Mat 15:2-20 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 2. Transgress the tradition of the elders , The word elders means, literally, old men . It here means the ancients, or their ancestors. Tradition means something handed down from one to another by memory: some precept or custom not commanded in the written law , but which they held themselves bound to observe. The Jews 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 till 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 here mentioned all the Jews combined. The Pharisees, and all the Jews , except they wash their hands oft, eat not, . 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 pots, and cups, and brazen vessels and tables, . They did this professedly for the sake of cleanliness . So far it was well. But they 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: as, 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. These foolish rules our Saviour did not think it proper to regard; and this was the reason why they found fault with him.

Matthew 15:2-20

Verse 2. Transgress the tradition of the elders, The word elders means, literally, old men. It here means the ancients, or their ancestors. Tradition means something handed down from one to another by memory: some precept or custom not commanded in the written law, but which they held themselves bound to observe. The Jews 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 till 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 here mentioned all the Jews combined.

The Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, Mk 7:3. 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 pots, and cups, and brazen vessels and tables, Mk 7:3,4. They did this professedly for the sake of cleanliness. So far it was well. But they 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: as, 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. These foolish rules our Saviour did not think it proper to regard; and this was the reason why they found fault with him.

Mt 15:1 Verse 3. But he answered, etc. They accused him of violating their traditions, as though they were obligatory. In his answer he implied that they were not bound to obey their traditions. They were invented by men. He said also that those traditions could not be binding, as they violated the commandments of God. He proceeds to specify a case where 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.

Mt 15:1 (b) "your tradition?" Col 2:8, 23, Tit 1:14 Verse 4. For God commanded, etc. That is, in the fifth commandment, Ex 20:12, 21:17. To honour 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 punishes this crime with death. This duty of honouring 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.

Mt 15:1

(c) "saying, Honour" Ex 20:12, De 5:16 (d) "He that curseth" Ex 21:17, Lev 20:9 Verse 5. It is a gift. In Mark it is corban. The word corban is a Hebrew word, denoting a gift. It here 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 him, for sacred uses, as they pleased. In doing this they used the word corban, or some similar word; saying this thing is corban, i.e., 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," Ps 76:11. See De 23:21. The law of God required that a son should honour his parent; i.e., among other things, provide for his wants 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 wants 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 give 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. They would not suffer him 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 tabu, or tabued. That is, that it became consecrated to the service of religion; and no matter who had been the owner, it could then be appropriated to no other use. In this way they had complete power over all the possessions of the people, and could appropriate them to their own use under the pretence of devoting them to religion. They thus 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 that 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 some religious use.

Our Saviour did not mean to condemn the practice of giving to God, or to religious and charitable duties. This the law and the gospel equally required. He commended even a poor widow that gave all her living, Mk 12:44. But he meant to condemn 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 them what God required.

Mt 15:1 Verse 6.

Mt 15:1

(e) "honour not" De 27:16 Verse 7. Ye hypocrites. Mt 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 towards 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. See also Isa 1:4.

Mt 15:1 Verse 8. Draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, etc. 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.

Mt 15:1 (f) "This people" Isa 29:13 Verse 9. In vain they do worship me. That is, their attempts to worship are vain, or are not real worship--they are mere forms.

Teaching for doctrines, etc. The word doctrines, here, means the requirements of religion--things to be believed and practised 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.

Mt 15:1

(g) "for doctrines" Col 2:22 Verses 10-14. See also Mk 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, he 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! Verse 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. To pollute, corrupt, to render sinful.

Mt 15:10

(h) "Not that" Acts 10:15, Rom 14:14,20, 1Timm 4:4, Tit 1:15 Verse 12. The Pharisees were offended. They were so zealous of their traditions that they could not endure that their absurdities should be exposed.

Mt 15:10 Verse 13. Every plant, etc. Religious doctrine is not unaptly compared to a plant. See 1Cor 3:6-8. It is planted in the mind for the purpose of producing fruit in the life, or 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. lie was not surprised that they were enraged. But, notwithstanding their opposition, their doctrines should be destroyed.

Mt 15:10

(i) "Every plant" Jn 15:2,6 Verse 14. Let them alone. That is, do not be troubled at their rage. Be not anxious about it. The thing was to be expected. They were blind; they were in some respects sincere. They are greatly attached to their traditions, and you are not to wonder or interfere when 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, he does not mean to suffer them 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, etc. 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 men. They are free in choosing such leaders, and they are answerable for being led to ruin.

Mt 15:10

(k) "they be blind" Mt 23:16, Lk 6:39 Verses 15-20. See also Mk 7:17-23. Then answered Peter--declare this parable. Mt 13:3. The word parable sometimes means a dark or obscure saying, Ps 78:2. Peter meant, Explain to us more fully this obscure and somewhat novel doctrine. To us, now, it is plain: to the disciples, just coming out of Judaism, taught by the Jewish teachers, 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. Verse 16. Are ye also yet without understanding? He 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.

Mt 15:15 Verse 17. Do not ye yet understand, etc. 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 men would be made pure, this must be cleansed. If that is corrupt, the whole man is corrupt.

(l) "mouth goeth" Lk 6:45, Jas 3:6 Verses 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 labour 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, 1Jn 3:15.

(3.) Adulteries, fornications. See Mt 5:28.

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

(5.) False witness. Giving wrong testimony. Concealing the truth, or stating what we know to be false, contrary to 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. Mt 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 Ps 14:1. Mark adds,

(7.) Covetousness, always proceeding from the heart--the unlawful desire of what others possess.

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

(9.) Deceit; i.e. fraud, concealment, cheating, in trade. This proceeds from a desire to benefit ourselves by doing injustice to others, and thus proceeds from the heart.

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

(11.) An evil eye. That is, an eye sour, malignant, proud, devising or purposing evil. See Mt 5:28, 20:15, 2Pet 2:14, "Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin."

(12.) Pride. An improper estimate of our own importance--thinking that we are of much more consequence than we really are--always the work of an evil heart.

(13.) Foolishness. Not want of intellect. Man is not to blame for that. But moral folly, consisting in choosing bad ends, and 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 any one to go to hell.

These are the things which defile a man. 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! Verse 19. Mt 15:18

(m) "out of the heart" Gen 6:5, 8:21, Prov 6:14, 24:9, Jer 17:9, Rom 3:10-19 Gal 5:19-21, Eph 2:3, Tit 3:3 Verse 20. Mt 15:18