Matthäus 15:11 Kommentar

In this chapter, we have our Lord Jesus, as the great Prophet teaching, as the great Physician healing, and as the great Shepherd of the sheep feeding; as the Father of spirits instructing them; as the Conqueror of Satan dispossessing him; and as concerned for the bodies of his people, providing for them. Here is, I. Christ's discourse with the scribes and Pharisees about human traditions and injunctions (Mat 15:1-9). II. His discourse with the multitude, and with his disciples, concerning the things that defile a man (Mat 15:10-20). III. His casting of the devil out of the woman of Canaan's daughter (Mat 15:21-28). IV. His healing of all that were brought to him (Mat 15:29-31). V. His feeding of four thousand men, with seven loaves and a few little fishes (Mat 15:32-39).

Then came to Jesus Scribes and Pharisees,.... After he had wrought 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 thereof, came to him, where he was, in Galilee: 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.

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man,.... No sorts of meats, or drinks, or whatever is proper food for men, or manner of eating and drinking them, when moderately used, defile a man, or render him loathsome and odious in the sight God. This is directly opposite to the notions of the Jews, who say (d), that "forbidden meats are unclean themselves, "and defile both body and soul".'' The first food of man was herbs; after the flood he had an allowance of the flesh of beasts, without distinction; under the Levitical dispensation, a difference of meats was enjoined to be observed; the laws respecting that distinction are now abolished, and not binding on us under the Gospel dispensation. Some scruples, about some of these things, did arise among the first Christians; but in process of time these difficulties were got over: nor is there any religion in abstinence from any sort of food; men, indeed, on a "physical" account, ought to be careful what they eat and drink, but not on a religious one; moderation in all ought to be used; and whatever is ate or drank, should be received with thankfulness, and done to the glory of God, and then no defilement can arise from hence: but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. It is sin, and that only, which takes its rise from the heart, lies in thought, and is either expressed by the mouth, or performed by some outward action, which defiles the man, and renders him loathsome, abominable, and odious in the sight of God. The heart is the source of all evil; the pollution of it is very early, and very general, reaching to all the powers and faculties of the soul; which shows the ignorance of some, and folly of others, that talk of, and trust to the goodness of their hearts; and also the necessity of new hearts and right spirits being formed and created; and that the sinful thoughts of the heart, and the lusts thereof, are defiling to men; and that they are sinful in God's account, and abominable in his sight; that they are loathsome to sensible sinners, and are to be repented of, and forsaken by them; and need the pardoning grace of God or otherwise will be brought into judgment. Sinful words, which, through the abundance of wickedness in the heart, come out of the mouth, have the same influence and effect: words are of a defiling nature; with these men pollute both themselves and others: the tongue, though a little member, defiles the whole body; and evil and corrupt communication proceeding out of the mouth, corrupts the best of manners, and renders men loathsome to God, and liable to his awful judgment. And this is the nature of all sinful actions; they are what God can take no pleasure in; they are disagreeable, to a sensible mind; they leave a stain, which can never be removed by any thing the creature can do; nothing short of the blood of Christ can cleanse from it; and inasmuch as they are frequently committed, there is need of continual application to it. These are now the things men should be concerned about, as of a defiling nature; and not about meats and drinks, and the manner of using them, whether with hands washed, or unwashed. (d) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 142. 1.

Meantime they huff in our teeth the fact that Isaiah withal has authoritatively declared, "Not such a fast hath the Lord elected," that is, not abstinence from food, but the works of righteousness, which he there appends: and that the Lord Himself in the Gospel has given a compendious answer to every kind of scrupulousness in regard to food; "that not by such things as are introduced into the mouth is a man defiled, but by such as are produced out of the mouth; " while Himself withal was wont to eat and drink till He made Himself noted thus; "Behold, a gormandizer and a drinker: " (finally), that so, too, does the apostle teach that "food commendeth us not to God; since we neither abound if we eat, nor lack if we eat not.

Now anyone who has come to this place in the text can agree that it is “not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man,” even if it is considered to be defiling by Jews. In exactly the same way it is “not what enters into the mouth” that makes the person holy. This is so even if that which is called the bread of the Lord is considered to make the person holy by some of the more impeccable disciples. The two cases are similar. It is not the food but the conscience of the one who eats with doubt about its propriety that defiles the person who has eaten. For “the one who doubts is condemned if one eats, because one is not eating from faith.” It is also like the case in which “nothing is pure to the one who is defiled and unbelieving.” The thing involved is impure not because of itself but because of the person’s defilement and unbelief. In the same way, that which is “made holy through the word of God and prayer” does not on its own account make the one who uses it holy. For if it did, it would also make holy the one who eats of the Lord “in an unworthy manner” and no one would become “weak” or “sickly” or would “sleep” because of this food. For this is what Paul showed in the statement, “Because of this many among you are weak and sickly and a significant number are falling asleep.” Therefore, in the case of the bread of the Lord, the one who uses it derives benefit when one shares in the bread with a mind that is undefiled and a conscience that is pure.

We are accused by the Jews and Ebionites of being violators of the laws that we read in Leviticus and Deuteronomy concerning clean and unclean food. But by means of what is said in this passage we are clearly taught by the Savior not to think that the simple meaning of these laws is the aim intended in the Scripture. For Jesus says, “Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a person but that which comes out of the mouth.” Especially significant is what is said in the Gospel of Mark: “Thus he declared all foods clean.” Since all this is so, it is obvious that we are not defiled when we eat things that are said to be unclean by Jews, who want to serve the letter of the law. Instead, we are defiled when we say whatever happens to be on our mind and we talk about things that we should not talk about, even though our lips should be bound “with perception” and we should make for them “a measuring balance and a standard of measure.” The spring of sins comes to us from such talking.

Having, you see, given them their mortal blow; and from the facts first, then from their own suffrage, then from the prophet having aggravated the charge, with them indeed He discourses not at all, incorrigibly disposed as they are now come to be, but directs His speech to the multitudes, so as to introduce His doctrine, great and high, and full of much strictness; and taking occasion from the former topic, He proceeds to insert that which is greater, casting out also the observance of meats. But see when. When He had cleansed the leper, when He had repealed the Sabbath, when He had shown Himself King of earth and sea, when He had made laws, when He had remitted sins, when He had raised dead men, when He had afforded them many proofs of His Godhead, then He discourses of meats. For indeed all the religion of the Jews is comprised in this; if thou take this away, thou hast even taken away all. For hereby He signifies, that circumcision too must be abrogated. But of Himself He doth not prominently introduce this (forasmuch as that was older than the other commandments, and had higher estimation), but He enacts it by His disciples. For so great a thing was it, that even the disciples after so long a time being minded to do it away, first practise it, and so put it down. But see how He introduces His law: how "He called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear and understand." Thus He doth by no means simply reveal it to them, but by respect and courtesy, first, He makes His saying acceptable (for this the evangelist declares by saying, "He called them unto Him"): and secondly, by the time also; in that after their refutation, and His victory over them, and the accusation by the prophet, then He begins His legislation, when they too would more easily receive His sayings. And He doth not merely call them unto Him, but also makes them more attentive. For "understand," saith He, that is, "consider, rouse yourselves; for of that sort is the law now about to be enacted. For if they set aside the law, even unseasonably, for their own tradition, and ye hearkened; much more ought ye to hearken unto me, who at the proper season am leading you unto a higher rule of self restraint." And He did not say, "The observance of meats is nothing, neither that Moses had given wrong injunctions, nor that of condescension He did so;" but in the way of admonition and counsel, and taking His testimony from the nature of the things, He saith: "Not the things that go into the mouth, defile the man, but the things that go out of the mouth;" resorting to nature herself both in His enactment and in His demonstration. Yet they hearing all this, made no reply, neither did they say, "What sayest Thou? When God hath given charges without number concerning the observance of meats, dost thou make such laws?" But since He had utterly stopped their mouths, not by refuting them only, but also by publishing their craft, and exposing what was done by them in secret, and revealing the secrets of their mind; their mouths were stopped, and so they went away. But mark, I pray thee, how He doth not yet venture distinctly to set Himself with boldness against the meats. Therefore neither did He say "the meats," but, "the things that enter in defile not the man;" which it was natural for them to suspect concerning the unwashen hands also. For He indeed was speaking of meats, but it would be understood of these matters too. Why, so strong was the feeling of scruple about the meats, that even after the resurrection Peter said, "Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean." For although it was for the sake of others that He said this, and in order to leave Himself a justification against his censurers, by pointing out that he actually remonstrated, and not even so was excused, nevertheless it implies the depth of their impression on that point. Wherefore you see He Himself also at the beginning spake not openly concerning meats, but, "The things that go into the mouth;" and again, when He had seemed afterwards to speak more plainly, He veiled it by His conclusion, saying, "But to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man:" that He might seem to have had His occasion from thence, and to be still discoursing of the same. Therefore He said not, "To eat meats defileth not a man," but is as though He were speaking on that other topic; that they may have nothing to say against it.

(Verse 11.) It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles a person; but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles a person. The word, properly speaking, is communicated through Scripture and is not worn out in everyday conversation. The Jewish people, boasting to be a part of God, call common foods, which all humans use, 'unclean.' For example, pork, oysters, rabbits, and other animals that do not have split hooves, do not chew the cud, and are not scale-covered in fish. And it is also written in the Acts of the Apostles: 'What God has cleansed, you must not call common' (Acts 10:15). Therefore, that which is commonly available to other people, and is as if it is not from God's side, is called impure. It is not what enters the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth that defiles a person. Let a wise reader oppose and say: If what enters the mouth does not defile a person, then why do we not eat idol-offerings? And the Apostle writes: You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons (1 Corinthians 10:20). Therefore, it must be understood that while food itself, being a creature of God, is clean, it becomes unclean through the invocation of idols and demons.

The word here [communicat] 'makes a man common' is peculiar to Scripture, and is not hackneyed in common parlance. The Jewish nation, boasting themselves to be a part of God, call those meats common, of which all men partake; for example, swine's flesh, shell fish, hares, and those species of animals that do not divide the hoof, and chew the cud, and among the fish such as have not scales. Hence in the Acts of the Apostles we read, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15.) Common then in this sense is that which is free to the rest of mankind, and as though not in part of God, is therefore called unclean. The thoughtful reader may here object and say, If that which entereth into the mouth defileth not a man, why do we not feed on meats offered to idols? Be it known then that meats and every creature of God is in itself clean; but the invocation of idols and dæmons makes them unclean with those at least who with conscience of the idol eat that which is offered to idols, and their conscience being weak is polluted, as the Apostle says.

(cont. Faust. vi. 6.) This declaration of the Lord, Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man, is not contrary to the Old Testament. As the Apostle also speaks, To the pure all things are pure; (Tit. 1:15.) and Every creature of God is good. Let the Manichæans understand, (1 Tim. 4:4.) if they can, that the Apostle said this of the very natures and qualities of things; while that letter (of the ritual law) declared certain animals unclean, not in their nature but typically, for certain figures which were needed for a time. Therefore to take an instance in the swine and the lamb, by nature both are clean, because naturally every creature of God is good; but in a certain typical meaning the lamb is clean, and the swine unclean. Take the two words, 'fool,' and 'wise,' in their own nature, as sounds, or letters, both of them are pure, but one of them because of the meaning attached to it, not because of any thing in its own nature, may be said to be impure. And perhaps what the swine are in typical representation, that among mankind is the fool; and the animal, and this word of two syllables (stultus) signify some one and the same thing. That animal is reckoned unclean in the law because it does not chew the cud; but this is not its fault but its nature. But the men of whom this animal is the emblem, are impure by their own fault, not by nature; they readily hear the words of wisdom, but never think upon them again. Whatever of profit you may hear, to summon this up from the internal region of the memory through the sweetness of recollection into the mouth of thought, what is this but spiritually to chew the cud? They who do not this are represented by this species of animal. Such resemblances as these in speech, or in ceremonies, having figurative signification, profitably and pleasantly move the rational mind; but by the former people, many such things were not only to be heard, but to be kept as precepts. For that was a time when it behoved not in words only, but in deeds, to prophesy those things which hereafter were to be revealed. When these had been revealed through Christ, and in Christ, the burdens of observances were not imposed on the faith of the Gentiles; but the authority of the prophecy was yet confirmed. But I ask of the Manichæans, whether this declaration of the Lord, when He said that a man is not defiled by what enters into his mouth, is true or false? If false, why then does their doctor Adimantus bring it forward against the Old Testament? If true, why contrary to its tenor do they consider that they are thus defiled?

The Lord wanted to show up the uncalledfor offense taken by the scribes and the Pharisees about unwashed hands. So he beckoned the crowd to him and said, “What goes into the mouth does not defile a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, that defiles a man.” He explained that a man is defiled not from the food that enters his mouth but from the perverse thoughts of his mind, which proceed from his heart. For the food we receive for eating was created and blessed by God to sustain human life. So, it cannot defile a man. Indeed, wicked and perverse thoughts that proceed from the heart, as the Lord himself noted—“murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, blasphemy,” the author of which is the devil—these are the things that really defile a man.

But if any one's faith be so strong that he understands that God's creature can in no way be defiled, let him eat what he will, after the food has been hallowed by the word of God and of prayer; yet so that this his liberty be not made an offence to the weak, as the Apostle speaks.

He no longer converses with the Pharisees, as they were incurable, but with the multitude. Christ sees fit to honor the multitude by calling them to Himself so that they might accept His word, and He says, "Hear and understand," urging them to be attentive. As the Pharisees had blamed the disciples for eating with unwashed hands, the Lord speaks of food, saying that no food defiles a man. And if food does not defile, how much less does eating with unwashed hands? What defiles the inner man is to say those things which he should not. Here He is alluding to the Pharisees who defile themselves by speaking spiteful words. Behold His wisdom, how He neither openly enjoins the eating with unwashed hands, nor forbids it. But He teaches something different, not to spew evil words from the heart.

Consequently he proposes the most exalted teaching, which is the perfection of the moral life. Hence it should be noted that something is changed by an external thing, as water is heated by fire; and something is changed by an internal thing, as a man is changed by sin. However much a man may be moved externally, it is not sin unless the man consents interiorly; Job 37:9: from the interior comes the tempest. Hence first he shows that defilement is not from external things; second, that it is from the interior. He says therefore not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man. Against this, one may object from the old law; for in Lev. 11 many foods are forbidden, and men were made unclean by them. Augustine responds, against Faustus, saying that something is called unclean in two ways. In one way, according to its own nature; and in this way nothing is unclean, according to 1 Tim. 4:4: every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving. Likewise, something can be unclean according to its signification. And thus some thing can be a sign of uncleanness or of cleanness: for if we take the pig and the lamb in their nature, each is good; yet in their signification the pig signifies uncleanness, the lamb innocence; therefore as regards signification, one is clean, the other unclean. And because before the coming of Christ it was a time in which they lived under figures, since the truth was not yet manifest, those observances had to be kept and fell under precept. But because at the coming of Christ the truth was made manifest, the figure ceased; etc. But again another question remains, because in Acts 15:20 the apostles commanded that those converted should abstain from things strangled and from blood. Therefore it seems that while the truth endures, those observances should be maintained. The ancients said that this is to be understood literally, that one must still abstain from these things, because they are unclean. But this is nothing, because it contradicts the authority of the Apostle, Titus 1:15: all things are clean to the clean. Some said that this is to be understood partly literally, partly morally: for what is said about fornication, that they prohibited literally; but what is said about blood, this is to be understood as meaning that innocent blood should not be shed; and what is said about things strangled, it was to be understood so that no one should inflict injury on another. But it should not be understood in this way, although the exposition may be true. For the question was whether converted Gentiles were bound to those things which the apostles prohibited. Therefore it must be understood according to what was customary for the Jews. Therefore it should be said otherwise, that the apostles considered something and prohibited it either because it was unlawful in itself, or because it was an occasion of scandal; hence they prohibited fornication as unlawful; but blood, lest they give scandal to others, so that scandal might be removed. And this is what the words of the Apostle convey, 1 Cor. 8:9: but take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumbling block to the weak. Likewise, if one objects: suppose someone in Lent eats meat; is he not defiled? It must be said that he is defiled not from the food, but from the violation of the precept; Rom. 14:17: the kingdom of God is not meat and drink. But the things which proceed out of the mouth, these defile a man. Here he seems to touch only on sins which proceed from the mouth, and these defile; Luke 19:22: out of your own mouth I judge you, you wicked servant. And above, 7:2: out of your own mouth you shall be judged. But it must be said that the proper function of the mouth is to speak. Now there is a twofold speaking: outwardly with the bodily mouth, and inwardly with the mouth of the mind, of which Ps. 13:1 says: the fool said in his heart: there is no God. Thus therefore by the mouth can be understood the mouth of the heart, namely the mind of man, and thus every sin is from the mouth; because there is never sin except from a purpose of the mind. Thus therefore what proceeds from the mouth, namely of the heart, this defiles, because sin is so voluntary that if it is not voluntary, it is not sin.

DISCOURSE ON CEREMONIAL POLLUTION. ( = Mar 7:1, Mar 7:23). (Mat. 15:1-20) Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem--or "from Jerusalem." Mark (Mar 7:1) says they "came from" it: a deputation probably sent from the capital expressly to watch Him. As He had not come to them at the last Passover, which they had reckoned on, they now come to Him. "And," says Mark (Mar 7:2-3), "when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen hands"--hands not ceremonially cleansed by washing--"they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft"--literally, "in" or "with the fist"; that is, probably washing the one hand by the use of the other--though some understand it, with our version, in the sense of "diligently," "sedulously"--"eat not, holding the tradition of the elders"; acting religiously according to the custom handed down to them. "And when they come from the market" (Mar 7:4) --"And after market": after any common business, or attending a court of justice, where the Jews, as WEBSTER and WILKINSON remark, after their subjection to the Romans, were especially exposed to intercourse and contact with heathens--"except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables"--rather, "couches," such as were used at meals, which probably were merely sprinkled for ceremonial purposes. "Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him," saying--as follows:

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man--This is expressed even more emphatically in Mark (Mar 7:15-16), and it is there added, "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." As in Mat 13:9, this so oft-repeated saying seems designed to call attention to the fundamental and universal character of the truth it refers to.