Complete textual-variant dossier
Adverse entailment established
Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.
1Passage and issue
Passage
Issue
> “For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother.”
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother.” — Matthew 15:4
Edition note
The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.
Historical annotation witness
Erasmus’s Annotationes
Erasmus’s printed Greek text, his Latin annotation, and the Research Center’s evaluation are distinct evidence. Each edition remains separately identified because Erasmus revised the Annotationes across his five editions.
Not yet assessed. No inference about Erasmus’s silence has been made. A Latin annotation and translation will appear here only after an edition and exact locus have been verified.
The Erasmus annotation audit has not yet been completed for this locus. Do not infer from this status that Erasmus was silent.
Westminster and Dutch annotation witnesses
Westminster Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
Dutch Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
The critical text reads “God said.”
Translation or explanation
The critical text reads “God said.”
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of 3 variation units within this record's range. The notes ground the relevant decisions in the weight and distribution of external attestation, a proposed mechanism of accidental omission, scribal harmonization to a parallel passage, the likelihood of scribal or liturgical expansion; the printed confidence ratings represented here are {C}, {D}, {B}. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on Matthew 15:4, 15:6, 15:6
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
No passage-specific ECM/CBGM editorial explanation is attached to this record. Official method sources describe the CBGM as a set of coherence procedures, not a decision-maker: editors define variation units and local stemmata and evaluate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence together with transcriptional, intrinsic, and other philological evidence.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
UBS6 retains the NA28 / UBS5 Greek main-text wording in Matthew, so no main-text change is shown for this passage. The separate project ledger covers Acts, Mark, and Revelation.
No change row is attached to this passage.
UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.
5Doctrinal and four-point analysis
Effect class
Exegetical or interpretive consequence
Exact proposition affected
The triune identity of the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Ghost.
Doctrinal analysis
Exact wording sharpens a doctrine already secure across both forms.
Controlled source-list matches
Doctrinal significance and Westminster use
This passage is listed in one or both controlling research files. Their claims are reported with exact source identity and confessional use; list membership does not by itself establish the original reading or the Research Center’s final entailment.
Westminster proof-text listMatthew 15:6
A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standards
Seth Stark — supplied source file pp. 16–17
Textual wording marked in the source
Received/NKJV side: or mother · commandment
Critical/ESV side: word
Westminster doctrines and propositions supported
WLC 99 — What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments?
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- 4. That as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden;
- 6. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto.
WLC 128 — What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them; Source marks this portion as relying only on this cited proof text
WSC 65 — What is forbidden in the fifth commandment?
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- The fifth commandment forbiddeth the neglecting of, or doing anything against, the honor and duty which belongeth to everyone in their several places and relations.
Editorial qualification: This establishes a confessional proof-text and reception connection. It does not by itself establish the original reading, and its English-version comparison must be checked against the Greek variation unit.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 15:4–6, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. 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. Modern editors prefer word, judging commandment an assimilation to verse 3.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 15:4–6 must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.
Consequences
Exegetical or interpretive consequence: Exact wording sharpens a doctrine already secure across both forms.
Preconditions of intelligibility
The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.
This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.
6Argument for the received reading
External and historical evidence
Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
That wording is true, but critics may explain “commanded” as a copyist’s echo from verses 3 and 6.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
— Matthew 15:4 Jesus answers a tradition that made obedience expensive and evasion easy. 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.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 15:4–6. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.
Canonical-coherence verdict
The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.
Response to the principal critical argument
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. Modern editors prefer word, judging commandment an assimilation to verse 3.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 1 passage-specific note attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.
A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster StandardsWestminster proof-text and translation comparison
Seth Stark — supplied PDF pp. 16–17
At Matthew 15:6, it compares the NKJV/TR-oriented wording “‘Then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.”” with the ESV/critical-text wording “‘He need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.”” and associates the passage with WLC 99, WSC 65.
Editorial use: This establishes a confessional proof-text and reception connection. It does not by itself establish the original reading, and its English-version comparison must be checked against the Greek variation unit.
Conclusion
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.
Logical entailment
The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.
Canonical-status rule: Physical printing is not canonical inclusion. If an edition prints a passage in double brackets while judging it secondary or non-original, it disagrees with the received text concerning the identity and extent of inspired Scripture.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Matthew 15:4–6, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother.” — Matthew 15:4”. The assessed critical reading is “The critical text reads “God said.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Matthew 15:4–6, the received Hebrew/Greek form is ; the Authorized Version represents it as “For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother.” — Matthew 15:4”. The assessed critical form is “The critical text reads “God said.”.
- The received and critical forms are not the same at this locus. Therefore, if the competing critical form is original, the received form is secondary rather than the authentic wording at this place. The immediate consequence is: At Matthew 15:4–6, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother.” — Matthew 15:4”. The assessed critical reading is “The critical text reads “God said.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
- If the received form at this place is secondary rather than original, then the authentic Hebrew/Greek text was not kept pure at this place in the received textual tradition; therefore the unqualified confessional preservation claim must be denied or redefined.
Ultimate preservation consequence
If the competing reading is original and the received reading is secondary, then God did not preserve and keep pure the authentic text at this place in the received textual tradition. The unqualified confessional claim that Scripture was kept pure in all ages must therefore be denied or redefined.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standardssupplied PDF pp. 16–17 — Westminster proof-text and translation comparison
- German Bible Society — The Sixth Edition of the Greek New TestamentCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- INTF — Online Tools for the ECMCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
Read the full research essay and its sources
“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.
7Related materials
Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.
- Record
- VAR-1055
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 2026-07-22 · Exact Day
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Recovered project data; bibliographic and source-level verification remains record-specific. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation. Supplied-source audit completed in Core 0.6.3. Accepted local notes were matched by canonical passage and manually bounded; source claims remain attributed where current apparatus verification is pending.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis; cited sources retain their stated rights.
- Known limitations
- Staging record; independent review remains open.
Links from this record
No public outgoing links are recorded.
Records that cite or connect here
No public backlinks are recorded.
Corrections and evidence submissions
No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.
Chris Thomas, “Matthew 15:4–6 — “God Commanded,” Father and Mother, and the Commandment of God,” VAR-1055, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas