[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.