Matthew 15:10-20
Jesus called the crowd to him and said to them, “Listen and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth that defiles.” Then the disciples approached and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when you said that?” He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone; for they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both are going to fall into a pit.”
But Peter said to him, “Explain this parable to us.” And he said, “Why are you still so dull? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach and goes out into the sewer? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, and slander. These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.”
We got off on some side tangents for a while over the past few weeks, but now we’re back with Matthew's gospel because we’re getting into the “good stuff” in Matthew.
Before we begin today there’s just a couple of reminders. One, Matthew was written in the last years of the first century, making it highly unlikely that this is an eye-witness account -- anyone who had known Jesus in life would be a very, very old man by this time, and Two, this writer, who never names himself as Matthew, btw, was certainly not the Matthew who was one of the original Twelve disciples. Like most of the authors of the first New Testament books, we don’t really know who he was.
What we do know about this author was that he was angry – he is quite angry at times and, if he’s not full-out angry then he’s at least snappish a good part of the rest of the time – and therefore, the Jesus he depicts often comes across as snappy and angry, too.
Yes, there was reason for much of the writer’s anger at the time he was writing – but that shouldn’t excuse the times that Matthew sounds almost gleeful about the punishments waiting for those who don’t agree with him – and Matthew is big on punishments.
Much of Matthew’s anger was directed against “the Jews,” which, for Matthew, meant anyone who opposed Jesus or did not follow him – particularly the religious establishment. Whenever he speaks of them, his language is harsh and vindictive, and these jibes are scattered throughout his writing. This had the unfortunate effect of making Matthew’s gospel one of the foremost scriptural justifications for antisemitism down through the centuries, from the middle ages to the Nazis to the neo-nazis of our own times.
In the nine verses that come just before today’s reading, Jesus is challenged by some Pharisees and Scribes as to why his followers ignore the ancient rules that prescribe ritual hand washing before eating. He responds, “Why do you use your rules to play fast and loose with God’s commands? God clearly says, ‘Respect your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone denouncing father or mother should be killed.’ But you weasel around that by saying, ‘Whoever wants to, can say to father and mother, What I owed to you I’ve given to God.’ And you call that respecting one’s parents? You cancel out God’s command in favor of your rules whenever it is convenient for you, and then you want to quibble with me about handwashing! You hypocrites! You frauds!
It's hard to argue with this. These “teachers” are trying to shame Jesus with a rule that they instituted about having to wash one’s hands in a certain ritual manner before eating anything. And Jesus rightly throws back in their faces the fact that they routinely use a human-made rule to negate a God-given rule, and they do so to avoid caring for their own parents as they age. Hypocrites, indeed.
My only argument is with one line from the reading we started with where Jesus (supposedly) lists the things that come from the human heart: “evil intentions, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, and slander.“ This disturbs me because these are given, not as things that can come from the heart, but as the things that do (implying that this is all the heart contains). We know this is not so. Where are all the beautiful things that come from the human heart?
So this is one of those times we’re called to pay attention to context. It’s possible that this is just the writer’s chosen syntax. That he said it this way to make a point. It’s also possible that this is just Matthew, expecting the worst of people, as usual. It’s even possible that Jesus actually said this in this snippy manner – but I find that difficult to accept when we compare this language to how Jesus speaks on so many other occasions and as recorded by other writers.
Yes, Jesus’ message about missing the point of God’s laws because we’re hung up on man-made rules comes through loud and clear in this story -- but so does the fact that Matthew is a perfect example of our need to temper our language and not loose our anger on everyone around us. We can give old Matthew the benefit of the doubt and believe he wrote with the best of intentions – but often with the worst of results.
I'm not trying to trash Matthew here, by the way. He was a man (presumably) of his time and place. What I am attempting to make clear is simply because something is in the bible does not mean it is helpful or uplifting or that it comes straight from God. Nothing here is straight from God - it all reaches us by way of human writers, human editors, human translators -- each adding in their own bias, their own understanding, their own opinion. We need to recognize our responsibility to filter out those things that are of human origin so that we hear God speaking.
Perhaps it’s a lesson we can apply to our own lives. We do not always need to let our bad moods or personal biases show. Sometimes the Good News might be better shared by a little less Matthew and a lot more Jesus.
Before we begin today there’s just a couple of reminders. One, Matthew was written in the last years of the first century, making it highly unlikely that this is an eye-witness account -- anyone who had known Jesus in life would be a very, very old man by this time, and Two, this writer, who never names himself as Matthew, btw, was certainly not the Matthew who was one of the original Twelve disciples. Like most of the authors of the first New Testament books, we don’t really know who he was.
What we do know about this author was that he was angry – he is quite angry at times and, if he’s not full-out angry then he’s at least snappish a good part of the rest of the time – and therefore, the Jesus he depicts often comes across as snappy and angry, too.
Yes, there was reason for much of the writer’s anger at the time he was writing – but that shouldn’t excuse the times that Matthew sounds almost gleeful about the punishments waiting for those who don’t agree with him – and Matthew is big on punishments.
Much of Matthew’s anger was directed against “the Jews,” which, for Matthew, meant anyone who opposed Jesus or did not follow him – particularly the religious establishment. Whenever he speaks of them, his language is harsh and vindictive, and these jibes are scattered throughout his writing. This had the unfortunate effect of making Matthew’s gospel one of the foremost scriptural justifications for antisemitism down through the centuries, from the middle ages to the Nazis to the neo-nazis of our own times.
In the nine verses that come just before today’s reading, Jesus is challenged by some Pharisees and Scribes as to why his followers ignore the ancient rules that prescribe ritual hand washing before eating. He responds, “Why do you use your rules to play fast and loose with God’s commands? God clearly says, ‘Respect your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone denouncing father or mother should be killed.’ But you weasel around that by saying, ‘Whoever wants to, can say to father and mother, What I owed to you I’ve given to God.’ And you call that respecting one’s parents? You cancel out God’s command in favor of your rules whenever it is convenient for you, and then you want to quibble with me about handwashing! You hypocrites! You frauds!
It's hard to argue with this. These “teachers” are trying to shame Jesus with a rule that they instituted about having to wash one’s hands in a certain ritual manner before eating anything. And Jesus rightly throws back in their faces the fact that they routinely use a human-made rule to negate a God-given rule, and they do so to avoid caring for their own parents as they age. Hypocrites, indeed.
My only argument is with one line from the reading we started with where Jesus (supposedly) lists the things that come from the human heart: “evil intentions, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, and slander.“ This disturbs me because these are given, not as things that can come from the heart, but as the things that do (implying that this is all the heart contains). We know this is not so. Where are all the beautiful things that come from the human heart?
So this is one of those times we’re called to pay attention to context. It’s possible that this is just the writer’s chosen syntax. That he said it this way to make a point. It’s also possible that this is just Matthew, expecting the worst of people, as usual. It’s even possible that Jesus actually said this in this snippy manner – but I find that difficult to accept when we compare this language to how Jesus speaks on so many other occasions and as recorded by other writers.
Yes, Jesus’ message about missing the point of God’s laws because we’re hung up on man-made rules comes through loud and clear in this story -- but so does the fact that Matthew is a perfect example of our need to temper our language and not loose our anger on everyone around us. We can give old Matthew the benefit of the doubt and believe he wrote with the best of intentions – but often with the worst of results.
I'm not trying to trash Matthew here, by the way. He was a man (presumably) of his time and place. What I am attempting to make clear is simply because something is in the bible does not mean it is helpful or uplifting or that it comes straight from God. Nothing here is straight from God - it all reaches us by way of human writers, human editors, human translators -- each adding in their own bias, their own understanding, their own opinion. We need to recognize our responsibility to filter out those things that are of human origin so that we hear God speaking.
Perhaps it’s a lesson we can apply to our own lives. We do not always need to let our bad moods or personal biases show. Sometimes the Good News might be better shared by a little less Matthew and a lot more Jesus.
RSS Feed