Tuesday, August 2: Father Maas’ Commentary on Today’s Alternate Gospel (Matt 15:1-2, 10-14)

This post begins with a short summary of 15:1-16:12; the notes on today’s reading then follows.

THE APOSTLES ARE SEPARATED FROM THE PHARISEES

A Summary of Matt 15:1-16:12~This section may be divided into three parts: first, the hypocrisy of the Pharisees is made manifest (Matt 15:1-20); secondly, the men of good will are not rejected (Matt 15:21-39); thirdly, the leaven of the Pharisees is proscribed (Matt 16:1-12). On the whole, the evangelist describes the relation of three classes to our Lord: the disciples advance in his knowledge, the multitudes seek mainly for temporal benefits without caring for spiritual enlightenment, the scribes and Pharisees become more determined in their opposition to Jesus, and in their endeavors to paralyze his influence with the masses.

1. Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying:
2. Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

“Then” indicates that the Pharisees made their attack when our Lord confirmed his doctrine by innumerable miracles.”From Jerusalem” they came at the bidding of the authorities in the capital, as it seems. Already Chrysostom notes that these scribes and Pharisees were worse than the others, because they had greater influence with the common people. In order to attack the Master the more seriously, the conduct of the disciples is blamed: “Why do thy disciples transgress?”  “The ancients” here are not the “ancients of the people”, but the forefathers of the present generation [cf. Heb 11:2]. Though the scribes and the priests had to be of a certain age, the tradition could not have derived its binding force from this. “The tradition of the ancients” may be identified with the oral teaching of the Jewish doctors, based on Deut 4:14; 17:10. It was esteemed higher than the written law [1 Chron 2:55], and traced back by the Jews to their oldest scribes, and even to the time of Moses. It is true that St. Paul calls his doctrine a “tradition” [παράδοσις; cf. 2 Thess 3:6; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15], but Gal 1:14 he connects “the tradition of the ancients” with the forefathers, just as Josephus does [Ant. XIII. x. 6], and as Christian commentators have taught [cf. Maldonado, Jansenius]. As to the authority of this tradition, its words have more weight than those of the prophets [Berachoth, fol. iii. 2; Lightfoot], and whosoever eats with unwashed hands is worse than he that commits fornication [Sota, fol. iv. b; Wunsche, p. 181]. The process of the Jerusalem scribes consisted, therefore, first in attacking the conduct of the disciples, secondly, in accusing them of disregarding a sacred law of the synagogue, thirdly, in proving their charge by a particular case: “for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.” This tradition was based on Lev 15:11 ff.; according to Shabbath [xiv. b], it emanated from Solomon, who was praised for it by a voice from heaven [Prov 23:15; 27:11], though no trace of it exists previous to the Sibylline books [iii. w. 591-593 ; about B. c. 160 ; cf. Ed. ii. p. 13]. Hillel and Shammai, shortly before the time of our Lord, had reinforced the custom of the washing of hands [cf. Lightfoot, in 1.], which had fallen into oblivion [Shabbath, iii. 4], so that about the time now under consideration it had become a religious rite [Wunsche]. The disciples did (not transgress this custom on principle [Chrysostom], since their Messianic ideas were as yet not sufficiently developed. To “eat bread” has the general meaning of taking a meal.

10. And having called together the multitudes unto him, he said to them: Hear ye, and understand.
11. Not that which goeth into the mouth, defileth a man; but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

At the approach of the Pharisees the multitudes appear to have withdrawn, probably through respect; but Jesus calls them, and addresses them in the gravest language [Chrysostom], honoring them [Theophylact] more than the scribes and Pharisees [Euthymius]. “Not that which goeth into the mouth” does not apply only to legally clean kinds of food [cf. Jansenius], nor does it imply that the law concerning clean and unclean must be understood spiritually [cf. Origen]; without maintaining that in these words Jesus either abrogated the Mosaic law, or prepared the way for such an abrogation [cf. Chrysostom, Euthymius, Paschasius Radbertus, Jansenius, Barradas, Calmet], we may believe that no kind of food as such defiles a man, though it may do so by reason of the condition or state in which a man may find himself [cf. Origen, Jerome, Paschasius Radbertus, Thomas Aquinas, Cajetan, Maldonado], so that the eating may become an act of disobedience or gluttony. These vices do defile, because they have their seat in the heart, and therefore are comparable to “What cometh out of the mouth.”

12. Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?
13. But he answering, said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
14. Let them alone; they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.

“The Pharisees . . .were scandalized” not at their refutation by Jesus [vers. 3-9; cf. recent writers], but at the words of Jesus spoken to the multitudes [verse 11; cf. Origen, Chrysostom, Euthymius, Jerome, Bede, Paschasius Radbertus Dionysius the Carthusian, Cajetan]. The disciples draw our Lord’s attention to this, most natural in itself, since the Pharisees anxiously looked for a charge against Jesus, first, because they themselves were surprised at their Master’s bold words [Chrysostom, Theophylact, Paschasius Radbertus, Jansenius]; secondly, be.cause they still esteemed the Pharisees highly and regarded their good will as desirable. While Jesus satisfies the difficulty of the disciples, he also heals their secret wound which they had not expressly manifested. He predicts the uprooting of “every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted,” i. e. of the teaching and traditions of the ancients that did not contain the word of God [Hilary, Severus in cat. Euthymius Theophylact, Bruno Albert, Thomas Aquinas, Faber Stapnlensis, Tostatus, Arnoldi]; or rather of the scribes and Pharisees about whom the disciples had been concerned [Origen, Jerome, Cajetan, Jansenius, Barradas, Lapide,  Sylveira, Schegg, Grimm, Schanz, Theodore of Mopsuestia, in cat.]; or better still of the Pharisaic sect, men and doctrine, as such, which could not boast of any heavenly origin [Chrysostom, Paschasius Radbertus, Dionysius the Carthusian, Bisping, Fillion, Knabonbauer]. The last view is the more probable because the people of Israel is repeatedly compared to a vineyard or a plantation of God [cf. Isa 5:7; 60:21; 61:3; Ps 92:13-14; 128:3 143:12; etc.], even where there is question of its destruction [Isa 5:5-6; cf. Jn 15:2; Acts 5:38; Ignat. ad Trail, xi. 1; ad Philadelph. iii. 1]. Since, then, the ruin of the Pharisees has been determined by God, the disciples ought not to be concerned about their being scandalized: “let them .alone,” they are unworthy of your interest [cf. Lapide, Schegg, Weiss]. In their bereavement of God’s enlightenment, they are blind themselves, and still attempt to lead the blind, drawing them into their own ruin represented by the pits, or the badly covered cisterns, in Palestine [cf. Schanz].