Again f889 , �if anyone says to his friend, �l hnhn yna� �nwq , �Conem (or �Corban�) whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me�, etc.� which is exactly the same form as here, unless it should be rather rendered, �whatsoever I might be profited by thee�: once more f890 , �if a married woman should say to her husband, �ybalw abal tynhn yna� �nwq �Conem (or Corban) whatsoever I might be profited by my father, or thy father, etc.�.�

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 that hwxm yrbd l[ twlj �yrdn , �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 f892 . �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 f893 . �It happened to one in Bethhoron, hanh wnmyh rdwm wyba hyh� , �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. See note on Matthew 15:5 Ver. 7. Ye hypocrites , etc.] After our Lord had given so full a proof of their making void the commandments of God by their traditions, he might very justly, as he does, call them hypocrites; who pretended to so much religion and holiness, and yet scrupled not, upon occasion, to set aside a divine command; who affected so much sanctity, as to be displeased with the disciples, for not complying with an order of their elders, when they themselves made no account of a divine precept; and plainly showed they had more regard to men than God, and to the precepts of men, than to the commands of God, and to approve themselves to men more than to God; and that they sought the praise and applause of men, and not the honour which comes from God; and that their religion lay in mere rituals and externals, and those of men�s devising, and not in the spiritual worship and service of God. Nor can it be thought that Christ, in calling them hypocrites, bears too hard upon them; when one of their own doctors, who lived not very distant from this age, says of the men of Jerusalem, that �if the hypocrites of the world were divided into ten parts, nine of them would belong to Jerusalem, and one to the rest of the world.� Well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying , in ( Isaiah 29:13) which prophecy, though it was directed to, and suited with many in that generation in which the prophet lived, yet had a further view to the Jews in after times: their own writers acknowledge, that the whole prophecy is spoken of that nation; for by Ariel they understand the altar at Jerusalem, the city in which David dwelt, Ver. 8. This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth , etc.] The preface to these words, or the form in which they are introduced by the prophet; �wherefore the Lord said�, is left out in this citation, being unnecessary here, though of the greatest importance there; partly to show, that what was about to be said, was not the prophet�s own words, but the words of the Lord, of which the Jews in Christ�s time made no doubt; and partly to give a reason why that judicial blindness, threatened in the context, should be inflicted on them, which is no part of Christ�s design here; but which is only to show, that the description here given exactly agrees with them, and so proves, and confirms the character he gives of them as hypocrites. They approached the ordinances of God, and drew nigh to him, and attended him in outward worship; they prayed unto him publicly, and constantly, in the streets, in the synagogues, and temple, and with much seeming devotion and sanctity: and honoureth me with their lips : they owned him to be their creator and preserver; they made their boast of him, and of their knowledge of him, as the one only living, and true God, and as the God of Israel; they brought their sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, even the fruit of their lips, unto him, for their many peculiar mercies, privileges, and favours, as a nation, church, and people, and with much seeming sincerity and affection. But their heart is far from me ; they had no true love to God, nor faith in him, nor fear of him; they were not at all concerned for his presence with them, or for communion with him, or for his honour and glory; their hearts were in the world, and after their covetousness; they made religion a tool to their secular purposes, supposing gain to be godliness; sought the applause of men, and contented themselves with bodily exercise; having no regard to internal religion, powerful godliness, or where their hearts were, so be it, their bodies were presented to God in public worship; and what they did it was to be seen and approved of men, not caring what the searcher of hearts knew concerning them, or what he required of them.
Ver. 5-6. But ye say, whosoever shall say to his father or mother , etc.] 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 this rwsa awh �brqk rmwak �brq , �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 f887 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 f888 , or book of traditions; �If anyone should say, hnhn yna� �nwq , �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, �ylr[l hnhn yna� �nwq , �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 f889 , �if anyone says to his friend, �l hnhn yna� �nwq , �Conem (or �Corban�) whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me�, etc.� which is exactly the same form as here, unless it should be rather rendered, �whatsoever I might be profited by thee�: once more f890 , �if a married woman should say to her husband, �ybalw abal tynhn yna� �nwq �Conem (or Corban) whatsoever I might be profited by my father, or thy father, etc.�.�

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 that hwxm yrbd l[ twlj �yrdn , �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 f892 . �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 f893 . �It happened to one in Bethhoron, hanh wnmyh rdwm wyba hyh� , �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. See note on Matthew 15:5 Ver. 7. Ye hypocrites , etc.] After our Lord had given so full a proof of their making void the commandments of God by their traditions, he might very justly, as he does, call them hypocrites; who pretended to so much religion and holiness, and yet scrupled not, upon occasion, to set aside a divine command; who affected so much sanctity, as to be displeased with the disciples, for not complying with an order of their elders, when they themselves made no account of a divine precept; and plainly showed they had more regard to men than God, and to the precepts of men, than to the commands of God, and to approve themselves to men more than to God; and that they sought the praise and applause of men, and not the honour which comes from God; and that their religion lay in mere rituals and externals, and those of men�s devising, and not in the spiritual worship and service of God. Nor can it be thought that Christ, in calling them hypocrites, bears too hard upon them; when one of their own doctors, who lived not very distant from this age, says of the men of Jerusalem, that �if the hypocrites of the world were divided into ten parts, nine of them would belong to Jerusalem, and one to the rest of the world.� Well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying , in ( Isaiah 29:13) which prophecy, though it was directed to, and suited with many in that generation in which the prophet lived, yet had a further view to the Jews in after times: their own writers acknowledge, that the whole prophecy is spoken of that nation; for by Ariel they understand the altar at Jerusalem, the city in which David dwelt, Ver. 8. This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth , etc.] The preface to these words, or the form in which they are introduced by the prophet; �wherefore the Lord said�, is left out in this citation, being unnecessary here, though of the greatest importance there; partly to show, that what was about to be said, was not the prophet�s own words, but the words of the Lord, of which the Jews in Christ�s time made no doubt; and partly to give a reason why that judicial blindness, threatened in the context, should be inflicted on them, which is no part of Christ�s design here; but which is only to show, that the description here given exactly agrees with them, and so proves, and confirms the character he gives of them as hypocrites. They approached the ordinances of God, and drew nigh to him, and attended him in outward worship; they prayed unto him publicly, and constantly, in the streets, in the synagogues, and temple, and with much seeming devotion and sanctity: and honoureth me with their lips : they owned him to be their creator and preserver; they made their boast of him, and of their knowledge of him, as the one only living, and true God, and as the God of Israel; they brought their sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving, even the fruit of their lips, unto him, for their many peculiar mercies, privileges, and favours, as a nation, church, and people, and with much seeming sincerity and affection. But their heart is far from me ; they had no true love to God, nor faith in him, nor fear of him; they were not at all concerned for his presence with them, or for communion with him, or for his honour and glory; their hearts were in the world, and after their covetousness; they made religion a tool to their secular purposes, supposing gain to be godliness; sought the applause of men, and contented themselves with bodily exercise; having no regard to internal religion, powerful godliness, or where their hearts were, so be it, their bodies were presented to God in public worship; and what they did it was to be seen and approved of men, not caring what the searcher of hearts knew concerning them, or what he required of them.

Matthew Henry Commentary

Greek Textus Receptus