Wednesday of the 7th week after Pentecost

(cont. Adv. Leg. et Proph. ii. 1.) Christ here clearly shows both that that law which the heretic blasphemes is God's law, and that the Jews had their traditions foreign to the prophetical and canonical books; such as the Apostle calls profane and vain fables.

(cont. Faust. xvi. 24.) The Lord here teaches us many things; That it was not He that turned the Jews from their God; that not only did He not infringe the commandments, but convicts them of infringing them; and that He had ordained no more than those by the hand of Moses.

(V. 3.) But he, answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? He refutes false slander with a true response. For, he says, you disregard the precepts of the Lord for the sake of human tradition, why do you think that my disciples should be accused, because they disregard the commands of the elders, in order to maintain the knowledge of God?

Since ye because of the tradition of men neglect the commandment of God, why do ye take upon you to reprove my disciples, for bestowing little regard upon the precepts of the elders, that they may observe the commands of God?

What then saith Christ? He did not set Himself against it, neither made He any defense, but straightway blames them again, plucking down their confidence, and signifying that he who commits great sins ought not to be strict with others concerning small matters. "What? when you ought to be blamed," saith He, "do ye even blame?"

But do thou observe, how when it is His will to set aside any of the things enjoined by the law, He does it in the form of an apology; and so He did in that case. For by no means doth He proceed at once to transgress it, nor doth He say, "It is nothing;" for surely He would have made them more audacious; but first He clean cuts away their boldness, bringing forward the far heavier charge, and directing it upon their head. And He neither saith, "they do well in transgressing it," lest He should give them a hold on Him; nor doth He speak ill of their proceeding, lest He should confirm the law: nor again, on the other hand, doth He blame the elders, as lawless and unholy men; for doubtless they would have shunned Him as a reviler and injurious: but all these things He gives up, and proceeds another way. And He seems indeed to be rebuking the persons themselves who had come to Him, but He is reprehending them that enacted these laws; nowhere indeed making mention of the elders, but by His charge against the Scribes casting down them also, and signifying that their sin is twofold, first in disobeying God, next in doing so on men's account; as though He had said, "Why this, this hath ruined you, your obeying the elders in all things."

And He said not, "the elders' tradition," but "your own." And, "ye say;" again He said not, "the elders say:" in order to make His speech less galling. That is, because they wanted to prove the disciples transgressors of the law, He signifies that they themselves are doing so, but that these are free from blame. For of course that is not a law, which is enjoined by men (wherefore also He calls it "a tradition"), and especially by men that are transgressors of the law.

The Pharisees were accusing the disciples of transgressing the commandment of the elders, but Christ shows that the Pharisees were transgressing the law of God (See Ex. 20:12; 21:16). For they were teaching sons to give nothing to their parents but to offer whatever they had to the treasury of the temple. There was a coffer in the temple in which he who so wished could put money, and the contents were distributed to the poor. So the Pharisees first persuaded sons not to give anything to their parents but to offer it instead to the treasury of the temple, and then taught them to say, "O my father, the help that you seek from me is a gift, that is, it is offered to God." And then the Pharisees and the sons would divide the money among themselves, and the parents were being left uncared for in their old age. The money lenders had the same practice. For if one of them would lend money to someone who proved to be a bad debtor who did not pay back what was owed, then the money lender would say to the ungrateful debtor, "What you owe me is Corban," that is, a gift offered to God. Then the debtor, as one who was now in debt to God, would pay up although unwillingly. This is what the Pharisees were teaching sons to do.

But he answering, said to them. The Lord does two things: he does not respond by excusing the disciples, but shows that they themselves are not worthy to reprehend them. Above, 7:5: you hypocrite, cast out first the beam from your own eye. It is evident that to transgress the commandment of God is graver than to transgress the traditions of men; and therefore those who transgressed the commandments of God were offending in greater matters. Therefore he first shows them to be transgressors of the law; second, that they transgress the commandment. He says therefore why do you transgress the commandment of God, and do not observe it, for the sake of your tradition? Rom. 10:3: being ignorant of the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves to the justice of God. Isa. 3:8: their tongue and their devices are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his majesty.

(Verse 4 onwards) For God said, 'Honor your father and mother, and whoever curses his father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, Whatever help you would have received from me is given to God,' and does not honor his father or mother, you have made void the commandment of God because of your tradition. Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me' (Exodus 20, Leviticus 20). But they worship me without cause, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. And, calling the multitude to him, he said to them: Hear and understand. Honor in the Scriptures is not only felt in greetings and deference to offices, but also in acts of charity and the offering of gifts (Exodus 20:12, 21 and Leviticus 20). The Apostle says, 'Honor widows who are truly widows' (1 Timothy 5:3); here honor is understood as a gift. And in another place: Elders are to be honored with double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine of God (ibid., 17). And by this command we are commanded not to close the mouth of the ox that is treading out the corn (Deut. XXV) . And may the worker be worthy of his wage (Luke X) . The Lord had commanded, considering the weaknesses, ages, and hardships of parents, that children should honor their parents even in providing for their basic needs. The scribes and Pharisees, desiring to undermine this most provident Law of God and to introduce impiety under the name of piety, taught the worst sons that if anyone wished to vow to God (who is the true Father) those things which are to be offered to parents, the offering of the Lord should take precedence over the gifts of the parents; or certainly, the parents themselves, fearing that they would incur the crime of sacrilege by rejecting what had been consecrated to God, were consumed by poverty. And so it happened that the offering of children, under the pretext of the temple of God, went to the profits of the priests. This wicked tradition of the Pharisees came from another occasion. Many, having debts to pay and unwilling to repay what was owed, entrusted it to the priests, so that the money collected would be used for the services of the temple and their own needs. And this can also be understood briefly. He says, 'You compel the children to say to their parents: whatever gift I was going to offer to God, I consume it as food for you, Father, and it benefits you, Mother, so that they, fearing to receive what seems to be dedicated to God, would rather live in poverty than eat from the consecrated offerings.'

For God hath said, Honour thy father and thy mother. Honour in the Scriptures is shown not so much in salutations and courtesies as in alms and gifts. Honour, (1 Tim. 5:3.) says the Apostle, the widows who are widows indeed; here 'honour' signifies a gift. The Lord then having thought for the infirmity, the age, or the poverty of parents, commanded that sons should honour their parents in providing them with necessaries of life.

And since this had no shade of contrariety to the law, to command men to wash their hands, He brings forward another tradition, which is opposed to the law. And what He saith is like this. "They taught the young, under the garb of piety, to despise their fathers." How, and in what way? "If one of their parents said to his child, Give me this sheep that thou hast, or this calf, or any such thing, they used to say, 'This is a gift to God, whereby thou wouldest be profited by me, and thou canst not have it.' And two evils hence arose: on the one hand they did not bring them to God, on the other they defrauded their parents under the name of the offering, alike insulting their parents for God's sake, and God for their parents' sake."

But He, omitting the first, the reward appointed for them that honor their parents, states that which is more awful, the punishment, I mean, threatened to such as dishonor them; desiring both to dismay them, and to conciliate such as have understanding; and He implies them to be for this worthy of death. For if he who dishonors them in word is punished, much more ye, who do so in deed, and who not only dishonor, but also teach it to others. "Ye then who ought not so much as to live, how find ye fault with the disciples?"

"And what wonder is it, if ye offer such insults to me, who am as yet unknown, when even to the Father ye are found doing the like?" For everywhere He both asserts and implies, that from Him they began with this their arrogance.

But some do also otherwise interpret, "It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;" that is, I owe thee no honor, but it is a free gift from me to thee, if indeed I do honor thee. But Christ would not have mentioned an insult of that sort.

And Mark again makes this plainer, by saying, "It is Corban, by whatsoever thou mightest be profiled by me;" which means, not a gift and present, but properly an offering.

Then when he says for God said etc., he presents what this commandment is, which is about honoring parents. And first he presents the commandment; second, the punishment. Hence he says for God said: honor your father and your mother. And it should 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 in respect, but also to provide necessities. Sir. 2:21: those who fear the Lord will keep his commandments. And that such honor is owed is clear, because Tobias lent to Gabelo what the Lord had commanded him to do. Exodus 20:12 immediately adds the reward: that you may be long-lived upon the land. Likewise, Lev. 20:9 adds the punishment for transgressors: he that curses his father or mother shall die the death. And so in the blessing it is understood not only that you bless with the mouth, but also that you bestow blessing; Prov. 20:20: he that curses his father and mother, his lamp shall be put out in the midst of darkness. But since he placed an incentive from the side of punishment, why did he not place a reward from obedience? Because men are more frightened by punishment than they desire reward; for even a brute is frightened by punishment. From this it follows that if those who detract from father and mother are worthy of death, then those who move others to detract from them are worthy of death; therefore they are not worthy of accusation. Therefore you are not worthy to accuse them.

(Quæst. Ev. i. 16.) Otherwise; The gift whatsoever thou offerest on my account, shall profit thee; that is to say, Whatsoever gift thou offerest on my account, shall henceforth remain with thee; the son signifying by these words that there is no longer need that parents should offer for him, as he is of age to offer for himself. And those who were of age to be able to say thus to their parents, the Pharisees denied that they were guilty, if they did not show honour to their parents.

(ap. Anselm.) In this interpretation the sense will be, What I offer to God will profit both you and myself; and therefore you ought not to take of my goods for your own needs, but to suffer that I offer them to God.

(ap. Anselm.) Or the sense may be, Whosoever, that is, of you young men, shall say, that is, shall either be able to say, or shall say, to his father or mother, O father, the gift that is of me devoted to God, shall it profit thee? as it were an exclamation of surprise; you ought not to take it that you may not incur the guilt of sacrilege. Or, we may read it with this ellipsis, Whosoever shall say to his father, &c. he shall do the commandment of God, or shall fulfil the Law, or shall be worthy of life eternal.

For the Scribes and Pharisees desiring to overturn this foregoing most provident law of God, that they might bring in their impiety under the mask of piety, taught bad sons, that should any desire to devote to God, who is the true parent, those things which ought to be offered to parents, the offering to the Lord should he preferred to the offering them to parents.

Or it may briefly have the following sense; Ye compel children to say to their parents, What gift soever I was purposing to offer to God, you take and consume upon your living, and so it profits you; as much as to say, Do not so.

The scribes were entirely preoccupied with something else. The Lord instead was teaching them to take care of the needs of the body, so long as they were encouraged to cultivate virtue. When the Pharisees observed his disciples unconcerned about washing, they censured him on the grounds that he had not taught them with enough care that it was a matter of utmost importance that they not eat what they had not washed. What reply, then, does the Lord make to this? "Why do you transgress the commandments of God for the sake of your tradition?" Thus he reframes the question into an even graver accusation. They had not only broken God's command but also misused it for mistaken ends. The metaphor shifts: God had commanded that parents be honored by their children. That honor was owed to them to such an extent that whichever of their children sinned stubbornly against them merely by word would be condemned. "But you say, 'If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father. You say that it is up to the children whether to honor their parents or not. You imply that a son says nothing out of bounds to a father when he says, "I will give a thank offering instead of taking care of you, my own father, and no further care is to be taken of you." In this way, by your own peculiar traditions, you yourselves are dishonoring the gifts of almighty God.

But you say etc. Here he touches on how they transgress. And first he shows this; second, he presents the authority. And regarding the first, he shows their custom; second, what followed. He says you say: whoever shall say to his father or mother etc. This is read in many ways. In one way, so that it is a complete construction, and then it reads thus: whoever, i.e., anyone whatsoever, shall say, i.e., shall be able to say. In another way, so that it is an incomplete construction, thus whoever shall say etc., supply: keeps the commandment, and is free from punishment. What does this saying mean? It is explained in three ways. Rabanus said that spiritual good is to be preferred to temporal good; therefore they said to those who had poor parents that they should say to them: father, do not be displeased if I do not give you necessities, because the offering that I make profits you spiritually. But this was not true, according to that saying: the Most High does not approve the gifts of the wicked. And Prov. 28:24: he that steals anything from his father or from his mother and says this is no sin, is the partner of a murderer. Therefore if someone has a father or mother and they cannot live without him, he who would say to them, go overseas, or enter religious life, falls under this condemnation. There is another exposition. Jerome, however, reads it interrogatively, i.e., will it profit you? In Lev. 22:2, it is stated that a stranger could not consume what had been consecrated to the Lord; therefore they would admonish sons who had poor parents to offer things to God. And if the parents wished to be sustained from those things, they would say to them: if you take anything from what I ought to offer to God, will it profit you? No, rather it will be to your condemnation. Augustine explains it thus. The Jews said that children, while they were under the guardianship of their father, were bound to them. Hence when the sons are small, the parents offer for the children, and it profits them; but when they come of age, then the devotion of another does not profit them. Hence they said that everyone who could reach this state and say to his father the gift which proceeds from me shall profit you, was not bound to his father.

(ap. Anselm.) And thus through these arguments of your avarice, this youth shall Honour not his father or his mother. As if He had said; Ye have led sons into most evil deeds; so that it will come to pass that afterwards they shall not even honour their father and mother. And thus ye have made the commandment of God concerning the support of parents by their children vain through your traditions, obeying the dictates of avarice.

And thus the parents refusing what they saw thus dedicated to God, hat they might not incur the guilt of sacrilege, perished of want, and so it came to pass that what the children offered for the needs of the temple and the service of God, went to the gain of the Priests.

But from this teaching two absurdities follow: one against one's neighbor, and another against God. Against one's neighbor, because he who would speak thus, and he who was thus instructed, does not honor his father. Hence Rom. 1:30: inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents. And it follows: those 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 even made void the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition.

Having then signified that they who were trampling on the law could not be justly entitled to blame men for transgressing a command of certain elders, He points out this same thing again from the prophet likewise. Thus, having once laid hold of them severely, He proceeds further: as on every occasion He doth, bringing forward the Scriptures, and so evincing Himself to be in accordance with God.

And what saith the prophet? "This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Seest thou a prophecy in exact accordance with His sayings, and from the very first proclaiming beforehand their wickedness? For what Christ laid to their charge now, of this Isaiah also spake from the very first; that the words of God they despise, "for in vain do they worship me," saith He; but of their own they make much account, "teaching," saith He, "for doctrines the commandments of men." Therefore with reason the disciples keep them not.

I have previously quoted some of the words of Isaiah that precede the verse quoted in the Gospel and some of the words that follow the verse quoted in the Gospel. In this way we may show the way in which the word promises that it will close "the eyes" of those of the people who were "out of their senses" and "drunken" and who had been given to drink a "spirit of stupefaction." The word also promises to "close the eyes both of their prophets and their rulers" who claim to "see the hidden things."I suppose that these very things happened after the Savior had dwelt with these people. For "all the words," the words of the Scriptures in their entirety and also those of Isaiah, became to them "as the words of a sealed book." Now the word sealed was said as if the book was sealed with obscurity and not opened with clarity. The book is unclear to those who right from the start are "not able to read it" simply because "they are illiterate." It is also equally unclear to "those who are literate" because they do not understand the meaning in the things that have been written. Hence the word rightly adds to these things that the people would "fall into unconsciousness" because of their sins and would be "out of their senses" with madness against the word. The word also adds that the people would "be drunk" against it "with a spirit of stupefaction." The Lord would give them this "spirit of stupefaction" to drink when he "closed their eyes," because they were unworthy of seeing. This would happen to the eyes of "both their prophets and their rulers" that claimed to "see the hidden things" of the mysteries in the divine Scriptures. The word says that when all these things had happened and when their eyes had been closed, then the prophetic words would be sealed and concealed from them. This is exactly what the people experienced along with those who did not believe in Jesus as Messiah.

Esaias saw before the hypocrisy of the Jews, that they would craftily oppose the Gospel, and therefore he said in the person of the Lord, This people honoureth me with their lips, &c.

Also, they honoured Him with their lips when they said, Master, we know that thou art true, (Mat. 22:16.) but their heart was far from Him when they sent spies to entangle Him in His talk.

Hypocrite signifies dissembler, one who feigus one thing in his outward act, and bears another thing in his heart. These then are well called hypocrites, because under cover of God's honour they sought to heap up for themselves earthly gain.

Through the voice of the prophet Isaiah (Is. 29:13) Christ shows that the Pharisees and scribes are disposed to Him in the same way that they are to His Father. For they were evil, and by their evil deeds they had distanced themselves from God, and so were speaking the words of God only with their mouth. For it is utterly in vain for those who dishonor God by their deeds to worship Him and to believe that by so doing they honor Him.

You hypocrites. Properly speaking, hypocrites were those who entered the theater and had one character but simulated another with masks. These therefore are hypocrites, who outwardly pretend to be other than what they are within; hence inwardly they sought profit, but outwardly they moved men to offer to God. Job 36:13: dissemblers and crafty men provoke the wrath of God, nor do they cry out when they are bound.

The vitality and recurrent victory of Christendom have been due to the power of the Thing to break out from time to time from its enveloping words and symbols. Without this power all civilisations tend to perish under a load of language and ritual. One instance of this we hear much in modern discussion: the separation of the form from the spirit of religion. But we hear too little of numberless other cases of the same stiffening and falsification; we are far too seldom reminded that just as church-going is not religion, so reading and writing are not knowledge, and voting is not self-government.

(ap. Anselm.) Or, They honoured Him in commending outward purity; but in that they lacked the inward which is the true purity, their heart was far from God, and such honour was of no avail to them; as it follows, But without, reason do they worship we, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.

For the Jewish nation seemed to draw near to God with their lips and mouth, inasmuch as they boasted that they held the worship of the One God; but in their hearts they departed from Him, because after they had seen His signs and miracles, they would neither acknowledge His divinity, nor receive Him.

Well did Isaiah prophesy of you. This is found in Isa. 29:13. First he presents their duplicity; second, the futility of their worship, at but in vain do they worship me. He says therefore this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And this is literally true, because they honored with their lips but in heart were far from God, because they did not receive Christ coming in the name of God. Or thus: this people honors me with their lips etc.; for in saying that a man ought to offer to God, it seems they honor God, but their heart is far, because they did not tend toward the honor of God but toward greed; hence the greater the greed, the less the charity. This is found in Jer. 12:2: you are near in their mouth, but far from their heart.

Therefore they shall not have their reward with the true worshippers, because they teach doctrines and commandments of men to the contempt of the law of God.

But does this pretense profit them? No, because it does not please the Lord; hence there follows but in vain do they worship me. But what does this mean? Fasting 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 referring to what prejudices the commandments of God. Job 32:21: I will not equate man with God. Acts 5:29: we ought to obey God rather than men. Why? Because God cannot be deceived. Isa. 1:13: offer sacrifice no more in vain. From this we understand that a man ought to make more of conscience about transgressing a commandment than about transgressing an ecclesiastical ordinance.

Having, you see, given them their mortal blow; and from the facts first, then from their own suffrage, then from the prophet having aggravated the charge, with them indeed He discourses not at all, incorrigibly disposed as they are now come to be, but directs His speech to the multitudes, so as to introduce His doctrine, great and high, and full of much strictness; and taking occasion from the former topic, He proceeds to insert that which is greater, casting out also the observance of meats.

But see when. When He had cleansed the leper, when He had repealed the Sabbath, when He had shown Himself King of earth and sea, when He had made laws, when He had remitted sins, when He had raised dead men, when He had afforded them many proofs of His Godhead, then He discourses of meats.

For indeed all the religion of the Jews is comprised in this; if thou take this away, thou hast even taken away all. For hereby He signifies, that circumcision too must be abrogated. But of Himself He doth not prominently introduce this (forasmuch as that was older than the other commandments, and had higher estimation), but He enacts it by His disciples. For so great a thing was it, that even the disciples after so long a time being minded to do it away, first practise it, and so put it down.

But see how He introduces His law: how "He called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear and understand."

Thus He doth by no means simply reveal it to them, but by respect and courtesy, first, He makes His saying acceptable (for this the evangelist declares by saying, "He called them unto Him"): and secondly, by the time also; in that after their refutation, and His victory over them, and the accusation by the prophet, then He begins His legislation, when they too would more easily receive His sayings.

And He doth not merely call them unto Him, but also makes them more attentive. For "understand," saith He, that is, "consider, rouse yourselves; for of that sort is the law now about to be enacted. For if they set aside the law, even unseasonably, for their own tradition, and ye hearkened; much more ought ye to hearken unto me, who at the proper season am leading you unto a higher rule of self restraint."

And He did not say, "The observance of meats is nothing, neither that Moses had given wrong injunctions, nor that of condescension He did so;" but in the way of admonition and counsel, and taking His testimony from the nature of the things, He saith: "Not the things that go into the mouth, defile the man, but the things that go out of the mouth;" resorting to nature herself both in His enactment and in His demonstration. Yet they hearing all this, made no reply, neither did they say, "What sayest Thou? When God hath given charges without number concerning the observance of meats, dost thou make such laws?" But since He had utterly stopped their mouths, not by refuting them only, but also by publishing their craft, and exposing what was done by them in secret, and revealing the secrets of their mind; their mouths were stopped, and so they went away.

But mark, I pray thee, how He doth not yet venture distinctly to set Himself with boldness against the meats. Therefore neither did He say "the meats," but, "the things that enter in defile not the man;" which it was natural for them to suspect concerning the unwashen hands also. For He indeed was speaking of meats, but it would be understood of these matters too.

Why, so strong was the feeling of scruple about the meats, that even after the resurrection Peter said, "Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean." For although it was for the sake of others that He said this, and in order to leave Himself a justification against his censurers, by pointing out that he actually remonstrated, and not even so was excused, nevertheless it implies the depth of their impression on that point.

Wherefore you see He Himself also at the beginning spake not openly concerning meats, but, "The things that go into the mouth;" and again, when He had seemed afterwards to speak more plainly, He veiled it by His conclusion, saying, "But to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man:" that He might seem to have had His occasion from thence, and to be still discoursing of the same. Therefore He said not, "To eat meats defileth not a man," but is as though He were speaking on that other topic; that they may have nothing to say against it.

But what reason is there in going to prayer with hands indeed washed, but the spirit foul?-inasmuch as to our hands themselves spiritual purities are necessary, that they may be "lifted up pure" from falsehood, from murder, from cruelty, from poisonings, from idolatry, and all the other blemishes which, conceived by the spirit, are effected by the operation of the hands. These are the true purities; not those which most are superstitiously careful about, taking water at every prayer, even when they are coming from a bath of the whole body.

He no longer converses with the Pharisees, as they were incurable, but with the multitude. Christ sees fit to honor the multitude by calling them to Himself so that they might accept His word, and He says, "Hear and understand," urging them to be attentive. As the Pharisees had blamed the disciples for eating with unwashed hands, the Lord speaks of food, saying that no food defiles a man. And if food does not defile, how much less does eating with unwashed hands? What defiles the inner man is to say those things which he should not. Here He is alluding to the Pharisees who defile themselves by speaking spiteful words. Behold His wisdom, how He neither openly enjoins the eating with unwashed hands, nor forbids it. But He teaches something different, not to spew evil words from the heart.

And having called together the crowds to him, he said to them etc. Above, the Lord showed the Pharisees who were making accusations to be unworthy of reprehending the disciples, because they were involved in greater sins; but now, passing over them, he instructs others, so that what was said above, 11:25, may be fulfilled: you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to little ones. And first he instructs the crowds; second, the disciples, at then the disciples came to him etc. And regarding the first, he does two things. First, he prepares them for hearing; second, he gives his teaching. The second begins at not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man. It should be noted that for hearing someone, attention is required, by which a man is recalled to interior things and gathered within himself. And this he does when he says and having called them together, because it is necessary that we be gathered to him; Ps. 33:6: come to him, and be enlightened. Second, diligence in hearing is necessary; therefore he says hear; Prov. 1:5: the wise man hearing will be wiser. Likewise, understanding is required; hence he says and understand; Ps. 93:8: understand, you senseless among the people; and, you fools, be wise at last.

(cont. Faust. vi. 6.) This declaration of the Lord, Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man, is not contrary to the Old Testament. As the Apostle also speaks, To the pure all things are pure; (Tit. 1:15.) and Every creature of God is good. Let the Manichæans understand, (1 Tim. 4:4.) if they can, that the Apostle said this of the very natures and qualities of things; while that letter (of the ritual law) declared certain animals unclean, not in their nature but typically, for certain figures which were needed for a time. Therefore to take an instance in the swine and the lamb, by nature both are clean, because naturally every creature of God is good; but in a certain typical meaning the lamb is clean, and the swine unclean. Take the two words, 'fool,' and 'wise,' in their own nature, as sounds, or letters, both of them are pure, but one of them because of the meaning attached to it, not because of any thing in its own nature, may be said to be impure. And perhaps what the swine are in typical representation, that among mankind is the fool; and the animal, and this word of two syllables (stultus) signify some one and the same thing. That animal is reckoned unclean in the law because it does not chew the cud; but this is not its fault but its nature. But the men of whom this animal is the emblem, are impure by their own fault, not by nature; they readily hear the words of wisdom, but never think upon them again. Whatever of profit you may hear, to summon this up from the internal region of the memory through the sweetness of recollection into the mouth of thought, what is this but spiritually to chew the cud? They who do not this are represented by this species of animal. Such resemblances as these in speech, or in ceremonies, having figurative signification, profitably and pleasantly move the rational mind; but by the former people, many such things were not only to be heard, but to be kept as precepts. For that was a time when it behoved not in words only, but in deeds, to prophesy those things which hereafter were to be revealed. When these had been revealed through Christ, and in Christ, the burdens of observances were not imposed on the faith of the Gentiles; but the authority of the prophecy was yet confirmed. But I ask of the Manichæans, whether this declaration of the Lord, when He said that a man is not defiled by what enters into his mouth, is true or false? If false, why then does their doctor Adimantus bring it forward against the Old Testament? If true, why contrary to its tenor do they consider that they are thus defiled?

The Lord wanted to show up the uncalledfor offense taken by the scribes and the Pharisees about unwashed hands. So he beckoned the crowd to him and said, "What goes into the mouth does not defile a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, that defiles a man." He explained that a man is defiled not from the food that enters his mouth but from the perverse thoughts of his mind, which proceed from his heart. For the food we receive for eating was created and blessed by God to sustain human life. So, it cannot defile a man. Indeed, wicked and perverse thoughts that proceed from the heart, as the Lord himself noted—"murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, blasphemy," the author of which is the devil—these are the things that really defile a man.

(Verse 11.) It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles a person; but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles a person. The word, properly speaking, is communicated through Scripture and is not worn out in everyday conversation. The Jewish people, boasting to be a part of God, call common foods, which all humans use, 'unclean.' For example, pork, oysters, rabbits, and other animals that do not have split hooves, do not chew the cud, and are not scale-covered in fish. And it is also written in the Acts of the Apostles: 'What God has cleansed, you must not call common' (Acts 10:15). Therefore, that which is commonly available to other people, and is as if it is not from God's side, is called impure. It is not what enters the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth that defiles a person. Let a wise reader oppose and say: If what enters the mouth does not defile a person, then why do we not eat idol-offerings? And the Apostle writes: You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons (1 Corinthians 10:20). Therefore, it must be understood that while food itself, being a creature of God, is clean, it becomes unclean through the invocation of idols and demons.

The word here [communicat] 'makes a man common' is peculiar to Scripture, and is not hackneyed in common parlance. The Jewish nation, boasting themselves to be a part of God, call those meats common, of which all men partake; for example, swine's flesh, shell fish, hares, and those species of animals that do not divide the hoof, and chew the cud, and among the fish such as have not scales. Hence in the Acts of the Apostles we read, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. (Acts 10:15.) Common then in this sense is that which is free to the rest of mankind, and as though not in part of God, is therefore called unclean.

The thoughtful reader may here object and say, If that which entereth into the mouth defileth not a man, why do we not feed on meats offered to idols? Be it known then that meats and every creature of God is in itself clean; but the invocation of idols and dæmons makes them unclean with those at least who with conscience of the idol eat that which is offered to idols, and their conscience being weak is polluted, as the Apostle says.

Now anyone who has come to this place in the text can agree that it is "not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man," even if it is considered to be defiling by Jews. In exactly the same way it is "not what enters into the mouth" that makes the person holy. This is so even if that which is called the bread of the Lord is considered to make the person holy by some of the more impeccable disciples. The two cases are similar. It is not the food but the conscience of the one who eats with doubt about its propriety that defiles the person who has eaten. For "the one who doubts is condemned if one eats, because one is not eating from faith." It is also like the case in which "nothing is pure to the one who is defiled and unbelieving." The thing involved is impure not because of itself but because of the person's defilement and unbelief. In the same way, that which is "made holy through the word of God and prayer" does not on its own account make the one who uses it holy. For if it did, it would also make holy the one who eats of the Lord "in an unworthy manner" and no one would become "weak" or "sickly" or would "sleep" because of this food. For this is what Paul showed in the statement, "Because of this many among you are weak and sickly and a significant number are falling asleep." Therefore, in the case of the bread of the Lord, the one who uses it derives benefit when one shares in the bread with a mind that is undefiled and a conscience that is pure.

We are accused by the Jews and Ebionites of being violators of the laws that we read in Leviticus and Deuteronomy concerning clean and unclean food. But by means of what is said in this passage we are clearly taught by the Savior not to think that the simple meaning of these laws is the aim intended in the Scripture. For Jesus says, "Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a person but that which comes out of the mouth." Especially significant is what is said in the Gospel of Mark: "Thus he declared all foods clean." Since all this is so, it is obvious that we are not defiled when we eat things that are said to be unclean by Jews, who want to serve the letter of the law. Instead, we are defiled when we say whatever happens to be on our mind and we talk about things that we should not talk about, even though our lips should be bound "with perception" and we should make for them "a measuring balance and a standard of measure." The spring of sins comes to us from such talking.

When he wisheth to eat everything, and not to restrain himself by forbearance from any meat, he beginneth to repeat that which was written by our Lord, "It is not that which goeth into a man which defileth him;" for his ear is only pierced to hear such things as can be thought to support his lust, and in the face of the hearing of other things he shutteth the door of his attention. For he is not willing to hearken unto the other verse which saith, "Whosoever wisheth to be My disciple, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me;" nor unto the other which saith, "Whosoever wisheth to make his life to live shall destroy it," nor that which He spake unto His disciples, saying, "In the world ye shall have tribulations;" nor the words, "When the Bridegroom shall be taken from the children of the bridechamber, then shall ye fast." And therefore he would remember the passage concerning the eating of our Lord, where it is written of Him that, "He made the festival, and ate the passover;" or where it is said that, "They set before Him a piece of broiled fish and a piece of honeycomb;" or where again it is written, "They had fishes and bread." And these and such like things doth the glutton bring forward as proofs when he wisheth to eat everything freely, and the rule of the freedom of Christ, Who like God was above laws and commandments, doth he set forth to be a stumbling-block to his life, and he understandeth not the reason of that rule and conduct, and he perceiveth not that other types were inscribed therein. And again, when the Apostle Paul is read, and he heareth from him, "Everything which was created by God is holy, and nothing is to be rejected if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer;" or another verse, "The belly for meats, and meats for the belly;" or that also which he spake, "Let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth." And in the other things like unto these which are written in the doctrine of Paul, the fool rejoiceth, and receiveth them gladly, without understanding the reason of the words.

But if any one's faith be so strong that he understands that God's creature can in no way be defiled, let him eat what he will, after the food has been hallowed by the word of God and of prayer; yet so that this his liberty be not made an offence to the weak, as the Apostle speaks.

Meantime they huff in our teeth the fact that Isaiah withal has authoritatively declared, "Not such a fast hath the Lord elected," that is, not abstinence from food, but the works of righteousness, which he there appends: and that the Lord Himself in the Gospel has given a compendious answer to every kind of scrupulousness in regard to food; "that not by such things as are introduced into the mouth is a man defiled, but by such as are produced out of the mouth; " while Himself withal was wont to eat and drink till He made Himself noted thus; "Behold, a gormandizer and a drinker: " (finally), that so, too, does the apostle teach that "food commendeth us not to God; since we neither abound if we eat, nor lack if we eat not.

Consequently he proposes the most exalted teaching, which is the perfection of the moral life. Hence it should be noted that something is changed by an external thing, as water is heated by fire; and something is changed by an internal thing, as a man is changed by sin. However much a man may be moved externally, it is not sin unless the man consents interiorly; Job 37:9: from the interior comes the tempest. Hence first he shows that defilement is not from external things; second, that it is from the interior. He says therefore not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man. Against this, one may object from the old law; for in Lev. 11 many foods are forbidden, and men were made unclean by them. Augustine responds, against Faustus, saying that something is called unclean in two ways. In one way, according to its own nature; and in this way nothing is unclean, according to 1 Tim. 4:4: every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving. Likewise, something can be unclean according to its signification. And thus some thing can be a sign of uncleanness or of cleanness: for if we take the pig and the lamb in their nature, each is good; yet in their signification the pig signifies uncleanness, the lamb innocence; therefore as regards signification, one is clean, the other unclean. And because before the coming of Christ it was a time in which they lived under figures, since the truth was not yet manifest, those observances had to be kept and fell under precept. But because at the coming of Christ the truth was made manifest, the figure ceased; etc. But again another question remains, because in Acts 15:20 the apostles commanded that those converted should abstain from things strangled and from blood. Therefore it seems that while the truth endures, those observances should be maintained. 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, Titus 1:15: all things are clean to the clean. Some said that this is to be understood partly literally, partly morally: for what is said about fornication, that they prohibited literally; but what is said about blood, this is to be understood as meaning that innocent blood should not be shed; and what is said about things strangled, it was to be understood so that no one should inflict injury on another. But it should not be understood in this way, although the exposition may be true. For the question was whether converted Gentiles were bound to those things which the apostles prohibited. Therefore it must be understood according to what was customary for the Jews. Therefore it should be said otherwise, that the apostles considered something and prohibited it either because it was unlawful in itself, or because it was an occasion of scandal; hence they prohibited fornication as unlawful; but blood, lest they give scandal to others, so that scandal might be removed. And this is what the words of the Apostle convey, 1 Cor. 8:9: but take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumbling block to the weak. Likewise, if one objects: suppose someone in Lent eats meat; is he not defiled? It must be said that he is defiled not from the food, but from the violation of the precept; Rom. 14:17: the kingdom of God is not meat and drink. But the things which proceed out of the mouth, these defile a man. Here he seems to touch only on sins which proceed from the mouth, and these defile; Luke 19:22: out of your own mouth I judge you, you wicked servant. And above, 7:2: out of your own mouth you shall be judged. But it must be said that the proper function of the mouth is to speak. Now there is a twofold speaking: outwardly with the bodily mouth, and inwardly with the mouth of the mind, of which Ps. 13:1 says: the fool said in his heart: there is no God. Thus therefore by the 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 a purpose of the mind. Thus therefore what proceeds from the mouth, namely of the heart, this defiles, because sin is so voluntary that if it is not voluntary, it is not sin.