Matthew XV
1. Then came to Jesus Scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2. Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4. For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6. And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8. This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
A new kind of service required at the hands of Christ. He saves life, and He saves truth. As He gave human life greater scope, so He gave truth wider and more spiritual interpretations. The Scribes and Pharisees were punctilious; anxious about an unwashed hand, yet careless about an impure heart. Jesus Christ here adopts an argument which is not usually considered of much value; He says, tu quoque; He recriminates. The argument, however, has infinite value in Christ’s case, for it lays down a principle of universal and everlasting application, viz., that the heart is to rule the life. A man may make a pastime of washing his hands; a man may follow the tradition of the elders through the most sinister motives; but he cannot purify his heart without undergoing processes which are vital and acceptable to God. In this rebuke Christ sets the commandment of God against the tradition of the elders, and in so doing He gives the absolute standard of all judgment. On the peculiar expression of the 5th and 6th verses, Dr. Adam Clarke makes this sensible observation: “It is sacrilege to dedicate that to God which is taken away from the necessities of our parents and children; and the good that this pretends to will, doubtless, be found in the catalogue of that unnatural man’s crimes, in the judgment of the great day, who has thus deprived his own family of its due. To assist our poor relatives is our first duty, and this is a work infinitely preferable to all pious legacies and endowments.’” Olshausen says: “The idea is that the parents are making a request, and the children are refusing it, with the explanation that the thing which it would have been becoming in them to grant they had already decided to give to the temple.” By a legitimate accommodation the paragraph may be made the basis of a discourse upon Technical Fault-finding: — 1. Technical fault-finding is always punctilious and trivial. The charge here is that certain men did not wash their hands before eating. 2. Technical fault-finding is always external and superficial. The hand! Appearances, ceremonies, ritualism, &c. The technical fault-finder would rather be out of the world than out of the fashion. 3. Technical fault-finding is always associated with a wrong condition of heart. The fault-finders set the tradition {irapahoa) of the presbytery against the commandment of God; ritual over-rode principle; ceremonialism destroyed the instincts of nature. Bad men are always the most censorious critics. 4. Technical fault-finding is always opposed to the spirit of Jesus Christ. “Ye hypocrites,” &c. Jesus begins at the heart, &c. 5. Technical fault-finding is always a vain service in the sight of God. “In vain they do worship me,” &c. Acceptable service is based on fundamental truth, not on empty ritual. Fault-finding is forbidden by the spirit of the Gospel, except it is occasioned by conduct which endangers the soul or pollutes society. The whole paragraph may also be used to expose the worthlessness of ritualism.
10. And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
11. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
12. Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
13. But he answered and said, Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
14. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
15. Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
16. And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
17. Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
18. But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20. These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
The ideas suggested by this paragraph may be classified under some such heading as Man’s Morality not affected by Man’s Receptivity. This fact — 1. Refutes the sophism that crime is necessitated by circumstances; 2. Charges upon men the responsibility of his own words; and 3. Shows that every man is the source of his own character and influence. The subject admits of powerful application to those who are thrown into unpleasant positions in life, where they must
hear and see much that is offensive. The third point is supremely important, — man the arbiter of his own destiny! Under this head may be described the limitation of diabolic power. Even the devil cannot enter a man without the man’s own consent. While the hearer may not be defiled by evil speech, the evil speaker proclaims himself a polluted man.
The answer to the statement that the Pharisees were offended is significant (verse 13); it shows: — 1. The fate of bad men; and 2. The fate of untrue doctrine; both bad teachers and bad teaching shall be rooted up — eKpicoOijairaL — every fibre torn up; not a trace left! Great teachers must often speak the word that may offend: their business is not to study what is popular, but what is true. All truth has one aspect that is offensive, but few men are brave enough to press that aspect upon the attention of their age.
21. Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Si don.
22. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.
28. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
This incident may be used to show the might of earnestness in relation to Divine purposes. Christ’s plan did not, at the time of this event, comprehend the heathen; it was limited to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This woman was
N a member of the heathen community, and was therefore placed beyond the then line of Christ’s action. There is nothing in the circumstance to oppose the idea that Jesus Christ was the Saviour of the whole world. His life was a development. From the beginning He moved into vision and service gradually; first to a few, then to many; first privately, then publicly; always advancing, always enlarging, until He comprehended “all the world” and “every creature” in His benevolent designs.
The woman of Canaan came upon Him, as it were, before His time. Her soul was charged with a great passion, and with its inseparable impatience and urgency. A terrible battle was proceeding in her house, — a devil was vexing her child; and now she sought to enlist the might of God on behalf of the sufferer. She had heard of others receiving blessings at the hands of Jesus Christ, why should she forbear to plead where others had prevailed? This question starts the subject just specified, the might of earnestness in relation to Divine purposes. From the general tenor of Christ’s life, as well as from this special incident, it may be inferred: — 1. That God has no purposes which are inconsistent with the well-being of every creature. Behind the darkest cloud the light of love is shining. Under His profoundest thought there is an unchangeable resolution to consult the best interests of the universe. For a moment hesitate on this point, and all that is attractive in God vanishes for ever! If one cruel thought could live in God, the heart could no longer trust Him, even under His most gracious aspects. This, then, should be made the fundamental idea, that God works by a plan, and that His plan is never inconsistent with the happiness of every human being. 2. That the most benevolent purposes of God have always been developed gradually. The whole current of Biblical history proves this, — the promise in Eden; the types and the prophecies; all show this. This is not an incident standing alone; it is part of the whole plan. It is important to remember this, in order to save ourselves from far-fetched interpretations. 3. That man’s earnestness has always been honoured in connection with the purposes of God. Jacob wrestling with the angel, Abraham pleading for the cities, Nineveh, and many other instances may be cited from the Old Testament. Christ’s conduct at Emmaus (” they constrained him “), an instance from the New. All such instances show the place and power of Prayer. Provision is evidently made for prayer in all God’s arrangements. The mother may be working by a plan in her household affairs, but the cry of her necessitous child may modify her purposes; so with God, &c.
Among the general remarks which may be made are — 1. Christ tests faith; 2. Earnestness is not deterred by silence or rebuke; 3. The crumbs of Christ’s table are better than the luxuries of any other; 4. The kingdom of heaven may still be taken by the violent; 5. The exercise of faith is not a question of nations, but of hearts. “In every nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him.”
29. And Jesus departed from thence, and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and went up into a mountain, and sat down there.
30. And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus’ feet; and he healed them:
31. Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel.
We now approach incidents which may be regarded as repetitions. We have read such words as these before; why read them again? Because God’s government is a great repetition of love! There is, however, a marked discrepancy between the freshness of His mercy and the responsiveness of man’s heart. His “mercies are new every morning” —
N 2
l8o HOMILETIC ANALYSIS.
literally “new,” — fresh from His heart, never specifically given before, and yet they have virtually been all given in the gift of Jesus Christ! Is there no lesson in the fact that we have now come to what may be termed a commonplace in Christ’s history? There is this lesson at least — The possibility of being accustomed to favour until we receive it without emotion. Let it be supposed that this paragraph alone contained all that was known of Jesus Christ; into what enlarged proportions it would rise! Is it, then, the less important because it is one of many? The practical lesson is, that familiarity with God’s great gifts may induce carelessness as to their value and purpose.
The paragraph, by an easy accommodation, shows: — I. A marvellous combination of Separateness and Sympathy on the part of Jesus Christ. He is seated on the mountain, or throne of His own making, and by so much is separated from society; yet He is accessible — He may be tracked by His footprints — men may go after Him. So He is now in heaven, &c. 2. A marvellous combination of Suffering and Hope on the part of the people. All kinds of sufferings were represented by the “great multitudes,” and all the sufferers had hope, as they were borne towards the Man seated on the mountain. Think of the ministry of Hope in the sick-chamber! 3. A marvellous combination of Delight and Reverence on the part of the observers. Delight and reverence are not always associated, (a) Some delight would be incompatible with reverence; (6) The measure of reverence determines the true nature of the delight. Worship should always be associated with personal and public benefactions, — “they glorified the God of Israel.”
32. Then Jesus called his disciples unto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.
33. And his disciples say unto him, Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness, as to fill so great a multitude?
34. And Jesus saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven, and a few little fishes.
35. And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground.
36. And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.
37. And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full.
38. And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.
39. And he sent away the multitude, and took ship, and came into the coasts of Magdala.
Another repetition. We have already remarked on the miracle of feeding; we propose therefore to look at this incident as furnishing five points of contrast with the immediately preceding miracle of healing. 1. In the case of feeding the multitude, the desire originated on the part of Christ; in the case of healing the multitude, the desire originated on the part of the sufferers. This double demand (if the expression may be allowed) upon the resources of Christ is being constantly repeated. Christ gives innumerable blessings that are not asked for, and, in addition, answers innumerable prayers. How could He be satisfied with doing merely what He was asked to do! “He is able to do exceeding abundantly above,” &c. 2. In the case of disease there was a great illustration of Christ’s power to care; in the case of feeding, there was a great illustration of Christ’s power to prevent. The reason which He assigned shows this, — “lest they faint in the way.” This consideration introduces us to the boundless sphere of Christ’s preventive ministry, and taken in connection with the other miracle, shows that Christ’s service covers the whole ground of human necessity. 3. In the case of healing, the multitudes showed no want of confidence in Christ; in the case of feeding, the very chosen men started a difficulty. It is so to-day. Most of the difficulties are inside, not outside the Church; where faith should be the strongest, there is sometimes hardly any faith at all! 4. In the case of healing, Christ worked without intervention; in the case of feeding, Christ availed Himself of instrumentality, — “He gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.” So to-day, there is a ministry in which He serves alone; there is also a work in which He employs servants. His difficulty is, that some of the servants wish to help Him in His peculiar work; — they are not content to dispense the bread, they must try their skill at a miracle. 5. In the case of healing, there was a human declaration of reverence; in the case of the feeding, there was a Divine reproof of unbelief, — “they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full.” Compare the different endings of the two incidents; in the one case “they glorified the God of Israel,” in the other not a word was spoken, but every crumb was a witness against the unbelief of the disciples! God rebukes His people constantly in precisely the same way. The abundance of His gifts is a reproof of distrust. With how many blossoms He fills the trees; with how many flowers He beautifies the garden, the field, and the way-side; there is superabundance everywhere — baskets of fragments on every hand! Nothing is done in weakness, or by constraint; He is as mighty at the end as at the beginning, — “He fainteth not, neither is weary.”
The two cases give two points of application: — 1. To the suffering; 2. To the hungering.