Bible Commentaries
Mark 7

Verses 1-37

VII 1-23 Controversy on Rabbinical Traditions; cf. Matthew 15:1-20—The Pharisees, 3:6, and Scribes, 3:22, had previously been discomfited by Christ, but-they evidently thought that the failure of the disciples to perform the ritual washing of hands before eating provided a suitable opportunity for renewing their attack.

2. ’common’ = defiled, ritually unclean. ’they found fault’. This phrase is not found in the majority of the MSS.

3-4, which are peculiar to Mk, give an explanation for the benefit of non-Jewish readers who would not understand why it should be considered blameworthy to eat with unwashed hands. The Pharisees were concerned not merely with the observance of the written regulations of the Mosaic Law concerning legal defilement, but also with the traditions of the ancients, interpretations of the written law and further regulations handed down by the Rabbis of the past. It was one of these rabbinical traditions, which the Pharisees regarded as no less binding than the Law itself, that the disciples had violated.

3. ’Often’ p???a+´. A more probable reading is p??µð+? = ’with the fist’. Some take this expression to mean ’vigorously, thoroughly’: others interpret it as ’the finger-tips’ or ’up to the elbow’, signifying a ritual washing.

4. ’And they do not eat what comes from the market without sprinkling it’. The phrase ’and of beds’ is probably not authentic. All these rules concerning the legal cleanliness of persons, foods and vessels were part of the fence around the Law which had been erected in the post-exilic period. They were intended to secure unquestionable legal cleanliness.

5. The Pharisees and Scribes, while not directly charging Jesus with violations of the traditions of the ancients, imply that he is responsible for his disciples’ conduct.

6-8. Jesus challenges the principle of these traditions and denounces the insincerity and hypocrisy which characterize the conduct of the Pharisees. The words in which Isaias, 29:13, denounced the insincerity of his contemporaries in their worship of God are applicable to Christ’s opponents. In their eagerness to maintain traditions which had their origin in the opinions of earlier teachers, they neglect the essential obligations of God’s law.

9-13. Here Christ gives an actual example of the way in which adherence to rabbinical tradition nullified God’s law. The Fourth Commandment strictly commanded children to honour their parents, an obligation which undoubtedly included the duty of rendering them assistance when they were in need. But rabbinical casuistry made it possible for undutiful children to evade their duty to parents under the pretence of respect for tradition.

11-13. ’But you say, if a man say to his father or mother, "Whatever help you might have had from me is Corban" (that is a gift to God), you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or mother, nullifying the word of God by your tradition’. The Hebrew word ’Corban’ meant a ’gift’ or ’offering’, especially a gift dedicated to God. To declare that something was ’Corban’ meant that it was dedicated to God and, therefore, withdrawn from profane uses. From this lawful practice of dedicating things to God a grave abuse had arisen. People pronounced the word Corban to signify that they would not do something which was perfectly lawful or even obligatory. The Talmud gives examples of such ’Corban’ oaths or vows, e.g. ’Corban, if thou wilt have any advantage from me’, i.e. I swear that thou wilt not have any assistance from me. According to rabbinical tradition, such an oath or vow was binding, even though the course of action to which person bound himself was contrary to the Law of God. us an undutiful child who said to a parent, ’Corban, if thou wilt have any assistance from me’ (cf. 7:11) was regarded as bound not to assist them. In this way the Pharisees nullified the precept of the Decalogue by their tradition. It was absurd that they should criticize the disciples for infraction of a merely human tradition concerning legal defilement.

14-23 True Principles concerning Defilement—14-16. Christ summoned the crowd and invited them to pay serious attention to his words. In 15 he states the fundamental principle that real defilement, moral defilement, is not caused by externals such as food, but by what comes from within, 20-23. The first part of this statement, 15a, was easy to understand in the light of the case which had been challenged by the Pharisees. But the second part, 15b, was not so easy to grasp—the disciples do not appear to have understood it—because ’the things that come from within a man’ might have referred to sources of defilement such as leprosy.

17-23. Here Jesus sets forth clearly, in answer to the disciples, the meaning of the statement in 15.

18-19. Food, like other externals, cannot of itself defile a man morally. It does not enter into or contaminate the seat of man’s moral life. Making (declaring) all foods clean. This is a parenthesis inserted by Mark to explain the significance of Christ’s words. His teaching means that the distinction between clean and unclean foods is abrogated. This was a radical change for persons accustomed to the Mosaic Law and Pharisaic tradition. It was only gradually that the full implications of Christ’s teaching were grasped; cf.Acts 10:9-16, Acts 10:28; Acts 11:1-10.20-23. The heart, as the seat of moral life, is the source whence proceed the evil thoughts and affections which cause moral defilement. ’From here the new law according to the spirit takes its beginning’ (Catena in Marc.).

24-30 The Syrophoenician Woman; cf.Matthew 15:21-28 —This was one of the few occasions on which Christ went outside Palestine. The district of Tyre and Sidon, part of ancient Phoenicia, now belonged to the Roman province of Syria. The population was pagan, and though the report of Christ’s miracles had reached there, 3:8, it does not appear that it was his intention to preach the Gospel in the district. He may have wished to proceed quietly with the instruction of th disciples.

24. ’Coasts’: ?+?+´??a = ’districts’, ’territories’.

27-28. The ’children’ represent the Jews to whom Christ’s personal mission extended; cf.Matthew 15:24. The ’dogs’ represent the Gentiles. The comparison is based on a familiar domestic scene, but the woman was probably well aware of the contempt which Jews had for the Gentiles and their gods. It is not certain that at the time of Christ the Gentiles were called dogs by the Jews. With profound humility and understanding she turned the image to her advantage—her request was only for a crumb of consolation, something which would not be missed from the rich feast offered to the Jews.

29-30. Christ granted her request as a reward of her strong faith and deep humility.

31-37 The Cure of a Deaf-Mute —This incident is recorded only by Mark whose account is again characterized by vivid touches suggesting the story of an eyewitness.

31. Jesus had been in the Decapolis previously, 5:20, and his fame had been spread there by the man whom he had freed from diabolical possession.

32. ’Dumb’: µ????a+´??? = ’speaking with difficulty’, ’with an impediment of speech’.

33. ’Taking him aside from the crowd’. In the exercise of his miraculous powers Jesus avoided ostentation. His humility in this respect was a contrast to the pretensions of false messiahs who sought to win the favour of the people by extravagant promises of miraculous deeds. The prevalent misconceptions of the nature of Messianic salvation explain the measure of silence and secrecy with which Christ sought to veil his miracles and his own identity at the beginning of his ministry. In the present instance there was an additional reason. The gestures employed by Christ in curing this man were very appropriate to the cure which he was about to perform. But pagans might have mistaken their significance and have interpreted them as part of a magical rite. Some consider that the purpose of these gestures was to arouse in the man the faith required from those who sought the benefit of Christ’s power. Jesus could have cured this man by a word, even at a distance, cf.Matthew 8:8-13, but the actions performed in this case place in clear light the efficacious participation of his humanity in his miracles. This would not be so clear if he had cured the man by a mere word.

34. ’Ephpheta’: e+´FFaTa+´ is a transcription of the Aramaic form ’e!!e%%a? = ’e?pea? = ’Be thou opened’. Here again Mk gives the Aramaic word spoken by our Lord.

36. The command of silence emphasizes the humility of Christ. He knew, of course, that the command would not be obeyed, but the disciples would have learned from Christ’s example the lesson that they were not to seek personal renown from the exercise of the powers that they would enjoy.

37. The crowds in their enthusiasm apply to Christ the words of Isaias, 35:5 f., concerning the Messianic age.