Matthew 15:1-6
<p>Jan 03, 2012 05:15 AM <b>DONE.</b>
 
<b>1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,</b>
<b>Barnes' Notes on the Bible</b></p>
<ul>
<li>See also Mark 7:1-9.</li>
<li>Then came to Jesus ... - Mark says that they saw the disciples of Jesus eating with unwashed hands.</li>
</ul>
<p>Clarke's Commentary on the Bible</p>
<ul>
<li>The scribes and Pharisees - of Jerusalem - Our Lord was now in Galilee, Matthew 14:34.</li>
</ul>
<p>Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible</p>
<ul name="generator" content="EditLive! 7.6.1.58">
<li>There were Scribes and Pharisees throughout the land, but those of Jerusalem were the chief; they were men of the greatest learning and abilities, and were more expert in their religion and customs: these were either sent by the sanhedrim at Jerusalem, or came of themselves; taking upon them a greater power, and authority of examining, correcting, directing, and advising.</li>
</ul>
<p>Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary</p>
<ul name="generator" content="EditLive! 7.6.1.58">
<li>As He had not come to them at the last Passover, which they had reckoned on, they now come to Him.</li>
</ul>
<p>Matthew Henry's Whole Bible Commentary</p>
<ul>
<li>It was a sign that Christ's disciples conducted themselves inoffensively, when this was the worst thing they could charge them with.
<ul>
<li>Rabbi Joses determined, "that to eat with unwashen hands is as great a sin as adultery."</li>
<li>And Rabbi Akiba being kept a close prisoner, having water sent him both to wash his hands with, and to drink with his meat, the greatest part being accidentally shed, he washed his hands with the remainder, though he left himself none to drink, saying he would rather die than transgress the tradition of the elders.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p> 
<b>2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.</b>
Barnes' Notes on the Bible</p>
<ul>
<li>Transgress the tradition of the elders - The world "elders" literally means "old men."</li>
<li>The "tradition of the elders" meant something handed down from one to another by memory; some precept or custom not commanded in the written law, but which scribes and Pharisees held themselves bound to observe.</li>
<li>They supposed that when Moses was on Mount Sinai two sets of laws were delivered to him: one, they said, was recorded, and is that contained in the Old Testament; the other was handed down from father to son, and kept uncorrupted to their day. They believed that Moses, before he died, delivered this law to Joshua; he to the Judges; they to the prophets; so that it was kept pure until it was recorded in the Talmuds. In these books these pretended laws are now contained. They are exceedingly numerous and very trifling. They are, however, regarded by the Jews as more important than either Moses or the prophets.</li>
<li>They regarded external purity as of much more importance than the purity of the heart. They had many foolish rules about it respecting the quantity of water that was to be used, the way in which it should be applied, the number of times it should be changed, the number of those that might wash at a time, etc. Our Saviour did not think it proper to regard these rules, and this was the reason why they "found fault" with him.</li>
</ul>
<p>Clarke's Commentary on the Bible</p>
<ul>
<li>All sorts of Pharisees are troublesome people in religious society; and the reason is, they take more pleasure in blaming others than in amending themselves.</li>
<li>The tradition of the elders - The word παραδοσις, tradition, has occupied a most distinguished place, both in the Jewish and Christian Church. Man is ever fond of mending the work of his Maker; and hence he has been led to put his finishing hand even to Divine revelation!</li>
<li>This supplementary matter has been called παραδοσις, from παραδιδομαι, to deliver from hand to hand - to transmit; and hence the Latin term, tradition, from trado, to deliver, especially from one to another; - to hand down.</li>
<li>
<p >T�h�e� �J�e�r�u�s�a�l�e�m� �T�a�l�m�u�d� �w�a�s� �c�o�m�p�l�e�t�e�d� �a�b�o�u�t� �a�.�d�.� �3�0�0�;� �a�n�d� �t�h�e� �B�a�b�y�l�o�n�i�s�h� �T�a�l�m�u�d� �a�b�o�u�t� �t�h�e� �b�e�g�i�n�n�i�n�g� �o�f� �t�h�e� �s�i�x�t�h� �c�e�n�t�u�r�y�.</p>
</li>
<li>I�n� �w�h�a�t� �e�s�t�i�m�a�t�i�o�n� �t�h�e�s�e� �a�r�e� �h�e�l�d� �b�y� �t�h�e� �J�e�w�s�,� �t�h�e� �f�o�l�l�o�w�i�n�g� �e�x�a�m�p�l�e�s� � �w�i�l�l� �p�r�o�v�e�:� �"�T�h�e� �w�o�r�d�s� �o�f� �t�h�e� �s�c�r�i�b�e�s� �a�r�e� �l�o�v�e�l�y� �b�e�y�o�n�d� �t�h�e� �w�o�r�d�s� �o�f� �t�h�e� � �l�a�w�:� �f�o�r� �t�h�e� �w�o�r�d�s� �o�f� �t�h�e� �l�a�w� �a�r�e� �w�e�i�g�h�t�y� �a�n�d� �l�i�g�h�t�,� �b�u�t� �t�h�e� �w�o�r�d�s� �o�f� � �t�h�e� �s�c�r�i�b�e�s� �a�r�e� �a�l�l� �w�e�i�g�h�t�y�.�"� �H�i�e�r�u�s�.� �B�e�r�a�c�.� �f�o�l�.� �3�.
<ul>
<li>"�H�e� �t�h�a�t� �s�h�a�l�l� �s�a�y�,� �T�h�e�r�e� �a�r�e� �n�o� �p�h�y�l�a�c�t�e�r�i�e�s�,� �t�h�o�u�g�h� �h�e� �t�h�u�s� �t�r�a�n�s�g�r�e�s�s� � �t�h�e� �w�o�r�d�s� �o�f� �t�h�e� �l�a�w�,� �h�e� �i�s� �n�o�t� �g�u�i�l�t�y�;� �b�u�t� �h�e� �t�h�a�t� �s�h�a�l�l� �s�a�y�,� �T�h�e�r�e� � �a�r�e� �f�i�v�e� �T�o�t�a�p�h�o�t�,� �t�h�u�s� �a�d�d�i�n�g� �t�o� �t�h�e� �w�o�r�d�s� �o�f� �t�h�e� �s�c�r�i�b�e�s�,� �h�e� �i�s� � �g�u�i�l�t�y�.�"</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>T�h�e�y� �w�a�s�h� �n�o�t� �t�h�e�i�r� �h�a�n�d�s� �-� �O�n� �w�a�s�h�i�n�g� �o�f� �h�a�n�d�s�,� �b�e�f�o�r�e� �a�n�d� �a�f�t�e�r� �m�e�a�t�,� � �t�h�e� �J�e�w�s� �l�a�i�d� �g�r�e�a�t� �s�t�r�e�s�s�:� �t�h�e�y� �c�o�n�s�i�d�e�r�e�d� �e�a�t�i�n�g� �w�i�t�h� �u�n�w�a�s�h�e�d� �h�a�n�d�s� � �t�o� �b�e� �n�o� �o�r�d�i�n�a�r�y� �c�r�i�m�e�;� �a�n�d� �t�h�e�r�e�f�o�r�e�,� �t�o� �i�n�d�u�c�e� �m�e�n� �t�o� �d�o� �i�t�,� �t�h�e�y� � �f�e�i�g�n�e�d� �t�h�a�t� �a�n� �e�v�i�l� �s�p�i�r�i�t�,� �c�a�l�l�e�d� �S�h�i�b�t�a� ������,� �w�h�o� �s�i�t�s� �o�n� �t�h�e� �h�a�n�d�s� � �b�y� �n�i�g�h�t�,� �h�a�s� �a� �r�i�g�h�t� �t�o� �s�i�t� �o�n� �t�h�e� �f�o�o�d� �o�f� �h�i�m� �w�h�o� �e�a�t�s� �w�i�t�h�o�u�t� �w�a�s�h�i�n�g� � �h�i�s� �h�a�n�d�s�,� �a�n�d� �m�a�k�e� �i�t� �h�u�r�t�f�u�l� �t�o� �h�i�m�!� �T�h�e�y� �c�o�n�s�i�d�e�r� �t�h�e� �p�e�r�s�o�n� �w�h�o� � �u�n�d�e�r�v�a�l�u�e�s� �t�h�i�s� �r�i�t�e� �t�o� �b�e� �n�o� �b�e�t�t�e�r� �t�h�a�n� �a� �h�e�a�t�h�e�n�,� �a�n�d� �c�o�n�s�e�q�u�e�n�t�l�y� � �e�x�c�o�m�m�u�n�i�c�a�t�e� �h�i�m�.� �S�e�e� �m�a�n�y� �e�x�a�m�p�l�e�s� �o�f� �t�h�i�s� �d�o�c�t�r�i�n�e� �i�n� �S�c�h�o�e�t�t�g�e�n� �a�n�d� � �L�i�g�h�t�f�o�o�t�.</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://gill.biblecommenter.com/matthew/15.htm" >Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible</a></p>
<ul>
<li>"Know then, that "the words of the Scribes" are more lovely than the words of the law: for, says R. Tarphon, if a man does not read, he only transgresses an affirmative; but if he transgresses the words of the school of Hillell, he is guilty of death, because he hath broke down a hedge, and a serpent shall bite him.</li>
<li>It is a tradition of R. Ishmael, the words of the law have in them both prohibition and permission; some of them are light, and some heavy, but "the words of the Scribes" are all of them heavy--Mynqz , "weightier are the words of the elders", than the words of the prophets.''</li>
<li>
<p >The breach of this rule was reckoned equal to the most flagitious crimes (i): R. Jose says,
"whoever eats bread without washing of hands, is as if he lay with a whore: and, says R. Eleazer, whoever despiseth washing of hands, shall be rooted out of the world.''</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://vws.biblecommenter.com/matthew/15.htm" >Vincent's Word Studies</a></p>
<ul>
<li>As the purifications were so frequent, and care had to be taken that the water had not been used for other purposes, or something fallen into it that might discolor or defile it, large vessels or jars were generally kept for the purpose (see <a href="http://bible.cc/john/2-6.htm" >John 2:6</a>). It was the practice to draw water out of these with a kind of ladle or bucket - very often of glass - which must hold at least one and a half egg-shells (compare draw out now, <a href="http://bible.cc/john/2-8.htm" >John 2:8</a>).</li>
<li>But there was one point on which special stress was laid. In the "first affusion," which was all that originally was required when the hands were not levitically "defiled," the water had to run down to the wrist. If the water remained short of the wrist, the hands were not clean. See <a href="http://bible.cc/mark/7-3.htm" >Mark 7:3</a>(Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus").</li>
</ul>
<p> 
 
<b>3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? </b>
<a href="http://barnes.biblecommenter.com/matthew/15.htm" >Barnes' Notes on the Bible</a></p>
<ul>
<li >But he answered ... - They accused him of violating their traditions, as though they were obligatory.</li>
<li >In his answer he implied that his disciples were not bound to obey their traditions - they were invented by human beings. He said, also, that those traditions could not be binding, as they violated the commandments of God. He proceeded to specify a case in which their tradition made void one of the plain laws of God; and if that was their character, then they could not blame him for not regarding them.</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://vws.biblecommenter.com/matthew/15.htm" >Vincent's Word Studies</a></p>
<ul>
<li >Also (καὶ)</li>
<li >The significance of this little word must not be overlooked. Christ admits that the disciples had transgressed a human injunction, but adds, "Ye also transgress, and in a much greater way." "Whether the disciples transgress or not, you are the greatest transgressors" (Bengel). The one question is met with the other in the same style. Luther says, "He places one wedge against the other, and therewith drives the first back."</li>
<li ><a href="http://mhcw.biblecommenter.com/matthew/15.htm" >Matthew Henry's Whole Bible Commentary</a><a href="http://mhcw.biblecommenter.com/matthew/15.htm" >it </a></li>
<li ><a href="http://mhcw.biblecommenter.com/matthew/15.htm" >is such a censure of their tradition (and the authority of that was what they built their charge upon) as makes not only a non-compliance lawful, but an opposition a duty. <b>That human authority must never be submitted to, which sets up in competition with divine authority</b>.</a></li>
<li ><a href="http://mhcw.biblecommenter.com/matthew/15.htm" >Those who are most zealous of their own impositions, are commonly most careless of God's commands; which is a good reason why Christ's disciples should stand upon their guard against such impositions, lest, though at first they seem only to infringe the liberty of Christians, they come at length to confront the authority of Christ.</a> </li>
</ul>
<p>Guzik Bible Commentary</p>
<ul>
<li> <b>Why do you also transgress the commandment of God</b>: When the disciples were accused of sin, Jesus answered with an accusation. Jesus was strong in His reply because these leaders were far too concerned with these ceremonial trivialities. When they declared people unclean because of their <b>tradition</b>, they denied the people access to God.</li>
<li>This was a strong reply from Jesus. “Controversies become sharper and more theological as Matthew’s narrative moves on.” (Carson) Ultimately, these conflicts with the religious leaders became the outward reason why Jesus was delivered to the Romans for death. “The response of the traditionalists was crucifixion.” (Bruce)</li>
<li> “No man has any more right to institute a new duty than to neglect an old one. The issuing of commands is for the King alone. Yet these religionists inquire why the Lord’s disciples break a law which was no law.” (Spurgeon)</li>
</ul>
<p> 
<b>4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.</b>
 
<b>Barnes' Notes on the Bible</b></p>
<ul >
<li>Let him die the death - This is a Hebrew phrase, the same as saying, "let him surely die." The Jewish law punished this crime with death</li>
<li>Let him die the death - This is a Hebrew phrase, the same as saying, "let him surely die." The Jewish law punished this crime with death</li>
</ul>
<p><b>Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible</b></p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>They indeed laid down this as a rule, and it seems a very equitable one (q); that, "when a man's father has any money, or substance, he must be supported out of that; but if he has none, he must support him out of his own.''</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p> 
 
 
 
<b>5 But ye say,<i> Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me</i>;</b>
Guzic:</p>
<ul>
<li>b. Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God: Some Jewish people of Jesus’ day had a way to get around the command to honor your father and mother. If they declared that all their possessions or savings were a gift to God that were especially dedicated to Him, they could then say that their resources were unavailable to help their parents.
<ul>
<li>i. “This convenient declaration apparently left the property actually still at the disposal of the one who made the vow, but deprived his parents of any right to it.” (France)</li>
<li>ii. “Our Saviour here also let us know, that the fifth commandment obligeth children to relieve their parents in their necessity, and this is the sense of the term honour in other texts of Scripture.” (Poole)</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Barnes notes:</p>
<ul>
<li>In a sense somewhat similar to this, the chiefs and priests of the Sandwich Islands had the power of devoting anything to the service of the gods by saying that it was "taboo," or "tabooed;" that is, it became consecrated to the service of religion; and, no matter who had been the owner, it could then be appropriated for no other use. In this way they had complete power over all the possessions of the people, and could appropriate them for their own use under the pretence of devoting them to religion. Thus, they deprived the people of their property under the plea that it was consecrated to the gods. </li>
<li>The Jewish son deprived his parents of a support under the plea that the property was devoted to the service of religion. The principle was the same, and both systems were equally a violation of the rights of others.</li>
</ul>
<p>Gill's:</p>
<ul>
<li>"If anyone should say, , "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever I might be profited by the" sons of Noah, it is free of an Israelite, and forbidden of a Gentile; if he should say, "whatsoever I might be profited" by the seed of Abraham, it is forbidden of an Israelite, and is free of a Gentile--if anyone should say, , "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever I might be profited by the uncircumcised", it is free of the uncircumcised of Israel, and forbidden of the circumcised of the Gentiles; if he says "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever I might be profited by the circumcised", it is forbidden of the circumcised of Israel, and free of the circumcised, of the Gentiles.''</li>
<li>Now, when a man had made such an impious vow as this, according to this tradition, it was to stand firm and good, and he was not to honour his father or mother, or do anything for them, by way of relief: so that our Lord might justly observe upon it as he does;</li>
<li>"R. Eliezer says, they open to a man, (i.e. the door of repentance, and dissolve his vow,) for the honour of his father and his mother, but the wise men forbid "it". Says R. Tzadok, if they open to him for the honour of his father and mother, they will open to him for the honour of God, and if so, there will be no vows: however, the wise men agreed with R. Eliezer in the affair between a man and his parents, that they should open to him for the honour of them.''</li>
</ul>
<p> 
<b>Geneva Study Bible</b></p>
<ul>
<li>(c) The meaning is this: whatever I bestow upon the temple, is to your profit, for it is as good as if I gave it to you, for (as the Pharisees of our time say) it will be meritorious for you: for under this form of religion, they gathered all to themselves, as though he that had given anything to the temple, had done the duty of a child.</li>
</ul>
<p> 
<b>People's New Testament</b></p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>Thus, by an artifice, the law with respect to parents could be set aside. The Talmud furnishes a curious illustration of this perversion of the command. The Mishna says:</p>
</li>
<li>He that curses his father or his mother is not guilty, unless he curses them with an express mention of the name of Jehovah.''</li>
</ul>
<p><b>Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary</b></p>
<ul>
<li>Additions to God's laws reflect upon his wisdom, as if he had left out something which was needed, and which man could supply; in one way or other they always lead men to disobey God.</li>
</ul>
<p><b>Matthew Henry Whole:</b></p>
<ul>
<li>The sin of cursing parents is here opposed to the duty of honouring them. Those who speak ill of their parents, or wish ill to them, who mock at them, or give them taunting and opprobrious language, break this law. If to call a brother Raca be so penal, what is it to call a father so? By our Saviour's application of this law, it appears, that denying service or relief to parents is included in cursing them.</li>
<li>That which men say, even great men, and learned men, and men in authority, must be examined by that which God saith; and if it be found either contrary or inconsistent, it may and must be rejected, Acts 4:19. Observe,</li>
<li>I will have justice, and mercy, and not sacrifice, they had not thus made the most arbitrary rituals destructive of the most necessary morals. This was making the command of God of no effect. Note, Whatever leads to, or countenances, disobedience, does, in effect, make void the command; and they that take upon them to dispense with God's law, do, in Christ's account, repeal and disannul it.</li>
<li></li>
</ul>
<p> 
<b>6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.</b>
 
<a href="http://vws.biblecommenter.com/matthew/15.htm" >Vincent's Word Studies</a></p>
<ul>
<li >Have made of none effect (ἠκυρώσατε)</li>
<li >Rev., made void; ἀ, not, κῦρος, authority. Ye have deprived it of its authority.</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://pnt.biblecommenter.com/matthew/15.htm" >People's New Testament</a></p>
<ul>
<li >15:6 Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect. Modern Pharisaism does the same. Church tradition leads to dogmas that set aside God's commands. The corruption of the simplicity of early Christianity is due to following human tradition.</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://jfb.biblecommenter.com/matthew/15.htm" >Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary</a></p>
<ul>
<li >6. And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free-that is, It is true, father-mother-that by giving to thee this, which I now present, thou mightest be profited by me; but I have gifted it to pious uses, and therefore, at whatever cost to thee, I am not now at liberty to alienate any portion of it. "And," it is added in Mark (Mr 7:12), "ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother."</li>
<li ><b>To dedicate property to God is indeed lawful and laudable, but not at the expense of filial duty.</b></li>
</ul>
<p> </p>