7:9-13
“And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition. For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death: but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, Given to God, ye no longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother; making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do” (7:9-13, R.V.).
On the ground of its purely human origin, the Lord declared the true relative value of the rite of purification by water, of which the Pharisees were making such improper use in their doctrines. Moreover, He went further than the condemnation of this particular item of their religious practice, which was not authorized by the law, and showed that the whole system of Judaism was corrupt and hypocritical before God. Using the written word for their convictions, the Lord adduced the testimony of Isaiah the prophet to show that they, the favored people, outwardly nigh by national election, were far off from God in heart and spirit, as much so as the Gentiles, who were without law, being both Jews and Gentiles, equally under sin, as the Holy Spirit subsequently demonstrated to all men by means of the pen of the apostle Paul (Romans 3:9).
In the words cited at the head of this article, the Lord of light and truth pronounced solemn judgment upon the profession made by the Jews that they were the accepted worshippers of God. In the divine estimation they were but dead formalists, and, worse even than this, they were active rebels against the truth of God. For, under an assumption of excessive zeal for the commandment of God, they destroyed its real value by the adoption of human tradition, which was in effect an evil and destructive substitute for the holy law.
On consideration of the Lord's words, it will be perceived that His charge here, as elsewhere in the Gospels, was that in the matter of the possession of the law, which was their proud boast, the Jews has corrupted themselves. The Pharisees are accused, not of a riot of their carnal passions, but of religious hypocrisy. The law was in their mouths, but not in their hearts.
It is strikingly true that in the general decadence of their national history the custody of the living oracles of God, retained in their original purity by the Jews, constituted their chief remaining glory. What other institution for their boasting remained to them at that time? The temple of Solomon had long been desolated, and the building then standing on Mount Zion was erected by that foul Edomite tyrant, Herod the Great. The Aaronic office was occupied by two high-priests of evil fame, Annas and Caiaphas. The sacred character of the Levitical services and of the round of feasts and sacrifices was obliterated by the violent contentions of those powerful fanatics—the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The land of promise itself groaned beneath the iron yoke of a heathen empire, and many of the seed of Abraham were scattered as strangers in strange lands.
But while it might be truly said that Ichabod was written upon the people and upon their ancient institutions, they, in spite of all their vicissitudes and of their spiritual declension, had faithfully preserved the manuscripts of the law, the prophets and the psalms. And the apostle was careful to note the fact of this sacred trust when summing up the respective responsibilities of the Jew and the Gentile and their failures therein, at the tribunal of divine inquiry. Paul made no reference to Mosaic ritual or sacrifice; but, having asked, “What advantage then hath the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?” replied: “Much every way; first of all that they were intrusted with the oracles of God” (Romans 3:1, 2). There were, undoubtedly, other privileges, some of which are enumerated later in the same Epistle (Romans 9:4, 5). But while much had been debilitated or lost, the Jew had some ground for his boast that the law had been maintained intact in spite of its oft-threatened destruction. If there was no Shekinah of glory in the Holy of holies, the voices of the prophets were still read in the synagogue every sabbath day.
It is sad to reflect therefore that the Jews, highly-favored as the custodians of the word of God and jealous to conserve its every jot and tittle, should stultify this priceless benefit by human glosses so that its inward power and sweetness were no longer known and enjoyed.
THE TERMS OF CONDEMNATION USED BY OUR LORD
Collating the words of Matthew with those of Mark, we find that this sin of the Jews is described by our Lord in a fourfold manner. By the undue prominence given to their tradition (a) concerning the rite of purification, and (b) concerning the manner of release from filial obligations, He declared that they had—
(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 (Matthew 15:3);
(4) made void the word of God (Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:13).
And by these four terms employed with reference to this particular transgression, there appears to be indicated an ascending scale of error. At the point of departure, as it were, the commandment is (1) left on one side or ignored; it is then (2) rejected and its claims refused; next, the commandment is (3) traversed and violated; while, lastly, it is (4) rendered ineffective and void by the substitution of a human ordinance.
Let us briefly consider each of these terms.
(1) The Lord said to the Pharisees, “Ye leave [or, lay aside] the commandment of God and hold fast the tradition of men.” In these words is to be traced the primary cause of the failure of the nation as a faithful exponent of the divine ordinances of old. Theirs was not a sudden and violent rebellion against the authority of God, but a quiet and gradual declension from their fidelity. Turning aside, almost imperceptibly at first, they had wandered out of the way of God's commandments. Their regard and reverence for the expressed will of God was allowed to weaken, and they strayed from the green pastures and the still waters, forgetting His precepts. Forsaking the voice of Jehovah their Shepherd, they followed the voice of strangers. Slipping away from the commandments of God and leaving undone the weighty matters of the law, judgment and mercy and faith, they clung with the greater tenacity to the tradition of men (Matthew 23:23).
A similar departure is a continual menace to the people of God. Silent deterioration and decay creep upon the Church as they stole upon Israel. The assembly at Ephesus did not make a formal and deliberate renunciation of her profession, but she did, nevertheless leave her first love (Revelation 2:4), as the Jews “left” the authority of God's command. Individually, we are still exposed to the same danger, and we should take to ourselves the warning of the apostle to the Hebrews: “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things that were heard, lest haply we drift away from them” (Hebrews 2:1 R.V.).
Further, these boastful zealots had rejected the commandment of God. The sense of the verb used in the original appears to be that of slighting or disregarding the claims the law had upon them, as if they were unworthy of recognition (cp. Hebrews 10:28, Gk.). The Lord also used the same word in His address to the Seventy with reference to their preaching, saying to them, “He that despiseth [rejecteth] you despiseth [rejecteth] me, and he that despiseth [rejecteth] me, despiseth [rejecteth] him that sent me” (Luke 10:16). On another occasion Jesus spoke of one who rejected Him and received not His sayings (John 12:48).
These were the words of Him who was Himself the despised and rejected of men, by whom He was regarded as “a root out of a dry ground.” There was thus on the part of the nation no recognition of the claims either of Himself or of His words. The rulers formally refused to accept His teaching as the “counsel of God.” Luke says of the Pharisees and the lawyers, in contrast with the people that they “rejected” for themselves the counsel of God (Luke 7:29, 30).
We see therefore, that those of New Testament days who ignored the word of Jehovah through Moses of old, also ignored the word of Jehovah spoken by the Son of God. Lifted up with pride of heart, they despised the commandment of the living God. Such is also the spirit of those condemned by the apostle for setting aside their “first faith” (1 Timothy 5:12), as well as of those who set at naught dominion and rail at dignities ( Jude 8), the same Greek word occurring in these passages, all of which show how prevalent is this tendency of the human heart.
Clearly then, to despise the commandments of God is an indication of greater intensity of opposition to His will than to lay them aside. And those who despised Moses' law died without mercy on the word of two or three witnesses (Hebrews 10:28).
We now come to the third stage of departure from God, viz.-that of positive transgression. In this charge the Lord made use of their own term addressed by them to Him. The scribes had said, “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” The Lord answered by asking them, “Why do ye also transgress the commandments of God because of your tradition?” Transgression is that form of sin which involves the willful disregard of known instructions; for where no law is [i.e., no prescribed rule] there is no transgression (Romans 4:15). The Pharisees were guilty of transgression, for while they raised the question of the violation of a human tradition, the Lord brought home to them the startling indictment that in and by means of that very tradition they who boasted in the law had become transgressors of the law (Romans 2:23, R.V.). In their inordinate zeal for the human innovation they have dishonored the law of God, given through angels, every transgression and disobedience of which would receive “a just recompence of reward” (Hebrews 2).
Transgression then, is the fruit of passing by, and then of despising the explicit commandment of God. It is in fact the willful infraction of a known rule of conduct. Such was the form of the sin of Adam and Eve (Romans 5:14; 1 Timothy 2:14). Our first parents violated the single restriction laid upon them in the garden of Eden, Adam not being deceived, but partaking of the forbidden fruit with his eyes open to the fact of the disobedience involved in the act.
Transgression, therefore, constitutes a grave and serious offense. It is the sin of the servant who, knowing his master's will, nevertheless disobeys, and on that account must be punished with many stripes (Lu. 12:47). The sin of Israel was transgression in distinction from the sin of the Gentiles, which is lawlessness. The sin of those who gloried in divers washings and in votive offerings to their temple, but who in these very things contravened God's holy law, was also transgression. And by that transgression they not only dishonored their parents but God also (Romans 2:23).
Fourthly, these formalists among the Jews had disannulled the word of God by their tradition. The Lord had made three previous references to the “commandment,” viz. to God's precise and definite injunctions. These He declared they had (1) neglected, (2) rejected, and (3) transgressed. He further referred to the divine oracles as “the word of God” (see also John 10:35; Romans 9:6), and charged them with canceling it or making it void by their tradition. This change of designation for the law is significant. We are carried back to the Author of the Scriptures, which are the communication of His mind and will concerning men. The “word of God” expresses the spiritual intent of the “ten words,” for instance. It points not so much to the letter of the law, as to its inmost interpretation—its spirit. Thus, by this expression the Lord showed that, in addition to the transgression of God's commandment, their tradition rendered void or disannulled the essential mind and meaning of His communications to them.
It was possible, we learn, for the letter of the law to be exceeded, while its spirit was maintained. This the Lord enunciated in connection with His own acts of healing on the sabbath day. But the scribes were guilty of the infraction of both the word and the commandment of God. The two terms applied to the divine communications are distinguished elsewhere in the New Testament. And the greater depth and fullness of the former may be observed in a passage of the Gospel of John (14:21-23). Herein we are instructed that to keep the word of Christ is evidence of greater fidelity than to keep His commandments, and the more faithful correspondence to the Master's will implied in the former case will receive the greater reward. Of one case the Lord said, “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me.” This is commendation, but not of such a high degree as that awarded in the second case. In this instance the Lord promised the signal honor and felicity that the Father and the Son would dwell with the one keeping His word: “If a man love me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.” Keeping the commandments is a proof of obedience; but keeping His word is a proof of devotion.
On reflection upon our Lord's words to the Pharisees, it is startling to learn that it is possible for puny man to render ineffective the word of the living God. We know that word is eternal, immutable, “settled in the heavens,” its stability exceeding that of the heavens and the earth. Its inward power is illustrated by the figure of the living and incorruptible seed. This is its true and unique character; and yet, such is the seeming paradox of the truth, as expressed in a notable parable of our Lord's, birds of the air can carry it away, the sun can wither it, and thorns, springing up, can choke it.
(To be continued)