But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Verse 3. Why do ye – transgress the commandment] Ye accuse my disciples of transgressing the traditions of the elders – I accuse you of transgressing the commands of God, and that too in favour of your own tradition; thus preferring the inventions of men to the positive precepts of God. Pretenders to zeal often prefer superstitious usages to the Divine law, and human inventions to the positive duties of Christianity.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark hath the same, Mar 7:9, though a little out of the order in which Matthew hath it: Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. Our Saviour could have answered them, had he pleased, more strictly to their questions, but he must then either have incurred danger or odium; he therefore chooseth to answer them by another question, which struck at the root of the matter. Admit, saith he, my disciples culpable in not observing traditions, which indeed you call the traditions of the elders, but are your own, devised by you, or some like you, merely to uphold your power and authority, and to keep people in a needless subjection to you: I am sure you are far more guilty, in making traditions contrary to the law of God, or rejecting Gods law to keep your traditions. And indeed this is the common guilt of those who are great zealots for traditions and rites, not commanded in the word of God. The Jewish Rabbi Jose saith, He sinneth as much who eateth with unwashen hands, as he that lieth with an harlot. The papists make it a greater sin for a priest to marry than to keep a concubine, and commit fornication; they make it a lesser transgression than to eat meat on a Friday.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3. But he answered and said untothem, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by yourtradition?The charge is retorted with startling power: “Thetradition they transgress is but man’s, and is itself theoccasion of heavy transgression, undermining the authority of God’slaw.“
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But he answered and said unto them,…. Taking no notice of the tradition about eating bread without washing the hands, whether it was right or wrong; it being at most but an human tradition, of no moment and importance, whether it was broke or kept; he makes a very just recrimination, by putting another question to them,
why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? suggesting, that, if his disciples were guilty, they were not so guilty as they themselves were; that his disciples, at most, were but guilty of the breach of an human precept, whereas they were guilty of the breach of a divine command; and that it was strange, that men who were so scrupulous of breaking, and bore so hard on such as did transgress the traditions of the elders, could allow themselves to transgress the commandments of God; yea, to do this by, and while they were observing their own traditions: and which observation carries a full acquittance of the disciples from blame; for, if by keeping the traditions of the elders, they broke the commands of God, it was a very good reason why they should not observe them.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Ye also ( ). Jesus admits that the disciples had transgressed the rabbinical traditions. Jesus treats it as a matter of no great importance in itself save as they had put the tradition of the elders in the place of the commandment of God. When the two clashed, as was often the case, the rabbis transgress the commandment of God “because of your tradition” ( ). The accusative with means that, not “by means of.” Tradition is not good or bad in itself. It is merely what is handed on from one to another. Custom tended to make these traditions binding like law. The Talmud is a monument of their struggle with tradition. There could be no compromise on this subject and Jesus accepts the issue. He stands for real righteousness and spiritual freedom, not for bondage to mere ceremonialism and tradition. The rabbis placed tradition (the oral law) above the law of God.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Also [] . The significance of this little word must not be overlooked. Christ admits that the disciples had transgressed a human injunction, but adds, “Ye also transgress, and in a much greater way.” ” Whether the disciples transgress or not, you are the greatest transgressors “(Bengel). The one question is met with the other in the same style. Luther says,” He places one wedge against the other, and therewith drives the first back. “
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
3. Why do you also transgress? There are here two answers that are given by Christ, the former of which is addressed, as we say, to the person; while the latter decides as to the fact and the question in hand. Mark inverts that order; for he first represents Christ as speaking on the whole subject, and afterwards adds the reproof which is directed against hypocrites. We shall follow the narrative of Matthew. When the Lord, in his turn, puts the question to the scribes why they break the Law of God on account of their traditions, he does not as yet pronounce a direct acquittal of his disciples from the crime charged against them; but only points out how improper and unwarrantable is this readiness to take offense. They are displeased when the commandments of men are not observed with exactness; and how much more criminal is it to spend the whole time in observing them, to the disregard of the law of God? It is manifest, therefore, that their wrath is kindled rather by ambition than by a proper kind of zeal, when they thus prefer men to God.
When he says that they transgress the commandments of God, the meaning of the expression is easily learned from the context. They did not openly or professedly set aside the law of God, so as to look upon any thing as lawful which the law had forbidden; but there was an indirect transgression of it, for they permitted duties which God had enjoined to be neglected with impunity. A plain and familiar instance is adduced by Christ. The commandment of God is, that children shall honor their parents, (Exo 20:12.) Now as the sacred offerings yielded emolument to the priests, the observance of them was so rigidly enforced, that men were taught to regard it as a more heinous sin not to make a free-will offering than to defraud a parent of what was justly due to him. In short, what the Law of God declared to be voluntary was, in the estimation of the scribes, of higher value than one of the most important of the commandments of God. Whenever we are so eager to keep the laws of men as to bestow less care and attention on keeping the law of God itself, we are held as transgressing it. Shortly afterwards he says, that they had annulled the commandment of God on account of the traditions of men; for the scribes led the people to entertain so strong an attachment to their own injunctions, that they did not allow them leisure to attend to the word of God. Again, as they reckoned those persons to have discharged their duty well who obeyed these injunctions to the letter, hence arose a liberty to commit sin; for whenever holiness is made to consist in any thing else than in observing the Law of God, men are led to believe that the law may be violated without danger.
Let any man now consider whether this wickedness does not at present abound more among the Papists than it formerly did among the Jews. It is not indeed denied by the Pope, or by the whole of his filthy clergy, that we ought to obey God; but when we come to the point, we find that they consider the act of eating a morsel of flesh as nothing less than a capital crime, while theft or fornication is regarded as a venial fault, and thus, on account of their traditions, they overturn the Law of God; for it is utterly insufferable that the enactments of men shall withdraw any part of that obedience which is due to God alone. Besides, the honor which God commands to be yielded to parents extends to all the duties of filial piety. (400) The latter clause which Christ adds, that he who curseth father or mother deserves to be put to death, is intended to inform us, that it is no light or unimportant precept to honor parents, since the violation of it is so severely punished. And this is no small aggravation of the guilt of the scribes, that so severe a threatening does not terrify them from granting an extension of liberty to those who despised their parents.
(400) “ Comprend tous devoirs d’obeissance, secours, et soulagement;” — “includes every duty of obedience, assistance, and relief.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(3) By your tradition.Better, for the sake of your tradition. Our Lords answer, it will be noted, is an indirect one, an argumentum ad hominem. He shows that their traditional casuistry was in direct opposition to the commandment of God, and the natural inference from that antagonism was that in itself, apart from the commandment, it had no binding authority as a rule of life.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. He answered and said Jesus knows that a challenge is intended, but he does not shun to meet it. They come armed with the traditions of the elders; he meets them with the law of Jehovah. It is man’s authority opposed by the authority of God. Commandment of God When God speaks, let man keep silence.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And he answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?”
The Scribes had asked Him why He transgressed the traditions of the great elders of the past, the revered Teachers of old. As mentioned above these were, among other things, Rabbinic interpretations of the Law (that is, pronouncements by Teachers as to what the Law required), and in the case in point had in mind ritual washings. His counter-reply was powerful. ‘Why did they transgress the commandments of God by following those traditions?’. His point is that it was far more important to follow God’s clearly stated commandment than to follow doubtful traditions of men, and especially so when that tradition actually contradicts the Law. And He then proceeds to give an example
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Christ’s reply:
v. 3. But He answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
v. 4. For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother; and He that curseth father and mother, let him die the death.
v. 5. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free.
v. 6. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. The retort immediately places the issue in the proper light. Christ becomes the accuser, and the Pharisees and scribes the guilty. He says, in effect: Let your miserable charge stand, for the present; I cheerfully admit that the tradition of men is transgressed in our circle. But here is a far more serious matter. The choice is between the actual commands of God and the precepts of your teachers; your choice is the wrong one. The contrast is emphatic and clear-cut: The commandment of God your tradition. God’s Law, to which Jesus refers, was clear and unmistakable, Exo 21:17: Lev 20:9; Deu 27:10. Your demand is a mere saying of men. And it is to be condemned absolutely, since it results in setting aside the Law of God. The Pharisees permitted children in the home to say the word corban , Mar 7:11, whereby they were supposed to absolve themselves from filial duties. The words literally read: He that says to his father or to his mother. Let it be a sacrifice what thou desirest of me as a help or benefit. This, according to tradition, excused children from helping their parents with money, goods, earnings, or any other material assistance. It implied that the children wanted to give such money or gift to God as a sacrifice, though very often even that was omitted. Christ’s argument is: Even the honest pleading of previous obligation to God will not excuse a child for neglecting its duty to its parents, much less the ordinary careless, heartless, and profane manner in which this pretext was grasped. Thus were the Jewish teachers guilty before God, even according to the Old Testament, Pro 28:24. Thus were children dispensed from even the true works of love in this manner. “For the contention with the Pharisees really consisted in this, whether it be better to give presents to the parents or sacrifices to the priests. They said it was better to sacrifice. Thus they taught that the honor due to the parents was a mere ceremony, namely, to bow the head, to rise before them, and in outward behavior be respectful toward them…. Corban , that means a gift or sacrifice to God. As though a child would say: I should gladly give it to thee, but what shall I do? Even now it is not mine any more, but is given to God. Thus the name of God must be the cover for all shameful blasphemy and wickedness; as though God had taken from the father what the latter should receive from the son. ” The Pharisees and scribes surely had invalidated, and were in the constant habit of setting aside, the commandment of God for their miserable tradition.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 15:3-6. But he answered, &c. It was easy for our Lord to retort upon the Pharisees the charge of impiety which they had brought against his disciples, being themselves guilty of the grossest violations of the divine law, through the regard which they shewed to their own traditions. Accordingly, he produces an instance of an atrocious kind: “God (says he) hascommanded children to honour their parents;” that is to say, among other things, to maintain them when reduced; for as the greater includes the less; so honour, Mat 15:4 imports assistance and maintenance when they are wanted, as appears from Mat 15:5. And honour is used for maintenance, 1Ti 5:17-18 and elsewhere.”Nevertheless (says our Lord) you Pharisees presumptuously make light of the divine commandments, and of the aweful sanction annexed; affirming, that it is a more sacred duty to enrich the temple than to nourish one’s parents, though they be in the utmost necessity; and pretending that what is offered to the Great Parent is better bestowed, than that which is given for the support of our parents on earth, as if the interest of God was different from that of his creatures. Nay, ye impiously teach, that a man may lawfully suffer his parents to starve, if he can say to them, It is a gift, &c. that is to say, what should have succoured you is given to the temple. Thus have you hypocrites made void the commandment of God, though of immutable and eternal obligation, by your frivolous traditions; and distinguished with a cloak of piety the most horrid and unnatural actions whereof a man can be guilty.” See the note on Mar 7:11. Dr. Heylin reads the 5th and 6th verses thus: But you say, that whoever will declare to his father or mother, that what he might assist them with is an oblation, shall hereby be free from his obligation to maintain them. Thus you invalidate the command of God by your tradition. Dr. Doddridge reads it: But you assert, that any one may say to his father or mother, let that be a gift, by which thou mightest receive an advantage from me; and he shall not honour his father and mother. Thus, &c. See Capellus and Sir Norton Knatchbull. The version of 1729 gives the sense of the passage thus: “But your doctrine is this, If any man declare to his father or mother, that whatever he has to give for their relief is dedicated to the temple, he is not obliged to regard,” &c.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 15:3 . ] also , implies a comparison between the and ; that is to say, the is acknowledged to be true of both parties, the only difference being in the matters in which the transgression is exemplified. Klotz, ad Devar . p. 636.
. . .] which you observe. Notice how the one question is met with another in the same style , thereby rendering the reductio ad absurdum only the more telling. Luther appropriately remarks that “He places one wedge against the other, and therewith drives the first back.”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Ver. 3. He answered and said unto them ] He shapes them an answer by way of recrimination ( ); which is a singular means of conviction to the adversary, but hard to be done by us without some mixture of bitterness, such as was that in David to Michal,2Sa 6:212Sa 6:21 .
Transgress the commandment of God by your tradition ] God’s commands should be kept as the apple of the eye,Pro 7:2Pro 7:2 . They are broken by omissions, commissions, and failings in the manner; like as a man may miss the mark by shooting short, or beyond, or wide. These Pharisees, as those Athenians of old (whereas they had most excellent laws, but most lawless natures), chose rather to live by their lusts than by their laws. a They had many traditions and unwritten verities, pretended to be invented and prescribed them by their elders, that by the observation thereof they might be the better enabled to keep God’s commandments. These traditions they styled Mashlamnathoth, completions or perfections; because thereby they conceited that the written law was made more complete and perfect. And say not the Papists as much of their traditions? Buxtorf. Tiber.
a Athenienses cum haberent aequissima iura, sed iniquisima ingenia, moribus suis quam legibus, uti malunt. Valer. Max.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3. . ] The implies that there was a also on their part acknowledging that on the part of the disciples.
. . . ] A remarkable testimony from our Lord to the divine origin of the Mosaic law: not merely of the Decalogue, as such, for the second command quoted is not in the Decalogue, and it is to be observed that where the text has , Mark ( Mar 7:10 ) has .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 15:3-6 . Christ’s reply ; consists of a counter charge and a prophetic citation (Mat 15:7-9 ) in the inverse order to that of Mk.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 15:3 . : the retort, if justifiable, the best defence possible of neglect charged = “we transgress the tradition because we want to keep the commands of God: choice lies between these; you make the wrong choice”. Grave issue raised; no compromise possible here. . . : not rules made by the parties addressed (Weiss-Meyer), but the tradition which ye idolise, your precious paradosis .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
ye. Emphatic. Note the Figure of speech Anteisagoge.
also. Connect “also” with “ye”, not with “transgress”.
by = on account of. Greek. dia.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
3. .] The implies that there was a also on their part-acknowledging that on the part of the disciples.
. . .] A remarkable testimony from our Lord to the divine origin of the Mosaic law: not merely of the Decalogue, as such, for the second command quoted is not in the Decalogue, and it is to be observed that where the text has , Mark (Mar 7:10) has .
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 15:3. , why) He replies by a question similar in form to that which they had proposed in Mat 15:2.[678]- , ye also) Whether My disciples transgress or not, you are the greatest transgressors.-, …, on account of, etc.) Traditions, even where you could least expect it, detract from the commandments of God.[679]-, your) They had said, of the ancients; Jesus is no respecter of persons.
[678] The truth is never at a loss for questions, which it may put in opposition to the questions of hypocrites.-V. g.
[679] And what an amount of injury, from time to time, has been the result of the accumulation of such traditions, however much particular ones may be not without their show of plausibility, can hardly be stated.-V. g.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Why: Mat 7:3-5, Mar 7:6-8, Mar 7:13, Col 2:8, Col 2:23, Tit 1:14
Reciprocal: Exo 21:17 – curseth Est 3:3 – Why Isa 5:20 – them Hos 4:6 – seeing Mat 5:19 – shall teach Mar 2:24 – why Mar 7:9 – Full Luk 11:38 – he marvelled Luk 20:3 – I will Gal 1:14 – traditions Col 2:22 – after 1Pe 1:18 – received 2Pe 3:16 – the other
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
15:3
It was a much worse fault to set the traditions of the elders against the positive requirements of the Mosaic law than it was to ignore the customs of the fathers, and that was the accusation that Jesus made against these critics.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 15:3. Why do ye also transgress? The neglect is acknowledged, but the tradition attacked.
For the take of your tradition, i.e., you break Gods law, in order that you may keep your (human) tradition. Comp. Mar 7:9. The direct command of God was set aside for tradition by those who claimed to be the strictest observers of the written law of God.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. The heavy charge which our Saviour brings in against the Pharisees; namely, for violating an express command of God, and preferring their own traditions before it: you make void the commandments of God by your traditions.
Observe, 2. The command which our Saviour instances in, as violated by them; it is the fifth commandment, which requires children to relieve their parents in necessity. Now, though the Pharisees did not deny this in plain terms, yet they made an exception from it, which if children had a mind, rendered it void and useless. For the Pharisees taught, that in case any would give a gift to the temple, which gift they called corban, and of which they themselves had a great share; that then children were discharged from making further provision for their poor, or impotent parents; and might say unto them after this manner, that which thou askest for thy supply, is given to God, and therefore I cannot relieve thee. So that covetous and graceless children looked upon it as the most frugal way, once for all to fine to the temple, rather than pay the constant rent of daily relief to their poor parents.
Learn, that no duty, gift, or offering to God, is accepted, where the duty of charity is neglected. It is more acceptable to God to refresh the hearts of his saints, who are the living temples of the Holy Ghost, than to adorn material temples with gold and silver.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
15:3 {2} But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
(2) Their wicked boldness in corrupting the commandments of God (and that upon the pretence of godliness) and usurping authority to make laws, is reproved here.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus responded with a counterattack. He made a basic distinction between God’s commandments and the Jews’ traditions. He charged His critics with breaking the former to keep the latter.
". . . the ordinances of the Scribes were declared more precious, and of more binding importance than those of Holy scripture itself." [Note: Edersheim, The Life . . ., 2:15.]
In Mat 15:4 Jesus quoted Exo 20:12; Exo 21:17. "Curses" (NIV) is too strong. "Speaks evil of" (NASB) is better since the Greek verb kakologeo means "to insult."
The Pharisees and scribes, however, had evaded the spirit of the command, namely, that children should take responsibility for their needy parents. The "you" is emphatic in the Greek text. Halakic (rabbinic) tradition said that if someone vowed to give something to God he should not break his vow. Jesus said the law taught a more fundamental duty. To withhold from one’s parents what one could give to help them because of what the rabbis taught was greedy hypocrisy. The error was not so much using the money for oneself as failing to give it to the needy parent.
Jesus had taught His disciples to put commitment to Him before family responsibilities (Mat 8:21-22; Mat 10:38). He was the Messiah, and as such He had a right to demand such a strong commitment. The traditions of the Jews did not carry that much authority. Moreover the situation Jesus had addressed previously involved family members opposing His disciples, not His disciples opposing their family members (cf. Mat 10:37-39).