Matthew 15:1
“Tradition vs. God's Command”Matthew 15:1–9
Bible text: King James Version (1769 Blayney text) · Public domain
Bible text: Berean Standard Bible · Public domain
Bible text: American Standard Version (1901) · Public domain
Bible text: World English Bible, Messianic edition · Public domain
Bible text: Geneva Bible (1599) · Public domain
Bible text: Young's Literal Translation · Public domain
- ΤότεToteThenG5119ADVAdverb
- προσέρχονταιproserchontaicomeG4334V-PNI-3PVerb Present Middle Or Passive Deponent Indicative 3rd Plural
- τῷtō[the]G3588T-DSMDefinite article Dative Singular Masculine
- ἸησοῦIēsouto JesusG2424N-DSM-PNoun Dative Singular Masculine Individual
- οἱhoithoseG3588T-NPMDefinite article Nominative Plural Masculine
- ἀπὸapofromG575PREPPreposition
- ἹεροσολύμωνHi'erosolumōnJerusalemG2414N-GPN-LNoun Genitive Plural Neuter Location
- ΦαρισαῖοιPharisaioiPhariseesG5330N-NPM-TNoun Nominative Plural Masculine Title
- καὶkaiandG2532CONJConjunction
- γραμματεῖςgrammateisscribesG1122N-NPMNoun Nominative Plural Masculine
- λέγοντες·legontessayingG3004V-PAP-NPMVerb Present Active Participle Nominative Plural Masculine
English is a literal word-by-word gloss of the Greek, not the KJV's wording. Why?
This is the original text the KJV's translators worked from — each Greek word with its own literal English meaning in this verse, prepared by scholars at Tyndale House, Cambridge. The KJV translates whole sentences, not word by word, so its wording differs: one Greek word can become several English words, and the KJV may choose “charity” where the gloss reads “love”. Both are faithful — they answer different questions. For the KJV's own rendering, switch to the KJV text.
Words in [ ] are added by the English.
Details
See on the biblical-era maps



Study this verse
Public-domain commentary
Matthew Henry
From his Commentary on the Whole Bible. Henry wrote on whole passages, and this entry covers Matthew 15:1–9. He set out his notes in a four-level outline, kept here as he numbered it.
Evil manners, we say, beget good laws. The intemperate heat of the Jewish teachers for the support of their hierarchy, occasioned many excellent discourses of our Saviour's for the settling of the truth, as here.
I.Here, is the cavil of the scribes and Pharisees at Christ's disciples, for eating with unwashen hands.
The scribes and Pharisees were the great men of the Jewish church, men whose gain was godliness, great enemies to the gospel of Christ, but colouring their opposition with a pretence of zeal for the law of Moses, when really nothing was intended but the support of their own tyranny over the consciences of men. They were men of learning and men of business. These scribes and Pharisees here introduced were of Jerusalem, the holy city, the head city, whither the tribes went up, and where were set the thrones of judgment; they should therefore have been better than others, but they were worse. Note, External privileges, if they be not duly improved, commonly swell men up the more with pride and malignity. Jerusalem, which should have been a pure spring, was now become a poisoned sink. How is the faithful city become a harlot!
Now if these great men be the accusers, pray what is the accusation? What articles do they exhibit against the disciples of Christ? Why, truly, the thing laid to their charge, is, nonconformity to the canons of their church (Matthew 15:2); Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? This charge they make good in a particular instance; They wash not their hands when they eat bread. A very high misdemeanor! It was a sign that Christ's disciples conducted themselves inoffensively, when this was the worst thing they could charge them with.
Observe, 1. What was the tradition of the elders - That people should often wash their hands, and always at meat. This they placed a great deal of religion in, supposing that the meat they touched with unwashen hands would be defiling to them. The Pharisees practiced this themselves, and with a great deal of strictness imposed it upon others, not under civil penalties, but as matter of conscience, and making it a sin against God if they did not do it. Rabbi Joses determined, "that to eat with unwashen hands is as great a sin as adultery." And Rabbi Akiba being kept a close prisoner, having water sent him both to wash his hands with, and to drink with his meat, the greatest part being accidentally shed, he washed his hands with the remainder, though he left himself none to drink, saying he would rather die than transgress the tradition of the elders. Nay, they would not eat meat with one that did not wash before meat. This mighty zeal in so small a matter would appear very strange, if we did not still see it incident to church-oppressors, not only to be fond of practising their own inventions, but to be furious in pressing their own impositions.
2.What was the transgression of this tradition or injunction by the disciples; it seems, they did not wash their hands when they ate bread, which was the more offensive to the Pharisees, because they were men who in other things were strict and conscientious. The custom was innocent enough, and had a decency in its civil use. We read of the water for purifying at the marriage where Christ was present (John 2:6), though Christ turned it into wine, and so put an end to that use of it. But when it came to be practised and imposed as a religious rite and ceremony, and such a stress laid upon it, the disciples, though weak in knowledge, yet were so well taught as not to comply with it, or observe it; no not when the scribes and Pharisees had their eye upon them. They had already learned St. Paul's lesson, All things are lawful for me; no doubt, it is lawful to wash before meat; but I will not be brought under the power of any; especially not those who said to their souls, Bow down, that we may go over. 1 Corinthians 6:12.
3.What was the complaint of the scribes and Pharisees against them. They quarrel with Christ about it, supposing that he allowed them in it, as he did, no doubt, by his own example; "Why do thy disciples transgress the canons of the church? And why dost thou suffer them to do it?" It was well that the complaint was made to Christ; for the disciples themselves, though they knew their duty in this case, were perhaps not so well able to give a reason for what they did as were to be wished.
II.Here is Christ's answer to this cavil, and his justification of the disciples in that which was charged upon them as a transgression.
Note, While we stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, he will be sure to bear us out in it.
Two ways Christ replies upon them;
1.By way of recrimination, Matthew 15:3-6. They were spying motes in the eyes of his disciples, but Christ shows them a beam in their own. But that which he charges upon them is not barely a recrimination, for it will be no vindication of ourselves to condemn our reprovers; but it is such a censure of their tradition (and the authority of that was what they built their charge upon) as makes not only a non-compliance lawful, but an opposition a duty. That human authority must never be submitted to, which sets up in competition with divine authority.
(1.)The charge in general is, You transgress the commandment of God by your tradition. They called it the tradition of the elders, laying stress upon the antiquity of the usage, and the authority of them that imposed it, as the church of Rome does upon fathers and councils; but Christ calls it their tradition. Note, Illegal impositions will be laid to the charge of those who support and maintain them, and keep them up, as well of those who first invented and enjoined them; Micah 6:16. You transgress the commandment of God. Note, Those who are most zealous of their own impositions, are commonly most careless of God's commands; which is a good reason why Christ's disciples should stand upon their guard against such impositions, lest, though at first they seem only to infringe the liberty of Christians, they come at length to confront the authority of Christ. Though the Pharisees, in this command of washing before meat, did not entrench upon any command of God; yet, because in other instances they did, he justifies his disciples' disobedience to this.
(2.)The proof of this charge is in particular instance, that of their transgressing the fifth commandment.
[1.]Let us see what the command of God is (Matthew 15:4), what the precept, and what the sanction of the law is.
The precept is, Honour thy father and thy mother; this is enjoined by the common Father of mankind, and by paying respect to them whom Providence has made the instruments of our being, we give honour to him who is the Author of it, who has thereby, as to us, put some of his image upon them. The whole of children's duty to their parents is included in this of honouring them, which is the spring and foundation of all the rest, If I be a father, where is my honour? Our Saviour here supposes it to mean the duty of children's maintaining their parents, and ministering to their wants, if there be occasion, and being every way serviceable to their comfort. Honour widows, that is, maintain them, 1 Timothy 5:3.
The sanction of this law in the fifth commandment, is, a promise, that thy days may be long; but our Saviour waives that, lest any should thence infer it to be only a thing commendable and profitable, and insists upon the penalty annexed to the breach of this commandment in another scripture, which denotes the duty to be highly and indispensably necessary; He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death: this law we have, Exodus 21:17. The sin of cursing parents is here opposed to the duty of honouring them. Those who speak ill of their parents, or wish ill to them, who mock at them, or give them taunting and opprobrious language, break this law. If to call a brother Raca be so penal, what is it to call a father so? By our Saviour's application of this law, it appears, that denying service or relief to parents is included in cursing them. Though the language be respectful enough, and nothing abusive in it, yet what will that avail, if the deeds be not agreeable? it is but like him that said, I go, Sir, and went not, Matthew 21:30.
[2.]Let us see what was the contradiction which the tradition of the elders gave to this command. It was not direct and downright, but implicit; their casuists gave them such rules as furnished them with an easy evasion from the obligation of this command, Matthew 15:5, Matthew 15:6. You hear what God saith, but ye say so and so. Note, That which men say, even great men, and learned men, and men in authority, must be examined by that which God saith; and if it be found either contrary or inconsistent, it may and must be rejected, Acts 4:19. Observe,
First, What their tradition was; That a man could not in any case bestow his worldly estate better than to give it to the priests, and devote it to the service of the temple: and that when any thing was so devoted, it was not only unlawful to alienate it, but all other obligations, though ever so just and sacred, were thereby superseded, and a man was thereby discharged from them. And this proceeded partly from their ceremoniousness, and the superstitious regard they had to the temple, and partly from their covetousness, and love of money: for what was given to the temple they were gainers by. The former was, in pretence, the latter was, in truth, at the bottom of this tradition.
Secondly, How they allowed the application of this to the case of children. When their parents' necessities called for their assistance, they pleaded, that all they could spare from themselves and their children, they had devoted to the treasury of the temple; It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, and therefore their parents must expect nothing from them; suggesting withal, that the spiritual advantage of what was so devoted, would redound to the parents, who must live upon that air. This, they taught, was a good and valid plea, and many undutiful, unnatural children made use of it, and they justified them in it, and said, He shall be free; so we supply the sense. Some go further, and supply it thus, "He doth well, his days shall be long in the land, and he shall be looked upon as having duly observed the fifth commandment." The pretence of religion would make his refusal to provide for his parents not only passable but plausible. But the absurdity and impiety of this tradition were very evident: for revealed religion was intended to improve, not to overthrow, natural religion; one of the fundamental laws of which is this of honouring our parents; and had they known what that meant, I will have justice, and mercy, and not sacrifice, they had not thus made the most arbitrary rituals destructive of the most necessary morals. This was making the command of God of no effect. Note, Whatever leads to, or countenances, disobedience, does, in effect, make void the command; and they that take upon them to dispense with God's law, do, in Christ's account, repeal and disannul it. To break the law is bad, but to teach men so, as the scribes and Pharisees did, is much worse, Matthew 5:19. To what purpose is the command given, if it be not obeyed? The rule is, as to us, of none effect, if we be not ruled by it. It is time for thee, Lord, to work; high time for the great Reformer, the great Refiner, to appear; for they have made void thy law (Psalm 119:126); not only sinned against the commandment, but, as far as in them lay, sinned away the commandment. But, thanks be to God, in spite of them and all their traditions, the command stands in full force, power, and virtue.
2.The other part of Christ's answer is by way of reprehension; and that which he here charges them with, is hypocrisy; Ye hypocrites, Matthew 15:7. Note, It is the prerogative of him who searcheth the heart, and knows what is in man, to pronounce who are hypocrites. The eye of man can perceive open profaneness, but it is only the eye of Christ that can discern hypocrisy, Luke 16:15. And as it is a sin which his eye discovers, so it is a sin which of all others his soul hates.
Now Christ fetches his reproof from Isaiah 29:13. Well did Esaias prophesy of you. Isaiah spoke it of the men of that generation to which he prophesied, yet Christ applies it to these scribes and Pharisees. Note, The reproofs of sin and sinners, which we find in scripture, were designed to reach the like persons and practices to the end of the world; for they are not of private interpretation, 2 Peter 1:20. The sinners of the latter days are prophesied of, 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:1; 2 Peter 3:3. Threatenings directed against others, belong to us, if we be guilty of the same sins. Isaiah prophesied not of them only, but of all other hypocrites, against whom that word of his is still levelled, and stands in force. The prophecies of scripture are every day in the fulfilling.
This prophecy exactly deciphers a hypocritical nation, Isaiah 9:17; Isaiah 10:6. Here is,
(1.)The description of hypocrites, in two things.
[1.]In their own performances of religious worship, Matthew 15:8, when they draw nigh to God with their mouth, and honour him with their lips, their heart is far from him. Observe,
First, How far a hypocrite goes; he draws nigh to God, and honours him; he is, in profession, a worshipper of God. The Pharisee went up to the temple, to pray; he does not stand at that distance which those are at, who live without God in the world, but has a name among the people near unto him. They honour him; that is, they take on them to honour God, they join with those that do so. Some honour God has even from the services of hypocrites, as they help to keep up the face and form of godliness in the world, whence God fetches honour to himself, though they intend it not to him. When God's enemies submit themselves but feignedly, when they lie unto him, so the word is (Psalm 66:3), it redounds to his honour, and he gets himself a name.
Secondly, Where he rests and takes up; this is done gut with his mouth and with his lips. It is piety but from the teeth outwards; he shows much love, and that is all, there is in his heart no true love; they make their voices to be heard (Isaiah 58:4), mention the name of the Lord, Isaiah 48:1. Hypocrites are those that only make a lip-labour of religion and religious worship. In word and tongue, the worst hypocrites may do as well as the best saints, and speak as fair with Jacob's voice.
Thirdly, What that is wherein he comes short; it is in the main matter; Their heart is far from me, habitually alienated and estranged (Ephesians 4:18), actually wandering and dwelling upon something else; no serious thoughts of God, no pious affections toward him, no concern about the soul and eternity, no thoughts agreeable to the service. God is near in their mouth, but far from their reins, Jeremiah 12:2; Ezekiel 33:31. The heart, with the fool's eyes, is in the ends of the earth. It is a silly dove that is without a heart, and so it is a silly duty, Hosea 7:11. A hypocrite says one thing, but thinks another. The great thing that God looks at and requires is the heart (Proverbs 23:26); if that be far from him, it is not a reasonable service and therefore not an acceptable one; it is the sacrifice of fools, Ecclesiastes 5:1.
[2.]In their prescriptions to others. This is an instance of their hypocrisy, that they teach for doctrines the commandments of men. The Jews then, as the papists since, paid the same respect to oral tradition that they did to the word of God, receiving it pari pietatis affectu ac reverenti - with the same pious affection and reverence. Conc. Trident. Sess. 4. Decr. 1. When men's inventions are tacked to God's institutions, and imposed accordingly, this is hypocrisy, a mere human religion. The commandments of men are properly conversant about the things of men, but God will have his own work done by his own rules, and accepts not that which he did not himself appoint. That only cones to him, that comes from him.
(2.)The doom of hypocrites; it is put in a little compass; In vain do they worship me. Their worship does not attain the end for which it was appointed; it will neither please God, nor profit themselves. If it be not in spirit, it is not in truth, and so it is all nothing. That man who only seems to be religious, but is not so, his religion is vain (James 1:26); and if our religion be a vain oblation, a vain religion, how great is that vanity! How sad is it to live in an age of prayers and sermons, and sabbaths and sacraments, in vain, to beat the air in all these; it is so, if the heart be not with God in them. Lip-labour is lost labour, Isaiah 1:11. Hypocrites sow the wind and reap the whirlwind; they trust in vanity, and vanity will be their recompence.
Thus Christ justified his disciples in their disobedience to the traditions of the elders; and this the scribes and Pharisees got by their cavilling. We read not of any reply they made; if they were not satisfied, yet they were silenced, and could not resist the power wherewith Christ spake.
Historical interpretation
Nine Centuries of Reception
12 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
Pharisees and scribes came to him from Jerusalem. They did not come because they were amazed at the power in Jesus that healed people even if they “only touched the edge of his cloak.” Instead, they came with a faultfinding attitude and brought an accusation before the teacher. The accusation did not concern the transgression of a commandment of God but rather the transgression of one tradition of the Jewish elders. Probably the charge of the faultfinders itself displays the piety of the disciples of Jesus, because they offered no grounds at all for criticism by the Pharisees and scribes in regard to transgressing the commandments of God. The Pharisees and scribes would not have brought the charge of transgressing the commandment of the elders against the disciples of Jesus if, indeed, they were able to get a firm hold on the ones who were being accused and were able to show that they were transgressing a commandment of God.
Then; when? when He had wrought His countless miracles; when He had healed the infirm by the touch of the hem of His garment. For even with this intent doth the evangelist mark the time, that He might signify their unspeakable wickedness, by nothing repressed.
But what means, "The Scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem?" In every one of the tribes were they scattered abroad, and divided into twelve parts; but they who occupied the chief city were worse than the others, as both enjoying more honor, and having contracted much haughtiness.
But mark, I pray thee, how even by the question itself they are convicted; in not saying, "Why do they transgress the law of Moses," but, "the tradition of the elders." Whence it is evident that the priests were inventing many novelties, although Moses, with much terror and with much threatening, had enjoined neither to add nor take away. For "ye shall not add," saith he, "unto the word which I command you this day, and ye shall not take away from it."
But not the less were they innovating; as in this instance, that one ought not to eat with unwashen hands, that we must wash cups and brazen vessels, that we must wash also ourselves. Thus, when men were henceforth, as time advanced, to be freed from their observances, at that very time they bound them with the same in more and more instances, fearing lest any one should take away their power, and wishing to strike more dread, as though they were themselves also lawgivers. The thing in fact proceeded so far in enormity, that while their own commandments were kept, those of God were transgressed; and they so far prevailed, that the matter had actually become a ground of accusation. Which was a twofold charge against them, in that they both invented novelties, and were so strict exactors on their own account, while of God they made no reckoning.
(Hom. li.) For this reason also the Evangelist marks the time that He may show their iniquity overcome by nothing; for they came to Him at a time when He had wrought many miracles, when He had healed the sick by the touch of His hem. That the Scribes and Pharisees are here said to have come from Jerusalem, it should be known that they were dispersed through all the tribes, but those that dwelt in the Metropolis were worse than the others, their higher dignity inspiring them with a greater degree of pride.
Observe, how they are taken in their own question. They say not, 'Why do they transgress the Law of Moses?' but, the tradition of the elders; whence it is manifest that the Priests had introduced many new things, although Moses had said, Ye shall not add ought to the word which I set before you this day, neither shall ye take ought away from it; (Deut. 4:2.) and when they ought to have been set free from observances, then they bound themselves by many more; fearing lest any should take away their rule and power, they sought to increase the awe in which they were held, by setting themselves forth as legislators.
But the disciples now did not eat with washen hands, because they already despised all things superfluous, and attended only to such as were necessary; thus they accepted neither washing nor not washing as a rule, but did either as it happened. For how should they who even neglected the food that was necessary for them, have any care about this rite?
Christ made no excuse for them, but immediately brought a counter charge, showing that he that sins in great things ought not to take offence at the slight sins of others. He answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? He says not that they do well to transgress that He may not give room for calumny; nor on the other hand does He condemn what the Apostles had done, that He may not sanction their traditions; nor again does He bring any charge directly against them of old, that they might not put Him from them as a calumniator; but He points His reproof against those who had come to Him; thus at the same time touching the elders who had laid down such a tradition; saying,
He desired to show the great honour that ought to be paid to parents, and therefore attached both a reward and a penalty. But in this occasion the Lord passes over the reward promised to such as did honour their parents, namely, that they should live long upon the earth, and brings forward the terrible part only, namely, the punishment, that He might strike these dumb and attract others; And he that curseth father and mother, let him die the death; thus He shows that they deserved even death. For if ho who dishonours his parent even in word is worthy of death, much more ye who dishonour him in deed; and ye not only dishonour your parents, but teach others to do so likewise. Ye then who do not deserve even to live, how accuse ye my disciples? But how they transgress the commandment of God is clear when He adds, But ye say, Whoso shall say to his father or his mother, If in a gift, whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me.
But it were meet first to inquire, why the disciples ate with unwashen hands. Wherefore then did they so eat? Not as making a point of it, but as overlooking henceforth the things that are superfluous, and attending to such as are necessary; having no law to wash or not to wash, but doing either as it happened. For they that despised even their own necessary food, how were they to hold these things worth much consideration? This then having often happened unintentionally,-for instance, when they ate in the wilderness, when they plucked the ears of corn,-is now put forward as a charge by these persons, who are always transgressing in the great things, and making much account of the superfluous.
What then saith Christ? He did not set Himself against it, neither made He any defense, but straightway blames them again, plucking down their confidence, and signifying that he who commits great sins ought not to be strict with others concerning small matters. "What? when you ought to be blamed," saith He, "do ye even blame?"
But do thou observe, how when it is His will to set aside any of the things enjoined by the law, He does it in the form of an apology; and so He did in that case. For by no means doth He proceed at once to transgress it, nor doth He say, "It is nothing;" for surely He would have made them more audacious; but first He clean cuts away their boldness, bringing forward the far heavier charge, and directing it upon their head. And He neither saith, "they do well in transgressing it," lest He should give them a hold on Him; nor doth He speak ill of their proceeding, lest He should confirm the law: nor again, on the other hand, doth He blame the elders, as lawless and unholy men; for doubtless they would have shunned Him as a reviler and injurious: but all these things He gives up, and proceeds another way. And He seems indeed to be rebuking the persons themselves who had come to Him, but He is reprehending them that enacted these laws; nowhere indeed making mention of the elders, but by His charge against the Scribes casting down them also, and signifying that their sin is twofold, first in disobeying God, next in doing so on men's account; as though He had said, "Why this, this hath ruined you, your obeying the elders in all things."
And He said not, "the elders' tradition," but "your own." And, "ye say;" again He said not, "the elders say:" in order to make His speech less galling. That is, because they wanted to prove the disciples transgressors of the law, He signifies that they themselves are doing so, but that these are free from blame. For of course that is not a law, which is enjoined by men (wherefore also He calls it "a tradition"), and especially by men that are transgressors of the law.
And since this had no shade of contrariety to the law, to command men to wash their hands, He brings forward another tradition, which is opposed to the law. And what He saith is like this. "They taught the young, under the garb of piety, to despise their fathers." How, and in what way? "If one of their parents said to his child, Give me this sheep that thou hast, or this calf, or any such thing, they used to say, 'This is a gift to God, whereby thou wouldest be profited by me, and thou canst not have it.' And two evils hence arose: on the one hand they did not bring them to God, on the other they defrauded their parents under the name of the offering, alike insulting their parents for God's sake, and God for their parents' sake."
But He, omitting the first, the reward appointed for them that honor their parents, states that which is more awful, the punishment, I mean, threatened to such as dishonor them; desiring both to dismay them, and to conciliate such as have understanding; and He implies them to be for this worthy of death. For if he who dishonors them in word is punished, much more ye, who do so in deed, and who not only dishonor, but also teach it to others. "Ye then who ought not so much as to live, how find ye fault with the disciples?"
"And what wonder is it, if ye offer such insults to me, who am as yet unknown, when even to the Father ye are found doing the like?" For everywhere He both asserts and implies, that from Him they began with this their arrogance.
But some do also otherwise interpret, "It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;" that is, I owe thee no honor, but it is a free gift from me to thee, if indeed I do honor thee. But Christ would not have mentioned an insult of that sort.
And Mark again makes this plainer, by saying, "It is Corban, by whatsoever thou mightest be profiled by me;" which means, not a gift and present, but properly an offering.
Wonderful infatuation of the Pharisees and Scribes! They accuse the Son of God that He does not keep the traditions and commandments of men.
But the hands that are to be washed are the acts not of the body, but of the mind; that the word of God may be done in them.
Since ye because of the tradition of men neglect the commandment of God, why do ye take upon you to reprove my disciples, for bestowing little regard upon the precepts of the elders, that they may observe the commands of God? For God hath said, Honour thy father and thy mother. Honour in the Scriptures is shown not so much in salutations and courtesies as in alms and gifts. Honour, (1 Tim. 5:3.) says the Apostle, the widows who are widows indeed; here 'honour' signifies a gift. The Lord then having thought for the infirmity, the age, or the poverty of parents, commanded that sons should honour their parents in providing them with necessaries of life.
For the Scribes and Pharisees desiring to overturn this foregoing most provident law of God, that they might bring in their impiety under the mask of piety, taught bad sons, that should any desire to devote to God, who is the true parent, those things which ought to be offered to parents, the offering to the Lord should he preferred to the offering them to parents.
And thus the parents refusing what they saw thus dedicated to God, hat they might not incur the guilt of sacrilege, perished of want, and so it came to pass that what the children offered for the needs of the temple and the service of God, went to the gain of the Priests.
Or it may briefly have the following sense; Ye compel children to say to their parents, What gift soever I was purposing to offer to God, you take and consume upon your living, and so it profits you; as much as to say, Do not so.
(Vers. 1, 2.) For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread. Hands, that is, works, are to be washed, not of the body for sure, but of the soul, so that the word of God may be made in them.
(Chapter 15, Verse 1) Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: Why do your disciples transgress the traditions of the elders? The stupidity of the Pharisees and scribes is evident as they accuse the Son of God of not keeping the traditions and precepts of men.
(de Cons. Ev. ii. 49.) The Evangelist thus constructs the order of his narrative, Then came unto him, that, as appeared in the passage over the lake, the order of the events that followed that might be shewn.
(cont. Adv. Leg. et Proph. ii. 1.) Christ here clearly shows both that that law which the heretic blasphemes is God's law, and that the Jews had their traditions foreign to the prophetical and canonical books; such as the Apostle calls profane and vain fables.
(cont. Faust. xvi. 24.) The Lord here teaches us many things; That it was not He that turned the Jews from their God; that not only did He not infringe the commandments, but convicts them of infringing them; and that He had ordained no more than those by the hand of Moses.
(Quæst. Ev. i. 16.) Otherwise; The gift whatsoever thou offerest on my account, shall profit thee; that is to say, Whatsoever gift thou offerest on my account, shall henceforth remain with thee; the son signifying by these words that there is no longer need that parents should offer for him, as he is of age to offer for himself. And those who were of age to be able to say thus to their parents, the Pharisees denied that they were guilty, if they did not show honour to their parents.
They were faulty for two reasons; because they had come from Jerusalem, from the holy city, and because they were elders of the people, and doctors of the Law, and had not come to learn but to reprove the Lord, for it is added, Saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?
Of what kind these traditions were, Mark shows when he says, The Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not. (Mark 7:3.) Here then also they find fault with the disciples, saying, For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Or the Pharisees found fault with the Lord's disciples, not concerning that washing which we do from ordinary habit, and of necessity, but of that superfluous washing which was invented by the tradition of the elders.
(in Marc. 7, 1.) Taking carnally those words of the Prophets, in which it is said, Wash, and he ye clean, they, observed it only in washing the body; (Is. 1:16.) hence they had laid it down that we ought not to eat with unwashen hands.
The men of Gennezareth and the less learned believe; but they who seem to be wise come to dispute with Him; according to that, Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Whence it is said, Then came to him from Jerusalem Scribes and Pharisees.
(ap. Anselm.) In this interpretation the sense will be, What I offer to God will profit both you and myself; and therefore you ought not to take of my goods for your own needs, but to suffer that I offer them to God.
(ap. Anselm.) Or the sense may be, Whosoever, that is, of you young men, shall say, that is, shall either be able to say, or shall say, to his father or mother, O father, the gift that is of me devoted to God, shall it profit thee? as it were an exclamation of surprise; you ought not to take it that you may not incur the guilt of sacrilege. Or, we may read it with this ellipsis, Whosoever shall say to his father, &c. he shall do the commandment of God, or shall fulfil the Law, or shall be worthy of life eternal.
(ap. Anselm.) And thus through these arguments of your avarice, this youth shall Honour not his father or his mother. As if He had said; Ye have led sons into most evil deeds; so that it will come to pass that afterwards they shall not even honour their father and mother. And thus ye have made the commandment of God concerning the support of parents by their children vain through your traditions, obeying the dictates of avarice.
Continue studying Matthew 15:1 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
- BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
- Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
- ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
- NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
- STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
- BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
- USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
- BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
- StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
- BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
- Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
- Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
- Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
- CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Written with AI assistance. Always check it against Scripture.
This verse
Scribes and Pharisees travel from Jerusalem to Jesus in Galilee, bringing the weight of the religious capital to question him.
“Then came to Jesus”
tóte sets the visit after the feeding of the five thousand, the walking on the water and the healings at Gennesaret. They come up to him, prosérchomai, with a purpose.
“scribes and Pharisees,”
The experts in the Law and the strictest party of the day, standing together against Jesus.
“which were of Jerusalem, saying,”
From the capital and the seat of the Sanhedrin, most likely sent with its authority. What they came to say follows in the next verse.
Passage studyMatthew 15:1–9
God’s Command Above the Tradition of Men
Summary
Scribes and Pharisees come from Jerusalem with a complaint: the disciples of Jesus break the tradition of the elders, because they eat bread without first washing their hands. Jesus answers with a question of his own and asks why they break the commandment of God for the sake of their tradition. He gives one example. God said, “Honour thy father and mother,” yet their teaching let a man declare his goods a gift to God and so go free of caring for his parents. Then he calls them hypocrites and applies the words of Isaiah to them: they honour God with their lips while their hearts are far from him, and their worship is in vain because they teach the commandments of men as doctrine. In nine verses we learn that God’s word stands above every human rule, and that the honour God looks for begins in the heart.
Why scribes and Pharisees came from Jerusalem
Matthew’s “Then”, tóte, is a plain word of time, and it places this visit just after some of the greatest works of Jesus. He had fed the five thousand (Matthew 14:13–21) and walked on the water (Matthew 14:22–33), and at Gennesaret “as many as touched were made perfectly whole” (Matthew 14:36). His name was spreading, and the religious leaders took notice.
The scribes, grammateús, take their name from a word for a writer. In the Gospels they are the experts in the Law of Moses, who taught it, interpreted it and copied it, and the people held them in high respect. The Pharisees, Pharisaîos, have a name of Hebrew origin meaning “separatist”. They were a strict and influential party, known for keeping the written Law together with a large body of oral tradition, and they had a wide following among ordinary people. The two groups often stood together, the scribes bringing their learning in the Law and the Pharisees the most admired piety of the day, and that made their challenge a weighty one.
These men “were of Jerusalem”, apó Hierosólyma, the Greek form of the city’s name. Jerusalem was the religious capital and the seat of the Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish council, so men who made the journey from there to Galilee were most likely an official delegation, sent to look into Jesus, question his teaching and check his influence. The verb for their coming, prosérchomai, is the ordinary word for coming up to someone, and “saying”, légō, introduces what they came to say.
Their arrival marks a sharper stage of the opposition to Jesus. The same conflict comes to a head in his woes against the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23, and in the end it leads to the cross. Mark tells this same event at greater length (Mark 7:1–23).
What was the tradition of the elders?
Their charge is put as a question: “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” To transgress, parabaínō, is built from words for “beside” or “beyond” and for stepping, and it means to step past a line, to break a rule. The tradition, parádosis, is what has been handed down, from a verb meaning to hand over. The elders, presbýteros, are the older men, here the honoured teachers of earlier generations whose rulings made up the tradition.
Together these words describe a large body of oral law and custom, known as Halakha, that grew up over centuries to apply the Law of Moses to every part of daily life. Many Pharisees held it to be as binding as the written Law, and they saw it as a fence around the Law, keeping people well back from breaking the Law itself. Much of it was later written down in the Mishnah and the Talmud. Rules of the same kind covered the tithing of small herbs and a great many questions of purity.
The question names the disciples, and its aim is Jesus, their teacher, who had let them leave the tradition unkept. It also comes with the verdict already reached. The leaders have come to accuse.
Was the washing of hands about hygiene?
The washing they meant was a rite of purity, known in Jewish practice as netilat yadayim, the washing of the hands before eating bread or other meals. It was a ruling of the teachers, with no command behind it in the Law of Moses. Its purpose was to remove ritual uncleanness, which a person might pick up through contact with common people or ordinary things, so that the meal was eaten in a state of purity. The Pharisees, though lay men, aimed at the purity of the priests in their daily lives, and the rite marked them out as careful keepers of the Law and set them apart from the common people. To them, eating with unwashed hands was a serious breach.
Jesus takes up the question of what truly defiles a person in the verses that follow (Matthew 15:10–20), where he teaches that what comes out of the heart is what defiles. Before that, he deals with the authority behind the tradition itself.
Jesus turns their question back on them
“Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” Jesus takes up their own verb, parabaínō, and turns it on them. “Answered”, apokrínomai, is the ordinary word for an answer, and “answered and said” is the familiar Hebrew way of opening a reply. “But”, dé, marks the turn from their question to his. His “Why”, diatí, answers their “Why”, and the small word “also”, kaí, carries the whole charge. They accuse his disciples of breaking a tradition of men, and they themselves break a commandment of God.
The commandment, entolḗ, is a charge given with authority, and here it is God’s own command in his Law. The words “by your tradition” stand for diá with the accusative, which marks the reason something is done, so the sense is “for the sake of your tradition” or “because of your tradition”. They break God’s command in order to keep their own rule. The tradition, parádosis once more, was meant to guard the Law, and it had become the very reason they set the Law aside.
Jesus upholds the Law here. He came to fulfil the Law and the Prophets, and he calls his people to a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:17–20). What he challenges is the hedge of human rulings that had grown heavier and more binding than the Law it was planted to protect. When he is asked later which commandment is greatest, he answers with love for God and love for neighbour (Matthew 22:37–40), and the case he brings now is a tradition that failed in both.
Honour thy father and mother
Jesus takes his example from the Ten Commandments. “For God commanded, saying” uses entéllomai, to give a charge, and it names God as the one who spoke. He quotes the Fifth Commandment, “Honour thy father and mother” (Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16), and then the Law’s penalty for the opposite sin, “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death” (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9).
To honour, timáō, comes from a word meaning to prize, to set a value on someone, and from that to revere. Toward parents it includes respect and obedience in childhood, and it includes providing for their needs, above all when they are old. In Israel the family was the main provision for its old people, and to leave one’s parents in need was a grave wrong before God. To curse, kakologéō, is to speak evil of someone, to revile them.
“Let him die the death” carries a Hebrew way of speaking into the Greek, with the verb doubled to make the penalty certain and severe. Jesus quotes the penalty to show how seriously God takes the dishonouring of parents. The command the leaders were setting aside was one the Law guarded with death.
The command still stands for God’s people. Paul repeats it to children (Ephesians 6:2–3) and tells them to obey their parents (Colossians 3:20), and Jesus himself, as a child, was subject to Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:51).
The gift that released a son from his parents
Against “God commanded” Jesus sets “But ye say”. The pronoun hymeîs, “ye”, stands over against God, and “say”, légō, here means what they taught. Their teaching ran like this: “Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free.”
What was the Corban vow?
The gift, dōron, is an offering dedicated to God, and it stands for the Hebrew qorbān, Corban, “an offering”. Under this vow a man could declare his property or money dedicated to God. Once it was so declared it was set apart from ordinary use, and the tradition held that it could go to nothing else, including the support of his father and mother. “Whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me” covers every kind of help the son could have given. The verb ōpheléō means to be useful to someone, to benefit them, and “by me”, emoû, simply means “of me”, from the son’s own goods.
Dedicating things to God was right and good in Israel. The wrong lay in using the vow as a loophole. A son with parents in need could say “It is a gift” over the very things they needed, and the tradition treated him as bound by his vow and released from his duty to them. The words “he shall be free” are printed in italics in the KJV because the translators supplied them to finish the sentence, and they give its sense: such a man was counted free of the duty to honour his parents. Honour here is timáō again, the same verb as in verse 4, and the care God commanded is exactly what the vow withheld.
Made of none effect
“Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” “Thus” renders the plain word kaí, “and”, which here joins the example to its verdict. The verb akyróō means to invalidate, to make void, to strip something of its authority. The commandment of God, the entolḗ of theós, remained written in the Law, and in their practice it had lost its force. This is the heaviest charge in the passage: they had used a religious act to cancel a moral command of God, and they had done it in the name of devotion to him.
Scripture shows plainly what God wants in its place. Paul writes that a believer is to provide for his own household (1 Timothy 5:8), and Micah sums up what the LORD requires of us as justice, mercy and a humble walk with God (Micah 6:8).
Does Jesus condemn every tradition?
Jesus condemns the tradition that makes the commandment of God of none effect, and verse 6 draws that line. A custom that helps a church keep order, carry its life from one generation to the next and worship together, such as keeping Christmas and Easter, can be a good gift. Paul tells the Thessalonians to hold the traditions the apostles had taught them (2 Thessalonians 2:15), and he also warns against philosophy and tradition that rest on human wisdom and lead away from Christ (Colossians 2:8).
A tradition goes wrong when it is raised to the level of God’s command, or used as a way around it. Every practice is weighed against Scripture, which is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16), and a tradition that pulls us away from God’s will, or hands us an excuse to disobey it, has taken a place that belongs to his word.
Why Jesus calls them hypocrites
The word hypokritḗs first meant a stage actor, one who played a part under an assumed character and wore a mask, and from that it came to mean a pretender. These men looked devout and kept their washings with great care while their own tradition let a son abandon his parents. Their outward piety was a performance, and it covered hearts that were turned away from God.
“Well did Esaias prophesy of you.” Esaias is Isaiah. kalōs means well, finely, rightly, so Isaiah spoke rightly, and his words fit these men exactly. There is an edge in it, since a word that usually praises is used here to deliver a charge. To prophesy, prophēteúō, is to speak under God’s inspiration, and Jesus treats Isaiah’s words as God’s own, spoken long before and still true of the men in front of him. The words he quotes come from Isaiah 29:13, where God rebuked Israel for worship that came from the lips and left the heart behind. The problem was centuries old, and God had named it through his prophets long before.
Jesus warns against hypocrisy elsewhere in Matthew, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:1–18) and in the woes where he charges the scribes and Pharisees with neglecting the weightier matters of the law, justice, mercy and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23–28). Behind every such warning stands the truth the LORD gave Samuel, that man looks on the outward appearance and the LORD looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
Near with the lips, far in the heart
“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.” The people, laós, in Isaiah were Israel of his day, and Jesus applies the words to the leaders before him. To draw nigh, engízō, is to come near. With the mouth they came near to God in prayers, praise and public words of faith, and with their lips they gave him honour.
Honour is timáō once again. The leaders gave God honour with their lips, and through their tradition they let a son hold back the honour God had commanded for his parents.
The heart, kardía, is in Scripture the centre of a person: thought, will, feeling and moral character all belong to it. Their heart is far, pórrhō, from God, and “but”, dé, sets that inward truth against the outward show. Proverbs calls us to keep the heart (Proverbs 4:23), because the whole of life flows from what is there. These men had come near to God at the mouth alone.
What makes worship vain?
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” To worship, sébomai, is to revere, to hold in awe. These men did worship God in form, and their worship was mátēn, in vain: empty, to no purpose, worthless in God’s sight and of no benefit to them. Jesus gives the reason in the same breath. They taught the commandments of men as doctrines. The word for doctrine, didaskalía, comes from the word for a teacher and means teaching or instruction. They gave human rules the standing of God’s own teaching, and so they misled the people as well as themselves.
The worship God seeks is worship “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23–24), offered from a heart that is near him and shaped by what he has said.
Christ and the heart God looks for
Jesus speaks here as the one with authority to say what God’s Law means, and he clears away the human additions laid over it. The law came by Moses, and grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17). He made doing his Father’s will his food (John 4:34) and was obedient to death on the cross (Philippians 2:8), the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). The cleansing the Pharisees looked for at the washbasin comes through his blood, which purges the conscience (Hebrews 9:14) and cleanses us from sin (1 John 1:7). Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Romans 10:4), and in him the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us (Romans 8:3–4).
The heart far from God is the trouble Isaiah named, and God promised the remedy through his prophets. He would write his law on the hearts of his people (Jeremiah 31:33) and give them a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel 36:26–27). Through Christ and by his Spirit God gives that new heart, and those who love Jesus keep his commandments (John 14:15). He is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6), and through him we come near to God with the heart as well as the lips.
The honour God looks for
This passage gives us a clear measure for everything taught and done in God’s name: what God has commanded comes first, and every custom is weighed against it. It also shows who God is. He hears what we say to him and looks to the heart that says it. He cares about an old father and mother in need, and he guards their honour in his own Law, so that devotion to him and care for them belong together.
That is a kindness to us. The tradition of the elders had grown more burdensome than the Law itself, and Jesus, by sending us back to God’s own word, sets us free to give God the honour he asks for. He gave his Son so that our hearts could be near him, and the worship he receives from such hearts is never in vain.
Matthew 15:1 This verse
“Then came to Jesus”
tóte sets the visit after the feeding of the five thousand, the walking on the water and the healings at Gennesaret. They come up to him, prosérchomai, with a purpose.
“scribes and Pharisees,”
The experts in the Law and the strictest party of the day, standing together against Jesus.
“which were of Jerusalem, saying,”
From the capital and the seat of the Sanhedrin, most likely sent with its authority. What they came to say follows in the next verse.
Matthew 15:2
“Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?”
The question is a charge. It names the disciples and holds Jesus, their teacher, responsible for them.
“for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.”
The ceremonial washing before meals, netilat yadayim, which the teachers required and the Law of Moses never commanded. Bread, the everyday food, stands for the meal.
Matthew 15:3
“But he answered and said unto them,”
Jesus replies at once, with a question of his own.
“Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God”
Their own word “transgress” comes back on them, and “also” turns the charge round. The disciples had passed over a custom, and their accusers had broken God’s command.
“by your tradition?”
For the sake of your tradition. The rule meant to protect the Law had become their reason for setting it aside.
Matthew 15:4
“For God commanded, saying,”
Jesus names God as the speaker, and in verse 5 he sets their teaching against God’s word with “But ye say”.
“Honour thy father and mother:”
The Fifth Commandment. Honour includes care and provision for parents in their old age.
“and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”
The Law’s penalty for reviling a parent. Jesus quotes it to show the weight God puts on this command.
Matthew 15:5
“But ye say,”
Their teaching, set squarely against what God said.
“Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift,”
The son speaks the vow to his parents themselves. “Gift” stands for Corban, an offering dedicated to God.
“by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;”
Whatever help his parents could have had from him is now counted as given to God and kept from them.
Matthew 15:6
“And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free.”
The end of the matter: the son is held free of his duty. “He shall be free” was supplied by the translators to complete the sense.
“Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.”
The verdict on the whole practice. God’s command stayed in the Law and lost its force in their lives.
Matthew 15:7
“Ye hypocrites,”
Actors behind a mask, whose outward piety hid hearts turned from God.
“well did Esaias prophesy of you,”
Esaias is Isaiah. His words, spoken under God’s inspiration, fit these men exactly.
“saying,”
This opens the quotation from Isaiah 29:13 that fills verses 8 and 9.
Matthew 15:8
“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth,”
They came near to God in words: prayers, praise and public confession.
“and honoureth me with their lips;”
The same verb, timáō, used of honouring parents in verses 4 and 6.
“but their heart is far from me.”
The heart, the centre of a person, stood at a distance from God while the lips were near.
Matthew 15:9
“But in vain they do worship me,”
Their worship was real in form and empty before God.
“teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
The reason it was empty: human rules were taught with the standing of God’s own teaching, and the people were led by them.
Last revised