Комментарии к Библии

From Jerusalem (απο Ιεροσολυμων). Jerusalem is the headquarters of the conspiracy against Jesus with the Pharisees as the leaders in it. Already we have seen the Herodians combining with the Pharisees in the purpose to put Jesus to death (Mark 3:6; Matthew 12:14; Luke 6:11). Soon Jesus will warn the disciples against the Sadducees also (Matthew 16:6). Unusual order here, "Pharisees and scribes." "The guardians of tradition in the capital have their evil eye on Jesus and co-operate with the provincial rigorists" (Bruce), if the Pharisees were not all from Jerusalem.

return to '

The tradition of the elders (την παραδοσιν των πρεσβυτερων). This was the oral law, handed down by the elders of the past in ex cathedra fashion and later codified in the Mishna. Handwashing before meals is not a requirement of the Old Testament. It is, we know, a good thing for sanitary reasons, but the rabbis made it a mark of righteousness for others at any rate. This item was magnified at great length in the oral teaching. The washing (νιπτοντα, middle voice, note) of the hands called for minute regulations. It was commanded to wash the hands before meals, it was one's duty to do it after eating. The more rigorous did it between the courses. The hands must be immersed. Then the water itself must be "clean" and the cups or pots used must be ceremonially "clean." Vessels were kept full of clean water ready for use (John 2:6-8). So it went on ad infinitum. Thus a real issue is raised between Jesus and the rabbis. It was far more than a point of etiquette or of hygienics. The rabbis held it to be a mortal sin. The incident may have happened in a Pharisee's house.

return to '

Ye also (κα υμεις). Jesus admits that the disciples had transgressed the rabbinical traditions. Jesus treats it as a matter of no great importance in itself save as they had put the tradition of the elders in the place of the commandment of God. When the two clashed, as was often the case, the rabbis transgress the commandment of God "because of your tradition" (δια την παραδοσιν υμων). The accusative with δια means that, not "by means of." Tradition is not good or bad in itself. It is merely what is handed on from one to another. Custom tended to make these traditions binding like law. The Talmud is a monument of their struggle with tradition. There could be no compromise on this subject and Jesus accepts the issue. He stands for real righteousness and spiritual freedom, not for bondage to mere ceremonialism and tradition. The rabbis placed tradition (the oral law) above the law of God.

return to '

But ye say (υμεις δε λεγετε). In sharp contrast to the command of God. Jesus had quoted the fifth commandment (Exodus 20:12; Exodus 20:16) with the penalty "die the death" (θανατω τελευτατω), "go on to his end by death," in imitation of the Hebrew idiom. They dodged this command of God about the penalty for dishonouring one's father or mother by the use "Corban" (κορβαν) as Mark calls it (Mark 7:11). All one had to do to evade one's duty to father or mother was to say "Corban" or "Gift" (Δωρον) with the idea of using the money for God. By an angry oath of refusal to help one's parents, the oath or vow was binding. By this magic word one set himself free (ου μη τιμησε, he shall not honour) from obedience to the fifth commandment. Sometimes unfilial sons paid graft to the rabbinical legalists for such dodges. Were some of these very faultfinders guilty?

return to '

Ye have made void the word of God (εκυρωσατε τον λογον του θεου). It was a stinging indictment that laid bare the hollow pretence of their quibbles about handwashing. Κυρος means force or authority, ακυρος is without authority, null and void. It is a late verb, ακυροω but in the LXX, Galatians 3:17; and in the papyri Adjective, verb, and substantive occur in legal phraseology like cancelling a will, etc. The moral force of God's law is annulled by their hairsplitting technicalities and immoral conduct.

return to '

Well did Isaiah prophesy of you (καλως επροφητευσεν περ υμων Εσαιας). There is sarcasm in this pointed application of Isaiah's words (Isaiah 29:13) to these rabbis. He "beautifully pictured" them. The portrait was to the very life, "teaching as their doctrines the commandments of men." They were indeed far from God if they imagined that God would be pleased with such gifts at the expense of duty to one's parents.

return to '

This defileth the man (τουτο κοινο τον ανθρωπον). This word is from κοινος which is used in two senses, either what is "common" to all and general like the Koine Greek, or what is unclean and "common" either ceremonially or in reality. The ceremonial "commonness" disturbed Peter on the housetop in Joppa (Acts 10:14). See also Acts 21:28; Hebrews 9:13. One who is thus religiously common or unclean is cut off from doing his religious acts. "Defilement" was a grave issue with the rabbinical ceremonialists. Jesus appeals to the crowd here: Hear and understand (ακουετε κα συνιετε). He has a profound distinction to draw. Moral uncleanness is what makes a man common, defiles him. That is what is to be dreaded, not to be glossed over. "This goes beyond the tradition of the elders and virtually abrogates the Levitical distinctions between clean and unclean" (Bruce). One can see the pettifogging pretenders shrivel up under these withering words.

return to '

Were offended (εσκανδαλισθησαν). First aorist passive. "Were caused to stumble," "have taken offence" (Moffatt), "have turned against you" (Weymouth), "were shocked" (Goodspeed), "War ill-pleased" (Braid Scots). They took umbrage at the public rebuke and at such a scorpion sting in it all. It cut to the quick because it was true. It showed in the glowering countenances of the Pharisees so plainly that the disciples were uneasy. See on Matthew 5:29.

return to '