Gospel according to Saint Matthew, commented on verse by verse

Chapter 15

Mt15, 1-20. Parallel. Mark. 7, 1-23.

Mt15.¹ Then some scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem came to Jesus and said to him: Verses 1 and 2 indicate the occasion for this new conflict. SO According to the context, the incident that St. Matthew recounts would have taken place in the plain of Gennesaret, shortly after Jesus' miraculous walking on water. However, if we compare the first Gospel with the fourth, it becomes more likely that a considerable amount of time elapsed between the two episodes. We place the second after the discourse delivered in Capernaum and even after the Passover mentioned in St. John 6:2. We know that the expression SO In St. Matthew's narrative, "is often" a general formula intended to unite events between which there has not always been a true chronological connection. Scribes and Pharisees who came from Jerusalem. The Savior's adversaries would therefore have come expressly from Jerusalem to study his conduct, in order to accuse and condemn him as soon as they found the opportunity. Let us not forget that the Pharisee party had resolved to get rid of Jesus as quickly as possible (cf. 12:14). The members of the sect were scattered throughout Palestine; but those in Jerusalem had a generally recognized superiority over the others: they were superior in authority and social status. The Pharisees of Galilee, recognizing their inability to fight against Jesus, who had repeatedly defeated and humiliated them, turned to their brethren in the capital: hence this delegation that is now approaching the Savior to attack him.

Mt15.² «Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? Because they do not wash their hands when they eat.» – Why your disciples… As in several similar circumstances (cf. 9:14; 12:2), it is the conduct of the disciples that is highlighted by these cunning enemies. They naturally imply that the Master is responsible: thus, it is Jesus himself whom they accuse by this indirect means. The tradition of the elders. This was the name given to a code of countless prescriptions added by the doctors to those of the law and transmitted from generation to generation through oral teaching. Their Hebrew names were words of the Scribes, or tradition, oral law. Traditions have always played an important role in revealed religion, and they are even necessary to complement the Holy Scriptures; but the Jews at that time were abusing them considerably. A multitude of so-called traditional interpretations had developed within their schools, acquiring surprising importance and authority. Most were practical; consequently, they had excessively burdened religious life, rendering it entirely external, at the expense of true piety. A great many of them are found in the Talmud. St. Paul alludes to these traditions when he writes to the Galatians that before his conversion He defended the traditions of his fathers with jealous fervor., Galatians 1:14. From several exaggerated or misunderstood passages of the Pentateuch, it was concluded that traditions enjoyed a value equal to or even greater than that of the law (cf. Deuteronomy 4:14; 17:10). Hence the sacrilegious maxims that abound in rabbinic books: «The words of the ancients carry more weight than those of the prophets. The words of the scribes are to be cherished more than the words of the law» (Berakoth, f. 3, 2). «The Bible is like water, the words of the ancients like wine» (Zeph. 13:2; cf. Rohling, der Talmudjude, A. 3; etc.). The expression «ancients» represents the ancient teachers who had formed or transmitted the traditions (cf. Hebrews 11:2). It is known that in such matters, antiquity has considerable value. The Pharisees also emphasize this word: the tradition of the ancients. Because they do not wash their hands. They now mention the specific point that was so boldly trampled underfoot by the Apostles. To fully grasp the scope of the accusation, it is necessary to know that, among the human precepts mentioned above, those concerning the washing of hands held extraordinary importance in the eyes of the Pharisees. A prodigious system had been constructed around a particular commandment in the Pentateuch, Leviticus 16:11, which, according to the calculations of a patient Talmudic scholar, comprised no fewer than 613 ordinances (cf. M'Caul, Nethivoth Olam § 10). Several facts will demonstrate the rigor with which this system was observed in practice. A rabbi named Eleazar, having neglected the washing of his hands, was excommunicated by the Sanhedrin, and after his death, they even went so far as to place a large stone on his coffin to show that he had deserved the punishment of stoning; Bab. Berach. 46, 2. «Even if one only has enough water to refresh oneself, one must keep some for washing one’s hands,» Hilch. Berach. 6, 19. Thus, R. Akiva, plunged into a dark prison Having only enough water to sustain his life, he preferred to die of thirst rather than violate tradition. According to the Talmud, there are demons whose function is to harm anyone who is not faithful to the ritual washing of hands. "The demon Shibta rests upon the hands of men during the night; and if a person touches their food with unwashed hands, then the demon rests upon their food and renders it dangerous," Bab. Taanith f. 20, 2. The Talmudic tractate, On Hands, is entirely devoted to this curious subject: it discusses "the quantity of water sufficient for this washing, the washing of the hands, the immersion, the first and second washings, the type of washing, the time, the order to be observed when the number of guests exceeds or does not exceed five," etc. People were urged not to be sparing with water because, as one rabbi said, "He who uses a lot of water for washing his hands will obtain much wealth in this world." When they eat bread. Bread is used for all kinds of food, in accordance with Hebrew tradition. It was especially before meals, or rather before eating any food whatsoever, that one was obliged to wash one's hands; but it was also required in a thousand other circumstances. We see, from this accusation by the Scribes and Pharisees, that the Apostles took a certain liberty regarding the washing of hands: they had seen their Master sometimes dispense with it (cf. Luke 11:37-38), and when they had some reason, for example, when they were in a hurry, they did not hesitate to do as he did. Their conduct was quickly discovered by the Pharisees, who now consider it a terrible transgression: does not the Talmud affirm that eating without having washed one's hands constitutes a greater sin than fornication? (cf. Sotah 4:2).

Mt15.³ He answered them, «And why do you transgress God’s commandment by your tradition?” – He answered them. To the Pharisees' question, Jesus initially gives only an indirect answer (vv. 3-9), contained within a vigorous argument intended to confound his opponents by confronting them with their own actions. Without addressing what his disciples have or have not done, he responds to the Scribes' accusation with another accusation. And you ; That is to say, "you too, yourselves." They, in turn, are now in the dock, but for a far more serious reason. Violate God's commandment. The Apostles, according to the Pharisees, had violated a human tradition. But they habitually transgressed the commandments of God himself. What a grievance from men who were the very defenders of divine law! Because of your tradition. With these words, Jesus establishes an open opposition between the commandments of the Lord and those of the Pharisees. Not only does the hypocritical sect violate the Torah, but it does so in the interest of its traditions. The Pharisaic traditions are therefore irreligious and immoral; and yet the Apostles are accused of not always having observed them? How forcefully is this accusation refuted! For God has said. The Savior proves by example, vv. 4-6, the truth of what he has just said.

Mt15.⁴ For God said: Honor your father and your mother, and: Whoever curses his father or his mother, let him be put to death.–HonoredThe fourth commandment, which links the commandments of the second tablet to those of the first, is of fundamental importance among the divine commandments: this is why Jesus chooses it above all others to argue against the Pharisees. He quotes two of God's sayings that formulate it. The first is taken from the text of the Decalogue itself. Exodus 2012; it encompasses all the duties of children towards their parents, consequently that of assisting them in their temporal needs, for the verb "to honor" certainly has this meaning in the Holy Scriptures (cf. 1 Tim. 5:3, 17). "Honor in Scripture is found not so much in greetings and positions as in almsgiving and the offering of gifts," St. Jerome: The one who will curseThis second quote is taken from the Exodus, 21, 17, contains a "all the more so" argument; for if a single guilty word spoken by a wicked son against his parents results in a death sentence, what will it be like to completely abandon them in their needs? – Punished by death, from the Hebrew: "that he may die by being killed". Orientals often repeat the verb in this way to reinforce the idea.

Mt15.⁵ But you say: “Whoever says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help I might have otherwise given you, I have given to him,’”, – But you, as opposed to "God said" in verse 3. Whoever has said.... Origen admitted that he would never have been able to understand this passage if a Jew had not clarified it for him. Indeed, knowledge of the Hebrew customs of that time is absolutely necessary to explain the following formula, uttered by wayward sons who wanted to evade the obligation to help their parents. Any donation, etc. Instead of "gift," Mark 7:11 uses the technical term "Corban" (from "to approach," "to offer"), which designated not just any present, but a religious offering made to God or the temple. Once the simple word had been uttered Corban Whether it be property, a sum of money, or any object whatsoever, these things were thereby irrevocably consecrated to God. Cf. Josephus, Against the Apprentices 1:22. A kind of interdict existed over them with respect to any person other than the recipient. You will benefit. You will share in the graces and blessings that my offering will bring upon our entire family; therefore, consider yourselves satisfied, for it is now impossible for me to relieve you. The sentence remains suspended at the end of the verse, as if Jesus did not want to pronounce the barbarous condition permitted by Pharisaic principles: "will be obliged to nothing." Whoever has said to his father or mother: "Whatever I offer to the Lord will benefit you," will have fulfilled his obligations toward them, and he will not be bound to come to their aid. All my possessions, with which I could help you, belong to Corban; I have promised them to God, so it is impossible for me to do anything for you (cf. St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 51 in Matthew). This interpretation seems required by the Hebrew formula of Corban's vow. Because it was providentially preserved in the Talmud, where it frequently appears, it is Corban, people said; it is offered to God, that with which I could be of use to you. Or again: Let it be Corban…, for the optative translation is also permitted; it even dramatizes the situation by showing us a barbaric son who, at the moment when his needy parents implore help, cries out to escape their importunate entreaties: «Corban.» «When they realized that things had been consecrated to God, the parents, rather than incur the name of sacrilege, rejected them without hesitation, preferring to remain in poverty,» Saint Jerome. This word produced a magical effect, for it allowed the heartless child to selfishly enjoy all his possessions, under the pretext that, having consecrated them to God, he could no longer alienate them. According to the Vulgate, the words will benefit you This means: I have given to God all that I possess, but you will derive a spiritual benefit from it. (Fillion commentary 1903). «No one disputes that the one who speaks thus is surrendering his possessions to sacred uses. But according to the doctrine of the scribes, he has not committed himself to consecrating them. He would only have obligated himself to help with his resources the person to whom he said these things.» Thus, it was not only unnatural sons, but also unscrupulous debtors, who resorted to such a convenient means of evading the most sacred obligations: the Jew who interpreted this passage for Origen frankly confessed to him the shameful advantages that his compatriots knew how to derive from the Corban.

Mt15.⁶ He does not need to honor his father or mother in any other way. And thus you nullify God's commandment by your tradition. – Does not need to honor, That is, to help his parents, under the pretext that he will have dedicated all his surplus to the Lord. «You say: Whoever says to his father or mother, »Corban,« all that I could do for you, is not obligated to honor his father or mother.» Examples of such filial cruelty are by no means imaginary, as is easily seen in the Talmud, Tractate Nedarim, 5:6; 8.1. The case had been foreseen by the Rabbis, who had resolved it in the manner indicated by Our Lord. «A man is bound by the Corban,» they replied without pity. It is true that several of them, notably Rabbi Eliezer, openly protested against the decisions of the majority and placed filial obligations above the Corban or any other similar vow; but their isolated voices had no authority. Cf. Wettstein, Schoettgen, hl. It is also true that the Talmudic writings contain beautiful recommendations concerning filial piety, such as these: «The son is obligated to feed his father, give him drink, clothe him, house him, take him here and there, and wash his face, hands, and feet,» Tosaphta in Kiddusch, ch. 1; “The son is obligated to feed his father, and even to beg for him,” Kidd. f. 61, 2, 3; but these prescriptions were reduced to the state of falsehoods by the dreadful tradition against which Jesus so vehemently denounces. The Savior is therefore quite right to add: You cancelled…He no longer says, as before, in verse 3: You transgress, you violate; but, what is much stronger: You have annihilated, annulled. The example he had just cited allowed him to draw this new conclusion. Had they not, by their tradition, reduced to nothing the fourth commandment of God? It could have been proven that the same was true for several other, most serious commandments. Your tradition. The Pharisees had put forward "the tradition of the elders": Jesus affects to repeat that it is their tradition, Cf. v. 3; it therefore does not have the glorious past, nor the divine origin that they would like to attribute to it by this imposing title. 

Mt15.⁷ Hypocrites, Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: – True to form, Jesus Christ confirms his own reasoning with the authority of the Holy Scriptures, vv. 7-9. He first hurls at the Pharisees the certainly outrageous, but well-deserved, epithet of hypocrites. While overturning God's Law, did they not pretend to be its most zealous observers? Prophesied correctly Here, as everywhere else, we take the verb "to prophesy" in its strict sense. Undoubtedly, in writing the words quoted by Jesus, Isaiah 29:13 only intended to characterize the religious state of his contemporaries and the imperfection of their relationship with God; but the features of his description also applied, in the intention of the Holy Spirit, to the time of the Messiah, which was to see them fulfilled a second time and more completely. Thus, there was the typical and imperfect fulfillment in the time of the Prophet, and the real, perfect fulfillment in the time of Christ. Indeed, it is certain, according to the very accurate thought of Grotius, that "A prophecy can be fulfilled several times, so that it is appropriate to this time and to a distant time, not only by its effect but also by the divine meaning of the words." We cannot, therefore, admit here a mere accommodation. Jesus states very explicitly that Isaiah's prediction concerned the Pharisees themselves., of you… «Isaiah predicted the corruption of this people long before. For he had long before made the same reproach to the Jews that Jesus Christ makes to them here: «You violate the commandments of God,» Jesus Christ tells them: «They honor me in vain,» the Prophet had said: »You follow,’ says Jesus Christ, ‘your own maxims in preference to the laws of God: They publish,’ says the Prophet, ‘human maxims and ordinances,’” St. John Chrysostom, Homilies 51 in Matthew.

Mt15.⁸ «These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”. – This people, of the Hebrews. God usually said: My people, but this people is such that it no longer wants him, that it denies him in a way: so he speaks of them as a foreign nation. – Honors me with her lips A cult of the lips is a purely external cult, devoid of any fundamental or intimate meaning, whose sole purpose is to perform mere formalities, more or less faithfully, in public. But his heart.. To this worship, which he regards as an insult, God opposes the religion of the heart, which is the only true one, the only perfect one, the only one worthy of God and of man.

He who gives himself gives all; ;

He who withholds his heart gives nothing away.

Jesus' contemporaries, like those of Isaiah, despite their long prayers, their many sacrifices, their endless observances, were in reality very far from the Lord, because human commandments and human doctrines never go beyond the foot or the hand, while God wants the heart of his people.

Mt15.⁹ "It is in vain that they honor me, giving precepts that are merely commandments from men."» – A pointless cult. Ein vain, without profit, SO useless. It is entirely in vain that they serve me: their worship being null and void, corrupted at its source, all the effort they expend is wasted. Several exegetes (Arnoldi, etc.) translate this, however, as "without reason": they have no motive to serve me as they do, since I have asked nothing of the sort of thing of them. But this interpretation is less natural than the first. Teacher of doctrines. Jewish theology, as we have sufficiently indicated, was then reduced to a code of numerous human precepts. Rabbi so-and-so said this, Rabbi so-and-so said that: such is its faithful summary, the details of which fill the large volumes of the Talmud. Dogma itself had, so to speak, been transformed into morality in the hands of the casuists who were then the great masters in Israel.

Mt15.¹⁰ Then, having brought the crowd closer, he said to them, «Listen and understand. – Having brought near…Jesus abruptly broke off his conversation with the Pharisees and the Scribes. He had proven them wrong, confounded their pride, and taught them the true way to please God; that was enough. He had nothing more to say to these incorrigible and dishonest adversaries. But he turned kindly to the people surrounding him, who, out of respect for their teachers, had kept some distance during the discussion. He wanted to warn the crowd against Pharisaic theories, to enlighten them on a point of extreme gravity that the theologians of that time had obscured and even completely distorted, since, instead of true holiness, they were now teaching only a nominal, external perfection. Listen and understand. The Savior thus arouses the attention of his popular audience; for what he is about to say is both important and difficult to understand.

Mt15.¹¹ It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this is what defiles a person.» – That's not what comes in…To purely legal impurity, Jesus opposes the great principle of true pollution, the pollution of souls, indicating what defiles man and what does not. He begins with the negative aspect. It is not, he says, what enters the mouth that is capable of making a man impure; then, moving to the positive aspect, he adds: What comes out of the mouth, that is what can defile a man. By this bold antithesis, Jesus thus moves all at once to the heart of the question that had been the subject of the previous controversy. Your disciples, Lord, eat without washing their hands beforehand; by doing so, they contract defilement. What does it matter? the Savior replies, since impurity comes from within and not from without. Two things are worth noting here. 1. The word mouth is taken in a double sense, for it designates first the mouth insofar as it receives and prepares food for the stomach; then the mouth insofar as it utters the thoughts communicated to it by the heart. It is therefore, in turn, if we may speak so, the physical mouth and the moral mouth. It is understandable that only the latter can have an influence on the morality of human actions. – This distinction established by Jesus reminds us of a beautiful saying of the Jew Philo: «The mouth,» he says, “through which, according to Plato, mortal things enter, while immortal things depart. For it is through the mouth that food and drink enter, but it is through the mouth that words depart, the immortal laws of the immortal soul by which the life of reason is directed,” Opif. Mundi, 1, 29. – 2° The verb soil must be understood exclusively as a spiritual and inner defilement, which could never be produced by food, even if it were brought to the mouth by unwashed hands. Indeed, in itself and independently of circumstances of disobedience to divine laws, intemperance, etc., food is a completely indifferent thing for man: it can neither sanctify him nor render him impure. The same is not true of evil words which, when they escape from the heart, like a treasure trove filled with filth (cf. 23:35), deeply defile the one who utters them. The thought, reduced to its simplest expression, could be expressed thus: It is in man properly speaking, in the inner man, that we must seek the reason for holiness or malice. – It is not necessary to add that the words what comes out of the mouth should not be taken absolutely, but figuratively, to represent the evil words that escape from the heart through the mouth. – It has sometimes been asked whether, by speaking in such a way, Jesus was not simply abrogating all the Mosaic laws relating to purity and impurity, and several exegetes have believed they could answer in the affirmative; but this, we believe, is an exaggeration. It is more accurate to say that Jesus Christ was merely preparing the way for the future abrogation, or rather the successive transformation, of the Law. We have as guarantees for our assertion not only the existence of ceremonial prescriptions at a fairly advanced stage of the apostolic preaching, cf. Acts of the Apostles 15, v.20, v.29, but also the very terms used by Our Lord Jesus Christ. He does not say: No food defiles, but: What goes into the mouth; as if he feared going too far (cf. St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 51). “Christ therefore says nothing here against the law that established a distinction between foods. For the time had not yet come. But he does so indirectly. By teaching that nothing is impure by nature, he went against what the Pharisees thought, and thus implied that this law was not immutable,” Grotius.

Mt15.¹² Then his disciples came to him and said, «Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?» – Coming to him. Jesus simply addresses this profound message to the people, leaving it to each individual to interpret it and apply it to their own conduct. He then enters a house with his disciples (see Mark 7:17), and the conversation continues with them alone, in a small group. The Apostles have two questions to ask their Master: one concerns him directly, and it is to this question that they delicately give priority; the other, with which they conclude, concerns them personally. Do you know They have no doubt that he already knows what they have to tell him, for they have often noticed that he knows the most hidden things; nevertheless, they feel compelled to warn him, for they believe it is in his best interests. Upon hearing this word The words of verse 11 that Jesus had just addressed to the people, and which the Pharisees, who had remained nearby, had heard and understood. According to some authors, "these words" would refer to verses 2-9: but this is unlikely, because the Pharisees could not have been surprised or scandalized by what the Savior had said to them directly, although they were probably hurt by it. They are outraged ; They had manifested their state of scandal through their gestures, their murmurings, their entire demeanor, and that is how the Apostles learned of it. The scandal of Jesus' enemies consisted in their belief that they perceived in his words a reversal of the Law, or at the very least a dangerous spiritualism. Since Our Lord had said absolutely nothing that could be the subject of the slightest scandal, hence the epithet of Pharisee to characterize the "scandal received but not given." But the Pharisees were looking for scandal, and whoever seeks it easily finds it. – By thus warning their Master, the disciples certainly demonstrate natural, human zeal, since they seem to fear that Jesus may have acted imprudently and provided his adversaries with weapons against him.

Mt15.¹³ He replied, «Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up.”. – He replied. The Savior reassures his Apostles by means of two very powerful images, one drawn from the plant kingdom, the other from human life, from which it follows that there is nothing to fear from the Pharisees, since they are destined for imminent ruin. It has been questioned whether this expression designates the Pharisees personally, or their doctrines, and exegetes have not failed to quarrel on this point, despite its minor importance. It is, in fact, only a matter of words. It seems to us that Jesus had no intention whatsoever of separating people from their doctrines, since it was their association that formed the Pharisaic party. The planting thus represents both the sect and its system. It is a thoroughly biblical image (cf. Psalm 1; Isaiah 5:7; 60:21, etc.). Didn't plant… Among the plants in a garden, some are planted by the gardener himself; others grow of their own accord, and these are mostly bad, or at least they clutter and hinder the former: the careful gardener soon pulls them up. Likewise, among the spiritual plants that grow in the garden of souls, some are good, lovingly cultivated by the hand of the Heavenly Father; some are bad, which He uproots, and the Pharisees will be among these. The Forerunner, addressing these same men, had already compared them to barren trees at whose feet lay the axe ready to cut them down (cf. 3:10). On the other hand, St. Ignatius Martyr, writing to the Christians of Tralles, c. 9, addressed them with the following exhortation, which contains a clear allusion to our verse: «Flee from the evil shoots (the heretics); the fruits they bear bring death, and whoever eats of them will perish. For this is not a planting of the Father.».

Mt15.¹⁴ Leave them; they are blind men leading blind men. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.» – Leave them…There is no need to worry about the Pharisees. What is there to fear from men like weeds that will soon be pulled up? What is there to fear from poor blind men who throw themselves into the ditch and perish miserably? This is the second image, which hardly needs commentary. It essentially expresses the same idea as the first; however, it adds an important detail to the picture, for it shows us those who will go en masse to their ruin for having imprudently entrusted themselves to perverse guides. They are blind From a spiritual point of view and with regard to divine matters, they demonstrated this all too clearly. Who drive blind people. The assessment that had just been made of the Pharisees—that they are blind—was far from good; this one is even worse. Indeed, if it is an immense misfortune to be blind, especially in a moral sense, it is a much greater one to be so when one is charged by duty, by function, with leading other men: what can be said of the present case, in which both the guides and the people to be led were likewise deprived of sight? If a blind man..Jesus describes in a few words the tragic, inevitable outcome of such a state of affairs. When a blind man is reckless enough to want to lead another blind man; when a blind man is foolish enough to accept guidance from one of his fellow men, the final catastrophe is easy to foresee. They will both fall. Such will be the fate of those who follow the Pharisees. – The second half of the verse is proverbial. Similar expressions are found in classical literature, for example: "It is as if a blind man could show the way," Horace; etc.

Mt15.¹⁵ Peter, speaking up, said to him, "Explain this parable to us."« – Pierre, speaking. Satisfied on this point, the Apostles posed a second question to Jesus; they did so through St. Peter, their usual intermediary. Cf. Mark 7:17. On the particular use of the verb speak, See 9, 25 and the commentary. Explain it to us, See 8, 3. – This parable. Saint Peter here takes the word parable in the broad and general sense of the Hebrew, to designate, according to the very accurate interpretation of Euthymius, an enigmatic saying, a kind of aphorism, as the answer in v. 11 proves; the two images that Jesus had more recently presented to his Apostles, v. 13 and 14, were clear in themselves and required no explanation.

Mt15.¹⁶ Jesus answered, «Are you also still without understanding?” – Jesus answered. Upon hearing this request, Jesus let out an exclamation of surprise. Are you still. Even you, who should understand better than anyone. Still. After all the explanations I've already given you, after the many days you've spent with me. Without intelligence. This slowness of spiritual intelligence on the part of his closest disciples deeply grieved the divine Master: nevertheless, with his usual kindness, he gave the requested interpretation, using at the same time a bold simplicity which made his language as clear as it was expressive.

Mt15.¹⁷ Don't you understand that everything that goes into the mouth goes to the stomach, and is expelled to the secret place? – Everything that enters… Jesus explains the first half of verse 11 by describing what happens to food once it passes from the mouth into the stomach. After the nutrients have been absorbed, what remains goes into the stomach, «without entering into his heart,» adds St. Mark, 7:19; then is thrown away. How then could man be defiled by objects that have nothing in common with him, that are not part of his moral being? As we see, in the phenomenon of digestion, the Savior only considers the aspect most favorable to his thesis, without addressing the other points. Moreover, the nutrients absorbed by man remain themselves foreign to his spiritual and moral being: they only affect his physical body. The comparison therefore remains valid in every respect.

Mt15.¹⁸ But what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and this is what defiles a person. – In this verse and the following one, the second half of verse 11 is explained in turn. But what comes out. Note that Jesus did not say "everything that comes out," because not everything uttered by the mouth makes a person impure: only evil things produce this disastrous result. It comes from the heart. Great thoughts come from the heart; ignoble thoughts also spring from it, and when these thoughts find expression on our lips, it is not the mouth that should be praised or condemned, but the inner fire that gave them life. Since the heart is the essence of man according to biblical psychology, it is easy to understand that the evil that proceeds from it truly profanes and degrades his moral life.

Mt15.¹⁹ For it is out of the heart that evil thoughts come, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimony, abusive speech. – Because it comes from the heart. A sad list, which serves as a development of the first part of the preceding verse, «that… come.» In this enumeration, one is initially surprised to encounter actual acts, while Jesus» argument would seem to require mention of words; but, says Maldonat: He says that it is not only words that proceed from the mouth, although they are the ones that come out of it most of all, but even deeds and all actions. For all works are first conceived in the heart. They can only come out of the mouth, which is the only way out of the heart. And because everything respects the way in which we are naturally made, namely that everything we do must be conceived in the soul, then spoken by the mouth, and thus we arrive at the end. This is how works proceed from the mouth through words,” Comm. in Matth., 15, 18. This is the reason why we read here the names of homicide, adultery, fornication and theft.

Mt15.²⁰ "That is what defiles a person, but eating without washing one's hands does not defile a person."» – The Savior's entire argument rests on the difference between the stomach and the heart. These two organs are centers of life; but while the former functions independently of man, the latter is the seat of his will, of his freedom. The morality of our actions, therefore, depends on the heart and the heart alone. This is why Our Lord, returning to the starting point and to the question posed to him by the Scribes (v. 2), concludes by saying: Eating without washing…If one neglects to wash one's hands before eating, one may indeed defile the food one eats; but since this food cannot render a person truly impure, as has been proven above, verse 17, it follows that the ablutions so strictly prescribed by the Pharisees are merely a completely insignificant rite. The Apostles could neglect them without committing any sin.

Matthew 15:21-28. Healing of the Canaanite woman's daughter. Parallel to Mark 7:24-30.

Mt15.²¹ Jesus left that place and withdrew to the direction of Tyre and Sidon. – Having left from there ; That is to say, from the place where he was at the time of the episode just recounted. The last topographical note in St. Matthew, 14:34, had shown us the Savior in the plain of Gennesaret; but we said, in explaining the first verse of chapter 15, that Jesus had since gone to Capernaum. He withdrew. This word seems to have been deliberately chosen to indicate that Our Lord's new move was in reality a prudent retreat, intended to divert the attention of the angry Pharisees for a time (cf. 14:13). On the side of Tyre and SidonThese two cities, frequently found together in the books of the Old and New Testaments, represent here the whole of Phoenicia, of which they had successively been the capital. Their territory was part of the Roman province of Syria Between them and Palestine, therefore, only moral boundaries existed at that moment, marked by the difference in religions and customs. Did Jesus Christ, during his journey, truly go to the land of ancient Phoenicia, or did he merely approach it without entering? This is a point hotly debated among Gospel scholars. Some take the Savior "to the borders of Palestine, and to the gates of Tyre and Sidon" (Kuinoel; cf. Vatable, Grotius, etc.); others, following St. John Chrysostom and Theophylact, have Jesus cross the Jewish borders. St. Mark seems to affirm too clearly the passage of Our Lord through the Phoenician regions (cf. St. Mark 7:31) for us to hesitate in the least in adopting this view. The Savior, setting out from the shores of the lake, headed northwest, crossed the mountains of Galilee, and, after a few days' walk, arrived in pagan territory. No doubt, he had once forbidden his disciples to go before his death to evangelize the regions inhabited by the Gentiles (cf. 10:5); but let us note clearly that he himself did not go there to exercise the holy ministry. He withdrew there temporarily, as the prophet Elijah had done, persecuted in his native land. "Even if Jesus had not gone to these pagan cities to preach the gospel to them, he still wanted to give them a foretaste of it, because the time was approaching when, after being rejected by the Jews, he would turn to the Gentiles" (Fr. Luc. Comm. in hl).

Mt15.²² And behold, a Canaanite woman from that land came out, crying out in a loud voice, «Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely tormented by a demon.» – And there you have it. highlights the unexpected nature of the incident. A Canaanite woman. An ancient tradition names her Justa; her daughter was said to have been named Berenice. Cf. Hom. Clement. 2, 19. According to St. Matthew, she was Canaanite; St. Mark, 7, 26, makes her a Syrophoenician. But both accounts are accurate, for the Jews called the Phoenicians Canaanites, because they were indeed of Canaanite origin. The first Evangelist therefore used the general term and the second the specific one. from that country. This woman somehow learned of Jesus Christ's approach and, before he had set foot in Phoenician territory, she rushed to meet him to obtain the grace she desired. She therefore lived very close to the Jewish border. This information from the Evangelist seems to suggest that the miracle took place on Galilean soil, before Jesus entered Phoenicia. Have pity on me However, it is not a personal privilege she is imploring, but rather "the pious mother took her daughter's misery as her own," Bengel. Son of David. Living near the Jews, the Canaanite woman had heard of their particular beliefs and religious hopes, which they made no secret of. She knew they were awaiting a Messiah who would be the son of the great King David, the friend and ally of Hiram the Phoenician; she had also learned that Jesus was regarded by a considerable number of her compatriots as the promised Liberator. That is why she called him "Son of David," pagan though she was. St. Mark 3:8 and St. Luke 6:17 had previously noted that the reputation of Our Lord had spread as far as the regions of Tyre and Sidon, and that people had come from these distant lands seeking favors from him. Cruelly tormented The poor mother highlights this pitiable circumstance: her daughter was suffering terribly. By the demon ; It also indicates the nature of the evil, which consisted of possession. The pagans themselves believed in demons and demon-possessed people; therefore, it is not necessary to resort to the Canaanite woman's affiliation with Judaism as a proselyte to explain her assertion.

Mt15.²³ Jesus did not answer her a word. Then his disciples came to him and begged him, saying, «Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.» – Jesus did not answer him.…Jesus subjected the supplicant to a severe test. He, so good, so compassionate, who usually went to meet the unfortunate, who at least always granted their prayers. And yet he did not even address a single word to the Canaanite woman. «How new and surprising this was! He welcomes the ungrateful Jews and does not turn away those who try to tempt him. But she who runs to him, who prays and begs, who shows piety without having been educated in the Law and the Prophets, he does not even deign to give her an answer,» St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 52. «The Word has no words,» the holy Doctor also says, “the fountain is sealed, medicine refuses its remedies.” But he wants to give this woman the opportunity to demonstrate all her faith. His disciples, having approached. The disciples themselves, although accustomed to seeing many suffering people gathered around Jesus, were moved by this scene; never before had they seen their Master turn a deaf ear to such a plea: they therefore unhesitatingly sided with the unfortunate mother. Send it back This ambiguous expression was deliberately used by the Apostles, who did not want to appear to be imposing a miracle on their Master. However, here it must obviously be taken in a positive sense, as shown by Jesus' negative response in verse 24: "Send her away, granting her wishes." Because she's chasing us with her cries.. They mention a special motive that made them desire the woman's prompt departure, and consequently the prompt healing of her daughter: by repeating her request aloud, she was drawing attention to the Savior, who precisely wished to remain unknown in that country. (Cf. Mark 7:24). The reason was cleverly chosen to support the Canaanite woman's prayer, whether the disciples were genuinely moved with pity, or whether their tenderness was compounded by the displeasure of being the object of a noisy scene, from which they would have been happy to escape as soon as possible. The last words, "pursues us," mean: following us, which implies that most of the episode took place outdoors, although it began in a house (cf. Mark 7:24, and St. Augustine, The Agreement of the Evangelists 2, 49).

Mt15.²⁴ He replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."« – He replied. The long-awaited answer finally arrived: but it was a refusal as harsh as the silence of a moment ago; the supplicant, who had believed her cause won when she heard the Apostles intercede for her, must have been deeply saddened to see her hope dashed. I was not sent… Here we give the floor to St. Augustine: «These words pose a question to us. If he is sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, how will we, the Gentiles, reach the flock of Christ? What does this mysterious exclusion mean? Did he not know that he had come to have a church in all nations? How can he say that he is sent only to the sheep of the house of Israel who are perishing? Let us understand, then, that his bodily presence, his birth, the power of his resurrection, he was to manifest only to this people,» Sermon 77, 2. All difficulty disappears here, in fact, if, following St. Augustine, we establish a distinction between the work of Jesus Christ considered in general, and his personal ministry: the work of Jesus Christ considered in general is as vast as the world; his personal ministry, according to the divine plan, was to be limited to Judaism. It was only on rare occasions that the sealed fountain overflowed around this time, as a sign of the torrents of grace that were to flow from it one day (cf. 8, 5 ff.). To the lost sheep We have already encountered this metaphor above. Cf. 9:36. Jeremiah, 50:6, also calls the Israelites sheep that perish.

Mt15.²⁵ But this woman came and knelt before him, saying, «Lord, help me!» – She came. Anyone other than a mother would have immediately withdrawn, humiliated and discouraged; but the Canaanite woman did not become discouraged, she did not withdraw. On the contrary, she drew closer to Jesus, and, prostrating herself at his feet she adored him, She told him, with a feeling of complete trust: Help me. St. John Chrysostom has a beautiful movement of eloquence to bring out the greatness of this faith, the firmness of this perseverance cf. Hom. 52 in Matth.

Mt15.²⁶ He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."« – He replied. The situation gradually eases, and people can already foresee the outcome. Our Lord initially refused to answer; when he did speak, it was only to tell his disciples that their intercession was useless. But now, at last, he speaks to the poor mother. He addresses her, however, seemingly with a profound insult. Comparing himself to a father, he asserts that he should not give the dogs the bread meant to feed his children. He is not well It is not suitable; it cannot be. Bread ; here, the messianic graces and favors, such as were miracles of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Children refers to the Jews who were truly the children of God, his privileged family: to dogs represents the pagans to whom the Israelites usually gave this insulting title. Throw is a humiliating term that perpetuates the image: bread is given to children, it is thrown to dogs. However, we see that Jesus tried to soften the blow: for, in the Greek text, as early as verse 25, we find the diminutive "little dogs," which is less hurtful than the common term "dogs." The Savior thus compares the Canaanite woman and the Gentiles in general not to the abandoned dogs that fill the streets of Eastern cities, but to the little dogs fed and cared for in most families; it is precisely this expression that will bring a happy ending to the incident. 

Mt15.²⁷ «That’s true, Lord,» she said, “but at least little dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” – She said. She should be overwhelmed by the direct answer that finally came to her from the Savior; for the more she insisted, the more pronounced the refusal became. But, says St. John Chrysostom, «this foreign woman demonstrates incomparable virtue, patience, and faith amidst the insults heaped upon her; and the Jews, after having received so many graces from the Savior, have nothing but ingratitude for Him.« »I know,» she says, “Lord, that bread is necessary for children; but since you say that I am ‘a female dog,’ you do not forbid me to have a share. If I were entirely separated from it, and forbidden to partake, I could not even lay claim to the crumbs. But although I should have only a very small share, I cannot nevertheless be completely deprived of it, even though I am but a female dog.” "On the contrary, it is because I am a female dog that I must participate," Hom. 52. Her faith thus leads her to find in the words of Jesus an irresistible argument, even though they seem quite overwhelming. Yes, Lord, What you say is true; it is not right to take the children's bread and give it even to the little dogs of the house; therefore, that is not what I am asking of you. Please remember that dogs stand by their master's table and humbly eat the crumbs that fall to the ground. The Canaanite woman proves to Jesus that it is possible, without harming the children, to give some food to the little dogs that serve as their playthings, and that it is therefore possible to grant his request without depriving the privileged people. But does not mean "and yet," but "and indeed": the Canaanite woman does not raise an objection to Our Lord, she enters into his idea and confirms it by drawing the logical conclusion. One does not know what to admire most in her reply, where thehumility, the mind, the confidence. "After listening to him carefully and understanding him, she responds in her own words. She politely refutes the objection he had raised," Cornel. a Lap. in hl

Mt15.²⁸ Then Jesus said to her, «Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.» And her daughter was healed at that very moment. How could Jesus not have given in after such a response? He first publicly praises the Canaanite woman's persevering faith: Your faith is great. To others he was often obliged to say "of little faith"; here, he uses the opposite expression. – After the praise comes another reward, no less precious for this poor mother: May it be done to you. The effect followed Jesus' words immediately, and the demoniac was delivered at that very moment, despite the distance separating her from the divine Wonderworker. – This deeply moving episode inspired the painter Germain Drouais to create a remarkable painting that now adorns the galleries of the Louvre.

Second multiplication of the loaves, 15, 29-39. Parall. Mark. 7, 31 – 8, 10.

Mt15.²⁹ Jesus left that place and came to the Sea of Galilee. He went up on a mountainside and sat down. – Left these places, That is to say, according to verses 21 and 22, "from the direction of Tyre and Sidon." Jesus came to the Sea of Galilee. St. Mark, whose account is more explicit, (Mc7.³¹ Leaving the region of Tyre, Jesus returned via Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the center of the Decapolis.) reports that Jesus, «leaving the region of Tyre, went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, passing through the Decapolis»: this implies a considerable journey, undertaken in a semi-circle through the northern regions of Palestine. This verse describes in brief one of the most significant journeys of Our Lord Jesus Christ. While St. Matthew speaks of it only vaguely, St. Mark's note very clearly indicates the route followed by Jesus. Leaving the land of Tyre That was the starting point. The words by Sidon designates the first part of the journey. After having, in all likelihood, crossed the Jewish border and traversed part of the territory of Tyre, the Savior headed straight north, towards Sidon. It is unlikely that Jesus entered this pagan city: therefore, the phrase "through Sidon" should not be taken too literally. It could very well mean: Through the land that depended on Sidon. Crossing the middle of the Decapolis. Since the Decapolis was located east of the Jordan River (cf. Matthew 4:24), to reach the Sea of Galilee through its territory, when one was near Sidon, one had no choice but to take several routes. One had to head first eastward through the mountain range of Lebanon southern, crossing the deep gorge of Coele-Syria or Syria hollow, and arrive in the Anti-Lebanon Mountains near the sources of the Jordan River. From there, they were to travel directly south, passing through Caesarea Philippi and Bethsaida Julia. The journey probably lasted several weeks. In these solitary regions, Jesus and his disciples were able to enjoy the peace and quiet they had sought in vain some time before. Cf. Mark 6:31 ff. Having climbed the mountain, Cf. 5, 1; 14, 23, the mountain on which Jesus Christ settled with his disciples. It was to the east of the lake.

Mt15.³⁰ And large crowds of people approached him, bringing with them the lame, the blind, the deaf and mute, the crippled, and many other sick people. They laid them at his feet, and he healed them., – They approached…The divine Master, who had enjoyed for a few weeks the solitude once promised to his Apostles (cf. Mark 6:31), soon rejoined his usual entourage as soon as he returned to those regions where he was better known and where it would have been impossible for him to remain hidden. The eagerness must have been all the greater this time, as they had been deprived of the Savior for some time. Having with them…The multitudes flocking to him from all directions arrived with their usual entourage of sick and infirm people. For the first time, a special category of unfortunates is mentioned, those who came to implore the mercy of the Wonderworker: those who were crippled in their hands or feet. The Evangelist uses a picturesque expression to describe the eagerness, even the haste, that reigned in Jesus' entourage: They laid them at his feet. Since there were many sick people, everyone was eager to see their own as quickly as possible, because they feared that Our Lord might withdraw before healing them all. Perhaps St. Matthew also wanted to represent the lively faith that animated the people, for they entrusted themselves to his judgment and had no doubt that he could heal them. And he healed them. Among the healings that took place then, St. Mark, 7, 32-37, mentions more specifically that of a deaf-mute which was in fact of an extraordinary nature.

Mt15.³¹ so that the multitude was filled with admiration, seeing the mutes speak, the cripples They healed, the lame walked, the blind saw, and she glorified the God of Israel. – In admiration. The sacred writer notes the admiration that this series of miracles, more numerous than usual, had aroused among the people: the enumeration he then gives, the mutes speak, etc., forms a small, lively scene, the reality of which must, understandably, have greatly excited all the witnesses. She glorified. – The God of Israel, as he was the national God of the Jews. The crowd glorifies him, because they know that from him alone can come the supernatural power that is manifested in Jesus.

Mt15.³² However, Jesus called his disciples to him and said, «I have compassion for these people, because they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, for fear they may faint on the way.» – Having called his disciples“He wants to shepherd those he has healed. So he gathers his disciples and tells them what he will do, so that by having them say they have no bread in the desert, they may better understand the magnitude of the sign.” It is touching to see Jesus, Wisdom incarnate, consulting with his Apostles on how to relieve this poor people, who would soon experience the sufferings of hungerif help did not come quickly to his aid. The disciples were probably scattered among the crowd: that is why it is said that Jesus summoned them. Jesus… said to them. With a few words of divine delicacy, the Savior sets forth and, so to speak, deliberates on the specific point that occupies his mind. I feel sorry for this crowd. The heart of the Good Shepherd is fully revealed in this word, which so beautifully expresses sympathy and tenderness. It's already been three days. So for three days Jesus had been constantly surrounded by the crowd; but he did not remember this for himself, but for their sake, fearing that they would soon have to suffer from such a prolonged stay in a deserted place. They have nothing to eat. The provisions that everyone had brought were completely consumed. It is touching to note that the crowd did not seem to notice this, nor fear the inconvenience. They were so comfortable with Jesus that they stopped thinking about material needs: this is why the good Master deigned to take the initiative in his capacity as father of a family. I don't want to send them back I absolutely don't want to. He can't bear the thought. He would be afraid that they do not fail : as they were in the middle of the desert according to verse 33, the people would have had to go very far to look for food without the miracle of Our Lord, and many people could have fallen ill along the way.

Mt15.³³ The disciples asked him, «Where in this desert can we find enough bread to feed such a large crowd?» – The disciples told him. In establishing the state of affairs, Jesus Christ said not a word about the miracle he intended to perform. It seems he wanted the idea suggested to him outwardly. But he was addressing himself to very poor advisors: the Apostles, in fact, were only concerned with one point, the complete impossibility of feeding such a crowd in such a place. So how…As they rely on every word. In the desert, a fairly large quantity of bread, enough to feed such a considerable crowd, and especially will we find What can we do, Lord? Where is their faith? Do they not seem to be saying, as their unbelieving ancestors of old, «Can God prepare a table in the wilderness?» (Psalm 77:19)? They appear as perplexed as if they had not witnessed a similar scene a few months or weeks earlier. From this truly surprising reflection of the Apostles, and from the undeniable resemblance between the two multiplications of the loaves, rationalists have believed they could conclude that there was in reality only one event, which was subsequently split into two due to an early confusion in the documents that served as sources for the evangelists. But one would go too far with such principles. The distinction between the two events is demonstrated as clearly as possible. The narrators separate them; Therefore, they must have been separated from the outset: how could historians, one of whom, St. Matthew, was an eyewitness, the other, St. Mark, an earwitness, have been so grossly mistaken about something so simple? Moreover, despite their general resemblance, the two incidents differ from each other on almost every point. The location is no longer the same: previously, Jesus was northeast of the lake, near Bethsaida-Julias; now he is to the east, in the territory of the Decapolis. The date is not the same: a more or less considerable amount of time elapsed between the two miracles. The details are not the same: here, it is Jesus who takes the initiative; there, it was the disciples who drew his attention to the lack of food (cf. 14:15); there are seven loaves of bread instead of five, four thousand men to feed instead of five thousand. Seven baskets were collected instead of twelve. Furthermore, the outcome was not the same, since after the first miracle we find Jesus walking on water and the miraculous cessation of a storm, while after the second we see the Savior embark and simply reach the western shore. We should add that Our Lord himself clearly distinguishes between the two miracles. Cf. 16:9-10; Mark 8:19. Certainly, the Apostles' perplexity was extraordinary; but did they know if their Master would be pleased to repeat the same miracle a second time? Jesus did not always act in the same way in similar situations; he might therefore have had special means this time that they did not suspect. Not daring to question him, not daring to remind him of what he had previously done to feed the crowd, they gave a vague answer to extricate themselves from their predicament, an answer that in no way indicated a real lack of faith, since they only mentioned their own powerlessness and not that of Jesus. And besides, even if they had momentarily forgotten the first miracle, isn't this precisely the story of the human heart, which so quickly ceases to remember, at every danger, the previous deliverances it has received from God? God opens a passage for the Israelites through the Red Sea: no sooner have they arrived on the other side than they murmur because they find no fresh water and wonder if the Lord is truly with them. He sends them quail in abundance, and some time later, Moses himself doubts that God can provide meat for such a multitude. The same situation could very well have arisen for the Apostles, who were still weak in faith (cf. 16, 8. 

Mt15.³⁴ Jesus asked them, "How many loaves of bread do you have?" "Seven," they replied, "and a few small fish."« – How much do you have?. Without heeding their response, Jesus goes straight to the point and directly introduces the preliminaries of the miracle.

Mt15.³⁵ Then he made the crowd sit down on the ground, – sat down. See Matthew 14:19.

Mt15.³⁶ He took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples, and these to the people. – He took the seven loaves of bread.…These details hardly differ from those we encountered in the first multiplication of the loaves. The blessing is represented here by the words having given thanks.

Mt15.³⁷ They all ate and were satisfied, and of the leftover pieces they took up seven full baskets. – Seven baskets“In the first miracle, the number of loaves corresponded to the number of a thousand; the number of baskets to the number of apostles. In the other, the number of loaves corresponded to the number of baskets,” Bengel, Gnomon in Matth. 16:9-10. Earlier, in 14:20, the baskets bore the Latin name “cophini”; now they are called “sportæ.” This change is not the product of mere chance, but indicates a genuine difference. What is it? That is something we cannot say for sure because precise information is lacking: a passage from Acts of the Apostles, 9, 25, however, proves that the "sporta" must have been much larger than the "cophinus", since it was capable of holding a man. It probably consisted of a kind of hood or large basket.

Mt15.³⁸ Now the number of those who had eaten was four thousand, not counting women and the children. – Not to mention… The evangelist warns the reader, as in his previous account, Matthew 16:21, that he is not taking into account women and young children. This note is obviously intended to enhance the magnitude of the miracle. 

Mt15.³⁹ After dismissing the people, Jesus got into the boat and came to the land of Magedan. – After the meal, Jesus dismissed the crowd, boarded the ship with his disciples, and went to land the Magedan region, That is to say, in the territory of Magedan. This proper name has always been a source of serious difficulties for exegetes. Indeed, 1) its true pronunciation is unknown, with three main variants existing in the manuscripts and versions. 2) To further increase the obscurity, Mark 8:10 mentions, in connection with the landing of Jesus, a completely different locality, which he calls Dalmanutha and which is not cited anywhere else. It is probable, however, that Dalmanutha was simply a hamlet located in the vicinity of Magedan or Magdala. Mark 8:10: He went to the land of DalmanouthaInstead of this proper name, which is nowhere found in the Old Testament or in the writings of Josephus, St. Matthew mentioned Magedan according to the Vulgate, and Magdala according to the Greek text. It is doubtless to facilitate agreement that several Latin Fathers and various Greek manuscripts have also written, in this passage from St. Mark, some as "Magedan," others as Μαγδαλά. But Δαλμανουθά is certainly the authentic reading. Where should this designated locality be placed? How can we reconcile our two Evangelists? Some consider Dalmanoutha to be a village located a short distance from Magdala, in the plain of Gennesaret, and whose name has supposedly been lost since the time of Jesus. According to this hypothesis, reconciling St. Matthew and St. Mark is easy: the first evangelist would have mentioned the main city near which Jesus landed; the second, with his usual precision, the lesser-known locality whose soil the Savior first set foot on after leaving his boat. In short, as already stated Saint Augustine, it is the same region which they will have designated under two different names (Saint Augustine of Hippo, De Consensu Evangelistarum, The agreement between the Gospels, (Book 2, Chapter 5). 3. The doubt surrounding the proper name naturally extends to the very direction of Jesus' journey. The town of Magdala probably stood on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, north of Tiberias, at the site where the Muslim village of Medjel now stands. Of the once-flourishing city of Saint Mary Magdalene, only ruins and a few wretched hovels remain: the setting is made picturesque not only by the proximity of the lake, but also by an enormous limestone rock that overlooks the village and at the foot of which flows a swift, clear stream.