At this point, Mark tells us that some of Jerusalem’s authorities, namely, scribes and Pharisees, came into Galilee, and we find them speaking with Jesus (Mark 7:1). Some folks try to tell us that they came to spy upon Jesus, but there is no proof of this, not that they were above such things (cp. Mark 3:2; Luke 6:7). Simply because these men were in Galilee at this time is no evidence, in itself, that they were sent there as spies. No doubt, however, they would have told their colleagues, the Jerusalem authorities, what had occurred during their visit. Nevertheless, in light of John the Baptist being slain near the Passover of Jesus’ second year of public ministry,[1] these men most likely had come to join the Galileans in celebrating the next holy day, Pentecost, because everyone couldn’t possibly have celebrated the holy day in Jerusalem. Therefore, Capernaum was undoubtedly a designated city to celebrate the holy days in lieu of going to Jerusalem.
It seems the scribes and Pharisees were looking to find fault with Jesus as a teacher / rabbi. They pointed out to him that at least some of his disciples didn’t wash before eating (Mark 7:2). Notice that Mark tells us that both the scribes and Pharisees and all Jews (Mark 7:3) observe the Oral Law or the traditions of the elders. What is Mark referring to? Does he mean that the all the people of the land observe this custom? No, I don’t believe this is Mark’s intent by pointing to all Jews. Rather, he is probably pointing to the Jewish authorities. The Gospel of John often uses the phrase the Jews to indicate Jewish officials governing the Jewish people. It is inconceivable to think that all the Jews indicated the publicans and the people of the land, whom the rulers believed to be cursed (cp. John 7:49; 9:34). So, those of Jesus’ disciples who didn’t wash did as most Jews were doing at the time, having no distinguishing behavior in their manner of eating.
We need to understand what Mark is doing at this point. He is clarifying a Jewish tradition to his gentile readers. He isn’t saying Jesus’ disciples’ hands weren’t clean. They undoubtedly did wash their hands, but not in the manner taught by the Jewish rabbis, which included washing often during the meal and washing more than their hands—pots, tables and other vessels (Mark 7:4).
“The hands were deemed capable of contracting Levitical defilement, which, in certain cases, might even render the whole body unclean. If the hands were defiled, two effusions were required: the first, or ‘first waters’ (mayim rishonim) to remove the defilement, and the ‘second,’ or ‘after waters’ (mayim sheniyim or acharonim ) to wash away the waters that had contracted the defilement of the hands. Accordingly, on the effusion of the first waters the hands were elevated, and the water made to run down at the wrist, while at the second waters the hands were depressed, so that the water might run off by the finger points and tips…” [Edersheim: Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah; Book 3; chapter 31; page 339-40]
In other words what the scribes and Pharisees were objecting to wasn’t dirty hands, but that Jesus’ disciples ate their meals without going through the accepted rituals that went along with eating their meals. Therefore, their finding fault was not particularly with the Twelve per se, but with Jesus, their rabbi. What had he been teaching them? All the Jewish rabbis taught their disciples to observe the traditions of the elders (i.e., the Oral Law). Why hadn’t he?
There is absolutely no evidence in the scriptures of an Oral Tradition handed down from Moses, as Jewish rabbis claimed. How utterly absurd it is to think that an oral law was accurately preserved from Moses’ day, when the Jewish people coming out of Babylon were so utterly ignorant of the scriptures and had gone so far astray from the Lord, working on the Sabbath, charging brethren interest and divorcing their Jewish wives in order to obtain foreign ones. For two generations after returning from Babylon (see Ezra and Nehemiah) this kind of thing went on unchecked by anyone observing an oral or a written tradition. Moreover, while a written law can be accurately preserved, even if forgotten, how is it possible to remember an oral tradition, once it is forgotten? Hence, the need to later write down the oral traditions of the elders in what we know today as the Jewish Talmud (both Babylonian and Jerusalem). What was once oral had to be written down and codified, if those traditions were to be preserved for later generations of Jews.
The scribes and Pharisees asked Jesus: “Why don’t your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread without washing their hands” (Mark 7:5)? The question was meant to accuse Jesus of being negligent of his duties as a teacher and to expose him as someone who had no respect for the religious men of Jewish history. In other words, Jesus was nothing more than an unpatriotic clod who had no business passing himself off as a Jewish rabbi. In the past, they wrongfully accused Jesus of breaking the Law and of not observing the scriptures. Yet, Jesus showed it was they who broke the Law, not he, and it was they who didn’t observe the scriptures. Nevertheless, how would Jesus reply to the accusation that he was an unpatriotic or disrespectful Jew, who apparently had no regard for holy men of Jewish history, whom the nation held up as examples to follow?[2]
________________________________________________________
[1] See my previous study: What the Context of John’s Death?
[2] See my next study: The Origin and Effect of Jewish Tradition.
Smoodock's Blog 