The Textual Problem in Matthew 15:6b

Matthew 15:6b contains a compact but important textual variation that affects the precise wording of Jesus’ indictment of Pharisaic tradition. The three principal readings are τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ (“the word of God”), τὸν νόμον τοῦ θεοῦ (“the law of God”), and τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ (“the commandment of God”). The clause stands within Jesus’ direct confrontation over the corban practice and its effect on obedience to the Fifth Commandment. The preceding context has already cited the divine command to honor father and mother (Matthew 15:4) and exposed a traditional loophole that practically removed filial obligation (Matthew 15:5–6a). Matthew 15:6b then states what that loophole accomplishes: it nullifies what God has spoken by means of tradition.

The Updated American Standard Version renders the critical text reading “the word of God,” reflecting the form adopted by WH and NU. That reading is strongly supported by Codex Sinaiticus in its corrected state (א1, 330–360 C.E.), Codex Vaticanus (B, 300–330 C.E.), Codex Bezae (D, 400–450 C.E.), Codex Theta (Θ), portions of the Old Latin tradition, Syriac witnesses, and Coptic witnesses. The alternative “the law of God” is supported by the original hand of Sinaiticus (א*), Codex C, 073, family 13, and an early patristic witness, Ptolemy (c. 180 C.E.). The third reading, “the commandment of God,” is supported by L, W, 0106, family 1, 33, and the Byzantine majority. The documentary evidence therefore sets two readings—“word” and “law”—in genuine competition, while the “commandment” reading reflects a later and more predictable expansion.

Evaluating the Documentary Evidence for the Competing Readings

The decisive question is whether Matthew wrote “word” or “law” in this clause. The external documentary evidence for “word” is weighty, anchored by Vaticanus (B) and supported by Bezae (D) and multiple versional traditions. Vaticanus repeatedly preserves a concise and early form of the Gospel text, and its agreement with other independent witnesses often signals a stable ancestral line. The presence of “word” across Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Coptic streams strengthens the case that τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ entered the transmission early and widely.

At the same time, “law” possesses a notable claim because it is supported by the original hand of Sinaiticus (א*) and by a second-century patristic witness, Ptolemy. When a reading is witnessed in a second-century source and also in a major fourth-century codex, it demands serious consideration. In addition, Codex C and family 13 confirm that “law” was not an isolated scribal oddity but part of a stream of transmission.

The evidence therefore requires careful judgment about scribal habits and the direction of change, without allowing internal considerations to override strong manuscript support. The “commandment” reading can be dismissed on documentary grounds as secondary. It fits the immediate context too neatly, since Matthew 15:3 already uses “commandment of God,” and scribes frequently conformed later clauses to earlier wording within the same pericope. That type of intra-contextual harmonization is common and explains why a later tradition would replace a broader term with the more immediate “commandment.”

The remaining contest between “word” and “law” is closer. The reading “word of God” may reflect harmonization to Mark 7:13, which in many textual forms reads “making void the word of God by your tradition.” Because the Matthean and Markan parallels were frequently read together, scribes had opportunity to align Matthew’s wording with Mark’s familiar phrasing. This kind of synoptic harmonization is a well-attested scribal pattern.

However, harmonization arguments must be weighed against the actual distribution and quality of the witnesses. The “word” reading is not confined to a narrow group but is attested across multiple lines, with Vaticanus as a principal representative. If “word” were merely a later assimilation to Mark, it would be expected to appear primarily in later streams and to displace earlier forms gradually. Yet “word” appears in early and diverse support. That reality prevents treating τὸν λόγον as a simple late harmonization. It represents a reading that achieved broad circulation early, which usually indicates either originality or extremely early assimilation.

Scribal Habits and the Direction of Change

The interchange among “word,” “law,” and “commandment” can be explained by natural scribal impulses. In the immediate context, Jesus has cited a specific commandment, and He has just exposed a specific practice that undermines obedience. A scribe copying “word of God” might judge it too general in a passage that revolves around Torah obligations and therefore replace “word” with “law,” making the contrast explicit: Torah versus tradition. Conversely, a scribe copying “law of God” might replace it with “word of God” under the influence of Mark 7:13 or from a desire to broaden the statement beyond Torah to the totality of divine revelation.

The correction history within Codex Sinaiticus is significant. The original hand reads “law,” while a correction yields “word,” and then the text is corrected back to “law” in another stage of scribal activity. That instability demonstrates that copyists themselves sensed the competition between readings and were influenced by perceived contextual or parallel pressures. Such instability does not automatically decide originality, but it does confirm that both readings were alive in the tradition early enough to generate multiple corrective attempts. That is exactly what is expected when scribes encounter a reading that clashes with either the parallel passage or their own sense of the most fitting term.

The “commandment” reading fits a different scribal tendency: assimilation to nearby wording. Since Matthew 15:3 has “the commandment of God,” scribes had an immediate model within the same paragraph. Once “commandment” entered the stream, it would be readily perpetuated in the Byzantine tradition, which often exhibits expansions that clarify or standardize.

In this specific variant, the best explanation of the “commandment” reading is secondary development from either “word” or “law.” It is too contextually neat and is supported by later and less weighty documentary evidence.

The Meaning of “Word of God” and “Law of God” in Context

Whichever of the two stronger readings is original, the interpretive force of the passage remains clear. Jesus is condemning the elevation of human tradition above divine authority. The phrase “word of God” naturally encompasses God’s spoken and written instruction, including the Torah but also extending beyond it to all divine utterance. The Old Testament frequently describes Jehovah’s authoritative revelation as His “word.” The prophets repeatedly introduce divine pronouncements with formulas that highlight the supremacy of Jehovah’s word. In this context, “word of God” refers concretely to what God commanded in the Law, as Jesus has just quoted from Exodus.

“The law of God” is more specific, pointing explicitly to the Torah and the covenantal commandments that govern Israel’s conduct. The Torah is repeatedly presented as Jehovah’s authoritative instruction, and the contrast between Torah and later interpretive traditions would be especially pointed in a dispute with Pharisaic teachers. The idea that tradition can nullify Torah obligations directly matches Jesus’ accusation.

Scripturally, both conceptual fields overlap in the Pentateuch itself. Deuteronomy repeatedly links “word” and “command” in ways that show interchangeability in reference to covenant instruction. Deuteronomy 4:2 forbids adding to or taking away from what is commanded, establishing the inviolability of divine instruction. Deuteronomy 6:6 requires that Jehovah’s words be on the heart and taught diligently, language that includes the commandments as “words.” Likewise, Psalm 119 consistently treats Jehovah’s law, commandments, sayings, and word as overlapping categories that together describe divine revelation. Within that biblical framework, “word” and “law” converge in meaning in a passage dealing with a specific commandment.

Therefore, nothing of Scriptural substance is lost if one rendering is read instead of the other. The central charge is the same: tradition is being used to invalidate Jehovah’s authoritative instruction. The textual decision concerns which term Matthew wrote at this point: the broader “word” or the more Torah-focused “law.”

Textual Decision and Translation Recommendation

On balance, the reading τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ (“the word of God”) carries the strongest overall documentary weight, particularly because of Vaticanus (B) and the breadth of early versional support alongside other Greek witnesses. The “law of God” reading has respectable early attestation, including the original hand of Sinaiticus and a second-century patristic witness, and it aligns sharply with the Torah-versus-tradition contrast. Yet the wider and heavier attestation for “word” indicates that it is not an isolated harmonization and that it belongs to an early, stable line of transmission. The most responsible conclusion is that τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ is the original reading in Matthew 15:6b, with τὸν νόμον representing an early alteration that clarifies the referent as Torah, and with “commandment” representing a later assimilation to Matthew 15:3.

The UASV rendering “the word of God” accurately communicates the sense of divine authority being nullified. In this pericope, “word” is not abstract. It points directly to the commandment just cited and to Jehovah’s binding instruction expressed in Scripture. Jesus’ argument depends on the reality that God’s instruction is fixed and that tradition has no authority to override it. This is consistent with the broader Scriptural teaching that human additions must not displace divine command. The charge in Matthew 15:6b aligns with the principle stated in Deuteronomy 4:2, and it anticipates the prophetic critique that honoring God with lips while removing the heart from Him amounts to futile worship grounded in human rules, as Matthew 15:8–9 will state by citation of Isaiah.

You May Also Enjoy

The Age of the Critical Text of the New Testament

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS