# Matthew 15:4



## CubsIn07 (Aug 26, 2007)

15:1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

8 “‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”


How is 15:4 to be applied today, specifically in that Jesus doesn't seem to say that the reviling at the end of 15:4 has ceased as a new age in salvation history has been inaugerated through himself?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 26, 2007)

CubsIn07 said:


> 15:1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
> 
> 8 “‘This people honors me with their lips,
> but their heart is far from me;
> ...



I was thinking about this today. Jesus, being a good Reformed theologian, was supposed to say that "this law testified of my work and it not being in the category moral, is now done away with." But he didn't say that.

I think this law is an application of the 5th commandment, but that is derailing the thread so I will stop there.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 26, 2007)

Bradf... Jacob,
C'mon now. Jesus is answering those folks out of the Law, their Law, out of Moses.

Noting whom a figure is addressing is GH exegesis, as is noting time and place.

I had an interesting chat with a group of (so far as I know) non-theonomist ministers, and one fellow (who I'm *sure *is non-theonomist) was very clear that in his view a modern man could easily be charged with sin, with reference to a case-law, founded upon its general equity. This view seemed the majority opinion after the discussion.

If a society wants to enact so strict a law, as allows for certain cases of parent-abuse to be punished by the ultimate sanction, clearly it cannot be said that law is "immoral", when God himself created such a law for a now defunct society. That is not the same thing as saying that a society must have this law or just such a penalty. Is there general equity in that case? Of course.

I see Jesus taking the 5th commandment (moral) and perhaps its strongest "case" application codified, and says: "Look at you hypocrites. You claim to follow the law, starting at its moral basis, and swear undying allegiance to its most exacting formulae! And what do you actually do? You circumvent the whole thing. God isn't fooled. You disgust the God you profess."


----------

