Five-minute study · Day 226 · Mark 7
Mark 7:11
A word worth stopping on: Corban κορβαν korban
'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.' Korban is not a Greek word. Mark has to translate it for his audience: 'that is to say, a gift.' It is a Hebrew and Aramaic term that entered the Gospel text untranslated because no Greek equivalent captured the legal force. To declare something korban was to dedicate it to God, to place it under a sacred vow that removed it from ordinary use. Jesus is describing a specific legal maneuver where a person declared their assets korban to avoid supporting aging parents.
Word study: Corban
- Greek (Hebrew/Aramaic loan word)
- κορβαν
- Pronounced
- korban
- Strong's
- G2878
- Definition
- An offering, a gift dedicated to God, a sacred vow. Hebrew/Aramaic loan word from qarav (to draw near, to bring an offering). In practice, declaring property korban placed it under a vow that removed it from secular use, though the owner could sometimes continue to use it.
Korban appears only once in the New Testament (Mark 7:11), though the related form korbanas (the temple treasury) appears in Matthew 27:6. BDAG defines korban as 'a gift or offering consecrated to God.' The Hebrew root is qarav (to draw near, to approach, to bring an offering). In Leviticus, the qorban is the general term for an offering brought to the tabernacle (Leviticus 1:2, 'If any man of you bring an offering [qorban] unto the LORD'). The word covers the entire range of sacrificial offerings: burnt offerings, grain offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings.
The Mishnah tractate Nedarim (Vows) provides extensive discussion of the korban declaration and its legal implications. Nedarim 1:2-4 discusses the various formulas by which a person could invoke a korban vow: 'Korban!' 'As korban!' 'Like korban!' Each formula had different binding force. The tractate addresses scenarios where a person declares property korban in relation to another person: 'Korban be any benefit you have from me' effectively meant 'I vow that you may not benefit from my property, as though it were a temple offering.' The property did not necessarily go to the Temple. The owner could sometimes retain use of it. The vow functioned as a legal barrier preventing specific people from benefiting.
Jesus' accusation in Mark 7:9-13 targets this precise loophole. A son could declare his property korban in relation to his parents, vowing that they could not benefit from his resources. The property was nominally dedicated to God, but the son continued to use it. The parents, who under Torah had a right to their son's support (Exodus 20:12, 'Honour thy father and thy mother'; Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9 prescribe severe penalties for cursing parents), were legally barred from receiving help. The korban vow overrode the commandment to honor parents.
Jesus calls this 'making the word of God of none effect through your tradition' (Mark 7:13). The phrase is sharp. The tradition (paradosis) is the body of oral legal interpretation that supplemented the written Torah. Jesus does not reject the concept of sacred vows. He rejects the use of a sacred mechanism to evade a more fundamental obligation. The korban declaration weaponized holiness. Something meant to express devotion to God became a tool for avoiding duty to family.
Archaeological evidence for korban vows comes from a limestone ossuary inscription discovered in Jerusalem, dating to the first century AD. The inscription reads: 'Everything that a man may find to his profit in this ossuary is an offering (qorban) to God from the one within it.' The inscription confirms that korban vows were used in everyday practice during the period of Jesus' ministry, applied to property, possessions, and even burial goods.
Historical context · Ministry of Jesus, approximately AD 30-33; Mark composed approximately AD 65-70
When Sacred Vows Became Legal Shields
Mark 7:1-23 records a confrontation between Jesus and Pharisees from Jerusalem over the question of ritual purity. The Pharisees observe that Jesus' disciples eat bread with unwashed hands (7:2). The handwashing at issue was not hygienic. It was a ritual practice, a 'tradition of the elders' (7:3) governing ceremonial purity. Mark explains the practice to his non-Jewish audience (7:3-4), indicating that his readers were Gentiles unfamiliar with Jewish purity customs.
Jesus responds to the Pharisees' critique by raising the stakes. He moves from handwashing to korban, from a minor purity custom to a major ethical failure. The rhetorical strategy is deliberate: you are questioning my disciples about hand-rinsing while your own legal tradition allows children to abandon their parents under cover of a sacred vow. The escalation exposes the priorities.
First-century Judaism was not monolithic on the korban question. The Mishnah records rabbinic debates about the validity of rash vows and whether they could be annulled. Rabbi Eliezer (late first century AD) argued that a vow made against one's parents could be 'opened' (dissolved) by a sage on the grounds that the person did not fully understand the implications when making the vow (Nedarim 9:1). The existence of this debate suggests that the practice Jesus criticized was recognized as problematic even within rabbinic circles.
The obligation to honor parents carried enormous weight in ancient Mediterranean culture. Exodus 20:12 is the fifth commandment. Deuteronomy 5:16 adds the promise of long life and prosperity. Sirach 3:1-16 (a second-century BC Jewish wisdom text) expands the commandment into a sustained teaching on filial duty, including material support in old age: 'My son, help thy father in his age, and grieve him not as long as he liveth' (Sirach 3:12, KJV Apocrypha). Philo of Alexandria (first century AD) lists honoring parents as the bridge commandment between duties to God and duties to other humans. The korban loophole struck at a commandment that virtually every Jewish authority regarded as foundational.
Mark's inclusion of the Aramaic term korban, with its Greek translation, serves a literary purpose. The foreign word disrupts the Greek text. The reader stumbles on it. Mark then explains: 'that is to say, a gift.' The interruption mirrors the theological disruption Jesus is describing. A holy word, an offering to God, has been repurposed into something that violates God's command.
For reflection
Jesus identified a pattern where religious language was used to avoid human obligation. A sacred word, korban, became a legal tool for neglecting parents. The mechanism is still alive. Religious busyness can replace presence with family. Theological correctness can substitute for compassion. Church commitments can crowd out the people sitting at your own table. Think honestly: is there any relationship in your life where spiritual language or religious activity has become a reason to stay distant? Name it. You do not need to fix it tonight. Naming it is the first act of honesty.
Korban: a word of devotion repurposed as a shield against obligation. Jesus was angry about this. The anger mattered.
Sources: BDAG; Mishnah Nedarim 1:2-4, 9:1; Philo, Special Laws 2.224-241; Ossuary inscription from Jerusalem; Mark 7:1-23