Three-year Bible reading plan for 12 September 2022

King James Version (en)

King James Version (en)

Matthew, Chapter 15, verses 1-20

³ Christ reproveth the scribes and Pharisees for transgressing God's commandments through their own traditions, ¹¹ teacheth how that which goeth into the mouth doth not defile a man

¹Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

²Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

³But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

⁴For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

⁵But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

⁶And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

⁷Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

⁸This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

⁹But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

¹⁰And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

¹¹Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

¹²Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

¹³But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.

¹⁴Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

¹⁵Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

¹⁶And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?

¹⁷Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

¹⁸But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

¹⁹For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

²⁰These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

Read more:Matthew, Chapter 15

Comments:

Comments on the current fragment

Comments on the book

Comments on the part

15

15:1 Mar 7:1.

15:2 The elders - The chief doctors or, teachers among the Jews.

15:3 They wash not their hands when they eat bread - Food in general is termed bread in Hebrew; so that to eat bread is the same as to make a meal.

15:4 Honour thy father and mother - Which implies all such relief as they stand in need of. Exo 20:12; Exo 21:17.

15:5 It is a gift by whatsoever thou mightest have been profited by me - That is, I have given, or at least, purpose to give to the treasury of the temple, what you might otherwise have had from me.

15:7 Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying - That is, the description which Isaiah gave of your fathers, is exactly applicable to you. The words therefore which were a description of them, are a prophecy with regard to you.

15:8 Their heart is far from me - And without this all outward worship is mere mockery of God. Isa 29:13.

15:9 Teaching the commandments of men - As equal with, nay, superior to, those of God. What can be a more heinous sin?

15:13 Every plant - That is, every doctrine.

15:14 Let them alone - If they are indeed blind leaders of the blind; let them alone: concern not yourselves about them: a plain direction how to behave with regard to all such. Luk 6:39.

15:17 Are ye also yet without understanding - How fair and candid are the sacred historians? Never concealing or excusing their own blemishes.

15:19 First evil thoughts - then murders - and the rest.Railings - The Greek word includes all reviling, backbiting, and evil speaking.

Topics:

NOTES

All the most prominent religious systems—which, it should be noted, arose in warm climates—contain a concept of ritual purity and, conversely, defilement. This is usually understood to mean...

If we recast the dialogue between Christ and the scribes in terms of modern life, what is being discussed becomes much clearer. On the one hand, certain religious rules are put forward concerning...

Today's reading touches on one of the most important questions of religious life: the relationship between Holy Scripture and tradition. For every religion the problem of ritual purity has always been central, because ritual purity determines...

Today's reading touches on one of the most important questions of religious life: the relationship between Holy Scripture and tradition. For every religion the problem of ritual purity has always been central, because ritual purity determines the very possibility of full participation in religious life. It is no wonder that the followers of the Pharisaic religious schools, being exceptionally devout people, asked Jesus questions concerning Jewish norms and rules of ritual purity. The question about washing hands is one of these questions (vv. 1-2).

In this case, of course, the issue is not hygiene but a purifying washing that was supposed to be performed before eating. The reference to the "tradition of the elders," however, clearly suggests that this is not about a commandment of the Torah, that is, of Holy Scripture, but about its interpretation connected with the Pharisaic tradition. Jesus answers a question with a question: can a commandment given by God and clearly expressed in Scripture be replaced by human opinions that have formed within any tradition at all, even an authoritative one? After all, any tradition is the fruit of human creativity, while the commandment is given by God (v. 3). By answering this way, Jesus appears to avoid the question, at least for a time. Yet very soon He answers it too, returning His listeners to the understanding of purity that the Torah originally implied (vv. 10-11, 16-20).

But on a more attentive reading it becomes clear that this answer is directly connected with the question of authentic and false tradition. Authentic tradition always puts first a person's spiritual condition, as well as his relationships with God and with his neighbors. This is what determines a person's destiny in the Kingdom, and also whether a person will be able to enter it at all. For religious consciousness, however, the external form is important. Any religiosity always carries something magical within it, even when the religion of Revelation is in view. And it often turns out that the external expressions of religiosity become more important than the essence. There is no dispute that God is more important than family; but does that mean that an offering for the Temple is more important than helping elderly parents? Hardly, since such an offering in itself does not determine the quality of the giver's relationship with God. Moreover, it may well turn out to be a means of forgetting about elderly parents without feeling any pangs of conscience, because formally the commandment has not been violated! Such formalism is always present to one degree or another in any religious tradition.

Perhaps this is precisely why Jesus did not create any new religion: Christianity is not a religion, but life itself in the Kingdom, and He constantly reminds His listeners that authentic tradition is the experience of the Kingdom. Such a tradition does not need to be maintained artificially: even without that, it will never lose its significance and will organically enter the Kingdom, becoming an inseparable part of it.

FAQ

In your reflections (https://www.bible-center.ru/ru/note/20180711/orth) you ironically state: “He who works as a defender of the Motherland may also kill”. I thought I would find a genuinely interesting commentary here (since the topic is significant), but instead I found a banal sectarian sermon. Yes, indeed, one can kill. That is obvious. And history knows many holy Christian warriors who lived practically in the time of Christ. Is it not clear that soldiers are the first to fulfill the commandment “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends”. Soldiers do not simply kill, but defend their country. As you yourself understand, only pagans perceive murder as an unequivocal evil — primarily for the one killed. Christians perceive it differently. Everything is in the will of God, and if He permitted a person to be killed, then this is His Will. This person could have ended his life otherwise — as a result of an accident, for example. Everything is in the will of God. The evil of murder is in the evil spirit of the one who kills. In his evil will. He harms primarily himself. Therefore, murder is a terrible evil. By killing, a person dies himself — in his soul. But only if the reason for his action is sin. If there are holy (truly holy) intentions — for example, the defense of women, the elderly, etc. from fascists, terrorists, etc. — there is no sin in killing. This is the spirit of the Gospel. And those who judge by the letter liken themselves to the Pharisees. With respect and hope for understanding...

Allow me to simultaneously agree and disagree with what you say in your letter. The issue under discussion is not so unequivocal that it can be resolved on a single plane...

Allow me to simultaneously agree and disagree with what you say in your letter. The issue under discussion is not so unequivocal that it can be resolved on a single plane. In any case, however, I would like to limit myself to the framework of Orthodoxy.

In its practical life, the Orthodox Church is always guided simultaneously by two principles, called in Greek “akribeia” (strictness) and “oikonomia” (economy). The first term translates as “exact meaning, strict exactness”, while the second is usually used in New Testament language in the sense of “dispensation” or “stewardship”. The principle of akribeia implies strict and exact adherence to the principles set forth in the Word of God and the Tradition of the Church. The principle of oikonomia, however, presumes that the Church, due to human frailty, compromises on exactness to some extent for the sake of preserving peace and the good of the Church. The discernment and application of one or the other principle is, incidentally, an essential component of the grace of the priesthood bestowed upon our archpastors. Of course, this is also their heavy spiritual undertaking.

Thus, from the standpoint of akribeia, no (we emphasize, no) murder can be justified. Sacred Scripture speaks of this both in the narrative of the covenant with Noah and in the Decalogue. The Lord Himself in the Sermon on the Mount only strengthens this requirement, extending it, as you rightly note, to the spiritual cause of murder — anger. You are right in saying that it is better for some people to end their days than to commit grievous atrocities and continue them. However, the Lord clearly forbids people from deciding this.

Yet it is obvious that life forces Christians to approach this issue differently. From the perspective of oikonomia, it is obvious that one cannot fail to protect the weak, or fail to resist aggressors or murderers. In such a situation, Christians should be ready to “lay down one's life for one's friends”, and to resist violence with arms in hand. For the good of the people, the Church has always not only permitted, but also blessed the latter as an important duty of the state. Incidentally, the Apostles Peter and Paul express the thought in their epistles that the existence of the state and the Church's prayer for the authorities are justified precisely because it protects those who need such protection at any given moment. That is why the Church has always sought the possibility of coexistence with any state. Even in the Roman and Soviet empires, while opposing godless authorities, the Church did not seek their destruction.

But there are some significant details. First, the blessing to fight against invaders does not apply to the military activities of a given state in general. The Church approves solely and exclusively of defense and protection. This, however, is obvious. Second, the Orthodox tradition, which from the position of oikonomia blesses and approves of armed resistance to an aggressor, nevertheless considers murder committed under these conditions to be a subject of repentance and confession. At the same time, the penance (excommunication from Communion) in this case is incomparably lesser than for an everyday or, especially, premeditated murder. In practice, a penance might not be assigned to a warrior at all; nevertheless, he must still confess to such a killing.

It is in this combination of oikonomia and akribeia (a wise one, in our view) that the Orthodox (non-sectarian) position of Christians consists.

${currentDateString}