"And Many Such Like Things Do Ye."
By W. N. Glenn
THIS language was used by the Saviour, when reproving the Pharisees and scribes. It is recorded in Mark 7:13. It may be interesting to consider what it was, like unto which they had done many things, and for which they were called hypocrites. Jesus had been asked why his disciples did not walk according to the traditions of the elders, because they had been seen to eat with unwashed hands. The question was not asked because their hands were filthy, but because they did not fulfil the technical custom of the Jews, and observe the ceremony of washing before eating, whether necessary to cleanliness or not. The Lord immediately brought a counter charge against them, of rejecting the commandments of God that they might keep their own traditions. He not only makes the abstract charge, but he brings forward a specification:— “For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, 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 aught for his father or mother; making the word of God of none effect through your tradition which ye have delivered. And many such like things do ye.” Mark 7:10–13. The word “corban” Kitto defines as “a Hebrew word employed in the Hellenistic Greek, just as the corresponding Greek word was employed in the Rabbinical Hebrew, to designate an oblation of any kind to God.” Smith’s “Comprehensive Dictionary” defines it, “An offering to God of any sort, bloody or bloodless, but particularly in fulfillment of a vow.” McClintock and Strong say: “A Hebrew word, meaning that which is brought as an offering. Whatever might be required by a parent is refused on the ground that it has a prior and more sacred destination. The son might either make such reservation previously, or at the time, when he observed that his parent was about to ask for any article, in either case involving himself in a sin peculiarly hateful to God.” Then the son being under obligation to devote any portion of means or service to his parents could say to them, That by which you were to be profited by me (that is, that which was due to you from me) has been given to God; and the tradition of the scribes would set him free from his obligation to do “aught for his father or mother.” Thus we see that these traditions would free one from the plain commandment of God on condition of his doing something in lieu of the commandment which would bring money into the treasury and purport to be for the glory of God. We are told that the Jews were commandment keepers, and observers of the Old Testament scriptures, and yet were rejected by Christ. Their rejection grew out of the fact that they did not keep the commandments, but virtually rejected them, and made them void by their own traditions. Because their ears were dull of hearing the Scriptures, and they had closed their eyes to the evidence of his Messiahship, they were led to reject him whom they were professedly looking for. The specification above cited shows how the Jews set aside or virtually annulled the fifth commandment by a pretense of doing something better and more directly to the glory of God. But Jesus did not honor their substitutes for his Father’s commandments; as reported by Matthew (chap. 15:7), he called them hypocrites. They would honor God with their lips, that is, in some way he had not commanded, but their hearts were far from him. Why? Because they rejected what he did command. Verses 7, 8. But the Lord not only charged them with making void the fifth commandment, but he further arraigns them, saying, “and many such like things do ye.” From this we infer that they were violating other commandments in the same manner. In fact he directly charges them with going about to kill him, in violation of the law. John 7:19. And did they not put him to death on the cross, contrary to law? Is there not some important lesson in the experience of the Jewish people for God’s people of to-day? Certainly these things were written for our instruction. If the Lord would not indorse the transfer to himself, of honours due to earthly parents in violation of one of the commandments, what other infringement would he be likely to tolerate? Although he is “a jealous God,” and will not give his glory to another (Isa. 48:11), yet he will not acknowledge as worship any tradition which violates his express command. There is no honor that the creature can bestow upon the Creator which is as acceptable as obedience. “To obey is better than sacrifice.” 1 Sam. 15:22. Saul of Tarsus thought he “ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth,” because he was “zealous toward God;” but he subsequently learned that his acts of violence were in gross violation of the law; and could not be accepted as worship. Never was there a time when the principle of substituting tradition for commandment, professedly for the glory of God, was so prominent as to-day. Notably so is the substitution of the first-day sabbath for the Sabbath of the Lord. The change purports to be in honor of the Son, who rose from the dead on the first day of the week; but it is only a tradition, which has no better foundation than the traditions of the Jews, and like their traditions, it makes void a commandment. Besides, it sets up an unwarranted rivalry between the Father and the Son. We have a memorial of Christ’s burial and resurrection (baptism), by which we express our faith in him, Col. 2:12, and from that point onward we can do him no greater honor than to “walk even as he walked;” 1 John 2:6; and he kept his Father’s commandments. John 15:10. But, as before cited, when Jesus showed the scribes and Pharisees how they were violating the fifth commandment in pretended honor to God, he added, “And many such like things do ye.” It may be deemed harsh to intimate that those who have thus made void the fourth commandment, have done many like things. It is not presumed that all who have been misled by the Sunday delusion are thus guilty, but it is a fact that the power which has attempted to enforce a change of the Sabbath, has in its arrogant presumption violated every command in the decalogue under the pretense of worshiping God. And we find among those who disclaim allegiance to this power, some who are willing to set aside the entire law for the purpose of establishing the one tradition of a first-day sabbath, and making void the fourth commandment. Surely this one thing is leading them to “many such like things,” whether they are conscious of it or not.