Church Fathers Commentary Matthew 15:7-11

"Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of men. And he called to him the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man." — Matthew 15:7-11 (ASV)

St. John Chrysostom: The Lord had shown that the Pharisees were not worthy to accuse those who transgressed the commands of the elders, since they overthrew the law of God themselves. He proves this again with the testimony of the Prophet: "Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.'"

Remigius of Auxerre: "Hypocrite" signifies a dissembler—one who pretends one thing in his outward action but holds another in his heart. These men are rightly called hypocrites because, under the cover of honoring God, they sought to accumulate earthly gain for themselves.

Rabanus Maurus: Isaiah foresaw the hypocrisy of the Jews, that they would craftily oppose the Gospel, and therefore he said in the person of the Lord, "This people honors me with their lips, etc."

Remigius of Auxerre: For the Jewish nation seemed to draw near to God with their lips and mouth, since they boasted that they held to the worship of the one God. But in their hearts they departed from Him, because after they had seen His signs and miracles, they would neither acknowledge His divinity nor receive Him.

Rabanus Maurus: They also honored Him with their lips when they said, "Master, we know that you are true" (Matthew 22:16), but their heart was far from Him when they sent spies to trap Him in His speech.

Glossa Ordinaria: Or, they honored Him by commending outward purity, but because they lacked the inward purity which is true purity, their heart was far from God. Such honor was of no avail to them, as it follows: "But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." ¹

Rabanus Maurus: Therefore, they will not have their reward with the true worshipers, because they teach the doctrines and commandments of men in contempt of the law of God.

St. John Chrysostom: Having added weight to His accusation of the Pharisees with the testimony of the Prophet, and seeing that they were not amended, He now ceases to speak to them and turns to the multitudes: "And he called the multitude and said to them, 'Hear and understand.'"

Because He was about to set before them a high and profound teaching, full of deep wisdom, He does not state it plainly but frames His speech so that it would be received by them.

First, He shows His concern for them, which the Evangelist expresses with the words, "And he called the multitude to him." Second, the timing He chooses commends His speech, as it comes after the victory He has just gained over the Pharisees.

He not only calls the multitude to Him but also rouses their attention with the words, "Hear and understand"—that is, "Pay attention and apply your minds to what you are about to hear." But He did not say to them, "The observance of foods is of no importance," or, "Moses commanded you wrongly." Instead, in a way of warning and advice, He draws His testimony from natural things: "Not what enters into the mouth defiles a man, but what goes out of the mouth, that defiles a man."

St. Jerome: The word hereⁱ "makes a man common" is peculiar to Scripture and is not overused in common speech. The Jewish nation, boasting that they are a part of God, calls those meats "common" of which all people partake—for example, a pig's flesh, shellfish, hares, and those species of animals that do not divide the hoof and chew the cud, and among fish, those that do not have scales. Hence, in the Acts of the Apostles we read, "What God has cleansed, you must not call common" (Acts 10:15). "Common," then, in this sense, is that which is available to the rest of mankind and, as if not a part of God, is therefore called unclean.

St. Augustine of Hippo: This declaration of the Lord, "Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a man," is not contrary to the Old Testament. As the Apostle also says, "To the pure all things are pure" (Titus 1:15), and, "Every creature of God is good" (1 Timothy 4:4). ²

Let the Manichaeans understand, if they can, that the Apostle said this about the very nature and quality of things. The letter of the ritual law, on the other hand, declared certain animals unclean not by nature but symbolically, for purposes that were necessary for a time.

For instance, in the case of the pig and the lamb, both are clean by nature, because every creature of God is naturally good. But in a certain symbolic sense, the lamb is clean, and the pig is unclean.

Consider the two words "fool" and "wise." In their own nature, as sounds or letters, both are pure. But one of them, because of the meaning attached to it and not because of anything in its own nature, may be said to be impure. Perhaps the fool among mankind is what the pig is in its symbolic representation; the animal and this two-syllable word (stultus) signify one and the same thing.

That animal is considered unclean in the law because it does not chew the cud; but this is not its fault, it is its nature. The people of whom this animal is an emblem, however, are impure by their own fault, not by nature; they readily hear words of wisdom but never reflect on them again.

What is it to spiritually chew the cud, if not to summon up what you have profitably heard from the inner region of your memory, through the sweetness of recollection, into the mouth of your thought? Those who do not do this are represented by this type of animal.

Such resemblances in speech or in ceremonies, having figurative meanings, profitably and pleasantly stir the rational mind. For the people of that former time, many such things were not only to be heard but also to be kept as commands. That was a time when it was necessary to prophesy those things that were later to be revealed not only in words but also in deeds. When these things were revealed through Christ and in Christ, the burdens of these observances were not imposed on the faith of the Gentiles, yet the authority of the prophecy was nevertheless confirmed.

But I ask the Manichaeans: is this declaration of the Lord, when He said that a man is not defiled by what enters his mouth, true or false? If it is false, why then does their teacher Adimantus bring it forward against the Old Testament? If it is true, why, contrary to its teaching, do they consider themselves to be defiled in this way?

St. Jerome: The thoughtful reader may object here and say, "If what enters into the mouth does not defile a man, why do we not eat foods offered to idols?" Let it be known, then, that foods and every creature of God are in themselves clean. However, the invocation of idols and demons makes them unclean, at least for those who eat what is offered to idols with a consciousness of the idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled, as the Apostle says.

Remigius of Auxerre: But if anyone's faith is so strong that he understands that God's creature can in no way be defiled, let him eat what he will, after the food has been hallowed by the word of God and by prayer. Yet, this liberty of his must not become an offense to the weak, as the Apostle says.

1. ap. Anselm
2. cont. Faust., vi, 6