- Mark
- <
- 7
- >

7
Jesus rebuts scribes and Pharisees
1 Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him, having come from Jerusalem.* They were a long way from ‘home’. Doing something about Jesus had become a necessity. 2 And upon seeing some of His disciples eating bread with ‘unclean’—that is, ceremonially unwashed—hands, they found fault. 3 (Because the Pharisees, indeed all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things they have received and hold—washings of cups, pitchers, copper vessels and couches.)† Mark was writing for a Roman audience, hence this explanation (which helps other non-Jews as well).
5 Then the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders,‡ They used tradition as an instrument of domination, to control the people. Jesus was challenging that control. but eat their bread with unwashed hands?” 6 So in answer He said to them: “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites,§ Jesus knows what they are about, and makes no effort to conciliate them. as it stands written:
‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me.
7 But in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’* See Isaiah 29:13. Do none of our churches have doctrines that are mere ‘commandments of men’? All such ‘worship’ is in vain.
8 Because having left the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men—washings of pitchers and cups, and many other similar things that you do.”† Less than 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit ‘—washings of pitchers… that you do’, to be followed by NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc. 9 Indeed He said to them: “You are very good at nullifying the commandment of God, so that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death.’‡ See Exodus 20:12, 21:17. 11 But you say that if a man should say to father or mother, ‘Whatever profit you might have received from me is Korban’ (that is, a gift to God),§ The inconvenient question begs to be asked, ‘Where did all the goods and money go?’ It went into the pockets of the leaders, presumably, so they were really stealing from the elderly. 12 you don't even allow him to do anything for his father or his mother any more, 13 making the Word of God of no effect by your tradition that you have handed down. Yes, you do many such things.”
That which really defiles
14 Upon summoning the larger crowd He said to them: “Hear me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a man that can defile him by going into him;* As the following context makes clear, the Lord is talking only about food. People are constantly being contaminated by things they see and hear. rather, the things that come out of him, those are the ones that defile him. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”† Just over 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit verse 16 entirely, to be followed by NIV, NASB, LB, [TEV], etc.
17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples started to question Him about the parable. 18 So He said to them: “Can you really be without understanding? Don't you perceive that nothing that enters a man from outside can defile him, 19 because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, which then expels the impure aspects of the food?”‡ A literal rendering would be, ‘then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean’. I take it that Jesus was referring to the process in the stomach having a ‘purifying’ effect, since the sewer does just the opposite. Perhaps 10% of the Greek manuscripts end the quote after ‘latrine’, and have Jesus declaring all foods clean. 20 He went on to say: “That which comes out of a man, that is what defiles him. 21 Because from within, out of men's hearts, the evil designs proceed—adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetings, malignancies; deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, arrogance, foolishness— 23 all these malignant things proceed from within and defile the man.”
A ‘crumb’ for a ‘little dog’§ This episode has puzzled me for quite some time. Consider:
a) In explaining His lack of response to the woman's pleading, Jesus affirms that He was only sent to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24)—so what is He doing in Gentile territory?
b) The Text says He tried to get into a house without being seen; it follows that the group had kept a low profile, trying to avoid attention; and yet the woman intercepted Him well before He got there, and followed, crying out repeatedly (thereby blowing His ‘cover’)—so how did the woman learn of His presence, how did she know when and where to go, and how did she know to address Him as ‘Son of David’?
c) Although He may have done more than is recorded, and we do not know how long He stayed, expelling that demon is all that is recorded—so why did He undertake that journey, apparently the only side trip to that region?
I suspect that this was a special case, similar to Cornelius, or the Ethiopian treasurer—she had gotten God's attention, somehow. I imagine that an angel told her where to go, and when, and to call Him, ‘Son of David’ (Messiah). Of course she gave us an unusual example of faith, humility and perseverance, but I wonder if God is not telling us something more: it is possible to get a ‘crumb’ (a real need), even when it is not the proper time frame (καιρος).
24 Then He got ready and went from there into the region of Tyre and Sidon. He went into a house and did not want anyone to know it, but He could not escape notice. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit came and fell at His feet.* The parallel account in Matthew makes clear that this happened before He reached the house. 26 Now the woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenecian by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter.† Matthew 15:21-28 gives more detail, which see. 27 But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first; it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs.”‡ Big dogs would not be in the house, so these would be little house pets, or perhaps puppies. This episode always moves me. In effect, Jesus called the woman a ‘dog’ (that is what Jews called Gentiles), and she accepted the classification. She was determined to get her ‘crumb’, and she did! And she left us a great example of humility and faith! 28 So she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children's crumbs.” 29 So He said to her, “Because of this saying you may go; the demon has gone out of your daughter.” 30 She went away to her house and found that the demon was gone and the daughter had been placed on the bed.§ The verb ‘place’ is perfect passive; evidently the child was too small, or too weak, to have gotten there by herself.
Jesus heals a deaf mute
31 Again, departing from the region of Tyre and Sidon, Jesus came to the Sea of Galilee by way of the Decapolis region.* He chose a round about way where He would not be known by sight, to avoid attention (presumably). 32 Then they brought to Him a deaf man with thick speech† We learn to speak by imitating what we hear, so a deaf person will not speak correctly, even if there is nothing wrong with the tongue. In this case, the following verses indicate that there was also a problem with the tongue. If the man had never learned to speak correctly, this would be a further miracle. and begged Him to place His hand on him. 33 After taking him aside, away from the crowd, He put His fingers in his ears; He also spat and touched his tongue.‡ The Lord seems to have varied His procedure on purpose: He could heal ears without using His fingers, and could heal tongues without spittle. 34 Then looking up to heaven He sighed, and said to him, “Ephphatha!” that is, “Be opened!” 35 Immediately his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he began to speak clearly. 36 Then He commanded them that they should tell no one; but the more He would command them, so much the more they would proclaim it.§ The news was so good they just could not contain it. 37 People were astonished beyond measure, saying: “He has done everything well. He makes both the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.”

- Mark
- <
- 7
- >

*7:1 They were a long way from ‘home’. Doing something about Jesus had become a necessity.

†7:4 Mark was writing for a Roman audience, hence this explanation (which helps other non-Jews as well).

‡7:5 They used tradition as an instrument of domination, to control the people. Jesus was challenging that control.

§7:6 Jesus knows what they are about, and makes no effort to conciliate them.

*7:7 See Isaiah 29:13. Do none of our churches have doctrines that are mere ‘commandments of men’? All such ‘worship’ is in vain.

†7:8 Less than 2% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit ‘—washings of pitchers… that you do’, to be followed by NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.

‡7:10 See Exodus 20:12, 21:17.

§7:11 The inconvenient question begs to be asked, ‘Where did all the goods and money go?’ It went into the pockets of the leaders, presumably, so they were really stealing from the elderly.

*7:15 As the following context makes clear, the Lord is talking only about food. People are constantly being contaminated by things they see and hear.

†7:16 Just over 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit verse 16 entirely, to be followed by NIV, NASB, LB, [TEV], etc.

‡7:19 A literal rendering would be, ‘then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean’. I take it that Jesus was referring to the process in the stomach having a ‘purifying’ effect, since the sewer does just the opposite. Perhaps 10% of the Greek manuscripts end the quote after ‘latrine’, and have Jesus declaring all foods clean.

§7:23 This episode has puzzled me for quite some time. Consider:a) In explaining His lack of response to the woman's pleading, Jesus affirms that He was only sent to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24)—so what is He doing in Gentile territory? b) The Text says He tried to get into a house without being seen; it follows that the group had kept a low profile, trying to avoid attention; and yet the woman intercepted Him well before He got there, and followed, crying out repeatedly (thereby blowing His ‘cover’)—so how did the woman learn of His presence, how did she know when and where to go, and how did she know to address Him as ‘Son of David’? c) Although He may have done more than is recorded, and we do not know how long He stayed, expelling that demon is all that is recorded—so why did He undertake that journey, apparently the only side trip to that region? I suspect that this was a special case, similar to Cornelius, or the Ethiopian treasurer—she had gotten God's attention, somehow. I imagine that an angel told her where to go, and when, and to call Him, ‘Son of David’ (Messiah). Of course she gave us an unusual example of faith, humility and perseverance, but I wonder if God is not telling us something more: it is possible to get a ‘crumb’ (a real need), even when it is not the proper time frame (καιρος).

*7:25 The parallel account in Matthew makes clear that this happened before He reached the house.

†7:26 Matthew 15:21-28 gives more detail, which see.

‡7:27 Big dogs would not be in the house, so these would be little house pets, or perhaps puppies. This episode always moves me. In effect, Jesus called the woman a ‘dog’ (that is what Jews called Gentiles), and she accepted the classification. She was determined to get her ‘crumb’, and she did! And she left us a great example of humility and faith!

§7:30 The verb ‘place’ is perfect passive; evidently the child was too small, or too weak, to have gotten there by herself.

*7:31 He chose a round about way where He would not be known by sight, to avoid attention (presumably).

†7:32 We learn to speak by imitating what we hear, so a deaf person will not speak correctly, even if there is nothing wrong with the tongue. In this case, the following verses indicate that there was also a problem with the tongue. If the man had never learned to speak correctly, this would be a further miracle.

‡7:33 The Lord seems to have varied His procedure on purpose: He could heal ears without using His fingers, and could heal tongues without spittle.

§7:36 The news was so good they just could not contain it.

© 2016 Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM, PhD