Matthew 15:1-20

Contrasting Responses – Jewish Leaders and Gentile Woman

Matthew 15:1-20 The Tradition of the Elders

(Mk 7:1-13)

Not only was Gentile territory dangerous. Galilee was becoming increasingly hostile as well.

¹ Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem came up to Jesus, saying,

² “Why do your disciples disregard the tradition of the elders?

They do not wash their hands whenever they eat a meal.”

That the Pharisees and scribes came from Jerusalem would seem to indicate that they were a semi-official delegation. The opposition to Jesus was becoming more concerted and serious.

Matthew drew the incident from Mark’s Gospel, but changed its focus considerably. The issue for Matthew was the tradition of the elders. Strict observance of this tradition was a distinguishing feature of Pharisees. Parallel to the Torah, they had a series of customs and rules endeavouring to translate the practical requirements of the Torah to the details of common life. Even within the ranks of Pharisees themselves, there was not always agreement on the details of their tradition: some Pharisees were more “observant” than others.

Tradition

Some sort of tradition makes sense within any community of adherents. The practical ways that general values are protected and applied often need to be spelt out for the sake of social order and even group identity. The Catholic Church has its Code of Canon Law (the tradition of the elders), whose regulations go well beyond the requirements of the moral law, but can serve to help and protect it. The problem with any group of customs and rules is that they can be observed for themselves, because they are clear and tangible, while the values they are meant to interpret can be overlooked and even lost.

Issues of ritual purity were important in Israel, helping them to appreciate and respect the holiness of God. Some Pharisees, dissatisfied with the compromised temple priesthood (and, since the destruction of the Temple, the value of priesthood at all), took to heart the Torah’s insistence that the People as a whole were a holy People, a Kingdom of priests. Some tended to extend details of priestly purity observances to themselves.

³ He said to them in reply,

“Why do you disregard the command of God

on the strength of your tradition?

⁴ For God said, ‘You shall honour your father and mother’,

and ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’

⁵ For you say, ‘Whoever tells father or mother,

'Those things of mine that could have benefitted you are dedicated to God’

is certainly not giving respect to his mother or father.

You empty the word of God of meaning through your tradition.

Jesus did not engage immediately with the objection raised by this group of Pharisees: the washing of hands before eating. As he usually did, he turned to more basic considerations. He went back to the meanings and values behind the requirements of the Torah. Matthew put Jesus on the offensive. He attacked an instance where genuine values were compromised by the way that some Pharisees had been known to apply details of the tradition. Issues need to be looked at on their own merits: Jesus, after all, had himself put loyalty to the Gospel above loyalty to parents [10:37].

Matthew’s community still suffered from the ostracism and opposition they had encountered from Pharisees within their local synagogues. Hostilities between the two groups were strong – which would explain the depth of feeling behind the dialogue, which scholars generally believe reflected more the experience of the early Christian community than the actual direct teaching of Jesus.

⁷ You hypocrites, Isaiah well prophesied about you when he said,

⁸ ‘This people respects me with their lips,

but their heart is far distant from me.

⁹ They honour me in vain,

teaching human doctrines and commandments.’”

The criticism was not a criticism of Judaism, but of the attitudes of particular individuals and groups within it. The criticism could be levelled just as much at members of the Christian community – as would become evident as the narrative unfolded.

¹⁰ He called the crowd up to him and said to them,

“Listen and understand.

¹¹ What goes into the mouth does not defile anyone;

but what comes out of the mouth,

that is what defiles a person.”

Jesus had not lost hope in the crowd, despite his earlier criticism of them. He took the opportunity to educate them further and to engage with what, to him, were the real issues. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount had consistently underlined the importance of inner motivation over external practice.

Mark had used Jesus’ comment to conclude the irrelevance of kosher regulations, an issue that had its origin within the actual Torah. Matthew omitted Mark’s conclusion altogether (although he would return later to the lesser issue of washing hands, that had occasioned the whole discussion).

12 His disciples came up to him and told him,

“Do you realise that the Pharisees who heard your message took offence?”

13 He said in reply,

“Every plant not planted by my heavenly Father will be rooted out.

14 Let them be.

They are blind guides of blind people.

When a blind person leads a blind person, both fall into a ditch.”

This group of Pharisees, obviously, was not interested in understanding the attitudes of Jesus. They saw his comment as a personal attack on themselves.

The Hebrew Scriptures spoke of Israel as “God’s planting”. Jesus made the point that the description did not fit this group – whatever they thought of themselves. Consistent with the message in his parables about the weeds and the wheat, and the fish caught in the dragnet, Jesus counselled the disciples to let them be and to leave discernment to God [13:28-29, 49-50]. While Matthew applied Jesus’ comment about blind guides to these Pharisees, Mark had applied it, in quite another context, to the Christian community. Blindness could affect anyone, temporarily or permanently.

15 Peter said to him in answer, “Explain the comparison to us.”

16 He said, “Do you still not get the point?

Jesus’ earlier invitation to the crowd to listen and understand applied equally to the disciples. Apparently, Jesus’ comment was not clear to them, since they saw it as calling for an explanation.

17 Do you not realise that everything that goes into the mouth

goes to the stomach and is expelled into the sewer.

18 The things that come from the mouth come from the heart.

It is these that defile a person,

19 for from the heart come such things as pondering evil, murders,

adulteries, inappropriate sexual behaviours,

thefts, perjuries, blasphemies.

20 These are the things that defile a person.

Eating with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

Jesus returned to his unswerving insistence on the heart, on attitudes, internalized values and meanings.

Matthew softened Mark’s rejection of Jewish “purity” concerns. He returned to the presenting issue of unwashed hands, accepting, perhaps reluctantly, to allow that non-kosher foods do not necessarily defile, whatever about the value of the practice in helping to maintain continuity with tradition, and a sense of difference from Gentile values.

Next >> Matthew 15:21-28