He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (vs. 6-13)
Wow. Here is Jesus speaking in no uncertain terms. You can imagine that His frustration level with those who really ought to know better is quite high. (I also think of another, similar instance of Him turning out the money changers in the Temple in ch. 11 which we will deal with in due course.) I see at least two reasons why this is the case. 1. Their prevailing attitude presented to us in the Gospels is intrinsically destructive of those who are perceived to stand in its way (cf., again, the man born blind in John 9) and 2. ultimately, however, it will only destroy those who hold onto it with a final refusal of the knowledge that there is a better way that does not in fact deny the truth, but reveals it in a manner that gives life and wholeness. "Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (Matt. 18:14)
Some very unkind accusations have been leveled over the years against those churches which maintain a fixed liturgical tradition. The standard assumption is something like the following: I read that Jesus condemns the traditions of men in the Bible. I see these churches following traditions. They must be identical to that which is being condemned, therefore they are being willfully disobedient to Christ and the "plain sense" of the Bible.
I'll deal with this straightaway, but first a word on assumptions and condemnations. In many ways the advent of the internet and online communication has been a tremendous advance and something eminently useful. It allows us to find and keep in touch with those who are a prohibitive distance away or those whom we have lost track of, and allows the transmission of news and ideas to propagate much faster than at any time in human history. But (and it's a big one!), it can also be a relatively anonymous sword with which to dispatch our (perceived) enemies and assault those who dare disagree with us. The worst sort of motives are assumed and the unkindest things are said, things most people would never summon the courage to say in real life. And all because of the relative safety and distance that is provided by the computer screen. A degree of humanity is removed from our intercourse and so we feel free to degrade and condemn because it seems somehow less real. That is a terrible tragedy.
And yet some of the same is present in real life, particularly with regard to highly personal and emotionally charged subjects like religion, politics, sexuality, etc. Occasionally the excuse is offered that one is simply "...speaking the truth in love..." (Eph. 4:15). Really?
There is indeed a time for 'speaking the truth' and there is a time for actually doing it 'in love'. There is also a time to remember that you are conversing with a fellow human being who is entitled to as much dignity and respect as you yourself are, no matter how much you may disagree. Do you know what that time is? Each and every time you open your mouth or put pen to page or pixel to screen. Period. This is a rule that can admit of no exception.
To my "Bible Christian" friends, all I'm saying is: think twice before you move to accuse us of infelicity with regard to the use of liturgy. Be sure of your ground before you move to strike. So... let's take a deep breath, sit back, relax, consider the context in which these traditions of men are being condemned and see where we end up.
Classically, there are four senses of Scripture (the "plain sense" - which can mean just about anything you want it to mean, and so is not really useful at all - not being numbered among them). These senses are: the literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical (this last sense comes from the Greek for "climb" or "ascent" and would have us consider how Scripture tells us about life after death). Each of these senses is complementary of the others and helps to provide a well-rounded view of the Biblical narrative. Let's take each of these in order. Though, let me say that I don't think there is a necessity for each sense to apply equally (or at all) to every last part of the Bible.
Literally, Jesus is here condemning (directly, in person, and without fear) the attitude of the religious establishment that has cemented in place that the rules, regulations and practices of the Law are sufficient in and of themselves. What's even worse is that they have been abused as leverage to countermand the moral teaching of the Pentateuch, in this case the command to "[honour] thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." (Exodus 20: 12)
An allegorical sense could mean seeing the scribes and Pharisees as stand-ins for all the times we as readers and hearers of the Gospel have treated our inheritance (both the Old and New Testaments in continuity and congruity and all that they tell us about Christian belief and practice) in the same way.
Morally, we see how destructive this approach to tradition is to other people and to ourselves, in strict violation of the commandment we will receive in chapter 12 to "love thy neighbor as thyself" (12:31).
Anagogically, well...what do you think about that one? How does it apply here?
For better or worse (dependant on your perspective) then, vs. 8 is not the outright and haphazard condemnation of any and all Church tradition, nor is it actually speaking directly to Christian worship at all, but rather the interior dispositions that ought to inform the Christian who encounters the Gospel (and really, all along, ought to inform the devout Jew as well). We are not encountering a binary, black and white situation here. It is not a "Bible or nothing" scenario at all. Like the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah in ch. 6* , this disputed point can be easily resolved by considering what is actually written on the page in its context and not "ripped out" from there to be used as a stand-alone moral, ethical or liturgical dictum to be applied to any situation at random that "I the reader" wish to on account of my own suspicions and prejudices. This, frankly, is one of the worst ways to approach any text, let alone that which we as Christians regard as revelation of God's plan in Christ when the fullness of time had come. Thus my caution and reading of the text here is an effort to avoid the charge of 'making the word of God of none effect', a very risky thing which we need to constantly guard against.
*When thinking about Sodom and Gomorrah, aside from fire and brimstone, what's the other first thing that comes to mind? Homosexuality. But really, Genesis 19:5 ("And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.") is not about "gay issues" but rather about indolence, the poison of a herd mentality, lust and rape. The point is made in the prophecy of Ezekiel: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." (Ezek. 16: 49)
Let me re-iterate that it seems very important to me that when we engage the Biblical texts, it is a serious error to make either too much or too little out of what they actually say.
