Replies

2: Defiled. Gr. koinos, originally meaning “common,” that is, shared by many people. Later it came to mean “vulgar,” or “profane,” and it is in this sense that Mark uses the word here (cf. on Acts 10:14).
——Unwashen, hands. Evidently writing for non-Jews (see p. 564), who might not otherwise understand the nature of the challenge the spies now posed, Mark defines what he means by “defiled.” Matthew, probably writing primarily for Jews (see p. 273), makes no such explanatory statement. The washing here referred to was strictly ritualistic, not sanitary. This rite is said to have consisted of pouring a small quantity of water upon the fingers and palm of first one hand and then the other with the hand titled so that the water ran from the palm to the wrist, but no farther (all the time care being taken lest the water run back into the palm), and then alternately rubbing one hand with the palm of the other hand. The minimum amount of water prescribed was that which could be contained in one and a half egg shells. It seems, however, that where water was not available a dry ablution was permitted in which a person would simply go through the motions of washing his hands in the prescribed manner.

3: Except they wash. See on v. 2. Oft. Gr. pugmē, literally, “fist”; in the form here used, “with the fist.” It has been suggested that pugmē may here mean “with a fist full [of water].” Textual evidence may also be cited (cf. p. 146) for the reading pukna, meaning “vigorously,” “diligently,” or “frequently.”
——Tradition. Gr. paradosis, literally “a giving up,” or “a giving over”; hence, “a tradition,” which is given over to someone by word of mouth or by writing. As used in the Gospels paradosis refers to the massive body of oral, rabbinical regulations that had grown up around the Torah (see on Deut. 31:9; Prov. 3:1). The traditions of the rabbis were the specific target of Jesus’ attacks upon the Jewish religious system of His day. The English word “tradition” means “that which is handed down [that is, from teacher to pupil, or from generation to generation].”
——In process of time this oral tradition, originally intended to protect the written law of the OT, came to be considered more sacred than the law itself (see DA 395). Presumably, by a mechanical obedience to the requirements of oral tradition, a person would automatically be keeping the written law, including the Ten Commandments. In other words, if a person complied with the letter of the traditional interpretation of the law, he need not concern himself with the spirit of the written law. This legalistic system reduced religion to a matter of form and banished the spirit of true worship and obedience, without which a man serves God in vain (see John 4:23, 24; cf. Mark 7:7). A system of righteousness obtained by the “works” of the law superseded the plan of salvation, through which God designed that men should attain unto the righteousness which is by faith (see Rom. 9:31, 32; 10:3).
——Christ sought to restore all God’s revealed instructions to their rightful place in the thinking and living of His people. He sought to accord the words of God priority over the words of men. He sought to do away with mere outward forms of religion and to cultivate the true spirit of religion in the heart.
——Elders. That is, the older rabbis or expositors of the law.

4: Market. That is, the market place in the open street, where produce was bought and sold (see on Matt. 11:16). Rabbinical thought considered it inevitable that a person mingling with the throng in the market place would come into contact with persons or things that were ceremonially unclean, and thus “defiling.”
——Wash. Textual evidence may also be cited (cf. p. 146) for the reading “purify.”
——Other things. Perhaps including vessels, clothing (see Lev. 11:32), hands and feet (cf. Ex. 30:19–21).
——Received to hold. Tradition is “handed down” by one generation and “received” to hold” by the next. It is given by the teacher and received by the student.
——Pots. Gr. xestai (singular xestēs), a Roman measure (sextarius) containing about half a pint (see p. 50). Xestēs is one of a number of words of Latin derivation found in the Gospel of Mark.
——Brasen. Literally, “bronze,” or “copper.”
——Tables. Literally, “couches,” or “beds.” However, textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 146) between retaining and omitting “tables.”

5: Walk. In a figurative sense, “live.” Compare Enoch’s “walk” with God (see Gen. 5:24). It was the disciples’ way of life, or manner of living, that disturbed the Pharisees and the scribes.

6: Esaias prophesied. See on Isa. 29:13. Isaiah’s words were descriptive of Israel in his own day, as the context makes clear, but they were equally true of the Jews in Christ’s day (see on Deut. 18:15). Thus when Christ said, “Esaias prophesied of you,” He did not mean that Isaiah predicted something true particularly and exclusively of the Jews of Christ’s day, but rather that Isaiah’s description of Israel in his day applied “well” (see Mark 7:6) to the people of Christ’s day also.
——Hypocrites. See on Matt. 6:2.
——Honoureth me. With a presence of obeying the will of God the “elders” (v. 3) were in reality “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (v. 7). It was a question of salvation by faith or by works. Jesus affirmed that those who worship God must do so “in spirit and in truth” (see John 4:23, 24). His emphasis on this truth brought Christ into bitter conflict with the Jewish leaders. The danger of exalting human precepts and even human interpretations of divine requirements above the “weightier matters of the law” (Matt. 23:23) is no less today than it was then.

7: Teaching for doctrines. Literally, “teaching [for] teachings.”

8: Commandment of God. The singular form, as here, refers to all that God has commanded—all His revealed will (see on Matt. 22:37, 39). God’s “commandment is exceeding broad” (Ps. 119:96); it includes “the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13). The ideal set before us is that of being “perfect,” even as our “Father which is in heaven is perfect” (see on Matt. 5:48).
——Tradition. The “tradition of men” stands forth in uncompromising contrast with the “commandment of God.”
——The washing. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 146) the omission of the remainder of v. 8, beginning with these words. The statement is, however, unquestionably true, for the same thought is expressed in vs. 4, 13.

9: Full well. Note the irony implicit in Christ’s words.

10: Moses said. The first part of Christ’s quotation is from the fifth commandment, and the second is from the civil code of laws (see Ex. 21:17).
——Die the death. The Greek of this phrase is a reflection of the Hebrew idiom meaning “surely die,” literally, “dying you will die” (see on Gen. 2:17). In other words, death was to be the inevitable penalty for an infraction of the fifth commandment.

11: But ye say. Jesus here gives a specific illustration of what He meant when He said, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition” (v. 9, RSV). Hence Jesus is here substantiating the fact that the Jews were worshipping God in vain (see v. 7). They accused Christ of abrogating the law, but He made it plain that they, by their traditional interpretation of the law, had, in fact, done the very thing of which they falsely accused Him (see on Matt. 5:17–19, 21, 22).
——Corban. Gr. korban, from the Heb. qorban, “a gift,” “an offering,” literally, “that which is brought near.” In Oriental lands one would never think of approaching or “drawing near” to a superior without presenting a “gift.” Anything over which a man pronounced the words, “It is Corban,” was thereby dedicated to God and the Temple.
——A gift. Apparently writing primarily for non-Jewish readers (see p. 564), Mark here interprets a word that had little or no meaning to them.
——He shall be free. The italics reveal that this entire clause has been supplied by the translators of the KJV, who apparently thus attempted to clarify the meaning for English readers.

12: Suffer. Rather “permit” (see on Matt. 19:14).
——No more to do ought. A man might thus defraud his own parents in the name of religion, with the approval of the priests and under the pretense that God required this of him.
——Anything over which the word “Corban” had been pronounced was thereby devoted to sacred—Temple—use (see on v. 11). The parents were not permitted to touch anything thus “dedicated,” yet the undutiful son was permitted to make use of it as long as he lived. He avoided his filial duty by a profession of superior piety. By this devious procedure the priests connived with their greedy parishioners to relieve the latter from the solemn obligation of providing for their parents.

13: Of none effect. That is, for all practical purposes, invalidating the fifth commandment. Jesus stood before the assembled throng as the champion of their rights, whereas the scribes and Pharisees were revealed in their true light as hypocrites (see v. 6) and as enemies of both God and their fellow men.
——Many such like things. The example Christ here employed was not an isolated one, as the scribes and Pharisees themselves well knew.

14: All. Gr. panta. However, textual evidence favors (cf. p. 146) the reading palin, “again.” This reading would imply that Jesus had been addressing the multitude when the scribes and Pharisees interrupted with their protest (see v. 2). Now that Jesus had silenced His critics He again addressed Himself to the people, with the purpose of making clear the true nature of the problem involved in the conflict over tradition (see on v. 3).
——Hearken. The people must give diligent attention if they would see through the hypocrisy of their spiritual leaders.

15: Nothing from without. Commentators generally miss the point of vs. 15–23 by applying them to the problem of clean and unclean flesh foods as differentiated in Lev. 11. The context makes emphatically clear that Jesus was not calling into question in any way precept of the OT, but rather was denying the validity of oral tradition (see on Mark 7:3), and here specifically the tradition that declared food eaten with hands improperly washed (in a ritualistic sense) became the cause of defilement (see on v. 2). It was always, and exclusively, “the commandments of men” (v. 7) against which Jesus protested, in sharp distinction to the “commandment of God” (v. 8) as set forth in the Scriptures. To apply vs. 15–23 to the matter of clean and unclean meats is to ignore the context completely. Had Jesus at this time eliminated the distinction between clean and unclean flesh foods it is obvious that Peter would not later have responded as he did to the idea of eating unclean flesh foods (see on Acts 10:9–18, 34; 11:5–18).
——It should be emphasized that the problem under discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees had nothing whatever to do with the kind of food to be eaten, but only with the way in which it was to be eaten—whether with or without ritual hand washing (see on vs. 2, 3). According to Jewish regulations, even meat that was clean according to Lev. 11 might still be considered unclean by reason of contact with unclean persons (see on Mark 6:43).
——Things which come out. For a list of the “things” Christ refers to see vs. 21–23. Here Christ affirms that moral defilement from breaking “the commandment of God” is of vastly greater consequence than ritual defilement, particularly so when the latter is based exclusively on “the tradition of men” (see on vs. 7, 8). Defilement of the soul, Jesus says, is a far more serious matter than ritual defilement of the body, occasioned by contact with persons or things that are ceremonially unclean.
——They that defile. See vs. 21–23. Even in the OT God specifically states that He is not pleased with the mere forms of ritual worship (see Isa. 1:11–13; Micah 6:6–8), practiced as an end in themselves.

16: Man have ears. Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 146) between including and excluding v. 16. However, Christ often used this expression (see Matt 11:15; etc.), and it is certainly appropriate to the context here.

17: The house. Rather, “a house,” possibly the house of Peter in Capernaum (see on chs. 1:29; 2:1). The remainder of this section was addressed to the disciples in private (ch. 7:17–23).
——His disciples. According to Matthew it was Peter, as usual, who acted as spokesman for the group (see on Matt. 14:28).
——Parable. See pp. 203-207. A parable might be only a pithy saying, however brief. Here it refers to the figure employed in v. 15, about things entering into a man and things coming out of a man. If this “parable” had proved to be a riddle even to the disciples, the multitude could hardly have grasped its full significance (see on v. 14).

18: Without understanding also. That is, like the crowd of people to whom the “parable” had been spoken. It was only reasonable to expect the disciples to be in advance of the common people when it came to understanding the truths of salvation.

19: His heart. That is, his mind (see on Matt. 5:8). In other words, eating with unwashed hands had no moral effect whatever upon a man.
——Into the belly. Ceremonially unclean foods (see on v. 15) went to the stomach, and there was no means by which the ceremonial uncleanness supposed to attach to them could be assimilated into the structure of the body.
——Draught. Gr. aphedrōn, “a privy,” or “a toilet.” The word does not refer, as is commonly supposed, to a part of the human body.
——Purging all meats. Literally, “making clean all foods [Gr. bromata, see on Luke 3:11].” In the KJV this statement appears to be a part of Christ’s instruction and to mean that the process of digestion and elimination has the result of “purging all meats.” The Greek, however, makes it clear that these are not the words of Christ, but rather those of Mark, and that they constitute his comment on Christ’s meaning. Accordingly, it is necessary to understand this expression in relation to the words “he saith unto them” of v. 18. Thus the latter part of v. 19 would read, “[this He saith unto them] making all foods clean,” or “thus he declared all foods clean” (RSV)—that is, irrespective of whether the eater had or had not performed the prescribed ritual ablution. This was the very point at issue (see on v. 2).
——In the second place, it should be noted that the Greek word bromata, translated “meats,” means simply “that which is eaten,” “food,” and includes all kinds of food; it never denotes the flesh of animals as distinguished from other kinds of food. To limit the words “purging all meats” to flesh foods and to conclude that Christ here abolished the distinction between clean and unclean flesh used as food (see Lev. 11) is to ignore completely the meaning of the Greek.
——In the third place, the context (vs. 1–14, 20–23) deals, not with biological uncleanness, but with uncleanness supposedly incurred from the omission of ritual washing (see on v. 15). The kind of food the disciples ate (vs. 2, 5) is not even referred to, but only the way in which they ate (see on vs. 2, 5, 15). Throughout, Christ deals with the problem of the “commandment of God” versus the “tradition of men” (see on vs. 5–15, 19). See on vs. 21–23.

20: Cometh out. See on vs. 15, 19. 21.
——From within. Jesus concludes His remarks with a statement of what does “defile the man” (v. 23). Defilement, He says, is moral, not ceremonial (see on v. 15). If affects the soul, not the body.
-—Evil thoughts. Jesus enumerates 13 different things that “defile” men. Compare the list here given with those of Rom. 1:29–31 and Gal. 5:19–21.
-—Fornications. Gr. porneiai, a general term including all forms of illicit sex relations.

22. Covetousness. Gr. pleonexiai, meaning “greedy desires to have more,” hence, “cupidity,” “covetousness,” or “avarice.” The idea of getting more and more has become a mania with persons of this character.
——Wickedness. Gr. ponēriai, wickedness in general, also more specifically, as is probably the case here, “malice.”
——Lasciviousness. Or, “licentiousness.”
——An evil eye. A Greek rendition of an idiomatic Hebrew expression (see Deut. 15:9) probably meaning “envy,” “jealousy,” or a “grudging spirit.”
——Blasphemy. Gr. blasphēmia, meaning “blasphemy” with reference to God, but “slander” when directed against men, as here. For the use of the word in the sense of “blasphemy” see on Matt. 12:31.
——Foolishness. That is, the quality of being “without sense.” “Folly” would be another possible rendering here.

23: These evil things. See on vs. 2–4, 15, 19. For lists of the positive traits of character with which the Christian is to replace these negative traits, see Gal. 5:22, 23; 2 Peter 1:4–8. Concerning the danger of attempting to remove the evil traits without cultivating the good traits in their place, see on Matt. 12:43–45.

SDA Bible Commentary Mark 7