Mark 7:9
And he said unto them,; He also said to them--NEB; Full well ye
reject the commandment of God,; You have a fine way of
rejecting...--RSV; How well you set aside...--NEB; that ye may keep
your own tradition.; in order to maintain your tradition!--NEB;
...preserve your own tradition!--Rieu
And he was saying to them--
/Well\ do ye set aside the commandment of God , that /your own
tradition\ ye may observe;
And he said to them, `Well do ye put away the command of God that your
tradition ye may keep;

TRNTyeagerV529,30 - Kai elegen autois, Kalws atheteite tAn

entolAn tou theou, hina tAn paradosin humwn stAsAte.

Kai (continuative conjunction).
elegen (3d.per.sing.imp.act.ind.of legw, progressive duration).
autois (dat.pl.masc.of autos, indirect object of elegen).
Kalws (adverbial).
atheteite (2d.per.pl.pres.act.ind.of athetew, customary).
tAn (acc.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with entolAn).
tou (gen.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with theou).
theou (gen.sing.masc.of theos, definition).
hina (final conjunction introducing a purpose clause).
tAn (acc.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with paradosin).
paradosin (acc.sing.fem.of paradosis, direct object of
stAsAte).
humwn (gen.pl.masc.of su, possession).
stAsAte (3d.per.pl.aor.act.subj.of histAmi, purpose).
Translation: "He went on, `It is logical that you reject
the commandment of God in order to establish your own tradition.'"
COMMENT: Kalws is sarcasm, since normally it is an adverb
of approbation. How then can Jesus use it to describe the rejection
of the commandment of God? However unethical, immoral and
philosophically shortsighted it may be to replace divine commands
with human tradition, it is at least logical and consistent with
one's purpose to do so if the teacher is an empire builder, since
the two systems of thought are in diametric opposition. An attempt
to hod both at the same time is illogical and stupid. To install
man's system one must first reject God's. Which is not saying much
for the sophistication of some who cannot see the difference
between hA entolA tou theou and hA paradosis twn anthrwpwn. The
deacon who rejects the Holy Spirit's leadership as issuing from a
God-called pastor, in order to run the church "on a business basis"
is a fool and a knave to assert that his ideas necessarily coincide
with God's, since God's Word clearly says that the pastor is the
head of the church. (Ed. The writer's Baptist background is clearly
showing).???
But, however foolish and wicked such assumption of
authority may be, if he openly asserts with pride that there is a
difference between his plans and God's, at least he is logical and
merits the sarcastic observation involved in kalws in our passage.
Goodspeed catches the essence of the passage with his translation:
"How skillful you are...in nullifying what God has commanded in
order to observe what has been handed down to you."
Cf.#2164 and notice especially John 12:48 where thetew
and mA lambanwn are adjoined as heads and tails of the same coin.
athetew involves violation of contract in business (Gal.3:15) or in
social relations, even when the sanctity of one's pledged word
involves one in murder (Mk.6:26). The Pharisees and Scribes cared
nothing for that. When one is convinced that he knows more than
God, ethics and morals become unimportant.
To say that God's commands are opposite to man's
traditions and that to adopt the latter necessitates rejection of
the former is to assert something that must be proved. Hence the
inferential argument of vs.10&11.
R1198 - Note the use of irony by Jesus here (cf. BD495[2]).
MARKitGNTwuest145,6 - "Full well." The word is kalws "excellently,
finely, well." This is irony, and biting sarcasm.
"Reject" is athetew. Theton ti is something laid down or
prescribed. The former word comes from tithAmi "to place, set, or
lay." Alpha privative negates the word and makes it mean "something
that has been laid down or prescribed which has in turn been done
away with." The word thus comes to mean "to thwart the efficacy of
anything, to nullify, make void, frustrate." The Pharisees are
charged by our Lord with thwarting the efficacy of that which has
been laid down or prescribed by God, namely, His commandments. They
have made God's Word null and void, have nullified it, frustrated
it in its soul-saving work. This they did in order to keep their
own tradition.
Translation: And He was saying to them, In a very
beautiful way you are constantly making the commandment of God null
and void in order that that which has been delivered to you for
observance, you may keep."
TCGTC-MARKcranfield236 - Kalws should probably be translated `well
enough', `all right', the sense being: `You are making a good job
of rejecting the commandment of God....' To take the sentence as a
question and render: `Are you acting rightly in...?' seems less
satisfactory.
...
tArAsAte. The v.l. stAsAte (=`establish') is strongly
supported, and should perhaps be read. So Taylor.
TNC-MARKhendriksen277 - In a sense Jesus repeats verse 8. However, the
sting is even more fiery, the exposure more startling. How
beautifully! This is irony. It amounts to: "You have a fine way
of setting aside...." Note also "your tradition," and cf. verse
8. These men are trying to make gods of themselves. They are
setting aside God in order to establish themselves. They are
nullifying an infallible command in order to confirm their own weak
and miserable tradition. How wicked!
Yes, how wicked! But also how foolish! Think of a man
who in the midst of a violent storm has found a place of shelter on
top of a high rock (cf. Ps. 18:2; 27:5; 92:15; 119:114, 117, 165),
where he is entirely safe, but who then jumps off in order, for the
sake of protection, to grab hold of a drifting straw. What utter
folly. Cf. Jer. 2:13.
TNICotNTlane249,50 - Jesus' counter-charge that the scribes and
Pharisees have abandoned the commandment of God in their zeal to
observe the oral tradition does not stand unsupported. The charge
is reaffirmed in verse 9 with biting irony and is then illustrated
concretely with reference to the conflict between the fifth
commandment and the position of the elders on the sanctity of an
oath. The scribes had referred deferentially to the oral law as
"the tradition of the elders" (verse 5); Jesus cited Isaiah in
support of his claim that it deserved to be designated "the
tradition of men" (verses 7-8), an example of human cleverness. He
now baldly labels it "your tradition" and affirms that in order to
establish it God's commandment is nullified. Jesus refused to
permit his adversaries to invoke against him a tradition which was
capable of violating the Law of God.
MARK-j&d194,5 COMMENT
TIME - Summer A.D. 29.
PLACE - In or near Capernaum.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTS - Matt. 15:3-6
OUTLINE - 1. Jesus' accusation: - "you reject the
commandment of God, vs. 9. 2. The fourth commandment is a
specific example, vs. 10-12. 3. The word of God is made void by
your tradition, vs. 13.
ANALYSIS
I. JESUS' ACCUSATION: - YOUR REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF
GOD, vs. 9
1. In a fine, beautiful, admirable sense you reject
the commandment of God.
2. You prefer your tradition to the commandments of
God.
II. THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT IS A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, vs.
10-12.
1. Moses was very plain (Exodus 20:12; 21:17) about
the honor to parents.
2. You have set aside the law of God by your
tradition - what belongs to the parents is supposedly given to the
temple (or the priests).
3. Your mother and father can starve while you
justify your selfishness and disobedience by tradition.
III. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY YOUR TRADITION. vs.
13.
1. The authority of God's word is set aside by your
tradition.
2. There are many other examples that could be
cited.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I. JESUS' ACCUSATION: - "YOU REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF
GOD." "And he said unto them" probably indicates a break in the
discourse; caused, perhaps, by indignant interruptions, or by a
call for particulars to illustrate so broad and fearful a charge.
So their ancestors asked, "Wherein have we despised thy name?"
(Mal. 1:6, 3:8, 13). - Whether called for or not, he was ready with
particulars to illustrate the substitution of tradition for
command. "Full well" - i.e. finely, beautifully admirably - "ye
reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own
tradition." The adverb is the same as in verse 6: "Well hath
Isaiah prophesied of you." The repetition is intentional, and the
word this time is scathingly ironical: "Admirably do you fulfill
the word that Isaiah so admirably spoke concerning you." The holy
indignation is thoroughly aroused, and he cares not how heavily he
lays on the lash.


Mark 7:10
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth
father or mother,; and, He that speaketh evil of...--ASV; and
again, He who reviles...--Wey; let him die-- ABUV; let him be
executed--Ber;
For /Moses\ said--
Honour thy father and thy mother,
and--
//He that revileth father or mother\\ let him /surely
die\,--
for Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, He who is
speaking evil of father or mother--let him die the death;

TRNTyeagerV531 - MwusAs gar eipen Tima ton patera sou kai tAn

mAtera sou, kai Ho kakologwn patera A mAtera thanatw

teleutatw.

MwusAs (nom.sing.masc.of MwusAs, subject of eipen).
gar (causal conjunction).
eipen (3d.per.sing.aor.act.ind.of eipon, constative).
Tima (2d.per.sing.pres.act.impv.of timaw, command).
ton (acc.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with patera).
patera (acc.sing.masc.of patAr, direct object of tima).
sou (gen.sing.masc.of su, relationship).
kai (adjunctive conjunction joining nouns).
tAn (acc.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with mAtera).
mAtera (acc.sing.fem.of mAtAr, direct object of tima).
sou (gen.sing.masc.of su, relationship).
kai (continuative conjunction).
Ho (nom.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with kakologwn).
kakologwn (pres.act.part.nom.sing.masc.of kakologew, subject of
teleutatw).
patera (acc.sing.masc.of patAr, direct object of kakologwn).
A (disjunctive particle).
mAtera (acc.sing.fem.of mAtAr, direct object of kakologwn).
thanatw (instru.sing.masc.of thanatos, means).
teleutatw (3d.per.sing.pres.act.impv.of teleutaw, command).
Translation: "Because Moses said, `Honor your father and
your mother.' And the one who is speaking ill of father or mother
shall be put to death."
COMMENT: The burden of proof is upon Jesus. He had just
said that the commandment of God is contrary to the tradition of
the fathers which the Pharisees and Scribes were trying too hard to
uphold. He now points out the contrariety between the two.
Moses said two thing about the relation between children
and their parents, viz., Tima...sou and ho kakologwn...tel. The
citations are from Ex.20:12 and Ex.21:17. Cf.#1142 for the meaning
of timaw. "Put a high value upon your parents and thus take good
care of them." This includes old age security in a financial sense.
If all men obeyed Moses' order today the state would need no social
security program except for the superannuate who had no children.
The former command is positive and is the only one of the
commandments with a promise attached. The latter is negative with
a threat in connection. Long life is promised to those who obey.
The sentence of death rests upon those who disobey. thanatw
teleutatw - "Let him die by means of death imposed" or "Let him be
put to death." One is reminded of the judge who decrees that a
criminal shall be hanged by the neck until he is "dead, dead,
dead."
Note how Jesus interchanges tou theou of vs.9 with MwusAs
of verse 10. The Pharisees dared not challenge this since the
difference is only that of direct and indirect agency.
So much for what God, through Moses, said. What were the
Pharisees saying?
MARKitGNTwuest146 - "Honor." The word is timaw "to honor, revere,
venerate." The noun form, timA, carries with it the idea of "a
valuing by which the price is fixed, an evaluation." Thus, the act
of honoring carries with it a proper estimation of the value of a
person or thing. In the case of honor due to parents, it is that
respect or reverence for them in view of who and what they are, and
their worth, which is their due.
"Curseth." The word is kakologew "to speak ill of,
revile, abuse, to calumniate, traduce." The word does not mean "to
curse" in the sense of Gal.1:9, where "accursed" is anathema "a
curse, a man accursed, devoted to the direst woes," this curse of
course being a divine curse. There is no good reason to understand
this construction here except in the durative sense, which means
that the death penalty is inflicted on an habitual offender.
"Let him die the death." The verb is teleutaw "to come to
an end." Thus, the Greek is literally, "Let him come to an end by
death." This is physical death inflicted as a punishment for
breaking the Mosaic law at this point.
Translation: "For Moses said, Be paying due respect and
reverence to your father and your mother. And the one who is
constantly reviling father or mother, let him come to an end by
death."
TCGTC-MARKcranfield236 - MwusAs gar eipen. Mt.15:4 has ho gar theos
eipen. Mark, of course, equally implies that the words are God's
commandment.
Tima ton patera sou kai tAn mAtera sou: an exact
quotation of Ex.20:12a=Deut.5:16a. The words Ho
kakologwn...teleutatw are from Exod.21:17 (LXX:16) (cf. Lev.20:9).
The LXX kakologwn here represents the Hebrew verb killel, which is
usually rendered by katapasthai.
...
NTC-MARKhendriksen277, 8 - In order to illustrate what he has in mind
and to prove his point Jesus continues. "Moses said." As is clear
from verse 13 Jesus regards what Moses said as being the very word
of God. Accordingly there is no real difference between Matt.
15:4, "For God said," and Mk. 7:10, "For Moses said."
As to the positive commandment to bestow honor on father
and mother see Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16; Prov. 1:8; 6:20-22; cf.
Mal. 1:6; Matt. 19:19; Mk. 7:10-13; 10:19; Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20. To
honor father and mother means more than to obey them, especially if
this obedience is interpreted in a merely outward sense. It is the
inner attitude of the child toward his parents that comes to the
fore in the requirement that he honor them. All selfish obedience
or reluctant obedience or obedience under terror is immediately
ruled out. To honor implies to love, to regard highly, to show the
spirit of respect and consideration. This honor is to be shown to
both of the parents, for as far as the child is concerned they are
equal in authority.
In Exod. 21:17; Lev. 20:9 the death penalty is pronounced
on those who curse father and mother, but see also Exod. 21:15;
Deut. 21:18-21 and Prov. 30:17.
What did these Pharisees and scribes do with this clear and
definite teaching of the Word of God? The answer is given in
verses 11,12.



Mark 7:11
But ye say,; But you hold that--NEB; But you have a different
ruling--Rieu; If a man shall say to his father or mother,; If a man
tell his father or his mother--RSV; It is Corban, that is, a gift
of God--ABUV; I am making Korban (that is a temple-offering)--Rieu;
by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;; What you would have
gained from me--RSV; of all the support you might have got from
me--Rieu; he shall be free.; he is exempt--Ber;
But /ye\ say--
<If a man shall say to his father or his mother, Korban! that
is, A gift, whatsoever /out of me\ thou mightest be profited>
and ye say, If a man may say to father or to mother, Korban (that is, a
gift), is whatever thou mayest be profited out of mine,

TRNTyeagerV532,3 - humeis de legete, Ean eipA anthrwpos tw patri

A mAtri, Korban, ho estin, Dwron, ho ean ex emou ophelAthAs,

humeis (nom.pl.masc.of su, subject of legete).
de (adversative conjunction).
legete (2d.per.pl.pres.act.ind.of legw, customary).
Ean (conditional particle in a third-class condition).
eipA (3d.per.sing.aor.act.subj.of eipon, constative, third- class
condition).
anthrwpos (nom.sing.masc.of anthrwpos, subject of eipA).
tw (dat.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with patri).
patri (dat.sing.masc.of patAr, indirect object of eipA).
A (disjunctive particle).
tA (dat.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with mAtri).
mAtri (dat.sing.masc.of mAtAr, indirect object of eipA).
Korban (nom.sing.neut.of korban, appellation).
ho (nom.sing.neut.of hos, relative pronoun, subject of estin,
apposition).
estin (3d.per.sing.pres.ind.of eimi, aoristic).
Dwron (nom.sing.neut.of dwron, predicate nominative).
ho (nom.sing.neut.of hos, subject of the verb understood).
ean (conditional particle in a broken third-class condition,
aposiopesis).
ex (preposition with the ablative of source).
emou (abl.sing.masc.of emos, source).
wphelAthAs (2d.per.sing.aor.pass.subj.of wphelew, in a third-
class elliptical condition).
Translation: "But you are saying, `If a man say to his
father or to his mother, Korban, which means Gift, by which if
given you would receive benefit from me...."
COMMENT: I have been very literal with the translation of
Mark's fractured Greek. The apodosis of the first third- class
condition is in vs.12. The second third-class condition is
elliptical, as the apodosis is missing. Goodspeed has transmitted
the sense of the passage faithfully with a free translation - "But
you say, `If a man says to his father or mother, "Anything of mine
that might have been of use to you is Korban," that is, consecrated
to God, you let him off from doing anything more for his father or
mother...k.t.l.".
Money, if given by a son to his parents, would help them
greatly in their time of need. Such money, so given, would be in
obedience to God's law with reference to a son's obligation to his
parents. But let us suppose that the son tells his parents that the
money has already been pledged to God? It is Korban, which means a
gift to be given at the temple. In that case the money which
rightfully belonged to his parents is given into the temple
treasury and the parents are powerless to object. Jesus was
describing the subterfuge by which the Pharisees evaded their
obligation to their parents and made it look like an act of pious
worship. A man might approach his poverty stricken parents whom
Moses had ordered him to support and say, "I have here some money
which, if I gave it to you, would help you out, but I cannot. It is
Korban, i.e. a gift already pledged to the temple." Thus the temple
demands (human tradition) prevented obedience to divine demands, as
set forth by Moses.
Jesus is not blaming the poor man who is caught in the
dilemma of spreading scarce resources between the legitimate needs
of the temple and those legitimate needs of his parents. He is
blaming the Pharisees for instituting and maintaining the Korban
tradition. There is a modern application. How many Christians today
can afford to give an offering above his tithe to the church (which
modern Pharisees suggest) and also take care of aged parents?
Mt.25:33-40 imposes further financial obligations upon the
Christian who wishes to be obedient to all of the scripture.
Someone gets left out and in many cases it is the parents. So the
secular state, through the welfare program, takes care of the aged
an needy, while the church drains off the money, calling it Korban
(tithes and offerings) and spends it upon institutional promotion
which may or may not be demanded by the Word of God.
The sentence goes on, supplying the apodosis of the
third-class condition in the next verse.
R599 - Ek has the notion of cause or occasion here, "because of me."
M131 - The relative clause has an adverbial sense, "anything in regard
to which you would have received benefit."
M151 - The latter section of this verse has an implied protasis, "if the
money had not been dedicated."
WMitNTearle143 - Corban. This term (only here in NT) is a Hebrew word
for "a gift devoted to God," as Mark is careful to explain to his
Gentile readers. Matthew, in his parallel passage, simply has the
common Greek word for gift (dwron), which Mark uses in his
explanation.
MARKitGNTwuest146,7 - The word "Corban" is a Hebrew word which Mark has
transliterated. He explains it as referring to a gift. The Hebrew
word refers to a gift or offering to God. The rabbis allowed the
individual to keep whatever money should have been given by the son
for the support of his parents, if he would declare it as a gift to
God. He could keep the money and by merely speaking the word,
justify his withholding it from his parents. This was in defiance
of God's command by which a son is required to honor his parents by
providing for their necessities where they were in need.
Translation: "But as for you, you are saying, If a man
should say to his father and his mother, Korban, namely, a gift,
whatever from me you may be profited;..."
TCGTC-MARKcranfield236,7,8 - humeis. Emphatic--contrasted with
MwusAs. Note the difference between this contrast (`Moses':`you')
and that in Mt.5:21-48 (Akousate hoti errethA tois archaiois...egw
de legw...): in the former case it is a matter of the scribes and
Pharisees tampering with God's Law, in the latter case, of the Son
elucidating its real significance.
Korban is a transliteration of the Hebrew korbAn
(=`offering', `oblation'), which occurs eighty times in the TO, but
only in Lev., Num., and Ezek. The word is derived from
hikriB=`bring near' (Hiph. of kAraB) and denotes an offering made
to God: it is not used of a gift to a man (Mark's explanatory note,
ho estin dwron, is open to misunderstanding, though he no doubt use
dwron as a technical term for `oblation'). That which is offered to
God as a korbAn becomes `holy' and so is no longer available for
ordinary use. The (M) Ned. contains many examples of vows
containing the word korbAn or a substitute. To declare something
korbAn was to fix upon it the character of an offering dedicated to
God. It did not always mean that the thing concerned had actually
to be offered; rather, that it was withdrawn from its originally
intended use and was no longer available for a particular person or
persons. Usually it was the person making the vow who was affected,
but sometimes the formula was used in order to prevent someone else
from using something. In the latter case the formula could be
`KorbAn (or konAm) be any benefit so-and-so has of me' or `May
such-and-such be korbAn to you'. In (M) Ned. 8:7 we find a close
parallel to korban...ho ean ex emou wphelAthAs here: `KonAm be the
benefit thou hast from me....' Quite often the korbAn formula was
used hastily in anger and the person who used it might afterwards
be sorry. So the Rabbis sought out ways of removing, or at least
alleviating, the effects of such hasty vows. It is not clear,
however, whether in the time of Jesus it was just one school of
thought that adopted the rigid attitude, or whether at that time
the rigid attitude was general, the more lenient view found in the
Rabbinic literature being a later development. Some Jewish scholars
have maintained that his passage is unfair to the scribes, but it
must be remembered that Mark is a more nearly contemporary witness
than is the Mishnah. Jesus here has in mind a situation in which a
man repents of a harsh vow which would deprive his parents of all
the help which they would normally expect from their son, but is
told by the scribes to whose arbitration his case has been
submitted that he must abode by his vow.


Mark 7:12
And ye suffer him no more to do ought; then you no longer permit him to
do anything--RSV; you forbid him to do anything more--Rieu; for his
father or his mother;
/no longer\ do ye suffer him to do /aught\ for his father or his
mother,--
and no more do ye suffer him to do anything for his father or for his
mother,

TRNTyeagerV533,4 - ouketi aphiete auton ouden poiAsai tw patri A

tA matri,

ouketi (adverb of denial).
aphiete (2d.per.pl.pres.act.ind.of aphiAmi, customary).
auton (acc.sing.masc.of autos, direct object of aphiete).
ouden (acc.sing.neut.of oudeis, direct object of poiAsai).
poiAsai (aor.act.inf.of poiew, complementary).
tw (dat.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with patri).
patri (dat.sing.masc.of patAr, personal advantage).
A (disjunctive particle).
tA (dat.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with mAtri).
mAtri (dat.sing.fem.of mAtAr, personal advantage).
Translation: "...you no longer allow him to do anything
for his father or mother,"
COMMENT: Cf.#319. aphiAmi means to "stand away from,"
"let alone," "laissez faire," "decontrol," or "give freedom to."
The Pharisees were not doing that any more. Once they did and
presumably the Jews, free from the galling restrictions of Korban,
obeyed Moses and provided for their parents, "...that their days
might be long in the land...k.t.l." (Ex.20:12). No more. No longer
do the religious dictators stand aside. On the contrary they
confront - "stand up to" the Jew with the strident demand for the
Korban and the sly suggestion that if Korban is pledged, parental
care obligations can be avoided. Hence the Jew does nothing for his
parents and justifies his failure on the ground on his financial
devotion to the temple.
When Christians stand before the judgment seat of Christ
(II Cor.5:10) there may be some who will plead extenuation for
their lack of obedience ont eh grounds of Korban. There is an added
reason why Korban is a good idea for those who wish to evade
Christian responsibility in financial matters. Under current law
the gift into the temple treasury provides an income tax dodge.
Thanks to Korban there are some wealthy Pharisees whose
contributions on Sunday morning cost them nothing.
Jesus goes on in vs.13 to say that the Korban tradition
is one concrete example of the way the Pharisees and Scribes had
substituted the traditions of their fathers for the Word of God.
B482 - The compound of ou occurs with an infinitive, because it is
dependent upon a principal verb negated by ou.
NTC-MARKhendriksen178,9 - Christ's critics, though highly esteemed by
the people in general, were guilty of deliberate and detestable
chicanery. They were playing ducks and drakes with God's holy law.
The commandment with respect to children's duty toward their
parents was very clear. But the Pharisees and scribes were telling
the children that there was a way to get around the heavy burden of
having to bestow honor upon their parents by supporting them. If
a son had something that was needed by the parent, all that was
necessary was for the son to say, "(It's) corban!" For his
non-Jewish readers Mark adds the Greek equivalent doron, gift or
offering; that is, a sacred gift or offering, one set apart for
God, i.e., for sacred uses. By making this assertion or
exclamation and giving it a very wide application - "whatever it be
by which I might benefit you" - this son, according to Pharisaic
teaching based on tradition, had released himself from the
obligation of honoring his parents. In fact, as Mark puts it,
permission to help one's parents was then withdrawn.
It is even possible that a broader interpretation may be
correct. If so, the son would be saying, "Whatever it is by which
I might benefit you, whether now or in the future, I here and now
declare that it is to be considered an offering." The conclusion,
as reported by Mark, "then you no longer permit him to do anything
for his father or mother" might support this interpretation.
Interpreted either way, it was an example of
irresponsible Pharisaic sophistry, a wicked device to deprive
parents of the honor and the support due to them. Moreover, what
was thus unjustly withdrawn from the parents was not necessarily
offered to God at all. The one who shouted, (It's) corban!" could
simply keep it for himself.
TNICotNTIlane250,1 - The theoretical foundations of oral law were traced
backward through a chain of tradition extending from the elders and
the men of the Great Synagogue to the prophets and Joshua to Moses
himself. Jesus, therefore, cites Moses against the developments in
legal casuistry which were an essential component of the scribal
tradition. The fifth commandment is cited in both its positive and
negative formulations in almost literal agreement with the
Septuagint text of Ex. 20:12a (=Deut. 5:16a) and 21:16. The
second text indicates the seriousness of an offense against par-
ents: the death penalty was decreed for those who cursed their
parents or treated them with contempt. In spite of Moses'
unequivocal affirmation of filial responsibility, the effect of the
scribal tradition on the binding character of an oath, even when
uttered rashly, was to prohibit compliance with the commandment.
Qorban is a technical term within the priestly tradition
of the TO (its use is limited to Lev., Num. and Ezek.) where it
always denotes an offering made to God. In Mark's explanatory note
the term "gift" is a technical designation for an oblation
precisely as in the Greek text of Lev. 2:1, 4, 12f. A fine
contemporary parallel to the use of qorban in Mark has been
provided by a recently recovered Jewish ossuary inscription: "All
that a man may find-to-his-profit in this ossuary (is) an offering
to God from him who is within it." The importance of this
inscription is that it preserves the formula in its completeness
and furnishes a concrete example of how the formula was used. It
indicates that Jesus was referring to a dedicatory-formula which
was commonly used by Jews in the last centuries B.C. and well into
the Christian era. The basic purpose of the formula was to place a
ban on something, reserving it for sacred use and withdrawing it
from profane use by another person. The vow creates a prohibition
with regard to an object and fixes upon it the character of an
offering dedicated to God. This did not necessarily mean that the
object declared qorban had actually to be offered to God; it
signified rather that it was withdrawn from its intended use and
was no longer available for a particular individual "as if it were
an offering." In the hypothetical situation proposed by Jesus, if
the son declared his property qorban to his parents, he neither
promised it to the Temple nor prohibited its use to himself, but he
legally excluded his parents from the right of benefit. Should the
son regret his action and seek to alleviate the harsh vow which
would deprive his parents of all of the help they might normally
expect from him, he would be told by the scribes to whose
arbitration the case was submitted that his vow was valid and must
be honored. Jesus' statement that the scribes do not allow him to
do "anything" for his parents is not extreme. The renunciation of
all profitability extended beyond financial support to such
practical kindness as assistance in the performance of religious
duties or the provision of care in sickness.
MARKj&d195,6 - II. THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT IS A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. Yet
his first illustration is not the one that called out the question.
Instead of beginning with the traditions respecting defilements by
contact and the necessary cleansings, he goes at once to the
Decalogue, and convicts them of setting aside the fundamental law
of God to Israel. "Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother."
An exact quotation from the LXX. of Ex. 20:12. - He adds a second
extract, giving the same law as expounded and applied in the
legislation of Moses. "Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die
the death." Emphatic way of saying, "Let him die.: Ex. 21:17
quoted almost exactly from the LXX. Both passages are quoted from
what "Moses said", but both are adduced as "the commandment of God"
(verse 9) and "the word of God" (verse 13). Thus, Jesus recognizes
the Mosaic legislation as the law of his Father; and not merely the
milder parts of it, but even the provision for the execution of the
disobedient and insulting child. This he brings forward as a part
of that law that he has come "not to destroy, but to fulfill" -
i.e. to exhibit and establish in the fullness of its spiritual
meaning. The principle of honor to parents he recognizes as of
perpetual and universal force, and he intends to set up for
universal obedience and reverence the truth that was honored by the
Mosaic provision of death for the disobedient. Incidentally, his
mode of citing the second passage is itself exegetical. Viewed in
the light of the context, that passage must mean that the spirit of
the prohibition can be violated without a profane or blasphemous
word, and that not to bless parents by such care as a child can
give is to curse them, according to the true intent of this law.
Such, then, is the "commandment of God" respecting parents: they
must be treated with honor, and no one is at liberty to withhold
from them what blessing he can give. - But now for the "tradition
of men" respecting parents which the Pharisees are diligently
keeping. Translate verses 11,12, "But ye say, If a man say to his
father or mother, Whatever thou mightest receive in aid from me is
Corban, that is, a gift (to God), ye no longer permit him to do
anything for his father or mother." Corban is a Hebrew word
meaning gift, but appropriated to use with reference to sacred
gifts, acts of devotion to the service of God. The simple uttering
of the word Corban - "Sacred gift" - over a thing that was supposed
to set that thing apart from all ordinary uses and give it the
character of a consecrated thing. (See Ewald, Antiquities of
Israel, p. 81) Now, Jesus affirms that they apply this mode of
consecration to the unholy purpose of escaping duty to parents. If
a man utters the magical word "Corban" over his relation to this
parents, and so declares that it is devoted to God, he is no longer
held under obligation to them. The "Corban" carries no real
consecration to God in such a case; it gives no new character to
the man's life: it is only a fictitious arrangement for re-
leasing him from a duty that has become irksome. Thus the
tradition of men enables them to annul or virtually repeal the
commandment of God. The liberty which the tradition gives them is
more agreeable to their selfish hearts than the duty to which the
commandment binds them; and so they set aside the commandment, in
order that they may keep the tradition. To accept such a tradition
was to dethrone Jehovah. (See Prov. 28:24.) One is reminded here
of Luther's sore conflict as to whether the monastic vow which was
urged upon him was consistent with his duty to his aged father, and
of innumerable similar cases in the long history of monasticism.
True consecration is not the escaping from obligations, but the
reacceptance of all genuine duty from the hands of God.
Consecration to God never releases from duty to man. He who
consents to an obligation to God thereby consents to all
obligations that God has placed upon him. To suppose the contrary,
as these men did, is to trifle with all obligation.


Mark 7:13
Making the word of God of none effect; making void the word of
God--ASV; thus nullifying God's precept--Wey; so making the Word of
God invalid--Phi; and so you break the law of God-- Tay; through
your tradition, which ye have delivered:; by your tradition, which
ye handed down--ABUV; by your own tradition, handed down among
you--NEB; in order to protect your man-made tradition--Tay; and
many such like things do ye.; And many such things ye do--ABUV; You
have many such practices--Gspd; And many other things that you do
are just like that--NEB;
canceling the word of God, by your tradition which ye have delivered.
And //many such similar things\\ are ye doing!
setting aside the word of God for your tradition that ye delivered;
and many such like things ye do.'

TRNTyeagerV534,5 - akurountes ton logon tou theou tA paradosei

humwn hA paredwkate, kai paromoia toiauta polla poieite.

akurountes (pres.act.part.nom.pl.masc.of akurow, adverbial,
telic).
ton (acc.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with logon).
logon (acc.sing.masc.of logos, direct object of akurountes).
tou (gen.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with theou).
theou (gen.sing.masc.of theos, description).
tA (instru.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with
paradosei).
paradosei (instru.sing.fem. of paradosis, means).
humwn (gen.pl.masc.of su, possession).
hA (instru.sing.fem.of hos, attracted in case to paradosei,
subject of paredwkate).
paredwkate (2d.per.pl.perf.act.ind.of paradidwmi,
consummative).
kai (continuative conjunction).
paromoia (acc.pl.neut.of paromoios, direct object of poieite).
like things - Mk.7:13.
Meaning: para plus homoios. Hence, along side or like. In
this particular context "parallel in similarity" - the same
principle involved but with differing details.
toiauta (acc.pl.neut.of toioutos, in agreement with paromoia).
polla (acc.pl.neut.of polus, in agreement with paromoia).
poieite (2d.per.pl.pres.act.ind.of poiew, customary).
Translation - "...in order that you may denude the Word
of God of its authority by means of your tradition which, having
propagated, you continue to enforce. Moreover many such parallel
practices you continue to carry out."
COMMENT: Cf.#1145 for the basic meaning of akurow. tA
paradosei - "by means of your tradition." hA - an example of a
relative pronoun attracted in case to its antecedent, paradosei.
The perfect tense in paredwkate is interesting. It speaks of a
present condition as a result of a past action. Once, in the past,
they instituted Korban and it had become traditional by their
continual maintenance of it, which had extended to the moment of
their encounter with Jesus. The fact that traditions are old and
consistently maintained is no evidence that they are wise. Whether
an ancient principle is wise or not depends upon the source. "Honor
thy father and mother" began in the eternal wisdom of God and was
handed down to Moses upon tablets of stone. Obedience to the
command is implicit in its wisdom and thus its ripple effects for
good throughout society. The Korban principle was born in the
scheming brain of some unknown innovator in opposition to Moses'
command. It had been maintained by demagogues.
Not only in the matter of Korban but also in many other
similar practices they were guilty of supplanting the Word of
God. paromoia - parallel instances, where details are different but
where the principle, viz., withholding obedience to God's law by
substituting human tradition, is the same. Jesus did not specify
the other cases which He had in mind, but He does insist that
examples would not be hard to find.
All of the material in vs.6-13 is parenthetical to the
main line of thought in the context. This argument started when the
Pharisees and Scribes noticed that Jesus' disciples ate their lunch
without first washing their hands. In their protest they mentioned
the traditions of their forefathers, which triggered Jesus' attack
upon traditional Jewish religion as opposed to genuine worship. Now
in verse 14ff Jesus takes up the question of whether it is wrong to
eat with dirt on the hands. In doing so, He addresses a wider
audience.
MARKitGNTwuest147 - "Making of none effect" is the translation of akurow
"to render void, deprive of force and authority, to invalidate."
"Your tradition which ye have delivered." Both the noun
and the verb find their origin in paradidwmi "to give from." The
word refers to the act of one person giving over to another from
himself. Hence it refers to the oral laws of the Pharisees which
are handed down from generation to generation to be kept. The
Pharisees, to whom our Lord was speaking, were adding weight to
these laws by themselves transmitting them to their posterity.
The words of our Lord begin with, "But ye say." The "ye"
is intensive. The personal pronoun is used. It is, "As for you, in
contradistinction to the Word of God."
Translation: "...no longer are you permitting him to do
anything for his father and his mother. You are rendering void
the authority of the Word of God by that which has been delivered
to you to observe, which in turn you are delivering over (to
another) to keep. And many things of this kind you are constantly
doing."
TCGTC-MARKcranfield238 - akurountes ton logon tou theou tA
paradosei humwn. The scribes are actually setting at naught the
Word of God by means of their tradition. It is true that the
scribes could point to an absolute command concerning vows inside
scripture itself--Num.30:1f. (M.T.:2f)--but it was their
interpretation, their tradition, which was at fault; for it clung
to the letter of the particular passage in such a way as to miss
the meaning of scripture as a whole.
hA paredwkate is surprising. It is omitted by Mt.15:6 and
also by sys here in Mk. Moffatt and RSV render by a present tense,
but that is questionable. Taylor suggests that we have here a
primitive corruption of the text due to the close association
between paradosis and paradidwmi, and says that `the sense requires
parelabete'. But perhaps paredwkate is used rather than parelabete,
because the scribes are here thought of not just as passive
recipients of a tradition but as having had an active and
responsible part in the matter.
Jesus has not replied directly to the scribes' and
Pharisees' question (v.5), but indirectly he has answered it; for
by showing that the tradition of the elders can lead men to
disregard the Law itself he has shown that it must not be accepted
without question as in all cases obligatory.
NTC-MARKhendriksen279,80 - It is not surprising that Jesus, in a sense
repeating, but now even strengthening what he had spoken previously
(cf. verses 8,9), adds verse 13. Not only were these "hypocrites"
(verse 6) ignoring, they were actually invalidating the word of
God. They were depriving the fifth commandment of its binding
authority, as the original implies. On the other hand, they were
handing down the wicked tradition! Moreover, that was true not
only in the present case, as if the Pharisees and scribes were
nullifying only this one commandment. No, Jesus immediately adds:
And many such things you do. Merely by way of illustration had he
referred to the Pharisaic manner of dealing with the fifth
commandment. It was but a sample of what was constantly going on.
Tradition was regularly being enthroned; God's Word dethroned!
A very practical subject indeed, capable of application
in any age. Is not the objective principle of Protestantism "The
Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice"? This, in
opposition to the Roman Catholic co- ordination of Scripture and
ecclesiastical tradition, as the joint rules of faith? Does not
the latter position often degenerate into placing tradition above
Scripture? And even today should not care be exercised lest
subjective decisions and interpretations begin to interfere with
unbiased exegesis of the Word of God?
There is a striking similarity between Mk. 7:14-23 and
its parallel Matt. 15:10-20. The main differences are as follows:
a. Matt. 15:12-14: the question of the disciples ("Do
you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard what you
said?") and Jesus' answer are not found in Mark.
b. According to Matt. 15:15 it was Peter who asked Jesus
to explain "the parable." Mark simply says, "the disciples."
Mark, however, states - and Matthew omits - that it was after Jesus
had left the people and had entered a house that the question was
asked.
c. Mark's statement (7:19b), "Thus he pronounced all
foods clean" is not found in Matthew.
d. Matthew's list of evil things that proceed from
within and defile a man (15:19) consists (after an introductory
term) of 6 items; Mark (7:21,22) has 12. If Mark's "deceit" is
tantamount to Matthew's "false testimonies," then all of Matthew's
6 items occur, with slight verbal changes, also in Mark's list.
These are items 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 on Mark's list, occurring
therefore from about the middle to the end of that evangelist's
enumeration. See chart, pp. 284, 285. Accordingly, the inference
that Matthew, with Mark's list before him, was abbreviating, would
not seem to be unreasonable.
TNICotNT-MARKlane252 - The scribes sought to satisfy God's legal claim;
the recognition of the validity of a vow fulfills the letter of the
commandment in Num. 30:1f. If, on the basis of a vow, the claims
of God must be upheld even in opposition to those of a man's
parents, that is because God's claims are fundamentally higher than
man's and must be given precedence. This argument acquires special
force if qorban in this case signifies a genuine transference of
parental claims to God and the transfer of property to the Temple.
But Jesus categorically rejects the practice of using one biblical
commandment to negate another. This interpretation of Num. 30:1f.
seized upon the letter of the passage in such a way as to miss the
meaning of the Law as a whole. It is in this context that the
citation of Isa. 29:13 is particularly intelligible. For Jesus
this is God's own judgment on the scribal attempts to satisfy his
legal claim. The quotation indicates that Jesus is not so much
attacking a particular scribal practice as he is showing that the
scribes cannot properly honor God. In their concern for the
fulfillment of the letter of Scripture they forget that the Law was
provided not for its own sake but to benefit men. It is an
expression of God's covenant faithfulness as well as of his
righteousness and in no circumstance was obedience to one
commandment intended to nullify another. The fault lay not in the
commandments but in an interpretive tradition which failed to see
Scripture in its wholeness. Jesus implicated the scribes who stood
before him in this indictment when he referred pointedly to "your
tradition, which you have delivered." They are not merely passive
guardians of an inherited tradition but have had an active and
responsible role in shaping and transmitting the oral law. The
case of the qorban vow, Jesus adds, is not an isolated example, but
one of many which could be cited where the intention of Scripture
had been obscured by the scribal tradition.
MARKj&d196,7 - III. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY YOUR TRADITION.
"Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition." The
word translated making of none effect (akurountes) is found in the
New Testament only in this discourse and at Gal. 3:17: it means
"to deprive of authority or lordship," and so, of a law, "to
annul." It implies more than neglect: it tells of actual
nullification. - "And many such like things do ye," which is not
genuine in verse 8, is genuine here, and may possibly be the
reporter's summary of a further discourse, in which other abuses of
a similar kind were treated as sharply as the intrusion of "Corban"
to the family. The subsequent discourse seems to imply that
something had been said at this very time of the distinction
between clean and unclean food. There were abuses enough within
reach to justify a long and terrible discourse." (W.N. Clarke)
MARKbarclay172,3,4 - The exact meaning of this passage is very difficult
to discover. It hinges on the word Korban. It would seem that
this word Korban really underwent two stages of meaning in Jewish
usage.
(i) The word means a gift. It was used to describe
something which was specially given and dedicated to God. A thing
which was Korban was as if it had already been laid upon the altar.
That is to say, it was completely set apart from all ordinary
purposes and usages and became the property of God. If a man
wished to dedicate some of his money or his property to God, he
declared it Korban, and thereafter it might never again be used for
any ordinary or any secular purpose. It does seem that, even at
this stage, the word was capable of very shrewd usage. For
instance, a creditor might have a debtor who refused or was
unwilling to pay. The creditor might then say, "The debt you owe
me is Korban," that is to say, "The debt you owe me is dedicated to
God." From then on the debtor ceased to be in debt to a fellow-man
and began to be in debt to God, which was far more serious. It may
well be that the creditor could discharge his part of the matter by
making a quite small symbolic payment to the Temple, and then
keeping the rest for himself. In any event, to introduce the idea
of Korban into this kind of debt was a kind of religious blackmail,
which transformed a debt owed to man into a debt owed to God. It
does seem that the idea of Korban was already capable of misuse.
If that be the idea that is behind this, the passage means that a
man has declared his property Korban, sacred to and dedicated to
God, as if laid upon the altar, and then when his father or mother
is in dire need and comes to him for help, he says, "I am sorry
that I cannot give you any help because nothing that I have is
available for you because it is dedicated to God." The vow was
made an excuse or a reason to avoid helping a parent in need. The
vow which the scribal legalist insisted upon was a vow which
involved breaking one of the Ten Commandments which are the very
law of God.
(ii) It seems that there came a time when the word
Korban became a much more generalized oath. When a person declared
anything Korban he entirely alienated it, and separated it from the
person to whom he was talking. A man might say, "Korban that by
which I might be profited by you," and, in so doing, he bound
himself never to touch, taste, have or handle anything possessed by
the person so addressed. Or, he might say, "Korban that by which
you might be profited by me," and, in so saying, he bound himself
never to help or to benefit the person so addressed by him by
anything that belonged to himself. If that be the use which is
meant here, the passage means that, at some time, perhaps in a fit
of anger or rebellion, a man had said to his parents, "Korban
anything by which you may ever be helped by me," and that
afterwards, even if he repented from his rash vow, the scribal
legalists declared that it was unbreakable and that he might never
again render his parents any assistance. Whichever be the case -
and it is not possible to be certain - this much is certain, that
there were cases in which the strict performance of the scribal law
made it impossible for a man to carry out the law of the Ten
Commandments.
Jesus was attacking a system which put rules and
regulations before the claim of human need. The commandment of God
was that the claim of human love and human ties should come first;
the commandment of the scribes was that the claim of legal rules
and regulations should come first. Jesus was quite sure that any
rule and regulation which prevented a man from giving help where
help was needed was nothing less than a contradiction of the law of
God. We must have a care that we never allow rules and regulations
to paralyse the claims of charity and love. Nothing that prevents
us helping a fellow-man can ever be a rule approved by God.