Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Matthew 15:2

"Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread." — Matthew 15:2 (ASV)

The attack on Jesus again comes through the behavior of his disciples (cf. Mark 7:3–4). The “tradition of the elders” (cf. Galatians 1:14; Colossians 2:18) refers to the great corpus of oral teaching that commented on the law and interpreted it in detailed rules of conduct, often recording the diverse opinions of competing rabbis. This tradition in Jesus’ time was largely oral, but the Pharisees viewed it as having authority very nearly equal to the canon. It was codified about A. D. 135–200 to form the Mishnah.

3–6 Jesus’ words are less a response than a counterattack. He made a fundamental distinction between the authority of “the command of God” (as found in Scripture) and Jewish tradition, and he insisted that the Pharisees and teachers of the law were guilty of breaking the former for the sake of the latter. The two texts cited are Ex 20:12 and 21:17, and their point is clear enough. In a broad sense, Jesus expects children to take responsibility for their aging parents. Greed could keep a son from discharging this duty by simply declaring the goods or money that might have gone to support his parents korban (Corban, Mark 7:11), a gift devoted to God (cf. Leviticus 27:9, 16) and set aside for the temple treasury. Such a vow could be annulled in various ways. It would not mean that one could use the goods or money in question but that he could withhold it from his parents. 7–9 This is the first recorded instance of Jesus’ calling the Pharisees and teachers of the law “hypocrites” (GK 5695). His charge was that, while they made a show of devotion to God, their religious traditions took precedence over God’s will. Jesus saw their hypocrisy as a fulfillment of Isa 29:13. Yet Isa 29:13 is addressed to men of Isaiah’s day. What then did Jesus mean? There were three points of contact: (1) in each case those warned were Jews, (2) from Jerusalem, (3) with a religion characterized by externals that sometimes vitiated principle. The Jews of Jesus’ day thought of themselves as preserving ancient traditions; but Jesus said that what they were actually preserving was the spirit of those whom Isaiah criticized long before. They had displaced the true religion of the heart with a religion of form. Therefore their worship was vain and their teachings their own, with nothing of God’s authority behind them.

10–11 Jesus’ sharpest barb against the Pharisees and teachers of the law had been private. Now he teaches the crowd the same things. These two verses also answer the Pharisees’ question of v.2 directly, not just by counter-charge (as in vv.3–9). What Jesus says, the disciples call a “parable” (v.15). In presenting it to the crowd, he exhorts them to understand; for the parable was not meant to be cryptic, though only few seemed to have grasped it at the time, and even the disciples had trouble with it (vv.15–16; see comments on 13:10–17, 34–35). The form of Jesus’ argument is from principle (vv.10–11, 17–19) to specific application.

12–14 These verses reflect what took place after Jesus and his disciples had retired from the crowd and entered the house. The disciples’ question shows that the Pharisees understood enough of Jesus’ parable to take offense. The disciples wanted to have the parable explained (v.15); since they held the Pharisees in high regard, they wanted to be certain of exactly what Jesus had said that had offended them so badly. Jesus must disillusion his disciples as to the reliability of the Pharisees and teachers of the law as spiritual guides, as well as explain the parable.

Jesus uses two images. The first predicts the rooting up of any plant the heavenly Father has not planted. Israel often saw herself as a plant God had planted (Psalms 1:3; Isaiah 60:21), and the prophets turned the image against them (Isaiah 5:1–7). Jesus is saying here that the Pharisees, the leaders of the Jewish people, are not truly part of God’s planting. This shocking idea has already been hinted at in 3:9; 8:11–12 and will recur.

The second image may depend on a title some Jewish leaders apparently took on themselves. They had the law, they reasoned, and therefore they were fit to serve as “guides of the blind” (Romans 2:19). This Jesus disputes; in his view they were “blind guides of the blind” (NIV note) and “both will fall into a pit.” Though the Pharisees and teachers of the law had the Scriptures and interpreted them in the synagogues, this does not mean that they really understood them. On the contrary, they were blind and failed to comprehend them (cf. 23:16–17). Jesus’ denunciation presupposes that anyone who truly understands the “word of God” (v.6) will discern who he is and follow him (cf. Jn 5:39-40). The Pharisees did not follow Jesus; so they did not understand and follow the Scriptures.

15–16 Peter speaks on behalf of the other disciples. Their failure to understand shocks Jesus. Dullness might be understandable in others, but in the disciples? Thus, Jesus asks in effect, “Are you still without understanding?”

17–20 “What goes into a man’s mouth” (v.11) is merely food, which passes through the body and is excreted (lit., “is cast into a latrine”). But “what comes out of a man’s mouth” and makes him unclean comes from his “heart” . In other words, what a person truly is affects what he or she says and does. True religion must deal with the inner nature of a person and not with mere externals. Matthew ends this section by coming back to the specific question that precipitated Jesus’ comments. Jesus’ teaching here opens up a fresh approach to the question of the law. It discounts the Pharisees’ oral tradition while defending the law (vv.3–6); yet it insists that real “cleanness” is of the heart, so discounting some of the law’s formal requirements.

Like 5:21–48, Jesus insists that the true direction in which the OT law points is precisely what he teaches, what he is, and what he inaugurates. He has fulfilled the law; therefore whatever prescriptive force it continues to have is determined by its relationship to him. It is within this framework that Jesus’ teaching here theologically anticipates passages such as Ro 14:14–18 and 1 Corinthians 10:31. What concerned Jesus most was to see people transformed and their hearts renewed (cf. 6:1–33; 12:34–35), because he came to save his people from their sins (1:21).