Matthew 15:1-20
Mat 15:1-20 Our King combating Formalists
1, 2. THEN came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
"When our Lord was busiest his enemies assailed him. These ecclesiastics "of Jerusalem "were probably the cream of the set, and from their great reputation they reckoned upon an easy victory over the rustic preacher. Perhaps they were a deputation from headquarters, sent to confound the new Teacher. They had a question to raise, which to them may have seemed important; or possibly they pretended to think it so to answer their own purposes. Traditions of the elders were great things with them: to transgress these must be a crime indeed. Washing of the hands is a thing proper enough; one could wish it were oftener practised; but to exalt it into a religious rite is a folly and a sin. These "scribes and Pharisees "washed their hands, whether they needed washing or not, out of a supposed zeal to be rid of any particle that might render them ceremonially unclean. Our Lord's disciples had so far entered into Christian liberty that they did not observe the rabbinical tradition: "they wash not their hands when they eat bread." Why should they wash if their hands were clean? Tradition had no power over their consciences. No man has any more right to institute a new duty than to neglect an old one. The issuing of commands is for the King alone. Yet these religionists enquire why the Lord's disciples break a law which was no law. It will be well if our opponents are unable to bring against us any worse charge than this.
3. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
"He answered" their question by asking them another. This was a very usual way with our Lord, and wo may often imitate him in discussions with captious persons. Our Lord turns a blaze of light upon them by the question—Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? What is a "tradition "when compared with a "commandment "? What is a tradition when it is in conflict with a commandment? What are elders in comparison with GOD? Our Lord knew best how to handle these messengers of the evil powers. His question earned the war into their own territory, and turned their boastful assault into utter rout.
4-6. For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Our Lord explains his question, and lays home his accusation. God had bound the son and daughter to honour the parent; and this unquestionably included rendering to father and mother such help as they might need. From this duty there could be no escape without breaking the plain command of God. It was always right, by the law of nature, to be grateful to parents; and by the law of Moses it was always a deadly sin to revile them, la Exo 21:17 we read: "He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." Father and mother are to be had in reverence, and cherished with love; and the precept which ordains this, is called "the first commandment with promise." There could be no mistake as to the meaning of the divine law, yet the base teachers of the period had invented a method of excusing men from the performance of so obvious a duty.
These wretched tradition --lovers taught that if a man cried, "Corban! A gift'; and thus nominally set apart for God what his parents sought of him, ho must not afterwards give it to them. If in anger, or even in pre-tonce, he placed what was requested by father or mother under a ban, he became free from the obligation to aid his parents. It is true he was not required by the Rabbis to carry out his vow, and actually give the money or the goods to God; but as he had compromised the sacred name, he must on no account hand over the gift to his parents. So that a hasty word would loose any child from his i duty to aid his father or his mother; and then he might pretend that he was very sorry for having said it, but that his conscience would not permit him to break the ban. Vile hypocrites! Advocates of the devil! Was ever device more shallow? Yet thus they "made the commandment of God of none effect"
7, 8. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Eight well did they deserve the name which the indignant Saviour fixed upon them: "Ye hypocrites." They were agitated about hands unwashed, and yet laid their foul hands upon God's most holy law. The prophetic words of Isaiah were indeed descriptive of them: he had pictured them to the life. Theirs was mouth-religion, lip-homage, and that only. Their heart never approached the Lord at all.
Thus, our Lord gave his opponents Scripture instead of tradition: ho broke their wooden weapons with the sword of the Spirit. Holy Scripture must be our weapon against the Church of traditions: nothing will overthrow Home but the Word of the Lord. When quoting from the prophecy of Isaiah, our blessed Lord not only used a translation, but he gave the sense freely; thus rebuking the mere word-chopping of the Rabbis. They could count the letters of a sacred book, and yet utterly miss its meaning: he gave the soul and spirit of the inspired utterance. Jesus insisted upon heart-worship, and said nothing as to the matter of washing or not washing the hands before eating bread. That was too paltry a point for him to dwell upon.
9. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Religion based on human authority is worthless; we must worship the true God in the way of his own appointing, or we do not worship him at all. Doctrines and ordinances are only to be accepted when the divine Word supports them, and they are to be accepted for that reason only. The most punctilious form of devotion is vain worship, if it is regulated by man's ordinance apart from the Lord's own command.
10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand
He turns to the common throng, among whom he had wrought his miracles of love. Se called the multitude and bade them "hear, and understand." It looks as if he would say by his actions that he would rather teach the ignorant peasants than those false-hearted scribes and Pharisees. He had more hope of being understood by the ignorant multitude than by educated men who had so wretchedly enslaved their judgments by following worthless traditions. The appeal of the gospel is from the doctors to the people. These last have more common-sense and honesty than the former; yet even these need the exhortation, "Hear, and understand."
11. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Here is something for the crowd to think over, and for the Pharisees to chew upon. It would be a riddle to many, and a surprise to all. Preeminently it would bo a staggering statement for formalists. Religionists of the day placed the chief point of morals in meats and drinks, but the Lord Jesus declared that it lay in thoughts and acts. The Pharisees had now a string to harp upon, since harp they would: this saying would afford a text for malicious comment for many a day. They had sought to lay hold upon a sentence which they could use as an accusation, and in this case he gave them one which they might quote with that design if they dared to do so. It was diametrically opposed to their teaching, and yet it was not easy to meet its keen edge, or withstand its singular force.
12. Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? The disciples evidently thought more of offending the Pharisees than their Master did. He knew that they would be offended, and thought it no calamity that they should be. He placed his remarkable aphorism in their way, that they might find themselves balked and gravelled by it. They had come to him in a fawning manner, desiring to catch him in his speech: ho was disgusted with their hypocrisy, and by this staggering statement he unmasked them, and they came out in their true colours. They could not further conceal their hate: henceforth they could not entrap the disciples by their professions of friendliness.
13. But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
If men are themselves an offence, they deserve to be offended. If these professed teachers of God's mind cavil at God's Son, they deserve no quarter; but it is right and wise to treat them to truth which shall annoy them. A good gardener is careful to uproot weeds as well as to water plants. Our Lord's sententious utterance operated like a hoe to uproot these men from their religious profession; and he. meant that it should do so. But what a solemn word is this! If our religion is not wholly of God it will come to an end, and that end will be destruction. No matter how fair the flower, if the father hath not planted it, its doom is sealed: it shall not be pruned, but "rooted up." Those whom the truth uproots are uprooted indeed.
14. Let them alone: they be blind leaden of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
He turned from them as unworthy of further notice, saying, "Let them alone." There was no need for the disciples to combat the Pharisees, they would be uprooted in the natural order of things by the inevitable consequences of their own course. Both themselves and their dupes would "fall into the ditch" of error and absurdity; and ultimately come to utter destruction. In every case it is so: when the bigoted teacher leads the ignorant disciple, they must both go wrong. The same is the case with every form of spiritual blindness in those who lead the thought of a period, and in those who follow their erroneous guidance. The philosophic unbelief of this age is blind with self-conceit, and fearful is the ditch towards which it is hastening. Alas! its teachers are carrying precious souls with them into the ditch of Atheism and anarchy.
O Lord, suffer us not to be despairing as to the present ascendency of false doctrine. In patience may we possess our souls! We cannot make either the blind leaders or their blind followers see the ditch before them; but it is there all the same, and their fall is certain. Thou alone canst open the eyes of the blind, and we trust that this miracle of grace will bo wrought by thee.
15. Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. The saying, which Peter calls a parable, was spoken to the multitude, and they were bidden to understand it; but assuredly they did not comprehend it, for even the College of Apostles failed to grapple with it. Peter, as spokesman, did well to go at once to the fountain-head and humbly say, "Declare unto us this parable." He that uttered the dark saying could best interpret it.
16. And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Of course the Pharisees would hate the light, and so refuse to see the spiritual truth which our Lord had set before them in so forcible a fashion. Nor was it wonderful that the crowd should be too ignorant to see the divine meaning of the compact sentence. But should not the chosen twelve have had clearer insight? After all their Lord's teaching, were they "yet without understanding"? Should they not have reached the inner sense of their Lord's utterance? Alas, how often have we been in a like state! How pertinently might the question be put to us, "Are ye also yet without understanding?"
17. Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
After years of the Master's teaching, are we still unable to grasp an elementary truth? Can we not discern between physical and spiritual defilement? Food does not touch the soul: it passes through the body, but it does not enter the affections, or the understanding, and therefore does not defile a man. That which is eaten is material substance, and does not come into contact with the moral sense. This is clear enough to any unprejudiced mind. Meat passes through every passage of the bodily frame, from its entrance at the mouth, its passage through the bowels, to its ultimate expulsion; but it bears no relation to the mental and spiritual part of our being; and it is there only that real defilement can bo caused.
18. But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. The outcomings of the mind have sprung from the soul of the man, and have a moral character about them: "things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart." Words, and the thoughts which wear words as their garments, and the acts which are the embodiment of words; these are of the man himself, and these defile him. If the mind or heart had nothing to do with an act, it would no more pollute a man than the food which he swallows and ejects. Because acts and words come not from the mouth only, but from the soul, they are of far more importance than meats and drinks. Of course, defilement comes to a man when he is guilty of gluttony and drunkenness; yet this is not because of the mere meat or drink, but because the taking of them to excess is the exercise of unbridled appetite, and this also grows by that which gratifies it.
19. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
What a list! What must that heart be out of which so many evils pour forth! These are the bees: what must the hive be! "Evil thoughts", or reasonings, such as these Pharisees had been guilty of. "Modern thought'' is a specimen of these evils; it comes from the heart rather than from the head. "Murders " begin not with the dagger, but with the malice of the soul. "Adulteries and fornications" are first gloated over in the heart before they are enacted by the body. The heart is the cage from whence these unclean birds fly forth. "Thefts" also are born in the heart: a man would not wrongfully take with the hand if he had not wrongfully desired with the heart. "False witness ", or lying and slander: this, too, first ferments in the heart, and then its venom is spit out in the conversation. He that utters "blasphemies "against his Maker shows a very black heart: how could he fall into such a needless, useless vice, unless his inmost soul had been steeped in rebellion against the Lord? These dreadful evils all flow from one fountain, from the very nature and life of fallen man.
20. These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
They not only come from a defiled nature, but they still further defile the man. Thus had the Saviour proved his aphorism. The things from within evidently are of a most defiling character, and make a man unfit for communion with God, and for the performance of holy duties; but the neglect of having water poured on the hands cannot be in the least comparable thereto. Yet those who had no repentance of polluting sins were struck with horror at a man's eating a piece of bread with unwashen hands.
Blessed Master, wash me within, and save me from the defilements of corrupt nature! Suffer me not to make outward forms my trust, but in the hidden parts purify thou me!