Mark 7:3Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

They impose upon themselves certain types of attire, including the risa and dalmatics, or sleeveless garments, adorned with extended bands of purple, wax ornaments, and buttons on the waxworks of the risa, which signify their commitment to the abstinence they uphold until the appointed time.

According to Pharisaic piety, it was mandatory to wash hands before eating and after finishing the meal. The Talmud outlines specific guidelines regarding the amount of water to be used, the method of washing, the timing, and the order of washing, especially concerning the number of individuals present. Members of the Essene sect practiced immersion in water prior to meals. The adherence to these rules was deemed so crucial that the Sanhedrin could impose excommunication for non-compliance. By highlighting the actions of the disciples, the Pharisees likely aimed to confront the Savior with these handwashing regulations, linking them to other traditions, and perhaps eliciting His perspective on the significance of such traditions. At least, this interpretation is suggested by the Lord's response.

According to the Talmud, the traditions of the elders hold greater weight than the words of the prophets and even surpass the commands of the Law, which contain both significant and minor elements; however, the elders' words are viewed as paramount. Therefore, they must be followed without exception. The Talmud presents a parable about a king who sent two companions to his territory with specific instructions. One companion was to be believed only if he showed the king’s ring; the other companion could be believed regardless of whether he displayed the ring. The latter represents the elders while the former symbolizes the prophets. It is written regarding the prophets: “If a prophet rises up in you… and gives you a sign or a wonder” (Deuteronomy 13:1) and concerning the elders: “and you shall act according to the word which they declare to you from the place which the Lord your God chooses” (Deuteronomy 17:10).

In response to the Pharisees, the dialogue between Christ and the Pharisees regarding the traditions of the elders is meticulously captured by the Evangelists. Mark, addressing a Roman audience unfamiliar with Jewish customs, provides explanations, such as what it signifies to partake of bread with unclean hands, and he elaborates on the Pharisaic laws concerning ritual washings. Matthew, before inviting the disciples to interpret the parable, includes a unique account of the Lord’s reply to the news that the Pharisees were offended by His comments regarding the betrayals by the elders. Both this reply and the explanation of the parable, according to Mark, took place privately among the disciples.

Differences among the Evangelists mainly arise in the sequence of Christ’s remarks to the Pharisees. When the Pharisees criticized Christ's disciples for not adhering to the traditions by failing to wash their hands prior to eating, Christ responded by pointing out that many traditions of the elders were mere human inventions devised to evade God’s commandments. For instance, the law instructs to honor one’s father and mother, threatening death for disrespect towards parents (Ex. 20:12, Ex. 21:17). The Pharisees claimed that if someone said to their father or mother, “Let there be a korban,” which signifies a gift to God (intended for the temple) meant to be used for their parents, that person was free from the sacred obligation of honoring and assisting their parents.

Christ also highlighted that in prioritizing human traditions over God’s commandments, and in their meticulous adherence to external regulations regarding the body, the words of the prophet Isaiah were fulfilled concerning His contemporaries (Isaiah 29:13, Mt. 7:8). In Mark’s account, these two ideas are presented in reverse order.

They believed that failing to follow their devised precautions could render a person or item impure, ultimately affecting the food, the body, and the soul. Thus, it became a stringent practice among the rigorous scribes to ensure that not only hands but also dishes, beds, and tables were thoroughly cleansed before every meal. The strict rabbis deemed neglecting handwashing a serious transgression, akin to consuming unclean foods. “Whoever does not wash his hands when eating is liable to be expelled from society, for in handwashing lies the secret of the Ten Commandments.” “Such a person is guilty of death.” The Mishnah states that “three sins entail poverty,” one of which is the neglect of handwashing. Rabbi Josiah remarked, “One who eats bread without washing his hands is doing the same as if he had been to a harlot.” Later scribes established as many as 26 rules for this ritual in a single morning, with the Talmud asserting, “It is better to walk four miles for water than to incur guilt by neglecting to wash one's hands.” According to Op, “He who does not wash his hands after eating is as impious as a murderer.” The scribes believed that the devil Shibta dwelled on unwashed hands and bread. The Pharisees were marked by their practice of consuming their daily bread with appropriate purification, looking down on those who neglected it as unclean. Legalism reached its zenith during this period, shaped largely by esteemed teachers like Hillel and Shammai, who lived just before this time. Their scholarly discussions on the intricacies of the law often sparked such intense disagreements that it was said that even Elijah, if he returned to earth, would not be able to reconcile them. Nevertheless, they reached a consensus regarding manumission, with the Talmud stating that “everyone who dwells in the land of Israel, eating his daily bread in purification, speaking the Hebrew language, and duly praying morning and evening with phylacteries, may be assured that he shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.” According to their purification rules, one was first required to wash their hands, raising the fingertips so that water flowed down to the elbows, and then lowering their hands so the water could drip to the floor. Fresh water was poured three times on the hands, with a blessing pronounced during the process: “Blessed are You, Who gave us the commandment to wash our hands.” The learned scribes debated fiercely over the order of these actions: whether the blessing was to be said before washing, the placement of the towel, and the timing of the cleansing of the table. These minute details comprised only a fraction of the entire legalistic framework. For a Pharisee intending to partake of ordinary food, merely pouring water over their hands sufficed, but consuming sacred tithes or offerings required complete immersion. Special care was taken in the morning rituals because, according to the rabbis, evil spirits could pollute one's hands during the night. Touching the mouth, nose, ears, or eyes before performing this rite was seen as a potential invitation to disease. Countless circumstances necessitated this ritual, even after trimming nails or catching fleas. The more water used, the more piety displayed. Rabbi Hazda remarked, “One who uses much water to wash his hands will receive abundant wealth.” Even those who did not leave their homes were expected to pour water over their hands; however, those returning from the street needed to immerse them, requiring a place with at least sixty gallons of water. Such superstitious legalistic precision extended to every household item, with vessels, knives, tables, and beds constantly subjected to purification to avoid ceremonial defilement by the unclean. This meticulousness reflected a rivalry between the Pharisees and the aristocratic Sadducees, the latter of whom emphasized the importance of priestly actions to establish themselves as a spiritual elite, whereas the Pharisees emphasized the significance of the vessels and precise observances. Their constant ritual washing extended even to the temple vessels, which had to be cleansed after every meal due to fears of contamination by the unclean. The Sadducees often mocked the Pharisees for their scrupulous practices, joking that they might soon be washing the sun itself. The basis for these endless rituals lay in what were termed “fatherly traditions,” said to have been passed down from the times of the great synagogue and falsely attributed to divine origin as if given directly to Moses on Mount Sinai. Each interpretation and reasoning emerged from careful scrutiny of individual words, letters, and even punctuation, leading to new laws, and when these laws fell short, oral traditions were invented to uphold them, as if handed down by God. Over time, these traditions evolved into a distinct legal code, perpetuated through generations, leading to the emergence of schools dedicated to their study, notably those of Hillel and Shammai, who lived shortly before Christ’s time. During His earthly ministry, it was deemed essential to avoid writing these traditions down. Rabbi Judah, referred to as “the holy one,” was later tasked with compiling these fragments, resulting in the extensive volumes of the Talmud. Remarkably, this man-made legalism, shaped by the Pharisees’ narrow interpretations, began to overshadow the actual law of Moses. When scripture and tradition clashed, tradition was often prioritized. The Pharisees openly stated such, as expressed in the Gospel, sitting in the seat of Moses while effectively diminishing the role of the great lawgiver (Matthew 23:2). According to the Mishnah, teaching contrary to the traditions of the scribes was deemed a graver sin than contradicting scripture itself. Those who claimed that one must wear tefillin—small leather boxes containing scripture texts affixed to the forehead and hand—were not in danger of punishment, whereas those asserting that they should not be punished for causing temptation were punished. To teach contrary to the fatherly traditions, Rabbi Eleazar noted, “has no part in the world to come.” It became the mass of legalistic precepts, rather than Holy Scripture, that formed the foundation of the faith, as the rabbis taught that the covenant of God with Israel was based on oral law, referencing Exodus 34:27. They believed God foresaw that future generations would be led into captivity, and to preserve His will among the Israelites, He provided them with oral law. Those dedicated to studying these traditions “saw a great light” (Isaiah 9:2), as they believed God illuminated their understanding of what is permissible and impermissible, clean and unclean, matters that scripture did not clearly address. Engagement with the Holy Scriptures was encouraged, but diligent study of the traditions of the fathers was considered more rewarding. “The Bible is like water, the traditions are like wine, and the interpretations of them are like fragrant wine.” “My son!” the Talmud admonished, “pay more attention to the words of the scribes than to the words of the law.” This illustrates the overwhelming burden imposed by the legalists of Judaism, which ultimately stifled the essence of the Mosaic law. Such legalism starkly contrasted with the new kingdom that Christ proclaimed—a realm characterized by purity of heart and loving sonship towards the Heavenly Father, where outward ceremonies were merely expressions of that loving relationship. The Pharisees had reduced the law to trivial debates, creating regulations for every action, while Christ elevated the law to a vital principle operating within the conscience. He emphasized that outward rituals could be disregarded if the underlying spirit they represented was upheld. A lifetime would barely suffice to study the rabbinical laws concerning purity and sacrifice, yet Christ abolished them by insisting that “mercy is better than sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6, Matthew 9:13, Matthew 12:7). The rabbinical schools imposed countless elaborate distinctions regarding the purity of various animal parts, yet Christ simplified the matter with a profound truth: “Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a man: but that which comes out of the mouth, that defiles a man” (Matthew 15:11, Mark 7:15). While the scribes debated the proper manner for washing vessels used in various circumstances, Christ redirected the focus towards inner cleanliness. “Ye Pharisees,” He admonished, “purify the outward appearance of the cup and the dish, but your inward parts are full of plunder and deceit” (Luke 11:39). He provided clear and spiritual guidance even for Sabbath laws: “It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” and “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Such teachings were unprecedented among the rabbis, causing them considerable distress.

Additionally, the existence of various sects led to a climate of mutual intolerance and heightened scruples, lending a religious tone to their beliefs—similar to certain divisions within Christianity today. They viewed as impure any item that had been in contact with individuals from different sects. Consequently, if they happened to come from a marketplace where transactions occurred, and unwittingly touched something deemed unclean for trivial reasons, they refrained from eating without first completing a ritual washing—typically their hands, if not their entire bodies—despite the impracticality and occasional lack of necessity of such an act since contact was primarily hands-on. Thus, they meticulously washed their utensils, containers, and even surface areas where they sat or reclined. The same rigorous care was applied to vessels used for purification.

Jews commonly held that, in addition to the written Law, God had imparted an unwritten law to Moses, which was transmitted orally—from Moses to Joshua, then to the judges and the prophets. This oral law, shaped by the pronouncements and interpretations of various rabbis throughout the ages, was revered by the people. Under the influence of the scribes and Pharisees, they frequently prioritized the letter of the law over its intent, trading genuine adherence for human traditions. The meticulous and often trivial stipulations of this oral law were referred to as ‘traditions of the elders’ and were observed with far greater rigor than the moral prescriptions of the divinely ordained law outlined in the Pentateuch. To the detriment of authentic righteousness, the Jewish way of life was ensnared by these distortions of divine revelation, which placed heavy burdens upon the shoulders of both the wealthy and the destitute (Matt. 23:4).

On this occasion, the Pharisees and scribes confronted the disciples of Jesus Christ for failing to perform the ritual washings prescribed by tradition. In the Mosaic Law (Lev. 11), detailed instructions were provided regarding clean and unclean animals; it was stated that merely touching an unclean object rendered an individual unclean until evening. Additionally, if anything unclean came into contact with a wooden vessel, garment, skin, or any article used in daily work, it was mandated that these items be immersed in water, and earthen vessels were to be shattered (vv. 24, 25, 32, 33).

In their effort to safeguard the law and extend its stipulations to the utmost detail, the Jewish legalists deemed it essential to wash one's hands prior to eating, as a preventive measure to avoid transferring any uncleanness from unwashed hands to the food, even unintentionally. This expanded interpretation was rooted in the ‘tradition of the elders’ and was accompanied by numerous trivial rules. The observance of these regulations, which later became codified in the Talmud, is evident in the holy Evangelist Mark's account: "The Pharisees and all the Jews, if they do not wash their hands properly, they do not eat, adhering to the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash" (7:3-4).

Upon seeing some of Jesus' disciples eating bread without washing their hands, the Pharisees and scribes reproached them, then turned to the Teacher with the question: “Why do Your disciples not walk in accordance with the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?” This was not a deliberate oversight on the part of the disciples, as St. John Chrysostom noted, but rather a manifestation of their disregard for what was superfluous, focusing instead on fulfilling what was essential.