Bible Study series: Matthew 15:1-20. Scripture always take first place. Traditions must submit to it.
A warm welcome to this Bible study! I write to learn, so let’s learn together. I also translate to learn. The translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see many others, please click on this link:
In the next link to the original chapter, I comment more and offer the Greek text. At the bottom you will find a “Summary and Conclusion” section geared toward discipleship. Check it out!
In this post, links are provided for further study.
Let’s begin.
Scripture: Matthew 15:1-20
1 At that time the Pharisees and teachers of the law from Jerusalem came up to him, saying, 2 “Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they don’t wash their hands when they eat bread.” 3 In reply, Jesus said to them, “And why do you also transgress the command of God because of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor father and mother’ [Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16] and ‘Anyone who curses father or mother must surely die’ [Exod. 21:17; Lev. 20:9] 5 But you say, ‘Anyone who tells his father or mother, “Whatever you might benefit from me is a gift to God!”’ 6 certainly will not honor his father and cancels the word of God because of your tradition.” 7 Hypocrites! Correctly has Isaiah prophesied about you, saying:
8 This people honors me with their lips,
But their heart is far, far from me.
9 To no purpose they worship me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. [Is. 29:13]
10 And he summoned the crowd and said to them, “Listen and understand! 11 What goes into the mouth does not defile the person, but what comes out of his or her mouth—this defiles the person!”
12 Then the disciples approached, saying to him, “Don’t you know that the Pharisees when they heard this teaching were scandalized?” 13 In reply, he said, “Every plant which my Father in heaven has not planted will be uprooted.” 14 Let them go. They are blind guides of the blind. If a blind person guides a blind person, both of them will fall into a pit!”
15 In reply, Peter said to him, “Explain this parable to us.” 16 But he said, “Even now you also are without understanding? 17 Don’t you have an insight that everything going into the mouth and then goes into the belly is expelled in the latrine? 18 But what comes out of the mouth comes out of the heart; those are the things that defile a person. 19 For from the heart comes out evil reasonings, murders, adulteries, sexual immoralities, thefts, bearing false witness, and slanders. 20 These are the things that defile the person, but not washing hands to eat does not defile a person. (Matt. 15:1-20)
Comments:
The main points: The word of God as written, that is, moral law, takes priority over the traditions of men or the elders, piled sky-high on the Word. (2) Don’t prioritize superficial, external things over and above the deeper things of the heart. (3) Things coming into a person, like food, don’t actually defile a person, but the things inside coming out of him defile him, like bad thoughts and deeds.
New Testament Must Always Filter Old Testament
What Does the New Covenant Retain from the Old?
Do Christians Have to ‘Keep’ the Ten Commandments?
Ten Commandments: God’s Great Compromise with Humanity’s Big Failure
One Decisive Difference Between Sinai Covenant and New Covenant
But please do not believe that you are exempt from moral law. It was thoroughly imported into the NT from the OT
Unlawful Sexual Relations in Leviticus 18 from a NT Perspective
Moral and Other Laws in Leviticus 19 from a NT Perspective
The Law Teaches Virtue and Restrains Vice
Now let’s go verse by verse.
1:
“Pharisees”:
“teachers of the law”: They are also called scribes.
You can learn about these two religious groups at this link:
Quick Reference to Jewish Groups in Gospels and Acts
Both the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were the Watchdogs of Theology and Behavior (David E. Garland, Luke: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Zondervan, 2011], p. 243). The problem which Jesus had with them can be summed up in Eccl. 7:16: “Be not overly righteous.” He did not quote that verse, but to him they were much too enamored with the finer points of the law, while neglecting its spirit (Luke 11:37-52; Matt. 23:1-36). Instead, he quoted this verse from Hos. 6:6: “I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice” (see Matt. 9:13; 12:7). Overdoing righteousness, believe it or not, can damage one’s relationship with God and others.
Evidently, these two groups came from Jerusalem, which indicates Jesus was achieving fame all the way to the capital. The authorities had to investigate. Osborne calls them a “semi-official delegation” (comment on 15:1).
2:
“disciples”:
The tradition of the elders were interpretations of the Torah (first five books of the Bible) which piled up, and at this time. It is likely that they were in the process of being written down and was completed in the document called the Mishnah in about 200 A.D.
Now the washing tradition, though not commanded in Scripture, was a good idea in preventing germs to spread, but this passage is not about germs (first-century people knew nothing about them). Instead, this is a confusion or a fusing together of ritual cleanness and moral cleanness. Somehow these two groups of religious leaders merged the two, and washing hands indicated obedience to the tradition of the elders, which then indicated obedience to God and proper behavior. To obey these small minutiae is to honor the law, and to honor the law is to obey God, and to obey God is to be righteous or moral.
France on the tradition of the elders:
But the phrase (a technical term for Pharisaic oral tradition, in contrast to the written Mosaic law) fits the rabbinic approach which focused on providing respectable pedigree for any ruling through quoting earlier rabbis in its favor, and no doubt within the Pharisaic movement there was already a sufficient tradition in favor of this particular provision, even if its origin was relatively recent. Such traditions at this stage would be oral; its written codification into the Mishnah came at the end of the second century (p. 579)
“elders”: You can learn about this group at this link:
Quick Reference to Jewish Groups in Gospels and Acts
Osborne on the oral traditions: “In Jesus’ time these rules for the conduct of daily lives were transmitted orally but later written in the Mishnah [about A.D. 200], with an entire tractate … filled with minute details on the washing of hands. They originally had a good purpose, to enable a people living in a culture far removed from seminomadic culture that existed at the time of the giving of the law to understand and keep the law. They called it ‘building a fence around the law,’ i.e. keeping common people from inadvertently breaking the law. But the number of details quickly turned it into a burdensome set of pedantic rules” (comment on 15:2).
However, one commentator, referenced by Osborne, says that only complete immersion could achieve ritual purity so the Pharisees and teachers of the law demanding handwashing was small and narrow.
3:
And from here on to the end of this pericope (pronounced puh-RIH- koh-pea) or section of Scripture, Jesus is about to drive home the distinction between ritual cleanness and moral cleanness. Don’t confuse the two to the point that you overlook moral cleanness. Don’t believe that because you wash the outside (hands) that you are washing the inside (the soul) and are religiously and morally superior.
4:
Jesus answers their question with a question, which says in effect: how can you legitimately accuse my disciples of transgressing your traditions of the elders, when you transgress the command of God himself?
Now let’s discuss this verbal sparring match between Jesus and these religious leaders.
As I noted in other chapters, first-century Israel was an honor-and-shame society. Verbal and active confrontations happened often. By active is meant actions. Here the confrontation is both verbal and acted out. Jesus won the actual confrontation, and this victory opened the door to his verbal victory with religious leaders who were binding people up with traditions. The people needed to be loosed from the traditions. Jesus shamed the leaders to silence. It may seem strange to us that Jesus would confront human opponents, because we are not used to doing this in our own lives, and we have heard that Jesus was meek and silent.
More relevantly, for many years now there has been a teaching going around the Body of Christ that says when Christians are challenged, they are supposed to slink away or not reply. This teaching may come from the time of Jesus’s trial when it is said he was as silent as a sheep (Acts 8:32). No. He spoke up then, as well (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:32; Luke 23:71; John 18:19-23; 32-38; 19:11). Therefore, “silence” means submission to the will of God without resisting or fighting back physically. But here he replied to the religious leaders and defeated them and their inadequate theology. Get into a discussion and debate with your challengers. Stand toe to toe with them. In short, fight like Jesus! With anointed words!
Of course, caution is needed. The original context is a life-and-death struggle between the kingdom of God and religious traditions. Get the original context, first, before you fight someone in a verbal sparring match. This was a clash of worldviews. Don’t pick fights or be rude to your spouse or baristas or clerks in the service industry. Discuss things with him or her. But here Jesus was justified in replying sharply to these oppressive religious leaders.
Knowing the Torah (as we all should), Jesus quotes clear commands from Scripture, and one of them comes from the mighty Ten Commandments: Honor your father and your mother (the Fifth Commandment). (“Your” in Greek is missing), and I tend to be more literal in my translation. But don’t make a big deal of the missing possessive pronoun, as if we have to honor all mothers and fathers in the exact same way. The Fifth Commandment is designed to keep your personal family in harmony and respect.
5-6:
So a man could help his parents with his resources, but instead tells them he is giving the resources as a gift to God, to the temple. More specifically, the man still has the gift in his possession, and he promises to give it to God at a later date. Now he finds that his parents are in need, and instead of giving it to his parents, he gives it to a religious institution. Apparently, according to Jewish tradition at this time, a man could not use a gift devoted to God to help his parents in genuine need (NET).
“Anything so dedicated was thus placed out of reach of other people who might otherwise have a claim on it, and the formula seems to have deliberately used for this purpose” (France, comment on 15:5-6a).
Osborne on the Corban practice (the word Corban is mentioned in the parallel passage in Mark 7:11-12): Corban was “property or money pledged to the temple, to be given after a person died. That money could no longer be used for outside things like caring for parents, but it was available for one’s use until death. … This tradition allowed children to escape their biblical obligation of taking care of their parents by dedicating their money as a gift of God upon their death” (comment on 15:4).
And Blomberg: “The Corban [see Mark 7:11-12] practice in view was that of pledging money or other material resources to the temple to be paid upon one’s death. These funds could therefore not be transferred to anyone else but could still be used for one’s own benefit while one was still alive (v. 5)” (comment on 15:3-6). He goes on to note another commentator who says that a certain devotion to God hurts God because it hurts people.
Here’s the scene in a modern context: An extra-devout Christian named Ralph likes often to say “Amen!” and “Hallelujah!” He carries a big Bible or has it on his phone and likes to visibly click on it during lunch hour. He is very pious in his behavior, praying in the lunchroom. He goes to a mega-church. The pastor often preaches sermons about how people owe the church tithes from gross pay and additional offerings. The pastor often, unbeknownst even to the pastor himself, twists Scriptures and traditions to his advantage. He often fishes around in Scripture to increase his church’s income. He now lives in a big house that Joe Factoryworker and Jane Shopkeeper could never afford. Ralph comes into some money. He hears that his parents have financial needs. But the pastor of his mega-church tells Ralph that he must lay his gift at the altar. He has to honor God first, and the only way to honor God is not to give money to his needy parents, but to give it to the church.
Here’s the parable broken down into smaller parts:
Manipulative mega-church pastor = the Pharisees and teachers of the law (and not every mega-church pastor is off. Many are fine men.)
Ralph = pious lay-Jew who is told to divert his money away from needy parents
Ralph’s Parents = parents in this passage who genuinely need money
The Pharisees and teachers of the law annul or cancel the word of God—the quoted commandments—by following the traditions of the elders, which “mysteriously” benefit the religious system, which in turn “mysteriously” benefit the Pharisees and teachers of the law.
7-9:
“hypocrites”: originally it comes from the Greek play actor on the stage. They wore masks and played roles. There were stock characters, such as the buffoon, the bombastic soldier, or the old miser. The Septuagint (pronounced sep-TOO-ah-gent and abbreviated LXX for the “seventy” scholars who worked on it) is a third to second century translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. It uses the term hypocrite to mean the godless. However, in Matthew’s Gospel (it is used only once in Mark 7:6 and three times in Luke 6:42; 12:56; 13:15), it is more nuanced. Hypocrites appeared one way, but in reality they were different. They appeared outwardly religious, but inwardly they were full of dead men’s bones (Matt. 23:27). They wore religious masks. They actually did many things that the law required, but they failed to understand God’s view of righteousness. They were more self-deceived than deceivers, though in Matt. 23, Jesus denounced the Pharisees and experts in the law for teaching one thing but living another. They are religious show-offs who act out their righteousness to impress others but are out of touch with God’s mercy and love. Eccl. 7:16 says not to be overly righteous, but that is what they were and displayed it publicly.
“correctly”: it could be translated “well,” or even ironically “beautifully.” So it could read: “’Beautifully’ has Isaiah prophesied about you!” This is irony, even sarcasm.
Isaiah teaches us that our hearts have to be right or morally clean.
“men”: it could be translated as “people” as in “people-centered precepts” or “people sourced precepts.” These precepts did not come from God. See v. 11 for more comments.
10-11:
Matthew is careful to distinguish between his disciples, the crowds, and religious leaders. The religious leaders walk away, shamed. Now he calls the crowds to him and speaks in a brief parable or illustration.
Food going into the mouth does not make a person defiled. This pronouncement disagrees with Lev. 11, which lists all sorts of animals that are permitted to be eaten or not.
Please see my post about these food laws and how the New Testament authors handled this issue.
Clean and Unclean Food in Leviticus 11 from a NT Perspective
The NT argues for liberation from the food laws, and in passages like this one, Jesus launches the move towards liberty.
The concept is clear enough: Food goes into the mouth, but words, which are expressions of thoughts, and thoughts flow from the heart, come out of the mouth. Food going in does not defile—not in any moral sense. Words that come out can defile a person morally. Don’t confuse the two.
“person”: it is the Greek noun anthrōpos (pronounced ahn-throw-poss), and even in the plural some interpreters say that it means only “men.” However, throughout the Greek written before and during the NT, in the plural it means people in general, including womankind (except rare cases). In the singular it can mean person, depending on the context (Matt. 4:4; 10:36; 12:11, 12; 12:43, 45; 15:11, 18). So a “person” or “people” or “men and women” (and so on) is almost always the most accurate translation, despite what more conservative translations say. So I chose “person.”
12-14:
Now Matthew has Jesus dismissing, as it were, the crowds, and his disciples approach and mildly challenge him and ask for clarity. Verse 12 implies that the Pharisees have left, as well, probably in defeat. So Jesus leaves the crowds to fend for themselves in sorting out the short parable and focuses on his disciples (see my comments on Matt. 13:10-17, for why he spoke parables to the crowds). Once again, Matthew is careful to distinguish between the crowds and disciples. These are surely the twelve, and not any larger number of disciples. But since the number is not specified, let’s not push too hard on it.
They ask, “Don’t you know?” That’s presumptuous, because of course he knew his remarks were offensive. He wanted them to be. Maybe the disciples were hoping other religious leaders would join Jesus to overthrow the Romans. Yet he is offending them and chasing them off. The disciples were shortsighted and baffled.
“scandalized”: it does come from the Greek verb skandalizō (pronounced skan-dah-lee-zoh), and in this context it means “take offense” “get angry” “shock.”
Instead of calling back the Pharisees and teachers of the law and apologizing, Jesus delivers a strong word and prediction. His heavenly Father did not plant these Pharisees and teachers of the law. They set themselves us as spokespersons for God. Their whole system will be doomed, because—let’s anticipate Matt. 24—God will send his judgment on Jerusalem, which happened in A.D. 70, through the Romans. Then the sacrificial system will cease (and the temple system did), but these religious men will go so far and so deep into their religious system that the tradition of the leaders will be written down in Talmudic literature, which stretches out to many volumes. God has moved on, however (John 4:20-24).
But this is anti-Semitic! No, it’s not. God loves people, and Jews are people; therefore, God loves Jews. But he is not enamored with their religious system which keeps them blinded to their true Messiah. Incidentally, God does not love any other and piled-up religious systems that keep people away from the clarity and simplicity of Scripture. Catholics have to be careful that they don’t make their canons and council equal to Scripture and go way beyond Scripture.
How can I know and make this evaluation about any or all Bible based religions? Isn’t it arrogant? No, it’s simple. I declare it from long passages like this one, vv. 1-20.
Let the blind guide lead the blind person (singular in Greek).
15-20:
Now Peter steps forward and speaks for the other disciples. I like Peter. He is bold and curious. In Matt. 13:51, in the chapter of nothing but parables, Jesus asked them if they understood these things, and they replied that they did. Here they miss the point. The disciples are inconsistent. Jesus has to spend more time with them and eventually fill them with his Spirit at Pentecost, and then the Spirit will have to lead them into clearer and newer truths, like Gentiles are also candidates for salvation and are not unclean (Acts 10). It makes me wonder how many clear and new truths I miss. Probably many.
The concept is clear: food goes into the mouth, and the waste goes out. What comes out of people’s mouths—their words, which are expressions of thoughts of the heart, can potentially defile a person.
“person”: see v. 11 for more comments.
In v. 20, we have a vice list, and these lists appear often in Scripture (e.g. Rom. 1:29-31; Gal. 5:19-20; 2 Tim. 2:3-4). “Slanders” could be translated as “blasphemies” if it is directed at God. I’ll let those admirable editors at biblehub.com explain the detailed meanings of these individual vices in their word studies.
Instead, I’d like to make a general observation about the teachers in the church. I don’t hear preachers who have big budgets and can appear on TV every single day talking about these vices, but maybe some do, like the once-a-week teachers, and I just haven’t tuned in to every one of them. If some of the every-day-TV-teachers do, then so much the better for them and the people they lead. But the ones who don’t teach, even in passing, avoiding the vices are withholding life lessons from God’s people. Jas. 3:1 (one of my life verses) says not to let there be many teachers, for they shall incur a stricter judgment. And Heb. 13:17 (another of my life verses) says that leaders will have to render an account for what they did. Be warned, teachers and pastors!
Everyone now knows (or should know) Jesus’s bottom-line point. Matt. 15:16-20 answers 15:11. We must avoid the vices, because they make us morally unclean. Food does not. Don’t confuse your priorities.
In any case, let there not be any confusion about Jesus being so loving that he overlooked people’s vices. No. He told everyone that the basic message of the kingdom is “Repent!” (Mark 1:15). His list is the vices that he can purge from us, on our repentance.
In v. 20 I wrote “person”: see v. 11 for more comments.
In the vice list, the vices are prohibited mostly in the second table of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:2-17; Deut. 5:6-21). “Jesus’s ethic stresses internal intention (cf. Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28), perhaps focusing on the tenth commandment (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21). This clashes not with the law of Moses but with the whole Pharisees’ oral tradition, which stresses external behavior” (Turner, comment on 15:15-20).
GrowApp for Matt. 15:1-20
1. It’s time to do a Moral Checkup. The vice list in v. 19 is strong. Do any of these vices dominate your heart? If they do, how do you clean them out? How have you been victorious over them, if they no longer do?
2. How do you honor your father and mother? Does honor mean always to “love” and “obey”?
RELATED
9. Authoritative Testimony in Matthew’s Gospel
1. Church Fathers and Matthew’s Gospel
2. Archaeology and the Synoptic Gospels
14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels
1. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Introduction to Series
SOURCES AND MORE
To see the bibliography, please click on this link and scroll down to the bottom. You will also find a “Summary and Conclusion” for discipleship.
Dr. Jim's Essential Bible Teaching 