and seeing some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands,
Religious officials from Jerusalem watch the disciples sit down to eat. They object — not to anything the disciples said or did, but to their unwashed hands. One question runs through the whole exchange: what has the right to bind a person's conscience?
The word behind "defiled" is the ordinary word for "common." Scripture uses it for what God has not set apart.
In the New Testament it also appears in the sense of having "all things common," Acts 2:44; "the common faith," Titus 1:4; and the "common salvation," Jude 3. It may mean "unclean" of animals forbidden by the law as food, or of Gentiles in contrast with Jews, Acts 10:14, 28; they were not sanctified. Of food it is translated "unclean," Rom. 14:14. Of unwashed hands it is "defiled," Mark 7:2.
So nothing the disciples did was wrong in itself. Their offence was against a custom — one that may have started from a sincere motive.
They came from the holy city of ancient religion, clothed with the credit of Divine law and authority. They saw some of His disciples eating with unwashed hands. Now, there was nothing moral in this. Nothing here could touch the soul or affect a man's relationship with God. But it went against their traditions, and so they found fault. It is easy to think that this tradition may have had a pious origin. There may have been in the minds of these leaders an idea of keeping the importance of personal purity before the people.
The previous chapter explains the setting. The disciples had been working in crowds, among the sick.
Wherever the Servant of Jehovah went — in country, village, or town — the people brought their sick into the marketplaces. They came to touch the edge of His garment and be healed (Mark 6:56). The disciples may well have taken an active part in this work of healing. The disciples had mixed with many kinds of sick and needy people. It was after this that the Pharisees saw their unwashed hands and found fault.
This washing has no place in the law of Moses. The system built around it went further still.
The Old Testament says nothing at all about such washing of hands. But the oral law piles rule upon rule about this ceremony. If a man neglected it, they counted it a great sin, worthy of being put out of the congregation. A man was even allowed to eat unclean meats, forbidden in the law, and to drink unclean drinks. He only had to keep the traditions of the elders and wash his hands before he broke the law.
Rules like this grow in the space where God has said nothing.
Where God lays down no positive command of His own, woe to the man who takes away liberty. Man, on the other hand, takes advantage of the opening. Where God has not made a law, man makes one of his own. But God has given no warrant to legislate like this, and half the disputes and divisions in the Christian world come from this cause.
The harm is not that the practice was wicked. The harm is what an addition says about the God who gave the Scriptures.
Washing their hands before they ate bread was in itself neither right nor wrong. It even carried an excellent meaning. What is more important than moral purity, or more widely agreed on as a picture of it? The simple answer was this: it destroyed the wholeness and the importance of the commands of God. If I may add a rule, and a person must keep it, we call the completeness of God's revealed will into question. Mixing other things in as equally binding cancels the distinct claim of God's will on the soul.
The Lord did not defend His disciples on the point the Pharisees raised.
The Lord did not reply to the Pharisees in His own authority, but condemned the fault-finders with a quotation from the prophecy of Isaiah. He did not discuss with them the legality of this particular tradition, but brought the written word of God to bear upon their spiritual state. They were showing undeniable zeal, but it was not according to God. They were deceiving both themselves and others.
The complaint was about hands. The Lord moved the question to a place water cannot reach.
Washing hands and cups and pots deals only with defilement from outside. But moral defilement springs from the evil inside the heart. This cuts at the root of all worldly religion of the flesh, which deals only with the outside and leaves the heart untouched. God works from within and deals with the conscience and heart. The real source of defilement is not a man's surroundings but himself.
- Common, not dirty. "Defiled" here means common — the same word stands behind the "common faith" and the "common salvation." Nothing moral was at stake in the disciples' hands.
- Common hands, holy work. The disciples had been in the marketplaces, helping the sick reach Jesus. That service is what left their hands unwashed.
- Common rule, divine claim. No Old Testament passage asks for this washing. Yet skipping it was treated as worse than breaking the law.
- Common addition, real damage. To add to God's word is to call it incomplete. Every added rule cancels the distinct claim His will has on the soul.
- Common cure, wrong disease. Water reaches hands, cups and pots; it never reaches the heart, and that is where defilement begins.
(for the Pharisees and all the Jews, unless they wash their hands diligently, do not eat, holding what has been delivered by the ancients;
Mark pauses the story here to explain a custom his readers may never have seen. It sets up the argument that follows: what was "the tradition of the elders," and why did washing hands matter so much?
Mark breaks off to explain the practice, and tells us who kept it.
The evangelist explains that the custom of washing was not limited to the Pharisees, but was common among all the Jews. Here we meet the term "Jews," which is rare in the first three Gospels, while it occurs often in the Gospel of John.
Translators have long argued over the word behind "properly" (older versions read "diligently").
Most of the manuscript evidence supports the Greek word pygme. It means "with the fist," or "up to the elbow." The usual translation is "diligently" or "often," "with vigour" or "with precision."
Writers on Jewish customs describe the ritual in detail. The fist appears again in it.
They joined the tips of the ten fingers and lifted them up, so that the water ran down to the elbows. Then they turned their hands so that it ran off to the ground. The washing itself meant rubbing the fist of one hand in the hollow of the other. Before a meal they had to hold their hands up; after a meal, down. They argued hotly over whether the cup of blessing or the hand-washing should come first.
The point at issue was never hygiene.
The principle involved was not physical cleanliness on health grounds, but ceremonial pollution. "They shrank back from defilement, not from dirt." They thought they might have touched a Gentile or a tax collector in the public streets. Strangers' lips might have touched their cups.
In their eyes "the tradition of the elders" was no minor custom.
In their minds this convicted the disciples as very obvious sinners. For these men, breaking such a tradition was a greater sin than breaking the law itself. Indeed, by a plain twisting of Exodus 34:27, they argued that this oral law, and not the written one, contained the terms of God's covenant with Israel.
Where did such a custom come from?
It is easy to imagine that this tradition may have had a devout origin. These leaders may have wanted to keep the importance of personal purity before the people. Washing the hands would be a very natural sign that God looks for and insists on holiness in the works of His people. No doubt they drew it from the word of God, because there were certain washings which men always practised.
Read verses 3 and 4 together and the tone comes through. Mark sets people beside kitchenware.
The language of the Spirit of God breathes a quick, cutting condemnation of the whole principle, root and branch. Every spiritual man must feel it. However restrained the tone, it treats the whole thing as utterly weak and childish. It puts the washing of people in the same class as the washing of cups and vessels. Many like things they do. What a religion!
The chapter moves from the outside of a man to the inside.
They washed cups and pots, but not their hearts; and, provided that the priests — religion — gained by it, they set aside the duties of children to their parents. But God looked at the heart, and out of the heart of man came every kind of impurity, wickedness, and violence. That was what defiled the man — not his unwashed hands.
Adding a rule does more than add a rule; it puts a second authority beside God's.
They did not just set aside some particular commandment in order to keep their tradition. By this they cancelled and rejected the authority of the whole word of God. When I set up another authority, I push aside and make void the whole word of God, which claims all authority. If another can direct, I am not sole master. Even if it is only about washing my hands, another can step in and claim obedience — the word of God is not the sole authoritative rule.
- Explanation: Mark stops to explain the custom. It belonged to all the Jews, not just the Pharisees.
- Ceremony: They feared ritual defilement, not dirt. Contact with a stranger worried them; grime did not.
- Escalation: Breaking this tradition counted as a worse sin than breaking the law itself.
- Exposure: Mark lists the washing of people beside the washing of cups and pots. The system condemns itself.
- Heart: They washed hands and left hearts alone. Defilement, the Lord shows, comes out of the heart, not into it.
and [on coming] from the market-place, unless they are washed, they do not eat; and there are many other things which they have received to hold, the washing of cups and vessels, and brazen utensils, and couches),
In Mark 7, leaders from Jerusalem watch the disciples eat with unwashed hands. This verse explains the custom behind their complaint, and it raises the question the Lord will answer: what really makes a person unclean?
God's law had its own rules for cleansing. These washings were not among them.
In the law there were many ceremonial defilements, each of which had its appointed purification. To these the scribes and Pharisees added others, such as washing the hands before eating, and washing cups and plates. They were very eager about these things, while inside they were full of greed and self-indulgence.
Washing after the market was not about hygiene. It was about contact — with a Gentile (a non-Jew), a tax collector, or an object the elders counted unclean.
In His reply to the Pharisees the Lord did not rule on whether their practices were lawful. He showed instead that they had given the washing ritual a spiritual meaning and value it could not carry. The principle they claimed was not bodily cleanliness for health reasons, but ceremonial pollution. "They were afraid not of dirt, but of defilement." They thought they might have brushed against a Gentile or a tax collector in the public streets. They might have handled something the rules counted unclean. Strangers' lips might have touched their cups. People whom the tradition of the elders counted defiled might have used their couches.
One writer says the word translated "wash" here has a more literal rendering.
Mark 7:4, "dip" is more literal than "bathe" or "wash."
Older translations end the list with "tables." The ESV has "dining couches."
In Mark 7:4 the word translated 'table' is klinē, 'a couch,' often translated 'bed'…
The phrase "many other traditions" covered a detailed routine.
"The rule was that the hands must first be washed clean. The tips of the ten fingers were then joined and lifted up, so that the water ran down to the elbows, then turned so that it might run off to the ground… The washing itself had to be done by rubbing the fist of one hand in the hollow of the other… They argued fiercely over whether the cup of blessing or the handwashing should come first; whether the towel belonged on the table or on the couch; and whether the table should be cleared before the final washing or after it."
Where the ESV says these traditions are ones they "observe," older translations read "received to hold" — handed down, then held onto. One writer says the grip is tightest when the source is human.
Tradition may be from God… Or it may be from man, as was the tradition of the elders of Israel. The Lord condemned it strongly, and declared that it set aside the commandments of God… What man sets up, man holds on to most stubbornly.
That grip came at a cost.
The traditions of men, which they "received to hold" (Mark 7:4) were more to them than the glory of the "Word."
Notice how the verse arranges its items: people and cooking pots in one list.
Every spiritual person must feel the sharp, cutting condemnation of the whole principle, root and branch, that breathes through the words of the Spirit of God. However quiet the tone, the whole thing is treated as completely weak and childish. It puts the washing of people in the same class as the washing of cups and vessels. Many like things they do. What a religion!
One thing in the list was left unwashed.
They washed cups and pots, but not their hearts. As long as the priests — religion — gained by it, they set aside the duties of children to their parents. But God looked at the heart, and out of the heart of man came every kind of impurity, wickedness, and violence.
- Added — The law had its own cleansings. Hand-washing before meals, and washing cups and plates, were extras the scribes and Pharisees piled on top.
- Feared — What they dreaded was defilement, not dirt: a non-Jew met in the street, a stranger's lips on a cup, a couch someone else had used.
- Held — Older translations say they "received to hold" these rules. What man sets up, man holds on to most stubbornly — even above the glory of the Word.
- Levelled — The verse lists washed people beside washed pots. That wording treats the whole system as weak and childish.
- Unwashed — They washed cups and pots, but not their hearts. God looks at the heart, and that is where the real impurity comes from.
then the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why do thy disciples not walk according to what has been delivered by the ancients, but eat the bread with defiled hands?
Jesus is healing crowds when a delegation from Jerusalem arrives. Their one question is not about His power but about hand-washing, and behind the polite wording lies a charge. Everything here turns on one point: does man's rule or God's word bind the conscience?
The men who ask the question had no interest in the healings around them. Their own rule mattered more.
Those wretched opponents had no share in the joy of the people who were healed. Our Lord's healing power had no interest for them, because the disciples had not kept the tradition of the elders! So the bright sky had to be clouded over. In their eyes the tradition of the elders mattered above everything. His teaching condemned these men who clung to tradition, so they seize the chance to attack Him by charging His disciples with neglecting the traditions. "Your disciples," they said, wanting to draw Him into an argument about eating with unwashed hands. Any excuse is good enough if it can stop or hinder the working of God in grace.
These were not local critics. Jerusalem sent them "to investigate the claims and teaching of Jesus, and to denounce the preacher and the teaching as contrary to the approved standards of the Sanhedrin" — the ruling council of the nation (The Bible Treasury).
The rule they seized on came from their ancestors, not from God's law. One writer allows that it may well have begun with a good motive.
There was plainly nothing moral in this. Nothing here could touch the soul or affect a man's relationship with God. But it went against their traditions, and so they found fault. It is easy to imagine that this tradition may have begun with a godly motive. These leaders may have wanted to keep the importance of personal purity before the people. Washing the hands would be a very natural sign that God looks for holiness in the works of His people, and insists on it.
This kind of religion is easy to keep and easy to see.
The chapter opens with the religious leaders of the nation coming to Jesus. They come with no sense of their need and no sense of His grace. Sadly, they come to oppose Christ by finding fault with His disciples for eating bread with unwashed hands. The religion of these men was honouring the tradition of their ancestors by carrying out certain outward forms and ceremonies. Anyone can do such things. They build a reputation in front of others, but leave the heart far from God.
The practice itself was harmless, and it pictured something good. One writer grants all of that, then shows where the real damage lies.
"Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?" First, then, they did not. Next, washing their hands before they ate bread was a thing of no moral weight in itself — yet its meaning was excellent, for what is more important than moral purity, or more widely agreed as a picture of it? The simple answer was this: it destroyed the wholeness and the weight of the commands of God. If I may add something, and a person must then do it, the completeness of God's revealed will comes into question. Mixing other things in with it, as though they were binding, cancels the distinct claim that the will of God has on the soul.
The Lord did not debate where the custom came from, or how empty it was.
The washing of people falls into the same class as the washing of cups and pots. And they do many other things like these. What a religion! "And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, 'Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?'" The way the Lord answers them is remarkable. He does not discuss where the tradition came from, or show how pointless it is. He goes straight to its whole character, and to its moral effect on the obedience owed to God. This is surely an excellent pattern for every Christian.
The same writer says where accepting tradition leads: "give up what is of God, and then you will fall into the hands of man" (William Kelly).
- Pretext. The question was never a question. Healing crowds counted for nothing beside their broken custom. Any excuse served, if it could hinder God working in grace.
- Harmless. The charge touched nothing moral. Hand-washing was a fitting picture of purity, and may well have begun with a sincere wish to teach it.
- Cheap. Anyone can keep an outward form. It wins a reputation with people, and leaves the heart far from God.
- Fatal. Make one addition binding, and you call God's revealed will incomplete. His will then loses its unique claim on the soul.
- Pattern. Christ did not argue about where the custom came from, or how empty it was. He went straight to its effect on obedience — and that is the model to follow.
But he answering said to them, Well did Esaias prophesy concerning you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honour me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me.
The Pharisees challenge Jesus because His disciples skipped a hand-washing ritual. He answers from Isaiah, and the verse judges a religion that looks right to people but is empty before God.
The Lord starts with a verdict: hypocrites. One writer explains the word and the proof behind it.
In His reply to these men, the Lord shows how empty their religion is. It consists of nothing but outward forms. First, it leaves men as mere hypocrites, and Scripture proves it, for Isaiah said of such people, "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." Hypocrisy is pretending to be what we are not. By their religious acts they claimed great piety before men. By their words they claimed to reverence God. But in reality their hearts were far from God. (Isaiah 29:13; Ezekiel 33:31.)
The people Jesus describes were not irreligious. That is the sting: the prophet grants that they come close, then names the distance. The writer below follows an older translation, which opens the verse with the line "This people draws near to me with their mouth"; the ESV does not have those words.
"This people draws near to me with their mouth ... and honors me with their lips; BUT their heart is far from me." They were not sinners in the ordinary sense of the word — that is, irreligious, with no profession or thought about God. Quite the opposite: the thing said of them here is, "This people draws near to me." … All this religion and religiousness is dismissed at once. There is a worship which is worshipping God in vain.
Isaiah first spoke these words about the people of Judah in his own day. One writer shows why they fit a second time.
So in Isaiah's day the people of Judah kept up an outward regard for the law of Moses and for the worship of God. But they had no inward reverence for the LORD Himself. In the Lord's day it was so again with the people. Their house was swept of idols and decorated with "pious" deeds, but it was an empty shrine. Though God was on their tongues, He was not in their thoughts.
He could have argued about whether the tradition of hand-washing was binding. He did something else.
The Lord did not reply to the Pharisees on His own authority. He condemned the objectors with a quotation from the prophecy of Isaiah. He did not discuss with them whether this particular tradition was lawful. Instead He brought the written word of God to bear on their spiritual state. They were showing undeniable zeal, but it was not according to God. They worked hard to set up their own righteousness by works that lay outside the ritual God gave through Moses. They were deceiving both themselves and others.
The quotation carries a second charge as well as the first.
Two evils are marked out for condemnation in this quotation — (1) Insincerity before God — honouring Him with the lips, but paying Him no regard in the heart. (2) Putting human authority in the place of God's — seeking to worship Him by the commandments of men instead of by His own will.
One writer traces the order of the descent through the rest of the passage.
The Lord exposes the hypocrisy that would cover up evil by outward forms. You can trace the downward steps away from God taken by the religiousness of the flesh that pretends to draw near to Him. They teach as doctrines the commandments of men (v. 7). Laying aside the commandment of God, they hold the tradition of men (v. 8). Next they reject the commandment of God to keep their own tradition (v. 9). And finally they make the word of God of no effect through it (v. 13).
Another writer puts his finger on where the damage begins:
There is the process: give up what is of God, and then you will fall into the hands of man. There is great importance in the principle. It is not a comparison of things as to whether this is better than that. The evil is laying aside the commandment of God, and preferring man's tradition to it.
The verse is not only a rebuke. Turned around, it shows what God asks for.
The Lord judges all this human religion — outward, Pharisaical, priestly — once and for all time. God demands a pure heart and true obedience.
- Heart named. Hypocrisy is pretending to be what we are not — great piety on show before men, while the heart stays far from God.
- Heart absent. Their house was swept of idols and decorated with pious deeds, but it was an empty shrine. God was on their tongues, not in their thoughts.
- Heart replaced. Two evils are condemned: insincerity before God, and putting human rules where His will should be.
- Heart displaced. The slide runs in order — teach men's commandments, lay aside God's, reject God's, then make God's word of no effect.
- Heart required. Nothing counts with God if the heart is not right; He asks for a pure heart and true obedience.
But in vain do they worship me, teaching [as their] teachings commandments of men.
The Pharisees ask why Jesus' disciples ignore the hand-washing rules of the elders, and He answers by quoting Isaiah against them. So what makes worship worthless to God, even when it looks careful and correct?
The Lord does not attack the style of their worship. He says it gains nothing with God.
The Lord shows that such religion is "in vain". It may win its followers a reputation for piety before people, but it is worthless in God's sight.
A practice can look like something God taught and still serve only the people doing it.
The washing of hands might look like something in line with God, for the Lord Himself uses water as the picture of purity. But it served their own purposes, and the Lord says that, whatever it was, it was a commandment of men — that was all. And it was in vain. There is a worship which is worshipping of God in vain.
The Greek word behind "commandments" here is a rare one, and where it appears tells you what kind of rule is meant.
It is worth noticing that a rare Greek word stands in the New Testament for commandments that come from man. The usual word is entole, but entalma occurs only three times: in Mark 7:7, in the matching passage Matt. 15:9, and in Col. 2:22. In each case it forms part of the phrase translated "the commandments of men." The word also appears three times in the Greek Old Testament, and one of those places, Isaiah 29:13, is what our Lord quoted here. In all these passages the word seems to point to the moral sayings and rules of conduct which men tried to lay as heavy burdens on the shoulders of others, but which the Lord showed had no authority.
Isaiah did not aim these words at open idolaters. He spoke them to people who were keeping the outward rules of their own law.
So the people generally kept the outward rules of their ancient law. But sadly, in the eye of Jehovah this was only a form of piety without the power. The prophet said that a spirit of deep sleep was on them, on their rulers and on their prophets.
The men standing in front of Jesus were the heirs of that reformation, which is what makes the rebuke so serious.
It adds weight to this passage to remember who these Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem were. They were the religious leaders of the remnant, the people delivered from Babylon… They were no longer idolaters. Outwardly they were very pious before men, and with their lips they made a fair profession before God. But we learn that all this is possible while the heart is far from God, and while the traditions of men set aside the word of God.
Adding to what God has said is not a small extra. It says that what He gave was not enough.
A Muslim likes Muslim tradition. A state-church member likes the tradition of the state church. A Roman Catholic likes Roman Catholic tradition. A Greek likes Greek tradition. It is his own, and it has that value to him. Nothing is so dear to a man as the cover of his corruption. Nothing is so full of Satan's power as false religion… If I add anything, then God is imperfect in what He gave as a guide… And if God has been imperfect in one detail, I can count on Him in none of the rest.
The process has a fixed order, and it runs one way only.
There is the process: give up what is of God, and then you will fall into the hands of man. It is not a question of whether one thing is better than another. The evil is laying aside the commandment of God, and preferring man's tradition to it. The only thing that has a claim upon the Christian heart is what comes from God.
Believers today are not exempt, down to small rules about the timing of a meeting.
Let us not flatter ourselves that we are exempt from wrong worship. I remember an old and honoured man speaking in a meeting. He said that when we come together to remember the Lord's death, we should break the bread and drink the cup within half an hour of the start. This is an example of "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men," and such worship is empty and in vain. Those who worship the Father must worship Him in spirit and truth.
- Heart — the fault is not the ritual but the distance behind it. Lips can be near while the heart is far.
- Substitute — "commandments of men" is a rare word. It marks rules men load on others, with no authority from God.
- Exchange — the process is always the same: let go of what God commanded, and you fall into the hands of man.
- Verdict — such worship is not just weak. It is empty: a name for piety among people, and nothing before God.
- Test — a reformed, idol-free religion can still fail. The one question for any practice is whether God said it.
[For], leaving the commandment of God, ye hold what is delivered by men [to keep] -- washings of vessels and cups, and many other such like things ye do.
Religious leaders from Jerusalem complain that Jesus' disciples eat without the ritual hand-washing their tradition demanded. He does not debate the custom; He names what it had pushed out, and leaves one question — which authority does a person obey?
The Lord's answer names what tradition had done, and traces the order of events behind it:
It drew men into disobedience, and made excuse for sin, or rather denied it... He does not call it a wicked tradition; it was "of men," and it is not to be held... There is the process: give up what is of God, and then you will fall into the hands of man. It is not a comparison of things as to whether this is better than that. The evil is laying aside the commandment of God, and preferring man's tradition to it. The only thing that has claim upon the Christian heart is what comes from God.
The Lord describes this same sin in four ways. The wording gets heavier each time, and this verse stands at the top of the slope:
These four terms, used about this one sin, seem to show an ascending scale of error. At the point of departure, the commandment is (1) left on one side or ignored. It is then (2) rejected and its claims refused. Next, it is (3) crossed and violated. Last of all, it is (4) made useless and void, because a human rule takes its place.
The first step is almost invisible. The same writer describes how it happened:
Theirs was not a sudden, violent rebellion against the authority of God. It was a quiet and gradual decline from their faithfulness. They turned aside, almost without noticing it at first, and wandered out of the way of God's commandments. They let their regard and reverence for the expressed will of God grow weak. They strayed from the green pastures and the still waters, and forgot His precepts.
The Lord goes further and calls it "your tradition." One writer finds the pull of man-made religion in that word:
The Lord calls all tradition "your tradition." That includes the tradition of the elders, which Scripture names so, and which man calls by that name too, because it has authority with him. Man's religion glorifies man; it is his... A Muslim likes Muslim tradition. A Roman Catholic likes Rome's tradition. A Greek likes the tradition of the Greeks. It is his own, and it has that value to him. Nothing is so dear to a man as the cover of his corruption, or so full of Satan's power as false religion.
Setting aside one command may look small. The same writer says the damage reaches much further:
They set aside a commandment so that they might keep their tradition. But they did more than that: by doing this they made null and rejected the authority of the whole word of God... When I set up another authority, I displace the whole word of God and make it void, and that word claims all authority... Even if it is only about washing my hands, someone else can step in and claim obedience. Then the word of God is not the only rule with authority.
The Lord does not leave the charge as an idea. He gives a case where tradition cancelled the duty to honour father and mother:
The Lord not only said this; He proved it. He gave an example of the way they set aside the fifth commandment by their rules about "Corban," that is, things devoted to the service of God. Under cover of "Corban" many a Jew rid himself of all his rightful duties towards his poor old parents. And he did it with an air of holiness, for did it not look more godly to devote things to God rather than to one's parents?
The pull of tradition is not only an old problem. One writer gives the reason it lasts:
It is always easier to follow tradition than the written word of God. When we follow it, our conscience is not put to work. We also avoid the difficulty — sometimes a serious one — of giving reasons for what we do... What has been handed down from father to son may not be bad in itself. It may have been good, at least for the time. But a false standard and a human authority take their place in the soul. Even if this does not deny the authority of the word of God, it will surely put that word second.
- Leaving comes first. The failure starts in quiet. People do not attack God's commandment; they set it on one side.
- Then holding. Let go of what is of God, and man's tradition fills the empty place. You fall into the hands of man.
- Then owning. "The tradition of men" becomes "your tradition." Man's religion glorifies man and covers his corruption.
- Then nullifying. Adding even one requirement sets up a rival authority and voids the claim of the whole word of God.
- Corban proves it. A rule that looked holier than caring for one's parents shows where the slide ends. Tradition stays easier than Scripture, because it never searches the conscience.