The Church Fathers on this verse

Matthew 15:11Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Douay-Rheims

ου το εισερχομενον εις το στομα κοινοι τον ανθρωπον αλλα το εκπορευομενον εκ του στοματος τουτο κοινοι τον ανθρωπον

Greek (Byzantine text)

The Church Fathers on this verse

13 Church Fathers comment on this verse · 19 commentaries

John Chrysostom

4th centuryChurch Father

The Lord had shewn that the Pharisees were not worthy to aceuse those who transgressed the commands of the elders, seeing they overthrew the law of God themselves; and He again proves this by the testimony of the Prophet; Hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Having added weight to His accusation of the Pharisees by the testimony of the Prophet, and not having amended them, He now ceases to speak to them, and turns to the multitudes, And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear and understand. Because He was about to set before them a high dogma, and full of much philosophy, He does not utter it nakedly, but so frames His speech that it should be received by them. First, by exhibiting anxiety on their account, which the Evangelist expresses by the words, And he called the multitude to him. Secondly, the time He chooses recommends His speech; after the victory He has just gained over the Pharisees.

Read more (84 words)

And He not merely calls the multitude to Him, but rouses their attention by the words, Hear and understand; that is, Attend, and give your minds to what ye are to hear. But He said not unto them, The observance of meats is nought; nor, Moses bade you wrongly; but in the way of warning and advice, drawing His testimony from natural things, Not what entereth in at the mouth defileth a man, but what goeth forth of the mouth that defileth a man.

Theophylact of Bulgaria

11th centuryChurch Father

When the Pharisees criticized the disciples for consuming food without first washing their hands, the Lord clarified that no food can render a person impure or defile him. If food itself does not contaminate, then neither does eating it without washed hands. True defilement of the inner self occurs only when one utters words that should remain unspoken. This serves as a reflection on the Pharisees, who tainted themselves by speaking from a place of jealousy. Observe the Lord’s wisdom: He neither outright prohibits eating with unwashed hands nor advocates for it as a necessity; instead, He instructs on a different path—guarding against evil speech that arises from within the heart.

Augustine of Hippo

5th centuryChurch Father

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.

Read more (339 words)

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?

Jerome of Stridon

5th centuryChurch Father

The word herea ‘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.

Euthymios Zigabenos

11th centuryCommentator

What does not enter the mouth renders a person unclean; unclean here refers to a state of impurity. Thus, He asserts that it is not the impurity of unwashed hands, which mixes with food and is consumed, that makes an individual impure, as this does not affect the spirit, but rather it is sin that renders one unclean, harming the soul. This serves as the most straightforward interpretation of His statement. However, there is a deeper truth concealed within this teaching, that nothing originating from God can inherently be deemed unclean. As Moses states, "And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31). This profound understanding dismisses the meticulous dietary laws followed by the Jews.

Read more (72 words)

While the regulations concerning food hold a symbolic significance, the Jews, failing to grasp deeper meanings, interpreted these laws literally and focused solely on the external aspects. Nevertheless, it is the words that emerge from the mouth that make a person unclean. While many words flow from the mouth, He specifically refers to the evil that originates in the heart. He then provides clarification on what may not be explicitly mentioned here.

Rabanus Maurus

9th centuryChurch Father

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.

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.

Remigius of Auxerre

9th centuryChurch Father

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.

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.

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.

Theophan the Recluse

19th centuryChurch Father

The Lord spoke not out of disfavor toward fasting or because He deemed it unnecessary for us. Indeed, He Himself engaged in fasting, instructed His apostles on the practice, and instituted fasts within His holy Church. His intention was to emphasize that when we engage in fasting, it should not be limited to merely consuming less food or engaging in meager meals. Rather, we ought to focus on nourishing our souls through fasting, resisting our cravings and sinful inclinations. This is of utmost importance. Fasting provides a potent means to achieve this goal. When the flesh is weakened, the foundation of bodily passions is disturbed, causing their influence to diminish. To conquer these passions without fasting is akin to a miracle, much like remaining unscathed in a fire.

Read more (51 words)

For one who finds satisfaction solely in physical comforts—food, rest, and slumber—how can they maintain any spiritual focus or intention? Detaching oneself from earthly matters to engage in contemplation of the divine is as daunting for them as it would be for a frail bird to take flight from the ground.

Abbot Panteleimon about the Trinity

19th centuryCommentator

It is not the food or drink that enters the mouth that causes an individual to be unclean or guilty before God; rather, it is what exits the mouth—sinful thoughts, words, and the ensuing actions—that reveal the impurity of the heart. Those who are willing to listen should understand this (Mark 7:16). In the Kingdom of Heaven, having a pure heart is far more significant than having clean hands. The Savior teaches that if unclean hands touch food, it does not adversely affect the soul; eating with unwashed hands does not defile a person (Mt. 15:20).

Read more (48 words)

Thus, it is not the physical food that corrupts the one who breaks their fast, but the longing to satisfy the flesh and disregard the commandments of God, which instruct us to remain steadfastly obedient to the teachings of the Church—this is what truly renders a person impure!

Bogolepow D.P.

19th centuryCommentator

After condemning the insincerity of the Pharisees, the Lord drew the crowd closer and taught them about what should truly be deemed impure, that which defiles a person and renders him culpable before God. In this context, He instructed that the guiding principle is that anything consumed does not make a person unclean, but rather the words that emerge from his mouth can lead to defilement. Following this teaching, the Lord (as recorded by Mark) entered a house, where His disciples approached Him with the report (only mentioned by Matthew) that the Pharisees were being led astray by His message.

Read more (308 words)

It is possible that the Apostles felt troubled by the fact that Jesus' words inadvertently ensnared those He aimed to enlighten, or they themselves may have been challenged by His assertion that nothing entering the mouth of a man causes defilement (v. 11. λόγον). The implications of verse 11 had, in a way, misled the Pharisees; they had become so accustomed to the requirement of washing hands for spiritual cleanliness that they perceived Christ’s words as undermining the law surrounding purification. The Pharisees may also have been offended due to the fact that 1. in v. 11, Jesus addressed the crowd directly, diminishing their authority through His teaching. In response to the news about the Pharisees’ misleading, Christ referred either to their doctrine, which originated from human invention rather than divine instruction and therefore needed to be rejected, or to the Pharisees themselves: they should indeed be led astray, for though they held the position of spiritual leaders, they were not the true plantings of God, failing to act in accordance with His will and thus lacking His special care; they are destined to be uprooted (έκριζόω cf. 13:29-30). Consequently, He advised to leave them. This could mean: do not adhere to their teachings, lest you fall into the same pit; additionally, it suggests to disengage from their preoccupations and let them be. Subsequently, Peter, representing all the disciples, sought clarification from the Lord regarding His enigmatic statement about the defilement that enters the mouth and that which does not exit from it. The Lord made it clear that by what enters the mouth, He referred to food, while what exits the mouth symbolizes the evil thoughts, desires, and intentions that arise from the heart. These expressions reveal the moral impurity of the human spirit, though food merely passes through the body and does not affect the soul.

Gladkow B.I.

19th centuryCommentator

The Pharisees, revealed in their deceit and rejection of the Law, choose to remain silent and do not respond to Jesus' inquiry. Not wishing to waste valuable insights on those unworthy, Jesus leaves them to their concealed resentment and refrains from further discussion. However, to avoid leaving the crowd, who stands behind the Pharisees in confusion, in a state of uncertainty, He offers clarification not aimed at the Pharisees but directed to the multitude. He explains that it is not what enters into a man’s mouth that renders him impure, but rather what emerges from his mouth that truly defiles him.

Michail (Lusin)

19th centuryCommentator

Not what is consumed through the mouth, whether food or drink, renders one unclean before God. Rather, it is the speech that emanates from the mouth that defiles a person because it is from the heart that evil actions arise (Matt. 15:18), revealing immoral character. Is the meticulous observance of dietary laws condemned in this context? Clearly not. The primary teaching here emphasizes that it is not what one eats that makes a person impure, but rather one’s moral conduct; specifics about types of food are not addressed. The crux of this message does not revolve around food itself, but rather the significance of handwashing (cf. Matt. 15:20).

Read more (195 words)

The Lord did not imply that discerning dietary choices are trivial or that Moses’ commandments were pointless; instead, He indicated that it is not what enters a person’s mouth that defiles them, but rather what comes out of it. Notice how the Lord does not overtly challenge the law. He does not mention food explicitly but refers to what enters through the mouth—a statement that could also relate to the washing of hands. Though He spoke regarding food, it could also be interpreted as a commentary on hand hygiene. The observance of dietary laws was taken so seriously that even after the resurrection, Peter asserted, “No, Lord, I have never eaten anything unclean or impure” (Acts 10:14). Thus, Christ initially did not speak exclusively about food but remarked, “What enters through the mouth” and later appeared to clarify, concluding His discussion with the assertion: “And eating with unwashed hands does not defile a man” (Matt. 15:20). This led His listeners to believe He had begun with this topic and continued reasoning from it. The careful observance of what one eats ought to reflect one’s moral condition and, in this scenario, is commendable (1 Cor. 10:25-33).

Paul Matwejewski

19th centuryCommentator

Following this, the Lord chose to disengage from those who questioned Him, seeing them as ‘beyond healing,’ and turned His attention to the crowd to impart profound wisdom. Hear me all of you and comprehend! He commenced His address by revealing the essence of true defilement: ‘It is not what enters the mouth that makes a person unclean, but what proceeds from the mouth that defiles him. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!

Cross references

Passages read together with this verse.

The original text

Greek text, 19 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.

  1. οὐ
    ou
    no
    G3756 · οὐ
  2. τὸ
    to
    the
    G3588 · ὁ
  3. εἰσερχόμενον
    eiserchomenon
    I go in
    G1525 · εἰσέρχομαι
  4. εἰς
    eis
    into
    G1519 · εἰς
  5. τὸ
    to
    the
    G3588 · ὁ
  6. στόμα
    stoma
    the mouth
    G4750 · στόμα
  7. κοινοῖ
    koinoi
    I make unclean
    G2840 · κοινόω
  8. τὸν
    ton
    the
    G3588 · ὁ
  9. ἄνθρωπον
    anthrōpon
    a man
    G444 · ἄνθρωπος
  10. ἀλλὰ
    alla
    but
    G235 · ἀλλά
  11. τὸ
    to
    the
    G3588 · ὁ
  12. ἐκπορευόμενον
    ekporeuomenon
    I journey out
    G1607 · ἐκπορεύω
  13. ἐκ
    ek
    from out
    G1537 · ἐκ
  14. τοῦ
    tou
    the
    G3588 · ὁ
  15. στόματος
    stomatos
    the mouth
    G4750 · στόμα
  16. τοῦτο
    touto
    this
    G3778 · οὗτος
  17. κοινοῖ
    koinoi
    I make unclean
    G2840 · κοινόω
  18. τὸν
    ton
    the
    G3588 · ὁ
  19. ἄνθρωπον
    anthrōpon
    a man
    G444 · ἄνθρωπος