Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Mark 7’

Jesus heals a man who can’t hear or speak well. Mark 7:32-37

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , on October 15, 2019| Leave a Comment »

The literary structure of Mark 7:32-37

We’re back in the Gospel of Mark today looking at 7:32-37 and how Jesus heals a man who can’t hear or speak well. (This is one of three stories in Mark that are not a part of any other Gospel.)

Last time we saw how Jesus went into the region of Tyre and Sidon – a Gentile area – and he did so to get away from the conflict and crowds in Galilee. Well, today he continues on his –

Trip through Gentile territory

Mark 7 trip thru Gentile territory

On the map you can see how he left Galilee to the region of Tyre. v. 31, which comes just before our story says, “Then Jesus returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.” So he goes over 20 miles north to Sidon, and then to the South Eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, which is also a predominantly Gentile area – called the Decapolis (Although see Robert Stein, Commentary on Mark)

Which brings us to –

 

Our story

32And they brought to him a man who was deaf and had a speech impediment, and they begged him to lay his hand on him.

So this man, most likely a Gentile, can’t hear. And he also has a speech impediment. The word used here literally means “to speak with difficulty,” which could just mean that he’s been deaf from birth and so has trouble speaking.

How did these people know about Jesus? Well, it could be from word of mouth, like with the Syrophoenician woman who had heard about Jesus far away from Galilee. But also remember that when Jesus cast out the Legion of demons from a man, from this area, he said to him, “Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” And Mark goes on, “And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and everyone marveled.” (Mark 5:19-20) Perhaps this is why Jesus is known in this region.

They want Jesus to touch this man, which means heal him (Mark 5:23; 8:22). And they’re imploring Jesus to do this.

 33And taking him aside from the crowd privately . . .

Now there’s a crowd in a Gentile area, not just in Galilee! Jesus’ reputation is spreading. But Jesus doesn’t want to draw a lot of attention to himself; he’s trying to get away from crowds. So he goes to a more private place with the man and presumably those who brought him to be healed.

. . . he put his fingers into his ears, and after spitting touched his tongue.

This is one of the most detailed descriptions of how Jesus went about healing someone, although there’s no reason to think he did the same things each time.

Here Jesus touches the body parts that need healing. He puts his finger into his ears and apparently he spits on his finger and then touches it to the man’s tongue. Jesus uses his saliva here and in two other places (Mark 8:23, John 9:6). Now this strikes most of us, I would think, as pretty gross! But some ancients thought that saliva had healing properties, especially from great people.

Is Jesus showing the deaf man, through motions, what he’s doing – seeking to heal his ears and tongue? A kind of sign language? Maybe.

34And looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, “Ephphatha,” that is, “Be opened.”

Jesus is praying and the sigh seems to be a part of this prayer (Romans 8:26), perhaps expressing his compassion for the man and his suffering and the intensity of his prayer.

And then Jesus commands that the body parts function. The command is an Aramaic word, the common language of the day for Jews and others in this region.

35And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly.

His ears are immediately opened in response to Jesus’ command. And here we see that he could speak, but not clearly. But now his tongue is released. The imagery is that of a tongue that is bound in place. The phrase can also be translated, “the chain of his tongue was loosed.”

36And Jesus charged them to tell no one. But the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it.

The charge to silence here is quite similar to Mark 1:44-45. Jesus doesn’t want to overwhelmed by crowds. He can’t fulfill his mission if all he does is heal everyone’s needs day and night.

He charges the man and his companions, apparently several times. Think how hard it would be for the friends to stay quiet about this. And then think how hard it would be for the man, who’s not only healed, but can now, for the first time speak clearly! Yet Jesus wants him to stay quiet!

Well, they do disobey, but you can be sympathetic as to why – Jesus’ greatness seems to demand it. The word “proclaimed” is a positive word throughout this gospel referring to proclaiming the good news of the salvation Jesus brings – which is what they’re doing.

37And they were astonished beyond measure, saying, “He has done all things well. He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.”

 Jesus’ power amazes them – “they were astonished beyond measure.” What they just witnessed is not a common event. It’s extraordinary and it produces over the top amazement on their part.

There are two echoes of the Old Testament in this verse. First, the phrase “he has done all things well,” alludes to what Israel said about King David in his early reign in 2 Samuel 3:36 – “all things the king did pleased all the people.” Jesus is, of course, David’s descendant and his promised son; the Messiah.

The second echo comes from the last phrase “he even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.” This is a reference to Isaiah 35:5-6 which says, “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy.” This passage speaks of God’s salvation of Israel, promised at the time of the exile, now coming to pass in Jesus – as this healing indicates – for a man who was deaf and mute is healed, just as predicted.

(This connection is confirmed in that the word used for “speech impediment” in v. 32 is only used in this verse in all the New Testament. And it is used only one time in all the Greek Old Testament (LXX) in Isaiah 35:6. Mark wants us to get the point.)

Let’s end with –

The take home

-for us today. In as much as this healing is a sign, that is, it points to truths beyond just the physical healing itself:

1. It tells us who Jesus is. Once again Jesus is the anointed one, the reference to 2 Samuel 3:36 and Jesus as the Son of David, come to fulfill the promises of God’s salvation, here from Isaiah 35:5-6.

2. It also symbolically portrays that Gentile ears can be opened to hear the good news and their tongues loosened to glorify God, just as with the Jews. (Alan Culpepper, Commentary on Mark, p. 243). This looks forward to what will be after Jesus is raised from the dead.

And in general we learn again that 3. Nothing is too difficult for Jesus. He can heal any condition. He can deal with any situation, even what we think is impossible. We too can be “astonished beyond measure.” Jesus still does all things well, as he works salvation and blessing in our lives.

Read Full Post »

Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman. Mark 7:24-31

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , on September 3, 2019| 1 Comment »

The literary structure of Mark 7:24-32

We’re back in the gospel of Mark, looking at the story of Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman in chapter 7:24-31.

Last week Jesus discussed with the Pharisees and his disciples the topic of what truly defiles someone – not extra Scriptural rules of ritual impurity, but the moral impurity of our hearts. In this story Jesus is in a land that’s unclean, dealing with a woman who was considered unclean and he casts out an unclean spirit from her daughter.

Let’s first look at –

The story

24And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon.

Jesus leaves where he has been in Galilee and goes north into new territory, somewhere around the cities of Tyre and Sidon.

Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman A

This would have been the southern part of the Roman province of Syria or what we call today Lebanon (ancient Syrophoenicia).

And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know . . .

It looks like Jesus is once again looking for some solitude and rest. He’s been involved in heavy ministry for a time now – healing, teaching and having to argue with opponents. So perhaps he thought that in this Gentile area he could take a break. He wouldn’t be known here. There wouldn’t be mobs of people clamoring after him.

. . . yet he could not be hidden.25But immediately a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet.

Jesus was found out!

Some from this area had traveled to Galilee to receive ministry from Jesus, as we saw in chapter 3 (v. 8), including casting out demons (v. 11). Perhaps they spread the word when they went home and now it has gotten out that Jesus is in their area.

In any case, this unnamed woman finds Jesus and falls down at his feet. Her daughter is demon possessed. We aren’t given any more details about how this manifested itself, physically or mentally. The focus of the story isn’t really the daughter, it’s on the mother and Jesus.

26Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth.

According to the way things were at this time, she had three strikes against her:

  1. She was a woman and social contact with a man who was not a part of her family could be seen as scandalous
  2. She was a Gentile, not a Jew; not a part of God’s people
  3. She was a Syrophoenician, from a people who were bitter enemies of the Jews.

But none of these obstacles stopped her.

And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter.

“She begged” can also be translated as “she kept begging.”

And according to Matthew’s version of this story it was so persistent and thus annoying that the disciples ended up begging Jesus to send her away (Matthew 15:23). This is quite the scene with everybody begging Jesus. Not very restful!

Jesus responds to the woman with a parable.

27And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

Jesus is drawing on common sense experience. Everyone knows that the children are fed first, and then the dogs are fed. The application is that Jesus is focused on the Jews, God’s chosen ones who have waited for God’s promises to be fulfilled. This is what his ministry is about (Matthew 15:24). Focused ministry to the Gentiles will come later.

Now, this parable has been taken in the wrong way and it has upset some people. But Jesus is not saying that Gentiles are dogs. There’s little or no evidence that this was a common way that Jews spoke of Gentiles (Mark Nanos – Paul’s Reversal, 2008). And besides, Jesus uses the word for “dog” that means pets or puppies (and this is how the woman takes it, house pets – v. 28).

The point is not a difference in kind – Jews are children and Gentiles are dogs. The point is a difference in timing, first the Jews, then others. This is made clear by the word “first,” a chronological marker. This is what Paul meant, when he said in Romans 1:16 that he preaches the gospel “to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”

[Jesus has ministered to Gentiles already. But this is the only recorded story of Jesus helping someone outside the boundaries of traditional Israel. Perhaps this is why he raises this issue. There are some parallels with Elijah’s healing of a Gentile woman’s son (1 Kings 17:8-24)]

28But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

First, notice that she addresses him as “Lord.” This is the only time someone does this in Mark’s gospel and it shows her understanding of who Jesus is.

And then she shows her intelligence and wit. She gets his parable, which the disciples usually do not. And then she goes on to make her own point. Even though the dogs eat later, sometimes the children drop crumbs and thus the dogs eat at the same time as the children. So based on Jesus’ own parable – it should be alright for her not to have to wait, but to receive some bread even now.

This woman reframed the discussion is such a way that allowed Jesus’ concerns to be acknowledged, but also allowed her to receive her request.

  • She isn’t asking for Jesus to neglect Israel, or to take anything away from them.
  • She’s just saying, “Since you’re already here in Gentile territory, why not a crumb?”

29And he said to her, “For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.”

Jesus, the one who always bests his opponents in argument, is here bested by her.

Her statement shows her humility. She accepted her place as not-yet one of the elect; and not-yet the focus of Jesus’ ministry. And her statement demonstrates her bold and persistent faith. She did not allow Jesus’ “no” to stop her. But continued to make the case for her daughter.

In response to this humility and faith, Jesus readily healed her daughter, and that from a distance. (Perhaps having to do with concern about purity with entering a Gentile home).

v. 30 confirms the miracle –

30And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone.

 Our story ends with v. 31 –

31Then he returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.

What do we learn from this story?

What about us?

1 . Be open to opportunities to minister to others. It wasn’t Jesus’ timing to minister to her. He was trying to get away from people and crowds, so he could rest. What does he do when he’s found out? He allowed his privacy to be invaded; he gave up some of his time of rest.

And we need to be open to this as well. You have one thing scheduled, and it’s a good thing. But someone comes along who needs help. Be open to this.

Also, it wasn’t Jesus’ focus to help her. God sent him to minister to the people of Israel (Matthew 15:24). She’s not a part of Israel. What does Jesus do? He raised the issue with her, but then he responded when he saw her humility and faith.

Things don’t always work according to our plans. In my church in Portland we worked at setting up a weekly meal for neighbors so that we could get to know them. We wanted all kinds of people to come. But it turned out that only the homeless came. We had not really planned on this; it wasn’t our focus. And I had no skills in this (although one of our workers did). But it opened up a season of ministry to this population in our area.

The same happened with immigrant Congolese Africans. We never sat down and said, “Hey, let’s begin this ministry.” It wasn’t our focus. But God gave it to us.

We need to be open to the opportunities that God brings across our path even if it’s not our focus or timing.

2. Approach God like this woman did.When you pray, learn from her. She was successful. What did she do?

She approached Jesus with humility:

  • she fell down at his feet
  • she accepted that she’s not-yet part of the elect and has no claim on him
  • she calls him “Lord,” an expression of submission.

Also, she approached Jesus with bold, persistent faith

  • she searched Jesus out while he was in hiding
  • she kept begging
  • she called him “Lord,” also an expression of faith
  • after Jesus said no, she responded boldly
  • and she knew that for him, casting out a demon was only a crumb – a small thing for him to do.

In your prayers, approach God with humility and faith.

3. Know that Jesus is able to help. As we saw in the story, he wasn’t able to stay hidden, but he was able to help.

He’s the Messiah and Savior. And he can take care of us. He can come through for us.

He overcame the power of the evil one in this mom’s daughter – as if it were nothing! From a distance. Without even saying a word. And he’s more than able to deliver us from all the powers of evil and sin that confront us.

Read Full Post »

The real problem: an impure heart. Mark 7:14-23

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , , , , , on August 27, 2019| Leave a Comment »

The literary structure of Mark 7:1-23

Last week we began looking at Mark 7:1-23. In vs. 1-13 Jesus pointed out the problem of following mere human religious rules or the tradition of the elders. This week we’ll focus on the other point of dispute between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees –

The issue of impurity

Now, this isn’t the most exciting topic, but it’s important for understanding this passage. So here we go. In Scripture an object or a person becomes ritually impure in a number of ways, for instance by contact with a corpse, through various bodily discharges (which I will spare you listing them), or by touching someone who has these.

This creates a problem because God is holy and completely pure. So, if you are impure, you can’t come near to God. You can’t come near the temple, you can’t offer sacrifice (a real concern for priests) and also in some cases you had to stay away from other people. But you could be made ritually pure again by undergoing the proper ritual, which often involved water.

Well, the Pharisees (and their scribes) especially emphasized ritual purity. And in their traditions the rules for purity multiplied greatly beyond what Scripture says and they were applied broadly to everyone. The Pharisees’ goal seems to have been for regular people to maintain the highest possible state of ritual purity.

The Pharisees and those who were influenced by them, thought that this is what the people of God need; this is the agenda for moving forward for renewal and for once again receiving God’s blessing. And this is, no doubt, why they have condemned Jesus and his disciples in our story.

This bring us to –

Jesus’ parable on impurity

 14And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand.”

He has a message for the crowd. And he begins by saying hear and understand. He’s saying, this is important. But also he’s saying this is going to be difficult to understand! It’s called “a parable” in v. 17, and it’s meant to be a cryptic statement.

So you have to put some effort into understanding it. v. 16 isn’t in the earliest manuscripts, but it emphasizes this point as well, “if anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Here’s the parable –

“15There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”

 Notice that there are two parallel halves to this. And each half contains a series of contrasts with the other. There is:

  • a contrast between the outside, and the inside of a person
  • a contrast between things that go in from the outside, and things that come out from the inside
  • a contrast between what cannot defile – what goes in, and what does defile – what comes out

So this much is clear. But what else in the world is Jesus talking about?? Thankfully we have –

Jesus’ explanation

17And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding?”

Like in other places in the gospels, Jesus explains his teaching in private to his disciples. First, he deals with the first half of the parable.

“Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him 19since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and goes out into the toilet – cleansing all foods?”

We’re reminded of the bigger context here. Jesus has been talking about eating food with defiled hands. But then something happens. When he tells us why the food doesn’t defile, he talks about how “it enters not his heart.” This is odd until you realize that Jesus has shifted the conversation from one on ritual purity, to one exclusively about moral purity – with a focus on the human heart. This is the key to understanding the parable. He’s not saying whether food does or does not defile someone. He just doesn’t address this. Rather, he’s saying no food can make someone morally impure. Hold on to this. We’ll come back to it.

A digression: At the end of v. 19 we have a dangling participial phrase that’s difficult to make sense of, and it shows up differently in different Bibles. In the earliest manuscripts it says literally, “cleansing all foods,” which can be construed in different ways.

The phrase, “thus he declared . . .” is not in the Greek text. It’s simply one way to make sense of this. Just briefly, my view is that using the phrase “thus he declared” is not the best solution. Rather, it’s best to see “cleansing all foods” as the conclusion of Jesus’ point here. He’s saying, the digestive process cleanses all foods, keeping the good and expelling the bad. Neither Jesus nor Mark is saying the biblical food laws or purity laws for Jews are nullified.

[Grammatically “cleansing” doesn’t have a close antecedent. So you can 1) go back to the beginning of v. 18 and find it in “he said to them” (or forward to v. 20) and come up with “Jesus, cleansing all foods” or as I said above, “Thus he declared all foods clean” or 2) you can take it as a grammatical oddity which sometime happens – an anacoluthon. And then the phrase works as I have interpreted it above. The KJV and NKJV are based on later manuscripts which also connect the phrase to the digestive process, but by means of a change to the word “cleansing.”

The second option is preferable for a number of reasons: 1) Jesus has just strongly rebuked the Pharisees for letting their traditions nullify the word of God. It is not reasonable to think that Jesus would then immediately turn around and nullify actual Scriptural commands to Jews. Jesus would be a law breaker and a sinner. And why is there no trace of him being rebuked by the Pharisees for this? And why would any Jew listen to him? He would be classified as a false prophet. 2) Jesus explicitly teaches that he does not nullify the Law – Matthew 5:17-19. 3) If the first option is accepted, Jesus’ rebuke of the disciples in v. 18 would overly harsh. How could they be expected to anticipate that Jesus would be nullifying Scriptural commands? 4) Jesus’ saying in v. 15 is a “parable” (v. 17). It’s not a halakic statement defining right observance of the Law. And we are told to be careful to listen to what he’s saying. 5) Jesus’ point in all this is that moral impurity is the key. He’s not trying to make a statement on Scriptural teaching on ritual impurity or clean and unclean foods. 6) Matthew 15:20 provides the right interpretation. At the end of this version of the story, Jesus says, “but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.” That is he’s criticizing human traditions, not nullifying Scriptural commands. 7) If the first option is right, why did this saying not show up in the discussions of the early church on Gentiles and the Law of Moses in Acts 15? It’s because this passage was not interpreted as Jesus nullifying Scriptural commands by other Jews or his disciples. 8) The question of Gentiles and the Law was settled by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Jewish Christians continue to observe the Law (as Jesus interprets it), not for salvation, but as Jews. Gentiles do not need to keep the Law of Moses, except for the three things mentioned in the Apostolic decree from Leviticus 17-18. Other than that they simply follow Jesus.]

Next, Jesus explains the second half of the parable.

20And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him.”

  • Also notice v. 21 – “for from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts . . ..”
  • And as well v. 23 – “ . . . evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

So food can’t make someone morally impure, but the evil that comes out from the heart does defile.

Again, Jesus isn’t talking about ritual purity. He has shifted to a conversation about moral purity. Why? Because the real issue for Jesus is not ritual impurity but heart impurity.

Having heard his explanation, here’s a paraphrase of his parable: There is no food that you take in that can make you morally impure. But the evil things that come out of your heart do make you morally impure. 

Next, Jesus goes on to talk about –

The evil of the human heart

“21For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

In v. 21 he speaks of “evil thoughts” and in v. 23 of “evil things.” And in-between these there are 12 things that Jesus mentions.

[The first six are all in the plural, and most are from the 10 commandments. The second six are all in the singular.]

Jesus certainly agreed with the words of Jeremiah 17:9 – “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick.”

Notice that “murder” and “slander” or it can also be translated as “blasphemy” are on the list Jesus gives. These are the things that the Pharisees are directing toward him. In chapter 3 we learn that they are seeking to “destroy” him (v. 6), and also we see them slandering or blaspheming him and the Holy Spirit (vs. 28-29). While Jesus and his disciples may be guilty of not keeping mere human rules of ritual impurity, the Pharisees are guilty of true impurity; moral impurity of the heart.

Let’s step back now and look at the bigger picture and –

Jesus’ central point

The Pharisees’ agenda for renewal is about outward rules of purity. They focus on ever more detailed rules for how to stay ritually pure. And they say that this is how God’s people will be renewed; this is how Israel will find God’s favor.

But yet as Jesus said in Mark 7:6, even with all this “their heart is far from God.” And that’s because the real problem is an impure heart and there’s no way a focus on more and more ritual impurity can solve this.

In contrast, Jesus’ agenda for renewal is the giving of a new heart. This is what was promised in the prophets. For instance in Ezekiel 36:25-27. The Lord says, “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.”

This is what God’s people need!! A new, clean heart, given by the Spirit; a heart that has right desires.

Now, he doesn’t talk about the positive part of this here, just what the real problem is. But this is Jesus’ whole mission in coming to us:

  • He died so that our sins might be forgiven; our moral defilement cleansed.
  • And he was raised so that we might receive the Spirit and a new heart that obeys the Lord.

Well, again, it’s easy to pick on the Pharisees, but –

What about us?

We don’t have ritual purity rules like in Jesus’ day. We have rules for purity, but they’re more about hygiene than blocking one’s access to God.

But sometimes we try to cover over our moral impurity by cleaning up the outside of our lives, often using human rules as opposed to what God is focused on. Things like how we dress, using the right words, attending extra church services or volunteering in the community. The outside, our lips, may honor God, but our hearts are far from God. Our hearts are still defiled and filthy. We are hypocrites.

Jesus is teaching us to deal with the real issue – our impure, evil heart. And we have to start within (Matthew 23:25-26)! Let Jesus cleanse away the defilement of your heart. Let Jesus give you a new heart by the Spirit. And let him do these things day by day as there is need.

And then as you’re renewed within, the outward can follow. Out of the abundance of your new heart will come right words (Matthew 12:33-37) and right actions (Matthew 7:15-20).

Read Full Post »

Jesus takes on mere human traditions. Mark 7:1-13

Posted in Uncategorized, tagged , , , , on August 20, 2019| Leave a Comment »

The literary structure of Mark 7:1-13

We’re launching into an important passage today, Mark 7:1-23. There are actually two significant issues that are talked about in these verses – human religious traditions and how to be pure before God.  The plan is to deal with the first one today, in vs. 1-13. And we’ll look at the second, purity, next week.

Our Scripture begins with Jesus involved in, surprise, surprise –

A conflict

1Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed.

So some Pharisees are present and also some experts of the Law from Jerusalem – the theologians of that day. They’re checking Jesus out. They want to see what he’s up to.

The last time we saw some scribes they accused Jesus of being possessed by Satan (3:22), so not a friendly audience. Well, they and the Pharisees take issue again when they see some of Jesus’ disciples not washing their hands before they eat.

Now, this isn’t about good hygiene. As v. 2 indicates, it has to do with ritual uncleanness or defilement; that is to say, eating this way makes you ceremonially unclean before God.

Mark goes on to explain –

3For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.

[“All the Jews” is a bit of a generalization. Certainly the Pharisees, who were influential, held to the need for washing hands, as did the Essences, another prominent group of Jews. 

One word in not translated. It comes at the end of the phrase in v. 3, “they wash their hands . . ..” It says literally “with a fist.” No one knows for sure what this means. It might mean “carefully” or it might refer to how the hands are ritually washed. 

The very last phrase of v. 4, literally “and beds” or “and dining couches” is not in all the manuscripts. So if your Bible doesn’t have it, that’s why.]

Mark here is helping his non-Jewish readers (us) understand the situation. 1) Washing things was a big deal for many Jews, especially the Pharisees. And 2) The command to wash hands comes from “the tradition of the elders” not from Scripture itself.

This body of tradition was followed by the Pharisees. It’s sometimes called the oral law. The idea was that Moses wrote down the Law in the Bible, but other instructions were passed on generation to generation by word of mouth. (This tradition was later written out in the Mishna, and other writings.) So, the Pharisees believed there are two sources of commandments, the written Law in Scripture and the oral law or tradition of the elders.

5And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”

This is really an attack on Jesus. The charge is that his disciples aren’t faithful to God, which means that, since he’s their teacher, he’s not faithful. (Jesus also didn’t follow this practice – Luke 11:38).

Their charge involves both the issue of 1) keeping the traditions, and 2) what purity means. But as I said, we’ll focus on the first for today.

Jesus on human traditions

Jesus’ first response comes in vs. 6-8, where he calls them out as hypocrites.

6And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 7in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

A hypocrite looks one way – good, but is actually another – not so good.

Jesus quotes from the prophets, specifically Isaiah 29:3, a passage that deals with honoring God. And he sees this verse, on one level, as pointing to the Pharisees and the scribes – and their error here. (The quote is closer to the LXX, although the same basic point in made in the MT).

The word “worship” should be taken in its broad sense of  a life of service and obedience to God, not just how they participate in a worship service.

They look like they’re honoring God with their lives. But this is only external, with their lips. Their heart remains far away. Why is their heart far away? Why is their worship “vain” or useless? Because they are only about teaching and following human rules.

He’s saying Isaiah hit it right on the head about you guys –

“8You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

Notice the contrast here between a life that is based on God and God’s commandments, and a life that is based on tradition and human commandments, which is useless.

Jesus’ second response comes in vs. 9-13, where he illustrates their hypocrisy. He begins with the same point he just made in v. 8 –

 9And he said to them, “Well have you set aside the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!’”

He’s saying again, you prefer your tradition to God’s commands. You leave or set aside what God says, to keep what you say.

Jesus then quotes from the Law on honoring parents –

10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’”

 He’s quoting Exodus 20:12, the fifth of the ten commandments and Exodus 21:17. It was understood by all that honoring parents, for adult children, includes caring for them financially when the’re older. The second reference shows how serious this issue is. Those who don’t honor their parents, but revile or curse them, deserve the death penalty.

Then Jesus lays out their hypocrisy –

“11But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God)— 12then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother . . .”

Notice the strong contrast between what God has said through Moses, and what they say based on their tradition, which is not God’s word.

The word “corban” is a technical term for a vow to give your resources to God (that is, the Temple), but apparently the person here could still have access to them and use them until a later time. (This view was most likely held by many Pharisees and scribes at this time. It was rejected in later Judaism m. Ned. 9:1).

So based on their tradition the Pharisees and scribes said that you must keep your vow, and not the commandment to honor your parents. That is, you can withhold giving your resources to support your parents.

“. . . 13thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

They allow people to nullify what God commands, in order to keep a vow that is unrighteous in the first place. Indeed, they allow not only the breaking of the fifth commandment, but an action that is on a par with reviling one’s parents, which deserves the death penalty!

Summing up: Their charge was, ‘Jesus, you’re not faithful to God because you don’t keep the traditions of the elders.’ His response was, ‘Pharisees, you’re not faithful to God because you keep the traditions of the elders.’

They neither honor God (Isaiah 29) nor people, that is, their parents (Exodus 20 and 21). This is why they’re hypocrites. And he makes his point, not based on the traditions of the elders, mere human teaching, but based on the Law and the Prophets, that is, based on God’s word.

Well, it’s easy to criticize others, like the Pharisees, but –

What about us?

We all have human traditions. We all have opinions and convictions about how Christians should do things – that are not explicitly taught in Scripture.

  • What style of music should we sing in worship?
  • Should the sermon be about evangelism each week, with an altar call, or not?
  • What kind of clothes should we wear to church? Should we dress up or it doesn’t matter as long as they are modest?

Maybe you would see “the tradition of the elders” as equaling doing things the way we’ve always done things. But maybe our religious rule is that we have to be on the cutting edge and always do something new. It can work either way.

Now, for sure, we have to make choices on things to be able to function as a community. It isn’t wrong to have some traditions. But they can be taken too far.

What about us? Learn to differentiate between your traditions and God’s word. Eight times, in one way or another, our passage talks about human religious traditions. And throughout these are contrasted with “God’s word” or what is written in Scripture. These things are not the same. And so do not put them on the same level as the Pharisees did.

Yes, sometimes we have different views on things based on different interpretations of Scripture. But in the examples I have given you there is no explicit Scriptural teaching to settle the issue. They are matters of personal conviction, or a whole church’s conviction. And faithful Christians can differ.

What about us? Make sure your obedience to God is based on God’s word, and not mere human traditions. If your Christian life is just about making sure you practice your  traditions – I dressed right for church, I only sang the right kind of songs – then your obedience to God is useless, just like the Pharisees. Congratulations, you are a hypocrite! You look religious, but you haven’t built your life on following what God is actually interested in; what God teaches us.

Finally, what about us? Don’t judge others as unfaithful because of your traditions. This is what the Pharisees did to Jesus and his disciples. Jesus was faithful in every way, but was rejected as unfaithful because he didn’t conform to their merely human traditions.

And we do this too. Look, they aren’t faithful to God because they don’t dress right or sing the right kind of songs. When we do this we place our traditions over God’s commands. We do just what Jesus says about the Pharisees in v. 8 – we “leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

So let’s learn to identify and relegate our traditions to what they actually are – just our own convictions, not God’s commands. And let’s be generous and flexible with each other in the practice of our common Christian faith.

Read Full Post »