What Is Tradition?

In this section, Jesus first addressed the scribes and Pharisees (vv. 1–9), then the people in general (vv. 10–14), and finally, His disciples (vv. 15–20).

[1, 2] The Greek word parádosis (3862), translated “tradition,” appears in this passage in verses 2, 3, and 6, all in the singular number, that is, tradition, not traditions. The noun derives from the verb paradídōmi ([3860], to voluntarily deliver; from pará [3844], a preposition that denotes proximity; and dídōmi [1325], to give), a verb ending in mi which emphasizes completion, like a finished product. Tradition, therefore, was the completed product of the elders (presbúteroi [4245], older leaders). That tradition was the product of the elders across several generations is shown in verse 2 and also in Mark 7:3. In Mark 7:7–9, the “tradition of men” is contrasted with “the commandment (entolē [1785]) of God.”

Here, a group of scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem complain that Christ’s disciples “transgress (parabaínousi, the present indicative of parabaínō [3845], to transgress; from pará and baínō [n.f.], to go) the tradition of the elders.” By using this verb, the elders elevated their tradition to the level of God’s commandment. According to them, neither should be transgressed or violated.

The particular complaint was directed at the disciples eating bread without washing their hands. Washing hands before eating makes good hygienic sense, but the scribes and Pharisees were not concerned with hygiene. To them, this was a moral issue: “Why do your disciples contradict the tradition of the elders?”

[3] Jesus answered with a counter question: “Why (diá [1223] with the accusative that follows, on account of; tí [5101], what; ‘for what reason’) do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” The last phrase prepared the way for Jesus to demonstrate that they were being inconsistent.

[4] He then explained, “For God commanded (eneteílato, the aorist tense of entéllomai [1781], to command), saying, ‘Honor thy father and mother:’ and, ‘He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.’” The scribes and Pharisees would agree that God had commanded these things, for they had no contention over Mosaic Law. Moreover, the first command pertaining to the family, which Jesus quoted here, was one of the Ten Commandments, the very foundation of the Israelite community and society in general (Ex. 20:12). The second command He quoted was from the same revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai (Ex. 21:17).

The Greek word for “honor” is tíma (the present imperative of timáō [5091], to honor). Contrasting with the aorist, the present imperative extends through life itself, that is, for as long as parents are alive. The corresponding noun, timē (5092), presupposes value. Although timē is somewhat synonymous with axía ([n.f.], price, worth, commercial value), it incorporates the idea of sentiment, therefore sentimental value—something we would not attach to money, for example.

In contrast to this value children should naturally place on their parents, Jesus spoke of a great evil recognized in the Law: “And he that curseth (kakologōn [2551], the present participle of kakologéō [2551] from kakós [2556], evil; légō, to speak) his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death” (Sept.; Ex. 21:17). The malignment here is not an occasional outburst but a lifestyle of intentional harm, thus, the use of the present—as opposed to the aorist—participle. We may also note that evil speech is not restricted to “speaking to”; it equally includes speaking “of” or “about”, that is, gossip or complaints. The command blankets over direct and indirect discourse.

The punishment is harsh. While allowance was made in the Old Testament for stoning rebellious children (Deut. 21:18–21), the purpose clause associated with obedience to this specific command, “that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee” (Ex. 20:12), implies that God Himself would shorten the life of a child given to a lifestyle of maligning his or her parents.

[5, 6] Another significant comparison follows: “For God commanded [v. 4]…But ye say….” Not only are God and humans compared, but also the verbs “command” (eneteílato) and “say” (légete).

Jesus gave a specific violation that dishonors parents, “Whoever shall say to his father or his mother, ‘It is a gift (dōron [1435], gift) [to God]’ which you would otherwise profit from and honors not his father or his mother, he shall be free” (a.t.).

What a shameful practice for spiritual leaders to display to their followers! In effect, a Pharisee said to his parents, “I’d like to give you this money, which admittedly you need, but I have dedicated it to God.” Jesus implied that there is no exception to honoring parents, so this tradition of withholding something needed by parents on the pretense that it was dedicated to God did not constitute a valid exception but clearly transgressed the Law (v. 3).

Moreover, the scribes and Pharisees had “cancelled (ēkurōsate, the aorist tense of akuróō [208], to cancel; from the alpha negative a [1], against; and kuróō [2964], to confirm; translated ‘made…of none effect’ in the kjv) the commandment of God with [their] tradition” (a.t.). This was a serious accusation. Of course, the Mosaic Law holds, so this was only a vain attempt to cancel God’s original command for their personal profit, not a real cancellation that God will concede to on the day of judgment.

[7] Jesus characterized this subversion of the Law by calling the scribes and Pharisees “hypocrites” (hupokritaí [5273]), as He frequently called them (Matt. 22:18; 23:13-15; Mark 7:6, etc.).

[8] Then He quoted from Isaiah, “This people (laós [2992]) draweth nigh (eggízei, the present tense of eggízō [1448], to approach) unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far (pórrō [4206], an adverb meaning far away, distant) from me (see Isa. 29:13).

“Their heart” (hē kardía [2588] autōn) is actually singular in number, signifying that while the hearts of the people are many, their attitude and unbelief is one. The Greek verb translated “is” here is apéchei ([566], is held off; the present tense of apéchō [568], to be far away), and it is also singular. When used impersonally (as here in the third person), apéchei means to restrain or hold off. The Old Testament picture here, then, was that of Israel full of idols, holding God off, restraining His approach at an absurdly assumed “safe” distance. Since their common heart was locked in to idols, the most they could offer God was their mouth and lips—external appendages like “clean” hands. The illustration was quite appropriate, considering their complaint against the disciples.

[9] Jesus’ restatement of Isaiah’s picture continued, “But in vain (mátēn [3155] from mátaios [3152], vain, uselessly) they do worship (sébontai, the present tense of sébomai [4576], to revere, adore, worship) Me, teaching (didáskontes, the present participle of didáskō [1321], to teach) for doctrines (or teachings, from didaskalíais, the plural of didaskalía [1319], teaching) commandments (entálmata, the plural of éntalma [1778], command, precept; from the verb entéllomai [1781], to command, enjoin) of men” (a.t.).

The word “for,” which has caused some to read in the idea of substitution, is not in the Greek text—the commandments of men in place of (for) doctrine. The most literal reading is “teachings (an accusative case), commandments of men,” thus identifying the “teachings” with the “commandments of men.” This accords with the variety of human expression over and against the unity of God’s thought.

Dr. Spiros Zodhiates (1922-2009) served as president of AMG International in Chattanooga, Tenn. for over 30 years, was the founding editor of Pulpit Helps Magazine, and authored dozens of exegetical books.