마태복음 15:2 주석

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.

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?.... 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 (d), "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 hath broke 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 , "weightier are the words of the elders", than the words of the prophets.'' And elsewhere (e), 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 , "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 (f), who were the first authors of this tradition, it is not certain; it is said (g), that "Hillell and Shammai decreed , "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 , "from the words of the Scribes" (h).'' The breach of this rule was reckoned equal to the most flagitious crimes (i): R. Jose says, "whoever eats bread without washing of hands, is as if he lay with a whore: and, says R. Eleazer, whoever despiseth washing of hands, shall be rooted out of the world.'' And elsewhere it is said by them (k), that "he that blesseth (food) with defiled hands, is guilty of death.'' And again (l), "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 (n), 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 (o): but of this; see Gill on Mar 7:3. (d) T. Hieros. Beracot, fol. 3. 2. (e) T. Bab. Erubim, fol. 21. 2. T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 4. 2. (f) Misn. Chagiga, c. 2. sect. 5, 6. Maimon. Praefat. ad Tract. Yadaim, & Hilch. Beracot, c. 6. sect. 3. (g) T. Hieros. Sabbat, fol. 3. 4. (h) Maimon Hilch. Mikvaot, c. 11. sect. 1. (i) T. Bab. Sota, fol. 4. 2. (k) Zohar in Deut. fol. 107. 3. (l) lb. in Gen. fol. 60. 2. (m) Gloss. in. T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 77. 2. Taanith, fol. 20. 2. & Cholin, fol. 107. 2. (n) T. B. Erubim, fol. 2l. 2. (o) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 19. l.

But mark, I pray thee, how even by the question itself they are convicted; in not saying, "Why do they transgress the law of Moses," but, "the tradition of the elders." Whence it is evident that the priests were inventing many novelties, although Moses, with much terror and with much threatening, had enjoined neither to add nor take away. For "ye shall not add," saith he, "unto the word which I command you this day, and ye shall not take away from it." But not the less were they innovating; as in this instance, that one ought not to eat with unwashen hands, that we must wash cups and brazen vessels, that we must wash also ourselves. Thus, when men were henceforth, as time advanced, to be freed from their observances, at that very time they bound them with the same in more and more instances, fearing lest any one should take away their power, and wishing to strike more dread, as though they were themselves also lawgivers. The thing in fact proceeded so far in enormity, that while their own commandments were kept, those of God were transgressed; and they so far prevailed, that the matter had actually become a ground of accusation. Which was a twofold charge against them, in that they both invented novelties, and were so strict exactors on their own account, while of God they made no reckoning.

But it were meet first to inquire, why the disciples ate with unwashen hands. Wherefore then did they so eat? Not as making a point of it, but as overlooking henceforth the things that are superfluous, and attending to such as are necessary; having no law to wash or not to wash, but doing either as it happened. For they that despised even their own necessary food, how were they to hold these things worth much consideration? This then having often happened unintentionally,-for instance, when they ate in the wilderness, when they plucked the ears of corn,-is now put forward as a charge by these persons, who are always transgressing in the great things, and making much account of the superfluous.

(Vers. 1, 2.) For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread. Hands, that is, works, are to be washed, not of the body for sure, but of the soul, so that the word of God may be made in them.

But the hands that are to be washed are the acts not of the body, but of the mind; that the word of God may be done in them.

Among other observations, some of the Jewish elders ruled that a person should not take or eat food unless he first washed his hands. This observation, however, reveals a particular custom that is human and produces no beneficial effect. Therefore this tradition of the elders is practically useless, for it does not benefit a person’s health. No justification is gained from this tradition, and no harm is done in disregarding it. For God is not concerned whether a man washes his hands before eating but whether he has kept his heart washed and his conscience clean from the filth of sin. Truly, what good is it to wash your hands and to have a defiled conscience? The Lord’s disciples were clean of heart and were guided by an untainted conscience. Hence they were not overly concerned with washing their hands. They had washed them once in baptism with their whole body, in accord with our Lord’s words to Peter: “He who has bathed needs only to wash, and he is clean all over, as you are clean.”

Of what kind these traditions were, Mark shows when he says, The Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not. (Mark 7:3.) Here then also they find fault with the disciples, saying, For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. Or the Pharisees found fault with the Lord's disciples, not concerning that washing which we do from ordinary habit, and of necessity, but of that superfluous washing which was invented by the tradition of the elders.

(in Marc. 7, 1.) Taking carnally those words of the Prophets, in which it is said, Wash, and he ye clean, they, observed it only in washing the body; (Is. 1:16.) hence they had laid it down that we ought not to eat with unwashen hands.

Although there were scribes and Pharisees in every place, those in Jerusalem were the most honored. Hence they envied Christ all the more as they were the most vainglorious. As a custom from ancient tradition, the Jews did not eat with unwashed hands. Seeing the disciples disdain this tradition, they thought that the disciples held the elders in contempt. What then does the Saviour do? He says nothing in defense of this, but accuses them in return.

Then is presented that in which they accused them: why do your disciples transgress the traditions of the ancients? It was commanded, as is found in Deut. 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 against the law; not that it was unlawful to establish something, but that they commanded their traditions to be observed just as the law of the Lord. For they do not wash their hands etc. Here is explained what their traditions are. This, however, is explained more fully in Mark 7:2; for there it is said that when they had seen some of his disciples eating bread with common, that is, unwashed, hands, they found fault. And this can be taken literally, because they did not wash their hands. Why? Because they were so intent on the word of God that they did not even have time; hence from their concern for spiritual things they did not wash themselves in the manner of the Jews, as is found in Mark 7:4, that all the Jews, unless they wash their hands often, do not eat; therefore the disciples did not wash according to their custom. Hence they understood literally what is said in Isa. 1:16: wash yourselves, be clean. Hence they understood it literally, washing what was on the outside, and not what was within.

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:

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.