Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?

“When the Pharisees heard the things that went before, they made no reply to them, because He had so mightily overthrown them, not only refuting their arguments, but detecting their fraud, but they, not the multitudes, were offended at them; Then came his disciples unto him and said, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended after they heard this saying?”

“Above, the Lord showed under figures the power of his teaching; now he shows its sufficiency. This is shown in two ways: first, that it does not require the observances of the law; second, that it was given not only to the one nation of the Jews, but also to the Gentiles, at the place, "Jesus went out from there and withdrew into the parts of Tyre and Sidon." Concerning the first he does three things. First the circumstances of the accusation are touched upon; second, the accusation; third, the exposition. The second is at "why do the disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?" The third is at: "for they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." Now their malice is aggravated on three counts. First, from the time, because at the very time when he was performing these signs and miracles, they themselves were producing signs of iniquity, and so were acting maliciously. Above, Matthew 11:25: "Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent," etc. Likewise the aggravation is rendered from the place, because although the Jews were spread throughout Judea, yet those who were in Jerusalem were the wise ones, and nevertheless were the worse. Isaiah 26:10: "In the land of the saints he hath done wicked things, and he shall not see the glory of the Lord." Likewise it is aggravated from the condition of the persons, because there came from among the great ones the scribes, who were the more learned, and the Pharisees, who were reputed the more holy. Jeremiah 5:5: "I will go to the great men, and I will speak to them; for they have known the way of the Lord." Then is set down that in which they accused them: "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?" There was a precept, as is found in Deuteronomy 4:2: "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it." Hence, by adding traditions, they were acting against the law — not that it was not lawful to establish something, but that they commanded it to be observed just as the law of the Lord. "For they do not wash their hands," etc. Here is explained what their traditions were. This, however, is explained more fully at Mark 7:2: for there it is said that when they had seen some of his disciples eating bread with common hands, that is, unwashed, they found fault. And this can be taken literally, that they did not wash their hands. Why? Because they were so intent upon the word of God that they did not even have time for it; hence, out of concern for spiritual things they did not wash themselves in the manner of the Jews, as is found in Mark 7:4, that all the Jews, unless they wash their hands frequently, do not eat; therefore the disciples did not wash according to their rite. Hence they understood in a carnal way what is said in Isaiah 1:16: "Wash yourselves, be clean." Hence they themselves understood it literally, washing what was exterior, and not what was interior. "But he answering said to them." The Lord does two things: for he does not answer by excusing the disciples, but shows that they themselves are not worthy to reprove them. Above, 7:5: "Hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thy own eye." It is agreed that to transgress the commandment of God is more grave than the traditions of men; and therefore those who were transgressing the commandments of God were sinning in greater matters. Therefore he first shows them to be transgressors of the law; second, what commandment they transgress. He says therefore: "Why do you transgress the commandment of God, and do not observe it, for the sake of your tradition?" Romans 10:3: "For they, not knowing the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, are not subject to the justice of God." Isaiah 3:8: "Their tongue and their devices are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his majesty." Then when he says, "For God said," etc., he sets forth what this commandment is, namely, that concerning the honoring of parents. And first he sets down the commandment; second, the penalty. Hence he says: "For God said: Honor thy father and thy mother." And it is to be noted that honor is nothing other than reverence shown in testimony of virtue. For he shows reverence who administers what is necessary; hence a man is bound not only to rise up, but also to minister necessities. Ecclesiasticus 2:21: "They that fear the Lord will keep his commandments." And that such honor is owed is clear, because Tobias lent to Gabelus, which the Lord had commanded him to do. Exodus 20:12 immediately adds the penalty: "that thou mayest be long-lived upon the earth." Likewise Leviticus 20:9. He adds the penalty for transgressors: "He that curseth his father, or his mother, dying let him die." And thus in blessing it is understood not only that one bless with the mouth, but also that one bestow the blessing in deed; Proverbs 20:20: "He that curseth his father or mother, his lamp shall be put out in the midst of darkness." But since he set down an inducement on the side of the penalty, why did he not set down a reward for obedience? Because men are more terrified by penalty than they desire reward; for even a brute beast is terrified by penalty. From this indeed it follows that if those who disparage father and mother are worthy of death, then those who move others to disparage them are worthy of death; wherefore they are not worthy to make an accusation. Therefore you are not worthy to accuse them. "But you say," etc. Here he touches on how they transgress. And first he shows this; second, he sets down the authority. And concerning the first, he first shows their rite, second what followed from it. He says: "You say, Whosoever shall say to his father or mother," etc. This is read in many ways. In one way, so that the construction is complete, and then thus: "whosoever," that is, anyone at all, "shall say," that is, will be able to say. In another way, so that it is incomplete, thus "whosoever shall say," etc. — supply: he keeps the commandment, and is immune from penalty. What is this saying? It is explained in three ways. Rabanus said that a spiritual good is to be preferred to a temporal one; therefore they told those who had poor fathers to say to them: "Father, let it not displease you if I do not give you what is necessary, because the gift that I offer profits you spiritually." But this was not true, according to that saying: "The Most High approveth not the gifts of the wicked." And Proverbs 28:24: "He that taketh away anything from his father or from his mother, and saith this is no sin, is the partner of a murderer." Therefore if someone has a father or mother, and they could not live without him, and someone should tell him, "Go across the sea," or "enter religious life," he falls under this sentence. There is another exposition. Jerome, however, reads it interrogatively, that is, "will it profit thee?" It is found in Leviticus 22:2, that a foreigner could not take what was consecrated to the Lord; therefore they were advising sons who had poor fathers that they should offer to God. And if the fathers wished to be supported from them, they would say to them: "If you should receive something from that which I owe to offer to God, will it profit you? No — rather it will be to your damnation." Augustine explains it thus. The Jews said that while children were under the guardianship of their father, they were bound to them. Hence when the children are small, the fathers make offerings on behalf of the children, and it avails them; but when they are of free judgment, then another's devotion does not avail. Hence they said that anyone who could arrive at this state and say to his father, "The gift that is from me will profit you," was not bound to his father. But from this teaching two improprieties follow: one against the neighbor, the other against the Lord. Against the neighbor, because he who would speak thus, and who is so instructed, does not honor his father. Hence Romans 1:30: "devisers of evil things, disobedient to parents." And it follows: "they who do such things are worthy of death." Likewise against God; hence he says, "and you have made void the commandment of God," as if to say: not only have you acted against your neighbor, but you have also made void the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition. "Hypocrites." Properly speaking, those were called hypocrites who entered the theater, and had one person, and feigned another with masks. These, then, are hypocrites, who outwardly pretend something other than what they have inwardly; for inwardly they were aiming at gain, while outwardly they were moving men to make offerings to God. Job 36:13: "Dissemblers and crafty men provoke the wrath of God, neither shall they cry when they are bound." "Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you." This is found in Isaiah 29:13. First he sets down their duplicity; second, the uselessness of their service, at "but in vain do they worship me." He says therefore: "This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." And this is true literally, because they honored with their lips, but in heart were far from God; because they did not receive Christ, who was coming in the name of God. Or thus: "This people honoreth me with their lips," etc. — for in saying that a man ought to make an offering to God, they seem to be honoring God; "but their heart is far," because they were not tending toward the honor of God, but toward greed; hence, the greater the greed, the smaller the charity. This is found in Jeremiah 12:2: "Thou art near in their mouth, and far from their reins." But does this pretense avail them? No, because it does not please the Lord; hence there follows, "but in vain do they worship me." But what is this saying? To fast is a teaching of men, and canons are traditions of men; do those who teach these things worship God in vain? It must be understood as worshipping in vain to the prejudice of the commandments of God. Job 32:21: "I will not compare man with God." Acts 5:29: "We ought to obey God rather than men." Why? Because God cannot be deceived. Isaiah 1:13: "Offer sacrifice no more in vain." From this we gather that a man ought to make more of a matter of conscience over the transgression of a commandment than over the transgression of an ecclesiastical ordinance. "And having called the multitudes together unto him, he said to them," etc. Above, the Lord showed that the Pharisees, in slandering, were unworthy to reprove the disciples, because they were themselves entangled in greater sins; now, however, passing them over, he instructs others, so that what was said above at 11:25 might be fulfilled: "Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones." And first he instructs the multitudes; second, the disciples, at "Then came the disciples," etc. And concerning the first he does two things. First he prepares them to listen; second, he gives his teaching. The second is at "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man." It is to be noted that in order to hear another, attention is required, by which a man is recalled to his inward parts and gathered into himself. And this he does when he says, "and having called them together," because it is necessary that we be gathered to him; Psalm 33:6: "Come ye to him and be enlightened." Second, diligence in hearing is necessary, and so he says, "Hear"; Proverbs 1:5: "A wise man hearing shall be wiser." Likewise, understanding is required, hence he says, "and understand"; Psalm 93:8: "Understand, ye senseless among the people; and, you fools, be wise at last." Consequently he sets forth the loftiest teaching, which is the perfection of the moral life. Hence it is to be noted that something is changed from without, as water is heated by fire; something from within, as a man is changed through sin. For however much a man is moved from without, there is no sin unless he consents inwardly; Job 37:9: "Out of the inner chamber cometh the storm." Hence he first shows that it is not from external things, second, that it is from within. He says therefore: "Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man." Against this, that is objected which is found through the old law; for it is found in Leviticus 11 that many foods are forbidden, whereby men became unclean. Augustine answers, in the Against Faustus, saying that something is called unclean in two ways. In one way, according to its own nature: and thus nothing is unclean, according to 1 Timothy 4:4: "Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving." Likewise something can be unclean according to signification. And thus a thing can be a sign of uncleanness and of cleanness; as, if we take the pig and the lamb in their own nature, each is good; yet by its signification the pig signifies uncleanness, the lamb innocence; therefore, as regards signification, the one is clean, the other unclean. And because before the coming of Christ there was a time in which they lived under figures, since the truth was not yet manifest, therefore those observances were to be kept, and fell under precept. But because at the coming of Christ the truth was being made manifest, the figure ceased; therefore, etc. But again another question remains, because it is found in Acts 15:20, that the apostles commanded that converts should abstain from what is strangled and from blood. Therefore it seems that, the truth remaining, those observances ought still to be kept. The ancients said that this is to be understood literally, that one must still abstain from these things because they are unclean. But this is nothing, because it contradicts the authority of the Apostle, to Titus 1:15: "To the clean all things are clean." Some said that this is to be understood partly literally, partly morally: for what is said concerning fornication, that they forbade literally; but what concerns blood, this is to be understood that innocent blood should not be shed; while what is said concerning what is strangled was to be understood in this way, that no one should bring a false accusation against another. But it ought not to be understood in this way, although the exposition is true. For the question turned on whether Gentile converts were bound to those things which the apostles forbade. Therefore it must be understood according to what was customary for the Jews. Therefore it must be said otherwise, that the apostles were considering something and forbidding it, either because it was unlawful in itself, or because it was an occasion of scandal; hence they forbade fornication as being unlawful in itself; but blood, so that they might not give scandal to others, namely so that scandal might be removed. And this is what the words of the Apostle express, 1 Corinthians 8:9: "But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumbling-block to the weak." Likewise, if it is objected: suppose that someone in Lent eats meat, is he not thereby defiled? It must be said that he is defiled not from the food, but from the violation of the precept; Romans 14:17: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink." "But what proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth a man." Here he seems to touch on only those sins which proceed from the mouth, and these defile; Luke 19:22: "Out of thy own mouth I judge thee, thou wicked servant." And above, 7:2: "Out of thy own mouth thou shalt be judged." But it must be said that the proper office of the mouth is to speak. Now speaking is twofold: outwardly, with the bodily mouth, and inwardly, with the mouth of the mind, concerning which Psalm 13:1: "The fool said in his heart: There is no God." Thus, then, by "mouth" can be understood the mouth of the heart, namely the mind of man, and thus every sin is from the mouth; because there is never sin except from the purpose of the mind. Thus, then, what proceeds from the mouth, namely of the heart, this defiles, because sin is so much a voluntary thing that if it is not voluntary, it is not sin. "Then came his disciples," etc. Here he instructs concerning scandal to be avoided, and concerning the principal question, at "But Peter answering." Concerning the first, two things. First is set down the question of the disciples; second, Christ's response. Here it is to be understood that the Pharisees and the disciples heard this word, in which they understood that he was overturning all their traditions, but not the Lord's own precepts; therefore, abominating it, they said nothing, but were troubled; hence the disciples said, "Knowest thou that the Pharisees, when they had heard this word, were scandalized?" This word "scandal" is frequently found in the Scriptures; hence it is to be seen what it signifies. "Scandal" in Greek is the same as a stumbling-block, like a stone in the road; hence a thing is called a stumbling-block where there is an occasion of downfall. But sometimes one scandalizes actively, sometimes passively. It is called active scandal when there is some deed which is not only evil in itself, but also a stumbling-block to others; therefore scandal is called a saying or a deed, less than right, offering an occasion of downfall. And he does not say "thought," because it must be something manifest. Likewise he does not say "evil," but "less than right," because it must have the appearance of evil; 1 Thessalonians 5:22: "From all appearance of evil abstain yourselves." Likewise there is passive scandal, as if someone should speak a good word, or pray, and another is scandalized, and takes for himself an occasion of downfall; hence the Lord did not give scandal, but they themselves took the occasion. Hence his disciples said that the Pharisees had taken scandal from this, and this had been foretold through Isaiah 8:14: "And he shall be a sanctification unto you, but a stone of stumbling, and a rock of scandal." "But he answering said." Here is set down the Lord's response, and he shows that their scandal is to be despised, first because they are estranged from God; second, because they are harmful to men, at "Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind." He says therefore: "But he answering said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up." From these words those who posited two natures wished to confirm their error, because they said the evil nature is from an evil God, the good from a good one; hence they say: if someone is of the evil creation, even though he may seem to do good things, he cannot persevere. But it is not so: for, as Jerome says, the contrary is found in Jeremiah 2:21: "I planted thee a chosen vineyard, all true seed; how then art thou turned into bitterness?" This, then, makes it clear, that this is not from God. Thus, then, it is not nature that is turned by this planting; but something supervening is to be understood, and this is the perverse will; hence nature always remains, but the perverse will is rooted up. Hence this planting can be understood of the tradition of men, which is to be rooted up if it is against God; but the tradition which is from God is never to be rooted up. Hence "every planting," that is, tradition which is not from God my Father, "shall be rooted up." And this is found in Acts 5:39, concerning Gamaliel, who said: "If this be of God, you will not be able to overthrow it." This is also evident in all things. You will see someone who does good works founded in charity, Ephesians 3:17: "Rooted and founded in charity"; and these cannot be rooted up. But other things which do not have a good foundation, such as giving alms for vanity's sake, are rooted up; hence Ecclesiasticus 14:20: "every corruptible work shall fail in the end, and he that made it shall fall with it." Hence in this sense is to be understood Wisdom 4:3: "the plants of adultery shall not give deep roots." Against this it is found at 1 Corinthians 3:6, where Paul says: "I planted, Apollo watered." Therefore Paul shall be rooted up. I say that Paul did not plant as the principal cause, but as a minister. There follows: "Let them alone: they are blind." Here he shows that their scandal is to be despised, because they are harmful to men. And first he teaches that it is to be despised; second, their presumption; third, the harm. Concerning the first: you say that they are scandalized in this way — "let them alone," and take no care. But should one not care about scandal? Did not the Lord, in order to avoid scandal, send Peter to the sea, to pay the tribute? It must be said that scandal sometimes arises from the truth; hence that scandal is to be avoided which can be avoided without prejudice to truth, or life, or doctrine, or justice. Hence a judge ought not to give up judgment, if someone is thereby scandalized. But nevertheless a distinction must be made, because some are scandalized out of weakness, some out of settled malice. The scandal of little ones is to be avoided, the truth being preserved; and yet a man may defer, or relax something. But if it is out of malice, no: and such is the case with these men being scandalized. Hence, if they were not being scandalized out of malice, the Lord would not have said "let them alone," but rather, "instruct them." To Titus 3:10: "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid." Jeremiah 51:9: "We would have cured Babylon, but she is not healed." And why are they blind? Spiritually, the ignorant are blind; Isaiah 56:10: "His watchmen are all blind." And because it is out of settled malice, they are not only blind, but also leaders of the blind, and teachers; Job 19:4: "If I have been ignorant, my ignorance shall be with me." That they are leaders of the blind — this is good; but that they are blind — this is bad. "If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit." Job 40:8: "Hide them in the dust," namely, as regards the body. "But Peter answering." Here he instructs them concerning the principal question; where he does three things: for first is set down Peter's request; second, the rebuke; third, the teaching. The second is at, "But he said: Are you also yet without understanding?" The third is at, "Do you not understand," etc. He says therefore: "But Peter answering said to him: Expound to us this parable." Peter was accustomed to hear many parables from him; therefore he believed that he was speaking in parables; or because Peter had been raised in the legal observances, as he said in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 10:14: "Far be it from me, Lord, for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered into my mouth"; therefore he believed that he was not speaking literally, but in parable. Proverbs 1:6: "He shall understand a parable and the interpretation, the words of the wise, and their mysterious sayings." "But he said: Are you also yet without understanding?" For the Lord answered all in Peter, who was speaking on behalf of all. Here he rebukes them. But why? One reason is that given by Jerome, that they think what was said openly was said in parable. For just as one who makes manifest what is hidden is to be reproved, so, conversely, one who hides what is manifest; Psalm 31:9: "Do not become like the horse and the mule, who have no understanding," etc. The other reason is Chrysostom's, that he seemed to be zealous on behalf of the Jews, because he had been raised in the teaching of the law; therefore he seemed to be saddened by it. Consequently he expounds. And first he expounds what he had said, namely, "that which entereth into the mouth"; second, according to what he had said, namely, "but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man"; third, he concludes his intention. He says therefore: "Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy?" And why does the Lord speak thus? Chrysostom says that he is speaking to them as men accustomed to the observances of the law. Now the intention of the law was that while food was undigested in the mouth, it was unclean; but once digested, it was clean. Hence it is always said in the law, "he shall be unclean until the evening." Therefore let us suppose that these observances ought to be kept — nevertheless, they do not render a man unclean except for a time. Hence what passes away cannot make them unclean. Or otherwise: nothing can make the soul unclean which does not touch it. Now food does not touch the soul; and this is the sign, because it goes into the belly, and is cast out into the privy. But, as Jerome says, some object against this, saying that the Lord was ignorant of natural science, because not all of it is passed out into the privy. Hence certain persons, wishing to understand it in this way, that all of it is expelled, hold that nothing is converted into human nature, but only that which was drawn from Adam is multiplied, and this alone will rise again. Hence, according to them, what comes from foods will not rise again. Hence also craftsmen put lead together with gold, so that the lead may be consumed and the gold preserved. In like manner foods offer resistance, lest the natural heat consume that which belongs to the power of nature. But this seems impossible, because nothing can become greater except through rarefaction, since to be rarefied is nothing other than to take on a greater quantity. Likewise man has in common with animals the sensitive and nutritive powers, and with plants the vegetative. But it is the case that these things are increased and nourished from nourishment. Therefore men too are increased and nourished in the same way. What, then, is meant by saying that it "is cast out into the privy"? Jerome says that not only the unclean superfluity is meant, but whatever way it happens, whether through excrement, or in some other way. And this also according to the Philosopher, because although it remains according to species, yet according to matter it flows away, as when fire remains in species, but the matter is consumed. It can also be said in this way: "everything that entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly" — something of it; hence sometimes in Scripture the whole is taken for the part. "But the things which proceed out of the mouth" — it has already been said that by "mouth" is understood the mind. "They come out from the heart, and defile a man"; because the sins of the heart are thoughts and affections; Isaiah 1:16: "Take away the evil of your thoughts from before my eyes." Likewise he sets down sins that are against the precepts of the second tablet: "murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts." Likewise sins of the mouth against the neighbor: "false testimonies"; "blasphemies," against the precepts of the first tablet. Hence these are the things which defile a man, because these proceed from the mind. "But to eat with unwashed hands doth not defile a man." Here he concludes, and sets down this conclusion so as to answer the principal intention. Likewise, because the disciples were not understanding, he therefore concludes that it was said only against tradition.”

“Then came his disciples, and said unto him,.... That is, after he had dismissed the people, and was come into a private house; see Mar 7:17 his disciples came to him, being alone, full of concern, for what he had said to the Pharisees, and before all the people; and not so well understanding it themselves. Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended after they heard this saying?, that they set aside the commandments of God, by observing the traditions of the elders; or that they were hypocrites; and that the prophecy of Isaiah, which describes such persons, belonging to them; or that not what goes into, but what comes out of a man, defiles him: whichever it was they have respect unto, or it may be to the whole, they seem to wish Christ had not said it; because the Pharisees were, as they thought, grieved and troubled at it, as being contrary to true religion and piety; and lest they should be so stumbled, as no more to attend, and so all hopes of bringing them over to the faith of Christ be lost; and chiefly, because they perceived they were made exceeding angry, and were highly provoked; so that they might fear that both Christ, and they themselves, would feel the effects of their wrath and rage; and perhaps it was with some such view, that he would take some prudential step that he might not fall into their hands, that they acquaint him with it.”

“Scandalized. When the Pharisees had received our Lord’s answer, they had nothing to reply. His disciples perceiving their indignation, came and asked Jesus if he observed they were scandalized, i.e. offended. It is probable the disciples were also a little hurt, or afraid lest his words were contrary to the law of Moses or the tradition of the ancients, and took this occasion of having their scruples removed. St. Hilary, St. Chrysostom and Theophylactus understand this answer, Every plant, &c. to signify that every doctrine not proceeding from God, consequently the traditions of the Pharisees here in question, were to be eradicated by the promulgation of the gospel truths, which were not to remain unpublished on account of the scandal some interested or prejudiced persons might choose to take therefrom. (Jansenius) — It must be here observed, that Christ was not the direct cause of scandal to the Jews, for such scandal would not be allowable; he only caused it indirectly, because it was his doctrine, at which, through their own perversity, they took scandal. (Denis the Carthusian)”