Matthew 15:1-20

CRITICAL NOTES

Matthew 15:1. Of Jerusalem.—From Jerusalem (see R.V.). Probably a deputation from the Sanhedrin sent expressly to watch Him.

Matthew 15:2. Transgress the tradition.—The Jews attached greater value to tradition than even to the written law, appealing in support of it to Deuteronomy 4:14; Deuteronomy 17:10 (Meyer). Wash not their hands.—The custom of washing the hands before a meal was not only a cleanly and desirable one, but was rendered absolutely necessary by the habits of the East, which involve the dipping of all hands into a common dish. But it is obvious that occasions would arise in which the nature of a meal, which might consist of dry bread and fruit, or some pressing urgency, or some difficulty of obtaining water at the moment, might render the custom impossible. Even Talmudists admit that handwashing is needless if the hands be clean (Farrar). Jesus did not reject this tradition, viewing it merely as a custom (which was also common among the Persians, Greeks, and Romans). He only refused to recognise it as a binding or religious ordinance, and hence omitted it in urgent circumstances (Lange).

Matthew 15:3. Why do ye also transgress … by your tradition?—Because of (R.V.). The “also” must be noted. It admits that there was some kind of transgression on the part of His disciples—transgression of a human injunction. But it asserts that, on the part of the scribes and Pharisees, there was transgression too, though in a far higher plane of things; and, what was of very serious significance, transgression on account of their tradition. The Saviour thus, as Luther remarks, meets the bolt of their question by a counterbolt, which, as it is driven home, pushes out theirs, till it falls to the ground (Morison).

Matthew 15:4. Die the death.—The expression “let him die the death” is idiomatic, but now obsolete. It is intended to be emphatic—let him die the death (which is the appropriate penalty of such a crime). The Hebrew expression is also idiomatic, and idiomatically emphatic; and so is the Greek expression, which literally means “let him come to his end by death” (ibid.).

Matthew 15:5. It is a gift.—Rather, let it be a gift, or “devoted to sacred uses,” which the Jews expressed by the word Corban, found in Mark 7:11. The scribes held that these words, even when pronounced in spite and anger against parents who needed succour, excused the son from his natural duty; and, on the other hand, did not oblige him really to devote the sum to the service of God or of the temple (Carr).

Matthew 15:5 (see R. V.). Made the commandment of God of none effect.—Were this clause literally translated it would run thus: And ye abrogated the law of God because of your tradition! The Saviour speaks with indignation—mingling into His words a withering element of irony, which may be partially indicated to the English reader by an exclamation point at the close (Morison).

Matthew 15:9. Doctrines … commandments.—Neither word is quite adequately rendered. The “doctrines” are not articles of faith, propositions to be believed, but precepts which were taught as binding. The “commandments” are single, special rules, as contrasted with the Divine “commandment,” which was exceedingly broad (Plumptre).

Matthew 15:10. He called the multitude.—The moment our Lord turns to the people, His teaching is by parables. This appeal to the multitude as worthier than the Pharisees to receive the Divine truths is significant of the popular character of the kingdom of heaven (Carr).

Matthew 15:11. Defileth.—This principle virtually invalidated the whole mass of the Old Testament legislation which had reference to defilement through external influences and conditions (Wendt).

Matthew 15:12. The Pharisees were offended.—A proof of the influence of the Pharisees. The disciples believed that Christ would be concerned to have offended those who stood so high in popular favour (Carr).

Matthew 15:13. Every plant, etc.—Not a wild flower, but a cultivated plant or tree. Here the plant cultivated by human hands—the vine that is not the true vine of Israel—is the doctrine of the Pharisees (Carr). At the same time we should also bear in mind what was said in 13 about the identification of individuals with the doctrines which they professed (Lange)

Matthew 15:14. Blind leaders of the blind.—It would appear from Romans 2:19 that the phrase “a leader of the blind” was one in common use to describe the ideal of the Rabbi’s calling. Now they heard it in a new form, which told them that their state was the very reverse of that ideal. And that which was worst in it was that their blindness was self-chosen (Matthew 13:15), and that they were yet all unconscious of it, and boasted that they saw (John 9:41) (Plumptre).

Matthew 15:15. This parable.—The parable (R.V.). The answer shows that Peter’s question referred not to the proverb that immediately preceded, but to what seemed to him the strange, startling utterance of Matthew 15:11. It was significant that he could not as yet take in the thought that it was a truth to be received literally (Plumptre). The language of Matthew 15:11 is not strictly a parable, but it has a feature of the parable proper in that invisible things are represented under visible images, the ceremonial defilement of the Mosaic law being used as an image to indicate, by contrast, the moral defilement of the heart (Mansel).

Matthew 15:16. Ye.—Emphatic. Slowness of spiritual apprehension in His genuine disciples grieves the Saviour; from others He expects no better (Matthew 13:11) (Brown).

Matthew 15:17. The draught.—The word is used in its old English meaning, as equivalent to “drain,” “sewer,” “cesspool” (see 2 Kings 10:27). The principle here implied is, that a process purely physical from first to last cannot in itself bring any moral defilement (Plumptre).

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE

Matthew 15:5. Release by “Corban.”—So great was the solemnity attached to vows, whether they were rightly or wrongly made, that the Rabbins were prepared to argue that it was of less importance that parents should be honoured than that a vow should be broken. It is the universal penalty that follows on attaching undue importance to forms, that presently they come to override even the great natural laws of human associations, and the Divinely announced commandments of the Decalogue. Ecclesiastical rules come to be valued above Divine laws; and ecclesiastical rules can be made to excuse the neglect of the first and essential human duties. This rabbinical custom is not, however, generally understood, and, indeed, it is so repulsive to all men of noble and generous feeling that it is difficult to secure for it a patient consideration. It seems to have been established as a principle that any man was at liberty to make a vow consecrating his property, or any portion of it, to the service of the temple, after his decease, or even during his life, with the understanding that he would keep the use of it so long as he needed. Properly speaking, such “devotements” ought always to be thank-offerings for special mercies received, and they ought only to have been accepted when they had such a religious feeling inspiring them. But such a custom of “devotements” was open to serious abuse by unprincipled men. If a man’s property was in peril of being seized by his creditor, he could at least save the life-use of it by making it a gift to the temple. And if any special claim—as by parents or brothers—was made on a certain portion of his property, he successfully evaded the claim by affirming that the particular portion had been devoted, by a vow, to the service of God. “Corban” denotes anything offered to God, or the service of the temple. “Almost every possession a man had might be rendered “Corban” by him, even his own person; and, when once offered to God, the article was sacred, and could on no account be turned to a secular use until redeemed. All that was necessary was that a man should say respecting a given thing “May this be as the temple to me”; or, “as the altar,” etc.; or, “as the (sacred) fire,” etc.; or, “as the sacrifice to me.” Thereupon a man, being displeased with his aged or poor parents, might free himself from all obligation to support them by merely pronouncing one of these forms; and then, when either father or mother appealed to him for aid, he would say, “Whatever I might have bestowed on you is now Corban.” And the Pharisees, as Christ complains, insisted on the fulfilment of this execrable vow, even though it necessitated the violation of natural instinct, as well as the command, “Honour thy father and thy mother.” In fact there was no duty a villain might not shun by this infamous procedure. The Talmud actually teaches that every one ought to honour his father and his mother, or to support them if they were poor, unless he has vowed to the contrary. We cannot wonder that such abominable doctrines excited our Lord’s utmost indignation, and drew from Him one of His severest censures.—(R. Tuck, B.A.).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 15:1

Jesus in controversy.—We seem to have further indications here of the growing fame of Jesus of Nazareth. Even in distant and haughty Jerusalem some of the most learned and zealous of its inhabitants (Matthew 15:1) have heard of His teaching; and are present now for the purpose of engaging in controversy with Him. Truly characteristic, also, of their teaching is the subject of their dispute, being only, in fact, a mere outward question of ceremonial tradition (see Matthew 15:2). The Saviour, in reply, deals, first, with the occasion itself; and then, secondly, with certain difficulties to which it gave occasion in turn.

I. The occasion itself.—He begins, e.g. by pointing out to His questioners the disloyalty of their inquiry. Why do My disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? There is another question comes first. Why do ye act as ye do? Why do ye use words in such a way as practically to prevent men from doing their duty to their parents? The word of God is plain enough on this subject, and strong enough too (see Matthew 15:4, “let him die the death”). Why do ye set it aside? Why teach men by a subterfuge how not to do what God has told them to do? (Matthew 15:5). Next, the Saviour points out to them plainly the hypocrisy of their conduct. This excessive zeal about cleanness of skin was a thing of the surface alone. There was nothing corresponding to it—there was much opposed to it—within. The prophet Isaiah had long ago foreseen this, when he said as in Matthew 15:8. This must be so, indeed, in such a case as that at present discussed. Wherever men put the “teachings” of men on the same level with the teachings of God, especially where they do so in connection with the “worship” (Matthew 15:9) of God, and as a mark of zeal in His service, they (naturally) do so “in vain.” Worse than “in vain” in fact; so as to give Him offence. Why should He be pleased with that which is only done in pretence? Lastly, the Saviour points out the ignorance involved in this fault. Ignorance so great as to lead the Saviour (apparently) to seek to deliver from it not only teachers but taught. “Calling” the “multitude” to Him, He says to them, Hear the truth on this point. Hear how opposed it is to all that these teachers have usually taught you about it. It is not “that which entereth into a man” which is to be thought of the first. Rather, and instead, it is that which “proceedeth out” of him which is to be thought of the first. What his mouth says, in short, not what it feeds on, is that which defiles. This is the truth—the primary truth which their teaching ignores.

II. After the occasion.—Here the Master is found dealing, not with His enemies, but His friends. Certain difficulties appear to have arisen in the minds of His disciples from what they have heard. The first of these has to do with the question of authority. Knowest Thou that that concluding saying of Thine about that which defiles, gave great offence to the Pharisees? That they were absolutely “scandalised” by it, in fact? Dost Thou, therefore, in the face of this—so their question may be understood to imply—adhere to it still? The Saviour’s answer shows plainly and emphatically that He did. “Every plant which My heavenly Father planted not shall be rooted up” (Matthew 15:13). By that test I abide. To that proof I appeal. Do not ye, therefore, trouble yourselves as to what these Pharisees say. But understand, rather, that for those who follow them it will be as bad as for them (Matthew 15:14). That difficulty disposed of, another arises—a difficulty of comprehension. There is something here, the Apostle Peter seems to feel, which we do not understand as we ought. This “saying” of Thine about that which “defiles” is but a “parable” to us at present. Wilt Thou not then “declare” to us its meaning and truth? (Matthew 15:15). This difficulty is met—not without a touch of reproachfulness (Matthew 15:16)—by two appeals to themselves. By an appeal, on the one hand, to what they knew about the nature of food. Perceive ye not what happens to food when taken in at the mouth—where it passes to—how it passes away—and how, therefore, it affects nothing but the body alone? By an appeal, on the other hand, to what they knew of men’s hearts. Did they not know the kind of things which came forth from the “heart”? The “evil thoughts,” on the one hand, to which they pointed as their origin? The evil actions and words of all sorts, on the other hand, to which they gave birth; and by which, therefore, all that inward evil was at once evidenced and increased? This was the thing, this outward passage of evil, which, beginning with much pollution, and ending with more, “defiled” all it passed through. The evil of “eating bread with unwashen hands” was not to be named by its side (Matthew 15:18).

How thoroughly radical, therefore, if man is to be reformed at all must be the reformation of his nature! And by how mighty a hand must it be effected, if effected at all! For the truth on this point, see Psalms 51, beginning of Matthew 15:6. For the only proper prayer, therefore, in connection with it, see Psalms 51:10.

HOMILIES ON THE VERSES

Matthew 15:1. Traditions.—

1. It is no new thing that Christ hath adversaries, and these, chiefly, corrupt churchmen, even such as bear office in places most famous for religion; for here are scribes and Pharisees which were of Jerusalem going about to divert disciples from following Christ, and to put a disgrace, if they could, on our Lord, for His disciples’ cause.
2. It is no wonder to see Christ and His church molested with the controvery of nonconformity in human inventions of religion. “Why do Thy disciples transgress the traditions?” say they.
3. Antiquity and Fathers, without Scripture, is the old charter of superstitious formalists. “Why,” say they, “do Thy disciples transgress the traditions of the elders?”
4. That which is lawful in itself while it abideth within the limits of civil fashions, may be left undone, and be discountenanced, when it is set up in state, within the limits of religion; therefore the disciples did not wash their hands before meat, in the company of Pharisees, who made washing at that time to be a holy and religious act.—David Dickson.

Matthew 15:1. Technical fault-finding.—It is always—

I. Punctilious and trivial.

II. External and superficial.
III. Associated with a wrong condition of heart.

IV. Opposed to the spirit of Jesus Christ.—J. Parker, D.D.

Matthew 15:2. Hand-washing.—The Pharisees had elevated ablutions, and even the minutest regulations about the method of performing them, into a matter of religion. A whole order of the Talmud—that called Taharôth, or Purifications—is devoted to washings; and two separate tracts of it, Mikvâoth, or “baths,” and Yadaîm, or “hand-washings,” deal especially with cleansings of the person. These ablutions were extended to all kinds of objects, and in later days were accompanied by elaborate liturgies of recognised prayers. Indeed, so ultra-Pharisaic was this branch of Pharisaism, that it originated the rest of the Sadducees, who, seeing their opponents washing the golden candlestick, said that soon they would not be content until they could wash the sun!—F. W. Farrar, D.D.

Eating with unwashen hands.—Rabbi Joses determined that to eat with unwashen hands is as great a sin as adultery. And Rabbi Akiba, being kept a close prisoner, having water sent him, both to wash his hands with and to drink with his meat, the greatest part being accidentally shed, he washed his hands with the remainder, though he left himself none to drink, saying he would rather die than transgress the tradition of the elders.—M. Henry.

Imaginary defilement.—Christ, no doubt, would exceed all scribes and Pharisees in the love of real cleanliness and cleanness, inner and outer. But He felt constrained to lay His ban upon the imaginary virtue that was supposed to be inherent in the act of removing imaginary uncleanness. It was supposed that there was a demon called Shibta, “which sits upon men’s hands during night; and if any person touches his food with unwashed hands, then that demon sits upon his food, and makes it dangerous.” (Rab. Taanith, fol. xx. 2).—J. Morison, D.D.

Matthew 15:3. The traditions of men and the commandments of God.—

1. Traditions may be fathered or mothered on those that maintain them, no less than on those who invented them; for Christ saith, “Why do ye by your traditions transgress?”
2. Such as are most zealous for human traditions shall readily be found transgressors and contemners of Divine commands, and God’s traditions given by Scripture.
3. When the authority of human traditions doth loose or weaken the obligatory power of a moral command in anything, it may and should be despised altogether and rejected, as unworthy to be a rule for a man’s carriage in anything.—David Dickson.

Matthew 15:4. The claims of parents.—

1. The duty of children unto parents is straitly urged by God’s command, and the wicked transgression of it is made capital.
2. It is a part of the honour due to parents that children sustain them in need as they are able, for not helping is here as much as not honouring their father or mother.
3. Such traditions as, directly or by consequence, do prejudge the true intent of any of God’s laws (whatsoever pretence of religion be made) are wicked, for He saith, “You by your traditions have made the command of God of none effect.”
4. No gift nor voluntary offering presented unto God doth please Him, when the duty of love owing to others is neglected or contravened thereby, for Christ calls such a gift a breach of the fifth commandment.

5. Dispensation with God’s law by human authority and urging of men’s traditions more than of God’s commands, is, in effect, the abolishing of God’s law (Matthew 15:6).—Ibid.

Matthew 15:5. Unholy antagonisms.—

I. There ought to be no conflict between the Divine and social claims.—The family has its claims; society has its claims; God has His claims, and they are all righteous. They are all on the same line of rectitude. There ought to be no conflict between them. This conflict exists among us because the claims of society are often unjust. God’s claims are never unjust.

II. Those who most devoutly recognise the Divine claims are the most faithful in their discharge of social claims.
III. The discharge of the one kind of claims should not be used as a pretext for the neglect of the others.—J. Owen.

Matthew 15:7. The hypocrite.—I. How far a hypocrite goes.—He draws nigh to God and honours Him; he is, in profession, a worshipper of God.

II. Where He rests and takes up.—This is done but with His mouth and with His lips; it is piety but from the teeth outwards.

III. What that is wherein he comes short.—It is in the main matter, “their heart is far from Me.”—M. Henry.

Matthew 15:7. Isaiah and Christ.—I. The importance of plain speaking on all questions affecting the interests of truth. Jesus Christ was pre-eminently a plain speaker. In the text He calls certain persons hypocrites. He does not say behind their backs that they were hypocrites, but He looked straight at them and right through them, and said, “Ye hypocrites.” If we had more such plain speaking it would be an advantage to us all. Two things are required in the plain speaker:—

1. Personal rightness.—“Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.”

2. Moral fearlessness.—Our courage is not always equal to our convictions.

II. The far-seeing spirit of prophecy.—Jesus Christ said to the men of His day, “Esaias prophesied of you.” Observe the unity of the moral world; observe the unchangeableness of God’s laws; see how right is ever right and wrong is ever wrong; how the centuries make no difference in the quality of righteousness, and fail to work any improvement in the deformity of evil.

III. The high authority of the righteous censor.—Anon.

Matthew 15:8. True prayer.—The power of a petition is not in the roof of the mouth, but in the root of the heart.—Trapp.

Matthew 15:10. Moral pollution.—

1. Contesting against Christ’s disciples, slandering and reproaching of such as do not observe human traditions, is a pollution of the slanderer, and more dangerous than the omission of human ceremonies, which may be omitted without pollution of sin. “That which cometh out of the mouth polluteth.”
2. Albeit unto mocking adversaries we need not always give reasons of what we do or omit, yet unto indifferent spectators, it is good to give a reason, for their edification and our own clearing, as here Christ giveth satisfaction to the common people.
3. The fountain of the pollution of a man’s actions is his heart, conscience, and affections, not being rightly disposed.—David Dickson.

Man’s morality not affected by man’s receptivity.—This fact:—

I. Refutes the sophism that crime is necessitated by circumstances.

II. Charges upon man the responsibility of his own words.

III. Shows that every man is the source of his own character and influence.—J. Parker, D.D.

Matthew 15:13. God the Uprooter.—

I. The disciples needed this lesson—That they might not be startled by the fading away of much which had seemed to them fair and vigorous, but still more that they might understand what there was in the Jewish soil which could not be rooted out—what there was that would spread its fibres more widely, genially, and send out higher branches, wherein the fowls of the air might dwell. The sect of the Pharisees, our Lord says, His heavenly Father hath not planted. The disciples of Jesus learnt gradually from His lips that they were called and chosen out to preach to their own countrymen that the Son of David and the Son of Abraham had come to bind together in one publicans and sinners—Jews, Galileans, Samaritans. With this message they were to go forth to Jews and Gentiles. As they bore it, they soon discovered that the natural and necessary antagonists of it were the sects; that Sadducees and Pharisees hated it equally; that they saw in it the destruction of the sect-principle; that they felt they could only maintain even a temporary ascendancy by fighting with this rival as for life and death. Then, when they found how mighty this sect-principle was, and what numbers were pledged to it, they must have recollected the words which had been spoken to them: “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted out.”

II. There is a plant in your heart and mine which our heavenly Father has not planted, and which must be rooted out. It is that same plant of self-seeking, of opinionativeness, of party-spirit, which has shed its poison over the church and over the world. It springs in us from that same root of unbelief in One who is the Head of us all, whose life is the common life of all, out of which all sects and parties have proceeded.—F. D. Maurice, M.A.

Matthew 15:14. Blind leaders of the blind.—

1. Obstinate maintainers of false doctrine and of corrupt traditions, enemies to Christ and His disciples, are given over of God, and are worthy also to be given over, and let alone by men, i.e. fellowship is not to be kept with them.

2. Where the teachers and people follow mere traditions in religion, and not the rule of God’s word, the leaders and they that are led are both blind.
3. The following of false teachers and blind guides will not be an excuse before God for people to plead immunity; but seeing none should follow any man, but as that man doth follow the Lord, the blind guide and the blind follower shall both perish, if they hold on in their wrong way.—David Dickson.

Matthew 15:19. Crime in germ.—Human law takes notice of acts, not of dispositions. God’s law determines everything by the motive or purpose which leads to action.

1. “Thou shalt not kill.” Killing is not mere blood-shedding. Anger without cause is murder. Oppression of the weak is murder. Depriving a man of the means of getting a livelihood, to gratify his revenge is murder. “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.”
2. “Thou shalt not steal.” A man may rob God as well as his neighbour. He who wastes his employer’s time is a thief. He who withholds just praise is a thief. He who detracts from the just honour of his fellow-man is a thief. He who vows and does not pay is a thief.
3. “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” False witness is lying. But what is lying? You may repeat the very words of a speaker, and yet misreport him! How? By putting upon his words an emphasis not his own. You infuse into the emphasis your own passion or purpose. The words are his, the tone is yours! Take the words “When I come, I will come with a rod”; they may be spoken with tenderness and reluctance, they may also be so emphasised as to denote pettishness or even vengeance. He who tells an incomplete tale, involving the reputation of another, bears false witness. So does he (negatively) who lacks courage to defend an injured man, for whom he could say a word of explanation. Now, strange as it may seem, the three crimes of which we have been speaking are spiritually similar, and almost identical. He who kills, steals life; he who steals life is prepared to bear false witness; he who bears false witness both steals and kills. As, therefore, sin is in the sight of God a question of the heart, and not merely a question of the hands, there arises an inquiry of the keenest practical interest. “How are we to reach the disease which is consuming our spiritual life?” We cannot reach it! Is it then never to be reached? When we put this question in earnest, we are prepared to hear the glorious gospel. So long as we think we can wash the evil off our hands in any one of the world’s rivers, we do not feel our want of a gospel. That want is felt only in proportion to our conviction that sin is in our very souls, that it penetrates every fibre, and poisons every spring and energy of our being. Seeing what is meant by the spirituality of sin, we shall feel our need of Divine help. Nay, more than help, God must undertake the whole case for us. He has done so. See the Cross! There is a sacrifice which touches sin before sin comes into action—touches it in the heart—touches it as a germ. Then see the ministry of the Holy Ghost! That ministry operates upon the very life of life, upon the first pulsation and breathings of our spiritual nature. We have only to see ourselves as we really are, to see our need of the sacrifice, and our dependence upon the Spirit.—J. Parker, D.D.