Albert Barnes Commentary Matthew 15

MATTHEW CHAPTER 15

See also Mark 7:1-9.

Then came to Jesus, etc. Mark says, that they saw the disciples of Jesus eating with hands unwashed.

Transgress the tradition of the elders, The word elders means, literally, old men. It here means the ancients, or their ancestors. Tradition means something handed down from one to another by memory: some precept or custom not commanded in the written law, but which they considered themselves bound to observe.

The Jews supposed that when Moses was on Mount Sinai, two sets of laws were delivered to him: one, they said, was recorded, and is that contained in the Old Testament; the other was handed down from father to son, and kept uncorrupted to their own time. They believed that Moses, before his death, delivered this law to Joshua; Joshua then delivered it to the judges, and they, in turn, to the prophets, so that it was kept pure until it was recorded in the Talmuds.

In these books these pretended laws are now contained. They are exceedingly numerous, and very insignificant. They are, however, regarded by the Jews as more important than either Moses or the prophets. One point in which the Pharisees differed from the Sadducees was in adhering to these traditions. It seems, however, that in the particular traditions mentioned here, all the Jews were united.

The Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not (Mark 7:3). Mark has also added that this custom of washing extended not merely to their hands before eating, but also when coming from the market, and to pots, cups, bronze vessels, and tables (Mark 7:3–4).

They did this professedly for the sake of cleanliness. To that extent, it was good. But they made it a matter of superstition. They regarded external purity as of much more importance than the purity of the heart.

They had many foolish rules about it: such as the quantity of water that was to be used, the way in which it should be applied, the number of times it should be changed, and the number of those that might wash at a time, etc. These foolish rules our Savior did not consider it proper to observe, and this was the reason why they found fault with him.

See Barnes on Matthew 15:1.

But he answered. They accused him of violating their traditions, as though they were obligatory. In his answer, he implied that they were not bound to obey their traditions. They were invented by men.

He also said that those traditions could not be binding, as they violated the commandments of God. He proceeded to specify a case where their tradition made void one of the plain laws of God. And if that was their character, then they could not blame him for not regarding them.

See Barnes on Matthew 15:1.

Regarding your tradition?, see Colossians 2:8, 23 and Titus 1:14.

For God commanded, etc. That is, in the fifth commandment, Exodus 20:12; Exodus 21:17. To honour is to obey, to reverence, to speak kindly to, to speak and think well of. To curse is to disobey, to treat with irreverence, to swear at, to speak ill of, to think evil of in the heart, to meditate or do any evil to a parent. All this is included in the original word.

Let him die the death. This is a Hebrew phrase, the same as saying, let him surely die. The Jewish law punishes this crime with death. This duty of honouring and obeying a parent was what Christ said they had violated by their traditions. He proceeds to state the way in which it was done.

See Barnes on Matthew 15:1.

It is a gift. In Mark it is corban. The word corban is a Hebrew word, denoting a gift. It here means a thing dedicated to the service of God, and therefore not to be appropriated to any other use. The Jews were in the habit of making such dedications.

They devoted their property to him, for sacred uses, as they pleased. In doing this they used the word corban, or some similar word, saying this thing is corban, i.e., is a gift to God, or is sacred to him. The law required that when a dedication of this kind was made, it should be fulfilled.

Vow, and pay unto the Lord your God, (Psalms 76:11). See Deuteronomy 23:21. The law of God required that a son should honor his parent; i.e., among other things, provide for his needs when he was old and in distress. Yet the Jewish teachers said that it was more important for a man to dedicate his property to God than to provide for the needs of his parent.

If he had once devoted his property—once said it was corban, or a gift to God—it could not be appropriated even to the support of a parent. If a parent was needy and poor, and if he should apply to a son for assistance, and the son should reply, though in anger, "It is devoted to God—this property which you need, and by which you might be benefited by me, is corban, I give to God"—the Jews said the property could not be recalled, and the son was not under obligation to aid a parent with it.

He had done a more important thing in giving it to God. The son was free. They would not allow him to do anything for his father after that. Thus he might in a moment free himself from the obligation to obey his father or mother. In a sense somewhat similar to this, the chiefs and priests of the Sandwich Islands had the power of devoting anything to the service of the gods by saying that it was tabu, or tabued.

That is, it became consecrated to the service of religion; and no matter who had been the owner, it could then be appropriated to no other use. In this way they had complete power over all the possessions of the people and could appropriate them to their own use under the pretense of devoting them to religion.

They thus deprived the people of their property under the plea that it was consecrated to the gods; the Jewish son deprived his parents of a support under the plea that the property was devoted to the service of religion. The principle was the same, and both systems were equally a violation of the rights of others.

Besides, the law said that a man should die who cursed his father; i.e., who refused to obey him, or to provide for him, or spoke in anger to him. Yet the Jews said that though in anger, and in real spite and hatred, a son said to his father, "All that I have which could benefit you, I have given to God," he should be free from blame. Thus the whole law was made void, or of no use, by what appeared to have the appearance of piety. No man, according to their views, was bound to obey the fifth commandment, and support an aged and needy parent, if either from superstition or spite he chose to give his property to God, that is, to some religious use.

Our Savior did not mean to condemn the practice of giving to God, or to religious and charitable duties. This the law and the gospel equally required. He commended even a poor widow who gave all her living (Mark 12:44). But he meant to condemn the practice of giving to God where it interfered with our duty to parents and relations; where it was done to get rid of the duty of aiding them; and where it was done out of a malignant and rebellious spirit, with the semblance of piety, to get clear of doing for them what God required.

(See Barnes on Matthew 15:1.)