Matthew 15:1–20

The scribes were people learned in the law. The Pharisees belonged to the religious sect people admired most. As Paul says, "according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee" (Acts 26:5). And they came from Jerusalem, the very centre of the order God had set up. So everything that could give the weight of authority to "religion" was there.

First, we have certain religious guides, the scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem. They had the best spiritual opportunities of their nation. They came dressed in everything that looked ancient and outwardly holy.

Certain Pharisees and scribes had come up to Galilee from Jerusalem. They criticised the disciples for eating bread with unwashed hands. Among the simple, unschooled country people (John 7:48-49), they took on the professional role of authoritative interpreters of the law of Moses... Crowds of Galilean folk were flocking to hear the Prophet of Nazareth, and no one could deny it. So they had come down from the centre of religious learning and zeal. They came to make a formal investigation of the claims and teaching of Jesus, and to condemn the preacher and the doctrine as contrary to the approved standards of the Sanhedrin.

Into this lovely scene came scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem. They brought a complaint and a question: the disciples were not keeping the tradition of the elders about the washing of hands. Just imagine the scene. The Son of God was giving out healing on every hand, in the fullness of divine grace. These men were utterly blind to all that was happening, and they broke in with their point of order. Blinded by legal technicalities, they could not see divine grace working in power. Such a state of mind would seem unbelievable, if the same Pharisaic mind were not still at work today, busy with points of this kind, based on tradition and common usage and not on the plain and definite word of God.

The Old Testament scriptures say nothing at all about such washing of hands. But the oral law has rule upon rule about this ceremony. It treats neglect of the rule as a great sin, deserving expulsion from the community. The rules even allowed a person to eat unclean meat and drink unclean drinks, which the law forbids. He only had to keep the traditions of the elders and wash his hands before he broke the law.

He does not go round about and debate the question of this tradition. It might be right enough in some sense. At any rate it looked respectable to people, backed by the learning of the scribes and by the religiousness of the Pharisees, and it suited Jerusalem. But He says, "You are flying in the face of God by your tradition!"... To the Pharisees, this tradition was the tradition of the elders. But to Christ, it was "you" and "your tradition." He takes hold of them.

When I speak of the system, I speak of their whole moral condition. Hypocrisy organised it — a hypocrisy that sought to hide wickedness, while increasing it in the sight of God, before whom they presented themselves. They used His name to sink lower, under the pretence of piety, than the laws of natural conscience. This is how a religious system becomes the great instrument of the power of the enemy. That is especially true when God Himself set up the thing whose name it still bears.

The scribes were men learned in the law. The Pharisees belonged to the sect most respected in religion. As Paul says, "according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee" (Acts 26:5). And they were "of Jerusalem," the very centre of the system God had set up. So everything that could give weight and authority to "religion" was there.

Scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem broke into this lovely scene with their complaint and question: the disciples were not keeping the tradition of the elders about washing hands. Just imagine it. The Son of God was giving out healing everywhere in the fullness of divine grace, and these men, blind to all that was happening, broke in with their point of order.

The Old Testament says nothing at all about such washing of hands. But the oral law piles up rule after rule about this ceremony. Neglect it, and people counted that a great sin, worthy of being cut off from the community. A person was even allowed to eat unclean meat and drink unclean drinks, which the law forbade, as long as he kept the traditions of the elders and washed his hands before he broke the law.

There was nothing moral in this. Nothing in it could touch the soul or affect a man's relationship with God. But it went against their traditions, and so they found fault. It is easy to imagine that this tradition began from a devout motive. These leaders may have meant to keep the importance of personal purity before the people. Washing the hands would be a very natural sign that God looks for and insists on holiness in the works of His people. The great principle of the word is this: God is infinitely wise and holy, and where He gives no command of His own, woe to the man who takes away liberty. Man takes advantage of the opening. Where God has not laid down a law, he makes one of his own.

They come to Him with the question, which of course is an accusation. As a charge against His disciples, it is by implication a charge against Him, their teacher. Here they had what in their minds convicted the disciples as very obvious sinners. For these men, breaking such a tradition was a greater sin than breaking the law itself.

But Jesus at once puts both scribes and Pharisees, and their tradition, in direct contact with God. He says to them, "Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" He does not go around in circles arguing the question of this tradition. It might be right enough in some sense, and man respected it. But He says, "You are flying in the face of God by your tradition!" To the Pharisees, this tradition was the tradition of the elders. To Christ, it was "you" and "your tradition."

They did not merely set aside one commandment so that they might keep their tradition. By setting up another authority, they made void the whole word of God, which claims all authority. If another can direct, then I am not sole master, and the man is not my servant. Not only is the servant misled; the master is set aside. Anyone who adds one small stroke sets aside God's authority and His revealed will as authority. If it is only about washing my hands, another can step in and claim obedience — the word of God is not the sole authoritative rule.

The Lord goes straight to the conscience. He does not open a theoretical discussion about tradition. He does not argue with them about the authority of the elders. He takes hold at once of the plain fact: in their zeal for the tradition of the elders, they were setting themselves squarely against the clear, definite commandment of God.

But Jesus at once brings both scribes and Pharisees, and their tradition, into direct contact with God... This tradition might be right enough in some sense. At the very least it was respected by men, backed by the learning of the scribes and by the religiousness of the Pharisees, and it looked proper in Jerusalem. But He says, "You are flying in the face of God by your tradition!" He closes the point at once, and drops the elders and everything else. A man may plead tradition, the authority of age and the like, but in fact he does so only to clothe himself with it. To the Pharisees, this tradition was the tradition of the elders; but to Christ, it was "you" and "your tradition."

These traditions of the elders were explanations of the law, additions to it, and conclusions drawn from it by respected teachers of long ago. They took over the minds of the Pharisees and clouded the law of God from view. It went so far that they broke the law in order to keep their tradition.

Tradition can be described as teaching handed down by word of mouth. It may be from God, as in 2 Thessalonians 2:15... instruction handed down before the word of God was complete. Or it may be from man, like the tradition of the elders of Israel. The Lord condemned that tradition and said it overturned the commandments of God... What man sets up, man holds on to most tightly.

He does not deal with the washing of hands, though; that was an empty rule, hardly worth mentioning. But He does rebuke a tradition of theirs that openly cancelled the commandment of God. To honour father and mother was one of the original ten commandments. Yet the Jews had invented a tradition that let a son or daughter point to something he owned that could have met his parents' need and call it "Corban," that is, a gift given to God. By this trick he avoided helping his parents.

They did not only set aside one commandment in order to keep their tradition. By doing this they rejected and cancelled the authority of the whole word of God... When I set up another authority, I push aside and cancel the whole word of God, which claims all authority. If someone else can give orders, I am not the only master, and the man is not my servant... Even if it is only about washing my hands, another person can interfere and claim obedience — and the word of God is no longer the only rule that has authority.

(1) laid aside the commandment of God (Mark 7:8); (2) rejected the commandment of God (Mark 7:9); (3) transgressed the commandment of God (Matt. 15:3); (4) made void the word of God (Matt. 15:6; Mark 7:13).

The quotations from the Old Testament in the New are important as proving beyond dispute that God is the author of the whole. It is not simply that Moses or David said this or that. The quotations do prove that Moses wrote the first five books. But words such as "God commanded" introduce them, as in Matthew 15:4… So whatever is marked with "It is written" carries the authority of God Himself.

We are not to suppose that the Lord in any sense took away from the divine origin of the law… Both records are, of course, true. Our Lord's full statement was that (1) God spoke, and (2) He spoke through the mouth of His servant Moses. Each writer included the part of the Lord's words that best suited his own account. Matthew shows that the tradition of the elders clashed with the words of God. Mark stresses that it clashed with the sayings of the nation's lawgiver.

First, then, the Lord brings forward the law of Moses, the word of God: "Honor your father and your mother." This command clearly made it binding on the Jews to support their parents when they needed it. (See Proverbs 3:9 for a similar use of the word "honour.") But they wanted to escape this duty, and they invented a religious excuse. They taught that if a man devoted his property to God for His service, he no longer had to honour his parents. So they said, "It is Corban" — meaning a gift, or something set apart for sacred use — to excuse themselves from their responsibility.

The Lord, then, confronts the Pharisees with what God commanded. Honour to parents was valued by God; and disrespect was deadly in His sight.

The law also displays the severity of God. It pronounces the death sentence on sins that today we do not count as deserving death… though we must remember that the wages of sin — of all sin — is death. The sentence our Lord quoted in Matthew 15:4 is one of them.

Just consider what an issue this was. A man sees his father and mother in need. He has earthly goods that would relieve them. But the tradition-makers have invented a plan to benefit so-called religion at the cost of a son's duty. If a man said "Corban," the duty changed completely. What the parent should have received now had to go to the priest. No matter what the need of father and mother, that word "Corban" stopped all action of heart or conscience.

Children being subject to their parents is part of God's order as seen in nature. Under the law, God attached a special blessing to keeping the commandment that gave this duty. Christianity takes up the duty, but moves it from natural to divine ground… It is not only what nature calls for, though that is right in itself. It is recognising the Lord's own claims, which the parents represent. The blessed Lord Himself, who "learned obedience," was the beautiful example of this.

This command clearly made it a duty for the Jews to support their parents, if that was needed. (See Proverbs 3:9, for a similar use of the word "honour.") But they wanted to escape this responsibility, so they invented a pious excuse. They taught that if a man devoted his property to God for His service, he was released from the duty of honouring his parents. So they said, "It is Corban" — that is, a gift, or a thing set apart for sacred uses — to excuse himself from his responsibility.

The things that came under "Corban" were not things God demanded. If they had been, His demand would have prevailed. Some things could be dedicated, if a man wished; but supporting parents was a distinct command. Pharisaic tradition let a man use an optional rule to avoid obeying a distinct command. They might back their tradition with clever but false arguments that sounded pious, but the Lord charged them with nullifying the Word of God.

Just consider what an issue this was. A man sees his father and mother in need. He has received the earthly goods that would relieve them. But the tradition-makers have invented a plan to benefit so-called religion at the cost of his duty to parents. If a man said "Corban," the duty changed completely. What the parent should have received must now go to the priest. No matter what the need of father and mother, that word "Corban" stopped all action of heart or conscience. The leaders had invented the scheme to secure property for religious purposes, and to keep people from any trouble of conscience about the word of God.

Edersheim says this was often done even though the money never went to the temple service at all. The Jewish elders had ruled officially that such a declaration cancelled a man's obligation to his parents.

The Jews had brought in a trick (to quiet their consciences) that let them escape the obligation to meet their duties to their parents. They had only to pronounce the word, "It is a gift" (Corban), and a parent might be forgotten!... And this is what tradition usually does. To add to Scripture is ruinous. It does not matter who does it, or what holy motives men claim. God is jealous about it, and will not have His word enlarged or amended. Revelation is complete, and our simple business is to be obedient to the word of God.

This was simply a matter of the tradition sanctifying the cold-hearted selfishness of the son. Such a pretence is contemptible, of course. But the Pharisees encouraged it, and so made the Word of God of no effect. It was not merely a tradition added to the Word (which is bad enough), but a tradition opposing God's Word... This was only one example. Once men despise the Word of God in the smallest matter, their cunning deceit soon undermines anything and everything it pleases.

Satan is always watching to stop us from adorning God's doctrine. He tempts our flesh to look for excuses to escape duties. Those duties are often heavy and trying, but they still stand in the plain path of Scriptural obedience... You can make the word of God of no effect by dishonouring a smaller duty out of a pretended zeal for something greater. That snare is very common among those who profess the faith of Christ.

This command clearly required the Jews to support their parents when they needed it. (See Proverbs 3:9, where the word "honour" is used the same way.) But they wanted to escape this responsibility, so they invented a religious-sounding excuse. They taught that if a man gave his property to God for His service, he was released from the duty of honouring his parents. So they said, "It is Corban" — that is, a gift, or something set apart for sacred use — to excuse themselves from their responsibility.

The things that came under "Corban" were not things God demanded. If they had been, His demand would have won. A man could dedicate certain things if he wished, but the duty to support parents was a clear command. Pharisee tradition let a man use an optional permission to avoid obeying a clear command. They might try to back up their tradition with clever arguments that sounded religious, but the Lord charged them with cancelling the Word of God. The written words of Exodus 20:12 were to Jesus "the Word of God."

These four terms, used of this one sin, seem to mark a rising scale of error. At the start the commandment is (1) pushed aside or ignored. Then it is (2) rejected and its claims refused. Next it is (3) crossed and broken. Last of all it is (4) made useless and void, because a human rule takes its place.

They did not only set aside one commandment so they could keep their tradition. By doing this they cancelled and rejected the authority of the whole word of God. If I break one command, I am guilty of all. But when I set up another authority, I push aside and cancel the whole word of God, which claims all authority. If someone else can give orders, I am not the only master, and the man is not my servant. The servant is misled, and the master is pushed aside as well... Even if it is only about washing my hands, someone else can step in and claim obedience — so the word of God is not the only authoritative rule.

It was for their own profit. It does not matter whether it was money or something else. In man's hands, religion is always turned to a selfish end. He wears it to give himself weight in front of others.

It is common for people who claim to belong to God to prefer human rules and regulations to the plain teaching of His blessed Word... Since the Lord spoke like this, the Scriptures have been completed. The whole revelation of God is in our hands. Yet most people in the Christian world obey church regulations and human orders far more than they obey the wholesome Word of God!

Hypocrisy is pretending to be what we are not. By their religious acts they made a show of deep devotion in front of others. By their words they claimed to reverence God. But their hearts were far from God.

Hypocrisy is the opposite of sincerity. It is playing a part in something that is either the most solemn and most precious of all realities, or else a mere story. How awful to make the truth of God a game of man for a little while!

The Lord did not answer the Pharisees on His own authority. He condemned these fault-finders by quoting the prophecy of Isaiah. He did not discuss with them whether this particular tradition was lawful. Instead He brought the written word of God to bear on their spiritual state. Their zeal was undeniable, but it was not according to God.

So in Isaiah's day the people of Judah showed an outward regard for the law of Moses and for the worship of God. But they had no inward reverence for Jehovah Himself. In the Lord's day it was so again with the people. Their house was swept of idols and decorated with "pious" deeds, but it was an empty shrine. Though God was on their tongues, He was not in their thoughts.

These were not sinners in the common sense of the word — that is, irreligious people with no profession or thought about God. Quite the opposite. What is said of them here is, "This people draws near to me with their mouth and honours me with their lips; but their heart is far from me."… There is a worship which is worshipping God in vain.

With the Pharisees, this was not merely following tradition. They used tradition to indulge their hypocritical selfishness… These men pretended great zeal for the law, yet all the while their tradition was destroying it. It dishonoured God's own authority in the earthly relationships He had established and honoured.

They were hypocrites, and He told them so plainly. Isaiah's scathing condemnation fell on them. This kind of religious wickedness always shows up in men whose hearts are far from God, who still honour Him with their lips, while they put their own rules and commandments in the place of His word. All such worship in name only is empty and in vain. Yet a true believer can easily get caught up in such things today.

So in Isaiah's day the people of Judah had an outward regard for the law of Moses and for the worship of God. But they had no inward reverence for Jehovah Himself. In the Lord's day it was so again with the people. Their house was swept of idols and decorated with "pious" deeds, but it was an empty shrine. Though God was on their tongues, He was not in their thoughts. So the Lord gave this solemn warning to people who were living an empty show. The Pharisees offered lip-service, and those who set out to please people offer eye-service. How could either be acceptable to Him who does not look on the outward appearance, but judges the heart?

I would say the passage in Matthew is the stronger one. It sets out the Jewish people in their sin, represented by the Pharisees He was speaking to… In Matthew it is the character of the people. The whole people did so. It was their common guilt.

They were not sinners in the usual sense of the word — not irreligious, with no profession or thought about God. Quite the opposite. What is said of them here is, "this people draws near to me"… "But," He adds, "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." So all this religion and religious activity is swept away at once… There is a worship which is worshipping God in vain.

As to the flesh, the Gentile was far off from God on the outside. The Jew was near on the outside, but morally he was as far off as the Gentile. Speaking to the Jews, the Lord has to say, "This people draws near to me with their mouth… but their heart is far from Me."

Notice what went with this condition, and was probably its chief cause. Human rules had taken the place of the Word of God and of His fear. The Word had lost its place of authority. Rules and tradition became their guide for conduct. They lived in fear of what men thought and taught, instead of the fear of God. As a result the Word was a sealed book to them.

It is sobering to realise how near we all often come to the condition where these words are literally true of us. For the writers of these Psalms, their joy in God was their treasure. So their hearts were seeking Him, and their feet were in the way of worship.

They were not sinners in the usual sense — not irreligious, with no claim about God and no thought of Him. Quite the opposite; here the verse says of them, "This people draws near to Me." … The Lord dismisses all this religion and religiousness at once. The "washing of hands" might have looked right, since the Lord Himself uses water as a picture of purity. But it served their own ends. The Lord says that whatever it was, it was a commandment of men — that was all. And it was in vain. There is a worship which is worshipping God in vain.

This quotation marks out two evils for condemnation — (1) Insincerity before God — honouring Him with the lip, but not caring about Him in the heart. (2) Putting human authority in the place of God's — trying to worship Him by the commandments of men instead of by His own will.

The New Testament uses a particular and uncommon Greek word for commandments that come from man. The usual word is entole. But entalma occurs only three times — in Mark 7:7, in the parallel passage, Matthew 15:9, and in Colossians 2:22 — each time in the phrase "the commandments of men." … In all these passages the word seems to point especially to moral maxims and rules of conduct. Men tried to lay these on the shoulders of others as heavy burdens. But the Lord showed they had no authority.

Scripture calls it the tradition of the elders, and man calls it that too, because it carries authority with him. But the Lord calls all tradition "your tradition." Man's religion glorifies man; it is his. … Nothing is so dear to a man as the cover for his own corruption, or so full of Satan's power as false religion. … Then, if I add anything, God is imperfect in what He gave as a guide. In fact I always put something in its place, and I must. His guide is perfect for the man of God, so this is the natural man's subtlest substitute. But if God has been imperfect in one small point, I can count on Him in none of the rest.

The Lord puts His finger straight on this moral disease. He shows that God was as far as possible from accepting the worship of these hypocrites. He shows too that the commandments of men could only push God aside and exalt man, to the harm of God's glory. They cancelled the commandments of God. The false authority of man invaded His worship, and man replaced God in what acted on the heart.

God refuses this sort of honour altogether. "In vain do they worship Me," says the prophet Isaiah, and the Lord repeats it. God wants a pure heart, sanctified by the Spirit and by the truth. He wants worship offered in spirit and in truth. The Father is seeking such to worship Him. He wants grace, but no one draws near to God without truth — without a heart where the divine life is. The Lord judges all this human religion — outward, Pharisaical, priestly — once and for all.

Isaiah's severe words fell on them. This kind of religious wickedness always shows up in men whose hearts are far from God while their lips honour Him. They put their own rules and commandments in the place of His word. All such worship in name only is empty and in vain. Yet a true believer can easily get tangled in these things today.

We can guard ourselves against the twofold danger named in the quotation from Isaiah. First, by the self-discipline that keeps the soul in a true sense of God's greatness and man's unworthiness. Second, by full submission to Scripture, our only guide to God's revealed will for man.

The Lord sets all this aside. He calls up the "multitude" — no matter who or what they might be. We are told in Matthew 9:36 that they were "like sheep without a shepherd." And He addresses Himself directly and completely to what is within. He passes by all that Satan had known how to use to blind the conscience, and He goes at once to the root of the matter.

The Lord called the crowds together again and gave them the truth on this subject in simple, short words, such as they might "hear and understand." He spoke to the crowds directly, with no one in between. These simple peasants of Galilee could drink from the well-spring of truth itself. He called everyone to pay attention to Him, and to lay hold of His words.

Without fear, which He never knew, He publicly declares that the teachings of the sayings of the elders are evil. A simple truth, indeed. And yet how many professing Christians have not grasped the very first principle: the evil is within, and this is what defiles the man.

The Lord's subject in this saying is not the means of cleansing, but the cause of defilement... How then does a man become unclean? Is it by the polluting influence of outside things entering his body? The Lord declared that a man's uncleanness comes from the inner motives behind his words and actions. No one can bring a clean thing out of an unclean.

So much for man in his religious state. But He calls the crowds to hear that man in his purely natural state is defiled. He is defiled not by anything that goes into his mouth, but by all that comes out of it. For all the streams of outward activity only flow from the heart — the defiled spring of every defiling thing.

The Lord therefore calls the crowd together to Him. He gives the most public statement of something that may seem to us so simple, and yet which a large mass of professing Christians have not even yet reached: "it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person." The source of defilement for a man is, sadly, within him... Brought into the clear light, such a principle commends itself to every man's conscience. But the Pharisees would resent it all the more.

In verse 10 He calls the crowd to Him, and speaks to them in such plain words that you would think they would be the ones to be offended; but we are told that it was the Pharisees, the religious leaders, who were offended.

Notice where "understanding" lies in God's estimate — always in the conscience. He is not producing learned men, though He does speak wisdom to those who are mature. He is bringing sinners to heaven. His dealings are with the heart and the conscience. Whether it is a parable or anything else, I have no "understanding" of it until my conscience is at work and before God by faith.

So the Lord called the crowds together again. He gave them the truth on this subject in simple, short language — the kind they could "hear and understand." He spoke to the crowds Himself, with no go-between, so that these simple farmers of Galilee could drink from the well-spring of truth itself.

He never knew fear. So He publicly declares the evil teachings found in the sayings of the elders. A simple truth, indeed — and yet how many professing Christians have never grasped this very first principle: the evil that defiles a man is within him.

The Lord's subject in this saying is not the means of cleansing, but the cause of defilement… He now instructs those who are untaught in the law about the true source of defilement. Cleansing assumes defilement. How, then, does man become unclean? Is it by the polluting influence of outside things entering his body? The Lord declared that the inner motives from which a man's words and actions spring are the cause of his uncleanness. No one can bring a clean thing out of an unclean one. … The things that mattered most were those that came out of a man. His plans, his motives, his desires, his character, his moral tone — these made a man a centre of power, spreading influence either for good or for evil.

There are no such things for the Christian as the clean and unclean foods that there were for the Jews. The Lord makes that very clear: it is from the heart that evil proceeds.

The great general snare is denying the evil of men. The deception Satan constantly uses now is the idea that man is not so bad, and that moral culture can improve him. The progress of the world is astonishing, they say. There are societies for promoting every good cause and for the improvement of man. People look for the faults in the circumstances and surroundings instead of in man. Here is a word that passes judgment on all these efforts of men together… The real secret of man's terrible condition is his heart. This affects everything that comes out.

Here we are all in the same case, whatever the apparent differences in outward life. "Every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" is not just a description of the world before the flood. It is the truth about the heart of man everywhere and at all times. It is the defiled spring of everything that defiles. The moment God brought Isaiah to his true position before Him, grace answered by removing his guilt. There was no delay at all.

…many Christians consider only externals and forget that the real index of what defiles is what a person allows to come out of his mouth. For these come from the heart. The heart is the source of evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false witness, and blasphemies… If the mouth expresses hatred, that is the principle of murder (1 John 3:15). Someone who is adulterous will usually give it away by corrupt language. A thief will likely speak in a greedy way. Wisely indeed does Proverbs 4:23 tell us, "Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life."

The Pharisees did not like what the Lord said. He said that hypocrisy about outward forms had taken the place of truth in the inner person. He said that man's heart, even with all his law-keeping religion, was a source of nothing but evil. At this they were greatly "offended" (v. 12), and His disciples told Him so.

In verse 10 He calls the crowd to Him. He speaks to them in such plain words that you would think they would be the ones to take offence. But we are told that it was the Pharisees, the religious leaders, who took offence.

True of the first century, it is true of our own day. The disease is chronic. What is more, rebuke is unbearable. "They were offended when they heard this saying." They are offended still. Nothing offends more quickly, more deeply, or more unforgivably than exposing a false religion. And here is a strange contradiction: the more false and foolish it is, the tighter people hold on to it!

If the truth offends, it is because one prefers falsehood to truth.

"Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" the disciples said to our Lord. He had just spoken out boldly against the outward religion of the leaders of the people. They were afraid of what such faithfulness would cost. They may have admitted that what our Lord said was true, but they shrank from stirring up opposition. Sadly, we know a great deal of this timidity when opposition looms. What will people say? What will our friends say? How often this has stopped someone whose conscience is awake about his path! It keeps him from simply obeying God, whatever people say.

The enemy will always be offended when God is moving, but true faith goes forward and fears no foe.

The disciples did not altogether relish what the Lord had been saying. They might not be offended themselves. But they were inclined to sympathise with those who were. Our Lord answers even more sternly: "Every plant that My heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up." What is needed is new life from God, not an improvement of the old. So a plant of heavenly origin must be planted, and the heavenly Father must do it. Every other plant will be rooted up. "Let them alone; they are blind leaders of the blind." Reasoning with these Pharisees is useless.

As Isaiah had predicted, the Lord of hosts was in the middle of the nation even then. He was a sanctuary for those who would come to Him. But He was there also "a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem," and "many shall stumble on it. They shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken" (Isa. 8:14-15). The Stone of Israel was in lowly form then, and the proud Pharisees stumbled at Him and His sayings (Matt. 15:12).

These words do not only show the doom of the Jewish Pharisees. They also speak of the doom of what His heavenly Father has not planted — Christendom. It will be rooted up and then cast out along with its boasted leaders, who are only leaders of the blind.

The disciples report to the Lord that the Pharisees had taken offense at what He had said. But we must not water down the solemn truth of it in any way. If the truth offends, it is because someone prefers falsehood to truth. The Lord's reply is decisive and cuts deep. Every plant which His heavenly Father had not planted would be rooted up. Enemies of the truth are not the planting of the Father. They may be very careful about religious tradition, yet in heart be thoroughly opposed to God.

But our Lord answers still more sternly: "Every plant that My heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up." There must be a new life from God, not an improving of the old one. A plant must be of heavenly origin, then, and the heavenly Father must plant it. Every other plant will be rooted up. "Let them alone: they are blind leaders of the blind." Reasoning with these Pharisees is a waste of time. What they need is first principles, and the work of God in their souls. He did not apply this to the crowd, but to the leaders who stumbled at the truth of man's total corruption. Such people are best left to themselves.

It is written in the prophets, "And they will all be taught by God." "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." It is plain that, since they rejected His teaching, they had not heard from the Father. They were not God's children. Had He said on that occasion "your Father," it would have reminded the disciples of the relationship they had with God. But by saying "My heavenly Father," the Lord would impress on everyone the absolute necessity of listening to His Father, and of being plants of His planting.

The Lord Jesus Himself said, "Every plant that My heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up" (Matt. 15:13); showing that planting is a picture of setting someone in a place of blessing.

These words not only show the doom of the Jewish Pharisees, they also speak of the doom of that which His heavenly Father has not planted — Christendom. It will be rooted up and then cast out along with its boasted leaders, who are only leaders of the blind.

We have God's grace and God's sovereignty in verse 13. The Father's name is always connected with grace.

Each of us ought to realise that nothing worse can happen to us than to be left alone. If God gives up a soul, it is all over with it.

Is Jesus your Saviour and Lord? If He is, you may look forward to the great transplanting with confidence. But remember, your turning to Him must be real, for the Lord Himself said, "Every plant that My heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up" (Matt. 15:13). Only if you have been planted in grace here by the hand of God will you be planted in glory there, when Jesus comes again.

The disciples did not much like what the Lord had been saying... But our Lord answers even more sternly, "Every plant that My heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up." The need is for a new life from God, not for an improvement of the old one. So a plant of heavenly origin must be planted, and the heavenly Father must do the planting. Every other plant will be rooted up. "Let them alone: they are blind leaders of the blind." Reasoning with these Pharisees is completely useless. They need first principles, and the work of God in their souls. So all discussion is pointless... He did not apply this to the crowd, but to the leaders, who stumbled at the teaching that man is totally corrupt.

"Let them alone," He says — a terrible sentence from the lips of the Son of God! Yet if men want this proud independence, God may leave them alone to enjoy the folly they have chosen. He does not hold them back with His wise and loving hand — the hand the believer knows he needs and values.

They were blind themselves and misleading others who were blind also. God would deal with them in His government, and the disciples were to leave them alone and not retaliate.

"Blind guides" — they did not know where they were going. John shows us that. So with all their pretension they were blind. They ask, in John 9, "Are we also blind?" They were assuming to be guides. The language means that there is an awful end for those under their influence.

The phrase "blind leaders" alludes to the shepherds' custom, when angry with their flock, of giving them a blind sheep as a leader. And so of bad administrators of a town.

The "blind" here are first of all the Jewish leaders. But the follower will not escape the ditch just by being a follower. The truth speaks for itself to anyone who has ears to hear. The man who hands himself over completely to another's leadership has his conscience before man, not before God. Even the Lord rests His right to be heard on the truth of what He said: "If I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me?"... Whatever a man yields himself to will shape him.

That companies of professing Christians should choose a teacher is entirely foreign to Scripture and shows how far Christendom has departed from the order of God for His assembly. The result of this disorder is that too often the chosen teacher is but a blind leader of the blind, and "if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

There is a great principle here, in "let them alone." Now mark — if you have a blind leader, and you are blind yourself, the ditch is the only end of your road. Christianity, however, is not the blind leading the blind; nor the seeing leading the blind; but the seeing leading the seeing. God delights to give us light so that we can see His things. But enjoying them and using them well depends entirely on our subjection to Christ, to the Holy Spirit, and to the Scriptures.

Peter said to the Lord, "Explain the parable to us" (Matthew 15:15; compare Matthew 13:36). Later, at Joppa and at Antioch, this same apostle failed to put the Lord's teaching into practice (Acts 10:14; Galatians 2:12). He was now the spokesman for the rest, all the disciples making the inquiry through him, as Mark tells us (Mark 7:17). None of them had grasped what the Lord's saying meant. But they differed in spirit from the Pharisees: they did not know, yet they wanted to know.

It is strange that he should call plain truth a "parable," that is, "a dark saying." But he was still full of hope in the first man. So the Lord's teaching no doubt sounded strange to him, and was plainly unwelcome. The Lord's answer only showed him his own moral blindness. He says, "Are you also still without understanding?"

Peter answers and says to Him, "Explain the parable to us." What did he mean by calling it a parable? He did not understand it himself. Here was the very chief of the twelve apostles, and he cannot understand our Lord. The Lord tells them that man is altogether wrong — his heart most of all. What comes out of him is what is evil, not what goes in. And this is a parable! The difficulty of Scripture arises less from difficult language than from unwelcome truth. Truth is contrary to people's wishes; they cannot see it, because they do not like to receive it.

The disciples do not understand, and ask for an explanation. The tradition of the elders had blinded their natural intelligence. The way of reasoning they had taken from those elders' authority had spoiled their understanding. And do we not in fact find many who believe that what enters a man's mouth defiles him? And yet these are sincere souls.

None of them, not even the best, saw much beyond the letter of the law with its offerings and ceremonial rules. So they had very little sense of its convicting power. They cared about what went into their mouths, so that they might be ceremonially clean. The law, if understood spiritually, concerns itself with the state of the heart.

We see here a craving to hear something new, instead of a conscience before God. It is a step lower down, so to speak, in Pharisaism… And notice where "understanding" is, in God's estimate — always in the conscience. He is not producing learned men, but He is bringing sinners to heaven. His dealings are with the heart and conscience. It may be a parable or anything else. I have no "understanding" of it until my conscience is at work, and before God by faith.

With our gracious Lord no honest inquiry was ever rebuked or refused. With great pains He always sought to lead hesitating ones into the full light of God, for their blessing… What stronger proof could we have that it is not reformation men need, but a new creation! And what proof, too, that outward observances can never be enough on their own, because they cannot reach what is within!

Verse 16 is a rebuke. "Are you also still without understanding?" There was nothing unclear in what the Lord had been saying. It shows here that man has a radically bad nature, and the evil is not from without, but from within — from the heart.

There seems some reproach in this question. The Pharisees had not understood. The people did not understand. But how was it that the Lord's own company did not understand Him? He said to the people, Listen and understand. Yet the apostles also failed to understand. By His question the Lord implies that they were to blame for admitting such ignorance.

What did he mean by calling it a parable? He did not understand it himself. Here was one, the very chief of the twelve apostles. He cannot understand our Lord when He tells them that man is altogether wrong — his heart most of all. What comes out of a man makes him evil, not what goes in. And this is a parable! The difficulty of Scripture comes less from difficult language than from unwelcome truth. Truth is contrary to people's wishes; they cannot see it, because they do not like to receive it.

The tradition of the elders had blinded their natural intelligence. The way of reasoning they took from that authority had spoiled their understanding. And do we not find many who believe that what goes into a man's mouth defiles him? And yet they are sincere souls. They also believe that eating a certain food on one day defiles, while on another day it does not. This too comes from the tradition of the elders. Here we see the Lord's judgment against many things that keep many souls in bondage — sincere souls even, like the disciples.

We see here a hankering after hearing something new, instead of the conscience before God... They have something between the conscience and God. And notice where the "understanding," in God's estimate, is — always in the conscience. He is not making learned men, but He is bringing sinners to heaven. His dealings are with the heart and conscience. It may be a parable or anything else. I have no "understanding" of it until my conscience is at work, and before God by faith.

What stronger proof could we have that it is not reformation men need, but a new creation! And what proof, too, that outward observances can never be enough on their own. They cannot reach what is inside. In answer to Peter's question the Lord Jesus sets out man's own inborn corruption. If men only realised it, surely they would stop trifling with priests and what they do. They would hurry at once to the Saviour's feet. There alone they find blessing for eternity.

Things stood in the way. Weakness of nature, fleshly assumptions and selfish interests clouded their spiritual sight. But the Patient Teacher was ready to repeat His words and to expand His teaching. Hearing them again, they might understand. Simplicity of heart was the character suited to the kingdom of God... All knowledge would stay partial until the Spirit came at Pentecost. Then the truth would no longer be told in parables.

What did he mean by calling it a parable? He did not understand it himself. Here was the chief of the twelve apostles, and he cannot understand our Lord. The Lord tells them that man is altogether wrong — his heart most of all. What comes out of a man is what makes him evil, not what goes in. And this is a parable! The difficulty of Scripture comes less from hard language than from truth people do not want to hear. Truth goes against what people wish; they cannot see it, because they do not like to receive it.

Whatever physical food one eats does not have any spiritual effect. It affects the stomach, and so the body's condition, but not the heart. Here the heart stands for the spiritual inner being of the person. God had made provision for physical purging (or cleansing) in the disposal of waste. But there was a far more serious issue involved in spiritual defilement.

Leaving aside the man-made rules He had already condemned in their hearing, He wanted them to know that "whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him." Eating certain meats would not make a man morally unclean, as the Jews held. From the bondage of this tradition, the truth which came by Jesus Christ set them free.

This cuts at the root of all worldly religion of the flesh, which deals only with outward things and leaves the heart untouched. God works from within and deals with the conscience and heart. The real source of defilement is not a man's environment but himself. It is true that man is a fallen creature. If he goes into scenes of evil and temptation, his surroundings will stir up the lusts within him. But even so the source of the evil is from within. An angel can pass through Sodom and not be defiled, but not so Lot. There was no evil heart in the angel to answer to sin; there was in Lot.

This is what both your heart and mine contains, dear reader. If the worst of these evils have not broken out, it is because of the mercy of God in the surroundings He has been pleased to set us in. But the evils are certainly within us. They are only waiting for the chance to show themselves in all their ugliness. What stronger proof could we have that it is not reformation men need, but a new creation! And what proof that outward practices can never be enough on their own, because they cannot reach what is within!

It shows here that man has a nature that is bad at its root, and the evil is not from outside, but from within — from the heart. But the heart can be purified... It is not cleansing by blood that the Lord spoke of in John 13, when He said "You are completely clean," but cleansing by water — the new birth. "Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you."

The mouth both takes in and gives out. It is the avenue to the stomach and the outlet for the heart. The wise man has said: "All the toil of man is for his mouth" (Ecclesiastes 6:7). In this he spoke truly. The Pharisees of our Lord's time were more fussy about what goes into the mouth than about what comes out of it.

The washing of hands and cups and pots deals only with defilement from the outside. But moral defilement springs from the evil inside the heart. This cuts at the root of all worldly religion of the flesh, which deals only with outward things and leaves the heart untouched. God works from within and deals with the conscience and heart. The real source of defilement is not a man's environment but himself. It is true that man is a fallen creature. If he goes into scenes of evil and temptation, his surroundings will stir up the lusts inside him. But even then the evil comes from within. An angel can pass through Sodom and stay undefiled; Lot could not. There was no evil heart in the angel to answer to sin; there was in Lot.

Here we are all in the same case, whatever the apparent differences in outward life. "Every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" describes more than the world before the flood. It is the truth about the heart of man everywhere and at all times. It is the defiled spring of everything that defiles.

It is mainly the religious leaders who busy themselves with tradition. The great general snare is denying the evil of men. The deception Satan uses now is the idea that man is not so bad that moral training cannot improve him. The progress of the world is astonishing, they say. There are societies for every charitable cause and for the improvement of man. People look for the fault in a person's circumstances and surroundings instead of in the man himself... The real secret of man's deplorable condition is his heart. This affects all that comes out.

This is what both your heart and mine contains, dear reader. If the worst of these evils have not broken out in us, we owe it to the mercy of God in the setting where He has chosen to place us. But the evils are certainly within us. They are only waiting for an opportunity to show themselves in all their ugliness. What stronger proof could we have that what men need is not reformation but a new creation!

But our Lord answers still more sternly: "Every plant that My heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up." There needs to be a new life from God, not an improving of the old one. A plant of heavenly origin must be planted, and the heavenly Father must do it. Every other plant shall be rooted up.

The Lord's subject in this saying is not the means of cleansing, but the cause of defilement. He is not speaking here about how useless ceremonial washing is, or about using water to remove moral stains; He had already told the Pharisees that. Now He teaches those with no training in the law where defilement really comes from. Cleansing assumes defilement is already there. So how does a person become unclean? Is it because polluting things from outside enter his body? The Lord declared that the inner motives behind a person's words and actions are the cause of his uncleanness.

That was the public verdict. Israel and their hypocritical, self-righteous leaders could not pass it... But with His disciples He goes further. He does not only condemn outward hypocrisy; He shows what does come out of the human heart, and it was evil of every kind. Does He, who is full of love and goodness, have nothing to say about good coming from it? Not a word. These are what defile a person.

What did he mean by calling it a parable? He did not understand it himself. Here was the chief of the twelve apostles, and he cannot understand our Lord. The Lord tells them that man is wrong through and through — his heart most of all. What comes out of a person makes him evil, not what goes in. And this is a parable! The difficulty of Scripture comes less from hard language than from truth we do not want to hear. Truth goes against what people wish; they cannot see it, because they do not like to receive it.

Man is now a corrupt creature, and his corruption passes into whatever he takes in. So holding the flesh in check is useless in God's sight, and false at its root... Man is lost. But no one fully believes this about himself until he has found Christ. He may believe he is a sinner, but does he believe he is so bad that no good toward God can be got out of him? ... Man is no longer on trial. The testing is over. God has declared that the flesh is worthless; and yet man keeps re-opening the question, instead of believing God.

Pharisee religion washed the hands; the movement against alcohol washes the lips. But the same word of the Lord shows that both fall short... The heart, the whole spring of moral action, is corrupt before God. What a man is taints what he does. So while man's method is to cut off this and that, God's method is first of all to make the tree good.

This is what your heart and mine both hold, dear reader. If the worst of these evils have not broken out, that is thanks to God's mercy in the setting where He has chosen to place us. But the evils are certainly inside us, only waiting for a chance to show themselves in all their ugliness. What stronger proof could we have that men do not need reform, but a new creation!

My reader, this is your heart! Have you admitted it, bowed to it, accepted the judgment of God on it? Has it become a comfort beyond words to turn away from yourself to Him — that blessed One, whose heart is full of goodness towards you, and whose word to you is, "I cannot trust you; you may trust Me"?... It is striking that as soon as He had exposed the heart of man, the Lord left the place of boasted privilege for the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, which lay outside the region of earthly blessing.