Mark 7:1–13
1 Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4 and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) 5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”
6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “ ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” 9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban” ’ (that is, given to God)— 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
The primary conflict here is not necessarily between Jesus and the Law of Moses itself (he declares his fulfillment of the Law elsewhere) but it is the tradition of the elders that is on the table. The Law only demanded priests to wash their hands before entering the tabernacle or if an individual had touched a bodily discharge. (Lev. 22:1-6; 15:11) So Jesus is not in violation of the Law. Similar to his "violation" of the Sabbath laws in 2:23-3:6, Jesus actually upholds the Law of Moses, but violates the traditions of the elders. These traditions specifically spell out how the true followers of the Torah (according to their former rabbis) are to uphold the Law.
Whereas the Sadducees accepted only the Torah as authoritative, the Pharisees held to the tradition of the elders as being authoritative as well. They viewed the tradition of the elders as the fence around the Torah. The Torah said what God decreed; the tradition identified how those decrees were to be followed. The Torah gave the overarching principles while the tradition gave the specific instructions of how to live it out in every conceivable situation. This is similar to Roman Catholic theology which deems the church's interpretation of Scripture authoritative, not solely Scripture—hence the Reformation's foundational principle of sola Scriptura (latin for "Scripture alone") in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church's teaching of Scripture and tradition carrying authority.
This accusation prompts an intense response from Jesus, and he calls them out for their hypocrisy. The word "hypocrite" refers to play acting. An actor would often wear a mask and obviously act as someone they really are not. Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 which is an indictment of the people of Israel for a commitment to human rules beyond the Torah even, without authentic worship of God. I'm sure they didn't appreciate their own Scriptures calling them to account.
Then he goes into an example which illustrates how they have elevated their traditions over and against the Torah. Corban, as Mark explains, was a rabbinic custom of devoting particular goods to the Lord. In his commentary on Mark, Edwards explains the tradition of Corban quite well,
"Corban was similar to the concept of deferred giving. Today a person may will property to a charity or institution at his or her death, though retaining possession over the property and the proceeds or interest accruing from it until then. In the case of Corban, a person could dedicate goods to God and withdraw them from ordinary use, although retaining control over them himself. In the example of v. 11, a son declares his property Corban, which at his death would pass into the possession of the temple. In the meantime, however, the son retains control over the property—and his control deprives his parents of the support that otherwise would have been derived from the property in their old age." - Edwards, J. R. (2002). The Gospel according to Mark (p. 210). Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos.
Essentially people were taking advantage of the tradition to continue adding to their own personal wealth at the expense of their parents. This is violation of the fifth commandment, yet since it was a part of the tradition, it was deemed good. As he indicates at the end of v. 13, Jesus could have given many examples of this.
Tomorrow we will talk about the main point Jesus is driving at with this encounter.