Elohim vs The Elders?

One of the most commonly cited passages from those who oppose Oral Torah, Jewish tradition, and the notion of Yeshua as a Pharisee is found in Matthew 15. Specifically, the first handful of verses where a dispute between Yeshua and some Pharisees ensues in which these Pharisees accuse Yeshua's disciples of violating the traditions of the Elders:

“Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, “Why do your disciples disobey the tradition of the elders? For they don’t wash their hands when they eat bread.” (Matthew 15:1-2)

In the following verses Yeshua does something rather interesting. Rather than reject the accusation outright by denying any violation had occurred or even denouncing the validity or authority of the elders or their traditions, he accepts and dignifies the accusation. He then goes on to press these Pharisees about another tradition of the elders and its consistency with Torah law. 

“He answered them, “Why do you also disobey the commandment of G-d because of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3)

Important to note about the exchange between verses 1-3 thus far is that it was only Yeshua's disciples who these Pharisees accused of violating this tradition of the elders. They did not accuse Yeshua himself of such a violation. This alone is sufficient to indicate that Yeshua was compliant with these standards of traditional observance, but perhaps he had not come around to instructing his disciples regarding the matter. It may very well be that Yeshua kept this stringency as a personal observance but taught a more lenient standard. 

It is said of Beit Hillel that they taught both the Halacha of Hillel and that of Shammai as well. They’d even teach the Halacha of Shammai first. 

“For three years, the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai argued. One said, 'The halakha (law) is according to our position,' and the other said, 'The halakha is according to our position.' A heavenly voice spoke: "These and those are the words of the living G-d, and the halakha is according to the House of Hillel." A question was raised: Since the heavenly voice declared: "Both these and those are the words of the Living G-d," why was the halacha established to follow the opinion of Hillel? It is because the students of Hillel were kind and gracious. They taught their own ideas as well as the ideas from the students of Shammai. Furthermore, they even taught Shammai's opinions first.” (Talmud Bavli, Eruvin 13b:10-11)

What's more, it was even understood between the schools of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai that in spite of disagreement. Both are in accordance with Halacha:

“Rav Yehezkel taught: One who acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai has acted appropriately and is not in violation of the halakha. One who acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel acted appropriately as well. According to this opinion, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree that one who acted in accordance with the opinion of the other fulfilled his obligation. Although the halakha was ruled in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, Beit Hillel would agree that one who acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai fulfilled his obligation.” (Talmud Bavli, Berekhot 11a:19)

Furthermore, Yeshua dignifies the accusation as valid in his response by stating these Pharisees also (in addition to his own disciples) are committing a violation. 

What's more is Yeshua seems to even equate the previously mentioned tradition of washing hands before eating bread with Torah itself by stating that what these Pharisees violate is also a commandment of G-d. 

While many naysayers may read the statement from Jesus as saying, “Well, that's just a tradition of men they violate but it’s not a violation of G-d's commandment, but you on the other hand, are violating a commandment of G-d by your tradition” and then conclude from this that tradition of man = violation of G-d's law.

The fact remains the passage says nothing of the sort in its plainest reading.  Yeshua's use of the word also is inherently inclusive indicating not only that, as previously stated, these Pharisees are included among his own disciples as being guilty of committing a violation, but that the nature of the violation is also equivocal. That these Pharisees, in addition to his own disciples, have also violated “The commandment of G-d”. It would appear in the plainest sense that what these Pharisees call the “tradition of the elders,” Yeshua calls the “commandment of G-d.” 

With this understanding as the foundation for examining this passage further, there are a few questions worth discussing. 

Who are the Elders?

Many read this passage and assume the Elders being referred to are the Pharisees themselves. Some even more generically just equate them with “the rabbis,” which they broadly apply to anyone involved in the leadership of Judaism of any time period, from the Pharisees of antiquity to the Rabbinic leaders of Orthodox Judaism today. 

Those who equate them are mistaken. The Elders are a specific subset of historical Jewish leadership from a very specific time period prior to the life of Yeshua. Leadership in Judaism has gone by different titles in different periods of history. These titles of leadership fall under the category of Chazal (Leadership of the Mishnaic and Talmudic eras, approximately 250 BC to 625 AD). Among the Chazal were the Soferim (Scribes) who were sages from the time of Ezra the prophet. This would include the men of the great assembly. The time of the Soferim ended around 141 BC. After the Soferim were the Zugot (Pairs) Referring to 5 sets of Pairs of Scholars who served as the Nasi (Prince) and Av Beit Din (Father of the House of Judgement) in the great Sanhedrin. They were the leaders of Judaism from 142 BC to 40 BC(give or take). 

The Elders mentioned in Matthew 15 were likely among the Zugot (due to the time period). After the Zugot were the Tannaim (Teachers) who were the leaders of Judaism responsible for compiling and recording the Mishnah. Their leadership spanned from roughly 10-220 AD, and after them followed the Amoraim (Speakers or Those who say) who were in leadership over Judaism from 200-500 AD, following in the tradition of the Tannaim of the previous era. These are the eras of Jewish leadership of antiquity.

The Chazal do extend into the medieval period with Savoraim (Reasoners, 500-600 AD), the Geonim (Splendors, 589-1038 AD), The Rishonim (The First ones, 11th-15th Century AD), and Acharonim (The Later ones, 16th century to present day). The Rishonim and Acharonim are separated by the writing of the Shulchan Aruch (Lit. "Set Table", Jewish halachic code of Law) by the early Acharonim. 

This fact is generally unknown to the average Christian and ignorance of this lends to the above mistaken understanding of the title “Elders” in the gospel accounts. 

Handwashing in Torah?

Is the commandment to wash hands found in the Torah? Of course it is. 

“You shall also make a basin of bronze, and its base of bronze, in which to wash. You shall put it between the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and you shall put water in it. Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet in it. When they go into the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water, that they not die; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn an offering made by fire to Hashem. So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they not die. This shall be a statute forever to them, even to him and to his descendants throughout their generations.” (Exodus 30:19-21)

In case there was ever any doubt as to whether or not Hand washing can be found in Torah, there it is. At best an argument for context can be made, that this mandate is specifically for priests. 

But it’s very easy to understand how as "a nation of priests" (Exodus 19:6), that Israel would take upon themselves certain of the priestly mandates which are not forbidden to the general Israelite. 

As a nation of priests there were certain purity standards the leadership held to. Thus the Mishnah states:

One must wash his hands by pouring a quarter-log of water over them before eating non-sacred food, and for tithes and for teruma; but for eating sacrificial food one must immerse one’s hands in purification waters, such as those of a ritual bath. And with regard to one who wishes to touch the purification waters of the red heifer used for sprinkling, concerning which the Sages ordained further measures of sanctity, if one’s hands were rendered impure even by rabbinical ritual impurity, which usually only renders the hands impure, his entire body is rendered impure, and he must immerse himself in a ritual bath.” (Mishnah Chagigah 2:5)

The Talmud further states that it was for the sake of the priests that the sages instituted handwashing for the general populace of Israel.

"Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashiyan says: The obligation of washing hands before eating non-sacred food is due to an ancillary decree on account of teruma, the portion of produce designated for the priest, which must be consumed in a state of ritual purity. By rabbinic decree, one’s hands are considered impure with second-degree ritual impurity, as they may have touched impure items. Therefore, they render teruma impure. Consequently, priests who partake of teruma are obligated to wash their hands first. The Sages therefore decreed that all must wash their hands even before eating non-sacred food, so that people not become accustomed to eating without washing their hands, which would in turn lead the priests to partake of teruma without washing their hands." (Talmud Bavli, Chillin 106a:11)

The Pharisees Violation

So what is this violation in question? The passage continues:

“For G-d commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever may tell his father or his mother, “Whatever help you might otherwise have gotten from me is a gift devoted to G-d,” he shall not honor his father or mother.’ You have made the commandment of G-d void because of your tradition.” (Matthew 15:4-6)

According to Yeshua, these Pharisees have a tradition that violates the Torah's mandate to honor one's parents. The tradition he outlines seems to be that if one has vowed some form of wealth (be it money, livestock, crops, etc.) to the temple, they are then absolved of having to offer that wealth to their parents who might have fallen on hard times and have requested help. 

At face value, this isn’t even a tradition. The Torah insists that any vow made to the temple must be kept.

“When you vow a vow to Hashem your G-d, you shall not be slack to pay it, for Hashem your G-d will surely require it of you; and it would be sin in you.”-Deuteronomy 23:21

This passage continues on to further cement the necessity to honor a vow to Hashem.

 “You shall observe and do that which has gone out of your lips. Whatever you have vowed to Hashem your G-d as a free-will offering, which you have promised with your mouth, you must do.”(Deuteronomy 23:23)

And Numbers emphasizes the gravity of what it means to make such a vow.

“When a man vows a vow to Hashem, or swears an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.”(Numbers 30:2)

According to the Torah it is no small thing to break a vow to G-d. When such a vow is made the very soul of the person who made the vow is bound to the vow. It's worth noting here also that the Torah offers no way out of a vow at all. There are only a couple exceptions which render a vow nullified in the Torah, but generally speaking once you make a vow there is absolutely no way to get out of it with Torah law alone.

By a very literal interpretation of Torah law regarding vows, the Pharisees tradition would seem to simply be the most direct interpretation. Not even a tradition at all. 

For those who would like to suggest that the tradition was that these vows were not being made until the parents had requested assistance, as a means to avoid helping one's parents, that really doesn’t make much of a difference. Nor would it constitute a tradition. It also doesn’t help an individual as the funds they didn’t wanna give their parents are still forfeit and cannot be used for personal purposes now that they are bound to a vow made to G-d. A person doesn’t stand to gain by this process. And once more it really offers little to no distinction. When the vow is made isn’t exactly relevant to the accusation or scenario. That the vow is being used as an excuse not to help one's parents is the core of the matter.

It seems the real issue at hand here is that two commands of the Torah are in conflict with one another. The mandate to fulfill one’s vow or the mandate to honor one’s parents? Which one takes precedence? 

The plain reading of the Torah text would obviously imply that the vow is a far weightier matter. However, Yeshua seems to be of the opinion that using such wealth that has been vowed to G-d to help one’s parents is the appropriate way to deal with this conflict. 

As it turns out, this exact opinion is recorded in the Mishnah and as a point of contention between Rabbi Eliezer and The Sages.

“Rabbi Eliezer says: They release a vow [by reference] to the honor of his father and mother but the Sages forbid. Rabbi Zadok said: Instead of releasing through the honor of his father and mother, they should release [by reference] to the honor of G-d. If so, there would be no vows! But the Sages admit to Rabbi Eliezer that in a matter concerning himself and his father and mother one may release a vow [by reference] to the honor of his father and mother.” (Mishnah Nedarim 9:1)

It would seem that Yeshua’s stance on this matter is in agreement with Rabbi Eliezer who also challenged the opinion of the sages on this topic. 

But notice how Yeshua is appealing to the Oral Law with regard to nullifying a vow and not to Torah law which does not make such openings for nullification explicitly, and that Yeshua called this violation of the Oral Law "also violating the commandment of G-d". Nowhere in Torah does it say that one can nullify a vow on account of their parents (whether the intent is malicious or not) and yet Yeshua accuses the Pharisees of violating G-ds commandment because they do not allow for the nullification on this account. He is accusing the Pharisees here of violating their own tradition and he called it "the commandment of G-d".

This prompts the question of how this position could be biblically rationalized. What could have prompted Yeshua and Rabbi Eliezer both to conclude the same resolution to this matter? How does honoring one’s parents override honoring a vow to G-d? Are these two really in conflict? Or is it perhaps a false dichotomy? What if the two are really one and the same? How could that conclusion be arrived at biblically?

Honoring Parents = Honoring G-d

The mandate to honor one’s parents is one of the 10 commandments, and interestingly it is the fifth command listed. The exact transition point between a list of commands that show love to G-d and a list of commands showing love to one’s neighbor.

Many presume the point at which these lists are divided should place honoring one’s parents in the group of “love neighbor” making the division of commands 4 in the “love G-d” group and 6 in the “love neighbor” group. The reasoning for this is that parents, just like every other human being, are created beings themselves and individuals. Therefore, to honor them would constitute a “love neighbor”. But what if the division should actually be 5 and 5? What if Honoring your father and mother should be among the “love G-d” group? Why would that be the case? Ramban explains:

“HONOR THY FATHER. Having finished all that we are obligated towards the Creator Himself and His glory, He turns now to command us about those matters which concern created beings. He begins with the father, for in relation to his offspring, he is akin to a creator, being partner with Him in the forming of the child. G-d is our first Father, and he who begets it [i.e., the child] is our last male parent. This is why He said in the Book of Deuteronomy, [Honor thy father… as the Eternal thy G-d commanded thee]. That is, “just as I have commanded you concerning My honor, so do I command you concerning the honor of those who have joined Me in your formation.” Ramban's Commentary on Exodus 20:12

According to Ramban this commandment is indeed transitional. But that it is directly tied to the prior commands pertaining to loving G-d. That a person's father shares in the creative act that brought about the existence of that person. That in this way, a father is a partner with G-d in creating. And thus a mother as well. This being the case. To honor your parents is to honor your Creator(s) and therefore is tantamount to honoring G-d. 

With this understanding it is easy to see how Yeshua and later Pharisees could conclude that between honoring a vow to hashem and honoring one's parents, to honor one's parents accomplishes both.

Unclean vs Impure

In the 1st century, it seems the nation of Israel was very preoccupied with holiness and ritual purity. Evidence for this ranges from the ubiquity of mikveh pools all over Israel in the time period found in archeology to the writings of the New Testament itself. Namely the book of Acts where Peter in Chapter 10 is shown a vision of a sheet coming down from heaven with all kinds of animals and is instructed by a voice to “kill and eat”. Peter responds that He has never eaten anything unclean or Common. Peter here claims he has never eaten meat which was not acceptable to be offered on the altar.  He has only eaten holy meat. Remember that Peter was a humble fisherman. That one such as he was so preoccupied with ritual purity so as to only ever eat meat that was fitting to serve Hashem himself speaks to the degree to which even the most common among Israeli citizens at the time was concerned with ritual purity. 

The reason this is important is to understand the distinction between unclean and impure. When the discussion between Yeshua and these Pharisees progresses further, Yeshua states that “it is not that which goes into the mouth that defiles a man but that which comes out that defiles him.”(verses 10-20) 

Many antinomians use this passage as a defense for the eating of unclean meat and this distinction between unclean and impure is crucial to dismantling that notion.

First, it’s worth noting that meat in general as a topic of discussion does not fit within the contextual confines of the conversation. Bread is a clean food and the discussion is whether or not eating clean food with unwashed hands renders that food impure (not unclean). Deriving from this that unclean meat is now permissible is a bit of a non sequitur as the conversation is not about clean vs unclean but rather pure vs impure. 

The Pharisees in this case are not accusing the disciples of Yeshua of violating any kosher dietary restriction. Rather they are accusing them of not adhering to certain practical standards of holiness and ritual purity. 

Conclusion

At face value and absent any context, this passage may seem to place a wedge between Yeshua and the Pharisees and even Oral Torah altogether. However when scrutinized in light of context granted by Pharisaic writings, this passage actually unifies Yeshua with the Pharisees and Oral Torah even more. In this passage Yeshua dignifies an accusation made by the Pharisees claiming his disciples had violated a tradition. Yeshua continues further to call that tradition G-d’s commandment when equating another observance of these Pharisees with their own accusation. And to place the cherry on top. Yeshua’s own argument is found to be directly consistent with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer on this topic in the Mishnah. Both of which take issue with the opinion of the Elders/Sages.

As with many other such passages, rather than placing Yeshua at odds with being a Pharisee, this passage is one of the greatest proof that he was a Pharisee.