Mark 7

CHAPTER VII

At this point we may begin the fifth subdivision of the first half of Mark’s Gospel because in the preceding verses we have again had a summary of the activity of Jesus, which resembled the summary statements that close the previous subparts.

Mark 7:1

1 And there are gathered unto him the Pharisees and certain of the scribes having come from Jerusalem, and having seen certain of his disciples, that with common, that is unwashed, hands they were eating their bread.

The way in which Mark writes might lead us to think that only the scribes came up from Jerusalem, and that the Pharisees were from Galilee; but Matthew 15:1 informs us that this entire delegation which is now confronting Jesus was from Jerusalem. The reason Mark does not say “certain of the Pharisees and of the scribes” but only “certain of the scribes” is most probably the fact that these scribes were especially selected on account of their learning in order to match that of Jesus. Again, the scribes were also Pharisees and are thus mentioned particularly as “certain scribes.” There were also local Pharisees but not local scribes, who joined with the Pharisees from Jerusalem. Just when or where this hostile delegation came to face Jesus (πρὸςαὐτόν) neither Mark nor Matthew indicates. They are not concerned about time or place but only about what was said at this meeting. Those who think that the clash occurred in Genesaret, because the account concerning Jesus’ visit there happens to precede, have about every probability against them.

The Pharisees were that Jewish sect or party which laid utmost stress on the strictest outward observance of the law, including the rabbinical traditions and regulations which professed to build a formidable protecting hedge about the law. They were utterly self-righteous and cultivated a hollow formalism that was ostentatious to a degree, especially in observing ceremonies, fastings, almsgiving, long prayers, tithes, etc. Jesus exposes them as arrant hypocrites.

The scribes were the professional students of the law (Old Testament) and were admitted to the fraternity after due examination. They were the experts in the exposition of the law, and the most prominent of their number were members of the Sanhedrin (Matt. 2:4). The present delegation was sent up from the capital (compare 3:22) to spy upon Jesus, to discredit him with the people, and to find cause for legal action against him. The fact that they came to Galilee from the capital shows that the authorities there kept their hostile eyes on Jesus although he avoided Jerusalem. They naturally also had greater prestige than the local Pharisees.

Some interpreters would begin a new sentence with καὶἰδόντες since the two participles “having come from Jerusalem” and “having seen certain of the disciples,” etc., seem to be quite diverse. But both participles explain the main verb, the fact that these men “are gathered together unto him.” They had come up from Jerusalem for this general purpose and had now found a particular cause for confronting Jesus.

Mark 7:2

2 With their own eyes they had seen a flagrant violation of the tradition of the elders. They had caught certain of the disciples of Jesus eating “with common hands.” The adjective κοινός is used in a technical Jewish sense; hence Mark explains for his Gentile readers that this means ἀνίπτοις, “unwashed.” The Greek retains the present tense of the direct discourse ἐσθίουσι, “are eating,” i. e., are doing this regularly. “To eat bread” means to dine.

Mark 7:3

3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash the hands with a fist, do not eat, holding fast the tradition of the elders; and from market, except they wash themselves, they do not eat; and there are many other things which they received to hold fast, washings of cups and pots and brass vessels.

The Pharisees were the sticklers for these observations, and their influence was so great that the Jews generally (πάντες in the popular sense) followed their teaching and example. Mark finds that it is not enough to explain “common hands” by “unwashed” hands. To make sure that he will be fully understood in what he records he explains the matter at length. This washing of the hands before every meal is the regular Jewish practice. That is why the Pharisees and scribes took such notice when they saw certain disciples of Jesus violating this practice. We note that not all of the disciples are involved and that no charge is brought against Jesus himself. As far as he is concerned, these Pharisees and scribes might as well have included him, for he completely repudiated these Jewish traditions; see Luke 11:39.

“Holding fast the tradition of the elders” broadens the matter; these washings before dining were part of this authoritative παράδοσις to which the Pharisees clung, and with them the people. The πρεσβύτεροι were the old venerable and learned rabbis. The “tradition” in this case was the body of practical rules handed down by them to the following generations. Part of “the tradition,” which was afterward compiled in the Talmud and the Midrashim, consisted of the haggada, expositions and legendary expansions of the historical and prophetical books of the Old Testament, and of the halacha, rules regulating conduct in casuistic fashion down to the smallest details. Here the halacha is referred to, “the fence” erected around the law, rules that were derived in part from Moses personally, in part were based on his writings, 613 of them, to which seven additional duties were added with a debate whether they were to be rated as inferior, equal, or superior to the written canon. In practice “the tradition” was placed above the canon as Jesus himself exemplifies in v. 10–13.

Much debate centers on πυγυῆ, which means “with the fist,” i. e., the fist twisted and turned in the palm of the opposite hand and performing the washing of the hands in this way. Even M.-M. 559 confess inability to throw light on this term from the papyri. The one example they quote refers to water and, like the context in Matthew and in Mark which deal entirely with washing in water, shuts out the interpretation preferred by M.-M. that this dative of manner signifies “a lightening of the regular ritualistic washing, by a simple rubbing over with the hand, or a dry washing.” Πυγμή does not refer to washing up as far as the elbow or as far as the wrist.

Mark 7:4

4 “And from market … they do not eat” is merely an abbreviation meaning “when they come from market.” We see no textual reason for preferring ῥαντίσωνται to βαπτίσωνται; even the meaning would not fit, for the Jews did not “sprinkle” the hands, they “baptized,” i.e., washed them. This was, of course, not done for sanitary reasons or just for ordinary cleanliness but for fear of Levitical contamination lest the hands have brushed against a Gentile or anything belonging to a Gentile or something that was otherwise unclean. We see why returning from market, where many contacts would be made, is used as an illustration by Mark. Now the divine Levitical law required no such washings. Jesus and his disciples observed the whole Levitical law but disregarded the rabbinical tradition. Yet they did not do this because human customs as such are to be disregarded but because the tradition was considered by the Pharisees as binding the conscience by divine authority, binding it even more severely than the actual written law of God.

Mark informs his Gentile Christian readers that these ablutions of the hands were only a small part of this extensive tradition: “there are many other things which they received to hold fast” (R. 1087, “for keeping”). Mark mentions a few but only such as were “baptisms” or washings “of cups and pots and brass vessels,” which were not washed for the sake of cleanliness, but ritually, like the hands. Quite a number of texts add to this list καὶκλινῶν: washings “of couches.” While we omit this genitive from the text, its appearance in so many texts casts a light on βαπτισμός (and thus also on βαπτίζειν). Cups, pots, and brass vessels may be immersed although brass kettles and the like are washed without submerging them. But a baptism of couches by immersion is impossible; the ritual cleansing was done in some other way. The contention that βαπτισμός and βαπτίζειν mean only complete immersion is thus answered.

Mark 7:5

5 And the Pharisees and the scribes inquire of him, Why are thy disciples not walking according to the tradition of the elders but are eating the bread with common hands?

Mark makes two classes of these men by using two articles. They had gathered in a body (συνάγονται) and had come to face Jesus and now make formal and dignified inquiry of him (ἐπερωτῶσιν) with the idea that they have a right to ask this, and that Jesus must answer them. They disregard the disciples; they hold Jesus responsible, hence “thy disciples,” they who follow thy teaching and thy spirit. Διατί asks for the reason for this conduct of the disciples; ἱνατί would ask for the purpose of their action. On what ground does the fact rest that the disciples “are not walking according to the tradition of the elders”? These men are keen; they see that this one act of the disciples really sets aside the entire halacha of the elders. If one of its rules is not binding for the conscience, then none of them are. “But are eating the bread with common hands” instances the one act by which the disciples set aside the tradition, the act which the Pharisees and scribes have seen with their own eyes.

They are so sure of the binding power of their established tradition that they themselves do not see how any Jew could possibly exempt himself. They are convinced that Jesus cannot answer their question, cannot produce a reason for any Jew’s walking contrary to the tradition. They are so steeped in their traditionalism and formalism that they are utterly blind to the true teaching of their own divine Torah.

Mark 7:6

6 And he said to them, Well did Isaiah prophesy concerning you, the hypocrites, as it has been written:

This people honors me with their lips,

But their heart keeps far away from me.

Moreover, in vain do they worship me,

Teaching as teachings precepts of men.

In the reply of Jesus Mark places Isa. 29:13 first, Matthew last; in the rest of the reply Mark is more ample than Matthew. It is Matthew’s way to condense his account to the essentials. As far as the order of the reply is concerned, Matthew is to be preferred; for note that Jesus duplicates the question of the Pharisees and scribes and gives them back their διατί and even their γάρ. The formal difference between the two evangelists is immaterial as far as the substance of the reply is concerned.

What Isaiah told his own generation as the utterance of Jehovah concerning them he thereby said also concerning the Pharisees and the scribes of Jesus’ time, for they repeated the hypocrisy of that former generation. In this sense Isaiah “did prophesy concerning you.” Jesus openly calls them “the hypocrites,” ὑπό in the term adds the thought of an actor under a mask (R. 633). C.-K. 638: “The hypocrite tries to appear before men as he ought to be before God and yet is not.”

This term is found only in the Gospels, and only in this religious sense. The worst form of hypocrisy is that which carries its self-deception to the point where it thinks that it really is what it actually only pretends to be. Such were the Pharisees and the scribes. The more their hypocrisy came in contact with the holy integrity of Jesus, the more it appeared as what it really was. The most vicious enemies of Jesus were these hypocrites. Instead of himself branding them Jesus lets Isaiah do this and makes the very Word which they pervert their own judge.

Isaiah is not quoted mechanically but with purpose. Out of the much longer sentence Jesus chooses only the four lines that are desired for that purpose, which is to present Jehovah’s picture of the hypocrites. Since only these four lines are used they are very properly taken out of the subordinate construction that is found in Isaiah’s long, complex sentence and are made ordinary, simple statements by merely omitting “forasmuch.” Jesus also omits “this people draws near me with their mouth” and uses only the synonymous line about the lips. The textus receptus, and thus the A. V., have added the omitted line.

The two great marks of fully developed hypocrites are presented in Jehovah’s characterization: honor that is mere pretense (with the lips, not with the heart); teachings that are likewise empty pretense (presented as divine when they are put forward only by men). The two always go together, for the moment the heart keeps far from God it leaves also his Word. The very first requirement of his Word which is fundamental for all true worship of God is genuine sincerity toward him and his Word.

Mark 7:7

7 The Hebrew line: “and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men,” is rendered by the LXX: “moreover, in vain do they worship me, teaching precepts and teachings of men.” The sense is the same, for the reverent fear of God is expressed in the worship of him, and every bit of such reverent worship rests on God’s Word and is shaped and controlled by that Word. The moment mere human precepts are substituted for that Word the entire fear of God and its expression in worship are vitiated, become μάταιος, “useless,” in the sense that they lead to no good results, are μάτην, “in vain.” The verb σέβομαι means “to render divine worship” while προσκυνεῖν denotes only the act of humble prostration which may be performed before a human superior as well as before God. There is the worst kind of contradiction between divine worship (fear of God) and precepts of men (in place of the Word). To be blind to this contradiction is the very essence of hypocrisy. It is bad enough when it is practiced by an individual for himself alone; it becomes far worse when it is taught as the true way in which all men should fear and worship God and thus builds up a system of national hypocritical worship.

It is the teaching that is emphasized, substituting that of man for that of God, making the former appear as if it were the latter. The Hebrew collective “the precept of men” is expanded in the LXX into “precepts as teachings of men” (two terms for one idea), which Jesus combines more closely: “as teachings precepts of men,” and makes the first noun predicative to the second. The thought is identical throughout. “Of men” is subjective; they invented these precepts according to notions of their own. The ἐντάλματα are all the practical regulations of the religious life, but all of them as the outgrowth of underlying facts and principles.

One of the specious errors of today is the separation of doctrines and practice. Every religious practice, whether it be only a single minor act or a set church policy, goes back to the corresponding doctrine, which is nothing but an expression of what is conceived as really being God’s will and Word. The false practices of the Pharisees and the scribes sprang from utterly false conceptions of that will and Word. Hence Jesus clashed so violently with them by insisting on the true conceptions of what God actually willed and said in his Word. The same conflict continues to this day.

Mark 7:8

8 Having dismissed the behest of God, you are holding fast the tradition of men.

Jesus attacks directly. Only by getting rid of God’s own bidding (ἐντολή) are these Pharisees and scribes holding fast to its opposite, their miserable tradition of men. He does not call them “elders,” men to be revered, but what they really were, just “men” over against God. This reveals that “the tradition” was a miserable human religious product that could gain adherence only by crowding out the divine behest of God. Jesus is smashing not only the tradition about washing the hands, he is shattering the entire traditional system of the elders as it was held by the Pharisees and scribes. Anything that can be maintained only by ridding us of some Word of God is by that fact marked as damnable and deadly in the sight of God.

The words of Jesus let this most axiomatic religious truth shine through. The statement is absolutely unanswerable.

Mark 7:9

9 And he went on to say to them, Well do you nullify the behest of God in order that you may keep your tradition!

On ἔλεγε see 4:11. It here indicates a break: either that Jesus paused and then went on, or that Mark wants to draw special attention to what follows. Jesus repeats the statement he has just made in a slightly different form. It is the summary of his indictment of the Pharisees and scribes. Καλῶς is plainly ironical, R. 1198. The force would be greatly weakened if this exclamatory statement were changed into a question: “Is it well that you nullify?” etc. Note the direct contrast between nullifying God’s behest in order to keep, preserve, retain their tradition.

Even the tenses aid the contrast: they constantly nullify the divine in order permanently to retain the human. It is impossible to have both at the same time. But what a choice to prefer the human to the divine! Jesus applies the norms of the religious will and drives the norm home with his irony. No man in his senses would for one moment choose human traditions at the price of divine behests. Ἀθετεῖν means to make ἄθετον, to do away with what has been laid down; τηρεῖν means to guard, to keep safe, and thus to preserve, i. e., as something dear and valuable.

Mark 7:10

10 After the principle has been driven home beyond the possibility of refutation, Jesus exemplifies (γάρ) by using a flagrant case in illustration. For Moses said, Be honoring thy father and thy mother! and, He that reviles father or mother, let him die the death! But you on your part say, If a man shall say to father or mother, Corban! which is, A gift! whatever from me thou mightest have benefit, you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, putting out of authority the Word of God for your tradition which you passed on as tradition. And many such like things you do.

When Matthew writes, “God said,” and Mark, “Moses said,” both mean the same thing; in v. 13 Mark has “the Word of God” to indicate what Moses said. Jesus quotes the Fourth Commandment, Exod. 20:12. This is not a deduction or a speculation of old rabbis, this is the plainest kind of commandment from God himself, which is recorded in the Torah by Moses. This commandment is even re-enforced by another thing that God and Moses said (Exod. 21:17), which shows how serious God is about having parents honored. In the civil law of the Jews God placed the death penalty on the mere reviling of a father or a mother (κακολογεῖν, not necessarily “to curse” although this too is included). The Hebrew moth yumath is reproduced by θανάτῳτελευτάτω in the LXX and is retained by both Matthew and Mark: “let him die the death.”

Mark 7:11

11 Although it is absolutely divine all this counts for nothing in the estimation of the Pharisees and the scribes when it comes to their self-invented tradition. In contrast with what “Moses (God) said” Jesus puts what “you on your part are saying” (emphatic ὑμεῖς), the present tense λέγετε to indicate their constant and established teaching. Jesus quotes their own teaching, a piece of their “tradition” regarding a son’s obligation to his father or his mother. It is a specimen from their chapter on vows, which they had extended beyond all reason. Any man might withhold help and support from a needy parent by simply declaring that what would be required for such need was vowed to God or to the Temple as a sacred gift. Such a vow, Pharisaic tradition held, outweighed every other consideration and dispensed from every other obligation that involved the money or goods vowed.

Mark retains the Hebrew κορβᾶν for his non-Hebrew readers just as he does in 5:41 and lets them hear the original words and their very sound. But he at once translates: which is δῶρον, “a gift,” i. e., vowed to God, etc. “Corban!” is simply an exclamation and thus a vow that dedicates the money or the goods involved to God, the Temple, etc., and thus removes it from any other use. How soon the man who exclaimed “Corban!” when his father or mother asked him for something would turn over this “gift” to the priests was another matter—sometimes he failed to do so although Jesus is not citing such a case.

The clause ὃἐάνκτλ. describes what is thus vowed away. The accusative ὃ is the ordinary case with the passive verb, here the aorist of ὠφελεῖν: “whatever thou mightest be benefited by from me,” i. e., it is a gift vowed away, this that otherwise might bring thee help and benefit. The indefinite ὃἐάν modifies the exclamatory δῶρον, which makes the construction entirely regular. B.-D. 360, 1 would change ἐάν to ἄν and thus produce a condition of unreality: “thou wouldst have been benefited,” i. e., if it were not corban, “a gift.” R. 1203 and 1023 has the same idea by calling this a case of aposiopesis (part of the sentence suppressed). These grammarians alter what Mark wrote by thinking of a complete conditional sentence of past unreality whereas Mark wrote nothing but an indefinite relative clause; it is ἐάν that makes ὅ indefinite: “whatever”; and ἐξἐμοῦ does not express cause or occasion (R. 599) but source. The matter of vowing things away was greatly abused by the Jews. Thus when a creditor came to collect, and the debtor was reluctant about paying, the creditor cried: “A gift!” and thus compelled the debtor to pay to the priests.

Mark 7:12

12 The construction is regular: ἐάν with the subjunctive (protasis, expectancy) and οὐκέτιἀφίετε (apodosis, present tense with implication of the future). By this trick of corban these Pharisees and scribes let a man no longer do anything for his father or his mother. The regular negative with the infinitive is μή, but here we have οὐδὲνποιῆσαι (R. 1162), οὐδέν because it alone is negatived.

Mark 7:13

13 What this dispensation from doing anything for one’s father or mother really involves is stated by the participial clause: “putting out of authority the Word of God for your tradition which you passed on as tradition.” In ἀκυροῦντες note the negating α plus κῦρος, to leave without authority. And Jesus does not say that these Jews thus abolish the authority of only the Fourth Commandment but of “the Word of God”; for if so plain a divine commandment can be robbed of its authority by these Jews, then the entire Word of God is rendered empty of authority. This conclusion is perfectly sound, not merely abstractly but actually, for the Jews constantly set aside this and that part of the Word, and when Jesus brought the Word to bear on them, they invariably refused to bow to its authority.

The dative τῇπαραδόσει is the dativus commodi, “for your tradition,” i. e., in favor of it. In the relative clause ᾗ is attracted from the accusative to the dative of the antecedent. This clause contains two points, it emphasizes the idea of tradition by adding the verb παρεδώκατε, really: “which you tradition” (pass on as tradition); and it charges these Pharisees and scribes who are now facing Jesus with putting forth the tradition, teaching and spreading it among the people. They are thus just as guilty as were the elders who first invented this tradition.

That the case of the Fourth Commandment is only a single illustration Jesus declares by adding that the Pharisees and scribes keep doing (ποιεῖτε, durative present) many such like things, i. e., things that in like manner rob the divine Word of its authority for the conscience. Thus these men who imagined that they had a case against Jesus not only have their answer, a complete vindication of Jesus and his disciples, but have an indictment launched against themselves, one that is fortified with crushing, absolute proof, against which no defense is possible. The severity of this indictment indicates that Jesus is done with them. They are not merely silenced, they are actually overwhelmed.

Mark 7:14

14 And having called again the multitude to himself, he went on to say to them, Pay attention to me, all of you, and understand! There is nothing outside of a man, by going into him, that is able to defile him, but the things proceeding out of a man are those that defile a man.

The Pharisees and the scribes, apparently quite a delegation, are dismissed with the terrible indictment of Jesus ringing in their ears. The crowd of common people had perhaps withdrawn when this prominent delegation came to speak to Jesus and then watched their superiors when they withdrew. Jesus now calls them to come to himself again, πάλιν indicating that they have been listening to him before, and the middle voice προσκαλεσάμενος means that Jesus called them to himself, πρός to face him. He is concerned with them, for they are the ones who were innocently misled by these Pharisees and scribes, whom they are taught to revere and to follow; in all kindness Jesus tries to set them right. Jesus begins with great emphasis: “Pay attention (really: be hearing), all of you, and understand!” He wants to impress what he now says deeply upon them. Therefore he also puts it all into the simplest and clearest statement which is self-evident, axiomatic, and needs only to be heard properly in order that its truth can be perceived.

Mark 7:15

15 When Jesus says that nothing is outside of a man that by entering into him can possibly defile him he refers to eating with unwashed hands. The Pharisees and scribes claimed that such hands defiled the food they touched and thus defiled the man who ate that food. Jesus says that the entire principle is wrong on which this specific case is based; in fact, it turns the entire principle upside down. For not what enters into but what comes out of a man (Matthew, the mouth) defiles a man (the generic article throughout with ἄνθρωπος, for which we say “a man”). Defilement is not physical but moral and spiritual. It never comes from the outside into a man, i. e., into his mouth, but is in the man, in his heart, and thus comes out of him, i. e., through his mouth. Εἰσπορευόμενον modifies οὐδέν: “nothing on going into” or “by” or “when going into,” etc. The three participles are present because they help to voice a principle that always applies; hence also ἐστί and δύναται are used.

But did God in the Levitical law not forbid certain kinds of food to the Jews, and would eating such food not defile a man? The answer that Jesus is here abrogating the Levitical law is unwarranted; he himself fulfilled every requirement of it as a Jew and retained that law for his disciples until Pentecost (Acts 11:1, etc.). The answer is that it was not the food as food entering the mouth that made unclean but the man’s disregard of the Levitical law which had been given him as a Jew by God, the disobedience he would be voicing by asking for such food and in justifying his eating thereof. So it is exactly as Jesus says. Yet it requires a little thought, consideration, and understanding to get rid of our untrue ideas and to see the full, lucid truth of what Jesus says. The verb κοινόω, “to make common” and thus “to defile” goes with the adjective κοινός occurring in v. 2. With this one pithy statement, the net result of the clash with the Pharisees and the scribes, the multitude is dismissed.

Mark 7:16

16 “If one has ears to hear, let him be hearing!” is usually omitted although there is considerable textual authority for it. If Jesus uttered this imperative, it would certainly have been in place for calling on men to use the ears God had given them.

Mark 7:17

17 And when he came home from the multitude, his disciples went on to inquire of him the parable.

It seems best to translate εἰςοἶκον “home,” as we have done in previous instances. Then the preceding clash with the Pharisees and scribes took place in Capernaum. This, too, is most likely where the delegation from Jerusalem (v. 1) made its headquarters. According to Matt. 15:15 Peter was the spokesman for the disciples. The imperfect “they went on to inquire” intends to describe their action. “Parable” is here used in the wider sense and means a mashal, a pithy saying that requires thought for its proper penetration.

Mark 7:18

18 And he says to them, Thus even you are without understanding! Do you not comprehend that everything from without entering into a man cannot defile him because it does not go into his heart but into the belly and goes out into the privy, it making all food clean?

“Thus” refers to the question of the disciples, which shows that even (καί) they were ἀσύνετοι, minus understanding. Jesus is not asking a rhetorical question but is uttering an exclamation of surprise. The tone is one of rebuke. It continues in the question: “Do you not comprehend,” etc.? It is all so simple that Jesus is surprised at the disciples. His words addressed to the multitude (v. 15) were lucidity itself, so clear that even all these people might understand them. But old, fixed ideas, the result of long training, are hard to shake off. So is this notion that certain foods in themselves produce defilement merely by being eaten apart from the condition of the heart (whether it intended to disobey God or not).

And now Jesus repeats what he said and uses language that is so plain that it becomes drastic. We regard πᾶντὸἔξωθεν as one concept, “everything from without,” and this is modified by εἰσπορευόμενον, “when entering into a man” (τὸνἄνθρωπον with the generic article, meaning any man as in v. 15). Jesus is, of course, speaking of food, any and all kinds of food. Anything in the way of food, coming from without into a man, “cannot defile him.” Jesus repeats this from v. 15; he does it with positiveness. It seems strange to the disciples who had all along thought otherwise. But the truth stands. Jesus can only repeat it, he cannot modify or alter it. No food makes κοινός (v. 2) or defiles (κοινοῦν).

Mark 7:19

19 Why not? How can this be? Jesus states the reason with ὅτι, one which is so clear and which the disciples certainly ought to comprehend (νοεῖν). “Because it does not enter into his heart but (only) into the belly.” The heart is the center of the personality, where the ἐγώ and its will and its thoughts dwell. Defilement is moral, it always involves the heart. Since food does not pass into the heart, how can it possibly defile? Its course is into the κοιλία, the abdominal cavity which contains the stomach and the intestines.

Here the food is digested and sustains the physical organism, and the waste “passes out into the privy.” The density of the disciples makes Jesus talk with great plainness. The ἀφεδρών (the Greeks use ἄφεδρος) is not a “draught” or a “drain” and does not refer to the bowel but means a place to which one retires (ἀπό) and sits down (ἕδρα, seat). This is the course of food in a man: it comes from without, passes through his body, and is then expelled in a natural course.

The reading καθαρίζων is assured, so we need not consider the neuter καθαρίζον. We need not trouble about the construction; this is a nominative absolute or nominativus pendens (R. 1130) which is added in the nominative instead of in the oblique case (B.-D. 137, 3). But a nominative absolute is no more an anacoluthon than is a genitive absolute (contra R. 438 and 413). An anacoluthon would justify the translation of the R. V.: “This he said, making all meats clean.” The nominative case would be made the chief point, the subject of the participle would be obtained from the distant λέγει. But this rendering makes the participial clause a remark by Mark.

The evangelist would be telling us what Jesus really means, namely that Jesus makes all food clean——a remark that is so exceptional for him and at the same time so superfluous (after all that Jesus himself says) that we cannot accept it. The participial clause is beyond question a part of the explanation of Jesus. He is explaining to his disciples how no food defiles a man. The nominative case of the participle is not at all important; in the Greek the participle lends itself to constructions like the one we have here. We read this nominative καθαρίζων just as if it were an accusative, for it modifies the accusative ἀφεδρῶνα.

The A. V. has this correct construction. It fails in understanding the words by making “the draught (the bowel, colon) purge all meats” (remove them from the body). As far as this thought is concerned, Jesus expresses it already in the preceding clause: “and goes out into the privy.” What he now adds is that the privy “makes all food clean.” Καθαρίζων (not the textually unsound neuter καθαρίζον), “making clean,” means “making morally clean,” demonstrating and showing that all foods are clean, that none defile morally. It is the privy that does this, for all foods have their course through the body only, never touch the heart, and thus end in the privy. By being received there the privy shows and proves that the foods never touched the heart at all, never had anything to do with moral defilement, and are thus pronounced clean.

Since the disciples are so dense, the Lord is compelled to give them so coarse an explanation. In this, however, he in no way abrogates the Levitical laws concerning foods. For these laws involved the heart, to transgress them meant to disobey God. These laws changed nothing about the foods themselves, they were what they were, something physical and in that respect all alike. All could be eaten as being clean morally as long as the heart was not involved; but the moment the heart disobeyed God in the matter of food the gravest defilement ensued. All Pharisaic regulations had no divine sanction and thus could not involve the heart.

In fact, when they claimed such sanction they had to be repudiated by the heart if this was to remain undefiled in God’s sight. By thus pointing to the heart, where alone moral cleanness and moral defilement can occur, Jesus clarified and made plain the entire subject of τὰβρώματα, “foods.” The nominative case καθαρίζων is only a formal point of grammar, the vital grammatical point is the subject involved in the participle, which is the preceding accusative.

Mark 7:20

20 Moreover, he went on to say, That which goes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, the considerations, the base ones, go out, fornications, thefts, adulteries, covetings, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, a wicked eye, blasphemy, arrogance, foolishness. All these wicked things come out from within and defile a man.

With ἔλεγε a pause is indicated which allowed the disciples to absorb what Jesus has just said; he then proceeds to state the other side of the subject by stating what it is that really produces defilement. Jesus first states the summary proposition: “That which goes out of a man, that (alone) defiles the man,” i. e., morally, in the sight of God. The generic articles with ἄνθρωπος continue. The idea is not that defilement ensues by the mere act of going out, when the contents of the heart spill out through the mouth. Naturally, from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. It is what is inside of a man and what on coming out reveals itself as what it is that causes the defilement.

Mark 7:21

21 With γάρ Jesus brings the exemplifications. He first explains what he means by τὸἐκπορευόμενον, “that which goes out.” It is something that starts “from within,” namely “out of the heart of men” (here he uses the plural instead of the generic singular). On the New Testament and the Greek idea of “heart” see v. 19. In this center of man’s being originates what eventually comes forth. These are οἱδιαλογισμοί, a term that is always used in an evil sense in the New Testament even when no modifier is added, C.-K. 683. The term means “considerations,” well-considered thoughts and reasonings, and wards off the idea that the man does not realize what he lets his heart say.

Matthew calls them πονηροί, actively wicked, Mark has the same word (neuter) in v. 23. Here he calls these thoughts κακοί, “base,” far below the moral standard and thus harmful, “bad” morally. Moreover, the adjective is added by a second article and thus has the emphasis and is like an apposition, even like a climax, R. 776.

Matthew abbreviates the list to six items, Mark gives the entire catalog of twelve. Six are plurals, six singulars, the difference being only formal. We see this from πλεονεξίαι, an abstract noun in the plural, which is idiomatic in the Greek yet foreign to the English, R. 408. We do not add “the considerations, the base ones,” to the first group of plurals and make this consist of seven items; for note the article and the adjective which are absent in the twelve specifications, which appositionally unfold what is meant by “the base considerations.” The fact that some of the sins in this list are acts, others vices, makes no difference when we recall the exposition of the commandments in Matt. 5:21, etc. The order of the first items varies in the MSS., but that in the R. V. is best.

Some find a certain order and connection between the items and make them a chain of connected links; but this does not seem to have been in the mind of Jesus. Why does he begin with fornications? Why does he separate fornications and adulteries (both forbidden in the Sixth Commandment)? Why does he separate thefts and covetings, both closely related? “Wickednesses,” last in the plural group, seems to summarize all other wicked acts that come out of the heart.

Mark 7:22

22 There is no closely linked order in the group of singulars. Matthew has “false testimonies,” which Mark covers by “deceit.” The ἀσέλγεια means Schwelgerei, Ausgelassenheit, lascivious carousing with all lack of restraint. The evil eye is envy, Matt. 20:15. Blasphemy (R. V. railing) is all vicious language that is directed against God or against men. Arrogance is all pride and overbearing conduct. The last is again of a general nature, ἀφροσύνη, “foolishness,” senselessness, the opposite of σωφροσύνη, soundness of mind, sanity. All forms of moral senselessness are meant in thought, word, and deed. Jesus reveals what a cesspool the human heart is.

Mark 7:23

23 Mark omits the reference which Matthew has to the defilement of eating with unwashed hands. His Gentile Christian readers do not need to be reminded of this Pharisaic tradition after it has been so fully explained in v. 3, etc. Jesus again summarizes: “all these wicked things,” i. e., morally vicious, and once more repeats: “they come out from within” (ἔσωθεν, v. 21), are born in the heart and appear in word and in deed. These and these alone “defile a man” with the defilement that God abhors.

Mark 7:24

24 Now from there, having arisen, he went away to the borders of Tyre and Sidon and, having gone into a house, was intending no one to know it; and he was not able to escape notice.

The exceptional δέ should be noted; Mark nearly always introduces new sections with καί. This aims to say that on top of the pronouncement which refused to call certain foods unclean Jesus went to the boundaries (μεθόρια) of a pagan country. It is jumping at conclusions to say that ἐκεῖθεν, “from there,” means from Genesaret because this locality is mentioned in 6:53. We have every reason to think that the delegation of Pharisees and scribes confronted Jesus in Capernaum and not in the retired corner of land called Genesaret. From Capernaum Jesus went to the Phœnician border. He thus continues his course of withdrawing from the populous centers to retired places and thus avoiding his enemies.

This was not flight but well-considered prudence. Since εἰς may mean “to” as well as “into,” we cannot say whether Jesus crossed the boundary or only approached it. Matthew has “the parts of Tyre and Sidon,” which refers to a section of Syrophœnicia and not merely to the border sections of Galilee. The participle ἀναστάς is merely circumstantial, it does not mean that Jesus rose from a sitting posture to go away but is like the English: “he up and left.”

It was perhaps the house of some friend which Jesus entered. His intention was that no one should know about his presence. The imperfect ἤθελε describes the intention and at the same time hints at a certain outcome. This is stated in the aorist: “and he could not escape notice.” For one thing, Jesus was not alone, he had the Twelve with him. For another thing, the place was small, and any stranger would be noticed. We have no reason whatever to think that the house where Jesus stopped was that of a pagan, and that he thus exemplified his teaching regarding defilement by his own conduct.

The intention of remaining unknown shows that Jesus did not desire to work in public, much less engage in foreign mission work. Matthew omits what Mark preserves. These differences are not due to any document or documents that were available to the writers. Matthew was present, and Mark has the word of Peter who also was present. Each tells the story in his own way.

Mark 7:25

25 This time it is Mark who abbreviates by leaving out the woman’s first appeal for mercy to Jesus as the Son of David, the silence of Jesus, the interference of the disciples, and the reply of Jesus about the extent of his mission. But immediately a woman, having heard about him, whose little daughter had an unclean spirit, having come, fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by race. And she was requesting him to expel the demon out of her daughter.

This woman at once heard about Jesus, namely that he was at hand. She hurries to him lest he leave, and her golden opportunity be lost. She had heard all about Jesus long before this time and, pagan though she was, believed in his wondrous power to help her. It seems most likely that Jesus and his disciples had just dined in the house where they had stopped; that is why Jesus speaks of food and crumbs. The woman had anxiously waited outside until Jesus and the disciples came out. Her little daughter was a demoniac.

Mark preserves these diminutives where they are in place. Even children were victims of possession. On this subject see 1:23. In ἧς … αὐτῆς we have an idiomatic pleonasm: “whose … her,” which is permissible in the Greek, R. 1205. Mark tells us how the woman fell down at Jesus’ feet in the attitude of the most humble supplication.

Mark 7:26

26 Here he, however, interrupts himself with a parenthetical δέ which informs us that this woman was “a Greek,” the term being used in the sense of our Gentile; she was not a Jewess but a pagan in religion. As regards her nationality Mark calls her a Syrophœnician and uses a term that was modern at that time. Syrophœnicia is the coast land and is distinguished from Libophœnicia which is farther back from the coast. This parenthetical statement is necessary for our understanding of what follows.

The narrative continues. The woman “was requesting” (ἠρώτα, the descriptive imperfect, the verb full of respect) him to expel the demon out of her daughter. The subfinal ἵνα, which is equal to an infinitive, states what the woman requested. Her faith is apparent, R. 993.

Mark 7:27

27 And he went on to say to her, Let the children be filled first; for it is not excellent to take the bread of the children and to throw it to the little pet dogs.

Matthew omits αὐτῇ, “to her,” as though the words were not addressed directly to the woman. The statement is, indeed, like a general proposition, it is even expressed in proverbial form. It is intended for the disciples as well as for the woman. Mark preserves the preliminary command: “Let the children be filled first!” “The children” are the Jews, and this woman, as Mark has just told us, is not a Jewess. Let no one present misunderstand—this Gentile woman cannot come in on the same level as the Jews. The Jews come “first” as far as the mission and the ministration of Jesus are concerned.

On the verb χορτάζειν compare 6:42; in its common use its coarseness is forgotten. Yet in the adverb “first” there lies a concealed promise, namely that the Gentiles do come next. Jesus is not turning this pagan woman’s faith away, he is instructing that faith, preparing it for the gift he is about to extend.

With γάρ Jesus adds an explanation in lucid figurative language. Note well that he does not say: οὐκἔξεστιν, “it is not right,” but only: οὐκαλόνἐστι, “it is not a fine thing to do.” And he does not say “dogs” as our versions translate the diminutive κυνάρια, but “little dogs,” such as are kept as pets in the house. The difference is vital. In the Orient dogs have no owners but run wild and serve as scavengers for all garbage and offal. Such “dogs” the Jews called all Gentiles—ownerless, in every way unclean, always to be driven off. It is an entirely different conception when Jesus speaks of “the little pet dogs” in referring to the Gentiles.

These have owners who keep them even in the house and feed them by throwing them bits from the table. No Oriental street dogs were allowed in a house, to say nothing of a dining-room or at dining tables.

“The bread of the children” is the ministry of Jesus and the blessings he dispenses. This bread is intended for the chosen nation, the Jews. They recline at table while Jesus dispenses his blessings to them. Any little pet dog in the house is not allowed to lie on one of the couches as if he, too, were a child; this would certainly not be καλόν, “a fine thing” to allow. Any pet dog is given food in a different way; he is allowed to pick up anything the children may drop while eating at table. God did not exclude the Gentiles altogether from the ministry of Jesus.

Let us note that “the little pet dogs” does not refer to all the Gentiles in the world but only to such as lived among Jews or came into contact with them in Palestine and could thus in a way obtain some of their blessings. The words of Jesus are thus not nearly as “hard” as some interpreters have made them. These words are not a “temptation” which this woman is asked to overcome. All such ideas destroy the point of what Jesus said. All that Jesus does is to ask the disciples and the woman to accept the divine plan that Jesus must work out his mission among the Jews alone, and that thus the blessings dispensed by that mission during his ministry shall be set before the Jews alone in all their abundance. Any share of Gentile individuals in any of these blessings can be only incidental during Jesus’ ministry in Israel. Since Jesus was now about to pass through Syrophœnician territory, it was vital that this be understood especially right here and now when a Gentile woman was begging on her knees for Messianic help.

Mark 7:28

28 But she answered and says to him, Yes, Lord; and the little pet dogs underneath the table eat of the little crumbs of the little children.

In ἀπεκρίθηκαὶλέγει we see how the aorist and the historical present are combined in the Greek; in English this combination would be wrong. The woman’s answer is wonderful in every way. She accepts wholeheartedly what Jesus says about the divine arrangement of his Messianic mission as being confined to the chosen nation. Her consent to it all is far more than formal or superficial: she understands and consents and thus submits without question or thought of objection. She does not even ask why God did as he did. It is God’s arrangement—that is enough.

The keen ears of her faith catch also the full implication of what Jesus says of the children and their little pet dogs. In Homer they are called τραπεζῆεςκύνες, “dogs fed from their master’s table” (Liddell and Scott). The present ἐσθίει means: “they usually eat,” and ἀπό is to be taken in the partitive sense: “some of the little crumbs,” all of them would require the accusative, R. 519 and 577 on Matt. 15:27. Since they are fed thus, these pet dogs are naturally “underneath the table,” are allowed to be there. Mark has “little crumbs of the little children,” τῶνπαιδίων; Matthew the more expressive τῶνκυρίωναὐτῶν, “of their lords.”

The beauty of the woman’s reply is that she keeps entirely to the figurative language of Jesus and shows that she understands and accepts all that Jesus implies. She thus uses the language of Jesus himself to express all her faith in him; she is begging as one of those little pet dogs a few tiny crumbs which the children in eating inadvertently keep dropping to the floor. She renews her appeal with Jesus’ own words, certain that he cannot deny what these words hold out to her. Here, indeed, is faith in all its lovely beauty.

Mark 7:29

29 And he said to her, Because of this word be going. The demon has gone out of thy daughter. And having gone away to her house, she found the little child having been laid upon the bed, and the demon having gone out.

Matthew has Jesus praising the woman’s faith, Mark has him rewarding her confession of faith: “because of this word.” Jesus did both. Matthew lets Jesus say: “Let it be to thee as thou wilt”; Mark: “The demon has gone out of thy daughter.” Jesus said both. But it is unwarranted to think that Jesus kept the woman on tenterhooks for the purpose of making her faith stretch itself to the utmost as one holds a morsel higher and higher to make a dog jump to the limit of his ability before rewarding him. The greatness of this woman’s faith does not lie in its overcoming obstacles that were set up by Jesus and growing greater as these obstacles were increased. The greatness was in submissively accepting and in rightly understanding what Jesus said about his Messianic mission. Her great distress did not dull her ears or darken her mind to Jesus’ word.

The view that she overcame the reluctance of Jesus to help her attributes to Jesus what was wholly foreign to him. The woman did not battle with Jesus and overcome him. She only made his word her own and uttered her faith in his word by her own confession of that word.

This confession is most worthy of note as far as our faith and our confession are concerned. Every misconception on which one relies produces a false faith, no matter how strong the reliance on that misconception may be. All correct knowledge of the facts revealed by Jesus is the eternal basis of true faith; and faith is great in the measure of the reliance it places on this basis, neither questioning nor rationalizing about the facts involved nor about the divine will revealed in them. When this faith is manifested in humble confession, this delights Jesus to the highest degree. Such a faith he desires to find in all of us.

Jesus assures the woman: “The demon has gone out of thy daughter,” the emphasis being on the verb which is placed forward. Let her be going to see how Jesus has answered her prayer. When did the demon go out? While the perfect tense ἐξελήλυθε implies that the demon is now out, it implies also that he went out before this time. This is a remarkable miracle. It is wrought at a distance. The demon obeyed the silent will of Jesus, which reached him from a distance. Such a miracle this woman had asked of Jesus, and such a miracle she received. We should like to know more about the subsequent life and about the end of this woman, but the evangelists make Jesus and the miracle the chief points and end with those.

Mark 7:30

30 The woman hurried home as Jesus bade her do. Her faith knew what she would find. No pagan remedies had helped, but the assurance on the part of Jesus gave her certainty and joy. She found her little child (τὸπαιδίον) having been laid upon the bed (the perfect participle) and thus lying there. Her house could not have been far away. Because the girl is lying thus some think that she was still weak and exhausted, but this is not the way in which Jesus heals and helps.

The child was resting. While she was under the power of the demon she was, no doubt, driven about and robbed of rest. The very sight of her lying quietly assured the mother that the child was free. “The demon having gone out” repeats the assurance which Jesus gave her when he sent her home. It was, indeed, exactly as he had said.

Mark 7:31

31 And again having gone out from the borders of Tyre, he went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the midst of the borders of Decapolis.

“Again” means that Jesus started once more; this time “out from the borders of Tyre.” In v. 24 we see that the boundaries are referred to. Up to this time Jesus had not been on foreign soil, but now Mark states positively that “he went through Sidon,” which lies five miles north of Tyre. But Jesus is only on a journey, we hear of no teaching or miracles. It seems that he remained unknown, and that he himself sought to remain so, and that he devoted his time to the instruction of his disciples, which was the main occupation of Jesus during the last part of his ministry.

Mark alone tells about Jesus’ passing through Sidon. What other points Jesus touched we do not know. Matthew as well as Mark report as the destination the Sea of Galilee, its eastern side. Matthew writes παρά, Jesus passed alongside of the sea and went beyond it; Mark states that this was “in the midst (ἀνὰμέσον) of the borders of Decapolis.” We thus see that Jesus moves on the outskirts, keeps away from his enemies, secures time for his disciples, and, where he does come into contact with people, helps such as he had not reached before. The Decapolis is the territory of the ten cities, a region to the southeast of the lake. The healed demoniac had filled this country with the great news of what Jesus had done for him. As the Syrophœnician woman knew about Jesus, so the people in this region must have known him even more.

Mark 7:32

32 And they bring to him one deaf and dumb and beseech him that he lay the hand on him.

Matt. 15:30 gives us a summary of the activity of Jesus while he was in the borders of Decapolis. Mark selects one of the miracles Jesus performed in this territory, and it is he alone who reports it. They bring a deaf and dumb man to Jesus. Although μογιλάλος means “thick-voiced,” speaking with difficulty, the LXX uses it in the meaning dumb, which is its meaning in this instance. What sounds the man could make were unintelligible. The people have their idea as to how Jesus heals, so they ask him to lay the hand on this man and thus heal him of his double ailment (ἵνα is subfinal, it states what was asked of Jesus).

Mark 7:33

33 And having taken him from the multitude to himself in private, he pushed his fingers into his ears and, having spit, touched his tongue, and, having looked up to the heaven, he sighed, and he says to him, Ephphatha! which is, Be completely opened! And his ears were completely opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and he started to speak rightly.

Jesus did not lay his hand on the man, he used an exceptional procedure in his case. But some fail to grasp what Jesus did, and some of the interpretations are unwarranted. This deaf-mute is brought to Jesus amid a great crowd. He is much excited because of this crowd and of his being brought to this strange man whom he did not know even by name. Jesus is concerned about him because he is in this state. He takes him entirely away from the multitude; the middle aorist participle means that Jesus took the man to himself; in private (κατʼ ἰδίαν, the idiomatic phrase) emphasizes this point.

This preliminary action (hence expressed by a participle) is both wise and significant for the man. He is alone with Jesus, removed from the excitement and the distraction of the crowd. His eyes watch Jesus, and he understands that Jesus is about to do something for him, for taking him away must have been done for some special purpose. Thus the man’s attention is riveted upon Jesus alone.

In the same way the next actions of Jesus speak to the deaf-mute. Jesus uses sign language that is simple and plain so the deaf-mute cannot help but understand. He thrusts his fingers into the man’s ears. Here was the seat of one of his ailments—those ears were deaf. But why do those two fingers (why do some interpreters say thumbs?) draw attention to the deafness of the ears? The thought is conveyed to the man that Jesus intends to do something about this deafness. We now have a finite verb, this is one of the main actions. Let us note in connection with it that the eyes of Jesus undoubtedly spoke to the eyes of the man.

First the deaf ears, next the mute tongue. The sign language continues. First a minor action which is again expressed by a participle: Jesus “having spit.” Some commentators say that Jesus spit upon the man’s tongue, or, finding this too coarse, that he spit upon his fingers and conveyed the spittle to the man’s tongue; and then notes are appended about the supposed healing powers of human spittle. Where does Mark say or intimate any of these things? Jesus spit and then touched the man’s tongue, of course, with a finger. Both actions tell the man that Jesus wants him to centre his attention on his mouth and on his tongue.

That mouth and that tongue are speechless, Jesus must be intending to do something about this ailment. The actions are symbolic. To talk about the spittle as a medium for conveying the power of Jesus is not justified by the text; nor is the laying on of his hand in other cases a medium. The miracles are wrought by the will of the Lord, sometimes by that will alone, often by that will expressed in an almighty word even as in this instance. Touching with the hand is only symbolical.

Mark 7:34

34 More sign language follows. Again a participle expresses the subordinate action: Jesus looks up to heaven. The man watches Jesus do this. He grasps the idea that the help that Jesus brings him is from heaven, is divine, almighty help that is far different from anything merely human. With this upward look Jesus sighs. The man is to see the sigh, it is part of the sign language which Jesus is using.

The heavenly help is one that should be sought with the sigh of earnest longing, a sigh that is in itself already a prayer. It is a misconception to regard this sigh of Jesus as a prayer of his to God to enable him to work the miracle. Such a conception reduces Jesus to the level of the prophets and the apostles who wrought their miracles, not by their own power, but by that of God (Christ). The additional remark that the sigh expressed also the sympathy of Jesus for the afflicted man introduces a diverse element—once the sigh is a prayer, again it is something else.

The man understood the sign language of Jesus. It is impossible to assume the contrary, i. e., that Jesus had failed in his effort to have the deaf-mute understand these signs. We may say that this language of Jesus was intended to arouse faith in the man. But it would be unwarranted to make the miracle that now followed dependent on the man’s faith. It depended wholly on the will of Jesus. Jesus sometimes tries to instil faith before the miracle, he sometimes lets faith follow after the miracle. It all depends on the case. The deaf-mute may well have received a spark of faith before the almighty word was spoken; but it was not his faith that enabled Jesus to heal him, it was solely the power and the will of Jesus.

After the man has been fully prepared, Jesus speaks the one word “Ephphatha,” the Aramaic imperative ethpael. Mark preserves the very word that Jesus uttered just as he does in 5:41. He wants his Gentile Christian readers to have the very syllable and the sounds that came from Jesus’ lips in working this miracle. But he at once translates: Διανοίχθητι, the peremptory aorist imperative: “Be opened!” διά adding the idea of complete, perfect opening. The neuter ὅ refers to ephphatha as a word. The command expressed the will of Jesus, and that will performs what it wills.

The idea of opening refers not only to the ears which were stopped by being deaf but equally to the tongue which was held by a fetter (δεσμός, v. 35) and required opening of that bond to free the tongue for speech. This word of Jesus penetrated the ears of the deaf-mute—he heard its almighty sound. We cannot say whether any of the people were near enough to hear it also. The main thing is that the deaf man heard it.

Mark 7:35

35 Mark reports the effect of this one word of Jesus quite fully by telling how the man’s ears (here ἀκοαί) were completely opened, how his tongue was loosed from its bond, two aorists to express the mighty facts. An imperfect (inchoative, R. 885) follows regarding the tongue: “he started to speak rightly” whereas before he had been able, like so many deaf-mutes, to utter only unintelligible sounds. Instead of διηνοίχθησαν (first aorist passive) some texts have the reading ἠνοίγησαν (second passive without διά).

Mark 7:36

36 And he charged them to tell no one; but as much as he went on to charge them, the more beyond measure they went on heralding it. And beyond measure they continued to be amazed, saying, Excellently has he done all things! Both the deaf he makes to hear and the speechless to speak.

Matthew (15:30, 31) reports that Jesus healed many more on this occasion: dumb, cripples, lame, and blind. A multitude was present as Mark also reports in connection with the healing of the deaf-mute. The command not to report the latter miracle must thus be extended to include also the many others. Since Mark himself records no reason for this command of Jesus, we are left to figure this out ourselves. Various opinions are naturally held. The best, we judge, is that which takes into account the time in the ministry of Jesus.

He has only a few months left, and he does not want the excitement to spread far and wide about his being the Messiah. The people generally connected earthly, political ideas with that title, the very ideas which Jesus combated. So he did what he could to keep his miracles quiet at this time. But, as in this instance, he did not succeed.

The more he went on to command, the more they went on to publish what he had done. On ὅσονκτλ see R. 967; μᾶλλον is to be construed with the comparative περισσότερον. Some texts have αὐτοί as the subject of ἐκήρυσσον in contrast with αὐτός, both being emphatic: he went on to charge, they went on to publish, both are descriptive imperfects, one regarding what Jesus wanted, the other regarding what the people did.

Mark 7:37

37 Mark explains this action of the people. He uses the strong imperfect passive: they were thrown into a condition of amazement and continued thus. He adds the compound adverb (R. 546) ὑπερπερισσῶς, “beyond measure,” beyond what already abounds. Being in such a state, they felt that they could not restrain themselves. Matthew reports that they glorified the God of Israel and thus indicates that most of these people were Gentiles. Yet this was not a heathen land like Phœnicia (v. 24, etc.), it was part of the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, which, with Galilee, was considered Jewish territory.

Mark tells us exactly what the people said: “Excellently has he done all things!” the perfect πεποίηκε referring to all the past acts but as they still appear at the present moment. Note “all things” and consider what this praise means. Then these people generalize as the present tense ποιεῖ together with the plurals show: “both the deaf he makes to hear and the speechless to speak.” The A. V.’s translation is correct and not the R. V.’s which has “even … and.” The deaf are not stressed beyond the speechless. These people rightly conclude that Jesus can at any time (the present tense in a general proposition) make the deaf (any of them) to hear and the speechless (any of them) to speak. Note that ἀλάλους matches λαλεῖν, “the speechless to speak.”

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.