Matthew Chapter 15
Pharisees and scribes come to accuse Jesus, asking why his disciples don't wash their hands. Jesus' answer is to ask them why they let their own hypocritical rules override the Bible where it says honor your father and mother. These Pharisees are slow learners. Every time they've asked Jesus why he "violates" the law in some minor matter, they have been shut down. Made to look foolish. Yet they continue with the same tactic. Trying to make themselves more "religious" than Jesus because they obey a written law. And Jesus always comes back with how far wrong they are on the inside, despite what they do on the outside. They wash their hands, but have dirty hearts, dirty ambitions, dirty standards. In this case, they ask Jesus why he breaks tradition - they know that the hand washing isn't in the law of Moses - and His reply is "Why do you break the law itself?" Clean up your own back yard before you start on the world. Jesus quotes Isaiah again, from Isa 29:13. I believe at that time that Isaiah was still talking mainly to the Northern Kingdom, and Jesus applies it to His day.
2021 - This verse:
2024 - In these first few verses Jesus makes a distinction between the Law of Moses and the traditions of the Pharisees. Clearly, indisputably, the Law takes priority. Jesus does not in any way acknowledge that the traditions are binding on himself or his disciples. He says, paraphrased, that tradition means nothing, and you criticize based on tradition, while the Law is God's own word, and you have no problems breaking his Law every day. The Pharisees even refer to it as "the tradition of the elders", admitting, affirming, that this washing stuff is from man and not from God.
2024 - Then Ex 21:17 is quoted, and scared me a little. Here is the NASB verse in Matthew:
4 "For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.' [Mat 15:4 NASB95].
He who speaks evil is a very high standard. If that is a correct translation then I have been breaking this commandment quite frequently lately. Here is ESV:
4 For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' [Mat 15:4 ESV].
Reviles seems like a lower standard than "speaking evil", but worthy of death for it? So I went on back to Exodus:
17 "Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death. [Exo 21:17 ESV]. I went to BLB to find out just what is meant by "curses". It means
to make despicable
to curse
So...the bar is indeed high. I don't curse Mom, but I do say things that, if not true of her, present her as a despicable person. Not just despicable in her actions, but in her person. Even so, would Moses have had me stoned for what I've said? Without checking to see if it is true? Maybe...not a lot of slack back then, not like now. I don't think the truth is disallowed. Even so...I can argue with this, or I can realize that I am in deep trouble here and I need to watch what I'm saying and more importantly, watch what I'm thinking. Here is my "application" for today!
2024 - The example given is that they were refusing to help their parents financially by saying they were giving the parent's portion to God, so it was no longer "owed" as honor to their parents. They had abandoned their parents to make themselves look honorable. Have I abandoned her? Or just backed up so far that I no longer see her need?
2024 - This one: 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" [Mat 15:9 ESV]. I'm guessing the Catholics are not very fond of this one. It says that what man comes up with is not, is never, doctrine. Only what we can find in the word can be doctrine.
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." [Mat 15:2 ESV] Doesn't this question have an oh so familiar ring to it? Why do some at your church wear their dresses so short? Or even worse, why do women wear pants on Sunday morning to your church? Why do you break tradition and sing repetitive choruses instead of traditional hymns? How can your preacher be a preacher if he wears jeans and a t-shirt in the pulpit? I remember once, after visiting a church, being approached by some men who told me that I would need to a coat and tie if I came back to that church. I wonder if that church is still there? Here is Jesus' answer: 3 He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? [Mat 15:3 ESV] Wonder if the commandment he had in mind was "Love your neighbor"? Shouldn't we be trying to purge any and all ill-feeling toward other Christians that is based on tradition rather than on the word? No matter how far out of our own comfort zone it might be, we need to ask ourselves, and honestly answer, whether it is our tradition or God's word that is violated.
Possible FB post.
2021 - Here is a repeat of a theme that keeps showing up: 10 And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person." [Mat 15:10-11 ESV] Words are so much more important than we assume in our culture. It is the words a person says that prove his metal. The words are the crowbar that opens the door to our secrets. Yet I spout off and respond and speak so very often without any forethought. It is a fault of mine. Perhaps the fault that underlies all the rest. Every word we speak holds up a magnifying glass to our character for all who care to see the truth those words reveal. And that magnifying glass works both ways. It also allows us to more accurately see how to best minister to those we know best.
Possible FB post.
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone."
Matthew 15:19-20 ESV
Tradition, dietary rules in particular are held to as hypocrisy. The Pharisees had made their interpretations of the word more important than the word. They'd made salvation about rules and about works rather than about God.
I finally understand the "blind leading the blind" from Jesus' answer to his disciples. The Pharisees were blind to the truth, and set themselves up as leaders of those seeking God - who had not yet found him. Blind leading blind. They will not have safe travels.
He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Matthew 15:24 ESV
This still gives me problems. We know from the OT that Gentiles were always part of the plan, so why this? He won't even answer this Canaanite women... And this is after the woman at the well... Samaritans are "sort of" Israel I guess. But the Centurion?
Maybe the whole thing was to show that faith is the key, rather than ancestry. That Centurion could have been a local boy.
MSB goes back to when Jesus sent out the disciples, telling them to speak only to the lost sheep of Israel. So not even to all Israel. This avoids the deeper question. Why initially limited?
2020 - Maybe the whole point is for Gentiles to understand that we are receiving only the crumbs. The promises, the blessings, all that was promised to Abraham, will still accrue primarily to Abraham's descendants. We get a few things, as Gentiles, but even so, what we get is considered food for dogs? Sorry. This seems way too harsh also.
Another theory is that the kingdom had to be offered to Abraham's descendants, and rejected by them, to show God's justice when it came in 70 AD. The Jews had rejected the prophets, leading to their destruction at the hands of the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Now they will reject Jesus himself, their own promised Messiah, and the double punishment is thereby earned and well deserved. And once this second rejection takes place, THEN the Gentiles are offered what the Jews rejected. The door for the Gentiles is only fully open during the time it is fully closed to the Jews. This makes a lot more sense I think.
2021 - This is a lesson in faith. Jesus did not withhold healing from this woman because of her nationality any more than he would have the woman at the well. Jesus' handling of this situation was so a lesson could be presented to those who saw it. It was a sermon with a visible "hook" that would never be forgotten by those who saw and heard. That's what this is. There's no need to try and go deeper. And it was the same with that Centurion, where ever he was from. It was about the public message, the public witness of Jesus, far more than it was about that single event. Faith is the way to heaven, for all who have faith.
2025 - 28 Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly. [Mat 15:28 ESV]. Jesus does not speak aloud to this demon. Jesus forces it out from a distance...possibly. It does not say that this woman's daughter was with her. Back in vs 22, the woman describes her daughter as "cruelly demon-possessed". We don't know specifics, but we know that the demon was doing something "to" the daughter, and that if a person was doing that, it would be considered cruel. This is a symptom.
2025 - Note that in vss 29-31, sick, lame, blind and so on are brought to him for healing, but in this case, the demon possessed are not mentioned. Were they so cleared out of the area at this point - or so frightened of him that they left?
From here, Jesus returns to Galilee and heals all who are brought to him. It says huge multitudes came, and brought those who needed healing, and Jesus healed them all. This would have been phenomenal. The news of it would have spread worldwide. We don't know from how far people might have come. 2021 - If so many were healed, wouldn't there have been some kind of population increase in the Galilee region for years after Jesus? Or does 70 AD coming in only 40 more years cut that population increase short? Maybe this is why Josephus tells us there were a million Jews in Jerusalem in 70 AD, when that number appears clearly impossible. But maybe it was used because the population WAS much larger than would have been predicted by the historical trend?
Feeding of the 4000. Jesus says the crowd following him had been with him 3 days without food, and he is unwilling to send then away hungry. (Does Matthew also recount feeding the 5000?)
Here, they have seven loaves and a few fish, not the five and two. Why though would the disciples doubt if they were there when he fed the 5000 before? Even says that after this he got in a boat and left for Magadan. Earlier, he'd sent off the 12 and then walked on water.
2020-There's a lot of difference between the 4000 here and the 5000 earlier. Still...those disciples...
2026 - Extra. In 2Kgs 4 Elisha feeds 100 men with some barley bread and ears of grain. It should not have been enough, but it did the job.
2023 - This verse: 33 And the disciples said to him, "Where are we to get enough bread in such a desolate place to feed so great a crowd?" [Mat 15:33 ESV]. Remember that when the 5000 were fed, there were towns all around where the people could have gone to buy bread. Perhaps the disciples too had reasoned that people must have had more bread than they were letting on, hoarding it from others. But this time, with the 4,000, that couldn't be the case because there were no bakery's anywhere around. Perhaps the whole reason for this miracle is to make it absolutely clear that the food given out to the 4,000 was "created" by Jesus. No doubt could remain - the only "reasonable explanation" shown to be false.