This observation need not denigrate all tradition; some "traditions" are more biblical than others, and some traditions, like many customs in many cultures, are morally neutral. Among those who accept the Bible as God's Word and as canon (a measuring stick), the test of a statement's authority should be its conformity to biblical principles. Yet many of us, for all our insistence on the authority of Scripture, pay surprisingly little attention to it-little time researching context, background or other factors essential for understanding the Bible. We may work hard to assimilate various trends of popular culture yet spend little time assimilating our lives to the Bible's teachings. I have watched some contemporary churches denigrate the traditions of older churches, yet recite verses out of context or follow extrabiblical routines that reflect traditions no less (albeit newer ones).

Jesus begins by showing how easily a tradition can conflict with the moral purpose of Scripture (15:3-6). One could dedicate an object for sacred use; one could also prohibit others from using one's property (say, eating one's figs) by declaring the property dedicated to the temple or perhaps "as if they were" so dedicated, hence "forbidden to you" (m. Nedarim 3:2; Baumgarten 1984-1985; E. Sanders 1990:54-55). Even far from the Holy Land some Jewish teachers could use such vows to keep property from other family members (see E. Sanders 1990:57). By expanding certain common traditional practices, an unscrupulous person could get around biblical principles about unselfishly meeting others' needs.

Jesus deliberately picks an issue that will provoke thought and argues from a principle with which his opponents will have to agree. A Pharisaic teacher could have offered the same sort of argument Jesus offers here, for Pharisees could argue by laying one text against the interpretation of another. Judaism also heavily stressed honoring and obeying one's parents (for example, Sirach 3:7-8; Jos. Apion 2.206) and the obligation to support one's parents in their old age (compare Sirach 3:12-15).

Jewish teachers who debated legal details never contended that such details were at the heart of the law nor approved of exploiting loopholes (see, for example, Urbach 1979:1:576). Nevertheless, exploitation is bound to result in some instances if we spend more time, in religious institutions or in society, debating laws as laws than in teaching ethical principles behind the laws. Jesus is not challenging Pharisaic views about parental support, but the danger of evaluating morality on the basis of extrabiblical traditions.

Jesus then compares this behavior to Scripture's warning about following human rules rather than an intimate relationship with God (15:7-9, citing Is 29:13). Scribes and Pharisees would have taken offense at the appellation hypocrites (6:2; 22:18; 23:13; 24:51). Like Jesus, Pharisees were willing to suspend the letter of the law to uphold its spirit (as in m. Sebi`it 10:3-4; compare Moore 1971:2:31). But the Pharisees frequently determined morality by extrapolating from tradition. By demanding that we extrapolate morality instead from biblical principles, Jesus takes ethics out of the domain of the academy and courtroom and places it in the daily lives of his followers. To follow Jesus' guidelines here, church members need to know more Scripture, not more churchly rules not founded in Scripture.

Jesus finally publicly opposes his challengers by declaring a more basic principle (15:10-11). Some Pharisees may have agreed with the principle, but they normally stated it only in private (Pes. Rab Kah. 4:7), perhaps fearing that some would cease to observe the literal requirements of the law (compare Philo Migr. Abr. 89-93). Although Jesus explains his point in private, he first makes it publicly.