Mark 7:10Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

In response to the Pharisees, the interaction between Christ and the Pharisees regarding the traditions of the elders is conveyed with great precision by the Evangelists. Mark, writing for a Roman audience unfamiliar with Jewish practices, includes specific explanations. For example, he clarifies what it means to eat bread with unwashed hands and elaborates on the Pharisaic customs surrounding purification rituals. Conversely, Matthew, before asking his disciples for clarification on the parable, provides a direct account of the Lord's reaction to the news that the Pharisees were offended by His remarks concerning the traditions (12-14). Both this reaction and the parable's explanation, according to Mark, were shared privately among the disciples in a house.

Variations among the Evangelists primarily lie in the arrangement of Christ's sayings directed at the Pharisees. In response to the Pharisees’ criticism of His disciples for neglecting the traditions of the elders by failing to wash their hands prior to meals, Christ explains: a) that the traditions of the elders often consist of human inventions created to evade the commandments of God; for instance, the law instructs honor for one's father and mother, prescribing severe consequences for disobedience (Ex. 20:12, Ex. 21:17). The Pharisees taught that if someone declared to their parents, "Let there be a 'korban,' a gift to God (for the temple) of what would have benefited me," they were exempt from the obligation to honor and assist their parents (Matt. 3-6); b) Christ emphasizes the supremacy of God's commandments over human traditions and points out the rigid observance of outward regulations—a fulfillment of what the prophet Isaiah had said about his contemporaries (Isaiah 29:13 in the LXX), as noted in Matthew 7-8. These two ideas are discussed in reverse order in Mark (9-13, 6-8).

The Pharisees misled young men, under the guise of righteousness, to show contempt for their fathers. When a parent would request something from their child, such as a sheep or an ox, the response would often be, "What I would give you, I instead offer as a gift to God, so you cannot have it." This resulted in a twofold injustice: neither was God truly honored, nor were parents treated with the respect they deserved. Parents were faced with insult while their children's duty to God was used as a rationale, and conversely, God was disrespected through the pretense of honoring parents.

In understanding this, it becomes evident that the commandment to honor parents, considered as a directive from God, was indeed disregarded by the scribes and Pharisees, even though they did not abolish Moses's law regarding the punishment for those who speak ill of their parents. Both Evangelists, Matthew and Mark, convey the same message regarding this command. The command to honor one's parents is paramount, and dismissing it for the sake of tradition is a clear violation of God's instructions. Thus, it is clear that while advocating love, even towards adversaries, Christ could not endorse capital punishment, as it does not lead the sinner toward restoration or reconciliation within His flock.