Matthew 15:1-38

C. CHRIST MANIFESTS HIMSELF AS THE HIGH PRIEST IN HIS SUFFERINGS; BEING REJECTED BY THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES OF JERUSALEM, OR THE THEOLOGICAL AUTHORITIES OF THE SCHOOLS

Matthew 14:34-36, Matthew 15:1-38

Contents:—Secret landing of the Lord in Galilee, and His recognition. Accusation of the deputation from the synagogue at Jerusalem, that His disciples transgressed the traditions. Reply of Jesus, and rebuke addressed to the Pharisees of Galilee. Christ’s teaching to the disciples in reference to tradition. Jesus journeying into the heathen country of Tyre and Sidon, and the woman of Canaan. Second miraculous feeding of the multitude; or, second realm in the desert, as contrasted with that of the spiritual authorities, which allowed the people to perish from want.

1. The deputation from Jerusalem, and the rebuke of Jesus addressed to the Pharisees of Galilee. Christ’s teaching to the disciples in reference to tradition. Matthew 14:34-36; Matthew 15:1-20

Matthew 14:34 And when they were gone [had passed] over,31 they came into the land of Gennesaret. 35And when the men of that place had knowledge of him,32 they sent out into all that country round about,33 and brought unto him all that were diseased; 36And besought him that they might only touch the hem [fringe]34 of his garment: and as many as touched were made perfectly whole.35

Matthew 15:1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees which [who] were of Jerusalem,36 saying, 2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by [because of]37 your tradition? 4For God commanded, saying,38 Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death [surely die].[39] 5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his[40] father or his10 mother, It is a gift [devoted to God, a sacrifice], by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free.41 Thus have ye made the commandment [law]42 of God of none [no] effect by [because of] your 7tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias [Isaiah] prophesy of you, saying, 8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth,43 and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. [Isaiah 29:13.] 9But in vain they do worship me, 10teaching for [as] doctrines the commandments of men. And [then] he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a [the] man [i. e., makes him legally unclean]; but that which cometh out of the month, this defileth a [the] man. 12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? 13But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 14Let them alone: they be [are, εἰσι] blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall [will] fall into the ditch. 15Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. 16And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17Do not ye yet [Do ye not],44 understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man 19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false 20witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a [the] man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a [the]45 man.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Matthew 14:34. Into the land of Gennesaret.—As the time of persecution had commenced, they probably landed on a retired part of the coast. This appears, 1. from the manner in which the place where they landed is described; 2. from the circumstance that the people of that place brought sick persons from the scattered houses in the district, and that, according to Mark, Jesus passed through villages and towns before He appeared in the synagogue at Capernaum; while, lastly, this view is also supported by the analogous account of the landing, contained in Matthew 15:39. The designation, “land of Gennesaret,” Mark 6:53, was given to the western shore of the lake; from which, indeed, the latter derived its name. According to Josephus (De Bello Judges 3:10, Judges 3:8), the district extended 30 furlongs in length and 20 in breadth, so that it must have comprised only a part of the western shore. Robinson (ii. p. 400) suggests that it extended from Khân Minyeh on the north to Mejdel on the south; in which case it would nearly embrace the modern district of el-Ghuweir, or the “Little Ghôr.” According to Josephus, the climate of this district was very mild, and the soil fertile.

Matthew 14:35. And when the men of that place had knowledge of Him.—Meanwhile morning had dawned, and Jesus was immediately recognized by the people.

Matthew 14:36. The fringe of His garment.—Comp. Matthew 9:20. Christ merely passed through the district, and the haste of His journey accounts for the manner in which the cures were performed; the expression being at the same time symbolical, and indicating on the one hand the most passing touch, and on the other the strong faith of the people in that district. We might almost have expected that tradition would have laid the scene of healing the woman with the issue of blood in the country of Gennesaret instead of at Paneas. If that woman lived here after she was restored, we may perhaps conjecture that ever afterward special importance attached in the mind of the people to this mode of healing. But we must remind the reader that Jesus passed through the lower district of the sea-shore when He performed that miracle.

Matthew 15:1. Then met Jesus, etc.—The following three sections (about the washing of hands, the woman of Canaan, and the second feeding of the multitude) are only related by Matthew and by Mark. Between these events and those formerly related, we must insert the address of Jesus, in the synagogue at Capernaum, concerning the manna of heaven (John 6:22-71), as also the festival of Easter, which, according to John 6:0, was close at hand, even at the first feeding of the multitude. From Luke 10:38, we would infer that Jesus had on that occasion tarried in Bethany, while the disciples went on to Jerusalem. In the Jewish capital, the disciples seem to have given offence by their bold statements and by the evangelical liberty of their conduct. Hence Jesus was now charged with heresy in Galilee, and was watched in the field. Then followed the healing of the man with the withered hand, and of him who was possessed with a blind and dumb devil, the last conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees of Galilee, the parables and probably the events recorded in Luke 13:1-9; Luke 13:11-17. Meantime, the deputation of Pharisees and scribes, with which our section opens, had arrived from Jerusalem; having been despatched partly on account of the offence which the disciples had given in the holy city, and partly on account of the report of the Pharisees of Galilee, to the effect that Jesus was too powerful for them, and that they required assistance from the capital.—The arrangement of Matthew follows the order of things more than of time. After having related how the Lord was repelled by the ruler of Galilee, he now records the conflict between Jesus and the supreme authorities of the synagogue.

The Pharisees and Scribes.—With the article.[1] We adopt the arrangement of Codd. B., D., Orig., etc., by which the Pharisees are mentioned before the scribes, although this is opposed by Lachmann and Tischendorf. The persecution at Jerusalem originated with the Pharisees, the scribes having given it a proper legal form in the shape of a deputation from the synagogue. This is no doubt indicated by the use of the article, and not, as Meyer supposes, “the scribes who lived in Jerusalem and had come thence.” The deputation represented the whole body of the Pharisees and scribes in Jerusalem. There are references to several such deputations in the New Testament.

Matthew 15:2. Why do Thy disciples transgress?—Referring to the occasion to which we have above alluded. The charge is at first urged in a cautious manner, although the Master is made responsible for the supposed transgressions of His disciples.—The tradition, παράδοσις.—A new and more dangerous mode of attack. Hitherto they had only charged Him with violating the Sabbath, or with supposed transgressions of the law itself. But now they based their accusations upon tradition, as of acknowledged authority. The miraculous cures of Jesus and His teaching might be urged in answer to their charges of violation of the law; but the disciples were apparently, transgressing the traditions without any excuse for it. The παραδοσις, ἄγραφος διδασκαλία. Hesychius. See the Sermon on the Mount. Within the circle of His disciples, Jesus had from the first declared Himself opposed to traditions, but their renunciation on the part of His followers had only of late appeared. This charge of the Pharisees is illustrated by the following extract. Meyer: “The Jews attached greater value to tradition than even to the written law, appealing in support of it to Deuteronomy 4:14; Deuteronomy 17:10. More especially did they pay respect to the traditionary injunction of washing the hands before meals, to which it was thought Leviticus 15:11 referred. See Lightfoot, Schöttgen, and Wetstein on the passage.” Jesus did not reject this, tradition, viewing it merely as a custom (which was also common among the Persians, Greeks, and Romans). He only refused to recognize it as a binding or religious ordinance, and hence omitted it in urgent circumstances. The whole passage may be regarded as throwing a peculiar light upon the history of Pharisaism, with its “hedge around the law,” and upon that of the Sanhedrin and of the Talmud.

Of the elders.—Fritzsche: The teachers of the law. Meyer: Our ancestors, with special reference to Hebrews 11:2. But we must not forget that the official πρεσβύτεροι of the Sanhedrin and of the synagogues were the theocratic authorities which administered and sanctioned the traditions of their ancestors.

Matthew 15:4. Let him die the death.—In the original Hêbrew: מוֹת יוּמָת, he shall surely die. The Sept. renders it, he shall end by death (by execution): θανάτῳ τελευτάτω.

Matthew 15:5. But ye say.—The change of the verb deserves notice. It is a gift, δωρον, קָרְבִּן, a sacrifice or gift to the temple. There are two significant omissions in the phraseology of the text. 1. ἐστι or ἔσται is omitted. If a person merely pronounced the word “Corban” over any possession or property, it was irrevocably dedicated to the temple. Thus it became a kind of interdict. Compare Lightfoot, von Ammon ii. 226. Mishna, נדיים, de votis. Joseph. Contr. Ap. 1, 22.–2. “But ye say, or make the tradition, Whosoever shall say to his father, or his mother, It is a gift! that with which thou mightest be assisted by me,” … Here Jesus breaks off and allows His opponents to state their own conclusion, which was as follows: “he is free of his duty as a child.” The Lord seems unwilling to draw, or at least to state, the sinful conclusion at which Pharisaism had arrived. Hence the aposiopesis, which appears most clearly in the language of Mark, is peculiarly suitable.2 Perhaps the inference might have been differently expressed by some of the Rabbins. Jesus, however, draws his own conclusion,3 which is: He will surely not honor his father or his mother. So Meyer. But Grotius, Bengel, and Winer regard this clause as being the words of the Pharisees themselves, implying: He need not honor his father, etc. But this view is improbable in itself, and contrary to the language of the text. [Not at all. Comp. my critical note 11 on Matthew 15:5-6, p. 275.—P. S.]

Matthew 15:6. Made of no effect.—More than merely “transgressed.” Some Rabbins (as Rabbi Eliezer) regarded the duty of children to honor their parents as higher than all the commandments. But the Jewish authorities insisted that vows, even if incompatible with this injunction, were binding.

Matthew 15:7. Well (aptly, καλῶς) did Isaiah prophesy of you. Isaiah 29:13.—Not in the sense of natural inspiration (de Wette), nor of prediction in the strictest sense (Meyer), nor merely of application (Maldonatus); but as in Matthew 13:14 sqq. with special reference to Isaiah 6:0. We have here the other aspect of the hardening to which the prophet referred, in the shape of a pretended sanctity. As the statement of Isaiah in reference to the hardening of his cotemporaries was completely fulfilled in the cotemporaries of Jesus, so also his statement about their pretended sanctity; in other words, his verbal prophecy about his cotemporaries was, in this respect also, a typical prophecy of the times of Jesus.

Matthew 15:9. In vain, μάτην.—Meyer explains the expression as implying that it was fruitless (without moral result) and groundless (temere). In our opinion, it expresses the idea of emptiness or vanity, which includes groundlessness in point of principle, and fruitlessness so far as results were concerned. The Hebrew text has no expression corresponding to this μάτην; but the Sept. may probably have translated from another reading.

Matthew 15:10. Then He called the multitude.—The Saviour turns away from these hypocrites, whose questions about the washing of the hands He does not even condescend to answer, since out of their own mouths they were convinced of making the commandments of God of no effect. Christ now turns to the people, and instructs them in the difference between Levitical and real defilement.

Matthew 15:11. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth;—i.e., with reference to the relation between Levitical defilement and the חל, or profanus, in the real sense of the term. The Lord presents the Levitical idea of impurity in a moral light. The question is not—to take the present instance—to be decided by the physical mouth (or the use of certain meats), but by the moral mouth (or the language). What is here said concerning the going into and coming out of the mouth, applies to the whole series of Levitical and moral injunctions concerning purity. The statement was in the first place, indeed, intended as a justification of His disciples on the charge brought against them by the Pharisees. But the inference was obvious, that all these injunctions required to be fulfilled in a higher sense (although this did not imply that the Lord denied their validity as Levitical ordinances). As a matter of course, when the symbol would be completely fulfilled, its outward representation must fall to the ground.

Matthew 15:12. After they heard this saying.—“This remark is commonly referred to Matthew 15:3-9. But we would rather apply it, with Euthym. Zigab, to Matthew 15:11.” Meyer. It is, indeed, quite true that it would have been impossible for them to have replied to Matthew 15:3-9, while in answer to Matthew 15:11 they might bring against Him the charge of subverting not only tradition, but even the written law. Still, their anger about His application to them of the prophecy of Isaiah must have increased their resentment and offence at His λόγος. Nor must we here omit to observe the moral distinction between giving offence to the Pharisees and to the least of the disciples.

Matthew 15:13. Every plant.—Referring to the teaching and the traditions of the Pharisees (Ewald, Meyer, etc.), not to their persons (Fritzsche, Olshausen, de Wette). At the same time, we should also bear in mind what was said in Matthew 13:0 about the identification of individuals with the doctrines which they professed.

Matthew 15:14. Into the ditch.—The cistern. Meyer supposes that the expression refers to Gehenna, implying that they were hopelessly lost. But, in our opinion, it primarily applies to historical and national, not to personal judgments. We infer this from the fact, that both classes of the blind are said to fall into the ditch,—those who feel their need of being guided (or the people), as well as those who think they see, and assume to be leaders (sec John 9:0). The difference between them, however, was very great; and with reference to the Jewish people, comp. Romans 9-11.

Matthew 15:15. Peter.—Acting as the representative of all the disciples; see Mark 7:17.—This parable.—The whole discourse was parabolical, but sufficiently explained by the context, and not, as Peter seems to have supposed, a separate parable in the more limited sense of the term. It appears as if Peter had felt it difficult to distinguish between the symbol and the reality. Jesus had employed the physical as an emblem of the moral mouth, and in that particular His statement might be regarded as parabolical. But even in that respect the parabolical form had not been strictly carried out.

Matthew 15:17. Do not ye understand?—The place where the bodily functions are finally purified, is that where they terminate, ὁ (which, according to Suidas, designates both anum and sellam; derivatur enim άπὸ τῶν ἑδρῶν. The term is evidently related to ἄφεδρος, by which the Sept. render the place where menstruous women underwent purification). But that which constitutes the true nature of man can only be cleansed if the heart, whence words and actions issue, is purified. And this is the only true purity, contrasted with which all symbolical purifications are of no value. (See above, the antithesis between mercy and sacrifice.) A symbol becomes null and void if applied against the truth which it had been intended to present to the mind. In that case its real object is lost, and it does harm instead of good. Compare here Mark.

Matthew 15:19. For out of the heart proceed.—The Saviour implies that evil works first pass through the channel of an evil mouth, thus disclosing the evil state of the heart.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. As the Gospel history unfolds, the gulf between the believing and the unbelieving portion of the people becomes wider. If the former would fain touch the hem of His garment in order to be restored, the latter excommunicate Him, because His disciples had offended against their traditions.2. Let us mark the progressive hostility against the Lord. First the Pharisees of Judea, then they of Galilee, had pronounced against Him; while both are now combined against Him and His word. The expression, “the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem,” clearly implies that they were a deputation from the synagogue, representing the whole body of the Pharisees and scribes.3. No doubt the peculiar arrangement adopted by Matthew was intended to indicate this state of matters. Hence the description of Christ’s conflict with the secular authorities is followed by that of the assaults on the part of the Pharisees and scribes.4. The increasing bitterness of His enemies appears also from the circumstance, that they now charged Him, in presence of the people, with setting at nought popular traditions. They evidently seem to have regarded the conduct of the disciples as reflecting the teaching of their Master. Hence the Lord feels called upon to set before the people the contrast between self-righteous traditionalism and the eternal commandments of God. This He illustrates in connection with the first and most special law of humanity. But the principle here laid down embraces a far wider range. It condemns all dead traditionalism which is inconsistent with life, and indeed every ecclesiastical ordinance which in spirit or in form is incompatible with the fundamental principles of our humanity, with the institutions of God, or with the demands of our moral nature.

5. The mere traditions of men are plants which our Father in heaven has not planted. They have sprung from temporal motives, were subservient to temporal interests, and became a temporal curse to those who blindly followed them. Hence also they shall at last meet with an earthly fate, and be rooted up. According to Heubner, the future tense, here used, must be regarded as implying that a certain thing must necessarily be done. But although it is quite true that Christ by His word roots up the principle of tradition in His Church, yet the actual process of uprooting will take place in the course of those judgments which the progress of history shall evolve. Comp. 1 Corinthians 3:13.

6. The antithesis between the mouth in the physical and in the moral sense involved a principle by which all the ordinances concerning meats were removed, in view of and as fulfilled by the law of the spirit. This, indeed, was the main ground of offence to the Pharisees. However, it was not the intention of the Lord to annul on this occasion these ordinances, as little as He meant to enjoin the cessation of sacrifices when He quoted the saying of the prophet, “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.” In the present instance also, a reference to the Hebrew expression would exhibit the right relationship between what was material and what immaterial (which had been perverted by hypocrisy), implying, as it did, that the latter was of no importance, and even contemptible, when contrasted with what in itself was material. On the symbolical import of these ordinances comp. the well known works on Old Testament Symbolism [by Bähr, Kurtz, Fairbairn], and the article Reinigkeit in Winer’s Bibl. Encycl. The religious lustrations prescribed in the law gave rise to the pharisaical ordinances concerning the washing of hands before meals. In His teaching the Lord goes back upon the fundamental principle of all lustrations, laying peculiar stress on the antithesis between what was external and what was internal, since the Pharisees were in danger of substituting what was intended as a symbol, for the reality to which it pointed.

7. The words of Jesus may be regarded both as a doctrinal and as a controversial statement. The charge of the Pharisees implied that He and His disciples were a company of defiled sinners. Our Lord retorts by showing that defilement really attached to the Pharisees, not in any outward sense, but by the wicked thoughts issuing from their hearts. The doctrine, that out of the heart come evil thoughts, is not inconsistent with the dogma concerning the devil, since Satan can only tempt man, not produce sin in him. Comp. James 1:14.

8. The moment when Christ turns from the rulers of the synagogue to address Himself to the people, is both highly significant in itself and typical. The same may be said of the fact, that immediately afterward He passed for the first time beyond the boundary of the Holy Land; not, indeed, directly into the coast of Tyre, although soon afterward into the territory of Sidon. “Perhaps He found it necessary to impress upon the disciples, who as yet could not fully receive the contrast between Pharisaism and the religion of the Spirit, that the curse of defilement hung over the Holy Land.” Similarly, Elijah, when he could no longer find a habitation in Judea, had passed into Phœnicia, and even tarried there for a time.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The welcome and the ban which awaited the Lord on His return into His own country.—The secret landing of the Lord anon a public event.—The secret arrival of Christ a blessed event for the poor and needy who trusted in Him.—How the Pharisees and scribes would have shut up the way of the Lord: 1. Opposing their human authority to His divine mission; 2. their vain scholastic questions to His heavenly Revelation 3:0. the objections of their traditionalism to His proclamation of mercy; 4. their miserable pretensions to His blessed reality; 5. their thoughts of death to His way of life.—Sad decay of the once glorious synagogue.—The small masters in the presence of the great Master. 1. They call on Him, who is the Judge and Saviour of the world, to rebuke His disciples; 2. to wash that hand which restores life and health; 3. to purify that mouth whose word and breath sanctify the world; 4. to hallow the meal of Him who is the bread of life.—The traditionalism of the elders in its antagonism to the law of the Eternal One: 1. By a perversion of the law it dares to prefer charges against Him who is the personal law; 2. by its traditions it renders vain even the eternal commandments of God; 3. under the mask of sanctity it dares to condemn everlasting righteousness itself.—Inseparable connection between zeal for traditions and hypocrisy.—How the Lord brings to nought the plans of these zealots: 1. By replying to them, (a) throwing light on their doctrine; (b) on their character; 2. by turning from them, (a) giving liberty to the people by the word of liberty; (b) giving liberty to His own disciples by the call of liberty: “Let them alone.”—Hypocrisy in its historical development: 1. What forms it assumed at the time of Isaiah 2:0. at the time of Christ; 3. in our own days.—The unprofitableness and the judgments of hypocrisy: 1. It is a spurious service of the lips; 2. it is a vain and external service of the temple; 3. it is the vain service of the schools (unreal in the family, in the church, in the school, and in the state).—Let us meet the hypocrisy of officialism by imitating the example of the Lord and turning to the people.—The teaching of the Pharisees, and the doctrine of the Lord. 1. The former exalt what is sensuous above that which is spiritual, the external (as, for example, washings, fasts, prayers, almsgiving, etc.) above the internal; while Jesus sanctifies what is external by that which is internal. 2. The Pharisees convert the emblem into the reality, and thereby destroy it; while Jesus merges in and fulfils the symbol by the reality.—The offence of the Pharisees.—Objections to traditionalism: 1. It wants a divine origin. It has not its root in truth or in life, and hence has neither divine authority nor divine efficacy. It will give way before divine institutions (it is rooted up); it must give way before spiritual civilization, like heathenism, or like primeval forests.—“Let them alone” ( Matthew 15:13), or justification of the Reformation by the mouth of the Lord.—The blind leaders of the blind. 1. What they have in common: (a) Their guilt; (b) their ultimate fate. 2. Wherein they differ: the blind leaders are responsible both for themselves and for those whom they mislead; but, on the other hand, it is equally sinful on the part of the blind to allow themselves to be led by blind leaders.—The fall into the ditch.—“Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth,” etc.?—Terrible import of these words of the Lord in regard to those who pass moral judgments upon points connected with merely outward observances.—Even the mouth must be regarded as sacred to the Lord, and what it partakes becomes a spiritual feast, but only from its connection with, and dependence upon, the state of the heart.—If we seek purity in external things, our purification, being of the earth, will pass away.—That which proceedeth out of the mouth cometh forth from the heart.—Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life, Proverbs 4:23.—The deeds of the heart manifesting themselves by the words of the mouth.—Whatever cleaves to and defaces an object contrary to its purpose, defiles it; hence the defilement of sin.—The progress of that defilement which separates between the Lord and us: 1. Evil distinctions (exaltation of the outward over the inward); 2. adulteries (apostasy from the living God); 3. fornications (with the world and its pomp); 4. thefts (what is holy is taken from the Lord and given to the world); 5. false witnesses (lying accusations against what is holy); 6. blasphemies (see Matthew 12:0).—What defileth a man before God: 1. Wherein defilement consisteth; 2. how it is contracted.—How eternal purity answered the charge of defilement brought against it by impure sinners.—How the wondrous beauty, purity, and delicacy of the emblem may be perverted into impurity, if it is set up in opposition to the reality which it was intended to foreshadow.

Starke:—Nov. Bibl. Tub.: Those self-conceited hypocrites who boast of being the Church, are generally the worst enemies and persecutors of the kingdom of Christ. Full of impurity themselves, they represent as sin what is not sin, and spy out the liberty of Christians, Galatians 2:4; 2 Timothy 3:5.—What a shame that the name of God should be used as a pretext to cover ambition and covetousness! This the false church has always done.—Quesnel: A desire for new inventions, and love for old errors and superstitions, are the fruitful source whence the disturbances of the Church spring, 1 Timothy 1:4-7.—Cramer: This is the mark of all hypocrites and sanctimonious persons, that they treat as a matter of conscience things indifferent, while they deal lightly with things of which they should make a matter of conscience.—Woe to children who would rather see the back than the face of their parents, who would rather commit them to the grave than support them!—Quesnel: It is sacrilegious to devote to God what should have been given in fulfilment of duties to which the instincts of nature and the law of God equally point.—Hedinger: Beware of sanctimonious people: they deceive the simple, but are ignorant of Christ.—Nothing is to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving, 1 Timothy 4:4.—An unwashen mouth.—The heart in its natural state a poisonous fountain of evil thoughts.—Every plant, etc., 1 Corinthians 3:12.—It is quite possible to be spiritually blind while possessing accurate knowledge of the letter and even outward learning, Isaiah 56:10.—Nov. Bibl. Tub.: That which is external can neither defile nor sanctify what is within, but the mind and heart sanctify or defile the outward deed.—Gossner: Lying traditions are turned into truth, and the Word of God and the truth of Christ are condemned as lies and heresies.—God desires above all the heart.—Look to your plants. What does not proceed from God is not tolerated by God.—Preachers and hearers often lie in the same ditch of ignorance, worldliness, and pharisaical self-righteousness.

Lisco:—It is characteristic of a false faith to exalt the traditions of men above the commandments of God.—Gerlach:—It is characteristic of sin that it cannot remain quiescent, but must manifest itself outwardly, and thereby be completed.—A high reputation before men, and the applause of our cotemporaries, are of no avail in the kingdom of God if the new birth be wanting.—That which is external remains such, even though a man have received it internally.

Heubner:—Genuine and spurious purity.—The false teachers calling the heavenly Master to account.—They accuse Him of instilling into His disciples erroneous and dangerous principles.—Let us not be astonished when we see the most vain and heartless persons arrogating to themselves the post of leaders in religious matters.—Custom has frequently the most pernicious authority, and proves a fetter to the truth.—Immense difference between the traditions of men and the commandments of God.—Outward religious claims can never come into conflict with those of love.—None could have been further removed from a religion without love and righteousness than Christ.—Any religious or ecclesiastical usage which proves inconsistent with the law of love is an abomination unto Him.—The words of the prophets always true.—The human heart the same at different periods of time.—Man has a natural tendency to hypocrisy.—How careful are we to be outwardly pure, regardless of the state of matters within!—To follow Jesus, we must be free from all human authority.—The heart of man, which ought to be a temple of the Holy Spirit, naturally the dwelling-place of all abominations.

Footnotes:

[1][See my critical note 6, p. 275. Cod. Sinait likewise puts the Pharisees first.—P. S.]

[2][The aposiopesis is clear in the parallel passage of Mark 7:11, after κορβᾶν, but he omits the second clause altogether, viz. the words: (καὶ) οὐ μὴ τιμήσει (τιμήσῃ), which create the only difficulty in our case.—P. S.]

[3][This is inconsistent with the preceding remark that the Saviour was unwilling to draw or to state the conclusion of the Pharisees.—P. S.]

[31] Matthew 14:34.—[Διαπράσατες, Ewald and Lange: da sie hinübergeschifft waren; G. Campbell: having passed over; A. Norton, Conant, and the N. T. of the A. B. U.: passing over; Rheims and Archbishop Kendrick (The Four Gospels, N. Y. 1849): having passed the water; Wiclif: whanne thei hadden passid ouer the see.—P. S.]

[32] Matthew 14:35.—[Lange: da die Leute … Ihn erkannten; Norton: when they saw who he was; Campbell, and Conant: knowing him, ἐπιγνόντες αὐτόν.—P. S.]

[33] Matthew 14:35.—[Εἰς ὅλην τὴν περί χωρον ἐκείνην, into the whole neighboring country; Lange: in die ganze Umgegend; Campbell: through all that country; Conant: into all that country round (omitting only the about of the E. V.—P. S.]

[34] Matthew 14:36.—[Κράσπεδα correspond to the צִרצִית, which the Jews were directed to wear on the corners of the outer garments, Numbers 15:38 sq. Campbell, and Kendrick translate: tuft; Norton, and Conant: fringe; all the older English versions to A. D. Matt 1611: hem—P. S.]

[35] Matthew 14:36.—[Campbell, Norton, and Conant drop: perfectly; but Lange retains it: (vollständig) geheilt, διεσώθησαν; Meyer: sie wurden durchgerettet, so dass sie sofort gesund aus der Krankheit hervorgingen.—P. S.]

[36]Ch. 15, Matthew 14:1.—[Simpler and better with modern translators and revisers: Pharisees, and Scribes from Jerusalem (dropping: which were), even in case we retain the article οί before ἀπό, which is omitted in the authorities of Lachmann and Tregelles, and also in Cod. Sinaiticus.—P. S.]

[37] Matthew 14:3.—[Διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν, or on account of, or for the sake of (Conant), but not: on the pretense of (Norton), nor: by (E. V. and Campbell). The preposition διά with the accusative seldom, if ever, denotes instrumentality; besides this would not suit the connection; for, as Conant correctly remarks, “it was regard for tradition, as of higher worth and authority, which led them to set aside the word of God, and it is this with which they are here charged.” The Vulgate correctly translates: propter traditionem vestram; the Peschito (Syriac V.) likewise; on account of your tradition; Wiclif, Rheims: for your tradition; Cranmer: because of; Tyndale and Geneva B. falsely: through, for which the Bishops’ B. and King James’ B. substituted by. All the good German versions have: um .. willen, or wegen, on account of.—P. S.]

[38] Matthew 14:4.—[So according to the reading: ἐνετείλατο λέγων. But the older reading of manuscripts, versions, and patristic citations, is εῖπε, said (without commanded). So Lachm. and Tischend., while Alford retains ἐνετεἰλα το λἐγων. Lange puts geboten und (commanded and) in smaller type in parenthesis.—P. S.]

[39] Matthew 14:4.—[Θανάτῳ τελεντάτω, lit: shall end by death, shall be executed, the inaccurate LXX rendering of the intensive Hebrew form מוֹח יָמוּת, Exodus 21:17; Leviticus 20:9.—P. S.]

[40] Matthew 14:5.—[His before father and mother, need not be italicized; the definite article in Greek (τῷ πατρὶ ἢτῇ μητρί) having here the force of our possessive pronoun.—P. S.]

[41] Matthew 14:5-6.—[The translation of this somewhat difficult sentence, which is generally regarded as elliptical, but not necessarily so, depends partly on the construction (see Exeg. Notes), partly on the reading. The common text reads, Matthew 14:6 : οὐ μὴ τιμήσῃ (which the E. V. co-ordinates with ἂν εἴπῃ, as a second part of the protasis: whosoever shall say … and honor not); but the majority of ancient critical authorities are in favor of the future: οὐ μὴ τιμήσει, either with καί (so Tischendorf and Alford), or without καί (as Lachmann and Tregelles read). The Cod. Sinait likewise omits καί, but reads τιμηση, and inserts after ὠφεληθῇς the words: ονδεν εστιν, which I have not seen in any other manuscript or critical apparatus (the reading is: ουδεν εστιν ου μη τιμηση τον πρα, abridged for πατέρα, etc.). The choice lies between the following explanatory translations: (1) But ye say: “Whoever saith to his father or mother: ‘A gift’ [i.e., it is an offering consecrated to God, and therefore not alienable to other use], ‘whatsoever thou mightest be profited with from me’ [i. e., by which I might support thee]; and honor not (καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμήσῃ, coördinate with ἂν εἴπῃ, and second member of the protasis) his father or his mother …” (supply the apodosis: he shall be free, or is free, viz., from the obligation of the fifth commandment). And [words of the Saviour] ye have made the law of God of no effect, for the sake of your tradition. (2) Or, if we read (καὶ) οὐ μὴ τιμήσει, and commence here the words of the Lord, we must translate: But ye say: “Whoever saith to his father or his mother: ‘It it a gift [i.e., an inalienable altar-offering] from which thou mightest be benefited by me,’ ” … [supply the apodosis of the Pharisees: the same is not bound to honor or support his parents, since by doing so he would violate his vow, or alienate what belongs to God]. (And) he [words of Christ] shall in no wise honor his father or his mother. And thus ye have made the law of God of no effect, etc. So Meyer and Lange. But this ellipsis seems somewhat forced and unnatural. (3) Or, finally, we may regard the second clause, with Grotius, Bengel, Winer, and Conant, as the apodosis, no matter whether we read: καὶ οἰ μὴτι μὴσῃ, or οὐμὴ τι μήσει. I prefer the latter (without καὶ) as the older reading, and explain: But ye say: “Whoever saith, etc., he (the same) shall in no wise honor his father or his mother.” Thus have ye, etc. This explanation avoids the hypothesis of an aposiopesis and requires no supplement of an apodosis; it also retains the full force of οὐμὴ, a strong negative asseveration, which in connection with the future expresses earnest dissuasion or positive prohibition (as in Matthew 16:22 : οὐ μὴ ἒσται σοι τοῦτο). If we retain καί we must explain it, with Winer: “he too,” i.e., in such a case (comp. Winer’s Grammatik, etc., § 64 sub aposiopesis, p. 529, note: wer zu seinen Eltern spricht … der braucht auch—in diesem Falle—seine Eltern nicht zu ehren), or rendor with Scrivener: he shall not then honor. At all events it seems to me most natural to regard the second clause as the apodosis of the Pharisees, which expresses their decision and neutralizes the fifth commandment. The Saviour thinks it unnecessary to refute them and simply states the result: Thus ye have made the law if God of no effect.—Conant observes, that the ellipsis in the Common Version: he shall be free, “is supplied from Beza’s Latin Version: insons erit, and is one of the many evidences of its influence (often injurious) on King James’ revisers.”—P. S.]

[42] Matthew 14:6.—[The authorities are divided between τὴ νἐν τολὴν, the commandment, τὸν νόμον, the law (Tischend., Alford), and τὸν λόγον, the word (Lachm. and Tregelles.—P. S.]

[43] Matthew 14:8.—The words of the text. rec.: ἐγγίζει μοι ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν, are wanting in the oldest authorities [including Cod. Sinait.], and omitted in all critical editions [since Griesbach]. Probably an insertion from the Septuagint.

[44] Matthew 14:17.—[Leave out yet. The best authorities and editions read οὐ, not, for οὔπω, not yet. Dr. Lange includes such, yet, in parenthesis.—P. S.]

[45] Matthew 14:20.—[The Greek has always the definite article before ἄνθρωπος in this section, and the E. Vers, thus renders it in Matthew 14:18 : defile the man.—P. S.]