“For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother.” — Matthew 15:4
Jesus answers a tradition that made obedience expensive and evasion easy. Three readings matter in his reply. Did God command or merely say? Does verse 6 name both father and mother? Did the Pharisees make the commandment of God void, or the word of God?
The received form keeps the legal edge of the whole exchange.
Command and counter-command
The Pharisees ask why the disciples transgress the tradition of the elders. Jesus asks why they transgress God’s commandment by their tradition. He then says, “God commanded, saying,” and joins the fifth commandment to the death penalty for cursing a parent.
The critical text reads “God said.” That wording is true, but critics may explain “commanded” as a copyist’s echo from verses 3 and 6. The echo can instead be Matthew’s own thread. Human tradition is set against divine command at every turn. The repetition is argument, not clumsiness.
Father and mother
The received verse 6 speaks of not honoring “his father or his mother.” Some early forms name only the father. The shorter line may have arisen because father is the immediate example; the fuller line may be accused of balancing the fifth commandment.
Yet the passage has named father and mother together twice. The corrupt tradition injured either parent. Keeping both does not add a new theme; it carries the command through its application. Similar endings and a compact construction also give room for loss.
The last choice is “commandment of God” against “word of God.” Modern editors prefer word, judging commandment an assimilation to verse 3. But Christ is not speaking of revelation in the abstract. He has cited a command and shown how a vow-formula cancels the duty it imposes. “Commandment” is exact.
The weight of Corban
Mark’s parallel names the evasive gift as Corban. A son could declare property devoted to God and then use that claim to withhold support from needy parents. Jesus does not accept religious speech as obedience when it defeats a plain duty. The tradition wears the sound of sacrifice while leaving father and mother hungry.
The received readings make the accusation ring: God commanded; the child must honor father and mother; the teachers have made the commandment of God of none effect. The repetition is the hammer. It should not be filed smooth.
Honor includes material care. Jesus is not defending polite words while a parent lacks food or shelter. The Corban device uses a vowed gift to put resources beyond parental claim, then treats religious designation as superior obedience. Christ says the gift cannot cancel the giver’s prior duty.
This sets a limit on ecclesiastical tradition. A church may order circumstances of worship and teach wise applications, but it may not bind consciences with a rule that defeats God’s command. Antiquity and expert custody do not turn contradiction into authority.
The difference between word and commandment is therefore not a conflict between revelation and law. God’s commandment is his word. The received noun keeps the legal thread visible; the shorter or broader noun still condemns the tradition. Exact wording sharpens a doctrine already secure across both forms.
Sources and further reading
- Exodus 20:12; 21:17; Matthew 15:1–9; Mark 7:6–13.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, notes on Matthew 15:4–6.
- Frederick H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version.