ACC ~ Matthew 15 v1 - 9

OVERVIEW:

The motive of the scribes was their fear that someone might take away their power. They wanted others to be afraid of them (CHRYSOSTOM). Keeping food laws is not as important as guarding our speech (ORIGEN). God is less concerned with whether people wash hands ceremonially than whether they have kept their hearts washed and their consciences clean from evil. People are defiled not from the food that enters their mouths but from the perverse thoughts of their minds that proceed from their hearts (CHROMATIUS). Blindness can symbolize a lack of proper understanding about the teaching of the gospel. Persons who lack such an understanding should not be followed (ORIGEN). Erroneous teachings will be uprooted, even though they may extend their branches of infidelity for a short season (CHROMATIUS). The disciples were piously disregarding a tradition of the elders so as not to transgress a commandment of God (ORIGEN).

15:1 | The Scribes and Pharisees

THE SCRIBES CAME FROM JERUSALEM

ORIGEN: Pharisees and scribes came to him from Jerusalem. They did not come because they were amazed at the power in Jesus that healed people even if they “only touched the edge of his cloak.” [1] Instead, they came with a faultfinding attitude and brought an accusation before the teacher. The accusation did not concern the transgression of a commandment of God but rather the transgression of one tradition of the Jewish elders. Probably the charge of the faultfinders itself displays the piety of the disciples of Jesus, because they offered no grounds at all for criticism by the Pharisees and scribes in regard to transgressing the commandments of God. The Pharisees and scribes would not have brought the charge of transgressing the commandment of the elders against the disciples of Jesus if, indeed, they were able to get a firm hold on the ones who were being accused and were able to show that they were transgressing a commandment of God. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 11.8. [2]

[1] Mt 9:20; 14:36.

[2] GCS 40:46; ANF 9:437.

WHEN AND WHERE

CHRYSOSTOM: It says that the Pharisees and scribes came to him “then.” When? When he had worked thousands of signs, when he had healed the sick with the touch of his tassel. [1] It is for this reason that the Evangelist indicates the time, so that he might show that their unspeakable wickedness is second to none. But what is intended by the phrase “the scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem”? They were scattered everywhere throughout the tribes and were divided into twelve parts. But the ones who were in charge of the mother city were more wicked than the others, because they enjoyed more honor and had become extremely arrogant. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 51.1. [2]

[1] Cf. Mt 9:20; 14:36. The Greek word for the edge of the cloak sometimes refers to the tassel attached to the clothing when the word is used in the plural; cf. Num 15:38-41; Deut 22:12; Mt 23:5. But in this verse the word is used in the singular. So it probably refers only to the hemmed border of the cloth.

[2] PG 58:509-10; NPNF 1 10:314.

15:2 | The Traditions of the Elders

WHY TRANSGRESS THE TRADITION?

CHRYSOSTOM: Now consider with me how they are convicted even by the very act of asking the question. For they do not say, “Why do they transgress the law of Moses?” Instead they say, “Why do they transgress the tradition of the elders?” From this it is clear that the priests were instituting many new practices, even though Moses with great fear and with dreadful words had commanded that one should neither add nor take away anything. For he says, “Do not add to this word that I am commanding you today, and do not take away from it.” [1] But this did not at all stop them from instituting new practices. The issue here provides an example: eating with unwashed hands, which they thought unlawful. They focused inordinately on the outward rites of washing cups and things made of bronze and the rules for washing themselves. By this time they should have been released from needless observances. God’s timing had moved forward to that point. But just at that point they bound people up with many more observances. Why did they turn things upside down? Because they were afraid that someone might take away their power. They wanted others to be more afraid of them. They themselves had become the lawgivers. The issue of transgressing the traditions of the elders had gotten so inverted that they were insisting that their own commandments be kept even if God’s commandment was violated. They exercised so much obsessive control that the issue finally became a matter of formal legal accusation. But the indictment would instead fall against them in two ways. They themselves were instituting new practices and were devising punishments in regard to their own observances while placing no value on those instituted by God. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 51.1. [2]

[1] HE DEATH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST | MATTHEW 14:1-12

[2] PG 58:509-10; NPNF 1 10:314-15.

THEY DO NOT WASH THEIR HANDS

CHROMATIUS: Among other observations, some of the Jewish elders ruled that a person should not take or eat food unless he first washed his hands. This observation, however, reveals a particular custom that is human and produces no beneficial effect. Therefore this tradition of the elders is practically useless, for it does not benefit a person’s health. No justification is gained from this tradition, and no harm is done in disregarding it. For God is not concerned whether a man washes his hands before eating but whether he has kept his heart washed and his conscience clean from the filth of sin. Truly, what good is it to wash your hands and to have a defiled conscience? The Lord’s disciples were clean of heart and were guided by an untainted conscience. Hence they were not overly concerned with washing their hands. They had washed them once in baptism with their whole body, in accord with our Lord’s words to Peter: “He who has bathed needs only to wash, and he is clean all over, as you are clean.” [1] TRACTATE ON MATTHEW 53.1. [2]

[1] Jn 13:10.

[2] CCL 9a:461.

15:3-4 | Transgressing the Commandment of God

WHY DO YOU TRANSGRESS THE COMMAND OF GOD?

ORIGEN: The Savior summarized and explained two commandments of the law, one from the Decalogue in Exodus, the other from Leviticus or one of the other books in the Pentateuch. [1] We have already described how they set aside the word of God that says, “Honor your father and your mother.” They say, “One should not honor one’s father or mother if one has said to one’s father or mother, ‘Anything by which you might have derived benefit from me has been dedicated as a gift to God.’ ” But now someone might ask, Is not the next statement just an unrelated addition when it says, “Let the one who speaks maliciously against one’s father or mother die under the death penalty. For it may be granted that one does not honor one’s father and mother when one has dedicated by the formula called Corban the things that would be given for the honor of father and mother”? [2] But how does the tradition of the Pharisees also set aside the statement, “Let the one who speaks maliciously against one’s father or mother die under the death penalty”? Perhaps the answer is that it is just as if one was heaping malicious accusations on one’s father or mother if one has said to them, “Anything by which you might have derived benefit from me has been dedicated as a gift to God.” It is as if one is saying that the parents are temple robbers if they receive the things dedicated by the Corban formula from the one who has dedicated them by that formula. For this reason if any person’s sons say, “Anything by which you might have derived benefit from me has been dedicated as a gift to God,” Jews punish them as the law demands as if they were speaking maliciously against their father or mother. But you, Jesus says, are setting aside two commandments of God by your one tradition. Then you are not even ashamed when you accuse my disciples when they are not transgressing any commandment. For they were walking blamelessly in all the commandments and ordinances. [3] COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 11.10. [4]

[1] The first is from Ex 20:12 and Deut 5:16. The second is from Ex 21:17. The wording in Lev 20:9 is slightly different.

[2] Jews often introduced a vow by the formula Corban (“I hereby dedicate the following to God as a gift”). The word Corban is not found in Matthew’s version of this saying. It is derived from Mark’s version (Mk 7:11). Origen’s use of Mark’s version may be explained if Origen is relying partly on memory at this point. But it may also indicate Origen’s use of the Diatessaron, an ancient harmony of the Gospels that included quotations from all four Gospels. The Hebrew word Corban (and its Aramaic cognate) referred to a gift or offering dedicated to God for use in the temple or in other religious service. The word was used as a formula for making a strong vow.

[3] Lk 1:6.

[4] GCS 40:50; ANF 9:439.

15:5-6 | Making Void the Word of God

MISTAKEN ENDS

THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: The scribes were entirely preoccupied with something else. The Lord instead was teaching them to take care of the needs of the body, so long as they were encouraged to cultivate virtue. When the Pharisees observed his disciples unconcerned about washing, they censured him on the grounds that he had not taught them with enough care that it was a matter of utmost importance that they not eat what they had not washed. What reply, then, does the Lord make to this? “Why do you transgress the commandments of God for the sake of your tradition?” Thus he reframes the question into an even graver accusation. They had not only broken God’s command but also misused it for mistaken ends. The metaphor shifts: God had commanded that parents be honored by their children. That honor was owed to them to such an extent that whichever of their children sinned stubbornly against them merely by word would be condemned. [1] “But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father. You say that it is up to the children whether to honor their parents or not. You imply that a son says nothing out of bounds to a father when he says, “I will give a thank offering instead of taking care of you, my own father, and no further care is to be taken of you.” [2] In this way, by your own peculiar traditions, you yourselves are dishonoring the gifts of almighty God. FRAGMENT 79. [3]

[1] Deut 21:18-21.

[2] On Corban see p. 18 n. 10.

[3] MKGK 124-25.

15:7-8 | Hearts Far from God

THEIR HEART IS FAR FROM ME

ORIGEN: I have previously quoted [1] some of the words of Isaiah that precede the verse quoted in the Gospel and some of the words that follow the verse quoted in the Gospel. [2] In this way we may show the way in which the word promises that it will close “the eyes” of those of the people who were “out of their senses” and “drunken” and who had been given to drink a “spirit of stupefaction.” The word also promises to “close the eyes both of their prophets and their rulers” who claim to “see the hidden things.”

I suppose that these very things happened after the Savior had dwelt with these people. For “all the words,” the words of the Scriptures in their entirety and also those of Isaiah, became to them “as the words of a sealed book.” Now the word sealed was said as if the book was sealed with obscurity and not opened with clarity. The book is unclear to those who right from the start are “not able to read it” simply because “they are illiterate.” It is also equally unclear to “those who are literate” because they do not understand the meaning in the things that have been written.

Hence the word rightly adds to these things that the people would “fall into unconsciousness” because of their sins and would be “out of their senses” with madness against the word. [3] The word also adds that the people would “be drunk” against it “with a spirit of stupefaction.” The Lord would give them this “spirit of stupefaction” to drink when he “closed their eyes,” because they were unworthy of seeing. This would happen to the eyes of “both their prophets and their rulers” that claimed to “see the hidden things” of the mysteries in the divine Scriptures. The word says that when all these things had happened and when their eyes had been closed, then the prophetic words [4] would be sealed and concealed from them. This is exactly what the people experienced along with those who did not believe in Jesus as Messiah. COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 11.11. [5]

[1] Consult Is 29 in more detail to make the connection between what Origen says and what Matthew says.

[2] Mt 15:8-9 is a quotation from Is 29:13. Origen argues, however, that all of the words in Is 29:9-14 apply to the people Jesus was addressing, not just what Isaiah said in Is 29:13. These allusions are to Is 29:9-14.

[3] The phrase is literally either “with madness against it” or “with madness against him.” The pronoun could be either “it” (the word) or “him” (Jesus). The same ambiguity applies in the next sentence when it refers to being drunk “against it” or “against him.” The previous lines refer to “the book” and the following lines refer to the “Scriptures” and “the prophetic words.”

[4] Is 29:11.

[5] GCS 40:51; ANF 9:439-40.

15:9 | Teaching Human Precepts

IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME

CHRYSOSTOM: Did you notice that prophecy agrees exactly with what was said here and that it long ago predicted their evil? For this very thing with which the Messiah now indicts them was also said long ago by Isaiah. Isaiah said that they despise the things of God: “They worship me in vain.” [1] But Isaiah also said that they place great value on their own concerns: “They teach as commandments the teachings of human beings.” [2] Therefore, it was on reasonable grounds that the disciples did not keep these teachings. Jesus thus strikes them with a mortal blow. He does this on the basis of the circumstances, on the basis of their own covenant to which they had consented, and on the basis of the prophet who had intensified the grounds of the accusation. He does not talk with the scribes at all because they had ceased to accept any more correction. Instead, he directed his message to the crowds so that he could introduce doctrine that is high and great and full of philosophical insight. He took this as his starting point and finally wove in that which was greater, even throwing out the observance of kinds of food. But note when in the sequence of events this happens. When he has cleansed the leper; when he has nullified the Sabbath; when he has displayed himself as king of land and sea; when he has instituted laws; when he has forgiven sins; when he has raised dead people; when he has supplied them with many examples of his deity. It is then that he talks with them about food laws. For all of Judaism is held together by this; and if you take this away, you also have taken away the whole thing. THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, HOMILY 51.2-3. [3]

[1] Jesus quoted Is 29:13 in Mt 15:8-9. But the full significance of this quotation can best be understood by referring to the entire context of the verse from Isaiah rather than just the verse itself.

[2] Chrysostom follows a word order with a slightly different meaning from what is found in either Mt 15:9 or Is 29:13.

[3] PG 58:512-13; NPNF 1 10:316. This quotation from Chrysostom is highly instructive because it epitomizes a number of key points that early developed into what later became “Christian” anti-Semitism (a phrase that should have been an oxymoron): a claim that the Israelite prophets foretold the demise of Jewish tradition; the transformation of the internal Jewish debate between Jesus and his opponents into a debate between Gentile Christians and Judaism as a whole; the image of a non-Jewish Jesus who rejects Judaism and Jewish tradition; the notion that Jews were so incorrigible that they and their belief system had to be eliminated and replaced; the legitimation of vituperation and hostility toward Jews.