The Secret Codes in Matthew: Examining Israel’s Messiah, Part 10: Matthew 15, by Kevin M. Williams
From Pneuma Review Summer 2003
Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread” (Matthew 15:1-2).1
The Pharisees we encounter here seem to be challenging Yeshua (Jesus)2 once again. Certainly, given our studies so far, we may suspect their motives. Yet the fact that they asked questions does not necessarily imply that they were attacking the Messiah. Rather, it seems, this may be an instance when they were trying to ascertain Yeshua’s theology.
Indeed, we can learn quite a bit from this exchange. The issue at hand is not the Torah of Moses, but the “tradition of the elders,” also commonly referred to as the oral law. The specific “tradition” in question is the washing of hands—an observance called n’tilat-yadayim.
The Pharisees, as we have discussed in previous chapters, were fastidious about ritual purity. They would go to extremes to avoid coming into contact with any unclean thing. One of the results of what may seem to be obsessive-compulsive behavior were the additional rules meant to be “helps” for avoiding ritual impurity.
In the Talmud, tractate Tosefta Berakhot 5:27, is a section regarding the cleanness of hands and food:
The School of Shammai say, “One wipes his hands on the napkin, and places it on the table, lest the liquid in the napkin become unclean because of the cushion, and returns and renders the hands unclean.” The School of Hillel say, “(In case of) doubt concerning liquid on the hands, they are clean.” Another interpretation: “One does not wash the hands for common food. But one wipes his hands on the napkin, and places it on the cushion, lest the liquid in the napkin become unclean because of the table, and return and render the food unclean.”
This is an example of the type of discourse found in the multi-volume Torah commentary—the Talmud. We have represented here both the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel. Shammai was considered by most to be very rigid and highly conservative in its interpretation and application of both the Torah and the oral tradition.
The School of Hillel, on the other hand, was considered far more liberal in its approach. From the School of Hillel came the great Rabbi Gamliel, the teacher of the apostle Paul (Acts 22:3). In modern Orthodox Judaism, which is considered by many to be rather strict, the teachings of the liberal Hillel stood the test of time and are most often applied (which causes one to wonder how exacting Shammai’s teachings must have been!).
The questions the Pharisees put before Yeshua may have been a litmus test to find out with which school of thought Yeshua approved. Shammai was adamant about keeping the fingers clean. He taught that the hands could become “unclean” rather easily and thereby render any food being eaten as ritually unclean. Once a person ingested something ritually unclean, he or she also became unclean, and other laws of separation may be applied.
The School of Hillel on the other hand, took a more liberated approach. Their basic philosophy was, when in doubt, “the hands, they are clean.”
Many of the debates carried out two thousand years ago between the various schools of thought have resulted in contemporary observances. In modern Jewish orthodoxy, the tradition of n’tilat-yadayim lives on. In modern Orthodoxy it is believed the dinner table is symbolic of the holy altar and the meal representative of the holy sacrifice. Therefore, a basin is kept nearby so that before every meal the patriarch—the head of the house and symbolic priest of his home—can ceremonially wash his hands before eating just as the Levites washed before assuming their priestly duties.
There is one other potential understanding to consider. Messianic Rabbi Dr. Harris Brody draws on another “tradition of the elders” that may add to our appreciation of the overall context. This tradition is rooted in something called Kabbalah. Kabbalah, simply put, is Jewish mysticism that often has more in common with the occult than the Bible. It has become very popular among the Hollywood elite and New Age adherents. Its foundations are based not on Torah as some might mislead, but on a series of commentaries called the Zohar, allegedly compiled in the second century, but discovered and brought to light during the Middle Ages.3
In this kabbalistic tradition, it is taught that when a person goes to sleep at night, his spirit leaves his body through his fingertips. Once a person’s spirit is gone, it is taught, demonic forces enter one’s body and influence such things as nightmares and unclean nocturnal emissions. As dawn approaches, the demons leave the body—exiting through the fingers—and your own soul reclaims your physical form. For many of us, this thinking is beyond all biblical rational, as well it should be. This is one small sample of Kabbalah that can indicate to us how non-biblical it is, regardless of how carefully or religiously it may be packaged.
Since in their thinking the demons left through the fingers, the kabbalists believed that the hands were therefore rendered unclean every night. After all, the last things the unclean spirit touched were your fingers! When a follower of Kabbalah wakes up in the morning, one of the first observances practiced is the n’tilat-yadayim—the washing of hands. As the theory goes, once the fingers are rendered ritually pure, the person can go about his business without any risk of contaminating anyone else from the “unclean spirits.” Similarly, he can eat without risk to his own person.
Even today, though it is generally understood that God declared all fruits “clean” or kosher, many Orthodox will, for example, peel an apple because, “no one knows who may have handled it or with what [uncleanness] it may have come into contact”
After years of separation from religious Israeli culture, a Christian’s appreciation of these events is sometimes lacking. This discussion of washing the hands, for example, was one of many doctrinal debates that were a part of daily life among the P’rushim (Pharisees), or anyone interested in biblical studies. Even among the separatist Essene community of Qumran (who left us the Dead Sea scrolls), we find a deep regard for ritual purity. It appears to have been a topic of debate and concern among the ancient Israelites. Whether considering the tradition of Hillel, Shammai, Kabbalah, or the Essenes, this interaction with Yeshua would have been a normal part of discourse and religious debate. It would be akin to one of us asking, “So what’s your opinion?”
In a typical Jewish fashion, the Rabbi’s rabbi answers the question with a question.
And He answered and said to them, “And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:2).
In my own life, Yeshua’s response is akin to asking my mother how to spell “such and such.” Her typical response was, “Don’t’ ask me. Go look it up.” She understood very well that if she answered my question, I might find it useful for a moment, but would learn nothing for the long term. By having to investigate the spelling on my own, it was hoped—at least—that I would learn something that could serve me for a lifetime.
By answering the Pharisees’ question with a question, it forced them to think. The Redeemer was less concerned with answering their question as he was with opening their eyes to double-minded dogma.
And He answered and said to them, “And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? “For God said, ‘honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’ “But you say, ‘Whoever shall say to his father or mother, “Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition (Matthew 15:3-6).
As Yeshua exemplifies time and again, the Tanakh, the Old Testament, is an excellent tool for combating spiritual delusion. He also demonstrates that he not only has mastery of Scripture, but of the oral law as well.
Again we turn to the Talmud and its commentary on “vows concerning dedicated property” to get a better understanding of the context of our passage.
If a man was forbidden by vow to have any benefit from his fellow, and he had naught to eat, his fellow may give (the food) to another as a gift, and the first is permitted to use it. It once happened that a man at Beth Horon, whose father was forbidden by vow to have any benefit from him, was giving his son in marriage, and he said to his fellow “The courtyard and the banquet are given to thee as a gift, but they are thine only that my father may come and eat with us at the banquet.” His fellow said, “If they are mine, they are dedicated to heaven.” His fellow said, “Thou didst give me what is thine only that thou and thy father might eat and drink and be reconciled one with the other, and that the sin should rest on his head!” When the case came before the Sages, they said: “Any gift which, if a man would dedicate it, is not accounted dedicated, is not a (valid) gift” (Mishanah Nedarim 5:6).
Yeshua’s answer to their question really demonstrates some of the shallowness of the “tradition of the elders.” We may rightly ask, “What kind of vow would prohibit a father from taking food from his own son?” In a rational world, nothing ought to cause such a prohibition. However, this is rarely a rational world. People can say all variety of hurtful things and make all kinds of unfortunate vows in the heat of the moment. For instance, a father-son argument may have taken place in which the son makes an off-handed comment about “not wanting anything from you!” In the presence of witnesses, such a statement is considered a vow, and even though a casual covenant, nonetheless it was considered legally binding.
There is a great deal we could say about such casual covenants, and much that should be said. In our society we comment on all variety of things which in the biblical era would have gotten us into trouble: “Let’s do lunch,” or “I’ll give you a call,” or the like are—after the ancient form—vows. Those may seem rather innocuous, but even our Messiah said “let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything beyond is evil (Matthew 5:37). Given the other things we say in our society such as, “I’m never going to speak to you again,” or “That’s the last time I’m ever setting foot in that house,” and we begin to see how common vows have become—even if we don’t realize we have invoked one.
Rather than deal with reconciliation, and bringing the father and son back together in a healed relationship, the oral law would uphold the vow, actually keeping the relationship fractured. Yeshua’s answer reminds these Pharisees—as well as it reminds us today—that our priority is not to give torn parent/child relationships sanctuary, but to remember God’s commandments of honoring and treating others as we would like to be treated.
What does this have to do with clean hands? Yeshua’s purpose was to point out how some (though not all) of the oral traditions were outside the framework of God’s divinely ordained Torah. His example points out that even though a person may make a vow, God’s Word about honoring parents and not speaking evil of one’s parent take priority. That priority helps to maintain human relationships, reconciliation, nurtures the family unit and ultimately, the entire community. Like the entirety of God’s Torah, the commandments were for our personal and collective good.
This is juxtaposed against their question about washing hands. In his answer, Yeshua’s response is designed to make them think something along the lines of, “Okay, we asked him about ritually clean hands and he told to us how our oral tradition violates God’s Torah. The inference, therefore, must be that our traditions regarding clean hands must also be in violation of God’s Torah.”
In theory, this line of reasoning would cause these Pharisees—or anyone—to examine exactly what they teach and if it stands in opposition to God’s Word. This form of debate was common. By answering their question the way he did, Yeshua answered their question indirectly, and may have hoped to get them to analyze all of their traditions.
Yeshua’s parting comment again calls on the Tanakh.
“You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men’” (Matthew 15:3-9, referencing Isaiah 29:13 ).
His message to these Pharisees, and to us, is that we can worship God and still worship Him corruptly, putting our faith in what “we” do and what “we” teach rather than what God’s own Word teaches. Certainly we can find examples of this in our modern denominations, where it may be forbidden to drink this or that, out of concert with God’s Word. We may criticize and scrutinize the Pharisees, but perhaps we should do what Yeshua intended, and scrutinize all of our own vows and traditions. Are our opinions in complete accord with the entirety of the Word we profess?
The scene then escalates. Having declared the traditions of the elders suspect, he then answers the original question. However, he does not answer the P’rushim, he speaks to the “multitude.”
And after He called the multitude to Him, He said to them, “Hear, and understand. Not what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man” (Matthew 15:10-11).
Yeshua turns from the Pharisees, who were likely still standing nearby, and addresses the throng around him. This slight would speak loudly to the Pharisees. Clearly the disciples were disturbed. Irritating the Pharisees was not, in natural man’s thinking, the quickest way to rise in political influence.
Then the disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?”
But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matthew 15:12-14).
Clearly, Yeshua is not concerned with what people think of him or with earning anyone’s favor. He is, however, as we can see through the entirety of his ministry, concerned with the proper handling of the holy Scriptures.
His comments about blind men leading the blind have become a common euphemism in today’s English language. It gives great credibility to the words of James as well, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). Certainly the P’rushim were judged strictly.
The talmadim (disciples) however, are clearly influenced by the traditions of the elders, and things such as ritually clean hands. Even though they have heard Yeshua’s words, they still don’t understand.
And Peter answered and said to Him, “Explain the parable to us” (Matthew 15:15).
Either they still agreed with the oral tradition, or Yeshua’s method of teaching by inference had been lost on them (Which is possible. The talmadim were common folk and had not proceeded with a formal higher education as the Pharisees). To dispel any further misunderstanding, Yeshua again addresses the biblical principles of what cannot render a person unclean.
And He said, “Are you still lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated? But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man” (Matthew 15:16-20).
Yeshua not only addresses the literal physical issue but he emphasizes the deeper, spiritual relevance. The main point? What you do—adherence to the oral tradition—is not as important as who you are inside. The real transforming power is not in ritual observance, but in spiritual application. Anyone can be obedient—or go through the motions—and appear “pure,” but still have forms of spiritual impurities bubbling inside.
___
And Jesus went away from there, and withdrew into the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman came out from that region, and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed” (Matthew 15:22).
This is, to me, one of the overlooked passages of the Matthew. We find a non-Jewish woman asking for help and being—at least initially—rejected by Yeshua. But what is there below the surface?
This woman does not appear to be an ignorant Gentile woman. Rather, she seems to have a great deal of biblical knowledge.
A) She knows who Yeshua is and presumably, what is being said about Him. Word of His miracles has obviously reached Tyre and Sidon and gone well beyond the Jewish community alone. This nameless woman obviously had a Messianic vision not common among Gentiles. Where would she have gained this understanding?
B) She demonstrates a messianic expectation, she calls him “Lord, Son of David.” She is the first non-Jew to publicly use this title. A woman from “the nations” knows his lineage, knows the promise, has pieced the clues together and though not Israeli by blood, bows to Israel’s king.
C) She understands the spiritual concept of demon-possession—a foreign concept to most pagans. In her world there were false gods, whose favors could be won or wrath received depending on what votive offers were or were not made. Demon-possession—to actually be inhabited by an unclean spirit—was largely a Judeo concept.
This woman has knowledge and understanding (a God-fearer?), and together, they gave her a bold faith.
But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came to Him and kept asking Him, saying, “Send her away, for she is shouting out after us.” But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:23-24).
Yeshua initially remains silent, but it would seem that this only emphasizes the point that is about to be made. His disciples misunderstood his silence as rejection and wanted Yeshua to send her away (as any of us might). But his answer is what warrants examination, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
This would indicate, would it not, a Jews-only club? On the surface we might believe that. But Matthew wrote this gospel to be a witness to the Jewish people of the Messiahship of Yeshua. Was Yeshua’s subsequent interchange merely grace being poured out on an undeserving Gentile woman? Or was there a message beneath the surface?
The answer may rest in Yeshua’s choice of words, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” He could have said, “I was sent to the lost people of the house of Israel.”. However, He purposefully chooses an animal allegory. This is a clue to the greater purpose of this interchange.
The Lord GOD, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares, “Yet others I will gather to them, to those already gathered.” All you beasts of the field, All you beasts in the forest, Come to eat (Isaiah 56:8-9).
Keeping this prophecy in mind, that there are Israelites and there are other beasts who come to eat—for the purpose of being gathered in with Israel—the following dialogue in our Matthew account may take on new relevance.
But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” And He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” But she said, “Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table” (Matthew 15:25-27).
Ah, one of the “beasts” has come to eat—Isaiah’s words are about to become reality.
Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, your faith is great; be it done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed at once (Matthew 15:28).
We have no additional commentary on which to build, but it would seem that Yeshua has affirmed that Gentiles, prophesied in Isaiah 56, who are justified by faith are welcome into the flock that was once reserved only for the house of Israel. This seems perfectly consistent with Yeshua’s words in another gospel account:
And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they shall hear My voice; and they shall become one flock with one shepherd (John 10:16).
This exchange with this woman may be yet one more example of Matthew demonstrating that Yeshua is the long awaited Messiah, whose sovereignty and mercy extend not only to Israel, but to all creation.
___
Matthew’s goal, to proclaim the Messiah to the Jewish people, is carried on through the rest of chapter 15:
And departing from there, Jesus went along by the Sea of Galilee, and having gone up to the mountain, He was sitting there. And great multitudes came to Him, bringing with them those who were lame, crippled, blind, dumb, and many others, and they laid them down at His feet; and He healed them, so that the multitude marveled as they saw the dumb speaking, the crippled restored, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel (Matthew 15:20-31).
If there were any doubts that Yeshua was the Messiah, Matthew dispels them here. As discussed in an earlier section of this Matthew study, the people were looking for a Messiah through whom the lame would walk, the blind would see, and the dumb would talk, and so forth. In fact, when John’s disciples come to ask Yeshua if he is the “One,” his answer is not “yes” or “no,” but an affirmation of the anticipated:
Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the gospel preached to them (Luke 7:22, also Matthew 11).
The miracles fulfilled the public’s messianic expectations. Six signs were given by the prophet Isaiah to confirm the identity of the promised Messiah:
1) Isaiah 29:18, 35:5 (blindness)
2) Isaiah 35:6, 61:1 (lameness)
3) Isaiah 61:1 (leprosy cleansed)
4) Isaiah 29:18, 25:5 (deafness)
5) Isaiah 11:1-2 (resurrection implied)
6) Isaiah 61:1-2 (evangelize the poor)
This is the second time in the gospel of Matthew that we have encountered this list of miracles. A second testimony, if you will, to the identity of this man from Nazareth. To whom went the praise? “… They glorified the God of Israel.”
___
In our next examination of Matthew’s gospel, we will take a look at those who seek a sign. Despite the many signs already seen and miracles witnessed, they demand another. We shall see what the Messiah thinks of this faithlessness.
If you have any comments or questions on this study, please direct them to the editor at the Pneuma Review.
Endnotes
1. Unless noted otherwise, all Scriptures are quoted from the New American Standard Bible, used with permission
2. Yeshua is the Hebrew form for “Jesus,” and is used throughout this text.
3. Though after the death of the rabbi who allegedly found these 2nd Century scrolls known as the Zohar, his wife adamantly reported that no such scrolls had ever existed.
