Why do thy disciples transgress what has been delivered by the ancients? for they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.
The complaint that opens Matthew 15 comes from religious experts who travelled from Jerusalem. They watched the disciples eat a meal. Their charge is not that the disciples broke God's law. It is that they broke a rule handed down by respected teachers. The Lord's answer turns the charge back on the accusers.
The men who raise the question carry every credential Israel could offer.
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.
They also chose a strange moment. Jesus was healing crowds.
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 hand-washing here is not part of the law of Moses. It comes from an oral system that grew up beside Scripture. Men enforced it more harshly than Scripture itself.
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.
William Kelly asks what such a custom is worth, and where it came from.
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 ask about the disciples, but a teacher answers for his followers. In the minds of the accusers, this breach ranked above breaking the law of God.
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.
Jesus does not debate whether the elders had the right to make the rule. He shifts the question to whom the tradition belongs.
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."
Unwashed hands look trivial. Darby answers that the size of the rule does not matter, because adding one rule unseats the authority behind all the rest.
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.
- Tradition arrives dressed up. The complaint came from Jerusalem, from scribes and Pharisees. Learning and piety together put every human weight of authority behind it.
- Tradition adds. Hand-washing before meals appears nowhere in the Old Testament. It grew as oral rule, and these men counted neglect of it a sin worthy of expulsion.
- Tradition inverts. These men ranked a breach of their custom above a breach of the law of God itself.
- Tradition displaces. Set up a second authority, even over hand-washing, and the word of God is no longer the only rule. That misleads the servant and pushes aside the Master.
- Christ reassigns it. He does not debate the elders' rule. He calls it "your tradition" and sets the accusers face to face with the commandment of God.
But he answering said to them, Why do *ye* also transgress the commandment of God on account of your traditional teaching?
Scribes and Pharisees came from Jerusalem with all the weight of learning and reputation behind them. Their complaint was that the disciples ate without washing their hands. The Lord does not defend His disciples. He answers their question with a question, and turns the accusers into the accused.
Jesus never argues about whether the elders had the right to make rules. He moves the whole conversation onto one plain fact.
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.
The Pharisees had spoken of "the tradition of the elders." That name carried age and reputation. The Lord changes the wording, and the change is the sting of the verse.
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 rules were not invented to fight God's law. They started out as explanations of it. That is what made them so dangerous.
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.
The word "tradition" itself is neutral. It can point in either direction:
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.
Jesus does not answer the hand-washing charge with a hand-washing defence. He picks a different tradition — one where the damage is impossible to deny.
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.
The loss is bigger than the one rule broken. Once another voice can give orders, God's word stops being the final word at all.
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.
Putting Matthew and Mark side by side, writers set out the Lord's charge in four rising steps:
(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).
- Transgress — the accusers charged the disciples with breaking a human rule. The Lord charged them with breaking God's. Only the second charge stands.
- Transferred — He drops "the elders" and says "your tradition." The blame now rests on them, not on the men they were hiding behind.
- Tested — He proves it by the command to honour father and mother. A gift labelled "Corban" became an excuse for leaving parents in need.
- Total — the loss is not one commandment but all of them. Add any other authority, and God's word is no longer the only rule.
- Today — the same pattern appears wherever explanations of Scripture grow heavier than Scripture itself. Man guards his own rules most closely.
For God commanded saying, Honour father and mother; and, He that speaks ill of father or mother, let him die the death.
God's word here has two edges: a command to honour parents, and a death sentence on anyone who speaks against them. The Lord turns both against leaders who had dodged the first, and He calls the command God's own word, not just a rule from Moses.
The opening words of the verse settle a question far larger than family duty. When the Lord quotes the commandment, He treats the written text as God's own speech.
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.
Mark's report of the same conversation says "Moses said." Commentators see no conflict here. Each writer kept a different half of one full statement.
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.
The word "honour" is not limited to a respectful attitude. In the argument the Lord is making, it reaches the wallet.
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 verse pairs the command with a penalty. That pairing measures how seriously God takes the relationship.
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 carries several death sentences that startle readers today.
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.
The Lord reaches for this commandment because the tradition-makers had built a way to switch it off.
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.
An addition to Scripture ended up overturning Scripture.
The command was not left behind with the law. It reappears for Christians, on new ground.
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.
- God spoke. "God commanded" makes the written text the voice of God, not just the opinion of Moses.
- God valued. He commanded honour for parents. That includes providing for them in need.
- God warned. The attached death sentence shows how deadly contempt for father and mother is in His sight.
- Men evaded. The word "Corban" turned money owed to needy parents into a gift for religion. It silenced conscience too.
- Tradition lost. A man-made rule cancelled a command God had spoken. That is the Lord's charge here, and the reason Scripture must outrank human additions.
But *ye* say, Whosoever shall say to his father or mother, It is a gift, whatsoever [it be] by which [received] from me thou wouldest be profited
The Pharisees ask why His disciples ignore the tradition of the elders. The Lord answers by putting that tradition on trial. This verse is His evidence: a set phrase that let a man tell his parents their claim on him now belonged to God.
The command He appeals to is the one about honouring father and mother. Honouring parents there meant paying for their keep, not just speaking well of them.
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.
God allowed a man to dedicate property to Him. God commanded him to support his parents. Their tradition let the first cancel the second.
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.
after fidelity: "sophistry" restored as clever but false arguments
One spoken word ended the whole question. A son could look at his parents' need and feel he owed them nothing.
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.
The pretence did not even have to be sincere.
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.
They could always plead a holy motive for the rule.
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 not a stray abuse. It shows what tradition does once it stands against Scripture.
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.
The same trap is still open today. We drop a duty close at hand because a grander one calls.
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.
- Command. God's word told a child to support father and mother. "Honour" there meant real provision, not warm words.
- Loophole. Saying "Corban" — it is a gift — put the money under God's claim and cancelled the parent's.
- Cover. A permitted vow gave a man an escape from a plain command, and made his selfishness look like piety.
- Consequence. Tradition did not just add to Scripture. It opposed Scripture and left the word of God with no effect.
- Warning. Once men despise God's word in one small thing, nothing is safe. Watch the duty near at hand that you are tempted to skip for a higher-sounding one.
and he shall in no wise honour his father or his mother; and ye have made void the commandment of God on account of your traditional teaching.
The scribes and Pharisees complained that the disciples ignored the tradition of the elders. Jesus answered by putting their tradition on trial. His verdict: a rule invented by men had cancelled a command spoken by God. The test case was money that should have gone to ageing parents.
The command they dodged was God's word to honour father and mother. Here "honour" means real support, not polite words.
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.
Nothing in the law required a man to dedicate his goods. The trick was to take something optional and use it to cancel something required.
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."
The Lord names their sin in four different terms. One writer reads them as steps, not repeats.
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.
The damage does not stop at one commandment. Let another voice give binding orders, and the whole of Scripture drops to second 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.
The rule was not neutral. Someone gained by it.
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.
Commentators apply this beyond the Pharisees. One observes that we now have far more Scripture than they did, and often obey it less.
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!
- Command. God's word told a child to support his parents; "honour" meant real provision, not warm feelings.
- Loophole. Saying "Corban" made the money a gift to God. Tradition let that optional gift cancel a binding command.
- Escalation. The four charges climb: men ignore the commandment, then refuse it, then break it, then swap in a human rule.
- Collapse. The loss is bigger than one command. Set up a second authority, and the whole word of God stops being the only rule.
- Profit. The rule paid the men who made it. In man's hands religion bends to his own advantage — and the same pull works on those who hold a completed Bible today.
Hypocrites! well has Esaias prophesied about you, saying,
The Pharisees complained that the Lord's disciples ate with unwashed hands. He answered with a line from Isaiah and laid it on the men standing in front of Him. First He gives them a name — hypocrites. Then He lets a prophet's words do the judging.
The charge is not that these men were careless about religion. It is that what they showed on the outside did not match what was inside.
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.
Another writer shows why this matters so much. It turns the holiest things into a performance.
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!
Notice the method. The Lord does not debate whether their handwashing rule was legitimate. He drops a written word onto their condition.
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.
Isaiah spoke to people who kept up the outward forms of worship. The Lord says the same description fit His own generation.
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.
The people Isaiah described were not people who ignored God. The opposite was true — they drew near to Him.
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.
This writer quotes an older translation. The ESV reads, "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me."
Their tradition did more than add extra rules. It worked against the very law they claimed to defend.
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.
The pattern did not stop with the Pharisees. It shows up wherever human rules take the place of God's word.
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.
- Lips. The charge is a gap between mouth and heart. Words and religious acts claim reverence for God while the heart stays far from Him.
- Heart. God looks past the outward appearance. A house swept of idols can still be an empty shrine, with God on the tongue but not in the thoughts.
- Scripture. The Lord does not argue in His own authority. He settles the case by quoting a prophet.
- Prophecy. Isaiah described people who kept the forms of worship with no reverence inside. That fit the men standing before Christ, so the Lord could say, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you."
- Vain. Where men's commandments replace God's word, the worship is empty. Believers today can still fall into it.
This people honour me with the lips, but their heart is far away from me;
The Pharisees complained that Jesus' disciples ignored the traditional hand-washing. He does not argue about the rule; He answers with words from Isaiah about lips and hearts that point in opposite directions.
The Lord does not invent a new accusation. He quotes a prophet who said the same thing to Judah long before. The outward religion was in good order then too.
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?
Jesus is speaking to a handful of Pharisees. Yet the words "this people" reach wider than that. One writer compares the wording here with Mark's account.
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.
The Lord still says these people drew near to Him. (The older translation these writers used reads "This people draws near to me with their mouth.") They had not walked away from God, and that is what makes His verdict so serious.
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.
The verse measures two distances at once, and they pull against each other. One writer sets the Jew's position beside the Gentile's.
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."
What made the heart drift away? One writer points to what had taken the place of God's Word.
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.
This danger is not limited to one group of people. One writer turns the verse into a test, and sets it beside the Psalms.
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.
- Distance. One gap runs through this verse: the lips say one thing, the heart sits somewhere else. The heart decides where a person stands.
- Cause. The heart drifts when human rules take the place of God's Word. Then people fear what men teach instead of fearing God.
- Reach. The charge covers a whole nation, not a few leaders. The Pharisees stand for the common guilt of the people.
- Result. Near in form and far in heart, the Jew was as far off as the Gentile. The worship itself counted for nothing.
- Remedy. Where joy in God is the treasure, the heart seeks Him. Then the feet follow into real worship, not lip-service.