Matthew 15:6Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

This implies that when a needy father or mother seeks assistance from their child, it is a common practice among some Jews, wishing to excuse their reluctance to give – fearing the law – to declare, "Gift to God what you would use from me," so that the devout parent may hesitate to take what is pledged to God. Yet, this behavior stems from individuals looking to justify their avarice, while the divine tradition asserts the importance of providing for one’s parents. If disobeying a parent, according to the divine command, incurs the penalty of death (Exodus 21:17), how much weightier is the suffering of a parent, a condition worse than death? The Lord admonishes against empty displays of piety. Many, in their pursuit of human approval, choose to give to the Church what they withhold from their family, while true charity must begin with one’s obligations at home. Prioritize supporting your parents, aid the poor, and also extend kindness to the priest from the earthly resources you possess in abundance, so you might receive from him the spiritual sustenance you lack, for he who honors will be honored. Understand that in receiving, he gives; he does not receive as one in need but with the intention of offering back with a greater abundance. Support the needy to alleviate their burdens, enabling you to find rest in your own giving. Scripture instructs to honor parents, but also to separate from them if they hinder the piety of a devout heart.

For instance, if a father asked his son, "Give me this sheep," they would respond, "What you wish to receive from me, I dedicate as a gift to God, and therefore you cannot accept it." Thus, twofold wrongdoing occurred: they disrespected parents under the guise of obligation to God, and unjustly dishonored God under the notion of duty to their parents. The Lord does not condemn the act of dedicating offerings to God out of sincere devotion; He commended the widow who contributed her last two coins to the temple treasury. His teaching emphasizes that one must first obey the direct commandment of God and then offer gifts to Him. Yet, the Pharisees did not contemplate making sacrifices for the temple; they merely deceived their children into following their falsehood, teaching them how to evade and not obey God's command while easing their own consciences. They applied the same approach with lenders; a debtor might impress upon his creditor, "What I owe you is a korban," meaning it was a gift consecrated to God. Consequently, the lender would hesitate to demand repayment. For such deceit, the Lord addressed them with utmost severity.

In their dialogue, the Evangelists accurately convey Christ's exchanges with the Pharisees concerning the traditions of the elders. Mark, targeting a Roman audience unfamiliar with Jewish practices, provides clarifications, such as the significance of eating with unclean hands and details about the Pharisaic rituals of purification. Matthew, on the other hand, includes a specific account of the Lord's response regarding the Pharisees' offense taken at His remarks about the elders’ betrayal, before inviting the disciples to interpret the parable. Both the response and the explanation of the parable, as recorded by Mark, occur privately among the disciples.

The differences among the Evangelists are mainly in the arrangement of Christ's statements made to the Pharisees. In response to their criticism of His disciples for neglecting the washing of hands before meals, Jesus asserts that the traditions of the elders often serve as human constructs, devised to evade the commandments of God. For instance, the law instructs to honor one's father and mother, carrying grave consequences for disobedience (Ex. 20:12; Ex. 21:17). However, the Pharisees maintained that declaring a gift to God (korban) exempted one from the obligation to support their parents (Matt. 3-6). Furthermore, in emphasizing God's commandments over human traditions, the fulfillment of Isaiah’s words about His contemporaries becomes evident (Isaiah 29:13 in the LXX; Matt. 7-8). In Mark's account, these two concepts are presented in reversed order (9-13; 6-8).

If a parent requested something from their child, whether a sheep, a calf, or any other possession, the response was, "What you wish to take from me is given as a gift to God, and you cannot receive it." Consequently, twofold injustice arose: neither was an offering made to God, nor were the parents honored; instead, parents were insulted under the pretense of serving God, and God was also disrespected under the guise of honoring parents.

The Lord's words relayed by the Evangelist Matthew align closely with the account provided by Mark, albeit with slight variations. For Moses stated, “Honor your father and your mother,” and “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother, let him die a death” (Mk. 7:10). The command to honor parents is the fifth commandment issued by God at Sinai through Moses, while the declaration regarding speaking against one’s parents is a punitive measure laid down by Moses as well. The Evangelist Mark succinctly presents both sets of divine instruction connected to Moses. Furthermore, he concurs with Matthew's narration regarding the Lord’s admonition against nullifying God’s command for the sake of tradition.

We are led to question which commandment was dismissed by the scribes and Pharisees; undoubtedly, it was God’s, as the Lord clearly affirms. Since the command to honor parents is indeed part of God’s law, and it alone was disregarded by the Pharisees (while the Mosaic Law concerning the death penalty for speaking against parents remained intact), it follows that the Lord’s words can be interpreted as follows: God commands, “Honor your father and mother,” while Moses states, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother shall die a death.” Such an interpretation harmonizes the accounts provided by both Evangelists. Furthermore, those who advocate for capital punishment cannot find justification to do so by misconstruing the Lord’s approval.

In commanding us to love our neighbors, even our adversaries and foes, and assigning us the duty to rescue sinners, lost sheep, and wayward children through fostering their repentance, Christ would not endorse capital punishment. Such a consequence does not pave the way for a sinner’s redemption nor reintegrate them into the fold of Christ; rather, it serves as a barrier, obstructing their return to that community.

For God instructed, ‘Honour your father and mother;’ but you profess, ‘If anyone tells his father or mother, “Whatever you would benefit from me is dedicated to God,” he is exempt from honouring his father and mother.’ This means that when parents sought the respect and support they were due from their children, Pharisaic custom allowed for the superficial declaration at the temple of the portion of their wealth intended for parental care, freeing them from any responsibility to assist their parents directly. This form of deception was called out by Christ.

God commanded, saying, Honor your father and mother; and, Whoever speaks evil of father or mother, let him die the death.” In contrast, you assert, “If anyone says to his father or mother, ‘Corban, a gift to God’—that is, what you would have received from me—he is not to honor his father or mother.” This way, you allow him to evade any responsibility toward his parents. The Lord directed them to the fifth commandment from the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:12) and the relevant legal statutes (Exodus 21:16) as illustrations. Among the Jewish custom was the practice of dedicating voluntary offerings from personal wealth to God, with such vows being obligatory (Deut. 23:21-23). According to St. John Chrysostom, the Pharisees corrupted the youth under the guise of religion, teaching them to disregard their fathers. If a parent requested, “Give me this sheep, or a bullock, or anything else you have,” the sons would reply, “That which you would have from me is dedicated as a gift to God, and thus cannot be given to you.” This resulted in a dual wrongdoing: they neither truly offered to God, nor did they honor their parents, while pretending piety. Thus, parents were deprived of their due gifts under the guise of offering to God, with dishonor directed toward them while claiming duty to God, and similarly, disrespect was shown to God in the name of honoring parents.