For God commanded saying, Honour father and mother; and, He that speaks ill of father or mother, let him die the death.
God's word here has two edges: a command to honour parents, and a death sentence on anyone who speaks against them. The Lord turns both against leaders who had dodged the first, and He calls the command God's own word, not just a rule from Moses.
The opening words of the verse settle a question far larger than family duty. When the Lord quotes the commandment, He treats the written text as God's own speech.
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.
Mark's report of the same conversation says "Moses said." Commentators see no conflict here. Each writer kept a different half of one full statement.
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.
The word "honour" is not limited to a respectful attitude. In the argument the Lord is making, it reaches the wallet.
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 verse pairs the command with a penalty. That pairing measures how seriously God takes the relationship.
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 carries several death sentences that startle readers today.
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.
The Lord reaches for this commandment because the tradition-makers had built a way to switch it off.
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.
An addition to Scripture ended up overturning Scripture.
The command was not left behind with the law. It reappears for Christians, on new ground.
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.
- God spoke. "God commanded" makes the written text the voice of God, not just the opinion of Moses.
- God valued. He commanded honour for parents. That includes providing for them in need.
- God warned. The attached death sentence shows how deadly contempt for father and mother is in His sight.
- Men evaded. The word "Corban" turned money owed to needy parents into a gift for religion. It silenced conscience too.
- Tradition lost. A man-made rule cancelled a command God had spoken. That is the Lord's charge here, and the reason Scripture must outrank human additions.
But *ye* say, Whosoever shall say to his father or mother, It is a gift, whatsoever [it be] by which [received] from me thou wouldest be profited
The Pharisees ask why His disciples ignore the tradition of the elders. The Lord answers by putting that tradition on trial. This verse is His evidence: a set phrase that let a man tell his parents their claim on him now belonged to God.
The command He appeals to is the one about honouring father and mother. Honouring parents there meant paying for their keep, not just speaking well of them.
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.
God allowed a man to dedicate property to Him. God commanded him to support his parents. Their tradition let the first cancel the second.
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.
after fidelity: "sophistry" restored as clever but false arguments
One spoken word ended the whole question. A son could look at his parents' need and feel he owed them nothing.
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.
The pretence did not even have to be sincere.
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.
They could always plead a holy motive for the rule.
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 not a stray abuse. It shows what tradition does once it stands against Scripture.
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.
The same trap is still open today. We drop a duty close at hand because a grander one calls.
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.
- Command. God's word told a child to support father and mother. "Honour" there meant real provision, not warm words.
- Loophole. Saying "Corban" — it is a gift — put the money under God's claim and cancelled the parent's.
- Cover. A permitted vow gave a man an escape from a plain command, and made his selfishness look like piety.
- Consequence. Tradition did not just add to Scripture. It opposed Scripture and left the word of God with no effect.
- Warning. Once men despise God's word in one small thing, nothing is safe. Watch the duty near at hand that you are tempted to skip for a higher-sounding one.
and he shall in no wise honour his father or his mother; and ye have made void the commandment of God on account of your traditional teaching.
The scribes and Pharisees complained that the disciples ignored the tradition of the elders. Jesus answered by putting their tradition on trial. His verdict: a rule invented by men had cancelled a command spoken by God. The test case was money that should have gone to ageing parents.
The command they dodged was God's word to honour father and mother. Here "honour" means real support, not polite words.
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.
Nothing in the law required a man to dedicate his goods. The trick was to take something optional and use it to cancel something required.
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."
The Lord names their sin in four different terms. One writer reads them as steps, not repeats.
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.
The damage does not stop at one commandment. Let another voice give binding orders, and the whole of Scripture drops to second 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.
The rule was not neutral. Someone gained by it.
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.
Commentators apply this beyond the Pharisees. One observes that we now have far more Scripture than they did, and often obey it less.
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!
- Command. God's word told a child to support his parents; "honour" meant real provision, not warm feelings.
- Loophole. Saying "Corban" made the money a gift to God. Tradition let that optional gift cancel a binding command.
- Escalation. The four charges climb: men ignore the commandment, then refuse it, then break it, then swap in a human rule.
- Collapse. The loss is bigger than one command. Set up a second authority, and the whole word of God stops being the only rule.
- Profit. The rule paid the men who made it. In man's hands religion bends to his own advantage — and the same pull works on those who hold a completed Bible today.