deu 4:14 ; Deu 17:10 , for the most part attached greater importance to this tradition than to the written law. Hence, Berachoth f. 3. 2 : . Comp. Schoettgen. They laid special stress upon the traditional precept, founded on Lev 15:11 , which required that the hands should be washed before every meal ( , a rendering of the Hebrew ). See Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Wetstein. Jesus and His disciples ignored this as such.
.] which had been handed down from the men of olden time (their forefathers). It is not the scribes that are meant (Fritzsche), nor the elders of the nation (Bleek, Schegg), but comp. Heb 11:2 . It is the wise men of ancient times that are in view. Observe, moreover, the studied precision and peremptory tone of the question, which has something of an official air about it. The growing hostility begins to show itself in an open and decided manner.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Ver. 2. Transgress the tradition of the elders ] They cried up aloud traditions and the authority of antiquity. Similem hodie dicam Papistae nobis scribunt. For as the philosophers fled and hid themselves in the heretics, as one saith, so did the Scribes and Pharisees in the Popish doctors. Non tam ovum ovo simile; one egg or apple is not so like another as Pharisees and Papists. The Pharisees deemed it as great a sin to eat with unwashen hands as to commit fornication. Similiarly, the Papists count it worse to deface an idol than to kill a man, to eat flesh or eggs on a fasting day than to commit incest, and for a priest to have one wife than ten harlots. , say some, is the number of the Beast, 666. Pareus in loc.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2. ] The Jews attached more importance to the traditionary exposition than to the Scripture text itself. They compared the written word to water; the traditionary exposition to the wine which must be mingled with it.
The duty of washing before meat is not inculcated in the law, but only in the traditions of the Scribes. So rigidly did the Jews observe it, that Rabbi Akiba, being imprisoned, and having water scarcely sufficient to sustain life given him, preferred dying of thirst to eating without washing his hands.
are not the elders , but the ancients. See ref. Heb.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 15:2 . . .: no instance of offence specified in this case, as in Mat 9:10 and Mat 12:1 . The zealots must have been making inquiries or playing the spy into the private habits of the disciple circle, seeking for grounds of fault-finding ( cf. Mar 7:2 ). : strong word (Mk.’s milder), putting breach of Rabbinical rules on a level with breaking the greatest moral laws, as if the former were of equal importance with the latter. That they were, was deliberately maintained by the scribes ( vide Lightfoot). . .: not merely the opinion, dogma, placitum , of the elders (Grotius), but opinion expressed ex cathedra , custom originated with authority by the ancients. The “elders” here are not the living rulers of the people, but the past bearers of religious authority, the more remote the more venerable. The “tradition” was unwritten ( , Hesych.), the “law upon the lip” reaching back, like the written law (so it was pretended), to Moses. Baseless assertion, but believed; therefore to attack the is a Herculean, dangerous task. The assailants regard the act imputed as an unheard-of monstrous impiety. That is why they make a general charge before specifying the particular form under which the offence is committed, so giving the latter as serious an aspect as possible. , etc.: granting the fact it did not necessarily mean deliberate disregard of the tradition. It might be an occasional carelessness on the part of some of the disciples ( , Mar 7:2 ) which even the offenders would not care to defend. A time-server might easily have evaded discussion by putting the matter on this ground. The Pharisees eagerly put the worst construction on the act, and Jesus was incapable of time-serving insincerity; thus conflict was inevitable. , the proper word before meat, , after, Elsner, citing Athenaeus, lib. ix., cap. 18. , Hebrew idiom for taking food. The neglect charged was not that of ordinary cleanliness, but of the technical rules for securing ceremonial cleanness. These were innumerable and ridiculously minute. Lightfoot, referring to certain Rabbinical tracts, says: “lege, si vacat, et si per taedium et nauseam potes”.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
transgress. Greek. parabaino. App-128.
the elders. Greek. presbuteroi. Always used in the Papyri officially, not of age (old men), but of communal officers and heathen priests.
wash not. To wash before eating is still a rigorous custom in Palestine. See App-136.
bread. Put by Figure of speech Synecdoche (of Species), App-6, for all kinds of food.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
2.] The Jews attached more importance to the traditionary exposition than to the Scripture text itself. They compared the written word to water; the traditionary exposition to the wine which must be mingled with it.
The duty of washing before meat is not inculcated in the law, but only in the traditions of the Scribes. So rigidly did the Jews observe it, that Rabbi Akiba, being imprisoned, and having water scarcely sufficient to sustain life given him, preferred dying of thirst to eating without washing his hands.
are not the elders, but the ancients. See ref. Heb.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 15:2. , of the ancients) The word sometimes denotes a dignity or office; sometimes it is opposed to youth; sometimes, as in this place, to later generations.-, bread) The Jews eat other kinds of food without washing their hands more readily than bread. See Walls[677] Critical Notes, p. 47.
[677] WILLIAM WALL, D. D., sometime Vicar of Shoreham, a learned divine of the English Church; born 1645 or 1646; died 1727-8. The work here alluded to is entitled-
Brief Critical Notes, especially on the various readings of the New Testament Books; with a Preface concerning the Texts cited from the Old Testament, as also concerning the use of the Septuagint Translation. 8vo. London, 1730.-(I. B.)
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
transgress: Mar 7:2, Mar 7:5, Gen 1:14, Col 2:8, Col 2:20-23, 1Pe 1:18
tradition: Tradition, in Latin traditio from trado I deliver, hand down, exactly agreeing with the original [Strong’s G3862], from [Strong’s G3860], I deliver, transmit. Among the Jews it signifies what is called oral law, which they say has been successively handed down from Moses, through every generation, to Judah the Holy, who compiled and digested it into the Mishneh, to explain which the two Gemaras, or Talmuds, called the Jerusalem and Babylonish, were composed. Of the estimation in which these were held by the Jews, the following may serve as an example: “The words of the Scribes are lovely beyond the words of the law, for the words of the law are weighty and light, but the words of the Scribes are all weighty.
Reciprocal: Deu 4:2 – General 2Ch 17:9 – the book Est 3:3 – Why Ecc 7:16 – Be not Isa 29:13 – their fear Mal 2:8 – ye have caused Mat 15:20 – but Mat 23:3 – whatsoever Mat 23:24 – General Mar 2:24 – why Mar 7:3 – the tradition Luk 6:2 – Why Luk 11:38 – he marvelled Luk 20:3 – I will Gal 1:14 – traditions Heb 12:3 – contradiction Jam 4:8 – Cleanse
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
15:2
The Pharisees and others who stood with them doctrinally placed great stress on the traditions of those who were the elders or forefathers in the Mosaic system. In most cases they held these traditions to be of more importance than the written law of Moses, and where there was a disagreement between them they perverted the written law in favor of the tradition. One of such rules had to do with washing the hands at certain specified times. This was not done as a necessary act of sanitation but was one of the self-imposed rituals of the elders among the Jews. The disciples were busy with the important affairs of their work with Jesus and did not observe such ceremonies. But the critics thought they had a cause for accusation against them and came to Jesus with their complaint.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
[Why do they transgress the tradition of the elders?] how great a value they set upon their traditions, even above the word of God, appears sufficiently from this very place, Mat 15:6. Out of infinite examples which we meet with in their writings, we will produce one place only; “The words of the scribes are lovely above the words of the law; for the words of the law are weighty and light; but the words of the scribes are all weighty.”
“He that shall say, ‘There are no phylacteries, transgressing the words of the law,’ is not guilty; but he that shall say, ‘There are five Totaphoth; adding to the words of the scribes,’ he is guilty.”
“The words of the elders are weightier than the words of the prophets.”
“A prophet and an elder; to what are they likened? To a king sending two of his servants into a province. Of one he writes thus, ‘Unless he shew you my seal, believe him not’: of the other thus, ‘Although he shews you not my seal, yet believe him.’ Thus it is written of the prophet, ‘He shall shew thee a sign or a miracle’; but of the elders thus, ‘According to the law which they shall teach thee,’ ” etc. But enough of blasphemies.
[For they wash not their hands, etc.] the undervaluing of the washing of hands is said to be among those things for which the Sanhedrim excommunicates: and therefore that R. Eleazar Ben Hazar was excommunicated by it, because he undervalued the washing of hands; and that when he was dead, by the command of the Sanhedrim, a great stone was laid upon his bier. “Whence you may learn (say they) that the Sanhedrim stones the very coffin of every excommunicate person that dies in his excommunication.”
It would require a just volume, and not a short commentary, or a running pen, to lay open this mystery of Pharisaism concerning washing of hands, and to discover it in all its niceties: let us gather these few passages out of infinite numbers:
I. The washing of hands and the plunging of them is appointed by the words of the scribes; but by whom, and when, it is doubted. Some ascribe the institution of this rite to Hillel and Shammai, others carry it back to ages before them: “Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the washing of hands. R. Josi Ben Rabbi Bon, in the name of R. Levi, saith, ‘That tradition was given before, but they had forgotten it’: these second stand forth, and appoint according to the mind of the former.”
II. “Although it was permitted to eat unclean meats, and to drink unclean drinks, yet the ancient religious eat their common food in cleanness, and took care to avoid uncleanness all their days; and they were called Pharisees. And this is a matter of the highest sanctity, and the way of the highest religion; namely, that a man separate himself, and go aside from the vulgar, and that he neither touch them, nor eat nor drink with them: for such separation conduceth to the purity of the body from evil works,” etc. Hence that definition of a Pharisee which we have produced before, The Pharisees eat their common food in cleanness; and the Pharisaical ladder of heaven, “Whosoever hath his seat in the land of Israel, and eateth his common food in cleanness, and speaks the holy language, and recites his phylacteries morning and evening, let him be confident that he shall obtain the life of the world to come.”
III. Here that distinction is to be observed between forbidden meats; and unclean meats. Of both Maimonides wrote a proper tract. Forbidden meats; such as fat, blood, creatures unlawful to be eaten (Leviticus_2), were by no means to be eaten: but meats, unclean in themselves, were lawful indeed to be eaten, but contracted some uncleanness elsewhere: it was lawful to eat them, and it was not lawful; or, to speak as the thing indeed is, they might eat them by the law of God, but by the canons of Pharisaism they might not.
IV. The distinction also between unclean; and profane or polluted; is to be observed. Rambam, in his preface to Toharoth; declares it.
Profane or polluted denotes this, that it does not pollute another beside itself. For every thing which uncleanness invades so that it becomes unclean, but renders not another thing unclean, is called profane. And hence it is said of every one that eats unclean meats, or drinks unclean drinks, that his body is polluted; but he pollutes not another. Note that, “The body of the eater is polluted by unclean meats.” To which you may add that which follows in the same Maimonides, in the place before alleged: “Separation from the common people, etc., conduces to the purity of the body from evil works; the purity of the body conduceth to the sanctity of the soul from evil affections; the sanctity of the soul conduces unto likeness to God, as it is said, ‘And ye shall be sanctified, and ye shall be holy, because I, the Lord that sanctify you, am holy.’ ” Hence you may more clearly perceive the force of Christ’s confutation, which we have Mat 15:17-20.
V. They thought that clean food was polluted by unclean hands, and that the hands were polluted by unclean meats. You would wonder at this tradition: “Unclean meats and unclean drinks do not defile a man if he touch them not, but if he touch them with his hands, then his hands become unclean; if he handle them with both hands, both hands are defiled; if he touch them with one hand only, one hand only is defiled.”
VI. This care, therefore, laid upon the Pharisee sect, that meats should be set on free, as much as might be, from all uncleanness: but especially since they could not always be secure of this, that they might be secure that the meats were not rendered unclean by their hands. Hence were the washings of them not only when they knew them to be unclean, but also when they knew it not.
Rambam in the preface to the tract of hands; hath these words; “If the hands are unclean by any uncleanness, which renders them unclean; or if it be hid from a man, and he knows not that he is polluted; yet he is bound to wash his hands in order to eating his common food,” etc.
VII. To these most rigid canons they added also bugbears and ghosts to affright them.
It was the business of Shibta. Where the Gloss is, “Shibta was one of the demons who hurt them that wash not their hands before meat.” The Aruch writes thus, “Shibta is an evil spirit which sits upon men’s hands in the night: and if any touch his food with unwashen hands, that spirit sits upon that food, and there is danger from it.”
Let these things suffice as we pass along: it would be infinite to pursue all that is said of this rite and superstition. Of the quantity of water sufficient for this washing; of the washing of the hands, and of the plunging of them; of the first and second water; of the manner of washing; of the time; of the order, when the number of those that sat down to meat exceeded five, or did not exceed; and other such like niceties: read, if you have leisure, and if the toil and nauseousness of it do not offend you, the Talmudic tract of hands; Maimonides upon the tract lavers; and Babylonian Beracoth; and this article, indeed, is inserted through the whole volume entitled cleanness. Let this discourse be ended with this canon; “For a cake, and for the washing of hands, let a man walk as far as four miles.”
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 15:2. Why do thy disciples transgress? They had seen them thus transgress, either at Jerusalem (Lange), or, as is more probable, in Galilee (comp. Mar 7:2). In reality a cautious and artful attack upon Christ Himself.
The tradition of the elders. Certain rules handed down by word of mouth from Moses and the fathers of the nation (comp. Gal 1:14). Elders refers to the authors, not the upholders, of these traditional customs. The Jews attached greater value to tradition than even to the written law, appealing in support of it to Deu 4:14; Deu 17:10. More especially did they pay respect to the traditionary injunction of washing the hands before meals, to which it was thought Lev 15:11 referred (Meyer).
For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. Comp, the explanation in Mar 7:3-4. The washing referred to was not an act of cleanliness, but a ceremonial washing, performed with scrupulous care. Rabbi Akiba, being imprisoned, and having water scarcely sufficient to sustain life given him, preferred dying of thirst to eating without washing his hands (Alford). The Pharisees assumed the authority of this tradition. Our Lord opposes, not the custom, but the principle they assumed. Notice the belittling influence of legalism.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 2
Tradition of the elders; rules and precepts not recorded in the Scriptures, but handed down orally, or by tradition, from former times. The Pharisees had many such traditions, to which they attached ideas of great value; and by means of them, as our Savior shows, they often virtually annulled the requisitions of the written word of God.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they {a} wash not their hands when they eat bread.
(a) Which they received handed down from their ancestors, or their elders allowed, who were the governors of the Church.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The critics again raised a question about the behavior of Jesus’ disciples, not His own behavior (cf. Mat 9:14). They did not do so because Jesus’ behaved differently than His disciples. They followed His example and teaching. They did so because they could attack Him less directly than if they had questioned His personal conduct. In view of Jesus’ popularity they may have chosen this approach because it was safer, not because it was more respectful.
The critics objected to the disciples’ disregard for the traditions of the elders. These were the rabbinic interpretations of Old Testament law that had accumulated over the centuries, the Halakah. In Jesus’ day most of these traditions were not yet in written form, but later the rabbis compiled them into the Mishnah (A.D. 135-200). For the Pharisees they carried almost as much authority, if not more authority, than the law itself. [Note: Moore, 1:251-62.]
The disciples’ hand-washing was only a specific example of the larger charge. One entire tractate in the Mishnah dealt with proper hand-washing procedures for ceremonial purposes. [Note: Mishnah, Yadaim.] There were even requirements for proper hand-washing before meals since the ritual cleanliness of food was such an important matter to the Jews.