Then (see on 3:13) does not necessarily mean at the time just before mentioned (14:34-36), but is naturally so taken, unless there be proof to the contrary, which is not here the case. Scribes and Pharisees, the common order, was easily inserted by copyists in place of Pharisees and Scribes, the correct text. Come from Jerusalem, was, in like manner, changed to which were of Jerusalem, by inserting an apparently needed article. Jerusalem was the seat of the great schools, as well as of the temple worship, and the most eminent men were congregated there; these persons were therefore regarded in Galilee with special reverence. Their object in coming may have been partly to satisfy curiosity about Jesus, excited by accounts given at the Passover, and partly to prevent him from gaining too much influence in Galilee. It is not unlikely that they were sent as a deputation to observe Jesus, as afterwards in Luke 11: 54, and still later in Matt. 22: 15; comp. 12: 24 (Mark 3: 22), and the deputation sent to John the Baptist. (John 1: 19, 24.) As to the Pharisees, see on 3: 7; and as to the Scribes, on 2: 3. They begin by censuring, not Jesus himself, but the disciples. (Comp. on 9: 14.) On probably a later occasion Jesus himself excited the same complaint. (Luke 11: 38.) [Broadus, 1886]

The tradition of the elders. The word rendered “tradition” signifies that which is passed along, or given from one to another. It is sometimes applied by Paul to teachings handed over by him to the churches for their observance. (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2.) But here and in Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8, it denotes things handed down from generation to generation, which is what we mean by the similar Latin word tradition. It is a favorite evasion of Roman Catholic controversialists to confound these two senses of the term. The word “elders” here means not officials, but the men of former times. (Heb. 11:2; and comp. Matt. 5:21.) The immense mass of traditions which the later Jews so reverenced, were held by them to consist partly of oral laws given by Moses in addition to the written law—which they supposed to be referred to in Deut. 4:14; partly of decisions made from time to time by the judges (Deut. 17:9 ff.), and which became precedent and authority; and partly of the explanations and opinions of eminent teachers, given individually or sometimes by the vote of assemblies. These oral traditions continued to accumulate after the time of Christ till they were written down in the Mishna and its commentaries. (See on 3:7.) They were highly esteemed by all of the nation, except the Sadducees. Indeed some reckoned them more important than the written law. The Talmud of Jerusalem says, “The words of the Scribes are more lovely than the words of the law; for the words of the law are weighty and light, but the words of the Scribes are all weighty.” And the Talmud somewhere declares that it is a greater crime to “transgress the words of the school of Hillel” than the law. So again: “My son, attend to the words of the scribes, more than to the words of the law.” In this as in so many respects Judaism has colored the Christianity of the Church of Rome, which teaches the observance of numerous traditions professedly coming from early times, and some of them from the apostles, though these often directly violate the spirit, and even the letter, of Scripture. Among Protestants also there is sometimes greater solicitude for the observance of custom than of Scripture; for more emphasis laid on “the rule of the church” than on the law of God. They wash not their hands. It is worth while to distinguish several Greek words which our English Versions render “wash.” (1) Nipto, used only of washing some part of the body, as the face, hands, feet; found in 6:17; 15:2 (Mark 7:3); 27:24 (compound); John 9:7; 13:5, 14; 1 Tim. 5:10. (2) Brecho, to wet, moisten, sprinkle, and hence commonly to rain; found in Luke 7:38, 44. (3) Pluno, used especially of washing clothes and the like; found in Luke 5:2; Rev. 7:14. (4) Louo, to bathe, or wash the whole body; found in John 13: 10, “he that is bathed (louo), needeth not save to wash (nipto) his feet;” also in Acts 9:37; 16: 33; 22: 16 (compound); 1 Cor. 6:11 (compound); Heb. 10:22; 2 Pet. 2:22; Rev. 1:5, and a noun derived from it in Eph. 5:26; Tit. 3:5. (5) Baptizo, to immerse, dip (see on 3:6), is rendered wash in Mark 7:4; Luke 11:38, and a noun derived from it in Mark 7:4; Heb. 9:10, in all which places the idea is that of immersion. Mark, who wrote especially for Gentile readers, here paused (7:3 ff.) to give details about the scrupulous and elaborate purifications of the singular Jewish people [1].

[1] The law required frequent and sometimes very thorough purifications, as bathing the person, and in some cases washing beds, saddles, and vessels of every kind except earthenware, which must be broken.(Lev. ch. 15.) In general, the Hebrew terms do not show how this washing of vessels, etc., was to be performed, but in Lev. 11:32 they must be “put into water”; comp. “divers baptisms (immersions),” Heb. 9:10. The scrupulous later Jews often adopted this most thorough purification even when not required by the law (see Judith 12:7; Ecclus. 31:30, and numerous directions in the Talmud). With this agrees Mark’s statement that when they come “from the market place, except they immerse, they eat not,” which may mean immerse their hands for thorough washing, as distinguished from the simpler mode of washing hands carefully described in the Talmud, but more probably means immerse themselves. So in Mishna Chagiga, 2, 5, two recent Jewish authorities differ as to whether “dipping” means washing the hands by dipping them (Wünsche, and so Edersh.), or taking a bath (Schwab, tr. of Talm. Jerus.). Those who cannot believe that under such circumstances they would immerse the whole person might read Herodotus II., 47, who says that if any Egyptian “touches a swine in passing with his clothes, he goes to the river and dips himself (bapto) from it.” Some early Christian students or copyists, not understanding this Jewish scrupulosity, changed baptisontai, “immerse themselves,” into rantisontai, “sprinkle themselves”; for though found in ℵ B, nine cursives, and the late Father Euthym., this is obviously a correction to avoid a difficulty, as is also the omission of “couches” at the end of Mark 7:4 by ℵ B L Δ, three cursives, Meuph. How can any one account for the insertion of “couches,” and the change of “sprinkle” to “immerse”? The question here is not of traditional usage or the mere mode of performing a ceremony, but of the principle of strict obedience to a divine command.

This ceremonial hand-washing before eating, the Rabbis tried to support by Lev. 15:11. It very naturally arose, along with the similar washing after the meal, from the fact that the ancients habitually ate with their fingers. At a later period a third washing was practised by some persons, in the course of the meal. The Mishna (Berachoth 8, 1) mentions a difference between Hillel and Shammai as to whether one must wash the hands before or after filling the glasses. The Talmud shows that hand-washing was reckoned a matter of high importance. Some Rabbis declare the neglect of it to be as bad as licentiousness or other gross crimes. One said, “It is better to go four miles to water than to incur guilt by neglecting hand-washing”; and a story is told of the famous Rabbi Akiba that when imprisoned, and having his allowance of water reduced, he took what little there was to wash his hands before eating, instead of drinking it, saying that he had rather die than transgress the institutions of his ancestors. [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 15:3-6. Before proceeding to the great principle (Matthew 15:11) involved in his justification of the disciples for neglect of the hand-washing, our Lord retorts upon the Pharisees and Scribes their charge of “transgression.” (Compare the ad hominem argument in Matthew 12:27) Why do ye also transgress, and that not a mere tradition of men, but the commandment of God by (because of) your tradition? ‘By your tradition’ does not correctly render the Greek. They had said ‘the tradition of the elders,’ but he says simply your tradition; no matter what was its origin, they were now making it the occasion of transgressing the law of God. This charge he proves by an example, not connected with hand-washing or other purifications, but drawn from a most sacred duty, as acknowledged by mankind, and enjoined in a peculiarly solemn command (Ephesians 6:2) of God’s law. Our Lord himself declared (Matthew 10:37 Luke 14:26) that his service is above filial duty; but (Plumptre) he claimed supernatural authority, which the Scribes did not claim. For God said, the true reading, was easily changed by copyists into for God commanded, saying, because ‘the commandment’ had just been mentioned. The first clause is quoted from Exodus 20:12, the second from Exodus 21:17, both taken from the Sept., and correctly translating the Hebrew, The second was introduced to show that this command which they practically annulled was one of the highest importance, since the penalty of its violation, among the Hebrews, was to be death without fail. Compare very strong language on the subject in Deuteronomy 27:16 Proverbs 20:20, Proverbs 30:17. He that curseth; speaketh evil of, or ‘reviles,’ is the exact rendering; ‘curses’ would be a different Greek word. The Hebrew means primarily ‘belittle,’ ‘make light of,’ and derivatively ‘curse.’ So the command is very broad. Let him die the death, or better, let him surely die (margin Rev. Ver.), the form of expression being much used in the Old Testament, and oftener denoting the certainty than the severity of the punishment. The connection here shows that we must honour parents not merely in our feelings but by our acts; see similar uses of “honour” in Proverbs 8:9; 1 Timothy 5:3. And the Jews recognized this duty. Sirach 8:8,”Honour thy father and mother both in word and deed”; Talm. Jerus.: “A son is bound to nourish his father, yea, to beg for him.” The case here supposed is of a needy parent, requiring help from the son, which he refuses on grounds justified by tradition. But ye say, ‘ye’ being expressed in the original, and thus strongly emphatic. It is a bad position for men to occupy, when what they say is directly opposed to what God says. By whatsoever (or that wherewith) thou mightest be (have been) profited by me, is a general expression, covering all sorts of cases, and is often found in the Talmud (Lf., Edersheim) in connection with this same subject. Is a gift, or perhaps ‘let it be a gift,’ the Greek having no copula. ‘A gift’ evidently means a gift to God, and Mark (Mark 7:11) presents the Hebrew word Corban, which the Talmud shows they were accustomed to employ in such cases, denoting an offering, anything dedicated to God, or donated for the use of the temple. The Peshito has the same word in Matt., and it is used in Matthew 27:6 to denote the ‘treasury,’ the aggregate of all such offerings. If a man’ s father or mother wanted any article from him—it might be food or clothing, or what not-be could just say, Corban, it is a gift, a thing consecrated to God, (compare Leviticus 27:9, Leviticus 27:16) and he was then, according to the traditional rules, not only at liberty to withhold it from his parent, but solemnly bound to do so. The Mishna (“Vows,” 9, 1) tells of a former discussion as to whether a vow could be set aside through regard for parents, and all but one Rabbi declared in the negative. The Jews reached this conclusion by arguing that vows, as they had respect to God, were more important than things pertaining to men; and hence that devoting a thing to God was sufficient to set aside the highest obligation, even that to one’s parents. Here was a correct principle, greatly abused in the application. We learn from the Talmud, which has copious directions on this subject, that a man was not bound, after saying Corban, actually to dedicate the article in the temple, but might keep it indefinitely for his own use, or might give it to some other person, only not to the one had in mind when he made the vow. Corban might therefore be said just for the nonce, as an excuse for withholding; and with people as ‘money-loving’ as the Pharisees, (Luke 16:14) the license thus offered would often be shamefully abused. Even more; it appears from the Talmud that a man might not merely say Corban with reference to any particular object, but might say it once for all, as applying to everything which he possessed, and that one word spoken in passion or greed, would make it impossible that he should ever do anything for the person in question, though it were his parent. We are told of a son in Bethhoron who had taken such a vow against his father, and afterwards wishing to supply the father’s need, donated his own house and dinner to a friend on condition that his father should share the dinner; but the friend immediately declared the house and meal sacred to heaven, and so the scheme failed. Mishna (“Vows,” 5, 6). The Talmud mentions various ingenious expedients for evading Corban and other vows, when one afterwards changed his mind. Several Fathers state that a Jewish creditor could constrain an ugly debtor by saying “what you owe me is Corban,” and so it had to be paid, as a debt to God. From all this we see how monstrous were the practices to which our Lord was referring. It is lamentable to think that they have been rivalled by teachings of modern Jesuits.

There is some difficulty as to the Greek text and the meaning in the latter part of Matthew 27:5 and Matthew 27:6. The best supported text most naturally yields the meaning given by Rev. Ver., (see Moulton in Winer, p. 750); viz., you, according to your tradition, virtually say that when he has once for all made this vow he is not to honour his father.[1] The ‘not’ is a strong doubled negative. If ‘and’ be retained, then something must be silently supplied. But it cannot be as in Com. Ver., because ‘honour’ is certainly future. It must be somehow so: whoever says to his father or his mother, ‘that wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God,’ is not bound by the law, but must observe his vow in preference; (compare Mark 7:12) what follows giving the consequence, ‘and (thus) he will not honour his father,’ as the law requires him to do. The general thought is the same upon both interpretations. Have ye made void God’s authoritative word, and not merely transgressed it (Matthew 15:3).—A practice somewhat similar to this Corban vow of the Jews formerly existed in the Sandwich Islands. Barnes: “The chiefs and priests had the power of devoting anything to the service of the gods by saying that it was tabu, i.e., consecrated to the service of religion; and no matter who had been the owner, it could then be appropriated to no other use.” From this Polynesian usage comes our word taboo, to forbid all intercourse with a certain person or use of a certain thing.

[1] ‘And’ is omitted by ‏א‎ B, C, D, some other manuscripts, and several versions. The ground for hesitation is that ‘and’ is the difficult reading. But the verb ‘honour’ should clearly be future tense, as given by nearly the same authorities, and not subjunctive, as in the common Greek text. The future indicative after ou me is unclassical, though not uncommon in later Greek, and would thus be readily changed by copyists into the regular classical subjunctive, as in many other places. (Compare Matthew 26:35, and see Buttm, p. 213.) In this way’ honour’ came into the same formas ‘say,’ and then it might easily occur to a copyist that these ought to be connected by ‘and,’ ‘whosoever shall say… and shall not honour.’ Thus the text of the oldest authorities accounts for the other readings. ‘Or his mother’ (Matthew 15:6) is omitted by ‏א‎ B, D, and Old Syriac. The addition of this clause would be instantly suggested by the foregoing phrases to (Matthew 15:4 f.), while we cannot imagine any reason for its omission if originally present. In like manner ‘the word’ read by B, D, and a corrector of ‏א‎, and by many early versions and some Fathers would easily be changed to ‘the commandment,’ to suit Matthew 15:3, and this may have been changed to ‘the law,’ read by several documents (margin Rev. Ver.), because the second saying in Matthew 15:4 is not a part of the Decalogue. [Broadus, 1886]

But ye say, ‘ye’ being expressed in the original, strongly and emphatically. It is a bad position for men to occupy, when what they say is directly opposed to what God says. By whatsoever (or that wherewith) thou mightest be (have been) profited by me, is a general expression, covering all sorts of cases, and is often found in the Talmud (Lf., Edersh.) in connection with this same subject. Is a gift, or perhaps let it be a gift, the Greek having no copula. A gift evidently means a gift to God, and Mark (7:11) presents the Heb. word Corban, which the Talmud shows they were accustomed to employ in such cases, denoting an offering, anything dedicated to God, or donated for the use of the temple. The Peshito has the same word in Matt., and it is used in Matt.27:6 to denote the “treasury,” the aggregate of all such offerings. If a man’s father or mother wanted any article from him—it might be food or clothing, or what not—he could just say, Corban, it is a gift, a thing consecrated to God (comp. Lev.27:9,16), and he was then, according to the traditional rules, not only at liberty to withhold it from his parent, but solemnly bound to do so. The Mishna (“Vows,” 9,1) tells of a former discussion as to whether a vow could be set aside through regard for parents, and all but one Rabbi declared in the negative. The Jews reached this conclusion by arguing that vows, as they had respect to God, were more important than things pertaining to men; and hence that devoting a thing to God was sufficient to set aside the highest obligation, even that to one’s parents. Here was a correct principle, greatly abused in the application. We learn from the Talmud, which has copious directions on this subject, that a man was not bound, after saying Corban, actually to dedicate the article in the temple, but might keep it indefinitely for his own use, or might give it to some other person, only not to those he had in mind when he made the vow. Corban might therefore be said just for the nonce, as an excuse for withholding; and with people as “money-loving” as the Pharisees (Luke16:14), the license thus offered would often be shamefully abused. Even more; it appears from the Talmud that a man might not merely say Corban with reference to any particular subject, but might say it once for all, as applying to everything which he possessed, and that one word spoken in passion or greed, would make it impossible that he should ever do anything for the person in question, though it were his parent. We are told of a son in Bethhoron who had taken such a vow against his father, and afterwards wishing to supply the father’s need, donated his own house and dinner to a friend on condition that his father should share the dinner; but the friend immediately declared the house and meal sacred to heaven, and so the scheme failed. Mishna (“Vows,” 5,6). The Talmud mentions various ingenious expedients for evading Corban and other vows, when one afterwards changed his mind. Several Fathers state that a Jewish creditor could constrain an ugly debtor by saying what you owe me is Corban, and so it had to be paid, as a debt to God.

There is some difficulty as to the Greek text and the meaning in the latter part of v.5 and v.6. The best supported text most naturally yields the meaning given by Rev. Ver. (see Moulton in Winer, p.750); viz., you, according to your tradition, virtually say that when he has once for all made this vow he is not to honor his father [1]. The ‘not’ is a strong doubled negative. If ‘and’ be retained, then something must be silently supplied. But it cannot be as in Com. Ver., because “honor” is certainly future. It must be somehow so: whoever says to his father or his mother, that wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God,’ is not bound by the law, but must observe his vow in preference (comp. Mark7:12); what follows giving the consequence, ‘and (thus) he will not honor his father,’ as the law requires him to do. The general thought is the same upon both interpretations.

[1] ‘And’ is omitted by ℵ B, C, D, some other manuscripts, and several versions. The ground for hesitation is that ‘and’ is the difficult reading. But the verb ‘honor’ should clearly be future tense, as given by nearly the same authorities, and not subjunctive, as in the common Greek text. The future indicative after on me is unclassical, though not uncommon in later Greek, and would thus be readily changed by copyists into the regular classical subjunctive, as in many other places. (Comp.26:35, and see Buttm., p.213.) In this way ‘honor’ came into the same form as ‘say,’ and then it might easily occur to a copyist that these ought to be connected by ‘and,’ whosoever shall say … and shall not honor. Thus the text of the oldest authorities accounts for the other readings. ‘Or his mother’ (v.6) is omitted by ℵ B, D, and Old Syriac. The addition of this clause would be instantly suggested by the foregoing phrases (v.4f.), while we cannot imagine any reason for its omission if originally present. In like manner ‘the word’ read by B, D, and a corrector of ℵ, and by many early versions and some Fathers would easily be changed to ‘the commandment,’ to suit v.3, and this may have been changed to ‘the law,’ read by several documents (margin Rev. Ver.), because the second saying in v.4 is not a part of the Decalogue.

Have ye made void God’s authoritative word, and not merely transgressed it (v.3).—A practice somewhat similar to this Corban vow of the Jews formerly existed in the Sandwich Islands. Barnes: “The chiefs and priests had the power of devoting anything to the service of the gods by saying that it was tabu, i.e., consecrated to the service of religion; and no matter who had been the owner, it could then be appropriated to no other use.” From this Polynesian usage comes our word taboo, to forbid all intercourse with a certain person or use of a certain thing. [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 15:7-9. Hypocrites, see on “Matthew 6:2”. They made great pretence of devotion to God, and insisted strenuously on the externals of his service, while at heart they did not love him, and were even ready to set aside his express commands for the sake of their traditions. The persons particularly addressed were from Jerusalem, (Matthew 15:1) and an early Rabbi is related to have said that “there are ten parts of hypocrisy in the world, nine at Jerusalem, and one in the whole world.” This seems to be the first instance of our Lord’s openly denouncing the Pharisees, as we shall often find him doing hereafter. The strong denunciations of Luke 11-12, are much better placed at a later period, according to the harmonistic arrangement of Wieseler, followed by Tischendorf’s “Synopsis” and Clark’s “Harm.” (Compare on Matthew 12:22) Well, i.e., finely, aptly, with admirable appropriateness, (compare Matthew 13:14) Yet our Lord does not simply say that he finds the words of Isaiah to his contemporaries exactly applicable to these persons, and himself makes the application, but he says, Well did Esaias (Isaiah) prophesy concerning you. Isaiah spoke directly to the men of his own time, but his words were also I designed by the Spirit of inspiration to refer to the contemporaries of Messiah. For ‘Isaiah,’ instead of the changed Greek form Esaias, see on “Matthew 1:2”. The citation is from Isaiah 29:13. The words in common Greek text, draweth nigh unto me with their mouthy and are not genuine here, but were added from the Sept.[1] Matthew quotes from the Sept. as he oftenest does, and here in Isaiah 29:9 departs considerably from the Hebrew, which reads, “and their fear towards me is the commandment of men, (a thing) taught,” i.e., their piety is merely a lesson they have learned from men, and not a thing learned from and conformed to the word of God. For this the Sept. has, “but in vain do they worship me, teaching precepts of men and teachings.” (As to the difference between Hebrew and Septuagint, compare Toy.) Matthew and Mark (Mark 7:7) have slightly modified the Septuagint into ‘teaching teachings (which are) precepts of men.’ This not only improves the phraseology of the Sept., but brings out the prophet’s thought mere clearly than would be done by a literal translation of the Hebrew, for Isaiah means to distinguish between a worship of God that is taught by men, and that which is according to the teaching of God’s word. As to quoting Sept. instead of Hebrew, see on “Matthew 3:3”; and as to verbal changes to bring out the sense more plainly, compare on Matthew 2:6. For the different words rendered ‘teaching,’ see on “Matthew 7:28”. Instead of commandments, Rev. Ver. here uses ‘precepts’ (as in Tyn., Cram, Gen.), because the Greek word is somewhat different from that of Matthew 7:3, though substantially equivalent. In vain, i.e., it is not acceptable to God, nor profitable for themselves. So at the present day many persons claim a divine authority for ideas and practices which are simply of human origin (compare on Matthew 15:2). We are not only under no obligation to conform to these, but it is our duty to oppose them wherever they tend to the violation or neglect of God’s commandments. It must also be remembered that our common human nature is very prone to be intent upon the forms of religion and neglect its spirit; to honour God with the lips, while the heart is far from him.

[1] They are wanting in nearly all the early versions, in the earliest Greek manuscripts, and in many Patristic citations. To enlarge a quotation by bringing in something more from the Sept. was a very common and natural mode of altering the copies. The clause cannot have been omitted in Matt. by way of assimilation to Mark, for that would have led rather to its insertion in Mark, according to the custom of the copyists. Some MSS. of the Sept. omit this clause, perhaps by way of accommodation to the Gospels. [Broadus, 1886]

In vain, i.e., it is not acceptable to God, nor profitable for themselves. So at the present day many persons claim a divine authority for ideas and practices which are simply of human origin (comp. on v.2). We are not only under no obligation to conform to these, but it is our duty to oppose them wherever they tend to the violation or neglect of God’s commandments. It must also be remembered that our common human nature is very prone to be intent upon the forms of religion and neglect its spirit; to honor God with the lips, while the heart is far from him. [Broadus, 1886]

10f. When he retorted their question upon themselves (v.3), it was not for the purpose of avoiding an answer, and he now publicly proclaims a principle which goes to the heart of the matter. Called (unto him) the multitude, or crowd, the mass of the people, as distinguished from the Pharisees and Scribes, who had pressed up around him. He wished all to hear what he was about to say; and in fact the crowd were more likely to receive it than the others, being less prejudiced and sophisticated. Hear, and understand. It was something important, and demanded attentive consideration. The disciples presently called it a ‘parable’ (v.15), yet he was not now employing obscure expressions as a judgment (13:13), but with great desire that all (Mark7:14) should understand. And they must not merely hear, but understand; for he will not recite decisions and opinions of the ancients, as the Scribes did, but will speak by his own authority (7:29), directly to the understanding and conscience of the people. [Broadus, 1886]

Defileth a (the) man, i.e., the man concerned in any particular case. So in the second clause, and in Matthew 15:18, Matthew 15:20. Tyn., Cran, and Gen. give the article in Matthew 15:11 and Matthew 15:18, but not in Matthew 15:20; King James gives it only in Matthew 15:18. The word rendered ‘defileth’ is literally, makes common. Some kinds of food were specially set apart, as alone proper for God’s chosen people, and were thus in a certain sense sacred, all other things being ‘common’; (Acts 10:14) for an Israelite to partake of these forbidden things would destroy his exclusiveness, make him common. Hence ‘to make common’ came to mean to defile, pollute. This saying of Jesus was to the Jews in the highest degree surprising, paradoxical, revolutionary. (compare Matthew 12:8) They saw at once that it applied not merely to hand washing, but to the whole matter of clean and unclean food, and this seemed to them one of the most vital parts of the law. So they knew not what to make of the saying, “Not what goes into the mouth defiles the man, but what comes out of it.” The Pharisees stumbled at such a saying, could not admit the divine mission of one who uttered it, (Matthew 15:12) and even the disciples failed to understand it. (Matthew 15:15 f.) Ceremonially, various things did defile by entering the mouth; but this was only designed to represent the idea of moral pollution, while the great mass of the Jews, however scrupulous about the representative purity, were careless of the inward purity. Our Lord therefore, by this saying directs attention to the internal and real impurity. Here, as with reference to the Sabbath, (Matthew 12:1 ff.) and to so many points in the Sermon on the Mount, he is leading the people to deeper and more spiritual views of the morality which the law designed to teach, and thus not abrogating or correcting, but ‘completing’ the law. (Matthew 5:17) His teachings did prepare the way for laying aside the ceremonies of the law, but this only by developing it into something higher. Accordingly, he does not abrogate the Mosaic directions about unclean food, but lays down a general principle applying to the point in hand, (Matthew 15:20) and really covering the whole matter, though not now further applied. Many things taught in principle by Jesus, were to be fully developed by his inspired followers, as men should become prepared to understand them. Compare 1 Corinthians 10:31 Romans 14:14 ff.; 1 Timothy 4:4 Titus 1:15. Besides educating the Israelites to the appreciation of moral purity, the law about clean and unclean food was also designed to keep the chosen people separate from other nations, and so Peter was taught to set it aside when the time came for preaching freely among the Gentiles. (Acts 10:9 ff.) [Broadus, 1886]

12-14. This is found in Matthew only. It appears that the conversation occurred after Jesus and his immediate followers had retired from the crowd into a house. (Mark7:17.) There had thus been a little interval since the saying of v.11 was uttered, and the disciples had heard how the Pharisees were talking about it. They felt that the opinions of these distinguished men from Jerusalem (v.1) were very important. Knowest thou. It seemed likely that he did not, or he would be hastening to explain and thus recover the sympathy of such important hearers. Were offended (see on 5:29), made to stumble, finding an obstacle to their believing reception of Jesus’ teachings (as in 11:6). When they heard this (the) saying, not that of v.3-9 (Fritz. and others), but the great saying of v.11, addressed to the crowd, but heard by the Pharisees also (Mey., Bleek, Weiss, and others). The Pharisees doubtless declared the saying to be in direct opposition to the law about clean and unclean food. The disciples themselves looked upon it as extremely obscure and strange (v.15), and sympathized not a little with the prejudices involved. Our Lord’s reply is to the effect that it matters not what such men think, whose authority is merely human, and who are as blind as the multitude they lead. [Broadus, 1886]

Every plant, etc. Every doctrine which did not come from God, which is of merely human origin (v.9), will lose its influence and cease to be believed. My heavenly Father, see on 6:9. [Broadus, 1886]

Let them alone, i.e., do not trouble yourselves about them, as to what they teach, or whether they approve my teaching. The Great Teacher did not expect, and did not try, to please all his hearers. Such as were blinded by prejudice, hardened in unbelief, or willful in their opposition, could only be let alone. They be (are) blind leaders, guides (oldest Greek MSS. and some versions) was easily enlarged by adding of the blind from the immediately following expression. ‘Guides’ (Rheims) is a more exact translation than ‘leaders’ (Wyc., Tyn., and followers). If the blind lead (guide) the blind. Both Greek words are singular and indefinite, ‘if a blind man guide a blind man,’ but the definite form makes a smoother English expression. It seems likely from Rom.2:19, that guide of the blind was a common designation of the Rabbis. Both shall (will) fall into the ditch (a pit), the same word as in 12:11, and denoting (Alford and Scott) a pit dug in the field to hold water, as was very common. The word is rendered ‘pit’ by Tyn., Cran., Gen., and Com. Ver., in 12:11, but here they all adopted ‘ditch,’ probably from supposing the image to be that of the ditch beside a road. But the word does not mean ditch, and the image is that of blind persons walking in the open field, and falling into a pit—a much more serious calamity. This saying has the air of a proverb, such as our Lord repeatedly employed (see on 7:5), and it had already been used by him in the Sermon on the Mount. (Luke 6:39.) Various similar sayings are found in classical writers. (Wet.) [Broadus, 1886]

Then answered Peter, not a specific reply to what Jesus had just said, but in a general sense a response, keeping up the conversation. (See on 11:25.) Peter’s expression, declare unto us, shows by the plural that he speaks for all, and Jesus in reply says ‘ye.’ (Comp. Mark7:17.) Peter is therefore spokesman for the Twelve, as he so often is. (See on 16:18.) This (the) parable; here copyists readily changed ‘the’ into ‘this.’ The word here denotes an obscure expression. (See on 13:13.) The reference is not to the figurative saying of v.14, called in Luke6:39 a parable, but to v.11, already spoken of in v.12 as ‘the saying.’ This is plain from our Lord’s reply, and confirmed by the connection in Mark7:15-17, who has not given the intermediate matter of Matthew v.13f., and with whom ‘the parable’ must necessarily refer to the great saying. [Broadus, 1886]

And Jesus (strictly he) said, the copyists inserting ‘Jesus,’ as in 14:14 and often. Are ye also, as well as the masses and the Pharisees. Yet. The Greek has a strong word, not elsewhere used in the New Test., but which in later Greek has even yet as a well-established meaning; ‘even yet,’ after all the instruction you have received, comp. 16:9; Heb.5:12. He had not given any instruction that we know of on this particular subject, but his teachings in ch.5 and ch.13, and his general influence, ought to have prepared them to take spiritual views of things. In v.17, do ye not yet understand (or perceive), was strengthened by copyists by introducing ‘yet,’ because of the expression in v.16, and perhaps with a reminiscence of 16:9. [Broadus]

‘Perceive’ (Tyn., Gen.) is here better than ‘understand’ (Wyc., Cran., Rheims, Com. Ver.), in order to distinguish from the different Greek word used in v.10 and 16. The Jews had come very largely to confound ceremonial with moral defilement. To correct this confusion of ideas, our Lord points out that articles of food cannot really pollute, because they pass through the body and out of it, and do not ‘enter the heart’ (Mark 7:19), cannot affect the spiritual nature; the sinful things which are uttered through the mouth, and proceed from the heart, constitute a real pollution. (Comp. on v .11.) Into the belly. The Greek signifies the whole hollow, or internal cavity of the body, including stomach and other viscera; and the English word formerly had a similar latitude of meaning. Into the draught (2Kings 10:27), sink, or privy (Rheims), literally, place for sitting apart. Mark adds (7:19) that by this saying Jesus cleansed all articles of food, i.e., declared them to be clean. (Acts 10:15.) [Broadus, 1886]

With v.18 comp. on Matthew 12:34f.

In v.19 our Lord does not confine himself absolutely to such things as are spoken, in order to keep up the contrasted image, but passes to the more general notion of whatever comes forth from the heart, has its origin from within us. There is, therefore, no occasion for inquiring, as some do, how speech has to do with all the forms of sin here mentioned. Mark (7:18-23) does not mention the mouth, but only the more general idea of entering and coming forth from the man, the heart. We have seen on 5:21 and elsewhere, that the heart was conceived of by the Hebrews, and is spoken of by the Bible, as the seat of thought and volition as well as of emotion. After the general phrase evil thoughts, our Lord specifies violations of the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth Commandments in order. Mark adds some other sins not mentioned by Matt. The plural forms which Matt. has throughout (even ‘false witnessings’) remind us of the numerous instances and different varieties of these several sins. Blasphemies (see on 9:3); a literal translation of the Greek is in Rev. Ver. ‘railings.’ In English we confine it to railing against God. Philo Judaeus paraphrasing Plato, says that through the mouth “mortal things go in, but incorruptible things come out. For by it enter food and drink, the corruptible body’s corruptible nourishment; but through the mouth words come forth, the immortal soul’s immortal laws, through which the natural life is governed.” [Broadus, 1886]

This first sums up the previous discussion, and then connects it all with the starting point in v.1. Our Lord has now not only denounced the Pharisees as hypocrites (v.7), but boldly antagonized their cardinal tenet of the authority of tradition. The conflict must inevitably wax fierce, and he soon begins to withdraw from their virulent opposition, and the fanaticism of his friends. [Broadus, 1886]

21-38. Jesus withdraws to Phoenicia. The story of the Syro-Phoenician woman is found also in Mark 7:24-30, in the same connection as here. Luke hastens through this part of the history, omitting various things, and stating others very briefly.

The jealousy of Herod (14:1), the hostility of the Pharisees (12:14; 15:1,12; also 4:12; John4:1-3), and the fanatical notions of the masses (John6:15), still required that Jesus should withdraw from Galilee, as heretofore in 14:13. Thence, probably from Capernaum. He now set out in a different direction, towards the northwest, into Phoenicia, thus getting beyond the jurisdiction of Herod, as in 14:13, and hereafter in v.29, and 16:5. Departed, withdrawn, same word as in 2:12; 22; 4:12; 12:15; 14:13. Into the coasts (Rev. Ver. parts) of Tyre and Sidon, i.e., the parts of the country, the region, belonging to those cities; so the same word in 2:22; 16:13; Mark 6:56; Acts 20:15; 19:1; 20:2. Coasts, i.e., borders (see on 2:16), is here an utterly erroneous translation of Wyc., Tyn., and followers, due to the generally received notion that our Lord never went beyond the bounds of Palestine; the word ‘parts’ never means ‘borders.’ Still, the term looks indefinite, and Mark 7:24 says ‘borders,’ as Matthew also does in v.22; so it might seem not certain that Jesus went farther than to the boundaries of Phoenicia. But while ‘borders’ often denotes the territory inclosed thereby, ‘parts’ cannot mean simply the boundary. And the question is settled by Mark 7:31 (correct text), “And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee.” (See below on v.29.) It is then certain that our Lord went into the heathen country of Phoenicia, the nearest part of which was about thirty miles from Capernaum. This does not conflict with the fact that his mission was exclusively to the Jews (v.24), for he did not go there to exercise his ministry (Mark 7:24), and as soon as he had been induced to work a miracle which would attract attention and gather crowds, he went away again. He entered into a house (Mark), and wished to stay there in seclusion, just as Elijah had done in the house of a widow at Zarephath, or Sarepta, in the same country of Phoenicia. (1Kings 17:9f.; Luke 4:26.) He probably also desired bodily and mental rest for the disciples and himself, as on their first withdrawal not long before. (Mark 7:31.) As to Tyre and Sidon, see on 11:21. The two cities together denote the country of Phoenicia. He was probably at first in the southern part belonging to Tyre, and afterwards went northward through the Sidonian parts. (Mark 7:31.) We learn from Mark3:8; Luke6:17, that multitudes from the region of Tyre and Sidon had attended on our Lord’s ministry at an early period. It was a refreshing change for him and his disciples, in the hot weather of April or May, to leave the deep basin of the lake, so far below the level of the Mediterranean, and visit the mountainous region of Phoenicia. (Comp. on 14:13.) [Broadus, 1886]

And behold, calling attention to what follows as remarkable. A woman of Canaan. In the earliest times the people of Phoenicia are spoken of as Canaanites (Judg. 1:31), i.e., as belonging to the great tribe which occupied all the low lands, and which afterwards gave its name of Canaan to the whole land. It is probable that the Jews continued to apply this name to all the inhabitants of Phoenicia, though many of the later inhabitants may have been of different origin. To Matthew’s Jewish readers this word would show that she was a Gentile. Mark, having Gentile readers mainly in view, says (7:26) that she was a Greek, i.e., a Gentile, and also that she was a Syrophoenician by race, a term probably used by way of distinction from the Libyphoenicians or Carthaginians. Came out of the same coasts, i.e., that region or territory, as in 2:16; 4:13; 8:34. This means that she came, not from Galilee, but from the country of Tyre, to the place where Jesus was. Many writers, even Weiss and Edersh., understand that she came out of Phoenicia into Galilee, which they suppose Jesus had not yet left; but this arises from the persistence of the old notion that he did not really enter Phoenicia. Edersh. imagines that Jesus kept the Passover here, consequently in a Jewish house; but his chronological scheme is at this and some other points quite forced. Cried unto him, saying, the correct text omits ‘unto him.’ The word denotes loud crying. Crieth after us, v.23, i.e., behind us, implies that she was following them along as they walked. It is easy to suppose that while staying at the house (Mark7:24), Jesus and his disciples were one day taking a walk, and that she having heard about him (Mark7:25), followed behind and cried aloud as they went on. Tischn. reads in Mark ‘came in,’ but it is evidently an ‘Alexandrian’ alteration by some early critics who thought the scene of the interview was the house, not having duly considered Matthew. Have mercy on me, the word including also the idea of pity, which is here the prominent idea (see on 9:27). She makes the child’s case her own. Lord, see on 8:2. It is not clear whether this was an expression of high respect, or possibly of worship. She believed him to be the Messiah, as shown by her calling him Son of David. (Comp. on 9:27.) Though a heathen, and living in a heathen country, she was yet near the land of Israel, familiar with the true religion, and like the woman of Zarephath, a worshipper of the true God. Perhaps she may have previously gone, among the many from Tyre and Sidon (Mark3:8), and attended the ministry of Jesus in Galilee. My daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. ‘Badly demonized’ would be a literal rendering, though the Com. Ver. gives a more familiar English expression. ‘Devil,’ however, should be ‘demon,’ see on 8:31; as to demoniacal possessions, see on 8:28. Mark (7:25, Rev. Ver.) uses a diminutive term, meaning ‘little daughter,’ which shows that she was a child. [Broadus, 1886]

23f. Here is a strong contrast; she cries aloud, he is absolutely silent. His reason for not answering appears below. The effect was to develop, strengthen, and manifest her faith (comp. on 9:28). It is often so now; if with hearty confidence in the Lord’s wisdom and mercy we continue to ask, we shall at last receive whatever he sees best for us, and besides may be improved in piety by the delay. The hearer of prayer is not less designing our good when he withholds or defers than when he ‘hears while we are yet speaking.’ His disciples, probably the Twelve, did not understand the wisdom and love of this apparent neglect. They were probably half touched and half annoyed by her loud and persistent cries, and perhaps also were uneasy lest she should draw attention to them, when they were wishing to remain in perfect retirement. So they came, lit., came near to Jesus and begged him to send her away, because she crieth after us. Some have thought they wished him simply to order her off, as troublesome and likely to attract too much attention of others. But they had never seen him dismiss a suppliant in any other way than by doing what was asked; and that they desired him to grant her request is made plain by his answer, which is a reason why he should not grant it. Observe that this was an answer to the disciples, and not addressed to the woman. It is not clear that she heard it; for the statement in v.25, ‘came and worshipped him,’ implies that she had been following at some little distance, as does also the loud crying of v.22. [Broadus, 1886]

 I am (or was) not sent (Rheims), like ‘I came’ in 5:17, referring indefinitely to the time when the Father sent him forth to his mission in the world; he had no commission to go to any others, even as he had given the disciples none. (10:6.) Jesus here and elsewhere speaks of himself as subordinate to the Father, with reference to his official position and work as the God-man, the Mediator (comp. on 11:27); this does not conflict with the idea that as the Eternal Son he is very God, and equal with the Father. (John1:1; Rom.9:5.) But (or except) unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, see on 10:6. He doubtless healed Gentile sick when brought to him in the land of Israel (4:24f.; 15:30f.; certainly in 8:5f.); but now he had gone into a Gentile country, and must avoid entering upon a general ministry there. His ministry in Israel prepared the way for a blessing to the Gentiles. (Rom.15:8-10.) When his work was finished, then the apostles would be his ‘witnesses, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.’ (Acts1:8.) It would have conflicted with the nature and design of Christ’s mission, had he anticipated this work of the apostles, though he alluded to it as a part of his own work. (John10:16.) The Jewish mind required slow preparation (as the history in Acts plainly shows) for the idea that Gentiles were to share freely the benefits of the Messianic reign; and the Jews would have been irritated and utterly repelled (Lutteroth), if their Messiah had at once begun a great work among the Gentiles. Jesus was induced to make an exception to the rule by this woman’s great faith and humble importunity, as the prophets had sometimes done. (Luke4:25-27.) There is no objection to supposing him overcome by importunity. But, in fact, this was hardly an exception, for her great faith brought her in some sense within the limits of his mission. (Gal.3:7.) Notice that v.23f. is found in Matthew only, who wrote especially for Jews, and desired to show that Jesus was the Messiah. Mark’s Gentile readers would not at first have understood such a saying as v.24, and would have been repelled by it. [Braodus, 1886]

The woman herself now comes. Worshipped him, bowing before him, probably prostrating herself, but not probably as to a Deity (comp. on 2:2; 8:2). The Greek imperfect tense (correct text) not only states that she did this, but describes her as so doing. [Broadus, 1886]

Jesus puts before her the same idea he had just stated to the disciples, that the Messianic benefits were designed for the Jews, and purposely employs harsh expressions which will develop her faith and humility. He had produced a similar effect in the centurion by an opposite course. (8:7.) The Jews looked upon themselves as God’s ‘children’; and spoke contemptuously of the Gentiles as ‘dogs,’ unclean and vile. (Comp. on 7:6.) The Gentiles around were accustomed to this, and therefore the expression here was not altogether so offensive and painful as it would seem to us. [Broadus, 1886]

The woman’s reply not only shows a high degree of faith and humility, but also credit is due to her shrewdness and prompt intelligence—perhaps stimulated by maternal affection and solicitude—for she gives the harshly expressed refusal an admirable turn in her favor. Truth (or yes) Lord, yet (for) the dogs eat of the crumbs. She does not present an idea opposed to what he had said, as the incorrect rendering of Com. Ver., ‘yet,’ [1] would indicate, but a confirmation of it: ‘Yes, Lord, it is not proper to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs, for the dogs too eat of the crumbs that fall from their master’s table; they also have their lowly place, ‘under the table’ (Mark), and their lowly portion. The Jewish people, she is aware, have a special mission in the world, and special privileges; and of these they need not be deprived by her request, for a despised Gentile also may have an humble share of Messianic blessing. He is not now healing any in Israel, and the chosen people will lose no Messianic good by this one act of pity for her. (Comp. Mald., Weiss.) Luther: “Was not that a master stroke? She snares Christ in his own words.” In Mark, what our Lord had said to her is introduced by the words, ‘Let the children first be filled’; implying that afterwards the dogs might get something. This furnished all the more natural occasion for the turn she gave to her reply. The Greek term in v.26f. and Mark 7:27 is a diminutive, and leads us to think of smaller dogs, allowed to run freely about the house and under the table. The diminutive must have been intentionally used here, for it is found nowhere else in the Greek Bible, while the common word occurs five times in New Test., and thirty-three times in Sept. Everywhere in the Bible dogs are spoken of as objects of dislike. In Tobit 5:16, ‘a dog is a companion, a thing very rarely the case in the East, where dogs run wild. It is hardly proper to suppose that ‘little dogs’ is here a term of affection; and Weiss’ notion of lap-dogs, the children’s pets, is a strange anachronism.—This heroine of faith is an example to all persons who are spiritually seeking Christ. Some after awhile grow despondent, and even fretful, as if badly treated, in that they do not succeed as others do. Let them learn from her humble perseverance.

[1] Wyc., Cran., Gen., have ‘for,’ Rheims exactly ‘for … also.’ Tyn. gave ‘nevertheless,’ and so Com. Ver. ‘yet.’ All but Rheims overlook the ‘also.’ B. and Peshito omit the ‘for,’ apparently because the meaning was not perceived. In Mark 7:28 it is also omitted by several other MSS. and versions, probably for the same reason. Why should it have been inserted if not originally present in either Gospel? How then should W.H. bracket ‘for’ in Matt.? Yet it may be spurious in Mark. The Greek word means in English either ‘also’ (too), or ‘even,’ according to the connection. [Broadus, 1886]

O woman, more expressive than simply ‘woman.’ Great is thy faith. The world is ever admiring and lauding greatness, but it is great intellect or imagination, great ambition or force of character, beauty or amiability, great learning or discoveries, possessions or conquests; here is the highest praise for the truest greatness. The centurion’s faith likewise excited the wonder of Jesus (see on 8:10), and he too was a heathen. Be it unto thee, or let it come to pass for thee; the same phrase as in 8:13 and 6:10. The expression in Mark7:29 may have immediately followed that given in Matt. As thou wilt. Trench: “He who at first seemed as though he would have denied her the smallest boon, now opens to her the full treasure-house of his grace, and bids her to help herself, to carry away what she will. He had shown to her for awhile, like Joseph to his brethren, the aspect of severity; but, like Joseph, he could not maintain it long—or rather he would not maintain it an instant longer than was needful, and after that word of hers, that mighty word of an enduring faith, it was needful no more.” Our Lord does not speak of her humility, though so remarkable, for that was a result of her faith. Perhaps the earliest offspring of unbelief is pride (1Tim.3:6), while faith at once gives birth to humility; and in both cases, the progeny reinforces the parent. So, too, her faith had led to perseverance—a perseverance which may be compared with that of Jacob, in wrestling with the same Eternal Word (Gen.32:24), who was now permanently incarnate as Jesus. From that very hour, comp. 8:13; 9:22.—The so-called Clementine homilies (end of second century), in telling this story, call the woman Justa, and her daughter Bernice, which names may have been either invented or traditional. [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 15:29 to Matthew 16:4. Jesus Feeds The Four Thousand, Southeast Of The Lake, And Returns To Galilee. This is found also in Mark 7:31 to Mark 8:13. And Jesus departed from thence. We have no means of knowing how long he stayed in the country of Tyre; certainly not very long, for all the journeys of Matthew 15-18 occupied less than six months. (See on “Matthew 15:1”, and see on “Matthew 19:1”.) Mark (Mark 7:31) says, in the correct text, that, ‘he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the Sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis.’ This shows that in leaving the territory of Tyre he went northwards through the territory of Sidon, or through the city itself, the expression being in this case ambiguous. We have no information concerning the rest of his sojourn in Phoenicia. Next, he must have passed eastward across the Jordan, and then southward, until, going through the district of the Ten Cities, Decapolis (see on “Matthew 4:25”), he came to the shores of the lake, somewhere-on its southeastern border. (For description of the Lake of Galilee, see on “Matthew 4:18”.) This region also was out of Herod’s jurisdiction, like those to which he had previously withdrawn. (Matthew 13:13, Matthew 15:21) The desire to keep out of Herod’s territory at that time may have caused him to take the circuit just described, instead of going direct from Tyre through Galilee and crossing the lake. He appears not to have stopped in the neighbourhood of Cesarea Philippi, probably through desire to revisit the environs of the lake; but soon the malignant attack of the Pharisees and Sadducees will make him go away again. (Matthew 16:4) He was now in the vicinity of Gadara (one of the Ten Cities), the same region in which he had healed the two demoniacs, and suffered the legion of evil spirits to destroy the swine. (Matthew 8:28 ff.) This time his ministry produces a greater impression, perhaps through the testimony of the restored demoniac. (Luke 8:39) Persons from Decapolis had followed him long before. (Matthew 4:25) And went up into a (the) mountain, the mountain range running along east of the lake. (Compare John 6:3) The mountain of Matthew 5:1 was on the western side of the lake. The more northern part of this easterly range was the place of feeding the Five Thousand (see on “Matthew 14:13”), and now a similar miracle is wrought on its more southern part. And sat down there, the usual posture of a teacher. (See on “Matthew 5:1”.) [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 15:30 f. Here, seated on a point in the mountain range, probably in view of the lake, he wrought many miracles of healing, and again fed the multitudes. In this case a large proportion of those present must have been Gentiles, as the Ten Cities were more a Gentile than a Jewish district. He must have spent at least several days in this region, since it required some time for his presence to become generally known, and the Four Thousand had been ‘three days’ (Matthew 15:32) in close attendance on his ministry. Great multitudes, literally, many crowds, as in so many other passages. We have here another general account of numerous miracles. (Compare Matthew 4:23, Matthew 8:16, Matthew 9:35, Matthew 12:15 f.) One of those wrought at this time and place was tile healing of a deaf and dumb man, described by Mark alone. (Mark 7:32-37) The order of the words lame, blind, etc., (Matthew 15:30) varies greatly in different documents, having doubtless been affected by Matthew 15:31; but this is a matter of no consequence. The word rendered maimed signifies crooked, bent, contracted; it is sometimes applied to cases of mutilation, the loss of some part of the body, (Matthew 18:8) which is the meaning of our word maimed, but is not often so used, and probably the best English word here would be ‘crippled.’ Malchus’ ear (Matthew 25:31) is the only recorded instance of our Lord’s miraculously restoring a missing part of the body. And many others. The kinds of diseases were so numerous that they could not all be named. Matthew appears to have selected those associated with predictions of Messiah. (See on “Matthew 11:5”.)

Cast them down at his feet, implies not carelessness, but hurry and bustle amid the crowd of applicants. ‘His feet’ was easily changed by copyists into ‘the feet of Jesus.’ (Compare on Matthew 14:14)[1] The dumb to speak; speaking, etc., is the literal translation. (So Wyc.) And they glorified the God of Israel. In Matthew 9:8 it is simply ‘and they glorified God.’ But it was natural to mention that these heathen people glorified ‘the God of Israel.’ [1] The multitude’ (Matthew 15:31) is changed in most documents into ‘the multitudes,’ evidently because the participle rendered ‘when they saw’ is plural (following a singular “noun of multitude”), and because ‘great multitudes’ have been mentioned in Matthew 15:30. This manifestly altered reading is given by B, which also omits ‘for’ in Matthew 15:27 and ‘now’ in Matthew 15:32—three unquestionable errors in close connection. In like manner the correct reading is, ‘the multitude’ in Matthew 15:35, but ‘the multitudes’ in Matthew 15:36, and much confusion arose in the copies. [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 15:32-38. Compare on the similar feeding of the Five Thousand, Matthew 14:15-21. I have compassion, as in Matthew 9:36. Three days. They had no doubt brought some food with them, which was now exhausted. They showed great zeal to see and hear and be healed, remaining so long in the thinly inhabited region, sleeping on the ground two nights in the open air, living on the food brought with them, and slow to leave when it was gone. And I will not (or am not willing to) send them away fasting. (‘I would not,’ Rev. Ver., is hardly an improvement upon ‘I will not’; it removes a possible ambiguity, but seems to suggest a condition.) Some of them were from a distance. (Mark 8:3) [Broadus, 1886]

His (the) disciples, (Matthew 15:33) ‘his’ being easily added from Matthew 9:32. So much bread, literally, so many loaves, for the Greek is plural. In the wilderness, or a desert place, a wild country with few inhabitants, see on “Matthew 14:13” and see on “Matthew 3:1”. Only a region containing large towns could at short notice furnish food for such a multitude, and this wild country was a good many miles from the nearest cities of Decapolis. [Broadus, 1886]

A few little fishes. The diminutive form emphasizes the fact that the supply was meagre; in Matthew 15:36 it is the common word for ‘fishes.’ Here again the people are commanded to recline on the ground, and probably in companies and rows as before, (Mark 6:39 f.) though nothing is here laid of it. [Broadus, 1886]

Seven baskets full In this case the number of baskets  corresponds to the number of loaves; in the previous case (Matthew 14:20) to the number of apostles. Euthym.: “Showing that it is easy for him to do as he wishes.” In Mark 8:19 f. our Lord seems to treat it as a matter of importance that such a quantity of broken pieces remained in each case. [Broadus, 1886]

Beside women and children, mentioned by Matt. only, as before in Matthew 14:21.

This miracle is recorded both by Matthew and Mark, and the former miraculous feeding by all four of the Evangelists. And shortly after, (Matthew 16:9) we find it recorded both by Matt. and Mark that our Lord referred to the two miracles as separately teaching the same lesson. This conclusively shows that strikingly similar events did occur in our Lord’s history, a thing to be remembered with reference to the two visits to Nazareth, the two instances of cleansing the temple, the two women who anointed Jesus, the parable of the pounds and that of the talents, etc, where it happens that the two events or discourses are recorded only by different Evangelists; and some expositors jump to the conclusion that they are nothing but varying and conflicting accounts of the same matter. If the feeding of five thousand with five loaves had been recorded only by one Gospel, and that of four thousand with seven loaves only by one or two others, it would have been most confidently asserted that these were the same miracle. Let us neither be nervous harmonizers, nor eager to assume that harmonizing is impossible. It is worth observing how natural in these two miracles are the points of agreement, and how striking are some of the differences. It was natural that the situation should in both cases be the wild country, where sufficient food could not be obtained from ordinary Sources; that the kind of food multiplied should be that which was common on the shores of the lake; that Jesus should ‘bless’ or ‘give thanks’ before breaking the bread, according to custom, and should distribute the food by the help of the disciples, a matter of obvious convenience and propriety. On the other hand, the precise locality in the wild country is different in the two cases; there is now, in the parched summer, no mention of reclining on the grass, as Matthew, Mark, and John, all mention in the former case, when it was spring; the supply of food is here greater than before, while the number of persons is smaller; the people here have remained three days; in the other case only one day. There is also a slight, but quite remarkable difference as to the word rendered ‘basket.’ This is in all four Gospels in the first miracle, and (or sphuris) in both Gospels here; and in the subsequent mention of these miracles (Matthew 16:9 f.; Mark 6:19 f.) it is again in both Gospels with reference to the first, and spurious with reference to the second miracle. We do not know the precise difference between the two words, but the careful observance of the distinction throughout, strikingly shows how entirely distinct the two miracles were. Origen and Chrys. suppose that the spurious was somewhat large, and this seems confirmed by its use in lowering Paul from the wall of Damascus, (Acts 9:25) while the appears to have been a small provision basket, such as a Jew on a journey commonly carried with him (see on “Matthew 14:20”). The disciples may have now had these large baskets because they had been making a long journey.

The strange thing about this second miracle is the fact that the apostles do not recur (Matthew 15:33) to the former miraculous feeding, which took place but a short time before. Many critics have thought this utterly inexplicable, and on this ground have denied the reality of the second miracle, though explicitly and repeatedly affirmed. But let us remember. Our Lord had sternly rebuked the crowd who shared in the previous feeding for following him the next day with the hope of being fed again, (John 6:2) and had been much displeased at the popular determination produced by that miracle to make him a king. Nay, he had hurried tile disciples themselves unwillingly away, partly, it is probable, because they sympathized with this popular design. (See on “Matthew 14:22”.) In this state of things the disciples might naturally doubt whether lie would repeat a miracle which had been formerly attended by such undesirable results, and might at any rate feel great delicacy about suggesting the idea that he should do so. (Compare Mark 9:32, “were afraid to ask him.”) But as soon as he intimates such an intention, by asking how many loaves they have, they express no surprise nor doubt, but go on to carry out the details. [Broadus, 1886]

And he sent away the multitudes, see on “Matthew 14:22″f. And took ship, literally, entered into the boat, see on “Matthew 4:21”. The boat which they were accustomed to use may have been brought from Capernaum, while they were staying here on the S. E. side. Into the coasts of Magdala, or orders of Magadan.[1] This is unquestionably the correct reading, which was early changed to Magdala, a familiar name, easily connecting itself with Mary Magdalene. The position of Magadan is unknown, as is that of Dalmaimtha. (Mark 8:10) They appear to have been on the western side of the lake, being reached by boat frets the other side, and especially because from them the party crossed to the northeastern side. (Matthew 16:5 Mark 8:13)

[1] Magadan is read by ‏א‎ B, D, Old Syriac, and Jerus. Syriac, Old Latin (majority of copies), and Vulgate, and by Jerome and Augustine. The reason for changing to Magdala is obvious, white we can imagine no reason for a change in the opposite direction to an unknown name. So Herod. II. 159 (compare Rawlinson,”Great Empires,” III. 48 n.) changes Megiddo into Magdolon, a natural Greek form of Magdala. As meaning ‘tower,’ this word would very readily become the name of a town (Exodus 14:2 Joshua 15:37, Joshua 19:38) compare Magdala, the present capital of Abyssinia. There is now a place called Mejdel (containing a few huts), on tile western shore of the Lake of Gal., which was probably the home of Mary. The Hebrew Migdol, Aram. Magdala, Arab. Megdel (g, soft), are exactly characteristic forms for the three languages. Magdalan, found in O., Memph., etc., seems to have been an intermediate “Alexandrian” alteration of Magadan, and Magdala the “Syrian” alteration. In Mark (Mark 8:10) Dahnanutha is ill a good many documents changed to Magadan, and in a few to Magdala. Caspari would identity Magadan and Dalmanutha with a Wady and town far down the Jordan valley. But in both Gospels the party came by boat to those places, and presently go from them by boat “to the other side” (northeastern side); how can these expressions suit places some twelve to twenty miles south of the lake? Canon Cook argues (“Bib. Comm.,” followed by Edersheim.) that Dalmanutha was not in Gal., because the Phar. came forth (Mark 8:11) to seek a sign, viz., out of their district (Gal.) into another district. But it more naturally means, out of their town or dist. to meet him as he approached, compare Matthew 25:1; Matthew 26:55 Luke 8:35; Luke 15:28 John 18:4. Nothing is known about the statement of Eusebius and Jerome (“0nom.”, with express reference to this passage) that “there is now the district of Magedane near Gerasa.” [Broadus, 1886]