“Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17“Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? [In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”MK] 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’”
This is one of the most startling things Jesus ever taught. It shook the world of His day, and it has disturbed and gnawed at the minds and consciences of men ever since. It revolutionizes man’s idea of evil and wrong-doing, of just what evil is and what causes it. It knocks the props out from under man’s religion and morality. It lays man bare before God making him totally dependent upon God for salvation and life.
Jesus asks this question with some impatience. “Don’t you get it yet? Haven’t you figured it out? This is important!” He demonstrates concern that his disciples aren’t paying attention to the content of his life and message. Having expressed his impatience, he goes on to speak of the specific area of concern in this context, namely what makes a person unclean.
This is not really familiar language to us-being clean or unclean is a ceremonial determination that doesn’t seem relevant today. But, I hope that we’ll see before we’re done that this has very profound application to us, even though it comes in an unfamiliar package.
(Mt 15:1-20; Mk 7:1-23; Jn 7:1)
[JN 7:]1After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life.
The Passover was near when Jesus fed the five thousand. John makes it clear that Jesus did not attend this Passover. He describes the events following the day of furious debate in the synagogue in Capernaum: “After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Judaea, because the Jews sought to kill him.”
These plots against His life did not come from the Zealots, but from the national leaders at the capital—the Pharisees and Sadducees. The miracles, the growing power of His movement, His assertions of deity all led to renewed plots against His life. The national leaders were also moved to send out a delegation of trained controversialists to attempt to undermine the success of Jesus.
The feeding of the 5,000 and the sermon on the bread of life create quite a stir. In fact, the furor is transported to Jerusalem by the crowds Jesus fed. When they arrive in Jerusalem for the Passover, Jesus’ Galilean activities become the hot topic of conversation. The Pharisees respond to these rumors by sending a delegation to “check out” what is happening with this budding “Jesus movement.” They are so shocked by the blasphemous reports of Jesus’ sermon, they are now prepared to kill him (cf. Mk 3:6).
They come at a point of vulnerability, after the majority of Jesus’ disciples have abandoned him. So Jesus takes off for one last Galilean tour (Jn 7:1), prior to escaping her borders for Phoenicia and Caesarea Philippi.
Mk 7:1-4–1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.-7-8)
This passage is of critical importance for the destiny of both man and religion. Why is it so important? Because neither man nor religion can survive being institutionalized, that is, being based and focused upon tradition, ritual, ceremony, and works. Survival depends upon the hearts of man and of ‘real’ religion. The heart of both must be focused upon acceptance and reconciliation, approval and redemption, peace and love, humility and giving, joy and hope.
The difference and the argument between Jesus and the Pharisees and the experts in the law, which this chapter relates, are of tremendous importance, for they show us the very essence and core of the divergence between Jesus and the orthodox Jew of his time.
The question asked was, Why do Jesus and his disciples not observe the tradition of the elders? What was this tradition, and what was its moving spirit?
Originally, for the Jew, the Law meant two things; it meant, first and foremost, the Ten Commandments, and, second, the first five books of the Old Testament, or, as they are called, the Pentateuch. Now it is true that the Pentateuch contains a certain number of detailed regulations and instructions; but, in the matter of moral questions, what is laid down is a series of great moral principles which a man must interpret and apply for himself. For long the Jews were content with that. But in the fourth and fifth centuries before Christ there came into being a class of legal experts whom we know as the Scribes.
They were not content with great moral principles; they had what can only be called a passion for definition. They wanted these great principles amplified, expanded, broken down until they issued in thousands and thousands of little rules and regulations governing every possible action and every possible situation in life. These rules and regulations were not written down until long after the time of Jesus. They are what is called the Oral Law; it is they which are the tradition of the elders.
The word elders does not mean, in this phrase, the officials of the synagogue; rather it means the ancients, the great legal experts of the old days, like Hillel and Shammai. Much later, in the third century after Christ, a summary of all these rules and regulations was made and written down, and that summary is known as the Mishnah.
There are two aspects of these scribal rules and regulations which emerge in the argument in this passage. One is about the washing of hands. The Scribes and Pharisees accused the disciples of Jesus of eating with unclean hands. The Greek word is koinos. Ordinarily, koinos means common; then it comes to describe something which is ordinary in the sense that it is not sacred, something that is profane as opposed to sacred things; and finally it describes something, as it does here, which is ceremonially unclean and unfit for the service and worship of God.
There were definite and rigid rules for the washing of hands. Note that this hand-washing was not in the interests of hygienic purity; it was ceremonial cleanness which was at stake. Before every meal, and between each of the courses, the hands had to be washed, and they had to be washed in a certain way. The hands, to begin with, had to be free of any coating of sand or mortar or gravel or any such substance.
The water for washing had to be kept in special large stone jars, so that it itself was clean in the ceremonial sense and so that it might be certain that it had been used for no other purpose, and that nothing had fallen into it or had been mixed with it. First, the hands were held with finger tips pointing upwards; water was poured over them and had to run at least down to the wrist; the minimum amount of water was one quarter of a log, which is equal to one and a half egg-shells full of water.
While the hands were still wet each hand had to be cleansed with the fist of the other. That is what the phrase about using the fist means; the fist of one hand was rubbed into the palm and against the surface of the other.
This meant that at this stage the hands were wet with water; but that water was now unclean because it had touched unclean hands. So, next, the hands had to be held with finger tips pointing downwards and water had to be poured over them in such a way that it began at the wrists and ran off at the finger tips. After all that had been done the hands were clean.
To fail to do this was in Jewish eyes, not to be guilty of bad manners, not to be dirty in the health sense, but to be unclean in the sight of God. To omit so to wash the hands was to become liable to poverty and destruction.
That to the Pharisaic and Scribal Jew was religion. It was ritual, ceremonial, and regulations like that which they considered to be essence of the service of God. Ethical religion was buried under a mass of tabus and rules.
The last verses of the passage deal further with this conception of uncleanness. A thing might in the ordinary sense be completely clean and yet in the legal sense be unclean. There is something about this conception of uncleanness in Leviticus chapters 11 to 15, and in Numbers 19. Nowadays we would talk rather of things being tabu than of being unclean. Certain animals were unclean (Leviticus 11). A woman after child-birth was unclean; a leper was unclean; anyone who touched a dead body was unclean. And anyone who had so become unclean made unclean anything he in turn touched. A Gentile was unclean; food touched by a Gentile was unclean; any vessel touched by a Gentile was unclean. So, then, when a strict Jew returned from the market place he immersed his whole body in clean water to take away the taint he might have acquired.
Obviously vessels could easily become unclean; they might be touched by an unclean person or by unclean food. This is what our passage means by the washings of cups and pitchers and vessels of bronze. In the Mishnah there are no fewer than twelve treatises on this kind of uncleanness. If we take some actual examples we will see how far this went. A hollow vessel made of pottery could contract uncleanness inside but not outside; that is to say, it did not matter who or what touched it outside, but it did matter what touched it inside. If it became unclean it must be broken; and no unbroken piece must remain which was big enough to hold enough oil to anoint the little toe. A flat plate without a rim could not become unclean at all; but a plate with a rim could. If vessels made with leather, bone or glass were flat they could not contract uncleanness at all; if they were hollow they could become unclean outside and inside.
We have taken some time over these scribal laws, this tradition of the elders, because that is what Jesus was up against. To the scribes and Pharisees these rules and regulations were the essence of religion. To observe them was to please God; to break them was to sin. This was their idea of goodness and of the service of God.
Mk 7:5-8–5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?” [They don’t wash their hands before they eat!MT] 6He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’-7-9 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
The Pharisees hold sway over the people. These guys are the religious giants. So when they question Jesus about the behavior of his followers, the crowd is going to tune in to the controversy. His followers are going to feel quite uneasy about being the center of their attention. This is a religious heavyweight bout. Jesus is up for the challenge. Characteristically, he doesn’t directly answer their question, but he gets to the real issue.
Jesus doesn’t defend the disciples because they are guilty as charged in their disregard for Oral Tradition. Furthermore, they have learned it from Jesus (cf. Lk 11:38). Instead, Jesus blasts the Pharisees on two fronts. First, he calls them hypocrites. The word finds its meaning on the Greek stage. An actor would hold up a mask to conceal his real identity while he played the part of another.
Essentially, Jesus is calling the Pharisees two-faced. They put on a mask of honoring God, but their true nature is self-serving. Second, Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 and lays it directly at their doorstep (cf. Hosea 6:6 in Mt 9:13 & 12:7). They say all the right stuff, but for all the wrong reasons. Their hearts are not bent on loving God. Therefore, their worship is worthless and their teachings are contaminated.
The scribes and Pharisees saw that the disciples of Jesus did not observe the niceties of the tradition and the code of the oral law in regard to the washing of hands before and during meals, and they asked why. Jesus began by quoting to them a passage from Isaiah 29:13. There Isaiah accused the people of his day of honouring God with their lips while their hearts were really far away. In principle Jesus accused the scribes and Pharisees of two things.
(i) He accused them of hypocrisy. The word hupokrites has an interesting and revealing history. It begins by meaning simply one who answers; it goes on to mean one who answers in a set dialogue or a set conversation, that is to say an actor; and finally it means, not simply an actor on the stage, but one whose whole life is a piece of acting without any sincerity behind it at all. Anyone to whom religion is a legal thing, anyone to whom religion means carrying out certain external rules and regulations, anyone to whom religion is entirely connected with the observation of a certain ritual and the keeping of a certain number of tabus is in the end bound to be, in this sense, a hypocrite. The reason is this-he believes that he is a good man if he carries out the correct acts and practices, no matter what his heart and his thoughts are like.
A hypocrite gives lip service while keeping his heart far from God. He acknowledges God and attends worship, but this is about all he does. However, there are some who are religiously deceived (cp. the Pharisees and Scribes). They study the Scripture, pray, witness, help the needy, and keep the rules. They would even fight to maintain religious tradition. Yet, Jesus says they are hypocrites. Why? Because their heart is not God’s. They refuse to personally accept Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah and Savior of the world. They do not know God personally, not in the depths of their heart (John 14:6).
To take the case of the legalistic Jew in the time of Jesus, he might hate his fellow man with all his heart, he might be full of envy and jealousy and concealed bitterness and pride; that did not matter so long as he carried out the correct handwashings and observed the correct laws about cleanness and uncleanness. Legalism takes account of a man’s outward actions; but it takes no account at all of his inward feelings. He may well be meticulously serving God in outward things, and bluntly disobeying God in inward things-and that is hypocrisy.
There is no greater religious peril than that of identifying religion with outward observance. There is no commoner religious mistake than to identify goodness with certain so-called religious acts. Church-going, bible-reading, careful financial giving, even time-tabled prayer do not make a man a good man. The fundamental question is, how is a man’s heart towards God and towards his fellow-men? And if in his heart there are enmity, bitterness, grudges, pride, not all the outward religious observances in the world will make him anything other than a hypocrite.
(ii) The second accusation that Jesus implicitly levelled against these legalists was that they substituted the efforts of human ingenuity for the laws of God. For their guidance for life they did not depend on listening to God; they depended on listening to the clever arguments and debates, the fine-spun niceties, the ingenious interpretations of the legal experts. Cleverness never can be the basis of true religion. True religion can never be the product of man’s mind. It must always come, not from a man’s ingenious discoveries, but from the simple listening to and accepting the voice of God.
Mk 7:9-13 with Mt 15:4-6–9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe-7-10 your own traditions! 10For Moses [GodMT] said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’-7-11 and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’-7-12 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), [he is not to ‘honor his father-7-13’ with itMT] 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by [for the sake ofMT] your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
Jesus has just accused the Pharisees of setting aside the Word of God for the traditions of men. Now he will illustrate the fact with a “case in point.” The command to honor one’s parents was priority for the Jews (and for God). In fact, it was such a serious obligation that it carried a death penalty for any who broke it (Deut 21:18-21).
Tradition can be man-made commandments. A religionist teaches tradition as God’s commandment. He teaches his tradition as he practices it or proclaims it. Tradition is man’s idea of what should be or what should not be done. Some traditions are good; however, they are not to be taught as though they were the commandments of God. As important as some traditions may be, they are not as important as God’s Word.
Among the rules of the Oral Tradition was this “King’s X” called Corban (e.g., m. Ned. 1:2-4; 9:7).7-31 By labeling something as Corban, you promised to give it to God, if not sooner, then upon your death. It could be a cart, or a house, or savings, or property, etc. Since it was Corban, you could not sell it or give it to anyone, including your parents. But you, yourself, could still use it. Then, when you died, it would be given to the Lord or sold and the proceeds donated to God.
Corban arose out of a correct theology, that obligations to God are more important than obligations to any human, including parents. But the opportunity for abuse is all too obvious. If I have something that you want or need, I just label it as Corban. It is then off limits to you … but not to me.
Since we don’t practice ritual washings or use the word “Corban,” we feel safe to leave this text in the first century, pointing at the Pharisees. But this text is not merely about cleanliness and Corban, it is about replacing God’s requirements with religious duties. This has some rather broad implications.
You see, aside from the entry rite of circumcision, Jews were identified and evaluated based on three criteria: (a) Observation of the Sabbath and festivals (days), (b) Observation of clean and unclean (diet), and (c) Ritual dress. If you meticulously followed these three things, then you were considered a “good Jew.” If you slacked up on one or more of these, then you weren’t quite as good.
Jesus was attacking a system which put rules and regulations before the claim of human need. The commandment of God was that the claim of human love should come first; the commandment of the scribes was that the claim of legal rules and regulations should come first. Jesus was quite sure that any regulation which prevented a man from giving help where help was needed was nothing less than a contradiction of the law of God.
We must have a care that we never allow rules to paralyse the claims of love. Nothing that prevents us helping a fellowman can ever be a rule approved by God.
Jesus accused the religionists of worshipping in vain. “Ye worship ye know not what” (John 4:22). A religionist worships, but with an empty heart. Jesus taught that true worship must be in spirit and in truth, not only in spirit, but in truth as well (John 4:24). A person who denies Christ or denies God’s Word cannot truly worship God (John 14:6; John 17:17). He may worship; but his worship is empty, worthless, unacceptable.
The religionists of Jesus’ day were professing religion with their lips, but denying Christ, God’s Son, in their hearts (cp. John 17:17-20).
A religionist teaches tradition as God’s commandment. He teaches his tradition as he practices it or proclaims it. Tradition is man’s idea of what should be or what should not be done. Some traditions are good; however, they are not to be taught as though they were the commandments of God. As important as some traditions may be, they are not as important as God’s Word.
Tradition can make the Word of God ineffective. Jesus charged the religionists with setting aside God’s Word for tradition. Religious traditions may be described as institutional or personal:
- Institutional traditions are such things as rituals, rules, regulations, schedules, forms, services, procedures, organizations—anything that gives order and security to the persons involved.
. Personal traditions are such things as church attendance, prayers, habits, ceremonies, objects which a person uses (somewhat superstitiously) to keep himself religiously secure.
Jesus was attacking the fact that so many religionists put their traditions first while neglecting and ignoring God’s Word
Mt 15:10-14 with Mk 7:14–[14AgainMK] 10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’” 12Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” 13He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14Leave them; they are blind guides.-7-14 If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”
Simply stated, a man is not defiled by what enters his body, but by what comes out of his heart. Now note Mark 7:16. The importance of the point is again stressed: if any man has ears, let him hear. But the disciples were spiritually dull. They did not understand the parable. They asked Him to explain.
Now that Jesus has critiqued the behavior of the Pharisees, he returns to the original question and critiques the behavior of his disciples. Our Lord sees no danger in becoming “defiled” by eating with unwashed hands. Hocus-pocus uncleanness, even if it should enter the body while eating, will be “flushed” out soon enough (v. 17). No, what makes a man unclean is what enters his mind and comes out his mouth via the heart.
All their lives, these disciples have revered the Pharisees. And now, by following Jesus, they find themselves on the other side of the fence from these pillars of Judaism. More than that, they find themselves the center of this theological controversy. The Pharisees have apparently gone away in a huff (v. 12). The disciples, no doubt, are still trembling as they ask Jesus, “Do you know the Pharisees were offended?” Jesus refrains from all those clever retorts that seem so appropriate to us: “So!,” “Ask someone who cares,” or “If you think they are mad at me, you should see how God feels about them!” Instead Jesus employs the familiar figure from Matthew 13:28-30. Just because a plant is in the garden does not mean it is a good plant. God, like a good gardener, will weed his ground.
Although it may not seem so now, this passage, when it was first spoken, was well-nigh the most revolutionary passage in the New Testament. Jesus has been arguing with the legal experts about different aspects of the traditional law. He has shown the irrelevance of the elaborate handwashings. He has shown how rigid adherence to the traditional law can actually mean disobedience to the law of God. But here he says something more startling yet. He declares that nothing that goes into a man can possibly defile him, for it is received only into his body which rids itself of it in the normal, physical way.
No Jew ever believed that and no orthodox Jew believes it yet. Leviticus 11 has a long list of animals that are unclean and may not be used for food. How very seriously this was taken can be seen from many an incident in Maccabean times. At that time the Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes, was determined to root out the Jewish faith. One of the things he demanded was that the Jews should eat pork, swine’s flesh but they died in their hundreds rather than do so. “Howbeit many in Israel were fully resolved and confirmed in themselves not to eat any unclean thing. Wherefore they chose rather to die, that they might not be defiled with meats, and that they might not profane the holy covenant; so then they died.” (1 Maccabees 1:62, 63.)
In effect Jesus was saying that things cannot be either unclean or clean in any real religious sense of the term. Only persons can be really defiled; and what defiles a person is his own actions, which are the product of his own heart. This was new doctrine and shatteringly new doctrine. The Jew had, and still has, a whole system of things which are clean and unclean. With one sweeping pronouncement Jesus declared the whole thing irrelevant and that uncleanness has nothing to do with what a man takes into his body but everything to do with what comes out of his heart.
What defiles a man is not what he eats and drinks. What a man eats and drinks does not enter his heart; it enters his digestive tract and passes through his body. Therefore, food and drink, or eating with unwashed hands, or doing any other outward thing cannot defile a man—not spiritually.
Note exactly what Jesus was saying: “It is not things that defile a man. It is the heart that defiles a man. A man’s heart is corrupt; therefore, he corrupts himself. Man is not made unclean by things; he is unclean because of his polluted heart. It is he himself who takes things and does unclean things with them.
Sin, Source—Defilement: the first explanation—the thing that enters the body does not defile. What defiles a man is not what he eats and drinks. What a man eats and drinks does not enter his heart; it enters his digestive tract and passes through his body. Therefore, food and drink, or eating with unwashed hands, or doing any other outward thing cannot defile a man—not spiritually.
There is no connection between what we eat and spirituality. That is not to say that excessive eating and intemperance are not wrong. Lustful and excessive appetites come out of the heart. But when it comes to the items themselves, the food and drink, there is no merit or value, no morality or virtue to them—not within themselves. It is what we do with the things, what our heart does, that makes us either good or bad, spiritual or carnal.
The second explanation—the thing that comes out from the heart does defile. Note exactly what Jesus was saying: “It is not things that defile a man. It is the heart that defiles a man. A man’s heart is corrupt; therefore, he corrupts himself. Man is not made unclean by things; he is unclean because of his polluted heart. It is he himself who takes things and does unclean things with them
The third explanation—the source of evil is the heart. The problem of evil is from within, not from without; it is internal, not external. Evil comes from man’s heart (spirit), not his body. Consider the news report of any city on any given day. Notice the evil things reported and keep in mind—it is within one’s own city that such evil is happening. Multiply that evil by every city of any size. Just think of all the evil that is being done every day, and that is only the reported evil, the major evil. Think of the evil words and evil treatment and evil thoughts—all the evil things done within all the cities (Mark 7:21-22)—and one has a picture of what Jesus meant. Man’s heart is his problem. It is from the heart that these evil things come. Man knows better. He has more intelligence than to allow so much evil in his life and home and community and city and world. He just cannot control his heart.
Man makes three fatal mistakes when dealing with the problems of the law and evil, that is, with the problems of his heart.
- Man judges evil to be external only. He judges only the sinful act, only the deed. In the eyes of society, a man would be considered perfect if he never did bad—never broke the law and never did the forbidden thing. A person is considered good if he seldom does bad—seldom breaks the law and seldom does the forbidden thing (for example, breaking the speed limit or taking a pencil from the office).
- Man fails to see (or confess) that evil arises from the heart, from within. He does not consider that evil things come from an evil heart. Therefore, man puts little if any restraint upon the lust and inward thought. Man seldom thinks beyond the act; he seldom digs into the reason for the lust and thought; he seldom gives any attention to the heart. The result: man still grapples and always will have to grapple with the problem and tragedy of evil.
- Man fails to see and acknowledge that the human heart needs to be changed, that is, converted. He refuses to face up to the fact that is so clearly seen: a new man is what is needed. Somehow man’s heart needs to be reborn.
Mt 15:10-14 with Mk 7:17, 19–[17After he had left the crowd and entered the houseMK] 15Peter [his disciplesMK] said, “Explain the parable to us.” 16“Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17“Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? [In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”MK] 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’”
Jesus did not say in His fundamental principle that nothing entering a man from the outside can defile him. Quite the contrary! He limited the principle to things you eat. The eye and ear give ready entrance to the heart. Things may defile that enter thus. Even accidental sight or hearing may introduce foul, vile things into the heart. When poison is taken, an emetic or stomach pump or antibiotic may save the life if applied promptly. In the heart the Christian must brave strong resistance of character and use spiritual antidotes.
The same thoughts presented in a different way
There are four stages in this drama, and the first is accusation (Mark 7:1-5). The Jewish religious leaders were now openly hostile toward the Lord and His ministry. It was not unusual for them to follow Him from place to place simply to watch for something to criticize. In this case, they accused the disciples of failing to practice the Jewish ceremonial washing. These washings had nothing to do with personal hygiene, nor were they commanded in the Law. They were a part of the tradition that the scribes and Pharisees had given to the people to add to their burdens (Matt. 23:4).
Our Lord had already violated their Sabbath traditions (Mark 2:23-3:5), so the Jews were eager to accuse Him when they saw the disciples eat “with defiled hands.” Why would such a seemingly trivial matter upset these religious leaders? Why would they feel compelled to defend their ceremonial washings? For one thing, these leaders resented it when our Lord openly flaunted their authority. After all, these practices had been handed down from the fathers and carried with them the authority of the ages! The Jews called tradition “the fence of the Law.” It was not the Law that protected the tradition, but the tradition that protected the Law!
But something much more important was involved. Whenever the Jews practiced these washings, they declared that they were “special” and that other people were “unclean”! If a Jew went to the marketplace to buy food, he might be “defiled” by a Gentile or (God forbid!) a Samaritan. This tradition had begun centuries before to remind the Jews that they were God’s elect people and therefore had to keep themselves separated. However, a good reminder had gradually degenerated into an empty ritual, and the result was pride and religious isolation.
These washings not only indicated a wrong attitude toward people, but they also conveyed a wrong idea of the nature of sin and personal holiness. Jesus made it clear in the Sermon on the Mount that true holiness is a matter of inward affection and attitude and not just outward actions and associations. The pious Pharisees thought they were holy because they obeyed the Law and avoided external defilement. Jesus taught that a person who obeys the Law externally can still break the Law in his heart, and that external “defilement” has little connection with the condition of the inner person.
So the conflict was not only between God’s truth and man’s tradition, but also between two divergent views of sin and holiness. This confrontation was no incidental skirmish; it got to the very heart of true religious faith. Each new generation must engage in a similar conflict, for human nature is prone to hold on to worn-out man-made traditions and ignore or disobey the living Word of God. It is true that some traditions are helpful as reminders of our rich heritage, or as “cement” to bind generations, but we must constantly beware lest tradition take the place of truth. It does us good to examine our church traditions in the light of God’s Word and to be courageous enough to make changes. (Note that the word tradition in 2 Thes. 2:15 refers to the body of doctrinal truth “handed down” from the Apostles to leaders in the church. See also 2 Tim. 2:2.)
The next stage can be labeled condemnation (Mark 7:6-13) as Jesus defended His disciples and exposed the hypocrisy of their accusers. The first thing He did was to quote from the Prophet Isaiah (Isa. 29:13), and then He brought in the Law of Moses (Ex. 20:12; 21:17; Lev. 20:9). How could the Pharisees argue with the Law and the Prophets?
In defending their tradition, the Pharisees eroded their own characters and also the character of the Word of God. They were hypocrites, “playactors,” whose religious worship was practiced in vain. True worship must come from the heart, and it must be directed by God’s truth, not man’s personal ideas. What a tragedy that religious people would ignorantly practice their religion and become the worse for doing it!
But they were not only destroying their character; they were also destroying the influence and authority of the very Word of God that they claimed to be defending. Note the tragic sequence: teaching their doctrines as God’s Word (Mark 7:7); laying aside God’s Word (Mark 7:8); rejecting God’s Word (Mark 7:9); finally, robbing God’s Word of its power (Mark 7:13). People who revere man-made traditions above the Word of God eventually lose the power of God’s Word in their lives. No matter how devout they may appear, their hearts are far from God.
History reveals that the Jewish religious leaders came to honor their traditions far above the Word of God. Rabbi Eleazer said, “He who expounds the Scriptures in opposition to the tradition has no share in the world to come.” The Mishna, a collection of Jewish traditions in the Talmud, records, “It is a greater offense to teach anything contrary to the voice of the Rabbis than to contradict Scripture itself.”
Once He had exposed their hypocrisy, Jesus then turned to the Law of Moses and indicted them for breaking the fifth commandment. They had an ingenious way of breaking the Law and not feeling guilty. Instead of using their wealth to support their parents, the Pharisees dedicated that wealth to God (“Corban” = “an offering, a gift”; see Num. 30) and claimed that the wealth could now be used only for “spiritual purposes.” However, they continued to get the benefit of that wealth, even though it technically belonged to God. These men claimed to love God, but they had no love for their parents!
The third stage is declaration (Mark 7:14-16). Jesus announced to the whole crowd that the source of holy living is from within, not from without. Actually, He was declaring null and void the entire Mosaic system of “clean and unclean” foods; but at that time, He did not explain this radical truth to the crowd. Later, He did explain it in private to His own disciples.
But this declaration was surely understood by His enemies. They realized that He was breaking down one of the “walls” that separated the Jews from the Gentiles. Of course, the Law itself was not set aside until Jesus died on the cross (Eph. 2:14-15; Col. 2:14), but the principle Jesus announced had been true throughout the ages. In every period of history, true holiness has always been a matter of the heart, a right relationship with God by faith. Ceremonial purity was a matter of external obedience to a law as evidence of that faith (Ps. 51:6, 10, 16-17). Moses made it clear in Deuteronomy that God wanted love and obedience to come from the heart, and not be merely outward obedience to rules (note Deut. 6:4-5; 10:12; 30:6, 20).
Our Lord’s explanation (Mark 7:17-23) was given privately to His disciples when they asked Him “concerning the parable.” His explanation seems obvious to us, but we must remember that these twelve men had been brought up under the strict Jewish dietary code that categorized all foods as either “clean” or “unclean” (Lev. 11). In fact, Acts 10:14 suggests that Peter kept a kosher household for years even after he had heard this truth. It is not easy to change our religious traditions.
The human heart is sinful and produces all manner of evil desires, thoughts, and actions, everything from murder to envy (“an evil eye”). Jesus had no illusions about human nature, as do some liberal theologians and humanistic teachers today. He realized that man is a sinner, unable to control or change his own nature; and that is why Jesus came to earth—to die for lost sinners.
The Jewish dietary laws were given by God to teach His chosen people to make a difference between what was clean and what was unclean. (No doubt there were also some practical reasons involved, such as sanitation and health.) To disobey these laws was a matter of ceremonial defilement, and that was an external matter. Food ends up in the stomach, but sin begins in the heart. The food we eat is digested and the waste evacuated, but sin remains and it produces defilement and death.
This dramatic lesson on “truth vs. tradition” could only irritate the Jewish religious leaders more and make them want to silence Jesus. This increased opposition was the reason why He departed from the crowded places and took His disciples into Gentile territory.
Before we leave this section, however, it might be good for us to contrast man’s traditions and God’s truth.
| Man’s traditions | God’s truth |
| Outward forms—bondage | Inward faith—liberty |
| Trifling rules | Fundamental principles |
| Outward piety | True inward holiness |
| Neglect, replace the Word | Exalts the Word of God |
Mk 7:20-23 with Mt 15:20–20He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ 21For from within, out of men’s hearts come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean’; [but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’”MT]
Jesus revealed the problem so clearly in this passage. Note the progress of sin within man. (1) It begins in human nature: “within, out of the heart.” (2) It develops in the human mind: in “evil thoughts.” (3) It is expressed in human acts: “adulteries, fornications….”
Just like the sermon in parables (Mt 13), when Jesus leaves the crowd he enters a house. This gives the disciples the opportunity to ask Jesus privately what he meant by this parable. Again we find Peter speaking for the group. Since there is no definite article with the noun “house” we have no indication that it was Peter’s house in Capernaum. Since Jesus is on a tour of Galilee, this could have taken place anywhere in that region.
His meaning is obvious—even if some morsel should be ceremonially defiled, it doesn’t stick around to do you any harm. It just passes through. Note: Jesus is addressing the issue of ceremonial defilement, not truly harmful substances.
What does make a man defiled, however, is what comes out of his mouth. Our words express the goodness or badness of our heart (Mt 12:34; Lk 6:45). This rule is so consistent that we can even be judged by our words (Mt 12:36).
This list, unusual for Jesus (but cf. Rom 1:29-31; Gal 5:19-21), illustrates the kinds of things that are talked about and practiced from the overflow of one’s heart. Human behavior often moves from mind to heart to words to behavior.
Mark adds this important parenthetical comment, “In saying this Jesus declared all foods clean.” The issue of “clean and unclean” will come up again in the Church (Acts 10:9-16; 15:20; Rom 14:13ff; 1 Cor 8). And it’s not just about food; it’s about people. This is the obvious lesson for Peter in Acts 10-11. The structure of this text is also suggestive. In both Matthew and Mark the very next scene is Jesus’ interaction with the Syro-Phoenician woman and the healings in Decapolis. Jesus’ ministry is not about sanitation but sanctification; it is not about purity but people.
he problem of evil is from within, not from without; it is internal, not external. Evil comes from man’s heart (spirit), not his body. Consider the news report of any city on any given day. Notice the evil things reported and keep in mind—it is within one’s own city that such evil is happening. Multiply that evil by every city of any size. Just think of all the evil that is being done every day, and that is only the reported evil, the major evil. Think of the evil words and evil treatment and evil thoughts—all the evil things done within all the cities (Mark 7:21-22)—and one has a picture of what Jesus meant. Man’s heart is his problem. It is from the heart that these evil things come. Man knows better. He has more intelligence than to allow so much evil in his life and home and community and city and world. He just cannot control his heart.
Heart (kardia): in the Bible the word “heart” refers to both the major organ of the body (Leviticus 17:11) and to the most important part of a person, that is, to man’s innermost being. The heart is the central part, the very center of man’s life. It is the most vital part of man’s being.
The heart is man’s inward life. It lies deep within, containing the hidden man or the real man (1 Peter 3:4); that is, the heart contains what a man really is, his true character. The heart determines what a man does, his behavior, whether good or depraved (Matthew 15:18; Mark 7:21-23).
- The heart is the source of man’s rational being: reasoning (Mark 2:6), understanding (Matthew 13:15), thinking (Matthew 9:4).
- The heart is the source of man’s emotional being: joy (John 16:22; Ephes. 5:19), affections (Luke 24:32), desires (Matthew 5:28).
- The heart is the source of man’s spiritual being: conscience (Acts 2:37), will (Romans 6:17), faith (Mark 11:23; Romans 10:10), evil (Matthew 15:18; Mark 7:21-23; cp. Jeremiah 17:9).
Man makes three fatal mistakes when dealing with the problems of the law and evil, that is, with the problems of his heart.
- Man judges evil to be external only. He judges only the sinful act, only the deed. In the eyes of society, a man would be considered perfect if he never did bad—never broke the law and never did the forbidden thing.
A person is considered good if he seldom does bad—seldom breaks the law and seldom does the forbidden thing (for example, breaking the speed limit or taking a pencil from the office).
- Man fails to see (or confess) that evil arises from the heart, from within. He does not consider that evil things come from an evil heart. Therefore, man puts little if any restraint upon the lust and inward thought. Man seldom thinks beyond the act; he seldom digs into the reason for the lust and thought; he seldom gives any attention to the heart. The result: man still grapples and always will have to grapple with the problem and tragedy of evil.
- Man fails to see and acknowledge that the human heart needs to be changed, that is, converted. He refuses to face up to the fact that is so clearly seen: a new man is what is needed. Somehow man’s heart needs to be reborn.
Jesus revealed the problem so clearly in this passage. Note the progress of sin within man. (1) It begins in human nature: “within, out of the heart.” (2) It develops in the human mind: in “evil thoughts.” (3) It is expressed in human acts: “adulteries, fornications….”
Matthew records Peter’s protest; the saying was so graphic, so revolutionary that it seemed to them like a riddle. Mark as usual omits the leading part played by Peter in this discussion.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Mark 2:1–3:6 contained a series of five controversies between Jesus and the religious authorities which culminated in their decision to plot Jesus’ death. His opponents appeared again in 3:22 to accuse Jesus of being possessed and working miracles through the power of Beelzebub. Now they appear with another criticism.
1–4. As in 3:22 the religious authorities in this case had come from Jerusalem. They obviously came looking for a fight. They found it in the issue of ritual handwashing.
The Old Testament is deeply concerned with religious cleanliness. Although it does not command ritual handwashing for the people in general, it does require the priests to wash their hands and feet before entering the tabernacle (Exod 30:17–21). It takes the matter quite seriously, commanding them to “wash their hands and feet so that they will not die,” and saying “this is to be a lasting ordinance for Aaron and his descendants for the generations to come” (30:21). At some point before the first century this practice was expanded beyond its original setting of tabernacle worship and beyond the original focus on the priests. Mark explains in vv. 3–4 that handwashing had become quite popular among the Jews along with washing a variety of objects.1
Mark (v. 3), the Pharisees and scribes (v. 5), and Jesus (vv. 6–9, 13) regard the handwashing rules as part of the “tradition of the elders.” All parties recognized that these rules were not commanded in the law. But it would be a mistake to take this as a indication that the practice was not viewed with great seriousness. The Pharisees took ancient traditions seriously. Josephus explains that this was one of the chief hallmarks of the Pharisees and a basic point of dispute between them and the Sadducees:
the Pharisees had passed on to the people certain regulations handed down by former generations and not recorded in the Laws of Moses, for which reason they are rejected by the Sadducaean group, who hold that only those regulations should be considered valid which were written down (in Scripture), and that those which had been handed down by former generations need not be observed. And concerning these matters the two parties came to have controversies and serious differences … [in which] the Pharisees have the support of the masses.2
(The last comment by Josephus indicates that many Jews would be sympathetic with the Pharisees’ criticisms of Jesus.) There is continuing scholarly debate over whether the Pharisees of Jesus’ day believed that the traditions could be traced to Moses and thus had equal status to the written word of Moses.3 But there is no debate that they considered the traditions of the elders to be ancient and to be quite important.
There are several technical difficulties in vv. 3–4. In v. 3 the phrase translated “give their hands a ceremonial washing” cannot be translated precisely, although it certainly has to do with handwashing.4 In v. 4a translational difficulties make it hard to decide whether to accept the ’s “When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash” or the ’s “and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it.”5 At the end of v. 4, some ancient witnesses to the text add “and dining couches” (which could be translated—as in the note—“and beds”) as the final item in the list of items which were washed.
- 5. As in 2:23–24 the religious authorities expected Jesus to instruct his disciples and took their behavior as indicative of his views. This assumption was correct on both occasions. Concerning the tradition of the elders see the comments above on v. 3.
6–8. Jesus did not begin by replying to their specific criticism, but began with a critique of their emphasis on the tradition of the elders. He argued that they had come to adhere to their traditions even to the point of contradicting the will of God. He supported his claim by a quotation from Isaiah and an illustration from scribal tradition.
The quotation is from the LXX of Isa 29:13. Like Isaiah’s contemporaries, some of the Pharisees and scribes gave only lip service to honoring God, because instead of doing God’s will they followed “rules taught by men.” Therefore, their claim to honor God was hypocritical. Sincere worshippers of God do his commandments.
9–13. Jesus now illustrates the point by using the tradition of the Corban oath. Josephus speaks of this oath twice, on one occasion speaking of “those who describe themselves as ‘Corban’ to God—meaning what Greeks would call ‘a gift’,”6 and on the other occasion describing “the oath called ‘Corban’ ” as “found in no other nation except the Jews, and, translated from the Hebrew, one may interpret it as meaning ‘God’s gift.’ ”7 The Corban vow seems to have been used both for persons and for possessions and it declared them to be a gift to God. At least in some cases possessions which were declared Corban could still be used, but could not be given to others.8
The first citation in v. 10 is the fifth of the ten commandments as found in Exod 20:12 and Deut 5:16. The second is from either Exod 21:17 or Lev 20:9. The significance Moses gave to these commandments is indicated by the fact that “Honor your father and mother” is one of the ten fundamental commandments and that cursing father or mother brings the death penalty (Exod 20:12; 21:15, 17). Jesus understood the command to honor one’s parents to imply more than verbal commendations or even obedience. In his understanding honoring included taking care of one’s parents. The Corban tradition, when applied to parents, prohibited a man from caring for his father or mother.9 Therefore it led to violations of the commandments given by Moses.
Jesus’ main point is clear from v. 9 and v. 13. The Corban illustration was one of many in which the religious authorities kept their traditions and in so doing violated the commands of God.
14–15. Vv. 6–13 are addressed to the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. Jesus now addresses the crowd and replies to the specific objection concerning handwashing. The reply is a metaphorical saying characterized in v. 17 as a parable. It is explained in vv. 18–23. V. 16 (“If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear”) is omitted from the because it is missing from the best ancient witnesses and was probably added to Mark by a scribe.
17–23. As in 4:10 the disciples asked Jesus to explain the parable. In his explanation the emphasis falls on the contrast between that which enters and goes out from a person’s digestive tract vs. that which goes out from a person’s heart. The handwashing rules focus on the food that enters and departs from the stomach. Jesus is concerned with what originates in and departs from the heart.
To identify the things that are truly unclean Jesus provides a list of vices. The translation is probably correct in taking the first item, translated “evil thoughts” in the , as an umbrella term that includes all the following items.10 Most of the items are easily understood from the translation. The second word in v. 22, “malice,” translates a broad Greek word (πονηρία, ponēria) that could be translated “wickedness” or “sinfulness.”11 The fourth word, “lewdness,” translates the word traditionally translated “licentiousness” (ἀσέλγεια, aselgeia). Another possibility would be “sensuality.”12 “Envy” translates an idiom (ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός, ophthalmos ponēros), literally “the evil eye.” As in most such lists, some items are vague or broad (e.g., wickedness) and some are overlapping (e.g., sexual immorality and adultery).
Mark’s editorial observation in v. 19b, “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean,’ ” raises a question. Did Jesus intend for the crowd addressed in vv. 14–15 or even the disciples addressed in vv. 18–23 to quit observing the Old Testament dietary laws? This conclusion seems unlikely on at least three grounds. First, it is not consistent with Jesus’ attitude toward the law as expressed in Matt 5:19: “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” Second, the disciples did not know that Christians do not have to observe the dietary laws until well after Jesus’ death (see, e.g., Acts 10:15 where Peter tells the Lord, “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean”). Third, the issue raised by the religious authorities was one even they recognized to be part of the traditions of the elders and not part of the law. The context suggests that Jesus’ remarks should be applied primarily to traditions and not the law. In this very context he upholds the law vs. the traditions (vv. 6–13).
How, then, is Mark’s comment to be understood? His remark that Jesus declared all foods “clean” clearly undermines the Old Testament dietary laws. The best understanding is probably that Mark sees the fuller implications of Jesus’ words from the standpoint of later revelation.13 In the original context Jesus was specifically addressing the traditions of the elders. But the principle he advocated had implications for the dietary laws and eventually God revealed to the church that the dietary laws were optional for Christians. Jewish Christians could and did continue to observe them. But they were not to be bound upon Gentile Christians. In the light of this further revelation, Mark correctly observes the ultimate implications of Jesus’ principle contrasting the stomach and the heart. [1]
Helping the Gentiles (Mark 7:24–8:9)
Mark records three miracles that Jesus performed as He ministered to the Gentiles in the region of Tyre and Sidon. This is the only recorded instance of our Lord actually leaving Palestine. He was practicing what he had just taught the disciples: there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, for all are sinners and need the Saviour.
Casting out a demon (vv. 24–30). Of the thirty-five recorded miracles in the Gospels, four directly involve women: the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:30–31); the raising of the widow’s son (Luke 7:11–17); the raising of Lazarus (John 11); and the casting out of the demon as recorded here.
Jesus came to this area (about forty miles from Capernaum) so that He might have some privacy, but a concerned mother discovered He was there and came to Him for help. There were many obstacles in her way, yet she overcame them all by faith and got what she needed.
To begin with, her nationality was against her: she was a Gentile and Jesus was a Jew. Besides that, she was a woman, and society in that day was dominated by the men. Satan was against her, for one of his demons had taken control in her daughter’s life. The disciples were against her; they wanted Jesus to send her away and let Him (and them) have some rest. For a time, it looked as though even Jesus was against her! It was not an easy situation, and yet she triumphed because of her great faith.
Samuel Rutherford, the saintly Scottish minister who suffered greatly for Christ, once wrote to a friend: “It is faith’s work to claim and challenge loving-kindnesses out of all the roughest strokes of God.” That is exactly what this Gentile mother did, and we today have much that we can learn from her about faith.
When she first asked Him for help, Jesus did not even answer her! Encouraged by His silence, the disciples urged Him to send her away. When Jesus did speak, it was not to the woman but to the disciples; and His words seem to exclude her completely: “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). However, none of these barriers stopped her from pressing on with her plea.
The first time she cried for help, the mother addressed Jesus as “Son of David,” a Jewish title; but the next time she cried out for help, she simply said, “Lord, help me” (Matt. 15:25). It was then that Jesus spoke about feeding the children (Israel) first and not throwing their food to “the little pet puppies.” Jesus was not calling the Gentiles “dirty scavenger dogs” as did many of the proud Jews; He was giving her hope, and she took hold of it.
Her reply revealed that faith had triumphed. She did not deny the special place of the “children” (Jews) in God’s plan, nor did she want to usurp it. All she wanted were a few crumbs of blessing from the table; for, after all, “Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22). It must have rejoiced His heart when she took His very words and used them as a basis for her plea! She accepted her place, she believed His Word, and she persisted in her plea; and Jesus not only met her need, but commended her for her faith.
It is significant that the two times in the Gospel record when Jesus commended “great faith,” He was responding to the faith of Gentiles and not Jews: this Syrophoenician woman and the Roman centurion (Matt. 8:5–13). It is also worth noting that in both situations, Jesus healed at a distance, suggesting the spiritual distance between Jews and Gentiles at that time (Eph. 2:11–22). Finally, the people of Tyre and Sidon were not known for their faith (Matt. 11:21–22), yet this woman dared to believe that Jesus could deliver her daughter.
Great faith is faith that takes God at His Word and will not let go until God meets the need. Great faith can lay hold of even the slightest encouragement and turn it into a fulfilled promise. “Lord, increase our faith.”
Jesus’ actions never yielded to simple explanations. Those who thought they had him “figured out” were usually about to be stunned. His opponents tended to see the hurting people who came to Jesus as cases to be solved or examples of those who broke the law. Jesus treated them as valuable human beings, worthy of his attention.
The presumption that Jesus was out to trample the Law might have led Jesus’ opponents to expect him to quickly heal the daughter of this Gentile woman. But instead of adding this situation to his portfolio of unusual miracles performed, Jesus ignored the opportunity to make a statement; instead, he dealt with this woman as an individual whose own faith needed to be challenged and clarified.
Jesus did not belittle her by rejecting her. He did not overlook the fact that she was a woman or a Gentile. He gave his full attention to her faith!
7:24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. Jesus traveled about thirty miles to the vicinity of Tyre and then went to Sidon (7:31). These were port cities on the Mediterranean Sea north of Israel. Both cities had flourishing trade and were very wealthy. They were proud, historic Canaanite cities. In David’s day, Tyre was on friendly terms with Israel (2 Samuel 5:11), but soon afterward the city became known for its wickedness. Its king even claimed to be a god (Ezekiel 28:1ff.). Tyre rejoiced when Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 b.c. because without Israel’s competition, Tyre’s trade and profits would increase. It is interesting that Jesus stressed the importance of inner purity just before visiting Tyre.
He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. Jesus and the disciples probably went to this Gentile territory thinking that they would be less well known and thus could obtain privacy and rest time. They went to someone’s house (probably the home of a Jew who lived in that area) and did not want anyone to know they were there. But even in this Gentile territory, he could not keep his presence secret.
7:25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil spirit came and fell at his feet. The word of Jesus’ arrival had spread from village to village. One woman in particular came to Jesus as soon as she heard that he was in the region. She had heard about Jesus’ miracle-working power and how he cast out demons, so she humbly came and fell at his feet on behalf of her little girl who was possessed by an evil spirit.
7:26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. Mark described this woman as a Gentile, a Syrophoenician; Matthew calls her a woman of Canaan. These are both correct descriptions. Mark’s designation referred to her political background. His Roman audience would easily identify her by the part of the empire that was her home. Matthew’s description was designed for his Jewish audience, who remembered the Canaanites as bitter enemies when Israel was settling the Promised Land. Some Bible translations identify her as a Greek. This is also correct because she was a Greek-speaking native of the Phoenician area, an area converted to Greek language and culture after the conquest of Alexander the Great in the fourth century b.c.
She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. The woman wasted no time. As she fell at Jesus’ feet, she gave her request—that Jesus would cast the demon out of her little daughter.
7:27 He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” Jesus answered her in the language of a parable. Jesus probably spoke Greek to this woman, for she would not have known Aramaic. Jesus used the word kunarion, referring to a little dog, a household pet. The simple parable meant that the children at the table are fed before the pets; it would not be right to take the children’s food and give it to the dogs. While it is true that in Jewish tradition Gentiles at times were referred to derogatorily as “dogs,” that probably does not apply here. The Greek word used as a derogatory nickname applied to wild dogs or scavenger dogs, not household pets.
By these words, Jesus may have meant that his first priority was to spend time feeding his children (teaching his disciples), not to take food away from them and throw it to the pets. This woman was interrupting Jesus’ purpose in being in Tyre. He had come to spend time teaching his disciples, not to be interrupted to do miracles for a woman who was not even a Jew. Jesus was not insulting the woman; instead, he was saying that she should wait until God’s appointed time when the Gentiles would receive the good news of the gospel.
Jesus’ words could also be taken to mean that his ministry was to the Jews first (the children of Israel) and that he would not take away from them to perform miracles for a Gentile. If that was what Jesus meant, we should realize that his words do not contradict the truth that God’s message is for all types of people (Psalm 22:27; Isaiah 56:7; Matthew 28:19; Romans 15:9–12). Jesus was simply telling the woman that the Jews were to have the first opportunity to accept him as the Messiah because God wanted them to present the message of salvation to the rest of the world (see Genesis 12:3). Jesus was not rejecting the Syrophoenician woman. He may have wanted to test her faith, or he may have wanted to use the situation as another opportunity to teach that faith is available to all races and nationalities.
7:28 But she answered him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Unlike many of Jesus’ Jewish listeners, this woman understood his parable. Her answer was wise, for she explained to Jesus, by extending his parable, that the children who love the pets often drop morsels of food to them. Not all the Jews accepted Jesus, while some Gentiles chose to follow him. Why couldn’t she have some of those “leftovers” that the Jews didn’t “eat”? She adroitly pointed out that such “dogs” ate with (not after) the children. She did not ask for the entire meal, just for a few crumbs—or one crumb in particular—one miracle of healing for her daughter.
And Satan trembles when he sees the weakest saint upon his knees. William Cowper
Ironically, many Jews would lose God’s spiritual healing because they rejected Jesus, while many Gentiles, whom the Jews rejected, would find salvation because they recognized Jesus.
7:29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.” Jesus was delighted by the faith of the woman. He granted her request because of her humility and persistence. Her faith and understanding were in contrast to the misunderstanding of the disciples (6:52; 8:14–21). Her request had been made in faith that Jesus could perform the healing. His words had been meant to test her, and she had passed the test. She understood Christ’s lordship and that, as a Gentile, she had no right to request mercy from Jesus. She also willingly accepted his conditions. On that basis, Jesus healed the woman’s daughter. With his words, the demon left the little girl. This miracle showed that Jesus’ power over demons is so great that he doesn’t need to be present physically, or even to speak any word to the demon, in order to free someone. His power transcends any distance.
7:30 So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone. The woman knew that her request had been granted. She did not beg Jesus to come with her; she took him at his word that her child was healed. Sure enough, when she arrived at her home, the child was resting quietly on the bed. The demon had left; the cure was complete and permanent.
In Jesus there is hope for all of us. The woman was a Gentile, yet Jesus crossed the barrier to reach out to her. He actually crossed many barriers: nationality, religion, and tradition. No barrier can keep Jesus from reaching us.
Healing a deaf man (vv. 31–37). The region of Decapolis (“ten cities”) was also Gentile territory, but before Jesus left the region, the people were glorifying the God of Israel (Matt. 15:30–31). The man they brought to Jesus was handicapped both by deafness and an impediment in his speech, and Jesus healed him. This miracle is recorded only by Mark and would be especially appreciated by his Roman readers, since the “ten cities” region was like a “Rome away from Rome.”
Jesus took the man away from the crowd so that the healing would be private and the man would not become a public attraction. Since the man was deaf, he could not hear our Lord’s words, but he could feel Jesus’ fingers in his ear and the touch on his tongue; and this would encourage the man’s faith. The “sigh” was an inward groan, our Lord’s compassionate response to the pain and sorrow sin has brought into the world. It was also a prayer to the Father on behalf of the handicapped man. (The same word is used in connection with prayer in Rom. 8:23, and the noun in Rom. 8:26.)
Ephphatha is an Aramaic word that means “be opened, be released.” The man did not hear Jesus speak, but the creation heard the command of the Creator, and the man was healed. Both the tongue and the ears functioned normally again. In spite of our Lord’s strict command for the people to keep quiet about the miracles, they told the news everywhere (see Mark 1:34, 44; 3:12; 5:43); and this resulted in a large crowd gathering and bringing people who were ill or handicapped. Even though Jesus was trying to enjoy some rest, He took time to heal them all. The result? These Gentiles “glorified the God of Israel” (Matt. 15:31).
Feeding the 4,000 (vv. 1–9). Those who try to find contradictions in the Bible often confuse this miracle with the feeding of the 5,000 which is recorded in all four Gospels. Only Matthew and Mark record this event, and it is not difficult to distinguish it from the other miracle of the multiplying of bread and fish. The first miracle took place in Galilee, near Bethsaida, and involved predominantly Jews. This miracle took place near Decapolis and involved mostly Gentiles. In the first miracle, Jesus started with five loaves and two fish, while here He had seven loaves “and a few fish.” The 5,000 had been with Him one day, but the 4,000 had been with him three days. Twelve baskets of fragments were left over after the 5,000 were fed, but only seven baskets after the 4,000 were fed. There were even two different kinds of baskets used: for the 5,000, small wicker lunch baskets (kophinos); for the 4,000, large hampers, big enough to hold a man (spuris, see Acts 9:25).
Once again, we are encouraged by our Lord’s compassion and His complete control over the situation. However, we are discouraged by the blindness and unbelief of the disciples. Had they completely forgotten the previous miracle? Let’s not be too hard on them. How many times have we forgotten the mercies of the Lord? We need to remind ourselves that Jesus Christ is still the same and has the solution to every problem. All we need do is trust Him, give Him our all, and obey.
Warning the Disciples (Mark 8:10–26)
Jesus and the disciples crossed to the western side of the Sea of Galilee where they were met by the Pharisees who were still angry at Him because of His earlier indictment of their hypocrisy (Mark 7:1–23). This time they tempted Him to prove His divine authority by giving them a sign from heaven. They did not want an earthly miracle, such as the healing of a sick person. They wanted Him to do something spectacular, like bring fire from heaven or bread from heaven (John 6:30–31). This would prove He was indeed sent from God.
Our Lord’s response was one of deep grief and disappointment (see Mark 7:34). How tragic that the religious leaders of God’s chosen people should be so hardhearted and spiritually blind! Their desire for a sign from heaven was but another evidence of their unbelief, for faith does not ask for signs. True faith takes God at His Word and is satisfied with the inward witness of the Spirit.
Since Mark was writing primarily for Gentile readers, he did not include our Lord’s words concerning the sign of the Prophet Jonah (Matt. 16:4; and see Matt. 12:38–41). What is “the sign of Jonah”? Death, burial, and resurrection. The proof that Jesus is what He claimed to be is the fact of His own death, burial, and resurrection (Acts 2:22–36; 3:12–26).
Jesus left them and crossed to the east side of the Sea of Galilee, and en route taught His disciples an important spiritual lesson. It appears that they were almost as blind as the Pharisees! The men were having a private discussion about their food supply, because somebody had forgotten to pack bread. Who was to blame?
It must have grieved Jesus that His handpicked helpers were so spiritually obtuse. The fact that He had multiplied bread on two occasions and fed over 10,000 people had apparently made little impression on them! Why worry and argue over one loaf of bread when you have Jesus in the boat with you? Their minds were dull, their hearts were hard (see Mark 6:52), their eyes were blind, and their ears were deaf (see Mark 4:11–12).
God’s people often have a tendency to forget His blessings (Ps. 103:1–2). He meets our needs, but then when the next problem arises, we complain or become frightened. As long as we are with Him, we can be sure He will care for us. It would do us all good to pause occasionally and remind ourselves of His goodness and faithfulness.
But the main lesson had to do with leaven (yeast) and not with bread. In the Bible, leaven is consistently a symbol of evil. Each Passover season, the Jews had to remove all leaven from their dwellings (Ex. 12:18–20), and leaven was not allowed with the offerings (Ex. 23:18; 34:25; Lev. 2:11; 6:17). Evil, like leaven, is small and hidden, but it spreads and soon infects the whole (Gal. 5:9).
The Bible uses leaven as a picture of false doctrine (Gal. 5:1–9), unjudged sin in the church (1 Cor. 5), and hypocrisy (Luke 12:1). In this context, Jesus warned them about the teaching (false doctrine) of the Pharisees and the followers of Herod. The Pharisees “said but they did not”; in other words, they practiced and encouraged hypocrisy (note Mark 7:6). The Herodians were a worldly group who catered to Herod, accepted the Roman way of life, and saw in Herod and his rule the promised kingdom for the Jewish nation. If this false teaching got into the hearts and minds of the disciples, it would infect them and pollute the truth Jesus had given them to proclaim about Himself and His kingdom.
We can never be too careful about detecting and avoiding false doctrine. Only a small deviation from the Word may get into an individual or a church, but before long it will grow and infect everything. Our Lord did not often say “Beware!” but when He did it was important!
In this section, Mark recorded two miracles that are not found in the other Gospels: the healing of the deaf man who had a speech impediment (Mark 7:31–37), and the healing of the blind man outside Bethsaida (Mark 8:22–26). Perhaps we can see in these two men illustrations of the disciples’ spiritual condition described in Mark 8:18! Jewish readers would connect these two miracles with the messianic promises in Isaiah 35.
In both these situations, friends brought the men to Jesus; and in both situations, Jesus led the men away from the crowds. In fact, in the latter case, He took the man outside the city. Why? Probably because the city of Bethsaida had already been judged because of its unbelief (Matt. 11:21–24). No more evidence would be given to them.
The unique thing about this miracle of healing is that it occurred gradually and not instantly. The Gospels record the healing of at least seven blind men, and they show that our Lord used a variety of approaches. Perhaps it was the atmosphere of unbelief in Bethsaida that hindered Him (see Mark 6:5–6), or it may have been the spiritual condition of the man himself. For some reason not given, the man was not ready for instant sight, so Jesus restored him gradually. The fact that the man recognized men and trees suggests that he had not been born blind but had been blinded by accident or disease.
The man was not from Bethsaida, for Jesus sent him home and cautioned him not to enter that town. Now that he had been healed, why go to unbelieving Bethsaida where Jesus had been rejected? His job was to go home and spread the Good News of the kingdom, and to demonstrate its power by showing others what Jesus had done for him (see Mark 2:11; 5:34; 10:52). Should he not give another opportunity to the people in Bethsaida? Perhaps they would believe if they heard how Jesus had restored his sight. No, Bethsaida had been given adequate evidence, but still had refused to believe. It is a dangerous thing for anybody to reject the message of God and harden his or her heart in unbelief.
The disciples learned some valuable lessons on this trip, lessons that they would need to remember and apply in later years of ministry. We today need to learn these same lessons: (1) don’t seek after signs, but live by faith in His Word; (2) trust Jesus to meet needs; (3) avoid the leaven of false doctrine; (4) let Jesus work as He wills, and expect variety in His working.
Mark recorded the events of some busy days in the ministry of God’s Servant! Next he will take us “behind the scenes” as the Servant instructs His disciples and prepares them for His death on the cross.[2]
1 See Sanders, Judaism, pp. 222–230, for a fine summary of the widespread evidence of the use of immersion pools (miqva’ot) among the Jews. Many Jews of Jesus’ time participated not only in washing hands or objects, but also in ritual immersions.
2 Josephus, Antiquities 13.297.
3 See Sanders, Judaism, pp. 423–424, who argues that they did not.
4 Guelich, pp. 364–365.
5 Ibid., p. 365.
LXX The Septuagint (An ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament)
6 Josephus, Antiquities 4.73.
7 Josephus, Against Apion 1.167. See also Philo, Special Laws 2.16–17.
8 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic Qorban Inscription form Jebel Hallet et—Turi and Mark 7:11/Matt. 15:5,” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 60–65, cites an inscription on a Jewish ossuary from near the time of Jesus: “All that a man may find-to-his-profit in this ossuary (is) an offering to God from him who is within it.” The items in the ossuary were to be left there because they had been declared Corban.
9 Although there are dating problems in applying the Mishnah (c. a.d. 200) to Jesus’ time, there is an interesting parallel in the Mishnah Nedarim 5:6 which speaks of “a man at Beth Horon, whose father was forbidden by vow to have any benefit from him.” All translations of the Mishnah are from Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford, Eng.: Clarendon Press, 1933).
10 “For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder.…”
11 BAGD, p. 690.
12 BAGD, pp. 114–115.
13 Lane, pp. 255–256.
[1] Allen Black, Mark, The College Press Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995), Mk 7:1–30.
[2] Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 133–138.
He went in and said to them, “Why all this commotion and wailing? [Stop wailing,LK] [Go awayMT] The child is not dead but asleep.” 40But they laughed at him [knowing that she was dead.LK] 
