성경 주석서

장로들의 전통을 범하나이다 - “장로들”이라는 말은 문자적으로 “늙은 사람들”을 뜻한다. 여기서는 “고대인들”, 곧 그들의 “조상들”을 뜻한다. “장로들의 전통”은 기억을 통해 한 사람에게서 다른 사람에게 전해 내려온 어떤 것, 곧 기록된 율법에는 명령되어 있지 않지만 서기관들과 바리새인들이 자신들이 지켜야 한다고 여긴 어떤 계명이나 관습을 뜻했다.

그들은 모세가 시내산에 있을 때 두 종류의 율법이 그에게 전달되었다고 생각했다. 하나는 기록되었고, 그것이 구약성경에 담긴 율법이라고 그들은 말했다. 다른 하나는 아버지에게서 아들에게 전해졌고, 그들의 시대까지 부패하지 않게 보존되었다고 했다. 그들은 모세가 죽기 전에 이 율법을 여호수아에게, 여호수아가 사사들에게, 사사들이 선지자들에게 전했으므로, 그것이 탈무드에 기록될 때까지 순수하게 보존되었다고 믿었다. 지금 이 꾸며 낸 율법들은 이 책들 안에 담겨 있다. 그것들은 지극히 많고 매우 사소하다. 그러나 유대인들은 그것들을 모세나 선지자들보다 더 중요하게 여긴다.

바리새인들이 사두개인들과 달랐던 한 지점은 이러한 전통들을 붙든 데 있었다. 그러나 여기 언급된 특정 전통들에 대해서는 모든 유대인이 일치했던 것으로 보인다. 마가가 막 7:3에서 “바리새인들과 모든 유대인은 장로들의 전통을 지켜 손을 자주 씻지 않으면 먹지 않는다”고 덧붙이기 때문이다. 마가는 또한 이 씻는 관습이 단지 먹기 전의 손에만 국한되지 않고, 시장에서 돌아올 때에도 적용되었으며, 잔과 주발과 놋그릇과 상에도 적용되었다고 덧붙였다, 막 7:3-4. 그들은 표면상 청결을 위해 이것을 행했다. 그 점까지는 좋았다. 그러나 그들은 또한 그것을 미신의 문제로 만들었다. 그들은 외적 정결을 마음의 정결보다 훨씬 더 중요하게 여겼다. 그들에게는 사용해야 할 물의 양, 물을 적용하는 방식, 몇 번 바꾸어야 하는지, 한 번에 몇 사람이 씻을 수 있는지 등에 관한 많은 어리석은 규칙이 있었다. 우리 구주께서는 이러한 규칙들을 존중하는 것이 합당하다고 생각하지 않으셨고, 이것이 그들이 그분을 “비난한” 이유였다.

장로들 — 유대인 가운데의 통치자들과 관원들이다. 손을 씻지 아니하나이다 — 얼마나 하찮은 헛소리인가! 이 바리새인들은 우리 복되신 주와 그 제자들의 행실이나 가르침에서 자기들의 악의가 붙잡을 만한 것을 아무것도 얻지 못하였고, 그리하여 손 씻는 일을 두고 다툴 수밖에 없었다! 온갖 부류의 바리새인은 종교 사회에서 성가신 사람들이다. 그 까닭은 그들이 자기를 고치는 일보다 남을 탓하는 일에서 더 큰 즐거움을 얻기 때문이다.

장로들의 전통 — παραδοσις 곧 전승이라는 낱말은 유대 교회와 그리스도교 교회 양쪽에서 아주 두드러진 자리를 차지하여 왔다. 사람은 언제나 자기를 지으신 이의 일을 손보기를 좋아한다. 그리하여 그는 신적 계시에까지 자기의 마무리 손길을 대기에 이르렀다! 이 덧붙여진 것을 παραδοσις 라 불렀으니, 이는 「손에서 손으로 건네주다」 곧 「전하여 내리다」를 뜻하는 παραδιδομαι 에서 나온 말이다. 라틴어 낱말 tradition 도 여기에서 나왔으니, 「건네주다」, 특히 「한 사람에게서 다른 사람에게 건네주다」 — 「물려주다」를 뜻하는 trado 에서 나온 것이다. 유대인들 가운데서 전승은 구전 율법이라고도 불리는 것을 뜻하는데, 그들은 이것을 기록된 율법과 구별한다. 뒤엣것은 오경에 있는 대로 모세의 규례들을 담고 있고, 앞엣것 곧 장로들의 전승은 모세에게서 대대로 잇달아 전하여 내려왔으나 글로 적어 두지는 아니한 전승 또는 교훈이다. 유대인들은 하나님께서 모세에게 기록된 율법을 주실 때에 그 율법의 해석인 구전 율법도 함께 주셨다고 꾸며 말한다. 이 율법을 모세는 먼저 아론에게 전하였고 다음에 그의 아들 엘르아살과 이다말에게 전하였으며, 이들 다음에는 칠십이 장로에게 전하였으니, 이 장로들은 열두 지파에서 각각 여섯 사람씩 뽑힌 가장 뛰어난 이들이었다. 이 칠십이 사람이 모세와 아론과 더불어 그것을 다시 온 백성의 우두머리들에게 전하였고, 그 뒤에 회중 전체에게 전하였다. 또 그들이 말하기를, 모세가 죽기 전에 이 구전 율법 곧 전승의 체계를 여호수아에게 전하였고, 여호수아는 자기 뒤를 이은 장로들에게, 그 장로들은 선지자들에게, 선지자들은 서로에게 전하여 마침내 예레미야에게 이르렀으며, 예레미야는 그것을 자기 서기관 바룩에게 전하였고, 바룩은 그것을 에스라에게 되풀이하여 일러 주었으며, 에스라는 그것을 대회당 사람들에게 전하였는데 그 마지막 사람이 의인 시몬이었다고 한다. 의인 시몬은 그것을 소코의 안티고누스에게 전하였고, 안티고누스는 요하난의 아들 요세에게, 그는 요에셀의 아들 요세에게, 그는 아르벨 사람 나단과 프라히야의 아들 여호수아에게, 그들은 타바이의 아들 유다와 샤타의 아들 시므온에게, 그들은 셰마야와 압탈리온에게, 그들은 힐렐에게, 힐렐은 자기 아들 시므온에게 전하였으니, 이 시므온은 곧 그리스도께서 주께 드리려고 성전에 데려가심을 받았을 때에 그를 팔에 안았던 바로 그 사람이다. 시므온은 그것을 자기 아들 가말리엘에게 전하였으니 가말리엘은 성 바울의 스승이다. 가말리엘은 그것을 자기 아들 시므온에게 전하였고, 시므온은 자기 아들 랍비 유다 하코데시에게 전하였는데, 유다 하코데시가 그것을 모아 정리하여 미슈나라 불리는 책으로 엮었다. 이 미슈나를 설명하려고 예루살렘 탈무드와 바벨론 탈무드라 불리는 두 탈무드가 편찬되었으니, 이것들은 게마라 곧 「보완」이라고도 불린다. 이것들로 구전 율법 곧 미슈나가 온전히 설명되기 때문이다. 예루살렘 탈무드는 주후 300년경에 완성되었고 바벨론 탈무드는 6세기 초엽에 완성되었다. 이 탈무드는 암스테르담에서 12 vols. 2절판으로 인쇄되었다. 이것들이 장로들의 전승 전부를 담고 있는데, 하나님의 말씀을 설명하였다기보다 오히려 잘게 부수어 흩어 버렸으니, 우리 주께서 「너희의 전통으로 하나님의 말씀을 폐하는도다」 하고 말씀하실 만도 하였다. 이것들이 유대인들에게 어떤 평가를 받는지는 다음 실례들이 증명할 것이다. “서기관들의 말은 율법의 말보다 사랑스럽다. 율법의 말에는 무거운 것과 가벼운 것이 있으나 서기관들의 말은 다 무겁기 때문이다.” 예루살렘 탈무드 『베라코트』 fol. 3.

“경문 띠는 없다고 말하는 자는 이로써 율법의 말을 어길지라도 죄가 없다. 그러나 Totaphot 이 다섯이라고 말하여 서기관들의 말에 더하는 자는 죄가 있다.”

“선지자와 장로를 무엇에 견주겠는가! 자기 종 둘을 한 지방으로 보내는 왕에게 견줄 것이다. 그 한 사람에 관하여는 왕이 이렇게 쓴다. 그가 너희에게 내 인장을 보이지 아니하거든 그를 믿지 말라. 선지자에 관하여는 이렇게 기록되었기 때문이다. 그가 네게 표징을 보이리라. 그러나 장로들에 관하여는 이렇게 쓴다. 그들이 네게 가르칠 율법을 따르라. 내가 그들의 말을 굳게 세울 것이기 때문이다.” — 프리도 Con. vol. ii. p. 465 와 라이트풋의 『탈무드 주해』를 보라.

손을 씻지 아니하나이다 — 유대인들은 음식을 먹기 전과 후에 손을 씻는 일에 큰 무게를 두었다. 그들은 씻지 않은 손으로 먹는 것을 예사로운 죄로 여기지 아니하였다. 그리하여 사람들이 손을 씻게 하려고 그들은 이렇게 꾸며 냈으니, Shibta שיבתא 라 하는 악한 영이 밤에 손 위에 앉아 있다가 손을 씻지 않고 먹는 자의 음식 위에 앉아 그 음식을 그에게 해롭게 만들 권리를 가진다는 것이다! 그들은 이 예식을 가볍게 여기는 사람을 이교도보다 나을 것이 없다고 여겨 마침내 그를 출교한다. 이 교리의 실례를 쇠트겐과 라이트풋에게서 많이 보라.

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?.... Having observed, for some little time, the conduct of Christ and his disciples, they thought proper to take no notice of him as yet, but of them; and of them, not as transgressing any command of God, but of men; not being able to charge them with any breach of the law of God: and could they have done this with any show of truth, yet they might choose rather to accuse them of breaking the rules of the elders; by whom they mean, not the elders of the present sanhedrim, but Hillell and Shammai; the two heads of their famous schools, and other ancient doctors; from whom were delivered by one to another, certain rules and laws of their own devising, which had no foundation in the word of God; and of these the Scribes and Pharisees were more tenacious, than of the Scriptures; and indeed they preferred them before them: most extravagant are their praises and commendations of these unwritten traditions; thus they say (d),

"Know then, that "the words of the Scribes" are more lovely than the words of the law: for, says R. Tarphon, if a man does not read, he only transgresses an affirmative; but if he transgresses the words of the school of Hillell, he is guilty of death, because he hath broke down a hedge, and a serpent shall bite him. It is a tradition of R. Ishmael, the words of the law have in them both prohibition and permission; some of them are light, and some heavy, but "the words of the Scribes" are all of them heavy--Mynqz , "weightier are the words of the elders", than the words of the prophets.''

And elsewhere (e), this advice is given;

"My son, attend to "the words of the Scribes", more than to the words of the law; for in the words of the law, are affirmatives and negatives; but the words of the Scribes , "everyone that transgresses the words of the Scribes", is guilty of death.''

This is what they charge the disciples with here, and could they have had their wills, would have put them to death for it: the particular tradition, they accuse them with the breach of, follows,

for they wash not their hands when they eat bread; common bread, an ordinary meal; for, for eating of holy things, more than bare washing was required, even an immersion of them in water; but the hands were to be washed before eating common food, whether they were known to be defiled or not: "bread" is particularly mentioned, as including all sorts of food, and as distinct from fruit; for, for eating of common fruit, there was no need of washing of hands; he that washed his hands for eating fruit, was reckoned an ostentatious man (f), who were the first authors of this tradition, it is not certain; it is said (g), that

"Hillell and Shammai decreed , "concerning the purification of the hands"; R. Jose ben R. Bon, in the name of R. Levi, says, so was the tradition before, but they forgot it; and these two stood up, and agreed with the minds of the former ones.''

"However, it is a certain point, that the washing of the hands, and the dipping of them, are , "from the words of the Scribes" (h).''

The breach of this rule was reckoned equal to the most flagitious crimes (i): R. Jose says,

"whoever eats bread without washing of hands, is as if he lay with a whore: and, says R. Eleazer, whoever despiseth washing of hands, shall be rooted out of the world.''

And elsewhere it is said by them (k), that

"he that blesseth (food) with defiled hands, is guilty of death.''

And again (l),

"whoever does not wash his hands as is fitting, although he is punished above, he shall be punished below.''

And to fright people into an observance of this tradition, they talk of Shibta, a sort of an evil spirit, that hurts such as eat without washing their hands: they say, he sits upon their hands, and upon their bread, and leaves something behind, which is very dangerous (m); and it is recorded (n), to the praise of R. Akiba, that he chose rather to die, than to transgress this tradition; for being in prison, and in want of water, what little he had, he washed his hands with it, instead of drinking it. Eleazar ben Chanac was excommunicated for despising the tradition concerning washing of hands; and when he died, the sanhedrim sent and put a great stone upon his coffin, to show, that he that died in his excommunication, the sanhedrim stoned his coffin (o): but of this; see Gill on Mark 7:3.

(d) T. Hieros. Beracot, fol. 3. 2. (e) T. Bab. Erubim, fol. 21. 2. T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 4. 2.((f) Misn. Chagiga, c. 2. sect. 5, 6. Maimon. Praefat. ad Tract. Yadaim, & Hilch. Beracot, c. 6. sect. 3.((g) T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 3. 4. (h) Maimon Hilch. Mikvaot, c. 11. sect. 1.((i) T. Bab. Sota, fol. 4. 2.((k) Zohar in Deut. fol. 107. 3.((l) lb. in Gen. fol. 60. 2.((m) Gloss. in. T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 77. 2. Taanith, fol. 20. 2. & Cholin, fol. 107. 2.((n) T. B. Erubim, fol. 2l. 2.((o) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 19. l.

Ver. 1,2. Mark relates this piece of history more largely, Mark 7:1-5, Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain, of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? This portion of Scripture cannot be well understood without understanding something of the Jewish government as to matters ecclesiastical; in which the high priest was the chief. God addeth seventy men more to Moses and Aaron, Numbers 11:25, to bear a share in the government; these were called the sanhedrim; and this was the supreme court of judicature amongst the Jews, as to all things which respected the laws of God, whether moral, judicial, or ceremonial, and every one was bound to abide by their determination. These sat in Jerusalem, but had their inferior courts in other places, from which they appealed to the sanhedrim, who finally determined, Deu 17:8-13. It was the great business of this court to take care that there should be no corruption in religion. These were they therefore that sent messengers to John, when he began to preach, to inquire what he was, and by what authority he baptized, John 1:19. The Pharisees (as we before heard) had charged our Saviour’s disciples with violation of the sabbath by plucking and rubbing ears of corn, and himself also with the same crime for healing the sick. It is very like these accusations were got to Jerusalem, and that these were emissaries sent from the sanhedrim to watch our Saviour, or possibly they came out of their own curiosity. They could find in our Saviour no guilt as to any violation of the law of God, but they pick a quarrel with him for some rites and ceremonies of their church, which he and his disciples were not so strict in the observation of. They say, Why do thy disciples transgress the traditions of the elders? The word traditions signifies only things delivered, and is as well applicable to the law of God as any thing else. Thus the whole law of God was but a tradition, a doctrine of life, delivered to the Jews by Moses from God: thus the apostle bids the Thessalonians, Hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle, 2 Thessalonians 2:15. But the term of the elders is that which restraineth it, for as the papists in our time hold that, besides what we have in the New Testament, the apostle delivered many things to the primitive church only by word of mouth, which have since that time been imparted to succeeding churches, to the observation of which Christians are as much obliged as to the written word, so the Jews did formerly. For though, for some tract of time, they kept to the Divine law, yet in process of time they abused that text, Deu 4:14, to found a new invention upon it: That while Moses was in the mount of God forty days and forty nights, God in the day time revealed to him the law written in the five books of Moses, and in the night he revealed to him several other things, as to which his will was they should not be written, for fear the heathens should transcribe them, but be delivered only by word of mouth to the sanhedrim, and be to them as much a rule of judgment as any part of the law which was written. By which means they gained themselves a liberty of making the law of God what they pleased, for their traditions were of several sorts. Some were determinations of what in the law seemed doubtful. Others were determinations of what the law left at liberty. Others they called sepimenta legis, rules they gave under pretence of a guard to the Divine law; for the more caution, that they might not transgress it. These things at first were not imposed as laws, but commended by way of advice and counsel, afterward they came to be looked upon as laws, and grew almost infinite. They tell us that Ezra was he who gathered those traditions together, and made the Cabbala in seventy-two books, which was kept by Gamaliel and others till the destruction of Jerusalem. A hundred and twenty years after, they tell us Rabbi Judas, the son of Simon, composed a book of them, called Misna. Three hundred years after this, they tell us R. Johanan found more, and he and others, his colleagues, collected them into a larger book, called the Jerusalem Talmud. A hundred years after this, another rabbi made a collection of the traditions amongst the Jews that remained in Babylon, which he called the Babylonish Talmud; by which two the Jews are governed in ecclesiastical matters, all the world over, at this day. Their whole Talmud is divided into six parts. The sixth is about purifications; it containeth twelve books, and every book hath twenty or thirty chapters, all treating about the purifying of houses, clothes, vessels, human bodies, and their several parts. The Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem were in such an afflicted state, that though their Talmud was not perfected of five hundred years and more after Christ, yet it is probable they added not much to what they had in use in Christ’s time. The Pharisees were very severe as to these traditions. The Sadducees kept more to the written law. But the Pharisees were in far greater credit with the Jews, therefore Paul called them the strictest sect of the Jewish religion, Acts 26:5. The Jews have several ordinary sayings, that show in what esteem they had these traditions, as, If the scribes say our right hand is our left, and our left hand our right, we are to believe them. And, There is more in the words of the scribes than the words of the law, & c. These scribes and Pharisees accuse our Saviour’s disciples for the violation of one of these traditions. Mark saith, that the Pharisees, and all the Jews, ( that is, the major part of those that followed the Pharisees’ faction), except they wash their hands oft, eat not. They thought it sinful to eat unless they often washed their hands. The foundation of this tradition was doubtless in the Levitical law. God by that law had declared him unclean that should touch the carcass of any unclean thing, Leviticus 5:2,3. Upon this (as some think) they had superstructed a tradition of washing their hands, pots, cups, vessels, when they had been at the market, or almost any where, for fear they, or their pots, cups, &c., should have touched any unclean person or thing. In this they were guilty of several errors:

1. Extending the law to the touching of things and persons, of whom the law had said nothing.

2. In cases where such touches happened accidentally, and were not made on purpose.

3. In thinking that the stain of sin could be washed away by a ritual action, which God never commanded.

We must not think that they charge the disciples here with a neglect of a civil washing for cleanliness, but of a religious superstitious washing.

Mark saith, koinaiv cepsi, that is, with common hands; we translate it, polluted: so Acts 10:14 11:8: hands not first separated to God by the religious rite of washings.

Verse 2. - Thy disciples. They had watched our Lord and his followers partaking of some meal, and doubtless Christ had acted in the same manner as his disciples. Open houses and food partaken of in public allowed this close observation without any infringement of Eastern courtesy. They come to Christ with the insidious question, because they consider him answerable for his disciples' doings (comp. Matthew 9:14; Matthew 12:2). They imply that his teaching has led to thee transgression on which they animadvert. Doubtless the apostles, from Christ's instruction and example, were learning to free themselves from the endless rules and restrictions which were no help to religion, and to attend more to the great realities of vital piety and holiness. The omission of the outward acts, rabbinically enjoined, was readily marked and censured. The tradition. This formed a vast collection of additions, explanations, etc., of the original Law, partly, as was affirmed, delivered orally by Moses, and handed down from generation to generation; and partly accumulated by successive expounders. St. Paul refers to this when he speaks of himself before his conversion as being "exceedingly jealous for the tradition or my fathers" (Galatians 1:14). From it, in the course of time. was formed the Talmud, with its text (Mishna) and its commentary (Gemara). It was not put into writing till after our Lord's time (hence called ἄγραφος διδασκαλία), but was taught authoritatively by accredited teachers who, while retaining the letter of the Law abrogated its spirit, nullifying the broad line of God's commandments by enforcing minute observances and puerile restrictions which were a burden and impediment to purity and devotion, rather than an aid and encouragement. The elders (τῶν πρεσβυτέρων); the ancients. The older expositors and rabbis, whose commentaries had been orally handed down.. Such traditions were regarded with more respect than the letter of Scripture, and the latter had to give way when it seemed to be antagonistic to the former. Wash not their hands when they eat bread. To eat bread means to take food of any kind. The fear of legal defilement led to a multitude of rabbinical rules of the most vexatious and troublesome nature, the infringement of any of which endangered a man's ceremonial purity (see Mark 7:3, 4). These frivolous regulations had been built upon the plain Mosaical enactments of Leviticus 11, etc. St. Matthew, writing for those who were well acquainted with these glosses, enters into no details; St. Mark is more explicit. It is to be remarked that the Pharisees were extending and enforcing these traditions just when the Law was to be superseded by something more spiritual and doing so in spite of the interdiction "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you" (Deuteronomy 4:2).

(2) They wash not their hands when they eat bread.—St. Mark (Mark 7:3-4), writing for Gentiles, explains the nature of the tradition more fully. What the Pharisees insisted on was not cleanliness as such, but the avoidance of ceremonial pollution. They shrank not from dirt, but from defilement. If they had been in the market, they might have come in contact with the heathen or the publican. If they ate or drank out of a metal or earthenware cup, the last lip that touched it might have been that of a heathen, and therefore that too needed purification. The pride which led them to stand aloof from the rest of mankind showed itself in this, as in all their other traditions. Indifference to their rules in peasants and fishermen, as such—as belonging to the crowd whom they scorned as the brute “people of the earth”—they could afford to tolerate. What shocked them was to see the disciples of One who claimed to be a Prophet or a Rabbi indulging in that indifference. According to their traditions, the act of which they complained stood on the same level as sexual impurity, and exposed those who were guilty of it to the excommunication of the Sanhedrin, or great Council.

2. the tradition of the elders] The elders, or presbyters, were the Jewish teachers, or scribes, such as Hillel and Shammai. The traditions were the rules or observances of the unwritten law, which they enjoined on their disciples. Many of these were frivolous; some actually subversive of God’s law; and yet one Rabbinical saying was, “The words of the law are weighty and light, but all the words of the scribes are weighty.”

when] Rather, whenever.

Wash not their hands

Washing before meals was alone regarded as a commandment; washing after meals only as a duty. By and by the more rigorous actually washed between the courses, although this was declared to be purely voluntary. The distinctive designation for washing after meals was the lifting of the hands; while for washing before meat a term was used which meant, literally, to rub. If "holy," i.e., sacrificial food was to be partaken of, a complete immersion of the hands, and not a mere "uplifting" was prescribed. As the purifications were so frequent, and care had to be taken that the water had not been used for other purposes, or something fallen into it that might discolor or defile it, large vessels or jars were generally kept for the purpose (see John 2:6). It was the practice to draw water out of these with a kind of ladle or bucket - very often of glass - which must hold at least one and a half egg-shells (compare draw out now, John 2:8). The water was poured on both hands, which must be free of anything covering them, such as gravel, mortar, etc. The hands were lifted up so as to make the water run to the wrist, in order to insure that the whole hand was washed, and that the water polluted by the hand did not again run down the fingers. Similarly, each hand was rubbed with the other (the fist), provided the hand that rubbed had been affused; otherwise, the rubbing might be done against the head, or even against a wall. But there was one point on which special stress was laid. In the "first affusion," which was all that originally was required when the hands were not levitically "defiled," the water had to run down to the wrist. If the water remained short of the wrist, the hands were not clean. See Mark 7:3 (Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus").