Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2.pdf

<strong>Commentary</strong> on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2
unbecoming that ceremonies, which were traditions of the elders, and the practice of which was
held sacred by the scribes, should not be observed by the disciples of a master who undertook to
reform the existing state of things.
It is a great mistake to compare the sprinkling of the water of purification, or, as the Papists
call it, blessed water, with the Jewish washing; for, by repeating so frequently the one baptism, 398
Papists do all that is in their power to efface it. Besides, this absurd sprinkling is used for exorcising.
399 But if it were lawful in itself, and were not accompanied by so many abuses, still we must always
condemn the urgency with which they demand it as if it were indispensable.
3. Why do you also transgress? There are here two answers that are given by Christ, the former
of which is addressed, as we say, to the person; while the latter decides as to the fact and the question
in hand. Mark inverts that order; for he first represents Christ as speaking on the whole subject,
and afterwards adds the reproof which is directed against hypocrites. We shall follow the narrative
of Matthew. When the Lord, in his turn, puts the question to the scribes why they break the Law
of God on account of their traditions, he does not as yet pronounce a direct acquittal of his disciples
from the crime charged against them; but only points out how improper and unwarrantable is this
readiness to take offense. They are displeased when the commandments of men are not observed
with exactness; and how much more criminal is it to spend the whole time in observing them, to
the disregard of the law of God? It is manifest, therefore, that their wrath is kindled rather by
ambition than by a proper kind of zeal, when they thus prefer men to God.
When he says that they transgress the commandments of God, the meaning of the expression
is easily learned from the context. They did not openly or professedly set aside the law of God, so
as to look upon any thing as lawful which the law had forbidden; but there was an indirect
transgression of it, for they permitted duties which God had enjoined to be neglected with impunity.
A plain and familiar instance is adduced by Christ. The commandment of God is, that children shall
honor their parents, (Exodus 20:12.) Now as the sacred offerings yielded emolument to the priests,
the observance of them was so rigidly enforced, that men were taught to regard it as a more heinous
sin not to make a free-will offering than to defraud a parent of what was justly due to him. In short,
what the Law of God declared to be voluntary was, in the estimation of the scribes, of higher value
than one of the most important of the commandments of God. Whenever we are so eager to keep
the laws of men as to bestow less care and attention on keeping the law of God itself, we are held
as transgressing it. Shortly afterwards he says, that they had annulled the commandment of God
on account of the traditions of men; for the scribes led the people to entertain so strong an attachment
to their own injunctions, that they did not allow them leisure to attend to the word of God. Again,
as they reckoned those persons to have discharged their duty well who obeyed these injunctions to
398 “Le Baptesme, qui suffit une fois receu;” — “Baptism, which is enough when once received.”
399 “En apres, ceste badinerie d’eau beniste est appliquee a faire exorcismes et coniurations, et ils croyent fermement qu’elle
a vertu d’effacer les pechez;” — “Besides, this foolery of blessed water is applied to exorcising and conjuring, and they firmly
believe that it has power to blot out sins.”
174
John Calvin