After the eye-opening demonstrations of Jesus’ power in chapter 6, Mark provided a pause in the action by telling of another confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees. Similar confrontations had already occurred: 2:6–12; 2:15–17; 2:18–20; 2:23–28; 3:1–6; 3:22–30.

Jesus’ dramatic actions were met by determined resistance from groups that Mark identified as “Pharisees and teachers of the law.” Unable to overcome Jesus directly, their tactics shifted to the disciples. They were sure that the disciples were the weak point in Jesus’ defenses.

This could be called a “conflict of interest.” Both the religious leaders and Jesus were questioning each other’s application of the law. The religious authorities had long-established interpretations of the law that tended to confirm and expand the power of the religious ruling class while making a mockery of God’s standards.

In Matthew 23:24, Jesus characterized their error as fruitlessly straining out gnats while allowing camel-sized disobedience of the law to go unchallenged. He charged them with demanding that others carry heavy loads of obligations while excusing themselves. The freedom to obey God that the disciples learned from Jesus threatened the status and control wielded by the religious leaders. Their reaction against Jesus paved the way to Calvary.^[1]

Throughout his Gospel, Mark’s emphasis is primarily on what Jesus did. However, in this section of our study you will find Mark recording some of the important teachings of the Lord. Mark also describes His ministry among the Gentiles, which would be of special interest to Roman leaders. We see in this section three ministries of Jesus, the Servant-Teacher.

Teaching the Jews (Mark 7:1–23)

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.)

7:1–2  Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them.  Another delegation came from Jerusalem to investigate this new rabbi who was causing such a stir throughout the country. In 2:18, the Pharisees attacked Jesus through his disciples by claiming that the disciples were wrong not to fast (breaking the religious leaders’ additions to God’s law); then in 2:24, they claimed that the disciples were wrong to pluck heads of grain and eat them on the Sabbath (again, only breaking one of their additions to God’s law); in 3:22, such a delegation had incorrectly concluded that Jesus was casting out demons because he himself was demon possessed.

In this chapter another delegation arrived, ready to debate Jesus about his disciples’ disregard of the oral traditions and rituals. During the centuries since the Jews’ return from Babylonian captivity, Jewish religious leaders had added hundreds of religious traditions to God’s laws. These laws regulated every part of Jewish life. The Pharisees and scribes considered these religious traditions to be as binding and unbreakable as God’s law itself. In this assumption they were wrong, as Jesus would point out.

The common people did not follow all the strict extra rules and rituals of the Pharisees; thus, these religious leaders looked down on them as ignorant. The fact that Jesus’ disciples did not follow all of the laws of the Pharisees’ oral tradition led this Jerusalem delegation to resent Jesus’ teaching and try to discredit him. If Jesus were truly a rabbi, he and his disciples would be following all the traditions. The Pharisees had religious blinders on their eyes, seeing only their own rituals and traditions. Jesus flouted their authority, criticized some of their rules and regulations, and had become dangerously popular.

The delegation was from Jerusalem, the center of Jewish authority, and was made up of Pharisees (who advocated minute obedience to the Jewish law and traditions) and scribes (also called teachers of the law—professional interpreters of the law who especially emphasized the traditions). As these religious leaders scrutinized Jesus and his disciples, they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands. For his Roman readers, unfamiliar with Jewish customs, Mark explained that “defiled hands” meant that they were eating without first washing their hands. This referred not to washing for cleanliness, but to a particular kind of washing that made a person “ceremonially clean” before eating.

7:3     (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders.)  Mark explained for his Roman readers why the disciples eating with “defiled” hands was such a point of contention with the Pharisees. This ceremonial washing cleansed a person from any defilement he or she might have contacted without knowing it. The Pharisees did not want to eat with defiled hands, for they believed that they then would become defiled. They scrupulously followed this law, thinking that this ceremony would cleanse them from any contact they might have had with anything considered unclean.

The origin of this ceremonial washing is seen in the laver of the tabernacle, where the priests washed their hands and feet prior to performing their sacred duties (Exodus 30:17–21). That was part of God’s law. But oral tradition extended this law (“they shall wash with water so that they will not die” Exodus 30:20 ) to all Jews to be performed before formal prayers and then before eating. Thus, before each meal, devout Jews performed a short ceremony, washing their hands and arms in a specific way. But this was tradition, not a requirement of God’s law.

Jesus discerned that the Pharisees’ purpose was not to get clean, but to keep up appearances, to demonstrate that they were not Gentiles, and to outdo the common people in priestlike devotion. Are we like the Pharisees? Do we reduce spiritual Christianity to legalism or to empty patterns, adhere to them rigidly, but give our willful thought life full reign?

Mark’s statement that all the Jews followed this practice is a generalization of Jewish custom. As mentioned in 7:1–2 above, the common people did not follow all the minutiae of the tradition of the elders. This ceremonial washing was not part of God’s law, but was instead part of the rules and regulations added later. The “tradition of the elders” refers to the oral interpretation of God’s laws, interpretations that affected every aspect of Jewish daily life. The elders of earlier generations (members chosen from the older people to be part of the Sanhedrin, the most powerful religious and political body of the Jewish nation) passed along this oral tradition until, in the third century b.c., it was collected and written down, eventually forming the foundation of the Jewish Talmud. As such, the tradition of the elders was made up of oral laws originated by Jewish religious leaders. Jesus came into direct conflict with these traditions, explaining to these self-righteous religious leaders that “you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matthew 15:6 ). By their scrupulous observance of minute traditions and rituals, they had completely lost their perspective on the reason the law of God had been given: to bring God’s kingdom to earth, to provide reconciliation between God and his people, and to bring peace (shalom).

 

7:4     (When 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.)  Mark explained this Jewish ceremonial cleansing ritual a bit further for his Roman audience. The religious leaders were aware that in daily business they might unknowingly come into contact with a Gentile or an unclean Jew and thereby become defiled. If they were defiled, they would be unable to perform their religious duties. This would be inevitable in the marketplace with all its busy jostling of people. Thus, upon return from the market, they would not eat until they washed—that is, performed the ceremonial cleansing. This washing was not to clean dirty hands; it was a ceremonial washing to cleanse them from their contact with defiled “sinners” or Gentiles.

Mark encapsulated the rest of the convoluted rituals regarding cleansing by briefly explaining that the devout leaders observed many other traditions, including laws about how to wash their dishes. There were laws for everything; no wonder the common people didn’t bother themselves with strictly following them. But the religious leaders kept all these laws because they believed their “cleanliness” equaled “godliness.” In their minds, keeping these laws showed their devotion and service to God. But Jesus could not have disagreed more.

7:5     So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”  Picking up from 7:2, Mark continued the narrative. The Pharisees and scribes, having “noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands,” asked Jesus why they were doing this. Notice that the Pharisees themselves realized that this was a tradition of the elders, but they believed that this tradition had the same authority as God’s law. Their underlying question was, “If you are really a rabbi, as holy and righteous and versed in the law as we are, then you should know that we don’t eat without first ceremonially washing our hands. We won’t attack you personally, but since your disciples aren’t washing, you obviously haven’t taught them what’s important. Maybe you don’t even know this law. That makes you no better than a common sinner, certainly not a rabbi whom all these people should be following!”^[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.” But before we criticize our Jewish friends, perhaps we should examine what influence “the church fathers” are having in our own Christian churches. We also may be guilty of replacing God’s truth with man’s traditions.

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!

7:6–7  He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites.”  Jesus answered not their spoken question, but their underlying one, by quoting the Scripture that they claimed to know so well. The Greek word translated well means “beautifully, excellently.” The great prophet Isaiah had written beautifully correct words describing these religious leaders

Jesus blasted these self-righteous leaders with one word; he called them hypocrites. They must have been enraged to be addressed that way by such a person. The Greek word hupocrites is made up of hupo, meaning “under,” and krino, meaning “to judge.” Thus a hypocrite is one who makes judgment from under a cover. The Pharisees pretended to be holy and close to God, thus judging all other people as sinners. But what they pretended on the outside was not true on the inside.

“As it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”   The Pharisees and scribes also knew this Scripture by memory, but evidently they never had applied it to themselves. The prophet Isaiah criticized hypocrites (Isaiah 29:13), and Jesus applied Isaiah’s words to these religious leaders. This people begins the quotation from Isaiah 29:13. Mark’s version resembles more closely the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint and is not exactly the same as the Hebrew text of Isaiah, though the substance is the same. The religious leaders might say all the right words and give lip-service to God, but their hearts were far from God.

While the scribes and Pharisees may have been well-intentioned in their observance of Jewish rituals and traditions and in their attempts to honor God, Jesus attacked their true heart condition. They had lip-worship but sadly lacked in heart-worship. Instead of the godliness they attempted to portray, they were actually far away from God. The problem: The authority for their teaching was human (the commandments of men), and they taught their human-made rules as though they were given by God. Their focus on minute laws and rules of everyday life caused them to forget the scope of God’s law and what it meant for the people. As leaders, they were especially culpable, for they should have been teaching the people about God. Instead, they looked down on the people as ignorant sinners and spent their time busily staying pure. Isaiah explained that their worship was in vain. They worshiped for appearances, not out of love for God. When people claim to honor God while their hearts are far from him, their worship means nothing. It is not enough to act religious. A person’s actions and attitudes must be sincere.

THE GREAT PRETENDERS Hypocrisy is pretending to be something you are not and have no intention of being. Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites because they worshiped God for the wrong reasons. Their worship was not motivated by love but by a desire to attain profit, to appear holy, and to increase their status. We become hypocrites when we (1) pay more attention to appearance or reputation than to character, (2) carefully follow certain religious practices while allowing our heart to remain far away from God, and (3) emphasize our virtues and others’ sins.

7:8     “You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.”  The religious leaders had done the very thing they had tried not to do. Jesus charged that they had abandoned God’s law (the word for “abandon” could also be translated “disregard, send away from oneself”). They had supposedly devoted their lives to protecting the law; in reality, they had left the commandment of God behind in order to hold to human tradition. They may have been able to keep both their traditions and God’s law, but they had become so zealous for the traditions that they had lost their perspective and had altered and missed the point of God’s law entirely. Jesus also charged that they were doing this on purpose (7:9), for they had tried to win praise from people for their displays of piety as they kept all the rituals.

7:9     Then he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!”  Jesus restated his indictment of the scribes and Pharisees. Not only had they abandoned God’s commandments while holding tightly to their traditions (7:8), they had rejected God’s commandments outright for the same reason. The Greek word translated “rejecting” is atheteo, meaning something that had been laid down or prescribed was being done away with or made void. God had laid down his law, and the Pharisees had made that law void in order to keep their tradition. They had completely lost sight of the merciful and loving intent of God’s law as they placed upon themselves and the people minute regulations that were burdensome to keep. They didn’t even bother to teach the law; instead, they focused on all their rules and their own piety in keeping their traditions and rules. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in 14:1: “The chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him” (). Despite all their strict adherence to the rituals, they had completely forgotten about God’s command not to murder. Jesus accused these religious leaders of rejecting God’s commands even as they kept their own traditions. Next, Jesus gave an example to illustrate how the tradition could be (and was being) used to negate God’s law.

THE LAST WORD The Pharisees added hundreds of their own petty rules and regulations to God’s holy laws; then they tried to force people to follow these rules as the “tradition of the elders.” These men claimed to know God’s will in every detail of life. Some religious leaders today still add rules and regulations to God’s Word, causing much confusion among believers. It is idolatry to claim that your interpretation of God’s Word is as important as God’s Word itself. It is especially dangerous to set up extrabiblical standards for others to follow and give those standards equal authority with the Bible. Instead, look to Christ for guidance about your own behavior, and let him lead others in the details of their lives.

7:10    “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ ”  Jesus first quoted Moses, an especially relevant choice because the scribes traced the oral law back to him (see Deuteronomy 4:14). Jesus chose an example about people’s duty toward their parents. One of the Ten Commandments, Honor your father and your mother (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16) states that people are to respect their parents in honor of who they are and what they have done. The commandment did not apply just to young children, but to anyone whose parents were living. Honor includes speaking respectfully and showing care and consideration.

The same law is written negatively in Exodus 21:17, He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death (see also Leviticus 20:9). “Cursing” one’s parents is the opposite of honoring them. It means to speak ill of, to ridicule, to abuse verbally. The natural result of such behavior is that the person will not honor his parents for who they are, will not speak respectfully, and will certainly show no care or consideration to them. Such action carried a severe penalty—a person who cursed his parents could be put to death.

The scribes and Pharisees knew Moses’ words backward and forward. They knew these laws. But they found a way to break them while still looking pious.

7:11–12       “But 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), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother.”  Jesus then went on to explain how the Pharisees had found a way to completely sidestep God’s command to honor parents. The words but you say demonstrated their complete opposition to what Moses had written (7:10).

The practice of Corban (literally, “offering”) meant that a person could dedicate something to God for his exclusive use. Thus, it was reserved for sacred use and withdrawn from profane or ordinary use by anyone else. Some people had done this, but in such a way that they didn’t give it to the temple. Instead, they only legally excluded their parents from using it. They could dedicate money to God’s temple that otherwise would have gone to support their parents (based on Deuteronomy 23:21–23 and Numbers 30:1–16). Thus, a man could simply take the vow of Corban, saying that all his money was dedicated to God.

He could still use his money any way he chose, but could use his Corban vow as an excuse not to give any money to help his needy parents. Corban had become a religiously acceptable way to neglect one’s parents, circumventing responsibility to them. Although the action—dedicating money to God—seemed worthy and no doubt conferred prestige on the giver, these religious leaders were ignoring God’s clear command to honor parents. Even worse, this was an irrevocable vow. If a son later decided that he needed to help his parents, the Pharisees would not permit it—you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. The money was “dedicated,” and nothing could change that. No Pharisee would surrender the purse. These actions were extremely selfish. Jesus rightly described the Pharisees as going to great pains to set aside God’s law.

FAMILY MATTERS The Pharisees’ selfish reasons had made rigid a law that twisted God’s higher purpose. They had used one law to play against another with the motive of making it easier on themselves. Some Christians still do this. They rationalize using up all their finances and let aging family members go on welfare. While we should give money and time to God, we must never use God as an excuse to neglect our family responsibilities. Helping a family member in need is one of the most important ways to honor God (see 1 Timothy 5:8).

7:13    “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”  The Corban vow effectively put tradition above God’s Word. To be able to exempt oneself from one of God’s commandments by taking a human vow meant that the Pharisees had attempted to nullify or make void the word of God. The Pharisees took advantage of this law themselves and taught it to the young men in their schools, handing it down to the next generation.

Jesus added that the Pharisees did many things like that. This was only one example of the premeditated selfishness of these religious leaders who set themselves above all the people and, in effect, destroyed the laws that they attempted to keep (we have already read about their ridiculous commands regarding the Sabbath, 3:1–6). In his example, Jesus clarified to these hypocritical religious leaders that God’s law, not oral tradition, was the true authority over people’s lives.^[3]

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).

THE NULL PRINCIPLE Making add-on rules that serve special interests and thwart God’s purposes does more damage than just creating inconvenience or aggravation. In effect, making extra rules calls God’s law null and void. What a serious charge! What a scary indictment! Be careful about imposing rules on people. Avoid rules that are not clear biblical mandates. Don’t require inflexible allegiance. You may be getting into more trouble than you think. Be very careful about joining groups that impose secretive rules. Invariably, those rules work to nullify God’s work in your life.

7:14–15       Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.”  After explaining the true value of “the tradition of the elders” (7:5) in 7:6–13, Jesus addressed the crowd and the disciples regarding the true nature of “defilement.” The people had listened to Jesus’ stinging accusation of the religious leaders; here Jesus called the crowd to listen … and understand, for he would make his final point and have the final say in this debate. The Pharisees thought that to eat with defiled hands meant to be defiled (7:5). Jesus explained that the Pharisees were wrong in thinking they were acceptable to God just because they were “clean” on the outside. He explained that defilement is not an external matter (keeping food laws, washing ceremonially, keeping Sabbath requirements), but an internal one.

There is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile refers directly to the Pharisees’ question about the disciples eating with “defiled” hands. A person does not become morally defiled by eating with hands that have not been ceremonially washed. Instead, the opposite is true: The things that come out are what defile a person. The condition of a person’s heart will be revealed by his or her words and actions—thus, those actions, “the things that come out,” are what defile (or reveal true defilement). Sin begins in the heart, just as the prophet Jeremiah had said hundreds of years before: “The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse—who can understand it? I the Lord test the mind and search the heart, to give to all according to their ways, according to the fruit of their doings” (Jeremiah 17:9–10 ).

The Pharisees should have known this. Many times in the Old Testament God had told his people that he valued mercy and obedience based on love above merely observing rules and rituals (see 1 Samuel 15:22–23; Psalms 40:6–8; 51:16–19; Jeremiah 7:21–23; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21–24; Micah 6:6–8). Jesus explained his words more fully to his disciples in 7:17–23.

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.

7:16    “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”  This verse is not included in the earliest manuscripts and therefore is not printed in the text of most modern English versions. Scribes added it, borrowing directly from 4:23, to provide a conclusion to Jesus’ discourse.

7:17    When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable.  Jesus and the disciples left the religious leaders and the crowd and entered a house. They were probably in Capernaum, and this may have been the same house that had become their residence while in that city (see 2:1–2; 3:20). There, in private, the disciples asked Him to explain the parable. Matthew records that it was Peter who asked (Matthew 15:15). Peter often acted as spokesman for the disciples, so he brought their question to Jesus.

7:18–19       He said to them, “Then do you also fail to understand?”  Jesus knew the crowd didn’t understand, but he may have been saddened again that his disciples had failed to understand as well (see also 4:13, 40; 6:51–52). Jesus may have been calling the Twelve to evaluate their own residue of respect for the oral tradition. He may have been chiding them for their own failure to believe that he offered the true interpretation of Old Testament rules and regulations in contrast to traditional authority.

 “Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?”  According to the Pharisees, the disciples had been guilty of eating with “defiled” hands, for they had not performed the ceremonial washing prior to eating. Jesus exonerated the disciples before the Pharisees and the crowd, but the disciples still did not follow Jesus’ logic. Jesus explained that what goes into a person cannot make that person unclean. Thus, to eat food with hands that may have touched a “defiled” person or article did not mean that a person was ingesting defilement. Logically, as Jesus explained, food goes in the mouth, down into the stomach, and then out into the latrine. It has no effect whatever on the moral condition of the heart. Moral defilement has nothing to do with food. Sin in a person’s heart is what defiles (see 7:14–15), not the lack of ceremonial cleansing or the type of food eaten.

 (Thus he declared all foods clean.)  The Roman Christians, the primary audience of Mark’s Gospel, may have been confused about the Jewish food laws and whether they had to follow them. These words clarified this issue for them (although it took the early church several years to fully understand; see Acts 10 and 15).

Leviticus 11 records many of the Jewish dietary laws, including foods considered “clean” and “unclean.” The Jews had a restricted diet for three main reasons: (1) To ensure the health of the nation. The forbidden foods were usually scavenger animals that fed on dead animals; thus, disease could be transmitted through them. (2) To visibly distinguish Israel from other nations. For example, the pig was a common sacrifice of pagan religions. (3) To avoid objectionable associations. The creatures that move about on the ground, for example, were reminiscent of serpents, a common symbol for sin.

Over the years, however, the laws had become more important than the meaning behind them. As the Jews interpreted the dietary laws recorded in Leviticus 11, they believed that they could be clean before God because of what they refused to eat. But Jesus declared all foods clean by pointing out that sin has nothing to do with food; sin begins in our attitudes and intentions. Jesus did not degrade the law—the law was meant to be obeyed. But sin and defilement did not come from eating the forbidden foods; it came to a person who chose to disobey the law by eating the forbidden foods. It is disobedience that defiles, and disobedience begins in the heart. Jesus’ words paved the way for the change that was made clear when God removed the cultural restrictions regarding food (see Acts 10:9–29). Peter, when later faced with the issue of clean and unclean food, learned that Jewish ceremonial regulations should not be a barrier to proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles (see also Acts 15:22–29).

The bottom line: People are not pure because of adherence to ceremonial laws and rituals. We become pure on the inside as Christ renews our minds and transforms us into his image.^[4]

7:20    And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles.”  Defilement occurs because of sin. Sin begins in a person’s heart, and what is in the heart comes out in words and actions. In Romans 6–8, Paul explained how this happens. Unless the Holy Spirit controls our sinful human nature, outbursts of the flesh will be prevalent.

Sinful words and actions defile both the one speaking or acting as well as the object of the act. There is a certain ambiguity in Jesus’ words. While our first impulse is to believe that the source of the action is defiled, the text leaves wide open the possibility that the target of evil words and actions is also defiled. That is, we genuinely hurt people by words and actions that spring from evil motives or intentions.

7:21–22       “For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come.”  Evil intentions begin within, in a person’s heart. Jesus made it clear why people sin—it’s a matter of the heart. Our hearts have been inclined toward sin from the time we were born. While most people work hard to keep their outward appearance attractive, what is in their hearts is even more important. When people become Christians, God makes them different on the inside. He will continue the process of change inside them if they only ask. God wants us to seek healthy thoughts and motives, not just healthy food and exercise.

Then Jesus listed a catalog of twelve “evil intentions” that come from the heart. Six are evil individual actions; six are evil attitudes or principles. Notice that the evil attitudes, whether acted upon or not, are still considered sin. The following list is quoted from the .

 Sexual immorality—Various kinds of extramarital sexual activity

 Theft—Taking something that belongs to another

 Murder—Taking the God-given life of another person

 Adultery—A married person having sex with someone other than his or her spouse

 Greed—Relentless urge to get more for oneself

 Malice—Doing evil despite the good that has been received

 Deceit—To trick or mislead by lying

 Lewdness—Immoral behavior that is neither restrained nor concealed

 Envy—Desire for something possessed by another

 Slander—To destroy another’s good reputation

 Arrogance—Making claims of superior intelligence or importance

 Folly—Inability to discern between immorality and morality

7:23    “All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”  All these evil actions and attitudes begin in a person’s heart. And it is those evil actions and attitudes that cause defilement. Many of the words Jesus used could have described the Pharisees.

The cure? The good news of the gospel offers the only cure for humanity’s natural defilement. Cleansing can only come by the blood of Jesus Christ offered on our behalf. Only then can we become “pure” before God.

The healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter occurred during Jesus’ northernmost travels. He concluded that mission by taking a long route back to Galilee. Then Jesus healed a deaf-mute who depended on others to speak for him.

Mark selected instances from Jesus’ life to illustrate the many ways the Lord shows compassion for others. Mark seems to have made a connection between the deaf-mute here and the blind man in 8:22–26 with the deafness and blindness of the disciples described in 8:18. Jesus wants to open the ears and eyes of all who are deaf and blind so that they may receive the light of life.

7:31    Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.  The Decapolis (or Ten Cities) was a Gentile area, so this continues the emphasis of the previous miracle. Jesus had been in a part of this region before, when he had healed a demon-possessed man and then sent him on to tell others about his healing (5:19–20).

7:32    There some people brought to him a man who was deaf and could hardly talk, and they begged him to place his hand on the man.  Mark alone recorded the miracle of the healing of this deaf and mute man. Apparently several of this man’s friends brought him to Jesus; they knew he couldn’t ask for help himself, so they would intercede for their friend. They had faith that Jesus could heal the man, so they brought him.

The key to Mark’s recording of this miracle may be found in the Greek word mogilalon, translated “could hardly talk.” That word is found only here and in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament in Isaiah 35:6, where Isaiah wrote that one day “the mute tongue [will] shout for joy” (). Mark saw the fulfillment of Isaiah’s words in the healing ministry of Jesus.

7:33 He took him aside in private, away from the crowd, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue.  Jesus wanted to heal this man, but again he wasn’t looking for crowd acclaim in his healings. Thus, he took the man aside in private so they could be away from the crowd (see also 8:23). Jesus intended to deal with the man on a personal level—not use him as an advertisement of healing power.

Mark described this miracle in detail—apparently the disciples were with Jesus and the man. In this instance, Jesus put his fingers into [the man’s] ears and then spat and touched [the man’s] tongue. Jesus communicated to the deaf man through these actions and encouraged his faith. Jesus often used touch in his healings. In addition, spittle was commonly recognized in the ancient world as having healing properties. The man responded in faith and desire for healing.

7:34    Then looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, “Ephphatha,” that is, “Be opened.”  Jesus looked upward to God (the source of his power) and sighed. The sigh was probably in sympathy for the suffering man. Whether Mark recorded these details to describe what always happened in healings or whether this was unusual, is uncertain. In any case, the healing took place. Jesus spoke the word Ephphatha. The word may have been either Hebrew or Aramaic (the two languages are closely related, and both were used by Jews in ancient Palestine), but most scholars believe it was Aramaic. Ancient magicians and exorcists would use incantations made up of nonsense words or syllables to perform their tricks or healings. However, Mark showed that Jesus used one simple and easy-to-understand Aramaic word, which might mean the man was a Jew and not a Gentile. He probably lip-read that word in great excitement, for Jesus was opening his ears and loosening his tongue! Mark then translated the Aramaic word for his Roman audience.

Silence is the soil of the Word; only when we are alone with the Word do we gain the depth of insight that enables us to preach with power and clarity. Yet silence is only a means to a higher end. Silence that does not give rise to speech is dumbness. Speech that does not grow out of silence is chatter.

Donald Bloesch

7:35    And immediately his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly.  Immediately upon Jesus’ speaking the word, the deaf man’s ears were opened and his tongue was released. The man could hear, and he could speak plainly and clearly.

7:36    Then He commanded them that they should tell no one; but the more He commanded them, the more widely they proclaimed it.  Even though the miracle had been done in private (7:33), its results were obvious to the waiting crowd. The man, formerly deaf and barely able to talk, suddenly could hear and speak. Jesus asked the people not to talk about this healing because he didn’t want to be seen simply as a miracle worker. He didn’t want the people to miss his real message. But the people simply could not keep quiet, and they proclaimed the miracle widely.

7:37    They were astounded beyond measure, saying, “He has done everything well; he even makes the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.”  As Mark recorded many times, the people’s response was astonishment (see also 1:22; 2:12; 4:41; 10:26; 11:18). The Jews in the crowd, responding that he even makes the deaf to hear and the mute to speak, certainly recalled Isaiah’s prophecy of the Messiah’s day: “Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy” (Isaiah 35:5–6 ). They knew this man has done everything well. If only they could have gone a step farther and realized who he was, “the Christ” (8:29 ), the Son of God, their promised Messiah, the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies.

^[1] Bruce B. Barton, Mark, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994), 193.