Further Traditionalism

S. Mark vii. 9–23

It is in perfect accord with S. Mark’s custom that he should notice the mood or temper in which Jesus rebuked the champions of a dead formalism. “Full well ye reject the commandment of God.” It bespeaks the sarcasm and righteous indignation which He felt and must have expressed, not only by the tone of His voice, but, we may well believe, with a look of withering scorn. He had illustrated their abuse of ceremonial observance by their slavery to the letter, and neglect of the spirit; and then, advancing a step higher, He showed what a pernicious effect traditionalism had in perverting the first principles of morality.

The Law of God, as delivered to Moses in the Mount, had placed the obligation of children “to honour their parents” in the forefront of man’s duty to his neighbour. Its observance was of such momentous consequence that it was made “the first commandment with promise,” and the penalty of death was affixed to the breach of it.

Now when God imposed this duty He was only setting His seal to man’s natural instincts. The relationship of their offspring to parents is of the very closest kind, and carries with it duties and responsibilities which unassisted Nature is quick to recognise. It is strange that it should have been reserved for God’s chosen people not only to pervert this law of natural ethics, but also to violate a commandment especially enjoined upon themselves. The breach arose out of their traditional regulations with regard to vows, since embodied in an elaborate “Tract” of the Mishnah. From those which involved personal obligation, our Lord selected an example to illustrate the open conflict between their admitted principles and the plain teaching of the Mosaic Code.

The elders allowed a man to alienate any part or the whole of his property from himself by dedication to God or the Temple service. The common formula by which this was done was this, “It is Korban,” and the word implied that it was a gift or offering presented to the Lord.

Now cases might not be infrequent where parents, from a variety of causes, became dependent upon their children for support; but if the latter, from any feelings of anger or annoyance, desired to withhold their assistance, they had only to repeat the familiar “Korban” over the special object of parental need; and even in extreme cases, where they wished to be entirely quit of filial obligation once for all, they said that everything which might have been used for their parent’s benefit was “Korban.” It was this which our Lord selected for special animadversion. The immorality of such conduct was greatly intensified by a practice which could hardly have been originally intended, but which had been winked at, if not openly allowed, in later times. It suffered a man to delay the actual dedication, so that even after the words of alienation had been spoken, he might still continue to enjoy the so-called “Korban,” though the rival claims of the parent were held to be set aside as soon as ever the formula was pronounced. We can well understand, then, how our Lord should rebuke those who could tolerate such flagrant injustice, and declare that such casuistry had struck a nail through the sacred bond, and “made the word of God of none effect.”

Unable any longer to endure the thought of their sophistries, He turned abruptly from the Pharisaic disputants. A crowd of people had gathered in the neighbourhood, drawn together no doubt by the importance which a deputation from the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem would lend to the discussion, as well as by their natural curiosity. The Pharisees had been openly denounced, and the multitudes must know it, that their confidence in such teachers might be shaken and destroyed. Jesus waited till every one had come within reach of His voice, and then, with a caution both at the beginning and at the end, upon the importance of hearing and laying to heart what He said, condemned Pharisaic externalism by the sweeping assertion that nothing from without can defile a man. It was the flattest contradiction to their system that could possibly be given, and we can almost see them gnashing their teeth against Him as He turned away with that parting curse upon their creed. The die had been cast, and henceforward there could be not even the semblance of a truce between the adherents of the Old and the followers of the New.

It seems strange that when He entered into the house, the disciples should have asked him the meaning of His words. They saw that there was something deeper than what lay on the surface, for they spoke of His speech as a parable. It seemed to Him next to impossible that they could have failed to comprehend its spiritual significance; that with all their opportunities of discerning His mind, they should have made so little progress that a simple parable like that required explanation. Nevertheless, with that patience and gentleness which characterised His education of them for their future office, after a momentary expression of surprise, He unfolded the true sense of the figure which He had used. There could be no greater mistake than to suppose that a man was defiled by what he ate. The Law had for a special purpose l drawn a distinction between clean and unclean meat, and this affected a man ceremonially, but no food could impart actual defilement. Henceforward, too, He gave them to understand that even ceremonial impurity would be done away. For S. Mark tells us that He made the statement, “Whatsoever thing from without entereth into a man, cannot defile him,”... “purging all meats,” — that is, pronouncing them clean. It may not have conveyed this meaning to His hearers, but if we accept the true reading of the passage, we have the witness of the Spirit that He so intended it. It was an anticipation of the verdict pronounced to S. Peter after the vision of the “great sheet:” “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”

Turning, then, from the ceremonial to the moral, He showed that the only defilement to be feared was that which came from within, — from the heart, which is the very cradle of the affections and lusts. A long catalogue of sins follows, — sins, many of which are commonly called sins of the flesh, but which He Who is able to trace everything to its source assigned to the depravity of the heart and will. At the head of the list He placed the “evil disputings,” so fresh in His memory from His encounter with the Pharisees; then adulteries and fornications, the outcome of a corrupt imagination; murders, which proceed from anger; thefts and covetousness, from secret promptings to overreach others and gain more than one has a right to; knaveries and fraud; lasciviousness or reckless insolence, which outrages the decencies of life; the malicious glance and slanderous tongue; the proud and haughty bearing which bespeaks the self-centred man; and last in the list, the comprehensive sin of foolishness, which embraces every senseless wicked act. And “all these evil things,” the Discerner of the heart and thoughts of man assured His disciples, “come from within, and defile the man.”

Note: There were two kinds, — vows of consecration and vows of obligation. The former, when a man devoted anything for the Temple for sacrifice — wine, etc.; the latter, when he vowed to abstain from something which was lawful in itself.

Note: Korban, derived from a Hebrew word, “to offer to God,” “bring to the altar.” Konam was perhaps derived from the Latin census; but some consider that the Rabbis used it as a distorted form of Korban.

Note: The rendering of the Authorised Version loses the force of the words as found in the best MSS. They are well rendered in the Revised Version: “If a man shall say ... ye no longer suffer him... making void ...”

Note: The reason assigned in Lev. xx. 24-26 is to separate the Jews from other nations as God’s peculiar people.” It was to be something in their daily life to remind them of the Covenant which distinguished them from the nations of the world.” Cf. Speaker’s Com. on Lev. n. xi. 2.

Note: The reading of the best MSS. is Kadapifav, and is an observation made by the Evangelist, “referring to the intention of the Speaker,” — He spoke thus, cleansing all meats.