John Gill Commentary Matthew 15

Then came to Jesus Scribes and Pharisees

After he had performed so many miracles, particularly that of feeding five thousand men, besides women and children, with five loaves and two fishes, the fame of which had reached Jerusalem and occasioned much talk there about him.

The Scribes and Pharisees, who were his inveterate enemies, hearing of this, came to him where he was in Galilee.

They came to know the truth of these things, to converse with him, and to watch and observe what he said and did.

which were of Jerusalem, saying .

There were Scribes and Pharisees throughout the land, but those of Jerusalem were the chief.

They were men of the greatest learning and abilities, and were more expert in their religion and customs.

These were either sent by the sanhedrim at Jerusalem or came of themselves, taking upon them a greater power and authority of examining, correcting, directing, and advising.

Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?
&c.] Having observed, for some little time, the conduct of Christ and his disciples, they thought proper to take no notice of him as yet, but of them; and of them, not as transgressing any command of God, but of men; not being able to charge them with any breach of the law of God:

and could they have done this with any show of truth, yet they might choose rather to accuse them of breaking the rules of the elders; by whom they mean, not the elders of the present sanhedrim, but Hillell and Shammai; the two heads of their famous schools, and other ancient doctors; from whom were delivered by one to another, certain rules and laws of their own devising, which had no foundation in the word of God; and of these the Scribes and Pharisees were more tenacious, than of the Scriptures; and indeed they preferred them before them:

most extravagant are their praises and commendations of these unwritten traditions; thus they say ^F4 ,``Know then, that "the words of the Scribes" are more lovely than the words of the law: for, says R. Tarphon, if a man does not read, he only transgresses an affirmative; but if he transgresses the words of the school of Hillell, he is guilty of death, because he has broken down a hedge, and a serpent shall bite him. It is a tradition of R. Ishmael, the words of the law have in them both prohibition and permission; some of them are light, and some heavy, but "the words of the Scribes" are all of them heavy--(Mynqz) (yrbd Myrwmh) , "weightier are the words of the elders", than the words of the prophets.'' And elsewhere <sup>F5</sup> , this advice is given; ``My son, attend to "the words of the Scribes", more than to the words of the law; for in the words of the law, are affirmatives and negatives; but the words of the Scribes (Myrpwo yrbd le rbweh lk) , "everyone that transgresses the words of the Scribes", is guilty of death.''

This is what they charge the disciples with here, and could they have had their wills, would have put them to death for it: the particular tradition, they accuse them with the breach of, follows,

for they wash not their hands when they eat bread ;
common bread, an ordinary meal; for, for eating of holy things, more than bare washing was required, even an immersion of them in water; but the hands were to be washed before eating common food, whether they were known to be defiled or not: "bread" is particularly mentioned, as including all sorts of food, and as distinct from fruit; for, for eating of common fruit, there was no need of washing of hands; he that washed his hands for eating fruit, was reckoned an ostentatious man ^F6 ,

who were the first authors of this tradition, it is not certain; it is said ^F7 , that``Hillell and Shammai decreed (Mydy twrhj le) , "concerning the purification of the hands"; R. Jose ben R. Bon, in the name of R. Levi, says, so was the tradition before, but they forgot it; and these two stood up, and agreed with the minds of the former ones.'' ``However, it is a certain point, that the washing of the hands, and the dipping of them, are (Myrpwo yrbdm) , "from the words of the Scribes" ^F8 .''

The breach of this rule was reckoned equal to the most flagitious crimes ^F9 : R. Jose says, ``whoever eats bread without washing of hands, is as if he lay with a whore: and, says R. Eleazer, whoever despises washing of hands, shall be rooted out of the world.'' And elsewhere is said by them <sup>F11</sup> , that ``he that blesseth (food) with defiled hands, is guilty of death.'' And again ^F12 , ``whoever does not wash his hands as is fitting, although he is punished above, he shall be punished below.''

And to fright people into an observance of this tradition, they talk of Shibta, a sort of an evil spirit, that hurts such as eat without washing their hands: they say, he sits upon their hands, and upon their bread, and leaves something behind, which is very dangerous {m}; and it is recorded ^F14 , to the praise of R. Akiba, that he chose rather to die, than to transgress this tradition; for being in prison, and in want of water, what little he had, he washed his hands with it, instead of drinking it. Eleazar ben Chanac was excommunicated for despising the tradition concerning washing of hands; and when he died, the sanhedrim sent and put a great stone upon his coffin, to show, that he that died in his excommunication, the sanhedrim stoned his coffin ^F15 :

but of this, (See Gill on Mark 7:3).

FOOTNOTES:

• F4: T. Hieros. Beracot, fol. 3. 2.
• F5: T. Bab. Erubim, fol. 21. 2. T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 4. 2.
• F6: Misn. Chagiga, c. 2. sect. 5, 6. Maimon. Praefat. ad Tract. Yadaim, & Hilch. Beracot, c. 6. sect. 3.
• F7: T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 3. 4.
• F8: Maimon Hilch. Mikvaot, c. 11. sect. 1.
• F9: T. Bab. Sota, fol. 4. 2.
• F11: Zohar in Deut. fol. 107. 3.
• F12: lb. in Gen. fol. 60. 2.
• F13: Gloss. in. T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 77. 2. Taanith, fol. 20. 2. & Cholin, fol. 107. 2.
• F14: T. B. Erubim, fol. 2l. 2.
• F15: T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 19. l.

But he answered and said to them
Taking no notice of the tradition about eating bread without washing the hands, whether it was right or wrong; it being at most but an human tradition, of no moment and importance, whether it was broke or kept; he makes a very just recrimination, by putting another question to them,

why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
suggesting, that, if his disciples were guilty, they were not so guilty as they themselves were; that his disciples, at most, were but guilty of the breach of an human precept, whereas they were guilty of the breach of a divine command; and that it was strange, that men who were so scrupulous of breaking, and bore so hard on such as did transgress the traditions of the elders, could allow themselves to transgress the commandments of God; yea, to do this by, and while they were observing their own traditions: and which observation carries a full acquittance of the disciples from blame; for, if by keeping the traditions of the elders, they broke the commands of God, it was a very good reason why they should not observe them.

For God commanded, saying
That he might not be thought to suggest this without any foundation, he gives them an instance, wherein a command of God was transgressed, by the observance of their tradition: the command he refers to, stands in (Exodus 20:12) and is this;

Honour your father and mother .
This was a plain command of God, written with his own hand, and delivered by Moses to them; it was of a moral nature, and of eternal obligation: and to be understood, not merely of that high esteem parents are to be had in by their children, and of the respectful language and gesture to be used towards them, and of the cheerful obedience to be yielded to them; but also of honouring them with your substance, feeding, clothing, and supplying them with the necessaries of life, when they stand in need thereof; which is but your reasonable service, for all the care, expense, and trouble they have been at, in bringing them up in the world: nor did the Jews deny this to be the duty of children to their parents, and own it to be the sense of the commandment: they say ^F16 , that this is the weightiest commandment among the weighty ones, even this, the honouring of father and mother; and ask,

``What is this honour? To which is replied, he must give him food, drink, and clothing; buckle his shoes, and lead him in, and bring him out.''

They indeed laid down this as a rule, and it seems a very equitable one ^F17 ; that, ``when a man's father has any money, or substance, he must be supported out of that; but if he has none, he must support him out of your own.'' But then, as will be seen hereafter, they made void this command of God, and their own explications of it, by some other tradition. Moreover, Christ observes, that it is said, (Exodus 21:17)

And he that curseth father or mother, let him die the death ;
temporal and eternal: and which is a positive command of God, made as a fence for the former; and is to be understood, not only of giving abusive language to parents, but of slighting, as the Hebrew word signifies, and neglecting them, taking no notice of them, when needy and in distress, to supply their wants. Now these commands of God, Christ shows the Jews transgressed by their tradition, as appears from the following verses.

FOOTNOTES:

• F16: T. Hieros. Kiddushin, fol. 61. 2.
• F17: Piske Toseph. ad T. Bab. Kiddushin, art. 61.

Ver. 5 & 6. But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or mother ,
&c.] That is, it was a tradition of their's, that if a man should say to his father and mother, when poor and in distress, and made application to him for sustenance,

it is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, and
honour not his father, or his mother, he shall be free :
or, as Mark expresses it, "it is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, he shall be free, and ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or mother". For the understanding of this tradition, let it be observed, that the word "Corban" signifies a gift, or offering, which was devoted to sacred use; and was unalienable, and could not be converted to any other use; and that this word was used among the Jews, from hence, as the form of an oath, or vow; and therefore, when anyone said "Corban", it was all one, as if he swore by "Corban"; or as if he had said, let it be as "Corban", as unalienable as "Corban": by which oath, or vow, the use of that which was spoken of, whether it respected a man's self, or others, was restrained and prohibited: the rule was ^F18 this (rwoa awh Nbrqk rmwak Nbrq) , "if a man said Corban, it was as if he said as Corban, and it was forbidden": and if he used the words "Conem", "Conach", and "Conas", which they call ^F19 the surnames of Corban, and were no other than corruptions of it, it was all one as if he had said "Corban" itself. There are many instances of this kind of vows, and the form of them in their oral law ^F20 , or book of traditions;

thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect, by your
tradition :
for if such a vow was valid, and a man was obliged to abide by it, according to the tradition of the elders, and not honour his father and mother, as the law of God requires; it is a plain case, that the command of God was made void by this tradition: nay they expressly say ^F24 that (hwum yrbd le twlx Myrdn) , "vows fall upon things of a (divine) commandment", as well as upon things in a man's power, and that he is bound by them; so that without sin he cannot do what the law commands; insomuch, that if a man vows a vow, and that it may be ratified, a command must be made void, his vow must stand, and the command be abrogated. So truly and justly does Christ charge them with making the command of God of none effect, by their tradition. It is indeed disputed by the doctors, and at last allowed, that such a vow might be dissolved by a wise man, for the honour of parents ^F25 .