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.
And he said to them, Well do ye set aside the commandment of God, that ye may observe what is delivered by yourselves [to keep].
Religious leaders from Jerusalem had just challenged Jesus about His disciples eating with unwashed hands. He answered by naming what they were doing: setting God's command aside with skill, to keep a rule of their own.
Matthew and Mark together give four descriptions of what these men did with God's command. One writer traces them as steps that get worse, not four ways of saying the same thing:
These four terms about this one sin seem to show a rising scale of error. At the starting point, the commandment is (1) left on one side or ignored. Then it is (2) rejected and its claims refused. Next it is (3) crossed and violated. Lastly it is (4) made ineffective and void, as a human rule takes its place.
Verse 9 sits at stage two. In verse 8 they let the command slip. Here they refuse it.
The word behind "rejecting" means more than breaking a rule. It means treating something as having no claim on you:
Further, these boastful zealots had rejected the commandment of God. In the original, the verb seems to mean slighting or disregarding the claims the law had on them. They acted as if those claims were not worth noticing (compare Hebrews 10:28, Greek). The Lord used the same word when He spoke to the seventy He sent out to preach: "The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
One writer sets out the order behind the charge:
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 a claim upon the Christian heart is what comes from God.
Jesus does not leave the charge as a bare claim. He picks one accepted custom and shows where it led. The command it pushed aside was the one about caring for father and mother.
The word of God gives plain directions for children to honour their parents. But they had a tradition by which they could claim to set aside their property for the use of God. They said "It is Corban," meaning a gift devoted to God, so it could not go to help a needy parent. So, by their tradition, they set aside the word of God. They avoided their duty to needy relatives and served their own greed.
What made the arrangement work was how it looked from the outside:
Many a Jew used "Corban" as a cover, and so dropped all his rightful duties towards his poor old parents. And he did it with an air of holiness, for did it not seem more pious to devote things to God rather than to one's parents?
Rejecting one command might look like a limited failure. One writer says the damage goes further, because a rival authority takes over:
They did not only set aside one commandment so that they might keep their tradition. By doing this they also made null and rejected the authority of the whole word of God. If I break one, I am guilty of all; but in setting up another authority, I displace and make void and null the whole word of God, which claims all authority. If another can direct, I am not sole master, and the man is not my servant. This not only misleads the servant; it sets the master aside.
This verse does not make teaching or help from others wrong. It marks where authority stops:
To hear men of God, to get help from servants of God, to value an explanation of the truth — all this is good. But it is very different from an authoritative rule or creed that men impose as binding on the conscience. It is never right to accept in that way what comes from man. God alone and His word bind the conscience. His servants may teach, but if they teach rightly, it is the truth of God.
- Drift first. They let the command slip before they refuse it. Verse 8 comes before verse 9, and both come before tradition makes God's word void.
- Refusal next. "Reject" means treating God's claim as unworthy of notice. Jesus used the same word for those who reject His messengers and Himself.
- Swap follows. Give up what is from God, and you fall into the hands of man. The evil is not that tradition is worse; it is that they dropped God's word.
- Cost shows. Corban let a man look devoted while his parents went without. The rule served greed and wore an air of holiness.
- Cure holds. Teaching may help the conscience, but only God's word may bind it. One added rule sets up a rival master and unseats the whole.
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, he who speaks ill of father or mother, let him surely die.
Jesus answers the religious leaders not by claiming His own authority. He opens the book they claimed to teach. He sets one plain commandment against a rule they had invented to get around it. The verse raises two questions. What does it mean to honour a father and mother? And how did men who prized Scripture end up cancelling it?
Matthew reports the same moment with different wording. One commentator explains why both records are true.
We must not think that the Lord in any way played down the purely divine origin of the law. On the contrary, it is clear that Moses was at the same time presented as the mediator between God and His people. This we may see by comparing this passage with its parallel in Matthew. There the words of Jesus are reported as, "God said, Honor your father and your mother." Both records are, of course, true. The Lord's full statement was that (1) God spoke, and (2) He spoke through His servant Moses. Each writer kept the part of the Lord's words that best fitted the purpose of his own account. Matthew shows that the tradition of the elders clashed with the words of God. Mark stresses that it clashed with the words of the nation's lawgiver.
The command is not about polite feelings. It cost money, and that is why people wanted a way around it.
First, then, the Lord brings forward the law of Moses, the word of God: "Honor your father and your mother." This command clearly made it a duty for the Jews to provide for their parents when needed. (See Proverbs 3:9 for a similar use of the word "honour.") But they wanted to escape this responsibility, so they invented a holy-sounding excuse.
The Lord does not quote the command on its own. He quotes the penalty that came with it.
The word of God promised long and prosperous days in the land to the obedient, but a criminal's death to the disobedient (compare Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16; Prov. 20:20; Prov. 30:11). And the solemn charge spoken from Mount Ebal was, "Cursed be anyone who dishonors his father or his mother" (Deut. 27:16).
That penalty rests on God's own estimate of the offence.
To honour parents is right and of God; to make light of them unfits a man to live, in God's estimate.
The next verse names the device. A man could declare his property "Corban" — a gift devoted to God — and so escape helping his parents.
Under cover of "Corban" many a Jew stripped himself of all his rightful duties towards his poor old parents. And he did the thing with an air of sanctity, for did it not appear more pious to devote things to God rather than to one's parents?
Adding to Scripture is one thing. This rule went further. One writer shows that it worked against God's Word.
This was simply a matter of the tradition treating the son's cold-hearted selfishness as holy... It was not merely a tradition added to the Word (which is bad enough), but a tradition opposing God's Word. The Lord adds, "and many such things you do." This was only one example. Once men despise the Word of God in the smallest matter, it is not long before their cunning deceit undermines anything and everything it pleases.
The danger is not limited to one nation or one time. One writer applies it to anyone who lets human rules stand beside Scripture.
God's word is a living reality, and a complete standard of truth and practice. Everything that man adds as a supplement is a deformity; it is that which, as it does not flow from God, is inconsistent with the light. Man is incompetent to regulate what belongs to God.
- Word. "Moses said" and "God said" report the same speech. God spoke through His servant, so the law is God's word, not human rule-making.
- Weight. That word promised long, prosperous days to the obedient child. It promised a criminal's death to the child who reviled his parents.
- Work. Honouring parents meant supporting them in practice — providing for them when they were in need.
- Workaround. "Corban" let a son label his money a gift to God and walk away from his parents, looking holy while he did it.
- Warning. A tradition that opposes the Word undoes it. And once people despise Scripture in one small matter, nothing is safe.
But *ye* say, If a man say to his father or his mother, [It is] corban (that is, gift), whatsoever thou mightest have profit from me by ...
The religious leaders had built a formula that could silence a plain command of God. Jesus quotes their own words back to them: how could one word spoken over money cancel a son's duty to a parent in need?
"Corban" is a Hebrew word, so the verse stops to explain it. The word is about handing something over to God.
This is the Greek word korban, standing for the Hebrew word qorban, "an offering." It means anything brought near or devoted to God. The Jews allowed, and perhaps encouraged, sons to devote their property to God. The sons could then refuse to help their parents, saying that their goods were "corban," or devoted. The Lord blames the rulers for this. It was one of their traditions, and by it they made the word of God of no effect.
The Lord picks a case anyone can picture: parents in need, and a son who could help them.
A man sees his father and mother in need. He has the earthly goods that would relieve them. But the makers of tradition have invented a plan to benefit so-called religion at the cost of a child's duty. If a man said "Corban," the duty changed completely: what the parent should have had now went to the priest. However great the need of father and mother, that word "Corban" stopped all action of heart or conscience. The leaders had devised the scheme to secure property for religious purposes, and to keep people from any trouble of conscience about the word of God.
The money did not even have to reach the temple. And not every vow of this kind meant the same thing.
Saying the vow-word "Corban" did not always dedicate a thing to the Temple, even though the word means a "gift" or "given to God." Usually it meant only that the thing was to be treated like Corban. For the person named, it counted as if it lay on the altar, put completely out of their reach. Though both carried the same name, there were really two kinds of vows: vows that set something apart for God, and vows of personal obligation. The second kind was the more common.
The two duties in play did not carry the same weight.
The things that came under "Corban" were not things God demanded. If they had been, His demand would have come first. A person could dedicate such things if he wished. But the duty to support parents was a clear command. The Pharisees' tradition let a man use an optional arrangement to avoid obeying a clear command.
Underneath the sacred-sounding vow sat something very ordinary.
By their tradition they set aside the word of God, evaded their responsibility to their needy relatives, and fed their own covetousness.
The Lord does not call it the tradition of the elders. He calls it your tradition.
Man's religion glorifies man; it is his… A man, such as he is, can wash his hands, and say "Corban."… First, it is "tradition of men," then "your tradition."… Nothing is so dear to a man as the cover of his corruption.
The words have changed. The reasoning has not.
It is no doubt good to do all the good we can; but let us look carefully at the way we do it. Let us not fool ourselves with the vain idea that God will ever accept service built on outright disobedience to His Word. "It is a gift," said the elders, as they walked boldly over the plain commandment of God. They acted as if He would be pleased with a gift offered on such a ground. There is a close connection between the ancient "corban" and the modern "expediency."
- Word. Corban means an offering brought near and devoted to God. Sons spoke it over their property and then refused to help their parents.
- Cover. Nothing had to reach the temple. The word alone put the property out of the parents' reach, as if it lay on the altar.
- Swap. An optional gift cancelled a direct command. What a man might give outranked what God commanded.
- Corruption. They kept the money, dropped the duty, and fed their own greed. So the Lord calls it not the elders' tradition but your tradition.
- Copy. The trick lives on wherever a good aim excuses disobedience. Old "Corban" and modern "expediency" are close relatives.
And ye no longer suffer him to do anything for his father or his mother;
The scene is a dispute over tradition. Religious teachers had built a rule that let a man declare his property "Corban" — given to God. The Lord's charge here is that they then stopped him from helping his own father or mother. How can a rule that sounds devout cancel a plain command of God?
The vow did more than redirect a man's goods. It locked them away from his parents.
Suppose a man said to his father or mother, "What you might have had from me is Corban" — that is, given to God. By this formula his goods counted as set apart for the service of God. From then on, according to the tradition of the elders, no one could turn them to the relief of his parents. The scribes, it is said, held that once a man spoke this word over any of his possessions, he was free from every natural duty. That held true even if he kept the goods back for a time from the service of the temple. This agrees with our Lord's word, "You no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother."
The word "Corban" did more than settle a legal question.
Just consider what an issue this was. A man sees his father and mother in need. He has received the goods that would relieve them. But the tradition-makers have invented a plan to benefit so-called religion at the cost of a son's duty. If anyone said "Corban," the duty changed completely, and what the parent should have received must now go to the priest. No matter what the need of father and mother, that word "Corban" stopped every movement of heart or conscience.
Dedicating goods to God was optional; supporting parents was not.
The things that came under "Corban" were not things God demanded. Had they been, His demand would have had to prevail. A person could dedicate certain things if he wished. But the duty to support parents was a definite command. Pharisaic tradition let a man use a permission to avoid obeying a definite command.
Look at who gained from the arrangement.
The word of God gives plain directions for children to honour their parents. But they had a tradition by which they could claim to set their property aside for the use of God, so that it could not help a needy parent. In this way their tradition set aside the word of God, dodged their responsibility to needy relatives, and served their own covetousness.
The Lord does not treat this as a private family failure.
The Lord treats this tradition of saying "Corban" not only as a wrong done to the parents, but as an act of rebellion against the express commandment of God.
One writer traces the damage further than the single commandment broken:
They did not just set aside one commandment to keep their tradition. By doing so they cancelled and rejected the authority of the whole word of God. If I break one, I am guilty of all. But when I set up another authority, I push aside and cancel the whole word of God, which claims all authority.
The leaders used devotion to God as a reason to abandon a mother. The Lord did the opposite at the moment of His own sacrifice.
"Corban" applied to the service of our Lord in the fullest sense of the word, for He gave Himself in sacrifice on the altar. Yet He committed His mother to the care of the beloved disciple. That proves He did not fail to provide for her future, even on the cross.
The danger is not confined to first-century Jerusalem.
May we all bear in mind how deeply we need to watch against the spirit of tradition. Wherever we impose with absolute authority a thing that does not come from God Himself, it is a tradition. It matters more than anything that we strengthen each other in this: nothing but the word of God has the right to govern the conscience.
- Command. God told children to honour father and mother. That duty included real support when parents were in need.
- Loophole. Saying "Corban" declared goods given to God. A man used a permission to escape a definite command.
- Enforcement. The leaders themselves stopped the son from helping. That one word silenced heart and conscience.
- Result. A second authority does not damage one commandment only. It cancels the whole word of God, and it serves a man's covetousness while looking devout.
- Guard. Christ gave Himself in sacrifice and still provided for His mother from the cross. The test now: does God's word alone govern the conscience?
making void the word of God by your traditional teaching which ye have delivered; and many such like things ye do.
The Lord ends His answer to the Pharisees with the sharpest charge of all. Their handed-down rules did not sit beside Scripture — they cancelled it, and Corban was only one example.
This last charge goes further than breaking one command. One writer explains why setting up a second authority is not a partial failure but a total one.
They did not just set aside one commandment so that they could keep their tradition. By doing this they also cancelled and rejected the authority of the whole word of God. If I break one command, I am guilty of all. But if I set up another authority, I push aside and cancel the whole word of God, which claims all authority. If someone else can direct me, I am not the only master, and the man is not my servant. That misleads the servant, and it sets the master aside too. Anyone who adds even the smallest stroke sets aside God's authority, and His revealed will as authority, altogether. Even if the rule is only to wash my hands, someone else can step in and claim obedience. Then the word of God is not the only rule with authority.
Tradition gave a son a way to keep his money from his parents and still look religious. One writer shows what it cost them.
A man sees his father and mother in need. He owns enough to relieve them. But the dealers in tradition have invented a plan that benefits so-called religion at the cost of a son's duty. Say "Corban," and the duty changed completely: what the parent should have received now had to go to the priest. However great the need of father and mother, that word "Corban" stopped all action of heart or conscience. The leaders had invented the scheme to secure property for religious use, and to stop people feeling any trouble of conscience about the word of God.
Tradition here did not add to God's word; it fought it.
Here the tradition simply gave a holy name to the cold-hearted selfishness of the son. Such pretence is contemptible, of course, but the Pharisees encouraged it, and so made the Word of God of no effect. It was not merely a tradition added to the Word (which is bad enough), but a tradition opposing God's Word. The Lord adds, "And many such things you do." This was only one example. Once men despise the Word of God in the smallest matter, it is not long before their cunning deceit undermines anything and everything it pleases.
Notice the word "your" in the Lord's charge.
The Lord calls all tradition "your tradition." Scripture names it the tradition of the elders, and man calls it that too, because it carries authority with him. Man's religion glorifies man; it is his... A Muslim likes Muslim tradition. A member of the state church likes the tradition of the state church. A Roman Catholic likes the tradition of Rome, and a Greek that 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.
The Lord now says "the word of God" instead of "commandment."
He went on to call God's own sayings "the word of God" (see also John 10:35; Rom. 9:6), and charged them with cancelling it, or making it void, by their tradition. This change of name for the law matters. It carries us back to the Author of the Scriptures, which tell us His mind and will about men... The phrase points not so much to the letter of the law as to its inmost meaning — its spirit. So the Lord showed that their tradition did more than break God's commandment. It made void the very mind and meaning of what He had said to them.
The strange thing is that this is possible at all.
Think again about our Lord's words to the Pharisees. It is startling to learn that small man can make the word of the living God ineffective. We know that word is eternal and unchanging, "settled in the heavens." It stands more firmly than heaven and earth. The picture of the living, imperishable seed shows its inward power. That is its true and unique character. And yet the truth holds a seeming paradox, which one well known parable of our Lord's sets out: birds of the air can carry it away, the sun can wither it, and thorns can spring up and choke it.
- Added. Add one human rule to Scripture — even one as small as hand-washing — and a second voice claims obedience.
- Displaced. That second voice does not dent God's authority; it replaces it. Break one command and you are guilty; add one and you set the whole word aside.
- Reversed. Corban shows where it ends. The added rule forbids what God commanded, and a hard heart towards parents looks like devotion to God.
- Multiplied. "And many such things you do" — once a man despises the word in a small matter, nothing in it stays safe.
- Voided. The eternal, unchanging word — living seed — bears no fruit in the man who prefers his own tradition.