The Lord exposes in Mark 7:6-13 how the Pharisees and scribes set aside, by their traditions, the commandment to honor father and mother. In doing so, He used the written Word of God as the instrument of conviction, rather than His own personal authority. Filial respect to parents is strongly upheld by the Lord.
Accordingly, the Lord referred the Pharisees and scribes to the law of Moses which they professed to teach.
1. The specific command was, “Honor thy father and thy mother” (Ex. 20:12). This was one of the “ten words” and is called the “first commandment with promise” (Eph. 6:2), for this injunction was specially distinguished by the assurance of Jehovah that prosperity and longevity should be the portion of those obedient to it.
2. Further, the Lord quoted to the Pharisees the severe sentence pronounced by the same law against the one who did despite to his parents: “Whoso curseth [or, revileth] father or mother, let him die the death” (Mark 7:10; see Ex. 21:17).
None could deny that Jehovah had 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 (Lev. 20:9).
Human Tradition
But the elders 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. “Ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me. ... And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother” (Mark 7:11-12).
Having thus contrasted their practice with the original precepts of the law, the Lord summed up the effect of their conduct in one of His pregnant sayings, charging His accusers with making the Word of God of none effect through their tradition. They virtually repealed the law from heaven, and at the same time outraged the instincts of nature. It was not correct that they should take the parents’ bread and devote it to the altar. In the Proverbs it was written, “Whoso robbeth his father or his mother, and saith, It is no transgression; the same is the companion of a destroyer” (Prov. 28:24).
The Lord’s Witness
We learn, therefore, from this portion of the Gospel that the Lord condemned this innovation so inimical [hostile or unfriendly] to the reciprocal duties of family life, on the ground that it contravened the tenor of the law given by Moses. But in reading the Gospels as a whole, we also know that the tradition of the Jews was contrary to the grace and truth that came by Jesus Christ. The Lord did not use the witness that He had borne to the Pharisees regarding His own example in the home of Joseph and Mary. But there is no instance of filial imperfection through the long years in the carpenter’s house at Nazareth. Scripture says little of the youth of Jesus, but that little means much. We read that He went with His “parents” to Jerusalem and that He returned to Nazareth and was “subject unto them,” (Luke 2:39-52), thus rendering honor to whom honor was due. The Evangelist who records that Jesus said to Mary at Cana in Galilee, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” also records His words to her at Golgotha: “Woman, behold thy son” (John 2:4; 19:26-27). “Corban” applied to the service of our Lord in the fullest sense of the term, for He devoted Himself in sacrifice upon the altar, while at the same time the committal of His mother to the care of the beloved disciple, proving that even upon the cross, He did not neglect to make provision for her future. He magnified the law in this respect and made it honorable (Isa. 42:21).
Family Claims — the Lord’s Claims
We should notice that the obligations of Christian children to their parents are just as applicable as they were to the Jews (Eph. 6:2; Col. 3:20; 1 Tim. 5:4,8).
It has sometimes been alleged that there is inconsistency between the Lord’s defense of filial ties on this occasion and His call made elsewhere to His disciples to forsake father and mother for His sake. This is, however, only an apparent inconsistency.
The Lord said, “He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me” (Matt. 10:37); and again, “If any man come to Me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:26). In these words the Lord declared the condition of discipleship. This condition was based upon the acknowledgment of His authority as paramount and absolute. No human tie should have a superior claim to that of the Lord Jesus. And in the utterances quoted, He contemplated a case where family authority sought to override His word as Master. Even in national government, parental claims or filial responsibilities are not allowed to absolve a subject from allegiance to the civil authority or to screen a criminal from retributive justice. The Lord of all will not ask less than this from the subjects of His kingdom!
If patriotism demands that a man
tall,
Leave all to serve his country,
Who should complain when the
Master calls
His disciples to leave all, to serve
Him!
The Right Order of Duty
There is, therefore, no inconsistency in our Lord’s teaching. In the one case, He set the divine call above the claims of filial duties, while in the other, He condemned the Pharisees who set human tradition above filial duty, for which there was no adequate warrant. The question of mutual obligation in the family is one which can only be finally settled by divine authority. God alone, who established the responsibility of children to their parents, can abrogate that responsibility, and from the beginning He recorded His permission that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife (Gen. 2:24). The parental home might be left to form a new relationship of a natural order. In the New Testament we have a relationship of a spiritual order entered by a similar renunciation. At the call of Jesus, James and John left their father Zebedee in the ship with their hired servants and went after Him. It was so with others, as Peter said, “Lo, we have left all and followed Thee” (Luke 18:28). But we read that the Lord said to another, “Follow Me,” and he was ready with an excuse. He took refuge in his filial responsibilities and desired that he might be allowed to wait until his father was dead and buried. Clearly this man by his own confession was not prepared to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. And accordingly the Lord said to him, “Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:60). He had yet to learn the absolute supremacy of the One who said to him, “Follow Me.”
Bible Treasury (adapted)