Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

CHAPTER 15.

WASHING OF HANDS; SYROPHŒNICIAN WOMAN; SECOND FEEDING.

The scene changes with dramatic effect from phenomenal popularity on the eastern shore, and in Gennesaret, to embittered, ominous conflict with the jealous guardians of Jewish orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The relations between Jesus and the religious virtuosi are becoming more and more strained and the crisis cannot be far off. That becomes clear to Jesus now, if it was not before (Matthew 16:21).

Matthew 15:1-20. Washing of hands (Mark 7:1-23).

Matthew 15:1. τότε connects naturally with immediately preceding narrative concerning the people of Gennesaret with unbounded faith in Jesus seeking healing by mere touch of His garment. Probably the one scene led to the other: growing popular enthusiasm deepening Pharisaic hostility.—προσέρχονται (οἱ) ἀ. Ἱ. If οἱ be omitted, the sense is that certain persons came to Jesus from Jerusalem. If it be retained, the sense is: certain persons belonging to Jerusalem came from it, the preposition ἐν being changed into ἀπὸ by attraction of the verb.—φαρ. καὶ γρ., usually named in inverse order, as in T.R. Our evangelist makes the whole party come from Jerusalem; Mk., with more probability, the scribes only. The guardians of tradition in the Capital have their evil eye on Jesus and co-operate with the provincial rigorists.

Matthew 15:2. διατί οἱ μαθ. σου παραβ.: no instance of offence specified in this case, as in Matthew 9:10 and Matthew 12:1. The zealots must have been making inquiries or playing the spy into the private habits of the disciple circle, seeking for grounds of fault-finding (cf. Mark 7:2).—παραβαίνουσι: strong word (Mk.’s milder), putting breach of Rabbinical rules on a level with breaking the greatest moral laws, as if the former were of equal importance with the latter. That they were, was deliberately maintained by the scribes (vide Lightfoot).—τὴν παράδοσιν τ. π.: not merely the opinion, dogma, placitum, of the elders (Grotius), but opinion expressed ex cathedra, custom originated with authority by the ancients. The “elders” here are not the living rulers of the people, but the past bearers of religious authority, the more remote the more venerable. The “tradition” was unwritten (ἄγραφος διδασκαλία, Hesych.), the “law upon the lip” reaching back, like the written law (so it was pretended), to Moses. Baseless assertion, but believed; therefore to attack the παράδοσις is a Herculean, dangerous task. The assailants regard the act imputed as an unheard-of monstrous impiety. That is why they make a general charge before specifying the particular form under which the offence is committed, so giving the latter as serious an aspect as possible.—οὐ γὰρ νίπτονται, etc.: granting the fact it did not necessarily mean deliberate disregard of the tradition. It might be an occasional carelessness on the part of some of the disciples (τινὰς, Mark 7:2) which even the offenders would not care to defend. A time-server might easily have evaded discussion by putting the matter on this ground. The Pharisees eagerly put the worst construction on the act, and Jesus was incapable of time-serving insincerity; thus conflict was inevitable.—νίπτεσθαι, the proper word before meat, ἀπονίπτεσθαι, after, Elsner, citing Athenaeus, lib. ix., cap. 18.—ἄρτον ἐσθίωσιν, Hebrew idiom for taking food. The neglect charged was not that of ordinary cleanliness, but of the technical rules for securing ceremonial cleanness. These were innumerable and ridiculously minute. Lightfoot, referring to certain Rabbinical tracts, says: “lege, si vacat, et si per taedium et nauseam potes”.

Matthew 15:3-6. Christ’s reply; consists of a counter charge and a prophetic citation (Matthew 15:7-9) in the inverse order to that of Mk.

Matthew 15:3. καὶ ὑμεῖς: the retort, if justifiable, the best defence possible of neglect charged = “we transgress the tradition because we want to keep the commands of God: choice lies between these; you make the wrong choice”. Grave issue raised; no compromise possible here.—διὰ τ. π. ὑμῶν: not rules made by the parties addressed (Weiss-Meyer), but the tradition which ye idolise, your precious paradosis.

Matthew 15:4. ὁ γὰρ θεὸς: counter charge substantiated. The question being the validity of the tradition and its value, its evil tendency might be illustrated at will in connection with any moral interest. It might have been illustrated directly in connection with moral purity versus ceremonial. The actual selection characteristic of Jesus as humane, and felicitous as exceptionally clear.—τίμʼ … τελευτάτω: fifth commandment (Exodus 20:12), with its penal sanction (Exodus 21:17).

Matthew 15:5 shows how that great law is compromised.—ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγ.: the emphatic antithesis of ὑμεῖς to θεὸς a pointed rebuke of their presumption. he scribes rivals to the Almighty in legislation. “Ye say”: the words following give not the ipsissima verba of scribe-teaching or what they would acknowledge to be the drift of their teaching, but that drift as Jesus Himself understood it = “This is what it comes to.”—“Δῶρον” = let it be a gift or offering devoted to God, to the temple, to religious purposes, i.e., a Corban (Mark 7:11); magic word releasing from obligation to show honour to parents in the practical way of contributing to their support. Of evil omen even when the “gift” was bonâ fide, as involving an artificial divorce between religion and morality; easily sliding into disingenuous pretexts of vows to evade filial responsibilities; reaching the lowest depth of immorality when lawmakers and unfilial sons were in league for common pecuniary profit from the nefarious transaction. Were the faultfinders in this case chargeable with receiving a commission for trafficking in iniquitous legislation, letting sons off for a percentage on what they would have to give their parents? Origen, Jerome, Theophy., Lutteroth favour this view, but there is nothing in the text to justify it. Christ’s charge is based on the practice specified even at its best: honest pleading of previous obligation to God as a ground for neglecting duty to parents. Lightfoot (Hor. Heb.) understands the law as meaning that the word Corban, even though profanely and heartlessly spoken, bound not to help parents, but did not bind really to give the property to sacred uses. “Addicanda sua in sacros usus per haec verba nullatenus tenebatur, ad non juvandum patrem tenebatur inviolabiliter.”—οὐ μὴ τιμήσει, he shall not honour = he is exempt from obligation to: such the rule in effect, if not in words, of the scribes in the case. The future here has the force of the imperative as often in the Sept[89] (vide Burton, M. and T., § 67). If the imperative meaning be denied, then οὐ μὴ τ. must be taken as a comment of Christ’s. Ye say, “whosoever,” etc.; in these circumstances of course he will not, etc. As the passage stands in T.R. the clause καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμήσῃ, etc., belongs to the protasis, and the apodosis remains unexpressed = he shall be free, or guiltless, as in A. V[90]

[89] Septuagint.

[90] Authorised Version.

Matthew 15:6. ἠκυρώσατε, ye invalidated, by making such a rule, the aorist pointing to the time when the rule was made. Or it may be a gnomic aorist: so ye are wont to, etc. The verb ἀκυρόω belongs to later Greek, though Elsner calls the phrase “bene Graeca”.—διὰ … ὑμῶν: an account of your tradition, again to mark it as their idol, and as theirs alone, God having no part in it, though the Rabbis taught that it was given orally by God to Moses.

Matthew 15:7. ὑποκριταί: no thought of conciliation; open war at all hazards. “Actors,” in their zeal for God, as illustrated in the case previously cited. God first, parents second, yet God not in all their thoughts.—καλῶς, appositely, to the purpose. Isaiah might not be thinking of the Pharisees, but certainly the quotation is very felicitous in reference to them, exactly describing their religious character. Mt. follows Mk. in quoting; neither follows closely the Sept[91] (Isaiah 29:13).

[91] Septuagint.