3

Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew 15:5-6, YLT:

[YLT] 5 but ye say, Whoever may say to father or mother, An offering is whatever thou mayest be profited by me; 6 and he may not honour his father or his mother, and ye did set aside the command of God because of your tradition.

[ESV] 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God, 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word [or: law] of God.

Mark mentions this too, in 7:11-13, but he also records the use of the term “Korban”:

[YLT] 11 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, 12 and no more do ye suffer him to do anything for his father or for his mother, 13 setting aside the word of God for your tradition that ye delivered; and many such like things ye do.'

There is a question on BHSE: Is this Pharisee tradition that Jesus rebuked in the Talmud? Mark 7:9-13](Is this Pharisee tradition that Jesus rebuked in the Talmud? Mark 7:9-13), — but the problem is that it does not address understanding of this passage from Jesus' follower perspective, i.e., Christian, whoever he may originally be, jew or gentile. Nor do answers do that. My question is more about the meaning of the passage in the Bible's context. Matthew does not mention a “Korban”, and I think that is to re-address it further to all Christians. And I don't understand what that phrase means even when taken outside of Judaic tradition.

  • Can someone please explain to me in brief, simple words, what that ‘tradition’ means, practically? What I've read in other questions' answers says about taking a vow, but I honestly didn't get what are reasons or situations are for that. Is it possible to explain that in an instructive manner, like ‘do A, do B, do C, congratulations, law successfully violated’?
  • What does this passage mean in practice, when interpreted from a Christian perspective, i.e. in relation to other NT passages that speak about family members?

I also did not understand this answer on CSE, which is given in the comment section of the related question, quote from there:

If a man gives the benefits for his parents as offering (to God) as a vow or oath, then he is freed or forbidden from all obligation towards them due to the vow. This is the actual meaning of taking the name of the Lord in vain.

It seems like it was supposed to be an answer, but it does not provide a clear sense to me at all, unfortunately.

Improve this question
2
  • i recommend using deepseek for very precise explanation Commented Apr 10 at 17:03
  • 1
    @Michael16 Thank you, but I don't use such tools voluntarily. Commented Apr 16 at 16:37

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
4

Question What does this passage mean to Christians in light of other NT writings?

Answer In Matthew 15:1–9, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for using the tradition of Corban—declaring possessions as “given to God”—to avoid supporting their parents. By doing so, they effectively nullified the fifth commandment (“Honor your father and your mother,” Exod. 20:12). The problem was not the dedication itself, but the motive and outcome: it allowed them to appear devout while disregarding God’s moral law. Jesus calls this hypocrisy: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me” (Matt. 15:8).

By contrast, when Jesus teaches that following Him may result in division within families (see Matt. 10:34–37; Luke 14:25–27), the context is different. In this case, the disciple’s loyalty to Christ rightly takes precedence over familial expectations. Division occurs not because the follower dishonors parents, but because obedience to God’s truth creates conflict with those who reject Him. The intent is not rebellion or neglect but faithfulness to Christ, even when it costs personal relationships.

This distinction is one of heart and purpose:

The Pharisees’ Corban tradition was a pretext for selfishness and avoidance of duty.

The disciple’s separation in following Christ is a result of devotion to truth and righteousness.

It is important to note that the New Testament still affirms the responsibility to care for family members. In 1 Timothy 5:8–10, Paul writes that anyone who fails to provide for their household “has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Thus, honoring parents—through respect, care, and provision—remains a moral duty for believers whenever possible.

In summary:

Corban represents false devotion that excuses disobedience.

Following Christ represents true devotion that may bring division through faithfulness.

The heart’s allegiance—whether to self or to God—determines whether an act honors or dishonors Him.

Jesus’ teachings in both passages call believers to genuine obedience: not outward religiosity, but love expressed in truth and faithfulness to God’s commands

Improve this answer
3

Corban was an oath of a gift to the temple treasury. Sometimes the treasury was actually called Corban. The Jews developed a loop hole in the law to avoid giving financial support to their parents by basically saying, "I've already contributed to the temple and devoted that money to God."

After having devoted the gift to the temple it could not then be used for other purposes. Jesus was calling them to account for violating the 5th commandment to honor their parents, as the Hebrew word for "honor" is strong's H3513, "kabad" which means "heavy, to be honored, to be glorified, to be burdensome." (Biblehub)

The associated Greek word is G5091, "timao," and it bears the sense of such honor and valuable, significant, thus heavy.

The children were to provide for their parents and grandparents before burdening the treasury of the temple with their care. The Corban (Korban) was misused by disobedient children to avoid the financial needs of their parents.

Excerpt from Barne's Notes at Matt. 15:5 -

If he had once devoted his property once said it was "corban," or a gift to God - it could not be appropriated even to the support of a parent. If a parent was needy and poor, and if he should apply to a son for assistance, and the son should reply, though in anger, "It is devoted to God; this property which you need, and by which you might be profited by me, is "corban" - I have given it to God;" the Jews said the property could not be recalled, and the son was not under obligation to aid a parent with it. He had done a more important thing in giving it to God. The son was free. He could not be required to do anything for his father after that. (Biblehub)

The Christian perspective is not in view here as Jesus was speaking to scribes and Pharisees. They were Jews. The gospel had not yet been preached to the gentiles which happened in Acts 10. The converts, both Jew and gentile were not called Christian until Acts 11 at Antioch. It was the Jews He was addressing who were guilty of twisting and perverting the law of fifth commandment.

However, the fifth commandment is reinforced in the gospel of Christ for all Christians in Luke 18:20; Col. 3:20-21; 1 Tim. 5:8; and Eph. 6:2.

Improve this answer
6
  • 2
    Thanks for this good answer. I would only add that when we speak of "the Pharisees" here we should not think that this was necessarily their general practice to care for the temple at the expense of honoring their parents. Also the concept of korban in Judaism is much broader than what Jesus is objected to. jewishvirtuallibrary.org/sacrifices-and-offerings-karbanot Commented Apr 9 at 4:15
  • 1
    Agreed, Dan. But the vow was used to dodge their obligation to their parents. Commented Apr 9 at 4:42
  • @Gina thank you, I think I got the main sense. Thought it was not that straight simple. You've covered the first part of my question. Maybe someone could put that in broader Christian perspective later. Commented Apr 9 at 15:21
  • @RaySolva - please see bold addition today. Commented Apr 9 at 23:03
  • @Gina, ‘The Christian perspective is not in view here as Jesus was speaking to scribes and Pharisees.’ - that is not true, because - though that-time Jesus had spoken to Pharisees indeed, - His Scripture speaks to us now. Therefore your addition just rejects my second question as invalid, while it indeed could be addressed since there is a temple in Christian perspective too. Thus my request stays open. Commented Apr 16 at 16:45
0

Matthew 15 sets up the question as a conflict between the laws of men (v.9) and laws of God (v.6).

And the chapter pushes this into the question of worship such that God only accepts worship from those who put God's laws over man's laws.

"But in vain they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." 15:9.

And that theme has the golden image and the lions den behind it (Daniel 3 and 6) and the Mark of the Beast and death decree (Revelation 13) in front of it.

It doesn't help that the command of men has traditional behind it (v. 6). God must be obeyed whatever man says.

Improve this answer

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.