Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
11. defileth ] Literally, maketh common; cp. “common or unclean,” Act 10:14. “The Pharisees esteemed ‘defiled’ men for ‘ common and vulgar’ men; on the contrary, a religious man among men is ‘a singular man.’ ” Lightfoot ad loc.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 11. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth] This is an answer to the carping question of the Pharisees, mentioned Mt 15:2, Why do thy disciples eat with unwashed hands? To which our Lord here replies, That what goes into the mouth defiles not the man; i.e. that if, in eating with unwashed hands, any particles of dust, c., cleaving to the hands, might happen to be taken into the mouth with the food, this did not defile, did not constitute a man a sinner for it is on this alone the question hinges: thy disciples eat with unwashed hands; therefore they are sinners; for they transgress the tradition of the elders, i.e. the oral law, which they considered equal in authority to the written law; and, indeed, often preferred the former to the latter, so as to make it of none effect, totally to destroy its nature and design, as we have often seen in the preceding notes.
That which cometh out of the mouth] That is, what springs from a corrupt unregenerate heart – a perverse will and impure passions- these defile, i.e. make him a sinner.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
11. Not that which goeth into themouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, thisdefileth a manThis is expressed even more emphatically in Mark(Mar 7:15; Mar 7:16),and it is there added, “If any man have ears to hear, let himhear.” As in Mt 13:9, thisso oft-repeated saying seems designed to call attention to thefundamental and universal character of the truth itrefers to.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man,…. No sorts of meats, or drinks, or whatever is proper food for men, or manner of eating and drinking them, when moderately used, defile a man, or render him loathsome and odious in the sight God. This is directly opposite to the notions of the Jews, who say d, that
“forbidden meats are unclean themselves,
, “and defile both body and soul”.”
The first food of man was herbs; after the flood he had an allowance of the flesh of beasts, without distinction; under the Levitical dispensation, a difference of meats was enjoined to be observed; the laws respecting that distinction are now abolished, and not binding on us under the Gospel dispensation. Some scruples, about some of these things, did arise among the first Christians; but in process of time these difficulties were got over: nor is there any religion in abstinence from any sort of food; men, indeed, on a “physical” account, ought to be careful what they eat and drink, but not on a religious one; moderation in all ought to be used; and whatever is ate or drank, should be received with thankfulness, and done to the glory of God, and then no defilement can arise from hence:
but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. It is sin, and that only, which takes its rise from the heart, lies in thought, and is either expressed by the mouth, or performed by some outward action, which defiles the man, and renders him loathsome, abominable, and odious in the sight of God. The heart is the source of all evil; the pollution of it is very early, and very general, reaching to all the powers and faculties of the soul; which shows the ignorance of some, and folly of others, that talk of, and trust to the goodness of their hearts; and also the necessity of new hearts and right spirits being formed and created; and that the sinful thoughts of the heart, and the lusts thereof, are defiling to men; and that they are sinful in God’s account, and abominable in his sight; that they are loathsome to sensible sinners, and are to be repented of, and forsaken by them; and need the pardoning grace of God or otherwise will be brought into judgment. Sinful words, which, through the abundance of wickedness in the heart, come out of the mouth, have the same influence and effect: words are of a defiling nature; with these men pollute both themselves and others: the tongue, though a little member, defiles the whole body; and evil and corrupt communication proceeding out of the mouth, corrupts the best of manners, and renders men loathsome to God, and liable to his awful judgment. And this is the nature of all sinful actions; they are what God can take no pleasure in; they are disagreeable, to a sensible mind; they leave a stain, which can never be removed by any thing the creature can do; nothing short of the blood of Christ can cleanse from it; and inasmuch as they are frequently committed, there is need of continual application to it. These are now the things men should be concerned about, as of a defiling nature; and not about meats and drinks, and the manner of using them, whether with hands washed, or unwashed.
d Tzeror Hammor, fol. 142. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
This defileth the man ( ). This word is from which is used in two senses, either what is “common” to all and general like the Koine Greek, or what is unclean and “common” either ceremonially or in reality. The ceremonial “commonness” disturbed Peter on the housetop in Joppa (Ac 10:14). See also Acts 21:28; Heb 9:13. One who is thus religiously common or unclean is cut off from doing his religious acts. “Defilement” was a grave issue with the rabbinical ceremonialists. Jesus appeals to the crowd here:
Hear and understand ( ). He has a profound distinction to draw. Moral uncleanness is what makes a man common, defiles him. That is what is to be dreaded, not to be glossed over. “This goes beyond the tradition of the elders and virtually abrogates the Levitical distinctions between clean and unclean” (Bruce). One can see the pettifogging pretenders shrivel up under these withering words.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
(11) Not that which goeth into the mouth.Up to this time the question had been debated indirectly. The scribes had been convicted of unfitness to speak with authority on moral questions. Now a great broad principle is asserted, which not only cut at the root of Pharisaism, but, in its ultimate tendency. swept away the whole Levitical system of ceremonial puritythe distinction between clean and unclean meats and the like. It went, as the amazement of the disciples showed, far beyond their grasp as yet. Even after the day of Pentecost, Peter still prided himself on the observance of the Law which was thus annulled, and boasted that he had never eaten anything common or unclean (Act. 10:14). So slow were even those who had sat at the feet of Jesus to take in the thought that purity was inward and not outward, a spiritual and not a physical quality.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
11. Not that which goeth into the mouth cometh out That is, not the material food that enters the man’s stomach. This is set in contrast to that which goeth out of man; that is, the moral action, that goeth forth from the man’s will and intention. A man’s intentional words defile the soul. And so do his actions, and even his thoughts, for they all alike go forth from himself.
Intemperance in food or drink may indeed morally defile a man. But even here the defilement proceeds not from the material contact received, but from the forthgoing will and act by which those foods are taken. Indeed, the whole force of our Lord’s maxim is, that not physical touch but moral action makes a man truly impure before God.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“It is not what enters into the mouth which defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”
Genuine religious defilement in the eyes of God is not caused by what men eat, but by what is inside a man and comes out in what he says. As He has previously warned, ‘For every idle word that a man shall speak, he will give account of it in the Day of Judgment’ (Mat 12:36). It is such words that reveal what is truly in a man’s heart. If the question is, ‘How are we to tell what a man is really like?’, the reply is, ‘Listen, not to his prepared words, but to his idle words’, his words spoken when he is off guard. Then we will know what is truly in his heart.
So Jesus is bringing out the lesson that the most defiling thing about a man is his sinfulness. It is found in what he thinks, and reasons and wills. It is not found in what has been made unclean by touch. By this Jesus was seeking to turn people from an obsession with religious ritual, to genuine godliness of living. His point is that God was most pleased when His people lived righteously and compassionately, as the prophets had constantly said. (See e.g. Isa 1:11-20; Mic 6:8).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 15:11. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth Our Lord, addressing the multitude, observed to them, that nothing could be more absurd than the precepts which the Scribes and Pharisee endeavoured to inculcate: anxious about trifles, they neglected the great duties of morality, which are of unchangeable obligation. They shuddered with horror at hands unwashed, but were perfectly easy under the guilt of impure minds; although not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; because, in the sight of God, cleanness and uncleanness are qualities not of the body, but of the mind, which can be polluted by nothing but sin. Our Lord did not at all mean to overthrow the distinction which the law had established between things clean and unclean in the matter of men’s food; that distinction, like all the other emblematical institutions of Moses, was wisely appointed, being designed to teach the Israelites how carefully the familiar company and conversation of the wicked is to be avoided: he only affirmed; that in itself no kind of meat can defile the mind, which is the man, though by accident it may: a man may bring guilt upon himself by wilfully eating what is pernicious to his health, or by excess in the quantity of food and liquor; and a Jew might have done it by presumptuously eating what was forbidden by the Mosaic law, which still continued in force; yet inall these instances the pollution would arise from the wickedness of the heart, and be proportionable to it: which is all that our Lord asserts. See Macknight, Doddridge, Calmet.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 15:11 . ] makes common, profanes ( ), comp. 4Ma 7:6 , nowhere found in classical writers; in the New Testament, in Act 10:15 ; Act 11:9 ; Act 21:28 ; Heb 9:13 ; Rev 21:27 . What Jesus has in view at present is not legal, but moral defilement, and which is not produced (1Ti 4:4 ) by what goes into the mouth (food and drink, as well as the partaking of these with unwashed hands), but by that which comes out of it (improper language). So far as can be gathered from the context, he is not saying anything against the Mosaic regulations relating to meats, though one cannot help regarding what he does say as so applicable to these, as to bring into view the prospect of their abrogation as far as they are merely ceremonial (comp. Keim, and Weizscker, p. 463), and, as a consequence of this latter, the triumph of the idea which they embody, i.e. their fulfillment (Mat 5:17 ). Observe, further, that it is meat and drink only in themselves considered, that he describes as matters of indifference, saying nothing at present as to the special circumstances in which partaking of the one or the other might be regarded as sinful (excess, offences, 1Co 8 , and so on). See Mat 15:17 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Ver. 11. Not that which goeth into the man, &c. ] Whether with clean or foul hands, taken meat makes not the man guilty of God’s wrath. What! not if abused to surfeiting and drunkenness? saith Bellarmine, who is angry with Christ for this doctrine (as making against theirs directly), and therefore seeks to disprove him. We answer for and with Christ: that he speaks here of the moderate use of meats, which is indifferent. As for the abuse of it to surfeiting and excess, this is an evil that cometh out of the heart, and defileth the man, as being a flat breach of the law of God, who everywhere condemns it.
But that which cometh out of the mouth ] That is, out of the heart, that muck hill, through the mouth, as through a dung port, that defileth a man worse than any outhouse can do. Hence sin is called filthiness, abomination, the vomit of a dog, the devil’s excrements, &c. The very visible heavens are defiled by it, and must therefore be purged by fire, as those vessels were that held the sin offering. As for the soul, sin sets such ingrained stains upon it, as nothing can fetch out but the blood of Christ, that spotless Lamb.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mat 15:11 . imple direct appeal to the moral sense of mankind; one of those emancipating words which sweep away the cobwebs of artificial systems; better than elaborate argument. It is called a parable in Mat 15:15 , but it is not a parable in the strict sense here whatever it may be in Mk. ( vide notes there). Parables are used to illustrate the ethical by the natural. This saying is itself ethical: refers to words as expressing thoughts and desires (Mat 15:19 ). . : refers to food of all sorts; clean God taken with unclean hands, and food in itself unclean. The drift of the saying therefore is: ceremonial uncleanness, however caused, a small matter, moral uncleanness the one thing to be dreaded. This goes beyond the tradition of the elders, and virtually abrogates the Levitical distinctions between clean and unclean. A sentiment worthy of Jesus and suitable to an occasion when He was compelled to emphasise the supreme importance of the ethical in the law the ethical emphatically the law of God ( , Mat 15:3 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
into. Greek. eis. App-104.
a = the.
out of. Greek. ek.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mat 15:11. , …, not, etc.) Unless such were the case, the faithful could not, without the greatest disgust, inhabit a world subject to vanity.- , that which cometh out) Original sin is evidently here implied.-, this) used demonstratively.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
that which goeth: Mar 7:15, Luk 11:38-41, Act 10:14, Act 10:15, Act 11:8, Act 11:9, Rom 14:14, Rom 14:17, Rom 14:20, 1Ti 4:4, 1Ti 4:5, Tit 1:15, Heb 13:9
but: Mat 15:18-20, Mat 12:34-37, Psa 10:7, Psa 12:2, Psa 52:2-4, Psa 58:3, Psa 58:4, Isa 37:23, Isa 59:3-5, Isa 59:13-15, Jer 9:3-6, Rom 3:13, Rom 3:14, Jam 3:5-8, 2Pe 2:18
Reciprocal: Lev 11:2 – General Lev 11:8 – they are unclean Col 2:16 – in meat Jam 3:6 – a world
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5:11
Jesus was not ignoring the need for cleanliness, but was teaching the lesson of putting moral and spiritual matters above the physical. If a man permits a particle of dirt to enter his mouth and into the stomach it cannot do him any harm for the system will take care of it. Jesus will explain this subject to his disciples a few verses farther on in the chapter.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
[Defileth the man.] Or, maketh him common;…because they esteemed defiled men for common and vulgar men: on the contrary, a religious man among them is a singular man…
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 15:11. Entereth. In this verse, and Mat 15:17-19, a number of verbs of motion are used, the exact force of which we seek to preserve in the corrections of the common version.
Defileth the man, i.e., makes him common, impure or profane. The Mosaic law, by a variety of regulations, kept up the distinction between pure and impure, to teach the importance of moral purity. This purpose had been lost sight of, and the external regulation not only made the main matter, but extended and exalted, so that ceremonial impurity was considered worse than moral impurity. Our Lord opposes only this perversion of the Mosaic law. Lange: What is here said concerning the going into and coming out of the mouth, applies to the whole series of Levitical and moral injunctions concerning purity. The statement was, in the first place, indeed intended as a justification of His disciples on the charge brought against them by the Pharisees. But the inference was obvious, that all these injunctions required to be fulfilled in a higher sense (although this did not imply that the Lord denied their validity as Levitical ordinances). As a matter of course, when the symbol would be completely fulfilled, its outward representation must fall to the ground. Pharisees in all ages have exalted the mere sign and symbol above the reality. Some people make their whole religion consist in not allowing certain meats and drinks to enter into the mouth.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 11
Referring to the charge made by the Pharisees in Matthew 15:2. The Pharisees taught that sin consisted mainly in the neglect of prescribed rites, and the contracting of outward and ceremonial impurities. Jesus shows that moral and spiritual corruption and impurity is what they ought to be most anxious to shun.