05.39. The Word of God and the Tradition of Men
39. — The Word of God and the Tradition of Men
"And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition. For Moses said, Honour 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, Givento 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" (Mark 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 authorised 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 favoured 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-favoured 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 tradi tion 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.).
(2) 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 nought dominion and rail at dignities (Jude 1:8), 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).
(3) 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 wilful 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 trangressors of the law (Romans 2:23, R.V.). In their inordinate zeal for the human innovation they has dishonoured the law of God, given through angels, every transgression and disobedience of which would receive "a just recompence of reward" (Hebrews 2:2).
Transgression then, is the fruit of passing by, and then of despising the explicit commandment of God. It is in fact the wilful 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 offence. 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 (Luke 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 dishonoured their parents but God also (Romans 2:23).
(4) 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 cancelling 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 fulness of the former may be observed in a passage of the Gospel of John (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 honour 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. The Tradition of Men 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 somethingdeliveredto 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 2:15) similarly also in2 Thessalonians 3:6. 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 Corinthians 11:2). Whatever truth wasdeliveredto 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 Corinthians 11:23;2 Peter 2:21;Jude 1:3). 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, Sim on 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 unauthorised 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 isentole,butentalmaoccurs three times only, viz., inMark 7:7; in the parallel passage,Matthew 15:9; and inColossians 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 (Mark 7:13), 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 adminster the kingdom of the heavens according to the law and the prophets, records the same instance (Matthew 15:1-39). 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?
(1) The specific command was, "Honour thy father and thy mother" (Exodus 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).
(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" (Exodus 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;Proverbs 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 honour to whom honour 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; John 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 honourable (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; Colossians 3:20; 1 Timothy 5:4; 1 Timothy 5:8).
It has sometimes been alleged that there is inconsistency between the Lord’s defence 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 shall 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 (Genesis 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; Luke 9:60). 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 doron, which means a gift. In the Old Testament the word is used in connection with the service of the law, and is translated "offering" and "oblation"
(Leviticus 2:1; Leviticus 2:5; Leviticus 2:13; Leviticus 3:1; 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 recognise the manner in which our Lord paid honour 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 honoured medium through whom the law received in the holy mount was promulgated. The Lord declared to the Pharisees, "Moses said, Honour 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 clear 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, Honour 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 honoured Moses, as the scriptures testified, and the Son of man honoured him too, teaching us also by a quiet example, to render honour to whom honour is due. The Lord maintained that honour 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. Mark 7:10 with Mark 7:13), 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;Luke 24:27; Luke 24:44). 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 saviour, 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.).