Mark 7
OGCMark 7:1-8
10. CONFLICT WITH PHARISEES 7:1-23.
a. Conflict over washings 7:1-8
TEXT 7:1-8
And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen, hands. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders: and when they come from the marketplace, except they wash themselves, they eat not: and many other things there be, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels. And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands? And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
This people honoureth me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.
Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 7:1-8
Did these Pharisees and scribes make a special trip from Jerusalem just to criticize Jesus? Discuss.
What is meant by unwashen, or defiled hands?
Are we to understand from Mark 7:3 that all the Jews observed the tradition of the elders?
Who were the elders? What is meant by tradition?
Why bathe after going to the marketplace?
Is the word baptize here used i.e. in Mark 7:4 the same as used in reference to baptizing people? If so how could it be applied to couches?
In what sense were the hands of the disciples common?
Wasn-’t it unkind for Jesus to call these men hypocrites?
In what sense had the Pharisees honored God with their lips?
Just what is vain worship?
Please show just how such persons left the command of God.
Is Jesus saying such persons prefer the precepts of men to the commandments of God? Why?
COMMENT 7:1-8
TIMESummer A.D. 29. PLACEIn or near Capernaum.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat 15:1-2; Matthew 7-9.
OUTLINE1. Gathering for criticism, Mark 7:1-2. 2. The ceremonial carefulness of the Pharisees, Mark 7:3-4. 3. Criticism offered and answered, Mark 7:5-8.
ANALYSIS 7:1-8
I.
GATHERING FOR CRITICISM, Mark 7:1-2.
Composed of Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem.
They were there to criticize the lack of ceremonial washing.
II.
THE CEREMONIAL CAREFULNESS OF THE PHARISEES, Mark 7:3-4.
Never ate until they were ceremonially cleani.e. according to traditionno law of God required it.
Never returned from the marketplace or used cups, pots, pans without ceremonial washings.
III.
CRITICISM OFFERED AND ANSWERED, Mark 7:5-8.
Why do your disciples fail to keep the tradition of the elders?
You are fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy of the hypocrites who speak one thing and do another.
Your worship is vain.
You neglect the command of God for the traditions of men.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
1-4. The place is still Capernaum. Which came from Jerusalem. Literally, having come. The scribes and Pharisees who are mentioned here are probably Galilaeans who had been at Jerusalem and had just returned thence. The definite article is wanting before the participle. Its presence would indicate that they were a delegation from the capital; but probably these were Galilaean religionists, who, returning from Jerusalem, perhaps after consultation there, made it their first work to come together to Jesus and see what he was doing.They saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiledliterally, with commonhands, With hands in the ordinary state. Not with dirty handsthat was not the point of objectionbut with hands unwashen, not ceremonially purified according to their ideas of necessity.Some of his disciples were doing thus, not all of theman indication that he had given them teaching that would render them indifferent to the practice of the Pharisees in this matter, but that only a part of them had yet been freed from their scruples on the subject.Mark 7:3-4 are parenthetical, and the best manuscripts insert an and at the beginning of Mar 7:5, which disturbs the grammatical construction and makes a broken sentence. This led copyists to add they found fault in Mark 7:2, to complete the structure; but the addition is cancelled by all the chief editors of the text.
The parenthetical passage (Mark 7:3-4) is wholly peculiar to Mark and is devoted to the explanation, for the benefit of Gentile readers, of the custom of the Pharisees, shared by the Jews in general, about ceremonial cleansings. The Pharisees, and all the Jews, A loose popular expression to show that this custom of the Pharisees was widely received; not to be pressed, as if it declared absolute unanimity. Many, of course, had no time for these practices, and the Pharisees despised all who neglected them for that reason or for any other, and thought there was scarcely a hope for them. (See John 7:49 for an utterance of this feeling.)Except they wash their hands oft, or diligently, pugme. Literally, with the fist. Probably descriptive of the washing of one hand by rubbing it with the other. The Sinaitic Manuscript alone has pukna, frequently, which Tischendorf alone among editors adopts.And when they come from the market, where in the crowd defilement might most easily be contracted.Except they wash, they eat not. The word is baptizo, ean me baptisontai. So in Luke 11:38 the Pharisee wondered that Jesus had not first bathed himself (ebaptisthe) before dinner. It is not the baptizing of their hands, but of themselves, or, strictly, the being baptized or bathed, that was thus insisted upon. The word baptize is used precisely as in 2 Kings 5:14, where it is said of Naaman, He dipped himself seven times in Jordan. From the strict literal signification, to immerse or submerge, it comes naturally in certain connections to acquire the sense to wash by immersing, to cleanse, of course only in cases where the dipping is into clean water. So Grimm, N. T. Lexicon.) Bathe is an admissible translation in this connection, and any difficulties about giving the word its proper meaning here are purely imaginary. In Mark 7:4 the word for washings, in washings of cups, etc., is from the same root, baptismous, a derivative of baptizo. But it is not the word that is used to denote the Christian rite, which is a neuter word, baptisma, while this is masculine, a form that is found only here and in Hebrews 6:2; Hebrews 9:10. Its signification is properly given by Liddel and Scott in their Greek and English Lexicon, a dipping in water. It indicates sometimes, in certain connections, a thorough cleansing by water, which would naturally be made, in the case of the objects here mentioned, by dipping, according to the literal signification of the word. The cups (poteria) were drinking-cups.As for the pots, the Greek word xestai is a corruption of the Latin sextaurius, a pot that held about a pint. These were ordinarily wooden vessels.The brasenor properly bronzevessels were for similar purposes with the wooden. The law provided, at least in certain cases of defilement, that earthen vessels should be broken, and that wooden ones should be rinsed in water (Leviticus 15:12).The word translated tables (klinon) cannot possibly mean that; it is beds or couches, and may refer to the platforms on which they reclined around the table, which must often be thoroughly washed for fear of defilement, or to the cushions, which would need washing quite as much, and very likely would be washed oftener. But the words and of tables are omitted by some good manuscripts, by Tishendorf, and by the revisers.
The greater part of these minute requirements lay outside of the Mosaic law. These things, Mark says, they have received to hold; and they do them holding the tradition of the elders, the interpretations and supplements of the law, brought down orally from the men of an earlier time. Tradition was the ecclesiastical version of the lawthe law as it came out of the hands of the great teachers. It was regarded as equally authoritative with the written law itself, and, by some, more so. It was the very life and mission of the Pharisees to keep the traditional interpretations in full force. (See Farrar, Life of Christ, 2. 471.) Whoever reads such descriptions as are given by Farrar and Geikie of the ingenious wickedness with which this was attempted will not wonder at the denunciations of our Lord or be surprised that the Pharisees were his natural enemies. This was a part of the bondage from which he came to set men free.
Mark 7:5-7. Of course they must call him to account, and not the disciplesthe rabbi, not the pupils. He and they were reproved oftener for neglecting the traditions than for departing from the genuine law. His quotation in reply is almost verbally exact from Isaiah 29:13 in the LXX., the sole variationteaching for doctrines the commandments of men, instead of teaching doctrines and commandments of menbeing identical in Matthew and Mark. Traditionalism has met him in its extreme form, and he does not miss his opportunity to scorch it with the fire of his wrath.Perhaps the tone of indignation is even stronger in Matthew than in Mark. Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocritesi.e. concerning such hypocrites as you, in his own age or in any other. He condemned outward worship without heart, the profession of the lips with no inward devotion or obedience.Isaiah was full of such denunciations (as chap, Mark 1:11-20), and so were all the prophets. Often, as here, they declared that it was in vain; it was empty, fruitless work; it went for nothing, Besides the heartlessness, and as another reason for rejecting such worship, God condemns the foisting upon his religion of human traditions and commandments. His worship must be upon the basis of his own requirements, and no human arrangement may take its place beside what he has appointed. The introduction of human tradition was the point in which the passage from Isaiah was directly applicable to the Pharisees.
Mark 7:8. For should be omitted at the beginning of this verse, and so should as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do, at the end. So this strong statement stands alone: laying aside (or leaving) the commandment of God, ye hold the traditions of men. He charges them, not with addition, but with substitution. They have forsaken command for tradition, God for men. The elders are their chief authority, not Moses or Jehovah; they are not serving God. So, in spirit, Jeremiah 2:12-13. The rebuke is there for idolatry; but in the sight of God the sin of the Pharisees was as heinous as that. (W. N. Clarke)
FACT QUESTIONS 7:1-8
What record does Luke give that is very much like this?
Who were these scribes and Pharisees?
Why conclude this was not an official delegation?
Did the disciples have dirty hands?
What has been said earlier about the lack of time for eating?
For whose benefit were Mark 7:3-4 placed in the text?
Read John 7:49 and show how it relates.
What is the literal meaning of wash their hands oft.?
Is there some connection with what Naaman the leper did (2 Kings 5:14) and what these Pharisees did? Explain.
How is the word washing or baptismous different than the word used for the action of Christian baptism?
Show how immersion is a perfectly natural thought in the washings here described.particularly with the tables or couches.
How did the bondage of tradition become a yoke too heavy to bear?
Why speak to Jesus and not to His disciples?
Do you imagine the Jews who heard the rebuke of Jesus believed it? Did it make them angry? Was it fair? Was it loving?
Jesus did not charge them with addition to the law of God but with what? Read Jeremiah 2:12-13.
Mark 7:1-23
SUMMARY 6:17:23
The testimony for Jesus furnished by the preceding section, is based chiefly on the opinions which men formed concerning him. The disciples, though slow and hard of heart to realize his true nature, were constrained by the continued demonstration to acknowledge his inherent divine power. The masses of the people who had witnessed his miracles were wild with excitement wherever he went, and they brought to him their sick from every quarter, a practice which could not possibly have been kept up had not his cures been real and unfailing. His enemies, though they differed in opinion as to the source of his miraculous power, with one consent acknowledged its reality, and none of them counted him less than a prophet. The strange conceit that he was John the Baptist, or that he was one of the old prophets raised to life again, attests the struggle of unbelieving minds in trying to solve the problem of his power and of his being. Even the Nazarenes, who, of all his enemies, knew him most intimately and rejected him most scornfully, were constrained to wonder whence he obtained his wisdom and his mighty works. There was only one solution of the problem which was satisfying to the mind, and those alone were satisfied with their own conclusion and rested in it, who believed him to be the Christ and the Son of God. And to this day the men who have rejected this conclusion and have tried to account for the career of Jesus in some other way, have been driven to conceits as baseless and as unreasonable as any of those adopted by the Jews.McGarvey.
Mark 7:9-13
**B. CONFLICT OVER PARENTAL CARE. 7:9-13
TEXT 7:9-13**
And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death: but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, Given to God; ye no longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother; making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 7:9-13
What is meant by the expression full well as in Mark 7:9?
Did these Jews accept the fact that they had rejected the commandment of God? Does this carry any warning for us today?
What were the two areas of respect for parents? i.e. what is involved in the word honorand speaking evil?
Was there a death penalty for speaking evil of father or mother?
Explain in your own words the use of the expression Corban.
What possible advantage was there in the use of Corban?
If any belief or practice today makes void or meaningless the word of God can we expect the same rebuke? Cite examples.
COMMENT
TIMESummer A.D. 29. PLACEIn or near Capernaum.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat 15:3-6.
OUTLINE1. Jesus-’ accusation:you reject the commandment of God, Mark 7:9. 2. The fourth commandment is a specific example, Mark 7:10-12. 3. The word of God is made void by your tradition, Mark 7:13.
ANALYSIS
I.
JESUS-’ ACCUSATION:YOU REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, Mark 7:9.
In a fine, beautiful, admirable sense you reject the commandment of God.
You prefer your tradition to the commandments of God.
II.
THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT IS A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, Mark 7:10-12.
Moses was very plain (Exodus 20:12; Exodus 21:17) about the honor to parents.
You have set aside the law of God by your traditionwhat belongs to the parents is supposedly given to the temple (or the priests).
Your mother and father can starve while you justify your selfishness and disobedience by tradition.
III.
THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY YOUR TRADITION. Mark 7:13.
The authority of God’s word is set aside by your tradition.
There are many other examples that could be cited.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I.
JESUS-’ ACCUSATION:YOU REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD.
Mark 7:9. And he said unto them probably indicates a break in the discourse; caused, perhaps, by indignant interruptions, or by a call for particulars to illustrate so broad and fearful a charge. So their ancestors asked, Wherein have we despised thy name? (Malachi 1:6; Malachi 3:8; Malachi 3:13).Whether called for or not, he was ready with particulars to illustrate the substitution of tradition for command. Full welli. e. finely, beautifully, admirablyye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. The adverb is the same as in Mark 7:6: Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you. The repetition is intentional, and the word this time is scathingly ironical: Admirably do you fulfill the word that Isaiah so admirably spoke concerning you. The holy indignation is thoroughly aroused, and he cares not how heavily he lays on the lash. (W. N. Clarke)
II.
THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT IS A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE.
Mark 7:10-12. Yet his first illustration is not the one that called out the question. Instead of beginning with the traditions respecting defilements by contact and the necessary cleansings, he goes at once to the Decalogue, and convicts them of setting aside the fundamental law of God to Israel. Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother. An exact quotation from the LXX. of Exodus 20:12.He adds a second extract, giving the same law as expounded and applied in the legislation of Moses. Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Emphatic way of saying, Let him die. Exodus 21:17 quoted almost exactly from the LXX. Both passages are quoted from what Moses said, but both are adduced as the commandment of God (Mark 7:9) and the word of God (Mark 7:13). Thus, Jesus recognizes the Mosaic legislation as the law of his Father; and not merely the milder parts of it, but even the provision for the execution of the disobedient and insulting child. This he brings forward as a part of that law that he has come not to destroy, but to fulfilli.e. to exhibit and establish in the fullness of its spiritual meaning. The principle of honor to parents he recognizes as of perpetual and universal force, and he intends to set up for universal obedience and reverence the truth that was honored by the Mosaic provision of death for the disobedient. Incidentally, his mode of citing the second passage is itself exegetical. Viewed in the light of the context, that passage must mean that the spirit of the prohibition can be violated without a profane or blasphemous word, and that not to bless parents by such care as a child can give is to curse them, according to the true intent of this law. Such, then, is the commandment of God respecting parents: they must be treated with honor, and no one is at liberty to withhold from them what blessing he can give.But now for the tradition of men respecting parents which the Pharisees are diligently keeping. Translate Mark 7:11-12, But ye say, If a man say to his father or mother, Whatever thou mightest receive in aid from me is Corban, that is, a gift (to God), ye no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother. Corban is a Hebrew word meaning gift, but appropriated to use with reference to sacred gifts, acts of devotion to the service of God. The simple uttering of the word CorbanSacred giftover a thing that was supposed to set that thing apart from all ordinary uses and give it the character of a consecrated thing. (See Ewald, Antiquities of Israel, p. 81.) Now, Jesus affirms that they apply this mode of consecration to the unholy purpose of escaping duty to parents. If a man utters the magical word Corban over his relation to his parents, and so declares that it is devoted to God, he is no longer held under obligation to them. The Corban carries no real consecration to God in such a case; it gives no new character to the man’s life: it is only a fictitious arrangement for releasing him from a duty that has become irksome. Thus the tradition of men enables them to annul or virtually repeal the commandment of God. The liberty which the tradition gives them is more agreeable to their selfish hearts than the duty to which the commandment binds them; and so they set aside the commandment, in order that they may keep the tradition. To accept such a tradition was to dethrone Jehovah. (See Proverbs 28:24.) One is reminded here of Luther’s sore conflict as to whether the monastic vow which was urged upon him was consistent with his duty to his aged father, and of innumerable similar cases in the long history of monasticism. True consecration is not the escaping from obligations, but the reacceptance of all genuine duty from the hands of God. Consecration to God never releases from duty to man. He who consents to an obligation to God thereby consents to all obligations that God has placed upon him. To suppose the contrary, as these men did, is to trifle with all obligation.
III.
THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY YOUR TRADITION.
- Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition. The word translated making of none effect (akurountes)is found in the New Testament only in this discourse and at Galatians 3:17: it means to deprive of authority or lordship, and so, of a law, to annul. It implies more than neglect: it tells of actual nullification.And many such like things do ye, which is not genuine in Mark 7:8, is genuine here, and may possibly be the reporter’s summary of a further discourse, in which other abuses of a similar kind were treated as sharply as the intrusion of Corban to the family. The subsequent discourse seems to imply that something had been said at this very time of the distinction between clean and unclean food. There were abuses enough within reach to justify a long and terrible discourse. (W. N. Clarke)
FACT QUESTIONS 7:9-13
Do you imagine someone called for specific examples for the general principle laid down in the fearful charge.?
Is Jesus being ironic or sarcastic in the way in which He speaks of Isaiah’s prophecy and its fulfillment? Discuss.
Jesus does not deal with traditions respecting defilement firstwhy?
Did Jesus recognize the law of Moses as the law of God? Specify.
Did Jesus quote from the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures? i.e. from the Septuagint?
Jesus gives an exegesis of Exo 21:7 in the manner of citing the passagewhat is it?
Explain in your own words the tradition invented by the Pharisees called Corban.
What was the problem Luther had with the monastic vow?
Can you cite an example in your own experience?
What does the expressionmaking the word of God of none effect mean? Cf. Galatians 3:17.
Can we make the word of God of none effect by our busy schedule of living?
Mark 7:14-23
**C. CONFLICT OVER THE SOURCE OF DEFILEMENT. 7:14-23
TEXT 7:14-23**
And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, Hear me all of you, and understand: there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him: but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. And when he was entered into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked of him the parable. And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean. And he said, That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, covetings, wickednesses, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness: all these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 7:14-23
Why now address His words to the multitude?
Is Jesus using the same meaning for defilement in Mark 7:15 as used by the Pharisees in Mark 7:5? Explain.
Just what is included in the word nothing as in reference to that which goeth into a man? Surely some things would be excluded such as poisons of various kindshow are we to understand this?
There is a change in the figure from food to thoughtfrom physical to mentalwhy?
Give your own understanding of Mar 7:16.
Did Jesus expect the multitude to understand His words?
What did the disciples mean by referring to His words as a parable?
Was Jesus abrogating the law of clean and unclean meats by what He said in Mark 7:18-19? Discuss.
In what sense is the word defile used by Jesus?
Define in your own words the twelve things that defile men.
COMMENT
TIMESummer A.D. 29. PLACEIn or near Capernaum.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat 15:10-20.
OUTLINE1. His message to the multitude, Mark 7:14 to Mark 16:2. His message to His disciples, Mark 7:17-23.
ANALYSIS
I.
HIS MESSAGE TO THE MULTITUDE, Mark 7:14-16.
The multitude called together.
Nothing going into man defilesonly that which cometh out.
Those who will can understand.
II.
HIS MESSAGE TO HIS DISCIPLES, Mark 7:15; Mark 7:17-23.
Message request by disciples.
They should have understood His message to the multitude.
Man cannot be morally or spiritually defiled by food because it goes to the belly not the heartwhat is left is removed by the body.
This He said to indicate all meats are clean.
What proceeds from the evil heart out of the mouth defiles man.such as: fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, etc.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I.
HIS MESSAGE TO THE MULTITUDE. Mark 7:14-16
When Jesus had exposed the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, He took a bold and significant step. Calling the multitude to Him, He publicly announced that no diet can really pollute the soul; only its own actions and desires can do that: not that which entereth into the man can defile him, but the things which proceed out of the man. He does not as yet proclaim the abolition of the law, but He surely declares that it is only temporary, because it is conventional, not rooted in the eternal distinctions between right and wrong, but artificial. And He shows that its time is short indeed, by charging the multitude to understand how limited is its reach, how poor are its effects. Such teaching, addressed with marked emphasis to the public, the masses, whom the Pharisees despised as ignorant of the law, and cursed, was a defiance indeed. And the natural consequence was an opposition so fierce that He was driven to betake Himself, for the only time, and like Elijah in his extremity, to a Gentile land. And yet there was abundant evidence in the Old Testament itself that the precepts of the law were not the life of souls. David ate the shewbread. The priests profaned the sabbath. Isaiah spiritualized fasting. Zechariah foretold the consecration of the Philistines. Whenever the spiritual energies of the ancient saints received a fresh access, they were seen to strive against and shake off some of the trammels of a literal and servile legalism. The doctrine of Jesus explained and justified what already was felt by the foremost spirits in Israel.
II.
HIS MESSAGE TO HIS DISCIPLES, Mark 7:15; Mark 7:17-23
When they were alone, the disciples asked of Him the parable, that is, in other words, the saying which they felt to be deeper than they understood, and full of far-reaching issues. But Jesus rebuked them for not understanding what uncleanness really meant. For Him, defilement was badness, a condition of the soul. And therefore meats could not defile a man, because they did not reach the heart, but only the bodily organs. In so doing, as Mark plainly adds, He made all meats clean, and thus pronounced the doom of Judaism, and the new dispensation of the Spirit. In truth, Paul did little more than expand this memorable saying. Nothing that goeth into a man can defile him, here is the germ of all the decision about idol meatsneither if -one-’ eat is he the better, neither if he eat not is he the worse, The things which proceed out of the man are those which defile the man, here is the germ of all the demonstration that love fulfills the law, and that our true need is to be renewed inwardly, so that we may bring forth fruit unto God. But the true pollution of the man comes from within; and the life is stained because the heart is impure. For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, like the uncharitable and bitter judgments of His accusersand thence come also the sensual indulgences which men ascribe to the flesh, but which depraved imaginations excite, and love of God and their neighbour would restrainand thence are the sins of violence which men excuse by pleading sudden provocation, whereas the spark led to a conflagration only because the heart was a dry fueland thence, plainly enough, come deceit and railing, pride and folly. It is a hard saying, but our conscience acknowledges the truth of it. We are not the toy of circumstances, but such as we have made ourselves; and our lives would have been pure if the stream had flowed from a pure fountain. However modern sentiment may rejoice in highly coloured pictures of the noble profligate and his pure minded and elegant victim; of the brigand or the border ruffian full of kindness, with a heart as gentle as his hands are red; and however true we may feel it to be that the worst heart may never have betrayed itself by the worst actions, but many that are first shall be last, it still continues to be the fact, and undeniable when we do not sophisticate our judgment, that all these evil things proceed from within. It is also true that they further defile the man. The corruption which already existed in the heart is made worse by passing into action; shame and fear are weakened; the will is confirmed in evil; a gap is opened or widened between the man who commits a new sin, and the virtue on which he has turned his back. Few, alas! are ignorant of the defiling power of a bad action, or even of a sinful thought deliberately harboured, and the harbouring of which is really an action, a decision of the will. We must remember that it leaves untouched the question, what restrictions may be necessary for men who have depraved and debased their own appetites, until innocent indulgence does reach the heart and pervert it. Hand and foot are innocent, but men there are who cannot enter into life otherwise than halt or maimed. Also it leaves untouched the question, as long as such men exist, how far may I be privileged to share and so to lighten the burden imposed on them by past transgressions? It is surely a noble sign of religious life in our day, that many thousands can say, as the Apostle said, of innocent joys, Have we not a right?. Nevertheless we did not use this right, but we bear all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. Nevertheless the rule is absolute: Whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him. And the Church of Christ is bound to maintain, uncompromised and absolute, the liberty of Christian souls. Let us not fail to contrast such teaching as this of Jesus with that of our modern materialism. The value of meat and drink is perfectly transcendental, says one. Man is what he eats, says another. But it is enough to make us tremble, to ask what will issue from such teaching if it ever grasps firmly the mind of a single generation. What will become of honesty, when the value of what may be had by theft is transcendental? How shall armies be persuaded to suffer hardness, and populations to famish within beleaguered walls, when they learn that man is what he eats, so that his very essence is visibly enfeebled, his personality starved out, as he grows pale and wasted underneath his country’s flag? In vain shall such a question strive to keep alive the flame of generous self-devotion. Self-devotion seemed to their fathers to be the noblest attainment; to them it can be only a worn-out form of speech to say that the soul can overcome the flesh. For to them the man is the flesh; he is the resultant of his nourishment; what enters into the mouth makes his character, for it makes him all. There is that within us all which knows better; which sets against the aphorism, Man is what he eats; the text As a man thinketh in his heart so is he; which will always spurn the doctrine of the brute, when it is boldly confronted with the doctrine of the Crucified. (Expositor’s Bible, G, A. Chadwick)
FACT QUESTIONS 7:14-23
What was the bold step of Jesus?
Did Jesus proclaim the abolition of the law? What did He do?
What are some of the evidences that the precepts of the law were not the life of souls?
How did Paul use the same principle Jesus laid down?
Show how love fulfills the law.
What men attribute to the flesh Jesus attributed to what?
How has modern sentiment colored the picture of sin?
Show how the harbouring of a sinful thought is really an action.
There are some who have so debased their own appetites until innocent indulgence does reach the heartwhat shall be done with them?
Contrast the teaching of Jesus here with modern materialism.
Mark 7:24-30
C. THE THIRD PERIOD 7:24 to 9:50
- THE SYROPHOENICIAN WOMAN. 7:24-30
TEXT 7:24-30**
And from thence he arose, and went away into the borders of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered into a house, and would have no man know it: and he could not be hid. But straightway a woman, whose little daughter had an unclean spirit, having heard of him, came and fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by race. And she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. And he said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs. But she answered and saith unto him, Yea, Lord: even the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs. And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. And she went away unto her house, and found the child laid upon the bed, and the devil gone out.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 7:24-30
From where was Jesus going to Tyre and Sidon?
Why did Jesus want to be unknown?
Give three facts about the woman who came to Jesus at this time.
Who are the children in Mark 7:27who are the dogs?
Explain the eating the crumbs under the table.
What admirable qualities are seen in this woman?
What other miracle did Jesus perform at a distance? Cf. Matthew 8:5-13.
COMMENT
TIMESummer A.D. 29. PLACEIn the district of Tyre and Sidon.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat 15:21-28.
OUTLINE1. Jesus and His disciples seeks seclusion, Mark 7:24. 2. A distraught woman seeks help, Mark 7:25-26. 3. Jesus tests her faith, Mark 7:27. 4. She answers in faith and humility, Mark 7:28. 5. Her request is granted, Mark 7:29-30.
ANALYSIS
I.
JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES SEEKS SECLUSION, Mark 7:24.
Leaves Capernaum or near area.
Into the district of Tyre and Sidon.
Into a house to hide from the multitudes.
II.
A DISTRAUGHT WOMAN SEEKS, HELP, Mark 7:25-26.
Came immediately upon their entrance into the house.
Came seeking help for her demon-possessed daughter.
Fell at his feet with continual requests.
She was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by race.
III.
JESUS TESTS HER FAITH, Mark 7:27.
The children (Jews) must first be fed.
It is not right to give the children’s bread to dogs (Gentiles)
IV.
SHE ANSWERS IN FAITH AND HUMILITY, Mark 7:28.
I agreeyou are right.
But even dogs eat crumbs from the children’s table.
V.
HER REQUEST IS GRANTED, Mark 7:29-30.
Because of your faith and humility your request is grantedyour daughter is free.
She went home to find it as He had said.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I.
JESUS AND HIS DISCIPLES SEEK SECLUSION, Mark 7:24
Thence, i.e. from the place where the foregoing words were uttered. But where was this? The last particular place mentioned was Gennesaret (Mark 6:53), but followed by a notice of his visiting that whole surrounding country (Mark 6:55), and entering into villages, cities, and fields (Mark 6:56.) This may seem to cut off the connection and prevent our ascertaining the locality referred to here. But as thence implies a definite place previously mentioned, and as the general statement in Mark 6:53-56 is incidentally and parenthetically introduced, and relates not so much to what occurred at any one time as to the general and constant practice, as appears from the use of the imperfect tense, it is still most probable that the reference is here to the land (or district) of Gennesaret, or to the neighboring city of Capernaum. Arising, standing up, an idiomatic phrase of frequent occurrence in the Greek of the New Testament, and often denoting nothing more than what we mean by starting, setting out, putting one’s self in motion, especially though not exclusively in reference to journeys. Went, or more exactly went away, i.e. withdrew, retreated (Matthew 15:21), from the malice of his enemies, as some suppose, or as others, from the crowd and bustle even of his friends and followers, It is probable, however, that a higher and more important motive led to this retreat, to wit, the purpose to evince by one act of his public life that, though his personal ministry was to the Jews (see below, on Mark 7:27, and compare Matthew 15:24. Romans 15:8), his saving benefits were also for the Gentiles. It is important to remember that these movements were not made at random or fortuitously brought about, as infidel interpreters delight to represent, and some of their believing admirers do not venture to deny, but deliberately ordered in accordance with a definite design, the reality of which is not affected by our being able or unable everywhere to trace it in the history. Into (not merely to or towards, which would be otherwise expressed) the borders, a compounded form of the word used twice in Mark 7:31 below, and not applied like it to all contained within the bounds, but to the bounds themselves, in which specific sense it is employed by Xenophon, Thucydides, and Plato, who speaks of the bounds (or limits) of the philosopher and politician. The Greek word is properly an adjective, and means bordering or frontier parts (Matthew 15:21.) Tyre and Sidon, the two great seaports of Phenicia, put for the whole country, which apart from them had no importance. The whole phrase does not mean the region between Tyre and Sidon, but the boundary or frontier between Galilee and Phenicia. Would and could, as in so many other cases, are not mere auxiliary tenses, but distinct and independent verbs; he wished and he was able. The construction he was willing to know no one (i.e. to make no acquaintance or receive no visit), though grammatically possible, is not so natural or obvious as the common one, he wished no one to know (him), or to know (it), i.e. his arrival or his presence. To be hid, or lie concealed, the Greek verb being active in its form.
II.
A DISTRAUGHT WOMAN SEEKS HELP. Mark 7:25-26
The reason that he could not be concealed is now recorded. For a woman, having heard of him, i.e. of his arrival now, or of his miracles before; but even in the latter case, the other fact must be supplied. Whose little daughter (an affectionate diminutive, used also in Mark 5:23) had an unclean spirit, in the sense repeatedly explained already. It appears from this case, that these demoniacal possessions were not confined to Jews, or to any age or sex. Coming (into the house where he was) and Falling at his feet, the full phrase which occurs in a contracted form above, the act denoting not religious adoration but importunate entreaty.
Mark 7:26. The remarkable circumstance in this case, which in part accounts for its insertion in the history, is that the woman here described was a Gentile, not only by residence but by extraction. A Greek, not in the strict sense, but in the wider one arising from the Macedonian conquests, which diffused the Greek civilization through the whole of western Asia, so that in the later Jewish dialect, Greek was substantially synonymous with Gentile, even where the language was not actually spoken, as it may have been in this case, A Syrophenician, so called either in distinction from the Libyophenicians in Africa, or because Phenicia, as well as Palestine, belonged to the great Roman province of Syria. Both countries also had been peopled by the sons of Canaan, so that this woman was at once a Greek, a Syrophenician, and a Canaanite (Matthew 15:22.) By nation, race, extraction, birth, (Compare Acts 4:36; Acts 13:26; Acts 18:2; Acts 18:24, Philippians 3:5,) Asked, in the secondary sense of begged, and therefore followed by that, and not by whether. (Compare Luke 4:38.) Cast forth the devil, or expel the demon. (J. A. Alexander)
III.
JESUS TESTS HER FAITH, Mark 7:27
Another singularity of this case, which suggests a further reason for its being so minutely stated, is our Lord’s refusal to perform the miracle, of which this is the first and only instance upon record. Even here, however, it was not an absolute and permanent refusal, but a relative and temporary one, designed to answer an important purpose, both in its occurrence and in the historical account of it. Let, or more emphatically, let alone (implying an untimely interference), suffer or permit, the same verb which we have already had in different applications, Filled, sated, satisfied, the same verb as in Mark 6:42, and there explained. Meet, i.e. suitable, becoming, handsome, which approaches nearest to the strict sense of the Greek word, namely, fair or beautiful, though commonly applied in Scripture to excellence or beauty of a moral kind. To take, not pleonastic, as it often is in vulgar English, but to take away from them and bestow it upon others. The children’s bread, the bread intended and provided for them, and when actually given belonging to them. Dogs, a diminutive supposed by some to be contemptuous, like whelps, or puppies, but by others an expression of affectionate familiarity, like little daughter (A Greek word of the same form) in Mark 7:25. This question is connected with another, as to the sense in which dogs are mentioned here at all, whether simply in allusion to the wild gregarious oriental dog, regarded as an impure and ferocious beast, or to the classical and modern European notion of the dog as a domesticated animal, the humble companion and faithful friend of man. The objection to the former explanation is not only its revolting harshness and the ease with which the same idea might have been expressed in a less unusual manner, but the obvious relation here supposed between the children and the dogs, as at and under the same table, and belonging as it were to the same household. John, it is true, uses dogs in the offensive sense first mentioned; but his language is without are dogs (Revelation 22:15), apparently referring to the homeless dogs which prowl through the streets of eastern cities (compare Psalms 22:20; Psalms 59:6. Matthew 7:6. Philippians 3:2); but here the dogs are represented as within, and fed beneath their master’s table. The beauty of our Saviour’s figure would be therefore marred by understanding what he says of savage animals, without relation or attachment to mankind. Cast, throw away, a term implying waste of the material as well as some contempt of the recipient. Like most of our Lord’s parables or illustrations from analogy, this exquisite similitude is drawn from the most familiar habits of domestic life, and still comes home to the experience of thousands.
IV.
SHE ANSWERS IN FAITH AND HUMILITY. Mark 7:28
Mark 7:28. There is no dispute as to the meaning of this admirable answer, which might almost be applauded for its wit, if Christ himself had not ascribed to it a higher merit, as an evidence of signal faith, combined with a humility no less remarkable. There is, however, some dispute as to its form, particularly that of the first clause, which some explain as a denial of what he had said, and others more correctly as a partial affirmation or assent, but followed by a partial contradition, as in our translation. The best philological interpreters are now agreed that yet is not a correct version of the Greek phrase, which can only mean agreeably to usage, for or for even. The meaning of the answer then will be, -Yes, Lord (or Sir), it is true that it would not be becoming to deprive the children of their food, in order to supply the dogs; for these are not to eat the children’s bread, but the crumbs (or fragments) falling from the table.-’ The whole is therefore an assent to what our Lord had said, including his description of the Gentiles (Matthew 15:24) as the dogs beneath the table, and a thankful consent to occupy that place and to partake of that inferior provision. Of (literally from) the crumbs is not here a partitive expression, as it sometimes is, but simply indicates the source from which the nourishment is drawn. The idea suggested by an ancient and adopted by a modern writer, that the word translated crumbs here means the pieces of bread which the ancients used as napkins, is not only a gratuitous refinement, but a needless variation from the usage of the word, which is a regular diminutive of one itself denoting a crumb, bit, or morsel, especially of bread. Children is also a diminutive, the same with that in Mark 5:39-41, and entirely distinct in form, though not in meaning, from the one here used in the preceding verse.
V.
HER REQUEST IS GRANTED. Mark 7:29-30
Mark 7:29. For (the sake of, on account of) this word (saying, speech, or answer), go thy way (i.e. in modern English, go away, depart), perhaps to be taken as an abbreviation of the full phrase, go in peace (or into peace) employed above in Mark 5:34, and there explained. The merit of her answer was its faith (Matthew 15:28), to which her whole request was granted instantaneously, the demon having actually left her child when these gracious words were uttered. Now as this faith was the gift of Christ himself, there could neither be surprise on his part, nor legal merit upon hers, but only a benignant recognition of his own work in her heart, which his discouraging reception of her prayer at first had served both to strengthen and illustrate, and was therefore no more unkind than the similar processes continually going on in true believers, though of course unknown to the experience of those skeptical interpreters, who either sneer at this as cruel treatment of a distfessed mother, or assume a real change of purpose wrought in Christ by her persistent importunity.
Mark 7:30. This is merely a distinct historical statement of the fact that she found the Saviour’s declaration verified on reaching home, the demon (actually) gone out and the daughter laid upon the bed, or rather thrown there (as the Greek word strictly means) by the fiend at his departure, so that her mother found her just as he had left her. This removes all appearance of departure from the general rule previously laid down, and derived by induction from the history at large, that in cases of miraculous restoration there was no protracted convalescence, but an instantaneous return to ordinary occupations. Had this been a case of mere corporeal healing or resuscitation, the effect would probably have been the same as in the cases just referred to. But the miracle was here one of dispossession, and this was no doubt sudden and complete; for the bodily exhaustion which ensued was not a remnant of the previous disease, or even a transition from an abnormal to a normal state, but rather a decisive indication that the latter had been reinstated as the preternatural excitement which accompanied possession, and was usually symptomatic of it (see above, on Mark 5:5), would not have allowed her to lie quietly upon her bed, the sight of which recumbent posture must have satisfied the mother instantly, not that her daughter was recovering, but that she was recovered, from her fearful preternatural disorder. In recording this most interesting miracle, Mark treats it as an instance of extraordinary faith, without making prominent its bearing on our Lord’s relation to the Jews and Gentiles, which belongs therefore rather to the exposition of the parallel account in Matthew (Matthew 15:21-28.) (J. A. Alexander)
FACT QUESTIONS 7:24-30
From thence refers to what place?
How were the movements of the Saviour decided?
What is meant by the word borders of Tyre and Sidon?
What was the probable purpose in Jesus-’ desire to be hid?
Just what did the woman do when she came into the house where Jesus was staying?
In what sense was this woman a Greek? In what sense a Canaanite?
How is the word take used in reference to the children’s bread?
In what sense was the word dogs used by our Lord?
Did the woman agree with Jesus in the evaluation of children and dogs? What were the crumbs?
When did the demon leave the daughter?
Did Jesus change His purpose with the woman because of her begging?
Was the child laid out on the bed by friends or the demonexplain.
Was there ever any period of convalescence in the healings of Jesus?
Mark 7:24-37
SUMMARY 7:248:13
This section contains an account of three more remarkable miraclesthe expulsion of a demon from the Gentile woman’s daughter; the restoration of speech and hearing to the deaf stammerer; and the feeding of four thousand men with seven barley loaves and a few small fishes. By these the divine power of Jesus is once more exhibited. The section also exhibits the tenderness of his compassion in his dealing with the Gentile woman and the hungry multitude, and his judicial indignation against hypocrisy in his conversation with the Pharisees. These are attributes of character which, though they do not prove their possessor to have been superhuman, are necessary to that perfection of character which must be found in the Son of God.McGarvey.
Mark 7:31-37
**2. HEALING A DEAF MUTE 7:31-37
TEXT 7:31-37**
And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis. And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to lay his hand upon him. And he took him aside from the multitude privately, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat, and touched his tongue; and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. And his ears were opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain. And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it. And they were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well: he maketh even the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS Mark 7:31-37
Please trace on the map the route of Jesus on this occasion.
What is the meaning of the word Decapolis? How used here?
Who brought the deaf mute to Jesus?
Why did Jesus take him away from the multitudeplease attempt an answer.
How would this deaf-mute feel as Jesus took Him to Himself?
Into whose ears does Jesus place His fingers?into His own or into the deaf-mute? Why do this? Was this sign language?
Please notice the actions of Jesus and remember they were given for the benefit of the deaf-mutethe deaf-mute was intently watching the actions and expressions of Jesuseach action spoke to himwhat did they say?
Did the deaf-mute hear the wordEphphatha?
Why charge them that they should tell no man?
Who gave voice to the thought He hath done all things well?
COMMENT
TIMESummer A.D. 29. PLACETyreSidonDecapolis. PARALLEL ACCOUNTSOnly Mark records this incident.
OUTLINE1. The place of the healing, Mark 7:31. 2. The man to be healed, Mark 7:32. 3. Preparations for healing, Mark 7:33-34 a. 4. The healing and results, Mark 7:34 b - Mark 7:37.
ANALYSIS
I.
THE PLACE OF HEALING, Mark 7:31.
Journeyed from the borders of Tyre and Sidon.
Through Sidon to the shore of Galilee.
Into the midst of the district of Decapolis.
II.
THE MAN TO BE HEALED, Mark 7:32.
Brought by his friends.
Deaf with a serious speech impediment.
Begged Jesus to lay His hands upon him.
III.
PREPARATIONS FOR HEALING, Mark 7:33-34 a.
Jesus took him aside from the multitude unto himself.
Jesus placed His fingers in the ears of the man.
Spat on the ground and touched the man’s tongue.
Looked up to heaven and sighed.
IV.
THE HEALING AND RESULTS, Mark 7:34 b - Mark 7:37.
He was healed when Jesus said Ephphatha or Be opened.
Ears were openedtongue was loosenedhe spoke plainly.
Jesus strongly urged them to tell no man about thisthe more He urged them the more they did publish it.
They were beyond measure astonished and said, He hath done all things well.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I.
THE PLACE OF HEALING.
Mark 7:31. According to the text adopted by the revisers, the course of the journey is here quite definitely marked out: And again he went out from the borders (region) of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders (region) of Decapolis. That he visited the city of Tyre itself is not affirmed, but from the course of the journey it seems probable. He did pass through Sidon, which lay, like Tyre, on the shore of the Mediterranean. From Capernaum to Tyre may have been thirty English miles, and from Tyre to Sidon twenty more. Between the two cities were Zarephath (called Sarepta in Luke 4:26), where Elijah was preserved alive in famine and restored the widow’s son to life (1 Kings 17). His alluding to the event in the synagogue at Nazareth is enough to assure us that our Lord did not pass the spot without remembering again how it was a Gentile widow to whom the prophet was sent. From Sidon he turned south-eastward, and crossed the upper Jordan, and came down on the eastern side. But he did not merely make the journey downward along the river; he appears to have extended his tour still eastwardwe cannot tell how farthrough some part of the region known as Decapolis, probably visiting some of the cities from which that region took its name. The reasons that determined the route, of course, cannot be ascertained. Thus he made his way down to the Sea of Galilee, reaching it somewhere on the eastern side. The limits of Decapolis are somewhat uncertain, but its extent was such that his journey may have taken him farther south than his destination; so that it is impossible to tell from what direction he approached the lake or what point of its shore he probably first touched. Of course the length of the journey cannot be measured; but it can scarcely have been, from Capernaum back to the lake, less than one hundred and fifty English miles, and it may have been more. On the east as well as on the north this was a tour into heathen territory, but in no part, so far as we can judge, was it a tour of missionary activity. It was rather an episode in his ministry when he was alone with his disciples. By comparison with Matthew it appears that this miracle was wrought, most probably, on some mountain near the lake, where many were gathered about him.
II.
THE MAN TO BE HEALED.
Mark 7:32. They bring unto him one that was deaf. The adjective literally means stricken, or smitten (kophos, from the verb kopto, to strike); the thought is that the person has been smitten in some of the organs of sensation, so as to be deprived of power. Sometimes it is the organs of speech that are thus conceived of as smitten, and the word then means dumb, sometimes it is the organs of hearing, and it then means deaf, as here. The other descriptive word (mogilalos) means speaking with difficulty; not speechless (alalos), as in Mark 7:37. It is used here alone in the New Testament. It cannot be smoothly rendered without paraphrase, and had an impediment in his speech represents it well. Yet the word is used broadly for dumb-’ in the LXX. (Isaiah 35:6).The great healer was asked to put his hand on the man; so Matthew 9:18: But come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live. But now, as then, the great Healer had a way of his own.
III.
PREPARATIONS FOR HEALING.
Mark 7:33-34. Three peculiarities appear in this act of healingthe privacy of the transaction, the use of signs and physical media, and the unusual vocal utterances of the Healer. These peculiarities all appear again in the other miracle in chap. Mark 8:22-26, already alluded to. In studying them in this case it is to be remembered that this is the only detailed report that we possess of the healing of a deaf man; and, although we may not be justified in inferring that all healings of the deaf resembled this, we may find in the peculiar method now adopted a special significance in connection with the nature of the affliction that was to be removed, In healing the blind, Jesus, so far as we know, always made some appeal to the senses and powers of which the afflicted ones were possessed, drawing out their faith by word or touch or by requiring the performance of some act. (See Matthew 9:29; Mark 8:23; Mark 10:49; John 9:6). So, usually, in healing the lame and helpless. (See John 5:6-8; Mark 3:3; Luke 17:14.) In the case of a deaf man words would be of no avail; and if any such appeal was to be made, it must be done by signs. In the present case Jesus probably saw in the man himself some reason for judging it best that the cure should be private. The withdrawal from the crowd would impress him, though he could not hear its tumult, with a sense of solemnity. Perhaps Jesus saw in him a vanity that would render anything like a public act of healing hurtful to him. In any case, it was a solemn and touching experience to be alone, or almost alone, with Jesus to be healed.As for the signs and the physical media, they were such as he could well understand. Jesus put his fingers into his ears, Not a mere touch, but an insertiona sign of the impartation or transference of something from one person to the other, with reference now to the powerless organs of hearing. This was the laying on of his hand that had been asked for, made definite, appropriate, and instructive by his wisdom. Then he spit, and touched his tonguei.e. touched the man’s tongue with a finger perhaps moistened with his own salivaanother sign of the transference of something from himself to the afflicted man, this time with reference to his injured organs of speech. Then he stood looking up to heaven, to indicate that this was an act that depended upon a heavenly poweran act, indeed, of Heaven upon the earth. Of course there had been no opportunity, because no possibility, of preaching to the man, and in his ignorance he may easily have supposed that this was some influence of a magical kind. He may not have known to what power he was submitting himself, and the reverent heavenward look of Jesus may have been intended silently to lift his heart and faith to God. How better could he show a deaf man that he was receiving a gift from above? Then be sighed, or rather, groaned. The word is not used elsewhere of him, but it is found in Romans 8:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:2, where evidently no less a word than groan is needed to represent its meaning. This was no artificial utterance intended for effect: it was a spontaneous utterance of genuine sorrow in sympathy with human suffering. It came from the same source as the tears at the grave of Lazarus. Although the man could not hear the groan, he might be aware of it, for doubtless his eyes were busy in observing what his Benefactor was doing; and if he was aware of it, he must have felt, however dimly, that there was a deep and genuine sympathy in the Healer’s heart. This could be no magician’s performance to him: this was a deed of love. And then at last he spoke; and, though the man might not hear the word he may have known, as before, that it was spoken.
IV.
THE HEALING AND RESULTS.
Mark 7:34 b. Ephphatha, that is, Be opened. Here, as in chap. Mark 5:41, Mark has preserved the very word in the Aramaic tongue that fell from the lips of Jesus. No other evangelist has done this, except in the case of the utterance on the cross, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. In the other case (chap. Mark 5:41) the Aramaic words that Mark preserves were spoken when of the disciples only Peter, James, and John were present; and it is not unlikely that the same special three were the only auditors at this time also. Whether others were present or not, this must certainly have come down to us from one who heard it. The Ephphatha, Be opened, was addressed to the man with reference to his organs of sense, which are conceived of as closed.
Mark 7:35. It would seem that the moment of the Ephphatha was the moment of the change. Of course we know that the preceding parts of the transaction were in no sense necessary to the cure, and were introduced for the sake of the man himself; and we may judge that he received no new power of speech or hearing until the symbolic or pictorial part was finished and the word was spoken.The cure itself is detailed in Mark’s peculiar way. The revisers omit straightway, and thus represent the result: And his ears were opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain, or rightly, normally.The string of his tongue is an unfortunate phrase, from which a reader might suppose that the man was in some way tongue-tied. But the reference is merely to the bond or restraint that was upon his powers of speech, and there is no indication as to the nature of that restraint.But now the organs of sense were opened, and henceforth all was done (orthos) in the natural or normal way.
It is worth while to look back at this act and observe how beautifully our Lord brought to light all that was essential in a work of healing. Perhaps the symbolic action was all the more beautiful, because it must be made to do the whole work of words. Two signs of the transferring of power from himself to the afflictedthe upward look to heaven, to indicate the source of power; the deep sigh or groan of genuine sympathy with the suffering that is to be removedand the word of power by which the deed is done, and the bond is broken. A beautiful story for deaf-mutes.
Mark 7:36-37. He charged them. Not merely the man himself, but the people who were around. Of course they would quickly know what had been done, and must be included in his prohibition. Often did he thus plead for silence about his works (as in chap. Mark 3:12 and Mark 5:43), and now, while he was in search of retirement and quietness, the request was especially to be expected. But, as usual, it was all in vain: the gratitude of the healed and the wonder of the spectators were too strong, and the story must be told, It seems probable that this miracle was the means of bringing on the great period of thronging that is described in Matthew 15:30-31. Mark’s expressions in description of the abundant proclamation and the excessive amazement are of the very strongest character.The final testimony of praise seems to have been called out by the many healings that took place, though first suggested by the one, He hath done all things well (perfect tense)he has been gracious everywhere and successful in everythinghe maketh (present tense) both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak,The dumb. A stronger word than in Mark 7:32. (W. N. Clarke)
FACT QUESTIONS 7:31-37
Read Matthew 15:29-31 and relate it to this record in Mark.
Show how Mark 8:22-26 compares with this incident.
How far from Capernaum to Tyre?; from Tyre to Sidon? What place was between the two cities?
What was the total distance traveled from Capernaum to the place of the healing?
They bring to him one that was strickenexplain the word stricken as here used.
The man to be healed could speakbut how?
Jesus never healed without a genuine personal concern for the one to be healed (if they were present)show how he adapted His words and actions to the one to be healedwith the blind; the lame; the deaf.
What did the deaf-mute think when Jesus looked to heaven?
What is a better word than sigh in reference to Jesus? Why?
Why preserve the very word Jesus spoke?
The man was in no way tongue-tiedhow do we know?
This is a beautiful story for deaf-mutesshow how.
Why would His request for quietness about His work be especially expected at this time and place?
Read Matthew 15:30-31 and show the relation to this incident.