Bible Study series: Mark 7:1-23. The word of God is central. Traditions take a back seat.
Friendly greetings and a warm welcome to this Bible study! I write to learn, so let’s learn together how to apply these truths to our lives.
I also translate to learn. The translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see many others, please click here:
If you would like to see the original Greek, please click here:
At that link, I also offer more commentary and a Summary and Conclusion, geared towards discipleship. Scroll down to the bottom and check it out!
Let’s begin.
Scripture: Mark 7:1-23
1 Now the Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law, coming from Jerusalem, gathered to Jesus. 2 They saw some of Jesus’s disciples–that they ate bread with unclean hands, that is, unwashed. 3 (For Pharisees and all Jews, unless they wash their hands “with the fist,” do not eat, clinging to the tradition of the elders. 4 And coming from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they ceremoniously wash. They cling to many other things which they receive: washing of cups and pitchers and kettles and dining couches.) 5 The Pharisees and teachers of the law asked him: “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders but eat bread with ceremonially unclean hands?”
6 But he said to them, “‘Perfectly’ Isaiah prophesied about you hypocrites! As it is written:
This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is distant from me by a long way.
7 They worship me with empty hearts, teaching doctrines that are commandments of men. [Is. 29:13]
8 Abandoning the commandment of God, you cling to the traditions of men.”
9 He also said to them, “You ‘perfectly’ set aside the commandment of God, so that you may establish your traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ [Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16] And ‘the one who curses father or mother must surely die.’ [Exod. 21:17; Lev. 20:9] 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to this father or mother, “corban!” that is, “A gift for God! Whatever you may benefit from me is a gift for God!”’ 12 “You no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13 thus nullifying the word of God for your tradition which you pass on. And you do many similar things like this.”
14 Again summoning the crowd, he said to them “All of you, listen to me and understand! 15 Nothing from the outside of a person entering him is able to defile him, but the things coming out of the person are the things that defile the person. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”
17 And when he entered a house away from the crowds, his disciples asked him about the illustration. 18 And said to them, “Are you still without understanding? Don’t you know that everything outside entering a person is unable to defile him 19 because it does not go into his heart but into the stomach and goes out into the latrine?” (This means all foods are clean.) 20 The thing coming out of a person—that defiles the person. 21 For on the inside from the heart of people are evil thoughts that come out: sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, evil, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, arrogance, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come out from the inside and defile the person.” (Mark 7:1-23)
Comments
Let’s take this section by section.
The main points: (1) The word of God as written, that is, moral law, takes priority over the traditions of men or the elders, piled sky-high on the Word. (2) Don’t prioritize superficial, external things over and above the deeper things of the heart. (3) Things coming into a person, like food, don’t actually defile a person, but the things inside coming out of him defile him, like bad thoughts and deeds.
What Does the New Covenant Retain from the Old?
Do Christians Have to ‘Keep’ the Ten Commandments?
Ten Commandments: God’s Great Compromise with Humanity’s Big Failure
One Decisive Difference Between Sinai Covenant and New Covenant
1-8:
Let’s cover some historical details.
These religious leaders came from Jerusalem, so Jesus’s ministry was getting their attention. It is from them that the opposition to him will intensify.
“Pharisees”:
“teachers of the law”: They are also called scribes in some translations.
You can learn more about both groups here:
Quick Reference to Jewish Groups in Gospels and Acts
Both groups were the Watchdogs of Theology and Behavior (David E. Garland, Luke: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Zondervan, 2011], p. 243). The problem which Jesus had with them can be summed up in Eccl. 7:16: “Be not overly righteous.” He did not quote that verse, but to him they were much too enamored with the finer points of the law, while neglecting its spirit (Luke 11:37-52; Matt. 23:1-36). Instead, he quoted this verse from Hos. 6:6 (ESV): “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice” … (see Matt. 9:13; 12:7). Overdoing righteousness, believe it or not, can damage one’s relationship with God and others.
They may sit in the seat of Moses, and God may have had a plan for them, but they failed to live up to his purposes. The proof is that they cannot see the Messiah standing right in front of them. One commentator says that this announcement of their seat of authority is ironical, because the next verses tell them how far off they are. In other words, God did not send them or set up this system of legalism.
“tradition of the elders”: The tradition of the elders were interpretations of the Torah (first five books of the Bible) which piled up at this time. It is likely that they were in the process of being written down at this time and was completed in the document called the Mishnah in about 200 A.D.
Now the washing tradition, though not commanded in Scripture, was a good idea in preventing germs to spread, but this is not about germs (first-century people knew nothing about them). Instead, this is a confusion or a fusing together of ritual cleanness and moral cleanness. Somehow these two groups of religious leaders merged the two, and washing hands indicated obedience to the tradition of the elders, which then indicated obedience to God and proper behavior. The believed that to obey these small minutiae is to honor the law, and to honor the law is to obey God, and to obey God is to be righteous or moral.
“elders”: You can learn more about them, here:
Quick Reference to Jewish Groups in Gospels and Acts
Lane on the power of the tradition of the elders, in his comment on v. 5:
The binding character of the decisions handed down by honored Jewish teachers of the law was an essential component in Pharisaic thinking. It was Jesus’ failure to support the validity of the oral law which made him an object of concerted attack by the scribes. The question posed is clearly a challenge to Jesus himself, and on his response, no reference is made to the disciples. The deeper intention behind the question of eating with defiled hands is suggested by a passage in the Mishnah: “But whom do you place under a ban? Eleazar ben Enoch, because he cast doubt on (the tradition of the Elders concerning) the cleansing of hands.” (p. 247)
“disciples”:
“with a fist”: no one knows exactly what that means, precisely. Strauss in his comments on vv. 3-4:
The dative noun [with a fist] Mark uses to describe the washing is an unusual one and could mean “with a fist,” “by a fist,” or even “to [the end] of the fist.” The phrase may refer to washing (1) with a handful of water, (2) up to the wrist or elbow, or (3) with cupped hands. The first view may be supported by m Yad 1:1 [a passage in the Mishnah], which specifies that a “quarter-log” of water, about the bulk of an egg and a half, must be used. The second view has some support from m Yad 2:3, which says that hands are rendered clean by pouring water over them up to the wrist.
Now let’s discuss this verbal sparring match between Jesus and these religious leaders.
As I noted in other chapters, first-century Israel was an honor-and-shame society. Verbal and active confrontations happened often. By active is meant actions. Here the confrontation is both verbal and acted out. Jesus shamed the leaders to silence. He won. It may seem strange to us that Jesus would confront human opponents, because we are not used to doing this in our own lives, and we have heard that Jesus was meek and silent.
More relevantly, for many years now there has been a teaching going around the Body of Christ that says when Christians are challenged, they are supposed to slink away or not reply. This teaching may come from the time of Jesus’s trial when it is said he was as silent as a sheep (Acts 8:32). No. He spoke up then, as well (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:32; Luke 23:71; John 18:19-23; 32-38; 19:11). Therefore, “silence” means submission to the will of God without resisting or fighting back physically. But here he replied to the religious leaders and defeated them and their inadequate theology. Get into a discussion and debate with your challengers. Stand toe to toe with them. In short, fight like Jesus! With anointed words!
Of course, caution is needed. The original context is a life-and-death struggle between the kingdom of God and religious traditions. Get the original context, first, before you fight someone in a verbal sparring match. This was a clash of worldviews. Don’t pick fights or be rude to your spouse or baristas or clerks in the service industry. Discuss things with him or her. But here Jesus was justified in replying sharply to these oppressive religious leaders.
And from here on to the end of this pericope (pronounced puh-RIH- koh-pea) or or unit or section of Scripture, Jesus is about to drive home the distinction between ritual cleanness and moral cleanness. Don’t confuse the two to the point that you overlook moral cleanness. Don’t believe that because you wash the outside (hands) that you are washing the inside (the soul) and are religiously and morally superior.
In v. 3, when Mark says “all Jews” wash, it is more impressionistic than literal.
“hypocrites”: originally it comes from the Greek play actor on the stage. They wore masks and played roles. There were stock characters, such as the buffoon, the bombastic soldier, or the old miser. Hypocrites appeared one way, but in reality they were different. They appeared outwardly religious, but inwardly they were full of dead men’s bones (Matt. 23:27). They wore religious masks. They actually did many things that the law required, but they failed to understand God’s view of righteousness. They were more self-deceived than deceivers, though in Matt. 23, Jesus denounced the Pharisees and experts in the law for teaching one thing but living another. They are religious show-offs who act out their righteousness to impress others but are out of touch with God’s mercy and love. Eccl. 7:16 says not to be overly righteous, but that is what they were and displayed it publicly.
“perfectly”: it could be translated “well,” or even ironically “beautifully.” So it could read: “Beautifully has Isaiah prophesied about you!”
Isaiah teaches us that our hearts have to be right or morally clean.
“men”: it could be translated as “people” as in “people-centered precepts” or “people-sourced commandments.” These commandments did not come from God, but from human over-thinking.
“empty hearts”: that’s my embellishment. It could be translated as “they worship me vainly” or “emptily they worship me.”
9-13:
Knowing the Torah (as we all should), Jesus quotes clear commands from Scripture, and one of them comes from the mighty Ten Commandments: Honor your father and your mother (the Fifth Commandment). The Fifth Commandment is designed to keep your personal family in harmony and respect. The other commandment about cursing parents is a shot at these Pharisees and teachers of the law. They are not exactly commanding the cursing of parents, but by allowing a person to neglect his parents is awfully close, or at least it shows disrespect towards them.
“Corban”: it is a Hebrew loanword, which most translations keep because Mark has it too, in his Greek Gospel. The term means something that is set aside and to be given to God. The man still has the gift in his possession, and he promises to give it to God at a later date. Now he finds that his parents are in need, and instead of giving it to his parents, he gives it to a religious institution. Apparently, according to Jewish tradition at this time, a man could not use a gift devoted to God to help his parents in genuine need (NET). So a man could help his parents with his resources, but instead tells them he is giving the resources as a gift to God, to the temple.
Lane in his comments on vv. 10-12:
In the hypothetical situation proposed by Jesus, if the son declared his property qorban to his parents, he neither promised it to the Temple nor prohibited its use to himself, but he legally excluded his parents from the right of benefit. Should the son regret his action and seek to help to alleviate the harsh vow which would deprive his parents of all the help they might normally expect from him, he would be told by the scribes to whose arbitration the case was submitted that his vow was valid and must be honored. Jesus’ statement that the scribes do not allow him to do “anything” for his parents is not extreme. The renunciation of all profitability extended beyond financial support to such practical kindness as assistance in the performance of religious duties or the provision of care in sickness. (p. 251)
Then in note 29, Lane quotes from a second-century Jewish source: “Korban! [may these evils fall upon me] if from me you receive benefit.” Then in note 30 Lane refers to another Jewish source which says that a son’s vow that created a breach between father and son could not be set aside even with the best will on the part of the son (M. Nedarim V.6).
Here’s the (imperfect) scene in a modern context: An extra-devout Christian named Ralph likes often to say “Amen!” and “Hallelujah!” He carries a big Bible or has it on his phone and likes to visibly click on it during lunch hour. He is very pious in his behavior, praying in the lunchroom at work. He goes to a mega-church. The pastor often preaches sermons about how people owe the church tithes from gross pay and additional offerings. The pastor often, unbeknownst even to the pastor himself, twists Scriptures and traditions to his advantage. He often fishes around in Scripture to increase his church’s income. He now lives in a big house that Joe Factoryworker and Jane Shopkeeper could never afford. Ralph comes into some money. He hears that his parents have financial needs. But the pastor of his mega-church tells Ralph that he must lay his gift at the altar in the church. He has to honor God first, and the only way to honor God is not to give money to his needy parents, but to give it to the church.
Here’s the modern parable broken down into smaller parts:
Manipulative mega-church pastor = the Pharisees and teachers of the law
Ralph = pious lay-Jews who are told to divert their money away from needy parents
Ralph’s Parents = parents in this passage who genuinely need money
The Pharisees and teachers of the law annul or cancel the word of God—the quoted commandments—by following the traditions of the elders, which “mysteriously” benefit the religious system, which in turn “mysteriously” benefit the Pharisees and teachers of the law.
“perfectly”: see v. 11 for more comments.
14-23:
In vv. 14-15, Jesus announces to the crowds the bottom-line meaning to the beginning of the debate: it’s not the food that goes into a person that defiles him or makes him unclean, but the evil that comes out of him does. Jesus is about to expand on this statement in vv. 18-23.
Verse 16: apparently the best manuscripts don’t have this verse, but I add it in, just to be complete.
In v. 17, Jesus goes into a house, and his disciples ask him about the illustration. Let’s look at this term “illustration.”
Literally, it is the word parable (parabolē in Greek) combines para– (pronounced pah-rah and means “alongside”) and bolē (pronounced boh-lay and means “put” or even “throw”). Therefore, a parable puts two or more images or ideas alongside each other to produce a clear truth. It is a story or narrative or short comparison that reveals the kingdom of God and the right way to live in it and the Father’s ways of dealing with humanity and his divine plan expressed in his kingdom and life generally. The Shorter Lexicon says that the Greek word parabolē can sometimes be translated as “symbol,” “type,” “figure,” and “illustration,” the latter term being virtually synonymous with parable. Here you must see yourself in the parable.
Food going into the mouth does not make a person defiled. This pronouncement disagrees with Lev. 11, which lists all sorts of animals that are permitted or not permitted to be eaten.
Please see my post about these food laws and how the New Testament authors handled this issue.
Clean and Unclean Food in Leviticus 11 from a NT Perspective
The NT argues for liberation from the food laws, and in passages like this one, Jesus launches the move towards liberty. Mark, after all, adds the gloss in v. 19 that Jesus was making all foods clean.
The concept is clear enough: Food goes into the mouth, but thoughts, expressed in words and actions, flow from the heart, come out of the mouth. Food going in does not defile—not in any moral sense. Words that come out can defile a person morally. Don’t confuse the two.
“envy”: is literally an “evil eye.”
In vv. 21-22, Jesus has a vice list, which appears often in Scripture (e.g. Rom. 1:29-31; Gal. 5:19-20; 2 Tim. 2:3-4). It is a series of hard-hitting words that expresses human vices. There are twelves vices that follow. The first six terms are in the plural (translated as singular), which indicates evil actions, and the next six terms are in the singular, which indicates attitudes or character traits. (Strauss, comment on vv. 20-23). Some in the first half of the list represent the decalogue (Ten Commandments): theft (eight), murder (eighth), adultery (sixth), and greed is loosely connected to covetousness (tenth).
I encourage all readers to go to biblehub.com and look them up. Just look for an interlinear Bible and then click on the English words that will take you back to the Greek definitions, but in English.
Everyone now knows (or should know) Jesus’s bottom-line point: We must avoid the vices, because they make us morally unclean. Food does not. Don’t confuse your priorities.
In any case, let there not be any confusion about Jesus being so loving that he overlooked people’s vices. No. He told everyone that the basic message of the kingdom is “Repent!” (Mark 1:15). He can purge each vice in the list, on our repentance.
GrowApp for Mark 7:1-23
1. Have you been too religious about external things? How do you correct your overemphasis?
2. How do you best honor your father and mother? Does honor mean “love” or “obey”?
3. How has God helped you overcome any item in the list of vices?
RELATED
10. Eyewitness Testimony in Mark’s Gospel
2. Church Fathers and Mark’s Gospel
2. Archaeology and the Synoptic Gospels
14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels
1. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Introduction to Series
SOURCES
For bibliographical data, please click on this link and scroll down to the very bottom:
Dr. Jim's Essential Bible Teaching 