{"commentary":{"id":"jamieson-fausset-brown","name":"Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary","website":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamieson-Fausset-Brown_Bible_Commentary","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"db3d4c8b3c1f32ef9d1430a57392e02bda3a17aac1f9bbe398461de021a3cb13","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":66,"totalNumberOfChapters":1187,"totalNumberOfVerses":17056,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"MAT","commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","name":"Matthew","commonName":"Matthew","introduction":"THE author of this Gospel was a publican or tax gatherer, residing at Capernaum, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. As to his identity with the \"Levi\" of the second and third Gospels, and other particulars, see on Mat 9:9. Hardly anything is known of his apostolic labors. That, after preaching to his countrymen in Palestine, he went to the East, is the general testimony of antiquity; but the precise scene or scenes of his ministry cannot be determined. That he died a natural death may be concluded from the belief of the best-informed of the Fathers--that of the apostles only three, James the Greater, Peter, and Paul, suffered martyrdom. That the first Gospel was written by this apostle is the testimony of all antiquity.\n\nFor the date of this Gospel we have only internal evidence, and that far from decisive. Accordingly, opinion is much divided. That it was the first issued of all the Gospels was universally believed. Hence, although in the order of the Gospels, those by the two apostles were placed first in the oldest manuscripts of the Old Latin version, while in all the Greek manuscripts, with scarcely an exception, the order is the same as in our Bibles, the Gospel according to Matthew is \"in every case\" placed first. And as this Gospel is of all the four the one which bears the most evident marks of having been prepared and constructed with a special view to the Jews--who certainly first required a written Gospel, and would be the first to make use of it--there can be no doubt that it was issued before any of the others. That it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem is equally certain; for as HUG observes [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 316, FOSDICK'S translation], when he reports our Lord's prophecy of that awful event, on coming to the warning about \"the abomination of desolation\" which they should \"see standing in the holy place,\" he interposes (contrary to his invariable practice, which is to relate without remark) a call to his readers to read intelligently--\"Whoso readeth, let him understand\" (Mat 24:15) --a call to attend to the divine signal for flight which could be intended only for those who lived before the event. But how long before that event this Gospel was written is not so clear. Some internal evidences seem to imply a very early date. Since the Jewish Christians were, for five or six years, exposed to persecution from their own countrymen--until the Jews, being persecuted by the Romans, had to look to themselves--it is not likely (it is argued) that they should be left so long without some written Gospel to reassure and sustain them, and Matthew's Gospel was eminently fitted for that purpose. But the digests to which Luke refers in his Introduction (see on Luk 1:1) would be sufficient for a time, especially as the living voice of the \"eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word\" was yet sounding abroad. Other considerations in favor of a very early date--such as the tender way in which the author seems studiously to speak of Herod Antipas, as if still reigning, and his writing of Pilate apparently as if still in power--seem to have no foundation in fact, and cannot therefore be made the ground of reasoning as to the date of this Gospel. Its Hebraic structure and hue, though they prove, as we think, that this Gospel must have been published at a period considerably anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, are no evidence in favor of so early a date as A.D. 37 or 38--according to some of the Fathers, and, of the moderns, TILLEMONT, TOWNSON, OWEN, BIRKS, TREGELLES. On the other hand, the date suggested by the statement of IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3.1], that Matthew put forth his Gospel while Peter and Paul were at Rome preaching and founding the Church--or after A.D. 60--though probably the majority of critics are in favor of it, would seem rather too late, especially as the second and third Gospels, which were doubtless published, as well as this one, before the destruction of Jerusalem, had still to be issued. Certainly, such statements as the following, \"Wherefore that field is called the field of blood unto this day\" (Mat 27:8); \"And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day\" (Mat 28:15), bespeak a date considerably later than the events recorded. We incline, therefore, to a date intermediate between the earlier and the later dates assigned to this Gospel, without pretending to greater precision.\n\nWe have adverted to the strikingly Jewish character and coloring of this Gospel. The facts which it selects, the points to which it gives prominence, the cast of thought and phraseology, all bespeak the Jewish point of view from which it was written and to which it was directed. This has been noticed from the beginning, and is universally acknowledged. It is of the greatest consequence to the right interpretation of it; but the tendency among some even of the best of the Germans to infer, from this special design of the first Gospel, a certain laxity on the part of the Evangelist in the treatment of his facts, must be guarded against.\n\nBut by far the most interesting and important point connected with this Gospel is the language in which it was written. It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord; and that the Greek Matthew which we now possess is a translation of that work, either by the Evangelist himself or some unknown hand. The evidence on which this opinion is grounded is wholly external, but it has been deemed conclusive by GROTIUS, MICHAELIS (and his translator), MARSH, TOWNSON, CAMPBELL, OLSHAUSEN, CRESWELL, MEYER, EBRARD, LANGE, DAVIDSON, CURETON, TREGELLES, WEBSTER and WILKINSON, &c. The evidence referred to cannot be given here, but will be found, with remarks on its unsatisfactory character, in the Introduction to the Gospels prefixed to our larger Commentary, pp. 28-31.\n\nBut how stand the facts as to our Greek Gospel? We have not a title of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew himself or anyone else. All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors. This Greek Gospel was from the first received by the Church as an integral part of the one quadriform Gospel. And while the Fathers often advert to the two Gospels which we have from apostles, and the two which we have from men not apostles--in order to show that as that of Mark leans so entirely on Peter, and that of Luke on Paul, these are really no less apostolical than the other two--though we attach less weight to this circumstance than they did, we cannot but think it striking that, in thus speaking, they never drop a hint that the full apostolic authority of the Greek Matthew had ever been questioned on the ground of its not being the original. Further, not a trace can be discovered in this Gospel itself of its being a translation. MICHAELIS tried to detect, and fancied that he had succeeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since, and DAVIDSON and CURETON among ourselves, have made the same attempt. But the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted, and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that none such are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one would have imagined that the Greek was not the original. This they regard as showing how perfectly the translation has been executed; but those who know best what translating from one language into another is will be the readiest to own that this is tantamount to giving up the question. This Gospel proclaims its own originality in a number of striking points; such as its manner of quoting from the Old Testament, and its phraseology in some peculiar cases. But the close verbal coincidences of our Greek Matthew with the next two Gospels must not be quite passed over. There are but two possible ways of explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work to the second and third Gospels--in which case it can hardly be called Matthew's Gospel at all--or our Greek Matthew is itself the original.\n\nMoved by these considerations, some advocates of a Hebrew original have adopted the theory of a double original; the external testimony, they think, requiring us to believe in a Hebrew original, while internal evidence is decisive in favor of the originality of the Greek. This theory is espoused by GUERICKS, OLSHAUSEN, THIERSCH, TOWNSON, TREGELLES, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial theory, invented to solve a difficulty, it is utterly void of historical support. There is not a vestige of testimony to support it in Christian antiquity. This ought to be decisive against it.\n\nIt remains, then, that our Greek Matthew is the original of that Gospel, and that no other original ever existed. It is greatly to the credit of DEAN ALFORD, that after maintaining, in the first edition of his Greek Testament the theory of a Hebrew original, he thus expresses himself in the second and subsequent editions: \"On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original.\"\n\nOne argument has been adduced on the other side, on which not a little reliance has been placed; but the determination of the main question does not, in our opinion, depend upon the point which it raises. It has been very confidently affirmed that the Greek language was not sufficiently understood by the Jews of Palestine when Matthew published his Gospel to make it at all probable that he would write a Gospel, for their benefit in the first instance, in that language. Now, as this merely alleges the improbability of a Greek original, it is enough to place against it the evidence already adduced, which is positive, in favor of the sole originality of our Greek Matthew. It is indeed a question how far the Greek language was understood in Palestine at the time referred to. But we advise the reader not to be drawn into that question as essential to the settlement of the other one. It is an element in it, no doubt, but not an essential element. There are extremes on both sides of it. The old idea, that our Lord hardly ever spoke anything but Syro-Chaldaic, is now pretty nearly exploded. Many, however, will not go the length, on the other side, of HUG (in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 326, &c.) and ROBERTS (\"Discussions of the Gospels,\" &c., pp. 25, &c.). For ourselves, though we believe that our Lord, in all the more public scenes of His ministry, spoke in Greek, all we think it necessary here to say is that there is no ground to believe that Greek was so little understood in Palestine as to make it improbable that Matthew would write his Gospel exclusively in that language--so improbable as to outweigh the evidence that he did so. And when we think of the number of digests or short narratives of the principal facts of our Lord's history which we know from Luke (Luk 1:1-4) were floating about for some time before he wrote his Gospel, of which he speaks by no means disrespectfully, and nearly all of which would be in the mother tongue, we can have no doubt that the Jewish Christians and the Jews of Palestine generally would have from the first reliable written matter sufficient to supply every necessary requirement until the publican-apostle should leisurely draw up the first of the four Gospels in a language to them not a strange tongue, while to the rest of the world it was the language in which the entire quadriform Gospel was to be for all time enshrined. The following among others hold to this view of the sole originality of the Greek Matthew: ERASMUS, CALVIN, BEZA, LIGHTFOOT, WETSTEIN, LARDNER, HUG, FRITZSCHE, CREDNER, DE WETTE, STUART, DA COSTA, FAIRBAIRN, ROBERTS.\n\nOn two other questions regarding this Gospel it would have been desirable to say something, had not our available space been already exhausted: The characteristics, both in language and matter, by which it is distinguished from the other three, and its relation to the second and third Gospels. On the latter of these topics--whether one or more of the Evangelists made use of the materials of the other Gospels, and, if so, which of the Evangelists drew from which--the opinions are just as numerous as the possibilities of the case, every conceivable way of it having one or more who plead for it. The most popular opinion until recently--and perhaps the most popular still--is that the second Evangelist availed himself more or less of the materials of the first Gospel, and the third of the materials of both the first and second Gospels. Here we can but state our own belief, that each of the first three Evangelists wrote independently of both the others; while the fourth, familiar with the first three, wrote to supplement them, and, even where he travels along the same line, wrote quite independently of them. This judgment we express, with all deference for those who think otherwise, as the result of a close study of each of the Gospels in immediate juxtaposition and comparison with the others. On the former of the two topics noticed, the linguistic peculiarities of each of the Gospels have been handled most closely and ably by CREDNER [Einleitung (Introduction to the New Testament)], of whose results a good summary will be found in DAVIDSON'S Introduction to the New Testament. The other peculiarities of the Gospels have been most felicitously and beautifully brought out by DA COSTA in his Four Witnesses, to which we must simply refer the reader, though it contains a few things in which we cannot concur. \n\n\n\nNext: Matthew Chapter 1\n\n","order":40,"numberOfChapters":28,"sha256":"85230502f7845520bbf6f2983f2d40076dbb901c7feac0d1cfa0d62c8b7d54f8","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/MAT/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"MAT","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":28,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/MAT/28.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"MAT","chapter":28},"totalNumberOfVerses":525},"chapter":{"number":15,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":2,"content":["Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":3,"content":["But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?--The charge is retorted with startling power: \"The tradition they transgress is but man's, and is itself the occasion of heavy transgression, undermining the authority of God's law.\"\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":4,"content":["For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother-- (Deu 5:16). \n\nand, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death-- (Exo 21:17).\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":5,"content":["But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift--or simply, \"A gift!\" In Mark (Mar 7:11), it is, \"Corban!\" that is, \"An oblation!\" meaning, any unbloody offering or gift dedicated to sacred uses. \n\nby whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":6,"content":["And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free--that is, It is true, father--mother--that by giving to thee this, which I now present, thou mightest be profited by me; but I have gifted it to pious uses, and therefore, at whatever cost to thee, I am not now at liberty to alienate any portion of it. \"And,\" it is added in Mark (Mar 7:12), \"ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or his mother.\" To dedicate property to God is indeed lawful and laudable, but not at the expense of filial duty. \n\nThus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect--cancelled or nullified it \"by your tradition.\"\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":7,"content":["Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying-- (Isa 29:13).\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":8,"content":["This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, &c.--By putting the commandments of men on a level with the divine requirements, their whole worship was rendered vain--a principle of deep moment in the service of God. \"For,\" it is added in Mar 7:8, \"laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups; and many other such like things ye do.\" The drivelling nature of their multitudinous observances is here pointedly exposed, in contrast with the manly observance of \"the commandment of God\"; and when our Lord says, \"Many other such like things ye do,\" it is implied that He had but given a specimen of the hideous treatment which the divine law received, and the grasping disposition which, under the mask of piety, was manifested by the ecclesiastics of that day.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":10,"content":["And he called the multitude, and said unto them--The foregoing dialogue, though in the people's hearing, was between Jesus and the pharisaic cavillers, whose object was to disparage Him with the people. But Jesus, having put them down, turns to the multitude, who at this time were prepared to drink in everything He said, and with admirable plainness, strength, and brevity, lays down the great principle of real pollution, by which a world of bondage and uneasiness of conscience would be dissipated in a moment, and the sense of sin be reserved for deviations from the holy and eternal law of God. \n\nHear and understand:\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":11,"content":["Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man--This is expressed even more emphatically in Mark (Mar 7:15-16), and it is there added, \"If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.\" As in Mat 13:9, this so oft-repeated saying seems designed to call attention to the fundamental and universal character of the truth it refers to.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":12,"content":["Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?--They had given vent to their irritation, and perhaps threats, not to our Lord Himself, from whom they seem to have slunk away, but to some of the disciples, who report it to their Master.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":13,"content":["But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up--They are offended, are they? Heed it not: their corrupt teaching is already doomed: the garden of the Lord upon earth, too long cumbered with their presence, shall yet be purged of them and their accursed system: yea, and whatsoever is not of the planting of My heavenly Father, the great Husbandman (Joh 15:1), shall share the same fate.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":14,"content":["Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch--Striking expression of the ruinous effects of erroneous teaching!\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":15,"content":["Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable--\"when He was entered into the house from the people,\" says Mark (Mar 7:17).\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":16,"content":["And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?--Slowness of spiritual apprehension in His genuine disciples grieves the Saviour: from others He expects no better (Mat 13:11).\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":17,"content":["Do not ye yet understand that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth, &c.--Familiar though these sayings have now become, what freedom from bondage to outward things do they proclaim, on the one hand; and on the other, how searching is the truth which they express--that nothing which enters from without can really defile us; and that only the evil that is in the heart, that is allowed to stir there, to rise up in thought and affection, and to flow forth in voluntary action, really defiles a man!\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":19,"content":["For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts--\"evil reasonings\"; referring here more immediately to those corrupt reasonings which had stealthily introduced and gradually reared up that hideous fabric of tradition which at length practically nullified the unchangeable principles of the moral law. But the statement is far broader than this; namely that the first shape which the evil that is in the heart takes, when it begins actively to stir, is that of \"considerations\" or \"reasonings\" on certain suggested actions. \n\nmurders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies--detractions, whether directed against God or man; here the reference seems to be to the latter. Mark (Mar 7:22) adds, \"covetousnesses\"--or desires after more; \"wickednesses\"--here meaning, perhaps, malignities of various forms; \"deceit, lasciviousness\"--meaning, excess or enormity of any kind, though by later writers restricted to lewdness; \"an evil eye\"--meaning, all looks or glances of envy, jealousy, or ill will towards a neighbor; \"pride, foolishness\"--in the Old Testament sense of \"folly\"; that is, criminal senselessness, the folly of the heart. How appalling is this black catalogue!\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":20,"content":["These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man--Thus does our Lord sum up this whole searching discourse.\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":23,"content":["THE WOMAN OF CANAAN AND HER DAUGHTER. (Mat 15:21-28)\n\nBut he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us--(Also see on Mar 7:26.)\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":24,"content":["But he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel--(Also see on Mar 7:26.)\n\n"]},{"type":"verse","number":25,"content":["Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me--(Also see on Mar 7:26.)\n\n\n\n\nNext: Matthew Chapter 16\n\n"]}],"introduction":"DISCOURSE ON CEREMONIAL POLLUTION. ( = Mar 7:1, Mar 7:23). (Mat. 15:1-20)\n\nThen came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem--or \"from Jerusalem.\" Mark (Mar 7:1) says they \"came from\" it: a deputation probably sent from the capital expressly to watch Him. As He had not come to them at the last Passover, which they had reckoned on, they now come to Him. \"And,\" says Mark (Mar 7:2-3), \"when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen hands\"--hands not ceremonially cleansed by washing--\"they found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft\"--literally, \"in\" or \"with the fist\"; that is, probably washing the one hand by the use of the other--though some understand it, with our version, in the sense of \"diligently,\" \"sedulously\"--\"eat not, holding the tradition of the elders\"; acting religiously according to the custom handed down to them. \"And when they come from the market\" (Mar 7:4) --\"And after market\": after any common business, or attending a court of justice, where the Jews, as WEBSTER and WILKINSON remark, after their subjection to the Romans, were especially exposed to intercourse and contact with heathens--\"except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables\"--rather, \"couches,\" such as were used at meals, which probably were merely sprinkled for ceremonial purposes. \"Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him,\" \n\nsaying--as follows:\n\n"},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/MAT/15.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"MAT","chapter":15},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/MAT/16.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"MAT","chapter":16},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/jamieson-fausset-brown/MAT/14.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"jamieson-fausset-brown","book":"MAT","chapter":14},"numberOfVerses":20}