Text -- Matthew 15:1-18 (NET)

Breaking Human Traditions

15:1 Then Pharisees and experts in the law came from Jerusalem to Jesus and said, 15:2 “Why do your disciples disobey the tradition of the elders? For they don’t wash their hands when they eat.” 15:3 He answered them, “And why do you disobey the commandment of God because of your tradition? 15:4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death.’ 15:5 But you say, ‘If someone tells his father or mother, “Whatever help you would have received from me is given to God,” 15:6 he does not need to honor his father.’ You have nullified the word of God on account of your tradition. 15:7 Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said, 15:8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me, 15:9 and they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

True Defilement

15:10 Then he called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 15:11 What defiles a person is not what goes into the mouth; it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles a person.” 15:12 Then the disciples came to him and said, “Do you know that when the Pharisees heard this saying they were offended?” 15:13 And he replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father did not plant will be uprooted. 15:14 Leave them! They are blind guides. If someone who is blind leads another who is blind, both will fall into a pit.” 15:15 But Peter said to him, “Explain this parable to us.” 15:16 Jesus said, “Even after all this, are you still so foolish? 15:17 Don’t you understand that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach and then passes out into the sewer? 15:18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a person.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Mat 15:1

From Jerusalem ( apo Ierosolumōn ).

Jerusalem is the headquarters of the conspiracy against Jesus with the Pharisees as the leaders in it. Already we have seen the Herodians combining with the Pharisees in the purpose to put Jesus to death (Mar 3:6; Mat 12:14; Luk 6:11). Soon Jesus will warn the disciples against the Sadducees also (Mat 16:6). Unusual order here, "Pharisees and scribes.""The guardians of tradition in the capital have their evil eye on Jesus and co-operate with the provincial rigorists"(Bruce), if the Pharisees were not all from Jerusalem.

Robertson: Mat 15:2

The tradition of the elders ( tēn paradosin tōn presbuterōn ).

This was the oral law, handed down by the elders of the past in ex cathedra fashion and later codified in the Mishna. Handwashing before meals is not a requirement of the Old Testament. It is, we know, a good thing for sanitary reasons, but the rabbis made it a mark of righteousness for others at any rate. This item was magnified at great length in the oral teaching. The washing (niptontai , middle voice, note) of the hands called for minute regulations. It was commanded to wash the hands before meals, it was one’ s duty to do it after eating. The more rigorous did it between the courses. The hands must be immersed. Then the water itself must be "clean"and the cups or pots used must be ceremonially "clean."Vessels were kept full of clean water ready for use (Joh 2:6-8). So it went on ad infinitum. Thus a real issue is raised between Jesus and the rabbis. It was far more than a point of etiquette or of hygienics. The rabbis held it to be a mortal sin. The incident may have happened in a Pharisee’ s house.

Robertson: Mat 15:3

Ye also ( kai hūmeis ).

Jesus admits that the disciples had transgressed the rabbinical traditions. Jesus treats it as a matter of no great importance in itself save as they had put the tradition of the elders in the place of the commandment of God. When the two clashed, as was often the case, the rabbis transgress the commandment of God "because of your tradition"(dia tēn paradosin hūmōn ). The accusative with dia means that, not "by means of."Tradition is not good or bad in itself. It is merely what is handed on from one to another. Custom tended to make these traditions binding like law. The Talmud is a monument of their struggle with tradition. There could be no compromise on this subject and Jesus accepts the issue. He stands for real righteousness and spiritual freedom, not for bondage to mere ceremonialism and tradition. The rabbis placed tradition (the oral law) above the law of God.

Robertson: Mat 15:5

But ye say ( hūmeis de legete ).

In sharp contrast to the command of God. Jesus had quoted the fifth commandment (Exo 20:12, Exo 20:16) with the penalty "die the death"(thanatōi teleutatō ), "go on to his end by death,"in imitation of the Hebrew idiom. They dodged this command of God about the penalty for dishonouring one’ s father or mother by the use "Corban"(korban ) as Mark calls it (Mar 7:11). All one had to do to evade one’ s duty to father or mother was to say "Corban"or "Gift"(Dōron ) with the idea of using the money for God. By an angry oath of refusal to help one’ s parents, the oath or vow was binding. By this magic word one set himself free (ou mē timēsei , he shall not honour) from obedience to the fifth commandment. Sometimes unfilial sons paid graft to the rabbinical legalists for such dodges. Were some of these very faultfinders guilty?

Robertson: Mat 15:6

Ye have made void the word of God ( ekurōsate ton logon tou theou ).

It was a stinging indictment that laid bare the hollow pretence of their quibbles about handwashing. Kuros means force or authority, akuros is without authority, null and void. It is a late verb, akuroō but in the lxx, Gal 3:17; and in the papyri. Adjective, verb, and substantive occur in legal phraseology like cancelling a will, etc. The moral force of God’ s law is annulled by their hairsplitting technicalities and immoral conduct.

Robertson: Mat 15:7

Well did Isaiah prophesy of you ( kalōs eprophēteusen peri hūmōn Esaias ).

There is sarcasm in this pointed application of Isaiah’ s words (Isa 29:13) to these rabbis. He "beautifully pictured"them. The portrait was to the very life, "teaching as their doctrines the commandments of men."They were indeed far from God if they imagined that God would be pleased with such gifts at the expense of duty to one’ s parents.

Robertson: Mat 15:11

This defileth the man ( touto koinoi ton anthrōpon ).

This word is from koinos which is used in two senses, either what is "common"to all and general like the Koiné Greek, or what is unclean and "common"either ceremonially or in reality. The ceremonial "commonness"disturbed Peter on the housetop in Joppa (Act 10:14). See also Act 21:28; Heb 9:13. One who is thus religiously common or unclean is cut off from doing his religious acts. "Defilement"was a grave issue with the rabbinical ceremonialists. Jesus appeals to the crowd here:

Robertson: Mat 15:11

Hear and understand ( akouete kai suniete ).

He has a profound distinction to draw. Moral uncleanness is what makes a man common, defiles him. That is what is to be dreaded, not to be glossed over. "This goes beyond the tradition of the elders and virtually abrogates the Levitical distinctions between clean and unclean"(Bruce). One can see the pettifogging pretenders shrivel up under these withering words.

Robertson: Mat 15:12

Were offended ( eskandalisthēsan ).

First aorist passive. "Were caused to stumble,""have taken offence"(Moffatt), "have turned against you"(Weymouth), "were shocked"(Goodspeed), "War ill-pleased"(Braid Scots). They took umbrage at the public rebuke and at such a scorpion sting in it all. It cut to the quick because it was true. It showed in the glowering countenances of the Pharisees so plainly that the disciples were uneasy. See note on Mat 5:29.

Robertson: Mat 15:14

They are blind guides ( tuphloi eisin hodēgoi ).

Graphic picture. Once in Cincinnati a blind man introduced me to his blind friend. He said that he was showing him the city. Jesus is not afraid of the Pharisees. Let them alone to do their worst. Blind leaders and blind victims will land in the ditch. A proverbial expression in the O.T.

Robertson: Mat 15:15

Declare unto us the parable ( phrason hūmin tēn parabolēn ).

Explain the parable (pithy saying) in Mat 15:11, not in Mat 15:14. As a matter of fact, the disciples had been upset by Christ’ s powerful exposure of the "Corban"duplicity and the words about "defilement"in Mat 15:11.

Robertson: Mat 15:16

Are ye also even yet without understanding? ( Akmēn kai hūmeis asunetoi este ).

Akmēn is an adverbial accusative (classic aichmē , point (of a weapon)=akmēn chronou at this point of time, just now=eti . It occurs in papyri and inscriptions, though condemned by the old grammarians. "In spite of all my teaching, are ye also like the Pharisees without spiritual insight and grasp?"One must never forget that the disciples lived in a Pharisaic environment. Their religious world-outlook was Pharisaic. They were lacking in spiritual intelligence or sense, "totally ignorant"(Moffatt).

Robertson: Mat 15:17

Perceive ye not? ( ou noeite ).

Christ expects us to make use of our nous , intellect, not for pride, but for insight. The mind does not work infallibly, but we should use it for its God-given purpose. Intellectual laziness or flabbiness is no credit to a devout soul.

Robertson: Mat 15:18

Out of the mouth ( ek tou stomatos ).

Spoken words come out of the heart and so are a true index of character. By "heart"(kardias ) Jesus means not just the emotional nature, but the entire man, the inward life of "evil thoughts"(dialogismoi ponēroi ) that issue in words and deeds. "These defile the man,"not "eating with unwashed hands."The captious quibblings of the Pharisees, for instance, had come out of evil hearts.

Vincent: Mat 15:1

Transgress ( παραβαίνουσιν )

Lit., to step on one side.

Vincent: Mat 15:2

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 Joh 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, Joh 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 Mar 7:3 (Edersheim, " Life and Times of Jesus" ).

Vincent: Mat 15:3

Also ( καὶ )

The significance of this little word must not be overlooked. Christ admits that the disciples had transgressed a human injunction, but adds, " Ye also transgress, and in a much greater way." " Whether the disciples transgress or not, you are the greatest transgressors" (Bengel). The one question is met with the other in the same style. Luther says, " He places one wedge against the other, and therewith drives the first back."

Vincent: Mat 15:4

Die the death ( θανάτῳ τελευτάτω )

The Hebrew idiom is, he shall certainly be executed. The Greek is, lit., let him come to his end by death.

Vincent: Mat 15:5

It is a gift ( δῶρον )

Rev., given to God. The picture is that of a churlish son evading the duty of assisting his needy parents by uttering the formula, Corban , it is a gift to God. " Whatever that may be by which you might be helped by me, is not mine to give. It is vowed to God." The man, however, was not bound in that case to give his gift to the temple-treasury, while he was bound not to help his parent; because the phrase did not necessarily dedicate the gift to the temple. By a quibble it was regarded as something like Corban , as if it were laid on the altar and put entirely out of reach. It was expressly stated that such a vow was binding, even if what was vowed involved a breach of the law.

Vincent: Mat 15:6

Have made of none effect ( ἠκυρώσατε )

Rev., made void; ἀ , not, κῦρος , authority. Ye have deprived it of its authority.

Vincent: Mat 15:7

Well ( καλῶς )

Admirably.

Vincent: Mat 15:8

Is far ( ἀπέχει )

Lit., holds off from me.

Wesley: Mat 15:1

Mar 7:1.

Wesley: Mat 15:2

The chief doctors or, teachers among the Jews.

Wesley: Mat 15:3

Food in general is termed bread in Hebrew; so that to eat bread is the same as to make a meal.

Wesley: Mat 15:4

Which implies all such relief as they stand in need of. Exo 20:12; Exo 21:17.

Wesley: Mat 15:5

That is, I have given, or at least, purpose to give to the treasury of the temple, what you might otherwise have had from me.

Wesley: Mat 15:7

That is, the description which Isaiah gave of your fathers, is exactly applicable to you. The words therefore which were a description of them, are a prophecy with regard to you.

Wesley: Mat 15:8

And without this all outward worship is mere mockery of God. Isa 29:13.

Wesley: Mat 15:9

As equal with, nay, superior to, those of God. What can be a more heinous sin?

Wesley: Mat 15:13

That is, every doctrine.

Wesley: Mat 15:14

If they are indeed blind leaders of the blind; let them alone: concern not yourselves about them: a plain direction how to behave with regard to all such. Luk 6:39.

Wesley: Mat 15:17

How fair and candid are the sacred historians? Never concealing or excusing their own blemishes.

JFB: Mat 15:1

Or "from Jerusalem." Mark (Mar 7:1) says they "came from" it: a deputation probably sent from the capital expressly to watch Him. As He had not come to them at the last Passover, which they had reckoned on, they now come to Him. "And," says Mark (Mar 7:2-3), "when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen hands"--hands not ceremonially cleansed by washing--"they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft"--literally, "in" or "with the fist"; that is, probably washing the one hand by the use of the other--though some understand it, with our version, in the sense of "diligently," "sedulously"--"eat not, holding the tradition of the elders"; acting religiously according to the custom handed down to them. "And when they come from the market" (Mar 7:4) --"And after market": after any common business, or attending a court of justice, where the Jews, as WEBSTER and WILKINSON remark, after their subjection to the Romans, were especially exposed to intercourse and contact with heathens--"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, brazen vessels and tables"--rather, "couches," such as were used at meals, which probably were merely sprinkled for ceremonial purposes. "Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him,"

JFB: Mat 15:1

As follows:

JFB: Mat 15:2

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

JFB: Mat 15:3

The charge is retorted with startling power: "The tradition they transgress is but man's, and is itself the occasion of heavy transgression, undermining the authority of God's law."

JFB: Mat 15:4

(Deu 5:16).

JFB: Mat 15:4

(Exo 21:17).

JFB: Mat 15:5

Or simply, "A gift!" In Mark (Mar 7:11), it is, "Corban!" that is, "An oblation!" meaning, any unbloody offering or gift dedicated to sacred uses.

by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

JFB: Mat 15:6

That is, It is true, father--mother--that by giving to thee this, which I now present, thou mightest be profited by me; but I have gifted it to pious uses, and therefore, at whatever cost to thee, I am not now at liberty to alienate any portion of it. "And," it is added in Mark (Mar 7:12), "ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother." To dedicate property to God is indeed lawful and laudable, but not at the expense of filial duty.

JFB: Mat 15:6

Cancelled or nullified it "by your tradition."

JFB: Mat 15:7

(Isa 29:13).

JFB: Mat 15:8

By putting the commandments of men on a level with the divine requirements, their whole worship was rendered vain--a principle of deep moment in the service of God. "For," it is added in Mar 7:8, "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." The drivelling nature of their multitudinous observances is here pointedly exposed, in contrast with the manly observance of "the commandment of God"; and when our Lord says, "Many other such like things ye do," it is implied that He had but given a specimen of the hideous treatment which the divine law received, and the grasping disposition which, under the mask of piety, was manifested by the ecclesiastics of that day.

JFB: Mat 15:10

The foregoing dialogue, though in the people's hearing, was between Jesus and the pharisaic cavillers, whose object was to disparage Him with the people. But Jesus, having put them down, turns to the multitude, who at this time were prepared to drink in everything He said, and with admirable plainness, strength, and brevity, lays down the great principle of real pollution, by which a world of bondage and uneasiness of conscience would be dissipated in a moment, and the sense of sin be reserved for deviations from the holy and eternal law of God.

Hear and understand:

JFB: Mat 15:11

This is expressed even more emphatically in Mark (Mar 7:15-16), and it is there added, "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." As in Mat 13:9, this so oft-repeated saying seems designed to call attention to the fundamental and universal character of the truth it refers to.

JFB: Mat 15:12

They had given vent to their irritation, and perhaps threats, not to our Lord Himself, from whom they seem to have slunk away, but to some of the disciples, who report it to their Master.

JFB: Mat 15:13

They are offended, are they? Heed it not: their corrupt teaching is already doomed: the garden of the Lord upon earth, too long cumbered with their presence, shall yet be purged of them and their accursed system: yea, and whatsoever is not of the planting of My heavenly Father, the great Husbandman (Joh 15:1), shall share the same fate.

JFB: Mat 15:14

Striking expression of the ruinous effects of erroneous teaching!

JFB: Mat 15:15

"when He was entered into the house from the people," says Mark (Mar 7:17).

JFB: Mat 15:16

Slowness of spiritual apprehension in His genuine disciples grieves the Saviour: from others He expects no better (Mat 13:11).

JFB: Mat 15:17-18

Familiar though these sayings have now become, what freedom from bondage to outward things do they proclaim, on the one hand; and on the other, how searching is the truth which they express--that nothing which enters from without can really defile us; and that only the evil that is in the heart, that is allowed to stir there, to rise up in thought and affection, and to flow forth in voluntary action, really defiles a man!

Clarke: Mat 15:1

The scribes and Pharisees - of Jerusalem - Our Lord was now in Galilee, Mat 14:34.

Clarke: Mat 15:2

Elders - Rulers and magistrates among the Jews. For they wash not their hands - What frivolous nonsense! These Pharisees had nothing which their malice could fasten on in the conduct or doctrine of our blessed Lord and his disciples, and therefore they must dispute about washing of hands! All sorts of Pharisees are troublesome people in religious society; and the reason is, they take more pleasure in blaming others than in amending themselves

Clarke: Mat 15:2

The tradition of the elders - The word παραδοσις, tradition, has occupied a most distinguished place, both in the Jewish and Christian Church. Man is ever fond of mending the work of his Maker; and hence he has been led to put his finishing hand even to Divine revelation! This supplementary matter has been called παραδοσις, from παραδιδομαι, to deliver from hand to hand - to transmit; and hence the Latin term, tradition, from trado , to deliver, especially from one to another; - to hand down. Among the Jews Tradition signifies what is also called the oral law, which they distinguish from the written law: this last contains the Mosaic precepts, as found in the Pentateuch: the former, the traditions of the elders, i.e. traditions, or doctrines, that had been successively handed down from Moses through every generation, but not committed to writing. The Jews feign that, when God gave Moses the written law, he gave him also the oral law, which is the interpretation of the former. This law, Moses at first delivered to Aaron then to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar; and, after these to the seventy-two elders, who were six of the most eminent men chosen out of each of the twelve tribes. These seventy-two, with Moses and Aaron, delivered it again to all the heads of the people, and afterwards to the congregation at large. They say also that, before Moses died, he delivered this oral law, or system of traditions, to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders which succeeded him, They to the Prophets, and the Prophets to each other, till it came to Jeremiah, who delivered it to Baruch his scribe, who repeated it to Ezra, who delivered it to the men of the great synagogue, the last of whom was Simon the Just. By Simon the Just it was delivered to Antigonus of Socho; by him to Jose the son of Jochanan; by him to Jose, the son of Joezer; by him to Nathan the Arbelite, and Joshua the son of Perachiah; and by them to Judah the son of Tabbai, and Simeon, the son of Shatah; and by them to Shemaiah and Abtalion; and by them to Hillel; and by Hillel to Simeon his son, the same who took Christ in his arms when brought to the temple to be presented to the Lord: by Simeon it was delivered to Gamaliel his son, the preceptor of St. Paul, who delivered it to Simeon his son, and he to Rab. Judah Hakkodesh his son, who compiled and digested it into the book which is called the Mishna; to explain which the two Talmuds, called the Jerusalem and Babylyonish Talmuds, were compiled, which are also called the Gemera or complement, because by these the oral law or Mishnah is fully explained. The Jerusalem Talmud was completed about a.d. 300; and the Babylonish Talmud about the beginning of the sixth century. This Talmud was printed at Amsterdam in 12 vols. folio. These contain the whole of the traditions of the elders, and have so explained, or rather frittered away, the words of God, that our Lord might well say, Ye have made the word of God of no effect by your traditions. In what estimation these are held by the Jews, the following examples will prove: "The words of the scribes are lovely beyond the words of the law: for the words of the law are weighty and light, but the words of the scribes are all weighty."Hierus. Berac. fol. 3

"He that shall say, There are no phylacteries, though he thus transgress the words of the law, he is not guilty; but he that shall say, There are five Totaphot, thus adding to the words of the scribes, he is guilty.

"A prophet and an elder, to what are they likened! To a king sending two of his servants into a province; of one he writes thus: Unless he show you my seal, believe him not; for thus it is written of the prophet: He shall show thee a sign; but of the elders thus: According to the law which they shall teach thee, for I will confirm their words."- See Prideaux. Con. vol. ii. p. 465, and Lightfoot’ s Hor. Talmud

They wash not their hands - On washing of hands, before and after meat, the Jews laid great stress: they considered eating with unwashed hands to be no ordinary crime; and therefore, to induce men to do it, they feigned that an evil spirit, called Shibta שיבתא, who sits on the hands by night, has a right to sit on the food of him who eats without washing his hands, and make it hurtful to him! They consider the person who undervalues this rite to be no better than a heathen, and consequently excommunicate him. See many examples of this doctrine in Schoettgen and Lightfoot.

Clarke: Mat 15:3

Why do ye - transgress the commandment - Ye accuse my disciples of transgressing the traditions of the elders - I accuse you of transgressing the commands of God, and that too in favor of your own tradition; thus preferring the inventions of men to the positive precepts of God. Pretenders to zeal often prefer superstitious usages to the Divine law, and human inventions to the positive duties of Christianity.

Clarke: Mat 15:4

Honor thy father and mother - This word was taken in great latitude of meaning among the Jews: it not only meant respect and submission, but also to take care of a person, to nourish and support him, to enrich. See Num 22:17; Jdg 13:17; 1Ti 5:17. And that this was the sense of the law, as it respected parents, see Deu 27:16, and see the note on Exo 20:12.

Clarke: Mat 15:5

It is a gift - קרבן korban , Mar 7:11, an offering of approach; something consecrated to the service of God in the temple, by which a man had the privilege of approaching his Maker. This conduct was similar to the custom of certain persons who bequeath the inheritance of their children to Churches or religious uses; either through terror of conscience, thus striving to purchase the kingdom of glory; or through the persuasion of interested hireling priests. It was in this way that, in the days of popish influence, the principal lands in the nation had fallen into the hands of the Church. In those charters, multitudes of which have passed through my hands, a common form was, pro salute meae, et pro salute antecessorum meorum, et pro salute successorum meorum, et pro solute uxoris meae , etc., etc., do, et concedo Deo et Ecclesiae , etc. "For my salvation, and for the salvation of my predecessors, and for the salvation of my successors, and for the salvation of my wife, etc., etc., I give and bequeath to God and his Church, etc.

Though a world of literature was destroyed, and fine buildings ruined, by the suppression of the monasteries in England, yet this step, with the Stat. 23 Hen. VIII. c. 10, together with the Stat. 9 Geo. II. c. 36, were the means of checking an evil that had arrived at a pitch of unparalleled magnitude; an evil that was supplanting the atonement made by the blood of the covenant, and putting death-bed grants of land, etc., in the place of Jesus Christ, and throwing the whole secular power of the kingdom into the hands of the pope and the priests. No wonder then that they cried out, when the monasteries were suppressed! It is sacrilege to dedicate that to God which is taken away from the necessities of our parents and children; and the good that this pretends to will doubtless be found in the catalogue of that unnatural man’ s crimes, in the judgment of the great day, who has thus deprived his own family of its due. To assist our poor relatives, is our first duty; and this is a work infinitely preferable to all pious legacies and endowments.

Clarke: Mat 15:7

Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you - In every place where the proper names of the Old Testament occur, in the New, the same mode of orthography should be followed: I therefore write Isaiah with the Hebrew, not Esaias, with the Greek. This prophecy is found Isa 29:13. Our blessed Lord unmasks these hypocrites; and we may observe that, when a hypocrite is found out, he should be exposed to all; this may lead to his salvation: if he be permitted to retain his falsely acquired character, how can he escape perdition!

Clarke: Mat 15:8

Their heart is far from me - The true worship of God consists in the union of the heart to him - where this exists not, a particle of the spirit of devotion cannot be found

Clarke: Mat 15:8

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth - This clause, which is taken from Isa 29:13, is omitted by several excellent MSS., and by several versions and fathers. Erasmus, Mill, Drusius, and Bengel, approve of the omission, and Griesbach has left it out of the text; but as I find it in the prophet, the place from which it is quoted, I dare not omit it, howsoever respectable the above authorities may appear.

Clarke: Mat 15:9

In vain they do worship me, etc. - By the traditions of the elders, not only the word of God was perverted, but his worship also was greatly corrupted. But the Jews were not the only people who have acted thus: whole Christian Churches, as well as sects and parties, have acted in the same way. Men must not mould the worship of God according to their fancy - it is not what they think will do - is proper, innocent, etc., but what God himself has prescribed, that he will acknowledge as his worship. However sincere a man may be in a worship of his own invention, or of man’ s commandment, yet it profits him nothing. Christ himself says it is in vain. To condemn such, may appear to some illiberal; but whatever may be said in behalf of sincere heathens, and others who have not had the advantages of Divine Revelation, there is no excuse for the man who has the Bible before him.

Clarke: Mat 15:10

Hear and understand - A most important command. Hear - make it a point of conscience to attend to the ministry of the word. Understand - be not satisfied with attending places of public worship merely; see that the teaching be of God, and that you lay it to heart.

Clarke: Mat 15:11

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth - This is an answer to the carping question of the Pharisees, mentioned Mat 15:2, Why do thy disciples eat with unwashed hands? To which our Lord here replies, That what goes into the mouth defiles not the man; i.e. that if, in eating with unwashed hands, any particles of dust, etc., cleaving to the hands, might happen to be taken into the mouth with the food, this did not defile, did not constitute a man a sinner; for it is on this alone the question hinges: thy disciples eat with unwashed hands; therefore they are sinners; for they transgress the tradition of the elders, i.e. the oral law, which they considered equal in authority to the written law; and, indeed, often preferred the former to the latter, so as to make it of none effect, totally to destroy its nature and design, as we have often seen in the preceding notes

Clarke: Mat 15:11

That which cometh out of the mouth - That is, what springs from a corrupt unregenerate heart - a perverse will and impure passions - these defile, i.e. make him a sinner.

Clarke: Mat 15:12

The Pharisees were offended - None so liable to take offense as formalists and hypocrites, when you attempt to take away the false props from the one, and question the sincerity of the other. Besides, a Pharisee must never be suspected of ignorance, for they are the men, and wisdom must die with them!

Clarke: Mat 15:13

Every plant - Every plantation. So I render φυτεια, and so it is translated in the Itala version which accompanies the Greek text in the Codex Bezae, omnis plantatio , and so the word is rendered by Suidas. This gives a different turn to the text. The Pharisees, as a religious body, were now a plantation of trees, which God did not plant, water, nor own: therefore, they should be rooted up, not left to wither and die, but the fellers, and those who root up, (the Roman armies), should come against and destroy them, and the Christian Church was to be planted in their place. Since the general dispersion of the Jews, this sect, I believe, has ceased to exist as a separate body, among the descendants of Jacob. The first of the apostolical constitutions begins thus: Θεου φυτεια η καθολικη εκκλησια, και αμπελων αυτου εκλεκτος . The Catholic Church is the plantation of God, and his chosen vineyard.

Clarke: Mat 15:14

Let them alone - Αφετε αυτους, give them up, or leave them. These words have been sadly misunderstood. Some have quoted them to prove that blind and deceitful teachers should not be pointed out to the people, nor the people warned against them; and that men should abide in the communion of a corrupt Church, because that Church had once been the Church of God, and in it they had been brought up; and to prove this they bring Scripture, for, in our present translation, the words are rendered, let them alone: but the whole connection of the place evidently proves that our blessed Lord meant, give them up, have no kind of religious connection with them, and the strong reason for which he immediately adds, because they are blind leaders. This passage does not at all mean that blind leaders should not be pointed out to the people, that they may avoid being deceived by them; for this our Lord does frequently, and warns his disciples, and the people in general, against all such false teachers as the scribes and Pharisees were; and though he bids men do that they heard those say, while they sat in the chair of Moses, yet he certainly meant no more than that they should be observant of the moral law when read to them out of the sacred book: yet neither does he tell them to do all these false teachers said; for he testifies in Mat 15:6, that they had put such false glosses on the law, that, if followed, would endanger the salvation of their souls. The Codex Bezae, for αφετε αυτους, has αφετε τους τυφλους, give up these blind men. Amen! A literal attention to these words of our Lord produced the Reformation

Probably the words may be understood as a sort of proverbial expression for - Don’ t mind them: pay no regard to them. - "They are altogether unworthy of notice.

Clarke: Mat 15:14

And if the blind lead the blind - This was so self-evident a case that an apter parallel could not be found - if the blind lead the blind, both must fall into the ditch. Alas, for the blind teachers, who not only destroy their own souls, but those also of their flocks! Like priest, like people. If the minister be ignorant, he cannot teach what he does not know; and the people cannot become wise unto salvation under such a ministry - he is ignorant and wicked, and they are profligate. They who even wish such God speed; are partakers of their evil deeds. But shall not the poor deceived people escape? No: both shall fall into the pit of perdition together; for they should have searched the Scriptures, and not trusted to the ignorant sayings of corrupt men, no matter of what sect or party. He who has the Bible in his hand, or within his reach, and can read it, has no excuse.

Clarke: Mat 15:15

Declare unto us this parable - Is it not strange to hear the disciples asking for the explanation of such a parable as this! The true knowledge of the spirit of the Gospel is a thing more uncommon than we imagine, among the generality of Christians, and even of the learned.

Clarke: Mat 15:16

Are ye also yet without understanding? - The word ακμη, which we translate yet, should be here rendered still: Are ye still void of understanding? and the word is used in this sense by several Greek writers. The authorities which have induced me to prefer this translation may be seen in Kypke.

Clarke: Mat 15:17

Cast out into the draught - Εις αφεδωνα, - And beeth into the forthgoing a sent - what is not fit for nourishment is evacuated; is thrown into the sink. This I believe to be the meaning of this difficult and variously translated word, αφεδρων . Diodati translates it properly, nella latrina , into the privy. And the Persian translator has given a good paraphrase, and appears to have collected the general meaning her teche der dehen ander ayeed , az nusheeb beeroon rood , we ber zemeen aftad : "Whatsoever enters into the mouth goes downward, and falls upon the ground."Michaelis, and his annotator, Dr. Marsh, have been much perplexed with this perplexing passage. See Michaelis’ s Introduction, vol. i. note 35. p. 458.

Calvin: Mat 15:1

Mat 15:1.Then scribes and Pharisees As the fault that is here corrected is not only common but highly dangerous, the passage is particularly worthy of our attention. We see the extraordinary insolence that is displayed by men as to the form and manner of worshipping God; for they are perpetually contriving new modes of worship, and when any one wishes to be thought wiser than others, he displays his ingenuity on this subject. I speak not of foreigners, but of the very domestics of the Church, on whom God has conferred the peculiar honor of declaring with their lips the rule of godliness. God has laid down the manner in which he wishes that we should worship him, and has included in his law the perfection of holiness. Yet a vast number of men, as if it were a light and trivial matter to obey God and to keep what he enjoins, collect for themselves, on every hand, many additions. Those who occupy places of authority bring forward their inventions for this purpose, as if they were in possession of something more perfect than the word of the Lord. This is followed by the slow growth of tyranny; for, when men have once assumed to themselves the right to issue commands, they demand a rigid adherence to their laws, and do not allow the smallest iota to be left out, either through contempt or through forgetfulness. The world cannot endure lawful authority, and most violently rebels against enduring the Lord’s yoke, and yet easily and willingly becomes entangled in the snares of vain traditions; nay, such bondage appears to be, in the case of many, an object of desire. Meanwhile, the worship of God is corrupted, of which the first and leading principle is obedience. The authority of men is preferred to the command of God. Sternly, and therefore tyrannically, are the common people compelled to give their whole attention to trifles. This passage teaches us, first, that all modes of worship invented by men are displeasing to God, because he chooses that he alone shall be heard, in order to train and instruct us in true godliness according to his own pleasure; secondly, that those who are not satisfied with the only law of God, and weary themselves by attending to the traditions of men, are uselessly employed; thirdly, that an outrage is committed against God, when the inventions of men are so highly extolled, that the majesty of his law is almost lowered, or at least the reverence for it is abated.

Scribes who had come from Jerusalem With what design those scribes came to Jesus is not stated; but I think it probable that their attention was excited by his fame, and that they came with the desire of receiving instruction, provided that they should approve of him as a competent teacher; ³⁹¹ though it is possible that they were sent to spy. However that may be, as they had brought their haughty disdain along with them, they are easily provoked by the slightest offense to bite or snarl at Christ. Hence we see with what difficulty those who are influenced by ambition and the lust of power are brought to submit to sound doctrine. Those especially whose attachment to ceremonies has been strengthened by long practice cannot endure any novelty, but loudly condemn every thing to which they have not been accustomed. In short, any thing more haughty or more disdainful than this class of men cannot be imagined.

Both Evangelists mention that they were scribes and Pharisees; but Matthew puts the scribes first, and Mark puts them second. They convey the same meaning, that the scribes belonged to various sects, but that the Pharisees were the leaders, because they occupied an honorable station, and at that time held the government. That the Pharisees should be the first to take offense at disregard of the laws of which they were authors ought not to excite surprise; for, as we have said, though they boasted that they were expounders of the law, and though their name was derived from that circumstance, ³⁹² they had corrupted by their inventions the purity of the word of God. All the traditions that then existed among the Jews had come out of their workshop; ³⁹³ and this was the reason why they displayed more than ordinary zeal and bitterness in defending them.

Calvin: Mat 15:2

2.Why do thy disciples transgress? When we speak of human traditions, this question has no reference to political laws, the use and object of which are widely different from enjoining the manner in which we ought to worship God. But as there are various kinds of human traditions, we must make some distinction among them. Some are manifestly wicked, for they inculcate acts of worship which are wicked and diametrically opposed to the word of God. Others of them mingle profane trifles with the worship of God, and corrupt its purity. Others, which are more plausible, and are not chargeable with any remarkable fault, are condemned on this ground., that they are imagined to be necessary to the worship of God; and thus there is a departure from sincere obedience to God alone, and a snare is laid for the conscience.

To this last description the present passage unquestionably relates; for the washing of hands, on which the Pharisees insisted, could not in itself be charged with wicked superstition; otherwise Christ would not have permitted the water-pots to be used at the marriage, (Joh 2:6,) if it had not been an allowable ceremony; but the fault lay in this, that they did not think that God could be properly worshipped in any other way. It was not without a specious pretext that the practice of washings was first introduced. We know how rigidly the Law of God demands outward cleanness; not that the Lord intended that this should occupy the whole attention of his servants, but that they might be more careful to guard against every spiritual defilement. But in washings the Law preserved some moderation. Next came teachers, who thought that they would not be reckoned sufficiently acute, if they did not make some appendage to the word of God; ³⁹⁴ and hence arose washings of which no mention was made in the Law. The legislators themselves did not give out that they delivered any thing new, ³⁹⁵ but only that they administered cautions, which would be of service to assist in keeping the Law of God. But this was immediately followed by great abuse, when ceremonies introduced by men began to be regarded as a part of divine worship; and again, when in matters that were free and voluntary uniformity was absolutely enjoined. For it was always the will of God, as we have already said, that he should be worshipped according to the rule laid down in his word, and therefore no addition to his Law can be endured. Now as he permits believers to have outward ceremonies, by means of which they may perform the exercises of godliness, so he does not suffer them to mix up those ceremonies with his own word, as if religion consisted in them. ³⁹⁶

For they wash not their hands The ground of offense is explained more fully by Mark; but the substance of his explanation is, that many things were practiced by the scribes, which they had voluntarily undertaken to keep. They were secondary laws invented by the curiosity of men, as if the plain command of God were not enough. God commanded that those who had contracted any defilement should wash themselves, (Lev 11:25;) and this extended to cups, and pots, and raiment, and other articles of household furniture, (Lev 11:32,) that they might not touch any thing that was polluted or unclean. But to invent other ablutions was idle and useless. ³⁹⁷ They were not destitute of plausibility, as Paul tells us that the inventions of men have an appearance of wisdom, (Col 2:23;) but if they had rested in the Law of God alone, that modesty would have been more agreeable to Him than solicitude about small matters.

They were desirous to warn a person not to take food while he was unclean, through want of consideration; but the Lord reckoned it enough to wash away those defilements of which they were aware. Besides, no end or limit could be set to such cautions; for they could scarcely move a finger without contracting some new spot or stain. But a far worse abuse lay in this, that the consciences of men were tormented with scruples which led them to regard every person as chargeable with pollution, who did not on every occasion wash his body with water. In persons who belonged to a private rank they would perhaps have overlooked the neglect of this ceremony; but as they had expected from Christ and his disciples something uncommon and extraordinary, they reckoned it unbecoming that ceremonies, which were traditions of the elders, and the practice of which was held sacred by the scribes, should not be observed by the disciples of a master who undertook to reform the existing state of things.

It is a great mistake to compare the sprinkling of the water of purification, or, as the Papists call it, blessed water, with the Jewish washing; for, by repeating so frequently the one baptism, ³⁹⁸ Papists do all that is in their power to efface it. Besides, this absurd sprinkling is used for exorcising. ³⁹⁹ But if it were lawful in itself, and were not accompanied by so many abuses, still we must always condemn the urgency with which they demand it as if it were indispensable.

Calvin: Mat 15:3

3.Why do you also transgress? There are here two answers that are given by Christ, the former of which is addressed, as we say, to the person; while the latter decides as to the fact and the question in hand. Mark inverts that order; for he first represents Christ as speaking on the whole subject, and afterwards adds the reproof which is directed against hypocrites. We shall follow the narrative of Matthew. When the Lord, in his turn, puts the question to the scribes why they break the Law of God on account of their traditions, he does not as yet pronounce a direct acquittal of his disciples from the crime charged against them; but only points out how improper and unwarrantable is this readiness to take offense. They are displeased when the commandments of men are not observed with exactness; and how much more criminal is it to spend the whole time in observing them, to the disregard of the law of God? It is manifest, therefore, that their wrath is kindled rather by ambition than by a proper kind of zeal, when they thus prefer men to God.

When he says that they transgress the commandments of God, the meaning of the expression is easily learned from the context. They did not openly or professedly set aside the law of God, so as to look upon any thing as lawful which the law had forbidden; but there was an indirect transgression of it, for they permitted duties which God had enjoined to be neglected with impunity. A plain and familiar instance is adduced by Christ. The commandment of God is, that children shall honor their parents, (Exo 20:12.) Now as the sacred offerings yielded emolument to the priests, the observance of them was so rigidly enforced, that men were taught to regard it as a more heinous sin not to make a free-will offering than to defraud a parent of what was justly due to him. In short, what the Law of God declared to be voluntary was, in the estimation of the scribes, of higher value than one of the most important of the commandments of God. Whenever we are so eager to keep the laws of men as to bestow less care and attention on keeping the law of God itself, we are held as transgressing it. Shortly afterwards he says, that they had annulled the commandment of God on account of the traditions of men; for the scribes led the people to entertain so strong an attachment to their own injunctions, that they did not allow them leisure to attend to the word of God. Again, as they reckoned those persons to have discharged their duty well who obeyed these injunctions to the letter, hence arose a liberty to commit sin; for whenever holiness is made to consist in any thing else than in observing the Law of God, men are led to believe that the law may be violated without danger.

Let any man now consider whether this wickedness does not at present abound more among the Papists than it formerly did among the Jews. It is not indeed denied by the Pope, or by the whole of his filthy clergy, that we ought to obey God; but when we come to the point, we find that they consider the act of eating a morsel of flesh as nothing less than a capital crime, while theft or fornication is regarded as a venial fault, and thus, on account of their traditions, they overturn the Law of God; for it is utterly insufferable that the enactments of men shall withdraw any part of that obedience which is due to God alone. Besides, the honor which God commands to be yielded to parents extends to all the duties of filial piety. ⁴⁰⁰ The latter clause which Christ adds, that he who curseth father or mother deserves to be put to death, is intended to inform us, that it is no light or unimportant precept to honor parents, since the violation of it is so severely punished. And this is no small aggravation of the guilt of the scribes, that so severe a threatening does not terrify them from granting an extension of liberty to those who despised their parents.

Calvin: Mat 15:5

5.But you say, etc The mode of expression is defective, and is more fully exhibited by Mark, who adds, you suffer them not to do anything more to their father or to their mother The meaning is, that the scribes were altogether wrong in acquitting those persons who fail to perform their duties to their parents, provided that this deficiency be supplied, on their part, by a voluntary sacrifice, which might have been omitted without offending God. For we must not understand Christ’s words to bear that the scribes had forbidden men to render all proper obedience; ⁴⁰¹ but they were so eager to pursue their own gain, that children were allowed, in the meantime, to neglect their duties to their parents.

Calvin: Mat 15:7

7.Well hath Isaiah prophesied concerning you Our Lord now proceeds farther; for he decides on the question in hand, which he divides into two clauses. The first is, that they relied on outward ceremonies alone, and set no value on true holiness, which consists in sincere uprightness of heart; and the second is, that they worshipped God in a wrong way, according to their own fancy. Now though his reproof of pretended and hypocritical holiness appears hitherto to be restricted to persons, yet it includes the substance of this doctrine, from which the full conclusion was, first, that the worship of God is spiritual, and does not consist in the sprinkling of water, or in any other ceremony; and, secondly, that there is no reasonable worship of God but what is directed by the rule of his word. Although Isaiah (Isa 29:13) did not prophesy for futurity alone, but had regard to the men of his own age, yet Christ says that this prediction relates to the Pharisees and scribes, because they resemble those ancient hypocrites with whom the prophet had to contend. Christ does not quote that passage exactly as it stands; but the prophet expressly mentions two offenses by which the Jews provoked against themselves the divine vengeance. With their lips only, and by an outward profession, they made a pretense of godliness; and, next, they turned aside to modes of worship invented by men. First, then, it is wicked hypocrisy, when the honor which men render to God is only in outward appearance; for to approach to God with the mouth, and to honor him with the lips, would not be in itself evil, provided that the heart went before. The substance of what our Lord states on this subject is, that, since the worship of God is spiritual, and as nothing pleases him that is not accompanied by the inward sincerity of the heart, they who make holiness to consist in outward display are hypocrites.

Calvin: Mat 15:9

9.But in vain do they worship me The words of the prophet run literally thus: their fear toward me has been taught by the precept of men. But Christ has faithfully and accurately given the meaning, that in vain is God worshipped, when the will of men is substituted in the room of doctrine. By these words, all kinds of will-worship, ( ἐθελοθζησκεία,) as Paul calls it, ( Col 2:23,) are plainly condemned. For, as we have said, since God chooses to be worshipped in no other way than according to his own appointment, he cannot endure new modes of worship to be devised. As soon as men allow themselves to wander beyond the limits of the Word of God, the more labor and anxiety they display in worshipping him, the heavier is the condemnation which they draw down upon themselves; for by such inventions religion is dishonored.

Teaching doctrines, commandments of men In these words there is what is called apposition; ⁴⁰² for Christ declares them to be mistaken who bring forward, in the room of doctrine, the commandments of men, or who seek to obtain from them the rule for worshipping God. Let it therefore be held as a settled principle, that, since obedience is more highly esteemed by God than sacrifices, (1Sa 15:22,) all kinds of worship invented by men are of no estimation in his sight; nay more, that, as the prophet declares, they are accursed and detestable.

Calvin: Mat 15:10

Mat 15:10.And having called the multitudes to him Here Christ turns ⁴⁰⁴ to those who are ready to receive instruction, and explains more fully the truth at which he had formerly glanced, that the kingdom of God does not consist in meat and drink, as Paul also teaches us, (Rom 14:17;) for, since outward things are by nature pure, the use of them is free and pure, and uncleanness is not contracted from the good creatures of God. It is therefore a general statement, that pollution does not come from without into a man, but that the fountain is concealed within him. Now when he says that all the evil actions which any man performs come out of the mouth of man, he employs a synecdoche; ⁴⁰⁵ for he says so by way of allusion to the subject in hand, and conveys this instruction, that we do not draw uncleanness into our mouth along with meat and drink, but that every kind of defilement proceeds from ourselves.

Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended? As the scribes were presumptuous and rebellious, Christ did not take great pains to pacify them, but satisfied himself with repelling their hypocrisy and pride. The offense which they had formerly taken up was doubled, when they perceived that—not through oversight, but seemingly on purpose—Christ despised their washings as trifles. Now when Christ did not hesitate to inflame still more, by keen provocation, wicked and malicious persons, let us learn from his example, that we ought not to be exceedingly solicitous to please every one by what we say and do. His disciples, however—as is usually the case with ignorant and unlearned people—no sooner perceive the result to be unfavorable, than they conclude that Christ’s reply had been unseasonable and improper. ⁴⁰⁶ For the object of their advice was, to persuade Christ to soothe the rage of the Pharisees by softening the harsh expression which he had employed. ⁴⁰⁷

It almost always happens with weak persons, that they form an unfavorable judgment about a doctrine, as soon as they find that it is regarded with doubt or meets with opposition. And certainly it were to be wished, that it should give no offense, but receive the calm approbation of all; but, as the minds of many are blinded, and even their hearts are kindled into rage, by Satan, and as many souls are held under the benumbing influence of brutal stupidity, it is impossible that all should relish the true doctrine of salvation. Above all, we ought not to be surprised to behold the rage of those who inwardly nourish the venom of malice and obstinacy. Yet we ought to take care that, so far as may be in our power, our manner of teaching shall give no offense; but it would be the height of madness to think of exercising greater moderation than we have been taught to do by our heavenly Master. We see how his discourse was made an occasion of offense by wicked and obstinate men; and we see at the same time, how that kind of offense which arose from malignity was treated by him with contempt.

Calvin: Mat 15:13

13.Every plant As the indifferent success of the doctrine had wounded their weak minds, Christ intended to remedy this evil. Now the remedy which he proposes is, that good men ought not to be distressed, or entertain less reverence for the doctrine, though to many it be an occasion of death. It is a mistaken view of this passage which some have adopted, that all the inventions of men, and every thing that has not proceeded from the mouth of God, must be rooted up and perish; for it was rather to men that Christ referred, and the meaning is, that there is no reason to wonder if the doctrine of salvation shall prove deadly to the reprobate, because they are always carried headlong to the destruction to which they are doomed.

By the persons that have been planted by the hand of God we are to understand those who, by his free adoption, have been ingrafted into the tree of life, as Isaiah also, when speaking of the Church renewed by the grace of God, calls it a branch planted by the Lord, (Isa 60:21.) Now as salvation depends solely on the election of God, the reprobate must perish, in whatever way this may be effected; not that they are innocent, and free from all blame, when God destroys them, but because, by their own malice, they turn to their destruction all that is offered to them, however salutary it may be. To those who willingly perish the Gospel thus becomes, as Paul assures us, the savor of death unto death, (2Co 2:16;) for, though it is offered to all for salvation, it does not yield this fruit in any but the elect. It belongs to a faithful and honest teacher to regulate every thing which he brings forward by a regard to the advantage of all; but whenever the result is different, let us take comfort from Christ’s reply. It is beautifully expressed by the parable, that the cause of perdition does not lie in the doctrine, but that the reprobate who have no root in God, when the doctrine is presented to them, throw out their hidden venom, and thus accelerate that death to which they were already doomed.

Which my heavenly Father hath not planted Hypocrites, who appear for a time to have been planted like good trees, are particularly described by Christ; for Epicureans, who are noted for open and shameful contempt of God, cannot properly be said to resemble trees, but the description must be intended to apply to those who have acquired celebrity by some vain appearance of godliness. Such were the scribes, who towered in the Church of God like the cedars in Lebanon, and whose revolt might on that account appear the more strange. Christ might have said that it is right that those should perish who disdainfully reject salvation; but he rises higher, and asserts that no man will remain steadfast, unless his salvation be secured by the election of God. By these words he expressly declares, that the first origin of our salvation flows from that grace by which God elected us to be his children before we were created.

Calvin: Mat 15:14

14.Let them alone He sets them aside as unworthy of notice, and concludes that the offense which they take ought not to give us much uneasiness. Hence has arisen the distinction, of which we hear so much, about avoiding offenses, that we ought to beware of offending the weak, but if any obstinate and malicious person take offense, we ought not to be uneasy; for, if we determined to satisfy all obstinate people, we must bury Christ, who is the stone of offense, (1Pe 2:8.) Weak persons, who are offended through ignorance, and afterwards return to just views, must be distinguished from haughty and disdainful men who are themselves the authors of offenses. It is of importance to attend to this distinction, in order that no one who is weak may be distressed through our fault. But when wicked men dash themselves through their obstinacy, let us walk on unmoved in the midst of offenses; for he who spares not weak brethren tramples, as it were, under foot those to whom we are commanded to stretch out the hand. It would be idle to attend to others, whom we cannot avoid offending, if we wish to keep the right path; and when, under the pretext of taking offense, they happen to fall off and revolt from Christ, we must let them alone, that they may not drag us along with them. ⁴⁰⁸

They are blind leaders of the blind Christ means that all who allow themselves to be driven hither and thither at the disposal of those men will miserably perish; for when they stumble on a plain road, it is evident that they are willfully blind. Why then should any one allow himself to be directed by them, except that he might fall into the same ditch? Now Christ, who has risen upon us as the Sun of righteousness, (Mal 4:2,) and not only points out the road to us by the torch of his Gospel, but desires that we should keep it before us, justly calls on his disciples to shake off that slothfulness, and not to wander, as it were, in the dark, for the sake of gratifying the blind. ⁴⁰⁹ Hence also we infer that all who, under the pretense of simplicity or modesty, give themselves up to be deceived or ensnared by errors, are without excuse.

Calvin: Mat 15:15

Mat 15:15.And Peter answering said As the disciples betray excessive ignorance, Christ justly reproves and upbraids them for being still void of understanding, and yet does not fail to act as their teacher. What Matthew ascribes in a peculiar manner to Peter is related by Mark, in the same sense, as a question put by them all; and this is evident from Christ’s reply, in which he reproves the ignorance, not of Peter only, but of all of them alike. The general meaning is, that men are not polluted by food, but that they have within themselves the pollution of sins, which afterwards shows itself in the outward actions. Is it objected that intemperance in eating is defilement? The solution is easy. Christ speaks only of the proper and lawful use of those things which God has put in our power. To eat and drink are things in their own nature free and indifferent: if any corruption be added, it proceeds from the man himself, and therefore must be regarded not as external, but internal. ⁴¹⁰

Defender: Mat 15:3

The Lord severely rebuked the Pharisees for ignoring the clear teachings and commands of Scripture in favor of their own self-serving interpretations and traditions. This unfortunate practice is as prevalent among modern Christians as among ancient Jews, and would surely draw the same rebuke today if He were here in the flesh. In fact, we today are more culpable than they, because we have far more evidence of the inerrant authority of His Word than the Pharisees had."

TSK: Mat 15:1

came : Mar 7:1-13

scribes : Mat 5:20, Mat 23:2, Mat 23:15-28; Luk 5:30; Act 23:9

which : Luk 5:17, Luk 5:21

TSK: Mat 15:2

transgress : Mar 7:2, Mar 7:5; Gen 1:14; Col 2:8, Col 2:20-23; 1Pe 1:18

tradition : Tradition, in Latin traditio from trado I deliver, hand down, exactly agreeing with the original παραδοσις [Strong’ s G3862], from παραδιδωμι [Strong’ s G3860], I deliver, transmit. Among the Jews it signifies what is called oral law, which they say has been successively handed down from Moses, through every generation, to Judah the Holy, who compiled and digested it into the Mishneh, to explain which the two Gemaras, or Talmuds, called the Jerusalem and Babylonish, were composed. Of the estimation in which these were held by the Jews, the following may serve as an example: ""The words of the Scribes are lovely beyond the words of the law, for the words of the law are weighty and light, but the words of the Scribes are all weighty.""

TSK: Mat 15:3

Why : Mat 7:3-5; Mar 7:6-8, Mar 7:13; Col 2:8, Col 2:23; Tit 1:14

TSK: Mat 15:4

God : Mat 4:10, Mat 5:17-19; Isa 8:20; Rom 3:31

Honour : Mat 19:19; Exo 20:12; Lev 19:3; Deu 5:16; Pro 23:22; Eph 6:1

He : Exo 21:17; Lev 20:9; Deu 21:18-21, Deu 27:16; Pro 20:20, Pro 30:17

TSK: Mat 15:5

ye say : Mat 23:16-18; Amo 7:15-17; Mar 7:10-13; Act 4:19, Act 5:29

It is : Lev. 27:9-34; Pro 20:25; Mar 7:11, Mar 7:12

TSK: Mat 15:6

honour : 1Ti 5:3, 1Ti 5:4, 1Ti 5:8, 1Ti 5:16

Thus : Psa 119:126, Psa 119:139; Jer 8:8; Hos 4:6; Mal 2:7-9; Mar 7:13; Rom 3:31

TSK: Mat 15:7

hypocrites : Mat 7:5, Mat 23:23-29

well : Mar 7:6; Act 28:25-27

TSK: Mat 15:8

draweth : Isa 29:13; Eze 33:31; Joh 1:47; 1Pe 3:10

but : Pro 23:26; Jer 12:2; Act 8:21; Heb 3:12

TSK: Mat 15:9

in : Exo 20:7; Lev 26:16, Lev 26:20; 1Sa 25:21; Psa 39:6, Psa 73:13; Ecc 5:2-7; Isa 1:13-15, Isa 58:1-3; Mal 3:14; Mar 7:7; 1Co 15:2; Jam 2:20

teaching : Deu 12:32; Pro 30:5, Pro 30:6; Isa 29:13; Col 2:18-22; 1Ti 1:4, 1Ti 4:1-3, 1Ti 4:6, 1Ti 4:7; Tit 1:14; Heb 13:9; Rev 22:18

TSK: Mat 15:10

he : 1Ki 22:28; Mar 7:14, Mar 7:16; Luk 20:45-47

Hear : Mat 13:19, Mat 24:15; Isa 6:9, Isa 55:3; Luk 24:45; Eph 1:17; Col 1:9; Jam 1:5

TSK: Mat 15:11

that which goeth : Mar 7:15; Luk 11:38-41; Act 10:14, Act 10:15, Act 11:8, Act 11:9; Rom 14:14, Rom 14:17, Rom 14:20; 1Ti 4:4, 1Ti 4:5; Tit 1:15; Heb 13:9

but : Mat 15:18-20, Mat 12:34-37; Psa 10:7, Psa 12:2, Psa 52:2-4, Psa 58:3, Psa 58:4; Isa 37:23; Isa 59:3-5, Isa 59:13-15; Jer 9:3-6; Rom 3:13, Rom 3:14; Jam 3:5-8; 2Pe 2:18

TSK: Mat 15:12

Knowest : Mat 17:27; 1Ki 22:13, 1Ki 22:14; 1Co 10:32, 1Co 10:33; 2Co 6:3; Gal 2:5; Jam 3:17

TSK: Mat 15:13

Every : Mat 13:40,Mat 13:41; Psa 92:13; Isa 60:21; Joh 15:2, Joh 15:6; 1Co 3:12-15

TSK: Mat 15:14

Let : Hos 4:17; 1Ti 6:5

they : Mat 23:16-24; Isa 9:16, Isa 42:19, Isa 56:10; Mal 2:8; Luk 6:39

And if : Jer 5:31, Jer 6:15, Jer 8:12; Eze 14:9, Eze 14:10; Mic 3:6, Mic 3:7; 2Pe 2:1, 2Pe 2:17; Rev 19:20; Rev 22:15

TSK: Mat 15:15

Declare : Mat 13:36; Mar 4:34, Mar 7:17; Joh 16:29

TSK: Mat 15:16

Mat 15:10, Mat 13:51, Mat 16:9, Mat 16:11; Isa 28:9, Isa 28:10; Mar 6:52, Mar 7:18, Mar 8:17, Mar 8:18, Mar 9:32; Luk 9:45; Luk 18:34, Luk 24:45; Heb 5:12

TSK: Mat 15:17

that : Mat 7:19, Mat 7:20; Luk 6:45; 1Co 6:13; Col 2:21, Col 2:22; Jam 3:6

and is : 2Ki 10:27

TSK: Mat 15:18

Mat 15:11, Mat 12:34; 1Sa 24:13; Psa 36:3; Pro 6:12, Pro 10:32, Pro 15:2, Pro 15:28; Luk 19:22; Jam 3:6-10; Rev 13:5, Rev 13:6

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Mat 15:1-9

See also Mar 7:1-9.

Then came to Jesus ... - Mark says that they saw the disciples of Jesus eating with unwashed hands.

Mat 15:2

Transgress the tradition of the elders - The world "elders"literally means "old men."Here it means the "ancients,"or their "ancestors."The "tradition of the elders"meant something handed down from one to another by memory; some precept or custom not commanded in the written law, but which scribes and Pharisees held themselves bound to observe.

They supposed that when Moses was on Mount Sinai two sets of laws were delivered to him: one, they said, was recorded, and is that contained in the Old Testament; the other was handed down from father to son, and kept uncorrupted to their day. They believed that Moses, before he died, delivered this law to Joshua; he to the Judges; they to the prophets; so that it was kept pure until it was recorded in the Talmuds. In these books these pretended laws are now contained. They are exceedingly numerous and very trifling. They are, however, regarded by the Jews as more important than either Moses or the prophets.

One point in which the Pharisees differed from the Sadducees was in holding to these traditions. It seems, however, that in the particular traditions mentioned here, all the Jews were united; for Mark adds Mar 7:3 that "the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders."Mark has also added that this custom of washing extended not merely to their hands before eating, but in coming from the market; and also to cups, and pots, and brass vessels, and tables, Mar 7:3-4. They did this professedly for the sake of cleanliness. So far it was well. But they also made it a matter of superstition. They regarded external purity as of much more importance than the purity of the heart. They had many foolish rules about it respecting the quantity of water that was to be used, the way in which it should be applied, the number of times it should be changed, the number of those that might wash at a time, etc. Our Saviour did not think it proper to regard these rules, and this was the reason why they "found fault"with him.

Mat 15:3

But he answered ... - They accused him of violating their traditions, as though they were obligatory.

In his answer he implied that his disciples were not bound to obey their traditions - they were invented by human beings. He said, also, that those traditions could not be binding, as they violated the commandments of God. He proceeded to specify a case in which their tradition made void one of the plain laws of God; and if that was their character, then they could not blame him for not regarding them.

Mat 15:4

For God commanded ... - That is, in the fifth commandment Exo 20:12, and in Exo 21:17. To "honor"is to obey, to reverence, to speak kindly to, to speak and think well of. To "curse"is to disobey, to treat with irreverence, to swear at, to speak ill of, to think evil of in the heart, to meditate or do any evil to a parent. All this is included in the original word.

Let him die the death - This is a Hebrew phrase, the same as saying, "let him surely die."The Jewish law punished this crime with death. This duty of honoring and obeying a parent was what Christ said they had violated by their traditions. He proceeds to state the way in which it was done.

Mat 15:5

It is a gift - In Mark it is "corban."The word "corban"is a Hebrew word denoting a gift.

Here it means a thing dedicated to the service of God, and therefore not to be appropriated to any other use. The Jews were in the habit of making such dedications. They devoted their property to God for sacred uses, as they pleased. In doing this they used the word קרבן qaarbaan or κορβᾶν korban , or some similar word, saying, this thing is "corban,"i. e., it is a gift to God, or is sacred to him. The law required that when a dedication of this kind was made it should be fulfilled. "Vow and pay unto the Lord your God,"Psa 76:11. See Deu 23:21. The law of God required that a son should honor his parent; i. e., among other things, that he should provide for his needs when he was old and in distress. Yet the Jewish teachers said that it was more important for a man to dedicate his property to God than to provide for the needs of his parent.

If he had once devoted his property once said it was "corban,"or a gift to God - it could not be appropriated even to the support of a parent. If a parent was needy and poor, and if he should apply to a son for assistance, and the son should reply, though in anger, "It is devoted to God; this property which you need, and by which you might be profited by me, is "corban"- I have given it to God;"the Jews said the property could not be recalled, and the son was not under obligation to aid a parent with it. He had done a more important thing in giving it to God. The son was free. He could not be required to do anything for his father after that. Thus, he might, in a moment, free himself from the obligation to obey his father or mother. In a sense somewhat similar to this, the chiefs and priests of the Sandwich Islands had the power of devoting anything to the service of the gods by saying that it was "taboo,"or "tabooed;"that is, it became consecrated to the service of religion; and, no matter who had been the owner, it could then be appropriated for no other use. In this way they had complete power over all the possessions of the people, and could appropriate them for their own use under the pretence of devoting them to religion. Thus, they deprived the people of their property under the plea that it was consecrated to the gods. The Jewish son deprived his parents of a support under the plea that the property was devoted to the service of religion. The principle was the same, and both systems were equally a violation of the rights of others.

Besides, the law said that a man should die who cursed his father, i. e., that refused to obey him, or to provide for him, or spoke in anger to him. Yet the Jews said that, though in anger, and in real spite and hatred, a son said to his father, "All that I have which could profit you I have given to God,"he should be free from blame. Thus, the whole law was made void, or of no use, by what appeared to have the appearance of piety. "No man, according to their views, was bound to obey the fifth commandment and support an aged and needy parent, if, either from superstition or spite, he chose to give his property to God, that is, to devote it to some religious use."

Our Saviour did not mean to condemn the practice of giving to God, or to religious and charitable objects. The law and the gospel equally required this. Jesus commended even a poor widow that gave all her living, Mar 12:44, but he condemned the practice of giving to God where it interfered with our duty to parents and relations; where it was done to get rid of the duty of aiding them; and where it was done out of a malignant and rebellious spirit, with the semblance of piety, to get clear of doing to earthly parents what God required.

Mat 15:7

Ye hypocrites! - See the notes at Mat 7:5. Hypocrisy is the concealment of some base principle under the pretence of religion. Never was there a clearer instance of it than this an attempt to get rid of the duty of providing for needy parents under an appearance of piety toward God.

Esaias - That is, Isaiah. This prophecy is found in Isa 29:13.

Prophesy of you - That is, he spoke of the people of his day of the Jews, as Jews - in terms that apply to the whole people. He properly characterized the nation in calling them hypocrites. The words are applicable to the nation at all times, and they apply, therefore, to you. He did not mean particularly to speak of the nation in the time of Christ, but he spoke of them as having a national character of hypocrisy. Compare the notes at Mat 1:22-23.

Mat 15:8

Draweth nigh unto me with their mouth ... - That is, they are regular in the forms of worship; they are strict in ceremonial observances, and keep the law outwardly; but God requires the heart, and that they have not rendered.

Mat 15:9

In vain do they worship me - That is, their attempts to worship are "vain,"or are not real worship - they are mere "forms."

Teaching for doctrines ... - The word "doctrines,"here, means the requirements of religion - things to be believed and practiced in religion.

God only has a right to declare what shall be done in his service; but they held their traditions to be superior to the written word of God, and taught them as doctrines binding the conscience. See the notes at Isa 29:13.

Barnes: Mat 15:10-14

See also Mar 7:15-17.

And he called the multitude - In opposition to the doctrines of the Pharisees, the Saviour took occasion to show them that the great source of pollution was the heart. They supposed that external things chiefly defiled a man. On this all their doctrines about purification were founded. This opinion of the Jews it was of great importance to correct. The Saviour took occasion, therefore, to direct the people to the true source of defilement - their own hearts. He particularly directed them to it as of importance - "Hear and understand."

Mat 15:11

Not that which goeth into the mouth ... - The disciples were charged with being sinners for transgressing the tradition of the elders in eating with unwashed hands.

Christ replies that what they should eat could not render them sinners. The man, the moral agent, the soul, could not be polluted by anything that was eaten. What proceeds from the man himself, from his heart, would defile him.

Defileth - Pollutes, corrupts, or renders sinful.

Mat 15:12

The Pharisees were offended - They were so zealous of their traditions that they could not endure that their absurdities should be exposed.

Mat 15:13

Every plant ... - Religious doctrine is not inaptly compared to a plant. See 1Co 3:6-8. It is planted in the mind for the purpose of producing fruit in the life, or right conduct. Jesus here says that all those doctrines of which his Father was not the author must be rooted up or corrected. The false doctrines of the Pharisees, therefore, must be attacked, and it was no wonder if they were indignant. It could not be helped. It was his duty to attack them. He was not surprised that they were enraged; but, notwithstanding their opposition, their doctrine should be destroyed.

Mat 15:14

Let them alone - That is, do not be troubled at their rage.

Be not anxious about it. This result is to be expected. They are greatly attached to their traditions, and you are not to wonder that they are indignant. They lead, also, the blind. They have a vast influence over the multitude, and it is to be expected that they will be enraged at any doctrines that go to lessen their authority or influence. By commanding them "to let them alone,"Christ does not mean that they were to be suffered to remain in error without any attempt to refute or correct them, for this he was doing then; but he meant to charge his disciples not to mind them or to regard their opposition - it was to be expected.

If the blind lead the blind ... - This was a plain proposition. A blind man, attempting to conduct blind men, would fall into every ditch that was in the way. So with religious teachers. If these Pharisees, themselves ignorant and blind, should be suffered to lead the ignorant multitude, both would be destroyed. This was another reason for confuting their errors, or for rooting up the plants which God had not planted. He wished, by doing it, to save the deluded multitude.

God often suffers one man to lead many to ruin. A rich and profligate man, an infidel, a man of learning, a politician, or a teacher, is allowed to sweep multitudes to ruin. This is not unjust, for those who are led are not compelled to follow such people. They are free in choosing such leaders, and they are answerable for being led to ruin.

Barnes: Mat 15:15-20

See also Mar 7:17-23.

Then answered Peter, and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable - See the notes at Mat 13:3. The word "parable"sometimes means a dark or obscure saying, Psa 78:2. Peter meant, "Explain to us more fully this obscure and novel doctrine."To us, now, it is plain; to the disciples, just coming out of Judaism, the doctrine of Jesus was obscure. Mark says that the disciples asked him. There is no contradiction. The question was put by Peter in the name of the disciples; or several of them put the question, though Matthew has mentioned only one. An omission is not a contradiction.

Mat 15:16

Are ye also yet without understanding? - Jesus appeals, in explaining this, to their common sense; and he wonders that they had not yet learned to judge the foolish traditions of the Jews by the decisions of common sense and by his own instructions.

Mat 15:17

Do ye not understand ... - The meaning of this may be thus expressed: The food which is eaten does not affect the mind, and therefore cannot pollute it.

The doctrine of the Pharisees, that neglect of washing and of similar observances defiles a man, cannot be true. Those things pertain to the body as much as food does, and they cannot affect the soul. That must be purified by something else than external washing, and it is polluted by other things than a neglect of mere outward ceremonies. The seat of corruption is within - it is the heart itself; and if people would be made pure, this must be cleansed. If that is corrupt, the whole man is corrupt.

Mat 15:18-20

Christ proceeds to state what does defile the man, or render him a sinner:

1. "Evil thoughts"These are the first things - these are the fountains of all others. Thought precedes action. Thought, or purpose, or motive, gives its character to conduct. All evil thoughts are here intended. Though we labor to suppress them, yet they defile us. They leave pollution behind them.

2. "Murders."Taking the life of others with malice. The malice has its seat in the heart, and the murder therefore proceeds from the heart, 1Jo 3:15.

3. "Adulteries, fornication."See Mat 5:28.

4. "Thefts."Theft is the taking and carrying away the goods of others without their knowledge or consent. Thefts are caused by coveting the property of others. They proceed, therefore, from the heart, and violate at the same time two commandments - the tenth commandment in thought and the eighth commandment in act.

5. "False witness."Giving wrong testimony. Concealing the truth, or stating what we know to be false - a violation of the ninth commandment. It proceeds from a desire to injure others, to take away their character or property, or to do them injustice. It proceeds thus from the heart.

6. "Blasphemies."See the notes at Mat 9:3. Blasphemy proceeds from opposition to God, hatred of his character Rom 8:7, and from a desire that there should be no God. It proceeds from the heart. See Psa 14:1. Mark adds several things to those enumerated by Matthew:

(a) "Covetousness."The unlawful desire of what others possess, this always proceeds from the heart.

(b) "Wickedness."The original here means malice, or a desire of injuring others, Rom 1:29.

© "Deceit,"i. e., fraud, concealment, cheating in trade. This proceeds from a desire to benefit ourselves by doing injustice to others, and this proceeds from the heart.

(d) Lasciviousness. Lust, obscenity, unbridled passion - a strong, evil desire of the heart.

(e) "An evil eye."That is, an eye that is sour, malignant, proud; or an eye of lust and passion. See Mat 5:28; Mat 20:15; 2Pe 2:14, "Having eyes full of adultery, that cannot cease from sin."

(f) "Pride."An improper estimate of our own importance; thinking that we are of much more consequence than we really are. This is always the work of an evil heart.

(g) "Foolishness."Not a lack of intellect - man is not to blame for that - but a moral folly, consisting in choosing evil ends and the bad means of gaining them; or, in other words, sin and wickedness. All sin is folly. It is foolish for a man to disobey God, and foolish for anyone to go to hell.

Mat 15:20

These are the things which defile a man - These are the true sources of pollution in man.

These are what corrupt and degrade. It is not the neglect of washing the body which defiles; it is the deep, inward corruption of the heart. And what a fountain of pollution is the human soul! What an array of crimes to proceed from the heart of man! What a proof of guilt! What strictness is there in the law of God! How universal is depravity!

Poole: Mat 15:1

Mat 15:1-9 Christ reproveth the scribes and Pharisees for setting

their own traditions above the commandments of God.

Mat 15:10-20 He teacheth that not that which goeth into the mouth,

but that which cometh out of it, defileth a man.

Mat 15:21-28 He healeth the daughter of a woman of Canaan,

Mat 15:29-31 and great multitudes near the sea of Galilee.

Mat 15:32-39 He feedeth four thousand and upwards with seven

loaves and a few small fishes.

See Poole on "Mat 15:2" .

Poole: Mat 15:1-2

Ver. 1,2. Mark relates this piece of history more largely, Mar 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, Num 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, Joh 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, 2Th 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, Act 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, Lev 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 Act 10:14 11:8 : hands not first separated to God by the religious rite of washings.

Poole: Mat 15:3

Mark hath the same, Mar 7:9 , though a little out of the order in which Matthew hath it: Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. Our Saviour could have answered them, had he pleased, more strictly to their questions, but he must then either have incurred danger or odium; he therefore chooseth to answer them by another question, which struck at the root of the matter. Admit, saith he, my disciples culpable in not observing traditions, which indeed you call the traditions of the elders, but are your own, devised by you, or some like you, merely to uphold your power and authority, and to keep people in a needless subjection to you: I am sure you are far more guilty, in making traditions contrary to the law of God, or rejecting God’ s law to keep your traditions. And indeed this is the common guilt of those who are great zealots for traditions and rites, not commanded in the word of God. The Jewish Rabbi Jose saith, He sinneth as much who eateth with unwashen hands, as he that lieth with an harlot. The papists make it a greater sin for a priest to marry than to keep a concubine, and commit fornication; they make it a lesser transgression than to eat meat on a Friday.

Poole: Mat 15:4-6

Ver. 4-6. Mark hath much the same, Mar 7:10-13 . Mark saith Moses said, which is the same with God commanded: God commanded by Moses. Mark saith, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift. Mark addeth, Mar 7:12 , And ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or mother; which more fully shows their crime, and expounds what Matthew had said more shortly. Mark adds, and many such like things do ye. This is an instance by which our Saviour justifieth his charge upon them, that they had made void the law of God by their traditions. The law he instances in is the fifth commandment, Exo 20:12 Deu 5:16 ; which the apostle calleth the first commandment with promise, Eph 6:2 ; which God had fortified with a judicial law, wherein he had commanded, that he who cursed his father and mother should be put to death Exo 21:17 Lev 20:9 he had also further threatened the violaters of this law, Pro 20:20 . By the way, our Saviour here also lets us know, that the fifth commandment obliges children to relieve their parents in their necessity, and this is the sense of the term honour in other texts of Scripture: a law of God which hath approved itself to the wisdom almost of all nations. Liberi parentes alant aut vinciantur, Let children relieve their parents or be put into prison, was an old Roman law. Nor did the Pharisees deny this in terms, but they had made an exception from it, which in effect made it of no use, at least such as wicked children easily might, and commonly did, elude it by: they had taught the people to say to their parents, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me: and in that case, though they did not give their poor parents any thing wherewith they might relieve their necessities, yet they should be guiltless as to the fifth commandment. There is a strange variety of interpreters as to this text. Some making the sense this, That which I should relieve you with I have dedicated unto God, and therefore I cannot relieve you. Others thus, I have dedicated my estate to God, and that will be as much good and benefit to you, as if I had given it unto you. Others think that Corban was the form of an oath, from whence they form other senses. But the most free and unconstrained sense seemeth to be this: The Pharisees were a very courteous generation, and had a share in the gifts that were brought unto God for the use of the temple or otherwise; thence they were very zealous and diligent in persuading people to make such oblations. When any pretended the need that their parents stood in of their help, they told them, that if they told their parents it was a gift, that they had vowed such a portion of their estate to a sacred use, that would before God excuse them for not relieving their parents; so as the precept of honouring their parents, and relieving them in their necessities, obliged them not, if they had first given to God the things by which their parents might or ought to have been relieved. Thus he tells them, that by their traditions, under pretence of a more religion, and expounding the Divine law, they had indeed destroyed it, and made it of no effect at all.

Poole: Mat 15:7-9

Ver. 7-9. The Greek is, didaskontev didaskaliav , teaching doctrines, the commandments of men.

Ye hypocrites who put on an outward vizard or appearance of holiness, but have nothing in your hearts of true and severe piety,

well did Isaiah prophesy of you: Isaiah spake to the Jews that were then in being, but what he then said of your forefathers that lived in his age, is true of you who are their children.

Saying, This people, &c. The evangelist doth not quote the words of the prophet exactly, but his sense, and teacheth us this lesson, That whatsoever outward show and profession of religion be in and upon men, if their hearts be not right with God, and what they outwardly do proceed not from an inward principle of faith, love, and obedience in and to God, they are but hypocrites.

In vain do they worship me, &c. that is, idly, and unprofitably, and to no purpose: I will not account what they do.

Teaching doctrines, the commandments of men: he means in the worship of God, for other commandments of men are not the preacher’ s texts, nor doth he here mean by

commandments of men such as backed the commandments of God, and only served to enforce them, but such as he had been speaking of, human traditions, of which God had said nothing, as washing of hands; or such traditions as enervated the commandments of God; such were the last mentioned.

Poole: Mat 15:10-11

Ver. 10,11. Mark hath the same, Mar 7:15 . Our Saviour turns off his discourse from the Pharisees and scribes, who he saw were indocible, to the multitude, in whom he discerned a more teachable temper: he useth the preface,

Hear, and understand as well knowing how they had been taught, and what an advantage error in possession hath. That which he tells them, and that before the scribes and Pharisees, (as will appear by the following verses), was, that that which goeth into a man doth not defile him, but that which cometh out of him. He speaketh not of a Levitical pollution, for so he that did eat of an unclean thing might by it be defiled; but even in such an eating it was not the flesh of the unclean bird or beast that defiled the man, but his sinful lusting after it, and eating it in disobedience to the command of God.

Poole: Mat 15:12

The Pharisees’ offence was, without question, at his making so light a matter at their washings; not that they understood our Saviour as speaking against the distinction of meats, which was established by the ceremonial law, not as yet abrogated. There is nothing doth more offend hypocrites than pressing spiritual worship and homage to God, and the slighting of all external rites and actions, not attended with a suitable inward homage and devotion of heart.

Poole: Mat 15:13-14

Ver. 13,14. Every plant may be understood of doctrines, practices, or persons. These scribes and Pharisees are a wretched generation, that are got into the sheepfold not at the door; my Father never sent them, they are crept in at the windows, they are plants got into my garden, which my Father never planted there, and they must be rooted up.

Let them alone they are incorrigible, and blinded by their own interest against any conviction or instruction: as, Hos 4:17 , Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone: so these men are joined to their superstitious traditions; I will not concern myself with them. They are pretended leaders of the blind, Rom 2:19 , but themselves are blind. I pity the poor people, for while the blind lead the blind they both fall into a ditch. An ignorant and unfaithful ministry is the greatest plague God can send amongst a people.

Poole: Mat 15:15-16

Ver. 15,16. Mark saith, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. Peter probably began, the rest followed. Or Peter speaks in the name of the rest, for our Saviour in his answer doth not say, Art thou, but,

Are ye They did well in that they desired to be instructed what the meaning was of the parable, that is, the dark saying, which he used (for the Hebrews called all dark sayings parables); possibly they might also stumble at what our Saviour said, as tending to the destruction of the ceremonial law, about the difference of meats. But that they were no better instructed than not to understand a thing so plain and obvious, this was their fault, and argued their small improvement of our Saviour’ s company. God expects a proficiency in knowledge from us proportionate unto the means he giveth us.

Poole: Mat 15:17-20

Ver. 17-20. Mark hath this, with very small difference in words, Mar 7:18-23 ; only he specifies some more sins than Matthew enumerates. The sum of what our Saviour saith is this: That all sin proceedeth from lust, some desires in the heart of man after things forbidden in the law of God. All the ticklings of our hearts with such thoughts, all the willings and desires of such things, though they never issue in overt acts, yet defile and pollute a man; and from these inward motions of the heart proceed those overt acts (mentioned by Matthew or Mark) of murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, pride, foolishness: now these things, take them in their nest, which is the heart, they defile and pollute that; take them in their passage through our lips into the world, they pollute that; take them in their overt act, they pollute the man. But to eat with unwashen hands, a thing no where forbidden by God, only by the Pharisees, who had no such authority given them from God to command any such things, this doth not pollute a man. It is possible that men may sin in not obeying the commandments of men, but it must be then in things in which God hath authorized them to command, and to determine our practice in, for the pollution lies in a disobedience to the commandment of God, not of men.

Lightfoot: Mat 15:2

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.   

[Why do they transgress the tradition of the elders?] how great a value they set upon their traditions, even above the word of God, appears sufficiently from this very place, Mat 15:6. Out of infinite examples which we meet with in their writings, we will produce one place only; " The words of the scribes are lovely above the words of the law; for the words of the law are weighty and light; but the words of the scribes are all weighty."   

"He that shall say, 'There are no phylacteries, transgressing the words of the law,' is not guilty; but he that shall say, 'There are five Totaphoth; adding to the words of the scribes,' he is guilty."   

" The words of the elders are weightier than the words of the prophets."   

"A prophet and an elder; to what are they likened? To a king sending two of his servants into a province. Of one he writes thus, 'Unless he shew you my seal, believe him not': of the other thus, 'Although he shews you not my seal, yet believe him.' Thus it is written of the prophet, 'He shall shew thee a sign or a miracle'; but of the elders thus, 'According to the law which they shall teach thee,' " etc. But enough of blasphemies.   

[For they wash not their hands, etc.] the undervaluing of the washing of hands is said to be among those things for which the Sanhedrim excommunicates: and therefore that R. Eleazar Ben Hazar was excommunicated by it, because he undervalued the washing of hands; and that when he was dead, by the command of the Sanhedrim, a great stone was laid upon his bier. "Whence you may learn (say they) that the Sanhedrim stones the very coffin of every excommunicate person that dies in his excommunication."   

It would require a just volume, and not a short commentary, or a running pen, to lay open this mystery of Pharisaism concerning washing of hands, and to discover it in all its niceties: let us gather these few passages out of infinite numbers:   

I. The washing of hands and the plunging of them is appointed by the words of the scribes; but by whom, and when, it is doubted. Some ascribe the institution of this rite to Hillel and Shammai, others carry it back to ages before them: " Hillel and Shammai decreed concerning the washing of hands. R. Josi Ben Rabbi Bon, in the name of R. Levi, saith, 'That tradition was given before, but they had forgotten it': these second stand forth, and appoint according to the mind of the former."   

II. "Although it was permitted to eat unclean meats, and to drink unclean drinks, yet the ancient religious eat their common food in cleanness, and took care to avoid uncleanness all their days; and they were called Pharisees. And this is a matter of the highest sanctity, and the way of the highest religion; namely, that a man separate himself, and go aside from the vulgar, and that he neither touch them, nor eat nor drink with them: for such separation conduceth to the purity of the body from evil works," etc. Hence that definition of a Pharisee which we have produced before, The Pharisees eat their common food in cleanness; and the Pharisaical ladder of heaven, "Whosoever hath his seat in the land of Israel, and eateth his common food in cleanness, and speaks the holy language, and recites his phylacteries morning and evening, let him be confident that he shall obtain the life of the world to come."   

III. Here that distinction is to be observed between forbidden meats; and unclean meats. Of both Maimonides wrote a proper tract. Forbidden meats; such as fat, blood, creatures unlawful to be eaten ( Leviticus_2), were by no means to be eaten: but meats, unclean in themselves, were lawful indeed to be eaten, but contracted some uncleanness elsewhere: it was lawful to eat them, and it was not lawful; or, to speak as the thing indeed is, they might eat them by the law of God, but by the canons of Pharisaism they might not.   

IV. The distinction also between unclean; and profane or polluted; is to be observed. Rambam, in his preface to Toharoth; declares it.   

Profane or polluted denotes this, that it does not pollute another beside itself. For every thing which uncleanness invades so that it becomes unclean, but renders not another thing unclean, is called profane. And hence it is said of every one that eats unclean meats, or drinks unclean drinks, that his body is polluted; but he pollutes not another. Note that, "The body of the eater is polluted by unclean meats." To which you may add that which follows in the same Maimonides, in the place before alleged: "Separation from the common people, etc., conduces to the purity of the body from evil works; the purity of the body conduceth to the sanctity of the soul from evil affections; the sanctity of the soul conduces unto likeness to God, as it is said, 'And ye shall be sanctified, and ye shall be holy, because I, the Lord that sanctify you, am holy.' " Hence you may more clearly perceive the force of Christ's confutation, which we have Mat 15:17-20.   

V. They thought that clean food was polluted by unclean hands, and that the hands were polluted by unclean meats. You would wonder at this tradition: "Unclean meats and unclean drinks do not defile a man if he touch them not, but if he touch them with his hands, then his hands become unclean; if he handle them with both hands, both hands are defiled; if he touch them with one hand only, one hand only is defiled."   

VI. This care, therefore, laid upon the Pharisee sect, that meats should be set on free, as much as might be, from all uncleanness: but especially since they could not always be secure of this, that they might be secure that the meats were not rendered unclean by their hands. Hence were the washings of them not only when they knew them to be unclean, but also when they knew it not.   

Rambam in the preface to the tract of hands; hath these words; "If the hands are unclean by any uncleanness, which renders them unclean; or if it be hid from a man, and he knows not that he is polluted; yet he is bound to wash his hands in order to eating his common food," etc.   

VII. To these most rigid canons they added also bugbears and ghosts to affright them.   

It was the business of Shibta. Where the Gloss is, " Shibta was one of the demons who hurt them that wash not their hands before meat." The Aruch writes thus, " Shibta is an evil spirit which sits upon men's hands in the night: and if any touch his food with unwashen hands, that spirit sits upon that food, and there is danger from it."   

Let these things suffice as we pass along: it would be infinite to pursue all that is said of this rite and superstition. Of the quantity of water sufficient for this washing; of the washing of the hands, and of the plunging of them; of the first and second water; of the manner of washing; of the time; of the order, when the number of those that sat down to meat exceeded five, or did not exceed; and other such like niceties: read, if you have leisure, and if the toil and nauseousness of it do not offend you, the Talmudic tract of hands; Maimonides upon the tract lavers; and Babylonian Beracoth; and this article, indeed, is inserted through the whole volume entitled cleanness. Let this discourse be ended with this canon; "For a cake, and for the washing of hands, let a man walk as far as four miles."

Lightfoot: Mat 15:5

But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;   

[It is a gift by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, etc.] I. Beside the law alleged by Christ, "Honour thy father and thy mother," etc., they acknowledge this also for law, A son is bound to provide his father meat and drink, to clothe him, to cover him, to lead him in and out, to wash his face, hands and feet. Yea, that goes higher, "A son is bound to nourish his father, yea, to beg for him." Therefore it is no wonder if these things which are spoken by our Saviour are not found verbatim in the Jewish pandect; for they are not so much alleged by him to shew that it was their direct design to banish away all reverence and love towards parents, as to show how wicked their traditions were, and into what ungodly consequences they oftentimes fell. They denied not directly the nourishment of their parents, nay, they command it, they exhorted to it; but consequently by this tradition they made all void. They taught openly, indeed, that a father was to be made no account of in comparison of a Rabbin that taught them the law; but they by no means openly asserted that parents were to be neglected: yet openly enough they did by consequence drawn from this foolish and impious tradition.   

II. One might readily comment upon this clause, "It is a gift " (or, as Mark, "it is Corban") by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; if we have read the Talmudic tracts Nedarim and Nazir; where the discourse is of vows and oaths; and the phrase which is before us speaks a vow or a form of swearing.   

1. Vows were distinguished into two ranks, vows of consecration; and vows of obligation; or of prohibition. A vow of consecration was when any thing was devoted to holy uses, namely, to the use of the altar or the Temple: as when a man, by a vow, would dedicate this or that for sacrifice, or to buy wood, salt, wine, etc. For the altar: or for the reparation of the Temple; etc. A vow of obligation or prohibition was, when a man bound himself by a vow from this or that thing, which was lawful in itself; as, that he would not eat, that he would not put on, that he would not do this or that, etc.   

2. This went for a noted axiom among them, All epithets of vows are as the vows themselves. They added certain short forms, by which they signified a vow, and which carried with it the force of a vow, as if the thing were spoken out in a larger periphrasis: as for example, "If one should say to his neighbour, Konem, Konah, Kones; behold, these are epithets of a thing devoted unto sacred uses."   

The word Konem; Rambam thus explains; Let it be upon me as a thing devoted. So also R. Nissim, Konem, Koneh, are words of devoting.   

We produced before, at Mat 5:33, some forms of oaths, which were only Assertive; these under our hands are Votive also. In the place from Beracoth just now alleged, one saith, Let the wine be 'Konem,' which I shall taste, for wine is hard to the bowels; that is, Let the wine which I taste be as devoted wine: as though he had said, I vow that I will not taste wine. "To which others answered, Is not old wine good for the bowels? Then he held his peace."   

III. But above all such like forms of vowing, the word Corban; was plainest of all; which openly speaks a thing devoted and dedicated to sacred use. And the reader of those tracts which we have mentioned shall observe these forms frequently to occur. Let it be 'Corban,' whereby I am profitable to thee; and, Let it be 'Konem,' whereby I am profitable to thee. Which words sound the very same thing, unless I am very much mistaken, with the words before us, "Let it be Corban; or a gift; by which whatsoever thou mayest be profited by me."   

Which words that they may be more clearly understood, and that the plain and full sense of the place may be discovered, let these things be considered:   

First, That the word a gift is rather to be rendered, Let it be a gift; than It is a gift. For Konem and Corban; as we have noted, signified not ' It is' as something devoted; but ' Let it be' as something devoted. and He, of whom we had mention before...meant not, The wine which I shall taste is as something devoted; but Let whatsoever wine I shall taste be as something devoted; that is, To me let all wine be devoted, and not to be tasted.   

Secondly, This form of speech A gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; does neither argue, that he who thus spake devoted his goods to sacred uses, nor obliged him (according to the doctrine of the scribes) to devote them; but only restrained him by an obligation from that thing, for the denying of which he used such a form; that is, from helping him by his goods, to whom he thus spake. He might help others with his wealth, but him he might not.   

Thirdly, The words are brought in as though they were pronounced with indignation; as if, when the needy father required food from his son, he should answer in anger and with contempt, Let it be as a thing devoted, whatsoever of mine may profit thee. But now, things that were devoted were not to be laid out upon common uses.   

Fourthly, Christ not only cites the law, 'Honour thy father and mother,' but adds this also, He that curseth father or mother. But now there was no cursing here at all; if the son spoke truly and modestly, and as the thing was, namely, that all his estate was devoted before.   

Fifthly, Therefore, although these words should have been spoken by the son irreverently, wrathfully, and inhumanly, towards his father, yet such was the folly, together with the impiety, of the traditional doctrine in this case, which pronounced the son so obliged by these his words, that it was lawful by no means to succour his needy father. He was not at all bound by these words to dedicate his estate to sacred uses; but not to help his father he was inviolably bound. O excellent doctrine and charity!   

Sixthly, The words of the verse, therefore, may thus be rendered, without any addition put between, which many interpreters do: Whosoever shall say to his father or mother, Let it be a [devoted] gift, in whatsoever thou mayest be helped by me: then let him not honour his father and mother at all.

Lightfoot: Mat 15:11

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.   

[Defileth the man.] Or, maketh him common;...because they esteemed defiled men for common and vulgar men: on the contrary, a religious man among them is a singular man...

Haydock: Mat 15:1

The Pharisees observed a rigid and simple mode life, disdaining all luxurious delicacies. They scrupulously followed the dicta of reason, and paid the greatest veneration and implicit obedience to the opinions and traditions of their seniors. All contingencies they ascribe to fate, but not to the exclusion of free-will. The immortality of the soul, and a future state of rewards and punishments, were favourite tenets with them, and their fame for wisdom, temperance, and integrity was proverbial. (Josephus, Antiq. Book xviii, chap. ii.)

Haydock: Mat 15:2

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition. The Pharisees had various traditions delivered down from their ancestors, called Greek: deuterseis, of which some were works of supererogation, others were contrary to the law. (Estius) ---

It is a great proof of malice in the Pharisees, and of irreproachable character in our Lord, that they should be reduce to notice triffles, no ways connected with either piety or religion. ... They moreover betrayed their superstition, by insisting on the observance of these outward ceremonies, as essential parts of piety, which were not commanded by any law, (were certainly of no divine origin) and which, at most, were duties of civility, or emblems of interior purity. (Jansenius) ---

The tradition of the ancients? They do not say the written law, which did not prescribe these washings of hands, cups, pots, beds, &c. These traditions came only from the doctors of their law, who are called elders, which is a name of dignity, as was that of senator among the Romans, and so, in English, are the names of major, alderman, &c. See Acts v. 6. &c. (Witham)

Haydock: Mat 15:3

Why do you also. The Jews understanding the saying of the prophets, "wash yourselves and be clean," in a carnal manner, they made a precept of not eating without first washing their hands. (Ven. Bede) ---

The traditions here alluded to, and which they call the oral law, were respected equally with the written law, by all the Jews, except the sect of Caraites; they were collected in seventy-two books, and composed the cabbala, and were kept by Gemaliel and other heads of the sanhedrim, till the destruction of Jerusalem. About 120 years after this, Rabbi Judas composed a book of them, called Mishna, or second law; afterwards two supplements and explanations were given, viz. the Talmud of Jerusalem, and the Talmud of Babylon. By these the Jews are still governed in ecclesiastical matters.

Haydock: Mat 15:5

The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee. [1] This gift is called Corban, Mark vii. 11. Now, as to the sense of this obscure place, I shall mention two expositions that seem preferable to others. The first is, as if a son said to his father or mother, Whatsoever was mine, (with which indeed I might have assisted you, my parents) I have given, i.e. promised to give to the temple: and being to keep this promise, I need not, or I cannot now assist you. The second interpretation is, as if the son said to his father or mother, Whatsoever gift I have made to God will be profitable to you, as well as to me; or, let it be profitable to you, (which is more according to the Greek text, both here and in St. Mark) and therefore I am no further obliged to assist you. (Witham) ---

That is, the offering that I shall make to God, shall be instead of that which should be expended for thy profit. This tradition of the Pharisees was calculated to enrich themselves, by exempting children from giving any further assistance to their parents, if they once offered to the temple and the priests that which should have been the support of their parents. But this was a violation of the law of God, and of nature, which our Saviour here condemns. (Challoner) ---

They committed a double crime. They neither offered the gift to God, nor succoured their parents in their distress. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. lii.)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Quodcunque ex me, tibi profuerit. In the Greek, both in St. Matthew and St. Mark, Greek: doron, o ean ex emou, ophelethes, tibi prosit.

====================

Haydock: Mat 15:6

And he shall not honour; that is, assist his father or his mother. It is doubtful whether these may not be the words of the Pharisees; but they rather seem the words of our Saviour Christ, especially seeing that in St. Mark, Christ himself adds: And, farther, you suffer him not to do any thing for his father or mother, making void the word of God by your tradition. (Witham)

Haydock: Mat 15:9

In vain they worship, or think they worship God, who neglect the divine commandments to observe the commands of men. We must not here suppose that Christ censures the commands of the Church, or the tradition of the apostles, because these are in nowise contrary to the divine law, but rather serve to enforce it, and reduce it to practice; nor are they so much the commands of men, as of God, delivered to us by his ambassadors. Christ censures such as are merely human, such as those mentioned here, which are vain and futile, as the superstitious washing of hands or erroneous, as that the soul is defiled by meat; or openly contrary to natural and divine law, as the defrauding parents of their just support. (Tirinus) ---

It is evidently erroneous to argue from this text against apostolic traditions. St. Paul tells the Thessalonians, to stand fast, and hold the traditions which they had been taught, whether by word of mouth or by epistles. (2 Thessalonians ii. 14.) ---

Commandments of men. The doctrines and commandments here reprehended, are such as are either contrary to the law of God, (as that of neglecting parents, under pretence of giving to God) or at least are frivolous, unprofitable, and no ways conducing to true piety, as that of often washing hands, &c. without regard to the purity of the heart. But as to the rules and ordinances of the holy Church, touching fasts, festivals, &c. these are no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God's holy word, and all Christian piety; neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men, because they proceed not from mere human authority, but from that which Christ has established in his Church; whose pastors he has commanded us to hear and obey, even as himself. (Luke x. 16. Matthew xviii. 17) (Challoner)

Haydock: Mat 15:11

Not that which goeth into the mouth, &c. We must heartily pity and pray to God for those who blindly pretend from hence, that to eat any kind of meats, or as often as a meats, or as often as a man pleaseth on fasting-days, can defile no man. (Witham) ---

No uncleaness in meat, nor any dirt contracted by eating it with unwashed hands, can defile the soul; but sin alone, or a disobedience of the heart to the ordinance and will of God. And thus, when Adam took the forbidden fruit, it was not the apple which entered into his mouth, but the disobedience to the law of God, which defiled him. The same is to be said if a Jew, in the time of the old law, had eaten swine's flesh; or a Christian convert, in the days of the apostles, contrary to their ordinance, had eaten blood; or if any of the faithful, at present, should transgress the ordinance of God's Church, by breaking the fasts: for in all these cases the soul would be defiled, not indeed by that which goeth into the mouth, but by the disobedience of the heart, in wilfully transgressing the ordinance of God, or of those who have their authority from him. (Challoner) ---

Jesus Christ by no means prohibits fasting and abstinence from certain food, and at certain times, or he would have been immediately accused of contradicting the law; he only says, that meat which they esteem unclean does not of itself, and by its own nature, defile the soul; which is what the Pharisees (and before them Pythagoras, and after them the Manicheans) maintained, and which St. Paul warmly confutes. (1 Timothy iv. 4) (Tirinus) ---

If a man gets intoxicated, adducing this same plea, that what entereth by the mouth, &c. is not the answer obvious; that it is not the wine, but the intemperance, contrary to the law of God, which defileth him: for drunkards shall not possess the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians vi. 10)

Haydock: Mat 15:12

Scandalized. When the Pharisees had received our Lord's answer, they had nothing to reply. His disciples perceiving their indignation, came and asked Jesus if he observed they were scandalized, i.e. offended. It is probable the disciples were also a little hurt, or afraid lest his words were contrary to the law of Moses or the tradition of the ancients, and took this occasion of having their scruples removed. St. Hilary, St. John Chrysostom and Theophylactus understand this answer, Every plant, &c. to signify that every doctrine not proceeding from God, consequently the traditions of the Pharisees here in question, were to be eradicated by the promulgation of the gospel truths, which were not to remain unpublished on account of the scandal some interested or prejudiced persons might choose to take therefrom. (Jansenius) ---

It must be here observed, that Christ was not the direct cause of scandal to the Jews, for such scandal would not be allowable; he only caused it indirectly, because it was his doctrine, at which, through their own perversity, they took scandal. (Denis the Carthusian)

Haydock: Mat 15:14

Let them alone. It must not be hence inferred, that he desired not the conversion of the Scribes and Pharisees. He only says: if, through their own perversity, they choose to take scandal, let them do it; we must not neglect to teach the truth, though it displease men. (St. Jerome) ---

When, says St. Gregory, we see scandal arise from our preaching truth, we must rather suffer it to take place than desert the truth. Our Lord says they are blind, let us leave them. For the land which has often been watered with the dews of heaven, and still continues barren is deserted. Behold your house shall be left desolate. (Luke xiii. 35) And Isaias (v. 6.) says, It shall not be pruned, and it shall not be digged, but briers and thorns shall come upon it; and I will command the clouds to rain no more rain upon it. For, although God never refuses man grace sufficient to enable him to rise, if he pleases, yet he sometimes denies such assistance as would render his rise easy. The state of a sinner is then desperate indeed, when Christ tells his disciples to leave him. For as the Sodomites were destroyed, so soon as Lot, who was just and good in the sight of God, had departed from them, and as Jerusalem was laid waste when Jesus went out of it, (for he suffered without the gates) so the sinner is in a very dangerous state, when he is left by the ministers of religion as one infected with a mortal distemper. (Paulus de Palacio)

Gill: Mat 15:1

Then came to Jesus Scribes and Pharisees,.... After he had wrought so many miracles, particularly that of feeding five thousand men; besides women and children, with five loaves and two fishes: the fame of which had reached Jerusalem, and occasioned much talk there about him: the Scribes and Pharisees, who were his inveterate enemies, hearing thereof, came to him, where he was, in Galilee: to know the truth of these things, to converse with him, and to watch, and observe, what he said and did;

which were of Jerusalem, saying. There were Scribes and Pharisees throughout the land, but those of Jerusalem were the chief; they were men of the greatest learning and abilities, and were more expert in their religion and customs: these were either sent by the sanhedrim at Jerusalem, or came of themselves; taking upon them a greater power, and authority of examining, correcting, directing, and advising.

Gill: Mat 15:2

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 המורים דברי, "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 כל העובר על דברי סופרים, "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 על טהרות ידים, "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 מדברי סופרים, "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 Mar 7:3.

Gill: Mat 15:3

But he answered and said unto them,.... Taking no notice of the tradition about eating bread without washing the hands, whether it was right or wrong; it being at most but an human tradition, of no moment and importance, whether it was broke or kept; he makes a very just recrimination, by putting another question to them,

why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? suggesting, that, if his disciples were guilty, they were not so guilty as they themselves were; that his disciples, at most, were but guilty of the breach of an human precept, whereas they were guilty of the breach of a divine command; and that it was strange, that men who were so scrupulous of breaking, and bore so hard on such as did transgress the traditions of the elders, could allow themselves to transgress the commandments of God; yea, to do this by, and while they were observing their own traditions: and which observation carries a full acquittance of the disciples from blame; for, if by keeping the traditions of the elders, they broke the commands of God, it was a very good reason why they should not observe them.

Gill: Mat 15:4

For God commanded, saying,.... That he might not be thought to suggest this without any foundation, he gives them an instance, wherein a command of God was transgressed, by the observance of their tradition: the command he refers to, stands in Exo 20:12 and is this;

Honour thy father and mother. This was a plain command of God, written with his own hand, and delivered by Moses to them; it was of a moral nature, and of eternal obligation: and to be understood, not merely of that high esteem parents are to be had in by their children, and of the respectful language and gesture to be used towards them, and of the cheerful obedience to be yielded to them; but also of honouring them with their substance, feeding, clothing, and supplying them with the necessaries of life, when they stand in need thereof; which is but their reasonable service, for all the care, expense, and trouble they have been at, in bringing them up in the world: nor did the Jews deny this to be the duty of children to their parents, and own it to be the sense of the commandment: they say ^p, that this is the weightiest commandment among the weighty ones, even this, the honouring of father and mother; and ask,

"What is this honour? To which is replied, he must give him food, drink, and clothing; buckle his shoes, and lead him in, and bring him out.''

They indeed laid down this as a rule, and it seems a very equitable one ^q; that,

"when a man's father has any money, or substance, he must be supported out of that; but if he has none, he must support him out of his own.''

But then, as will be seen hereafter, they made void this command of God, and their own explications of it, by some other tradition. Moreover, Christ observes, that it is said, Exo 21:17

And he that curseth father or mother, let him die the death; temporal and eternal: and which is a positive command of God, made as a fence for the former; and is to be understood, not only of giving abusive language to parents, but of slighting, as the Hebrew word signifies, and neglecting them, taking no notice of them, when needy and in distress, to supply their wants. Now these commands of God, Christ shows the Jews transgressed by their tradition, as appears from the following verses.

Gill: Mat 15:5-6

But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or mother,.... That is, it was a tradition of their's, that if a man should say to his father and mother, when poor and in distress, and made application to him for sustenance,

it is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, and honour not his father, or his mother, he shall be free: or, as Mark expresses it, "it is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, he shall be free, and ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or mother". For the understanding of this tradition, let it be observed, that the word "Corban" signifies a gift, or offering, which was devoted to sacred use; and was unalienable, and could not be converted to any other use; and that this word was used among the Jews, from hence, as the form of an oath, or vow; and therefore, when anyone said "Corban", it was all one, as if he swore by "Corban"; or as if he had said, let it be as "Corban", as unalienable as "Corban": by which oath, or vow, the use of that which was spoken of, whether it respected a man's self, or others, was restrained and prohibited: the rule was ^r this קרבן כאומר כקרבן הוא אסור, "if a man said Corban, it was as if he said as Corban, and it was forbidden": and if he used the words "Conem", "Conach", and "Conas", which they call ^s the surnames of Corban, and were no other than corruptions of it, it was all one as if he had said "Corban" itself. There are many instances of this kind of vows, and the form of them in their oral law ^t, or book of traditions;

"If anyone should say, קונם שאני נהנה, "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever I might be profited by the" sons of Noah, it is free of an Israelite, and forbidden of a Gentile; if he should say, "whatsoever I might be profited" by the seed of Abraham, it is forbidden of an Israelite, and is free of a Gentile--if anyone should say, קונם שאני נהנה לערלים, "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever I might be profited by the uncircumcised", it is free of the uncircumcised of Israel, and forbidden of the circumcised of the Gentiles; if he says "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever I might be profited by the circumcised", it is forbidden of the circumcised of Israel, and free of the circumcised, of the Gentiles.''

Again ^u,

"if anyone says to his friend, קונם שאני נהנה לך, "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me", &c.''

which is exactly the same form as here, unless it should be rather rendered, "whatsoever I might be profited by thee": once more ^w,

"if a married woman should say to her husband, לאבא ולאביך קונם שאני נהנית "Conem (or Corban) whatsoever I might be profited by my father, or thy father, &c".''

Let these instances suffice: the plain and evident sense of the tradition before us, is this; that when, upon application being made to a man by his parents, for support and sustenance, he makes a vow in such form as this, "Corban, whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me"; that is, whatsoever profit or advantage thou mightest have, or expect to have from me, let it be as "Corban", as a gift devoted to God, that can never be revoked and converted to another use; or, in other words, I vow and protest thou shalt never have any profit from me, not a penny, nor a pennyworth of mine. Now, when a man had made such an impious vow as this, according to this tradition, it was to stand firm and good, and he was not to honour his father or mother, or do anything for them, by way of relief: so that our Lord might justly observe upon it as he does;

thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect, by your tradition: for if such a vow was valid, and a man was obliged to abide by it, according to the tradition of the elders, and not honour his father and mother, as the law of God requires; it is a plain case, that the command of God was made void by this tradition: nay they expressly say ^x that נדרים חלות על דברי מצוה, "vows fall upon things of a (divine) commandment", as well as upon things in a man's power, and that he is bound by them; so that without sin he cannot do what the law commands; insomuch, that if a man vows a vow, and that it may be ratified, a command must be made void, his vow must stand, and the command be abrogated. So truly and justly does Christ charge them with making the command of God of none effect, by their tradition. It is indeed disputed by the doctors, and at last allowed, that such a vow might be dissolved by a wise man, for the honour of parents ^y.

"R. Eliezer says, they open to a man, (i.e. the door of repentance, and dissolve his vow,) for the honour of his father and his mother, but the wise men forbid "it". Says R. Tzadok, if they open to him for the honour of his father and mother, they will open to him for the honour of God, and if so, there will be no vows: however, the wise men agreed with R. Eliezer in the affair between a man and his parents, that they should open to him for the honour of them.''

And this could be done only by a wise man; and very probably this last decree was made on account of this just reproof of Christ's, being ashamed any longer to countenance so vile a practice; and even, according to this determination, the vow stood firm till dissolved by of their doctors: so that notwithstanding, Christ's argument is good, and the instance full to prove that for which he brought it: for the above reason it may be, it is, that this tradition Christ refers to is not now extant; but that there was such an one in Christ's time, is certain; he would never have asserted it else; and had it not been true, the Pharisees would have been able to have retired him, and forward enough to have done it: and that such vows were sometimes made, and which were not to be rescinded, is clear from the following fact ^z.

"It happened to one in Bethhoron, אביו מודר הימנו הנאה שהיה, "whose father was excluded, by a vow, from receiving any profit from him": and he married his son, and said to his friend, a court and a dinner are given to thee by gift; but they are not to be made use of by thee, but with this condition, that my father may come and eat with us at dinner;''

which was a device to have his father at dinner, and yet secure his vow. Upon the whole, the sense of this passage is, not that a man excused himself to his parents, according to this tradition, by saying, that his substance, either in whole, or in part, was "Corban", or devoted to the service of God, and therefore they could expect no profit, or relief, from him; but that he vowed that what he had should be as "Corban", and they should be never the better for it: so that a man so vowing might give nothing to the service of God, but keep his whole substance to himself; which he might make use of for his own benefit, and for the benefit of others, but not for his father and mother; who, after such a vow made, were to receive no benefit by it, unless rescinded by a wise man; and which seems to be an explanation of it, made after the times of Christ.

Gill: Mat 15:7

Ye hypocrites,.... After our Lord had given so full a proof of their making void the commandments of God by their traditions, he might very justly, as he does, call them hypocrites; who pretended to so much religion and holiness, and yet scrupled not, upon occasion, to set aside a divine command; who affected so much sanctity, as to be displeased with the disciples, for not complying with an order of their elders, when they themselves made no account of a divine precept; and plainly showed they had more regard to men than God, and to the precepts of men, than to the commands of God, and to approve themselves to men more than to God; and that they sought the praise and applause of men, and not the honour which comes from God; and that their religion lay in mere rituals and externals, and those of men's devising, and not in the spiritual worship and service of God. Nor can it be thought that Christ, in calling them hypocrites, bears too hard upon them; when one of their own doctors, who lived not very distant from this age, says ^a of the men of Jerusalem, that

"if the hypocrites of the world were divided into ten parts, nine of them would belong to Jerusalem, and one to the rest of the world.''

Well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, in Isa 29:13 which prophecy, though it was directed to, and suited with many in that generation in which the prophet lived, yet had a further view to the Jews in after times: their own writers ^b acknowledge, that the whole prophecy is spoken of that nation; for by Ariel they understand the altar at Jerusalem, the city in which David dwelt,

Gill: Mat 15:8

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth,.... The preface to these words, or the form in which they are introduced by the prophet; "wherefore the Lord said", is left out in this citation, being unnecessary here, though of the greatest importance there; partly to show, that what was about to be said, was not the prophet's own words, but the words of the Lord, of which the Jews in Christ's time made no doubt; and partly to give a reason why that judicial blindness, threatened in the context, should be inflicted on them, which is no part of Christ's design here; but which is only to show, that the description here given exactly agrees with them, and so proves, and confirms the character he gives of them as hypocrites. They approached the ordinances of God, and drew nigh to him, and attended him in outward worship; they prayed unto him publicly, and constantly, in the streets, in the synagogues, and temple, and with much seeming devotion and sanctity:

and honoureth me with their lips: they owned him to be their creator and preserver; they made their boast of him, and of their knowledge of him, as the one only living, and true God, and as the God of Israel; they brought their sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, even the fruit of their lips, unto him, for their many peculiar mercies, privileges, and favours, as a nation, church, and people, and with much seeming sincerity and affection.

But their heart is far from me; they had no true love to God, nor faith in him, nor fear of him; they were not at all concerned for his presence with them, or for communion with him, or for his honour and glory; their hearts were in the world, and after their covetousness; they made religion a tool to their secular purposes, supposing gain to be godliness; sought the applause of men, and contented themselves with bodily exercise; having no regard to internal religion, powerful godliness, or where their hearts were, so be it, their bodies were presented to God in public worship; and what they did it was to be seen and approved of men, not caring what the searcher of hearts knew concerning them, or what he required of them.

Gill: Mat 15:9

But in vain do they worship me,.... In the Hebrew text it is, "their fear towards me": which is rightly expressed here by "worship"; for the fear of God often intends the whole worship of God, both external and internal: here it only signifies external worship, which these men only attended to. They prayed in the synagogues, read, and, in their way, expounded the books of Moses, and the prophets, to the people, diligently observed the rituals of the ceremonial law, brought their offerings and sacrifices to the temple, and neglected nothing appertaining to the outward service of it; and yet it was all "in vain", and to no purpose; since the heart was wanting, no grace there, they acted from wrong principles, and with wrong views; their worship was merely outward, formal, and customary; and besides, they added doctrines and traditions of their own inventing and devising. The phrase, "in vain", is not in the text in Isaiah: some have thought that it was not originally in Matthew, but inserted by some other hand, to make the sense more complete. Grotius thinks there was a various reading, which is followed by the Septuagint, and the evangelist; and that instead of ותהי, "and is", it was ותהו, the same with לתהו, "in vain": but there is no need to suppose either of these: Christ, who made this citation, either added it himself for the clearer illustration of the passage, and as being entirely agreeable to the sense of it, and which it required, for the true understanding of it; or he might have in his view another passage of the same prophet, speaking of the same people, and upon the same subject, Isa 1:11 and from thence take the phrase, and, for explanation sake, join it to the passage here. It follows,

teaching for doctrines the commandments of men; that is, teaching the people to observe the traditions of the elders, the decrees and determinations of the doctors, as if they were doctrines delivered by God himself; or, instead of the doctrines contained in the Bible, which lay neglected by them, they obtruded on them the orders, and injunctions of men. In the text in Isaiah, are only these words, "taught by the precept of men": and which relate to their fear and worship of God; and which is here interpreted of their teachers teaching them it, and that explained of the commandments of men; as if, instead of מלמדה, "taught", it had been read, מלמדים, "teaching". The Jews have no reason to quarrel with this construction and sense, since their Targum paraphrases it thus; "and their fear before me is, כתפקידת גברין מלפין, according to the commandment of men that teach": and a noted commentator ^c of their's has this remark on the text, "their fear towards me is" not with a perfect heart, but "by the commandment האנשים המלמדים או־תאם, of the men that teach them".

Gill: Mat 15:10

And he called the multitude,.... Having silenced the Scribes and Pharisees, and judging it not worth his while to say any more to men so obstinate and perverse; who were not open to conviction, nor would attend to any argument or reason, though ever so clear and strong, against their darling notions; he leaves them, as both disliking them, and despairing of them, and calls to the common people; who, through their great veneration for these men, upon their coming withdrew, and stood at a distance; nor indeed would they admit them very near unto them, lest they should be polluted by them: Christ, I say, calls to these to come nearer to him, hoping better of them, and knowing that they were more tractable, and teachable; and that there were some among them, that were to be brought off of their former principles and prejudices, to embrace him, and the truths delivered by him:

and said unto them, hear and understand; this he said, partly, by way of reflection upon the learned Scribes and Pharisees, who, with all their learning, could not hear him so as to understand him; and partly to excite the attention of the multitude to what he had to say; as also to show, that barely to hear with the outward hearing of the ear, will be of no service, unless what is heard is understood; and that the way to understand, is to hear.

Gill: Mat 15:11

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man,.... No sorts of meats, or drinks, or whatever is proper food for men, or manner of eating and drinking them, when moderately used, defile a man, or render him loathsome and odious in the sight God. This is directly opposite to the notions of the Jews, who say ^d, that

"forbidden meats are unclean themselves, הגוף והנפש ומטמאין, "and defile both body and soul".''

The first food of man was herbs; after the flood he had an allowance of the flesh of beasts, without distinction; under the Levitical dispensation, a difference of meats was enjoined to be observed; the laws respecting that distinction are now abolished, and not binding on us under the Gospel dispensation. Some scruples, about some of these things, did arise among the first Christians; but in process of time these difficulties were got over: nor is there any religion in abstinence from any sort of food; men, indeed, on a "physical" account, ought to be careful what they eat and drink, but not on a religious one; moderation in all ought to be used; and whatever is ate or drank, should be received with thankfulness, and done to the glory of God, and then no defilement can arise from hence:

but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. It is sin, and that only, which takes its rise from the heart, lies in thought, and is either expressed by the mouth, or performed by some outward action, which defiles the man, and renders him loathsome, abominable, and odious in the sight of God. The heart is the source of all evil; the pollution of it is very early, and very general, reaching to all the powers and faculties of the soul; which shows the ignorance of some, and folly of others, that talk of, and trust to the goodness of their hearts; and also the necessity of new hearts and right spirits being formed and created; and that the sinful thoughts of the heart, and the lusts thereof, are defiling to men; and that they are sinful in God's account, and abominable in his sight; that they are loathsome to sensible sinners, and are to be repented of, and forsaken by them; and need the pardoning grace of God or otherwise will be brought into judgment. Sinful words, which, through the abundance of wickedness in the heart, come out of the mouth, have the same influence and effect: words are of a defiling nature; with these men pollute both themselves and others: the tongue, though a little member, defiles the whole body; and evil and corrupt communication proceeding out of the mouth, corrupts the best of manners, and renders men loathsome to God, and liable to his awful judgment. And this is the nature of all sinful actions; they are what God can take no pleasure in; they are disagreeable, to a sensible mind; they leave a stain, which can never be removed by any thing the creature can do; nothing short of the blood of Christ can cleanse from it; and inasmuch as they are frequently committed, there is need of continual application to it. These are now the things men should be concerned about, as of a defiling nature; and not about meats and drinks, and the manner of using them, whether with hands washed, or unwashed.

Gill: Mat 15:12

Then came his disciples, and said unto him,.... That is, after he had dismissed the people, and was come into a private house; see Mar 7:17 his disciples came to him, being alone, full of concern, for what he had said to the Pharisees, and before all the people; and not so well understanding it themselves.

Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended after they heard this saying?, that they set aside the commandments of God, by observing the traditions of the elders; or that they were hypocrites; and that the prophecy of Isaiah, which describes such persons, belonging to them; or that not what goes into, but what comes out of a man, defiles him: whichever it was they have respect unto, or it may be to the whole, they seem to wish Christ had not said it; because the Pharisees were, as they thought, grieved and troubled at it, as being contrary to true religion and piety; and lest they should be so stumbled, as no more to attend, and so all hopes of bringing them over to the faith of Christ be lost; and chiefly, because they perceived they were made exceeding angry, and were highly provoked; so that they might fear that both Christ, and they themselves, would feel the effects of their wrath and rage; and perhaps it was with some such view, that he would take some prudential step that he might not fall into their hands, that they acquaint him with it.

Gill: Mat 15:13

But he answered, and said,.... As being unconcerned at their rage, and having nothing to fear from them; and being well satisfied, that what he had said was right, and would produce proper effects, he gave his disciples this for answer:

every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up; which may be understood either of things, or of persons: it may have regard to doctrines and ordinances; and the meaning be, that whatever doctrine is not delivered by God, or whatever ordinance is not instituted by him; whatever is not of heaven, but of man, of man's devising, and of human imposition, as the traditions of the elders, must be opposed and rejected; and sooner or later will be utterly rooted up, and destroyed; as will all the false notions, corrupt worship, and errors, and heresies of men, in God's own time: or it may respect persons. There are some plants, which are planted by Christ's Father, which is in heaven; these are the elect of God, who are trees of righteousness; the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified. These are planted by the river of God's love, in the person of Christ, in the likeness of his death and resurrection; they are transplanted out of a state of nature, are ingrafted into Christ, have the graces of the Spirit implanted in their souls, and are themselves planted in the courts of the Lord, in a Gospel church state; and being watered with the dews of grace, appear to be choice plants, plants of renown, pleasant ones, very fruitful, and which shall never perish, or be rooted, and plucked up, but there are others, like these Pharisees, hypocrites, formal professors, and heretics, who pretend to much religion and holiness, make a show of the leaves of profession, but have not the fruit of grace; these get into churches, and are outwardly and ministerially planted there; but being never rooted in Christ, nor partake of his grace, in time they wither, and die away; or persecution arising because of the Word, or truth being dispensed in so clear and glaring a light, that they cannot bear it; they are offended with it, and so are detected, discovered, and rooted up and it is necessary that truth should be freely spoken, as it was here by Christ, that such plants might be rooted out; for these words are said by Christ in justification of his conduct. So the Jews speak of God, as a planter, and of rooting up what he does not like.

"The holy, blessed God (say they ^e), "plants" trees in this world; if they prosper, it is well; if they do not prosper, אעקר לון, "he roots them up", and plants them even many times.''

And elsewhere it is said ^f,

"let the master of the vineyard come, and consume its thorns: the gloss on it is, the holy, blessed God; for the vineyard of the Lord of hosts, is the house of Israel, and he will consume, and take away the thorns of the vineyard.''

Gill: Mat 15:14

Let them alone,.... Have nothing to say, or do with them; do not mind their anger and resentment, their reproaches and reflections, nor trouble yourselves at the offence they have taken; if they will go, let them go; they are a worthless generation of men, who are not to be regarded, hearkened to, nor to be pleased; it matters not what they say of me, and of my doctrine:

they be blind leaders of the blind; the people that hearken to them, and are followers of them, are "blind", as to any true sense of themselves, their state, and condition by nature; as to any spiritual, saving knowledge of God; as to any acquaintance with the Messiah, and the method of salvation by him; as to the Spirit of God, and the work of grace, regeneration, and sanctification upon the soul; as to the Scriptures of truth, and doctrines of the Gospel; and the "leaders" of them were as "blind" as they: by whom are meant the Scribes and Pharisees, the learned doctors and rabbins of the Jewish nation; who thought themselves very wise and knowing, yet they were blind also; and none more than they. It was an old tradition ^g among the Jews,

"that there should be "blind teachers" at the time when God should have his tabernacle among them.''

This was predicted, in Isa 42:19 and all such leaders and teachers are blind, who, notwithstanding their natural abilities, and acquired parts, are in a state of unregeneracy; and have nothing more than what they have from nature, or have attained to at school; and as apparently all such are, who lead men from Christ, to mere morality, and to a dependence upon their own righteousness for justification, which was the darling principle of the blind leaders in the text.

And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch; of ignorance and error, immorality and profaneness, distress, if not despair, temporal ruin and destruction; which was notoriously verified in the Jewish people, and their guides: and of eternal damnation, the lake which burns with fire and brimstone; what else can be expected?

Gill: Mat 15:15

Then answered Peter,.... Mark says, "his disciples asked him concerning the parable"; which might be by the mouth of Peter; who, probably, being the eldest man, and very forward to speak, was generally their spokesman: and who, at this time, might be requested, by the rest, to ask the meaning of the parable, which had given offence to the Pharisees, and was not clearly understood by them; which he accordingly did:

and said unto him, declare unto us this parable; that not what goes into the mouth, but what comes out of it, defiles the man; which, though expressed in very plain words, and easy to be understood, yet did not appear clear to their understandings; and seemed to be contrary, not only to the traditions of the elders, but to the laws of God, respecting the difference of clean and unclean meats; and therefore call it a "parable", and desire an explanation of it.

Gill: Mat 15:16

And Jesus said,.... As wondering at, and as being displeased with, and as reproving them for their dulness and ignorance:

are ye also yet without understanding? you, my disciples, as well as the Scribes and Pharisees; you, who have been with me so long, who have heard so many discourses from me, who for so long a time have been instructed by me, both in private, and in public; and yet do not understand what is so plain and easy, that has nothing of difficulty in it, but what might easily be accounted for.

Gill: Mat 15:17

Do not ye understand,.... You must understand, you cannot be so ignorant,

that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? that is, that whatsoever food a man takes in at his mouth, he swallows down, and it is received into his stomach; which, having performed its office, the grosser parts go down into the belly, and passing through the bowels, are evacuated into the vault, or privy, "purging all meats", as Mark says; for that only receives the filth and excrementitious matter; so that what is left in the body is pure, wholesome, and nourishing: nor can any part of what goes into a man defile him, because it only enters into the body, and passes through it; and, as Mark says, "entereth not into the heart", which is the seat of moral impurity; so that no moral pollution can be contracted by eating any sort of food, even though it should not be clean itself, nor be eaten with clean hands.

Gill: Mat 15:18

But those things which proceed out of the mouth,.... Meaning not material things, as spittle, vomit, &c. but, as it follows, which

come forth from the heart: are first conceived and formed there, and then come forth from thence, and are expressed by the mouth; as all idle words, foolish talking, filthy jesting, unsavoury communication, and every word that is rotten and corrupt, or which is done in the life and conversation;

and they defile the man: the heart is the corrupt fountain from whence all moral defilement flows; and sinful words and actions are the impure streams, which spring from thence, and increase the moral pollution of human nature.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Mat 15:1

¹ sn See the note on Pharisees in 3:7.

² tn Or “and the scribes.” See the note on the phrase “experts in the law” in 2:4.

³ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

⁴ tn The participle λέγοντες (legontes) has been translated as a finite verb so that its telic (i.e., final or conclusive) force can be more easily detected: The Pharisees and legal experts came to Jesus in order to speak with him.

NET Notes: Mat 15:2

¹ tc ‡ Although most witnesses read the genitive plural pronoun αὐτῶν (autwn, “their”), it may have been motivated by clarification (as it is in the translation above). Several other authorities do not have the pronoun, however (א B Δ 073 ˹ 579 700 892 1424 pc f g¹); the lack of an unintentional oversight as the reason for omission strengthens their combined testimony in this shorter reading. NA²⁷ has the pronoun in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

² tn Grk “when they eat bread.”

NET Notes: Mat 15:3

¹ tn Grk “But answering, he said to them.”

NET Notes: Mat 15:4

¹ tc Most mss (א*^,2 C L W 0106 33 Ï) have an expanded introduction here; instead of “For God said,” they read “For God commanded, saying” (ὁ γὰρ θεὸς ἐνετείλατο λέγων, Jo gar qeo" eneteilato legwn). But such expansions are generally motivated readings; in this case, most likely it was due to the wording of the previous verse (“the commandment of God”) that caused early scribes to add to the text. Although it is possible that other witnesses reduced the text to the simple εἶπεν (eipen, “[God] said”) because of perceived redundancy with the statement in v. 3, such is unlikely in light of the great variety and age of these authorities (א¹ B D Θ 073 Ë^1,13 579 700 892 pc lat co, as well as other versions and fathers).

² sn A quotation from Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16.

³ sn A quotation from Exod 21:17; Lev 20:9.

NET Notes: Mat 15:5

¹ tn Grk “is a gift,” that is, something dedicated to God.

NET Notes: Mat 15:6

¹ tc The logic of v. 5 would seem to demand that both father and mother are in view in v. 6. Indeed, the majority of mss (C L W Θ 0106 ˹ Ï) have “or his mother” (ἢ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ, h thn mhtera autou) after “honor his father” here. However, there are significant witnesses that have variations on this theme (καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ [kai thn mhtera autou, “and his mother”] in Φ 565 1241 pc and ἢ τὴν μητέρα [“or mother”] in 073 ˹³ 33 579 700 892 pc), which is usually an indication of a predictable addition to the text rather than an authentic reading. Further, the shorter reading (without any mention of “mother”) is found in early and important witnesses (א B D sa). Although it is possible that the shorter reading came about accidentally (due to the repetition of –ερα αὐτοῦ), the evidence more strongly suggests that the longer readings were intentional scribal alterations.

tn Grk “he will never honor his father.” Here Jesus is quoting the Pharisees, whose intent is to release the person who is giving his possessions to God from the family obligation of caring for his parents. The verb in this phrase is future tense, and it is negated with οὐ μή (ou mh), the strongest negation possible in Greek. A literal translation of the phrase does not capture the intended sense of the statement; it would actually make the Pharisees sound as if they agreed with Jesus. Instead, a more interpretive translation has been used to focus upon the release from family obligations that the Pharisees allowed in these circumstances.

sn Here Jesus refers to something that has been set aside as a gift to be given to God at some later date, but which is still in the possession of the owner. According to contemporary Jewish tradition, the person who made this claim was absolved from responsibility to support or assist his parents, a clear violation of the Mosaic law to honor one’s parents (v. 4).

NET Notes: Mat 15:8

¹ tn The term “heart” is a collective singular in the Greek text.

NET Notes: Mat 15:9

¹ sn A quotation from Isa 29:13.

NET Notes: Mat 15:10

¹ tn Grk “And calling the crowd, he said to them.” The participle προσκαλεσάμενος (proskalesamenos) has been translated as attendant circumstance. The emphasis here is upon Jesus’ speaking to the crowd.

NET Notes: Mat 15:11

¹ tn Grk “but what.”

NET Notes: Mat 15:12

¹ sn See the note on Pharisees in 3:7.

NET Notes: Mat 15:13

¹ tn Grk “And answering, he said.”

NET Notes: Mat 15:14

¹ tc ‡ Most mss, some of which are significant, read “They are blind guides of the blind” (א¹ C L W Z Θ Ë^1,13 33 Ï lat). The shorter reading is read by א*^,2 B D 0237 Epiph. There is a distinct possibility of omission due to homoioarcton in א*; this manuscript has a word order variation which puts the word τυφλοί (tufloi, “blind”) right before the word τυφλῶν (tuflwn, “of the blind”). This does not explain the shorter reading, however, in the other witnesses, of which B and D are quite weighty. Internal considerations suggest that the shorter reading is original: “of the blind” was likely added by scribes to balance this phrase with Jesus’ following statement about the blind leading the blind, which clearly has two groups in view. A decision is difficult, but internal considerations here along with the strength of the witnesses argue that the shorter reading is more likely original. NA²⁷ places τυφλῶν in brackets, indicating doubts as to its authenticity.

² tn Grk “If blind leads blind.”

NET Notes: Mat 15:15

¹ tn Grk “And answering, Peter said to him.” This construction is somewhat redundant in English and has been simplified in the translation.

NET Notes: Mat 15:16

¹ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity. Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

NET Notes: Mat 15:17

¹ tn Or “into the latrine.”

Geneva Bible: Mat 15:1

^{( 1 )} Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

^{( 1 )} None commonly are more bold condemners of God, then they whom God has appointed keepers of his law.

Geneva Bible: Mat 15:2

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they ^{( a )} wash not their hands when they eat bread.

^{( a )} Which they received handed down from their ancestors, or their elders allowed, who were the governors of the Church.

Geneva Bible: Mat 15:3

^{( 2 )} But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

^{( 2 )} Their wicked boldness in corrupting the commandments of God (and that upon the pretence of godliness) and usurping authority to make laws, is reproved here.

Geneva Bible: Mat 15:4

For God commanded, saying, ^{( b )} Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

^{( b )} By honour is meant every duty which children owe to their parents.

Geneva Bible: Mat 15:5

But ye say, ^{( c )} Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

^{( c )} The meaning is this: whatever I bestow upon the temple, is to your profit, for it is as good as if I gave it to you, for (as the Pharisees of our time say) it will be meritorious for you: for under this form of religion, they gathered all to themselves, as though he that had given anything to the temple, had done the duty of a child.

Geneva Bible: Mat 15:6

And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none ^{( d )} effect by your tradition.

^{( d )} As much as you could, you destroyed the power and authority of the commandment: for otherwise the commandments of God stand fast in the Church of God, in spite of the world and Satan.

Geneva Bible: Mat 15:7

^{( 3 )} [Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

^{( 3 )} The same men are condemned for hypocrisy and superstition, because they made the kingdom of God to consist of outward things.

Geneva Bible: Mat 15:10

^{( 4 )} And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

^{( 4 )} Christ teaches us that the hypocrisy of false teachers who deceive our souls is not to be endured at all, not even in small matters, and there is no reason why their office or position should blind our eyes: otherwise we are likely to perish with them.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Mat 15:1-39

1 Christ reproves the Scribes and Pharisees for transgressing God's commandments through their own traditions;

10 teaches how that which goes into the mouth does not defile a man.

21 He heals the daughter of the woman of Canaan,

29 and other great multitudes;

32 and with seven loaves and a few little fishes feeds four thousand men, beside women and children.

MHCC: Mat 15:1-9

Additions to God's laws reflect upon his wisdom, as if he had left out something which was needed, and which man could supply; in one way or other they always lead men to disobey God. How thankful ought we to be for the written word of God! Never let us think that the religion of the Bible can be improved by any human addition, either in doctrine or practice. Our blessed Lord spoke of their traditions as inventions of their own, and pointed out one instance in which this was very clear, that of their transgressing the fifth commandment. When a parent's wants called for assistance, they pleaded, that they had devoted to the temple all they could spare, even though they did not part with it, and therefore their parents must expect nothing from them. This was making the command of God of no effect. The doom of hypocrites is put in a little compass; " In vain do they worship me." It will neither please God, nor profit themselves; they trust in vanity, and vanity will be their recompence.

MHCC: Mat 15:10-20

Christ shows that the defilement they ought to fear, was not from what entered their mouths as food, but from what came out of their mouths, which showed the wickedness of their hearts. Nothing will last in the soul but the regenerating graces of the Holy Spirit; and nothing should be admitted into the church but what is from above; therefore, whoever is offended by a plain, seasonable declaration of the truth, we should not be troubled at it. The disciples ask to be better taught as to this matter. Where a weak head doubts concerning any word of Christ, an upright heart and a willing mind seek for instruction. It is the heart that is desperately wicked, Jer 17:9, for there is no sin in word or deed, which was not first in the heart. They all come out of the man, and are fruits of that wickedness which is in the heart, and is wrought there. When Christ teaches, he will show men the deceitfulness and wickedness of their own hearts; he will teach them to humble themselves, and to seek to be cleansed in the Fountain opened for sin and uncleanness.

Matthew Henry: Mat 15:1-9

Evil manners, we say, beget good laws. The intemperate heat of the Jewish teachers for the support of their hierarchy, occasioned many excellent discourses of our Saviour's for the settling of the truth, as here.

I. Here, is the cavil of the scribes and Pharisees at Christ's disciples, for eating with unwashen hands. The scribes and Pharisees were the great men of the Jewish church, men whose gain was godliness, great enemies to the gospel of Christ, but colouring their opposition with a pretence of zeal for the law of Moses, when really nothing was intended but the support of their own tyranny over the consciences of men. They were men of learning and men of business. These scribes and Pharisees here introduced were of Jerusalem, the holy city, the head city, whither the tribes went up, and where were set the thrones of judgment; they should therefore have been better than others, but they were worse. Note, External privileges, if they be not duly improved, commonly swell men up the more with pride and malignity. Jerusalem, which should have been a pure spring, was now become a poisoned sink. How is the faithful city become a harlot!

Now if these great men be the accusers, pray what is the accusation? What articles do they exhibit against the disciples of Christ? Why, truly, the thing laid to their charge, is, nonconformity to the canons of their church (Mat 15:2); Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? This charge they make good in a particular instance; They wash not their hands when they eat bread. A very high misdemeanor! It was a sign that Christ's disciples conducted themselves inoffensively, when this was the worst thing they could charge them with.

Observe, 1. What was the tradition of the elders - That people should often wash their hands, and always at meat. This they placed a great deal of religion in, supposing that the meat they touched with unwashen hands would be defiling to them. The Pharisees practiced this themselves, and with a great deal of strictness imposed it upon others, not under civil penalties, but as matter of conscience, and making it a sin against God if they did not do it. 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. Nay, they would not eat meat with one that did not wash before meat. This mighty zeal in so small a matter would appear very strange, if we did not still see it incident to church-oppressors, not only to be fond of practising their own inventions, but to be furious in pressing their own impositions.

2. What was the transgression of this tradition or injunction by the disciples; it seems, they did not wash their hands when they ate bread, which was the more offensive to the Pharisees, because they were men who in other things were strict and conscientious. The custom was innocent enough, and had a decency in its civil use. We read of the water for purifying at the marriage where Christ was present (Joh 2:6), though Christ turned it into wine, and so put an end to that use of it. But when it came to be practised and imposed as a religious rite and ceremony, and such a stress laid upon it, the disciples, though weak in knowledge, yet were so well taught as not to comply with it, or observe it; no not when the scribes and Pharisees had their eye upon them. They had already learned St. Paul's lesson, All things are lawful for me; no doubt, it is lawful to wash before meat; but I will not be brought under the power of any; especially not those who said to their souls, Bow down, that we may go over. 1Co 6:12.

3. What was the complaint of the scribes and Pharisees against them. They quarrel with Christ about it, supposing that he allowed them in it, as he did, no doubt, by his own example; " Why do thy disciples transgress the canons of the church? And why dost thou suffer them to do it?"It was well that the complaint was made to Christ; for the disciples themselves, though they knew their duty in this case, were perhaps not so well able to give a reason for what they did as were to be wished.

II. Here is Christ's answer to this cavil, and his justification of the disciples in that which was charged upon them as a transgression. Note, While we stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, he will be sure to bear us out in it.

Two ways Christ replies upon them;

1. By way of recrimination, Mat 15:3-6. They were spying motes in the eyes of his disciples, but Christ shows them a beam in their own. But that which he charges upon them is not barely a recrimination, for it will be no vindication of ourselves to condemn our reprovers; but it is such a censure of their tradition (and the authority of that was what they built their charge upon) as makes not only a non-compliance lawful, but an opposition a duty. That human authority must never be submitted to, which sets up in competition with divine authority.

(1.) The charge in general is, You transgress the commandment of God by your tradition. They called it the tradition of the elders, laying stress upon the antiquity of the usage, and the authority of them that imposed it, as the church of Rome does upon fathers and councils; but Christ calls it their tradition. Note, Illegal impositions will be laid to the charge of those who support and maintain them, and keep them up, as well of those who first invented and enjoined them; Mic 6:16. You transgress the commandment of God. Note, Those who are most zealous of their own impositions, are commonly most careless of God's commands; which is a good reason why Christ's disciples should stand upon their guard against such impositions, lest, though at first they seem only to infringe the liberty of Christians, they come at length to confront the authority of Christ. Though the Pharisees, in this command of washing before meat, did not entrench upon any command of God; yet, because in other instances they did, he justifies his disciples' disobedience to this.

(2.) The proof of this charge is in particular instance, that of their transgressing the fifth commandment.

[1.] Let us see what the command of God is (Mat 15:4), what the precept, and what the sanction of the law is.

The precept is, Honour thy father and thy mother; this is enjoined by the common Father of mankind, and by paying respect to them whom Providence has made the instruments of our being, we give honour to him who is the Author of it, who has thereby, as to us, put some of his image upon them. The whole of children's duty to their parents is included in this of honouring them, which is the spring and foundation of all the rest, If I be a father, where is my honour? Our Saviour here supposes it to mean the duty of children's maintaining their parents, and ministering to their wants, if there be occasion, and being every way serviceable to their comfort. Honour widows, that is, maintain them, 1Ti 5:3.

The sanction of this law in the fifth commandment, is, a promise, that thy days may be long; but our Saviour waives that, lest any should thence infer it to be only a thing commendable and profitable, and insists upon the penalty annexed to the breach of this commandment in another scripture, which denotes the duty to be highly and indispensably necessary; He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death: this law we have, Exo 21:17. The sin of cursing parents is here opposed to the duty of honouring them. Those who speak ill of their parents, or wish ill to them, who mock at them, or give them taunting and opprobrious language, break this law. If to call a brother Raca be so penal, what is it to call a father so? By our Saviour's application of this law, it appears, that denying service or relief to parents is included in cursing them. Though the language be respectful enough, and nothing abusive in it, yet what will that avail, if the deeds be not agreeable? it is but like him that said, I go, Sir, and went not, Mat 21:30.

[2.] Let us see what was the contradiction which the tradition of the elders gave to this command. It was not direct and downright, but implicit; their casuists gave them such rules as furnished them with an easy evasion from the obligation of this command, Mat 15:5, Mat 15:6. You hear what God saith, but ye say so and so. Note, That which men say, even great men, and learned men, and men in authority, must be examined by that which God saith; and if it be found either contrary or inconsistent, it may and must be rejected, Act 4:19. Observe,

First, What their tradition was; That a man could not in any case bestow his worldly estate better than to give it to the priests, and devote it to the service of the temple: and that when any thing was so devoted, it was not only unlawful to alienate it, but all other obligations, though ever so just and sacred, were thereby superseded, and a man was thereby discharged from them. And this proceeded partly from their ceremoniousness, and the superstitious regard they had to the temple, and partly from their covetousness, and love of money: for what was given to the temple they were gainers by. The former was, in pretence, the latter was, in truth, at the bottom of this tradition.

Secondly, How they allowed the application of this to the case of children. When their parents' necessities called for their assistance, they pleaded, that all they could spare from themselves and their children, they had devoted to the treasury of the temple; It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, and therefore their parents must expect nothing from them; suggesting withal, that the spiritual advantage of what was so devoted, would redound to the parents, who must live upon that air. This, they taught, was a good and valid plea, and many undutiful, unnatural children made use of it, and they justified them in it, and said, He shall be free; so we supply the sense. Some go further, and supply it thus, " He doth well, his days shall be long in the land, and he shall be looked upon as having duly observed the fifth commandment."The pretence of religion would make his refusal to provide for his parents not only passable but plausible. But the absurdity and impiety of this tradition were very evident: for revealed religion was intended to improve, not to overthrow, natural religion; one of the fundamental laws of which is this of honouring our parents; and had they known what that meant, I will have justice, and mercy, and not sacrifice, they had not thus made the most arbitrary rituals destructive of the most necessary morals. This was making the command of God of no effect. Note, Whatever leads to, or countenances, disobedience, does, in effect, make void the command; and they that take upon them to dispense with God's law, do, in Christ's account, repeal and disannul it. To break the law is bad, but to teach men so, as the scribes and Pharisees did, is much worse, Mat 5:19. To what purpose is the command given, if it be not obeyed? The rule is, as to us, of none effect, if we be not ruled by it. It is time for thee, Lord, to work; high time for the great Reformer, the great Refiner, to appear; for they have made void thy law (Psa 119:126); not only sinned against the commandment, but, as far as in them lay, sinned away the commandment. But, thanks be to God, in spite of them and all their traditions, the command stands in full force, power, and virtue.

2. The other part of Christ's answer is by way of reprehension; and that which he here charges them with, is hypocrisy; Ye hypocrites, Mat 15:7. Note, It is the prerogative of him who searcheth the heart, and knows what is in man, to pronounce who are hypocrites. The eye of man can perceive open profaneness, but it is only the eye of Christ that can discern hypocrisy, Luk 16:15. And as it is a sin which his eye discovers, so it is a sin which of all others his soul hates.

Now Christ fetches his reproof from Isa 29:13. Well did Esaias prophesy of you. Isaiah spoke it of the men of that generation to which he prophesied, yet Christ applies it to these scribes and Pharisees. Note, The reproofs of sin and sinners, which we find in scripture, were designed to reach the like persons and practices to the end of the world; for they are not of private interpretation, 2Pe 1:20. The sinners of the latter days are prophesied of, 1Ti 4:1; 2Ti 3:1; 2Pe 3:3. Threatenings directed against others, belong to us, if we be guilty of the same sins. Isaiah prophesied not of them only, but of all other hypocrites, against whom that word of his is still levelled, and stands in force. The prophecies of scripture are every day in the fulfilling.

This prophecy exactly deciphers a hypocritical nation, Isa 9:17; Isa 10:6. Here is,

(1.) The description of hypocrites, in two things.

[1.] In their own performances of religious worship, Mat 15:8, when they draw nigh to God with their mouth, and honour him with their lips, their heart is far from him. Observe,

First, How far a hypocrite goes; he draws nigh to God, and honours him; he is, in profession, a worshipper of God. The Pharisee went up to the temple, to pray; he does not stand at that distance which those are at, who live without God in the world, but has a name among the people near unto him. They honour him; that is, they take on them to honour God, they join with those that do so. Some honour God has even from the services of hypocrites, as they help to keep up the face and form of godliness in the world, whence God fetches honour to himself, though they intend it not to him. When God's enemies submit themselves but feignedly, when they lie unto him, so the word is (Psa 66:3), it redounds to his honour, and he gets himself a name.

Secondly, Where he rests and takes up; this is done gut with his mouth and with his lips. It is piety but from the teeth outwards; he shows much love, and that is all, there is in his heart no true love; they make their voices to be heard (Isa 58:4), mention the name of the Lord, Isa 48:1. Hypocrites are those that only make a lip-labour of religion and religious worship. In word and tongue, the worst hypocrites may do as well as the best saints, and speak as fair with Jacob's voice.

Thirdly, What that is wherein he comes short; it is in the main matter; Their heart is far from me, habitually alienated and estranged (Eph 4:18), actually wandering and dwelling upon something else; no serious thoughts of God, no pious affections toward him, no concern about the soul and eternity, no thoughts agreeable to the service. God is near in their mouth, but far from their reins, Jer 12:2; Eze 33:31. The heart, with the fool's eyes, is in the ends of the earth. It is a silly dove that is without a heart, and so it is a silly duty, Hos 7:11. A hypocrite says one thing, but thinks another. The great thing that God looks at and requires is the heart (Pro 23:26); if that be far from him, it is not a reasonable service and therefore not an acceptable one; it is the sacrifice of fools, Ecc 5:1.

[2.] In their prescriptions to others. This is an instance of their hypocrisy, that they teach for doctrines the commandments of men. The Jews then, as the papists since, paid the same respect to oral tradition that they did to the word of God, receiving it pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ - with the same pious affection and reverence. Conc. Trident. Sess. 4. Decr. 1. When men's inventions are tacked to God's institutions, and imposed accordingly, this is hypocrisy, a mere human religion. The commandments of men are properly conversant about the things of men, but God will have his own work done by his own rules, and accepts not that which he did not himself appoint. That only cones to him, that comes from him.

(2.) The doom of hypocrites; it is put in a little compass; In vain do they worship me. Their worship does not attain the end for which it was appointed; it will neither please God, nor profit themselves. If it be not in spirit, it is not in truth, and so it is all nothing. That man who only seems to be religious, but is not so, his religion is vain (Jam 1:26); and if our religion be a vain oblation, a vain religion, how great is that vanity! How sad is it to live in an age of prayers and sermons, and sabbaths and sacraments, in vain, to beat the air in all these; it is so, if the heart be not with God in them. Lip-labour is lost labour, Isa 1:11. Hypocrites sow the wind and reap the whirlwind; they trust in vanity, and vanity will be their recompence.

Thus Christ justified his disciples in their disobedience to the traditions of the elders; and this the scribes and Pharisees got by their cavilling. We read not of any reply they made; if they were not satisfied, yet they were silenced, and could not resist the power wherewith Christ spake.

Matthew Henry: Mat 15:10-20

Christ having proved that the disciples, in eating with unwashen hands, were not to be blamed, as transgressing the traditions and injunctions of the elders, comes here to show that they were not to be blamed, as having done any thing that was in itself evil. In the former part of his discourse he overturned the authority of the law, and in this the reason of it. Observe,

I. The solemn introduction to this discourse (Mat 15:10); He called the multitude. They were withdrawn while Christ discoursed with the scribes and Pharisees; probably those proud men ordered them to withdraw, as not willing to talk with Christ in their hearing; Christ must favour them at their pleasure with a discourse in private. But Christ had a regard to the multitude; he soon despatched the scribes and Pharisees, and then turned them off, invited the mob, the multitude, to be his hearers: thus the poor are evangelized; and the foolish things of the world, and things that are despised hath Christ chosen. The humble Jesus embraced those whom the proud Pharisees looked upon with disdain, and to them he designed it for a mortification. He turns from them as wilful and unteachable, and turns to the multitude, who, though weak, were humble, and willing to be taught. To them he said, Hear and understand. Note, What we hear from the mouth of Christ, we must give all diligence to understand. Not only scholars, but even the multitude, the ordinary people, must apply their minds to understand the words of Christ. He therefore calls upon them to understand, because the lesson he was now about to teach them, was contrary to the notions which they had sucked in with their milk from their teachers; and overturned many of the customs and usages which they were wedded to, and laid stress upon. Note, There is need of a great attention of mind and clearness of understanding to free men from those corrupt principles and practices which they have been bred up in and long accustomed to; for in that case the understanding is commonly bribed and biassed by prejudice.

II. The truth itself laid down (Mat 15:11), in two propositions, which were opposite to the vulgar errors of that time, and were therefore surprising.

1. Not that which goes into the mouth defileth the man. It is not the kind or quality of our food, nor the condition of our hands, that affects the soul with any moral pollution or defilement. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, Rom 14:17. That defiles the man, by which guilt is contracted before God, and the man is rendered offensive to him, and disfitted for communion with him; now what we eat, if we do not eat unreasonably and immoderately, does not this; for to the pure all things are pure, Tit 1:15. The Pharisees carried the ceremonial pollutions, by eating such and such meats, much further than the law intended, and burdened it with additions of their own, which our Saviour witnesses against; intending hereby to pave the way to a repeal of the ceremonial law in that matter. He was now beginning to teach his followers to call nothing common or unclean; and if Peter, when he was bid to kill and eat, had remembered this word, he would not have said, Not so, Lord, Act 10:13-15, Act 10:28.

2. But that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man. We are polluted, not by the meat we eat with unwashen hands, but by the words we speak from an unsanctified heart; thus it is that the mouth causeth the flesh to sin, Ecc 5:6. Christ, in a former discourse, had laid a great stress upon our words (Mat 12:36, Mat 12:37); and that was intended for reproof and warning to those that cavilled at him; this here is intended for reproof and warning to those that cavilled at the disciples, and censured them. It is not the disciples that defile themselves with what they eat, but the Pharisees that defile themselves with what they speak spitefully and censoriously of them. Note, Those who charge guilt upon others for transgressing the commandments of men, many times bring greater guilt upon themselves, by transgressing the law of God against rash judging. Those most defile themselves, who are most forward to censure the defilements of others.

III. The offence that was taken at this truth and the account brought to Christ of that offence (Mat 15:12); " The disciples said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, and didst thou not foresee that they would be so, at this saying, and would think the worse of thee and of thy doctrine for it, and be the more enraged at thee?"

1. It was not strange that the Pharisees should be offended at this plain truth, for they were men made up of error and enmity, mistakes and malice. Sore eyes cannot bear clear light; and nothing is more provoking to proud imposers than the undeceiving of those whom they have first blindfolded, and then enslaved. It should seem that the Pharisees, who were strict observers of the traditions, were more offended than the scribes, who were the teachers of them; and perhaps they were as much galled with the latter part of Christ's doctrine, which taught a strictness in the government of our tongue, as with the former part, which taught an indifference about washing our hands; great contenders for the formalities of religion, being commonly as great contemners of the substantials of it.

2. The disciples thought it strange that their Master should say that which he knew would give so much offence; he did not use to do so: surely, they think, if he had considered how provoking it would be, he would not have said it. But he knew what he said, and to whom he said it, and what would be the effect of it; and would teach us, that though in indifferent things we must be tender of giving offence, yet we must not, for fear of that, evade any truth or duty. Truth must be owned, and duty done; and if any be offended, it is his own fault; it is scandal, not given, but taken.

Perhaps the disciples themselves stumbled at the word Christ said, which they thought bold, and scarcely reconcileable with the difference that was put by the law of God between clean and unclean meats; and therefore objected this to Christ, that they might themselves be better informed. They seem likewise to have a concern upon them for the Pharisees, though they had quarrelled with them; which teaches us to forgive, and seek the good, especially the spiritual good, of our enemies, persecutors, and slanderers. They would not have the Pharisees go away displeased at any thing Christ had said; and therefore, though they do not desire him to retract it, they hope he will explain, correct, and modify it. Weak hearers are sometimes more solicitous than they should be not to have wicked hearers offended. But if we please men with the concealment of truth, and the indulgence of their errors and corruptions, we are not the servants of Christ.

IV. The doom passed upon the Pharisees and their corrupt traditions; which comes in as a reason why Christ cared not though he offended them, and therefore why the disciples should not care; because they were a generation of men that hated to be reformed, and were marked out for destruction. Two things Christ here foretels concerning them.

1. The rooting out of them and their traditions (Mat 15:13); Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Not only the corrupt opinions and superstitious practices of the Pharisees, but their sect, and way, and constitution, were plants not of God's planting. The rules of their profession were no institutions of his, but owed their origin to pride and formality. The people of the Jews were planted a noble vine; but now that they are become the degenerate plant of a strange vine, God disowned them, as not of his planting. Note, (1.) In the visible church, it is no strange thing to find plants that our heavenly Father has not planted. It is implied, that whatever is good in the church is of God's planting, Isa 41:19. But let the husbandman be ever so careful, his ground will cast forth weeds of itself, more or less, and there is an enemy busy sowing tares. What is corrupt, though of God's permitting, is not of his planting; he sows nothing but good seed in his field. Let us not therefore be deceived, as if all must needs be right that we find in the church, and all those persons and things our Father's plants that we find in our Father's garden. Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits; see Jer 19:5; Jer 23:31, Jer 23:32. (2.) Those that are of the spirit of the Pharisees, proud, formal, and imposing, what figure soever they make, and of what denomination soever they be, God will not own them as of his planting. By their fruit you shall know them. (3.) Those plants that are not of God's planting, shall not be of his protecting, but shall undoubtedly be rooted up. What is not of God shall not stand, Act 5:38. What things are unscriptural, will wither and die of themselves, or be justly exploded by the churches; however in the great day these tares that offend will be bundled for the fire. What is become of the Pharisees and their traditions? They are long since abandoned; but the gospel of truth is great, and will remain. It cannot be rooted up.

2. The ruin of them; and their followers, who had their persons and principles in admiration, Mat 15:14. Where,

(1.) Christ bids his disciples let them alone. "Have no converse with them or concern for them; neither court their favour, nor dread their displeasure; care not though they be offended, they will take their course, and let them take the issue of it. They are wedded to their own fancies, and will have every thing their own way; let them alone. Seek not to please a generation of men that please not God (1Th 2:15), and will be pleased with nothing less than absolute dominion over your consciences. They are joined to idols, as Ephraim (Hos 4:17), the idols of their own fancy; let them alone, let them be filthy still, "Rev 22:11. The case of those sinners is sad indeed, whom Christ orders his ministers to let alone.

(2.) He gives them two reasons for it. Let them alone; for,

[1.] They are proud and ignorant; two bad qualities that often meet, and render a man incurable in his folly, Pro 26:12. They are blind leaders of the blind. They are grossly ignorant in the things of God, and strangers to the spiritual nature of the divine law; and yet so proud, that they think they see better and further than any, and therefore undertake to be leaders of others, to show others the way to heaven, when they themselves know not one step of the way; and, accordingly, they prescribe to all, and proscribe those who will not follow them. Though they were blind, if they had owned it, and come to Christ for eye-salve, they might have seen, but they disdained the intimation of such a thing (Joh 9:40); Are we blind also? They were confident that they themselves were guides of the blind (Rom 2:19, Rom 2:20), were appointed to be so, and fit to be so; that every thing they said was an oracle and a law; "Therefore let them alone, their case is desperate; do not meddle with them; you may soon provoke them, but never convince them."How miserable was the case of the Jewish Church now when their leaders were blind, so self-conceitedly foolish, as to be peremptory in their conduct, while the people were so sottishly foolish as to follow them with an implicit faith and obedience, and willingly walk after the commandment, Hos 5:11. Now the prophecy was fulfilled, Isa 29:10, Isa 29:14. And it is easy to imagine what will be in the end hereof, when the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means, and the people love to have it so, Jer 5:31.

[2.] They are posting to destruction, and will shortly be plunged into it; Both shall fall into the ditch. This must needs be the end of it, if both be so blind, and yet both so bold, venturing forward, and yet not aware of danger. Both will be involved in the general desolation coming upon the Jews, and both drowned in eternal destruction and perdition. The blind leaders and the blind followers will perish together. We find (Rev 22:15), that hell is the portion of those that make a lie, and of those that love it when it is made. The deceived and the deceiver are obnoxious to the judgment of God, Job 12:16. Note, First, Those that by their cunning craftiness draw others to sin and error, shall not, with all their craft and cunning, escape ruin themselves. If both fall together into the ditch, the blind leaders will fall undermost, and have the worst of it; see Jer 14:15, Jer 14:16. The prophets shall be consumed first, and then the people to whom they prophesy, Jer 20:6; Jer 27:15, Jer 27:16. Secondly, The sin and ruin of the deceivers will be no security to those that are deceived by them. Though the leaders of this people cause them to err, yet they that are led of them are destroyed (Isa 9:16), because they shut their eyes against the light which would have rectified their mistake. Seneca, complaining of most people's being led by common opinion and practice ( Unusquisque mavult credere quam judicare - Things are taken upon trust, and never examined ), concludes, Indeista tanta coacervatio aliorum super alios ruentium - Hence crowds fall upon crowds, in vast confusion. De Vitâ Beatâ. The falling of both together will aggravate the fall of both; for they that have thus mutually increased each other's sin, will mutually exasperate each other's ruin.

V. Instruction given to the disciples concerning the truth Christ had laid down, Mat 15:10. Though Christ rejects the wilfully ignorant who care not to be taught, he can have compassion on the ignorant who are willing to learn, Heb 5:2. If the Pharisees, who made void the law, be offended, let them be offended: but this great peace have they who love the law, that nothing shall offend them, but, some way or other, the offence shall be taken off, Psa 119:165.

Here is, 1. Their desire to be better instructed in this matter (Mat 15:15); in this request as in many others, Peter was their speaker; the rest, it is probable, putting him on to speak, or intimating their concurrence; Declare unto us this parable. What Christ said was plain, but, because it agreed not with the notions they had imbibed, though they would not contradict it, yet they call it a parable, and cannot understand it. Note, (1.) Weak understandings are apt to turn plain truths into parables, and to seek for a knot in a bulrush. The disciples often did so, as Joh 16:17. Even the grasshopper is a burthen to a weak stomach, and babes in understanding cannot bear and digest strong meat. (2.) Where a weak head doubts concerning any word of Christ, an upright heart and a willing mind will seek for instruction. The Pharisees were offended, but kept it to themselves; hating to be reformed, they hated to be informed; but the disciples, though offended, sought for satisfaction, imputing the offence, not to the doctrine delivered, but to the shallowness of their own capacity.

2. The reproof Christ gave them for their weakness and ignorance (Mat 15:16); Are ye also yet without understanding? As many as Christ loves and teaches, he thus rebukes. Note, They are very ignorant indeed, who understand not that moral pollutions are abundantly worse and more dangerous than ceremonial ones. Two things aggravate their dulness and darkness.

(1.) That they were the disciples of Christ; "Are ye also without understanding? Ye whom I have admitted into so great a degree of familiarity with me, are ye so unskilful in the word of righteousness?"Note, The ignorance and mistakes of those that profess religion, and enjoy the privileges of church-membership, are justly a grief to the Lord Jesus. "No wonder that the Pharisees understand not this doctrine, who know nothing of the Messiah's kingdom: but ye that have heard of it, and embraced it yourselves, and preached it to others, are ye also such strangers to the spirit and genius of it?"

(2.) That they had been a great while Christ's scholars; "Are ye yet so, after ye have been so long under my teaching?"Had they been but of yesterday in Christ's school, it had been another matter, but to have been for so many months Christ's constant hearers, and yet to be without understanding, was a great reproach to them. Note, Christ expects from us some proportion of knowledge, and grace, and wisdom, according to the time and means we have had. See Joh 14:9; Heb 5:12; 2Ti 3:7, 2Ti 3:8.

3. The explication Christ gave them of this doctrine of pollutions. Though he chid them for their dulness, he did not cast them off, but pitied them, and taught them, as Luk 24:25-27. He here shows us,

(1.) What little danger we are in of pollution from that which entereth in at the mouth, Mat 15:17. An inordinate appetite, intemperance, and excess in eating, come out of the heart, and are defiling; but meat in itself is not so, as the Pharisees supposed. What there is of dregs and defilement in our meat, nature (or rather God of nature) has provided a way to clear us of it; it goes in at the belly, and is cast out into the draught, and nothing remains to us but pure nourishment. So fearfully and wonderfully are we made and preserved, and our souls held in life. The expulsive faculty is as necessary in the body as any other, for the discharge of that which is superfluous, or noxious; so happily is nature enabled to help itself, and shift for its own good: by this means nothing defiles; if we eat with unwashen hands, and so any thing unclean mix with our food, nature will separate it, and cast it out, and it will be no defilement to us. It may be a piece of cleanliness, but it is not point of conscience, to wash before meat; and we go upon a great mistake if we place religion in it. It is not the practice itself, but the opinion it is built upon, that Christ condemns, as if meat commended us to God (1Co 8:8); whereas Christianity stands not in such observances.

(2.) What great danger we are in of pollution from that which proceeds out of the mouth (Mat 15:18), out of the abundance of the heart: compare Mat 12:34. There is no defilement in the products of God's bounty; the defilement arises from the products of out corruption. Now here we have,

[1.] The corrupt fountain of that which proceeds out of the mouth; it comes from the heart; that is the spring and source of all sin, Jer 8:7. It is the heart that is so desperately wicked (Jer 17:9); for there is no sin in a word or deed, which was not first in the heart. There is the root of bitterness, which bears gall and wormwood. It is the inward part of a sinner, that is very wickedness, Psa 5:9. All evil speakings come forth from the heart, and are defiling; from the corrupt heart comes the corrupt communication.

[2.] Some of the corrupt streams which flow from this fountain, specified; though they do not all come out of the mouth, yet they all come out of the man, and are the fruits of that wickedness which is in the heart, and is wrought there, Psa 58:2.

First, Evil thoughts, sins against all the commandments. Therefore David puts vain thoughts in opposition to the whole law, Psa 119:113. These are the first-born of the corrupt nature, the beginning of its strength, and do most resemble it. These, as the son and heir, abide in the house, and lodge within us. There is a great deal of sin that begins and ends in the heart, and goes no further. Carnal fancies and imaginations are evil thoughts, wickedness in the contrivance ( dialogismoi ponēroi ), wicked plots, purposes, and devices of mischief to others, Mic 2:1.

Secondly, Murders, sins against the sixth commandment; these come from a malice in the heart against our brother's life, or a contempt of it. Hence he that hates his brother, is said to be a murderer; he is so at God's bar, 1Jo 3:15. War is in the heart, Psa 55:21; Jam 4:1

Thirdly, Adulteries and fornications, sins against the seventh commandment; these come from the wanton, unclean, carnal heart; and the lust that reigns there, is conceived there, and brings forth these sins, Jam 1:15. There is adultery in the heart first, and then in the act, Mat 5:28.

Fourthly, Thefts, sins against the eighth commandment; cheats, wrongs, rapines, and all injurious contracts; the fountain of all these is in the heart, that is it that is exercised in these covetous practices (2Pe 2:14), that is set upon riches, Psa 62:10. Achan coveted, and then took, Jos 7:20, Jos 7:21.

Fifthly, False witness, against the ninth commandment; this comes from a complication of falsehood and covetousness, or falsehood and covetousness, or falsehood and malice in the heart. If truth, holiness, and love, which God requires in the inward parts, reigned as they ought, there would be no false witness bearing, Psa 64:6 : Jer 9:8.

Sixthly, Blasphemies, speaking evil of God, against the third commandment; speaking evil of our neighbour, against the ninth commandment; these come from a contempt and disesteem of both in the heart; thence the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost proceeds (Mat 12:31, Mat 12:32); these are the overflowing of the gall within.

Now these are the things which defile a man, Mat 15:20. Note, Sin is defiling to the soul, renders it unlovely and abominable in the eyes of a pure and holy God; unfit for communion with him, and for the enjoyment of him in the new Jerusalem, into which nothing shall enter that defileth or worketh iniquity. The mind and conscience are defiled by sin, and that makes every thing else so, Tit 1:15. This defilement by sin was signified by the ceremonial pollutions which the Jewish doctors added to, but understood not. See Heb 9:13, Heb 9:14; 1Jo 1:7.

These therefore are the things we must carefully avoid, and all approaches toward them, and not lay stress upon the washing of the hands. Christ doth not yet repeal the law of the distinction of meats (that was not done till Acts 10), but the tradition of the elders, which was tacked to that law; and therefore he concludes, To eat with unwashen hands (which was the matter now in question), this defileth not a man. If he wash, he is not the better before God; if he wash not, he is not the worse.

Barclay: Mat 15:1-9

It is not too much to say that, however difficult and obscure this passage may seem to us, it is one of the most important passages in the whole gospel story. It represents a head-on clash between Jesus and the leaders of orthodox Jewish religion. Its opening sentence makes it clear that the Scribes and Pharisees had come all the way from Jerusalem to Galilee to put their questions to Jesus. On this occasion it need not be thought that the questions are malicious. The Scribes and Pharisees are not ill-naturedly seeking to entangle Jesus. They are genuinely bewildered; and in a very short time they are going to be genuinely outraged and shocked; for the basic importance of this passage is that it is not so much a clash between Jesus and the Pharisees in a personal way; it is something far more--it is the collision of two views of religion and two views of the demands of God.

Nor was there any possibility of a compromise, or even a working agreement, between these two views of religion. Inevitably the one had to destroy the other. Here, then, embedded in this passage, is one of the supreme religious contests in history. To understand it we must try to understand the background of Jewish Pharisaic and Scribal religion.

In this passage there meets us the whole conception of clean and unclean. We must be quite clear that this idea of cleanness and uncleanness has nothing to do with physical cleanness, or, except distantly, with hygiene. It is entirely a ceremonial matter. For a man to be clean was for him to be in a state where he might worship and approach God; for him to be unclean was for him to be in a state where such a worship and such an approach were impossible.

This uncleanness was contracted by contact with certain persons or things. For instance, a woman was unclean if she had a haemorrhage, even if that haemorrhage was her normal monthly period; she was unclean for a stated time after she had had a child; every dead body was unclean, and to touch it was to become unclean; every Gentile was unclean.

This uncleanness was transferable; it was, so to speak, infectious. For instance, if a mouse touched an earthenware vessel, that vessel was unclean and unless it was ritually washed and cleansed, everything put into it was unclean. The consequence was that anyone who touched that vessel, or who ate or drank from its contents became unclean; and in turn anyone who touched the person who had so become unclean also became unclean.

This is not only a Jewish idea; it occurs in other religions. To a high-caste Indian anyone not belonging to his own caste is unclean; if that person becomes a Christian, he is still more seriously unclean. Premanand tells us what happened to himself. He became a Christian; his family ejected him. Sometimes he used to come back to see his mother, who was broken-hearted at what she considered his apostasy, but still loved him dearly. Premanand says: "As soon as my father came to know that I was visiting my mother in the daytime while he was away at the office, he ordered the door-keeper, a stalwart up-country man, Ram Rup ... not to allow me to enter the house." Ram Rup was persuaded to slacken his vigilance. "At last my mother won over Ram Rup, the door-keeper, and I was allowed to enter her presence. The prejudice was so great that even the menial Hindu servants of the house would not wash the plates on which I was fed by my mother. Sometimes my aunt would purify the place and the seat on which I had sat by sprinkling Ganges water, or water mixed with cow dung." Premanand was unclean, and everything he touched became unclean.

We must note that there was nothing moral about this. The touching of certain things produced uncleanness; and this uncleanness debarred from the society of men and the presence of God. It was as if some special infection hung like an aura about certain persons and things. We may understand this a little better if we remember that even in western civilization this idea is not completely dead, although it works here mainly in reverse. There are still those who find in a four-leafed clover, or in some metal or wooden charm, or in a black cat, something which brings good fortune.

So, here is an idea which sees in religion something which consists in avoiding contact with certain things and people because they are unclean; and, then, if that contact should have been made, in taking the necessary ritual cleansing measures to rid oneself of the contracted uncleanness. But we must pursue this a little further.

Barclay: Mat 15:1-9

The laws of cleanness and uncleanness had a further wide area of application. They laid down what a man might eat, and what he might not eat. Broadly speaking all fruit and vegetables were clean. But, in regard to living creatures, the laws were strict. These laws are in Lev 11 .

We may briefly summarize them. Of beasts only those can be eaten who part the hoof and chew the cud. That is why no Jew can eat the flesh of the pig, the rabbit, or the hare. In no case may the flesh of an animal which has died a natural death be eaten (Deu 14:21). In all cases the blood must be drained from the carcass; the orthodox Jew still buys his meat from a kosher butcher, who sells only meat so treated. Ordinary fat upon the flesh might be eaten, but the fat on the kidneys and on the entrails of the abdomen, which we call suet, might not be eaten. In regard to sea food, only sea creatures which have both fins and scales may be eaten. This means that shellfish, such as lobsters, are unclean. All insects are unclean, with one exception, locusts. In the case of animals and fish there is a standard test, as we have seen, of what might be eaten, and what might not be eaten. In the case of birds there is no such test; and the list of unclean and forbidden birds is in Lev 11:13-21.

There were certain identifiable reasons for all this.

(i) The refusal to touch dead bodies, or to eat the flesh of an animal which had died from natural causes, may well have had something to do with the belief in evil spirits. It would be easy to think of a demon as taking up residence in such a body, and so gaining entry into the body of the eater.

(ii) Certain animals were sacred in other religions; for instance, the cat and the crocodile were sacred to the Egyptians; and it would be very natural for the Jews to regard as unclean any animal which another nation worshipped. The animal would then be reckoned a kind of idol and therefore dangerously unclean.

(iii) As Dr. Rendle Short points out in his most helpful book, The Bible and Modern Medicine, certain of the regulations were in fact wise from the point of view of health and hygiene. Dr. Short writes: "True, we eat the pig, the rabbit and the hare, but these animals are liable to parastic infections and are safe only if the food is well-cooked. The pig is an unclean feeder, and harbours two worms, trichina and a tape worm, which may be passed on to man. The danger is minimal under present conditions in this country, but it would have been far otherwise in Palestine of old, and such food was better avoided." The prohibition of eating anything with blood in it comes from the fact that the blood is the life in Jewish thought. This is a natural thought, for, as blood flows away, life ebbs away. And the life belongs to God, and to God alone. The same idea explains the prohibition of eating the fat. The fat is the richest part of the carcase, and the richest part must be given to God. In some cases, although they are few, there was sound sense behind the prohibitions and the food laws.

(iv) There remain a large number of cases in which things and beasts and animals were unclean for no reason at all except that they were. Taboos are always inexplicable; they are simply superstitions, by which certain living things came to be connected with good or with bad fortune, with cleanness or uncleanness.

These things would not in themselves matter very much, but the trouble and the tragedy were that they had become to the Scribes and Pharisees matters of life and death. To serve God, to be religious, was to observe these good laws. If we put it in the following way, we will see the result. To the Pharisaic mind the prohibition of eating rabbit's or pig's flesh was just as much a commandment of God as the prohibition of adultery; it was therefore just as much a sin to eat pork or rabbit as to seduce a woman and enjoy illegal sexual intercourse. Religion had got itself mixed up with all kinds of external rules and regulations; and, since it is much easier both to observe rules and regulations and to check up on those who do not, these rules and regulations had become religion to the orthodox Jews.

Barclay: Mat 15:1-9

Now we come to the particular impact of this on the passage we are studying. It was clearly impossible to avoid all kinds of ceremonial uncleanness. A man might himself avoid unclean things, but how could he possibly know when on the street he had touched someone who was unclean? This was further complicated by the fact that there were Gentiles in Palestine, and the very dust touched by a Gentile foot became unclean.

To combat uncleanness an elaborate system of washings was worked out. These washings became ever more elaborate. At first there was a hand-washing on rising in the morning. Then there grew up an elaborate system of hand-washing whose use was at first confined to the priests in the Temple before they ate that part of the sacrifice which was their perquisite. Later these complicated washings came to be demanded by the strictest of the orthodox Jews for themselves and for all who claimed to be truly religious.

Edersheim in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah outlines the most elaborate of these washings. Water jars were kept ready to be used before a meal. The minimum amount of water to be used was a quarter of a log, which is defined as enough to fill one and a half egg-shells. The water was first poured on both hands, held with the fingers pointed upwards, and must run up the arm as far as the wrist. It must drop off from the wrist, for the water was now itself unclean, having touched the unclean hands, and, if it ran down the fingers again, it would again render them unclean. The process was repeated with the hands held in the opposite direction, with the fingers pointing down; and then finally each hand was cleansed by being rubbed with the fist of the other. A really strict Jew would do all this, not only before a meal, but also between each of the courses.

The question of the Jewish orthodox leaders to Jesus is:

"Why do your disciples not observe the laws of washing

which our tradition lays down?"

They speak of the tradition of the elders. To the Jew the Law had two sections. There was the written Law which was contained in scripture itself; and there was the oral Law, which consisted of the developments, such as those in hand-washing, which the Scribes and the experts had worked out through the generations; and all these developments were the tradition of the elders, and were regarded as just as much, if not more, binding than the written Law. Again we must stop to remember the salient point--to the orthodox Jew all this ritual ceremony was religion; this is what, as they believed, God demanded. To do these things was to please God, and to be a good man. To put it in another way, all this business of ritual washing was regarded as just as important and just as binding as the Ten Commandments themselves. Religion had become identified with a host of external regulations. It was as important to wash the hands in a certain way as to obey the commandment: "Thou shalt not covet."

Barclay: Mat 15:1-9

Jesus did not answer the question of the Pharisees directly. What he did was to take an example of the operation of the oral and ceremonial law to show how its observance so far from being obedience to the Law of God, could become actual contradiction of that Law.

Jesus says that the Law of God lays it down that a man shall honour his father and his mother; then he goes on to say that if a man says, "It is a gift," he is free from the duty of honouring his father and his mother. If we look at the parallel passage in Mark, we see that the phrase is: "It is Corban (korban, 2878; 07133)." What is the meaning of this obscure passage to us? In point of fact it can have two meanings, because Corban (korban, 2878) has two meanings.

(i) Corban (korban, 2878) can mean that which is dedicated to God. Now suppose that a man had a father or mother in poverty and in need; and suppose that his poor parent came to him with a request for help. There was a way in which the man could avoid giving any help. He could, as it were, officially dedicate all his money and all his property to God and to the Temple; his property would then be Corban (korban, 2878), God-dedicated; then he could say to his father or mother: "I'm very sorry, I can give you nothing; all my belongings are dedicated to God." He could use a ritual practice to evade the basic duty of helping and honouring his father and mother. He could take a scribal regulation to wipe out one of the Ten Commandments.

(ii) But Corban (korban, 2878) has another meaning, and it may well be that it is this second meaning which is at issue here. Corban (korban, 2878) was used as an oath. A man might say to his father or mother: "Corban (korban, 2878), if anything I have will ever be used to help you." Now suppose this man to have remorse of conscience; suppose him to have made the refusal in a moment of anger, or temper, or even of irritation; suppose him to have second and kinder and more filial thoughts, and to feel that after all there was a duty to help his parents. In such a case any reasonable person would say that that man had undergone a genuine repentance, and that his change of mind was a good thing; and that since he was now prepared to do the right thing and obey the Law of God he should be encouraged to follow that line.

The strict Scribe said, "No. Our Law says that no oath can ever be broken." He would quote Num 30:2: "When a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth." The Scribe would legalistically argue: "You took an oath; and for no reason can you ever break it." That is to say, the Scribe would hold a man to a reckless oath, taken in a moment of passion, an oath which actually compelled a man to break the higher law of humanity and of God.

That is what Jesus meant. He meant: "You are using your scribal interpretations, your traditions, to compel a man to dishonour his father and mother, even when he himself has repented and has seen the better way."

The strange and tragic thing was that the Scribes and Pharisees of the day were actually going against what the greatest Jewish teachers had said. Rabbi Eliezer said, "The door is opened for a man on account of his father and his mother," and he meant that, if any man had sworn an oath which dishonoured his father and his mother, and had then repented of it, the door was open to him to change his mind and to take a different way, even if an oath had been sworn. As so often, Jesus was not presenting men with unknown truth; he was reminding them of things that God had already told them, and that they had already known but had forgotten, because they had come to prefer their own man-made ingenuities to the great simplicities of the Law of God.

Here is the clash and the collision; here is the contest between two kinds of religion and two kinds of worship. To the Scribes and Pharisees religion was the observance of certain outward rules and regulations and rituals, such as the correct way to wash the hands before eating; it was the strict observance of a legalistic outlook on all life. To Jesus religion was a thing which had its seat in the heart; it was a thing which issued in compassion and kindness, which are above and beyond the law.

To the Scribes and Pharisees worship was ritual, ceremony law; to Jesus worship was the clean heart and the loving life. Here is the clash. And that clash still exists. What is worship? Even today there are many who would say that worship is not worship unless it is carried out by a priest ordained in a certain succession, in a building consecrated in a certain way, and from a liturgy laid down by a certain Church. And all these things are externals.

One of the greatest definitions of worship ever laid down was laid down by William Temple: "To worship is to quicken the conscience by the holiness of God, to feed the mind with the truth of God, to purge the imagination by the beauty of God, to open the heart to the love of God, to devote the will to the purpose of God." We must have a care lest we stand aghast at the apparent blindness of the Scribes and the Pharisees, lest we are shocked by their insistence on outward ceremonial, and at the same time be ourselves guilty of the same fault in our own way. Religion can never be founded on any ceremonies or ritual; religion must always be founded on personal relationships between man and God.

Barclay: Mat 15:10-20

It may well be held that for a Jew this was the most startling thing Jesus ever said. For in this saying he does not only condemn Scribal and Pharisaic ritual and ceremonial religion; he actually wipes out large sections of the book of Leviticus. This is not a contradiction of the tradition of the elders alone; this is a contradiction of scripture itself. This saying of Jesus cancels all the food laws of the Old Testament. Quite possibly these laws might still stand as matters of health and hygiene and common-sense and medical wisdom; but they could never again stand as matters of religion. Once and for all Jesus lays it down that what matters is not the state of a man's ritual observance, but the state of a man's heart.

No wonder the Scribes and Pharisees were shocked. The very ground of their religion was cut from beneath their feet. This statement was not simply alarming; it was revolutionary. If Jesus was right, their whole theory of religion was wrong. They identified religion and pleasing God with the observing of rules and regulations which had to do with cleanness and with uncleanness, with what a man ate and with how he washed his hands before he ate it; Jesus identified religion with the state of a man's heart, and said bluntly that these Pharisaic and Scribal regulations had nothing to do with religion. Jesus said that the Pharisees were blind guides who had no idea of the way to God, and that, if people followed them, all they could expect was to stray off the road and to fall into the ditch. And Jesus was profoundly right.

(i) If religion consists in external regulations and observances it is two things. It is far too easy. It is very much easier to abstain from certain foods and to wash the hands in a certain way than it is to love the unlovely and the unlovable, and to help the needy at the cost of one's own time and money and comfort and pleasure.

We have still not fully learned this lesson. To go to church regularly, to give liberally to the church, to be a member of a Bible reading circle are all external things. They are means towards religion; but they are not religion. We can never too often remind ourselves that religion consists in personal relationships and in an attitude to God and our fellow-men.

Further, if religion consists in external observances, it is quite misleading. Many a man has a faultless life in externals but has the bitterest and the most evil thoughts within his heart. The teaching of Jesus is that not all the outward observances in the world can atone for a heart where pride and bitterness and lust hold sway.

(ii) It is Jesus' teaching that the part of a man that matters is his heart. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Mat 5:8). As Burns had it in the Epistle to Davie:

"The heart aye's the part aye

That makes us right or wrang."

What matters to God is not so much how we act, but why we act; not so much what we actually do, but what we wish in our heart of hearts to do. "Man," as Aquinas had it, "sees the deed, but God sees the intention."

It is Jesus' teaching--and it is a teaching which condemns every one of us--that no man can call himself good because he observes external rules and regulations; he can call himself good only when his heart is pure. That very fact is the end of pride, and the reason why every one of us can say only, "God be merciful to me a sinner."

Constable: Mat 13:54--19:3

V. The reactions of the King 13:54--19:2

Matthew recorded increasing polarization in this section. Jesus expanded His ministry, but as He did so opposition became even more intense. The Jewish leaders became increasingly hostile. Consequently Jesus spent more time preparing His disciples. Jesus revealed Himself more clearly to His disciples, but they only understood some of what He told them. They strongly rejected other things He said. The inevitability of a final confrontation between Jesus and His critics became increasingly clear. The general movement in this section is Jesus withdrawing from Israel's leaders (13:54-16:12) and preparing His disciples for His passion (16:13-19:2).

Constable: Mat 15:1-20

4. The opposition of the Pharisees and scribes 15:1-20 (cf. Mark 7:1-23; John 7:1)

Matthew recorded another round of opposition, withdrawal and disciple training, and public ministry (ch. 15). His repetition of this pattern highlights the chief features of this stage of Jesus' ministry. This second round also reveals growth in each area of ministry. There is greater opposition, greater faith, and greater help for the multitudes than Matthew recorded previously.

This controversy with the Pharisees and scribes is sharper and more theological than Jesus' earlier confrontations with these critics. Jesus also explained His view of the law more clearly than before.

Constable: Mat 15:1-9

The charge and Jesus' response 15:1-9

15:1 These Pharisees and scribes came from Jerusalem to question Jesus. They appear to have had more official authority than the local religious leaders who opposed Jesus earlier. Jesus' great popularity makes such a delegation understandable to the reader.

15:2 The critics again raised a question about the behavior of Jesus' disciples, not His own behavior (cf. 9:14). They did not do so because Jesus' behaved differently than His disciples. They followed His example and teaching. They did so because they could attack Him less directly than if they had questioned His personal conduct. In view of Jesus' popularity they may have chosen this approach because it was safer, not because it was more respectful.

The critics objected to the disciples' disregard for the traditions of the elders. These were the rabbinic interpretations of Old Testament law that had accumulated over the centuries, the Halakah. In Jesus' day most of these traditions were not yet in written form, but later the rabbis compiled them into the Mishnah (135-200 A.D.). For the Pharisees they carried almost as much authority, if not more authority, than the law itself.⁶⁰⁰

The disciples' hand-washing was only a specific example of the larger charge. One entire tractate in the Mishnah dealt with proper hand-washing procedures for ceremonial purposes.⁶⁰¹ There were even requirements for proper hand-washing before meals since the ritual cleanliness of food was such an important matter to the Jews.

15:3-6 Jesus responded with a counterattack. He made a basic distinction between God's commandments and the Jews' traditions. He charged His critics with breaking the former to keep the latter.

In verse 4 Jesus quoted Exodus 20:12 and 21:17. "Curses" (NIV) is too strong. "Speaks evil of" (NASB) is better since the Greek verb kakologeo means "to insult."

The Pharisees and scribes, however, had evaded the spirit of the command, namely that children should take responsibility for their needy parents. The "you" is emphatic in the Greek text. Halakic (rabbinic) tradition said that if someone vowed to give something to God he should not break his vow. Jesus said the law taught a more fundamental duty. To withhold from one's parents what one could give to help them because of what the rabbis taught was greedy hypocrisy. The error was not so much using the money for oneself as failing to give it to the needy parent.

Jesus had taught His disciples to put commitment to Him before family responsibilities (8:21-22; 10:38). He was the Messiah, and as such He had a right to demand such a strong commitment. The traditions of the Jews did not carry that much authority. Moreover the situation Jesus had addressed previously involved family members opposing His disciples, not His disciples opposing their family members (cf. 10:37-39).

15:7-9 Chronologically this is the first time Jesus called the Pharisees and teachers of the law hypocrites. Their hypocrisy consisted of making a show of commitment to God while at the same time giving human tradition precedence over God's Word.

Isaiah addressed the words Jesus quoted to Jerusalem Jews who sometimes allowed external acts of worship to vitiate principle. Rather than continuing God's will the Jews' traditions perpetuated the spirit of the hypocrites in Isaiah's day. The context of the Isaiah quotation is a criticism of the Jews for displacing heartfelt worship with mere ritual. Isaiah branded this type of religion vain. The hypocrites in his day had substituted their own teachings for God's. Jesus' application of this quotation to the Pharisees and law teachers of His day, therefore, condemned their entire worship of God, not just their carefully observed traditions.

Constable: Mat 15:10-20

Jesus' preaching and teaching about man's heart 15:10-20

15:10-11 Jesus had been responding to the question of His critics so far. Now He taught the assembled crowds the same lesson and at the same time gave a direct answer to the Pharisees and scribes. He responded with a parable (v. 15). He did not utter this one to veil truth from the crowds, however. He urged them to hear and understand what he said (v. 10). This parable was a comparison for the sake of clarification. Yet some did not understand what Jesus said (vv. 15-16).

Jesus was speaking of ceremonial (ritual) defilement when He said that eating certain foods does not make one unclean.⁶⁰² This was a radical statement that went beyond even the Mosaic Law. Mark noted that when He said this Jesus declared all food clean (Mark 7:19). As Messiah, Jesus was terminating the dietary distinction between clean and unclean foods that was such a large part of the Mosaic system of worship (cf. Acts 10:15; Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 10:31; 1 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:15). Matthew's concern, however, was not to highlight this termination but to stress the point of Jesus' teaching. The point was that to God what proceeds from the heart is more important than what enters the mouth. Motives and attitudes are more significant than food and drink.

15:12-14 Mark recorded that this interchange between the disciples and Jesus happened in a house after they had retired there from the public confrontation that preceded (Mark 7:17). Jesus' disciples, as all the Jews, held the Pharisees and teachers of the law in high regard. Since Jesus' words had offended His critics, the disciples wanted to know why He had said them. Jesus proceeded to disillusion His disciples regarding the reliability of His critics' spiritual leadership. If there was any doubt in the reader's mind that the religious leaders had turned against Jesus, the disciples' statement in verse 12 should end it.

First, Jesus compared the Pharisees and scribes to plants that God had not planted (cf. 13:24-30, 36-43). There are several passages in the Old Testament that compare Israel to a plant that God had planted (e.g., Ps. 1:3; Isa. 60:21). Isaiah also described God uprooting rebellious Israel as a farmer pulls up a worthless plant (Isa. 5:1-7). Jesus meant God would uproot the Pharisees and scribes because they were not people that He had planted, and they were worthless as spiritual leaders. This would have been a shocking revelation to the disciples. Jesus had previously hinted at this (3:9; 8:11-12), but now since they had definitely rejected Him He made the point clear.

Jesus told the disciples to leave the critics alone even as He said God would leave the weeds the enemy had planted in the field alone (13:28-29). Some of the Jews considered themselves guides of the spiritually blind (cf. Rom. 2:19). These Pharisees and scribes apparently did since they knew the law and understood its traditional interpretations. However, Jesus disputed their claim. To Him they were blind guides of the blind. They failed to comprehend the real meaning of the Scriptures they took so much pride in understanding. A tragic end awaits the blind guides as well as those whom they guide. The critics' rejection of Jesus was only one indication of their spiritual blindness.

15:15-16 Peter again took the leadership among the disciples (cf. 14:28). Jesus' answer to Peter's request for an explanation of the parable (vv. 17-20) identifies the parable as what Jesus had said about defilement in verse 11. Jesus again rebuked the disciples for failing to understand what he meant (cf. 14:31). The unbelieving multitudes were understandably ignorant, but Jesus' believing disciples should have known better. Jesus had taught them the priority of reality over ritual before (3:9; 12:1-21). Jesus' rebuke was probably also a pedagogical device. It would have made the disciples try their best to understand what He was teaching in the future so they would avoid further rebukes.

15:17-20 Jesus contrasted tangible food with intangible thoughts. Matthew's list of the heart's products follows the order of the Ten Commandments essentially. Jesus' point was this: what a person is determines what he or she does and says (cf. 12:34-35). Note that Jesus presupposed the biblical revelation that the heart is evil (cf. 7:11). True religion must deal with people's basic nature and not just with externals. The Pharisees and scribes had become so preoccupied with the externals that they failed to deal with what is more basic and important, namely a real relationship with God. Jesus had more concern for human nature than for the form of worship. He came to seek and to save the lost (1:21; cf. 6:1-33; 12:34-35).

In this pericope Jesus rejected the Pharisees and scribes as Israel's authentic interpreters of the Old Testament. He claimed that role instead for Himself. This was a theological issue that ultimately led to Jesus' arrest and crucifixion.

"The occupation with the outward religious ceremony, instead of inner transformation of the heart, has all too often attended all forms of religion and has plagued the church as well as it has Judaism. How many Christians in church history have been executed for difference of opinion on the meaning of the Lord's Supper elements or the mode of baptism or for failure to bow to church authority? The heart of man, which is so incurably religious, is also incurably evil, apart from the grace of God."⁶⁰³

College: Mat 15:1-39

MATTHEW 15

D. JESUS AND THE TEACHINGS OF THE PHARISEES (15:1-20)

As noted earlier, the section comprising 14:13-16:20 has two conflict scenes which portray Jesus' interaction with the Jewish leaders (15:1-9; 16:1-4), which lead to specific instructions and warnings to the disciples not to be swayed by their teachings (15:10-20; 16:5-12). It is critical that the disciples distance themselves from the destructive influence of Pharisaic teaching. Their " traditions" have resulted in a serious distortion of God's will, especially as it relates to holiness and true defilement. In spite of Jesus' efforts to explain the dangers of following the teachings of the Pharisees the disciples continue to exhibit a lack of understanding (v. 16, ajsuvnetoi, asynetoi ). Jesus then proceeds into Gentile territory (v. 21), and two significant events (the Canaanite woman 15:21-28, and the feeding of the four thousand 15:29-39), provide concrete illustrations that endorsement of Pharisaic notions of defilement would stand in opposition to the advancing reign of God. When an " unclean" Canaanite woman petitions Jesus on behalf of her daughter who is possessed by an " unclean" spirit, he does not let legalistic niceties dictate what he should or should not do. It is her " great faith" that determines his course of action (v. 28). When he is surrounded by " unclean" Gentiles who bring their sick to him, and are in desperate need, rather than attempt to escape their contaminating touch, Jesus is moved by compassion to heal and feed the hungry (15:29-39). Obviously, if the disciples are persuaded by Pharisaic teaching, they too would find Jesus' activity offensive, and would be unwilling to emulate his unrestrictive ministry of compassion.

After a second brief controversy scene (16:1-4), Jesus explicitly warns his disciples to " be on guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees" (16:6-12). Only after some discussion do the disciples finally " understand" (v. 12) what their attitude should be toward the teachings of Israel's religious leadership (16:12). Thus, the scenes comprising 15:1-16:12 are dominated by the central theme of " Jesus' and the disciples' relationship with the Pharisees and their teaching." There is a radical difference between how Jesus discerns and does the will of God and how Pharisaic tradition interprets and performs God's will. If the disciples are to be " trained in the kingdom" (13:52) they must discern the difference.

¹ Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, ²" Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"

³ Jesus replied, " And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? ⁴ For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' ^a and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' ^{b 5} But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' ⁶ he is not to 'honor his father ^c ' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. ⁷ You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

⁸" 'These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

⁹ They worship me in vain;

their teachings are but rules taught by men.' ^d"

¹⁰ Jesus called the crowd to him and said, " Listen and understand. ¹¹ What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'"

¹² Then the disciples came to him and asked, " Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?"

¹³ He replied, " Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. ¹⁴ Leave them; they are blind guides. ^e If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

¹⁵ Peter said, " Explain the parable to us."

¹⁶" Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. ¹⁷" Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? ¹⁸ But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' ¹⁹ For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. ²⁰ These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'"

^a 4 Exodus 20:12; Deut. 5:16 ^b 4 Exodus 21:17; Lev. 20:9 ^c 6 Some manuscripts father or his mother ^d 9 Isaiah 29:13 ^e 14 Some manuscripts guides of the blind

Our text evinces a clear threefold structural outline based on three distinct scenes: Jesus with the Pharisees and teachers of the law (vv. 1-9); Jesus and the crowd (vv. 10-11); Jesus and his disciples (vv. 12-20). The issue of how one interprets God's will with respect to ritual purity/uncleanness dominates the entire section (cf. vv. 2, 20).

15:1-2. It appears that the Pharisees and teachers of the law who come to Jesus are on an official fact-finding mission to determine Jesus' stance on critical matters central to Israel's identity. Of fundamental concern was the failure of Jesus' disciples to be observant of the tradition (paravdosi", paradosis ) of the elders with regard to the ceremonial washing they felt mandatory before every meal (cf. Mark 7:3-4). Although there is no OT commandment demanding ceremonial handwashing before everyday meals, scribal tradition reasoned that since all Israel was to be a " kingdom of priests" (Exod 19:6), every Jew should scrupulously observe priestly regulations regarding ceremonial defilement and ritual impurity. The cleansing of Aaron and his sons before entering the " Tent of Meeting" (Exod 30:17-21) establishes a precedent for all Israel observing every meal as if it were a sacred priestly act, thus demanding a state of ritual purity. Since according to Leviticus 15:11 rinsing hands with water prevents ritual contamination from a bodily discharge, so ceremonial handwashings are thought to remove all ritual uncleanness and enable one to eat ordinary meals in a state of ritual purity. While it is difficult to determine how successful the Pharisees were in convincing the general populace to adopt their practice, Pharisaic leaders were extremely zealous " to spread their influence and ideas over all Israel" (cf. 23:15).

15:3. Rather than directly defend the actions of the disciples, Jesus' response intends to undercut the fundamental assumption upon which their charge is founded, i.e., violation of their oral tradition is tantamount to breaking God's written law. Jesus contends that their elevation of human tradition over Scriptural authority has resulted in views that undermine the written law of God and lead to practices in direct violation of God's commandments. Ironically, a casuistic tradition intended to assist people in the rigorous observance of the law (see m. Abot 3:14) had become the prime means (diva, dia ) whereby the force of God's laws were blunted and blatant transgressions were justified through legal loopholes.

15:4. Jesus then offers a concrete example of how scribal tradition has led to the violation of God's commandments (vv. 4-6). First, Jesus distinguishes the divine origin of the written commandment ( God said ) from scribal tradition (cf. " you say," v. 5). The specific commandments cited come from Exod 20:12/Deut 5:16 (LXX). Both passages stress the importance of caring for one's parents and showing them proper respect. Certainly, financial support and providing physical necessities are inherent in the command to honor (tivma, tima , cf. 1 Tim 5:3) one's parents. To emphasize the seriousness of the commandment, Jesus also cites Exodus 21:17 (cf. Lev 20:9; Deut 27:6) which emphasizes that " cursing" (katalogw'n, katalogôn, lit., " to speak evil of " ) one's parents was a capital offense. Withholding of financial support due one's parents amounted to a dishonoring of them, and thus was deserving of severe punishment.

15:5-6. Pharisaic tradition had in effect developed a practice that not only violated the spirit of the fifth commandment but actually contravened the letter of the written code. Assistance rightfully due one's parents could be avoided if all one's financial resources and possessions were declared sacred and pledged to the support of the temple upon one's death. Once such a " vow" had been made, these resources could not be used by anyone else, although they could be used for one's personal benefit while still living. Based on the binding force of vows (cf. Num 30:2-3; Deut 23:21-23), Pharisaic tradition argued that regardless of the plight of one's parents, or the circumstances in which a vow was made, a Corban vow could not be revoked. Thus, while the tradition about vows was scrupulously observed, the explicit commandment of God was treated as having no binding authority (ajkurovw, akyroô). Of course such a flagrant disregard for God's law stands in dramatic contrast with Jesus' resolve to fulfill God's will as expressed in Scripture.

15:7-9. Jesus culminates his counter accusation against the Pharisees by citing Scripture to illustrate their hypocritical conduct. The inconsistency between their claims to please God and their maneuvering to avoid the force of God's will is reminiscent of the generation that Isaiah opposed (see Isa 20:13ff., LXX). They are hypocrites because their external claims are a mere pretense concealing a heart bent on doing its own will. Isaiah's description of his contemporaries parallels the superficial externalism of those who oppose Jesus and his disciples. Although they say the right things and profess their devotion, their hearts remain far from God. Even though they continue to worship, it has become nothing more than a sham, because they have replaced God's will with human rules and regulations. How can one purport to genuinely worship God when mere human teachings are given precedence over the expressed will of God? Jesus' pronouncement makes it clear that mere sentiment and sincerity counts for nothing; if worship is not grounded in sound teaching it will ultimately be in vain. Jesus' opposition to a religion based on barren legalism and human tradition is brought to a climax in chapter 23.

15:10-11. Jesus now turns from his opponents to address the crowd in terms that completely undermine Pharisaic notions of defilement. The absolute importance of what he is about to say is prefaced by the exhortation to listen and understand (cf. 13:13-15, 23). Too often Jesus' words are met with superficial conclusions, lacking little reflective thought or insight. However, Jesus' words in verse 11 must be given careful thought since the implications seem to challenge basic Jewish sensitivities about ceremonial purification and the rules of defilement. Does Jesus' affirmation in verse 11 intend to dispense with all ritual washings and dietary restrictions so fundamental to the Jewish way of life? Although Mark highlights the radical implications of Jesus' words by emphatically telling his readers that " in saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean" (Mark 7:19), Matthew's account lacks this emphatic assertion and is content to emphasize the nature of true defilement without emphatically setting aside all laws concerning purity and defilement. Certainly the implications of Jesus' words do undermine the importance that Pharisaic Judaism placed upon defilement by physical contact or food intake. However, it does not appear that these implications were fully understood and practically embraced until after the events recorded in Acts 10 (cf. Rom 14:14, 20). Jesus' words are therefore intended to highlight that genuine defilement, the kind that causes true alienation from God, stems from a corruptible heart, not the mere neglect of external washings. Thus, Jesus is not extolling inward piety at the expense of all external forms (cf. 9:13; 12:7; 23:23-24).

15:12. In contrast to the crowd who are exhorted to listen and understand, the disciples report that the Pharisees were offended (ejskandalivsqhsan, eskandalisthçsan) by the teaching (tovn logovn, ton logon , lit., by hearing " the word" ) of Jesus. The disciples' statement reflects their personal concern that Jesus not antagonize Israel's religious leaders. Evidently, they still entertain the notion (and perhaps hope) that Jesus' teachings will meet with Pharisaic approval. Hence their report casts the disciples in a negative light, as unduly concerned with incurring the irritation and offense of Israel's most revered teachers.

15:13-14. Jesus' response exhibits no remorse or cautious restraint in his denunciation of the Pharisees. The disciples must understand that the religious form of Pharisaic Judaism does not have its origin with God. By use of a horticultural metaphor, the Pharisees and their legalistic system are compared to plants not planted by God, therefore deserving only to be rooted up. Since God is neither responsible for or endorsing of Pharisaic teaching it has no future. It follows that the Pharisees are mere blind guides , and one follows their teachings at one's own peril. The disciples, therefore, must not be caught up with the popular regard and esteem extended the Pharisees; but must forsake any involvement with them, lest they be swayed by Pharisaic concerns. Since they are blind guides, they cannot possibly offer reliable religious guidance that results in the favor of God. Thus, to heed their teachings is to court inevitable spiritual disaster.

15:15-17. Then Peter, as a spokesperson for the rest of the disciples, asks Jesus for an explanation of the parable (cf. 13:36). Evidently, Peter refers to the proverbial statement of verse 11. One may wonder why, if the Pharisees understood enough to be offended (v. 12), the disciples have difficulty comprehending Jesus' meaning (cf. 13:11). Even Jesus seems somewhat outraged by their failure to comprehend the significance of his words. His questions constitute a rebuke for their seeming obtuse inability to pick up on his meaning. Jesus then proceeds to explain, in literal terms, the nature of true defilement. First, he tells them what cannot possibly contribute to one's spiritual defilement. Food that is taken into the mouth , passes through the digestive system (thvn koilivan, tçn koilian), and eventually winds up in the toilet (ajfedrw'na, aphedrôna) has virtually no impact on one's spiritual state. Since the body discards that which may be deemed " unclean," the mere intake of certain foods has no bearing on the question of one's defilement. With one sweeping authoritative pronouncement Jesus dismisses all external causes as being without ultimate value for determining spiritual purity.

15:18-19. Having explained what does not produce spiritual defilement, Jesus now explains the true source of defilement. Instead of what one puts into the mouth defiling a person Jesus identifies the ultimate cause of defilement as that which comes out of the mouth . The reason for this is that one's words come from the heart , and are therefore a reliable indicator of one's true spiritual state. Jesus then proceeds to identify various vices (seven, cf. Mark 7:21-23, thirteen) that owe their origin to a corruptible inner nature. The list is headed by evil thoughts followed by six actions that stem from evil thoughts: murder (fovnoi, phonoi ), adultery (moicei'ai, moicheiai ), sexual immorality (pornei'ai, porneiai ), theft (klopaiv, klopai ), false testimony (yeudomarturivai, pseudomartyriai ), and slander (blasfhmivai, blasphçmiai). Jesus' stress on the heart, on the importance of the internal dimension of one's religion, is central to his teaching and fundamental in the discernment of God's will (cf. 5:20-48). Hence these vices are indicative of an inward defilement, deemed much more serious than unwashed hands. It should be observed, as noted by Garland, that " the opponents of Jesus are guilty of nearly all these things in Matthew's story."

15:20. Jesus' concluding words round off the section by repeating the central issue raised in verse 2. It is apparent that the Pharisaic insistence on ritual hand washing is only symptomatic of a completely flawed system where legal niceties and a hyperexternalism have come to dominate religious expression. Jesus will have nothing to do with a " tradition" that continually stresses the external forms to the almost total neglect of the cultivation of one's interior character. The observation by Westerholm is particularly poignant:

. . . the punctilious observance of such concrete commands as . . . ritual purity may easily become a preoccupation overshadowing the demands placed on the heart, which are less susceptible to halakhic definition . . . Jesus, who found the will of God not in statute but in a heart in tune with the divine purposes, avoided these dangers, but inevitably offended the proponents of halakhah in the process.

E. THE CANAANITE WOMAN (15:21-28)

²¹ Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. ²² A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, " Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

²³ Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, " Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

²⁴ He answered, " I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

²⁵ The woman came and knelt before him. " Lord, help me!" she said.

²⁶ He replied, " It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

²⁷" Yes, Lord," she said, " but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

²⁸ Then Jesus answered, " Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

The episode involving the Canaanite woman is pivotal in the sequence of scenes comprising 14:13-16:20. Jesus now leaves a predominantly Jewish location to venture into a region inhabited largely by Gentiles (v. 21). However, in contrast to the " Pharisees and teachers of the law" who come from Jerusalem to find fault with Jesus (15:1-2), in Gentile territory Jesus is met by a Canaanite woman who acknowledges his messianic authority with the words, " Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me" (v. 22). Such an insight from this Gentile woman is clearly intended as a foil against which is heightened the blindness of Israel's leaders (15:14, 24; cf. 2:1-4). This Gentile woman not only exhibits a reverent regard for Jesus (she calls him " Lord" three times and worships him), her persistent expression of faith overcomes all obstacles and culminates in a willingness to receive mere " bread crumbs" (v. 27). It is her " great faith" that provides Jesus the occasion to stretch the disciples' perspective concerning the contours of his compassionate ministry. In the face of such faith, exhibited by a foreigner, contemporary standards of " uncleanness," and the ideology of separation so prevalent in Pharisaic teaching must be set aside. As such, this scene provides an object lesson reinforcing the principles enunciated in 15:1-20.

15:21. A transitional phrase sets the stage for Jesus' encounter with the Canaanite woman. Once again Jesus withdrew in the face of opposition (cf. 14:13), this time going outside Jewish territory, to the region of Tyre and Sidon . The mention of Tyre and Sidon is not merely to document Jesus' geographical location, but to conjure up images of some of Israel's most hated enemies (see, e.g., Isa 23; Ezek 26-28; Joel 3:4). Given Jesus' decidedly Jewish mission (cf. 10:6) it is probable that his venture into Gentile lands was an effort to escape Jewish opposition, as well as to find some solace away from the crowds. Nevertheless, even in Gentile territory huge crowds were attracted to him (15:29-39).

15:22. Matthew accentuates the religious and national distance between Jesus and the woman who approaches him by calling her a Canaanite (cf. Mark 7:26), thus conjuring up a long standing animosity, with deep roots in Israel's history. Nevertheless, the woman's petition, " Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me" (cf. 9:27; 20:31-32) indicates a remarkable insight into Jesus' messianic authority. Just how she came to have this conviction is not said. The reader is reminded of another Gentile in Matthew's story who also exhibits an exceptional understanding of Jesus' authority (cf. 8:5-13). In both episodes the faith of a Gentile stands in stark contrast to the unbelief and blindness of Israel. Therefore, the woman's confessionary petition becomes illustrative of the response that should have characterized all Israel. Her petition concerns her daughter who is suffering terribly from demon-possession . Her words are intended to amplify the serious condition of her daughter.

15:23. Given the urgency of the situation one might expect Jesus to respond immediately to resolve the situation (cf. 8:7). But, instead her continual cries for help (e[krazen, ekrazen , v. 22, the imperfect tense suggests repeated efforts to get the attention of Jesus), were met with silence. To make matters worse, the disciples are quick to judge the woman as a nuisance, and respond in the same way they did to the hunger of the crowds, i.e., Send her away (ajpovluson aujthvn, apolyson autçn, cf. 14:15; see also 15:32). It is difficult to be sure if they simply wanted to be rid of her, being an unclean Canaanite, or if they are requesting that Jesus shut her up by giving her what she wants. In either case, the disciples' response is less than compassionate, revealing a calloused lack of sensitivity to the woman's desperate appeal.

15:24-25. Jesus seems temporarily to align himself with the disciples as he reiterates the limitations of his mission: " I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" (cf. 10:6). Convenantal faithfulness demanded that Israel be given priority in God's dealings with humanity (see 10:6). Yet, the reader knows that earlier Jesus was responsive to a Gentile supplicant, and even affirmed that " he had not found anyone in Israel with such great faith" (8:10). Jesus' words are therefore calculated to elicit from the woman a basis for the inclusion of Gentiles in blessings reserved for Israel. Her only response is to assume the posture of worship (prosekuvnei, prosekynei [" worshiped" in older versions, NIV knelt before] , carries the root sense of bowing or bending the knee before the object of one's adoration), and with deep reverence plead for his help (bohqevw, boçtheô). It is her expression of total dependency and confidence in Jesus that begins to undermine the exclusivism of the preceding statement. Certainly, few Israelites have demonstrated such a remarkable persistence and dauntless faith in Jesus' authoritative power.

15:26-27. But Jesus places another hurdle before her faith, by reminding her of the privileged status of Israel in terms that appear unduly harsh and completely lacking in any conciliatory overtones. With a brief parabolic saying Jesus resorts to conventional Jewish language highlighting Israel's privileged status in contrast to pagan Gentiles. The Israelites are the children who are blessed to receive the messianic blessings (= bread ), while Gentiles were typically referred to as " unclean dogs," mere scavengers that roamed the streets. Although Jesus uses the diminutive form of kuvwn (kyôn) (kunavrion [ kynarion ]=" house dog, or lapdog in contrast to a dog of the street," BAGD, p. 457), it is still difficult to see how the woman would interpret his words as anything other than an insult. Of course, as has been pointed out, we do not know the body language or the tone of voice that accompanied such a saying, hence Jesus' spoken words may have come across as less offensive. At any rate, the woman is not deterred by Jesus' words. In fact, she is in agreement that the needs of the children (=Israel) should take priority over care for the family dogs (=Gentiles). She is thus willing to recognize her secondary status, but adopts Jesus' metaphoric language to draw out implications in support of her cause. She points out that the children of a household are not deprived by the dogs eating mere crumbs that fall from the master's table . So even though she could make no claim to belonging to the chosen people, granting her request in no way would diminish Israel's privileged status.

15:28. Her insightful response and humble persistency are recognized by Jesus with the words, " Woman, you have great faith" (cf. 8:10). " Great faith" necessarily involves a humble recognition of Jesus' authoritative power, along with a level of understanding concerning his messianic vocation. Although this unnamed woman never reappears in the story or becomes part of the inner circle of disciples, her great faith stands in stark contrast to Israel's unbelief (cf. 13:58), and even the " little faith" of the disciples (14:31). Jesus grants her request and her daughter experienced immediate healing. Jesus' positive appraisal of this Gentile woman, and the granting of her request should cause the disciples to rethink contemporary Jewish standards of uncleanness and ethnic boundaries. Should such great faith be ignored simply because it is expressed by a foreigner, one outside national Israel? The two scenes involving Gentiles (8:5-13; 15:21-28) clearly foreshadow a mission to all the nations (28:18-20), when the true people of God will transcend all boundaries of race and cultural peculiarities.

F. FEEDING OF THE FOUR THOUSAND (15:29-39)

²⁹ Jesus left there and went along the Sea of Galilee. Then he went up on a mountainside and sat down. ³⁰ Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at his feet; and he healed them. ³¹ The people were amazed when they saw the mute speaking, the crippled made well, the lame walking and the blind seeing. And they praised the God of Israel.

³² Jesus called his disciples to him and said, " I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way."

³³ His disciples answered, " Where could we get enough bread in this remote place to feed such a crowd?"

³⁴" How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked.

" Seven," they replied, " and a few small fish."

³⁵ He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. ³⁶ Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. ³⁷ They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. ³⁸ The number of those who ate was four thousand, besides women and children. ³⁹ After Jesus had sent the crowd away, he got into the boat and went to the vicinity of Magadan.

This episode exhibits such a remarkable similarity with the feeding of the five thousand (14:13-21) that many have concluded that one or the other of the accounts is a mere literary fabrication based on a single event. While it is true that numerous verbal and conceptual parallels can be found in both accounts, the differences should not be downplayed. Furthermore, if two separate feeding events actually did take place, is it unreasonable to expect the accounts to be narrated in similar terminology? In fact, there are good reasons why a second feeding story makes good sense. Although the proposal has been disputed, seeing the crowd in the first feeding as predominantly Jewish and the crowd in the second feeding as predominantly Gentile does have some contextual support. Even though not as emphatic as Mark 7:21, it would seem that Matthew does expect his readers to understand that Jesus is still in Gentile territory when the events comprising 15:29-39 take place (cf. v. 21 and v. 39). In addition, when the crowds praise " the God of Israel" (v. 31) this makes the best sense if the crowds are Gentile praising Israel's God, Yahweh. Although not as conclusive, it may be significant that the term translated " basketful" in v. 37 is distinctly Hellenistic in contrast to the typically Jewish term for " basket" in 14:20. It is therefore reasonable to see Jesus providing for Gentiles in the same manner that he earlier provided for Jews. Furthermore, coming after the Canaanite woman episode (15:21-28), this scene reinforces the universal implications of Jesus' ministry, in contrast to the exclusiveness inherent in the teaching of the Jewish leaders.

15:29-31. Like the earlier feeding, the feeding of the four thousand is prefaced by a summary highlighting Jesus' therapeutic involvement with the crowds (cf. 14:13-14). Jesus takes a position on a mountainside , while large crowds come before him bringing their sick ( lame , blind , crippled , mute , and many others , cf. 11:3-5). They are amazed with Jesus' healing powers and praised the God of Israel . These same crowds are then blessed to participate in a great messianic banquet (vv. 32-39), with the provisions miraculously provided by Jesus. Donaldson has argued that the " mountain" as a " place of gathering, healing, and feeding," is intended to conjure up images of the eschatological promises associated with Mt. Zion (cf. Isa 35:5f; 25:6-10; Jer 31:10-14; Ezek 34:14, 26ff). Although these overtones may be present in 15:29-31, like 8:11-12, it is not Jews who are depicted as enjoying these blessings, but Gentiles. They are the ones who came to Jesus in faith, and are participants in the Isaianic promises: " Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy" (Isa 35:5-6). While the Jewish leaders worship " in vain," these Gentile crowds praise " the God of Israel." Although a formal charge to minister to the Gentiles would not come until after the resurrection (28:18-20), certainly scenes such as this anticipate such an endeavor.

15:32. Without any interruption, the narrative moves from the summary to the feeding of the four thousand (vv. 32-39). Unlike the earlier feeding, it is Jesus who takes the initiative to identify the plight of the crowd (vv. 32-33; cf. 14:15). Whereas earlier Matthew the narrator emphasized Jesus' " compassion" (14:14), in this instance Jesus speaks personally of being moved by compassion. The crowds have been with Jesus for the better part of three days , and provisions have been depleted. To send them away without food would run the risk that some, in a weakened state, would have undue hardship in their travels home.

15:33. By setting before the disciples his concerns Jesus hoped to stimulate them into action. Instead, the disciples focus on the impossibility of the task to secure enough food to meet the demands of so many people. It is difficult to understand the reaction of the disciples since they had but a short time earlier witnessed how an identical problem had been solved (14:13-21). It has been suggested that their response in verse 33 is intended to put stress on the emphatic " we," thus " to indicate their own helplessness, and to leave the way open for Jesus to make provisions again." If Jesus' previous remarks about the condition of the crowds (v. 32) were intended to suggest that the disciples should miraculously provide food, then their statement in verse 33 could be construed as an expression of their own inability. Be that as it may, the disciples exhibit no awareness of the awesome power available through Jesus, but instead focus on the seeming impossibility of the task.

15:34-37. Using words reminiscent of the first feeding story, Jesus once again takes charge of the situation (vv. 34-36). He first inquires about the provision available. This time they specify seven loaves, and a few fish (cf. 14:17). As in the previous miracle of feeding, Jesus commands the people to prepare for a banquet by " reclining" on the ground (cf. " grass," 14:19). He then took the provisions available, gave thanks (cf. 14:19), and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, who in turn distributed the food to the multitudes. As in the first feeding (14:20), They all ate and were satisfied . Once again the surplus of provisions is stressed by noting the number of baskets (spuriv", spyris ) needed for the leftovers (seven, cf. twelve in 14:20). If the " twelve baskets" had symbolic value, it is not unreasonable that Matthew intended his readers to see some symbolism by the reference to seven basketfuls (cf. 16:9-10). However, exactly what the significance may be is certainly not obvious to the modern reader.

15:38-39. The number fed is identified as four thousand, besides women and children . The numbers are obviously only an estimate, and there appears no reason to read symbolic value into the number fed. Like the feeding of the five thousand, this episode closes with Jesus dismissing the crowd (v. 30; 14:22), followed by a boat trip. This time their voyage takes them into the vicinity of Magadan (cf. Mark 8:10), the exact location of which is uncertain. However, in view of their subsequent encounter with the " Pharisees and Sadducees" (16:1ff.) it is likely that they are back in Jewish territory, on the western side of the Sea. The stage is thus set in verse 39 for a return to Jewish territory followed immediately by a less than friendly welcoming committee (16:1-4).

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Mat 15:1-20

P A R T  S I X T H.
FROM THE THIRD PASSOVER UNTIL OUR
LORD'S ARRIVAL AT BETHANY.
(Time: One Year Less One Week.)

LXV.
JESUS FAILS TO ATTEND THE THIRD PASSOVER.
SCRIBES REPROACH HIM FOR DISREGARDING TRADITION.
(Galilee, probably Capernaum, Spring A. D. 29.)
^aMATT. XV. 1-20; ^bMARK VII. 1-23; ^dJOHN VII. 1.

   ^d1 And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Judæa, because the Jews sought to kill him. [John told us in his last chapter that the passover was near at hand. He here makes a general statement which shows that Jesus did not attend this passover. The reason for his absence is given at Joh 5:18.]  ^a1 Then there come to Jesus from Jerusalem  ^b1 And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,  2 and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, with unwashen, hands. [Evidently several days intervened between the address of Joh 6:22-40. and the events recorded here, for the Pharisees and scribes would not be likely to leave Jerusalem until after the passover. Isa 29:13], asaying, bas it is written, This people [394] honoreth me with their lips, But their heart is far from me.  7 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.  8 Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.  9 And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition. [These Pharisees coming from Jerusalem could find nothing wherein Jesus or his disciples transgressed the law, so they eagerly grasped this transgression of the tradition as affording ground for an accusation. Jesus does not deny their charge, but justifies his disciples by attacking the whole traditional system, basing his attack upon a pointed prophecy which condemns it. It is hard for us to learn and apply the distinction between serving God as God wishes to be served, and serving him according to our own wishes and notions.]  ^a4 For God {^bMoses} said [that is, God said it through Moses],  Honor thy father and thy mother; and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death [see Exo 20:12, Deu 5:16, Exo 21:17, Lev 20:9]:  11 but ye say, If a man {^aWhosoever} shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me bis Corban, that is to say, Given to God;  ^a6 he shall not honor his father.  ^b12 ye no longer suffer him to do ought for his father or his mother; ^aAnd ye have made {^b13 making} void the word of God by {abecause of} your tradition. bwhich ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do. [Leaving for a moment the main question concerning uncleanness and washing, Jesus makes good his indictment against their tradition by giving an example of the mischievous way in which it set aside God's commandments. The law required the honoring of parents, and for any one to cast off his parents in their old age, thus subjecting them to beggary or starvation, was to do more than to speak evil of them. Such conduct was practically to curse them, and to incur the death penalty for so doing. But at this point the Pharisees interfered with their tradition, which taught that [395] a son could say of that part of his estate by which his parents might be profited, It is a gift; that is, a gift to God, and by thus dedicating that part to God, he would free himself from his obligation to his parents. Thus tradition undid the law. God's law leads to pure and acceptable worship, while human additions and amendments make worship vain, if not abominable. There is probably not one such addition or amendment which does not to a greater or less degree make some commandment void.]  14 And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them [Having been accused by the scribes and Pharisees of a breach of their tradition, Jesus points out to them generally the iniquity of tradition, for it lay within their power as leaders to remedy the whole system of things. Having done this, he turns to the multitude and answers before them as to the offense with which he is specifically charged. Thus he gives to the leaders general principles, and to the common people the single instance], Hear me all of you, and understand:  ^a11 Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth a man.  ^b15 there is nothing from without a man, that going into him can defile him: but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.  17 And when he was entered into the house from the multitude,  ^a12 Then came the disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, when they heard this saying? [The entire speech offended them. He charged them with hypocrisy. He showed that their tradition, which they reverenced as a revelation from God, led them into sin, and he disturbed their self-complacency by showing that the ceremonial cleanness, which was founded on tradition, and in which they prided themselves, was worthless in comparison with the moral cleanness required by God's law, which they had ignored. It grieved the disciples to see Jesus offend these reverend gentlemen from Jerusalem. Like many modern disciples their respect for men counteracted their zeal for truth.]  13 But he answered and said, Every [396] plant which my heavenly Father hath planted not, shall be up rooted up. [God had planted the law with its doctrine: he had planted the Hebrew religion as given by Moses. He had not planted the tradition of the elders; so it, and the religion founded upon it, was doomed to be rooted up.]  14 Let them alone: they are blind guides. And if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall into a pit. [This proverbial expression is found in the Sermon on the Mount. See Psa 37:1, Psa 37:2). The words of Jesus are full of encouragement to those who adhere to the simple teachings of God; for they show that God guarantees that every error shall be uprooted, and that every teacher of error or false religion shall participate in the judgment which uproots, and shall fall into the pit of ruin; and his disciples, no matter how numerous, shall share his fate. In this particular instance, the destruction of Jerusalem was the pit. The Jewish leaders led their disciples into it, and God uprooted their system of tradition, that the pure gospel might be sowed in the room which they occupied.]  15 And Peter answered and said unto him, Declare unto us the parable. [The word "parable" is used here in its looser sense to indicate an obscure saying.]  bhis disciples asked of him the parable. [They asked what he meant by the words contained in the Mat 15:11.  18 And he saith {asaid,} bunto them, ^aAre ye even yet bso without understanding also? [It was to be expected that the multitude, swayed by the teaching of the Pharisees, would be slow to grasp what Jesus said about uncleanness; but the disciples, having been so long taught of him, and having felt free to eat with unwashed hands, should have been more quick of understanding.] Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him;  19 because it goeth not into his heart, but apasseth into the {bhis} belly, and goeth out into {aand is cast out into} the [397] draught? bThis he said, making all meats clean.  20 And he said, ^a18 But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man. ^bThat which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man.  21 For from within, out of the heart of men, acome forth {bproceed,} aevil thoughts, bfornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,  22; covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye [an envious eye] afalse witness, railings: {brailing,} pride, foolishness:  23 all these evil things proceed from within, and  ^a20 these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands, defileth not the man. [Thus Jesus sets forth the simple doctrine that a man's moral and spiritual state is not dependent upon the symbolic cleanness of his physical diet, much less is it dependent on ceremonial observances in regard to things eaten, or the dishes from which they are eaten. Of course, Jesus did not mean at this time to abrogate the Mosaic law of legal uncleanness. These uncleannesses worked no spiritual defilement, but were merely typical of such; for the food in no way touched or affected the mind or soul, the fountains of spiritual life, but only the corporeal organs, which have no moral susceptibility. The Pharisees had erred in confusing legal and spiritual defilement, and had added error to error by multiplying the causes of defilement in their tradition. By thus showing that legal defilement was merely symbolic, Jesus classed it with all the other symbolism which was to be done away with when the gospel reality was fully ushered in (Col 2:16, Col 2:17). In saying, therefore, that Jesus made all meats clean, Mark does not mean that Jesus then and there repealed the law. The declaration of such repeal came later (Act 10:14, Act 10:15). He means that he there drew those distinctions and laid down those principles which supplanted the Mosaic law when the kingdom of God was ushered in on the day of Pentecost. Here was the fountain whence Paul drew all his teaching concerning things clean and unclean.] [398]

   * It was a whole year. -- J. W. M^cG.

[FFG 393-398]

Lapide: Mat 15:1-39

CHAPTER 15

Then there came to Him, &c. The Scribes of Jerusalem, as being at the very fountain head of faith and religion, arrogated to them selves the right of censuring the doctrine of new teachers, such as Christ was. They sent therefore persons to investigate what His teaching was, that they might animadvert upon it, and bring Him into subjection to themselves. The Scribes prided themselves upon their knowledge of the law, the Pharisees upon their sanctity.

Why do thy disciples, &c. Bread, in this verse, is a common Hebraism for all kinds of food. Observe: Moses, in the old Law, enjoined, by God's command, that the Jews should abstain from contact with the dead bodies of rapacious birds and unclean animals, from lepers and various other persons and things. And if any one touched them accidentally, he was accounted unclean; and was not allowed to enter the Temple until he had performed the ablutions which the law prescribed. And these corporeal washings were enjoined for the purpose of adumbrating to the dense minds of the Jews those spiritual washings of the soul, which are effected by contrition and repentance. ( See what I have said on Lev 11:31.)

The Jews then, but especially the Pharisees, who wished to be accounted more religious than other people, made their whole sanctity consist in such outward and frequent washings before their meals, yea even when they were taking their food, as seems to be here intimated. This was why, at the wedding-feast at Cana, there were placed six water-pots for these purificatory purposes. This was why they so frequently washed the cups and basons, out of which they ate and drank, yea even their beds and tables, as may be seen in Mar 7:4. They were thus careful, lest if the vessels out of which they ate were polluted, they should contaminate those who ate out of them. But all this was merely done out of custom, since the law prescribed nothing of the kind.

Observe 2. This excessive scrupulosity of the Jews was little, if indeed at all conducive to piety, or profit, since it kept them wholly intent upon external washings. And so it called off their minds from the interior care and purification of the mind from sin. Neither did God require of them this exceeding anxiety about external lustrations; but seems rather to have discouraged it. ( Deu 4:2). Christ therefore being about to put an end to these vain and frivolous, or noxious traditions, and being desirous of directing their whole attention to the purification of the mind, was unwilling to observe these ablutions, or to enjoin them upon His disciples, although He did not say so in express words, in order to avoid the envy and calumnies of the Pharisees.

In vain, therefore, do the heretics object this passage against Catholics, as though it were opposed to Apostolic and Ecclesiastical traditions. For these last are most profitable and spiritual, and were instituted and handed down by the Apostles and their successors for the more perfect observance of the Law of God. The other traditions were Pharisaic, that is futile, erroneous, and contrary to God's Law. Yea, the Scribes even preferred them before the Divine Law, and observed them in place of it. This is plain from the 9th verse. So SS. Jerome, Chrysostom, and others. All this becomes obvious from the Talmudists, who in the book called, The Hundred Benedictions, declare that the hands must be previously washed and wiped, or else the bread which is eaten is judged to be unclean. And water must be presently poured three times upon the hands, first washing the fingers, and then the whole hand. Lastly, it is necessary that in this ablution the left hand should act as a servant to the right. Such were their nugatory triflings. Moreover, the Pharisees, as S. Justin testifies ( contra Tryph. ), were called Baptists. See S. Epiphan ( lib. i. Hæres. 17) where he says that there was a certain sect of Scribes and Pharisees, who used to baptize themselves every day in the year. For this reason they were called Daily Baptists. They thought a man could not live unless he was dipped in water every day, and by this means washed and purified from every fault. There are some Jews among the Rabbies who practise the same rites even at the present day. But this is to live the life of ducks and fishes, rather than of men.

Jesus answered, &c., for the sake of your tradition. Arabic, for the sake of your ordinances. Instead of, for the sake of, some translate, through. But the meaning is the same in both; viz., your traditions set at nought and violate the Law of God. Therefore they are false and impious, and ought not to be observed.

Note the word, your. Your traditions were not instituted by God, or His Saints: nor by the ancient Patriarchs and Prophets. They were only invented in recent times by the Scribes and Pharisees, your predecessors. And you wish to maintain them, not from love and reverence for them, but because ye have come into their place, and because ye would arrogate to yourselves power and authority to ordain similar traditions. But there are Divine and Patriarchal traditions, which must be in every way observed. They are, that the Books of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and the rest of the Prophets are Canonical: that God is One in Essence, Three in Person: that sins are blotted out by true contrition arising from the love of God: that infants are guilty of original sin, and therefore must be cleansed by the Sacrament which God has ordained, and so on. These traditions ye ignore, or make of none effect, 0 ye Scribes; being wholly taken up with your own traditions.

For God hath said. Gr. ε̉νετείλατο, i.e., has commanded. Honour, &c. Honour in this place, as elsewhere in Scripture, signifies not only reverence, but help, almsgiving, sustentation. This is plain from what follows.

And whoso curseth, &c. Arabic, Whoso speaketh an evil word against his father, or his mother. Die the death, i.e., die certainly, and without any hope of pardon. The meaning is, If he who only reviles his father, or his mother in words, is by the Law guilty of death, how much more he who injures them in deed, and deprives them of that sustentation which is due to them by the law of nature, and not only deprives them, but authoritatively teaches others to deprive them of it, as ye do, 0 ye Scribes, by your teaching about Corban, as will be seen in the following verse:

For ye say, &c., profited by me : understand, such a person does well, and shall fulfi1 the law of God. The meaning is—Whatsoever gift I shall offer, or vow to God, this shall be profitable ; both to myself and to thee, 0 my father, or my mother, in both mind and body. For God, pleased with this gift, shall, in return, liberally bestow gifts upon thee and me, and shall provide for your sustenance. By this manifold and specious semblance of religion and a vow, the Scribes taught that alimony might be refused to parents, if the value of it were offered to God. And they did this to bring gain and profit to themselves. For many of the Scribes and Pharisees were priests, who received the offerings made to God. Now in this matter they were manifestly in error, in that the bond and law of piety, by which children are bound to provide for their parents when poor, is of the law of nature, and therefore every vow, every offering, and all ties ought to yield to it. Thus if anyone devoted his property to God, and his father were to fall into poverty, his property must be given to his father, not to the Church. Yea, a son cannot enter a Religious Order if his parents are in extreme want; and even if he have entered, he is bound, in such a case, to come out of it, in order that he may succour them. So teach D. Thomas, Sylvester, Navarre, Toletus, and other doctors, in their explication of cases arising under the fourth commandment. ( The Anglican Fifth ). Wherefore S. Augustine, as Possidonius testifies in his life, (c. 14), refused inheritances that were offered by some persons to his Church; because he saw it to be right and just that they should be enjoyed rather by the children, or parents, or relations of the deceased. Some legacies also that were offered by parents he restored to their children, when they desired them. And he added that "legacies ought to be offered rather than required."

Observe: gift in Heb. is קרכן corban, as in Mar 7:11. The word is frequently used in Lev. cap. 1, 2, 3, &c., where lambs, goats, and calves, offered to God are called corban, i.e., an oblation. Hence the Treasury, into which offerings were cast by the people was called corban, or corbana. (See Mat 27:6.) Therefore the covetous Scribes taught the people to offer their property to God and the Temple, and to say to their parents when in want, corban. This was much the same as saying, like the Belgians to poor people, when they ask alms, Godt helpe u ; or as the French say, Dieu vous aide. This is a way of saying that they are unwilling or unable to help them themselves. Moreover, by saying corban, they shut their parents' mouths, by instilling into them scruples of conscience, lest they should deprive God of His own corban, His own offering. It was as if they said, this is sacred, it is vowed and dedicated to God. Take care then, my father, that you do not commit a sacrilege, by asking it for your own use. When the parents heard this, they were thunder-struck, and preferred to die of hunger, rather than be sacrilegious towards God.

And honour not, &c These words are best taken as those of the Scribes, rather than of Christ. They gave it as the reason why a child need not succour his parents, that he preferred God to them, and honoured God with the gift which should have been given to them. Whence Mark has, and suffer him no longer to do ought for his father or his mother.

Ye have made void, Gr. ήκυρώσατε, i.e., ye have made obsolete, abrogated. Observe the word your, for there are three kinds of traditions. The first are Divine, being such as God has sanctioned by His command, even though they are not found in Scripture. Such a tradition is—that infants must be baptized. For this is no where written, but is the constant tradition of the Church. The second are Ecclesiastical, which the Church, that is, her pontiffs and prelates have commanded, such as the ceremonies of the Sacraments; also feasts and festivals. And these are not so much human as Divine traditions, because the Church is governed by the Holy Ghost. The third are civil. These are sometimes good, and sometimes bad, because contrary to the law of God; such as these traditions of the Scribes about corban.

And calling the multitude, &c.—understand, I will teach you concerning the real purity, or impurity of the soul, that ye may unlearn what the Scribes have taught you, that the soul is made unclean by unclean hands or unclean food.

Not that which—defiles : Gr. κοινοι̃, i.e., makes common, i.e., defiles. For unclean meats were common to everyone, even to the unclean. But clean meats were only for the clean, for these alone might eat them. Hence common has the same meaning as unclean. This is plain from Acts x. 15. He means, The Scribes teach you, 0 people, that it is not lawful to eat with unwashen hands, because unwashen hands make the food unclean; but unclean food makes the soul unclean, that is, displeasing to God. But they are in error, because not that which from without enters into the mouth defiles the man, but that which comes forth from the mouth, from within, and so from the heart. For sin must be voluntary, or else it is not sin, as S. Augustine says. So, too, virtue—if it be not voluntary—is no virtue.

This error of the Scribes originated in what is said in Lev 11., where pork and other unclean meats are called execrable and abominable, and are said to pollute the soul. Whence, in verse Lev 11:42, it is forbidden to pollute the soul with unclean food. And in verse 44 (Lev 11:44) it is said, "Be ye holy (that is, clean in eating), for I am holy"—i.e., clean. And shortly afterwards, "Pollute not your souls with any creeping thing by eating it." The Scribes took all these things ignorantly, as though the meats themselves brought pollution on the soul, in that the soul touched them in the stomach, during the process of digestion. But they were in error, because that uncleanness was legal and corporeal, but did not pollute the mind with sin. Food is not capable of sin, but the will alone. Since, therefore, food possesses no sin in itself, how can it infect the soul with sin?

Pythagoras and Plutarch ( Tract. de esu carn. et l. viii. Sympos. c. 10) teach that people should abstain from flesh and beans, because they contaminate the soul. The Turks say the same of wine, which is forbidden them in the Koran. Busbequius, the imperial ambassador to the Sultan relates that he saw a Turk who, on wine being offered him—which he was greedy to drink—raised a great shout. He was asked why he did so. "I am calling out," he said, "to my soul to go down from my stomach into my feet, that it may not be polluted with the wine, forbidden by our law, which I am about to drink." Thus, in the time of Christ and the Apostles, the first heresiarchs (who arose from among the Jews, as Simon Magus, Saturninus, and afterwards Manes, Marcion, and the Encratites) taught that wine and flesh were not created by God, but by the devil, and were therefore, in their own nature, evil and to be avoided. Some of them said that with the flesh of the animal they ate its soul, and that that soul had the gift of reason, and was therefore pious or impious. Hear S. Epiphanius ( Hæres. 64): "Manes says that he who eats flesh eats a soul, and is bound to become of like nature with it; so that if he eat a bull, he will become a bull; if he eat pork, he will become a pig." Speaking of these, the Apostle says, imposters shall come, who will teach "to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving." (1Ti 4:3-4.) See what I have there said. Wherefore the heretics wrest this passage against the fasts ordained by the Church. For the Church does not forbid flesh on fast days because flesh is evil in itself, but with the object of restraining gluttony, and of exercising penance and obedience. If, therefore, anyone eats flesh on a fast day, he does not sin on account of the flesh, but on account of his disobedience to the Church. In like manner, if the Jews ate pork or other forbidden food, they polluted their souls, not with the pork, but by their disobedience.

Then His disciples, &c., then, viz., when the multitude being sent away, Christ had come with His disciples into the house. This is plain from Mark vii. 17. Were scandalised, i.e., were offended, because the Pharisees made all their holiness consist in external washings, and such like things.

But he answered, &c., plant, i.e., seed, shrub, tree, by which SS. Hilary and Chrysostom understand doctrine. That is, He means the doctrine of the Pharisees concerning unclean food polluting the soul, shall be by Me confuted and rooted up. But by plant others understand more correctly men. For these were planted by God in Paradise, but being corrupted by the serpent, are planted anew by God with Christ, who is the tree of life. They are planted through faith and grace, and then they bring forth the fruit of good works unto eternal life. Otherwise, they remain barren and corrupt trees, meet to be cast into the fire, as John the Baptist threatened the Pharisees. For they were always the enemies of Christ, and consequently of God the Father. Thus S. Jerome and Origen ( Hom. 1. in Jerem.), Maldonatus, and others.

Let them alone, &c. He means, let the Scribes be scandalised. Do not be troubled that they are offended at my doctrine and correction. They themselves are bad. They do not see the light of truth and of faith which I set before them, but in their blindness and error, whereby they make sanctity consist in washing and other external things, they are obstinate and incorrigible; and are leaders of the blind, namely, of the people, to whom they teach this error, and would drag with themselves into the pit of destruction. Wherefore I openly demonstrate this their error to the multitudes who are as yet capable of being enlightened and corrected, that they may beware of it Christ here teaches that the scandal of the Pharisees is to be despised, when, forsooth, anyone is scandalised and offended by his own malice and perverse obstinacy. For, as S. Gregory says, "If offence be taken at the truth, it is better that scandal should arise than the truth be abandoned" ( Hom. vii. in Ezek.).

Peter answered, &c. This parable, meaning the one where Christ said, not that which entereth into the mouth, &c.

Without understanding, in not perceiving that purity or impurity consists in things which pertain to the mind, especially in such things as angry words, in cursing and perjury, which proceed out of the heart, through the mouth?

Do ye not understand . . . into the draught, &c. Porphyry, and Julian the Apostate, from these words took occasion to charge Christ with being ignorant of physiology, as S. Jerome tells us. For not all the food which enters into the mouth goeth out into the draught, but the better part of it is converted into the substance of him who eats it, for his nourishment and increase. S. Jerome answers them as follows, "Whilst they attempt to show another's ignorance, they make an exhibition of their own. For although liquid food and light moisture be poured into the body, yet when they have done their office in the veins and limbs, and have passed through the secret passages of the body, which the Greeks call πόρους, they descend to the inferior parts, and go into the draught"

But this statement must be received subject to limitations. For all food, but not the whole of the food, and only with respect to its fæcous portions goes into the draught. The first digestion of the food, and its conversion into chyle takes place in the stomach, from whence those portions which are useless for the purposes of nourishment are emitted into the draught. A second digestion takes place in the liver, where the chyle is converted into blood. A third digestion may be said to take place in the various members of the body, which assimilate the blood received into the veins from the liver and convert it into flesh. Then there is a separation of the useless portions by means of the pores, and they are expelled in the form of sweat. This is why Mark adds, Goeth out into the draught, purging all meats. Christ's meaning therefore is—unclean food does not pollute the soul, as the Scribes teach, for what is unclean and impure in the food goeth out into the draught: that therefore which remains is pure, and is converted into pure chyle, blood and flesh. Therefore it cannot defile a man, nor through him, his soul.

This saying of Christ gave rise to the error of the Master of Sentences, who teaches that all men derive from Adam a tiny particle of flesh, and in this manner contract from the same Adam, original sin, in which all have sinned. ( Rom 5:12) He says that this particle is self-multiplied, and increased by itself—as though it alone were each man's substance— but not by means of food. For food only warms this particle, but is not its aliment, nor does it increase it, but wholly goes forth into the draught, as Christ here saith. And that this particle alone shall arise at the last day. Hence too he gathers that Christ, although he was born of Adam, yet did not contract from him original sin, because that particle which He derived from Adam was pure, and free from every vice and sin. All this he endeavours to prove from these words of Christ. But he is refuted at length by S. Thomas (1 p. q. ult. art. 1.) For even though Adam had possessed a body as big as a mountain it would not have been large enough to contain as many particles as would be required for each of so many thousands of millions of men who are descended from him. Again those particles must be corruptible, since all flesh soon becomes corrupt. Wherefore the greater portion of the human race derive none of their material part from Adam: yet do they contract from him original sin, because they were reckoned up in him according to natural generation, ( causaliter ), because they sprung from him, as his children, by continuous descent.

Lastly Œcolampadius impurely and foolishly twists these words of Christ into an argument against the real Presence of the Flesh of Christ, in the Eucharist. He says, "If the Flesh of Christ be our food, then like food it goeth out into the draught which is horrible to think of," But Roffensis answers him ( lib. 5. cap. 29.) by saying that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist exists in an indivisible and impassible manner, and when we et It, It is not divided, nor altered, nor digested, as common flesh is digested, consequently it has no worthless parts to go out into the draught. For the whole process of digestion and change takes place in the species of bread and wine, not in the Body of Christ.

But that which proceedeth from the mouth, &c. The heart, i.e., the reason and the will, whose symbol, yea, their seat and workshop the heart is. For the heart supplies the vital and animal spirits which are necessary for the intellect in order to understand, and for the will in order to love. Indeed Galen teaches that our common sense ( sensus communis ), which is directly subservient to the understanding, resides in the heart. Aristotle, with more probability, thinks it resides in the brain. But the heart subserves the brain, and supplies the spirits.

Proceed evil thoughts, &c. As from a fountain water bursts forth, so from the heart i.e., from the will, when it is depraved by luxury, or imbued with anger, there flow out evil thoughts of lust, or revenge. They burst forth in the mouth, by means of speech: and from the mouth they break out into deeds, when we carry our words into action.

These are the thing whisk defile a man, &c. This is the conclusion, setting forth the scope and object of the parable, which is to shew that neither unclean hands, nor unclean or unwashed food defile men but an impure and depraved will alone. From hence it is plain that the Scribes thought that the unclean or unwashed food itself defiled the soul of the eater, as I have said on the second and third verses. For apart from such an idea, Christ does not find fault with the action of washing the hands before meals, considered in itself. For this is a custom which has prevailed amongst all nations from the most ancient times, both for the sake of health, and to put the guests in mind of inward purity.

As Virgil says:

"The bread in baskets servants bring;

 Napkins, and water from the spring."

To sit down to table with unwashen hands is considered dirty and boorish, and a cause of disgust to a man's fellow guests. Wherefore in old time, not only Priests, but all the faithful were wont to wash their hands before prayer. Hence the words "Washing pure hands"

(1Ti 2:8).^* For formerly the faithful received the Eucharist in their hands, not in their mouth. See what I have there said.

Moraliter. Learn from these words how everyone's heart ought to be prepared, adorned and kept, forasmuch as it is the workshop of all evil and all good, of every vice and every virtue. As that elder said, who is quoted by John Moschus, "Be the doorkeeper of thine heart." And Solomon, "Keep thine heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life and death." (Pro 4:23.)

And Jesus departing from thence, &c. He came into Phœnicia, the capital of which was Tyre, on the borders of the Holy Land; for Tyre was more to the south, Sidon to the north. Many, both from Tyre and Sidon, who were stirred up by the fame of the doctrine and miracles of Christ, flocked to Him in crowds.

And behold a woman of Canaan, &c. A Canaanite, not of Cana in Galilee, but one of the posterity of Canaan, the son of Ham, the son of Noah. The Canaanites were of the seven nations of Palestine. They dwelt near the coast, as appears from Numb. xiii. 29, and were expelled by Joshua, but not entirely. They remained in Phœnicia, that is to say in Tyre and Sidon, which the Hebrews were never able to capture. Sidon, the founder of the city of that name, is called (Gen 10:15.) the first-born of Canaan, the son of Ham. The Canaanites therefore are the same as the Phœnicians. For this reason the LXX, in Jos 5:1. instead of kings of Canaan, translate kings of Phœnicia. Mark (Mar 7:26.) calls this woman, a Syrophœnician, because she was from that part of Phœnicia which borders upon Syria, or rather because Syria includes Phœnicia and all the adjacent countries which lie between the Mediterranean Sea and the river Euphrates. Moreover Mark calls her a Greek. She was called a Greek, although she was a Syrian, because in the New Testament especially by S. Paul, all Gentiles are called Greeks. ( See Rom 1:17. Gal 3: 28.). This was because of the wide extension of the Greek language, which in time became extended to Syria.

Cried aloud. A loud voice is a sign of earnestness and desire. Have mercy upon me, that is upon my daughter, whom I love as myself. Her torture is my torture. Yea, rather would I be tormented myself, than behold her tormented. If you will have mercy upon her by her deliverance from the devil, it will be the same as though you had shown mercy unto me. Parents have greater love for their offspring than children have for their parents.

Son of David, i.e., 0 thou Messiah, whose special work it is to have pity upon the wretched, and to cast out of them the demons, and to restore men to themselves and to God, even as the Prophets have foretold, and the Jews proclaim with united voice. This woman of Canaan knew that Christ was Messiah, partly by common report, partly by a Divine instinct.

Vexed by a devil : Arab. has an evil demon. For the devil torments, tears, excruciates the members of such as he possesses to their own great pain, and the horror of the beholders. He afflicts their souls with dreadful phantasms and spectres, and with griefs and fears. For the devil has an intense hatred against God, and consequently against man, who is the image of God. And so he injures and torments him to the utmost of his power.

The woman does not add, Come and deliver her. She only represents her affliction to Christ. She leaves the rest to His providence and His love. In this she shows her marvellous resignation, and her confidence in Christ.

He answered her not, &c. That He might prove and augment her faith, hope, humility and constancy: and, as S. Chrysostom says, that he might set her as an example to others.

And His disciples . . . Send her away, i.e., by giving her what he asks, the deliverance of her daughter. She crieth after us. Deliver her from the pain and labour of following our footsteps, and us from the misery of hearing her, lest she deafen us. But, "from the pleading and fervent heart, groans unutterable are emitted, whereby Christ is soothed, as with sweet music," says S. Augustine.

You may observe, Mark says, she came into the house, and there fell at the feet of Christ. S. Augustine says ( de consens. Evang. l. ii. c. 49), that she first came to Christ in the house, as Mark relates, and that afterwards when He went out of the house she followed Him, and continued to beseech Him. But it seems more probable that she first met Christ in the way, and afterwards made supplication to Him in the house.

But he said . . . lost sheep : Vulg. sheep which have perished. Arab. wandering sleep. Syriac sheep which have wandered from the house of Israel. It was as though He said. To the Israelites alone Christ was promised, that they should be His flock, that I as their shepherd in bodily presence, should feed them alone. Whence Christ is called by S. Paul, "the Minister of the circumcision," i.e., of the Jews. ( Rom. xv. 8.)

She came and worshipped Him, &c., i.e., knelt down before Christ. When this woman of Canaan was rejected by Christ, she did not stand back, nor cast away hope. She persisted more eagerly, she was more hopeful, she cried more loudly. And by this her constancy and perseverance she deserved to be heard. For God, when He is invoked, often does not answer at first, in order that he who is praying may be yet more earnest. For God will refuse nothing to those who persevere, as is plain from the example of this woman. For, "she was persistent in prayers, wise in her answers, faithful in her words." says S. Ambrose.

He answered, it is not meet, Gr. καλὸν, that is, fair, becoming. Christ speaks after the manner of the Jews, who were wont to call the Gentiles, as being vilest idolators, dogs. This is the second repulse of the Canaanitish woman by Christ and sterner than the first. He pricks her, as it were, by calling her a dog, to whom it is customary to throw crusts of bread. By bread He means not corporeal, but spiritual bread, namely the grace of the Gospel and of His miracles. For these were promised to the Jews alone, as to sons of God. Mark adds that Christ said, suffer the children first to be filled. In like manner Christ often humbles and mortifies holy souls, that they may ask yet more humbly and ardently, that they may obtain. Wisely says S. Chrysostom ( Hom. 30 in Gen.) "Whether we obtain what we ask, or do not obtain, let us persevere always in prayer. And let us give thanks, not only when we obtain, but even when we suffer a repulse. For when God denies us anything, it is no less a favour than if He granted it. For we know not as He knows what is good for us."

But she said, yea Lord, &c. She means to say, "It is altogether true what Thou sayest, 0 My Saviour. I acknowledge that I am a worthless dog, and not worthy that the children's bread should be given to me, who am a Gentile. Yet the dogs and the curs (in Greek the word is the same, κυνάρια ) are wont to eat the crumbs of bread which fall from the tables of their master's children. Nourish me then as Thy dog. I cannot leave my master's table. You cannot drive me from Thee either by rough words or by blows. I will not leave Thee, until thou give me what I ask. Give me therefore, 0 most merciful Lord, only a crumb, give me this least favour of my daughter's health. Let this one crumb fall among us Gentiles, and I will gather it up." She presses Christ prudently, convincingly, and yet modestly by His own words; and by her humble faith and reasoning conquers Him willing to be conquered by her prayer, says S. Chrysostom; and S. Jerome says, "'I know,' are her words, 'that I do not deserve children's bread, nor to receive whole food, nor can I sit at the table with the father, but I am contented with the leavings of the dogs.'"

Moraliter : Contemplate the ideal of perfect prayer, and imitate it. This woman of Canaan teaches us to pray. 1. With great humility, in that she acknowledges herself to be a dog. 2. With faith, because she calls Christ the son of David, i.e., the Messiah, the God and Saviour promised to the Jews. 3. With modesty because she sets before Christ the right of dogs and her own misery; yet does she not draw from thence the conclusion that Christ should heal her daughter, but leaves that to Him. 4. With prudence, in that she takes hold of Christ by His own words, and gently turns His reasoning against Himself, into an argument for obtaining her desire. 5. With reverence, with religion and devotion, because she made her supplication on her knees. 6. With resignation in that she did not say, "Heal my daughter," but " help me," in the manner which shall seem to Thee best. 7. With confidence, because although a Gentile, she had a firm hope that she would be heard by Christ. 8. With ardour. 9. With charity, in that she made intercession for her daughter, as if she were anxious for herself, saying, help me. 10. With constance and perseverance, in that she persisted when she was twice repulsed and became yet more earnest in prayer. Truly says Chrysologus ( Serm. 100.) "Deservedly is she adopted as a daughter, and raised to the table, who in her humility placed herself beneath the table." S. Laurence Justinian, the first Patriarch of Venice imitated this woman, who prayed thus to God when he was at the point of death. "I dare not ask for a seat among the happy spirits, who behold the Holy Trinity. Nevertheless Thy creature asks for some portion of the crumbs of Thy most holy table. It shall be more than enough for me, 0 how much more than enough! if Thou wilt not refuse some little place to this Thy poor servant beneath the feet of the least of Thine elect."

Then Jesus, &c. Mark has, for this saying go thy way, the devil is gone out of thy daughter. Christ would not restrain any longer His admiration, but cried out as it were with wonder, 0 woman great is thy faith. As S. Chrysostom says, He would adorn her with a shining crown. Let it be done to thee as thou wilt, i.e., what thou askest. These words says Chrysostom are like those in the first chapter of Genesis. Let there be a firmament, and it was done. Whence it follows, her daughter was healed. See here the efficacy of fervent prayer, as Jacob wrestled with the angel and overcame him, and obtained the blessing which he asked. Therefore was he called Israel, that is, having power with God. Prayer therefore makes us Israels, having power with God.

Tropologically, the daughter vexed by a devil is a soul that is tempted and polluted by sin, which ought to distrust its own strength and trust in Christ. It ought to invoke Him with humility, acknowledging itself a dog (that is, a vile sinner), yet not so as to despair of pardon. It becomes a great physician to cure great diseases, and the great God to do great works, and the great Christ to sanctify and save great sinners.

Allegorically, this daughter is the Gentile Church. The Jews, who were formerly the children, because of their unbelief in Christ became as dogs, according to the words, "Many dogs are come about me" (Ps. xxii. 16); but the Gentiles, which were dogs, have been made children, and eat at Christ's table the bread of the Eucharist and the hidden meaning of Scripture, as it were the marrow and fatness of the wheat. So S. Jerome.

And her daughter, &c. Mark has, she found the child lying upon a bed, taking rest, securely and joyfully. The sinful soul, when delivered by the pardoning grace of Christ rests upon the bed of a tranquil, serene, and joyful conscience.

And when Jesus had passed over, &c. As S. Jerome says, "He went up into a mountain, that, like a bird, He might stir up His tender young ones to fly." And Rabanus: "That He might lift up His hearers to meditate upon supernal and heavenly things. He sat down, that He might show rest is only to be sought for in things above."

And there came to Him, &c. The Gloss explains mystically thus—"The dumb are those who do not praise God. The blind are those who do not understand the way of life. The lame are those who do not go along the straight road of good works." Excellently says blessed Peter Chrysologus ( Serm. 50): "Christ came to take our infirmities, and to give us His strength; to seek things human, to give things divine; to receive injuries, to confer dignities; to bear wearisomeness, to bestow healing. For the physician, who does not bear with infirmities, knows not how to heal. And he who is not weak with the weak, cannot make the weak strong."

They glorified Me God of Israel, because He had shown unto them Messias, the worker of so many blessings and miracles.

But Jesus, having called His disciples, &c. "For he would," says S. Jerome, "feed those whom He had healed." Thus perfect were Christ's works of mercy, and He would teach us to do likewise. I have compassion, Greek, σπλαγχνίζομαι, Hebrew אני מרתם ani merachem—i.e., I am moved and have pity in my inward bowels upon this multitude, who are suffering hunger for My sake; for they have followed Me fasting for three whole days. See here the burning desire of the people after Christ. They were so intent upon His doctrine that they even forgot their food. Moreover, Christ takes care of, first their souls, then their bodies. Let a prelate and a pastor do the same. It belongs to Christ's providence to fulfil His own declaration, "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." Thus S. Charles Borromæo, forgetful of himself, devoted himself wholly to the service of his people. At the time of the forty hours' prayer, he spent the whole of the forty hours in church, preaching, praying, and celebrating, without sleep or food, as is related in his Life. So intent was his mind upon God, that he did not feel hunger. He fed upon faith and charity, according to the saying of Christ to the Samaritan woman: "My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me and to finish His work."

They have continued with Me, &c. "Although," says S. Chrysostom, "when they came, they had food, yet it was now consumed. Wherefore He did not do this miracle on the first, or the second day, but on the third, when nothing was left, that they first being in need might receive with larger desire what was done."

And His disciples, &c. The Arabic is, whence shall we find bread in the desert which shall satisfy this multitude?

And Jesus said, &c. Syriac, a small quantity of little fishes.

Mystically. S. Bernard in his sermon on the Seven Loaves takes them to mean the seven gifts of God. " The first loaf," he says, "is the word of God, in which is the life of men, as He Himself testifies. The second loaf is obedience: since My food, He says, is to do the will of God. The third 1oaf is holy meditation, concerning which it is written, cogitation shall preserve thee. ( Vulg.) In another place it seems to be called the bread of life and understanding. The fourth loaf is the weeping of those who pray. The fifth is the labour of repentance. The sixth loaf is the pleasant unanimity of companions. It is a loaf formed of many grians, leavened with the wisdom of God. The seventh loaf is the Eucharist. For the bread, He says, which I give, is My flesh, for the life of the world." The same S. Bernard in a subsequent sermon interprets the seven loaves of the mercies of God. The first mercy, he says is that He hath preserved me from many sins, into which I should otherwise have fallen. The second, that He hath overlooked the sinner and his sins. The third that he has excited me to repentance; the fourth, that He hath received the penitent to favour. The fifth, that He hath given grace that I should not fall back into my former sins. The sixth, that He hath given the gift of good living. The seventh, that He hath given to me unworthy, to venture to hope for Heaven.

And they all ate, and were filled—seven baskets— as many as there were loaves. As much bread remained as there was offered to Christ at the first, indeed more, since each basket ( sporta ) which is an ordinary load for a man, as carried in the hand, would contain more than one loaf. Indeed Francis Lucas is of opinion that a sporta (σπυρίδα ) contained two cophini ; and was a load for two. The Arabic, however, for seven sportæ, translates seven cophini. Christ wished the fragments and the crumbs to be collected, both in memory of the miracle, and that nothing of God's gifts should be lost, and also that He might teach us to be careful, and to use God's creatures and food with frugality. From this command of Christ it is a constitution in some religious orders that everyone should collect his own crumbs in a dish. Hear what is related in the Life of S. Odo, Abbot of Cluny. "All carefully collected the crumbs when the bread was cut, and received them with a benediction before the end of the lection. When the lesson was finished no one ventured to take either these crumbs or any other food. They looked upon the crumbs as more holy than other food on account of the miracle." This miracle is also related of a monk at the point of death, who had not ate his crumbs according to the custom, when he was in health, but suffered them to fall from the table; the devil often showed a little bag full of crumbs, and terrified the man, and forced him to cross himself and cry out. From that day forward the crumbs were collected with great care. Another miracle is related that the crumbs in the hands of a certain religious, who had carefully preserved them, were turned into pearls, which were afterwards made into an ornament for the Church. S. Francis in a vision beheld himself collecting the crumbs of bread; and being ordered from Heaven to make them all into one host, and distribute it amongst the brethren, he saw those who refused it, marked with leprosy. By and bye he received from God the following explanation of his vision: the crumbs are the words of the Gospel, the host is the Rule, the leprosy is iniquity.

And when He had sent away the multitude . . . in to the parts of Magdala. The Vulgate has Magedan. Magedan is a town beyond the sea of Galilee, near Gerasa. The district is now called Magedena, says S. Jerome ( locis Hebr.). Mark (Mar 8:10), instead of Magedan has Dalmanutha, either because the place had two names, as S. Augustine thinks, and some codices of Mark have Magedan instead of Dalmanutha; or rather because there were two places or towns near one another, and Christ came to the confines of both when He came to the shore which pertained to each town. Some persons are mistaken in thinking Magedan to be the same as Megiddo, where king Josiah was slain. Megiddo is on this side the Sea of Galilee, and far distant from Magedan. It is nigh the brook Kishon, and borders on Cæsarea and the Mediterranean. This verse belongs to the following chapter; for it was at Magedan the Scribes asked for a sign from Heaven.

* Our author here seems to have read lavantes washing, for levantes lifting up, (Trans) - Return to the place

Commentary -- Other

Evidence: Mat 15:7

Save some, O Christians! By all means, save some. From yonder flames and outer darkness, and the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, seek to save some! Let this, as in the case of the apostle, be your great, ruling object in life, that by all means you might save some. . CHARLES SPURGEON

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Matthew (Book Introduction)

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

By Way of Introduction

The passing years do not make it any plainer who actually wrote our Greek Matthew. Papias records, as quoted by Eusebius, that Matthew wrote the Logia of Jesus in Hebrew (Aramaic). Is our present Matthew a translation of the Aramaic Logia along with Mark and other sources as most modern scholars think? If so, was the writer the Apostle Matthew or some other disciple? There is at present no way to reach a clear decision in the light of the known facts. There is no real reason why the Apostle Matthew could not have written both the Aramaic Logia and our Greek Matthew, unless one is unwilling to believe that he would make use of Mark’s work on a par with his own. But Mark’s book rests primarily on the preaching of Simon Peter. Scholfield has recently (1927) published An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel . We know quite too little of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels to say dogmatically that the Apostle Matthew was not in any real sense the author.

If the book is genuine, as I believe, the date becomes a matter of interest. Here again there is nothing absolutely decisive save that it is later than the Gospel according to Mark which it apparently uses. If Mark is given an early date, between a.d. 50 to 60, then Matthew’s book may be between 60 and 70, though many would place it between 70 and 80. It is not certain whether Luke wrote after Matthew or not, though that is quite possible. There is no definite use of Matthew by Luke that has been shown. One guess is as good as another and each decides by his own predilections. My own guess is that a.d. 60 is as good as any.

In the Gospel itself we find Matthew the publican (Mat_9:9; Mat_10:3) though Mark (Mar_2:14) and Luke (Luk_5:27) call him Levi the publican. Evidently therefore he had two names like John Mark. It is significant that Jesus called this man from so disreputable a business to follow him. He was apparently not a disciple of John the Baptist. He was specially chosen by Jesus to be one of the Twelve Apostles, a business man called into the ministry as was true of the fishermen James and John, Andrew and Simon. In the lists of the Apostles he comes either seventh or eighth. There is nothing definite told about him in the Gospels apart from the circle of the Twelve after the feast which he gave to his fellow publicans in honor of Jesus.

Matthew was in the habit of keeping accounts and it is quite possible that he took notes of the sayings of Jesus as he heard them. At any rate he gives much attention to the teachings of Jesus as, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount in chapters Matthew 5-7, the parables in Matthew 13, the denunciation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23, the great eschatological discourse in Matthew 24 and 25. As a publican in Galilee he was not a narrow Jew and so we do not expect a book prejudiced in favor of the Jews and against the Gentiles. He does seem to show that Jesus is the Messiah of Jewish expectation and hope and so makes frequent quotations from the Old Testament by way of confirmation and illustration. There is no narrow nationalism in Matthew. Jesus is both the Messiah of the Jews and the Saviour of the world.

There are ten parables in Matthew not in the other Gospels: The Tares, the Hid Treasure, the Net, the Pearl of Great Price, the Unmerciful Servant, the Labourers in the Vineyard, the Two Sons, the Marriage of the King’s Son, the Ten Virgins, the Talents. The only miracles in Matthew alone are the Two Blind Men, the Coin in the Mouth of the Fish. But Matthew gives the narrative of the Birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph while Luke tells that wonderful story from the standpoint of Mary. There are details of the Death and Resurrection given by Matthew alone.

The book follows the same general chronological plan as that in Mark, but with various groups like the miracles in Matthew 8 and 9, the parables in Matthew 13.

The style is free from Hebraisms and has few individual peculiarities. The author is fond of the phrase the kingdom of heaven and pictures Jesus as the Son of man, but also as the Son of God. He sometimes abbreviates Mark’s statements and sometimes expands them to be more precise.

Plummer shows the broad general plan of both Mark and Matthew to be the same as follows:

Introduction to the Gospel Mar_1:1-13 Matthew 3:1-4:11. Ministry in Galilee Mark 1:14-6:13 Matthew 4:12-13:58. Ministry in the Neighborhood Mark 6:14-9:50 Matthew 14:1-18:35. Journey through Perea to Jerusalem Mark 10:1-52 Matthew 19:1-20:34. Last week in Jerusalem Mark 11:1-16:8 Matthew 21:1-28:8. The Gospel of Matthew comes first in the New Testament, though it is not so in all the Greek manuscripts. Because of its position it is the book most widely read in the New Testament and has exerted the greatest influence on the world. The book deserves this influence though it is later in date than Mark, not so beautiful as Luke, nor so profound as John. Yet it is a wonderful book and gives a just and adequate portraiture of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. The author probably wrote primarily to persuade Jews that Jesus is the fulfilment of their Messianic hopes as pictured in the Old Testament. It is thus a proper introduction to the New Testament story in comparison with the Old Testament prophecy.

The Title

The Textus Receptus has " The Holy Gospel according to Matthew" ( to kata Matthaion hagion Euaggelion ), though the Elzevirs omit " holy," not agreeing here with Stephanus, Griesbach, and Scholz. Only minuscules (cursive Greek manuscripts) and all late have the adjective. Other minuscules and nine uncials including W (the Washington Codex of the fifth century), C of the fifth century (the palimpsest manuscript) and Delta of the ninth together with most Latin manuscripts have simply " Gospel according to Matthew" ( Euaggelion kata Matthaion ). But Aleph and B the two oldest and best Greek uncials of the fourth century have only " According to Matthew" ( Kata Maththaion ) (note double th) and the Greek uncial D of the fifth or sixth century follows Aleph and B as do some of the earliest Old Latin manuscripts and the Curetonian Syriac. It is clear, therefore, that the earliest form of the title was simply " According to Matthew." It may be doubted if Matthew (or the author, if not Matthew) had any title at all. The use of " according to" makes it plain that the meaning is not " the Gospel of Matthew," but the Gospel as given by Matthew, secundum Matthaeum , to distinguish the report by Matthew from that by Mark, by Luke, by John. Least of all is there any authority in the manuscripts for saying " Saint Matthew," a Roman Catholic practice observed by some Protestants.

The word Gospel ( Euaggelion ) comes to mean good news in Greek, though originally a reward for good tidings as in Homer’s Odyssey XIV. 152 and in 2Ki_4:10. In the New Testament it is the good news of salvation through Christ. The English word Gospel probably comes from the Anglo-Saxon Godspell, story or narrative of God, the life of Christ. It was early confused with the Anglo-Saxon godspell, good story, which seems like a translation of the Greek euaggelion . But primarily the English word means the God story as seen in Christ which is the best news that the world has ever had. One thinks at once of the use of " word" ( Logos ) in Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14. So then it is, according to the Greek, not the Good News of Matthew, but the Good News of God, brought to us in Christ the Word, the Son of God, the Image of the Father, the Message of the Father. We are to study this story first as presented by Matthew. The message is God’s and it is as fresh to us today in Matthew’s record as when he first wrote it.

JFB: Matthew (Book Introduction)

THE author of this Gospel was a publican or tax gatherer, residing at Capernaum, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. As to his identity with the "Levi" of the second and third Gospels, and other particulars, see on Mat 9:9. Hardly anything is known of his apostolic labors. That, after preaching to his countrymen in Palestine, he went to the East, is the general testimony of antiquity; but the precise scene or scenes of his ministry cannot be determined. That he died a natural death may be concluded from the belief of the best-informed of the Fathers--that of the apostles only three, James the Greater, Peter, and Paul, suffered martyrdom. That the first Gospel was written by this apostle is the testimony of all antiquity.

For the date of this Gospel we have only internal evidence, and that far from decisive. Accordingly, opinion is much divided. That it was the first issued of all the Gospels was universally believed. Hence, although in the order of the Gospels, those by the two apostles were placed first in the oldest manuscripts of the Old Latin version, while in all the Greek manuscripts, with scarcely an exception, the order is the same as in our Bibles, the Gospel according to Matthew is "in every case" placed first. And as this Gospel is of all the four the one which bears the most evident marks of having been prepared and constructed with a special view to the Jews--who certainly first required a written Gospel, and would be the first to make use of it--there can be no doubt that it was issued before any of the others. That it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem is equally certain; for as HUG observes [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 316, FOSDICK'S translation], when he reports our Lord's prophecy of that awful event, on coming to the warning about "the abomination of desolation" which they should "see standing in the holy place," he interposes (contrary to his invariable practice, which is to relate without remark) a call to his readers to read intelligently--"Whoso readeth, let him understand" (Mat 24:15) --a call to attend to the divine signal for flight which could be intended only for those who lived before the event. But how long before that event this Gospel was written is not so clear. Some internal evidences seem to imply a very early date. Since the Jewish Christians were, for five or six years, exposed to persecution from their own countrymen--until the Jews, being persecuted by the Romans, had to look to themselves--it is not likely (it is argued) that they should be left so long without some written Gospel to reassure and sustain them, and Matthew's Gospel was eminently fitted for that purpose. But the digests to which Luke refers in his Introduction (see on Luk 1:1) would be sufficient for a time, especially as the living voice of the "eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word" was yet sounding abroad. Other considerations in favor of a very early date--such as the tender way in which the author seems studiously to speak of Herod Antipas, as if still reigning, and his writing of Pilate apparently as if still in power--seem to have no foundation in fact, and cannot therefore be made the ground of reasoning as to the date of this Gospel. Its Hebraic structure and hue, though they prove, as we think, that this Gospel must have been published at a period considerably anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, are no evidence in favor of so early a date as A.D. 37 or 38--according to some of the Fathers, and, of the moderns, TILLEMONT, TOWNSON, OWEN, BIRKS, TREGELLES. On the other hand, the date suggested by the statement of IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3.1], that Matthew put forth his Gospel while Peter and Paul were at Rome preaching and founding the Church--or after A.D. 60--though probably the majority of critics are in favor of it, would seem rather too late, especially as the second and third Gospels, which were doubtless published, as well as this one, before the destruction of Jerusalem, had still to be issued. Certainly, such statements as the following, "Wherefore that field is called the field of blood unto this day" (Mat 27:8); "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day" (Mat 28:15), bespeak a date considerably later than the events recorded. We incline, therefore, to a date intermediate between the earlier and the later dates assigned to this Gospel, without pretending to greater precision.

We have adverted to the strikingly Jewish character and coloring of this Gospel. The facts which it selects, the points to which it gives prominence, the cast of thought and phraseology, all bespeak the Jewish point of view from which it was written and to which it was directed. This has been noticed from the beginning, and is universally acknowledged. It is of the greatest consequence to the right interpretation of it; but the tendency among some even of the best of the Germans to infer, from this special design of the first Gospel, a certain laxity on the part of the Evangelist in the treatment of his facts, must be guarded against.

But by far the most interesting and important point connected with this Gospel is the language in which it was written. It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord; and that the Greek Matthew which we now possess is a translation of that work, either by the Evangelist himself or some unknown hand. The evidence on which this opinion is grounded is wholly external, but it has been deemed conclusive by GROTIUS, MICHAELIS (and his translator), MARSH, TOWNSON, CAMPBELL, OLSHAUSEN, CRESWELL, MEYER, EBRARD, LANGE, DAVIDSON, CURETON, TREGELLES, WEBSTER and WILKINSON, &c. The evidence referred to cannot be given here, but will be found, with remarks on its unsatisfactory character, in the Introduction to the Gospels prefixed to our larger Commentary, pp. 28-31.

But how stand the facts as to our Greek Gospel? We have not a title of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew himself or anyone else. All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors. This Greek Gospel was from the first received by the Church as an integral part of the one quadriform Gospel. And while the Fathers often advert to the two Gospels which we have from apostles, and the two which we have from men not apostles--in order to show that as that of Mark leans so entirely on Peter, and that of Luke on Paul, these are really no less apostolical than the other two--though we attach less weight to this circumstance than they did, we cannot but think it striking that, in thus speaking, they never drop a hint that the full apostolic authority of the Greek Matthew had ever been questioned on the ground of its not being the original. Further, not a trace can be discovered in this Gospel itself of its being a translation. MICHAELIS tried to detect, and fancied that he had succeeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since, and DAVIDSON and CURETON among ourselves, have made the same attempt. But the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted, and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that none such are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one would have imagined that the Greek was not the original. This they regard as showing how perfectly the translation has been executed; but those who know best what translating from one language into another is will be the readiest to own that this is tantamount to giving up the question. This Gospel proclaims its own originality in a number of striking points; such as its manner of quoting from the Old Testament, and its phraseology in some peculiar cases. But the close verbal coincidences of our Greek Matthew with the next two Gospels must not be quite passed over. There are but two possible ways of explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work to the second and third Gospels--in which case it can hardly be called Matthew's Gospel at all--or our Greek Matthew is itself the original.

Moved by these considerations, some advocates of a Hebrew original have adopted the theory of a double original; the external testimony, they think, requiring us to believe in a Hebrew original, while internal evidence is decisive in favor of the originality of the Greek. This theory is espoused by GUERICKS, OLSHAUSEN, THIERSCH, TOWNSON, TREGELLES, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial theory, invented to solve a difficulty, it is utterly void of historical support. There is not a vestige of testimony to support it in Christian antiquity. This ought to be decisive against it.

It remains, then, that our Greek Matthew is the original of that Gospel, and that no other original ever existed. It is greatly to the credit of DEAN ALFORD, that after maintaining, in the first edition of his Greek Testament the theory of a Hebrew original, he thus expresses himself in the second and subsequent editions: "On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original."

One argument has been adduced on the other side, on which not a little reliance has been placed; but the determination of the main question does not, in our opinion, depend upon the point which it raises. It has been very confidently affirmed that the Greek language was not sufficiently understood by the Jews of Palestine when Matthew published his Gospel to make it at all probable that he would write a Gospel, for their benefit in the first instance, in that language. Now, as this merely alleges the improbability of a Greek original, it is enough to place against it the evidence already adduced, which is positive, in favor of the sole originality of our Greek Matthew. It is indeed a question how far the Greek language was understood in Palestine at the time referred to. But we advise the reader not to be drawn into that question as essential to the settlement of the other one. It is an element in it, no doubt, but not an essential element. There are extremes on both sides of it. The old idea, that our Lord hardly ever spoke anything but Syro-Chaldaic, is now pretty nearly exploded. Many, however, will not go the length, on the other side, of HUG (in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 326, &c.) and ROBERTS ("Discussions of the Gospels," &c., pp. 25, &c.). For ourselves, though we believe that our Lord, in all the more public scenes of His ministry, spoke in Greek, all we think it necessary here to say is that there is no ground to believe that Greek was so little understood in Palestine as to make it improbable that Matthew would write his Gospel exclusively in that language--so improbable as to outweigh the evidence that he did so. And when we think of the number of digests or short narratives of the principal facts of our Lord's history which we know from Luke (Luk 1:1-4) were floating about for some time before he wrote his Gospel, of which he speaks by no means disrespectfully, and nearly all of which would be in the mother tongue, we can have no doubt that the Jewish Christians and the Jews of Palestine generally would have from the first reliable written matter sufficient to supply every necessary requirement until the publican-apostle should leisurely draw up the first of the four Gospels in a language to them not a strange tongue, while to the rest of the world it was the language in which the entire quadriform Gospel was to be for all time enshrined. The following among others hold to this view of the sole originality of the Greek Matthew: ERASMUS, CALVIN, BEZA, LIGHTFOOT, WETSTEIN, LARDNER, HUG, FRITZSCHE, CREDNER, DE WETTE, STUART, DA COSTA, FAIRBAIRN, ROBERTS.

On two other questions regarding this Gospel it would have been desirable to say something, had not our available space been already exhausted: The characteristics, both in language and matter, by which it is distinguished from the other three, and its relation to the second and third Gospels. On the latter of these topics--whether one or more of the Evangelists made use of the materials of the other Gospels, and, if so, which of the Evangelists drew from which--the opinions are just as numerous as the possibilities of the case, every conceivable way of it having one or more who plead for it. The most popular opinion until recently--and perhaps the most popular still--is that the second Evangelist availed himself more or less of the materials of the first Gospel, and the third of the materials of both the first and second Gospels. Here we can but state our own belief, that each of the first three Evangelists wrote independently of both the others; while the fourth, familiar with the first three, wrote to supplement them, and, even where he travels along the same line, wrote quite independently of them. This judgment we express, with all deference for those who think otherwise, as the result of a close study of each of the Gospels in immediate juxtaposition and comparison with the others. On the former of the two topics noticed, the linguistic peculiarities of each of the Gospels have been handled most closely and ably by CREDNER [Einleitung (Introduction to the New Testament)], of whose results a good summary will be found in DAVIDSON'S Introduction to the New Testament. The other peculiarities of the Gospels have been most felicitously and beautifully brought out by DA COSTA in his Four Witnesses, to which we must simply refer the reader, though it contains a few things in which we cannot concur.

JFB: Matthew (Outline)

• GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. ( = Luke 3:23-38). (Mat. 1:1-17)
• BIRTH OF CHRIST. (Mat 1:18-25)
• VISIT OF THE MAGI TO JERUSALEM AND BETHLEHEM. (Mat 2:1-12)
• THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT--THE MASSACRE AT BETHLEHEM--THE RETURN OF JOSEPH AND MARY WITH THE BABE, AFTER HEROD'S DEATH, AND THEIR SETTLEMENT AT NAZARETH. ( = Luk 2:39). (Mat 2:13-23)
• PREACHING AND MINISTRY OF JOHN. ( = Mar 1:1-8; Luke 3:1-18). (Mat 3:1-12)
• BAPTISM OF CHRIST AND DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT UPON HIM IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER. ( = Mar 1:9-11; Luk 3:21-22; Joh 1:31-34). (Mat 3:13-17)
• TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. ( = Mar 1:12-13; Luk 4:1-13). (Mat 4:1-11)
• CHRIST BEGINS HIS GALILEAN MINISTRY--CALLING OF PETER AND ANDREW, JAMES AND JOHN--HIS FIRST GALILEAN CIRCUIT. ( = Mar 1:14-20, Mar 1:35-39; Luk 4:14-15). (Mat 4:12-25)
• THE BEATITUDES, AND THEIR BEARING UPON THE WORLD. (Mat. 5:1-16)
• IDENTITY OF THESE PRINCIPLES WITH THOSE OF THE ANCIENT ECONOMY; IN CONTRAST WITH THE REIGNING TRADITIONAL TEACHING. (Mat. 5:17-48)
• FURTHER ILLUSTRATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM--ITS UNOSTENTATIOUSNESS. (Mat. 6:1-18)
• CONCLUDING ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM--HEAVENLY-MINDEDNESS AND FILIAL CONFIDENCE. (Mat. 6:19-34)
• MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEMENTARY COUNSELS. (Mat 7:1-12)
• CONCLUSION AND EFFECT OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. (Mat. 7:13-29)
• HEALING OF A LEPER. ( = Mar 1:40-45; Luk 5:12-16). (Mat 8:1-4) When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
• INCIDENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF DISCIPLESHIP. ( = Luk 9:57-62). (Mat 8:18-22) And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
• MATTHEW'S CALL AND FEAST. ( = Mar 2:14-17; Luk 5:27-32). (Mat 9:9-13)
• TWO BLIND MEN AND A DUMB DEMONIAC HEALED. (Mat 9:27-34)
• THIRD GALILEAN CIRCUIT--MISSION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. (Mat. 9:35-10:5)
• MISSION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. ( = Mar 6:7-13; Luk 9:1-6). (Mat 10:1-5)
• THE TWELVE RECEIVE THEIR INSTRUCTIONS. (Mat. 10:5-42)
• THE IMPRISONED BAPTIST'S MESSAGE TO HIS MASTER--THE REPLY, AND DISCOURSE, ON THE DEPARTURE OF THE MESSENGERS, REGARDING JOHN AND HIS MISSION. ( = Luke 7:18-35). (Mat. 11:1-19)
• OUTBURST OF FEELING SUGGESTED TO THE MIND OF JESUS BY THE RESULT OF HIS LABORS IN GALILEE. (Mat 11:20-30) Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not.
• PLUCKING CORN EARS ON THE SABBATH DAY. ( = Mar 2:23-28; Luk 6:1-5). (Mat 12:1-8)
• THE HEALING OF A WITHERED HAND ON THE SABBATH DAY AND RETIREMENT OF JESUS TO AVOID DANGER. ( = Mar 3:1-12; Luk 6:6-11). (Mat 12:9-21)
• A BLIND AND DUMB DEMONIAC HEALED AND REPLY TO THE MALIGNANT EXPLANATION PUT UPON IT. ( = Mar 3:20-30; Luk 11:14-23). (Mat. 12:22-37)
• A SIGN DEMANDED AND THE REPLY--HIS MOTHER AND BRETHREN SEEK TO SPEAK WITH HIM, AND THE ANSWER. ( = Luk 11:16, Luk 11:24-36; Mar 3:31-35; Luk 8:19-21). (Mat 12:38-50)
• JESUS TEACHES BY PARABLES. ( = Mark 4:1-34; Luk 8:4-18; Luk 13:18-20). (Mat. 13:1-52) The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the seaside.
• HOW JESUS WAS REGARDED BY HIS RELATIVES. ( = Mar 6:1-6; Luk 4:16-30). (Mat 13:53-58) And it came to pass, that, when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
• HEROD THINKS JESUS A RESURRECTION OF THE MURDERED BAPTIST--ACCOUNT OF HIS IMPRISONMENT AND DEATH. ( = Mark 6:14-29; Luk 9:7-9). (Mat 14:1-12)
• JESUS CROSSES TO THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE LAKE WALKING ON THE SEA--INCIDENTS ON LANDING. ( = Mar 6:45; Joh 6:15-24). (Mat 14:22-26)
• DISCOURSE ON CEREMONIAL POLLUTION. ( = Mar 7:1, Mar 7:23). (Mat. 15:1-20)
• THE WOMAN OF CANAAN AND HER DAUGHTER. (Mat 15:21-28)
• PETER'S NOBLE CONFESSION OF CHRIST AND THE BENEDICTION PRONOUNCED UPON HIM--CHRIST'S FIRST EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION--HIS REBUKE OF PETER AND WARNING TO ALL THE TWELVE. ( = Mar 8:27; Mar 9:1; Luk 9:18-27). (Mat. 16:13-28)
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC BOY--SECOND EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT BY OUR LORD OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH AND RESURRECTION. ( = Mark 9:14-32; Luk 9:37-45). (Mat 17:14-23)
• THE TRIBUTE MONEY. (Mat 17:24-27)
• FURTHER TEACHING ON THE SAME SUBJECT INCLUDING THE PARABLE OF THE UNMERCIFUL DEBTOR. (Mat. 18:10-35)
• FINAL DEPARTURE FROM GALILEE--DIVORCE. ( = Mar 10:1-12; Luk 9:51). (Mat 19:1-12)
• PARABLE OF THE LABORERS IN THE VINEYARD. (Mat. 20:1-16)
• THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS QUESTIONED AND THE REPLY--THE PARABLES OF THE TWO SONS, AND OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMAN. ( = Mark 11:27-12:12; Luke 20:1-19). (Mat. 21:23-46)
• PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE KING'S SON. (Mat 22:1-14)
• DENUNCIATION OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES--LAMENTATION OVER JERUSALEM, AND FAREWELL TO THE TEMPLE. ( = Mar 12:38-40; Luk 20:45-47). (Mat. 23:1-39)
• PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINS. (Mat 25:1-13)
• PARABLE OF THE TALENTS. (Mat. 25:14-30)
• THE LAST JUDGMENT. (Mat. 25:31-46)
• JESUS LED AWAY TO PILATE--REMORSE AND SUICIDE OF JUDAS. ( = Mar 15:1; Luk 23:1; Joh 18:28). (Mat 27:1-10)
• GLORIOUS ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--HIS APPEARANCE TO THE WOMEN--THE GUARDS BRIBED TO GIVE A FALSE ACCOUNT OF THE RESURRECTION. ( = Mar 16:1-8; Luk 24:1-8; Joh 20:1). (Mat 28:1-15)
• JESUS MEETS WITH THE DISCIPLES ON A MOUNTAIN IN GALILEE AND GIVES FORTH THE GREAT COMMISSION. (Mat 28:16-20)
• SIGNS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF THE LORD JESUS--HE IS TAKEN DOWN FROM THE CROSS, AND BURIED--THE SEPULCHRE IS GUARDED. ( = Mar 15:38-47; Luk 23:47-56; Joh 19:31-42). (Mat. 27:51-66)

TSK: Matthew (Book Introduction)

Matthew, being one of the twelve apostles, and early called to the apostleship, and from the time of his call a constant attendant on our Saviour, was perfectly well qualified to write fully the history of his life. He relates what he saw and heard. " He is eminently distinguished for the distinctness and particularity with which he has related many of our Lord’s discourses and moral instructions. Of these his sermon on the mount, his charge to the apostles, his illustrations of the nature of his kingdom, and his prophecy on mount Olivet, are examples. He has also wonderfully united simplicity and energy in relating the replies of his Master to the cavils of his adversaries." " There is not," as Dr. A. Clarke justly remarks, " one truth or doctrine, in the whole oracles of God, which is not taught in this Evangelist. The outlines of the whole spiritual system are here correctly laid down. even Paul himself has added nothing. He has amplified and illustrated the truths contained in this Gospel - under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, neither he, nor any of the other apostles, have brought to light one truth, the prototype of which has not been found in the words and acts of our blessed Lord as related by Matthew."

TSK: Matthew 15 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Mat 15:1, Christ reproves the Scribes and Pharisees for transgressing God’s commandments through their own traditions; Mat 15:10, teaches how that which goes into the mouth does not defile a man; Mat 15:21, He heals the daughter of the woman of Canaan, Mat 15:29. and other great multitudes; Mat 15:32, and with seven loaves and a few little fishes feeds four thousand men, beside women and children.

Poole: Matthew 15 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 15

MHCC: Matthew (Book Introduction)

Matthew, surnamed Levi, before his conversion was a publican, or tax-gatherer under the Romans at Capernaum. He is generally allowed to have written his Gospel before any other of the evangelists. The contents of this Gospel, and the evidence of ancient writers, show that it was written primarily for the use of the Jewish nation. The fulfilment of prophecy was regarded by the Jews as strong evidence, therefore this is especially dwelt upon by St. Matthew. Here are particularly selected such parts of our Saviour's history and discourses as were best suited to awaken the Jewish nation to a sense of their sins; to remove their erroneous expectations of an earthly kingdom; to abate their pride and self-conceit; to teach them the spiritual nature and extent of the gospel; and to prepare them for the admission of the Gentiles into the church.

MHCC: Matthew 15 (Chapter Introduction)

(Mat 15:1-9) Jesus discourses about human traditions.

(Mat 15:10-20) He warns against things which really defile.

(Mat 15:21-28) He heals the daughter of a Syrophenician woman.

(Mat 15:29-39) Jesus heals the sick, and miraculously feeds four thousand.

Matthew Henry: Matthew (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Matthew

We have now before us, I. The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; so this second part of the holy Bible is entitled: The new covenant; so it might as well be rendered; the word signifies both. But, when it is (as here) spoken of as Christ's act and deed, it is most properly rendered a testament, for he is the testator, and it becomes of force by his death (Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17); nor is there, as in covenants, a previous treaty between the parties, but what is granted, though an estate upon condition, is owing to the will, the free-will, the good-will, of the Testator. All the grace contained in this book is owing to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour; and, unless we consent to him as our Lord, we cannot expect any benefit by him as our Saviour. This is called a new testament, to distinguish it from that which was given by Moses, and was not antiquated; and to signify that it should be always new, and should never wax old, and grow out of date. These books contain, not only a full discovery of that grace which has appeared to all men, bringing salvation, but a legal instrument by which it is conveyed to, and settled upon, all believers. How carefully do we preserve, and with what attention and pleasure do we read, the last will and testament of a friend, who has therein left us a fair estate, and, with it, high expressions of his love to us! How precious then should this testament of our blessed Saviour be to us, which secures to us all his unsearchable riches! It is his testament; for though, as is usual, it was written by others (we have nothing upon record that was of Christ's own writing), yet he dictated it; and the night before he died, in the institution of his supper, he signed, sealed, and published it, in the presence of twelve witnesses. For, though these books were not written for some years after, for the benefit of posterity, in perpetuam rei memoriam - as a perpetual memorial, yet the New Testament of our Lord Jesus was settled, confirmed, and declared, from the time of his death, as a nuncupative will, with which these records exactly agree. The things which St. Luke wrote were things which were most surely believed, and therefore well known, before he wrote them; but, when they were written, the oral tradition was superseded and set aside, and these writings were the repository of that New Testament. This is intimated by the title which is prefixed to many Greek Copies, Tē kainēs Diathēkēs Hapanta - The whole of the New Testament, or all the things of it. In it is declared the whole counsel of God concerning our salvation, Act 20:27. As the law of the Lord is perfect, so is the gospel of Christ, and nothing is to be added to it. We have it all, and are to look for no more.

II. We have before us The Four Gospels. Gospel signifies good news, or glad tidings; and this history of Christ's coming into the world to save sinners is, without doubt, the best news that ever came from heaven to earth; the angel gave it this title (Luk 2:10), Euagnelizomai humin - I bring you good tidings; I bring the gospel to you. And the prophet foretold it, Isa 52:7; Isa 61:1. It is there foretold that in the days of the messiah good tidings should be preached. Gospel is an old Saxon word; it is God's spell or word; and God is so called because he is good, Deus optimus - God most excellent, and therefore it may be a good spell, or word. If we take spell in its more proper signification for a charm ( carmen ), and take that in a good sense, for what is moving and affecting, which is apt lenire dolorem - to calm the spirits, or to raise them in admiration or love, as that which is very amiable we call charming, it is applicable to the gospel; for in it the charmer charmeth wisely, though to deaf adders, Psa 58:4, Psa 58:5. Nor (one would think) can any charms be so powerful as those of the beauty and love of our Redeemer. The whole New Testament is the gospel. St. Paul calls it his gospel, because he was one of the preachers of it. Oh that we may each of us make it ours by our cordial acceptance of it and subjection to it! But the four books which contain the history of the Redeemer we commonly call the four gospels, and the inspired penmen of them evangelists, or gospel-writers; not, however, very properly, because that title belongs to a particular order of ministers, that were assistants to the apostles (Eph 4:11): He gave some apostles, and some evangelists. It was requisite that the doctrine of Christ should be interwoven with, and founded upon, the narrative of his birth, life, miracles, death, and resurrection; for then it appears in its clearest and strongest light. As in nature, so in grace, the most happy discoveries are those which take rise from the certain representations of matters of fact. Natural history is the best philosophy; and so is the sacred history, both of the Old and New Testament, the most proper and grateful vehicle of sacred truth. These four gospels were early and constantly received by the primitive church, and read in Christian assemblies, as appears by the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who lived little more than a hundred years after the ascension of Christ; they declared that neither more nor fewer than four were received by the church. A Harmony of these four evangelists was compiled by Tatian about that time, which he called, To dia tessarōn - The Gospel out of the four. In the third and fourth centuries there were gospels forged by divers sects, and published, one under the name of St. Peter, another of St. Thomas, another of St. Philip, etc. But they were never owned by the church, nor was any credit given to them, as the learned Dr. Whitby shows. And he gives this good reason why we should adhere to these written records, because, whatever the pretences of tradition may be, it is not sufficient to preserve things with any certainty, as appears by experience. For, whereas Christ said and did many memorable things, which were not written (Joh 20:30; Joh 21:25), tradition has not preserved any one of them to us, but all is lost except what was written; that therefore is what we must abide by; and blessed by God that we have it to abide by; it is the sure word of history.

III. We have before us the Gospel according to St. Matthew. The penman was by birth a Jew, by calling a publican, till Christ commanded his attendance, and then he left the receipt of custom, to follow him, and was one of those that accompanied him all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out, beginning from the baptism of John unto the day that he was taken up, Act 1:21, Act 1:22. He was therefore a competent witness of what he has here recorded. He is said to have written this history about eight years after Christ's ascension. Many of the ancients say that he wrote it in the Hebrew or Syriac language; but the tradition is sufficiently disproved by Dr. Whitby. Doubtless, it was written in Greek, as the other parts of the New Testament were; not in that language which was peculiar to the Jews, whose church and state were near a period, but in that which was common to the world, and in which the knowledge of Christ would be most effectually transmitted to the nations of the earth; yet it is probable that there might be an edition of it in Hebrew, published by St. Matthew himself, at the same time that he wrote it in Greek; the former for the Jews, the latter for the Gentiles, when he left Judea, to preach among the Gentiles. Let us bless God that we have it, and have it in a language we understand.

Matthew Henry: Matthew 15 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter, we have our Lord Jesus, as the great Prophet teaching, as the great Physician healing, and as the great Shepherd of the sheep feeding; as the Father of spirits instructing them; as the Conqueror of Satan dispossessing him; and as concerned for the bodies of his people, providing for them. Here is, I. Christ's discourse with the scribes and Pharisees about human traditions and injunctions (Mat 15:1-9). II. His discourse with the multitude, and with his disciples, concerning the things that defile a man (Mat 15:10-20). III. His casting of the devil out of the woman of Canaan's daughter (Mat 15:21-28). IV. His healing of all that were brought to him (Mat 15:29-31). V. His feeding of four thousand men, with seven loaves and a few little fishes (Mat 15:32-39).

Barclay: Matthew (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MATTHEW

The Synoptic Gospels

Matthew, Mark and Luke are usually known as the Synoptic Gospels. Synoptic comes from two Greek words which mean to see together and literally means able to be seen together. The reason for that name is this. These three gospels each give an account of the same events in Jesusife. There are in each of them additions and omissions; but broadly speaking their material is the same and their arrangement is the same. It is therefore possible to set them down in parallel columns, and so to compare the one with the other.

When that is done, it is quite clear that there is the closest possible relationship between them. If we, for instance, compare the story of the feeding of the five thousand (Mat_14:12-21; Mar_6:30-44; Luk_9:10-17) we find exactly the same story told in almost exactly the same words.

Another instance is the story of the healing of the man who was sick with the palsy (Mat_9:1-8; Mar_2:1-12; Luk_5:17-26). These three accounts are so similar that even a little parenthesis--"he then said to the paralytic"--occurs in all three as a parenthesis in exactly the same place. The correspondence between the three gospels is so close that we are bound to come to the conclusion either that all three are drawing their material from a common source, or that two of them must be based on the third.

The Earliest Gospel

When we examine the matter more closely we see that there is every reason for believing that Mark must have been the first of the gospels to be written, and that the other two, Matthew and Luke, are using Mark as a basis.

Mark can be divided into 105 sections. Of these sections 93 occur in Matthew and 81 in Luke. Of Mark105 sections there are only 4 which do not occur either in Matthew or in Luke.

Mark has 661 verses: Matthew has 1,068 verses: Luke has 1,149 verses. Matthew reproduces no fewer than 606 of Markverses; and Luke reproduces 320. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce Luke reproduces 31; so there are only 24 verses in the whole of Mark which are not reproduced somewhere in Matthew or Luke.

It is not only the substance of the verses which is reproduced; the very words are reproduced. Matthew uses 51 per cent of Markwords; and Luke uses 53 per cent.

Both Matthew and Luke as a general rule follow Markorder of events. Occasionally either Matthew or Luke differs from Mark; but they never both differ against him; always at least one of them follows Markorder.

Improvements On Mark

Since Matthew and Luke are both much longer than Mark, it might just possibly be suggested that Mark is a summary of Matthew and Luke; but there is one other set of facts which show that Mark is earlier. It is the custom of Matthew and Luke to improve and to polish Mark, if we may put it so. Let us take some instances.

Sometimes Mark seems to limit the power of Jesus; at least an ill-disposed critic might try to prove that he was doing so. Here are three accounts of the same incident:

Mar_1:34: And he healed many who were sick with various

diseases, and cast out many demons;

Mat_8:16: And he cast out the spirits with a word, and

healed all who were sick;

Luk_4:40: And he laid his hands on every one of them, and

healed them.

Let us take other three similar examples:

Mar_3:10: For he had healed many;

Mat_12:15: And he healed them all;

Luk_6:19: and healed them all.

Matthew and Luke both change Markmany into all so that there may be no suggestion of any limitation of the power of Jesus Christ.

There is a very similar change in the account of the events of Jesusisit to Nazareth. Let us compare the account of Mark and of Matthew.

Mk 6:5-6: And he could do no mighty work there... and

he marvelled because of their unbelief;

Mat_13:58: And he did not do many mighty works there,

because of their unbelief.

Matthew shrinks from saying that Jesus could not do any mighty works; and changes the form of the expression accordingly.

Sometimes Matthew and Luke leave out little touches in Mark in case they could be taken to belittle Jesus. Matthew and Luke omit three statements in Mark.

Mar_3:5: "He looked around at them with anger, grieved

at their hardness of heart."

Mar_3:21: And when his friends heard it, they went out to

seize him: for they said, He is beside himself;

Mar_10:14: He was indignant.

Matthew and Luke hesitate to attribute human emotions of anger and grief to Jesus, and shudder to think that anyone should even have suggested that Jesus was mad.

Sometimes Matthew and Luke slightly alter things in Mark to get rid of statements which might seem to show the apostles in a bad light. We take but one instance, from the occasion on which James and John sought to ensure themselves of the highest places in the coming Kingdom. Let us compare the introduction to that story in Mark and in Matthew.

Mar_10:35: James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came

forward to him, and said to him...

Mat_20:20: Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came

up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him,

she asked him for something.

Matthew hesitates to ascribe motives of ambition directly to the two apostles, and so he ascribes them to their mother.

All this makes it clear that Mark is the earliest of the gospels. Mark gives a simple, vivid, direct narrative; but Matthew and Luke have already begun to be affected by doctrinal and theological considerations which make them much more careful of what they say.

The Teaching Of Jesus

We have seen that Matthew has 1,068 verses; and that Luke has 1,149 verses; and that between them they reproduce 582 of Markverses. That means that in Matthew and Luke there is much more material than Mark supplies. When we examine that material we find that more than 200 verses of it are almost identical. For instance such passages as Luk_6:41-42 and Mat_7:1, Mat_7:5; Luk_10:21-22 and Mat_11:25-27; Luk_3:7-9 and Mat_3:7-10 are almost exactly the same.

But here we notice a difference. The material which Matthew and Luke drew from Mark was almost entirely material dealing with the events of Jesusife; but these 200 additional verses common to Matthew and Luke tell us, not what Jesus did, but what Jesus said. Clearly in these verses Matthew and Luke are drawing from a common source-book of the sayings of Jesus.

That book does not now exist; but to it scholars have given the letter Q which stands for Quelle, which is the German word for "source." In its day it must have been an extraordinarily important book, for it was the first handbook of the teaching of Jesus.

MatthewPlace In The Gospel Tradition

It is here that we come to Matthew the apostle. Scholars are agreed that the first gospel as it stands does not come directly from the hand of Matthew. One who had himself been an eye-witness of the life of Christ would not have needed to use Mark as a source-book for the life of Jesus in the way Matthew does. But one of the earliest Church historians, a man called Papias, gives us this intensely important piece of information:

"Matthew collected the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue."

So, then, we can believe that it was none other than Matthew who wrote that book which was the source from which all men must draw, if they wished to know what Jesus taught. And it was because so much of that source-book is incorporated in the first gospel that Matthewname was attached to it. We must be for ever grateful to Matthew, when we remember that it is to him that we owe the Sermon on the Mount and nearly all we know about the teaching of Jesus. Broadly speaking, to Mark we owe our knowledge of the events of Jesusife; to Matthew we owe our knowledge of the substance of Jesuseaching.

Matthew The Taxgatherer

About Matthew himself we know very little. We read of his call in Mat_9:9. We know that he was a taxgatherer and that he must therefore have been a bitterly hated man, for the Jews hated the members of their own race who had entered the civil service of their conquerors. Matthew would be regarded as nothing better than a quisling.

But there was one gift which Matthew would possess. Most of the disciples were fishermen. They would have little skill and little practice in putting words together on paper; but Matthew would be an expert in that. When Jesus called Matthew, as he sat at the receipt of custom, Matthew rose up and followed him and left everything behind him except one thing--his pen. And Matthew nobly used his literary skill to become the first man ever to compile an account of the teaching of Jesus.

The Gospel Of The Jews

Let us now look at the chief characteristics of Matthewgospel so that we may watch for them as we read it.

First and foremost, Matthew is the gospel which was written for the Jews. It was written by a Jew in order to convince Jews.

One of the great objects of Matthew is to demonstrate that all the prophecies of the Old Testament are fulfilled in Jesus, and that, therefore, he must be the Messiah. It has one phrase which runs through it like an ever-recurring theme--"This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet." That phrase occurs in the gospel as often as 16 times. Jesusirth and Jesusame are the fulfillment of prophecy (Mat_1:21-23); so are the flight to Egypt (Mat_2:14-15); the slaughter of the children (Mat_2:16-18); Josephsettlement in Nazareth and Jesuspbringing there (Mat_2:23); Jesusse of parables (Mat_13:34-35); the triumphal entry (Mat_21:3-5); the betrayal for thirty pieces of silver (Mat_27:9); the casting of lots for Jesusarments as he hung on the Cross (Mat_27:35). It is Matthewprimary and deliberate purpose to show how the Old Testament prophecies received their fulfillment in Jesus; how every detail of Jesusife was foreshadowed in the prophets; and thus to compel the Jews to admit that Jesus was the Messiah.

The main interest of Matthew is in the Jews. Their conversion is especially near and dear to the heart of its writer. When the Syro-Phoenician woman seeks his help, Jesusirst answer is: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mat_15:24). When Jesus sends out the Twelve on the task of evangelization, his instruction is: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mat_10:5-6). Yet it is not to be thought that this gospel by any means excludes the Gentiles. Many are to come from the east and the west to sit down in the kingdom of God (Mat_8:11). The gospel is to be preached to the whole world (Mat_24:14). And it is Matthew which gives us the marching orders of the Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Mat_28:19). It is clear that Matthewfirst interest is in the Jews, but that it foresees the day when an nations will be gathered in.

The Jewishness of Matthew is also seen in its attitude to the Law. Jesus did not come to destroy, but to fulfil the Law. The least part of the Law will not pass away. Men must not be taught to break the Law. The righteousness of the Christian must exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees (Mat_5:17-20). Matthew was written by one who knew and loved the Law, and who saw that even the Law has its place in the Christian economy.

Once again there is an apparent paradox in the attitude of Matthew to the Scribes and Pharisees. They are given a very special authority: "The Scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moseseat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you" (Mat_23:2). But at the same time there is no gospel which so sternly and consistently condemns them.

Right at the beginning there is John the Baptistsavage denunciation of them as a brood of vipers (Mat_3:7-12). They complain that Jesus eats with tax collectors and sinners (Mat_9:11). They ascribe the power of Jesus, not to God, but to the prince of devils (Mat_12:24). They plot to destroy him (Mat_12:14). The disciples are warned against the leaven, the evil teaching, of the Scribes and Pharisees (Mat_16:12). They are like evil plants doomed to be rooted up (Mat_15:13). They are quite unable to read the signs of the times (Mat_16:3). They are the murderers of the prophets (Mat_21:41). There is no chapter of condemnation in the whole New Testament like Matt 23 , which is condemnation not of what the Scribes and the Pharisees teach, but of what they are. He condemns them for falling so far short of their own teaching, and far below the ideal of what they ought to be.

There are certain other special interests in Matthew. Matthew is especially interested in the Church. It is in fact the only one of the Synoptic Gospels which uses the word Church at all. Only Matthew introduces the passage about the Church after Peterconfession at Caesarea Philippi (Mat_16:13-23; compare Mar_8:27-33; Luk_9:18-22). Only Matthew says that disputes are to be settled by the Church (Mat_18:17). By the time Matthew came to be written the Church had become a great organization and institution; and indeed the dominant factor in the life of the Christian.

Matthew has a specially strong apocalyptic interest. That is to say, Matthew has a specially strong interest in all that Jesus said about his own Second Coming, about the end of the world, and about the judgment. Matt 24 gives us a fuller account of Jesus pocalyptic discourse than any of the other gospels. Matthew alone has the parables of the talents (Mat_25:14-30); the wise and the foolish virgins (Mat_25:1-13); and the sheep and the goats (Mat_25:31-46). Matthew has a special interest in the last things and in judgment.

But we have not yet come to the greatest of all the characteristics of Matthew. It is supremely the teaching gospel.

We have already seen that the apostle Matthew was responsible for the first collection and the first handbook of the teaching of Jesus. Matthew was the great systematizer. It was his habit to gather together in one place all that he knew about the teaching of Jesus on any given subject. The result is that in Matthew we find five great blocks in which the teaching of Jesus is collected and systematized. All these sections have to do with the Kingdom of God. They are as follows:

(a) The Sermon on the Mount, or The Law of the Kingdom (Matt 5-7).

(b) The Duties of the Leaders of the Kingdom (Matt 10 )

(c) The Parables of the Kingdom (Matt 13 ).

(d) Greatness and Forgiveness in the Kingdom (Matt 18 ).

(e) The Coming of the King (Matt 24-25).

Matthew does more than collect and systematize. It must be remembered that Matthew was writing in an age when printing had not been invented, when books were few and far between because they had to be hand-written. In an age like that, comparatively few people could possess a book; and, therefore, if they wished to know and to use the teaching and the story of Jesus, they had to carry them in their memories.

Matthew therefore always arranges things in a way that is easy for the reader to memorize. He arranges things in threes and sevens. There are three messages to Joseph; three denials of Peter; three questions of Pilate; seven parables of the Kingdom in Matt 13; seven woes to the Scribes and Pharisees in Matt 23.

The genealogy of Jesus with which the gospel begins is a good example of this. The genealogy is to prove that Jesus is the Son of David. In Hebrew there are no figures; when figures are necessary the letters of the alphabet stand for the figures. In Hebrew there are no written vowels. The Hebrew letters for David are D-W-D; if these letters be taken as figures and not as letters, they add up to 14; and the genealogy consists of three groups of names, and in each group there are 14 names. Matthew does everything possible to arrange the teaching of Jesus in such a way that people will be able to assimilate and to remember it.

Every teacher owes a debt of gratitude to Matthew, for Matthew wrote what is above all the teachergospel.

Matthew has one final characteristic. Matthewdominating idea is that of Jesus as King. He writes to demonstrate the royalty of Jesus.

Right at the beginning the genealogy is to prove that Jesus is the Son of David (Mat_1:1-17). The title, Son of David, is used oftener in Matthew than in any other gospel (Mat_15:22; Mat_21:9; Mat_21:15). The wise men come looking for him who is King of the Jews (Mat_2:2). The triumphal entry is a deliberately dramatized claim to be King (Mat_21:1-11). Before Pilate, Jesus deliberately accepts the name of King (Mat_27:11). Even on the Cross the title of King is affixed, even if it be in mockery, over his head (Mat_27:37). In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew shows us Jesus quoting the Law and five times abrogating it with a regal: "But I say to you..." (Mat_5:21, Mat_5:27, Mat_5:34, Mat_5:38, Mat_5:43). The final claim of Jesus is: "All authority has been given to me" (Mat_28:18).

Matthewpicture of Jesus is of the man born to be King. Jesus walks through his pages as if in the purple and gold of royalty.

FURTHER READING

W. C. Allen, St. Matthew (ICC; G)

J. C. Fenton, The Gospel of St. Matthew (PC; E)

F. V. Filson, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (ACB; E)

A. H. McNeile, St Matthew (MmC; G)

A. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (E)

T. H. Robinson, The Gospel of Matthew (MC; E)

R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (TC; E)

Abbreviations

ACB: A. and C. Black New Testament Commentary

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

PC: Pelican New Testament Commentary

TC: Tyndale Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Matthew 15 (Chapter Introduction)

Clean And Unclean (Mat_15:1-9)

The Foods Which Enter Into A Man (Mat_15:1-9 Continued)

The Ways Of Cleansing (Mat_15:1-9 Continued)

Breaking God's Law To Keep Man's Law (Mat_15:1-9 Continued)

The Real Goodness And The Real Evil (Mat_15:10-20)

Faith Tested And Faith Answered (Mat_15:21-28)

The Faith Which Won The Blessing (Mat_15:21-28 Continued)

The Bread Of Life (Mat_15:29-39)

The Graciousness Of Jesus (Mat_15:29-39 Continued)

Constable: Matthew (Book Introduction)

Introduction

The Synoptic Problem

The synoptic problem is intrinsic to all study of the Gospels, especially the first three. The word "synoptic" comes from two Greek words, syn and opsesthai, meaning "to see together." Essentially the synoptic problem involves all the difficulties that arise because of the similarities and differences between the Gospel accounts. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have received the title "Synoptic Gospels" because they present the life and ministry of Jesus Christ similarly. The content and purpose of John's Gospel are sufficiently distinct to put it in a class by itself. It is not one of the so-called Synoptic Gospels.

Part of the synoptic problem is the sources the Holy Spirit led the evangelists to use in producing their Gospels. There is internal evidence (within the individual Gospels themselves) that the writers used source materials as they wrote. The most obvious example of this is the Old Testament passages to which each one referred directly or indirectly. Since Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus Christ many of their statements represent eyewitness accounts of what happened. Likewise Mark had close connections with Peter, and Luke was an intimate associate of Paul as well as a careful historian (Luke 1:1-4). Information that the writers obtained verbally (oral tradition) and in writing (documents) undoubtedly played a part in what they wrote. Perhaps the evangelists also received special revelations from the Lord before and or when they wrote their Gospels.

Some scholars have devoted much time and attention to the study of the other sources the evangelists may have used. They are the "source critics" and their work constitutes "source criticism." Because source criticism and its development are so crucial to Gospel studies, a brief introduction to this subject follows.

In 1776 and 1779 two posthumously published essays by A. E. Lessing became known in which he argued for a single written source for the Synoptic Gospels. He called this source the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and he believed its writer had composed it in the Aramaic language. To him one original source best explained the parallels and differences between the Synoptics. This idea of an original source or primal Gospel caught the interest of many other scholars. Some of them believed there was a written source, but others held it was an oral source.

As one might expect, the idea of two or more sources occurred to some scholars as the best solution to the synoptic problem.¹ Some favored the view that Mark was one of the primal sources because over 90% of the material in Mark also appears in Matthew and or Luke. Some posited another primary source "Q," an abbreviation of the German word for source, quelle. It supposedly contained the material in Matthew and Luke that does not appear in Mark.

Gradually source criticism gave way to form criticism. The form critics concentrated on the process involved in transmitting what Jesus said and did to the primary sources. They assumed that the process of transmitting this information followed patterns of oral communication that are typical in primitive societies.² Typically oral communication has certain characteristic effects on stories. It tends to shorten narratives, to retain names, to balance teaching, and to elaborate on stories about miracles, to name a few results. The critics also adopted other criteria from secular philology to assess the accuracy of statements in the Gospels. For example, they viewed as distinctive to Jesus only what was dissimilar to what Palestinian Jews or early Christians might have said. Given the critics' view of inspiration it is easy to see how most of them concluded that the Gospels in their present form do not accurately represent what Jesus said and did. However some conservative scholars used the same literary method but held a much higher view of the Gospels.³

The next wave of critical opinion, redaction criticism, hit the Christian world shortly after World War II.⁴ Redaction critics generally accept the tenets of source and form criticism. However they also believe that the Gospel evangelists altered the traditions they received to make their own theological emphases. They viewed the writers not simply as compilers of the church's oral traditions but as theologians who adapted the material for their own purposes. They viewed the present Gospels as containing both traditional material and edited material. Obviously there is a good aspect and a bad aspect to this view. Positively it recognizes the individual evangelist's distinctive purpose for writing. Negatively it permits an interpretation of the Gospel that allows for historical error and even deliberate distortion. Redaction scholars have been more or less liberal depending on their view of Scripture generally. Redaction critics also characteristically show more interest in the early Christian community out of which the Gospels came and the beliefs of that community than they do in Jesus' historical context. Their interpretations of the early Christian community vary greatly as one would expect. In recent years the trend in critical scholarship has been conservative, to recognize more rather than less Gospel material as having a historical basis.

Some knowledge of the history of Gospel criticism is helpful to the serious student who wants to understand the text. Questions of the historical background out of which the evangelists wrote, their individual purposes, and what they simply recorded and what they commented on all affect interpretation. Consequently the conservative expositor can profit somewhat from the studies of scholars who concern themselves with these questions primarily.⁵

Most critics have concluded that one source the writers used was one or more of the other Gospels. Currently most source critics believe that Matthew and Luke drew information from Mark's Gospel. Mark's accounts are generally longer than those of Matthew and Luke suggesting that Matthew and Luke condensed Mark. To them it seems more probable that they condensed him than that he elaborated on them. There is no direct evidence, however, that one evangelist used another as a source. Since they were either personally disciples of Christ or very close to eyewitnesses of His activities, they may not have needed to consult an earlier Gospel.

Most source critics also believe that the unique material in each Gospel goes back to Q. This may initially appear to be a document constructed out of thin air. However the early church father Papias (80-155 A.D.) may have referred to the existence of such a source. Eusebius, the fourth century church historian, wrote that Papias had written, "Matthew composed the logia [sayings? Gospel?] in the hebraidi [Hebrew? Aramaic?] dialekto [dialect? language? style?]."⁶ This is an important statement for several reasons, but here note that Papias referred to Matthew's logia. This may be a reference to Matthew's Gospel, but many source critics believe it refers to a primal document that became a source for one or more of our Gospels. Most of them do not believe Matthew wrote Q. They see in Papias' statement support for the idea that primal documents such as Matthew's logia were available as sources, and they conclude that Q was the most important one.

Another major aspect of the synoptic problem is the order in which the Gospels appeared as finished products. This issue has obvious connections with the question of the sources the Gospel writers may have used.

Until after the Reformation, almost all Christians believed that Matthew wrote his Gospel before Mark and Luke wrote theirs; they held Matthean priority. From studying the similarities and differences between the Synoptics, some source critics concluded that Matthew and Luke came into existence before Mark. They viewed Mark as a condensation of the other two.⁷ However the majority of source critics today believe that Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew and Luke wrote later. As explained above, they hold this view because they believe it is more probable that Matthew and Luke drew from and condensed Mark than that Mark expanded on Matthew and Luke.

Since source criticism is highly speculative many conservative expositors today continue to lean toward Matthean priority. We do so because there is no solid evidence to contradict this traditional view that Christians held almost consistently for the church's first 17 centuries.

While the game of deducing which Gospel came first and who drew from whom appeals to many students, these issues are essentially academic ones. They have little to do with the meaning of the text. Consequently I do not plan to discuss them further but will refer interested student to the vast body of literature that is available. I will, however, deal with problems involving the harmonization of the Gospel accounts at the appropriate places in the exposition that follows. The Bible expositor's basic concern is not the nature and history of the stories in the text but their primary significance in their contexts.

". . . it is this writer's opinion that there is no evidence to postulate a tradition of literary dependence among the Gospels. The dependence is rather a parallel dependence on the actual events which occurred."⁸

A much more helpful critical approach to the study of the Bible is literary criticism, the current wave of interest. This approach analyses the text in terms of its literary structure, emphases, and unique features. It seeks to understand the text as a piece of literature by examining how the writer wrote it.

Writer

External evidence strongly supports the Matthean authorship of the first Gospel. The earliest copies of the Gospel we have begin "KATA MATTHAION" ("according to Matthew"). Several early church fathers referred to Matthew as the writer including Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.⁹ Papias' use of the term logia to describe Matthew's work, cited above, is not a clear attestation to Matthean authorship of the first Gospel. Since Matthew was a disciple of Jesus and one of the 12 Apostles, his work carried great influence and enjoyed much prestige from its first appearance. We might expect a more prominent disciple such as Peter or James to have written it. The fact that the early church accepted it as from Matthew further strengthens the likelihood that he indeed wrote it.

Internal evidence of Matthean authorship is also strong. As a tax collector for Rome, Matthew would have had to be able to write capably. His profession forced him to keep accurate and detailed records which skill he put to good use in composing his Gospel. There are more references to money and to more different kinds of money in this Gospel than in any of the others.¹⁰ Matthew humbly referred to himself as a tax collector, a profession with objectionable connotations in his culture, whereas the other Gospel writers simply called him Matthew. Matthew called his feast for Jesus a dinner (Matt. 9:9-10), but Luke referred to it as a great banquet (Luke 5:29). All these details confirm the testimony of the early church fathers.

Language

Papias' statement, cited above, refers to a writing by Matthew in the hebraidi dialekto (the Hebrew or possibly Aramaic language or dialect). This may not be a reference to Matthew's Gospel. Four other church fathers mentioned that Matthew wrote in Aramaic and that translations followed in Greek: Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.), Origen (185-254 A.D.), Eusebius (4th century), and Jerome (6th century).¹¹ However they may have been referring to something other than our first Gospel. These references have led many scholars to conclude that Matthew composed his Gospel in Aramaic and that someone else, or he himself, later translated it into Greek. This is the normal meaning of the fathers' statements. If Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, it is difficult to explain why he sometimes, but not always, quoted from a Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. The Hebrew Old Testament would have been the normal text for a Hebrew or Aramaic author to use. A Greek translator might have used the LXX (Septuagint) to save himself some work, but if he did so why did he not use it consistently? Matthew's Greek Gospel contains many Aramaic words. This solution also raises some questions concerning the reliability and inerrancy of the Greek Gospel that has come down to us.

There are several possible solutions to the problem of the language of Matthew's Gospel.¹² The best seems to be that Matthew wrote a Hebrew document that God did not inspire that is no longer extant. He also composed an inspired Greek Gospel that has come down to us in the New Testament. Many competent scholars believe that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Greek. They do so mainly because of his Greek.¹³

Date and Place of Composition

Dating Matthew's Gospel is difficult for many reasons even if one believes in Matthean priority. The first extra-biblical reference to it occurs in the writings of Ignatius (c. 110-115 A.D.).¹⁴ However Matthew's references to Jerusalem and the Sadducees point to a date of compositions before 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. His references to Jerusalem assume its existence (e.g., 4:5; 27:53). Matthew recorded more warnings about the Sadducees than all the other New Testament writers combined, but after 70 A.D. they no longer existed as a significant authority in Israel.¹⁵ Consequently Matthew probably wrote before 70 A.D.

References in the text to the customs of the Jews continuing "to this day" (27:8; 28:15) imply that some time had elapsed between the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the composition of the Gospel. Since Jesus died in 33 A.D. Matthew may have composed his Gospel perhaps a decade or more later. A date between 40 and 70 A.D. is very probable.¹⁶

Since Matthew lived and worked in Palestine we would assume that he wrote while living there. There is no evidence that excludes this possibility. Nevertheless scholars love to speculate. Other sites they have suggested include Antioch of Syria (because Ignatius was bishop of Antioch), Alexandria, Edessa, Syria, Tyre, and Caesarea Maratima. These are all guesses.

Distinctive Features

Compared with the other Gospels Matthew's is distinctively Jewish. He used parallelism as did many to the Old Testament writers, and his thought patterns and general style are typically Hebrew.¹⁷ Matthew's vocabulary (e.g., kingdom of heaven, holy city, righteousness, etc.) and subject matter (the Law, defilement, the sabbath, Messiah, etc.) are also distinctively Jewish. Matthew referred to the Old Testament 129 times, more than any other evangelist.¹⁸ Usually he did so to prove a point to his readers. The genealogy in chapter 1 traces Jesus' ancestry back to Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. Matthew gave prominent attention to Peter, the apostle to the Jews.¹⁹ The writer also referred to many Jewish customs without explaining them evidently because he believed most of his original readers would not need an explanation.

Another distinctive emphasis in Matthew is Jesus' teaching ministry. No other Gospel contains as many of Jesus' discourses and instructions. These include the Sermon on the Mount, the instruction of the disciples, the parables of the kingdom, the denunciation of Israel's leaders, and the Olivet Discourse.²⁰

Audience and Purposes

Several church fathers (i.e., Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius) stated what we might suppose from the distinctively Jewish emphases of this book, namely that Matthew wrote his Gospel primarily for his fellow Jews.²¹

He wrote, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for a specific purpose or, more accurately, specific purposes. He did not state these purposes concisely as John did in his Gospel (John 20:30-31). Nevertheless they are clear from his content and his emphases.

"Matthew has a twofold purpose in writing his Gospel. Primarily he penned this Gospel to prove Jesus is the Messiah, but he also wrote it to explain God's kingdom program to his readers. One goal directly involves the other. Nevertheless, they are distinct."²²

"Matthew's purpose obviously was to demonstrate that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament, that He fulfilled the requirements of being the promised King who would be a descendant of David, and that His life and ministry fully support the conclusion that He is the prophesied Messiah of Israel. . . .

"As a whole, the gospel is not properly designated as only an apologetic for the Christian faith. Rather, it was designed to explain to the Jews, who had expected the Messiah when He came to be a conquering king, why instead Christ suffered and died, and why there was the resulting postponement of His triumph to His second coming."²³

Matthew presented three aspects to God's kingdom program. First, Jesus presented Himself to the Jews as the king that God had promised in the Old Testament. Second, Israel's leaders rejected Jesus as their king. This resulted in the postponement, not the cancellation, of the messianic kingdom that God had promised Israel. Third, because of Israel's rejection Jesus is now building His church in anticipation of His return to establish the promised messianic kingdom on the earth.

There are at least three wider purposes that Matthew undoubtedly hoped to fulfill with his Gospel. First, he wanted to instruct Christians and non-Christians concerning the person and work of Jesus.²⁴ Second, he wanted to provide an apologetic to aid his Jewish brethren in witnessing to other Jews about Christ. Third, he wanted to encourage all Christians to witness for Christ boldly and faithfully. It is interesting that Matthew is the only Gospel writer to use the Greek verb matheteuo, "to disciple" (13:52; 27:57; 28:19; cf. Acts 14:21 for its only other occurrence in the New Testament). This fact shows his concern for making disciples of Christ.²⁵

Carson identified nine major themes in Matthew. They are Christology, prophecy and fulfillment, law, church, eschatology, Jewish leaders, mission, miracles, and the disciples' understanding and faith.²⁶

Plan and Structure

Matthew often grouped his material into sections so that three, five, six, or seven events, miracles, sayings, or parables appear together.²⁷ Jewish writers typically did this to help their readers remember what they had written. The presence of this technique reveals Matthew's didactic (instructional) intent. Furthermore it indicates that his arrangement of material was somewhat topical rather than strictly chronological. Generally chapters 1-4 are in chronological order, chapters 5-13 are topical, and chapters 14-28 are again chronological.²⁸

Not only Matthew but the other Gospel writers as well present the life of Jesus Christ in three major stages. These stages are His presentation to the people, their consideration of His claims, and their rejection and its consequences.

A key phrase in Matthew's Gospel enables us to note the major movements in the writer's thought. It is the phrase "and it came about that when Jesus had finished" (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). This phrase always occurs at the end of one of Jesus' addresses. An address therefore concludes each major section of the Gospel, and it is climactic. Matthew evidently used the narrative sections to introduce Jesus' discourses, which he regarded as specially important in his book. Mark, on the other hand, gave more detailed information concerning the narrative material in his Gospel. In addition to each major section, there is a prologue and an epilogue to the Gospel according to Matthew.

Message²⁹

The four Gospels are foundational to Christianity because they record the life of Jesus Christ and His teachings. Each of the four Gospels fulfills a unique purpose. They are not simply four versions of the life of Jesus. If one wants to study the life of Jesus Christ, the best way to do that is with a harmony of the Gospels that correlates all the data chronologically. However if one wants to study only one of the Gospel accounts, then one needs to pay attention to the uniqueness of that Gospel. The unique material, what the writer included and excluded, reveals the purpose for which he wrote and the points he wanted to stress.

What is the unique message of Matthew's Gospel? How does it differ from the other three Gospels? What specific emphasis was Matthew wanting his readers to gain as they read his record of Jesus' life and ministry? I would put it this way.

Matthew wanted his readers to do what John the Baptist and Jesus called the people of their day to do, namely "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." This was the message of the King to His people and the message of the King's herald as he called the King's people to prepare for the King's coming.

This is not the final message of Christianity, but it is the message that Matthew wanted us to understand. When John the Baptist and Jesus originally issued this call, they faced a situation that is different from the situation we face today. They called the people of their day to trust in and follow Jesus because the messianic kingdom was immediately at hand. If the Jews had responded, Jesus would have established His kingdom immediately. He would have died on the cross, risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, ushered in the Tribulation, returned, and established His kingdom.

The messianic kingdom is at hand for you and me in a different sense. Jesus Christ has died and risen from the dead. The Tribulation is still future, but following those seven years Jesus will return and establish His messianic kingdom on earth. The commission that Jesus has given us as His disciples is essentially to prepare people for the King's return. To do this we must go into all the world and herald the gospel to everyone. We must call them to trust in and follow the King as His disciples.

Essentially the message of Matthew is "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." The proper response to this message is, "Repent." Let us look first at the message and then at the proper response. Note three things about the message.

First, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" is the statement of a fact. The subject of this statement is the kingdom. The kingdom is the theme of Matthew's Gospel. The word "kingdom" occurs about 50 times in Matthew. Since "kingdom" is such a prominent theme it is not surprising to discover that this Gospel presents Jesus as the great King.

Matthew presents the kingship of Jesus. Kingship involves the fact that Jesus is the great King that the Old Testament prophets predicted would come and rule over all the earth in Israel's golden age. It points to the universal sovereignty of God's Son who would rule over all mankind. He was to be a Son of David who would also rule over Israel. The second smaller sphere of sovereignty lies within the first larger sphere.

The word "kingdom" refers to the realm over which the King reigns. This is usually what we think of when we think of Jesus' messianic kingdom, the sphere over which He will rule. However, it is important that we not stress the sphere to the detriment of the sovereignty with which He will rule. Both ideas are essential to the concept of the kingdom that Matthew presents, sphere and sovereignty.

The little used phrase in Matthew's Gospel "kingdom of God" stresses the fact that it is God who rules. The King is God, and He will reign over all of His creation eventually. The kingdom belongs to God and it will extend over all that God sovereignly controls.

Matthew of all the Gospel evangelists was the only one to use the phrase "kingdom of heaven." John the Baptist nor Jesus ever explained this phrase. Their audiences knew what they meant by it. Ever since God gave His great promises to Abraham the Jews knew what the kingdom of heaven meant. It meant God's rule over His people who lived on the earth. As time passed, God gave the Israelites more information about His rule over them. He told them that He would provide a descendant of David who would be their King. This king would rule over the Israelites who would live in the Promised Land. His rule would include the whole earth, however, and the Gentiles too would live under His authority. The kingdom of heaven that the Old Testament predicted was an earthly kingdom over which God would rule through His Son. It would not just be God's rule over His people from heaven. When the Jews in Jesus' day heard John the Baptist and Jesus calling them to repent for the kingdom of heaven was at hand, what did they think? They understood that the earthly messianic kingdom predicted in the Old Testament was very near. They needed to get ready for it by making some changes.

The simple meaning of "kingdom of heaven" then is God's establishment of heaven's order on earth. Every created being and every human authority would be in subjection to God. God would overturn everyone and everything that did not recognize His authority. It is the establishment of divine order on earth. It is the supremacy of God's will over human affairs. The establishment of the kingdom of heaven on earth then is the hope of humanity, and it will only transpire as people submit to God's King. It is impossible for people to bring in this kingdom. Only God can bring it in. People just need to get ready because it is coming.

Second, Matthew's Gospel interprets the kingdom. It does not just affirm the coming of the kingdom, but it also explains the order of the kingdom. Specifically it reveals the principle of the kingdom, the practice of the kingdom, and the purpose of the kingdom.

The principle of the kingdom is righteousness. This is one of the major themes in Matthew. Righteousness in Matthew refers to righteous conduct, righteousness in practice rather than positional righteousness. Righteousness is necessary to enter the kingdom and to serve in the kingdom under the King. The words of the King in Matthew constitute the law of the kingdom. They proclaim the principle of righteousness.

The practice of the kingdom is peace. Peace is another major theme in Matthew. When you think of the Sermon on the Mount you may think of these two major themes: righteousness and peace. The kingdom would come not by going to war with Rome and defeating it. It would come by peaceful submission to the King, Jesus. These two approaches to inaugurating the kingdom contrast starkly as we think of Jesus hanging on the cross between two insurrectionists. They tried to establish the kingdom the way most people in Israel thought it would come, by violence. Jesus, on the other hand, submitted to His Father's will, and even though He died He ratified the covenant by which the kingdom will come by dying. He secured the kingdom. Jesus' example of peaceful submission to God's will is to be the model for His disciples. Greatness in the kingdom does not come by self-assertion but by self-sacrifice. The greatest in the kingdom will be the servant of all. The works of the King in Matthew demonstrate the powers of the kingdom moving toward peace.

The purpose of the kingdom is joy. God will establish His kingdom on earth to bring great joy to mankind. This will be the time of greatest fruitfulness and abundance in earth's history. God's will has always been to bless mankind. It is by rebelling against God that man loses his joy. The essence of joy is intimate fellowship with God. This intimate fellowship will be a reality during the kingdom to a greater extent than ever before in history. The will of the King in Matthew is to bless mankind. The Beatitudes express this purpose very clearly (cf. 5:3-12).

Third, Matthew's Gospel stresses the method by which the King will administer the kingdom. It is a three-fold method.

In the first five books of the Old Testament, the Law or Torah, God revealed the need for a high priest to offer a final sacrifice for mankind to God. The last part of Matthew's Gospel, the passion narrative, presents Jesus as the Great High Priest who offered that perfect sacrifice.

In the second part of the Old Testament, the historical books, the great need and expectation is a king who will rule over Israel and the nations in righteousness. The first part of Matthew's Gospel presents Jesus as that long expected King, Messiah.

In the last part of the Old Testament, the prophets, we see the great need for a prophet who could bring God's complete revelation to mankind. The middle part of Matthew's Gospel presents Jesus as the prophet who would surpass Moses and bring God's final revelation to mankind.

God will administer His kingdom on earth through this Person who as King has all authority, as Prophet reveals God's final word of truth, and as Priest has dealt with sin finally. God's administration of His kingdom is in the hands of a King who is the great High Priest and the completely faithful Prophet.

The central teaching of Matthew's Gospel then concerns the kingdom of heaven. The needed response to this Gospel is, "Repent."

In our day Christians differ in their understanding of the meaning of repentance. This difference arises because there are two Greek verbs each of which means, "to repent." One of these is metamelomai. When it occurs, it usually describes an active change. The other word is metanoeo. When it occurs, it usually describes a contemplative change. Consequently when we read "repent" or "repentance" in our English Bibles, we have to ask ourselves whether a change of behavior is in view primarily or a change of mind. Historically the Roman Catholic Church has favored an active interpretation of the nature of repentance whereas Protestants have favored a contemplative interpretation. Catholics say repentance involves a change of behavior while Protestants say it involves a change of thinking essentially. One interpretation stresses the need for a sense of sorrow, and the other stresses the need for a sense of awareness.

The word John the Baptist and Jesus used when they called their hearers to repentance was metanoeo. We could translate it, "Think again." They were calling their hearers to consider the implications of the imminency of the messianic kingdom.

Consideration that the kingdom of heaven was at hand would result in a conviction of sin and a sense of sorrow. These are the inevitable consequences of considering these things. Conviction of a need to change is the consequence of genuine repentance.

Consideration leads to conviction, and conviction leads to conversion. Conversion describes turning from rebellion to submission, from self to the Savior. In relation to the coming kingdom it involves becoming humble and childlike rather than proud and independent. It involves placing confidence in Jesus rather than in self for salvation.

To summarize, we can think of the kind of repenting that John the Baptist, Jesus, and later Jesus' disciples were calling on their hearers to demonstrate as involving consideration, conviction, and conversion. Repentance begins with consideration of the facts. Awareness of these facts brings conviction of personal need. Feeling these personal needs leads to conversion or a turning from what is bad to what is good.

Now let us combine "repent" with "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew's Gospel calls the reader to consider the kingdom and the King. This should produce the conviction that one is not ready for such a kingdom nor is one ready to face such a King. Then we should submit our lives to the rule of the King and the standards of the kingdom.

Matthew's Gospel proclaims the kingdom. It interprets the kingdom as righteousness, peace, and joy. It reveals that a perfect King who is a perfect prophet and a perfect priest will administer the kingdom. It finally appeals to mankind to repent in view of these realities: to consider, to feel conviction, and to turn in conversion. As readers of this Gospel, we need to get ready, to think again, because the kingdom of heaven is coming.

The church now has the task of calling the world to repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. The church is Jesus' disciples collectively. The King is coming back to rule and to reign. People need to prepare for that reality. The church's job is to spread the good news of the King and the kingdom to those who have very different ideas about the ultimate ruler and the real utopia. We face the same problem that Jesus did in His day. Therefore Matthew's Gospel is a great resource for us as we seek to carry out the commission that the King has given us.

Individually we have a responsibility to consider the King and the kingdom, to gain conviction by what we consider, and to change our behavior. Our repentance should involve submission to the King's authority and preparation for kingdom service. We submit to the King's authority as we observe all that He has commanded us. We prepare for kingdom service as we faithfully persevere in the work He has given us to do rather than pursuing our own personal agendas. We can do this joyfully because we have the promise of the King's presence with us and the enablement of His authority behind us (28:18, 20).

Constable: Matthew (Outline)

Outline

I. The introduction of the King 1:1-4:11

A. The King's genealogy 1:1-17

B. The King's birth 1:18-25

C. The King's childhood 2:1-23

1. The prophecy about Bethlehem 2:1-12

2. The prophecies about Egypt 2:13-18

3. The prophecies about Nazareth 2:19-23

D. The King's preparation 3:1-4:11

1. Jesus' forerunner 3:1-12

2. Jesus' baptism 3:13-17

3. Jesus' temptation 4:1-11

II. The authority of the King 4:12-7:29

A. The beginning of Jesus' ministry 4:12-25

1. The setting of Jesus' ministry 4:12-16

2. Jesus' essential message 4:17

3. The call of four disciples 4:18-22

4. A summary of Jesus' ministry 4:23-25

B. Jesus' revelations concerning participation in His kingdom 5:1-7:29

1. The setting of the Sermon on the Mount 5:1-2

2. The subjects of Jesus' kingdom 5:3-16

3. The importance of true righteousness 5:17-7:12

4. The false alternatives 7:13-27

5. The response of the audience 7:28-29

III. The manifestation of the King 8:1-11:1

A. Demonstrations of the King's power 8:1-9:34

1. Jesus' ability to heal 8:1-17

2. Jesus' authority over His disciples 8:18-22

3. Jesus' supernatural power 8:23-9:8

4. Jesus' authority over His critics 9:9-17

5. Jesus' ability to restore 9:18-34

B. Declarations of the King's presence 9:35-11:1

1. Jesus' compassion 9:35-38

2. Jesus' commissioning of 12 disciples 10:1-4

3. Jesus' charge concerning His apostles' mission 10:5-42

4. Jesus' continuation of His work 11:1

IV. The opposition to the King 11:2-13:53

A. Evidences of Israel's opposition to Jesus 11:2-30

1. Questions from the King's forerunner 11:2-19

2. Indifference to the King's message 11:20-24

3. The King's invitation to the repentant 11:25-30

B. Specific instances of Israel's rejection of Jesus ch. 12

1. Conflict over Sabbath observance 12:1-21

2. Conflict over Jesus' power 12:22-37

3. Conflict over Jesus' sign 12:38-45

4. Conflict over Jesus' kin 12:46-50

C. Adaptations because of Israel's rejection of Jesus 13:1-53

1. The setting 13:1-3a

2. Parables addressed to the multitudes 13:3b-33

3. The function of these parables 13:34-43

4. Parables addressed to the disciples 13:44-52

5. The departure 13:53

V. The reactions of the King 13:54-19:2

A. Opposition, instruction, and healing 13:54-16:12

1. The opposition of the Nazarenes and Romans 13:54-14:12

2. The withdrawal to Bethsaida 14:13-33

3. The public ministry at Gennesaret 14:34-36

4. The opposition of the Pharisees and scribes 15:1-20

5. The withdrawal to Tyre and Sidon 15:21-28

6. The public ministry to Gentiles 15:29-39

7. The opposition of the Pharisees and Sadducees 16:1-12

B. Jesus' instruction of His disciples around Galilee 16:13-19:2

1. Instruction about the King's person 16:13-17

2. Instruction about the King's program 16:18-17:13

3. Instruction about the King's principles 17:14-27

4. Instruction about the King's personal representatives ch. 18

5. The transition from Galilee to Judea 19:1-2

VI. The official presentation and rejection of the King 19:3-25:46

A. Jesus' instruction of His disciples around Judea 19:3-20:34

1. Instruction about marriage 19:3-12

2. Instruction about childlikeness 19:13-15

3. Instruction about wealth 19:16-20:16

4. Instruction about Jesus' passion 20:17-19

5. Instruction about serving 20:20-28

6. An illustration of illumination 20:29-34

B. Jesus' presentation of Himself to Israel as her King 21:1-17

1. Jesus' preparation for the presentation 21:1-7

2. Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem 21:8-11

3. Jesus' entrance into the temple 21:12-17

C. Israel's rejection of her King 21:18-22:46

1. The sign of Jesus' rejection of Israel 21:18-22

2. Rejection by the chief priests and the elders 21:23-22:14

3. Rejection by the Pharisees and the Herodians 22:15-22

4. Rejection by the Sadducees 22:23-33

5. Rejection by the Pharisees 22:34-46

D. The King's rejection of Israel ch. 23

1. Jesus' admonition of the multitudes and His disciples 23:1-12

2. Jesus' indictment of the scribes and the Pharisees 23:13-36

3. Jesus' lamentation over Jerusalem 23:37-39

E. The King's revelations concerning the future chs. 24-25

1. The setting of the Olivet Discourse 24:1-3

2. Jesus' warning about deception 24:4-6

3. Jesus' general description of the future 24:7-14

4. The abomination of desolation 24:15-22

5. The second coming of the King 24:23-31

6. The responsibilities of disciples 24:32-25:30

7. The King's judgment of the nations 25:31-46

VII. The crucifixion and resurrection of the King chs. 26-28

A. The King's crucifixion chs. 26-27

1. Preparations for Jesus' crucifixion 26:1-46

2. The arrest of Jesus 26:47-56

3. The trials of Jesus 26:57-27:26

4. The crucifixion of Jesus 27:27-56

5. The burial of Jesus 27:57-66

B. The King's resurrection ch. 28

1. The empty tomb 28:1-7

2. Jesus' appearance to the women 28:8-10

3. The attempted cover-up 28:11-15

4. The King's final instructions to His disciples 28:16-20

Constable: Matthew

Matthew

Bibliography

Abbott-Smith, G. A. A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1937.

Albright, W. F. and Mann, C. S. Matthew. The Anchor Bible series. Garden City: Doubleday, 1971.

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, n. d.

Allen, Willoughby C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew. 3rd ed. International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.

Anderson, Robert. The Coming Prince. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1975.

Andrews, Samuel J. The Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. 1964; revised ed., Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Armerding, Carl. The Olivet Discourse. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., n. d.

The Babylonian Talmud. London: Soncino Press, 1935.

Bailey, Mark L. "A Biblical Theology of Paul's Pastoral Epistles." in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 333-67. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

_____. "Dispensational Definitions of the Kingdom." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 201-21. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "The Doctrine of the Kingdom in Matthew 13." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:624 (October-December 1999):443-51.

_____. "Guidelines for Interpreting Jesus' Parables." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:617 (January-March 1998):29-38.

_____. "The Parable of the Leavening Process." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:621 (January-March 1999):61-71.

_____. "The Parable of the Mustard Seed." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:620 (October-December 1998):449-59.

_____. "The Parable of the Sower and the Soils." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:618 (April-June 1998):172-88.

_____. "The Parable of the Tares." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:619 (July-September 1998):266-79.

_____. "The Parables of the Dragnet and of the Householder." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:623 (July-September 1999):282-96.

_____. "The Parables of the Hidden Treasure and of the Pearl Merchant." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:622 (April-June 1999):175-89.

Bailey, Mark L., and Constable, Thomas L. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 1999.

Baillie, Rebecca A., and Baillie, E. Eugene. "Biblical Leprosy as Compared to Present-Day Leprosy." Christian Medical Society Journal 14:3 (Fall 1983):27-29.

Baly, D. The Geography of the Bible. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

Barbieri, Louis A., Jr. "Matthew." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 13-94. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of Matthew. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1956.

Barnhouse, Donald Grey. His Own Received Him Not, But . . . New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1933.

_____. Romans. Vol. I: Man's Ruin. God's Wrath. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952.

Barr, James. "Abba Isn't Daddy." Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988):28-47.

Bauckham, R. J. "The Eschatological Earthquake in the Apocalypse of John." Novum Testamentum 19 (1977):224-33.

Bauer, J. B. "Libera nos a malo." Verbum Domini 34 (1965):12-15.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated and revised by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. London: Macmillan, 1954.

Bennetch, John Henry. "Matthew: An Apologetic." Bibliotheca Sacra 103 (October 1946):477-84.

Berghuis, Kent D. "A Biblical Perspective on Fasting." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):86-103.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941.

Bernardin, Joseph B. "The Transfiguration." Journal of Biblical Theology 52 (October 1933):181-89.

Bindley, T. Herbert. "Eschatology in the Lord's Prayer." The Expositor 17 (October 1919):315-20.

Blaising, Craig A. "The Fulfillment of the Biblical Covenants." In Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 174-211. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.

Blass, F. and Debrunner, A. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Cambridge: University Press, 1961.

Blomberg, Craig L. "Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35:2 (June 1992):159-72.

_____. "Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12." Trinity Journal 11NS (1990):161-96.

_____. Matthew. New American Commentary series. Nashville, Broadman Press, 1992.

Blum, Edwin A. "Jesus and JAMA." Christian Medical Society Journal 17:4 (Fall 1986):4-11.

Bock, Darrell L. "A Review of The Gospel According to Jesus." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:581 (January-March 1989):21-40.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. 6th ed. London: SCM, 1959.

Bornkamm, Gunther. "End-Expectation and Church in Matthew." In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, pp. 15-51. Edited by Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and H. J. Held. Translated by P. Scott. London: SCM Press, 1963.

_____. "The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew." In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, pp. 52-57. Edited by Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and H. J. Held. Translated by P. Scott. London: SCM Press, 1963.

Bowker, John. "The Son of Man." Journal of Theological Studies 28 (1977):19-48.

Breshears, Gerry. "The Body of Christ: Prophet, Priest, or King?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):3-26.

Brown, Raymond. The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977.

Bruce, Alexander Balmain. "The Synoptic Gospels." In The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1910.

Buchler, Adolf. "St. Mathew vi 1-6 and Other Allied Passages." Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909):266-70.

Burrows, Millar. Burrows on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.

_____. "Thy Kingdom Come." Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (January 1955):1-8.

Burton, Ernest de Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in NT Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1894.

Burton, Ernest de Witt, and Goodspeed, Edgar Johnson. A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels in Greek. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947.

Byargeon, Rick W. "Echoes of Wisdom in the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:9-13)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:3 (September 1998):353-65.

Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 3 vols. Translated by William Pringle. Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1845.

_____. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Translated by John Allen. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christain Education, 1936.

Campbell, Donald K. "Interpretation and Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1953.

Carr, A. The Gospel According To St. Matthew. Cambridge: University Press, 1913.

Carson, Donald A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981.

_____. "Matthew." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

_____. "Redaction Criticism: On the Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of a Literary Tool." In Scripture and Truth, pp. 119-42. Edited by D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

_____. The Sermon on the Mount. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.

Catchpole, David R. "The Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt. xxvi. 64)." New Testament Studies 17 (1970-71):213-26.

_____. "The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven: A Re-appraisal of Matthew xxv. 31-46." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 61 (1978-79):355-97.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947.

_____. "The Teachings of Christ Incarnate." Bibliotheca Sacra 108 (October 1951):389-413.

Congdon, Roger D. "Did Jesus Sustain the Law in Matthew 5?" Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):117-25.

Cooper, David L. Messiah: His Historical Appearance. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1958.

Cranfield, C. E. B. "The Cup Metaphor in Mark xiv. 36 and Parallels." Expository Times 59 (1947-48):137-38.

_____. "St. Mark 13." Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (April 1953):165-96; (July 1953):287-303; 7 (April 1954):284-303.

Crater, Tim. "Bill Gothard's View of the Exception Clause." Journal of Pastoral Practice 4 (1980):5-12.

Cremer, Hermann. Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. Translated by William Urwick. 4th English ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895.

Criswell, W. A. Expository Notes on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Culver, Robert D. "What Is the Church's Commission? Some Exegetical Issues In Matthew 28:16-20." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:499 (July-September 1968):239-53.

Cunningham, Scott, and Bock, Darrell L. "Is Matthew Midrash?" Bibliotheca Sacra 144:574 (April-June 1987):157-80.

Dahl, N. A. Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976.

Dalman, Gustaf H.. The Words of Jesus. Translated by D. M. Kay. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Daube, D. "The Anointing at Bethany and Jesus' Burial." Anglican Theological Review 32 (1950):187-88.

_____. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone, 1956.

Davidson, Bruce W. "Reasonable Damnation: How Jonathan Edwards Argued for the Rationality of Hell." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):47-56.

Davies, W. D., and Allison, D. C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. International Critical Commentary series. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988.

Deatrick, Eugene P. "Salt, Soil, Savor." Biblical Archaeologist 25 (1962):41-48.

Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1927.

A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. Edited by James Hastings. S.v. "Baptism," by Marcus Dodds.

_____. S.v. "Genealogies of Jesus Christ," by P. M. Barnard.

A Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by Colin Brown. S.v. "kardia," by T. Sorg.

_____. S.v. "kathemai," by R. T. France.

_____. S.v. "Leprosy," by R. K. Harrison.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodd, C. H. The Parables of the Kingdom. London: Nisbet, 1936.

Donaldson, T. L. Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985.

Donn, T. M. "Let the Dead Bury Their Dead' (Mt. viii. 22, Lk. ix. 60)." Expository Times 61 (September 1950):384.

Doriani, Daniel. "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):333-50.

Duling, Dennis C. "The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew's Christological Apologetic." New Testament Studies 24 (1978):392-410.

Dunn, James D. G. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1975.

Dyer, Charles H. "Do the Synoptics Depend on Each Other?" Bibliotheca Sacra 138:551 (July-September 1981):230-44.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.

_____. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services. London: Religious Tract Society, n. d.

Edgar, Thomas R. "The Cessation of the Sign Gifts." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:580 (October-December 1988):371-86.

_____. "An Exegesis of Rapture Passages." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 203-23. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Ellis, Earle E. The Gospel of Luke. New Century Bible series. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1966.

Ellis, I. P. "But some doubted.'" New Testament Studies 14 (1967-68):574-80.

English, E. Schuyler. Studies in the Gospel According to Matthew. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1935.

Erickson, Millard J. "Is Hell Forever?" Bibliotheca Sacra (July-September 1995):259-72.

Feinberg, Charles Lee. God Remembers, A Study of Zechariah. 4th ed. Portland: Multnomal Press, 1979.

_____. Israel in the Last Days: The Olivet Discourse. Altadena, Ca.: Emeth Publications, 1953.

_____. Premillennialism or Amillennialism? Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1954.

Feinberg, Paul D. "Dispensational Theology and the Rapture." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 225-45. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Fenton, J. C. Saint Matthew. Westminster Pelican Commentaries series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978.

Filson, Floyd V. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1960.

Fitzmyer, J. A. "Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978):493-513.

_____. "The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence." Theological Studies 37 (1976):208-11.

Fleming, T. V. "Christ and Divorce." Theological Studies 24 (1963):109.

France, R. T. "Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples." In New Testament Interpretation, pp. 252-81. Edited by I. Howard Marshall. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1977.

_____. "Herod and the Children of Bethlehem," Novum Testamentum 21 (1979):98-120.

_____. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. London: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.

Franzmann, Martin L. Follow Me: Discipleship According to Saint Matthew. St. Louis: Concordia, 1961.

Freed, Edwin D. "The Women in Matthew's Genealogy." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987):3-19.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin, Cal.: Ariel Ministries Press, 1989.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Gospel of Matthew, An Exposition. 2 vols. in 1. Neptune, N. J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1910.

Garlington, Don B. "Jesus, the Unique Son of God: Tested and Faithful." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):284-308.

Geisler, Norman L. "A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:553 (January-March 1982):46-56.

Geisler, Norman L. and Nix, William E. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968.

Geldard, Mark. "Jesus' Teaching on Divorce." Churchman 92 (1978):134-43.

Glass, Ronald N. "The Parables of the Kingdom: A Paradigm for Consistent Dispensational Hermeneutics." Paper presented at the meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Lisle, Illinois, 18 November 1994.

Glover, Richard. A Teacher's Commentary of the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956.

Goebel, Siegfried. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by Professor Banks. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913.

Gore, Charles. The Sermon on the Mount. London: John Murray, 1896.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Green, F. W., ed. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew in the Revised Version. The Clarendon Bible series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936.

Grounds, Vernon C. "Mountain Manifesto." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:510 (April-June 1971):135-41.

Guelich, Robert A. "The Matthean Beatitudes: Entrance-Requirements' or Eschatological Blessings?" Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1973):415-34.

_____. The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding. Waco: Word Books, 1982.

Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982.

_____. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel, with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Habershon, Ada R. The Study of the Parables. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1904.

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1993.

_____. Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1995.

Halverson, Richard C. "God and Caesar." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):125-29.

Hare, Douglas R. A. The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Cambridge: University Press, 1967.

Hatch, W. Essays in Biblical Greek. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889.

Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.

A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. By William Gesenius. Translated by Edward Robinson. Edited by Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, 1906.

Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.

Hengel, G. Crucifixion. London: SCM, 1977.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "An Expository Study of Matthew 28:16-20." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):338-54.

Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972.

Hodges, Zane C. "Form-Criticism and the Resurrection Accounts." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):339-48.

_____. Grace in Eclipse. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. "Possessing the Kingdom." The KERUGMA Message 1:1 (May-June 1991):1-2; 1:2 (July-August 1991):1-2; 1:3 (November-December 1991):1, 4; 2:1 (Spring 1992):1, 4; 2:2 (Winter 1992):1, 5-6.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

_____. Herod Antipas. Cambridge: University Press, 1972.

Hogg, C. F., and Watson, J. B. On the Sermon on the Mount. 2nd ed. London: Pickering and Inglis, 1934.

Hooker, Morna D. The Son of Man in Mark. London: SPCK, 1967.

Howard, Tracy L. "The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: An Alternative Solution." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):314-28.

Huffman, Norman A. "Atypical Features in the Parables of Jesus." Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978):207-20.

Hunter, Archibald M. The Message of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Wesminster Press, 1944.

_____. A Pattern for Life: An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966.

Hutchison, John C. "Women, Gentiles, and the Messianic Mission in Matthew's Genealogy." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):152-64.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Jensen, Joseph. "Does porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina." Novum Testamentum 20 (1978):161-84.

Jeremias, J. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. 3rd ed. Translated by F. H. and C. H. Cave. London: SCM, 1962.

_____. New Testament Theology. Part I. The Proclamation of Jesus. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1971.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM, 1963.

_____. The Prayers of Jesus. Translated by John Bowden and Christoph Burchard. London: SCM, 1967.

Johnson, L. T. "The New Testament's Anti-Jewish Slander and Conventions of Ancient Rhetoric." Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989):419-41.

Johnson, M. D. The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "The Agony of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):303-13.

_____. "The Argument Of Matthew," Bibliotheca Sacra 112:446 (April 1955):143-53.

_____. "The Baptism of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:491 (July-September 1966):220-29.

_____. "The Death of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):10-19.

_____. "The Message Of John the Baptist." Bibliotheca Sacra 113:449 (January 1956):30-36.

_____. "The Temptation of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1996):342-52.

_____. "The Transfiguration of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:494 (April-June 1967):133-43.

_____. "The Triumphal Entry of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):218-29.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kelly, William. Lectures on the Gospel of Matthew. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n. d.

Kent, Homer A., Jr. "Matthew's Use of the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:481 (January-March 1964):34-43.

Kepler, Thomas. S. Jesus' Design for Living. New York: Abingdon Press, 1955.

Kiddle, M. "The Conflict Between the Disciples, the Jews, and the Gentiles in St. Matthew's Gospel." The Journal of Theological Studies 36 (January 1935):33-44.

Kik, J. Marcellus. Matthew Twenty-Four, An Exposition. Swengel, Pa.: Bible Truth Depot, n. d.

Kilgallen, John J. "To What Are the Matthean Exception-Texts [5, 32 and 19, 9] an Exception?" Biblica 61 (1980):102-5.

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew as Story. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.

_____. "The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount within Matthew." Interpretation 41 (1987):131-43.

Kissinger, W. S. The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow & ATLA, 1975.

Kitchens, Ted G. "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.

Lachs, S. T. "Some Textual Observations on the Sermon on the Mount." Jewish Quarterly Review 69 (1978):98-111.

Ladd, George E. The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Laney, J. Carl. "The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):353-64.

Laurenson, L. Messiah, the Prince. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1924.

Legrand, L. "The Missionary Command of the Risen Lord Mt 28:16-20." Indian Theological Studies 24:1 (March 1987):5-28.

Leifeld, Walter L. "Theological Motifs in the Transfiguration Narrative." In New Dimensions in New Testament Study, pp. 162-79. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel. Minneapolis: Wartburg Press, 1943.

Levertoff, Paul J. St. Matthew (Revised Version). London: Thomas Murby & Co., 1940.

Levinskaya, Irena. The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting. Vol. 5 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1996.

Lewis, Jack P. "The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against It' (Matt 16:18): A Study of the History of Interpretation." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):349-67.

Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic. London: SCM, 1961.

Lowery, David K. "Evidence from Matthew." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 165-80. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

_____. "A Theology of Matthew." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 19-63. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Maalouf, Tony T. "Were the Magi from Persia or Arabia?" Bibliotheca Sacra 156:624 (October-December 1999):423-42.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1930.

Major, H. D. A. Basic Christianity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1944.

Major, H. D. A., Manson, T. W., and Wright, C. J. The Mission and Message of Jesus. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 1938.

Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. London: SCM, 1949.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1978.

_____. Kept by the Power of God. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1969.

Martin, John A. "Christ, the End of the Law in the Sermon on the Mount." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 248-63. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. "Dispensational Approaches to the Sermon on the Mount." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 35-48. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Marx, Werner G. "Money Matters in Matthew." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:542 (April-June 1979):148-57.

Master, John R. "The New Covenant." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 93-110. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Matera, Frank J. Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies: Interpreting the Synoptics through Their Passion Stories. Theological Inquiries series. New York: Paulist Press, 1986.

Maticich, Karen Kristine. "Reflections on Tractate Shekalim." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):58-60.

Mattill, A. J. Jr. "The Way of Tribulation.'" Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979):531-46.

McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom, An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God. Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1959.

McClister, David. "Where Two or Three Are Gathered Together': Literary Structure as a Key to Meaning in Matt 17:22-20:19." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:4 (December 1996):549-58.

McHugh, John. The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament. Garden City: Doubleday, 1975.

McKeating, Henry. "Sanctions Against Adultery in Ancient Israelite Society." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 11 (1979):57-72.

McPheeters, William M. "Christ As an Interpreter of Scripture." The Bible Student 1 (April 1900):223-29.

Meier, John P. "Nations or Gentiles in Matthew 28:19." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977):94-102.

Merrill, Eugene H. "The Book of Ruth: Narration and Shared Themes." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:566 (April-June 1985):130-41.

_____. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_____. "The Sign of Jonah." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (1980):23-30.

Metzger, Bruce M. "The Nazareth Inscription Once Again." In Jesus und Paulus, pp. 221-38. Edited by E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1975.

_____. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Meyer, Ben F. The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1979.

Michaels, J. R. "Apostolic Hardships and Righteous Gentiles." Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965):27-37.

Miller, Earl. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Meadville, Pa.: By the Author, 1950.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

M'Neile, Alan Hugh. The Gospel According to St. Matthew. London: Macmillan & Co., 1915.

Moloney, Francis J. "Matthew 19, 3-12 and Celibacy. A Redactional and Form-Critical Study." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2 (1979):42-60.

Montefiore, C. G. "Rabbinic Conceptions of Repentance." Jewish Quarterly Review 16 (January 1904):209-57.

_____. The Synoptic Gospels. 2 vols. Rev. ed. New York: KTAV, 1968.

Montefiore, C. G., and Loewe, H. A Rabbinic Anthology. London: Macmillan, 1938.

Moo, Douglas J. "The Use of the Old Testament in the Passion Texts of the Gospels." Ph.D. dissertation, University of St. Andrews, 1979.

Moore, G. F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. 3 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927-30.

Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to Matthew. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1929.

_____. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morison, Frank [pseud.]. Ross, Albert Henry. Who Moved the Stone? London: Faber and Faber, 1930. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Lamplighter Books, 1976.

Morison, James. A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Boston: N. J. Bartlett & Co., 1884.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. London: Tyndale Press, 1965.

_____. The Gospel According to John. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.

Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. London: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

Moulton, James Hope, and Milligan, George. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1930.

Moulton, Mark. "Jesus' Goal for Temple and Tree: A Thematic Revisit of Matt 21:12-22." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:4 (December 1998):561-72.

Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Mueller, James R. "The Temple Scroll and the Gospel Divorce Texts." Revue de Qumran 38 (1980):247-56.

Murray, John. Redemption--Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.

Nelson, Neil D., Jr. "This Generation" in Matt 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):369-85.

The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. S.v. "Pilate," by D. H. Wheaton.

_____. S.v. "Chinnereth," by R. F. Hosking.

Newman, Albert H. A Manual of Church History. 2 vols. Chicago: American Baptist Press, 1931.

Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.

Nouwen, Henri J. M. In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership. New York: Crossroad, 1994.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Jesus." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Pagenkemper, Karl E. "Rejection Imagery in the Synoptic Parables." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:610 (April-June 1996):179-98; 611 (July-September 1996):308-31.

Parrot, Andre. Golgotha and the Chruch of the Holy Sepulchre. Translated by E. Hudson. London: SCM, 1957.

Patai, Raphael. The Messianic Texts. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979.

Payne, Philip B. "Jesus' Implicit Claim to Deity in His Parables." Trinity Journal 2NS:1 (Spring 1981):3-23.

Penner, James A. "Revelation and Discipleship in Matthew's Transfiguration Account." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):201-10.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Biblical Covenants and the Birth Narratives." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 257-70. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

_____. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Perowne, S. The Life and Times of Herod the Great. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1956.

Peters, George N. D. The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ, as Covenanted in the Old Testament and Presented in the New Testament. 3 vols. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1972.

Peterson, Robert A. "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?" Bibliotheca Sacra 156:621 (January-March 1999):13-27.

_____. "A Traditionalist Response to John Stott's Arguments for Annihilationism." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):553-68.

Pettingill, William L. Simple Studies in Matthew. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., n. d.

Plummer, Alfred. An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Proctor, John. "Fire in God's House: Influence of Malachi 3 in the NT." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):9-14.

Przybylski, Benno. Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought. Cambridge: University Press, 1980.

Rawlinson, A. E. J. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 5th ed. London: Methuen, 1942.

Rice, Edwin W. People's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1887.

Robertson, Archibald, T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.

_____. A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ. New York: Harper & Row, 1922.

_____. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930.

Robertson, Paul E. "First-Century Jewish Marriage Customs." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):33-36.

Robinson, J. M. Editor. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. New York: Harper and Row, 1977.

Robinson, Theodore H. The Gospel of Matthew. Moffatt New Testament Commentary series. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928.

Rogers, Cleon. "The Great Commission." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:519 (July-September 1973):258-67.

Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

Sahl, Joseph G. "The Impeccability of Jesus Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:557 (January-March 1983):11-20.

Saucy, Mark. "The Kingdom-of-God Sayings in Matthew." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:602 (April-June 1994):175-97.

_____. "Miracles and Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):281-307.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

_____. "The Presence of the Kingdom and the Life of the Church." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):30-46.

Sauer, Erich. The Triumph of the Crucified. Translated by G. H. Lang. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951.

Scharen, Hans. "Gehenna in the Synoptics." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):324-37; 149:596 (October-December 1992):454-70.

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Translated by W. Montgomery. New York: Macmillan Co., 1961.

Scofield, C. I., ed. The New Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

_____. The Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1917.

Scroggie, W. Graham, A Guide to the Gospels. Old Tappan, N. J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1975.

Senior, Donald. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1985.

Shepard, J. W. The Christ of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, N.J.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Sparks, H. F. D. "The Doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood of God in the Gospels." In Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, pp. 241-62. Edited by D. E. Nineham. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955.

Spencer, Aída Besançon. "Father-Ruler: The Meaning of the Metaphor Father' for God in the Bible." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:3 (September 1996):433-42.

Stamm, Frederick Keller. Seeing the Multitudes. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1943.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. New Testament Theology. Translated by John Marsh. London: SCM Press, 1955.

Stein, Robert H. "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times." Christianity Today 19:19 (June 20, 1975):9-11.

Stonehouse, Ned B. The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1944.

Storms, C. Samuel. Reaching God's Ear. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988.

Stott, John R. W. The Message of the Sermon on the Mount. Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 1978.

Stoutenburg, Dennis C. "Out of my sight!', Get behind me!', or Follow after me!': There Is No Choice in God's Kingdom." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):173-78.

Stowe, C. E. "The Eschatology of Christ, With Special Reference to the Discourse in Matt. XXIV. and XXV." Bibliotheca Sacra 7 (July 1850):452-78.

Sukenik, E. L. Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece. London: Oxford University Press, 1934.

Tasker, R. V. G. The Gospel According to St. Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961.

Tatum, W. Barnes, Jr. "Matthew 2.23." The Bible Translator 27 (1976):135-38.

Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London: Macmillan, 1952.

Tenney, Merrill C. The Genius of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. S.v. "makarios," by F. Hauck.

_____. S.v. "polloi," by Joachim Jeremias.

_____. S.v. "porne . . .," by F. Hauck and S. Schulz.

_____. S.v. "telones," by Otto Michel.

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by David E. Green. S.v. "Chebel," by H. J. Fabry.

Thiessen, Henry C. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1943.

Thistleton, A. C. "Realized Eschatology at Corinth." New Testament Studies 24 (1977):510-26.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Outline Studies of the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961.

Torrey, Charles C. "The Foundry of the Second Temple at Jerusalem." Journal of Biblical Literature 55 (December 1936):247-60.

Toussaint, Stanley D. Behold the King: A Study of Matthew. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980.

_____. "The Contingency of the Coming of the Kingdom." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 222-37. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "The Introductory and Concluding Parables of Matthew Thirteen." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:484 (October-December 1964):351-55.

Trench, Richard C. Notes on the Parables of Our Lord. New York: Appleton, 1851.

_____. Studies in the Gospels. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

_____. Synonyms of the New Testament. New ed. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd., 1915.

Trilling, Wolfgang .Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthaus-Evangeliums. Munchen: Kosel, 1964.

Turner, David L. "The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41: Interaction with Evangelical Treatments." Grace Theological Journal 10:1 (Spring 1989):3-27.

Turner, Nigel. Syntax. Vol. 3 of J. H. Moulton. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Vawter, Bruce. "Divorce and the New Testament." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977):528-48.

_____. "The Divorce Clauses in Mt 5, 32 and 19, 9." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 16 (1959):155-67.

Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in the New Testament. 4 vols. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Walvoord, John F. "Christ's Olivet Discourse on the End of the Age." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:510 (April-June 1971):109-16; 128:511 (July-September 1971):206-14; 128:512 (October-December 1971):316-26; 129:513 (January-March 1972):20-32; 129:514 (April-June 1972):99-105; 129:515 (July-September 1972):206-10; 129:516 (October-December 1972):307-15.

_____. "The Kingdom of Heaven." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):195-205.

_____. Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

_____. The Millennial Kingdom. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., 1959.

Ware, Bruce A "Is the Church in View in Matthew 24-25?" Bibliotheca Sacra 138:550 (April-June 1981):158-72.

Warfield, Benjamin B. "Jesus' Alleged Confession of Sin." Princeton Theological Review 12 (1914):127-228.

_____. Selected Shorter Writings. 2 vols. Edited by John E. Meeter. Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970.

Wenham, David. "Jesus and the Law: an Exegesis on Matthew 5:17-20." Themelios 4:3 (April 1979):92-26.

_____. "The Structure of Matthew XIII." New Testament Studies 25 (1979):516-22.

Wenham, G. J. "May Divorced Christians Remarry?" Churchman 95 (1981):150-61.

Wenham, J. W. "When Were the Saints Raised?" Journal of Theological Studies 32 (1981):150-52.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Gospel According to St. John. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1908.

Westerholm, Stephen. "The Law in the Sermon on the Mount: Matt 5:17-48." Criswell Theological Review 6:1 (Fall 1992):43-56.

Wilkin, Robert N. "A Great Buy!" The Grace Evangelical Society News 6:9 (September 1991):2.

_____. "Is Confessing Christ a Condition of Salvation?" The Grace Evangelical Society News 9:4 (July-August 1994):2-3.

_____. "Not Everyone Who Says Lord, Lord' Will Enter the Kingdom: Matthew 7:21-23." The Grace Evangelical Society News 3:12 (December 1988):2-3.

_____. "The Parable of the Four Soils: Do the Middle Two Soils Represent Believers or Unbelievers? (Matthew 13:20-21)." The Grace Evangelical Society News 3:8 (August-September 1988):2.

_____. "Self-Sacrifice and Kingdom Entrance: Matthew 5:29-30." The Grace Evangelical Society News 4:8 (August 1989):2; 4:9 (September 1989):2-3.

Winer, George Benedict. Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament. Translated from the 7th German ed. by J. Henry Thayer. Philadelphia: Smith, English, & Co., 1874.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):241-52.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "phylactery," by J. Arthur Thompson.

_____. S.v. "Pilate, Pontius," by J. G. Vos.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-2@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-3@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-4@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-5@

Haydock: Matthew (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW

INTRODUCTION.

THIS and other titles, with the names of those that wrote the Gospels, are not the words of the Evangelists themselves. The Scripture itself nowhere teacheth us, which books or writings are to be received as true and canonical Scriptures. It is only by the channel of unwritten traditions , and by the testimony and authority of the Catholic Church, that we know and believe that this gospel, for example of St. Matthew, with all contained in it, and that the other books and parts of the Old or New Testament, are of divine authority, or written by divine inspiration; which made St. Augustine say, I should not believe the gospel, were I not moved thereunto by the authority of the Catholic Church: Ego evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiæ Catholicæ commoveret auctoritas. ( Lib. con. Epist. Manichæi, quam vocant fundamenti. tom. viii. chap. 5, p. 154. A. Ed. Ben.) (Witham)

S. MATTHEW, author of the gospel that we have under his name, was a Galilean, the son of Alpheus, a Jew, and a tax-gatherer; he was known also by the name of Levi. His vocation happened in the second year of the public ministry of Christ; who, soon after forming the college of his apostles, adopted him into that holy family of the spiritual princes and founders of his Church. Before his departure from Judea, to preach the gospel to distant countries, he yielded to the solicitations of the faithful; and about the eighth year after our Saviour's resurrection, the forty-first of the vulgar era, he began to write his gospel: i.e., the good tidings of salvation to man, through Christ Jesus, our Lord. Of the hagiographers, St. Matthew was the first in the New, as Moses was the first in the Old Testament. And as Moses opened his work with the generation of the heavens and the earth, so St. Matthew begins with the generation of Him, who, in the fullness of time, took upon himself our human nature, to free us from the curse we had brought upon ourselves, and under which the whole creation was groaning. (Haydock) ---This holy apostle, after having reaped a great harvest of souls in Judea, preached the faith to the barbarous nations of the East. He was much devoted to heavenly contemplation, and led an austere life; for he eat no flesh, satisfying nature with herbs, roots, seeds, and berries, as Clement of Alexanderia assures us, Pædag. lib. ii. chap. 1. St. Ambrose says, that God opened to him the country of the Persians. Rufinus and Socrates tell us, that he carried the gospel into Ethiopia, meaning probably the southern or eastern parts of Asia. St. Paulinus informs us, that he ended his course in Parthia; and Venantius Fortunatus says, by martyrdom.--- See Butler's Saints' Lives, Sept. 21 st.

Gill: Matthew (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO MATTHEW

The subject of this book, and indeed of all the writings of the New Testament, is the Gospel. The Greek word ευαγγελιον signifies a joyful message, good news, glad tidings of good things; such as Christ was anointed to preach, the Angels brought to the shepherds, and the Evangelists, Apostles, and Ministers of Christ published to the world. Isa 61:1. And such is the account given by this inspired writer, of the incarnation, life, actions, ministry, miracles, sufferings, and death of Jesus Christ; whereby peace and reconciliation, pardon and righteousness, atonement and redemption, life and salvation, are obtained for lost, perishing sinners. The Jews, to whom the message of grace was first sent, and among whom the Gospel was first preached, having despised and rejected it; they and their posterity, in allusion to the word "Evangelion", most wickedly and blasphemously call the whole New Testament, און גליון or וצן גליון "Aven Gilion" ^a, a "revelation", or "volume of iniquity and vanity"; but "blessed are the people that know the joyful sound", see Psa 89:15. The writer of this Gospel, Matthew, who also was called Levi in Luk 5:27 was by occupation a publican, or tax-gatherer, and was in his employ when Christ called him by his grace. He was one of the twelve Apostles sent forth by Christ to preach the Gospel of the kingdom, Mat 10:3 and was honoured to be the first of the writers of the New Testament, and to be the first publisher therein of the good news of the incarnate Saviour; and was a wonderful instance of the rich and sovereign grace of God. Though he was employed in collecting the Roman tax, yet he was of Jewish extract; as appears from his being called the son of Alphaeus, Mar 2:14 and from his name Matthew Levi; for as the latter, so the former is an Hebrew name. The Jews say ^b one of the disciples of Jesus was called yatm, Matthai or Matthew: his name signifies a "gift" or "given"; he was one of those the Father had given to Christ, and was kept by him, when the son of perdition was lost, Joh 17:6. It may not be improper to inquire in what language this Gospel was written. The ancient Christian writers were generally of opinion, that Matthew wrote it in Hebrew; Papias and ^c Pantaenus were of this mind, as also Irenaeus ^d, Origen ^e Eusebius ^f, Athanasius ^g, Epiphanius ^h, and Jerom ⁱ; and it is asserted in the titles of the Arabic and Persic versions, and at the end of the Syriac version of this Gospel, that it was written in that language; and this opinion is espoused by Grotius and Hammond, though justly exploded by others; for what has been published by Munster, Mercer, Hutter, and Robertson, are translations, made by themselves or others, and of no antiquity: and since Hebrew and Syriac words are interpreted in this Gospel, see Mat 1:23 which would not have been done, had it been written in either language; and since Matthew generally follows the Septuagint version in the passages cited by him out of the Old Testament; and since the Hebrew language was not generally known at that time to the common people, only to the learned; for the law and the prophets, when read in the synagogues in that language, required an interpreter; and since the Greek tongue was the language more commonly spoken, and the rest of the Evangelists wrote in Greek, and the Gospel was designed for the Gentiles as well as the Jews; it is most reasonable to conclude that this Gospel also was wrote in Greek; whereby that ancient prophecy was fulfilled, at least in part, "God shall enlarge" or "persuade Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem", Gen 9:27 the Gospel being published in the language of Japheth, the Greek language, which the Jews, the posterity of Shem, now understood; agreeably to which the Palmudic writers interpret the prophecy; says ^k Bar Kaphra, mentioning the above words,

"They shall speak tpy lv wnwvlb in the language of Japheth, in the tents of Shem;''

or,

"the words of the law shall be spoken in the language of Japheth, in the midst of the tents of Shem ^l.''

R. Jochanan ^m explains them thus:

"tpy lv wyrbr "the words of Japheth" shall be in the tents of Shem; and says R. Chiya ben Aba, the sense of it is, The beauty of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem.''

Which the gloss interprets thus:

"The beauty of Japheth is the language of Javan, or the Greek language, which language is more beautiful than that of any other of the sons of Japheth.''

The time when this Gospel was written is said ⁿ by some to be in the eighth or ninth, by others, in the fifteenth year after the ascension of Christ, when the Evangelist had received the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, among which was the gift of tongues; and when the promise of Christ had been made good to him, Joh 14:26.

College: Matthew (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

It may surprise the modern reader to realize that for the first two centuries of the Christian era, Matthew's Gospel prevailed as the most popular of the Gospel accounts. Not only was Matthew's text the most frequently quoted NT book among second century Christians, in virtually all textual witnesses and canonical lists Matthew is placed first.

Several factors may have contributed to the premier position assigned Matthew's Gospel. Certainly its comprehensive detail and the systematic structuring of ethical and pastoral material contributed to the Gospel's favored place in the church. In addition, the Gospel's popularity was undoubtedly based upon its explicit Jewish tendencies that enabled the church to affirm its Jewish roots while at the same time distancing the Christian movement from the synagogue. In short, both in form and content, Matthew's Gospel provided second century Christianity with an eminently practical and useful compendium of what was foundational to the Christian faith.

The priority and dominance extended Matthew's Gospel prevailed as the consensus for roughly 1700 years, until the early decades of the nineteenth century. With the development of an historical consciousness, and the refinement of literary methodology, questions of historical reliability and Synoptic relationships dominated post-Enlightenment Gospel research. While the chronological priority of Matthew was not immediately challenged, the privileged position given Matthew began to erode as scholarship presupposed that Gospel composition demanded a movement from the "more primitive" to the "more advanced." Mark's size, inferior quality, and seemingly "primitive theology," suggested to many that it was Mark not Matthew that should be regarded as the oldest Gospel, and hence the most reliable for a reconstruction of the life and teachings of Jesus. As a result, Matthew was gradually dismissed by many (esp. German scholarship), as a secondary development, being permeated by late and legendary additions (e.g., birth and infancy stories), representing more church tradition than a factual record of the life and teachings of Jesus.

The emerging nineteenth century consensus of the secondary character of Matthew received its most substantial endorsement in 1863 from H.J. Holtzmann, who argued that Mark wrote first and was used independently by Matthew and Luke. While subsequent defenders of Marcan priority have supplemented the theory with additional sources (e.g., Q, L, and M) to explain Synoptic relationships, the hypothesis that Mark is the earliest of the Gospel narratives has remained the dominant scholarly opinion for the past 100 years.

The initial result of the emergence of Mark as the pivotal document to explain Synoptic relationships was a decline of interest in Matthew in the early decades of this century. It was to Mark, rather than Matthew that scholarship turned either to find raw materials from which to reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus, or to penetrate to the earliest form of the tradition in order to elucidate the possible factors within the Christian communities that generated the rise and preservation of certain text-forms (Form Criticism). As long as the scholarly agenda was preoccupied with penetrating behind the Gospels to isolate sources or to reconstruct early Christian communities, Matthew's Gospel would remain only of secondary interest.

Graham Stanton singles out the date of 1945 as marking a new phase in Matthean studies. The first two decades after 1945 witness a number of studies addressing Matthean themes or sections of the Gospel that begin to call attention to the editorial skills and theological concerns of the Gospel's author. The shift to an emphasis on the role of the evangelist in his selection, arrangement, and modification of the material he received, brought renewed interest in Matthew as an effective communicator and sophisticated theologian (Redaction Criticism). However, such an assessment was ultimately grounded in the hypothesis of Marcan priority and the subsequent evaluation of how Matthew used Mark as his primary literary source. The result has been an exegetical method overly preoccupied with slight literary deviations from Mark, with little sensitivity to the interconnected sequence of events, and their contribution to the whole Gospel.

Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of studies on Matthew, with many books and articles concerned to elucidate Matthew's Gospel as a "unified narrative" or "story" told by a competent story-teller who organizes his thought into a coherent sequence of events. The new concern for the Gospels as literary masterpieces demands that the reader be attentive to how Matthew develops his themes and focuses his account on a retelling of the story of Jesus in a way that does not merely rehearse the past, but speaks meaningfully as a guide for Christian discipleship.

Rather than reading Matthew through the lens of other Gospels or a hypothetical reconstruction of the evangelist's sources, priority has shifted to the whole Gospel as a unified coherent narrative. It follows that whatever written or oral sources the evangelist may have had access to, the writer has so shaped his composition that it has a life of its own, discernable only by attention to the structure of the parts and their contribution to the whole.

In order to read and appreciate Matthew's story of Jesus one must be attentive to the codes and conventions that govern the literary and social context of the first century. A coherent reading of any document demands an awareness of the literary rules that govern the various types of literature. Knowing the general category of literary genre of a text enables the reader to know what types of questions can legitimately be asked of the material. For example, if one is reading poetry, questions of factual accuracy or scientific precision may not be the most relevant inquiry for ascertaining a text's meaning. Knowing the genre of a writing enables one's understanding to be informed by the features and intentions that characterize the writing, and not by our modern expectations and concerns we may impose upon the text.

While Matthew's Gospel has certain affinities with the literary genres of biography and historiography, the Gospel is not strictly an historical biography. No Gospel writer was driven by an impulse simply to record the facts of what happened with strict chronological precision. In fact, one need only to read the Gospels side by side to see the freedom and creative manner with which each writer communicated his message. The authors have selected, arranged, and interpreted events, characters, and settings in the best way to communicate with their respective audiences. The result is four unique accounts of Jesus' life and teachings told from a particular "point of view," informed both by the primary events and the theological concerns and needs of the expanding church.

Matthew's Gospel builds reflectively upon the primary events to capture the significance of what happened in story form. An appreciation of the literary and communicative skills of the author enables one to recognize in the dramatic sequence of events a carefully constructed "plot." In this way the storyteller communicates his values and theological commitment and seeks to persuade the reader to accept his perspective.

COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL

Some issues and questions that may be extremely important for understanding one category of literature may contribute little to the understanding of another. For example, an informed interpretation of Paul's letters necessitates a reconstruction of the world that produced the text. The modern reader would need to know as much as possible about the author, destination of the letter, and the factors that gave rise to the text. The letter itself will constitute a prime source for acquiring such information.

However, when one approaches Gospel narratives with the same concerns the matter is complicated by the lack of information afforded by the text. The anonymity of the Gospels, alongside their silence concerning the place, time, and circumstances that may have generated their writings, necessitates that such historical inquiries be answered in terms of probability. What this means is that there is no direct access, via the text, to the historical author or primary recipients of his document. The difficulty is centered in the fact that the text is not primarily designed to function as a "window" through which to gain access into the mind and environment of the author and original readers. The author does not purport to tell his own story or that of his readers, but the story of Jesus of Nazareth. Fortunately, following the sequential development and sense of Matthew's story of Jesus does not depend on identifying with certainty the author or the historical and social matrix that may have prompted his writing.

In what follows, traditional introductory questions will be briefly discussed, alongside important insights afforded by literary theorists who focus on the Gospels as narratives.

A. AUTHORSHIP

The anonymity of the canonical Gospels necessitates heavy reliance on external evidence as a point of departure to establish Gospel authorship. The external testimony from the second century is virtually unanimous that Matthew the tax collector authored the Gospel attributed to him. Even before explicit patristic testimony regarding Gospel authorship there is convincing evidence that no Gospel ever circulated without an appropriate heading or title (e.g., KATA MAQQAION, "according to Matthew"), identifying the person thought to be the author. The common assumption that the Gospels circulated anonymously until the mid-second century when titles were finally affixed to them has been seriously challenged by Martin Hengel. While certain details of Hengel's theory regarding the origins of Gospel headings have been challenged, the lack of variation in the second-century tradition regarding Matthean authorship could well owe its origin to the time when the Gospels first began to circulate among the Christian communities.

The earliest patristic source addressing Gospel authorship comes from Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis (ca. 60-130), whose comments are available only in quotations preserved by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (ca. 260-340, H.E. 3.39.14-16). Eusebius' citation of Papias regarding Matthean authorship has been subject to various interpretations dependent upon the translation of key terms. The citation reads:

Matthew collected (sunetavxato, synetaxato , "composed," "compiled," "arranged") the oracles (taÉ lovgia, ta logia , "sayings," "gospel") in the Hebrew language (dialevktw/, dialektô, "Hebrew or Aramaic language," "Semitic style") and each interpreted (hJrmhvneusen, hçrmçneusen, "interpreted," "translated," "transmitted") them as best he could (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16).

It appears that patristic testimony subsequent to Papias was dependent upon his testimony and thus perpetuated the tradition of Matthean authorship alongside the notion of an original Semitic version. The testimonies of Irenaeus ( Adv. Haer. 3.1.1), Pantaenus (quoted in H.E. 5.10.3), Origen (quoted in H.E. 6.25.4), Eusebius himself ( H.E. 3.24.6), Epiphanius (quoted in Adv. Haer. 29.l9.4; 30.3.7), Cyril of Jerusalem ( Catecheses 14.15), Jerome ( DeVir. III.3), as well as Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389), Chrysostom (347-407), Augustine (354-430), and Syrian and Coptic authorities are all unanimous in affirming that Matthew authored the first Gospel originally in a Semitic language. However, since the tradition seems ultimately to rest upon the view of Papias, as cited by Eusebius, the accumulated evidence of patristic testimony, in the view of some, has very little independent worth. Especially since the idea of an original Semitic Matthew, from which our Greek Matthew has been translated has been challenged on textual and linguistic grounds. Matthew simply does not read like translated Greek. These and other difficulties with the view of Papias have resulted in many dismissing all patristic testimony concerning Matthean authorship.

While much critical opinion has assumed that Papias' errant view of an original Semitic Matthew discounts his testimony about Matthew being the author, in recent times the evidence afforded by the testimony of Papias has been reassessed. On the one hand, some scholars have argued that the terms Ebrai?di dialevktw/ (Ebraidi dialektô), do not refer to the Hebrew or Aramaic language, but rather to a Jewish style or literary form. In this view, Papias would be referring to Matthew's penchant for Semitic themes and devices, not an original Semitic Gospel. Others have rejected such an interpretation as an unnatural way to read the passage from Papias, and prefer to acknowledge that Papias was simply wrong when he claimed that Matthew was originally written in a Semitic language. However, such an admission does not warrant the complete dismissal of the testimony of Papias concerning the authorship of Matthew. One must still explain how Matthew's name became attached to the first Gospel. The obscurity and relative lack of prominence of the Apostle Matthew argues against the view that the early church would pseudonymously attribute the Gospel to Matthew. Surely, patristic tradition had some basis for attributing the Gospel to Matthew. Therefore, as noted by Davies and Allison, "the simplistic understanding of Papias which dismisses him out of hand must be questioned if not abandoned."

There is nothing inherent in the Gospel itself that convincingly argues against Matthean authorship. Contrary to the view of a few, the decided Jewish flavor of the Gospel argues decisively for the author of the first Gospel being a Jew. Other scholars have noted that Matthew's background and training as a "tax collector" along with other professional skills offers a plausible explanation for the Gospel's sophisticated literary form and attention to detail. Certainly the combined weight of external and internal considerations make the traditional view of Matthean authorship a reasonable, if not a most plausible position. However, in the words of R.T. France there is "an inevitable element of subjectivity in such judgments." Not only is hard data difficult to come by to establish the authorship of any of the Gospels, what is available is often subject to diverse but equally credible explanations. It follows that while the issue of authorship is an intriguing historical problem, it is extremely doubtful that any consensus will ever emerge given the nature of the available evidence.

The question must be raised whether the veracity of the first Gospel or its interpretation are ultimately dependent upon one's verdict concerning authorship. While one's theological bias concerning authorship may influence how the text is evaluated, the two issues are not integrally connected. Since the first Gospel offers very little (if any) insight into the identity of its historical author, recreating the figure behind the Gospel is neither relevant or particularly important for understanding Matthew's story of Jesus. Thus, while I see no compelling reason to abandon the traditional attribution of Matthean authorship to the first Gospel, no significant exegetical or theological concern hangs on the issue.

B. NARRATION OF THE STORY

Of much greater importance than deciding the identity of the author, is an evaluation of the way the author has decided to present his story of Jesus. In literary terms the way a story gets told is called "point of view." A storyteller may tell his story in the first person (i.e., "I"), and portray himself as one of the characters in the story. From a first person point of view the storyteller would necessarily be limited to what he personally has experienced or learned from other characters. Matthew's story is told in a third person narration, wherein the storyteller is not a participant in the story, but refers to characters within the story as "he," "she," or "they." From such a vantage point the Matthean narrator provides the reader with an informational advantage over story characters, and thereby, situates the reader in an advantageous position for evaluating events and characters in the story.

Perhaps the most prominent characteristic of a third person narration is the storyteller's ability to provide the reader with insights which are not normally available to one in real life. His ability to move inside his characters to reveal their innermost thoughts, feelings, emotions, and motivations, enables the reader to use these insights to form evaluations and opinions about characters and events within the story. For example, the narrator reveals when the disciples are amazed (8:29; 21:20), fearful (14:30; 17:6), sorrowful (26:22), filled with grief (17:23), and indignant (26:8). He knows when they understand (16:12; 17:13), and when they doubt (28:17). The overall impact of these insights enables the reader to better evaluate the traits exhibited by the disciples.

Similar insights are provided into the thoughts, emotions, and motivations of minor characters in the story. The inner thoughts of Joseph (1:19), Herod (2:3), the crowds (7:28; 22:33; 9:8; 12:13; 15:31), the woman (9:21), Herod the tetrarch (14:59), Judas (27:3), Pilate (27:14,18), the centurion (27:54), and the reaction of the women at the tomb (28:4,8) are all accessible to the Matthean narrator. The narrator even supplies the reader with inside information about the thoughts and motivations of the Jewish leaders (2:3; 9:3; 12:14; 21:45-46; 26:3-5; 12:10; 16:1; 19:3; 22:15). These insights function to establish in the mind of the reader the antagonist of the story.

The Matthean narrator is also not bound by time or space in his coverage of the story. Matthew provides the reader access to private conversations between Herod and the Magi (2:3-8), John and Jesus (3:13-15), Jesus and Satan (4:1-11), the disciples (16:7), Peter and Jesus (16:23), Judas and the chief priest (26:14-16; 26:40), and Pilate and the chief priest (27:62-64). He makes known to the reader the private decisions made by the chief priest and the Sanhedrin (26:59-60), and the plan of the chief priest and elders concerning the disappearance of the body (28:12-15). The narrator is present when Jesus prays alone, while at the same time he knows the difficulties of the disciples on the sea (14:22-24). He easily takes the reader from the courtroom of Pilate to the courtyard of Peter's denial (26:70f.), and eventually to the scene at the cross (27:45). For the most part, the narrator in Matthew's story stays close to Jesus, and views events and characters in terms of how they affect his main character.

Whoever the actual historical author may be, it is clear that the Matthean storyteller narrates his Gospel in a way to reliably guide his readers through the story so as to properly evaluate events and characters. On occasion the narrator will interrupt the flow of the story in order to provide the reader with an explicit comment or explanation. These intrusions may take the form of various types of descriptions (e.g., 3:4; 17:2; 28:3-4; 27:28-31), summaries (e.g., 4:23-25; 9:35-38; 12:15-16; 14:14; 15:29-31), or explicit interpretive commentary (1:22-23, 2:15, 17-18, 23; 4:15-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:35; 21:4-5; 27:9-10). Detecting the narrator's voice in the story enables the reader to be sensitive to the manner in which Matthew instructs, leads, and encourages the reader to adopt a particular point of view.

SETTING OF THE GOSPEL

Traditional approaches to Gospel introduction usually treat under the heading of "setting" such issues as the date and place of the Gospel's writing, alongside the identity and problems confronting the community addressed. It is important to remember that practically speaking our exclusive source for information about the time and circumstantial factors generating the Gospel's production come only from the Gospel itself. No explicit outside information speaks directly to the issue of the social and historical conditions of the Gospel's primary readers. Essentially, scholarly efforts to establish a life-setting for the writing of the Gospel must search the Gospel for possible clues that hint at the time and circumstances of the writing. The fact that, although reading the same evidence, scholarly proposals for the setting of Matthew's Gospel have resulted in reconstructions that are opposed to one another should give one caution about dogmatic claims in such areas.

A. DATE

Efforts to recover the environmental setting that best explains the form and content of Matthew's Gospel have not resulted in a scholarly consensus. Concerning the date of the Gospel's composition scholars are divided into two broad proposals. The majority view is that Matthew was written after Mark sometime between the dates of A.D. 80-100. However, the arguments adduced to establish such a dating scheme are largely based upon prior judgments concerning the order of Gospel composition or hypothetical reconstructions of developments in the first century. Pivotal to the post-70 dating of Matthew is the contention that Matthew knew and used Mark as a major source for the writing of his Gospel. Since the consensus of scholarly judgment dates Mark in the 60s, it is therefore likely that Matthew composed his Gospel sometime after A.D. 70. Of course, if one rejects Marcan priority or the suggested date for Marcan composition, the argument fails to be convincing.

A post-70 date has also been assumed based upon Matthew's explicit language concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and his references to the "church" (16:18; 18:17). Such language is thought to be anachronistic and therefore indicative of a post-70 composition. The reference to a "king" in the parable of the wedding feast who "sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city" (22:7), appears to reflect historical knowledge of Jerusalem's destruction retrojected into Jesus' ministry as prophecy. However, apart from the fact of whether Jesus could predict Jerusalem's fall, the wording of 22:7, as France observes, "is precisely the sort of language one might expect in a genuine prediction of political annihilation in the Jewish context, and does not depend on a specific knowledge of how things in fact turned out in A.D. 70." There also is no need to read a developed ecclesiology into Jesus' references to the "church." The term ejkklhsiva (ekklçsia) in Matthew says nothing about church order, and with the communal imagery attached to the term in Jewish circles (cf. Qumran), it becomes entirely credible that Jesus could speak of his disciples as constituting an ekklçsia.

Perhaps the most heavily relied upon argument for dating Matthew in the last decades of the first century is the decided Jewish polemic that seemingly dominates the first Gospel. It is thought that formative Judaism in the post-70 period provides the most suitable background for Matthew's portrayal of the Jewish leaders and his underlying view of Israel. After the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 it was the Pharisaic movement that emerged as the normative form of Judaism. Pharisaism was particularly suited to bring stability and a renewed sense of Jewish identity after the tragedy of A.D. 70. The Pharisees saw themselves as "the most accurate interpreters of the law" (see Josephus, JW 1.5.1; 2.8.14; Life 38.191), and definers of both the social and cultic boundaries delimiting the covenanted people of God. The community addressed by Matthew's Gospel is thought to be a rival to a post-70 formative Judaism, having endured severe hostility and rejection by official Judaism.

However, the evidence does not warrant the supposition that Matthew's community has severed all contact with the Jewish community. Furthermore, not enough is known about pre-70 Pharisaism to emphatically deny a setting for Matthew's Gospel before Jerusalem's destruction. Indeed, an impressive list of scholars have cogently argued for a pre-70 dating of Matthew. Not only does such a view have solid patristic evidence, some passages in Matthew may be intended to imply that the temple was still standing at the time of the Gospel's writing (cf. Matt 5:23-29; 12:5-7; 17:23; 16:22; 26:60-61). It appears that the evidence is not sufficiently decisive so as to completely discredit all competitive views. Fortunately, understanding Matthew's story of Jesus is not dependent upon reconstructing the historical context from which the Gospel emerged.

B. PLACE OF ORIGIN

Even less important for a competent reading of the first Gospel involves the effort to decide the Gospel's precise place of origin. Because of its large Jewish community and strategic role in the Gentile mission most Matthean scholars have opted for Antioch of Syria as the Gospel's place of origin. Other proposals have included Jerusalem, Alexandria, Caesarea, Phoenicia, and simply "east of the Jordan." While certain evidence may tend to weigh in favor of one provenance over another, in the final analysis we cannot be certain where Matthew's Gospel was composed. Nevertheless, as observed by France, deciding "the geographical location in which the Gospel originated is probably the least significant for a sound understanding of the text." Much more relevant to the interpretation of the gospel is the dimension given the discussion of "setting" by a literary reading of the first Gospel.

C. NARRATIVE WORLD

In literary terms the discussion of "setting" does not involve the delineation of factors generating the text, but rather the descriptive context or background in which the action of the story transpires. Settings, as described by the narrator, are like stage props in a theatrical production. Oftentimes, the narrator's description of the place, time, or social conditions in which action takes place is charged with subtle nuances that may generate a certain atmosphere with important symbolic significance. For example, early in Matthew's story the narrator relates places and events to create a distinct atmosphere from which to evaluate his central character, Jesus. The story opens with a series of events that are calculated to evoke memories of Israel's past, and thereby to highlight the significance of the times inaugurated by Jesus. By means of a genealogy, cosmic signs, dream-revelations, the appearance of the "angel of the Lord," and the repeated reference to prophetic fulfillment, the narrator highlights God's renewed involvement with his people and the climactic nature of the times realized in Jesus. The locations of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Egypt evoke feelings of continuity between Jesus' history and that of Israel's. Other locations such as the "desert" and "mountain" function to create a certain aura around events and characters in the story. Later in the story specific locations such as "synagogue," the "sea," and the "temple" all contribute to a distinct atmosphere from which to evaluate the course of events. While real-life settings of the author and his readers can only be reproduced in terms of probability, the temporal and spatial settings established in the story provide an integral context for interpreting Matthew's story.

THE LITERARY CHARACTER OF MATTHEW

A. LITERARY AND RHETORICAL SKILL

Since Matthew's text would have been handwritten without systematic punctuation or modern techniques for delineating structural features such as bold print, underlining, paragraph indention, or chapter headings, any clues for discerning the structure and nature of the composition is dependent upon "verbal clues" within the narrative itself. Within both Hebrew and classical traditions communication on a literary level assumed a level of competency in conventional communicative techniques. While NT authors may not have been formally trained in rhetoric, an effective exchange of ideas demands some awareness of conventional patterns for communication. A study of Matthew's literary style puts emphasis on the literary devices he employs to lead the reader to experience his story in a certain way.

Reading Matthew's story (whether orally before an audience, or in private), would have demanded that the reader attend to the various structural features which might illumine the meaning and flow of the narrative. Some of these literary strategies function on a broader structural level providing the text with a sense of progression and cohesion (e.g., Matt see the formulaic phrases in 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1; and 4:17; 16:21). However, most structural features primarily contribute to a sense of cohesion within smaller textual units. These features may highlight or bracket unifying themes by opening and closing distinct units with similar words or phrases (see, e.g., 4:23-24 and 9:35); build anticipation by foreshadowing subsequent events (e.g., ch. 2 foreshadows the passion narrative); or stimulate reflection and a sense of development in the story by verbal repetition and episodic similarities (cf. 8:23-27/14:22-33; 9:27-31/20:29-34; 9:32-34/12:22-34; 14:13-21/15:32-38). These elements along with Matthew's fondness for grouping materials according to a thematic or even numerical scheme, are indicative of an environment largely educated through oral proclamation not the written word. Matthew's compositional scheme greatly facilitated learning by providing the listener (or reader) with a coherent and orderly presentation that aided comprehension and memorization.

The meticulous structural concerns, both in the whole and the smaller details of Matthew, have been widely recognized by scholarship. However, as we shall see in the next section, there is great diversity with respect to the overall structural pattern of the first Gospel. The difficulty lies with going from clearly delineated structural features in the smaller units of text, to the use of the same devices to explain the total composition. Often the analysis seems forced and unable to fit the details into a single coherent pattern. It may not always be easy to identify the precise contribution that a particular literary device makes to the overall composition of a literary work, and certainly there always exists the danger of reading too much into a text by artificially imposing symmetrical patterns where none exist. However, these problems are overcome by a greater sensitivity to the nature and function of literary devices, and not by ignoring these features of a text. The question remains concerning what features might provide clues to the overall structure of Matthew's Gospel.

B. STRUCTURAL-PLOT

Consideration of Matthew's skill in the smaller portions of his text has stimulated numerous efforts to locate structural indications that may provide the organizing pattern for the entire Gospel. Structural appraisals of Matthew's Gospel usually begin with the discovery of a literary device or formulaic expression that appears to be unique to the evangelist. However, while scholars may agree on the existence of a literary device or formula, they may diverge widely concerning the function or theological significance of a literary feature. For example, although the expressions kaiÉ ejgevneto o{te ejtevlesen oJ =Ihsou'" (kai egeneto hote etelesen ho Içsous, "and when Jesus had finished;" 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1), and ajpoÉ tovte h[rxato oJ =Ihsou'" (apo tote erxato ho Içsous, "from that time Jesus began," 4:17; 16:21) are recognized to be structurally significant, it is difficult to establish that Matthew consciously adopted these expressions as the organizational key to his entire Gospel. As helpful as these phrases are for marking off the major discourses of Jesus or highlighting major new developments in the story, neat structural schemes based upon repeated formulae cannot do justice to the subtle twists and turns of the dramatic flow of Matthew's story.

Several scholars have centered on Matthew's use of Mark to determine the structure of his Gospel. Attention has been called to the peculiar Matthean organization of 4:12-13:58 in contrast to the faithful following of Marcan order in 14:1-28:20. Certainly a source-critical study of Matthew must account for the seemingly independent structural form and sequence in the first half of the Gospel as opposed to the latter half. However, it is doubtful that Matthew intended his readers to compare his Gospel with Mark in order to understand his structural scheme. If Matthew could clearly structure patterns on a smaller scale, independent of Mark, why not on a larger scale? Furthermore, there are too many structural peculiarities even in the second half of the Gospel to assume that Matthew merely succumbed to a slavish reproduction of Mark in the second half of his Gospel.

More recent investigations have delineated the Gospel's structure in terms of how the individual events or episodes connect sequentially to form a discernable plot. It is the organizing principle of plot which determines the incidents selected, their arrangement, and how the sequence of events or episodes are to impact the reader. Given the episodic and thematic flavor of Matthew's narrative, his plot development does not exhibit a linear tightness or the flair for the dramatic found in other narratives (cf. Mark). Nevertheless, Matthew does tell a story, and thus the various episodes are carefully interrelated by causal and thematic developments. There are definite major and minor story lines and character development, with certain episodes marking key turning points in the unfolding drama. An analysis of plot has the advantage of moving the discussion away from isolated literary devices or contrived symmetrical patterns, to a consideration of how the sequence of events and portrayal of characters connect meaningfully to tell a continuous and coherent story.

Matthew's story is organized around several narrative blocks comprised of events that are interconnected according to a particular emphasis or theme. The unifying factor giving coherence to the overall sequence of events is the explicit and implicit presence of the central character Jesus in virtually every episode. Within this story-form events of similar nature are often clustered or repeated for their accumulative impact, as various themes are reinforced and developed. An analysis of the sequence and function of Matthew's major narrative blocks enables the reader to discern an overall progression of events according to a consciously constructed plot. The following seven narrative blocks provide the story with a clear sense of dramatic progression:

1:1-4:16 Establishing the identity and role of Jesus, the protagonist of the story.

4:17-11:1 Jesus embarks upon a ministry of teaching and healing to manifest God's saving presence in Israel.

11:2-16:20 While faulty interpretations of Jesus' ministry lead to misunderstanding and repudiation, the disciples, through divine revelation, are provided special insight into Jesus' person and mission.

16:21-20:34 During Jesus' journey to Jerusalem he engages his disciples in explicit discussion concerning the ultimate values, priorities, and intentions of his messianic mission.

21:1-25:46 Upon entering Jerusalem Jesus' actions and teachings lead to conflict and rejection by the Jewish authorities.

26:1-27:50 While hostility and misunderstanding coalesce in betrayal, desertion, and death, Jesus is resolved to consciously and voluntarily fulfill the divine plan.

27:51-28:20 God ultimately vindicates his Son as evidenced by cosmic signs and by raising him from the dead and giving him authority to commission his disciples to a worldwide mission.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED COMMENTARIES:

Albright, W.F. and C.S. Mann. Matthew . AB. Garden City: Doubleday, 1971.

Beare, Francis Wright. The Gospel According to Matthew . San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981.

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. New American Commentary 22. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Carson, D.A. "Matthew." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary , 8:3-599. Edited by Frank Gaebelein. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Davies, Margaret. Matthew Readings: A New Biblical Commentary . Sheffield, U.K.: JSOT Press/Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

Davies, W.D. and Dale C. Allison. Introduction and Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew I-VII . Vol. 1 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. International Critical Commentaries. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.

. Introduction and Commentary on Matthew VIII-XVIII . Vol. 2 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew . International Critical Commentaries. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.

France, R.T. Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Gardner, Richard B. Matthew. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1991.

Garland, David. Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel . New York: Crossroad, 1993.

Gundry, Robert. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Hagner, Donald. Matthew 1-13 . Word Biblical Commentary 33A. Dallas: Word, 1993.

. Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary 33B. Dallas: Word, 1995.

Harrington, D.J. The Gospel of Matthew . Sacra Pagina 1. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991.

Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew . New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

Keener, Craig S. Matthew . The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Ed. Grant R. Osborne. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Luz, U. Matthew 1-7 . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.

Malina, Bruce J. and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels . Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992.

Meier, J.P. The Vision of Matthew . New York: Crossroad, 1979, 1991.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Patte, Daniel. The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew's Faith . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Matthew . Translated by David E. Green. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975.

SELECTED STUDIES:

Allison, Dale C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Bauer, D.R. The Structure of Matthew's Gospel: A Study in Literary Design . JSNTSup 31. Sheffield: Almond, 1988.

Borg, Marcus. Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus . New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1984.

France, R.T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Hill, David. "Son and Servant: An Essay on Matthean Christology." JSNT 6 (1980) 2-16.

Kingsbury, Jack D. Matthew As Story. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Lohr, C. "Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew." CBQ 23 (1961): 339-352.

Luz, U. The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew . Translated by J. Bradford Robinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Matera, Frank. "The Plot of Matthew's Gospel." CBQ 49 (1987): 233-253.

. Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies . New York: Paulist, 1986.

Powell, M.A. God With Us: A Pastoral Theology of Matthew's Gospel . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Senior, D. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew . Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1985.

. What Are They Saying About Matthew? Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Paulist Press, 1996.

Stanton, Graham. A Gospel For a New People: Studies in Matthew . Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992.

. "The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945 to 1980." In ANRW II.25.3. Edited by W.Haase. Pages 1889-1895. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1985.

Verseput, Donald J. "The Title Son of God in Matthew's Gospel." NTS 33 (1987): 532-556.

Westerholm, Stephen. Jesus and Scribal Authority . ConNT 10. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1978.

Wilkens, M.J. The Concept of Discipleship in Matthew's Gsopel as Reflected in the Use of the Term Mathçtçs. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988.

Witherup, Ronald D. "The Death of Jesus and the Rising of the Saints: Matthew 27:51-54 in Context." SBLASP. Pages 574-585. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

. The New Testament and the People of God . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

AnBib Analecta Biblica

ANTJ Arbeiten zum Neuen Testament und zum Judentum

BAGD A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

Bib Biblica

BibRev Bible Review

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BZNW Beheifte zur ZNW

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

ConBNT Coniectanea biblica, New Testament

ConNT Coniectanea neotestamentica

DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

ETL Ephemerides theologicai lovanienses

ExpTim The Expository Times

HTR Harvard Theological Review

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible

Int Interpretation

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JSNT Journal for the Study of New Testament Theology

LXX Septuagint

NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIV New International Version

NovT Novum Testamentum

NT New Testament

NTM New Testament Message

NTS New Testament Studies

OT Old Testament

RevQ Revue de Qumran

RQ Restoration Quarterly

SBLASP Society of Biblical Literature Abstracts and Seminar Papers

SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series

SBLMS SBL Monograph Series

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

Str-B Kommentar zum Neuen Testament by Strack and Billerbeck

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel and Friedrich

TIM Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew by Bornkamm, Barth, and Held

TrinJ Trinity Journal

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

UBSGNT United Bible Society Greek New Testament

USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review

WUNT Wissenschaftliche untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Matthew (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY AND ROLE OF JESUS THE CHRIST - Matt 1:1-4:16

A. Genealogy of Jesus - 1:1-17

B. The Annunciation to Joseph - 1:18-25

C. The Infancy of Jesus - 2:1-23

1. The Gentile Pilgrimage - 2:1-12

2. The Messiah's Exile and Exodus - 2:13-23

D. The Mission and Message of John the Baptist - 3:1-12

E. The Baptism and Commission of Jesus - 3:13-17

F. The Testing of the Son - 4:1-11

G. Introducing the Ministry of Jesus - 4:12-16

II. GOD'S SAVING PRESENCE IN THE MIDST OF HIS PEOPLE - 4:17-10:42

A. Programmatic Heading: Proclamation of the Kingdom - 4:17

B. Call of the Disciples - 4:18-22

C. Programmatic Summary - 4:23-25

D. Sermon on the Mount: Ministry in Word - 5:1-7:29

1. The Setting - 5:1-2

2. The Beatitudes - 5:3-12

3. Salt and Light - 5:13-16

4. Jesus and the Law - 5:17-20

5. Practicing Greater Righteousness Toward One's Neighbor - 5:21-48

a. Murder - 5:21-26

b. Adultery - 5:27-30

c. Divorce - 5:31-32

d. Oaths - 5:33-37

e. An Eye for an Eye - 5:38-42

f. Love Your Enemies - 5:43-48

6. Practicing Greater Righteousness Before God - 6:1-18

a. Summary - 6:1

b. Giving to the Needy - 6:2-4

c. Prayer - 6:5-15

d. Fasting - 6:16-18

7. The Priorities and Values of the GreaterRighteousness - 6:19-34

a. Treasures in Heaven - 6:19-24

b. Worry - 6:25-34

8. The Conduct of Greater Righteousness - 7:1-12

a. Judging Others - 7:1-5

b. Honor What Is Valuable - 7:6

c. Ask, Seek, Knock - 7:7-11

d. The Golden Rule - 7:12

9. The Call for Decision - 7:13-27

a. The Narrow and Wide Gates - 7:13-14

b. A Tree and Its Fruit - 7:15-23

c. The Wise and Foolish Builders - 7:24-27

10. Conclusion - 7:28-29

E. Ministry in Deed - 8:1-9:34

1. Cleansing of a Leper - 8:1-4

2. Request of a Gentile Centurion - 8:5-13

3. Peter's Mother-in-Law - 8:14-15

4. Summary and Fulfillment Citation - 8:16-17

5. Two Would-Be Followers - 8:18-22

6. Stilling of the Storm - 8:23-27

7. The Gadarene Demoniacs - 8:28-34

8. Healing of the Paralytic - 9:1-8

9. Jesus' Association with Tax Collectors and Sinners - 9:9-13

10. Question on Fasting - 9:14-17

11. Raising the Ruler's Daughter and Cleansing the Unclean Woman - 9:18-26

12. Healing Two Blind Men - 9:27-31

13. Healing of a Deaf Mute - 9:32-34

F. A Call to Mission - 9:35-10:4

G. The Missionary Discourse - 10:5-42

1. Instructions for Mission - 10:5-15

2. Persecution and Response - 10:16-23

3. The Disciples' Relationship to Jesus - 10:24-42

III. ISRAEL'S MISUNDERSTANDING AND REPUDIATION OF JESUS - 11:1-14:12

A. John's Question from Prison - 11:1-6

B. The Person and Mission of John - 11:7-19

1. Identification of John by Jesus - 11:7-15

2. Rejection of John and Jesus - 11:16-19

C. Unrepentant Cities - 11:20-24

D. Jesus' Response and Invitation - 11:25-30

E. Sabbath Controversy: Incident in the Grainfield - 12:1-8

F. Sabbath Controversy: Healing in the Synagogue - 12:9-14

G. The Character and Mission of God's Servant - 12:15-21

H. The Beelzebub Controversy - 12:22-37

I. The Request for a Sign - 12:38-42

J. A Concluding Analogy - 12:43-45

K. Jesus' True Family - 12:46-50

L. The Parables of the Kingdom - 13:1-52

1. The Parable of the Four Soils - 13:1-9

2. The Purpose of the Parables - 13:10-17

3. The Interpretation of the Parable ofthe Soils - 13:18-23

4. Parable of the Weeds - 13:24-30

5. Parable of the Mustard Seed - 13:31-32

6. Parable of the Leaven - 13:33

7. The Purpose of Parables - 13:34-35

8. The Interpretation of the Parable of the Weeds - 13:36-43

9. Parables of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl - 13:44-46

10. Parable of the Dragnet - 13:47-50

11. Trained in the Kingdom - 13:51-52

M. Rejection at Nazareth - 13:53-58

N. The Death of John the Baptist - 14:1-12

IV. EDUCATING THE DISCIPLES: IDENTITY AND MISSION - 14:13-16:20

A. Feeding of the Five Thousand - 14:13-21

B. Walking on the Water - 14:22-33

C. Summary: Healings at Gennesaret - 14:34-36

D. Jesus and the Teachings of the Pharisees - 15:1-20

E. The Canaanite Woman - 15:21-28

F. Feeding of the Four Thousand - 15:29-39

G. Request for a Sign - 16:1-4

H. The Leaven of the Pharisees and Saducees - 16:5-12

I. Confession at Caesarea Philippi - 16:13-20

V. THE WAY OF THE CROSS - 16:21-20:34

A. The Things of God Versus the Things of Men - 16:21-28

B. Transfiguration - 17:1-8

C. The Coming Elijah - 17:9-13

D. The Power of Faith - 17:14-21

E. The Second Passion Prediction - 17:22-23

F. Jesus and the Temple Tax - 17:24-27

G. Fourth Discourse: Life in the Christian Community - 18:1-35

1. Becoming Like a Child - 18:1-5

2. Avoiding Offense - 18:6-9

3. Value of the "Little Ones" - 18:10-14

4. Reconciling an Offending Brother - 18:15-20

5. Importance of Forgiveness - 18:21-35

H. Transition from Galilee to Judea - 19:1-2

I. Marriage and Divorce - 19:3-9

J. The Bewildered Response of the Disciples - 19:10-12

K. The Little Children - 19:13-15

L. The Rich Young Man - 19:16-22

M. Wealth, Reward and Discipleship - 19:23-30

N. The Generous Landowner - 20:1-16

O. Third Passion Prediction - 20:17-19

P. Requests on Behalf of the Sons of Zebedee - 20:20-28

Q. Two Blind Men Receive Sight - 20:29-34

VI. CONFLICT IN JERUSALEM - 21:1-25:46

A. Jesus' Entry into Jerusalem - 21:1-11

B. Demonstration in the Temple - 21:12-17

C. The Fig Tree - 21:18-22

D. The Authority Question - 21:23-27

E. Parable of the Two Sons - 21:28-32

F. Parable of the Tenants - 21:33-46

G. Parable of the Wedding Feast - 22:1-14

H. Confrontations with the Religious Leaders - 22:15-46

1. Paying Taxes to Caesar - 22:15-22

2. Marriage in the Afterlife - 22:23-33

3. The Greatest Commandment - 22:34-40

4. The Son of David - 22:41-46

I. Denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees - 23:1-39

1. Do Not Practice What They Preach - 23:1-12

2. Woes against the Teachers of the Law andthe Pharisees - 23:13-36

3. Lament over Jerusalem - 23:37-39

J. Fifth Discourse: Judgment to Come - 24:1-25:46

1. Introduction - 24:1-3

2. Warnings Not to Be Deceived - 24:4-14

3. The Coming Tribulation in Judea - 24:15-28

4. The Climactic Fall of Jerusalem within "This Generation" - 24:29-35

5. The Coming Judgment of the Son ofMan - 24:36-25:46

a. The Coming Son of Man~ - 24:36-51

b. The Ten Virgins - 25:1-13

c. Parable of the Talents - 25:14-30

d. Judgment of the Son of Man - 25:31-46

VII. THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS - 26:1-28:20

A. The Plot to Arrest and Execute Jesus - 26:1-5

B. Anointing in Bethany - 26:6-13

C. Judas' Betrayal - 26:14-16

D. Preparation for Passover - 26:17-19

E. The Last Supper - 26:20-30

F. Jesus Predicts the Disciples' Desertion and Denial - 26:31-35

G. The Gethsemane Prayer - 26:36-46

H. The Arrest of Jesus - 26:47-56

I. The Hearing Before Caiaphas - 26:57-68

J. The Denial of Peter - 26:69-75

K. Transition to the Roman Authorities - 27:1-2

L. The Suicide of Judas - 27:3-10

M. The Trial Before Pilate - 27:11-26

N. Mockery and Abuse of Jesus - 27:27-31

O. The Crucifixion - 27:32-44

P. The Death of Jesus - 27:45-56

Q. The Burial of Jesus - 27:57-61

R. Keeping Jesus in the Tomb - 27:62-66

S. The Empty Tomb - 28:1-7

T. The Appearance of Jesus to the Women - 28:8-10

U. The Bribing of the Guards - 28:11-15

V. The Great Commission - 28:16-20

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: Matthew (Book Introduction)

PREFACE.

——————

IN presenting to the reader the Second Volume [Matt X to XXI] of this Translation of the great work of Cornelius à Lapide, I desire to mention that it has not been within my purpose to give an equivalent for every word of the original. This ought to have been stated at the commencement of the first volume, and I greatly regret the omission.

The stern exigencies of publication have compelled me to compress the translation of the Commentary upon the Gospels within five octavo volumes, when a reproduction of the Latin original, verbatim et literatim , would have probably necessitated seven.

The matter standing thus, I have had to exercise my own judgment as to the character of the necessary omissions and compression. I am perfectly aware that in omitting or compressing anything at all, I expose myself to the full fury of the blasts of unkind, bitter, or unscrupulous criticism; though criticism of this kind has, I am thankful to say, been confined to a single print.

I have no fault whatever to find with the criticism of the R. Catholic Tablet . It was dictated by a thoroughly honest and commendable, but certainly mistaken fear, that I had made omissions for controversial purposes. Of this, I hope I am incapable.

With regard to the other adverse criticism to which I have alluded, I am sorry that I cannot regard it as either just or righteous. One reason is this; the reviewer in question concludes his remarks by saying—"Those who are familiar with Cornelius' work are aware of the terseness and pungency of the author's style. Whether it would be possible to give this in English we cannot say, but the present translators do not appear to have even attempted the task, either in their literal rendering, or in their paraphrased passages, so that much of the sententiousness of the original has evaporated."

It would be almost impossible to single out from the whole range of the history of criticism a more telling example of its frequent utter worthlessness and disregard of a strict adherence to truth. In the first place, with regard to Cornelius himself, those who are best acquainted with him—his greatest lovers and admirers—are aware that if there is one thing more than another which they are disposed to regret, it is his great prolixity, and the inordinate length of his sentences.

Secondly, if the hostile reviewer had examined my translation solely for the purposes of an honest criticism, he could not have helped becoming aware of the fact that there is scarcely a page in which I have not broken up what is a single sentence in the Latin into two, three, and sometimes even more sentences in the English.

Lastly, I need not tell scholars that it would be far more easy and pleasant to myself to translate literally, without any omission whatever, than to have continually to be, as it were, upon the stretch to omit or compress what must be omitted, when very often all seems valuable. I can truly say I have often spent as much time in deliberating what to omit, or how to compress a passage, as would have sufficed to have written a translation of it in full twice over.

About two-thirds of the twenty-first chapter of S. Matthew, the last in this second volume, have been translated without any omission, or compression whatever. A note is appended to the place where this unabridged translation begins. This will enable any one who cares to do so, to compare the abridged portion with the unabridged, and both with the original.

T. W. M.