Among the myriad of laws and ordinances that the nation of Israel observed in the Old Testament, there were regulations concerning their diet. Leviticus 20:25 (“Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.”) is a summation of a more thorough listing found in Leviticus chapter 11 and other places (Deut. 14: 3-21, etc.), and like with all of The Law of Moses, these dietary statutes were by no means optional suggestions as rigid adherence was required.

Later, when Jesus “came unto his own” (Jn. 1:11), many centuries had passed since Moses descended Mt. Sinai. Now four-hundred years removed from Malachi, Israel had seen its ups and downs for sure and was now a recalcitrant vassal of Caesar’s Rome. In the care of the corrupt and tradition-venerating Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees, Moses’ Law, like a barnacle-laden ship, creaked along so-to-speak. Into this maelstrom Jesus emerged as “the fullness of time was come” (Gal. 4:4), and being the juggernaut that he was, he didn’t waste any time upsetting the apple cart of tradition, he obliterated it.

After having challenged the Jew’s understanding of the Law, even touching on some of the Ten Commandments (Matt. 5), another teaching moment presented itself as Jesus found himself embroiled in a one-way conversation with the hypocritical Pharisees who “found fault” with some of His disciples concerning their traditional “commandments” in reference to cleanliness and dining customs (Matt. 15: 1-20, Mk. 7: 1-23, Lk. 11: 37-40). The Mark 7 account of this event demonstrates the deteriorated state of the Pharisees and Scribes as they there, sitting with the Lord of Glory, could only muster, “…Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? Mk. 7:5., and out came the verbal baseball bat! (Lk. 11: 37-52).

Perhaps, even in Jesus’ day, handwashing before eating would’ve been considered a good idea, most people probably did it to one degree or another, but that’s not what was going on here. Handwashing and dining cleanliness (they were eating God-approved food after all) not specified in the Law of Moses, had apparently gone from being a good idea to being an essential legalism. While highlighting their rigid, legalistic, emphasis on the extra-Torahic “…washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables… and many other such like things ye do”, Jesus, in the strongest of terms, rebuked the Pharisees for their errant and obsessive allegiance to “the tradition of the elders” saying, “Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (8) For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.” (Mk. 7:7-8).

Based on Jesus’ ministry and behavior up to this point in the gospel story, even if the Law of Moses had addressed the particular issue (Dining cleanliness) that was serving as the point of contention that day, Jesus would’ve overruled the Pharisees as was his manner (Matt. 12: 1-8, Jn. 8: 1-11, etc.). However, the Law, demonstrating that it was vitally important to God what Israel did and did not eat, did in fact address something very closely attached to dining cleanliness, this being the aforementioned dietary Laws of Moses, separating the clean from the unclean (Lev. 20:25 above). hmmm?… 🤨

This being the case and knowing the tendencies of the carnally religious and those whose confidence is in the flesh (Php. 3: 2-3), it’s not a stretch to ask if the obsessive (Mk. 7:3) pharisaical preoccupation with the “traditional” washing of hands and the “the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables” which had become “doctrine”, was in fact a careless, but probably well-meaning “traditional” addition to the Old Testament’s dietary laws, from which now the Pharisees were judging and “finding fault”. Through the possible “good intentions” of the Pharisees, had the “dietary associated” traditions of the elders now been incrementally elevated into their own Law-like doctrine which all were required to adhere to? It appears so.

In some ways this situation mirrors the assembling of many churches today, except “unwashen hands” has expanded to include one’s whole body as the Christio-religious, pharisaical natured “clean-cut, suit-and-tie, formalwear” culture continues to require one’s focus on his exterior, his “Sunday best”, to be fully “accepted in the beloved”. With a feast before them and Jesus in their midst, many are still overly preoccupied with a zealous allegiance (and consequently the fault-finding that follows) to the militant, rigid, extra-biblical externals of the “tradition of the elders”, “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”. Apparently, Jesus is not happy about this.

Central to the true saint’s devotion to God is a lifestyle of holiness (Rom. 6: 15-22, IICor. 7:1, Eph. 4: 22-24, IThess. 4:1-7, Heb. 12:14, IPet. 1: 14-16, etc.). However, properly tempered with the tone of love, joy, and peace, the fleshly “pharisaical” temptation to exaggerate and “formalize” holiness into extra-biblical edicts and ordinances should be resisted, but not to swing to the opposite extreme (As walking in the modesty of peace and truth requires the spirituality that only comes from devoted discipleship, the carnal then trafficking in the shallower extremes, lobbing judgement grenades back and forth).

As for the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, there was no error in the Law of Moses which was “…holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” Rom. 7:12. However, just as the Pharisees would diminish God’s Law in order to accommodate their tradition (Matt. 15:3-6), so the “well-intentioned” Pharisees would add to the Law, “…teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”. “…they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne…”, to accommodate their tradition. “Adding to” or “taking away from” God’s word, the opposite sides of the same coin, is a violation whose warnings are echoed throughout the scripture.

Jesus said to the multitudes, “…except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven”. Matt. 5:20. Still under the spell of the Pharisaical mystique, I presume this statement could’ve seemed rather daunting to the sensibilities of the common class of people who left all to follow Jesus. However, as time went on Jesus challenged the religious establishment, teaching and demonstrating the grace and truth of true righteousness. The consolation of the people must’ve been received with delight as the Pharisee’s overwrought righteousness was shown to be of the “self” variety.

Expressing disdain for the tradition of the pharisees, Jesus did however address the cleaning of dining-ware in his own unique way; “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. (26) Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Matt. 23:25-26. And if the Pharisees were offended at that, no doubt they were apoplectic about this; (15) “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him:…” (Mk. 7:14-23) (Paul confirming ITim. 4:3-5) as Jesus continued to seemingly chip away, not only at their tradition, but at their Law.

Traditions can be stubborn things, if for no other reason because they are usually good ideas. By definition the formulation of a tradition requires the passage of time. In retrospection one can almost imagine the genesis and “reasonable” development of our tradition in question here; for if the God-specified food needed to be “clean”, reason would have it that the hands, tables, dining utensils, etc. that would be touching the “holy” food needed to be clean as well. Then with the passage of more time, it’s just a short stretch for well-intentioned Pharisees to reason, given the severity of the law, certainly God would be pleased with, or even require, clean hands, tables and dining vessels, wouldn’t he? Sure, he would. In fact, said the Pharisee, it should be written in a separate book as a commandment, and if not written in a book, at least kept as an unwritten rule against which we will find fault if not rigidly obeyed. Then with the passage of more time this becomes its own doctrine (and commandments of men), incorporated into and indiscernible from the Law. That is, until Jesus arrives on the scene.

GS