But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 5. It is a gift] 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
5. But ye say, Whosoever shall sayto his father or his mother, It is a giftor simply, “Agift!” In Mark (Mr 7:11),it is, “Corban!” that is, “An oblation!”meaning, any unbloody offering or gift dedicated to sacred uses.
by whatsoever thou mightestbe profited by me;
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Ver. 5 6. 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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But ye say ( ). In sharp contrast to the command of God. Jesus had quoted the fifth commandment (Exod 20:12; Exod 20:16) with the penalty “die the death” ( ), “go on to his end by death,” in imitation of the Hebrew idiom. They dodged this command of God about the penalty for dishonouring one’s father or mother by the use “Corban” () as Mark calls it (Mr 7:11). All one had to do to evade one’s duty to father or mother was to say “Corban” or “Gift” () with the idea of using the money for God. By an angry oath of refusal to help one’s parents, the oath or vow was binding. By this magic word one set himself free ( , he shall not honour) from obedience to the fifth commandment. Sometimes unfilial sons paid graft to the rabbinical legalists for such dodges. Were some of these very faultfinders guilty?
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
It is a gift [] . 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.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
5. But you say, etc. The mode of expression is defective, and is more fully exhibited by Mark, who adds, you suffer them not to do anything more to their father or to their mother The meaning is, that the scribes were altogether wrong in acquitting those persons who fail to perform their duties to their parents, provided that this deficiency be supplied, on their part, by a voluntary sacrifice, which might have been omitted without offending God. For we must not understand Christ’s words to bear that the scribes had forbidden men to render all proper obedience; (401) but they were so eager to pursue their own gain, that children were allowed, in the meantime, to neglect their duties to their parents.
(401) “ De faire aucune assistance au pere et a la mere;” — “to grant any relief to their father or mother.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(5) It is a gift.St. Mark (Mar. 7:11) gives the Hebrew term, Corban, which was literally applied to that which had been consecratedtheoretically 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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
a “But you say, ‘Whoever shall say to his father or his mother, ‘That by which you might have benefited from me is given to God’, he need not honour his father.”
He points to one ruling whereby a man could withhold his wealth from helping his father and mother. By dedicating his wealth to the Temple in terms of an oath (without actually having to give anything, and ensuring that the oath would at some time terminate) he could point out that he could no longer give it away to them because it was the Temple’s. For the rule was that while he could use for himself what was kept under oath, he could not give it away. However, Jesus said, the use of the Temple in this way was to make a mockery of God’s commandment. They were using faithfulness to the very God Who had commanded them to honour father and mother as a reason why they should not do so, and that not honestly, but as a result of deviousness. This is, of course, a simplification of the situation, but as there was no comeback it would seem that they could not deny the truth of what He was saying. Thus clearly some such behaviour was well known. The Rabbis would indeed later legislate so that this excuse could no longer be used, possibly recognising the truth in what Jesus had said.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 15:5 f. ] sc. , , a gift, , namely, to God, i.e. to the temple. See Lightfoot and, in general, Ewald, Alterth. p. 81 ff. Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, Maldonatus connect with : a temple-offering, which will be given by me, will bring a blessing to thee. The conjunctive, however, is clearly independent of . Chrysostom observes correctly: , .
There is an aposiopesis after , whereupon Jesus proceeds in His discourse with . 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. Kuffer, de . notione, p. 32 f., and Beza, de Wette, Keim. Some, however, postpone the aposiopesis till the close, and understand . 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 ; 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 . 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, would be that of the apodosis (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 636) in a relative construction (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 146). But . 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 , comp. Thuc. vi. 12. 2 : , Lys. xxi. 18, xxvii. 2; Aesch. Prom. 222; Soph. Aj. 533. More frequently with , , . The opposite of it is: , Dem. Lev 11 . For the passive with accusative of the thing, see Khner, II. 1, p. 279 f.
] and you have thereby deprived of its authority. . is placed first for sake of emphasis, and is stronger than 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 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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 .
b , si quicquam, ut Mat 10:14 ; Mat 23:18 ; Scultet.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
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 [138] Mark, . . .
[138] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25 , the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified , thus, ‘ Mk.,’ or ‘ Mt. Mk.,’ &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others .
The joining of [ ] . . . to the above, and making the aposiopesis after . , is inconsistent with the usage of , which contains in itself an apodosis, being an elliptical construction for or the like; see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 155 ff. The future ind . after makes the certainty more apparent: so . 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.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 15:5 shows how that great law is compromised. .: the emphatic antithesis of to 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.” “ ” = 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 bon 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.” , 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 . 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 , 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.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
It is. Supply (“Be that”] instead of “It is”.
a gift = dedicated to God.
thou: i.e. the parent.
profited = helped.
by = of. Greek. ek.
me: i.e. the son.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
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 [138] Mark, …
[138] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25, the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified, thus, Mk., or Mt. Mk., &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others.
The joining of [] … to the above, and making the aposiopesis after . , is inconsistent with the usage of , which contains in itself an apodosis, being an elliptical construction for or the like; see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 155 ff. The future ind. after makes the certainty more apparent: so . Xen. Cyr. viii. 1. 5. See more examples in Hartung, ib. Of course the apodosis is our Lords saying, not that of the Pharisees.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 15:5. , but you) What God commands are the offices of love; human traditions lead into all other things.[682]-, a gift) i.e. it is a gift. Whatsoever, etc., is Corban. The formula was , 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.- , …, whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me-, thou mightest be profited) The priests used to say, , It be useful to thee,[684] when the people offered anything.-, and) This particle denotes the commencement of the apodosis.[685]- , 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 () he shall not (need not) honour, etc.-ED.
Compare a similar construction occurring Rev 2:24.-E. B.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
gift i.e. dedicated to God.
Mat 5:23; Mat 5:24; Mar 7:11 (See Scofield “Mar 7:11”)
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
ye say: Mat 23:16-18, Amo 7:15-17, Mar 7:10-13, Act 4:19, Act 5:29
It is: Lev 27:9-34, Pro 20:25, Mar 7:11, Mar 7:12
Reciprocal: Gen 45:11 – General Pro 11:9 – An hypocrite Act 28:10 – honoured
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
15:5
A man’s parents are in need of the good things of life and look to their son for help. But he puts them off with the excuse that the money that he would otherwise have spent on them so that they would have profited by it, had been “earmarked” for the Lord’s treasury. This was hypocrisy on their part for they never carried out their claim of devoting the money to the cause of the Lord. Besides, the law never intended that money should be put into the public treasury that was needed for dependents.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
[It is a gift by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, etc.] I. Beside the law alleged by Christ, “Honour thy father and thy mother,” etc., they acknowledge this also for law, A son is bound to provide his father meat and drink, to clothe him, to cover him, to lead him in and out, to wash his face, hands and feet. Yea, that goes higher, “A son is bound to nourish his father, yea, to beg for him.” Therefore it is no wonder if these things which are spoken by our Saviour are not found verbatim in the Jewish pandect; for they are not so much alleged by him to shew that it was their direct design to banish away all reverence and love towards parents, as to show how wicked their traditions were, and into what ungodly consequences they oftentimes fell. They denied not directly the nourishment of their parents, nay, they command it, they exhorted to it; but consequently by this tradition they made all void. They taught openly, indeed, that a father was to be made no account of in comparison of a Rabbin that taught them the law; but they by no means openly asserted that parents were to be neglected: yet openly enough they did by consequence drawn from this foolish and impious tradition.
II. One might readily comment upon this clause, “It is a gift ” (or, as Mark, “it is Corban”) by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; if we have read the Talmudic tracts Nedarim and Nazir; where the discourse is of vows and oaths; and the phrase which is before us speaks a vow or a form of swearing.
1. Vows were distinguished into two ranks, vows of consecration; and vows of obligation; or of prohibition. A vow of consecration was when any thing was devoted to holy uses, namely, to the use of the altar or the Temple: as when a man, by a vow, would dedicate this or that for sacrifice, or to buy wood, salt, wine, etc. For the altar: or for the reparation of the Temple; etc. A vow of obligation or prohibition was, when a man bound himself by a vow from this or that thing, which was lawful in itself; as, that he would not eat, that he would not put on, that he would not do this or that, etc.
2. This went for a noted axiom among them, All epithets of vows are as the vows themselves. They added certain short forms, by which they signified a vow, and which carried with it the force of a vow, as if the thing were spoken out in a larger periphrasis: as for example, “If one should say to his neighbour, Konem, Konah, Kones; behold, these are epithets of a thing devoted unto sacred uses.”
The word Konem; Rambam thus explains; Let it be upon me as a thing devoted. So also R. Nissim, Konem, Koneh, are words of devoting.
We produced before, at Mat 5:33, some forms of oaths, which were only Assertive; these under our hands are Votive also. In the place from Beracoth just now alleged, one saith, Let the wine be ‘Konem,’ which I shall taste, for wine is hard to the bowels; that is, Let the wine which I taste be as devoted wine: as though he had said, I vow that I will not taste wine. “To which others answered, Is not old wine good for the bowels? Then he held his peace.”
III. But above all such like forms of vowing, the word Corban; was plainest of all; which openly speaks a thing devoted and dedicated to sacred use. And the reader of those tracts which we have mentioned shall observe these forms frequently to occur. Let it be ‘Corban,’ whereby I am profitable to thee; and, Let it be ‘Konem,’ whereby I am profitable to thee. Which words sound the very same thing, unless I am very much mistaken, with the words before us, “Let it be Corban; or a gift; by which whatsoever thou mayest be profited by me.”
Which words that they may be more clearly understood, and that the plain and full sense of the place may be discovered, let these things be considered:
First, That the word a gift is rather to be rendered, Let it be a gift; than It is a gift. For Konem and Corban; as we have noted, signified not ‘It is’ as something devoted; but ‘Let it be’ as something devoted. and He, of whom we had mention before…meant not, The wine which I shall taste is as something devoted; but Let whatsoever wine I shall taste be as something devoted; that is, To me let all wine be devoted, and not to be tasted.
Secondly, This form of speech A gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; does neither argue, that he who thus spake devoted his goods to sacred uses, nor obliged him (according to the doctrine of the scribes) to devote them; but only restrained him by an obligation from that thing, for the denying of which he used such a form; that is, from helping him by his goods, to whom he thus spake. He might help others with his wealth, but him he might not.
Thirdly, The words are brought in as though they were pronounced with indignation; as if, when the needy father required food from his son, he should answer in anger and with contempt, Let it be as a thing devoted, whatsoever of mine may profit thee. But now, things that were devoted were not to be laid out upon common uses.
Fourthly, Christ not only cites the law, ‘Honour thy father and mother,’ but adds this also, He that curseth father or mother. But now there was no cursing here at all; if the son spoke truly and modestly, and as the thing was, namely, that all his estate was devoted before.
Fifthly, Therefore, although these words should have been spoken by the son irreverently, wrathfully, and inhumanly, towards his father, yet such was the folly, together with the impiety, of the traditional doctrine in this case, which pronounced the son so obliged by these his words, that it was lawful by no means to succour his needy father. He was not at all bound by these words to dedicate his estate to sacred uses; but not to help his father he was inviolably bound. O excellent doctrine and charity!
Sixthly, The words of the verse, therefore, may thus be rendered, without any addition put between, which many interpreters do: Whosoever shall say to his father or mother, Let it be a [devoted] gift, in whatsoever thou mayest be helped by me: then let him not honour his father and mother at all.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 15:5. But ye say. God said one thing, ye say another, and though you quote tradition, it has only your own authority.
It is a gift to God, all that, etc. That from which thou mightest have been benefited by me, is an offering to God. The Rabbins taught that by saying corban of his possessions (Mar 7:11), a man was absolved from the duty of caring for his parents, yet the brief expression was not considered sufficient to bind the party to devote his property to religious uses.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 5
It is a gift; that is, to God,–consecrated to his service. The tradition authorized a son to withdraw from his parents whatever they stood in need of from him, by going through such a form of consecrating it to God.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
15:5 But ye say, {c} Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
(c) The meaning is this: whatever I bestow upon the temple, is to your profit, for it is as good as if I gave it to you, for (as the Pharisees of our time say) it will be meritorious for you: for under this form of religion, they gathered all to themselves, as though he that had given anything to the temple, had done the duty of a child.