Traditions and Commandments
Part 1 of a two-part series looking at Mark 7:1-23.
I’ll admit one of many issues that confused me when I first wrestled with Christianity as a teenager was the sheer number of different churches and denominations. I won’t bother sketching them out here. Suffice to say, it did cast doubt on the authenticity of Christianity especially when contrasted with the relative consistency of Roman Catholicism. If the message of Christianity is indeed true, why do we now have so many seemingly different versions of it? You might have wrestled with the same issue or have asked similar questions. If so, take comfort knowing that the earliest disciples of Jesus faced them too, obviously not in the exact same way.
Mark 7:1-23 records for us a clash between the religious establishment (the Pharisees) and Jesus, who leads what seems to be the trending religious movement of the day. One represents the accepted cultural and religious tradition, while the other claims to represent God. Let’s start with the Pharisees.
The Pharisees were a significant religious group in Jesus’ day. They were, for all intents and purposes, the regulators of what is permissible behaviour in accordance with the mosaic law. These regulations were meant to safeguard the religious identity of Israel as God’s people, having been formulated over the years and passed down through the generations. Hence the “tradition of the elders” (v.3, 5). The observance of these traditions was made even more pertinent as Israel itself wrestled with its national identity after having been conquered by Rome. In a context such as this, it’s not surprising that great importance is attached to keeping whatever traditions are left. One such tradition concerns ritual purity through the washing of hands.
Mark 7:3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches. 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”
Keep in mind that the marketplace would likely be a gentile marketplace, underscoring the need for ceremonial washing since for the Jews, anything a gentile touched became unclean. When the Pharisees observed Jesus’ disciples not performing their religious obligations, they issued a challenge to Jesus. Jesus thus defends his disciples and in doing so teaches us an important truth. But first let’s look at Jesus’ initial defence.
Religious Conformity Is Not Enough To Justify Us
6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
“‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
7 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
Jesus’ first point is that religious conformity is not enough to justify us. In fact, it might even condemn us when performed as a matter of obligation. As Isaiah made clear, God hears our prayers but weighs it against our hearts. He sees our actions but judges them against our motivations. The implication being washing of hands goes as far to cleanse us as mere lip-service does to honor God. By insisting on the washing of hands, the Pharisees have supplanted true devotion to God with religious conformity. Hence Jesus says of them,
8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
Simply following the rules does not justify us before God. Mere adherence to the law is no substitute for deep fellowship with God. This should not come as a surprise because the same is true in other relationships as well. Would anyone suppose a wife would be pleased to receive a gift from her husband simply because he is expected to give it? Does a kind deed performed out of obligation not pale in comparison to one freely offered? Do we love God because we want to or have to? The difference is crucial because religious conformity is not enough to justify us. In this way, Jesus defends his disciples against the accusations of the Pharisees.
“Do we love God because we want to or have to? The difference is crucial...”
It might be tempting to dismiss the Pharisaic washing of hands as a miserable attempt to assert some form of moral or religious superiority, though that would have gone down well in our Covid19 climate no doubt. Christians today are no less immune to the trappings of religious conformity. Are we confident in our right standing with God because we are church-going Christians? Perhaps we take comfort in our ability to discern and filter our media consumption, having not watched a single episode of Game of Thrones for example. Some Christian parents may be fervent in shielding their children from anything deemed worldly. In such instances and many others, it’s awfully easy to get a false sense of security because we are doing the right things. But without the inner devotion of our hearts, it is all for naught because religious conformity is not enough to justify us. Having offered up a defence, Jesus now goes on the attack.
Spiritual Indifference Is Enough To Disqualify Us
9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)— 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
Jesus’ second point is that spiritual indifference is enough to disqualify us. If religious conformity is not enough to justify us, spiritual indifference exacerbates it by disqualifying us. Some background knowledge is needed here, particularly the practice of Corban, which is a commitment one makes to hand over whatever possessions to the service of God, even if that hand over is to be made in the future. This most commonly takes the form of pledging to give money to the temple. This would override whatever claim anyone else would have made, for instance, aging parents. It was a legal loophole that allowed people to circumvent the commandment to honor one’s parents. Exactly how much this practice took place historically is unclear, but it is important to note that the people who were responsible for administering this were the people who stand to benefit the most, since through Corban, money was pledged to the religious authorities. The irony was not lost on Jesus. This spiritual indifference is enough to disqualify.
What Corban illustrates is the insidiousness of spiritual indifference. Through it we not only steal from those whom we have an obligation to care for, we even render to God no acknowledgement or gratitude for whatever we currently possess. But perhaps the most dangerous of all is how we lie to ourselves thinking there’s nothing wrong in what we’re doing. We assure ourselves that we are still doing the right thing, even if we are completely in the wrong. Corban might have receded into history, but the spiritual indifference driving it remains. This is particularly evident in how our minds often justifies what our heart wants. A Christian might reason to themselves their continual dating of a non-Christian as evangelism. A church member might absolve their responsibility in a building campaign because they are already tithing. Such examples are elementary. Others are perhaps more ambiguous.
Consider the case of a Christian couple who feel called to leave their established lives and careers to enter the mission field. Now imagine the complication of a sudden pregnancy followed by the birth of a child with significant dependencies. Would it be wise to continue their missionary journey? Or is it irresponsible for them to leave? Just to be clear, I’m not advocating for one or the other, having seen missionary families hurt by careless comments from well-meaning Christians. On the other hand, those who stayed often struggle with guilt. What we are to avoid is the dogmatic assertion that one overrides the other, and the temptation to justify our choices with euphemistic rationales. Far better to own the dilemma and sustain our decision making by trusting in God.
Back to the washing of hands. Jesus dismisses its necessity especially since it is commonly done simply because it must be done. This legalistic approach nullifies any merit it might entail. In other words, religious conformity is not enough to justify us. The Pharisees’ argument is further weakened by their inconsistent application of the law and tradition. Their hypocrisy is obvious. In other words, spiritual indifference is enough to disqualify us. Nevertheless, these two reasons are merely the appetizer to the principal reason why Jesus allows his disciples to forgo the ritual washing of hands. There is a deeper truth which stands in opposition to the washing of hands as revealed in the subsequent verses. That’ll come in part 2.