078. Chapter 19 - Shock Troops from the Capital

Chapter 19 - Shock Troops from the Capital Matthew 15:1-20;Mark 7:1-23;John 7:1 Further Controversy The Passover was near when Jesus fed the five thousand. John makes it clear that Jesus did not attend this Passover. He describes the events following the day of furious debate in the synagogue in Capernaum: “After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Judaea, because the Jews sought to kill him.”

These plots against His life did not come from the Zealots, but from the national leaders at the capital — the Pharisees and Sadducees. The miracles, the growing power of His movement, His assertions of deity all led to renewed plots against His life. The national leaders were also moved to send out a delegation of trained controversialists to attempt to undermine the success of Jesus. If this discussion with the scribes came shortly after the debate with the Zealots, then these shock troops from the capital may have been sent out before they knew whether Jesus would come to the Passover. If it was some weeks later, they may have been sent to take advantage of the hostility of the Zealots and to hasten their own combat with Him.

Ceremony vs. Sincere Worship

Neither Matthew nor Mark locates this discussion. We think of the synagogue in Capernaum as the most probable place. The scholars from Jerusalem had had some time to observe the activities of Jesus and to come up with a criticism. His disciples were not keeping the traditions of the elders; they did not wash their hands before they ate. This was not sanitation; it was ceremony. They might perchance have touched some sinful person; and, being so holy themselves, they must rid their body of this polluted contact with ordinary persons. The apostles were often so thronged by the crowds around Jesus that they did not even have time to eat, not to mention wash their hands in a religious ceremony before they ate (Mark 6:31). But they are following the example of Jesus in disregarding the traditions of the Pharisees. The learned men from Jerusalem did not criticize Jesus for not washing His hands; they criticized His disciples. Was this because they had not seen Him eating or because they felt they could gain the same advantage by attacking His disciples, who were following His example and instructions? The traditions of the elders were the oral interpretations of the Old Testament which famous teachers had laid down through succeeding generations. These were not committed to writing until a.d. 185 when at Tiberias by the Sea of Galilee the Jewish rabbis began the writing of the Mishna (see “The Talmud”). These traditions built a hedge about the law so the people could not get to the law to break it In other words, the traditions were much more detailed and onerous to keep than the law itself.

Jesus’ Reply

There are four points in Jesus’ rebuttal to this attack. He based His reply on the ringing condemnation voiced by Isaiah and summed up His analysis of their position in the words, “You hypocrites.” The four points which fastened the epithet hypocrites upon them are:

    They were criticizing His disciples for disobeying the traditions of the elders while they themselves were disobeying the Old Testament through their exalted devotion to these traditions.

    They were full of pious care about ceremonial defilement of their hands and kitchen utensils, but disregarded their hearts, which were full of sin and corruption.

    They pretended to have great devotion to God, but used this pretense as a cloak to disobey His commands to care for their parents.

    Their hearts and their words did not match. They honored God with pious words, but dishonored Him with selfish and disobedient hearts.

Quotation from Isaiah

Isaiah condemned the hypocrites of his day as he preached. Jesus declared that Isaiah was also condemning the hypocrites of the time of the Messiah. The quotation in Matthew 15:8, Matthew 15:9 is almost exactly like the Septuagint translation. Mark’s quotation is the same. They do not declare they are using the Septuagint, nor does any New Testament writer. The Hebrew text which was used by the a.v. and the a.s.v. in translating Isaiah offers a difference in the latter part of the passage: “Their fear of me is a commandment of men which hath been taught them.” The Septuagint was translated in 285 b.c. from Hebrew manuscripts much older than even the Dead Sea Scrolls. Because the Septuagint was held in such high esteem and was in general use both by the Jews and Christians in the days when the church was first established, New Testament quotations from the Old Testament were frequently made from this Greek translation.

Although the phrasing of the current Hebrew text and the Septuagint is different, the fundamental meaning is the same. Their fear of me is the fear of the Lord, an ordinary Old Testament description of worship, system of religion, doctrine. Hath been taught them implies by men, since it is declared to be “a commandment of men.” Instead of following the revelation of God, they had a system of religion which had been invented by men. The forthright denunciation in vain do they worship me is implied in the key statement, “Their heart is far from me.

We must remember that the inspiration of the Scripture assures us that the Bible is a true and faithful account of what actually happened, rather than a mathematical exactness. A narrative may get so involved in precision that it becomes lifeless. The New Testament writers continually make free quotations from the Old Testament. The Hebrew text was available to all who would secure a more precise statement. It seems that in this verse the Septuagint offers a free, effective paraphrase of the Hebrew text. Jesus certainly gives an authoritative presentation of the meaning of Isaiah.

Mechanical Religion The Pharisees had no monopoly upon mechanical religion. The universal, omnipresent issue is heartfelt religion versus ceremonialism. The lack of concentration is at the center of our languid indifference in worship. Having failed to put Christ first in our lives, we find no difficulty in removing Him to a secondary place in our hearts, even in the midst of worship. We know the words and the melody so well, it is possible for our songs of praise, confession, or petition to become merely a phonograph record we have turned on with our vocal chords, while our minds wander amid our desires or our plans for Monday, Tuesday, and the rest of the week. Our heads may be bowed and eyes closed in externals of reverence and our hearts very far from God, seeking selfish interest or even entertaining wicked thoughts. We may look with rapt attention at the preacher while at the same time our thoughts are miles away. In the schoolroom concentration is the secret of learning accurately and rapidly, and in Christian assembly concentration is the secret of reverent worship and spiritual growth.

Human Creeds The Pharisees are not the only ones who have attempted to build up a human creed and put it in the place of the Word of God. Christians have been known to affirm stubbornly, “I am going to stick by the creed of my church, Bible or no Bible.” They need to study carefully this stern condemnation of the Pharisees by Jesus. Men’s precepts are vain because they are based on the uncertainty of opinion, prejudice, and vanity. Every attempt to write a human creed as an authoritative interpretation of Scripture or to create an authoritative organization to govern man’s religious activities leads in the end to the setting up of the human creed above the Bible and the human organization above the church. Interpretation of the Word of God is necessary and desirable, but we should not attempt to bind our interpretations upon others. “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak (the teaching and commands it gives); where the Scripture is silent, we are silent (we do not create authoritative teaching on matters concerning which the Scripture gives none).” Z. T Sweeney turned this familiar slogan into an interesting and challenging opposite: “Where the Scriptures speak, we are silent (we do not attempt to evade, avoid, deny, or substitute); where the Scriptures are silent, we speak (we offer opinions as opinions and do not attempt to bind them upon others).” A Crushing Reply In His answer to the Pharisees Jesus did not deny that His disciples were not keeping the traditions of the elders. He did not try to excuse His disciples by pointing out their prodigious, unceasing, unselfish labors for others. He accepted the criticism as factual and met the issue head-on. His entire answer was based on the proposition that they did not have to keep the traditions of the Pharisees. But His approach was most skillful as He replied to their question with a question which put them immediately on the defensive. He charged that the Pharisees had put their traditions above the Old Testament and used them as a means to set aside the Word of God. He charged that their whole attitude toward God was superficial and hypocritical. They had sacrificed the spiritual content of the Scriptures and their worship to a human system and ceremonies. Jesus closed the discussion with a powerful sermon to the entire multitude on the issue the Pharisees had raised.

Mark’s Account

Mark’s description of the practices of the Pharisees is quite detailed and contains some interesting points. In Mark 7:3, “Except they wash their hands diligently,” and most of the versions have pukna (diligently); A, B, Sigma, L, many cursives, and Origen have pugme (with the fist). Both words have the same general meaning. An automobile mechanic today can be seen using his fists all lathered with soap to remove by the most vigorous rubbing the greasy grime from his hands and arms.

There are also the interesting manuscript differences seen in Mark 7:4. Some manuscripts have rantidzontai (sprinkle), notably Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which is the reading accepted by the Westcott and Hort, and the Nestle Greek texts. But Tischendorf and both the a.v. and the a.s.v. follow the overwhelming majority of manuscripts and have baptidzontai (wash themselves, baptize themselves). The wealthy Pharisees had sumptuous homes in Greco-Roman style and would have facilities for taking a bath. To adopt the reading sprinkle makes the passage a ridiculous anticlimax. Ordinarily they washed their hands most diligently before they ate. But if they had been in the market place where the chance of touching some sinful person had been constant, they did something more than wash their hands diligently; they took a complete bath; they immersed themselves. The probable reason for the scribal error of changing the verb from baptize to sprinkle was that some scribe had added to the list of household objects the Pharisees washed. Baptize became ridiculous when “tables and beds” were added to the list. The best manuscripts do not contain these two words. The a.s.v. omits them.

Corban The word corban means gift or offering. In the law it was used of an offering, whether an animal to be sacrificed or a bloodless offering. It came to mean any money or service dedicated to God. Josephus tells of a riot by the Jews against Pilate when he took the corban money of the temple to build an aqueduct to supply more water to Jerusalem. The enterprise was for the public good, but Pilate had no right to take the money once it had been dedicated to God (Wars, II:IX:4). The Jews were using this dedication as a means of ridding themselves of the responsibility of caring for their parents. Jesus does not discuss the matter as to whether the dedication of the money was actual or pretended. There must have abounded instances of both actual and pretended dedication of funds to God, and then the parents were told they had to get out and shift for themselves since the money which might have supported them in their old age had now been dedicated to God and could not be taken back. The Pharisees had established the tradition that this process could be so used, and thus the Old Testament with its solemn injunction to honor father and mother was cleverly set aside.

Real Defilement

Both Matthew and Mark condense to one verse the sermon Jesus preached on the issue the Pharisees had raised. Jesus issued a special call for all the multitude to come up at close range so that all could hear the important declarations He was about to make. They had witnessed the challenge the Pharisees had made. They needed to hear the discussion of the fundamental issue involved. Jesus’ proposition was that real defilement is not ceremonial but moral; and not that which enters the mouth, but what proceeds forth from the heart defiles. In his report of the sermon Matthew says “out of the mouth”; Mark has “out of the man.” In a lengthy sermon Jesus must have shown that both speech and the entire range of conduct may defile a man. The speech is typical of the entire conduct. The food which a man eats is a matter of taste and need of the physical constitution; every man discovers and determines this for himself. But that which a man says or does determines his moral worth. It would be utterly perverse to attempt to apply this principle to things which are self-destructive, such as intoxicating liquor or any sort of poison. A man is defiled by eating or drinking that which is self-destructive, but the drinking or eating is itself an act which proceeds out of his heart and is a deliberate choice which defiles.

Setting Aside the Old Testament This sweeping declaration of Jesus sets aside the fundamental distinction which the Old Testament law made concerning clean and unclean meats. Peter had kept this commandment concerning unclean meats from his youth. He still did not understand the principle which Jesus had enunciated here. He had to be instructed by a miracle at Joppa before he was sent to the home of Cornelius (Acts 10:9-15). The traditions of the elders were not merely swept aside, but the law itself concerning clean and unclean meat. The revolutionary character of this teaching should be placed alongside Jesus’ declaration to the woman at the well revoking the fundamental proposition of the Old Testament that there was to be one central place of worship: “The hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father” (John 4:21). In any place in all the world a man may worship God if he does it in spirit and in truth. As Jesus was bringing God’s final revelation to the world, He kept indicating the setting aside of the Old Testament law. These revolutionary changes were not understood at once, but “the hour cometh.” The law was nailed to the cross, but not until the new will was probated at Pentecost was the announcement made to the world of the new dispensation. It took much instruction of the Christians for the church to see that the law had passed away. Mark shows clearly that by the time he wrote his Gospel, the church understood that the principle Jesus enunciated here had set aside the law concerning clean and unclean meats. The a.s.v. makes this very evident by an explanatory insertion in Mark 7:19 : “This he said, making all meats clean.” The Alarmed Disciples The disciples probably did not know whether they should publicly ask for more information so they waited for a private interview in the home after the public service had been dismissed. They were also in great distress over another dreadful blow at the popularity of Jesus. They had just witnessed His decisive break with the Zealots and had seen the crowds turn away from Him. Now He had given mortal affront to the famous scholars from the capital. They were anxious to urge caution upon Jesus. Obviously this was not something they could say in public. “Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, when they heard this saying?” (Matthew 15:12). They must have known that Jesus knew this very well. It was quite apparent. Moreover, they knew Jesus could read the human heart. Perhaps they were striving for a tactful approach. They were offering a criticism of Jesus’ sermon, but they waited until privacy could be had and proceeded then with caution. The Disciples Warned

Jesus’ answer was blunt and brusque. From childhood the apostles had been taught to have great respect for the learned men of the nation. They still show something of this attitude in spite of the manner in which Jesus had revealed the hypocrisy of His critics. But they were more concerned for the future of Jesus with bitter hostility menacing Him from all directions.

“Every plant which my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up.” The plant may be the false teaching or the false teachers. The wicked subterfuges which the Pharisees had invented would in due time be destroyed by God. The wicked inventors of the false teaching would be brought to judgment. It may well refer to both. The Pharisees had made themselves like noxious weeds in a garden choking out the plants that are lovely and desirable. God had not planted them in the sense that they (and not He) were responsible for their false ideals, teaching, and conduct. God had planted the Old Testament law, but He had not planted the traditions of men. In spite of what the Jerusalem scholars thought or what the results of this encounter would be to Himself, Christ would uproot the traditions of men which choke out the Word of God.

Blind Guides

“Let them alone.” Pay no attention to their rage over my condemnation of their hypocrisy and my denial of the truth and authority of their traditions. Jesus was not “letting them alone” in the sense of not exposing and opposing their false teaching and hypocrisy. The apostles are warned not to truckle to these men or worry about whether they were pleased or displeased with His teaching. Fear them not. Blind guides and blind followers are both responsible for their attempt to lead or to follow. Blind guides are the most bigoted and conceited of all false leaders. Conceit is the ordinary blindfold. In spite of the miraculous proof Jesus was constantly offering, the Pharisees were so blind that they refused to face the facts or to learn the truth. The disciples still felt that the teaching was so difficult that it must be a parable with mysterious inner meaning they had not discerned: “Declare unto us the parable.” The answer of Jesus began with a cutting rebuke: “Are ye also even yet without understanding?” (Matthew 15:16). It was bad enough for the scholars to be so slow in understanding. The apostles had had many more opportunities to learn of Him. “Even yet,” after all His instruction, they were “without understanding.” Gould remarks that the Greek word parabole loses sometimes its proper sense of similitude, and comes to be used of any sententious saying, or apothegm, in which the meaning is partly veiled by the brevity, but especially by the material and outward form of the saying. Here, “entering from the outside” and “coming out” are used to express the contrasted ideas of the material and the spiritual (I.C.C. on Mark p. 131).

Matthew records Peter’s protest; the saying was so graphic, so revolutionary that it seemed to them like a riddle. Mark as usual omits the leading part played by Peter in this discussion. The Bitter Opposition of Pharisees

While the Pharisees held that Jesus was a revolutionary, upsetting their long-established customs and condemning their hallowed traditions, the real secret of their hatred was His exposure of their hypocrisy and wickedness. They claimed superior piety; and for them to be condemned publicly and to have their traditions shown to be false and contradictory to the Word of God filled them with rage. We cannot tell how far they perceived at this time that Jesus was setting forth a new system of religion which would supersede the law of Moses. They did perceive that He was claiming to be God and to have supreme authority over the Old Testament. At His trial they attempted in vain to prove that He had tried to destroy the law, but they did not present any testimony concerning His teaching on clean and unclean meats. The charge of blasphemy in claiming to be God as well as man was so much greater that it dwarfed all lesser charges.

Defilement

Jesus did not say in His fundamental principle that nothing entering a man from the outside can defile him. Quite the contrary! He limited the principle to things you eat. The eye and ear give ready entrance to the heart. Things may defile that enter thus. Even accidental sight or hearing may introduce foul, vile things into the heart. When poison is taken, an emetic or stomach pump or antibiotic may save the life if applied promptly. In the heart the Christian must brave strong resistance of character and use spiritual antidotes. The lists of sins that can proceed out of a man’s life and bring real defilement are the same in Matthew and in Mark for the first five sins, while the order varies. (1) Evil thoughts are mentioned first in both; (hey cover the entire range of wickedness at its source. The next four in Mark are “grosser, more outward forms of sin” ; “the more subtle, inward manifestations” follow. Matthew has: (2) murders; (3) adulteries; (4) fornications; (5) thefts; (6) false witness (this includes all types of lying); (7) railings (the Greek word is blasphemiai and means evil or injurious speech either against God or man. Toward the former it is blasphemy; toward the latter it is slander). Railings is the eleventh sin in Mark’s list, the seventh and last in Matthew’s.

Mark has covetings, the evil desire to take away for yourself what belongs to others. His term wickedness can be used as a general description of evil, but where it has a specific meaning, it seems to denote malice. If translated maliciousness, it would carry the content of spite, rancor, venom. Deceit suggests any sort of trickery which might be used to ensnare or entrap a person, as bait is used in a trap to catch animals. Lasciviousness is the absence of self-restraint, as in unbridled passion, or cruelty. License or wantonness may be used to translate it. An evil eye is a figure of speech in the Hebrew writings which means envy. Pride translates a Greek word used only here in the New Testament. It suggests a haughty, arrogant spirit. Mark’s last word in the list is foolishness. It sounds like an anticlimax, but it does not mean merely intellectual lack or mistake. It means moral failure of a tragic, dramatic nature — folly.

Gould’s Perversion

Gould argues that since the principle enunciated by Jesus upsets not merely the traditions of the elders, but also the Old Testament law on clean and unclean meats, we are obligated to sift out in the Bible the word of man from the word of God. He says, “Plainly, then, the distinction between the word of God and the word of man has to be carried within the scripture, and used in the analysis of its contents” (I.C.C. on Mark, p. 133). This is a characteristic absurdity of modernism. It is an attempt to defend their dictum that the Bible is not the word of God, but that it contains the word of God. It is, of course, always true that we must consider who is speaking in the Scripture, when, where, why, and to whom. The Bible contains the words of the devil as well as the words of men and the words of God. It is indeed important to see who is speaking. But even when the Bible quotes the devil, it is the word of God in the sense that the Holy Spirit has inspired the recording of what the devil said, in order that man may be warned and informed. The Son of God Sets Aside the Law

Gould fails to see that the subject has been completely changed in the latter part of the discourse of Jesus. It is changed from the commandments of men vs. commandments of God to ceremonial defilement vs. moral defilement. The principle Jesus enunciated gave the final answer to the challenge of the Pharisees, but the ground of the discussion is now altered. Jesus rejected the traditions of the Pharisees on the ground that they were merely the commandments of men, and, in addition to this, were being used to disobey the commandments of God. Jesus did not set aside the Old Testament law concerning clean and unclean meats on the ground that it was the commandment of men. Moses had been inspired of God in delivering the commands of the law to Israel. Jesus set aside the law concerning clean and unclean meats on the ground that He was the Son of God sent from heaven to give the final revelation of God to man, the new and better covenant, which was to replace the old covenant. The Old Testament had itself declared that the first covenant was imperfect and would be superseded by the new covenant, which God would give (Jeremiah 31:31.; Hebrews 8:7). The principle which Christ enunciated was final and perfect. The divine authority He revealed should lead ‘is to yield implicit obedience to Him as Lord and Master.