Matthew 15:3–6

The Lord goes straight to the conscience. He does not open a theoretical discussion about tradition. He does not argue with them about the authority of the elders. He takes hold at once of the plain fact: in their zeal for the tradition of the elders, they were setting themselves squarely against the clear, definite commandment of God.

But Jesus at once brings both scribes and Pharisees, and their tradition, into direct contact with God... This tradition might be right enough in some sense. At the very least it was respected by men, backed by the learning of the scribes and by the religiousness of the Pharisees, and it looked proper in Jerusalem. But He says, "You are flying in the face of God by your tradition!" He closes the point at once, and drops the elders and everything else. A man may plead tradition, the authority of age and the like, but in fact he does so only to clothe himself with it. To the Pharisees, this tradition was the tradition of the elders; but to Christ, it was "you" and "your tradition."

These traditions of the elders were explanations of the law, additions to it, and conclusions drawn from it by respected teachers of long ago. They took over the minds of the Pharisees and clouded the law of God from view. It went so far that they broke the law in order to keep their tradition.

Tradition can be described as teaching handed down by word of mouth. It may be from God, as in 2 Thessalonians 2:15... instruction handed down before the word of God was complete. Or it may be from man, like the tradition of the elders of Israel. The Lord condemned that tradition and said it overturned the commandments of God... What man sets up, man holds on to most tightly.

He does not deal with the washing of hands, though; that was an empty rule, hardly worth mentioning. But He does rebuke a tradition of theirs that openly cancelled the commandment of God. To honour father and mother was one of the original ten commandments. Yet the Jews had invented a tradition that let a son or daughter point to something he owned that could have met his parents' need and call it "Corban," that is, a gift given to God. By this trick he avoided helping his parents.

They did not only set aside one commandment in order to keep their tradition. By doing this they rejected and cancelled the authority of the whole word of God... When I set up another authority, I push aside and cancel the whole word of God, which claims all authority. If someone else can give orders, I am not the only master, and the man is not my servant... Even if it is only about washing my hands, another person can interfere and claim obedience — and the word of God is no longer the only rule that has authority.

(1) laid aside the commandment of God (Mark 7:8); (2) rejected the commandment of God (Mark 7:9); (3) transgressed the commandment of God (Matt. 15:3); (4) made void the word of God (Matt. 15:6; Mark 7:13).

The quotations from the Old Testament in the New are important as proving beyond dispute that God is the author of the whole. It is not simply that Moses or David said this or that. The quotations do prove that Moses wrote the first five books. But words such as "God commanded" introduce them, as in Matthew 15:4… So whatever is marked with "It is written" carries the authority of God Himself.

We are not to suppose that the Lord in any sense took away from the divine origin of the law… Both records are, of course, true. Our Lord's full statement was that (1) God spoke, and (2) He spoke through the mouth of His servant Moses. Each writer included the part of the Lord's words that best suited his own account. Matthew shows that the tradition of the elders clashed with the words of God. Mark stresses that it clashed with the sayings of the nation's lawgiver.

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 binding on the Jews to support their parents when they needed it. (See Proverbs 3:9 for a similar use of the word "honour.") But they wanted to escape this duty, and they invented a religious excuse. They taught that if a man devoted his property to God for His service, he no longer had to honour his parents. So they said, "It is Corban" — meaning a gift, or something set apart for sacred use — to excuse themselves from their responsibility.

The Lord, then, confronts the Pharisees with what God commanded. Honour to parents was valued by God; and disrespect was deadly in His sight.

The law also displays the severity of God. It pronounces the death sentence on sins that today we do not count as deserving death… though we must remember that the wages of sin — of all sin — is death. The sentence our Lord quoted in Matthew 15:4 is one of them.

Just consider what an issue this was. A man sees his father and mother in need. He has earthly 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 a man said "Corban," the duty changed completely. What the parent should have received now had to go to the priest. No matter what the need of father and mother, that word "Corban" stopped all action of heart or conscience.

Children being subject to their parents is part of God's order as seen in nature. Under the law, God attached a special blessing to keeping the commandment that gave this duty. Christianity takes up the duty, but moves it from natural to divine ground… It is not only what nature calls for, though that is right in itself. It is recognising the Lord's own claims, which the parents represent. The blessed Lord Himself, who "learned obedience," was the beautiful example of this.

This command clearly made it a duty for the Jews to support their parents, if that was needed. (See Proverbs 3:9, for a similar use of the word "honour.") But they wanted to escape this responsibility, so they invented a pious excuse. They taught that if a man devoted his property to God for His service, he was released from the duty of honouring his parents. So they said, "It is Corban" — that is, a gift, or a thing set apart for sacred uses — to excuse himself from his responsibility.

The things that came under "Corban" were not things God demanded. If they had been, His demand would have prevailed. Some things could be dedicated, if a man wished; but supporting parents was a distinct command. Pharisaic tradition let a man use an optional rule to avoid obeying a distinct command. They might back their tradition with clever but false arguments that sounded pious, but the Lord charged them with nullifying the Word of God.

Just consider what an issue this was. A man sees his father and mother in need. He has received the earthly goods that would relieve them. But the tradition-makers have invented a plan to benefit so-called religion at the cost of his duty to parents. If a man said "Corban," the duty changed completely. 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 all action of heart or conscience. The leaders had invented the scheme to secure property for religious purposes, and to keep people from any trouble of conscience about the word of God.

Edersheim says this was often done even though the money never went to the temple service at all. The Jewish elders had ruled officially that such a declaration cancelled a man's obligation to his parents.

The Jews had brought in a trick (to quiet their consciences) that let them escape the obligation to meet their duties to their parents. They had only to pronounce the word, "It is a gift" (Corban), and a parent might be forgotten!... And this is what tradition usually does. To add to Scripture is ruinous. It does not matter who does it, or what holy motives men claim. God is jealous about it, and will not have His word enlarged or amended. Revelation is complete, and our simple business is to be obedient to the word of God.

This was simply a matter of the tradition sanctifying the cold-hearted selfishness of the son. Such a 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... This was only one example. Once men despise the Word of God in the smallest matter, their cunning deceit soon undermines anything and everything it pleases.

Satan is always watching to stop us from adorning God's doctrine. He tempts our flesh to look for excuses to escape duties. Those duties are often heavy and trying, but they still stand in the plain path of Scriptural obedience... You can make the word of God of no effect by dishonouring a smaller duty out of a pretended zeal for something greater. That snare is very common among those who profess the faith of Christ.

This command clearly required the Jews to support their parents when they needed it. (See Proverbs 3:9, where the word "honour" is used the same way.) But they wanted to escape this responsibility, so they invented a religious-sounding excuse. They taught that if a man gave his property to God for His service, he was released from the duty of honouring his parents. So they said, "It is Corban" — that is, a gift, or something set apart for sacred use — to excuse themselves from their responsibility.

The things that came under "Corban" were not things God demanded. If they had been, His demand would have won. A man could dedicate certain things if he wished, but the duty to support parents was a clear command. Pharisee tradition let a man use an optional permission to avoid obeying a clear command. They might try to back up their tradition with clever arguments that sounded religious, but the Lord charged them with cancelling the Word of God. The written words of Exodus 20:12 were to Jesus "the Word of God."

These four terms, used of this one sin, seem to mark a rising scale of error. At the start the commandment is (1) pushed aside or ignored. Then it is (2) rejected and its claims refused. Next it is (3) crossed and broken. Last of all it is (4) made useless and void, because a human rule takes its place.

They did not only set aside one commandment so they could keep their tradition. By doing this they cancelled and rejected the authority of the whole word of God. If I break one command, 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. If someone else can give orders, I am not the only master, and the man is not my servant. The servant is misled, and the master is pushed aside as well... Even if it is only about washing my hands, someone else can step in and claim obedience — so the word of God is not the only authoritative rule.

It was for their own profit. It does not matter whether it was money or something else. In man's hands, religion is always turned to a selfish end. He wears it to give himself weight in front of others.

It is common for people who claim to belong to God to prefer human rules and regulations to the plain teaching of His blessed Word... Since the Lord spoke like this, the Scriptures have been completed. The whole revelation of God is in our hands. Yet most people in the Christian world obey church regulations and human orders far more than they obey the wholesome Word of God!