The Pharisees observed that the disciples of Jesus did not perform the ritual handwashing before eating (Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-23). Although the law of Moses demanded cleansing in specific instances, the scribes distorted the true intent of the law. They taught that it was impossible to partake of food with a clear conscience if certain ceremonial requirements were neglected; in their view, neglecting these precautions risked rendering individuals or utensils impure, which would then taint the food, the body, and even the spirit. Consequently, strict scribes adopted the custom of thoroughly washing not only their hands but also their vessels, beds, and tables prior to every meal. For these rigorous rabbis, failing to wash one's hands was as serious an infraction as consuming forbidden foods.
“As for those who do not wash their hands before eating, they may be cast out of society, for the practice of handwashing is the essence of the Ten Commandments." “Such a person is guilty of capital offense.” According to the Mishnah, “Three sins lead to poverty,” one of which is the neglect of handwashing, while Rabbi Josiah likened eating bread without washing hands to visiting illicit company. Later scribes devised as many as 26 detailed rules for this ritual within a single morning. The Talmud states, “It is preferable to walk four miles for water than to risk guilt by neglecting handwashing.” Furthermore, “He who fails to wash his hands after a meal,” Op asserts, “is as wicked as a murderer.” In the view of the scribes, the devil Shibta lurked on unwashed hands and uneaten bread. The Pharisees prided themselves on consuming their daily bread with appropriate cleansing and regarded those who did not adhere to such practices with disdain.
During this period, legalism reached its zenith, spurred by prominent teachers like Hillel and Shammai, who had lived within a generation prior and fully developed this intricate system. They would sometimes engage in such heated debates regarding the nuances of the law that a saying emerged: even the prophet Elijah would struggle to mediate between them if he were to return. However, they all concurred regarding the essential rituals, with the Talmud maintaining that "anyone who resides in the land of Israel, eating his daily bread in purification, speaking Hebrew, and praying morning and evening with phylacteries, can be confident he will partake in the bread of the kingdom of God."
In their understanding of purification, they insisted on washing hands first; the fingertips had to be raised to allow water to flow down to the elbows, then brought down so that the water would drip to the floor. Fresh water was poured on the fingers three times, accompanied by the blessing: “Blessed are You, Who has commanded us to wash our hands.” Scholars amongst the scribes debated the order in which blessings should be pronounced or where to place the drying towel, intensifying the emphasis on ritual minutiae. Although merely washing hands would suffice for ordinary food, more extensive washing was necessary for sacred offerings.
The meticulous observance also extended to ritual purity relating to household items, as utensils—regardless of their material—needed constant cleansing to avoid contamination from the unclean. This obsessive legalistic detail was likely a reaction to the rivalry between the democratizing Pharisees and the elitist Sadducees, who exalted the priestly functions to lift their social standing among the populace. The Pharisees, in turn, did their utmost to emphasize the significance of the ritual objects and practices they valued. Their scrupulousness extended to the temple, where they insisted that all vessels used be cleaned after every meal to avert potential defilement. Their exacting standards led to ridicule from others, such as when a Pharisee, after having a meal, sought to cleanse even a golden lampstand, prompting a Sadducee to mockingly quip that the Pharisees might soon be washing the sun itself.
The foundation for these exhaustive practices rested on so-called “fatherly traditions,” which had been held to have originated from the time of the great synagogue and were mistakenly credited as being divinely revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai. A multitude of interpretations, explanations, and reasonings emerged based on each word, letter, and mark to engineer new laws and commandments, leading to the invention of oral traditions to support them, effectively taking on sacred status as if divinely inspired. These traditions evolved into a distinct body of law, transmitted orally from generation to generation, birthing entire schools devoted to their study, most notably those of Hillel and Shammai, who were contemporaneous with Jesus.
In His lifetime, it was still a fundamental rule among them that these teachings should not be committed to writing. Rabbi Judah, known as the “holy one,” was the first to compile and unify these fragmented traditions, resulting in the expansive volumes of the Talmud. Remarkably, over time, the effects of the Pharisaic legalism led this self-constructed law and its traditions to eclipse the authority of Moses’ commandments. When conflicts arose between Scripture and tradition, the latter was often prioritized. The Pharisees openly proclaimed their authority and, following the words of the Gospel, claimed to occupy the seat of Moses, diminishing the role of the great lawgiver (Matthew 23:2).
“It is a more significant sin,” says the Mishnah, “to teach against the voice of the scribes than to contradict Scripture itself.” Essentially, anyone who teaches contrary to the Scriptures is condemned through direct teachings such as those relating to tefillin—small leather boxes containing scriptural texts worn during prayer. Disagreements and deviations from the established interpretations were deemed to bring guilt upon oneself. Rabbi Eleazar proclaimed, “He who expounds the Scripture contrary to traditional understanding has no share in the world to come.” Ironically, the multitude of legalistic commands, rather than the Holy Scriptures, served as the pillar of religion, for according to rabbinic belief, God's covenant was made with Israel based upon the oral law, as recorded in, “In these words I make a covenant with thee and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27). God foresaw that Israel would eventually be led astray and thus provided them with the oral law to ensure His will was followed.
Those who devoted themselves to exploring the traditions were believed to “see a great light” (Isaiah 9:2) as God illuminated their understanding of regulations concerning the permitted and prohibited, clean and unclean—concepts not fully covered in the Holy Scriptures. It was commendable to engage in reading the Holy Scriptures, but pursuit of the traditions was viewed as rewarding from God, equating the study of interpretations above that of Scripture. "The Bible is like water while the traditions are like wine, and the interpretations of them are like fragrant wine." “My son,” the Talmud counsels, “hearken more to the words of the scribes than to the words of the law.”
The weight of countless legalistic decrees imposed by the Pharisees thus suffocated the spirit of Moses' law, standing in stark opposition to the new kingdom that Christ preached. This kingdom emphasized purity of heart, genuine sonship to the Heavenly Father, where external rites held no intrinsic value apart from signifying that loving relationship. The Pharisees relegated the law to a superficial set of rules governing every aspect of life, while Christ redefined it as a living principle rooted in the human conscience. He shifted focus from rigid legal requirements to the essence and intent of the law itself. External rituals could be disregarded if the vital purpose behind them was honored fully.
A lifetime of study could barely encompass the extensive rabbinical regulations on purity and sacrifice, but Christ dismissed these burdens, boldly stating, “mercy is better than sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6, Matthew 9:13, Matthew 12:7). The rabbinic schools layered exhaustive interpretations upon the straightforward guidelines for distinguishing clean and unclean animals with intricate details on various parts and their purification processes, yet Christ delivered a clear understanding: “Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a man but that which comes out of the mouth defiles a man” (Matthew 15:11, Mark 7:15).
When the scribes debated the appropriate washing methods for different vessels, Christ moved past this futile legalism to emphasize the importance of inner purity. “Ye Pharisees,” He declared, “cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but your inward essence is fraught with greed and deceit” (Luke 11:39). Even the highly intricate Sabbath laws found their concise and transformative interpretation in Him: “It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). This transformative teaching was unprecedented among the rabbis, inciting great distress among them.
THEOSIS