Mark 7:4Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

According to Pharisaic customs, it was deemed essential to wash hands before meals and after dining. The Talmud details the specific amount of water required for this ritual, the method of washing, the appropriate timing, and the order of washing, depending on whether there were more or fewer than five individuals present. Members of the Essene sect would routinely immerse themselves in water before eating, as noted by Josephus. The adherence to these customs was considered so crucial that the Sanhedrin would impose excommunication for noncompliance.

In challenging the actions of the disciples, the Pharisees aimed to present the necessity of hand washing and related traditions to the Savior, perhaps hoping to elicit His stance on the significance of these customs. The Lord's response indicates this intention. The Talmud asserts that the traditions of the elders hold greater weight than the words of the prophets, even surpassing the Law, since within the Law, some commands are deemed more significant than others, while the traditions of the elders are seen as universally binding.

A parable from the Talmud illustrates this distinction: a king sent two of his friends to one of his territories with instructions, writing of one, "If he does not show you my ring, do not trust him," and of the other, "Even if he does not show you my ring, you may trust him." This reflects the difference between the prophets and the elders. Regarding the prophets, it is stated, “If a prophet arises among you... and performs a sign or a wonder” (Deuteronomy 13:1), and concerning the elders, “You shall do according to the word that they declare to you from the place that the Lord your God will choose” (Deuteronomy 17:10).

The dialogue between Christ and the Pharisees regarding the traditions of the elders is accurately recorded by the Evangelists. Mark, writing for a Roman audience unfamiliar with Jewish customs, includes clarifications. For instance, he explains what it means to partake of bread with unclean hands and elaborates on the Pharisaic rituals concerning purification. Matthew, in his account, presents a distinct narrative regarding the Lord's response to the news that the Pharisees were offended by His remarks about the elders' betrayal. Both the response and the explanation of the parable, as noted by Mark, occurred privately among the disciples.

Variations among the Evangelists include discrepancies in the sequence of Christ's statements to the Pharisees. When the Pharisees chided His disciples for not adhering to the elders' tradition of washing hands before meals, Christ responded by indicating that such traditions are often human inventions devised to circumvent God's commandments. For instance, the law instructs to honor one's father and mother, with severe consequences for those who disrespect their parents (Ex. 20:12, Ex. 21:17). The Pharisees allowed individuals to declare their possessions as 'korban', meaning a gift to God, which absolved them of their duty to honor and assist their parents.

In prioritizing God’s commandments over human traditions and meticulously observing the laws regarding physical cleanliness, the prophecy of Isaiah regarding the people's actions was fulfilled, as noted in Matthew (Isaiah 29:13 in the LXX). This theme is articulated in different order in Mark’s Gospel.

They believed that neglecting these precautions could lead to contamination, transferring impurity from the person or vessel to the food, then to the body, and ultimately to the soul.

Consequently, it became customary among the rigorous scribes to ensure that not only hands but also utensils, beds, and tables were thoroughly washed before every meal. According to the strict rabbis, failing to wash one’s hands before eating was as severe an offense as consuming pork. "Whoever does not wash his hands before eating risks being cast out from society; for in hand-washing lies the key to the Ten Commandments.” They even stated, “Such a person is worthy of death." The Mishnah noted, "Three sins result in poverty, one of which is neglecting hand-washing." Rabbi Josiah equated eating bread without washing hands to committing adultery. In later traditions, as many as twenty-six specific rules were developed for this ritual during a single morning. The Talmud remarked, "It is preferable to travel four miles for water than to bear guilt from neglecting hand-washing." Furthermore, "He who does not wash his hands after eating is as sinful as a murderer," indicated the stringent opinion of the rabbis. To the scribes, unwashed hands and bread were believed to host the devil Shibta. The Pharisees were characterized by their commitment to eating bread with rigorous purification and looked down upon those who disregarded such practices as unclean.

During this period, legalism reached its zenith, significantly developed by prominent teachers Hillel and Shammai, who lived shortly before the time of Christ. Their discussions on the finer points of the law sometimes escalated to fierce disputes, leading to a saying that even the prophet Elijah, if he returned to earth, would not be able to reconcile them. There was, however, unanimous agreement on manumission, with the Talmud declaring, "Anyone residing in the land of Israel, eating his daily bread in purification, speaking Hebrew, and praying morning and evening with phylacteries, can be assured of eating in God’s kingdom." The prescribed purification involved washing hands in a specific manner: fingers were raised to allow water to flow down to the elbows, and then lowered so the water dripped onto the floor. Fresh water was poured thrice on the hands, and the washing required rubbing one hand against the other. Before eating, hands were to be held upwards, and post-meal, downwards to ensure that the water flowed away from them. The vessel used for washing had to be held alternately in the right and then in the left hand. During each of the three pourings, the words “Blessed are You, Who commanded us to wash our hands” were recited. Disputes among the learned scribes regarding the order of these actions were numerous, demonstrating only a fragment of their broader legalistic framework.

If a Pharisee planned to eat ordinary food, a simple pouring of water on the hands sufficed. However, before consuming sacred tithes or offerings, complete immersion was required. Special attention was given to hand washing before morning prayers or touching anything, as the rabbis believed hands could be defiled by evil spirits during sleep. Touching one’s mouth, nose, ears, or eyes without performing this rite was thought to risk the onset of illness. The various situations that required washing were countless; even after trimming nails or handling a flea, the ritual was necessary. Greater water consumption was associated with higher piety, as Rabbi Hazda stated that those who used much water for hand washing would experience wealth. While those who remained indoors only needed to pour water on their hands, coming in from the street necessitated immersion, which required a location with no less than sixty gallons of water.

So meticulous was this superstitious legalism that it extended to the potential desecration of everyday objects. Every utensil, whether deep or flat, made of any material, was constantly subjected to cleansing rituals to avoid ceremonial defilement through unclean individuals. This obsessive attention to detail reflected a rivalry between the democratizing Pharisees and the haughty, aristocratic Sadducees, the latter emphasizing priestly actions to elevate their status among the populace, while the former stressed the significance of vessel purification and precise observance of rituals to undermine them.

Within this context, the so-called ‘fatherly traditions’, which were said to date back to the Great Synagogue, were regarded as authoritative, often exaggeratedly claimed to have been orally conveyed by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. Interpretations, explanations, and debates sprang up surrounding each word and letter in Scripture, leading to the invention of new laws and rules in situations where existing ones fell short, as if those had also been divinely revealed. Such traditions became elaborate legal systems transmitted orally from generation to generation, giving rise to prominent schools of thought, especially that of Hillel and Shammai, who were active around the time of Christ. Writing was initially frowned upon, but Rabbi Judah, referred to as 'the Holy One', later compiled these diverse fragments, thereby giving rise to the vast Talmudic texts.

Remarkably, these man-made laws and traditions, influenced by the Pharisaic fixation on legality, eventually eclipsed the authority of the Mosaic Law itself. When Scripture and tradition conflicted, tradition was upheld as supreme. The Pharisees candidly stated their position, with the Gospel noting they took their place on Moses' seat, effectively undermining the lawgiver himself (Matthew 23:2). The Mishnah even argued that it was more grievous to teach against the scribes than to contradict Scripture. For instance, it stated one who implies there is no penalty for causing temptation must not be punished. Conversely, teaching variations in the divisions of the "totafot" (tefillin) was seen as sinful. Rabbi Eleazar declared that to interpret Scripture against tradition resulted in exclusion from the world to come. It became clear that the extensive body of legalistic precepts overshadowed the Holy Scriptures themselves; according to the rabbis, God's covenant with Israel was based on oral law, as indicated in Exodus 34:27. God anticipated that Israel would eventually be led into captivity by another nation that could replicate the written law, thus providing them with the oral law to ensure His will remained concealed among them.

Those dedicated to studying the traditions of the fathers claimed to "see a great light" (Isaiah 9:2), receiving divine insight into permitted and forbidden matters not explicitly detailed in the Scriptures. Although the study of Scripture was deemed virtuous, dedicating oneself to the traditions was viewed as particularly rewarded. The Talmud metaphorically depicted the Bible as water, the traditions as wine, and interpretations as fragrant wine. “My son!” the Talmud advises, “pay more heed to the words of the scribes than the words of the law." This exposes the burdensome and often trivial legalism imposed by the Judaism of that era, effectively stifling the spirit of the Mosaic Law. This legalism starkly contrasted with the kingdom that Christ proclaimed, which emphasized purity of heart and loving relationship with the Heavenly Father, rendering rituals meaningless unless they reflected that loving connection.

The Pharisees had deformed the law into an exhaustive codification of rules, while Christ elevated it to a living principle embedded in the conscience of believers. He urged a focus on the spirit of the law rather than rigid adherence to external regulations. A lifetime would not suffice to master the myriad rabbinical laws regarding purity and sacrifice, and Christ outright abolished them, boldly stating that “mercy is better than sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6; Matthew 9:13; Matthew 12:7). While the schools of rabbis provided convoluted distinctions regarding clean and unclean animals, along with the necessary purification rituals, Christ straightforwardly proclaimed, “Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man” (Matthew 15:11; Mark 7:15). The scribes debated which vessels required washing in running water versus standing water, along with the appropriate cleaning ceremonies for different materials. Christ dismissed this dead legalism, urging His followers to focus on internal purity. “You Pharisees,” He remarked, “cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness” (Luke 11:39). Even the Sabbath regulations, burdened with excessive stipulations, were reinterpreted by Him as opportunities for doing good: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27), a revolutionary teaching that incited great agitation among the rabbis.

This oral tradition, derived from the interpretations and teachings of various rabbis throughout the ages, commanded absolute reverence among the people, who, under the influence of the scribes and Pharisees, often prioritized the letter of the law and human traditions over the spirit of the divine commandments. The meticulous and often trivial regulations of this oral tradition became widely known as the ‘traditions of the elders’ and were adhered to with far greater rigor than the moral expectations set forth in the God-given law found in the Pentateuch of Moses. To the detriment of true morality, the Jewish way of life became ensnared in these contrivances of misleading interpreters of Divine revelation, who indeed imposed heavy burdens on the shoulders of the faithful (Matt. 23:4). On this occasion, the Pharisees and scribes accused Jesus' disciples of neglecting the washing rites prescribed by tradition. The law of Moses (Lev. 11) meticulously detailed various clean and unclean animals and stipulated that merely touching unclean items rendered one unclean until evening. Should an unclean object come into contact with a wooden vessel, garments, leather, or anything else used in daily life, it was required that they be immersed in water, and earthenware vessels had to be destroyed (vv. 24-25, 32, 33). By creating a ‘fence’ around the law and extending its teachings to extreme lengths, the Jewish legalists made it mandatory to wash hands before meals as a precaution, to prevent any potential transfer of uncleanness. They justified this extensive interpretation based on the ‘tradition of the elders’ and bolstered it with minute regulations. The fact that these stipulations, which later became integral to the Talmud, were considered obligatory in Jesus' time is evident from the words of the holy Evangelist Mark: Pharisees and all Jews, unless they wash their hands in a particular way, do not eat, adhering to the tradition of the elders, and upon returning from the marketplace, if they do not perform certain washings, they do not eat, among many other practices they have accepted (7:3-4). Upon observing some of the disciples of Jesus eating bread without having washed their hands, the Pharisees and scribes first rebuked them, and then turned to the Teacher Himself, asking: ‘Why do Your disciples not walk in accordance with the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?’ St. John Chrysostom explains that this was not done intentionally by the disciples, but rather because they disregarded what they deemed superfluous and prioritized the essential observances of the law.