Matthew 15

Matthew 15 “THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW”

Chapter Fifteen Religious leaders from Jerusalem took issue with Jesus’ disciples’ failure to observe certain traditions, which led Jesus to warn against the danger of traditions and that which causes true moral defilement (Matthew 15:1-20). After a quick trip to the region of Tyre and Sidon where He healed a Canaanite woman’ s daughter (Matthew 15:21-28), Jesus made His way to a mountain near the Sea of Galilee where He healed many and fed 4000 with seven loaves and a few fish. He then sailed to the region of Magdala, located on the west coast of the Sea Of Galilee (Matthew 15:29-39).

POINTS TO PONDER

• The danger of traditions and vain worship

• That which causes true moral defilement

REVIEW

1. What are the main points of this chapter?

• Debate over tradition and more defilement - Matthew 15:1-20- Jesus heals the Canaanite woman’ s daughter - Matthew 15:21-28- Jesus heals many and feeds the 4000 - Matthew 15:29-39

2. What tradition of the elders had the disciples of Jesus transgressed? (Matthew 15:1-2)

• To wash hands before eating bread

3. According to Jesus, when do traditions of men become wrong? (Matthew 15:3-9)

• When one keeps a tradition of man instead of a commandment of God
• When one teaches as doctrine (that which is binding) a commandment of man

4. When does worship become vain? (Matthew 15:9)

• When such worship is based on the teachings of men rather than of God

5. What constitutes true moral defilement? (Matthew 15:11; Matthew 15:16-20)

• That which comes out of the mouth, i.e., evil thoughts and deeds from man’ s heart

6. What will happen to plants (religions, doctrines) not started by God? (Matthew 15:13)

• They will be uprooted

7. How did Jesus describe the scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem? (Matthew 15:14)

• As blind leaders of the blind

8. What moved Jesus to grant the Canaanite woman’ s request? (Matthew 15:28)

• Her great faith

9. With what did Jesus feed more than 4000 people? (Matthew 15:34-38)

• Seven loaves and a few little fish

Matthew 15:1-39 Verse 1Mat 15:1-39 AND REAL ; THE WOMAN; JESUS RETURNS TO GALILEE; FEEDING THE FOUR Then there came to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. (Matthew 15:1-2)This section (Matthew 13:54-58; Matthew 14:1-36; Matthew 15:1-39; Matthew 16:1-20) concerns the of various persons and groups to Christ and his teaching. The rejection at Nazareth, the popular acclaim at Bethsaida-Julius, the vast popularity of the multitudes whose sick he healed, and the powerful conviction growing, and actually stated once, in the hearts of the apostles that he was the Son of God, have already been noted. In this passage is the first raindrop in a gathering storm of opposition from the heads of the Jewish nation. This opposition by the powerful party of the scribes and Pharisees was launched against Jesus by the raising of what seems to be a very small and petty quibble about washing hands; but this opposition, so mildly stated here, was vicious and unrelenting and would never cease for an instant until these men would shout in a frenzy of hatred, “His blood be on us and our children!” There is more to the quibble than meets the eye. The tradition of the elders was considered the most sacred and binding of Jewish obligations, even ranking higher in their eyes than the word of God itself. Dummelow gave as their opinion that The words of the Law are weighty and light, but the words of the scribes are all weighty; the words of the elders are weightier than the words of the prophets; and he that shall say, There are no phylacteries, transgressing the words of the Law, is not guilty; but he that shall say, There are five divisions of a phylactery, adding to the words of the scribes, is guilty![1] There were numerous other traditions which are not worth repeating; but that punctilious platoon of mote-hunting Pharisees laid an outlandish burden of importance upon such minuscule spiritual doodlings! It must not be thought that there is any reference here to eating with dirty hands; it is not that, but neglect of a ceremonial procedure, which was resented by them. ENDNOTE:[1] J. R. Dummelow. One Volume Commentary (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 678.

Verse 3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?The genius of Christ is that he always referred issues to their highest level. Not their tradition, but the word of God, that was the truly important obligation; and Christ ignored their tradition and challenged them for their own disregard of God’s commandments. Nor did he stop with a theoretical charge; he named cases and gave examples of their lapse.

Verse 4 For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death.This and Matthew 15:6, below, prove that Christ considered God to be the author of the Old Testament, and of the Decalogue in particular. Also, in John 10:34-36, Christ referred to the Old Testament as “your law,” “the Scriptures,” and “the word of God,” all in a single statement. Irenaeus wrote that “The true God (Christ) did confess the commandment of the law as the word of God."[2] Note too that Christ approved, as God-given, this law that prescribed capital punishment; and some of the ancients justified such a penalty for blasphemy on the basis that cursing the heavenly Father is a greater crime than cursing father or mother. Cyprian spoke of those who “still heap up evil words on the person of the Father, and sin with the unceasing wickedness of a blaspheming tongue."[3] In this verse, Christ focused attention upon the word of God rather than upon the traditions of the Pharisees, indicating this his primary concern was the former. [2] Irenaeus, Against Heresies in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 vols.; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), Vol. I, p. 473. [3] Cyprian, Epistles in Ibid., Vol. V, p. 384.

Verse 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God; he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition.The Pharisees were making a secondary duty the excuse for denying a primary one, a device observed continually in all ages. By dedicating his properties to the temple, the selfish man, by reserving a life estate in his possessions, could legally deny any aid or support of needy parents, thus thwarting completely God’s will relative to honoring father and mother. The Pharisees had a name for this device. They called it Corban! It had no origin or permission of God’s true word but was one of their sinful traditions. What’s wrong with tradition? Only one thing; it vitiates God’s word. Any harm in it? Take the case presented here, relative to washing hands ceremonially, which was the basis of the Pharisees’ assault on Christ. That ceremony was harmless in a sense, perhaps even helpful as cleans or hygiene; but it had been forced into the worship of God, solely by human authority, and eventually blinded the eyes of men so completely that they could not even see the Son of Righteousness! The tradition of washing hands was fortified by the unanimous consent and approval of religious leaders; it was supported by all the established institutions; it was honored by the most widespread and extensive observance of it by all the people; and it had been in vogue for many centuries; yet all this did not and could not make it right to inject even so innocent a thing as washing hands into the worship of God. Why? God accepts only those things as worship which he himself has authorized and commanded. Furthermore, given a choice between the word of God and the human tradition, the universal experience of the human race is to the effect that the tradition wins acceptance and the word of God is violated. Mark’s account of this place has the words, “Full well do you reject the commandment of God that you may keep your tradition” (Mark 7:8-9). In the case at hand, the scribes and Pharisees rejected Christ in order to keep their tradition. Behold the life cycle of tradition: (1) First appears the innovation, something new, clothed with specious plausibility, riding the crest of some unusual occasion, some exceptional circumstance, or emergency. (2) It is repeated and moves into a place of acceptance as something allowed, occasionally at first, invariably afterwards. (3) It becomes appreciated as an “aid” to the worship, something helpful. (4) Eventually, it is stressed and emphasized to the detriment of what it is supposed to “aid.” (5) It achieves, through long usage, a status of equality with God’s word. (6) It is finally performed, occasionally, but later, always, instead of God’s commandment. (7) Finally, it blooms as a presumptuous, rebellious contradiction of God’s word, and is constantly honored in place of it. In the light of Christ’s word, “In vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men,” one is compelled to view innovations in Christian worship as extremely sinful and hurtful.

Verse 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men. - Isaiah 29:13. This prophecy from Isaiah 29:13 contains in its last four words the key to failure in religion, “the precepts of men.” If worship of God is to be undertaken on any basis that assures acceptance and ultimate reward, it must be on the basis of revelation. The precepts of men are without any value at all in this whole area. “Is it from heaven or from men?” (Matthew 21:25). That is the most important and relevant question that can be confronted with regard to any doctrine or practice connected with religion. There are literally hundreds of things widely observed in Christian worship throughout Christendom which should be challenged and rejected in the light of this teaching.

Verse 10 And he called to him the multitude, and said unto them, Hear and understand. Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man.“This he said, making all meats clean” (Mark 7:19). Strangely, people are still trying to get to heaven on some kind of diet! Some won’t eat pork; some eat only fish on certain days; and some are actually vegetarians! Novation said, “God is not worshipped by the belly nor by meats. … He who worships the Lord by meats, is merely as one who has his belly for his Lord."[4] Paul declared every creature of God is to be “good, and not to be rejected, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (1 Timothy 4:4 ff). Here is also a bold emphasis on the defilement that comes out of a man. These are identified as murders, fornications, thefts, and all crimes conceived in the heart and effected through the use of speech. In the second century, Clement of Alexandria, in admonitions to the heathen, said: From filthy speaking, we ourselves must entirely abstain, and stop the mouths of those who practice it by stern looks and averting the face … “For what proceedeth out of the mouth,” he says, “defileth a man.” - shows him to be unclean, and heathenish, and untrained, and licentious.[5] [4] Novation, On Jewish Meats in Ibid., Vol. V, p. 648. [5] Clement of Alexandria, Exhortations to the Heathen in Ibid., Vol. II, p. 250.

Verse 12 Then came the disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, when they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every, plant which my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up.There is a suspicion that the disciples themselves may have had some sympathy for the Jewish teaching on meats. Long afterward, Peter was able to say, “I have never eaten anything common or unclean” (Acts 10:14). They had not learned the lesson in this place yet, but they would learn eventually. They seem to be taking the Pharisees’ part, ever so mildly, in this gentle remonstrance. Christ’s magnificent reply showed that the Pharisees were not merely wrong, but totally so, that they would be plucked up, and that they were blind leaders of the blind, destined for the ditch. Jesus’ reply concerning the plant which the heavenly Father had not planted has an immense amount of application. It is true of all evil, of every rebellious thought, and of every institution that rises in time and by time is destroyed. In its context, the “rooting up” applies to: (1) evil men, the Pharisees in this case. Cyprian spoke of excommunicating “the crafty impostor” that he may seek again the church, “from which by divine authority he deserved to be expelled,"[6] attributing the basis of excommunication upon the words of Christ in this Matthew 15:13. (2) It applies to doctrines, teachings, and practices founded in human precepts, rather than in the word of God. ENDNOTE:[6] Cyprian, Epistles in Ibid., Vol. V, p. 326.

Verse 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall into a pit.Let them alone - that is the admonition of Christ with reference to the worldly wise, socially prominent, sophisticated, unscrupulous, hypocritical religious leaders. The apostles would have been able to do the Pharisees no good, and there was a grave possibility the Pharisees would do the apostles harm by damaging their faith. The child of God today should heed the same admonition with reference to the same kind of persons. Spiritual darkness and sin are set forth in this place under the figure of blindness, a symbol often so used in the Bible (2 Peter 1:9, etc.).

Verse 15 And Peter answered and said unto him, Declare unto us the parable.The illustration of the blind leading the blind is here called by Peter a parable, but it would probably be as well named a proverb, short indeed, but full of meaning. The overwhelmingly significant fact about the blind leading the blind is that BOTH the leader and the led are blind, the success of blind leaders in every generation depending entirely upon the degree of blindness in their followers. Only the blind will follow the blind; every soul must bear its own responsibility to know the truth. The same proverb is in Luke 6:30.

Verse 16 And he said, Are ye also even yet without understanding? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever goeth into the mouth passeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings: these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man.Behold in this a ray of light on transubstantiation. It being true, as Jesus said, that nothing entering the mouth defiles the man, it is equally true that nothing entering his mouth can sanctify and bless him. “Whatsoever,” said Jesus, that enters the mouth proceeds to the belly and thence to the draught; therefore, it cannot be anything literal in the bread or the wine of the Lord’s Supper that can either defile or bless him. Thus it is clear that the bread and the wine are emblems or symbols of the Lord’s blood and body.

It cannot be the physical and material substance of those sacred tokens which either blesses or procures condemnation; but, on the other hand, it is the act of obedience, the answer of a good conscience toward God, the spiritual perception of the saving truth certified and memorialized by those tokens - it is these that bless the man. Origen stated it thus: “If this were not so, it would sanctify him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord."[7] A slight problem occurs in that Peter inquired about one thing, the blind leading the blind; and Jesus answered with emphasis on another thing, the things that defile a man. This was often done by Christ as for example in Luke 13:23. In that case, the disciples asked, “Are there few that be saved?” But the following dissertation never touched that question but focused on the need for every man to “strive to enter the narrow door.” In this case, Christ replied by giving Peter the information he needed, rather than by replying in the same vein as the question. ENDNOTE:[7] Origen, Commentary on Matthew in Ibid., Vol. X, Book 11, Sec. 14.

Verse 21 And Jesus went out thence, and withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Sidon.Jesus made a long, circuitous route, passing up the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea in the vicinity of Tyre and Sidon, thence eastward through Decapolis, and cross-country to the sources of the Jordan river. Ancient opponents of the faith were sometimes critical of Christ for avoiding an open confrontation with Herod at this time. Celsus in 170 A.D. charged the Lord with cowardice. The unfairness of this is seen in the later actions of Christ during his Passion, although he might have avoided it by calling for the legions of angels. Two reasons for the Lord’s conduct attest its honorable nature. These are: (1) It was not yet time for him to die.

Too much work remained undone. The disciples were not fully grounded. (2) He was teaching the disciples by this action the necessity for prudence in avoiding always, if possible, unnecessary conflict with the state. It was in line with this policy that Jesus had instructed the Twelve to flee to another city when persecuted (see under Matthew 10:23).

Verse 22 And behold, a Canaanitish woman came out from the borders, and cried, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a demon.Even the remotest parts of ancient Palestine knew of the wondrous power of Jesus, as witnessed by the prayer of this woman of a strange and distant city. Also, the proper designation of Jesus as the Messiah in the term “thou Son of David” was also known to her; and her use of the expression shows how widely the conviction prevailed that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

Verse 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.The true understanding of this entire difficult incident depends upon understanding the antecedent attitude of the apostles. THEY, not Jesus, were the ones who had no feeling for this woman of another race. They detested this foreigner and sharply requested Jesus to get rid of her. They knew of Jesus’ great power and of the thousands he had healed, yet they did not want her to be healed. In view of her cries, and her obvious willingness to hail Jesus as the Messiah, which in fact she did, it does seem that such should have more favorably disposed the disciples to her plea; but no! they requested the Lord not to heal her daughter but to get rid of her. “Send her away,” they said in effect, “she is a nuisance to us!” It is in the light of this attitude of the Twelve that this place must be understood.

Christ answered not a word, perhaps hoping that the disciples might, through human love and kindness, say a word on her behalf. It was a vain hope. Christ’s first reply only confirmed the Twelve in their attitude but served the double purpose of giving the woman a chance to demonstrate her faith and prompting the disciples to express their feelings openly.

Verse 24 But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.This reply doubtless pleased the Twelve. The rabbis often called the Gentiles dogs; and Christ’s word at that moment seemed to them to be grounded in the traditional attitude of the Jews of that era. The interview, however, was destined to take an unexpected turn.

Verse 25 But she came and worshipped him, saying, Lord help me.One cannot contemplate the thought of this poor, distraught woman, pleading for the life of her child, without a catch in the throat, even yet. How could the disciples have been so heartless as not to intercede in her behalf at that instant? Jesus had not refused; he had only said he was sent to Israel; could not Israel have allowed one gracious act to one of another race, especially one who at that moment was kneeling or prostrated before him, worshipping him, and crying for his assistance? Not at all; the Twelve were unfeeling witnesses as they stood by, watching Jesus get rid of the woman, or at least so they thought. But he was NOT getting rid of her but was about to get rid of an ugly attitude in THEM!

Verse 26 And he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.Still keeping attention upon the Twelve, note what they must have thought of such a reply as this. Yes, Jesus really told her, in the bluntest manner possible, that she was a Gentile dog, unworthy of a crumb from the children’s (Israel’s) table. That surely will do it, must have been the thought of the Twelve; “but then the earthquake happened!”

Verse 27 But she said, Yea, Lord: for even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.Christ, at that very moment, was a fugitive from his own race and nation; and the wondrous faith and humility of that foreign woman of Canaan thus brought into sharpest focus the contrast with the bigots in Jerusalem who, even then, were planning to murder the Lord. There is a play on words in the woman’s reply. Christ used the word “dogs”; but the woman came back with another word (also translated “dogs” but with a slightly different meaning). The word she used means “little dogs” or “puppies.” It is as though she said, “Yes, Lord, I am indeed a dog, but not a very big one, only a tiny one; and since the little dogs stay under the master’s table and eat the crumbs the children drop, surely you must be able to help me. It is only a crumb that I ask.” It may be that the apostles, even that late, did not see the full truth of what Jesus was doing; certainly, it took a miracle later on to convince Peter that the Gentiles should be admitted; but, when at last he knew, how his heart must have burned when he thought of this incident. There is another remarkable discernment in the woman’s reply, in that she held the table to be not the children’s, but the Master’s, showing that she was aware of the hostile attitude of the Twelve and was bypassing them in a direct appeal to the Lord, placing Christ above them!

Verse 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it done unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was healed from that hour.This woman’s faith was a pledge of an ultimate ingathering of Gentiles. The time would come when the great mission of the church would be to them that were held as dogs by the Pharisees. This impressive deed must have had a profound effect upon the apostles. As for the woman, what must have been her joy when returning home, she inquired of her daughter and learned she had been healed in the very hour of Jesus’ promise. Faith had triumphed over every difficulty, even the seeming indifference of the Master, and had claimed the prize. Note that this woman presented herself to the Lord and clung to him for hope in spite of the intolerable attitude of his disciples, even in spite of his seeming indifference. When her attitude is contrasted with some in later generations who become offended, puffed up, and repelled by the slightest suspicion of indifference in God’s ministers, it is perfectly clear that many nominal seekers simply do not have the faith ever to be saved, or having it, are so full of egotism and pride that it can never do them any good.

Verse 29 And Jesus departed thence, and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and he went up into the mountain and sat there.Again, Jesus, in danger, repaired to the mountains. From Mark it is learned that the place was near the northeastern corner of Galilee lake. And sat there indicates an attitude of teaching, as in the sermon on the mount.

Verse 30 And there came unto him great multitudes, having with them the lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and they cast them down at his feet; and he healed them.“Dumb” is better understood as “mute,” and the words “many others” refer to many other types of illness. The mention of the maimed in this place shows that Jesus healed people who had suffered atrocities or accidents.

Verse 31 Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb speaking, the maimed whole, the lame walking, and the blind seeing: and they glorified the God of Israel.Reference to “the God of Israel” indicates that those multitudes were largely heathen, or Gentile, corresponding to the population of the area. Significantly, Christ related his mighty works to the Father, gave him the glory, the credit, and the honor, and in fact did them in the Father’s name. He said, “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive” (John 5:43). Christ always emphasized the origin of his work as being with God. In this perfect trait, he was “the messenger of the covenant” (Malachi 3:1). He was God’s plenary representative on earth; indeed, he WAS God in flesh, reconciling the world unto himself.

Verse 32 And Jesus called unto him his disciples, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days and have nothing to eat: and I would not send them away fasting, lest haply they faint on the way.The unusual circumstance was that for a period of three whole days and nights Jesus had engaged in one continuous healing service. The throngs would not leave as long as there was a chance of others being healed. Food could wait, and it did. This was a powerful testimony to the ability and extent of Jesus’ work among the Gentiles on the fringes of Israel. Compassion and pity in the heart of Jesus were evident in all his works.

Verse 33 And the disciples say unto him, Whence should we have so many loaves in a desert place as to fill so great a multitude?This remark has occasioned some commentators to view this as the same as the other similar miracle in which the five thousand were fed; but Matthew and Mark both record Jesus’ reference to both these wonders as separate events (Matthew 16:9-10; Mark 8:19-20). The unbelief, or apparent unbelief, of the Twelve showed how little they truly understood the power of the Saviour, although they were witnesses to it every day. They not only missed the lesson in the first case, but subsequent events showed that they missed it here also!

Verse 34 And Jesus said unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven, and a few small fishes. And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground; and he took the seven loaves and the fishes; and he gave thanks and brake, and gave to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitudes. And they all ate and were filled: and they took up of that which remained over of the broken pieces, seven baskets full. And they that did eat were four thousand men, besides women and children.There are so many similarities between this and the feeding of the five thousand, that much of what is said there (Matthew 14:13-21) is pertinent here. Both strongly suggested Christ as “that Prophet” like unto Moses, and as “the bread of life.”

Verse 39 And he sent away the multitudes, and entered into the boat, and came into the borders of Magadan.Madagan, or Dalmanutha, as Mark has it (Mark 8:10), is an unknown site. Eusebius, in the fourth century, placed Magadan on the east side of Galilee near Gerasa; but this does not appear correct for two reasons: (1) Christ was already on the east side of lake Galilee,[8] and a crossing to the western shore seems indicated by the text; although it is allowed that he COULD have gone by boat to a location farther south on the eastern shore; and (2) the immediate confrontation with the Pharisees and Sadducees, as soon as they came to land, showed he was then back in their territory, which was the western side. As for the skeptic’s contention that Mark and Matthew accounts are contradictory, the explanation is simple: (1) Christ might easily have gone to both places. The only possibility of finding a contradiction would have to lie in the discovery that one of the gospels had said he did NOT go to one or the other of the two places; and, of course, no such statement exists. (2) It is far more likely that the village, so small as to have been lost to history, actually had two names, Dalmanutha and Magadan! If this appears unreasonable to anyone, the author would like to register the following example of such a case. In the state of Texas, near the city of Eastland, is a small town, widely known under THREE names. The post office is Desdemona; the railroad station bears the name of Jake Hammond; and the roughnecks in the oil fields for a hundred miles in all directions refer to the place as Hogtown! Nor is the habit of multi-naming confined to villages.

These words are being written in Lenox Hill, Yorkville, Manhattan, New York City, also known as Gotham! It surely must be a malicious and spiteful heart that has the evil impulse to allege a contradiction in Matthew and Mark on the basis of separate names assigned to an ancient village. ENDNOTE:[8] Eusebius, as quoted by Dummelow, op. cit., p. 679.

J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter FifteenOpposition of Scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 15:1-9. (Mark 7:1-13)1. were of Jerusalem.—The career of Jesus in Galilee, together with the two visits which he had made to Jerusalem (John 2:13 John 5:1), had arrested the attention of the leading minds in that city. The scribes and Pharisees here mentioned were in all probability sent up by their associates in Jerusalem to counteract his influence. They expected to put him to a severer test than had been applied by the less cultivated scribes and Pharisees of Galilee, and they entered the contest with confident hope of success. 2. transgress the tradition.—Not being able to find any ground for denying the miracles of Jesus, or any violation of the law in either himself or his disciples, they make the best attack in their power by charging the latter with transgressing the tradition of the elders. (For a statement of their doctrine on this subject, see note on 3:7.) The tradition that a man should not eat without first washing his hands, was an extension by human authority of the Mosaic law of uncleanness. Other traditions belonging to the same category are mentioned in Mark 7:3-4. It could not be denied that the disciples transgressed this tradition, and as the accusers held the traditions to be equal in authority to the written word, they thought they had certainly convicted Jesus of sin in allowing this transgression. 3. transgress the commandment.—Tacitly admitting the charge, Jesus defends his disciples by attacking tradition itself; not this particular tradition, but all tradition. He charges that they, by their tradition, transgressed the commandment of God, and that the tradition itself was therefore sinful. 4-6. For God commanded.—In order to sustain his charge, he specifies their tradition in regard to the support of indigent parents. The commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother,” requires a son to support his parents when they become dependent. And the statute, “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death,” required the death of any son who would practically curse his aged parents by casting them off into beggary or starvation. But they had taught that a son could say of that part of his estate by which his parent might be profited, It is a gift; that is, a gift to God (Corban, Mark 7:11), and thereby free himself from the obligation. Thus the commandment was made of no effect by freeing from it every ungrateful son who was mean enough to desire such freedom.

This example did not touch the quid pro quoquestion of uncleanness, but it proved that tradition was an unauthoritative and mischievous guide, and as the objection of the scribes was based on the authority of tradition, it destroyed the force of the objection. The particular tradition about eating with unwashed hands is discussed on its merits in the next paragraph: principles are settled first, and details afterward. 7. Ye hypocrites.—There was hypocrisy in the device of the traditionists, because in proposing to honor God by vowing to him what should go to the poor parent, there was the false pretense of doing for his honor what was really done to gratify avarice. All similar substitutions of human expedients in the place of God’s appointments are prompted by some improper desire, and are therefore liable to the same charge. (See on verse 9.) 7, 8. i.—To prophesy is to speak by inspiration, whether of the future, the past, c the present. Isaiah did not prophesy these words with special reference to these particular persons; but he spoke primarily of the Jews of his own age. (Isaiah 29:13.) In prophesying of them, however, he spoke what is equally true of all others who are guilty of the same hypocrisy, and on this account Jesus applied the words to his accusers. 9. in vain they do worship.—This verse is rather a conclusion than a quotation. The words of Isaiah are, “Their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men.” Fear toward God, if pure and rightly inspired, springs from the word of God, and not from the commandment of man. So far, therefore, as a man’s worship of God is the result of human authority, it springs from an improper source, and is vain. Every human addition to the commandments of God, so far as it induces any worship at all, induces vain worship, and there is probably not one such addition which does not, to a greater or less degree, make some commandment void. Thus the tradition of infant baptism, to the extent that it is adopted, makes of no effect the commandment concerning the baptism of believers, by baptizing persons in their infancy; and if it should become universally prevalent, by the baptism of all persons in their infancy it would bring to an end forever the only baptism commanded of God. Christ’s Law of Uncleanness, Matthew 15:10-20. (Mark 7:14-23)10, 11. he called the multitude.—In the preceding paragraph Jesus did not touch the question of uncleanness raised by the Pharisees, but performed the more important task of showing the want of authority and the mischievous effects of all tradition; in this, he defends the conduct of his disciples by stating that a man is defiled, not by that which goes into his mouth, but by that which comes out. He gives this explanation, not to the Pharisees, who were captious objectors not willing to hear any defense, but to the more teachable multitude; and he makes the statement on the naked authority of his own word, relying on their good sense for its acceptance. Such appeals to the common sense of mankind, when the proposition affirmed is true, are often more effective than a process of reasoning, and they were often employed both by Jesus and the apostles. 12. Pharisees were offended.—The disciples were pained at the offense given to these highly respectable strangers from Jerusalem; for, like many Christians of the present day, their respect for the feelings of men was greater than their zeal for the truth. The “say ing” (λογον) which had given offense was the entire speech. He had proved that by their tradition they were nullifying the word of God; he had charged them with hypocrisy; he had declared that all of their worship based on the authority of tradition was vain worship; and he had swept away the entire fabric of their traditionary law of uncleanness, by declaring that a man is not denied by that which goes into his mouth. He had not only defended himself, but he had turned their own weapons with irresistible effect against them, and it is not surprising that they were offended. 13. Every plant.—In reply to the modest complaint of the disciples, Jesus compares the Pharisees to plants in a garden that were not planted by the owner of it, and declares that they shall be rooted up. They were teaching without divine authority or approbation; and what he had said was intended not to please them, but to root them up. 14. Let them alone.—Let them alone, not in the way of ceasing to expose their errors, but in the sense of making no effort to appease them. The disciples were to be regardless of them as Jesus was, making no change in either the matter or manner of discourse for their sake. Sometimes the best way to move men is to be totally indifferent to them; and when men stand opposed to the truth from corrupt motives, the only possible chance to do them good is to offend them, for when you please them you only confirm them in their wicked ways. both fall.—It is sometimes thought, that if a man is misled by his teacher, he will be excused for going astray; but Jesus here teaches that the blind man who is led will fall into the ditch with his blind leader. This is clear enough in reference to the literally blind, and Jesus asserts it in reference to the spiritually blind. If a man, knowing himself to be blind, allows another blind man to lead him, he deserves to fall into the ditch. He should choose a leader who can see, and as there is no leader who can see all the way that we have to travel except Jesus, let us take his word as our only guide, going only as it leads us. The word of God must be our pillar of cloud by day, and of fire by night; we move when it moves, and stop where it stops. 15, 16. the parable.—The disciples were themselves so much under the influence of tradition, that they supposed the remark about that which defiles to be a parable. They had been blindly led by the blind guides. 17-19. they defile the man.—Here the Christian idea of uncleanness is fully stated, and the disciples were the better prepared for it by the gradual manner in which it was approached. In this entire paragraph Jesus treats of that which the uncleanness of the law typified, and not of legal uncleanness itself. Although, according to the law of Moses, eating with unwashed Lands did not defile a man, yet some things entering into the mouth did have this effect. (See Leviticus 11:40.) But the Pharisees, confounding the type with the antitype, taught that the soul was defiled by that which caused only legal uncleanness. Jesus corrects this mistake, and in giving the true significance of the type, gives the true conception of uncleanness under the Christian dispensation. Argument of Section 11 Several arguments for the claims of Jesus are involved in the facts of this chapter. First, it is made manifest that the opinions adverse to his claims originated either in envy, as in the case of the Nazarenes; in the workings of a guilty conscience, as in the case of Herod and his courtiers; or in the prejudices which resulted from hypocritical practices, as in the case of the scribes and Pharisees. Opposition arising from such sources argues, with strong probability, the righteousness of the cause against which it is arrayed. Second, it is made to appear that all attempts to justify the opposition by condemning the conduct of Jesus were foiled and made to recoil on the heads of their authors. The two examples recorded are those in which the opposition was most likely to be successful if success were possible; the first being an attempt of the 12 Nazarenes who had been familiar with his conduct from his childhood; and the other, that of a company of scribes and Pharisees from the religious capital of the nation, who visited Galilee for the purpose, and who were supposed to have the best qualifications for this task. Third, it is also apparent from the section, that even those who held opinions adverse to the claims of Jesus, either admitted the reality of his miracles, or made no effort to deny it; and that it was on account of his oft repeated and wonderfully varied miracles, wrought under such circumstances that men could not be mistaken about them, that the disciples and the multitude believed in him. His claims, then, were unquestionably sustained by miraculous evidences. The Canaanite Woman’s Daughter, Matthew 15:21-28. (Mark 7:24-30)21. coasts of Tyre and Sidon.—The term rendered coasts (μέρη)— more literally parts— means those parts of the country which belonged to these two cities. Jesus was now on Gentile soil, in Phoenicia, northwest of Galilee. He was remote from his usual places of resort, and among & people to whom he was a stranger. 22. a woman of Canaan.—The Canaanites were the founders of Sidon (Genesis 10:19), and the Phoenicians were their descendants. (For another designation of this woman, see Mark 7:26.) O Lord, thou son of David.—These words in the mouth of a Gentile woman on Gentile soil are remarkable. They show that she was acquainted with the Jewish idea of the Messiah, and they indicate the spread of Jewish ideas and hopes among surrounding nations. Jesus had never been here before, nor had this woman, in all probability, ever visited him in Galilee; but his fame had spread through all Syria (Matthew 4:24), of which Phoenicia was a part, and she had doubtless longed for an opportunity to bring his healing power to bear on her child. Her great need of him caused her to know of his presence, though “he would have no man to know it.” (Mark 7:24.) 23. answered her not.—Contrary to his uniform custom hitherto, Jesus appeared to be deaf to the woman’s entreaties, until the disciples, annoyed by her cries, and pained by his apparent indifference, besought him to send her away. They did not mean that he should dismiss her without granting her request; but that he should send her away by granting it. 24. I am not sent.—This answer was made to the disciples, not to the woman. It was the response to their request that he should send her away. It is true that his ministry was limited to the Jews, and that to extend it beyond them, except in extraordinary cases, would be going beyond his general plan. This limitation was imposed, because, in the wisdom of God, it was seen to be the very best method for the final evangelization not only of the Jews, but of the Gentiles themselves. 25. and worshiped him.—Still persisting in her efforts to arrest his attention, and determined, notwithstanding his apparent indifference, to extort from him a response, the woman now comes near and prostrates herself (προσκύνει) before him, as if to block up his path, and utters the piteous cry, “Lord, help me.” 26, 27. Truth, Lord.—The woman’s faith was put to a still severer test, when, with unfeeling look and tone, as if his heart were made of adamant, he at last looked down on the pleading face and said “It is not meet to take the children’s meat and cast it to dogs.” Many a woman, at such a speech, would have risen in despair, and gone away in anger. In her inimitable reply, “Truth, Lord, yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table,” we know not which to admire more— the readiness of her wit, or the depth of her humility. 28. great is thy faith.—The chilling silence of Jesus had gained its purpose in drawing out from the woman this admirable expression of her faith, and now his tone and manner undergo a change. He is like himself again. We can readily see that her humility was great; but where is the evidence of her great faith? Men who have no faith in Jesus, look on him as beneath themselves. Those who have little faith in him, regard him as only a little their superior; but an faith increases, he goes up and we go down, so that the greatest humility before him is one evidence of the greatest faith. He looked into the bottom of her heart, and commended that which was the source of all of her humility and her perseverance. even as thou wilt.—The earnest perseverance of the faithful woman gains its point, and her. mother’s heart is made to rejoice. Less love for her child, or less faith in Jesus, would have caused a failure. The entire scene is often repeated in pious households. How often a pious mother, with a child previously vexed with the demon of sin, cries piteously and long to the blessed Savior, saying, “Lord, help me.” And how often does Jesus appear, for awhile, to give no heed to the cry, until even a cold world begins to pity the wretched petitioner. But finally, when a mighty faith has been developed out of sorrow and weeping, the unheard answer comes, “Be it unto thee as thou wilt.” The story of the Canaanite woman is a type, and it is written for our admonition on whom the ends of the world have come. It is another illustration of the Savior’s doctrine, that “men ought always to pray, and not to faint.” (Luke 18:1-8.) Cures near the Lake Shore, Matthew 15:29-31. (Mark 7:31-37)29. came nigh unto the sea.—Jesus is now again near the lake of Galilee, and as we learn from Mark (Mark 7:31), near the southeastern shore, having come through Decapolis. The last paragraph located him northwest of Galilee, and the present locates him on the opposite side of Galilee, without noting the route by which he had made the transit. 30. great multitudes came.—Only once before, when he cured the man with the legion of demons, had Jesus been in this district; and then the people had requested him to go away. (8:34.) But now, influenced partly by their own reflections, and partly by the preaching of the demoniac (Mark 5:19-20), they flock around him with their “lame, blind, dumb, and maimed.” 31. glorified the God of Israel.—This was naturally the first effect of witnessing the miraculous cures, after fear of him who wrought them had passed away. The people saw clearly that the power by which Jesus worked was the power of God; but being Comparatively ignorant in reference to the Messiahship, they formed no definite conception at first of his person and office. Feeding the Four Thousand, Matthew 15:32-39. (Mark 8:1-9)32. three days, and have nothing to eat.—The statement is not that they had been three days with nothing to eat, but that they had been with him three days, and now had nothing to eat. His compassion was excited, not because they were now suffering, but because, if he sent them away fasting, they would “faint in the way.” 33. Whence… so much bread.—The disciples had forgotten the feeding of the five thousand under similar circumstances; or, at least, they did not expect a repetition of the miracle. 34. How many loaves.—It was only when he sent the disciples out on their first hurried mission, that they were told to carry no scrip with them (Matthew 10:10); ordinarily, as on the present occasion, they had more or less food about them. (Comp. Matthew 16:5.) 37. seven baskets full.—The baskets were different from those used when the five thousand were fed, the two kinds being called by two different names in Greek (κοφινους, and σπυριδας). It is probable that the latter, the kind used on the present occasion, were the larger, as it was one of them in which Paul was let down from the wall of Damascus. (Acts 9:25.) 39. into the coasts of Magdala.—Magdala was on the western shore of the lake and when Jesus reached its vicinity, he was again in his former field of labor, having completed his tour to Tyre and Sidon, and his return through Decapolis. The points named in the tour are places which he had seldom or never visited before.

Question by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 151. Who came to Jesus from Jerusalem? 2. Of whom did they complain to him? 3. Of what did they complain?. 4. What particular item did they complain? 5. Did Moses say anything about this? 6. State the countercharge Jesus made. 7. To what commandment did he Tefer? 8. What was the penalty for violation? 9. State the substitution they had made. 10. What did Jesus call them. 11. Who had prophesied of them? 12. What kind of service did they render? 13. Tell what was said of their heart. 14. How was their worship rendered vain? 15. Whom did Jesus call to give explanation? 16. Against what tradition was the explanation? 17. In which direction does the defilement proceed? 18. From what source does it come ? 19. Who took offense at the teaching of Jesus? 20. Did he apologize to them ? 21. Whose plant will be permanent? 22. State the fate of the others. 23. Whose danger is greater, blind or their leaders? 24. What is the ditch? 25. To what community did Jesus next go? 26. Who came to him in distress? 27. What was their trouble? 28. State his reply? 29. Who expressed complaint to Jesus? 30. What was their suggestion? 31. Repeat his statement to the woman. 32. Did this discourage her? 33. How did she reinforce her request? 34. State the reply of Jesus to this. 35. Repeat his reasoning upon this? 36. Tell the outcome of the conversation. 37. On what did Jesus base his action? 38. Where did he next go? 39. Who followed him? 40. What indicates helplessness of some of them? 41. How did Jesus favor them? 42. This made what impression on the multitude? 43. To whom did they give the glory? 44. Whom did Jesus then call to him? 45. State the information he gave them. 46. What difficulty did the disciples see? 47. State the amount of their supplies. 48. What order was observed? 49. How many were fed? 50. What shows they had a full meal ?

Matthew 15:1

15:1 See the comments on chapter 13:52 for a description of the scribes. The Pharisees were a leading sect of the Jews who made great pre-tentions of righteousness. They, with the scribes, were enemies of Jesus and frequently tried to get him into trouble with either the Sanhedrin or the Romans.

Matthew 15:2

15:2 The Pharisees and others who stood with them doctrinally placed great stress on the traditions of those who were the elders or forefathers in the Mosaic system. In most cases they held these traditions to be of more importance than the written law of Moses, and where there was a disagreement between them they perverted the written law in favor of the tradition. One of such rules had to do with washing the hands at certain specified times. This was not done as a necessary act of sanitation but was one of the self-imposed rituals of the elders among the Jews. The disciples were busy with the important affairs of their work with Jesus and did not observe such ceremonies. But the critics thought they had a cause for accusation against them and came to Jesus with their complaint.

Matthew 15:3

15:3 It was a much worse fault to set the traditions of the elders against the positive requirements of the Mosaic law than it was to ignore the customs of the fathers, and that was the accusation that Jesus made against these critics.

Matthew 15:4

15:4 The law of Moses plainly required a man to honor his parents (Exodus 20:12). The word honor in the commandment to which .Jesus referred comes from the Hebrew word KABED which Strong defines, “In a good sense (numerous, rich, honorable): causatively [as a cause], to make wealthy.” The definition of the word which Moses wrote, as well as the reasoning of Jesus on the subject, shows that honoring one’s parents included the financial support of them also.

Matthew 15:5

15:5 A man’s parents are in need of the good things of life and look to their son for help. But he puts them off with the excuse that the money that he would otherwise have spent on them so that they would have profited by it, had been “earmarked” for the Lord’s treasury. This was hypocrisy on their part for they never carried out their claim of devoting the money to the cause of the Lord. Besides, the law never intended that money should be put into the public treasury that was needed for dependents.

Matthew 15:6

15:6 The Pharisees taught that if a man withheld his support of his parents on the pretense of giving it to the Lord, he would be exempt from the commandment in Exodus 20:12, thus putting their tradition above the law.

Matthew 15:7

15:7 A hypocrite is one who professes to be what he knows he is not. See the comments at chapter 6:2 for the lexicon definition and other accounts of the word. Well did Esaias prophecy means the prophet did well in predicting these characters.

Matthew 15:8

15:8 Generally speaking, the lips and mouth pertain to the fleshly or cuter man, and the heart refers to the inner man. The Biblical heart is the occasion of so much confusion among religious teachers that I shall give the reader a description of it as will be taken from the lexicon definition of original Greek. With one exception (PSUCHE in Ephesians 6:6) the word in the New Testament is from KARDIA and I shall quote Thayers definitions (the part in italics) for it in its various applications: “1. a. the vigor and sense of physical life. b. the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavors. Specifically of the understanding, the faculty and seat of intelligence. Of the soul so far forth as it is affected and stirred in a bad way or good, or of the soul as the seat of the sensibilities, affections, emotions, desires, appetites, passions. 3. used of the middle or central or inmost part of any thing, even though inanimate.” This Greek word occurs 158 times in the New Testament and is not rendered by any term but “heart” in the Authorized Version. From the extended definition as well as by the various connections in which it is used, it is plain that when “heart” is not used figuratively it means the mind or intelligence of man. This ex plains how a person’s mouth or lips can say one thing while the heart does not really mean it, and thus he is acting hypocritically.

Matthew 15:9

15:9 Worship is from SEBOMAI which Thayer defines, “to revere, to worship.” The people of whom Jesus was speaking professed to have great respect for him and that is the sense in which he said they worshiped him. In vain is defined “fruitlessly” and means that the pretended reverence they had for Jesus would not bring them any favor from him as long as they taught the doctrine of human authority instead of that of the man they claimed to honor but whose teaching they were rejecting.

Matthew 15:10

5:10 He called the multitude. This was not for the purpose of explaining a parable of the church, but to show them why he had accused them of inconsistency in their undue emphasis on washing the hands.

Matthew 15:11

5:11 Jesus was not ignoring the need for cleanliness, but was teaching the lesson of putting moral and spiritual matters above the physical. If a man permits a particle of dirt to enter his mouth and into the stomach it cannot do him any harm for the system will take care of it. Jesus will explain this subject to his disciples a few verses farther on in the chapter.

Matthew 15:12

5:12 Were offended denotes that they stumbled at the saying of Jesus, and because of it they were unwilling to recognize him as having the wisdom or authority to make a declaration upon the conduct of others.

Matthew 15:13

5:13 Jesus was willing to stake his right to speak and the correctness of what he said on the outcome. Every plant not planted by his Father was to be rooted up. If the work of Jesus was not authorized of God, then it would not stand and he would be exposed as an impostor. On the other hand, if his work holds fast it will prove him to have been a true teacher and one over whom the Pharisees had no reason to stumble. This statement had special reference to the church or kingdom that he was about to set up, for in Ezekiel 34:29 a “plant” is predicted and the context there (verses 20-31) plainly shows that it has reference to the church.

Matthew 15:14

5:14 Let them alone is defined by Thayer, “c. to let go, let alone, let be; to disregard.” It means for the disciples not to lose any time or spend any efforts on them as it would be useless. A further reason for ignoring them was the danger involved in following or associating with them. They were blind leaders and those who would follow them are as blind as they. That would mean that all of them would share the same fate and fall into the ditch or go astray.

Matthew 15:15

5:15 Peter called the teaching of Jesus about washing and eating a parable. However, it was not a parable of the kingdom (chapter 13:11), hence Jesus had called the multitudes to him to give that lesson. But it was somewhat indirect or figurative and the apostles did not understand it.

Matthew 15:16

5:16 The expression of Jesus sounds as if he were surprised at the lack of understanding shown by his disciples, when he was supposed to know all about man and not to be surprised at anything. That is not the point, but he said this to them as a mild rebuke for their slowness in thinking out the matter.

Matthew 15:17

5:17 Mere filth that is not in the nature of disease germs goes through the stomach and other digestive organs and is separated from food particles the same as the other waste matter, and it is then discharged from the body without having done it any harm. A draught corresponds with our modern sanitary stool.

Matthew 15:18

5:18 The things that come out of the mouth orginate in the heart, and if they are evil it indicates an impure and a defiled heart. (See chapter 12:34.)

Matthew 15:19

5:19 See again the definition of the heart at Matthew 15:8 and it will be observed why the things mentioned in this verse are said to come from it.

Matthew 15:20

5:20 Certainly no man can entertain an interest in murder and the other things named in Matthew 15:19 and not be defiled. They affect his character while the soil passing from the hands into the mouth has no relation to that.

Matthew 15:21

5:21 Coasts means region and Jesus went to that surrounding these cities.

Matthew 15:22

5:22 Woman of Canaan is indefinite because all the land west of the Jordan was generally known as Canaan, and there were both Jews and Gentiles living there. However, the term was used to designate this woman as outside the class recognized as Jews. This woman not only recognized Jesus as Lord hut also as a son of David. The latter term was specific and meant that she believed him to be the descendant of David according to the prophets, for many of the Gentiles were acquainted with the Old Testament. This woman’s daughter was possessed with a devil which is explained at chapter 8:28.

Matthew 15:23

5:23 Jesus had his own way of trying out the faith of those who sought favors of him, and he used it here by appearing to ignore the woman. But she was not to be discouraged by this seeming indifference, for she continued crying after him until the disciples became impatient and asked Jesus to send her away.

Matthew 15:24

5:24 Instead of directly doing as the disciples requested, Jesus merely gave the woman to understand that she was not in the class to which he was sent. See the comments at chapter 10:6 for the meaning of lost sheep.

Matthew 15:25

5:25 This did not entirely discourage the woman for she repeated her plea accompanied with an attitude of worship towards Jesus.

Matthew 15:26

5:26 Jesus made his answer much more in the nature of an argument in figurative form. Dog is from which Thayer defines, “a little dog.” No special disrespect was intended to her personally by this term, for it was commonly known that the Jews were regarded as God’s children, and the Gentiles would logically be in a lower class. Besides, Jesus knew the heart of the woman whose faith he was drawing out, and purposely furnished her the illustration by which she could make one of the most touching appeals I have ever known. With all this in view, he compared the Jews to God’s children, the favors he was bestowing on them to the bread provided by the Father, and the Gentiles to the little dogs that might be playing at the feet of their master.

Matthew 15:27

5:27 The woman was not discouraged nor even hurt at the Lord’s comparison. Instead, she accepted the classification as a good basis for her persistence. After the children have been abundantly fed, the scraps are generally gathered up and given to the dogs. She would be satisfied with a temporal favor from Jesus in the healing of her (laughter ,even though it would be like the crumbs compared with the loaves of spiritual blessings that he was daily bestowing on his disciples.

Matthew 15:28

5:28 Great is thy faith. This was indicated by her patience or endurance. She had full confidence at the start in the ability of Jesus to perform her request, but her persistence showed her faith in his willingness to do so if she did not give up too soon. In this she has set an example for those of us who profess to believe in the goodness and power of God. We are often too apt to “lose heart” and cease looking to the Lord for his grace. This is the subject of one of the parables of Jesus recorded in Luke 18:1-8. The faith of the Canaanite woman was rewarded with the immediate recovery of her daughter.

Matthew 15:29

5:29 The region of Tyre and Sidon where Jesus was teaching and working bordered on the Sea of Galilee but was an area a mile wide and several miles long. He now came nearer to the sea and went up into a mountain where he received the multitudes.

Matthew 15:30

5:30 As usual Jesus had a great following because his fame had gone all over the country. Afflicted people who were unable to travel alone were brought to Jesus and cast down at his feet. This word might give us an unfavorable impression as it seems to indicate an act of impatience if not indifference. It is from the Greek word RHIPTO and Thayer’s definition at this place is the simple phrase, “to set down.” He then explains his definition to mean, “(with the suggestion of haste and want of care), of those who laid their sick at the feet of Jesus, leaving them at his disposal without a doubt that he could heal them.” They were not disappointed for the text says and he healed them.

Matthew 15:31 Again Jesus proved his ability to work all kinds of miracles and did not have to select his cases as do the pretenders of miracle-working today. A remarkable thing about the event is that they glorified the God of Israel. Everyone knew that an ordinary man could not accomplish such wonderful works, hence they attributed it to the God of Israel (not any of the gods of the Gentiles). That was the main purpose Jesus had in performing his great deeds according to John 20:30-31.

Matthew 15:32

5:32 Once more the compassion of Jesus asserted itself in behalf of the multitude whose interest had kept them in his presence for three days. Of course there would be no oppor- nity for procuring food out there in that mountainous area. Fasting is from NESTIS and Thayer’s definition is, “fasting, not having eaten.” The mere fact of being without food during the time necessary to reach a market would not cause them to faint in the way, but they would already be weak, having not eaten for three days.

Matthew 15:33

5:33 It is strange the disciples seem to have forgotten the event of chapter 14:15-21; probably they had not forgotten it but took that way of asking Jesus to take care of the case in hand as he did the other time.

Matthew 15:34

5:34 The supply of food in the possession of the disciples was nothing compared with the needs of the multitude, but Jesus was still inclined to require his disciples to have a part in the good work.

Matthew 15:35

5:35 For the sake of orderliness the multitudes were told to sit down.

Matthew 15:36

5:36 In this case Jesus gave thanks, in the instance of chapter 14:19 he “blessed” which was virtually the same meaning as was explained at that place.

Matthew 15:37

5:37 And were filled. See the comments on this phrase at chapter 14:20, also John 6:12 as to why the scraps were taken up.

Matthew 15:38

5:38 No disrespect was intended by the writer in giving the number of men and only an indefinite reference to the women and children. In old times it was the custom to list families and other groups of human beings according to the men only.

Matthew 15:39

5:39 The multitudes were given sufficient nourishment to overcome the effects of their three-day fast and were dismissed. Magdala was a city on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee and it is sometimes mentioned by other names.