Matthew 15:5

15:5 vowed to give to God: Such a gift was likely donated at the Temple (see Mark 7:11; see also Prov 28:24) but functioned as a way to dodge financial responsibility for one’s parents.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 15:5. Ὑμεῖς δὲ, but you) What God commands are the offices of love; human traditions lead into all other things.[682]—δῶρον, a gift) i.e. it is a gift. Whatsoever, etc., is Corban. The formula was קרבן שאני נהנה לך, Let all that by which I might be serviceable to thee in any way whatsoever, be to me Corban; i.e. Let it be as much forbidden to me to benefit thee in anything, as it is unlawful for me to touch the Corban. See L. Capellus[683] on the Corban. Or else, to avoid the appearance of avarice, they actually offered to the Corban what was due to their parents; as many persons give to the poor or to orphans those things which they grudge to others, which they extort from them, or deny them.—ὁ ἐὰν, κ.τ.λ., whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me—ὠφεληθῆς, thou mightest be profited) The priests used to say, יהנה לך, It be useful to thee,[684] when the people offered anything.—καὶ, and) This particle denotes the commencement of the apodosis.[685]—Οὐ ΜῊ ΤΙΜΉΣῌ, shall not honour) The decree of the Pharisees was, such an one shall be free from all obligation towards father and mother. Our Lord, however, expresses this in words which bring out more clearly the unrighteousness of the Pharisees in opposition to the commandment of God.

[682] In the original, “in alia omnia eunt,” i.e. into all things which are of a different, nay, a contrary character.

[683] LUDOVICUS CAPELLUS was born at Sedan in 1586. He became a theologian and philologist of Saumur, was a first-rate Hebrew scholar, and deeply versed in Rabbinical learning. His writings are very numerous. He died in 1658.—(I. B.)

[684] Sc. “It (i.e. the offering) be profitable to thee.” A form of benediction.—(I. B.)

[685] By a Hebraism, which however is also found in Greek, ex. gr. Demosthenes de Cor., “Whosoever (when any one soever) shall say, etc.—then (καὶ) he shall not (need not) honour,” etc.—ED.

Compare a similar construction occurring Rev 2:24.—E. B.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_15:5 f. Δῶρον] sc. ἐστι, קָרְבָּן, a gift, κατʼ ἐξοχήν, namely, to God, i.e. to the temple. See Lightfoot and, in general, Ewald, Alterth. p. 81 ff. Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, Maldonatus connect δῶρον with ὠφεληθῇς: a temple-offering, which will be given by me, will bring a blessing to thee. The conjunctive, however, is clearly independent of ἐάν. Chrysostom observes correctly: δῶρόν ἐστι τοῦτο τῷ θεῷ, ὃ θέλεις ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῆναι καὶ οὐ δύνασαι λαβεῖν.

There is an aposiopesis after ὠφεληθῇς, whereupon Jesus proceeds in His discourse with καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμής. But your teaching is: Whoever will have said to his father: It is given to the temple, whatever thou wouldest have got from me by way of helping thee (the Jews, of course, understood the apodosis to be this: he is not bound by that commandment, but the obligation is transferred to his Corban). And (in consequence of this vow) he will certainly not be honouring. Comp. Käuffer, de ζωῆς αἰων. notione, p. 32 f., and Beza, de Wette, Keim. Some, however, postpone the aposiopesis till the close, and understand καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμής. as forming part of what is supposed to be spoken by the Pharisees in their teaching: But whosoever says … and does not honour … (he is not liable to punishment). So Fritzsche. But this is not in keeping with usage as regards οὐ μή; nor is it in itself a probable thing that the Pharisees should have said quite so plainly that the honouring of parents might be dispensed with. Others, again, reject the aposiopesis, and regard καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμ. etc. as an apodosis, taking the words, like the expositors just referred to, as forming part of what is understood to be spoken by the Pharisees: whoever says … he is not called upon, in such cases, to honour his parents as well. Such, after Grotius, is the interpretation of Bengel, Olshausen, Bleek; comp. Winer, p. 558 [E. T. 750, note]. According to this view, καί would be that of the apodosis (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 636) in a relative construction (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 146). But οὐ μὴ τιμ. does not mean: he need not honour, but: he assuredly will not honour; or, as Ewald and Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 391, explain it, he shall not honour,which direct prohibition from the lips of such wily hypocrites as those Pharisees, is far less conceivable than the prudent aposiopesis above referred to.

For ὠφελεῖσθαί τι ἔκ τινος, comp. Thuc. vi. 12. 2 : ὠφεληθῇ τι ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς, Lys. xxi. 18, xxvii. 2; Aesch. Prom. 222; Soph. Aj. 533. More frequently with ὑπό, παρά, ἀπό. The opposite of it is: ζημιοῦσθαί τι ἔκ τινος, Dem. lii. 11. For the passive with accusative of the thing, see Kühner, II. 1, p. 279 f.

καὶ ἠκυρώσατε] and you have thereby deprived of its authority. ἠκυρ. is placed first for sake of emphasis, and is stronger than παραβαίνετε in Mat_15:3. That such vows, leading to a repudiation of the fifth commandment, were actually made and held as binding, is evident from Tr. Nedarim v. 6, ix. 1. Joseph, c. Ap. i. 22.

Mat_15:6 is a confirmation, and not a mere echo, of what is said in Mat_15:3.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 15:5 shows how that great law is compromised. ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγ .: the emphatic antithesis of ὑμεῖς to θεὸς a pointed rebuke of their presumption. he scribes rivals to the Almighty in legislation. “Ye say”: the words following give not the ipsissima verba of scribe-teaching or what they would acknowledge to be the drift of their teaching, but that drift as Jesus Himself understood it = “This is what it comes to.” “ Δῶρον ” = let it be a gift or offering devoted to God, to the temple, to religious purposes, i.e. , a Corban (Mar 7:11 ); magic word releasing from obligation to show honour to parents in the practical way of contributing to their support. Of evil omen even when the “gift” was bonâ fide , as involving an artificial divorce between religion and morality; easily sliding into disingenuous pretexts of vows to evade filial responsibilities; reaching the lowest depth of immorality when lawmakers and unfilial sons were in league for common pecuniary profit from the nefarious transaction. Were the faultfinders in this case chargeable with receiving a commission for trafficking in iniquitous legislation, letting sons off for a percentage on what they would have to give their parents? Origen, Jerome, Theophy., Lutteroth favour this view, but there is nothing in the text to justify it. Christ’s charge is based on the practice specified even at its best: honest pleading of previous obligation to God as a ground for neglecting duty to parents. Lightfoot (Hor. Heb.) understands the law as meaning that the word Corban, even though profanely and heartlessly spoken, bound not to help parents, but did not bind really to give the property to sacred uses. “Addicanda sua in sacros usus per haec verba nullatenus tenebatur, ad non juvandum patrem tenebatur inviolabiliter.” οὐ μὴ τιμήσει , he shall not honour = he is exempt from obligation to: such the rule in effect, if not in words, of the scribes in the case. The future here has the force of the imperative as often in the Sept [89] ( vide Burton, M. and T., § 67). If the imperative meaning be denied, then οὐ μὴ τ . must be taken as a comment of Christ’s. Ye say, “whosoever,” etc.; in these circumstances of course he will not, etc. As the passage stands in T.R. the clause καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμήσῃ , etc., belongs to the protasis, and the apodosis remains unexpressed = he shall be free, or guiltless, as in A. V [90]

[89] Septuagint.

[90] Authorised Version.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The meaning is this: whatsoever I bestow upon the Temple, is to thy profit, for it is as good as if I gave it thee, for (as the Pharisees of our time say) it shall be meritorious for thee: for under this color of religion, they raked all to themselves, as though that he that had given anything to the Temple, had done the duty of a child.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift--or simply, "A gift!" In Mark (Mar 7:11), it is, "Corban!" that is, "An oblation!" meaning, any unbloody offering or gift dedicated to sacred uses.

by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 5. It is a gift] קרבן korban, Mr 7:11, an offering of approach; something consecrated to the service of God in the temple, by which a man had the privilege of approaching his Maker. This conduct was similar to the custom of certain persons who bequeath the inheritance of their children to Churches or religious uses; either through terror of conscience, thus striving to purchase the kingdom of glory; or through the persuasion of interested hireling priests. It was in this way that, in the days of popish influence, the principal lands in the nation had fallen into the hands of the Church. In those charters, multitudes of which have passed through my hands, a common form was, pro salute meae, et pro salute antecessorum meorum, et pro salute successorum meorum, et pro solute uxoris meae, c., c., do, et concedo Deo et Ecclesiae, &c. "For my salvation, and for the salvation of my predecessors, and for the salvation of my successors, and for the salvation of my wife, &c., &c., I give and bequeath to God and his Church, &c."

Though a world of literature was destroyed, and fine buildings ruined, by the suppression of the monasteries in England, yet this step, with the Stat. 23 Hen. VIII. c. 10, together with the Stat. 9 Geo. II. c. 36, ware the means of checking an evil that had arrived at a pitch of unparalleled magnitude an evil that was supplanting the atonement made by the blood of the covenant, and putting death-bed grants of land, c., in the place of Jesus Christ, and throwing the whole secular power of the kingdom into the hands of the pope and the priests. No wonder then that they cried out, when the monasteries were suppressed! It is sacrilege to dedicate that to God which is taken away from the necessities of our parents and children and the good that this pretends to will doubtless be found in the catalogue of that unnatural man's crimes, in the judgment of the great day, who has thus deprived his own family of its due. To assist our poor relatives, is our first duty and this is a work infinitely preferable to all pious legacies and endowments.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(5) It is a gift.—St. Mark (Mar_7:11) gives the Hebrew term, Corban, which was literally applied to that which had been consecrated—theoretically to God, practically to the service or ornamentation of the Temple. In Mat_27:6, the treasury of the Temple is itself called the Corban. The casuistry of the scribes in this matter seems at first so monstrous that it would be hard to understand how it could have approved itself to any intelligent interpreters of the Law, were it not that the teaching of scholastic and Jesuit moralists presents instances, not less striking, of perverted ingenuity. The train of thought which led them to so startling a conclusion would seem to have been this: to divert to lower human uses that which has been consecrated to God is sacrilege, and therefore a man who turned all his property into a Corban was bound not to expend it on the support even of his nearest relations. But the time of fulfilling the vow of consecration was left to his own discretion, and no one had a right to call him to account for delay. With this loophole, the Corban practice became an easy method of evading natural obligations. It might be pleaded in bar of the claims of nearest relationship, and yet all the while the man might retain the usufruct of his property, and defer the fulfilment of his vow to the last hour of life. It would seem, indeed, that this casuistry went still further, and that the consecration might be only relative, as stopping the claims of this or that person, and expiring when they passed away.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. It is a gift] Rather, Let it be a gift, or “devoted to sacred uses,” which the Jews expressed by the word corban, found in Mar_7:11. The scribes held that these words, even when pronounced in spite and anger against parents who needed succour, excused the son from his natural duty; and, on the other hand, did not oblige him really to devote the sum to the service of God or of the temple.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or mother,.... That is, it was a tradition of their's, that if a man should say to his father and mother, when poor and in distress, and made application to him for sustenance,

it is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, and honour not his father, or his mother, he shall be free: or, as Mark expresses it, "it is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, he shall be free, and ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or mother". For the understanding of this tradition, let it be observed, that the word "Corban" signifies a gift, or offering, which was devoted to sacred use; and was unalienable, and could not be converted to any other use; and that this word was used among the Jews, from hence, as the form of an oath, or vow; and therefore, when anyone said "Corban", it was all one, as if he swore by "Corban"; or as if he had said, let it be as "Corban", as unalienable as "Corban": by which oath, or vow, the use of that which was spoken of, whether it respected a man's self, or others, was restrained and prohibited: the rule was (r) this , "if a man said Corban, it was as if he said as Corban, and it was forbidden": and if he used the words "Conem", "Conach", and "Conas", which they call (s) the surnames of Corban, and were no other than corruptions of it, it was all one as if he had said "Corban" itself. There are many instances of this kind of vows, and the form of them in their oral law (t), or book of traditions;

"If anyone should say, , "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever I might be profited by the" sons of Noah, it is free of an Israelite, and forbidden of a Gentile; if he should say, "whatsoever I might be profited" by the seed of Abraham, it is forbidden of an Israelite, and is free of a Gentile--if anyone should say, , "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever I might be profited by the uncircumcised", it is free of the uncircumcised of Israel, and forbidden of the circumcised of the Gentiles; if he says "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever I might be profited by the circumcised", it is forbidden of the circumcised of Israel, and free of the circumcised, of the Gentiles.''

Again (u),

"if anyone says to his friend, , "Conem (or "Corban") whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me", &c.''

which is exactly the same form as here, unless it should be rather rendered, "whatsoever I might be profited by thee": once more (w),

"if a married woman should say to her husband, "Conem (or Corban) whatsoever I might be profited by my father, or thy father, &c".''

Let these instances suffice: the plain and evident sense of the tradition before us, is this; that when, upon application being made to a man by his parents, for support and sustenance, he makes a vow in such form as this, "Corban, whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me"; that is, whatsoever profit or advantage thou mightest have, or expect to have from me, let it be as "Corban", as a gift devoted to God, that can never be revoked and converted to another use; or, in other words, I vow and protest thou shalt never have any profit from me, not a penny, nor a pennyworth of mine. Now, when a man had made such an impious vow as this, according to this tradition, it was to stand firm and good, and he was not to honour his father or mother, or do anything for them, by way of relief: so that our Lord might justly observe upon it as he does;

thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect, by your tradition: for if such a vow was valid, and a man was obliged to abide by it, according to the tradition of the elders, and not honour his father and mother, as the law of God requires; it is a plain case, that the command of God was made void by this tradition: nay they expressly say (x) that , "vows fall upon things of a (divine) commandment", as well as upon things in a man's power, and that he is bound by them; so that without sin he cannot do what the law commands; insomuch, that if a man vows a vow, and that it may be ratified, a command must be made void, his vow must stand, and the command be abrogated. So truly and justly does Christ charge them with making the command of God of none effect, by their tradition. It is indeed disputed by the doctors, and at last allowed, that such a vow might be dissolved by a wise man, for the honour of parents (y).

"R. Eliezer says, they open to a man, (i.e. the door of repentance, and dissolve his vow,) for the honour of his father and his mother, but the wise men forbid "it". Says R. Tzadok, if they open to him for the honour of his father and mother, they will open to him for the honour of God, and if so, there will be no vows: however, the wise men agreed with R. Eliezer in the affair between a man and his parents, that they should open to him for the honour of them.''

And this could be done only by a wise man; and very probably this last decree was made on account of this just reproof of Christ's, being ashamed any longer to countenance so vile a practice; and even, according to this determination, the vow stood firm till dissolved by of their doctors: so that notwithstanding, Christ's argument is good, and the instance full to prove that for which he brought it: for the above reason it may be, it is, that this tradition Christ refers to is not now extant; but that there was such an one in Christ's time, is certain; he would never have asserted it else; and had it not been true, the Pharisees would have been able to have retired him, and forward enough to have done it: and that such vows were sometimes made, and which were not to be rescinded, is clear from the following fact (z).

"It happened to one in Bethhoron, "whose father was excluded, by a vow, from receiving any profit from him": and he married his son, and said to his friend, a court and a dinner are given to thee by gift; but they are not to be made use of by thee, but with this condition, that my father may come and eat with us at dinner;''

which was a device to have his father at dinner, and yet secure his vow. Upon the whole, the sense of this passage is, not that a man excused himself to his parents, according to this tradition, by saying, that his substance, either in whole, or in part, was "Corban", or devoted to the service of God, and therefore they could expect no profit, or relief, from him; but that he vowed that what he had should be as "Corban", and they should be never the better for it: so that a man so vowing might give nothing to the service of God, but keep his whole substance to himself; which he might make use of for his own benefit, and for the benefit of others, but not for his father and mother; who, after such a vow made, were to receive no benefit by it, unless rescinded by a wise man; and which seems to be an explanation of it, made after the times of Christ.

(r) T. Hieros. Nedarim, fol. 37. 1. Misn. Nedarim, c. 1. sect. 4. Maimon. Hilch. Nedarim, c. 1. sect. 7. (s) Misn. Nedarim, c. 1. sect. 1, 2. Maimon. Hilch. Nedarim, c. 1. sect. 16. (t) Misn. Nedarim, c. 3. sect. 11. (u) lb. c. 8. sect. 7. Vid. c. 11. sect 3, 4. (w) lb. c. 11. sect. 11. (x) Maimon. Hilch. Nedarim, c. 3. sect. 1. 6, 7. 9. (y) Misn. Nedarim, c. 9. sect. 1. (z) lb. c. 5. sect. 6.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

Ver. 5. But ye say, Whosoever, &c.] The intolerable covetousness of the priests bred this abominable corruption of this commandment, as it did many other like. {a} {See Trapp on "Joh 2:14"} {See Trapp on "Joh 2:15"} By the same arts at this day the Lady of Loretto, as they call her, hath her churches so stuffed with vowed presents and memories, as they are fain to hang their cloisters and churchyards with them. The rood of grace in this kingdom had a man within it, enclosed with a hundred wires to make the image goggle with the eyes, nod with the head, hang the lip, move and shake his jaws, according as the value was of the gift that was offered. If it were a small piece of silver, he would hang a frowning lip; if a piece of gold, then should his jaws go merrily. The like was done by the blood of Hales, brought afterwards by the Lord Cromwell to Paul’s Cross, and there proved to be the blood of a duck. In the year 1505, Pope Alexander sent a bull of pardons for money into England, dispensing thereby with such as kept away, or by any fraud had gotten, the goods of other men, which they should now retain still without scruple of conscience, so as they paid a ratable portion thereof to his Holiness’ receivers. This was pure Pharisaism.

It is a gift by whatsoever, &c.] Some read it thus, by "Corban, or by this gift, if thou receive any profit by me;" understand, then let God do thus and much more to me, q.d. by Corban thou shalt receive no profit by me. Others thus, Corban, anathema sit, be it a devoted thing whatsoever I may profit thee by: {b} q. d. Being consecrated to God, it shall be beneficial to us both, and not here only in this life, but hereafter in that to come, whereas cost bestowed upon parents soon vanisheth, and reacheth no further than the life present.

{a} η φιλοχρηματια μητηρ κακοτητος απασης.

{b} ο εαν, si quicquam, ut Mat 10:14; Mat 23:18; Scultet.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee.[1] This gift is called Corban, Mark vii. 11. Now, as to the sense of this obscure place, I shall mention two expositions that seem preferable to others. The first is, as if a son said to his father or mother, Whatsoever was mine, (with which indeed I might have assisted you, my parents) I have given, i.e. promised to give to the temple: and being to keep this promise, I need not, or I cannot now assist you. The second interpretation is, as if the son said to his father or mother, Whatsoever gift I have made to God will be profitable to you, as well as to me; or, let it be profitable to you, (which is more according to the Greek text, both here and in St. Mark) and therefore I am no further obliged to assist you. (Witham) --- That is, the offering that I shall make to God, shall be instead of that which should be expended for thy profit. This tradition of the Pharisees was calculated to enrich themselves, by exempting children from giving any further assistance to their parents, if they once offered to the temple and the priests that which should have been the support of their parents. But this was a violation of the law of God, and of nature, which our Saviour here condemns. (Challoner) --- They committed a double crime. They neither offered the gift to God, nor succoured their parents in their distress. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. lii.)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Quodcunque ex me, tibi profuerit. In the Greek, both in St. Matthew and St. Mark, Greek: doron, o ean ex emou, ophelethes, tibi prosit.

====================

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

5. A gift — That is, a corban, or thing consecrated to God. If a thing were consecrated to God, that, by Jewish tradition, rendered it exempt from every other claim; even from the duty of supporting one’s parents. A form of this kind of vowing was: “Let what I may gain be devoted, so that my father, even, may eat nothing of it.” Thou — Our Lord gives the words as if addressed to the parents. The Jews held that if the child should say this thing even in a moment of anger, it was still binding. And Lightfoot is quoted by Alford as showing that the mere utterance of the word corban absolved the utterer, even though he made no consecration of his property.

The meaning of the address to the parent here given by our Lord, may be thus rendered: “My parent, that property of mine by which thou mightest be supported or benefitted, is a gift consecrated to God; thou canst therefore have no share of it.”

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But ye say. In direct contradiction to what "God commanded" It is a gift, etc. This is better rendered, That wherewith, thou mightest have been benefited by me is Corban; i.e. is given, dedicated to God. The vow to consecrate his savings, even at death, to the temple absolved a man from the duty of succouring his parents. It was further ruled that if a son, from any motive whatever, pronounced any aid to his parents to be corban, he was thenceforward precluded from affording them help, the claims of the commandment and of natural affection and charity being superseded by the vow. He seems to have been allowed to expend the money thus saved on himself or any other object except his father and mother. So gross an evasion of a common duty could not be placed in the same category as the omission of unnecessary washings.

Schemes for shirking obligation.

Human relationships involve obligations. Our relations with God bring the supreme obligations. But here is the patent fact response to our obligations toward God always carries with it response to our natural obligations toward man. The pious man cannot be pious if he is unfaithful and unkind to his father and mother. All the professions men ever made would form no excuse for the neglect of our natural duties to our parents. And this tests the seeming religiousness of our Lord"s time. Men might be very pious, but were they shirking their natural obligations? We can well imagine the indignation of our Lord when he found the misery that the shameless system of "corban" was working. A man wanted to shirk all responsibility for the well being of his parents, and yet keep the public repute of being a pious man; so he brought a gift to the priest, in presenting it used a particular formula, and wiped out all his obligations. The false religious sentiment of those times actually led to men"s regarding such a man as extra pious. St. Paul is severe, with a very righteous severity, on such wickedness: "If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel". (1Ti_5:8)

I SCHEMES DEVISED BY SELFISHNESS. These are specially hateful in relation to parents, because of their self-denials for our sakes in our earliest years. They take such forms as:

1. Leaving the neighbourhood or the country.

2. Spending all a man has on his own gratification.

3. Delaying present help under plea of the excuses that it will be wanted much more by and by. Selfish souls are marvellously clever at making excuses.

II SCHEMES DEVISED BY TEMPER. There arise quarrellings and disputings in families, and these are made into reasons for refusing to fulfil natural obligations. It may even be that the conduct and character of parents make us angry, and lead us to threaten the withdrawal of our help. Character may make advisable readjustments of our ways of meeting our obligations, but even bad character cannot excuse our shirking them.

III SCHEMES DEVISED BY SPURIOUS PIETY. Illustrate by a man who excuses his neglect of his father and mother by saying that he has had to give such a large subscription to the new church. Honourably meeting our human obligations is the sign and expression of piety. He deceives himself who claims to serve God while he is not doing his duty to his fellow men. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

It is a gift by whatsoever thou mightest have been profited by me - That is, I have given, or at least, purpose to give to the treasury of the temple, what you might otherwise have had from me.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

gift i.e. dedicated to God.

Mat 5:23; Mat 5:24; Mar 7:11 (See Scofield "Mar 7:11")

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. Ye say. Following tradition, you say one thing while God says in the law just the opposite. The scribes taught that a Jew by calling his possessions “Corban” (a gift to God, Mark 7:11) was absolved from the duty of caring for his parents, even though he did not afterward devote his property to sacred uses. Thus by an artifice the law with respect to parents could be set aside. The Talmud furnishes a curious illustration of this perversion of the command. The Mishna says: “He that curses his father or his mother is not guilty, unless he curses them with an express mention of the name of Jehovah.”

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

5. καὶ omitted before οὐ μὴ τιμ. on the most ancient authority.

5. δῶρον ὃ ἐὰν κ.τ.λ. ‘Let that by whatsoever thou mayest be profited by me (i.e. the sum which might have gone to your support) be a ‘gift’ (κορβᾶν, Mark), or devoted to sacred purposes.’

The scribes held that these words, even when pronounced in spite and anger against parents who needed succour, excused the son from his natural duty, indeed bound him not to perform it; and, on the other hand, did not oblige him really to devote the sum to the service of God or of the temple.

οὐ μὴ τιμήσει. The omission of καὶ before these words (see critical notes) obviates the need of the awkward ellipse supplied in A.V. by the words ‘he shall be free,’ and throws out with far more force and clearness the contrast between the ἐντολὴ τοῦ θεοῦ and the παράδοσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. God’s command was, ‘honour thy father and thy mother;’ ye say (in certain cases), ‘a man shall not honour his father and mother.’

οὐ μὴ with future indicative or with subjunctive, is an emphatic denial. See note, ch. Mat 10:42.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5.] Lightfoot on this verse shews that the expression cited by our Lord did not always bind the utterer to consecrate his property to religious uses, but was by its mere utterance sufficient to absolve him from the duty of caring for his parents: see further on the word Corban in Mar 7:11. The construction of this and the following ver. is: But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or mother, That from which thou mightest have been benefited by me, is an offering (consecrated to God; see above).… (understand, is free). [And] such an one will certainly not honour his father [or his mother]. So Mark, οὐκέτι ἀφίετε κ.τ.λ.

The joining of [καὶ] οὐ μὴ κ.τ.λ. to the ὃς ἄν above, and making the aposiopesis after μητ. αὐτοῦ, is inconsistent with the usage of οὐ μή, which contains in itself an apodosis, being an elliptical construction for οὐ δέος μή or the like; see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 155 ff. The future ind. after οὐ μή makes the certainty more apparent: so καὶ τοῦτο γὰρ εὖ εἰδέναι χρὴ ὅτι οὐ μὴ δυνήσεται Κῦρος εὑρεῖν.… Xen. Cyr. viii. 1. 5. See more examples in Hartung, ib. Of course the apodosis is our Lord’s saying, not that of the Pharisees.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. But you say, Whosoever shall say to the father or the mother, A gift (is) anything wherewith thou mightest be profited by me, shall not honour his father.] Mk. has: “But you say, If a man say to father or mother, Korban (that is, A Gift1) is anything wherewith thou mightest be profited by me—you no longer allow him to do ought for father or mother.” Mt. avoids Mk.’s technical term Κορβάν, and endeavours to emend Mk.’s harsh construction. The custom which the Lord was reproving was this, that the scribes allowed a man by a formula to dedicate all his property to the Temple, and so escape the duty of supporting his parents. A legal formula thus became more sacred than the divine command expressed in Scripture. In Mt. this is described thus: “Moses said, Honour thy father, etc. But you say, A man need not honour.” In Mk., however, the construction is very harsh. To complete the sentence we must supply after ὠφεληθῇς some such words as “he is absolved from honouring his parents.” But we should expect “and” before οὐκέτι. The fact is that the sentence consists of two unassimilated constructions: (1) You say, If a man says, etc. (he need not honour). (2) You no longer allow a man to do ought for his father or mother if he says, etc. Mt. has endeavoured to correct this harshness by converting οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν, κ.τ.λ. into the required clause giving the contents of λέγετε. “You say, If a man say, etc., he shall not honour.” Clearly, however, this is not original. “He shall not honour” is the result attributed by Christ to the scribal teaching, not the literal expression of that teaching. It is only explicable as a literary attempt to ease Mk.’s harsh Greek. On οὐ μή, see Moulton, p. 190.

(M)

5. πατέρα αὐτοῦ] add ἢ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ, C E al. om. א B D S1 S2.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

It is a gift [δωρον] . Rev., given to God. The picture is that of a churlish son evading the duty of assisting his needy parents by uttering the formula, Corban, it is a gift to God. "Whatever that me be by which you might be helped by me, is not mine to give. It is vowed to God." The man, however, was not bound in that case to give his gift to the temple - treasury, while he was bound not to help his parent; because the phrase did not necessarily dedicate the gift to the temple. By a quibble it was regarded as something like Corban, as if it were laid on the altar and put entirely out of reach. It was expressly stated that such a vow was binding, even if what was vowed involved a breach on the law.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.