What does Corban mean in Mark 7:11?

This is the Greek word, κορβᾶν, representing the Hebrew word qorban, 'an offering,' and signifies anything brought near or devoted to God. The Jews allowed, and perhaps encouraged, sons to devote their property to God, and then refuse to assist their parents under the plea that their substance was 'corban,' or devoted. The Lord blames the rulers for this as one of their traditions, by which they had made the word of God of none effect. Mark 7:11.

"Corban" is a Hebrew, or rather an Aramaic, word whose equivalent in Greek is doron, which means a gift. In the Old Testament the word is used in connection with the service of the law, and is translated "offering" and "oblation"

Thus here was a challenge which the Lord could not allow to go unanswered. He answers them with another question; which even to themselves would destroy the authority to which they appealed, if they could not answer it: "Why do ye also transgress the commandments of God for your tradition?" And then He takes up the commandment to which in a special way God had been pleased to attach a promise for the observance of it, a signal punishment for disobedience to it, and shows how thoroughly their tradition left the door open to any who pleased, to violate it with impunity. A man had only to say it was "corban" ― a gift to God ― that by which he might have ministered to the need of his father or mother, to be completely excused from such a duty. "Of course, the Ten Words,'" says Edersheim, "were the Holy of Holies of the Law; nor was there any obligation more rigidly observed ― indeed, carried in practice almost to the verge of absurdity, ― than that of honor to parents. In both respects, then; this was a specially vulnerable point, and it might well be argued that if in this law Rabbinic ordinances came into conflict with the demands of God's word, the essential contrariety between them must indeed be great.

"It must not be thought that the pronunciation of the votive word 'Corban,' although meaning a 'gift' or 'given to God,' necessarily dedicated a thing to the Temple. The meaning might simply be, and generally was, that it was to be regarded like Corban, ― that is, that in regard to the person or persons named, the thing termed so was to be considered as if it were Corban, ― laid on the altar, and put entirely out of their reach. For, although included under the same name, there were really two kinds of vows: those of consecration to God, and those of personal obligation ― and the latter were the most frequent.

"There can be no doubt that the words of Christ referred to such vows of personal obligation. By these a person might bind himself with regard to men or things, or else put that which was another's out of his own reach, or that which was his own out of the reach of another, and this as completely as if the thing or things had been Corban, a gift given to God. … And so stringent was the ordinance that (almost in the words of Christ) it is expressly stated that such a vow was binding, even if what was vowed involved a breach of the Law. It cannot be denied that such vows in regard to parents would be binding, and were actually made. Indeed the question is discussed in the Mishnah, in so many words, whether honor of father or mother constituted a ground for invalidating a vow, and decided on the negative against a solitary dissenting voice. And if doubt should still exist, a case is related in the Mishnah, in which a father was thus shut out by the vow of his son from anything by which he might be profited by him" (Edersheim, vol. 2 pp. 17-21).

What is the harm of all this? It may not be wise, but is merely innocent, a person might argue. But the Lord does not judge so lightly of nullifying God's commandments by the deference that men show to the will and word of man. "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and he who speaks ill of father or mother, let him surely die." There we have the plain revelation of God's mind. To honour parents is right and of God, to make light of them unfits man to live in God's estimate. How did tradition dissolve so plain a duty? "Ye say, If a man say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is, gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and ye suffer him no more to do anything for his father or his mother, making void the word of God69 through your traditions which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do." Just consider what an issue this was. A man sees his father and mother in want; he has received in earthly goods that which would relieve them, but the tradition-mongers have invented a plan to benefit religion so called at the cost of filial duty. If one said "Corban" the duty was totally changed, and that which would have been due to the parent must now be devoted to the priest. No matter what the need of father and mother, that word "Corban" estopped all action of heart or conscience. The leaders had devised the scheme to secure property for religious purposes, and to quiet persons from all trouble of conscience about the word of God.

But the Judge and Lord of all meets this at once. Who had given them authority to say, It is Corban? Where had God warranted such a practice? and who were they that dared to substitute their thoughts for the word of God? It was God who called on man to honour his parents, and who denounced all slight done to them. Yet here were men violating, under cloak of religion, both these commandments of God! This tradition of saying "Corban" the Lord treats not only as a wrong done to the parents, but as a rebellious act against the express commandment of God.

The scribes and Pharisees had found fault with the disciples for eating bread with unwashen hands, complaining that they did not walk according to the tradition of the elders. (vv. 2 - 5.) To this the Lord gave a threefold answer: first, He charged the Pharisees with hypocrisy, inasmuch as they were satisfied with honouring God with their lips, while their hearts were far from Him; secondly, He declared that worship which was regulated by man's commandments was vain; and thirdly, He told them that they had rejected the commandments of God in order to maintain their own tradition. As an illustration of the last point He cites a special case, and it is in connection with this that the word "Corban" occurs. First, then, the Lord adduces the law of Moses, the word of God - "Honour thy father and thy mother." This command plainly made it obligatory upon the Jews to maintain their parents, if necessary. (See Proverbs 3:9, for a similar use of the word "honour.") But they desired to escape this responsibility, and they devised a pious pretext for doing so. They taught that, if a man devoted his property to God for His service, they were released from the duty of honouring their parents; and consequently they said, "It is Corban" - that is, a gift, or a thing devoted to sacred uses - to excuse themselves from their responsibility. They thus set aside the word of God, through their own tradition, and made the word of God of no effect. Truly, in every age, it is necessary to proclaim that to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams; and that no greater dishonour can be done to God than by the substitution of man's teachings in the place of His commandments.

Then, in carrying out their ceremonials they brushed aside the commandment of God in favour of their own tradition. The Lord not merely asserted this, but proved it by giving an instance of the way in which they set aside the fifth commandment by their rules concerning "Corban;" that is, things devoted to the service of God. Under cover of "Corban" many a Jew divested 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?

The things that came under "Corban" were not things that God demanded; had it been so His demand must have prevailed. There were things that might be dedicated, if so desired; whereas the obligation to support parents was a distinct command. Pharisaic tradition permitted a man to use a permissive enactment in order to avoid complying with a distinct command. They might try to support their tradition with sophistry which appeared pious, but the Lord charged them with nullifying the Word of God. The written words of Exodus 20:12 were to Jesus "the Word of God." There is no support here for that religious fastidiousness which declines to attach the designation "Word of God" to the written Scriptures.

Thirdly, it sets aside the plain word of God in favour of the traditions of men. The Lord gives an example of this great evil. The word of God gives plain directions for the children to honour the parents; but they had a tradition by which they could profess to set aside their property for the use of God by saying "It is Corban," meaning a gift devoted to God, and therefore could not be used to help a needy parent. Thus, by their tradition, they set aside the word of God, evaded their responsibility to their needy relatives, and ministered to their own covetousness.

Thus, as not one of His hearers could deny, had Jehovah encouraged and warned every son in Israel to keep the commandment of his father, and not to depart from the law of his mother (Prov. 6:20). The word of God declared there should be prolonged and prosperous days in the land for the obedient, but a criminal's death for the disobedient (cp. Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16; Prov. 20:20; Prov. 30:11). And the solemn charge uttered from Mount Ebal was, "Cursed be he that sets light by his father or his mother" (Deut. 27:16).

But what said the elders? They contradicted both the letter and the spirit of the law of God. They devised, in the name of piety, a wicked scheme whereby a man might release himself from every obligation towards his parents. Whatever benefits were due from him to his father and mother, let him consecrate those benefits to the service of the temple, and the Jewish council would thereupon absolve him from all filial responsibilities. "But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, It is Corban (that is to say, a gift) by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me. … And ye no longer suffer him to do anything for his father or his mother."

(Lev. 2:1, 5, 13: Lev. 3:1; Num. 7:35). "Corban was applied to the offering especially in the aspect of its dedication to Jehovah. In this sense the word was applied at a later day to the sacred treasure of the temple; and to that consecrated store the chief priests decided that Judas' pieces of silver might not be added (Matt. 27:6). Compare the distinction made by the Pharisees between the temple, and the gold of the temple, and between the altar and the gift on the altar (Matt. 23:16-22).

Apparently the Jews were urged to contribute dedicatory offerings to the temple service, and out of an inordinate zeal on the part of the teachers which was not according to truth, the traditional custom arose. If a man said to his father or mother, "That wherein thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban," that is Given to God, his goods were regarded as consecrated by this formula to the service of God, and, according to the tradition of the elders, might not be thenceforth diverted to the relief of his parents. It is said that the scribes held that if this word was pronounced over any of a man's possessions he was exempt from the performance of any natural duty, even though he withheld the goods temporarily from the service of the temple. This accords with our Lord's word, "Ye suffer him no more to do aught for his father or mother." A writer commenting on this practice of the Jewish leaders remarks, "A more striking instance of the subversion of a command of God by the tradition of men can hardly be conceived."

But the Lord's warning to the hypocrites of that day has its application equally to the conditions of the present day. "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 proceed from God Himself, it is a tradition. It is all very well to take counsel of one another, and it is not a happy feature to oppose others needlessly; but it is of all consequence that we should strengthen each other in this, that nothing but the word of God is entitled or ought to govern the conscience. It will be found that when we let go this principle, and allow a rule to come in and become binding, so that what is not done according to that rule is regarded as a sin, we are gone from the authority of the word of God to that of tradition, perhaps without knowing it ourselves.

The Lord, to uncover the hypocrisy of the Pharisees with their traditions, refers to the commandment which demands the child to honor father and mother. To this Jewish tradition had added, "A son is bound to provide his father meat and drink, to clothe him, to cover him, to lead him in and out, to wash his face, hands and feet. A son is bound to nourish his father, yea, to beg for him." (Kiddushim.) But with all this strictness tradition had found a way how to avoid this obligation. A person had only to say "corban" -- a gift, something dedicated to the temple or a vow of personal obligation, and the son was completely released from any duty towards his father and mother.

"And so stringent was the ordinance that it is expressly stated that such a vow was binding, even if what was voiced involved a breach of the law. It cannot be denied that such vows in regard to parents would be binding, and were actually made. Indeed, the question is discussed in the Mishnah, in so many words, whether "honor of father and mother" constituted a ground for invalidating a vow, and decided on the negative against a solitary dissenting voice. And if doubt should still exist, a case is related in the Mishnah, in which a father was thus shut out by the vow of his son from anything by which he might be profited by him." (See Edersheim, "Life and Times of Jesus, the Messiah.")