Tradition of the Elders

S. Mark vi. 53–56; vii. 1–8

After our Lord had stilled the storm upon the lake He passed over to the other side. The exact point at which He landed is not named, but it was somewhere on the edge of the plain of Gennesaret. This was a small tract of country about three miles broad, running inland a little less than twice that distance, but in beauty and fertility it was unsurpassed, and for historic associations it has been designated “the most sacred region of the lake, if not of the world.”

Its claim to such an honourable title arose mainly out of the fact that it included Capernaum within its boundaries, the city which was “exalted unto heaven” by the many mighty works which were wrought in it.

It was no sooner known that the Great Healer had come back to their shores than the people of the district hastened to bring their sick to be cured. Wherever He went, alike in town and village, the same sight met Him: the village greens and market-places, and the roads in the less frequented localities, were studded in every direction with the pallets of the sick and diseased, and as He passed among them, some, who had been told what befell the woman with the issue of blood, implored permission to touch “but the border of His garment,” and all, “as many as touched Him, were made whole.”

It was in the midst of His work of healing in the land of Gennesaret, or shortly after it, that Jesus was called upon to engage in a far less congenial occupation. The chief rulers at Jerusalem had become alarmed at the influence He appeared to be gaining, and, being dissatisfied with the accounts, which must have reached them, of the complete failure of the Pharisees of Sepphoris 2 and the Galilean Scribes, to convict Him of breaking the Law, determined to send a deputation of more competent disputants.

There are indications that they agreed beforehand that the charge to be made against Him should be for a breach of “the tradition of the elders,” the gravity of which they had wholly miscalculated. Tradition had gained such a firm hold upon the Jewish mind, and was so constantly mixed up with the life of the nation at this time, that a short history of its nature and origin is almost necessary for a due appreciation of much that is written in the Gospels touching the customs and practice of the Jews.

It was an after-growth of the Captivity, originating not improbably with the Great Synagogue, out of which the Sanhedrim was developed. The reverence and care for Holy Scripture, revived by Ezra, and fostered by later Scribes, led to the creation of a school of interpreters, whose comments were handed down from generation to generation, and treated with so much honour that the highest authority was sought for their origin. Some Rabbi, bolder than his predecessors, put forward the theory that God had given to Moses not only the Ten Commandments, but also at the same time a full explanation, even in the minutest detail, of all their applications. This Oral Law, he said, had been revealed by Moses to Aaron and his sons, and the memory of it was cherished and handed on without any loss or diminution in the progress of transmission. As soon as such a view of its origin had gained acceptance with the people, its authority became equally binding upon the conscience with that of the Written Law, and the estimation in which it was held even higher.

In lapse of time it received its interpretation at the hands of the Rabbis, and the disquisitions, illustrations, and additions grew into a great body of doctrine; and after the Jewish motto, “Commit nothing to writing,” had been forgotten, these were all combined in a vast collection, under the title of Gemara, or Talmud. The publication in writing of the Mishnah itself, as the Oral Law was called, had preceded it by two hundred years. It was issued authoritatively by Rabbi Judah, the Holy, at the close of the second century of the Christian era.

There were two familiar sayings among the later Jews, which enable us to understand how widely traditionalism must have conflicted with the teaching of our Blessed Lord. “The words of the elders,” they said, “are of more weight than the words of the prophets;” and, even more startling than this, “The Mosaic Law is as water, the Mishnah as wine, and the Gemara as hippocras.” Hippocras was a richly-spiced drink, most highly esteemed.

Now one of the six books into which the Mishnah is
divided deals entirely with “Purifications.”

It was in a matter relating to this subject that the deputation from the Sanhedrim made a direct attack upon our Lord. Some of them had been present on an occasion when certain of the disciples had eaten bread without the preliminary purification enjoined in the Mishnah. To incur such a defilement was to forfeit all claim to be regarded as a respectable Jew. Indeed it was in their eyes nothing less than an unpardonable offence. It was even said that on one occasion Rabbi Akiba being imprisoned, and allowed only sufficient water to quench his thirst, preferred to die of starvation rather than eat his bread with unwashen hands.

One reason why they were so scrupulous about this washing was a strange belief that an evil spirit settled upon their hands directly they were defiled, and could only be removed by ablutions.

The directions for the ceremonial were elaborately laid down. S. Mark refers to them in the words, “The Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not.” The translation “oft,” founded upon the rendering of the Vulgate, has no other authority, and is obviously untenable as being contrary to fact. They washed only twice, at the outside, before meals. Once with “the first waters,” when the hands were lifted up to let the ablutions run down to the wrist; once with “the second waters,” reversing the position, so as to let them run off at the ends of the fingers. The allusion in the passage before us is probably to the former of these, and the right translation of the disputed word should be “by the wrist.” For the paraphrastic rendering “diligently,” from the idea that the word means “fist,” and that rubbing “the fist” of one hand in the hollow of the other indicates force and vigour, the evidence is wholly insufficient, the Mishnah containing no such direction.

Now, one special source of defilement here mentioned was the market-place. No Jew could pass through an Oriental bazaar without coming in contact either with a heathen or some one ceremonially unclean. The crowd was so great that the most careful precaution might fail to secure him from accidental pollution, and the invariable custom was to wash upon returning home. The word employed for this purification is more literally “baptize themselves;” but as immersion was impossible under the circumstances, and yet further, as the Mishnah nowhere enjoins it, the passage supplies ample justification for our mode of baptizing; it shows that the conditions of that sacred rite are satisfied by affusion. The Jews guarded still further against defilement through drinkingcups, domestic utensils, and household furniture.

With such religious scruples, it was only to be expected that they would be offended at the apparent carelessness of Jesus and His disciples. They asked Him how it was that they too did not “walk” in the tradition of the elders, and they used the expression advisedly, for “the walking,” the Halachah, was the title they gave to the Oral Law which regulated the duties of daily life.

He went back for His answer, as so often, to the declarations of the Old Testament. Some centuries before this, Isaiah had denounced the formalism and hypocrisy of his contemporaries, and the Holy Spirit had so ordered his words that they should describe even more fully a later generation in which the self-same faults would be more largely developed.

It cannot be too carefully noticed that no condemnation is passed upon these rites of purification in themselves. Had the Pharisees recognised their symbolism and deep moral significance: had Jesus been certain that when they washed their hands they thought of or prayed for purity of heart and life, He would have been the last Person to rebuke them, however much they multiplied external forms and ceremonies. These are useful as stepping-stones to higher things; but the moment they begin to satisfy in themselves they become snares, and lead to superstition.

Note: It is impossible to decide whether the text (Him) or the marginal reading (it) of the Authorised Version be right, because the pronoun is of both genders.

Note: Cf. pp. 52, 53.

Note: According to Westcott and Hort, “which came from Jerusalem, and had seen,” — they had previously noticed it. “Cum vidissent,” Jerome. Cf. Speaker’s Com. in loc.

Note: This is only one of many views, but we think the most probable. The Mishnah refers its origin to the seventy elders associated with Moses, but this was only a temporary institution.

Note: “Talmud” means doctrine or teaching; “Mishnah,” repetition; “Gemara,” perfection or completion. The Mishnah is divided into six Sedarim, or “Orders,” on these subjects: I. Seeds, preceded by Benedictions, etc., i.e. “the religio -agrarian laws,” for tithes, first-fruits, etc. 2. Festivaltimes; on Sabbath observance, etc. 3. Women, marriage, divorce, etc. 4. Damages, civil and criminal law, together with the well-known” Sayings of the Fathers.” 5. Holy things, on sacrifices, etc. 6. Purifications, on what is clean and unclean. These are all subdivided into Treatises. For a full and interesting account of the whole question, cf. Artt. MiDRASH and MISHNAH, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, by Dr. Schiller-Szinessy.

Note: Shibta, from a Hebrew root “to sit,” was one of the demons “which sits upon men’s hands in the night, and if any one touch his food with unwashen hands, that spirit sits upon that food, and there is danger from it.”

Note: There used to be another washing after meals before grace with” the last waters,” but this obviously was not alluded to here.

Note: It is quite true that primarily “dipping” was usually adopted — S. Paul’s figure, “buried with him by baptism” implies this, — but the above passage shows that to baptize is merely to pour water on or affuse. Cf. also S. Luke xi. 38.

Note: Cf. Artt. in the Ency. Brit., lit supra.