Thomas Aquinas Commentary Matthew 15:1-20

"Then there come to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given [to God]; he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. 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. Then came the disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, when they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant which my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they are blind guides. And if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall into a pit. And Peter answered and said unto him, Declare unto us the parable. And he said, Are ye also even yet without understanding? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever goeth into the mouth passeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings: these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man." — Matthew 15:1-20 (ASV)

Above, the Lord showed the power of His teaching under figures; now He shows its sufficiency. This is shown in two ways. Firstly, He shows that He does not require the observances of the Law; and secondly, He shows that His teaching may not only be given to the one nation of the Jews, but also to the Gentiles, where it is said, Jesus went from thence, and retired into the coast of Tyre and Sidon.

Regarding the first, the Evangelist does three things:

1. The circumstances of an accusation are mentioned.
2. The accusation is mentioned.
3. An explanation of the accusation is mentioned.

The second is where it is said, Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? And the third is where it is said: For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.

Now the Jews’ bad behavior is worsened by three things.

1. It is worsened by the time, because at the time when He was performing these signs and miracles, they were giving proofs of their wickedness, which is why they were maligning Him. You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, etc. (Matthew 11:25).
2. The worsening was compounded by the place, because although the Jews were spread throughout Judea, nevertheless, those who were in Jerusalem were the wise men, and yet, they were worse than the rest. In the land of the saints he has done wicked things, and he shall not see the glory of the Lord (Isaiah 26:10).
3. It was worsened by the condition of the persons, because from the great men came the Scribes, who were more learned, and the Pharisees, who were reckoned to be more holy. I will go therefore to the great men, and will speak to them: for they have known the way of the Lord (Jeremiah 5:5).

Then the matter about which they were accusing them is related, and so it is said, Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? It had been ordered, as it is stated in Deuteronomy 4:2: You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it. Hence, by adding traditions, they were acting contrary to the Law; not because it was not allowed to make an ordinance, but because they were ordering that their decrees be observed just like the Lord's Law. For they do not wash their hands, etc. Here is explained what their traditions were.

This is explained more in Mark 7:2, for there it is said that When they had seen some of his disciples eat bread with common, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. That they were not washing their hands can be explained in the literal sense. Why were they not washing their hands? It was because they were so preoccupied with the word of God that they did not even have time. Hence, due to their preoccupation with spiritual things, they were not washing their hands in the manner that the Jews did, as it is stated in Mark 7, because all the Jews do not eat without often washing their hands. For that reason, the disciples were not washing their hands according to their ritual. Hence, the Jews themselves were thinking literally, washing what was exterior, and not what was interior.

But he answering, said to them. The Lord does two things: namely, He does not answer by excusing the disciples, but He shows that the men who were correcting them were themselves unworthy. You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye (Matthew 7:5). It is clear that to transgress God's commandment is worse than to transgress the traditions of men; and, for that reason, those who were transgressing God's Commandments were sinning in greater matters. And so He firstly shows that they are the transgressors of the Law; and secondly, He shows which Commandment they are transgressing.

He says, therefore, Why do you transgress the commandment of God, and you do not observe it, for your tradition? They, not knowing the justice of God and seeking to establish their own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God (Romans 10:3). Their tongue, and their devices are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his majesty (Isaiah 3:8).

Then, when He says, For God said, etc., He relates which Commandment this is, namely, the Commandment concerning the honoring of one's parents. And firstly, He relates the Commandment; and secondly, He relates its penalty. Hence, He says: For God said (Exodus 20:12): Honour your father and mother. And it ought to be observed that honor is nothing other than reverence shown as a testimony of virtue. For he who shows reverence furnishes the things that are needed; hence, a man is not only bound to stand up out of respect, but also to supply the necessities of his parents. They that fear the Lord, keep his commandments . And it is evident that such honor is due, because Tobias loaned to Gabelus, which the Lord had commanded to be done. Exodus 20:12 immediately adds the reward: That you may be long lived upon the land. Likewise, Leviticus 20:9 adds the penalty to transgressors of this Commandment: He that curses his father, or mother, dying let him die. And so by the word “blessing” it ought not only be understood that you should bless with your mouth, but that you also pay out a blessing; He that curses his father, and mother, his lamp shall be put out in the midst of darkness (Proverbs 20:20).

But since He put forward an incentive by way of a punishment, why did He not put forward a reward of obedience? It was because men are more terrified by a punishment than by the desire for a reward; for a beast is also terrified by a punishment. For due to this, it is stated that if someone withholds the support of his father and mother, he is worthy of death, and so he who instigates others to withhold their support is also worthy of death; for which reason, the disciples are not deserving of blame. Therefore, ‘you are not worthy to accuse them.’

But you say, etc. Here He mentions how they transgress God's Commandment. And firstly, He shows this; and secondly, He cites a passage of Scripture. Regarding the first, He depicts their custom; and secondly, He shows what is the consequence of their custom. He says: You say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, etc. This is read in many ways. It may be read in one way as a complete sentence, and then it is understood as follows: Whosoever, meaning anyone at all, shall say, shall be able to say. It may be read in another way as an incomplete sentence, and then it is understood as follows: when it is said, Whosoever shall say, etc., supply the words, ‘he keeps the commandment, and so is immune from punishment.’

What is the meaning of this verse? It is explained in three ways. Rabanus said that a spiritual good ought to be preferred to a temporal good; for that reason, they were speaking to those who had poor parents, so that they might say to them: ‘Father, may it not displease you if I do not give you what you need, because the gift that I offer benefits you spiritually.’ But this was not true, according to what is written: The most High does not approve the gifts of the wicked . And it is said: He that steals anything from his father, or from his mother, and says, This is no sin, is the partner of a murderer (Proverbs 28:24). For that reason, if someone has a father or a mother, and they cannot live without him, then he who would say to him, ‘Go beyond the sea,’ or ‘Enter religion,’ falls under this sentence.

There is another explanation. Now Jerome reads this sentence interrogatively, that is to say, “Shall it profit you? No. Rather, it shall be for your greater condemnation.” Augustine expounds this as follows. The Jews were saying that children were bound to them while they were under their father's tutelage. Hence, when the children were small, the parents offer for their children and it benefits them; but when they are reckoned to be free, then another's devotion does not benefit them. Hence, they were saying that everyone who can attain to this state can also say to his father, The gift whatsoever proceeds from me, shall profit you; and he was not bound to support his father.

But two difficulties follow from this teaching. One is contrary to one's neighbor, and the other is contrary to the Lord. One is contrary to one's neighbor because he who would speak in this manner and who is so instructed, does not honor his father. Hence: Inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents (Romans 1:30). And it continues: They who do such things, are worthy of death (Romans 1:32). It is likewise contrary to God; hence, He says: You have made void the commandment of God. It is as though He were to say: ‘You not only have done contrary to your neighbor, indeed, you even made void the commandment of God for your tradition.’

Hypocrites. Men were called hypocrites in the strict sense, who entered the theater and had one personality but pretended to have another by using masks. Therefore, these men are hypocrites, who outwardly pretend to be something different than they are inwardly. Hence, they were inwardly intending profit, and outwardly they were inducing men to offer gifts to God. Dissemblers and crafty men prove the wrath of God, neither shall they cry when they are bound (Job 36:13).

Well has Isaiah prophesied of you. This quotation is found in Isaiah 29. He firstly sets forth their duplicity; and secondly, He sets forth the futility of their religious practices, where it is said, And in vain do they worship me. He says, therefore, This people honors me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And this was literally true, because they were honoring God with their lips, but their hearts were far from God, because they were not receiving Christ coming in God's name. Or it is thus: This people honors me, etc., for since they say that a man ought to offer gifts to God, it seems that they honor God, but their heart is far from me, because they were not striving after God's honor, but after their own gain: hence, the more greed there is, the less charity there is. This is stated in Jeremiah 12:2: You are near in their mouth, and far from their reins. But did not this pretense benefit them? It did not, because it did not please the Lord; hence, He continues, And in vain do they worship me.

But what is the meaning of these words? To fast is a doctrine of men, and the canons are traditions of men; do those who teach these things worship God in vain? It should be understood that their worship was vain in that it was prejudicial to God's Commandments. I will not level God with man (Job 32:21). We ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). Why is this? It is because God cannot be deceived. Do not offer sacrifice in vain (Isaiah 1:13). From this, we maintain that a man should be more conscious of the transgression of a Commandment than of the transgression of an ecclesiastical ordinance.

And having called together the multitudes unto him, etc. Above, the Lord showed that the calumniating Pharisees were unworthy to rebuke the disciples because they were involved in greater sins; now, however, disregarding them, He instructs other men. This was to fulfill what was said above: You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to little ones (Matthew 11:25). And firstly, He instructs the multitudes; and secondly, He instructs the disciples, where it is said, Then came his disciples, etc. Regarding the first, He does two things. Firstly, He prepares them to listen; and secondly, He gives His teaching. The second is where it is said, Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man.

It should be observed that, to listen to someone else, attention is required, by which a man is recalled to interior things, and is gathered together into himself. And He does this when He says, And having called together, because it is fitting that we be gathered to Him; Come you to him and be enlightened (Psalms 33:6). Secondly, effort is necessary in listening: for that reason, He says, Hear you; A wise man shall hear, and shall be wiser (Proverbs 1:5). Likewise, understanding is required; hence, He says, And understand; Understand, you senseless among the people: and, you fools, be wise at last (Psalms 93:8).

Afterwards, He sets forth the highest teaching, which is the perfection of a moral life. Hence, it should be noted that some things are changed from without (for example, water is warmed by fire), while other things are changed from within (for example, a man is changed by sin). For however much a man is moved exteriorly, it is not a sin unless he interiorly consents; Out of the inner parts shall a tempest come (Proverbs 37:9). Hence, He firstly shows that a man is not changed by exterior things; and secondly, He shows that a man is changed by interior things. He says, therefore, Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man.

On the contrary, one may make an objection by quoting what is stated in the Old Law; for it is stated in Leviticus that many foods are prohibited, and hence, the men who ate them were made unclean.

Augustine responds (Contra Faustum) saying that something is said to be unclean in two ways. A thing is said to be unclean in one way on account of its nature: and, in this way, nothing is unclean, according to what is written: For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4:4). Likewise, something can be unclean according to its signification; and, in this way, something can be a sign of uncleanness or of cleanliness. For example, if we consider a pig or a lamb in their natures, both are good; nevertheless, with respect to their signification, a pig signifies uncleanness, and a lamb signifies innocence. For that reason, with respect to their signification, one is clean and the other is unclean. And because, before the coming of Christ, there was a time in which men lived under figures, because the truth had not yet appeared, for that reason, those observances were to be retained, and they were matters of precept. But because the truth was manifested at Christ’s coming, the figures ceased; therefore, etc.

But again another question remains, because it is stated in Acts 15 that the Apostles commanded that converts abstain from things strangled and from blood. Therefore, it seems that while maintaining the truth, those observances should be kept.

The ancients said that this passage should be understood literally, because one should still abstain from these things since they are unclean. But this is nonsense, because it contradicts the words of the Apostle: All things are clean to the clean (Titus 1:15). Some men said that this passage should be understood partly literally, and partly morally: for what is said about fornication, they forbade literally; however, what is said about abstaining from blood, this should be understood to mean that innocent blood should not be shed; but what is said about a thing strangled should be so understood that no one ought to calumniate another. But this passage should not be understood in this way, even though it is a true explanation.

For the question revolves on whether converted Gentiles were held to not eat these things that the Apostle forbade. For that reason, it should be understood that these things were forbidden according to what was the custom of the Jews. Therefore, we must hold differently, that the Apostles were reflecting upon one thing and were forbidding something else, either because it was in itself illicit, or because it was an occasion of scandal. Hence, they forbade fornication as being illicit; they forbade eating blood lest they cause scandal to others, and so that a scandal might be removed. And the words of the Apostle convey the same sense: But take heed lest this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak (1 Corinthians 8:9).

Likewise, it is objected: It may be claimed that someone may eat meat in Lent, and will they not be defiled? It should be said that they are not defiled from the food, but from the violation of the precept; For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink (Romans 14:17).

But what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man. Here He seems to treat only of sins which come out of the mouth, and these defile; Out of your own mouth I judge you, you wicked servant (Luke 19:22). And, Out of your own mouth you will be judged (Matthew 7:2). But it should be answered that the distinctive function of the mouth is to speak. Now to speak is twofold: exteriorly with the mouth of the body, and interiorly with the mouth of the mind, concerning which it is said: The fool has said in his heart: There is no God (Psalms 13:1). Accordingly, therefore, by the mouth, the heart's mouth may be understood, that is to say, a man's mind, and, in this way, every sin is from the mouth; because there never is a sin unless it is from the mind's intent. Consequently, what comes out of the mouth, namely, the mouth of the heart, this defiles, because the sin is truly voluntary, because if it were not voluntary, it is not a sin.

Then came his disciples, etc. Here He instructs his disciples about avoiding scandal, and about the primary question, where it is said, And Peter answering. Regarding the first, the Evangelist does two things. First, the disciples' question is related; and secondly, Christ's response is related. Here it should be understood that the Pharisees and the disciples heard this statement, in view of which, they were thinking that He was overthrowing all their traditions and not, however, the Lord's precepts. For that reason, while detesting this statement they said nothing, but they were disturbed; therefore, the disciples said: Do you know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?

This word, ‘scandal’, is frequently found in the Scriptures; hence, one should see what it means. ‘Scandal’ in Greek is the same thing as a stumbling block, such as a rock on a path; hence, something is called a stumbling block when it is an occasion of a spiritual downfall. But sometimes a man actively scandalizes, and other times he does so passively. A scandal is said to be active when it is some deed that is not only evil in itself, but is also a stumbling block to others; for that reason, something less than rightly said or done that occasions spiritual downfall is called a scandal. It is not said of thought because it needs to be exposed. Likewise, one does not say that a scandal is something evil, but something less right, because it is necessary that it have the appearance of evil; From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves (1 Thessalonians 5:22). Similarly, there is a passive scandal, for example, if someone were to say a good word, or were to pray, and another would be scandalized, and takes to himself an occasion of his spiritual downfall. Hence, the Lord did not scandalize, but those men took an occasion of scandal. Hence, His disciples said that the Pharisees took scandal from it, and this was foretold by Isaiah: He shall be a sanctification to you. But for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence (Isaiah 9:14).

But he answering, said. Here the Lord's reply is related, and He shows that their scandal should be condemned, firstly, because they are strangers to God; and secondly, because they are harmful to men, where it is said, Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. He says, therefore, Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted, shall be rooted up. From these words, those who maintained that there are two kinds of nature wished to support their error, since they said that an evil nature was from an evil God, and a good nature from a good God. Hence, they say: ‘If a man originates from an evil creation, even if he seems to do good deeds, he is unable to persevere.’ But this is not so: for, as Jerome says, the contrary is stated in Jeremiah 2:21: Yet, I planted you a chosen vineyard, all true seed: how then are you turned into bitterness? And so it is clear that this vineyard's bitterness is not from God. Therefore, it was turned into bitterness by its plants, and not from its nature; but something supervening is understood, and this is the perverse will. Hence, nature always remains the same, but a perverse will is rooted up.

Hence, these plants can be understood to represent traditions of men, which are to be rooted up if they are opposed to God; but a tradition that is from God should never be rooted up.

Hence, Every plant, that is, every tradition which is not from God My Father, shall be rooted up. And this is stated in Acts 5:39, concerning Gamaliel who said: If it be of God, you cannot contradict it. This is also apparent in all things.

You will see someone who does good deeds that are founded in charity—Being rooted and founded in charity (Ephesians 3:17)—and these cannot be rooted up. But other deeds which do not have a good foundation, such as to give alms on account of vanity, are rooted up; hence: Every work that is corruptible shall fail in the end: and the worker thereof shall go with it (Ephesians 14:20). Hence, what is written should be understood in this manner: Adulterous plants shall not take deep root .

Contrary to this, is what is stated in 1 Corinthians 3:6, where Paul says: I have planted, Apollo watered. Therefore, Paul will be rooted up. I say that Paul did not plant as the principal agent, but as a minister.

He continues, Let them alone: they are blind. Here He shows that their scandal should be condemned, because they are harmful to men. And He teaches that firstly, their scandal should be condemned; secondly, their presumption should be condemned; and thirdly, their harm to men should be condemned. Regarding the first, He says: ‘You say that they are thus scandalized, but I say, Let them alone, and do not be concerned about them.’

But should one never be concerned about scandal? Did not the Lord, to avoid scandal, send Peter to the sea, so that he might pay the tribute? It should be said that scandal sometimes arises from the truth; hence, it is said: Scandal must be avoided if it can be avoided without prejudice to the truth or justice. Hence, a judge should not change his verdict if someone is scandalized by it. But, nevertheless, a distinction should be made, because some men are scandalized due to their weakness, and others are scandalized due to their certain malice. Scandal of the little ones should be avoided, while preserving the truth; and, even so, a man can delay or forego an action. But scandal does not need to be avoided if it is due to malice: and these men were scandalized in this way.

Hence, if they were not scandalized due to malice, the Lord would not have said, Let them alone, but rather, ‘Instruct them.’ A man that is a heretic, after the second admonition, avoid (Titus 3:10); We would have cured Babylon, but she is not healed (Jeremiah 51:9).

And why are they blind? The ignorant are spiritually blind; His watchmen are all blind (Isaiah 56:10). And because they were scandalized due to certain malice, not only are they blind, but they are also leaders of the blind, and teachers of the blind. If I have been ignorant, my ignorance shall be with me (Job 19:4). That they are leaders of the blind, this is something good; but because they themselves are blind, this is something bad. If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. Hide them in the dust (Job 40:8), namely, as far as their body is concerned.

And Peter answering. He is instructing them here concerning the main question, in which place the Evangelist does three things:

1. Peter's request is related.
2. The Lord's rebuke is related.
3. His teaching is related.

The second thing is where it is said, Are you also yet without understanding? The third thing is where it is said, Do you not understand, etc. He says, therefore: And Peter answering, said to him: Expound to us this parable. Peter was accustomed to hearing many parables from Him; for that reason, he supposed that He was speaking parabolically. Or perhaps it was because Peter was brought up in the Legal observances, as he said in chapter 10 of the Acts of the Apostles: Far be it from me.

For I never did eat anything that is common and unclean (Acts 10:14). For that reason, he supposed that He was not speaking literally, but parabolically. He shall understand a parable and the interpretation, the words of the wise, and their mysterious sayings (Proverbs 1:6). But he said: Are you also yet without understanding? For the Lord answered all the disciples in Peter, who spoke for them all. Here He rebukes them. But why? One reason, which Jerome gives, is that because His words were spoken publicly, they supposed that they were said parabolically. For just as a man who reveals secrets should be rebuked, so conversely, a man who hides things that have been revealed should be rebuked; Do not become like the horse and the mule, who have no understanding, etc. (Psalms 31:9). Another reason is Chrysostom's, namely, that he seemed to be zealous for the Jews because he was raised in the teaching of the Law; for that reason, he seemed to be saddened by this.

Afterwards, He expounds His words. And He expounds firstly what He had said, namely, That which goes into the mouth; secondly, He expounds what follows what He had said, But what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man; and thirdly, He concludes what He intended to prove. He says, therefore: Do you not understand, that whatsoever enters into the mouth, goes into the belly, and is cast out into the privy?

And why does the Lord speak in this fashion? Chrysostom says that He speaks to them as to men accustomed to the observances of the Law. Now it was the intention of the Law that when food was undigested in the mouth, it was unclean; but when it was digested, it was clean. Hence, it was always said in the Law, He shall be unclean until the evening. For that reason, let us affirm that these observances were to be kept; nevertheless, they did not make a man unclean, except for a time. Hence, a thing which passes cannot make them unclean.

Or it may be understood otherwise. Nothing can make the soul unclean which does not come in contact with it. Now food does not come in contact with the soul; and this is the proof, namely, that food goes into the belly, and is cast out into the privy.

But as Jerome says, against this some men object, saying that the Lord was ignorant of natural science, because not all the food is transmitted into the privy. Hence, certain men wishing to understand His words such that all the food is cast out, want to believe that nothing is converted into human nature, but that only what is derived from Adam is multiplied, and only this will rise again. Hence, workmen put lead with gold so that the lead may be consumed, and the gold preserved. So the foods resist, lest the natural heat consume that which is derived from the power of nature. But this seems impossible, because something cannot become larger except by rarefaction, because to be rarified is nothing else than to take on a greater quantity.

Likewise, man is like the animals in his sensitive nature, and he is like the plants in his nutritive and vegetative nature. But so it is that these things grow and are nourished from nutrition. Therefore, men also grow and are nourished in the same way. But what is it, therefore, that He says, is cast out into the privy?

Jerome says that not only unclean feces are understood; in fact, this may occur in whatever way, whether by dung, or in another way. And this is in accord with the Philosopher, who says that although a thing may remain according to its species, nevertheless, it flows away according to its matter, just as if fire would remain in species but the matter is consumed. It can also be said thus: Whatsoever enters into the mouth, goes into the belly, can mean that something of whatever enters the mouth, goes into the belly; hence, sometimes in Scripture the whole is taken for the part.

But the things which proceed out of the mouth: it was already said that by the mouth the mind is understood. Come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man: because the sins of the heart are the thoughts and affections; Take away the evil of your thoughts from my eyes (Isaiah 1:16). Likewise, He sets forth the sins which are against the precepts of the Second Tablet: murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts. Similarly, He sets forth the sins of the mouth against one's neighbor: false testimonies; blasphemies—these are the sins against the First Tablet. Hence, these are the things which defile a man, because these things proceed from the mind. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man. Here He concludes, and He makes this conclusion to answer the primary question. Likewise, it was because the disciples did not understand, and for that reason, He concludes that His statement was spoken merely against a tradition of the Pharisees.