Matthew 15:4Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

He suggests that if those who are verbally disrespectful face punishment, how much more severe will the consequences be for those who act disrespectfully, particularly if they not only engage in such behavior themselves but also lead others to do the same.

This implies that when a father or mother in need reaches out for assistance from their child, it was common for some to evade their responsibility, fearing the law, by claiming that what should be given to God cannot be used for parental support. This behavior reflects human selfishness, as God's command emphasizes the necessity of caring for parents. If disregarding a parent, as mandated by the divine law, warrants severe consequences (Exodus 21:17), then the plight of a hungry parent is even graver than death.

The Lord admonishes against empty displays of piety. Many individuals, in their quest for human admiration, contribute to the Church with what they withhold from their own families, when charity should first be directed towards familial obligations. Provide support to your parents first, then to the needy, and also to the clergy, using the abundance you possess, so that you may receive spiritual blessings in return. Those who honor others will themselves be honored. Recognize that in receiving, one also gives, as such a person does not receive out of want but with the intention of returning even more generously. Aid the poor to ease their burdens so that you may experience relief through your generosity. Scripture instructs us to honor our parents, yet it also allows for separation from them when they impede the spiritual growth of a faithful individual.

In their discourse, the Evangelists convey with great accuracy the dialogue between Christ and the Pharisees regarding the traditions of the elders. Mark, writing for a Roman audience less familiar with Jewish customs, provides clarifications. He elucidates what it means to eat bread with unclean hands and details the Pharisaic customs related to ritual washings. Matthew, on the other hand, includes a unique account of the Lord’s response to the news that the Pharisees were offended by His remarks concerning the betrayal of the elders before inviting the disciples to interpret the parable. Both Mark and Matthew note that this dialogue and the parable's explanation occurred within the privacy of the disciples' company in a house.

The Evangelists differ mainly in the sequence of the specific sayings in Christ's conversation with the Pharisees. In response to the Pharisees’ accusations against His disciples for not observing the traditions of the elders regarding handwashing before meals, Christ points out: a) that many of these traditions were merely human constructs created to evade God's commands. For instance, the commandment to honor one's father and mother carries a grave warning against neglect (Ex. 20:12; Ex. 21:17), yet the Pharisees taught that a person declaring ‘Let there be a korban,’ meaning a gift to God designated for the temple, is released from the obligation to honor and support their parents (Matt. 3-6); b) that in prioritizing human traditions over divine commandments, and in their meticulous adherence to bodily regulations, what the prophet Isaiah once declared regarding his contemporaries was fulfilled (Isaiah 29:13 in the LXX; Matt. 7-8). In Mark’s account, these two concepts are presented in the opposite order (9-13; 6-8).

When a parent requested their son to give him his sheep, calf, or any other possession, the son would reply, “What you desire I offer as a gift to God and you cannot take it.” Consequently, a dual injustice occurred: neither God was truly honored, nor were parents given what was rightfully theirs; thus parents were insulted under the guise of obligation to God, and God was disrespected under the guise of honoring parents.

The words of the Lord, as recounts the Evangelist Mark, remind us: For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever speaks ill of his father or mother must be put to death.' This command to honor father and mother is the fifth commandment from God established at Sinai through Moses; alongside, the pronouncement of death upon those who speak against their parents is one of the provisions laid out by Moses. The Evangelist Mark captures both the laws of God and Moses in one statement, indicating that since the laws of God communicated in the Ten Commandments were revealed to the Jewish people through Moses, Mark identified both as the laws declared by him. He aligns with Matthew's account when he records the words of Jesus concerning the commandment of God, which the Pharisees and scribes disregarded in favor of their own traditions.

This raises the question of which commandment the scribes and Pharisees set aside. It is unequivocal that they disregarded God's command, as the Lord explicitly reveals. The command to honor one's parents is indeed seen as a divine command, and since it alone was neglected by the scribes and Pharisees—while the Mosaic law concerning the death penalty for speaking ill of parents remained—there is a clear understanding that the Lord said: For God commanded: Honor your father and mother, and Moses stated: Whoever speaks against father or mother must be put to death. This understanding of the Lord's words harmonizes the accounts of both Evangelists well.

Furthermore, advocates of capital punishment cannot rationalize it based on the Lord’s seeming endorsement, for in teaching us to love our neighbors, including our adversaries and those who wrong us, and emphasizing our duty to aid sinners, the lost, and the wayward, Christ could not support capital punishment. Such a punishment does not lead the sinner to redemption or return them to the fold of Christ; rather, it ultimately bars their path back to salvation.

For God commanded, ‘Honour your father and mother;’ but you say, ‘If anyone says to his father or mother, “Whatever you would have received from me is a gift to God,” he is exempt from honouring his father and mother.’” In other words, when parents expected respect and especially support from their children, the Pharisaic guidelines allowed a person to verbally dedicate their property to the temple, thus freeing themselves of the obligation to care for their parents. According to this interpretation, what was consecrated to the temple or to God could not be redirected to other obligations. This insincere pretense was confronted by Christ.

Moreover, you assert, in accordance with the traditions of the elders, “if any man shall say,” etc. The Jewish custom involved dedicating various items of one’s possessions to the Lord, which the law necessitated to be presented to Him without fail if they were promised as gifts (Deuteronomy 23:21-23). The tradition emerged that the gift to God holds greater importance than that given to even one's closest kin like parents, leading to the belief that no offerings needed to be made to parents if those items were promised to God. Consequently, the Pharisees instructed young men to disregard their fathers under the false pretense of piety. If a parent requested, “Give me this sheep, or a bullock, or any other item,” the young men would respond, “What I would give to you I now offer to God; therefore, you cannot have it.” As a result, a twofold injustice occurred: not only were offerings to God neglected, but parents were robbed of their rightful gifts under the guise of piety, leading to an insult towards them while simultaneously misrepresenting their duty to God.

Thus, the Pharisees not only sinned themselves but also led others to break God’s commandment for the sake of their own religious observance. The Lord does not condemn the act of giving gifts to God; both the Gospel and the law uphold its significance, and the Savior Himself praised the widow who contributed two mites to the temple treasury (Mark 12:44). He solely condemns those who, under the guise of devotion, neglect the command of God by denying their parents the necessities and essentials they require.

But you say, ‘If anyone says to his father or mother, “Corban,” that is a gift to God, which you might have received from me, he need not honor his father or mother.’ And thus, you have made the Word of God of no effect by your tradition, which you have handed down.” The Lord referred to the fifth commandment among the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:12) and the laws regarding the treatment of parents (Exodus 21:16) as illustrations.

It was customary among the Jews to dedicate voluntary offerings from their possessions to God, and such vows were taken seriously (Deuteronomy 23:21-23). According to St. John Chrysostom, the Pharisees misled young men, under a guise of piety, to disregard their fathers. If a parent requested a sheep, bull, or any possession, the son would respond, “What you desire I devote as a gift to God, and you cannot accept it.” This led to a dual injustice: they neither truly offered to God, nor did they honor their parents, all under the false pretense of devotion to God. Thus, parents were dishonored under the guise of a duty to God, while God's rightful honor was neglected in favor of a supposed duty to parents.