Matthew 15

CHAPTER XV

XII

Christ Again Clashes with the Pharisees and Withdraws and Warns the Pharisees and the Sadducees and His Disciples, Chapter 15–16:12

Matthew 15:1

1 Then there come unto Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying: Why are thy disciples transgressing the tradition of the elders? for they are not washing their hands when they eat bread. The adverb “then” marks the time only in a general way and thus furnishes no warrant for the assumption that Jesus was still in the country of Gennesaret. Matthew, as well as Mark, consider the place of no importance. The clash recorded in chapter 12 seems to have been one with the local Pharisees in Galilee. Now, however, a delegation of Pharisees and scribes (see 2:4 and 3:7) has arrived from the capital, both to spy upon Jesus and to help in discrediting him in the eyes of the people. We see that the violent opposition that had arisen in Jerusalem was joining hands with that manifesting itself in Galilee.

Since these men came up from the capital they had more prestige than the local members of their party. Jesus also handles them with more severity.

Matthew 15:2

2 With διατί they ask why the disciples of Jesus are setting aside (note παρά in the verb) “the tradition of the elders,” the entire body of rules of conduct handed down orally by the πρεσβύτεροι, the old, venerable, learned rabbis. Part of “the tradition,” which was afterward compiled in the Talmud and the Midrashim, consisted of the haggada, expositions and legendary expansions of the historical and the prophetical books of the Old Testament, and of the halacha, rules which in casuistic fashion regulated conduct down to the smallest details. Here the halacha is referred to, “the fence” erected around the law, rules that were in part derived from Moses personally, in part were based on his writings, 613 of them, to which seven additional duties were added with a debate as to whether they were to be rated as inferior, equal, or superior to the written canon. In practice “the tradition” was placed above the canon, a plain example of which Jesus gives in v. 3–6. The seriousness of the charge implied in the question is that Jesus teaches this transgression of the tradition. That is why Jesus personally did not need to be mentioned as himself transgressing these traditional rules.

What the disciples were doing they were doing as disciples of Jesus, thus involving him in the most serious way. These Pharisees might disregard some individual transgression, but to teach transgression as a matter of principle was a different thing.

The implied charge is broad: the setting aside of the entire halacha. The γάρ clause illustrates by introducing one plain example: the disciples of Jesus do not wash themselves (νίπτονται, middle) as to their hands whenever they dine (the present subjunctive to indicate repetition, R. 972). “To eat bread” means to partake of a meal. The neglect of this formality could be easily verified, yet its observance was considered as essential, not for sanitary reasons or for the sake of ordinary cleanliness, but for fear that the hands had brushed against a Gentile or against something belonging to a Gentile. Mark 7:3, etc., written for Gentiles, explains in more detail. The divine Levitical law required no such washing. Jesus and his disciples observed the Levitical law but disregarded the rabbinical tradition. Yet they did so, not because human customs as such are to be disregarded, but because the Pharisees considered the tradition as binding the conscience by divine authority, binding it even more severely than the written law of God.

Matthew 15:3

3 But he, answering, said to them: Why are even you yourselves transgressing the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, He that reviles father or mother, let him die the death. But you on your part say: Whoever shall say to his father or to his mother, A gift! whatever from me thou mightest be benefited by, he shall not honor his father. And you revoked the Word of God for the sake of your tradition. The answer of Jesus is not an argument ad hominem, which simply silences the Pharisees by pointing out that they are doing an equal, yea, a greater wrong. Such an argument would be an admission of guilt on Jesus’ part.

Note that the question asked by Jesus is the exact counterpart of the one put to him by the Pharisees. But in his question he nullifies and wipes out their appeal to “the tradition of the elders” by facing them with “the commandment of God” which is set aside “for the sake of your tradition.” In this simple way Jesus annihilates their tradition. It violates God’s own law and commandment. This is the reason that Jesus teaches his disciples and must teach them to observe none of this tradition.

The καί before the emphatic ὑμεῖς is not “also” and does not place these Pharisees alongside of Jesus’ disciples; it signifies “even you yourselves,” the very ones who are truly guilty of trangression while they pretend to find transgression in others. And διατί, as in v. 2, asks for the cause. This cause is that God’s commandment means nothing to them when it comes to their self-invented tradition. Note that Jesus does not refer to the tradition “of the elders,” behind whose skirts these Pharisees crawl; but says “your” tradition, making these Pharisees personally responsible for the tradition they accept and promulgate.

Matthew 15:4

4 Jesus, too, follows with a γάρ and furnishes a striking example of the transgression which he charges against the Pharisees. He quotes what “God said,” the Fourth Commandment. This is not a deduction of the rabbis but the plainest example of God’s own commandment. He even reinforces this (Exod. 20:12) by another thing that “God said” (Exod. 21:17), which shows how highly God wants parents esteemed. In the civil law of the Jews he placed the death penalty on the mere reviling of a father or a mother (κακολογεῖν, not necessarily “to curse” although it would include cursing). The Hebrew moth yumath the LXX reproduces by θανάτῳτελευτάτω, and this is retained by Matthew: “let him die the death.”

Matthew 15:5

5 All this, though it is absolutely divine, counts for nothing with the Pharisees when it comes to their self-invented tradition. Over against what “God said” Jesus now puts what “you on your part (emphatic ὑμεῖς) say,” the present tense λέγετε to indicate their constant and established teaching. Jesus quotes their own teaching, a piece of their “tradition” regarding a son’s obligation to his father or his mother. It is a specimen from their chapter on vows, which they had extended beyond all reason. Any man might withhold help and support from a needy parent simply by declaring that what would be required for such need was vowed to God or to the Temple as a sacred gift. Such a vow, Pharisaic tradition held, came ahead of every other obligation involving the money or the goods vowed. Δῶρον is simply an exclamation: “A gift!” and means that the thing is a gift which by this exclamation is dedicated to God or to the Temple and is therefore not to be used in any other way. How soon the man exclaiming: Δῶρον! when his father or his mother asked him for something would turn over this “gift” to the priests, was another matter—sometimes he failed to do so although Jesus is not citing such a case.

The clause with ὃἐάν describes what is thus vowed away, and the accusative is the ordinary case with the passive, here the aorist from ὠφελεῖν: “whatever thou mightest be benefited by from me,” i.e., it is a gift vowed away whatever otherwise might bring you help and benefit. The relative clause ὃἐάν modifies the exclamatory δῶρον, which makes the construction entirely regular (there is no καί before οὐμή). B.-D. 360, 1 would change ἐάν to ἄν in order to produce unreality: “thou wouldest have been benefited,” i.e., if it were not δῶρον, “a gift”; but this is too great a change. The matter of vowing away things was greatly abused. Thus, when a creditor came to collect, and the debtor was reluctant to pay, the creditor cried: “A gift,” and thus compelled the debtor to pay the priests.

Matthew 15:6

6 “He shall not honor his father” is the future tense used in legal commands, here the finding pronounced by the Pharisees in their tradition; of course, it is volitive (R. 875), and οὐμή is the strong negation often used with the future indicative or the subjunctive. The remark that the Pharisees would scarcely have contradicted the Fourth Commandment so flatly does honor to Christian feeling but fails to understand the Pharisees. Jesus could never have charged them to their faces with saying this if they were not actually saying it.

The charge is thus complete. Jesus sums it up: “And you revoked the Word of God (some texts have “the law of God”) for the sake of your tradition.” The aorist ἠκυρώσατε states the past fact, and the present λέγετε states what is still being done. The verb (a plus κῦρος) means to leave without a lord, hence to deprive of all authority. And the διά phrase is the answer to διατί in v. 3: “for what cause?”—“for the cause of your tradition.”

Matthew 15:7

7 And now Jesus turns upon these men and subjects them to the very Word of God they so brazenly annul and demand that Jesus must also annul. Hypocrites, excellently did Isaiah prophesy concerning you, saying:

This people honors me with their lips,

But their heart keeps far away from me.

By teaching as teachings precepts of men.

One word characterizes these Pharisees and scribes: “Hypocrite!” and ὑπό in the term (R. 633) adds the idea of an actor behind a mask. C.-K. 638: “The hypocrite tries to appear before men as he ought to be before God and yet is not.” The term, found only in the Gospels, always has this religious sense. The worst form of hypocrisy is that which carries its self-deception to the point where it thinks that it really is what it only pretends to be. Such were the Pharisees. The more their hypocrisy came in contact with the holy integrity of Jesus, the more it appeared as what it actually was. The most vicious enemies of Jesus were these hypocrites. Instead of here himself branding them, Jesus lets Isaiah do this. The very Word they pervert is made their judge.

Matthew 15:8

8 What Isaiah told his own generation as the utterance of Jehovah concerning them was thereby said also concerning the Pharisees and the scribes of Jesus’ time, for they fully repeated the hypocrisy of that former generation. In this sense Isaiah “did prophesy concerning you.” Isa. 29:13 is not quoted mechanically but with purpose. Out of the much longer sentence Jesus selects only those four lines that establish that purpose, namely, to present Jehovah’s picture of the hypocrites. Since only these four lines are used, they are very properly taken out of the subordinate construction of Isaiah’s long, complex sentence and are made ordinary simple statements by the omission of “forasmuch.” Jesus omits “this people draws near me with their mouth” and uses only the coordinate line regarding the lips. The textus receptus, and thus the A. V., have added the omitted line.

The two great marks of fully developed hypocrites are presented in Jehovah’s characterization: honor that is mere pretense (with the lips not with the heart); teachings that are likewise empty pretense (presented as being divine when they are framed only by men). The two are always found together, for the moment the heart keeps far from God it leaves also his Word. The very first requirement of his Word which is also fundamental for all true worship of God is genuine sincerity toward him and his Word.

Matthew 15:9

9 The Hebrew line: “and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men,” is rendered by the LXX: “moreover, in vain do they worship me, teaching precepts and teachings of men.” The sense is the same, for the reverent fear of God is expressed by the worship of him, and every bit of such reverent worship rests on God’s Word and is shaped and controlled by that Word. The moment mere human precepts are substituted for that Word the entire fear of God and its expression in worship are vitiated, become μάταιος, “useless,” in the sense that they lead to no good results, are μάτην, “in vain.” The verb σέβομαι means “to render divine worship,” while προσκυνεῖν denotes only the act of humble prostration. The latter may be practiced before a human superior as well as before God. There is the worst kind of contradiction between divine worship (fear of God) and precepts of men (in place of the Word). To be blind to this contradiction is the very essence of hypocrisy. It is bad enough when it is practiced by an individual; it becomes far worse when it is taught as the true way to fear and to worship God and thus builds up a national system of hypocritical worship.

The teaching is emphasized; it substitutes that of man for that of God and makes the former appear as if it were the latter. The Hebrew collective “the precept of men” the LXX expands into “precepts and teachings of men” (two terms for one idea), which Jesus combines more closely: “as teachings precepts of men,” making the first noun predicative to the second. The thought is the same throughout. “Of men” is subjective; they invented these precepts. The ἐντάλματα are all the practical regulations of the religious life, but all of them as the outgrowth of underlying facts and principles.

One of the specious errors of today is the separation of so-called doctrines from practice. Every religious practice, whether it is only a single minor act or a set church policy, goes back to the corresponding doctrine which is nothing but an expression of what is conceived as really being God’s will and Word. The false practices of the Pharisees sprang from utterly false conceptions of that will and Word; hence Jesus clashed so violently with them when he insisted on the true conception of what God actually willed and said in his Word. The same conflict continues to this day.

Matthew 15:10

10 And having called the multitude to himself, he said to them: Pay attention and understand: not what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth defiles the man. The Pharisees are dismissed; they have their verdict “hypocrites,” sealed by the Lord’s word quoted from Isaiah. When they presented their question and their charge (v. 1), the multitude of common people respectfully drew back and, after Jesus had answered them, watched them depart. Now Jesus calls the people to him. They are the ones who are being misled by these Pharisees and scribes whom they revere and follow, and with loving concern he tries to set them right. “Pay attention (literally: be hearing) and understand!” makes impressive what Jesus has to tell them. He puts it all into the simplest and clearest kind of a statement, one that is self-evident, axiomatic, and needs only to be heard to have its truth comprehended.

When Jesus says that nothing that is outside of a man can, by entering into him, defile him (see Mark 7:15) he refers to eating with unwashed hands. The Pharisees claimed that such hands denied the food they touched and thus defiled the man who ate that food. Jesus says that the principle is wrong on which this specific case is based; in fact, it turns the entire principle upside down. For not what enters into but what comes out of the mouth defiles the man. Defilement is not physical but moral and spiritual. It never comes into the mouth but is in the heart, so that the mouth lets it come out.

But did not God in the Levitical law forbid certain kinds of food to the Jews, and would not putting such food into the mouth and eating it defile the man? The answer that Jesus is here abrogating the Levitical law is untenable; as a Jew he himself fulfilled every requirement of it and he kept that law in force for his disciples until Pentecost (Acts 11:1, etc.). The answer is that it was not the food as food entering the mouth that made unclean but the man’s disregard of the Levitical law given him by God, the disobedience he would voice by asking for such food and by justifying his eating thereof. So, indeed, it is exactly as Jesus says. Yet it calls for a little thought, consideration, and understanding to get rid of our untrue ideas and to see the full, lucid truth of what Jesus says. With this pithy word, the net result of his clash with the Pharisees, the multitude is dismissed.

Matthew 15:12

12 Then the disciples, having come forward, said to him, Dost thou know that when the Pharisees heard that word they were offended? Mark 7:12 has Jesus in a house, away from the multitude; perhaps εἰςοἶκον may mean that Jesus went “home,” which would locate this scene during a brief return to Capernaum. By τὸνλόγον the disciples refer to the word just uttered to the multitude. Others regard it as a reference to v. 3–9, and then think that the disciples considered this reply unnecessarily sharp. But this does not satisfy the deictic article “this word or saying,” and we never read that the disciples criticized Jesus’ treatment of the Pharisees as hypocrites. The word spoken to the people forms the climax to the previous episode, and what was so intolerable to these self-appointed leaders of the people was the fact that Jesus took this leadership from them and here taught the people the direct opposite of what they had taught.

Matthew 15:13

13 And Jesus, answering, said: Every planting which my heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. Let them go on; as guides they are blind; and if the blind guides the blind, both shall fall into a pit. The abstract φυτεία is used for the concrete φύτευμα, “plant.” There is a debate as to whether the figure deals with the persons (here the Pharisees) or with the false doctrine or with both. The analogy of 13:29 favors a reference to persons; moreover, doctrine can never be separated from those that teach it, for that is what makes them the persons they are. The figure is that of a garden or a park, and, in the fashion of Biblical allegory, it is woven together with the interpretation when the owner and planter of this garden or grove is called “my heavenly Father.” The plants which he plants are the true believers who hold to his Word, and the rest, not planted by him, are all who lack faith and hold to the doctrines of men. The uprooting refers to the divine judgment that shall overtake them in due time.

Matthew 15:14

14 “Let them go on,” ἄφετεαὐτούς, lass sie gewaehren, has its analogy in 13:30. After the general statement made in v. 13 Jesus now turns to the Pharisees in particular. Since their judgment awaits them, the disciples are to let them go on. Nothing is so terrible as when Jesus abandons a man. In v. 13 their lack of connection with the Father is stated, to which is now added their own spiritual condition. Their blindness is brought forward because the entire connection deals with the Word of God and its opposite, “the precepts of men” (v. 9).

Nor is this blindness a mere misfortune or only the natural blindness of men that is due to their inherited sinful state. Theirs is that self-willed and obdurate blindness which consists in a fixed and final opposition to the light. They deliberately choose the darkness rather than the light (John 3:19) and proudly call their blindness sight (John 10:40, 41), desiring to be designated as οἱβλέποντες. Hence they also set themselves up as ὁδηγοί or “guides” of others. With what result, Jesus states in a proverbial expression in which τυφλός and τυφλόν are made emphatic by being placed before ἐάν. Seeing eyes would avoid a pit, but when neither guide nor guided have such eyes, both will plunge down and break their necks; and βόθυνον may well intend to symbolize hell.

Matthew 15:15

15 Now Peter, answering, said to him, Explain to us the parable, i.e., the mashal, which Jesus spoke to the people (v. 11) when he summed up the whole contention with the Pharisees.

Matthew 15:16

16 And he said: Even yet are you, too, without understanding? Do you not comprehend that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the belly and is then expelled into a privy; but the things that go out of the mouth come out of the heart, and those are the ones that defile the man. For out of the heart come wicked considerations, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These things are what defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man. The rebuke that “up to this point,” ἀκμήν (adverbial accusative, R. 488), the disciples are still without understanding of truths as plain as the ones in question, is surely deserved. Yet the idea that in themselves certain foods produced defilement merely by being eaten, apart from the condition of the heart (whether it intended to disobey God or not), still confused Peter and the others for whom he spoke.

Matthew 15:17

17 The rebuke continues with the question, “Do you not comprehend?” meaning that this is so easy to grasp. In Mark 7:18, 19 two points are added, namely that food is something outside of the man and does not go into his heart but only into the κοιλία, the abdominal cavity containing the stomach and the intestines. Defilement is impossible unless the heart is involved. Mark says that this made all meats clean as far as they themselves are concerned. This, however, was no abrogation of the Levitical laws concerning meats. For here the heart would necessarily be involved: forbidden meats could be eaten only by a Jew who was set on disobeying God’s Levitical law.

An ἀφεδρών is not a “draught” or a “drain” but a place to which one retires (ἀπό) and sits down (ἕδρα, seat). Food merely passes through the body in the common process of nature.

Matthew 15:18

18 Matters stand entirely different with what comes out of the mouth. That, as Mark 7:21 states it, is “from within,” ἕσωθεν, originating inside of the man, namely in his heart, the seat of all thought, emotion, and volition in the Biblical and the Greek conceptions. Here is where the defilement is to be sought. This does not, however, imply that the defilement ensues only when the contents of the heart are uttered through the mouth; they are what they are before they ever begin to be expressed.

Matthew 15:19

19 “For” explains the defilement by stating what comes out of the heart and hence what is in the heart. This is an actual cesspool filled with wicked “consideration,” πονηροί, “actively and viciously wicked.” In the New Testament διαλογισμοί is always used in an evil sense even when no modifier is added, C.-K. 683. The appositions give us a list of these thoughts, six in Matthew but twelve in Mark 7:21, 22. The fact that some of these sins are deeds and not merely words makes no difference when we recall Jesus’ exposition of the Commandments in 5:21, etc.

Matthew 15:20

20 These sins that arise from the heart defile the man, and the disregard of the man-made precept of washing does nothing of the kind, no matter what the Pharisees teach.

Matthew 15:21

21 And having gone out from thence, Jesus withdrew to the parts of Tyre and Sidon. He thus continues his course (14:13) of withdrawing from the populous centers into retired places and thus avoiding his enemies. This is not flight but well-considered prudence. Since εἰς may mean “to” as well as “into,” it leaves uncertain whether Jesus crossed or only approached the border. “The parts of Tyre and Sidon,” however, refer to sections of Syrophoenicia and not merely to the border sections of Galilee.

Matthew 15:22

22 And lo, a Canaanite woman, having come out from those borders, cried out, saying: Show me mercy, Lord, son of David! My daughter is badly demon-possessed. “Lo” pictures the case as being remarkable. Even here in this distant section Jesus and his miraculous power are known (4:24). Writing for readers of Jewish descent, Matthew uses “Canaanite,” recalling the Old Testament account that the Jews had not completely exterminated the Canaanites as God had commanded. This woman was a descendant of that old pagan race. Mark (7:26), writing for Gentile Christians, calls her a Greek in the sense of a Gentile, to mark her religion; and a Syrophoenician by race, using the more modern term for her nationality.

Before Jesus could enter her country, she “came out from those borders” to find Jesus at the edge of Galilee. Mark 7:31 makes it certain that Jesus afterward went through Sidon, but this woman took no chances—he might turn back from the border and so get beyond her reach. Jesus wanted no man to know of his presence, but word got out, nevertheless. When Mark tells us that he was in a house, this means only that he was in retirement and doing no work among the people. It does not place the following scene in the house, for v. 23 transpires in the open.

Jesus and his disciples had probably just dined in the house, which would make the reference to “the children’s bread” in v. 26 the more suggestive. As he leaves the house to go on, the woman is there, having, perhaps, anxiously waited for him. With the aorist imperative she begs for an act of mercy, and ἔλεος always means pity for the suffering, for the sad and painful consequences resulting from sin and our sinful state; while χάρις always refers to the guilt of sin. She begs the act of mercy for herself, but her sad state is due to the terrible state of her little daughter who is demon-possessed. The mere verb is enough—there is no need to add the particular havoc the demon wrought. On the actuality of demoniacal possession see the notes on 4:24.

When the woman combines “Lord” with “son of David,” she understands “Lord” in the higher sense as being in fact the Messianic title. She plainly reveals that she has knowledge of the Messianic hopes of Israel and had heard that they were being connected with Jesus as the promised great descendant of King David. It is not necessary to regard her as a Jewish proselyte, and it is quite enough to believe that knowledge had come to her from the reports that had been carried into her heathen land. She surely had tried the remedies offered in her neighborhood for her daughter’s recovery, all of which had proved ineffective. Then she heard of Jesus and how he with a mere word had expelled demons from poor sufferers like her daughter. These reports found fertile soil in her heart.

How she had longed to reach this mighty Helper! Now he had come to this far corner of Galilee, and here she finds him with her fervent prayer.

Matthew 15:23

23 But he did not answer her a word. This apparently strange silence on the part of Jesus must not be separated from what follows. And his disciples, having come forward, kept requesting him, saying, Dismiss her, for she is yelling from behind us. The picture presents Jesus walking on in silence, the woman following him with her frantic cries. The imperfect ἠρώτων is descriptive, and the verb denotes respectful asking. One after another of the disciples comes up to Jesus and joins in this request.

The verb “dismiss her” is neutral in force and leaves to the discretion of Jesus whether he will dismiss her by granting or by denying her request. Yet the disciples had never seen Jesus deny anyone pleading for help, although at times he had delayed a little while (John 4:47, etc.; Matt. 8:5, etc.), namely whenever some question had first to be settled. It is fair, therefore, to conclude that the disciples think of a dismissal by granting the woman’s prayer. They indicate, however, that they are not moved entirely by pity for her distress. Jesus did not want his presence to become known, but the outcries of this woman were bound to attract public attention. It was quite a scene for thirteen men to walk along with a woman shouting ὄπισθεν, not “behind them,” but with the greater precision of the Greek, “from behind them,” R. 645.

The thing may also have appeared unseemly to the disciples.

Matthew 15:24

24 The motives that prompt the action of Jesus are by far more profound. He, however, answering said, I was not commissioned save to the sheep that have been lost of Israel’s house. Since Jesus is about to cross the boundary of the Holy Land and to go into Gentile territory for a brief time, all those present must know that this in no way implies a transfer of his ministry from the Jews to the Gentiles or even an inclusion of the Gentiles into his Messianic ministry. The working of this miracle was not to be understood as ushering in the performance of a great number of additional miracles among the Gentiles of this territory. The divine plan, according to which Jesus “was commissioned,” was to work out redemption in the Jewish nation and not elsewhere; as soon as it had been worked out, it would be carried to all the world. Moreover, this would begin in less than a year, following the next Passover.

With this divine plan Jesus was in fullest accord, and his great work was already hastening to its climax. These mighty facts must be thoroughly understood. That is why Jesus delays and explains them in advance in the most impressive way and does not postpone the explanation until after the woman has gone.

We must, therefore, give up the explanation, so offensive to moral feeling, that Jesus pretended to be hard and tortured the woman with uncertainty for the purpose of testing her faith in order then to praise her. Jesus never plays the actor, and any edification secured from such a view has doubtful value. Akin to this view is the other that Jesus puts off the woman in order that she may overcome his refusal by the strength of her faith or until Jesus was led to change his mind. Confusion is also introduced by referring to other Gentiles whom Jesus had helped, for instance, the centurion mentioned in 8:5, etc. But why overlook the many Gentile sick mentioned in 4:24, and the demoniacs in 8:28, etc.? Jesus never hesitated to heal Gentiles as long as no wrong deductions could be drawn from these acts.

Here the case was far different. While Jesus granted this woman’s request, although he went through Sidon (Mark 7:31), we hear of no further teaching or healing in this pagan land. And Jesus acted thus, not because this would have obviated his acceptability as a Messiah by the Jews—his nation had already rejected him!—but because of the divine plan of redemption.

When he calls the Jews “sheep,” all his love and kindness toward his nation is revealed. He thus also denominates himself as their true Shepherd. The perfect participle, added emphatically by a second article (R. 776), “that have been lost,” has its present implication, “and are thus now in this condition.” “House of Israel” is not a mixing of figures, since it is a stereotyped title of high honor for the chosen nation.

Matthew 15:25

25 But she, having come, was worshipping him, saying, Lord, be helping me! While Jesus was answering the disciples, the woman found her way to the feet of Jesus, prostrated herself in utter humility and deepest appeal, and begged for his help. The imperfect pictures the scene in its progress: we see her bending her head to the dust. Whereas she at first used the aorist ἐλέησον to indicate the one gift of mercy, she now uses the present βοήθει to express the enduring help she desires. Whatever divine directions Jesus follows and must follow in his divine office this woman is sure will not conflict with helping her in her distress.

Matthew 15:26

26 But he, answering, said, It is not an excellent thing to take the bread of the children and to throw it to the little pet dogs. Even now Jesus does not directly address the woman; an αὐτῇ, “to her,” is not found in the text. Like the previous statement, this, too, is a general proposition and is even phrased in proverbial form. Yet Jesus does not say: οὐκἔξεστιν, “it is not right,” but: οὐκἔστικαλόν, “it is not a fine thing” to do. He does not say “dogs,” as our versions translate the diminutive κυνάρια, but “little dogs,” such as are kept in the house as pets. This difference is vital.

In the Orient dogs have no owners but run wild and act as scavengers for all garbage and offal. Such “dogs,” the Jews called all Gentiles—ownerless, unclean in every way, always to be avoided. Jesus offers an entirely different thought when he speaks of “the little pet dogs” when referring to the Gentiles. These have owners who keep them even in the house and feed them by throwing them bits from the table. No Oriental dogs of the street were ever allowed in a house, to say nothing of a dining-room.

The thought expressed is thus identical in substance with v. 24, adding only one point. The bread is the ministry of Jesus and the blessings he dispenses. This is for the children, the chosen nation. They recline at table while Jesus dispenses his blessings to them. Any little pet dog in the house is not allowed to lie on one of the couches as though it, too, were a child; this certainly would not be καλόν, “a fine thing” to allow. A pet dog is given his food in a different way: he is allowed to pick up anything the children may drop while they are eating at table.

God has not altogether excluded the Gentiles from the ministry of Jesus. Let us note that “the little pet dogs” does not refer to all the Gentiles in the world but only to such as lived among the Jews or came into contact with them and could thus in a way obtain some of their blessings.

The word of Jesus is thus not nearly as “hard” as interpreters have made it. This word is not a “temptation” which this woman is asked to overcome. Such ideas miss the real point. In both v. 24 and 26 Jesus simply asks the disciples and the woman to accept the divine plan that Jesus must work out his mission among the Jews alone, and that thus the blessings dispensed during his ministry by that mission shall be set before the Jews alone. Any share of Gentile individuals in any of these blessings can be only incidental during Jesus’ ministry in Israel. Jesus was now about to pass into Syrophoenician territory, it was vital that this be understood, especially right here and now when a Gentile woman was begging for Messianic help (note her cry, “son of David”).

Matthew 15:27

27 But she said, Yea, Lord; for the little pet dogs, too, eat some of the little crumbs that keep falling from the table of their lords. The woman’s answer is wonderful in every way. Wholeheartedly she accepts what Jesus says about the divine arrangement of his Messianic mission as being confined to the chosen nation. Her consent to it is far more than formal or superficial: she understands and consents, and she submits without question or thought of objection. She does not even ask why God acted as he did. The keen ears of her faith catch also the full implication as regards the children and their little pet dogs.

In Homer they are called τραπεζῆεςκύνες, “dogs fed from their master’s table” (Liddell and Scott). The present ἐσθίει means: “they usually eat,” and ἀπό is to be taken in the partitive sense: “some of the little crumbs”; all of them would require the accusative, R. 519 and 577. The present participle τῶνπιπτόντων is durative: “that keep falling” from their lords’ table. She even calls the children “the lords” of these little pet dogs. She keeps entirely to the figurative language of Jesus and by means of it expresses her faith in all its humbleness and sub-missiveness, begging, as one of those little pet dogs, a few tiny crumbs which the children, in eating, inadvertantly keep dropping on the floor. Here is faith in all its lowly beauty.

Matthew 15:28

28 Then, answering (3:15), Jesus said to her, O woman, great is thy faith! Let it be to thee as thou wilt. And healed was her daughter from that very hour. Now Jesus grants her prayer. It is unwarranted to think that Jesus kept her on tenterhooks for the purpose of making her faith stretch itself to the utmost; his action was not like holding a morsel higher and higher to make a dog jump to the limit of his ability before rewarding him. The greatness of this woman’s faith, here openly praised by Jesus, lies not in its strength and its intensity which overcome obstacles set up by Jesus and grow greater as these obstacles were increased.

The greatness lay in submissively accepting and in rightly understanding what Jesus said about his Messianic mission. Her great distress did not dull her ears or darken her mind to Jesus’ word. The view that she overcame the reluctance of Jesus to help her attributes to Jesus what was foreign to him and gives a wrong turn to the narrative.

This is the second Gentile whose faith Jesus praised (8:10). In both cases a faith was manifested that truly understands and wholly accepts the Lord’s Word. Note the necessity of this understanding and perceiving as expressed in 13:13–15, 51; 16:9; also in Eph. 1:17, 18. Every misconception on which one relies is false faith, no matter how strong the reliance may be. All right knowledge of the actual facts revealed by Christ forms the eternal basis of faith (5:18), and faith is great according to the measure of the confidence (πίστις) it places in this basis, neither questioning nor rationalizing about all the facts involved nor about the divine will revealed in them.

The Greek ὦ is used sparingly with vocatives, so that, when it is used, it carries with it both emotion and solemnity, R. 463, etc. “Be it unto thee,” as in 9:29; “as thou wilt,” as in 7:12; “healed is thy daughter,” as in 8:13; “from that very hour,” as in 9:22. No further miracles and no teaching are reported during this visit of Jesus’ to the parts of Tyre and Sidon.

Matthew 15:29

29 And having departed thence, Jesus came alongside the Sea of Galilee (παρά, R. 615); and having gone up into a mountain, he was sitting there. From the far northwest Jesus travelled in a wide sweep to the far southeast into Decapolis, the country of the Ten Cities. How he crossed to the far side of the lake is not indicated; we are told only that afterward he took a boat on the eastern shore and crossed to Magadan, v. 39.

Matthew 15:30

30 And there came to him numerous multitudes having with them lame, blind, dumb, cripples, and numerous others; and they flung them at his feet. And he healed them, so that the multitude wondered, seeing the dumb speaking, the cripples sound, the lame walking around, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel. For three days this went on (v. 32) somewhat as in the territory of Gennesaret (14:34, etc.). The sufferers were simply deposited at Jesus’ feet who healed them all—a tremendous statement!

Matthew 15:31

31 The effect was astonishment, the constative aorist registering the fact, ὥστε with the infinitive here expressing the actual (and not the contemplated) result. Significant is the statement that they glorified “the God of Israel.” This shows that the majority of the people were Gentiles. We know, too, that this section was predominantly Gentile although it was a part of the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas. Since it, together with Galilee, was regarded as a Jewish domain, Jesus had no need to emphasize his being sent only to Israel, for this territory belonged to his people. It differed in this regard from Syrophoenicia (v. 24, 26). The many Gentiles healed are thus in the same class with those mentioned in 8:5, etc.; 8:25, etc.; 4:24, 25.

The latter passage shows that at a previous time some had come from Decapolis to Galilee and had found healing at his hands; but not until this time has Jesus visited this section, except for the brief landing reported in 8:28, etc. While nothing is said about teaching, we cannot agree that Jesus spent three days with these multitudes without teaching them about “the God of Israel” and his kingdom of salvation.

Matthew 15:32

32 Now Jesus, having called forward his disciples, said: I have compassion on the multitude because three days already they remain near me and have not what they may eat. And I am not willing to dismiss them fasting lest, perhaps, they grow faint on the road. Some modern interpreters regard the accounts of the two feedings of multitudes as in reality referring to the same incident. But there are differences in time, place, number fed, number of loaves, of fishes and of baskets full left over. Matthew was present at both miracles and is a safe authority. The inner difference is not discussed by these interpreters. The feeding of the 5, 000 intends to reveal Jesus as the Bread of Life as John 6:26–65 shows in extenso; while the feeding of the 4, 000 does not go beyond the care of Jesus for our bodily needs.

In the case of the 5, 000 Jesus broached the question of feeding them to Philip alone as soon as Jesus saw the crowd assembling; see verses 14 and 15 and the author’s commentary on John (6:5–7). Here three days elapse before Jesus speaks. In the other miracle the disciples become worried regarding the multitude and toward evening come to Jesus and urge him to send it away. Here the disciples remain un-worried for three days, and it is Jesus who finally speaks to them about feeding the crowds before he sends them away and himself leaves the locality.

On σπλαγχνίζομαι see 14:14; even the unsatisfied hunger of men awakens the compassion of Jesus. This is all the more the case since these people have for three days remained near (πρός in the verb, R. 623) Jesus; ἡμέραιτρεῖς is a parenthetic nominative of time, R. 460. After this long stay near Jesus, during which they forgot everything else except what they saw and heard from him, and after all supplies they had brought along had been consumed, he cannot simply dismiss them by telling them to go home since he is himself leaving. The fact that he is thinking of their physical needs becomes evident in the final clause: “lest, perhaps, they grow faint on the road,” ἐκλυθῶσιν, aorist, literally, “be completely unloosed” as a bowstring is unstrung. In τί with the subjunctive φάγωσι we have an indirect question, one of deliberation used in place of a relative object clause, R. 737, etc.

Matthew 15:33

33 And the disciples say to him, Whence have we in a desert place so much bread as to fill so much of a multitude? The emphasis is on ἡμῖν together with ἐνἐρημίᾳ (supply χώρᾳ), with the copula εἰσί being omitted: “Whence to us in a desert place (are) so many breads (flat cakes of bread)?” Mark 8:4 asks, “Whence shall one be able to fill these men?” meaning “one of us.” The disciples declare that it is beyond them to furnish the required quantity of bread from any source here in the desert. They imply that it is Jesus alone who could do that. The τίς in Mark cannot include Jesus but must be modified by the ἡμῖν in Matthew. Note, too, that the disciples do not speak of a minimum: “that everyone may take a little,” as they did in connection with the other miracle (John 6:7); but of a maximum: “so as to fill so much of a multitude,” the aorist χορτάσαι to indicate complete filling. This is the very verb used in 14:20 to state that the 5, 000 were actually filled.

The disciples remember that other miracle. They are not again worried. They have learned that Jesus does not have in mind that they are to find a supply somewhere. Yet they do not tell Jesus what he should do; they have learned to leave everything in his hands. To say that the reply of the disciples gives no evidence of the knowledge of a previous miraculous feeding and betrays nothing but complete perplexity, is to misread not only this reply but also all that precedes this reply. We regard ὥστε with the infinitive as expressing contemplated result: “so as,” and not “so that,” R. 1089.

Matthew 15:34

34 And Jesus says to them, How many breads have you? And they said, Seven, and a few small fishes. The compassion of Jesus intends to delay no longer. As far as the multitude is concerned, the record emphasizes only this compassion in the performance of the miracle. We read of no astonishment on the part of the people, or of any movement to proclaim him king.

The seven flat cakes of bread and the few small fishes (evidently more than just two) are what is left of the supplies of the disciples themselves and are not secured from anyone in the multitude. No one now speaks as Andrew did (John 6:9): “What are they among so many?” The disciples answer with alacrity; they feel quite certain as to what Jesus intends to do. That other miracle has taught them a valuable lesson.

It is unfair to them to speak of their forgetfulness and their obtuseness and to say that Jesus might have rebuked them and yet refrained from doing so but with a sigh asked only what amount of food the disciples had. Nothing of this appears in the record; on the contrary, just about the opposite is indicated. We note only that Jesus deals in particular with his disciples. They are to know about his motive of compassion; they are to see that he is repeating what he has already done; they are to realize that this repetition implies that Jesus is able always to provide bread and to supply earthly needs. We are in that period of Christ’s ministry when the intensive training of the Twelve is his great concern, for there are only a few more months before the final Passover shall arrive.

Matthew 15:35

35 And having passed an order to the multitude to recline on the ground, he took the seven loaves and the fishes; and having given thanks, he broke them and kept giving to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitudes. The procedure followed in this miracle is identical with that recorded in 14:19. Apparently, the people were again divided into groups of 50 and 100 as in Mark 6:39, 40. But now they must lie down on the bare ground (ἐπὶτὴνγῆν) for the season has advanced to summer, and the grass has been dried up.

Matthew 15:36

36 Mark’s account reads as though Jesus performed two acts: one with regard to the bread, the other with regard to the fish. “To give thanks” is, of course, quite the same as “to bless” in 14:19; both mean that Jesus pronounced the prayer usually spoken at a meal. If anything of special significance had distinguished this prayer in either miracle, at least one of the evangelists would have given us the exceptional words. The miracle was thus not wrought by the words of thanksgiving but simply by the silent will of Jesus when he broke the bread and the fishes and passed out the pieces. The aorist ἔκλασε reports only the summary fact that Jesus “broke” the food; but the iterative imperfect ἐδίδου, “he kept giving” to the disciples, describes the multiplication of the food in Jesus’ hands. He again and again loaded each disciple’s basket with pieces to be distributed to the people. Always there was more to hand out.

Only after all had been supplied with all that they reached out for were the seven loaves and the few fishes entirely used up. The waiters at this miracle-meal were the Twelve.

Matthew 15:37

37 Exactly as in 14:20, the tremendous fact is now reported in the very briefest form. And they did eat all and were filled; and they took up what was superfluous of the broken pieces, seven baskets full. On ἐχορτάσθησαν see 14:20. It seems that this time the fragments that were left over—some people being afraid that they will not get enough—were gathered up by the disciples without a further order from Jesus (John 6:12), although we cannot be sure of this since both Matthew and Mark omit this order in their records of the first miracle. But now they use σπυρίδες for “baskets,” whereas before they wrote κόφινοι. Both were woven of wicker, but the former seem to have been larger as is indicated by Acts 9:25 and by examples given by M.-M. 618, one σφυρίς holding fifty loaves of bread.

It is, therefore, not safe to say that, while this time only 4, 000 were fed, the food left over was but little more than half the amount that had remained over at the former feeding. The seven spurides may have held even more than the twelve kophinoi. The distinction between the types of baskets is retained in a marked way in 16:9, 10 and in Mark 8:19, 20, where, if they had been practically identical, only one of the terms would have sufficed.

Matthew 15:38

38 Now those eating were four thousand men apart from women and little children. Again a great host was fed, and again only the men were counted; and οἱἐσθίοντες, the present participle, characterizes them according to the continuous act of eating: “the eaters.” The numbers mentioned in connection with both miracles are merely historical, and all efforts to give them an allegorical meaning have proved unsatisfactory.

Matthew 15:39

39 And having dismissed the multitudes, he went into the boat and came into the borders of Magadan. This dismissal implies that Jesus himself was leaving. A sojourn of only three days did he grant this neighborhood. The dismissal is made without a word being said about the miracle which crowned all the many that had been wrought during those three days. We read of no excitement such as that which occurred after the other feeding. It is due to the great reticence of the inspired writers that nothing is added about the effect upon the people, which, surely, must have been profound.

Nothing was said about a boat in v. 29, but the article in the phrase εἰςτὸπλοῖον indicates that Jesus left in the same boat in which he had arrived. “The borders of Magadan” (not “Magdala,” from Mary Magdalene), for which Mark 8:10 has, “the parts of Dalmanutha,” have not been located. It is usually supposed that this locality adjoins the lake on its western shore. Since both names are so unknown, the conclusion that the place was very small seems to be warranted.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.