Matthew 15
BolesMatthew 15:1-20
- OF SCRIBES AND
1-9 Then there come to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes.—Other records of this are found in Mark 7:1-9 and John 7:1. The scenes of love and faith closing chapter fourteen are now suddenly reversed. It is generally supposed that Jesus attended the Feast of the Passover at Jerusalem, which was the third Passover of his ministry. This now brings us to the last year of his earthly ministry; at the next Passover, “his hour comes,” and he laid his life on the cross. The “scribes” were the teachers of the law; originally they were those who transcribed the law and made copies of it for use in the synagogue, but they came to be the religious teachers of the people. There were two classes of scribes, civil and ecclesiastical.
They are also called lawyers or doctors. (Matthew 22:35; Luke 5:17.) The “Pharisees” were a sect of the Jews at the time of Jesus; they were a rival sect of the Sadducees; they held strictly to the law of Moses and the traditions that belong to it. The Pharisees are often mentioned in the New Testament and the name signifies “separatists, the pure”; they believed in the existence of spirits and souls and the resurrection of the body. Jesus was probably in Capernaum when the scribes and Pharisees came to him. They were “from Jerusalem”; they may have been sent by the Sanhedrin, or may have come of their own accord.
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?—They did not bring an accusation directly against Jesus; their objection is to his disciples. If they were following his teachings, this objection was against him; if the disciples follow the Master, any objection against his disciples is an accusation against the Master. They asked why his disciples “transgressed the tradition of the elders.” The traditions of the elders means the comments of the elders. “The elders” were the learned men living in the olden times; they originally meant the rulers of the cities. Their traditions signified the religious customs or precepts which were handed down from generation to generation; the traditions were regarded of equal sacredness with the written law. These traditions were a very important part of the Jewish system. The Pharisees taught that when Moses received the “written law” he was instructed also in another law, which he was not to write down, but to deliver to the elders of the congregation.
This oral law, they maintained, was the only authorized interpretation of the written law, so that a Jew could never be certain of the meaning of the written law, until he had inquired of the Pharisees the explanation of the former. These traditions or interpretations of this oral law were enforced on the common people, and punishment for violation of them was as severe as the punishment for the violation of “the written law.” They had observed that the disciples of Jesus had not washed their hands when they ate bread.
Their tradition said, “He who eats bread with unwashen hands is as bad as if he were to commit fornication.” Jesus drew a distinction between “the law of Moses” and “the tradition of the elders.” Jesus disregarded their traditions and replied to their question by asking, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” Jesus shows them that their system of tradition is false. The word of God is to be held sacred above all things; their traditions were the words of men, but the law was the word of God. They had set aside the word of God and had exalted the traditions of men; for this Jesus severely condemned them. Their traditions violated the law of God. Jesus’ direct question convicted the scribes and Pharisees publicly. They had come with the secret purpose of prejudicing the people against Jesus, but Jesus publicly condemned them.
Jesus cited an example of the contradiction between “the tradition of the elders” and the law of God. The law had said, “Honor thy father and thy mother” and a further explanation of that was that “he that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death.” These were statements of the word of God; they were plain and simple, but the scribes and Pharisees taught, “Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thy mightest have been profited by me is given to God. Instead of helping their aged parents with the means at their command, they claimed that it had been offered to God. Mark says that they said to their father and mother, “That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, Given to God.” (Mark 7:11.) “Corban” means a thing solemnly set apart by a formal vow to the sacred use of the service of God, hence it could not be used by or for any other person. Their traditions had invented a secret reserve beneath this form of words; the Jew said to his parents, either in selfishness or anger, “It is Corban, all that I can give to you.” From that time he could not apply any of his property to the support of his parents because, said the Pharisees, he broke a vow to God , but he was not bound nor expected actually to devote it to God , he was only bound by it not to support his parents. He might use it freely upon himself.
In doing this Jesus accused them of making “void the word of God because of your tradition.” In verse three they are charged with transgressing “the commandment of God” and here they are charged with making “void the word of God” because of their tradition. They were not sincere in doing what they had done; they knew what the law required toward their parents, but avoided doing it under the pretense of obeying the traditions of the elders.
Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you.—They claimed to believe the prophets; they claimed to follow the prophets, but the prophet Isaiah condemned the very course which they had followed. If Isaiah condemned them, they could not condemn Christ for doing what Isaiah had done without condemning their great Messianic prophet, Isaiah. Here Jesus identifies his teachings with the teachings of Isaiah. To reject his teachings was to reject their prophet Isaiah. To accept the teachings of Isaiah was to accept the teachings of Christ, and to stand as self-confessed hypocrites before the public. Isaiah had described such as honoring God “with their lips,” while “their heart is far from me.” With their lips they uttered pious “Corban” or consecration to God, but with their hearts they meant to break the commandment of God and rob their parents.
This reference is to Isaiah 29:13. Jesus introduced this by saying, “Well did Isaiah prophesy”; “well,” rightly, truly, and aptly did Isaiah speak of them. Many today act as hypocritically as these scribes and Pharisees; they honor God with their lips, both in prayer and praise, but their heart is far from him. Further quoting Isaiah, “In vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.” They substituted the “precepts of men” for the commandment of God; this made a vain worship. God did not accept it. “In vain” means to no purpose; God sees the heart and knows that it is impure and will not accept such worship. (Prow. 15:8; John 4:24.) They taught for “their doctrines the precepts of men.” Many today teach as doctrines necessary to salvation the precepts of men; they are under the same condemnation that Jesus passed on these scribes and Pharisees. Every willful addition to the commandments of God, every subtraction from the word of God, and every substitution for his command that requires an act of worship only calls for vain worship, and is condemned before God.
[Washing the hands was harmless and commendable. It interfered, so far as we can see, with obedience to no command of God, yet when added as a religious service it was a sin that calls forth this lesson—that it is presumptuous sin to add anything to the service of God, however harmless or commendable in our eyes. It is infringing upon the legislative prerogatives of God. His prerogative is to give laws; man is to obey. He uses this harmless addition to show that no additions can be made of any kind. We might give other equally strong lessons from Jesus on this point, but his application of the prophecy of Isaiah shows his condemnation of such sins.
The quotation from Isaiah and Jesus’ application of it show clearly that to profess to worship God, yet to intermingle in that worship things not commanded by God, is regarded by God as evidence that the heart is not right in the sight of God, that the heart is not loyal and true to him, but it is far from him. Any disposition to add things resting upon the precepts or commandments of man to the service of God is evidence the heart is disloyal to God, is far from him. Anything offered as service to God, even if commanded by God, if done because it appears wise and fitting to men, becomes offensive to God. When we worship God, it must be what he commands; and we must do it to honor and obey him, or he is not pleased with the service. We cannot be too cautious in serving him.]
10, 11 And he called to him the multitude.—The scribes and Pharisees had come all the way from Jerusalem to discuss in their fierce style some matters with Jesus; they were answered and fell back out of notice, and Jesus turns to the multitude. They were asked if they understood his teaching the multitude seems more inclined to learn, hence Jesus gives his attention to those who are ready and anxious to learn. “Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man.” It is not food and drink that defileth the soul. Certain meats were forbidden in the law to school the minds of the Jews and prepare them for the spiritual law of Christ; but they had grossly perverted the law and imagined that they could be spiritually defiled by certain meats; hence, Jesus gives the broad principle that sin does not lie in food or matter, but in the soul. “Sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4), or a transgression of the law. That which people eat or that which goeth into a man is put in contrast to that which goeth “out” of the man; that is, the moral action, that goeth forth from the man’s will and intention. A man’s intentional thoughts, words, and deeds defile the soul. Jesus teaches that not physical touch but moral action makes a man truly impure before God.
12-14 Then came the disciples, and said unto him.—The scribes and Pharisees and the multitude have gone and Jesus further instructs his disciples. They asked Jesus if he knew that “the Pharisees were offended” by his teachings. They were not only offended, but were angry at being exposed before the multitude. They had come to place Jesus in an awkward and inconsistent attitude before the multitude, but Jesus had tactfully exposed and placed them in a ridiculous plight before the multitude; their weapons had been turned against them. Perhaps the disciples of Jesus heard the Pharisees talking and brought what they had heard to Jesus. Jesus made reply to his disciples and said, “Every plant which my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up.” Some explain “every plant” to mean “every doctrine” which is probably what is meant.
The Jews called a doctrine a seed or plant. Jesus called “the word of God” seed. (Luke 8:11.) The traditions of the elders were plants which God had not planted; they were the doctrines of men, and such can never stand before the word of God. Jesus assured his apostles that the truth would ultimately and finally be victorious and that all doctrines of men must fail. The truth shall prevail over all false opinions. The disciples were to see the hatred and prejudice of the enemies of the truth overcome. Some think that “plant” may have reference to the Pharisees as a class of religious teachers, and that the disciples would see them rejected and teachers of Christianity prevail in their stead.
Let them alone.—Perhaps the disciples thought that Jesus had not noticed the anger of the Pharisees; however, it had not escaped his attention as they thought it had. Jesus very tactfully passed it by without calling attention to it or letting anyone know that he had noticed it; this is an example that we might imitate frequently with great profit. They were blind guides or blind travelers; they were deceivers of the deceived; both classes have the common fate or doom, “both shall fall into a pit.” Both the seducers and the seduced shall perish. We may learn from this that we should not be deterred from doing our duty and speaking the truth in the face of opposition or popularity; it is the duty of teachers to compare their teaching with the word of God and that Christians must be patient in the face of adversaries. These were “blind guides” or leaders they did not see the truth because they refused to see it. (John 9:40.) Jesus uses a very impressive figure when he represents them as blind guides or blind travelers.
15-20 Peter answered and said unto him, Declare unto us the parable.—It seems that his disciples should have understood the parable of Jesus concerning the ceremonial observances with respect to food; it was not hard to be understood, but the entrenched prejudices of the Jews prevented the disciples, in common with other Jews, understanding its meaning.(Acts 11:1-18.) Jesus mildly rebuked his disciples by asking them, “Are ye also even yet without understanding?” Writers of the gospel seem to make no distinction between parable, proverb, or other figures of speech. It was difficult for the disciples to understand why the Pharisees should be called blind leaders. Mark says that all of the disciples asked the question which is here attributed to Peter. (Mark 7:17-20.) Peter may have asked the question for the others and one writer notices the one fact, while the other records another fact, and both are true. Jesus proceeded to further develop the thought expressed in the parable. The difference between what goes into the mouth and what comes “out into the draught” ought to be clear to even the dullest in thought. Jesus speaks of the mouth as the instrument of food and conversation; as an instrument of food that which goes into the mouth passes to the stomach and out as draught, but that which cometh from the mouth comes from the heart and it is what comes from the mouth that defiles, and not that which goeth into the mouth.
Our words come from the heart and are spoken by the mouth; they proceed from the inward intentions, and thereby not merely our words, but our actions, come from the heart. “For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings.” “Evil thoughts” are placed first, as if to represent the fountain from which the other sins proceed. Thought, deliberation, reasoning, purposes, all precede every responsible act of word and deed. “The heart” means the inward man. (Mark 7:21; Luke 11:39; Romans 2:29; Romans 7:22; 2 Corinthians 4:16; 1 Peter 3:4.) It will be noticed that the catalog of sins here follows closely the second list of commandments in the Decalogue, beginning with the sixth commandment. Jesus concludes that “these are the things which defile the man” and not merely the eating “with unwashen hands.” The Pharisees had failed to make this distinction.
Matthew 15:21-28
- THE WOMAN
21 And Jesus went out thence.—Mark 7:24-30 records this same scene with very little variation. Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees and his warnings to the people not to substitute outward for inward purity gave great offense to the Pharisees and alarmed his disciples. To avoid the Pharisees and to be with his disciples to further instruct them, Jesus withdrew “into the parts of Tyre and Sidon.” Jesus left the dominion of Herod and went into the region of Tyre and Sidon; these were cities situated on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Since the death of John the Baptist, Jesus was the object of notice by Herod Antipas, and as “his hour” had not come, he retires to a country not under the jurisdiction of Herod. This region of country appears to have been the tract in which were situated the cities that Solomon gave to Hiram, and which, because they did not please him, Hiram restored to Solomon, who improved them for his subjects. (Joshua 19:27; 1 Kings 10:12-13; 2 Chronicles 8:2.) Tyre and Sidon were two Phoenician cities situated on the Mediterranean, and the regions to which they belonged adjoined the land of Israel on the south and east; it was allotted originally to the tribe of Asher, but does not appear to have been entirely taken by that tribe (Joshua 19:24-31), and was embraced in the land promised to Abraham (Genesis 10:15-19; Genesis 15:18-21). Mark tells us that Jesus desired to enter “into a house, and would have no man know it.” (Mark 7:24.) He was seeking seclusion for meditation and further instruction to his apostles.
22-28 And behold, a Canaanitish woman came.—Jesus did not remain in seclusion as this woman “came out from those borders, and cried, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David.” Mark calls her “a Greek,” a Syrophoenician by race. The two names were given to the same tract of country, “Syria” and “Phoenicia”; it was originally called Canaan, hence “a Canaanitish woman.” She was not a Jewess, hence the important fact about the name is that she was a Gentile. So far as we know she was the first of Gentiles to obtain a blessing by faith in Jesus. She lived in that outlying region where the great famine in Ahab’s time was, and where Elijah found the poor widow who supplied him food during the famine. We do not know how she learned of Jesus; we only know that she had learned something about him. She calls him “thou son of David”; this confessed him to be the Messiah.
It is remarkable that a Gentile woman should have such faith in him upon such meager evidence at her command. She had a daughter who was “grievously vexed with a demon.” Mark describes the woman as coming and falling at the feet of Jesus. She came in faith and humility; she pleaded with the earnestness of her soul for help. No one can doubt her faith, her humility, her anxiety, and her persistent earnestness. She besought Jesus to have mercy on her and heal her daughter.
But he answered her not a word.—At first this seems to be a strange attitude toward this poor woman. We may see two plain reasons for Jesus not answering her immediately. They are to try her faith before others; he saw her good faith and developed it to make the blessing more remarkable. The second reason may have been that since she was neither by birth an Israelite nor by profession a worshiper of the God of Israel, she should be put to some previous trial of faith so that she may show herself more worthy of so high a preference in his ministry. At least, Jesus “answered her not a word” for a time. He said no unkind word to her; he did not repel her; he simply kept upon his way to pass her, as though he would not heed her earnest request.
The pause or delay was trying and painful to his disciples. So his disciples “besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.” Some think that the disciples wanted him to dismiss her with his blessings so that she would not annoy him any longer; others think that his disciples wanted him to send her away without the blessing, as she was not entitled to it, being a Gentile. We are not told by either record why they requested her to be sent away; so there is no use in our spending an opinion on it. Such is not germane to the lesson taught in this instance. Jesus answered his disciples that he was “not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The children of Israel or Jews were designated as “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” His mission was primarily to the Jews while he was on earth; he was sent to them, was born among them, lived with them, and died by their hands. He came to save all, to become a ransom for many, but his earthly ministry of his preparatory work for his kingdom was confined to the Jews.
But she came and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. —There is an exquisite beauty in the simplicity and brevity of her prayer. She urged no argument, perhaps her voice was choked by her tears; she looked into Jesus’ face and saw the mercy that disproves his words, and earnestly pleaded, “Lord, help me.” The soul that bows as she did need say no more than “Lord, help me.” Jesus further tested and developed her faith by saying, “It is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.” The Jews considered themselves as the peculiar favorites of heaven and despised Gentiles; Jesus called out her confession, spake as if he felt as the other Jews, that she was too far inferior to him to receive such a blessing. The same principle is taught is Isaiah 54:7-8. Jesus here puts her in a most humble place that she may prove that she has an humble heart, though a Gentile. It seems that the poor woman comes nearer to Jesus as he talks to her and as she replies to him. She “worshipped” him, that is, continued to worship him by prostrating herself before him and beseeching him to help her.
When Jesus replied that it was not fitting to take the bread that belonged to the children and give it to the dogs, she quickly responded with an argument for her case that could not be ignored. She said, “Yea, Lord,” that may be true;yet she said, “Even the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” She was willing to be placed in the humblest position, even as a dog under its master’s table; she did not deserve any other place, but she did desire the crumbs which fell from the master’s table. She meant, “Dog is it I am? and the Jews my masters? Then, at least, let me have the crumb that mercy does not deny to the very dog.” She was willing for Jesus to give the Jews what he would, but she desired that he deny her not this mercy; out of his abundance it was only a crumb; they cannot be the poorer by his giving her this crumb, and she would be immeasurably richer. Jesus never did, and could not from his nature, deny any good thing asked for with such faith, with such humility, with such perseverance.
Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith.—We see now in this Jesus’ purpose in delaying the blessing to her; he knew how much trial her faith would bear; he had in view the very result which followed. He has his own way of measuring out tests for our faith and endurance; he knows how much discipline we may need in order to be more worthy of the blessings. Her faith takes her out as an exception to the whole Gentile world and holds her up as an example of faith to the Jewish race. Mark tells us that when she returned home, she “found the child laid upon the bed, and the demon gone out.” (Mark 7:30.) Jesus had told her that it should be “unto thee even as thou wilt.”
Matthew 15:29-39
- THE FEEDING OF FOUR
29-31 And Jesus departed thence.—He departed from the northwest to the northeastern part of Galilee. He may have passed by Capernaum without stopping as he had lately abruptly left there after the altercation with the Pharisees. He went up into the mountain “and there came unto him great multitudes.” He went through the region of Decapolis on the east side of the sea. The people of this region took advantage of his visit and brought to him “the lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and they cast them down at his feet and he healed them.” He had visited this region once before and they knew of him. He healed all manner of diseases. “The maimed” were those who had broken limbs or crippled. (Acts 3:2.) The people were greatly astonished “when they saw the dumb speaking, the maimed whole, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing.” These miracles caused them to glorify “the God of Israel.” The people on the east side of the Jordan were Jews, but they had fallen into great errors with respect to the law. The people naturally attributed the power of working these miracles to “the God of Israel”; they attributed the power to the right source, and should have accepted Jesus on his claim to be the Son of God, which many of them did.
32-39 And Jesus called unto him his disciples.—The multitude had witnessed the healing of many of their fellow citizens, and had remained there with him “now three days” and Jesus had “compassion on the multitude” because they had “nothing to eat.” He would not send the multitude away without feeding the people “lest hapy they faint on the way.” It is not necessary to infer that the multitude had fasted three days, but had been with Jesus three days and had exhausted all their supplies for food and were now suffering from hunger. (Mark 8:110.) The only difference between this miracle and that recorded in Matt. 14:1421 is the number fed. The place was the same, the plain near the mount where the beatitudes were spoken, close to the sea; the cause of it the same; the manner the same. The persons receiving support in this miraculous manner were not the same, as those who had been fed with the five thousand came from the western shore, and those of the four thousand came from the region of Decapolis. It is not necessary to infer that these were Gentiles as some have done; they were Jews who lived in that region of country.
And the disciples say unto him, Whence should we have so many loaves in a desert place as to fill so great a multitude? —It seems that his disciples had forgotten that he had power to feed the multitude. It had not been long since the multitude of five thousand men had been fed. Perhaps they believed he had the power to feed the multitude, but they were not sure he would repeat the miracle. They did not have the boldness to ask him to perform a miracle, hence they just asked, “Whence should we have so many loaves in a desert place as to fill so great a multitude?” They then watched every movement that was made. Jesus inquired, “How many loaves have ye?” And he received in reply, “Seven, and a few small fishes.” The multitude was commanded to sit down on the ground and Jesus, as on the former occasion, “gave thanks and brake, and gave to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitudes.” In like manner he took the “few small fishes” and “blessed” them and had his disciples to serve the multitude. After they had eaten “and were filled” they gathered up “that which remained over of the broken pieces, seven baskets full.” There were “four thousand men, besides women and children.” Twice in the same general region of country, and under the same general necessity, did Jesus supply “bread in the wilderness” to the needy multitudes who, far from their homes, stayed to listen to his word. This multitude did not think of making him king as did the other multitude that he fed; so he quietly departed with his disciples.
“And he sent away the multitudes” and he with his disciples “entered into the boat, and came into the borders of Magadan.” This is the place from which Mary Magdalene received her name. Mark says that Jesus and his disciples left and “came into the parts of Dalmanutha.” (Mark 8:10.) The great moral lessons of the feeding of the five thousand and of the four thousand are the same; the circumstances call for a supply of food by a miracle; the same power here as before was equal to the emergency; the same love and wisdom provided it.