7:9-13
The word “tradition” occurs in scripture both in a good sense and in a bad sense. Broadly, the usage of the term is with reference to religious instruction passed from one to another. The root idea is of something delivered to men. If the instruction is derived from God, the tradition is obviously of supreme and undeniable authority; but if derived from a purely human source, its authority is questionable, and its truth requires to be substantiated, before it can claim our acceptance.
Before the canon of holy Scripture was completed and became accessible in a written form, much of the apostolic teaching was circulated in the early church in the form of tradition either by word or letter. Hence we read of Paul exhorting the Thessalonian saints to “hold the traditions wherein ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 15); similarly also in 2 Thessalonians 6. Again, the same apostle, writing to the Corinthians, praises them that “ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions as I delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2). Whatever truth was delivered to the saints through the medium of the apostles was necessarily a tradition, whether written or oral, and being inspired, had a paramount claim over them (1 Cor. 11:23; 2 Peter 2; Jude 3).
But our Lord here spoke of Jewish tradition which emanated, not from holy men speaking by the Holy Ghost, but from fallible Rabbis who foisted upon their fellows their own views and interpretations. And on account of their human origin, the teaching and ceremonies of the Pharisees are described by Him as “the tradition of men,” “the tradition of the elders,” and as “your own tradition.”
These traditions were held with great tenacity by the scribes and others, and, so far as reputation among men was concerned, a Jew became distinguished in proportion to his zeal for their propagation and development. Saul of Tarsus before his conversion acquired distinction in Jerusalem by reason of his devotion to the tradition of his fathers. Alluding to this feature of his early days, he wrote, “I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of mine own age among my country-men, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers” (Galatians 1:14, R.V.). Tradition, therefore, acquires its evil sense when it is formed by an addition to, or a subtraction from the word of God, and, when fully developed, it becomes a pernicious substitute for the word of God. The scriptures, however, constitute a permanent standard of reference, and are always available for the correction of the vagaries of tradition, if we will but use them for this purpose.
We have in the New Testament an instance of the origin and spread of an unwarranted tradition. At the Sea of Gennesareth, Simon Peter, having received from the Lord some particulars relating to his own future life and service, made inquiry concerning John, saying to Jesus, “Lord, what shall this man do?” Jesus saith unto him, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.” Such was the word of the Lord to Peter. But from it the erroneous tradition arose that John should not die. For we read in the Gospel, “This saying therefore went forth among the brethren that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die: but if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” (John 21:21-23).
For our warning this instance, occurring in the earliest days of Christianity, is recorded of a false gloss put upon our Lord's words gaining currency among the saints either in an oral or in a written form. We are, moreover, shown by the same incident that the correct version of our Lord's words formed a criterion for the false tradition which said what Jesus said not. The report that the Lord would return in the lifetime of the apostle John was an incorrect deduction from the Lord's words to Peter. The effect of this un-authorized tradition upon the hearts of the disciples would be to deaden the hope of the Lord's return as an ever imminent event. Human tradition is in essence an enemy to divine truth, and it invariably comes about in practice that man's inclination is to side with the former rather than the latter. Hence the apostle, writing to the saints at Colosse, exhorts them against the evil influence which man's tradition would exert upon their allegiance to Christ: “Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of man, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8). In Colosse therefore, as well as formerly in Judea, there were many who were “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
In pursuance of this subject, it is instructive to observe that a particular and uncommon Greek word is used in the New Testament for commandments when derived from man. The usual word so translated is ἐντολή, but ἔνταλμα occurs three times only, viz., in Mark 7:7; in the parallel passage, Matthew 15:9; and in Colossians 2:22, in each case forming part of the phrase rendered “the commandments of men.” This word also occurs three times in the LXX. One of the passages (Isaiah 29:13) was quoted by our Lord on this occasion (Mark 7:6, 7; Matthew 15:7-9). In all these passages the word appears to be used with special reference to those ethical maxims and formularies of conduct which men sought to lay as heavy burdens upon the shoulders of their fellows, but which the Lord showed to be lacking in authority.
FILIAL RESPECT
The ablutionary rites introduced by the elders and maintained so rigorously by the Pharisees were of the nature of pure ceremony, but the Lord also charged them with a serious abrogation of the moral law. Not that they sinned under this head in one respect only, for there were “many other such like things” of which they were guilty (ver. 13), but the destruction of the filial bond which their tradition permitted, if not enjoined, was the one selected by the Lord for their condemnation at this juncture.
The conclusion of the incident shows that, in result, the religious leaders who came to the Lord to convict Him as a Teacher of the people were themselves convicted by Him. It affords an instance, in accordance with the special purpose of Mark's narrative, of the absolute perfection of the Servant of Jehovah, in that He used the written word of God as the instrument of conviction, rather than His own personal authority. Matthew, setting out the King of the Jews come to administer the kingdom of the heavens according to the law and the prophets, records the same instance (Matthew 15). When, therefore, the Lord spoke as the Prophet like unto Moses, and brought out of His treasure-house “things new,” His utterances were in His own authority, and not like those of the scribes of the day. On such occasions He taught after this manner: “Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time... but I say unto you....” At such times He was depositing with the people the word of Him who sent Him—a word which in the course of the progress of Divine revelation was given to supplement and to amplify the communications of old. But when the Lord opposed the false teachers of Israel His appeal was to the Scriptures. To their confusion He confronted them with what was on record and what was read by them on sabbath days in their synagogues. The proud Pharisees then found themselves in the presence of the One out of whose mouth went a sharp sword, and for their condemnation, as it were, the books were opened, and they were judged out of the things written in the books.
Accordingly, the Lord then referred the Pharisees and scribes to the law which they professed to teach. What was found in the book of Moses? How did they read therein?
The specific command was, “Honor thy father and thy mother” (Ex. 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16). This was one of the “ten words,” and is called the “first commandment with promise” (Ephesians 5:2), for this injunction was specially distinguished by the assurance of Jehovah, that prosperity and longevity should be the portion of those obedient to it. See the special reward granted to the house of Rechab for filial obedience (Jeremiah 35:18, 19).
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” (Ex. 21:17).
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 (Proverbs 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. Leviticus 20:9; Deuteronomy 27:16; Proverbs 20:20; 30:11). And the solemn charge uttered from Mount Ebal was, “Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother” (Deuteronomy 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.”
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 meet 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” (Proverbs 28:24).
We learn, therefore, from this portion of the Gospel that the Lord condemned this innovation, so inimical to the reciprocal duties of family life, on the ground that it contravened the tenor of the law given by Moses, which was their boast. But, 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 come to bear witness of Himself, and He did not in this instance refer the Pharisees to His own example in the home of Joseph and Mary. But human history knows no instance of filial perfection to set alongside that seen by men and angels through 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 to them,” thus “rendering honor to whom honor was due” (Luke 2:39-52). 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) “Corban” applied to the service of our Lord in the fullest sense of the term, for He devoted Himself in sacrifice upon the altar, yet the committal of His mother to the care of the beloved disciple proves that, even upon the cross, He did not neglect to make provision for her future; magnifying the law in this respect and making it honorable (Isaiah 42:21).
We may note in passing that the obligations of Christian children to their parents are stated to be equally binding with those of the Jews (Ephesians 6:1, 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 inconsistency is, however, only an apparent one.
The Lord said, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 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 Crown, or to screen a criminal from retributive justice. Must the Lord of all 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?
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, an inversion 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 quitted 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.” 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, judged by his own confession, was not prepared to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. And accordingly the Lord said to him, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but go thou and publish abroad the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:59, 60). He had yet to learn the absolute supremacy of the One who said to him, “Follow me.”
CORBAN
“Corban” is a Hebrew, or rather an Aramaic, word whose equivalent in Greek is δῶρον, 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” (Leviticus 2:1, 5; Numbers 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 (Matthew 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 (Matthew 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 here shows convincingly where these Pharisees and scribes were. They had never considered that their principles of Corban made void the word of God. But let us, too, bear in mind that after we have had any Divine truth pressed upon us we are never the same as before. We may have been simply and honestly ignorant then, but we are thenceforth under the increased yoke of God's known mind, which we either receive in faith or reject, and harden ourselves by rejecting in unbelief. Therefore, let us look to the Lord, that we may cherish a good conscience. This supposes that we have nothing before us which we cleave to, or allow inconsistent with God's will. Let us desire and value nothing but what is according to His word, lest peradventure any of us be left where Christ leaves these Pharisees, under the terrible censure that they made void the word of God through their tradition. If but one example was taken up it was a sufficient example of the things they were doing continually.”
THE WORD OF MOSES
In a day of declining regard for the great law-giver of Israel, it is instructive to recognize the manner in which our Lord paid honor on this occasion to Moses, as the accredited representative of God in his time. Even in quoting from the decalogue itself, written as it was by the finger of God upon the tables of stone, Moses is named as the honored medium through whom the law received in the holy mount was promulgated. The Lord declared to the Pharisees, “Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother.”
We are not to suppose that the Lord in any sense detracted from the purely divine origin of the law. On the contrary it is dear that Moses was at the same time presented as the mediator between God and His people. This we may see by comparing this passage with its parallel in Matthew. The report of the words of Jesus there given is, “God said, Honor thy father and mother” (Matthew 15:4. R.V.). Both records are, of course, true, the full statement of our Lord being that (1) God spake and (2) He spake by the mouth of His servant Moses. Each evangelist embodied that portion of the Lord's utterance which was most consonant with the purpose of the particular narrative. Matthew shows that the tradition of the elders was in conflict with the words of God, while Mark lays stress upon its discordance with the sayings of the law-giver of the nation.
Remembering that the Second Evangelist is used by the inspiring Spirit to portray the humble servitude of Jesus, we discern a beautiful touch of His perfections in this part of the narrative. The Prophet's championship of the truth of God was undertaken in meek unassertiveness of His own personal glory and authority. As the Servant of Jehovah He did not strive nor cry, but paid, if we may so express it, a dignified deference to Moses that former servant of God (Revelation 15:3), whom He was to resemble according to the prophecy of Moses himself (Deuteronomy 18:15; Acts 3:22). God had honored Moses, as the scriptures testified, and the Son of man honored him too, teaching us also, by a quiet example, to render honor to whom honor is due. The Lord maintained that honor must be paid to the word of Moses, while He condemned utterly the word of the elders. The word of Moses was the word of God (cp. ver. 10 with ver. 13), while the tradition of the elders was but the word of man, and more unreliable than that—of misguided man.
The Lord approved of whatever was true and commendable in the belief and conduct of those who came within the scope of His ministry, and He fully recognized their professed regard for Moses. He said to the people, “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat” (Matthew 23:2), and they said of themselves, “We are Moses' disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses” (John 9:28, 29). But on account of the hypocrisy of the religious leaders, the word of God became, as in this instance, the instrument of their condemnation. They misused their boasted privileges to the destruction of their souls. Having Moses and the prophets, they had in them sufficient witness of the eternal verities to compass their salvation if they would but hear them (Luke 16:29-31). In the holy oracles were also written the “things concerning” the sufferings and the glories of the Messiah, as Jesus Himself showed both before and after His resurrection (Luke 18:31; 24:27, 44). But in this very thing their blindness was made manifest. Professing to believe Moses, they failed to perceive Him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote. Moses accordingly became, not their savior, but their judge, as the Lord said to them, “Think not that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses on whom ye have set your hope. For if ye believed Moses ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” ( John 5:45-47, R.V.).
W. J. H.