Text -- Mark 7:1-5 (NET)

Breaking Human Traditions

7:1 Now the Pharisees and some of the experts in the law who came from Jerusalem gathered around him. 7:2 And they saw that some of Jesus’ disciples ate their bread with unclean hands, that is, unwashed. 7:3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they perform a ritual washing, holding fast to the tradition of the elders. 7:4 And when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. They hold fast to many other traditions: the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and dining couches.) 7:5 The Pharisees and the experts in the law asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with unwashed hands?”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Mar 7:2

With defiled, that is unwashen hands ( koinais chersin , tout' estin aniptois ).

Associative instrumental case. Originally koinos meant what was common to everybody like the Koiné Greek. But in later Greek it came also to mean as here what is vulgar or profane. So Peter in Act 10:14 "common and unclean."The next step was the ceremonially unclean. The emissaries of the Pharisees and the scribes from Jerusalem had seen "some of the disciples"eat without washing their hands, how many we are not told. Swete suggests that in going through the plain the disciples were seen eating some of the bread preserved in the twelve baskets the afternoon before across the lake. There was no particular opportunity to wash the hands, a very proper thing to do before eating for sanitary reasons. But the objection raised is on ceremonial, not sanitary, grounds.

Robertson: Mar 7:3

Diligently ( pugmēi ).

Instrumental case, with the fist , up to the elbow, rubbing one hand and arm with the other hand clenched. Aleph had pukna probably because of the difficulty about pugmēi (kin to Latin pugnus ). Schultess considers it a dry wash or rubbing of the hands without water as a ritualistic concession. The middle voice nipsōntai means their own hands. This verb is often used for parts of the body while louō is used of the whole body (Joh 13:10). On the tradition of the elders see note on Mat 15:2.

Robertson: Mar 7:4

From the marketplace ( ap' agoras ).

Ceremonial defilement was inevitable in the mixing with men in public. This agora from ageirō to collect or gather, was a public forum in every town where the people gathered like the courthouse square in American towns. The disciples were already ceremonially defiled.

Robertson: Mar 7:4

Wash themselves ( baptisōntai ).

First aorist middle subjunctive of baptizō , dip or immerse. Westcott and Hort put rantisōntai in the text translated "sprinkle themselves"in the margin of the Revised Version, because Aleph, B, and some of the best cursives have it. Gould terms rantisōntai "a manifest emendation,"to get rid of the difficulty of dipping or bathing the whole body. Meyer says: "The statement proceeds by way of climax: before eating they wash the hands always. When they come from market they take a bath before eating."This is not the place to enter into any controversy about the meaning of baptizō , to dip, rantizō , to sprinkle, and eccheō , to pour, all used in the New Testament. The words have their distinctive meanings here as elsewhere. Some scribes felt a difficulty about the use of baptisōntai here. The Western and Syrian classes of manuscripts add "and couches"(kai klinōn ) at the end of the sentence. Swete considers the immersions of beds (baptismous klinōn ) "an incongruous combination."But Gould says: "Edersheim shows that the Jewish ordinance required immersions, baptismous , of these vessels."We must let the Jewish scrupulosity stand for itself, though "and couches"is not supported by Aleph, B L D Bohairic, probably not genuine.

Vincent: Mar 7:2

Defiled ( κοιναῖς )

Lit., common; and so Rev. in margin, Wyc., and Tynd.

Vincent: Mar 7:2

That is

Added by way of explanation to Gentile readers.

Vincent: Mar 7:2

Oft ( πυγμῇ )

Rev., diligently. A word which has given critics much difficulty, and on which it is impossible to speak decisively. The Rev. gives in the margin the simplest meaning, the literal one, with the fist; that is, rubbing the uncleansed hand with the other doubled. This would be satisfactory if there were any evidence that such was the custom in washing; but there is none. Edersheim (" Life and Times of Jesus," ii., 11, note) says " the custom is not in accordance with Jewish law." But he elsewhere says (" The Temple," 206, note), " For when water was poured upon the hands they had to be lifted, yet so that the water should neither run up above the wrist, nor back again upon the hand; best, therefore, by doubling the fingers into a fist. Hence (as Lightfoot rightly remarks) Mar 7:3, should be translated except they wash their hands with the fist. " Tischendorf, in his eighth edition, retains an ancient reading, πυκνά , frequently or diligently, which may go to explain this translation in so many of the versions (Gothic, Vulgate, Syriac). Meyer, with his usual literalism gives with the fist, which I am inclined to adopt.

Vincent: Mar 7:2

Holding ( κρατοῦντες )

Strictly, holding firmly or fast. So Heb 4:14; Rev 2:25; denoting obstinate adherence to tradition .

Vincent: Mar 7:4

Wash themselves ( βαπτίσωνται )

Two of the most important manuscripts, however, read ῥαντίσωνται , sprinkled themselves . See Rev., in margin. This reading is adopted by Westcott and Herr. The American Revisers insist on bathe, instead of wash , already used as a translation of νίψωνται (Mar 7:3). The scope of this work does not admit of our going into the endless controversy to which this word has given rise. It will be sufficient to give the principal facts concerning its meaning and usage.

In classical Greek the primary meaning is to merse. Thus Polybius (i., 51, 6), describing a naval battle of the Romans and Carthaginians, says, " They sank (ἐβάπτιζον ) many of the ships." Josephus (" Jewish War," 4., 3, 3), says of the crowds which flocked into Jerusalem at the time of the siege, " They overwhelmed (ἐβάπτισαν ) the city." In a metaphorical sense Plato uses it of drunkenness: drowned in drink (βεβαπτισμένοι , " Symposium," 176); of a youth overwhelmed (βαπτιζόμενον ) with the argument of his adversary (" Euthydemus," 277).

In the Septuagint the verb occurs four times: Isaiah 21:4, Terror hath frighted me. Septuagint, Iniquity baptizes me (βπτίζε ); 2 Kings 5:15, of Naaman's dipping himself in Jordan (ἐβαπτίσατο ) ; Judith 12:7, Judith washing herself (ἐβαπτίζετο ) at the fountain; Sirach 31:25, being baptized (βαπτιζόμενος ) from a dead body.

The New Testament use of the word to denote submersion for a religious purpose, may be traced back to the Levitical washings. See Lev 11:32 (of vessels); Lev 11:40 (of clothes); Num 8:6, Num 8:7 (sprinkling with purifying water); Exo 30:19, Exo 30:21 (of washing hands and feet). The word appears to have been at that time the technical term for such washings (compare Luk 11:38; Heb 9:10; Mar 7:4), and could not therefore have been limited to the meaning immerse. Thus the washing of pots and vessels for ceremonial purification could not have been by plunging them in water, which would have rendered impure the whole body of purifying water. The word may be taken in the sense of washing or sprinkling.

" The Teaching of the Apostles" (see on Mat 10:10) throws light on the elastic interpretation of the term, in its directions for baptism. " Baptize - in living (i.e., running) water. But if thou hast not living water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, pour water upon the head thrice into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Chap. VII.).

Vincent: Mar 7:4

Pots ( ξεστῶν )

Another of Mark's Latin words, adapted from the Latin sextarius, a pint measure. Wyc., cruets. Tynd., cruses .

Vincent: Mar 7:4

Brazen vessels ( χαλκίων )

More literally, copper.

Vincent: Mar 7:4

Tables ( κλινῶν )

Omitted in some of the best manuscripts and texts, and by Rev. The A. V. is a mistranslation, the word meaning couches. If this belongs in the text, we certainly cannot explain βαπτισμοὺς as immersion.

Wesley: Mar 7:1

Probably on purpose to find occasion against him. Mat 15:1.

Wesley: Mar 7:4

The Greek word (baptisms) means indifferently either washing or sprinkling. The cups, pots, and vessels were washed; the couches sprinkled.

Wesley: Mar 7:5

The rule delivered down from your forefathers.

Clarke: Mar 7:1

Came from Jerusalem - Probably for the express purpose of disputing with Christ, that they might entangle him in his talk. Malice and envy are never idle - they incessantly hunt the person they intend to make their prey.

Clarke: Mar 7:2

They found fault - This is wanting in ABEHLV, nineteen others, and several versions: Mill and Bengel approve the omission, and Griesbach rejects the word. If the 3d and 4th verses be read in a parenthesis, the 2d and 5th verses will appear to be properly connected, without the above clause.

Clarke: Mar 7:3

Except they wash their hands - πυγμῃ, the hand to the wrist - Unless they wash the hand up to the wrist, eat not. Several translations are given of this word; that above is from Dr. Lightfoot, who quotes a tradition from the rabbins, stating that the hands were to be thus washed. This sort of washing was, and still continues to be, an act of religion in the eastern countries. It is particularly commanded in the Koran, Surat v. ver. 7, "O believers, when ye wish to pray, wash your faces, and your hands up to the elbows - and your feet up to the ankles."Which custom it is likely Mohammed borrowed from the Jews. The Jewish doctrine is this: "If a man neglect the washing, he shall be eradicated from this world."But instead of πυγμῃ, the fist or hand, the Codex Bezae has πυκνῃ, frequently: and several of the Itala have words of the same signification. Bathing is an indispensable prerequisite to the first meal of the day among the Hindoos; and washing the hands and the feet is equally so before the evening meal. Ward’ s Customs.

Clarke: Mar 7:4

And when they come - This clause is added by our translators, to fill up the sense; but it was probably a part of the original: for εαν ελθωσι is the reading of the Codex Bezae, Vulgate, Armenian, and most of the Itala. The clause in my old MS. Bible is read thus: And thei turninge agein fro chepinge . The words seem essentially necessary to a proper understanding of the text; and, if not admitted on the above authority, they must be supplied in italics, as in our common translation

Clarke: Mar 7:4

Except they wash - Or dip; for βαπτισωνται may mean either. But instead of the word in the text, the famous Codex Vaticanus; (B), eight others, and Euthymius, have ῥαντισωνται, sprinkle. However, the Jews sometimes washed their hands previously to their eating: at other times, they simply dipped or plunged them into the water

Clarke: Mar 7:4

Of cups - Ποτηριων ; any kind of earthen vessels

Clarke: Mar 7:4

Pots - Of measures - ξεϚων, from the singular ξεϚης, a measure for liquids, formed from the Latin sextarius , equal to a pint and a half English. See this proved by Wetstein on this place. My old MS. renders it cruetis

Clarke: Mar 7:4

Of brazen vessels - Χαλκιων . These, if polluted, were only to be washed, or passed through the fire; whereas the earthen vessels were to be broken

Clarke: Mar 7:4

And of tables - Beds, couches - και κλινων . This is wanting in BL, two others, and the Coptic. It is likely it means no more than the forms, or seats, on which they sat to eat. A bed or a couch was defiled, if any unclean person sat or leaned on it - a man with an issue - a leper - a woman with child, etc. As the word βαπτισμους, baptisms, is applied to all these, and as it is contended that this word, and the verb whence it is derived, signify dipping or immersion alone, its use in the above cases refutes that opinion and shows that it was used, not only to express dipping or immersion, but also sprinkling and washing. The cups and pots were washed; the beds and forms perhaps sprinkled; and the hands dipped up to the wrist.

Clarke: Mar 7:5

Why walk not thy disciples - See on Mat 15:2-9 (note).

Defender: Mar 7:3

The word "wash" is baptizo, normally translated (or really just transliterated) as "baptize." Whatever is "washed" or "baptized" is obviously washed all over, whether the object is a hand, a cup (Mar 4:4) or a person."

TSK: Mar 7:1

The Pharisees : Mar 3:22; Mat 15:1; Luk 5:17, Luk 11:53, Luk 11:54

TSK: Mar 7:2

defiled : or, common, Act 10:14, Act 10:15, Act 10:28

they found : Dan 6:4, Dan 6:5; Mat 7:3-5, Mat 23:23-25

TSK: Mar 7:3

oft : or, diligently, Gr. With the fist, Up to the elbow, Theophylact. Πυγμη [Strong’ s G4435], the fist; which Dr. Lightfoot illustrates by a tradition from the Talmudical tracts, that when they washed their hands, they washed the fist up to the joint of the arm, עד פרק . The Jews laid great stress on these washings, or baptisms, βαπτισμους [Strong’ s G909], considering eating with unwashen hands no ordinary crime, and feigning that an evil spirit, called Shibta, has a right to sit on the food of him who thus eats, and render it hurtful.

the tradition : Mar 7:7-10,Mar 7:13; Mat 15:2-6; Gal 1:14; Col 2:8, Col 2:21-23; 1Pe 1:18

TSK: Mar 7:4

except : Job 9:30,Job 9:31; Psa 26:6; Isa 1:16; Jer 4:14; Mat 27:24; Luk 11:38, Luk 11:39; Joh 2:6, Joh 3:25; Heb 9:10; Jam 4:8; 1Jo 1:7

pots : ""Gr. Sextarius; about a pint and a half."

tables : or, beds

TSK: Mar 7:5

Mar 2:16-18; Mat 15:2; Act 21:21, Act 21:24; Rom 4:12; 2Th 3:6, 2Th 3:11

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Mar 7:1-23

See this passage explained in the notes at Mat. 15:1-20.

Mar 7:1

Came from Jerusalem - Probably to observe his conduct, and to find matter of accusation against him.

Mar 7:2

Defiled hands - The hands were considered defiled or polluted unless they were washed previous to every meal.

Mar 7:3

Except they wash their hands oft - Our word "oft"means frequently, often. The Greek wore translated oft has been rendered various ways. Some have said that it means "up to the wrist"- unless they wash their hands up to the wrist. Others have said up to the elbow."There is evidence that the Pharisees had some such foolish rule as this about washing, and it is likely that they practiced it faithfully. But the Greek Word πυγμή pugmē - means properly the "fist,"and the meaning here is, "Unless they wash their hands (rubbing them) with the fist"- that is, not merely dipping the finger or hands in water as a sign of ablution, but rubbing the hands together as a ball or fist, in the usual Oriental manner when water is poured over them. Hence, the phrase comes to mean "diligently, carefully, sedulously."- Robinson, Lexicon. The idea is, unless they pay the utmost attention to it, and do it carefully and according to rule.

The tradition - What had been handed down; not what was delivered "by writing"in the law of Moses, but what had been communicated from father to son as being proper and binding.

The elders - The ancients; not the old men "then living,"but those who had lived formerly.

Mar 7:4

Market - This word means either the place where provisions were sold, or the place where men were convened for any purpose. Here it probably means the former.

Except they wash - In the original, "Except they baptize."In this place it does not mean to immerse the whole body, but only the hands. There is no evidence that the Jews washed their "whole bodies"every time they came from market. It is probable that they often washed with the use of a very small quantity of water.

The washing of cups - In the Greek, "the baptism of cups."

Cups - drinking vessels. Those used at their meals.

Pots - Measures of "liquids."Vessels made of wood, used to hold wine, vinegar, etc.

brazen vessels - Vessels made of brass, used in cooking or otherwise. These, if much polluted, were commonly passed through the fire: if slightly polluted they were washed. Earthen vessels, if defiled, were usually broken.

Tables - This word means, in the original, "beds or couches."It refers not to the "tables"on which they ate, but to the "couches"on which they reclined at their meals. See the notes at Mat 23:6. These were supposed to be defiled when any unclean or polluted person had reclined on them, and they deemed it necessary to purify them with water. The word "baptism"is here used - in the original, "the baptism of tables;"but, since it cannot be supposed that "couches"were entirely "immersed"in water, the word "baptism"here must denote some other application of water, by sprinkling or otherwise, and shows that the term is used in the sense of washing in any way. If the word is used here, as is clear it is, to denote anything except entire immersion, it may be elsewhere, and baptism is lawfully performed, therefore, without immersing the whole body in water.

Mar 7:7

For doctrines - For commands of God binding on the conscience. Imposing "your"traditions as equal in authority to the laws of God.

Mar 7:8

Laying aside - Rejecting, or making, it give place to traditions; considering the traditions as superior in authority to the divine law. This was the uniform doctrine of the Pharisees. See the notes at Mat 15:1-9.

The tradition of men - What has been handed down by human beings, or what rests solely on their authority.

Mar 7:9

Full well - These words are capable of different interpretations. Some read them as a question: "Do ye do well in rejecting?"etc. Others suppose they mean "skillfully, cunningly.""You show great cunning or art, in laying aside God’ s commands and substituting in their place those of men."Others suppose them to be ironical. "How nobly you act! From conscientious attachment to your traditions you have made void the law of God;"meaning to intimate by it that they had acted wickedly and basely.

Mar 7:17

The parable - The "obscure"and difficult remarks which he had made in Mar 7:15. The word "parable,"here, means "obscure"and "difficult saying."They could not understand it. They had probably imbibed many of the popular notions of the Pharisees, and they could not understand why a man was not defiled by external things. It was, moreover, a doctrine of the law that men were ceremonially polluted by contact with dead bodies, etc., and they could not understand how it could be otherwise.

Mar 7:18

Cannot defile him - Cannot render his "soul"polluted; cannot make him a "sinner"so as to need this purifying as a "religious"observance.

Mar 7:19

Entereth not into his heart - Does not reach or affect the "mind,"the "soul,"and consequently cannot pollute it. Even if it should affect the "body,"yet it cannot the "soul,"and consequently cannot need to be cleansed by a religious ordinance. The notions of the Pharisees, therefore, are not founded in reason, but are mere "superstition."

The draught - The sink, the vault. "Purging all meats."The word "purging,"here, means to purify, to cleanse. What is thrown out of the body is the innutritious part of the food taken into the stomach, and leaving only that which is proper for the support of life; and it cannot, therefore, defile the soul.

All meals - All food; all that is taken into the body to support life. The meaning is, that the economy or process by which life is supported "purifies"or "renders nutritious"all kinds of food. The unwholesome or innutritious parts are separated, and the wholesome only are taken into the system. This agrees with all that has since been discovered of the process of digestion and of the support of life. The food taken into the stomach is by the gastric juice converted into a thick pulp called chyme. The nutritious part of this is conveyed into small vessels, and changed into a milky substance called "chyle."This is poured by the thoracic duct into the left subclavian vein and mingles with the blood, and conveys nutriment and support to all parts of the system. The useless parts of the food are thrown off.

Mar 7:20

Hat which cometh out of the man - His words; the expression of his thoughts and feelings; his conduct, as the development of inward malice, anger, covetousness, lust, etc.

Defileth the man - Makes him really polluted or offensive in the sight of God. This renders the soul corrupt and abominable in his sight. See Mat 15:18-20.

Poole: Mar 7:1

Mar 7:1-13 The Pharisees finding fault with his disciples for

eating with unwashen hands, Christ reproveth them of

hypocrisy, and of making void the commandments of God

by the traditions of men.

Mar 7:14-23 He teacheth that a man is defiled, not by that which

entereth in, but by that which cometh out of him.

Mar 7:24-30 He healeth the daughter of a Syrophenician woman,

Mar 7:31-37 and a man that was deaf and had an impediment in his speech.

Ver. 1-13. See Poole on "Mat 15:1" , and following verses to Mat 15:9 . By the notion of traditions, our Saviour understandeth not such things as were delivered to them by God in his law, but such things as were delivered to them by the elders, that is, their rulers in the church in the former times; for, Mar 7:9 , he opposeth traditions to God’ s commandments, and said the latter were neglected by their zeal for the former: to give countenance to which traditions, as the papists would impose upon us to believe, that Christ communicated some things to his apostles, and they to the primitive churches, by word of mouth, which have been so transmitted from age to age; so the Jews pretended that God communicated his will in some things to Moses, which Moses did not publish to the people. And as the former pretend a power by Christ left to the church to determine rituals; so the Pharisees (their true predecessors) pretended a suchlike power. Amongst others, besides the divers washings mentioned by the apostle, Heb 9:10 , amongst the carnal ordinances, imposed only until the time of reformation, they had invented many other washings, as sepimenta legis, hedges to the Divine law. They washed their hands often, when they came from market, or before they did eat, not for decency and neatness, but out of religion, lest they should have been defiled by touching any heathens, or any polluted things; and not their hands only, but their pots and cups, their beds and tables, and brazen vessels; as indeed there is no stop, when once men have passed the hedge of the Divine institution, of which popery is a plentiful instance, where it is hard to discern an ordinance of God in the rubbish of their superstitious traditions. And it is very observable, that superstitious men are always more fond of, and zealous for, the traditions of men in their worship, than keeping the commandments of God. It is with the papists more heinous to violate Lent than to violate the sabbath; for a priest to marry than to commit whoredom. This zeal in them ordinarily produces a neglect, or slight esteem, of the plain commandments of God. So it did in the Pharisees, Mar 7:9 ; upon which our Saviour calleth them hypocrites, Mar 7:6 , and telleth them this worshipping of God was vain, sinful, and idle, and impertinent; there was in it a derogating from the authority of God, and arrogating of an undue authority to themselves, by their commands making those things necessary which are not so; and, as commonly it happeneth, when human inventions are over urged and multiplied, some are urged destructive of the Divine law, so it was with those Pharisees; so they had done as to the fifth commandment, of which we have spoken plentifully: See Poole "Mat 15:4" , and following verses to Mat 15:6 . Our Saviour goeth on, showing their ignorance and blindness, in imagining that any person could be defiled by eating with unwashen hands.

Lightfoot: Mar 7:3

For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.   

[Except they wash their hands oft.] The fist. When they washed their hands, they washed the fist unto the joining of the arm. The hands are polluted, and made clean unto the joining of the arm. "The Rabbins deliver: The washing of hands as to common things (or common food) was unto the joining of the arm. And the cleansing of hands and feet in the Temple was to the joint." The joining; saith the Aruch, is where the arm is distinguished from the hand. So, also, where the foot is distinguished from the leg.  

"The second waters cleanse whatsoever parts of the hands the first waters had washed. But if the first waters had gone above the juncture of the arm, the second waters do not cleanse, because they do not cleanse beyond the juncture. If, therefore, the waters which went above the juncture return upon the hands again, they are unclean."

Lightfoot: Mar 7:4

And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.   

[And when they come from the market, except they wash.] The Jews used the washing of the hands; and the plunging of the hands. And the word wash; in our evangelist seems to answer to the former, and baptize to the latter.  

I. That the plunging of the whole body is not understood here, may be sufficiently proved hence; that such plunging is not used but when pollution is contracted from the more principal causes of uncleanness. "A man and vessels contract not uncleanness, but from the father of uncleanness; such as uncleanness from a creeping thing, from the seed in the unclean act, from him that is polluted by the dead, from a leper, from the water of purification, from him that lies with a menstruous woman, from the flux of him that hath the gonorrhea, from his spittle, from his urine, from the blood of a menstruous woman, from a profluvious man," etc. By these a man was so polluted, that it was a day's washing; and he must plunge his whole body. But for smaller uncleannesses it was enough to cleanse the hands.  

II. Much less is it to be understood of the things bought; as if they, when they were bought for the market, were to be washed (in which sense some interpreters render the words, "And what they buy out of the market, unless they wash it, they eat it not"), when there were some things which would not endure water, some things which, when bought, were not presently eaten; and the traditional canons distinguish between those things which were lawful as soon as they came from the market, and those which were not.  

III. The phrase, therefore, seems to be meant of the immersion; or plunging of the hands only; and the word fist; is here to be understood also in common. Those that remain at home eat not unless they wash the fist. But those that come from the market eat not, unless they plunge their fist into the water; being ignorant and uncertain what uncleanness they came near unto in the market.  

"The washing of the hands, and the plunging of the hands, were from the scribes. The hands which had need of plunging; they dipped not but in a fit place; that is, where there was a confluence of forty seahs of water. For in the place where any dipped vessels, it was lawful to dip the hands. But the hands which have need of washing only, if they dip them in the confluence of waters, they are clean; whether they dip them in waters that are drawn, or in vessels, or in the pavement. They do not cleanse the hands [as to washing], until waters are poured upon the hands out of a vessel: for they do not wash the hands but out of a vessel."  

[Pots.] It is doubtful whether this word be derived from a sextary (a certain measure), or from vessels planed or engraven. To take it as speaking of sextaries is, indeed, very agreeable to the word, and not much different from the matter. And so also it is, if you derive it from vessels planed or turned; that is, of wood. And perhaps those vessels which are called by the Rabbins flat; and are opposed to such as may contain something within them; are expressed by this word. Of that sort were knives, tables, seats, etc. Concerning which, as capable of pollution, see Maimonides, and the Talmudic Tract Kelim; where are reckoned up, 1. The very table at which they ate. 2. The little table; or the wooden side-table, where wine and fruits were set, that were presently to be brought to table. 3. A seat. 4. The footstool for the feet under the seat.  

[Of beds.] Beds contracted uncleanness...One can hardly put these into good English without a paraphrase. [One] was a bed; on which a profluvious man or woman, or a menstruous woman, or a woman in childbirth, or a leper, had either sat or stood, or lain, or leaned, or hung. [The other] was a bed; which any thing had touched, that had been touched before by any of these.  

The word, therefore, washings; applied to all these, properly and strictly is not to be taken of dipping or plunging; but, in respect of some things, of washing only, and, in respect of others, of sprinkling only.

Haydock: Mar 7:2

With common hands. It may be translated, with defiled hands; as also ver. 15; but the circumstances plainly shew the sense. (Witham)

Haydock: Mar 7:3

Often washing, &c.[1] Some would have the Greek to signify unless they wash up to the elbows, but I think without sufficient grounds. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Crebo, Greek: ean me pugme. Mr. Bois, prebend of Ely, defends the Latin version, and says Greek: pugme comes from Greek: pukna and Greek: puknos. But Theophylactus would have it to signify, up to the elbows; Greek: achri tou agkonos.

Haydock: Mar 7:4

Washed: literally, baptized. By beds are not understood night beds, but couches to eat upon, as it was then the custom. (Witham)

Gill: Mar 7:1

Then came together unto him the Pharisees,.... Having heard of his miracles, and that he was come into the land of Gennesaret; they consulted with one another, and came together to Jesus, to watch and observe what was said and done by him, and take what advantage they could against him. These were not of that country, but were of Jerusalem, as were their companions the Scribes:

and certain of the Scribes, which were of Jerusalem; for the fame of Christ had reached the metropolis of the nation; and these men being the more artful and cunning of the whole sect, either came of themselves, or were sent by the sanhedrim, to make their observations upon his doctrine and conduct; See Gill on Mat 15:1.

Gill: Mar 7:2

And when they saw some of his disciples,.... An opportunity soon offered of giving them an handle against him: for observing some of his disciples to sit down to meat, they took notice that they

eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with unwashen) hands, and

they found fault; with them, and charged them with the breach of the traditions of the elders, and took an occasion from hence of quarrelling with Christ. The Jews use the same phrase the evangelist here does, and interpret it in just the same manner: so, speaking of things eaten, בידים מסואבות, "with defiled hands"; that is, says the commentator ⁱ, it is all one as if it was said, בלא נטילת ידים, "without washing of hands"; which was esteemed a very great crime, and especially if done in a contemptuous way: for they say ^k,

"he that despiseth washing of hands, shall be rooted out of the world; for in it is the secret of the decalogue:''

and particularly to eat with unwashed hands, was unpardonable in a disciple of a wise man; for they looked upon this to be the characteristic of one of the vulgar people, a common and illiterate man: for they ask ^l,

"who is one of the people of the earth, or a plebeian? he that does not eat his common food with purity.''

By this also they distinguished a Jew from a Gentile; if he washed his hands, and blessed, he was known to be an Israelite, but if not, a Gentile ^m; See Gill on Mat 15:2.

Gill: Mar 7:3

For the Pharisees, and all the Jews,.... The far greater part of them; all, excepting the Sadducees; and especially the Pharisees, were very tenacious of this tradition of washing hands before eating: hence Pharisees are described as such, אוכלי חוליהן בטהרה, "that eat their common food with cleanness" ⁿ, i.e. of hands: these,

except they wash their hands oft, eat not; or except they wash very cautiously, with great care, diligence, and exactness, as the Syriac version suggests; and about which there are various rules given, to be observed with great strictness ^o. Some render the words, "they wash their hands to the elbow"; and this is a rule with the Jews, which is closely to be abode by, that the washing of hands is to be, עד פרק, "to the joint", which joins the hand and arm together ^p: particularly it is observed ^q, that

"washing of the hands for the eating of the offering, is unto the elbow, and for common food, to the joints of the fingers: he that eats with an ancient man, and does not wash his hands to the elbow, he may not eat with him.''

Well may it be added,

holding the tradition of the elders; nor do the Jews pretend the authority of the Scriptures as obliging them to such rules; for, they say, the command concerning washing of hands is, מדברי סופרים, "from the words of the Scribes" ^r; and is מצות חכמים, "a command of the wise men" ^s. The tradition is this:

"they wash hands for common food, but for the tithe, and for the first offering, and for that which is holy, they dip them, and for the sin offering; for if the hands are defiled; the body is defiled ^t.''

And this tradition of the elders, the Scribes, and Pharisees, strictly observed.

Gill: Mar 7:4

And when they come from the market,.... In Beza's most ancient copy, and in one of Stephens's, it is read as we supply, "when they come": wherefore this respects not things bought in the market, a sense favoured by all the Oriental versions, for many of them could not be washed; but the persons of the Scribes and Pharisees, who when they came from market, or from any court of judicature, immersed themselves all over in water, according to the true sense of the word βαπτιζω, here used: for,

"if the Pharisees touched but the garments of the common people, they were defiled, all one as if they had touched a profluvious person, וצריכן טבילה, "and needed immersion";''

and were obliged to it ^u: hence, when they walked the streets, they walked on the sides of the way, that they might not be defiled by touching the common people ^w:

wherefore, except they wash, they eat not, or immerse themselves in water, as well as used, טבילת ידים, "immersion of the hands", or washing of the hands by immersion; and which, if only intended, is sufficient to support the primary sense of the word, "baptizo":

and, many other things there be which they have received to hold; by tradition from their elders;

as the washing of cups and pots, brazen, vessels, and of tables: and here the word βαπτισμος, "baptism", is rightly used in its proper and primary signification; for all these things were, according to the traditions of the elders, washed by immersion:

"in a laver, (they say ^x) which holds forty seahs of water, which are not drawn, every defiled man dips himself, except a profluvious man; and in it מטבילין את כל הכלים הטמאין, "they dip all unclean vessels";''

"as cups, pots, and brazen vessels": very particularly brazen vessels are mentioned, because earthen ones that were unclean, were to be broken ^y; which were all washed before eaten in, even on a sabbath day, and that by dipping ^z:

""dishes", in which they eat at evening, (i.e. of the sabbath,) they wash them, to eat in in the morning; in the morning they wash them, to eat in at noon; at noon they wash them, to eat in at the "minchah"; and from the "minchah", and forward, they do not wash again: but "cups", and "jugs", and "pots" they wash, and it goes through all the day; for there is no fixed time for drinking.''

All such vessels, whether had of a Gentile, or an Israelite, or even a wise man, were to be immersed before used ^a.

"He that buys a vessel for the use of a feast, of Gentiles, whether molten vessels, or glass vessels--Nlybjm, "they dip them", in the waters of the laver; and after that they may eat and drink in them: and such as they use for cold things, as "cups", and "pots", and "jugs", they wash them, ומטבילן, "and dip them", and they are free for use: and such as they use for hot things, as "cauldrons" and "kettles", ("brazen vessels",) they heat them with hot water, and scour them, ומטבילן, "and immerse them", and they are fit to be used: and things which they use at the fire, as spits and gridirons, they heat them in the fire till the crust (the covering of rust, or dirt) falls off, ומטבילן, "and dip them", and they may be lawfully made use of. This is the immersion with which they immerse vessels for a feast, bought of Gentiles; and after that they are free for eating and drinking; for the business of uncleanness and purification is only from the words of the Scribes--and none are obliged to this immersion, but molten vessels for a feast, bought of Gentiles; but if he borrows of Gentiles, or a Gentile leaves in pawn molten vessels, (made of cast brass, or iron,) he washes, or boils, or heats in the fire, but need not immerse them; and so if he buys vessels of wood, or vessels of stone, he washes, or boils them, but need not dip them; and so earthen vessels need not be immersed; but those that are covered with lead, are as molten vessels, וצריכין טבילה, "and need immersion".''

And not only such that were bought of Gentiles, but even that were made by Jews, and scholars too, were to be immersed in water.

"Vessels, (they say ^b,) that are finished in purity, even though a disciple of a wise man makes them, care is to be taken about them, lo! these ought to be immersed:''

and also "tables", at which they eat; and because their posture at them were lying, reclining, or leaning: hence the word κλινων, is used for them here: these were capable of defilement in a ceremonial sense, according to the traditions of the Jews: one of their rules is this ^c;

"every vessel of wood, which is made for the use of vessels, and of men, as, השולחן, a "table", a bed, &c. receive defilement.''

And there were several sorts of tables, which, by their laws, were unclean, or might be defiled by the touch of unclean persons, or things: so they say ^d,

"a table, and sideboard, which are made less, or covered with marble, if there is a space left, in which cups may be set, they may be defiled. R. Judah says, if a space is left, in which may be put pieces, i.e. of bread or flesh: a table of which the first of its feet is taken away is clean; if the second is taken away it is clean; if the third is taken away it may be defiled.''

Again ^e, every vessel of wood, that is divided into two parts, is, clean, excepting a double table, &c., i.e. a table which consisted of various parts, and were folded together when it was removed: and these were washed by covering them in water; and very nice they were in washing them, that the water might reach every part, and that they might be covered all over; that there might be nothing which might separate between them and the water, and hinder its coming to them: as for instance, pitch being upon a table, whether within or without, divided between that and the water; and when this was the case, it was not rightly washed ^f: but to washing tables by immersion, there is no objection; wherefore, to perplex this matter, and give further trouble, it is insisted on that the word should be rendered "beds"; and it must be owned that it is so rendered in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, (in the Arabic version the clause is omitted,) and in many modern translations: and we are contented it should be so rendered. And these beds design either the couches they lay, or leaned upon at meals; or the beds they slept in at nights: these were capable of being polluted, in a ceremonial sense; for of such pollution, and such washing, are we to understand these traditions: for those things regard not the bare washing of them when naturally unclean, when they ought to be washed; and it is the custom of all people to wash them when this is the case. A bed, and bedstead, are capable of such pollution as soon as they are shaved with a fish skin, or are completed without polishing ^g; that is, as soon as they are finished; and there are several ways by which they are defiled. A bed is defiled, טמא מת, "by one that is defiled with the dead" ^h; that is, who has touched a dead body, and he sits upon the bed, or touches it, he defiles it. Again, a bed that is made to lie upon, is defiled, מדרס, "by treading" ⁱ; that is, it is defiled if a man, or a woman, that has a "gonorrhoea", or a menstruous woman, or one in childbirth, or a leper, should sit, stand; lie, hang, or lean upon it; yea, if any thing should touch it, which has been touched by any of these. Also, a bed which is not made for to lie upon, but to lay a dead body on, is defiled in the same way; and so are even the pillow and bolster ^k. Now these were to be washed when they had received any defilement, and that by immersion. Their canons run thus:

"hjm, "a bed", that is wholly defiled, if הטבילה, "he dips" it, part by part, it is pure ^l;''

again ^m,

"hjmh ta wb lybjh, "if he dips the bed in it", (the pool of water,) although its feet are plunged into the thick clay (at the bottom of the pool), it is clean.''

If it should be insisted upon, that it ought to be shown and proved, that the very bolsters and pillows on which they lay and leaned, were washed in this way, we are able to do it:

הכר והכסתי, "a pillow", or "a bolster" of skin, when a man lifts up the ends, or mouths of them, out of the water, the water which is within them will be drawn; what shall he do? מטבילן, "he must dip them", and lift them up by their fringes ⁿ.''

In short, it is a rule with the Jews, that

"wheresoever, in the law, washing of the flesh, or of clothes, is mentioned, it means nothing else than the dipping of the whole body in water--for if any man wash himself all over, except the top of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness ^o.''

So that the evangelist uses the words βαπτιζω and βαπτισμος, most properly, without departing from their primary and literal sense; nor could he have used words more appropriate and fit. Various rules, concerning these things, may be seen in the treatises "Celim" and "Mikvaot". Hence it appears, with what little show of reason, and to what a vain purpose this passage is so often appealed to, to lessen the sense of the word βαπτιζω, "baptizo"; as if it did not signify to dip, but a sort of washing, short of dipping; though what that washing is, is not easy to say, since vessels and clothes are in common washed by putting them into water, and covering them with it: this passage therefore is of no service to those who plead for sprinkling, or pouring water in baptism, in opposition to immersion; nor of any disservice, but of real use to those who practise immersion, and must confirm them in it. Nor need they have recourse to a various reading, which one of the manuscripts in the Bodleian Library furnishes with, which is, unless they are sprinkled; which reading must be wrong, not only because, contrary to all other copies, but also to the usages of the Jews in the washing of themselves.

Gill: Mar 7:5

Then the Pharisees and Scribes asked him,.... Not the disciples, but Christ himself; for their chief view was to find fault, and quarrel with him:

why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with unwashen hands? or "with common", that is, defiled "hands", as in Mar 7:2. So the words are read in Beza's most ancient copy, and in one of Stephens's copies, and in the Vulgate Latin version. The word "common" is used for that which is unclean or unholy, Act 10:14, and so signifies unwashen hands, as we read, and render it: besides, "common hands" may have some respect to the hands of the common people, the vulgar and illiterate, who showed no regard to this tradition, but ate their common food without washing their hands. Instead of "the tradition of the elders", the Ethiopic version reads, "the constitution of the Scribes and Pharisees"; and which are sometimes by the Jews called, דברי סופרים, "the words", or "sayings of the Scribes" ^o, and are preferred by them to the written law; and the same are commonly called הליכות, "ways", in which a man is to walk, and according to which he is to steer his course of life; and to which reference is here had in the word, "walk", used by the Pharisees; who suggest, that these decisions, constitutions, and traditions of the elders, were the rule, according to which men ought to order their manner of life and conversation; blaming the disciples, that they did not conform to them, and particularly in the case of eating bread, which they did without washing their hands, which was strictly enjoined among these canons; and they wanted to know the sense of Christ upon it. Though they might have known from the Scriptures, particularly from Eze 20:18 that it was their duty, as well as the disciples of Christ, to walk, not in the, statutes of their fathers, nor observe their judgments, the laws and ordinances instituted by them; but to walk in the statutes of the Lord, and to keep his judgments, and do them: not the traditions of men, but the word of God, should be the rule of walk and conversation; and as many as walk according to this rule, peace will be upon them; but those that walk according to the commandments of men, justly deserve the character given of such by the prophet Isaiah, whose words our Lord produces in the following verses.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Mar 7:1

¹ tn Grk “And.” Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic.

² sn See the note on Pharisees in 2:16.

³ tn Or “and some of the scribes.” See the note on the phrase “experts in the law” in 1:22.

⁴ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

NET Notes: Mar 7:3

¹ tn Grk “except they wash the hands with a fist,” a ceremonial washing (though the actual method is uncertain).

NET Notes: Mar 7:4

¹ tc Several important witnesses (Ì^45vid א B L Δ 28* pc) lack “and dining couches” (καὶ κλινῶν, kai klinwn), while the majority of mss (A D W Θ Ë^1,13 33 Ï latt) have the reading. Although normally the shorter reading is to be preferred, especially when it is backed by excellent witnesses as in this case, there are some good reasons to consider καὶ κλινῶν as authentic: (1) Although the addition of κλινῶν could be seen as motivated by a general assimilation to the purity regulations in Lev 15 (as some have argued), there are three problems with such a supposition: (a) the word κλίνη (klinh) does not occur in the LXX of Lev 15; (b) nowhere in Lev 15 is the furniture washed or sprinkled; and (c) the context of Lev 15 is about sexual impurity, while the most recent evidence suggests that κλίνη in Mark 7:4, in keeping with the other terms used here, refers to a dining couch (cf. BDAG 549 s.v. κλίνη 2). Thus, it is difficult to see καὶ κλινῶν as a motivated reading. (2) κλίνη, though a relatively rare term in the NT, is in keeping with Markan usage (cf. Mark 4:21; 7:30). (3) The phrase could have been dropped accidentally, at least in some cases, via homoioteleuton. (4) The phrase may have been deliberately expunged by some scribes who thought the imagery of washing a dining couch quite odd. The longer reading, in this case, can thus be argued as the harder reading. On balance, even though a decision is difficult (especially because of the weighty external evidence for the shorter reading), it is preferable to retain καὶ κλινῶν in the text.

² sn Verses 3-4 represent parenthetical remarks by the author, giving background information.

NET Notes: Mar 7:5

¹ tn Grk “eat bread.”

Geneva Bible: Mar 7:1

Then ^{( 1 )} came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.

^{( 1 )} None resist the wisdom of God more than they that should be wisest, and they resist because of their zeal for their own traditions: for men please themselves in superstition more than in any other thing, that is to say, in a worship of God fondly devised by themselves.

Geneva Bible: Mar 7:2

And when they saw some of his disciples ^{( a )} eat bread with ^{( b )} defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

^{( a )} Literally, "eat bread": an idiom which the Hebrews use, understanding bread to represent every type of food.

^{( b )} For the Pharisees would not eat their food with unwashed hands, because they thought that their hands were defiled with the common handling of things; (Mat 15:11-12).

Geneva Bible: Mar 7:3

For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash [their] hands oft, eat not, ^{( c )} holding the tradition of the elders.

^{( c )} Observing diligently.

Geneva Bible: Mar 7:4

And [when they come] from the ^{( d )} market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, [as] the washing of cups, and ^{( e )} pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

^{( d )} That is to say, after coming from civil and worldly affairs they do not eat unless they first wash themselves.

^{( e )} By these words are understood all types of vessels which we use daily.

Geneva Bible: Mar 7:5

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why ^{( f )} walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

^{( f )} Why live they not? This is a Hebrew idiom: for among them the "way" is taken for "lifestyle".

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Mar 7:1-37

1 The Pharisees find fault with the disciples for eating with unwashed hands.

8 They break the commandment of God by the traditions of men.

14 Meat defiles not the man.

24 He heals the Syrophenician woman's daughter of an unclean spirit;

31 and one that was deaf, and stammered in his speech.

MHCC: Mar 7:1-13

One great design of Christ's coming was, to set aside the ceremonial law; and to make way for this, he rejects the ceremonies men added to the law of God's making. Those clean hands and that pure heart which Christ bestows on his disciples, and requires of them, are very different from the outward and superstitious forms of Pharisees of every age. Jesus reproves them for rejecting the commandment of God. It is clear that it is the duty of children, if their parents are poor, to relieve them as far as they are able; and if children deserve to die that curse their parents, much more those that starve them. But if a man conformed to the traditions of the Pharisees, they found a device to free him from the claim of this duty.

Matthew Henry: Mar 7:1-23

One great design of Christ's coming, was, to set aside the ceremonial law which God made, and to put an end to it; to make way for which he begins with the ceremonial law which men had made, and added to the law of God's making, and discharges his disciples from the obligation of that; which here he doth fully, upon occasion of the offence which the Pharisees took at them for the violation of it. These Pharisees and scribes with whom he had this argument, are said to come from Jerusalem down to Galilee - fourscore or a hundred miles, to pick quarrels with our Saviour there, where they supposed him to have the greatest interest and reputation. Had they come so far to be taught by him, their zeal had been commendable; but to come so far to oppose him, and to check the progress of his gospel, was great wickedness. It should seem that the scribes and Pharisees at Jerusalem pretended not only to a pre-eminence above, but to an authority over, the country clergy, and therefore kept up their visitations and sent inquisitors among them, as they did to John when he appeared, Joh 1:19.

Now in this passage we may observe,

I. What the tradition of the elders was: by it all were enjoined to wash their hands before meat; a cleanly custom, and no harm in it; and yet as such to be over-nice in it discovers too great a care about the body, which is of the earth; but they placed religion in it, and would not leave it indifferent, as it was in its own nature; people were at their liberty to do it or not to do it; but they interposed their authority, and commanded all to do it upon pain of excommunication; this they kept up as a tradition of the elders. The Papists pretend to a zeal for the authority and antiquity of the church and its canons, and talk much of councils and fathers, when really it is nothing but a zeal for their own wealth, interest, and dominion, that governs them; and so it was with the Pharisees.

We have here an account of the practice of the Pharisees and all the Jews, Mar 7:3, Mar 7:4. 1. They washed their hands oft; they washed them, pugmē ; the critics find a great deal of work about that word, some making it to denote the frequency of their washing (so we render it); others think it signifies the pains they took in washing their hands; they washed with great care, they washed their hands to their wrists (so some); they lifted up their hands when they were wet, that the water might run to their elbows. 2. They particularly washed before they ate bread; that is, before they sat down to a solemn meal; for that was the rule; they must be sure to wash before they ate the bread on which they begged a blessing. "Whosoever eats the bread over which they recite the benediction, Blessed be he that produceth bread, must wash his hands before and after,"or else he was thought to be defiled. 3. They took special care, when they came in from the markets, to wash their hands; from the judgment-halls, so some; it signifies any place of concourse where there were people of all sorts, and, it might be supposed, some heathen or Jews under a ceremonial pollution, by coming near to whom they thought themselves polluted; saying, Stand by thyself, come not near me, I am holier than thou, Isa 65:5. They say, The rule of the rabbies was - That, if they washed their hands well in the morning, the first thing they did, it would serve for all day, provided they kept alone; but, if they went into company, they must not, at their return, either eat or pray till they had washed their hands; thus the elders gained a reputation among the people for sanctity, and thus they exercised and kept up an authority over their consciences. 4. They added to this the washing of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, which they suspected had been made use of by heathens, or persons polluted; nay, and the very tables on which they ate their meat. There were many cases in which, by the law of Moses, washings were appointed; but they added to them, and enforced the observation of their own impositions as much as of God's institutions.

II. What the practice of Christ's disciples was; they knew what the law was, and the common usage; but they understood themselves so well that they would not be bound up by it: they ate bread with defiled, that is, with unwashen, hands, Mar 7:2. Eating with unwashen hands they called eating with defiled hands; thus men keep up their superstitious vanities by putting every thing into an ill name that contradicts them. The disciples knew (it is probable) that the Pharisees had their eye upon them, and yet they would not humour them by a compliance with their traditions, but took their liberty as at other times, and ate bread with unwashen hands; and herein their righteousness, however it might seem to come short, did really exceed, that of the scribes and Pharisees, Mat 5:20.

III. The offence which the Pharisees took at this; They found fault (Mar 7:2); they censured them as profane, and men of a loose conversation, or rather as men that would not submit to the power of the church, to decree rites and ceremonies, and were therefore rebellious, factious, and schismatical. They brought a complaint against them to their Master, expecting that he should check them, and order them to conform; for they that are fond of their own inventions and impositions, are commonly ready to appeal to Christ, as if he should countenance them, and as if his authority must interpose for the enforcing of them, and the rebuking of those that do not comply with them. They do not ask, Why do not thy disciples do as we do? (Though that was what they meant, coveting to make themselves the standard.) But, Why do not they walk according to the tradition of the elders? Mar 7:5. To which it was easy to answer, that, by receiving the doctrine of Christ, they had more understanding than all their teachers, yea more than the ancients, Psa 119:99, Psa 119:100.

IV. Christ's vindication of them; in which,

1. He argues with the Pharisees concerning the authority by which this ceremony was imposed; and they were the fittest to be discoursed with concerning that, who were the great sticklers for it: but this he did not speak of publicly to the multitude (as appears by his calling the people to him, Mar 7:14) lest he should have seemed to stir them up to faction and discontent at their governors; but addressed it as a reproof to the persons concerned: for the rule is, Suum cuique - Let every one have his own.

(1.) He reproves them for their hypocrisy in pretending to honour God, when really they had no such design in their religious observances (Mar 7:6, Mar 7:7); They honour me with their lips, they pretend it is for the glory of God that they impose those things, to distinguish themselves from the heathen; but really their heart is far from God, and is governed by nothing but ambition and covetousness. They would be thought hereby to appropriate themselves as a holy people to the Lord their God, when really it is the furthest thing in their thought. They rested in the outside of all their religious exercises, and their hearts were not right with God in them, and this was worshipping God in vain; for neither was he pleased with such sham - devotions, nor were they profited by them.

(2.) He reproves them for placing religion in the inventions and injunctions of their elders and rulers; They taught for doctrines the traditions of men. When they should have been pressing upon people the great principles of religion, they were enforcing the canons of their church, and judged of people's being Jews or no, according as they did, or did not, conform to them, without any consideration had, whether they lived in obedience to God's laws or no. It was true, there were divers washings imposed by the law of Moses (Heb 9:10), which were intended to signify that inward purification of the heart from worldly fleshly lusts, which God requires as absolutely necessary to our communion with him; but, instead of providing the substance, they presumptuously added to the ceremony, and were very nice in washing pots and cups; and observe, he adds, Many other such like things ye do, Mar 7:8. Note, Superstition is an endless thing. If one human invention and institution be admitted, though seemingly ever so innocent, as this of washing hands, behold, a troop comes, a door is opened for many other such things.

(3.) He reproves them for laying aside the commandment of God, and overlooking that, not urging that in their preaching, and in their discipline conniving at the violation of that, as if that were no longer of force, Mar 7:8. Note, It is the mischief of impositions, that too often they who are zealous for them, have little zeal for the essential duties of religion, but can contentedly see them laid aside. Nay, they rejected the commandment of God, Mar 7:9. He do fairly disannul and abolish the commandment of God; and even by your traditions make the word of God of no effect, Mar 7:13. God's statutes shall not only lie forgotten, as antiquated obsolete laws, but they shall, in effect, stand repealed, that their traditions may take place. They were entrusted to expound the law, and to enforce it; and, under pretence of using that power, they violated the law, and dissolved the bonds of it; destroying the text with the comment.

This he gives them a particular instance of, and a flagrant one - God commanded children to honour their parents, not only by the law of Moses, but, antecedent to that, by the law of nature; and whoso revileth, or speaketh evil of, father or mother, let him die the death, Mar 7:10. Hence it is easy to infer, that it is the duty of children, if their parents be poor, to relieve them, according to their ability; and if those children are worthy to die, that curse their parents, much more those that starve them. But if a man will but conform himself in all points to the tradition of the elders, they will find him out an expedient by which he may be discharged from this obligation, Mar 7:11. If his parents be in want and he has wherewithal to help them, but has no mind to do it, let him swear by the Corban, that is, by the gold of the temple, and the gift upon the altar, that his parents shall not be profited by him, that he will not relieve them; and, if they ask any thing of him, let him tell them this, and it is enough; as if by the obligation of this wicked vow he had discharged himself from the obligation of God's holy law; thus Dr. Hammond understands it: and it is said to be an ancient canon of the rabbin, That vows take place in things commanded by the law, as well as in things indifferent; so that, if a man make a vow which cannot be ratified without breaking a commandment, the vow must be ratified, and the commandment violated; so Dr. Whitby. Such doctrine as this the Papists teach, discharging children from all obligation to their parents by their monastic vows, and their entrance into religion, as they call it. He concludes, Any many such like things do ye. Where will men stop, when once they have made the word of God give way to their tradition? These eager imposers of such ceremonies, at first only made light of God's commandments in comparison with their traditions, but afterward made void God's commandments, if they stood in competition with them. All this, in effect, Isaiah prophesied of them; what he said of the hypocrites of his own day, was applicable to the scribes and Pharisees, v. 6. Note, When we see, and complain of, the wickedness of the present times, yet we do not enquire wisely of that matter, if we say that all the former days were better than these, Ecc 7:10. The worst of hypocrites and evil doers have had their predecessors.

2. He instructs the people concerning the principles upon which this ceremony was grounded. It was requisite that this part of his discourse should be public, for it related to daily practice, and was designed to rectify a great mistake which the people were led into by their elders; he therefore called the people unto him (Mar 7:14), and bid them hear and understand. Note, It is not enough for the common people to hear, but they must understand what they hear. When Christ would run down the tradition of the Pharisees about washing before meat, he strikes at the opinion which was the root of it. Note, Corrupt customs are best cured by rectifying corrupt notions.

Now that which he goes about to set them right in, is, what the pollution is, which we are in danger of being damaged by, Mar 7:15. (1.) Not by the meat we eat, though it be eaten with unwashen hands; that is but from without, and goes through a man. But, (2.) It is by the breaking out of the corruption that is in our hearts; the mind and conscience are defiled, guilt is contracted, and we become odious in the sight of God by that which comes out of us; our wicked thoughts and affections, words and actions, these defile us, and these only. Our care must therefore be, to wash our heart from wickedness.

3. He gives his disciples, in private, an explication of the instructions he gave the people. They asked him, when they had him by himself, concerning the parable (Mar 7:17); for to them, it seems, it was a parable. Now, in answer to their enquiry, (1.) He reproves their dulness; " Are ye so without understanding also? Are ye dull also, as dull as the people that cannot understand, as dull as the Pharisees that will not? Are ye so dull?"He doth not expect they should understand every thing; "But are ye so weak as not to understand this? "(2.) He explains this truth to them, that they might perceive it, and then they would believe it, for it carried its own evidence along with it. Some truths prove themselves, if they be but rightly explained and apprehended. If we understand the spiritual nature of God and of his law, and what it is that is offensive to him, and disfits us for communion with him, we shall soon perceive, [1.] That that which we eat and drink cannot defile us, so as to call for any religious washing; it goes into the stomach, and passes the several digestions and secretions that nature has appointed, and what there may be in it that is defiling is voided and gone; meats for the belly, and the belly for meats, but God shall destroy both it and them. But, [2.] It is that which comes out from the heart, the corrupt heart, that defiles us. As by the ceremonial law, whatsoever (almost) comes out of a man, defiles him (Lev 15:2; Deu 23:13), so what comes out from the mind of a man is that which defiles him before God, and calls for a religious washing (Mar 7:21); From within, out of the heart of men, which they boast of the goodness of, and think is the best part of them, thence that which defiles proceeds, thence comes all the mischief. As a corrupt fountain sends forth corrupt streams, so doth a corrupt heart send forth corrupt reasonings, corrupt appetites and passions, and all those wicked words and actions which are produced by them. Divers particulars are specified, as in Matthew; we had one there, which is not here, and that is, false witness-bearing; but seven are mentioned here, to be added to those we had there. First, Covetousnesses, for it is plural; pleonexiai - immoderate desires of more of the wealth of the world, and the gratifications of sense, and still more, still crying, Give, give. Hence we read of a heart exercised with covetous practices, 2Pe 2:14. Secondly, Wickedness - ponēriai ; malice, hatred, and ill-will, a desire to do mischief, and a delight in mischief done. Thirdly, Deceit; which is wickedness covered and disguised, that it may be the more securely and effectually committed. Fourthly, Lasciviousness; that filthiness and foolish talking which the apostle condemns; the eye full of adultery, and all wanton dalliances. Fifthly, The evil eye; the envious eye, and the covetous eye, grudging others the good we give them, or do for them (Pro 23:6), or grieving at the good they do or enjoy. Sixthly, Pride - huperēphania ; exalting ourselves in our own conceit above others, and looking down with scorn and contempt upon others. Seventhly, Foolishness - aphrosunē ; imprudence, inconsideration; some understand it especially of vainglorious boasting, which St. Paul calls foolishness (2Co 11:1, 2Co 11:19), because it is here joined with pride; I rather take it for that rashness in speaking and acting, which is the cause of so much evil. Ill-thinking is put first, as that which is the spring of all our com missions, and unthinking put last, as that which is the spring of all our o missions. Of all these he concludes (Mar 7:23), 1. That they come from within, from the corrupt nature, the carnal mind, the evil treasure in the heart; justly is it said, that the inward part is very wickedness, it must needs be so, when all this comes from within. 2. That they defile the man; they render a man unfit for communion with God, they bring a stain upon the conscience; and, if not mortified and rooted out, will shut men out of the new Jerusalem, into which no unclean thing shall enter.

Barclay: Mar 7:1-4

The difference and the argument between Jesus and the Pharisees and the experts in the law, which this chapter relates, are of tremendous importance, for they show us the very essence and core of the divergence between Jesus and the orthodox Jew of his time.

The question asked was, Why do Jesus and his disciples not observe the tradition of the elders? What was this tradition, and what was its moving spirit?

Originally, for the Jew, the Law meant two things; it meant, first and foremost, the Ten Commandments, and, second, the first five books of the Old Testament, or, as they are called, the Pentateuch. Now it is true that the Pentateuch contains a certain number of detailed regulations and instructions; but, in the matter of moral questions, what is laid down is a series of great moral principles which a man must interpret and apply for himself. For long the Jews were content with that. But in the fourth and fifth centuries before Christ there came into being a class of legal experts whom we know as the Scribes. They were not content with great moral principles; they had what can only be called a passion for definition. They wanted these great principles amplified, expanded, broken down until they issued in thousands and thousands of little rules and regulations governing every possible action and every possible situation in life. These rules and regulations were not written down until long after the time of Jesus. They are what is called the Oral Law; it is they which are the tradition of the elders.

The word elders does not mean, in this phrase, the officials of the synagogue; rather it means the ancients, the great legal experts of the old days, like Hillel and Shammai. Much later, in the third century after Christ, a summary of all these rules and regulations was made and written down, and that summary is known as the Mishnah.

There are two aspects of these scribal rules and regulations which emerge in the argument in this passage. One is about the washing of hands. The Scribes and Pharisees accused the disciples of Jesus of eating with unclean hands. The Greek word is koinos (2839). Ordinarily, koinos (2839) means common; then it comes to describe something which is ordinary in the sense that it is not sacred, something that is profane as opposed to sacred things; and finally it describes something, as it does here, which is ceremonially unclean and unfit for the service and worship of God.

There were definite and rigid rules for the washing of hands. Note that this hand-washing was not in the interests of hygienic purity; it was ceremonial cleanness which was at stake. Before every meal, and between each of the courses, the hands had to be washed, and they had to be washed in a certain way. The hands, to begin with, had to be free of any coating of sand or mortar or gravel or any such substance. The water for washing had to be kept in special large stone jars, so that it itself was clean in the ceremonial sense and so that it might be certain that it had been used for no other purpose, and that nothing had fallen into it or had been mixed with it. First, the hands were held with finger tips pointing upwards; water was poured over them and had to run at least down to the wrist; the minimum amount of water was one quarter of a log, which is equal to one and a half egg-shells full of water. While the hands were still wet each hand had to be cleansed with the fist of the other. That is what the phrase about using the fist means; the fist of one hand was rubbed into the palm and against the surface of the other. This meant that at this stage the hands were wet with water; but that water was now unclean because it had touched unclean hands. So, next, the hands had to be held with finger tips pointing downwards and water had to be poured over them in such a way that it began at the wrists and ran off at the finger tips. After all that had been done the hands were clean.

To fail to do this was in Jewish eyes, not to be guilty of bad manners, not to be dirty in the health sense, but to be unclean in the sight of God. The man who ate with unclean hands was subject to the attacks of a demon called Shibta. To omit so to wash the hands was to become liable to poverty and destruction. Bread eaten with unclean hands was not better than excrement. A Rabbi who once omitted the ceremony was buried in excommunication. Another Rabbi, imprisoned by the Romans, used the water given to him for handwashing rather than for drinking and in the end nearly perished of thirst, because he was determined to observe the rules of cleanliness rather than satisfy his thirst.

That to the Pharisaic and Scribal Jew was religion. It was ritual, ceremonial, and regulations like that which they considered to be essence of the service of God. Ethical religion was buried under a mass of taboos and rules.

The last verses of the passage deal further with this conception of uncleanness. A thing might in the ordinary sense be completely clean and yet in the legal sense be unclean. There is something about this conception of uncleanness in Lev 11-15, and in Num 19 . Nowadays we would talk rather of things being tabu than of being unclean. Certain animals were unclean (Lev 11 ). A woman after child-birth was unclean; a leper was unclean; anyone who touched a dead body was unclean. And anyone who had so become unclean made unclean anything he in turn touched. A Gentile was unclean; food touched by a Gentile was unclean; any vessel touched by a Gentile was unclean. So, then, when a strict Jew returned from the market place he immersed his whole body in clean water to take away the taint he might have acquired.

Obviously vessels could easily become unclean; they might be touched by an unclean person or by unclean food. This is what our passage means by the washings of cups and pitchers and vessels of bronze. In the Mishnah there are no fewer than twelve treatises on this kind of uncleanness. If we take some actual examples we will see how far this went. A hollow vessel made of pottery could contract uncleanness inside but not outside; that is to say, it did not matter who or what touched it outside, but it did matter what touched it inside. If it became unclean it must be broken; and no unbroken piece must remain which was big enough to hold enough oil to anoint the little toe. A flat plate without a rim could not become unclean at all; but a plate with a rim could. If vessels made with leather, bone or glass were flat they could not contract uncleanness at all; if they were hollow they could become unclean outside and inside. If they were unclean they must be broken; and the break must be a hole at least big enough for a medium-sized pomegranate to pass through. To cure uncleanness earthen vessels must be broken; other vessels must be immersed, boiled, purged with fire--in the case of metal vessels--and polished. A three-legged table could contract uncleanness; if it lost one or two legs it could not; if it lost three legs it could, for then it could be used as a board and a board could become unclean. Things made of metal could become unclean, except a door, a bolt, a lock, a hinge, a knocker and a gutter. Wood used in metal utensils could become unclean; but metal used in wood utensils could not. Thus a wooden key with metal teeth could become unclean; but a metal key with wooden teeth could not.

We have taken some time over these scribal laws, this tradition of the elders, because that is what Jesus was up against. To the scribes and Pharisees these rules and regulations were the essence of religion. To observe them was to please God; to break them was to sin. This was their idea of goodness and of the service of God. In the religious sense Jesus and these people spoke different languages. It was precisely because he had no use for all these regulations that they considered him a bad man. There is a fundamental cleavage here--the cleavage between the man who sees religion as ritual, ceremonial, rules and regulations, and the man who sees in religion loving God and loving his fellow-men.

The next passage will develop this; but it is clear that Jesus' idea of religion and that of the scribes and Pharisees had nothing in common at all.

Barclay: Mar 7:5-8

The scribes and Pharisees saw that the disciples of Jesus did not observe the niceties of the tradition and the code of the oral law in regard to the washing of hands before and during meals, and they asked why. Jesus began by quoting to them a passage from Isa 29:13. There Isaiah accused the people of his day of honouring God with their lips while their hearts were really far away. In principle Jesus accused the scribes and Pharisees of two things.

(i) He accused them of hypocrisy. The word hupokrites (5273) has an interesting and revealing history. It begins by meaning simply one who answers; it goes on to mean one who answers in a set dialogue or a set conversation, that is to say an actor; and finally it means, not simply an actor on the stage, but one whose whole life is a piece of acting without any sincerity behind it at all. Anyone to whom religion is a legal thing, anyone to whom religion means carrying out certain external rules and regulations, anyone to whom religion is entirely connected with the observation of a certain ritual and the keeping of a certain number of tabus is in the end bound to be, in this sense, a hypocrite. The reason is this--he believes that he is a good man if he carries out the correct acts and practices, no matter what his heart and his thoughts are like.

To take the case of the legalistic Jew in the time of Jesus, he might hate his fellow man with all his heart, he might be full of envy and jealousy and concealed bitterness and pride; that did not matter so long as he carried out the correct handwashings and observed the correct laws about cleanness and uncleanness. Legalism takes account of a man's outward actions; but it takes no account at all of his inward feelings. He may well be meticulously serving God in outward things, and bluntly disobeying God in inward things--and that is hypocrisy.

The devout Mohammedan must pray to God a certain number of times each day. To do so he carries his prayer mat; wherever he is, he will unroll the mat, fall upon his knees, say his prayers and then go on. There is a story of a Mohammedan who was pursuing a man with upraised knife to murder him. Just then the call to prayer rang out. Immediately he stopped, spread out his prayer mat, knelt, said his prayer as fast as he could; then rose and continued his murderous pursuit. The prayer was simply a form and a ritual, an outward observance, merely the correct interlude in the career of murder.

There is no greater religious peril than that of identifying religion with outward observance. There is no commoner religious mistake than to identify goodness with certain so-called religious acts. Church-going, bible-reading, careful financial giving, even time-tabled prayer do not make a man a good man. The fundamental question is, how is a man's heart towards God and towards his fellow-men? And if in his heart there are enmity, bitterness, grudges, pride, not all the outward religious observances in the world will make him anything other than a hypocrite.

(ii) The second accusation that Jesus implicitly levelled against these legalists was that they substituted the efforts of human ingenuity for the laws of God. For their guidance for life they did not depend on listening to God; they depended on listening to the clever arguments and debates, the fine-spun niceties, the ingenious interpretations of the legal experts. Cleverness never can be the basis of true religion. True religion can never be the product of man's mind. It must always come, not from a man's ingenious discoveries, but from the simple listening to and accepting the voice of God.

Constable: Mar 6:6--8:31

IV. The Servant's self-revelation to the disciples 6:6b--8:30

The increasing hostility of Israel's religious leaders and the rejection of the multitudes (3:7-6:6a) led Jesus to concentrate on training His disciples increasingly. This section of Mark's Gospel shows how Jesus did that. While Jesus gave his disciples increasing responsibility for ministry (6:6b-30), the focus of Jesus' instruction was His own identity, which the disciples had great difficulty understanding (6:31-8:30).

Constable: Mar 6:31--8:1

B. The first cycle of self-revelation to the disciples 6:31-7:37

Mark arranged selected events in Jesus' training of His disciples to show how He brought them to a deeper understanding of who He was and to a deeper commitment to Himself. Jesus led them through two similar series of experiences to teach them these lessons. He had to do it twice because the disciples where slow to learn.

Constable: Mar 7:1-23

3. The controversy with the Pharisees and scribes over defilement 7:1-23 (cf. Matt. 15:1-20)

This confrontation played an important part in Jesus' decision to withdraw from Galilee again (v. 24; cf. 2:1-3:6). Along with mounting popularity (6:53-56) came increasing opposition from the Jewish religious leaders. This section is essentially another block of Jesus' teaching. It revealed Jesus further and continued the preparation of the disciples for what lay ahead of them. In Mark's narrative, the words "unclean" (vv. 2, 5, 15, 18, 20, 23) and "tradition" (vv. 3, 5, 8, 9, 13) are key.

Constable: Mar 7:1-5

The religious leaders' objection 7:1-5

7:1-2 For a second time Mark recorded a delegation of religious leaders coming from Jerusalem to investigate Jesus (cf. 3:22). The writer interpreted what ceremonially impure hands were for his Gentile readers. The scribes and Pharisees were not objecting because the disciples were eating with dirty hands but because they had not gone through the accepted purification rites before eating with their hands.

7:3-4 These verses do not appear in Matthew's parallel account. They explain pharisaic tradition for those unfamiliar with it such as Mark's original Gentile readers. In Jesus' day the Jews communicated the traditions of the elders orally from generation to generation. About 200 A.D. the rabbis compiled these into the Mishnah, which became the basis for the Talmud (c. 425 A.D.). The Pharisees customarily washed themselves after visiting the marketplace to rid themselves of the defilement that contact with Gentiles produced. Most Jews regarded breaking these traditions as sin.

7:5 The critics asked Jesus for an explanation of His disciples' conduct because, as their teacher, He was responsible for them. They suspected that the disciples' failure to wash properly indicated that Jesus disregarded all the traditions of the elders. Walking is a Hebrew figure of speech meaning habitual conduct. It occurs frequently in John's Gospel and in Paul's epistles.

College: Mar 7:1-37

MARK 7

G. THE CONTROVERSY OVER EATING WITH UNWASHED HANDS (7:1-23)

¹ The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and ² saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were " unclean," that is, unwashed. ³ (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. ⁴ When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles. ^a )

⁵ So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, " Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"

⁶ He replied, " Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

" 'These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

⁷ They worship me in vain;

their teachings are but rules taught by men.' ^b

⁸ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

⁹ And he said to them: " You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe ^c your own traditions! ¹⁰ For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' ^d and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' ^{e 11} But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), ¹² then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. ¹³ Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

¹⁴ Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, " Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. ¹⁵ Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.'" ^f

¹⁷ After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. ¹⁸" Are you so dull?" he asked. " Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? ¹⁹ For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods " clean." )

²⁰ He went on: " What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' ²¹ For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, ²² greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. ²³ All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'"

^a 4 Some early manuscripts pitchers, kettles and dining couches ^b 6,7 Isaiah 29:13 ^c 9 Some manuscripts set up ^d 10 Exodus 20:12; Deut. 5:16 ^e 10 Exodus 21:17; Lev. 20:9 ^f 15 Some early manuscripts 'unclean." ¹⁶ If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.

Mark 2:1-3:6 contained a series of five controversies between Jesus and the religious authorities which culminated in their decision to plot Jesus' death. His opponents appeared again in 3:22 to accuse Jesus of being possessed and working miracles through the power of Beelzebub. Now they appear with another criticism.

1-4. As in 3:22 the religious authorities in this case had come from Jerusalem. They obviously came looking for a fight. They found it in the issue of ritual handwashing.

The Old Testament is deeply concerned with religious cleanliness. Although it does not command ritual handwashing for the people in general, it does require the priests to wash their hands and feet before entering the tabernacle (Exod 30:17-21). It takes the matter quite seriously, commanding them to " wash their hands and feet so that they will not die," and saying " this is to be a lasting ordinance for Aaron and his descendants for the generations to come" (30:21). At some point before the first century this practice was expanded beyond its original setting of tabernacle worship and beyond the original focus on the priests. Mark explains in vv. 3-4 that handwashing had become quite popular among the Jews along with washing a variety of objects.

Mark (v. 3), the Pharisees and scribes (v. 5), and Jesus (vv. 6-9, 13) regard the handwashing rules as part of the " tradition of the elders." All parties recognized that these rules were not commanded in the law. But it would be a mistake to take this as a indication that the practice was not viewed with great seriousness. The Pharisees took ancient traditions seriously. Josephus explains that this was one of the chief hallmarks of the Pharisees and a basic point of dispute between them and the Sadducees:

the Pharisees had passed on to the people certain regulations handed down by former generations and not recorded in the Laws of Moses, for which reason they are rejected by the Sadducaean group, who hold that only those regulations should be considered valid which were written down (in Scripture), and that those which had been handed down by former generations need not be observed. And concerning these matters the two parties came to have controversies and serious differences . . . [in which] the Pharisees have the support of the masses.

(The last comment by Josephus indicates that many Jews would be sympathetic with the Pharisees' criticisms of Jesus.) There is continuing scholarly debate over whether the Pharisees of Jesus' day believed that the traditions could be traced to Moses and thus had equal status to the written word of Moses. But there is no debate that they considered the traditions of the elders to be ancient and to be quite important.

There are several technical difficulties in vv. 3-4. In v. 3 the phrase translated " give their hands a ceremonial washing" cannot be translated precisely, although it certainly has to do with handwashing. In v. 4a translational difficulties make it hard to decide whether to accept the NIV's " When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash" or the NRSV's " and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it." At the end of v. 4, some ancient witnesses to the text add " and dining couches" (which could be translated - as in the NRSV note - " and beds" ) as the final item in the list of items which were washed.

5. As in 2:23-24 the religious authorities expected Jesus to instruct his disciples and took their behavior as indicative of his views. This assumption was correct on both occasions. Concerning the tradition of the elders see the comments above on v. 3.

6-8. Jesus did not begin by replying to their specific criticism, but began with a critique of their emphasis on the tradition of the elders. He argued that they had come to adhere to their traditions even to the point of contradicting the will of God. He supported his claim by a quotation from Isaiah and an illustration from scribal tradition.

The quotation is from the LXX of Isa 29:13. Like Isaiah's contemporaries, some of the Pharisees and scribes gave only lip service to honoring God, because instead of doing God's will they followed " rules taught by men." Therefore, their claim to honor God was hypocritical. Sincere worshippers of God do his commandments.

9-13. Jesus now illustrates the point by using the tradition of the Corban oath. Josephus speaks of this oath twice, on one occasion speaking of " those who describe themselves as 'Corban' to God - meaning what Greeks would call 'a gift'," and on the other occasion describing " the oath called 'Corban'" as " found in no other nation except the Jews, and, translated from the Hebrew, one may interpret it as meaning 'God's gift.'" The Corban vow seems to have been used both for persons and for possessions and it declared them to be a gift to God. At least in some cases possessions which were declared Corban could still be used, but could not be given to others.

The first citation in v. 10 is the fifth of the ten commandments as found in Exod 20:12 and Deut 5:16. The second is from either Exod 21:17 or Lev 20:9. The significance Moses gave to these commandments is indicated by the fact that " Honor your father and mother" is one of the ten fundamental commandments and that cursing father or mother brings the death penalty (Exod 20:12; 21:15, 17). Jesus understood the command to honor one's parents to imply more than verbal commendations or even obedience. In his understanding honoring included taking care of one's parents. The Corban tradition, when applied to parents, prohibited a man from caring for his father or mother. Therefore it led to violations of the commandments given by Moses.

Jesus' main point is clear from v. 9 and v. 13. The Corban illustration was one of many in which the religious authorities kept their traditions and in so doing violated the commands of God.

14-15. Vv. 6-13 are addressed to the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. Jesus now addresses the crowd and replies to the specific objection concerning handwashing. The reply is a metaphorical saying characterized in v. 17 as a parable. It is explained in vv. 18-23. V. 16 (" If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear" ) is omitted from the NIV because it is missing from the best ancient witnesses and was probably added to Mark by a scribe.

17-23. As in 4:10 the disciples asked Jesus to explain the parable. In his explanation the emphasis falls on the contrast between that which enters and goes out from a person's digestive tract vs. that which goes out from a person's heart. The handwashing rules focus on the food that enters and departs from the stomach. Jesus is concerned with what originates in and departs from the heart.

To identify the things that are truly unclean Jesus provides a list of vices. The NRSV translation is probably correct in taking the first item, translated " evil thoughts" in the NIV, as an umbrella term that includes all the following items. Most of the items are easily understood from the NIV translation. The second word in v. 22, " malice," translates a broad Greek word (ponhriva, ponçria) that could be translated " wickedness" or " sinfulness." The fourth word, " lewdness," translates the word traditionally translated " licentiousness" (ajsevlgeia, aselgeia ). Another possibility would be " sensuality." " Envy" translates an idiom (ojfqalmoΙ" ponhrov", ophthalmos ponçros), literally " the evil eye." As in most such lists, some items are vague or broad (e.g., wickedness) and some are overlapping (e.g., sexual immorality and adultery).

Mark's editorial observation in v. 19b, " In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean,'" raises a question. Did Jesus intend for the crowd addressed in vv. 14-15 or even the disciples addressed in vv. 18-23 to quit observing the Old Testament dietary laws? This conclusion seems unlikely on at least three grounds. First, it is not consistent with Jesus' attitude toward the law as expressed in Matt 5:19: " Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." Second, the disciples did not know that Christians do not have to observe the dietary laws until well after Jesus' death (see, e.g., Acts 10:15 where Peter tells the Lord, " I have never eaten anything impure or unclean" ). Third, the issue raised by the religious authorities was one even they recognized to be part of the traditions of the elders and not part of the law. The context suggests that Jesus' remarks should be applied primarily to traditions and not the law. In this very context he upholds the law vs. the traditions (vv. 6-13).

How, then, is Mark's comment to be understood? His remark that Jesus declared all foods " clean" clearly undermines the Old Testament dietary laws. The best understanding is probably that Mark sees the fuller implications of Jesus' words from the standpoint of later revelation. In the original context Jesus was specifically addressing the traditions of the elders. But the principle he advocated had implications for the dietary laws and eventually God revealed to the church that the dietary laws were optional for Christians. Jewish Christians could and did continue to observe them. But they were not to be bound upon Gentile Christians. In the light of this further revelation, Mark correctly observes the ultimate implications of Jesus' principle contrasting the stomach and the heart.

H. THE SYROPHOENICIAN WOMAN (7:24-30)

²⁴ Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. ^a He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. ²⁵ In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil ^b spirit came and fell at his feet. ²⁶ The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

²⁷" First let the children eat all they want," he told her, " for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

²⁸" Yes, Lord," she replied, " but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."

²⁹ Then he told her, " For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter."

³⁰ She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

^a 24 Many early manuscripts Tyre and Sidon ^b 25 Greek unclean

In the predominantly Gentile region of the Decapolis Jesus encountered swineherds who must have been Gentiles and a demoniac who probably was (5:1-20). Now he goes to another predominantly Gentile area and encounters a woman that Mark explicitly describes as a Gentile. Part of Mark's purpose in identifying her background is to set the stage for the woman's remarkable display of faith. The woman's Gentile status is the obstacle her faith must overcome.

24. Jesus went to the region of Tyre in a deliberate attempt to get away from the crowds in Galilee. Tyre was a coastal city in Phoenicia, which was at that time part of the Roman province of Syria. As when he entered the Decapolis, he was once again leaving the predominantly Jewish territory of Galilee. He wanted to keep his presence in Phoenicia a secret, but again (cf. 6:31-33) his plans were thwarted.

25-26. The woman who learned of Jesus' presence was a Greek born in Phoenicia in the Roman province of Syria. Mark wants to make it clear that she was a Gentile (see vv. 27-30). She had a young daughter who was possessed by an unclean spirit (v. 25) or demon (v. 26). She had obviously heard of Jesus' miraculous powers and she bowed at his feet hoping he would cast the demon from her daughter.

27-28. Jesus' response takes the form of a proverb. The Matthean parallel (Matt 15:24 " I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" ) makes it clear that in the proverb the children represent the Jews and the dogs represent the Gentiles. But this is not the same as using the term " dogs" as a racial slur. The form of his statement is proverbial. And the basis of the proverb is not an antipathy for Gentiles, but the necessary Jewish focus of Jesus' earthly ministry. Of course the eventual outcome of his ministry was meant to include the Gentiles.

Surprisingly, the woman not only seems to have understood the basic import of the proverb, but she overcame the obstacle it presented. She replied by extending it. She recognized the priority of feeding the children, but all she wanted was a crumb from the table.

29-30. Jesus was impressed by her response. It was, after all, extraordinary. It demonstrated both insight (" For such a reply" ) and faith (as explicitly mentioned in Matt 15:28 " Woman, you have great faith!" ). It is presumably the woman's demonstration of faith that attracted Mark to this story. The importance of faith has already been emphasized repeatedly (1:15; 2:5; 4:40; 5:34, 36; 6:6). The miracle itself is also rather striking. Jesus exorcised the demon without going to the woman's house.

I. HEALING A DEAF MAN WITH A SPEECH IMPEDIMENT (7:31-37)

³¹ Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis. ^{a 32} There some people brought to him a man who was deaf and could hardly talk, and they begged him to place his hand on the man.

³³ After he took him aside, away from the crowd, Jesus put his fingers into the man's ears. Then he spit and touched the man's tongue. ³⁴ He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, " Ephphatha!" (which means, " Be opened!" ). ³⁵ At this, the man's ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly.

³⁶ Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it. ³⁷ People were overwhelmed with amazement. " He has done everything well," they said. " He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak."

^a 31 That is, the Ten Cities

This, the ninth specific healing (including exorcisms) recorded by Mark, is the first miraculous healing found in Mark alone.

31. The route Jesus took when he left the region of Tyre is unusual. Sidon is a coastal Phoenician city twenty miles north of Tyre - not south as one would expect if Jesus was going to the Decapolis or the Sea of Galilee. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the Greek text of Mark exactly how the references to the Sea of Galilee and to the Decapolis relate to each other. The NRSV translation " towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis" is possible, but it is problematic to describe the Sea as " in the region of the Decapolis," since the Decapolis only borders the southern and eastern shores of the Sea. The NIV translation proposes that the Decapolis was Jesus' ultimate destination, but the Greek text (eij" thΙn qavlassan th'" Galilaiva", eis tçn thalassan tçs Galilaias) appears to favor the Sea as the ultimate destination. The best translation is perhaps that of the RSV: " [he] went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decapolis." This route to the Sea would avoid the province of Galilee and its crowds.

32. The NIV translation " there" suggests " there in the Decapolis." This translation assumes the NIV's questionable translation of the last part of v. 31. It is actually not a translation because there is no word meaning " there" in the Greek text. As is customary for Mark he simply begins the sentence with " and." Since the last part of v. 31 probably indicates that Jesus passed through the Decapolis to the Sea, the location of the healing in 7:32-37 is simply left unspecified.

The man they brought to Jesus was deaf. The Greek term mogilavlo" ( mogilalos ) may mean that he was mute, completely unable to speak, or, more probably, that he had a speech impediment and spoke with difficulty. The people were apparently familiar with Jesus healing by laying his hand on the person (cf. 6:5).

33-34. Mark does not explain why Jesus took the man away from the crowd. It is possible that the motivation is revealed in v. 36 when Mark says " Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone." If Jesus did not want the crowd to know that he healed the man, this is another case of his intentions being thwarted (vv. 36-37).

Touching the man's ears and tongue seems natural enough to modern readers since he was deaf and had a speech impediment. We know from other miracles that Jesus could heal without touching, but that he often touched those whom he healed. The touching here is appropriate to the problems. Modern readers are surprised by the use of saliva, but ancient readers would probably have found this technique appropriate. Ancient parallels suggest two relevant uses of saliva. First, saliva was understood by some to have medicinal properties. Second, saliva was sometimes used in miraculous healings. There may be a parallel between the use of saliva in 7:33 and 8:23 and the use of oil in 6:13.

Jesus' looking up into heaven is paralleled in 6:41 when he blessed the loaves. His sighing is paralleled in 8:12 when he expresses frustration with the Pharisees. Here it seems to be a natural expression of emotion. His use of the Aramaic " Ephphatha!" (" Be Opened!" ) is similar to the use of Aramaic in 5:41 in raising Jairus's daughter from the dead.

35. Mark spells out the results of the miracle. The man could now hear and he could speak plainly.

36-37. It is difficult to determine the antecedent of " them" in Mark's description of Jesus' command. Since Jesus took the man aside, away from the crowd, one could suppose that " them" meant this man and others like him - that is, those whom Jesus healed in private. On the other hand, the reference to the crowd in v. 37 suggests that Jesus might have been instructing them. But why would Jesus tell " crowds" not to tell about his healings? In that case it would seem that crowds of people already know. I am inclined to take " them" in v. 36 to refer to the deaf man and others healed in private. Despite Jesus' command to the healed man and others like him, they told the crowds, who marveled at Jesus' power. The last part of v. 37 alludes to Isa 35:5-6 (" Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy." )

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Mar 7:1-23

P A R T  S I X T H.
FROM THE THIRD PASSOVER UNTIL OUR
LORD'S ARRIVAL AT BETHANY.
(Time: One Year Less One Week.)

LXV.
JESUS FAILS TO ATTEND THE THIRD PASSOVER.
SCRIBES REPROACH HIM FOR DISREGARDING TRADITION.
(Galilee, probably Capernaum, Spring A. D. 29.)
^aMATT. XV. 1-20; ^bMARK VII. 1-23; ^dJOHN VII. 1.

   ^d1 And after these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Judæa, because the Jews sought to kill him. [John told us in his last chapter that the passover was near at hand. He here makes a general statement which shows that Jesus did not attend this passover. The reason for his absence is given at Joh 5:18.]  ^a1 Then there come to Jesus from Jerusalem  ^b1 And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,  2 and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, with unwashen, hands. [Evidently several days intervened between the address of Joh 6:22-40. and the events recorded here, for the Pharisees and scribes would not be likely to leave Jerusalem until after the passover. Isa 29:13], asaying, bas it is written, This people [394] honoreth me with their lips, But their heart is far from me.  7 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.  8 Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.  9 And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition. [These Pharisees coming from Jerusalem could find nothing wherein Jesus or his disciples transgressed the law, so they eagerly grasped this transgression of the tradition as affording ground for an accusation. Jesus does not deny their charge, but justifies his disciples by attacking the whole traditional system, basing his attack upon a pointed prophecy which condemns it. It is hard for us to learn and apply the distinction between serving God as God wishes to be served, and serving him according to our own wishes and notions.]  ^a4 For God {^bMoses} said [that is, God said it through Moses],  Honor thy father and thy mother; and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death [see Exo 20:12, Deu 5:16, Exo 21:17, Lev 20:9]:  11 but ye say, If a man {^aWhosoever} shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me bis Corban, that is to say, Given to God;  ^a6 he shall not honor his father.  ^b12 ye no longer suffer him to do ought for his father or his mother; ^aAnd ye have made {^b13 making} void the word of God by {abecause of} your tradition. bwhich ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do. [Leaving for a moment the main question concerning uncleanness and washing, Jesus makes good his indictment against their tradition by giving an example of the mischievous way in which it set aside God's commandments. The law required the honoring of parents, and for any one to cast off his parents in their old age, thus subjecting them to beggary or starvation, was to do more than to speak evil of them. Such conduct was practically to curse them, and to incur the death penalty for so doing. But at this point the Pharisees interfered with their tradition, which taught that [395] a son could say of that part of his estate by which his parents might be profited, It is a gift; that is, a gift to God, and by thus dedicating that part to God, he would free himself from his obligation to his parents. Thus tradition undid the law. God's law leads to pure and acceptable worship, while human additions and amendments make worship vain, if not abominable. There is probably not one such addition or amendment which does not to a greater or less degree make some commandment void.]  14 And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them [Having been accused by the scribes and Pharisees of a breach of their tradition, Jesus points out to them generally the iniquity of tradition, for it lay within their power as leaders to remedy the whole system of things. Having done this, he turns to the multitude and answers before them as to the offense with which he is specifically charged. Thus he gives to the leaders general principles, and to the common people the single instance], Hear me all of you, and understand:  ^a11 Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth a man.  ^b15 there is nothing from without a man, that going into him can defile him: but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.  17 And when he was entered into the house from the multitude,  ^a12 Then came the disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, when they heard this saying? [The entire speech offended them. He charged them with hypocrisy. He showed that their tradition, which they reverenced as a revelation from God, led them into sin, and he disturbed their self-complacency by showing that the ceremonial cleanness, which was founded on tradition, and in which they prided themselves, was worthless in comparison with the moral cleanness required by God's law, which they had ignored. It grieved the disciples to see Jesus offend these reverend gentlemen from Jerusalem. Like many modern disciples their respect for men counteracted their zeal for truth.]  13 But he answered and said, Every [396] plant which my heavenly Father hath planted not, shall be up rooted up. [God had planted the law with its doctrine: he had planted the Hebrew religion as given by Moses. He had not planted the tradition of the elders; so it, and the religion founded upon it, was doomed to be rooted up.]  14 Let them alone: they are blind guides. And if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall into a pit. [This proverbial expression is found in the Sermon on the Mount. See Psa 37:1, Psa 37:2). The words of Jesus are full of encouragement to those who adhere to the simple teachings of God; for they show that God guarantees that every error shall be uprooted, and that every teacher of error or false religion shall participate in the judgment which uproots, and shall fall into the pit of ruin; and his disciples, no matter how numerous, shall share his fate. In this particular instance, the destruction of Jerusalem was the pit. The Jewish leaders led their disciples into it, and God uprooted their system of tradition, that the pure gospel might be sowed in the room which they occupied.]  15 And Peter answered and said unto him, Declare unto us the parable. [The word "parable" is used here in its looser sense to indicate an obscure saying.]  bhis disciples asked of him the parable. [They asked what he meant by the words contained in the Mat 15:11.  18 And he saith {asaid,} bunto them, ^aAre ye even yet bso without understanding also? [It was to be expected that the multitude, swayed by the teaching of the Pharisees, would be slow to grasp what Jesus said about uncleanness; but the disciples, having been so long taught of him, and having felt free to eat with unwashed hands, should have been more quick of understanding.] Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him;  19 because it goeth not into his heart, but apasseth into the {bhis} belly, and goeth out into {aand is cast out into} the [397] draught? bThis he said, making all meats clean.  20 And he said, ^a18 But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man. ^bThat which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man.  21 For from within, out of the heart of men, acome forth {bproceed,} aevil thoughts, bfornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,  22; covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye [an envious eye] afalse witness, railings: {brailing,} pride, foolishness:  23 all these evil things proceed from within, and  ^a20 these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands, defileth not the man. [Thus Jesus sets forth the simple doctrine that a man's moral and spiritual state is not dependent upon the symbolic cleanness of his physical diet, much less is it dependent on ceremonial observances in regard to things eaten, or the dishes from which they are eaten. Of course, Jesus did not mean at this time to abrogate the Mosaic law of legal uncleanness. These uncleannesses worked no spiritual defilement, but were merely typical of such; for the food in no way touched or affected the mind or soul, the fountains of spiritual life, but only the corporeal organs, which have no moral susceptibility. The Pharisees had erred in confusing legal and spiritual defilement, and had added error to error by multiplying the causes of defilement in their tradition. By thus showing that legal defilement was merely symbolic, Jesus classed it with all the other symbolism which was to be done away with when the gospel reality was fully ushered in (Col 2:16, Col 2:17). In saying, therefore, that Jesus made all meats clean, Mark does not mean that Jesus then and there repealed the law. The declaration of such repeal came later (Act 10:14, Act 10:15). He means that he there drew those distinctions and laid down those principles which supplanted the Mosaic law when the kingdom of God was ushered in on the day of Pentecost. Here was the fountain whence Paul drew all his teaching concerning things clean and unclean.] [398]

   * It was a whole year. -- J. W. M^cG.

[FFG 393-398]

Lapide: Mar 7:1-37

CHAPTER 7

1 The Pharisees find fault at the disciples for eating with unwashen hands. 8 They break the commandment of God by the traditions of men. 14 Meat defileth not the man. 24 He healeth the Syrophenician woman's daughter of an unclean spirit, 31 and one that was deaf, and stammered in his speech.

Ver. 2. To eat with common, that is, with unwashen hands. Hands unwashed were called common, because unclean and profane things were common to both Jews and Gentiles, to clean and unclean persons alike.

Observe, the Apostles were not so boorish as not to wash their hands before dining or supping, which even husbandmen and artisans do before meals; but they abstained from the ceremonial, or rather the superstitious washing of the Pharisees, which they scrupulously observed from the tradition of their ancestors.

Ver. 3. Often washing : Syr . betilarth, i.e., diligently or carefully ; Gr. πυγμη̃, zealously ; Heb. caph el cabh, i.e., hand to hand, namely, by constant rubbing, as they do who wish to cleanse defiled hands.

Ver. 4. From the market. Because in the market are all kinds, both of persons and things, clean and unclean, by coming in contact with which they feared they had incurred pollution, and so they thought they could not cleanse themselves from such contamination except by washing, not their hands only, but their whole body. Whence it follows:

Unless they be baptized, i.e., unless they immerse and wash their whole body, as the Jews do frequently, even at the present time. For to be baptized is more than to wash the hands. Because, therefore, by conversing with and touching Gentiles in the market they were compelled to handle some things that were unclean, they washed themselves all over when they came home.

Of pots : Gr. ξεστω̃ν, i.e., of wine-drinking vessels. The Syriac has ænophororun, vessels in which wine is carried. Vatablus understands wooden vessels, which were turned and polished, or ornamented with carving.

And beds: on which they reclined at table.

Ver. 15. Make a man common (Vulg.), i.e., defile him, as some MSS. read.

Ver. 19. Because it entereth not into his heart, i.e., into his soul, and cannot therefore defile it. But goeth into the belly, where the purer portion of the food, being separated, proceeds to the liver and heart; but that which is impure and feculent into the draught, by its going forth, purging, i.e., leaving pure all meats. For in that it, the impure, goeth away, it cleanses and purifies the remainder of the food.

Ver. 26. A Gentile : Gr. έλλήνις, i.e., a Grecian woman, for where the Greeks bore sway, all Gentiles were called Greeks. Hence the expression in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, "The Jew first, and also the Greek" i.e., the Gentile.

A Syrophonician, i.e., belonging to that part of Phœnicia which looks towards Syria.

Ver. 32. And dumb : Gr. μογιλάλον, i.e., speaking with difficulty or an impediment, stammering. For when he was healed by Christ he spake right, i.e., freely, as it is in the 35th verse. He was not, therefore, entirely dumb, as they are who are born deaf. These are called in Greek άλαλοι.

Ver. 33. And spitting, He touched his tongue. Christ wrought harmoniously, as though by His healing saliva He would moisten and loosen the dumb mouth, which was bound through drought.

Now He spat not upon the mouth of the mute, but upon His own finger, and by means of His finger applied the saliva to the mouth of the mute, as may be gathered from the Greek. This was required by propriety and decorum. Moreover, when Christ opened the ears and unloosed the tongue of the body, He opened also the ears and tongue of the soul, that they might listen to His inspiration, and believe that He was the Messiah, and that they might ask and obtain of Him pardon of their sins.

Tropologically : Every one ought to seek the same thing, and say with the Psalmist, "0 Lord, open Thou my lips, and my mouth shall show forth Thy praise" (Psa 51:17). We ought to do the same as regards our ears, that we may be able to sing aloud with Isaiah (Isa 1:4), "The Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: He wakeneth morning by morning, He wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned." Now this is done when He Himself with His own Finger, that is, the Holy Ghost (for He is "the Finger of God," Exod. viii. 19), and the spittle of Heavenly Wisdom, which is He Himself proceeding forth from the mouth of the Most High, touches the tongue of the soul.

Ver. 34. And looking up to heaven (because from thence come words to the dumb, hearing to the deaf, healing for all infirmities, says Bede), He groaned ; both because He sympathised with the misery of the deaf and dumb man, as because in groaning He prayed and obtained healing for him from God.

Ephpheta, which is, Be thou opened, ie., which so signifies. "Where," says Bede, "the two natures of the one and the same Mediator between God and man are plainly set forth. For, looking up to heaven as man, He groaned, being about to pray to God; presently by a single word, as having the power of Divine Majesty, He healed." For we all have eyes, but the blind have theirs shut and closed, which in the Syriac idiom are elegantly said to be opened when their shutters are unclosed, as Angelus Caninius says ( in Nom. Heb. c. 10). Moreover, the Heb. patach signifies to open. From whence is the imperative passive, or Niphal, hippateach, by crasis hippatach, for which the Syrians use Ephpheta, be open.

Ver. 36. He charged them that they should tell no man. This was not properly a command, involving a fault if disobeyed, but merely a token of urbanity and modesty, that, indeed, He might signify He would not make a parade of His miracles, or by their means obtain the vain glory of men. Wherefore they did not commit sin who nevertheless divulged them. Wherefore it follows, the more He charged them, so much the more a great deal did they publish it. "We are taught by this," says Theophylact, "that when we confer benefits we should not seek for applause therefrom; but when we have received benefits we should praise our benefactors, even though they are unwilling to be praised." And S. Augustine says, "By His prohibition the Lord wished to teach us how very fervently they ought to preach to whom He has given a command to preach, when they who were commanded to be silent could not hold their peace"

Ver. 37. He hath done all things well : Gr. καλω̃ς, i.e., beautifully, becomingly, harmoniousl y. Christ did nothing which the Pharisees or such like fault-finders could justly blame. Again, the Heb. for well is heteb, i.e., beneficently, because He gave hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb. Indeed, Christ's whole life was one continuous beneficence. (Top)

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Mar 7:2

MATTHEW 8:5-13 (cf. Luke 7:2-10 )—Is there a mistake in the accounts concerning Jesus and the centurion?

PROBLEM: Matthew seems to present the centurion as the one who seeks the help of Jesus ( Matt. 8:5 ); but, Luke seeems to say that the centurion sent elders to see Jesus ( Luke 7:3 ). Also, Matthew appears to say that the centurion himself comes to talk with Jesus. However, in Luke, the Bible says only the centurion’s representatives saw Jesus.

SOLUTION: Both Matthew and Luke are correct. In the 1st century, it was understood that when a representative was sent to speak for his master, it was as if the master was speaking himself. Even in our day this is still the case. When the Secretary of State meets individuals from other countries, he goes out in the name of the president of the United States. In other words, what he says, the president says. Therefore, Matthew states that a centurion came entreating Jesus about his sick slave, when in fact the centurion sent others on his behalf. So, when Matthew declares that the centurion was speaking, this was true, even though he was (as Luke indicated) speaking through his official representative.   

Critics Ask: Mar 7:3

MATTHEW 8:5-13 (cf. Luke 7:2-10 )—Is there a mistake in the accounts concerning Jesus and the centurion?

PROBLEM: Matthew seems to present the centurion as the one who seeks the help of Jesus ( Matt. 8:5 ); but, Luke seeems to say that the centurion sent elders to see Jesus ( Luke 7:3 ). Also, Matthew appears to say that the centurion himself comes to talk with Jesus. However, in Luke, the Bible says only the centurion’s representatives saw Jesus.

SOLUTION: Both Matthew and Luke are correct. In the 1st century, it was understood that when a representative was sent to speak for his master, it was as if the master was speaking himself. Even in our day this is still the case. When the Secretary of State meets individuals from other countries, he goes out in the name of the president of the United States. In other words, what he says, the president says. Therefore, Matthew states that a centurion came entreating Jesus about his sick slave, when in fact the centurion sent others on his behalf. So, when Matthew declares that the centurion was speaking, this was true, even though he was (as Luke indicated) speaking through his official representative.   

Critics Ask: Mar 7:4

MATTHEW 8:5-13 (cf. Luke 7:2-10 )—Is there a mistake in the accounts concerning Jesus and the centurion?

PROBLEM: Matthew seems to present the centurion as the one who seeks the help of Jesus ( Matt. 8:5 ); but, Luke seeems to say that the centurion sent elders to see Jesus ( Luke 7:3 ). Also, Matthew appears to say that the centurion himself comes to talk with Jesus. However, in Luke, the Bible says only the centurion’s representatives saw Jesus.

SOLUTION: Both Matthew and Luke are correct. In the 1st century, it was understood that when a representative was sent to speak for his master, it was as if the master was speaking himself. Even in our day this is still the case. When the Secretary of State meets individuals from other countries, he goes out in the name of the president of the United States. In other words, what he says, the president says. Therefore, Matthew states that a centurion came entreating Jesus about his sick slave, when in fact the centurion sent others on his behalf. So, when Matthew declares that the centurion was speaking, this was true, even though he was (as Luke indicated) speaking through his official representative.   

Critics Ask: Mar 7:5

MATTHEW 8:5-13 (cf. Luke 7:2-10 )—Is there a mistake in the accounts concerning Jesus and the centurion?

PROBLEM: Matthew seems to present the centurion as the one who seeks the help of Jesus ( Matt. 8:5 ); but, Luke seeems to say that the centurion sent elders to see Jesus ( Luke 7:3 ). Also, Matthew appears to say that the centurion himself comes to talk with Jesus. However, in Luke, the Bible says only the centurion’s representatives saw Jesus.

SOLUTION: Both Matthew and Luke are correct. In the 1st century, it was understood that when a representative was sent to speak for his master, it was as if the master was speaking himself. Even in our day this is still the case. When the Secretary of State meets individuals from other countries, he goes out in the name of the president of the United States. In other words, what he says, the president says. Therefore, Matthew states that a centurion came entreating Jesus about his sick slave, when in fact the centurion sent others on his behalf. So, when Matthew declares that the centurion was speaking, this was true, even though he was (as Luke indicated) speaking through his official representative.   

Evidence: Mar 7:5

The Bible says that the Messiah would magnify the Law and make it honorable ( Isa 42:21 ). Jesus did this many times, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. The Pharisees had dishonored the Law by merely giving God lip service. They made the Commandment void through their tradition, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. The Savior brought honor back to the Law by teaching that the Law was spiritual by nature, and that outward observance was not enough. God required truth in the inward parts (the thought-life, intent, and motives).

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Mark (Book Introduction)

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK

By Way of Introduction

One of the clearest results of modern critical study of the Gospels is the early date of Mark’s Gospel. Precisely how early is not definitely known, but there are leading scholars who hold that a.d. 50 is quite probable. My own views are given in detail in my Studies in Mark’s Gospel . Zahn still argues that the Gospel according to Matthew is earlier than that according to Mark, but the arguments are against him. The framework of Mark’s Gospel lies behind both Matthew and Luke and nearly all of it is used by one or the other. One may satisfy himself on this point by careful use of a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek or English. Whether Mark made use of Q ( Logia of Jesus ) or not is not yet shown, though it is possible. But Mark and Q constitute the two oldest known sources of our Matthew and Luke. We have much of Q preserved in the Non-Markan portions of both Matthew and Luke, though the document itself has disappeared. But Mark’s work has remained in spite of its exhaustive use by Matthew and Luke, all except the disputed close. For this preservation we are all grateful. Streeter ( The Four Gospels ) has emphasized the local use of texts in preserving portions of the New Testament. If Mark wrote in Rome, as is quite possible, his book was looked upon as the Roman Gospel and had a powerful environment in which to take root. It has distinctive merits of its own that helped to keep it in use. It is mainly narrative and the style is direct and simple with many vivid touches, like the historical present of an eyewitness. The early writers all agree that Mark was the interpreter for Simon Peter with whom he was at one time, according to Peter’s own statement, either in Babylon or Rome (1Pe_5:13).

This Gospel is the briefest of the four, but is fullest of striking details that apparently came from Peter’s discourses which Mark heard, such as green grass, flower beds (Mar_6:38), two thousand hogs (Mar_5:13), looking round about (Mar_3:5, Mar_3:34). Peter usually spoke in Aramaic and Mark has more Aramaic phrases than the others, like Boanerges (Mar_3:17), Talitha cumi (Mar_5:41), Korban (Mar_7:11), Ephphatha (Mar_7:34), Abba (Mar_14:36). The Greek is distinctly vernacular Koiné like one-eyed ( monophthalmon , Mar_9:47) as one would expect from both Peter and Mark. There are also more Latin phrases and idioms like centurio (Mar_15:39), quadrans (Mar_12:42), flagellare (Mar_15:15), speculator (Mar_6:27), census (Mar_12:14), sextarius (Mar_7:4), praetorium (Mar_15:6), than in the other Gospels, so much so that C. H. Turner raises the question whether Mark wrote first in Latin, or at any rate in Rome. There are some who hold that Mark wrote first in Aramaic, but the facts are sufficiently accounted for by the fact of Peter’s preaching and the activity in Rome. Some even think that he wrote the Gospel in Rome while with Peter who suggested and read the manuscript. B.W. Bacon holds that this Gospel has a distinct Pauline flavour and may have had several recensions. The Ur-Marcus theory does not have strong support now. Mark was once a co-worker with Barnabas and Paul, but deserted them at Perga. Paul held this against Mark and refused to take him on the second mission tour. Barnabas took Mark, his cousin, with him and then he appeared with Simon Peter with whom he did his greatest work. When Mark had made good with Barnabas and Peter, Paul rejoiced and commends him heartily to the Colossians (Col_4:10) In the end Paul will ask Timothy to pick up Mark and bring him along with him to Paul in Rome, for he has found him useful for ministry, this very young man who made such a mistake that Paul would have no more of him. This tribute to Mark by Paul throws credit upon both of them as is shown in my Making Good in the Ministry . The character of the Gospel of Mark is determined largely by the scope of Peter’s preaching as we see it in Act_10:36-42, covering the period in outline from John the Baptist to the Resurrection of Jesus. There is nothing about the birth of the Baptist or of Jesus. This peculiarity of Mark’s Gospel cannot be used against the narratives of the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, since Mark tells nothing whatever about his birth at all.

The closing passage in the Textus Receptus, Mar_16:9-20, is not found in the oldest Greek Manuscripts, Aleph and B, and is probably not genuine. A discussion of the evidence will appear at the proper place. Swete points out that Mark deals with two great themes, the Ministry in Galilee (Chs. 1 to 9) and the Last Week in Jerusalem (11 to 16) with a brief sketch of the period of withdrawal from Galilee (ch. 10). The first fourteen verses are introductory as Mar_16:9-20 is an appendix. The Gospel of Mark pictures Christ in action. There is a minimum of discourse and a maximum of deed. And yet the same essential pictures of Christ appear here as in the Logia, in Matthew, in Luke, in John, in Paul, in Peter, in Hebrews as is shown in my The Christ of the Logia . The cry of the critics to get back to the Synoptics and away from Paul and John has ceased since it is plain that the Jesus of Mark is the same as the Christ of Paul. There is a different shading in the pictures, but the same picture, Son of God and Son of Man, Lord of life and death, worker of miracles and Saviour from sin. This Gospel is the one for children to read first and is the one that we should use to lay the foundation for our picture of Christ. In my Harmony of the Gospels I have placed Mark first in the framework since Matthew, Luke, and John all follow in broad outline his plan with additions and supplemental material. Mark’s Gospel throbs with life and bristles with vivid details. We see with Peter’s eyes and catch almost the very look and gesture of Jesus as he moved among men in his work of healing men’s bodies and saving men’s souls.

JFB: Mark (Book Introduction)

THAT the Second Gospel was written by Mark is universally agreed, though by what Mark, not so. The great majority of critics take the writer to be "John whose surname was Mark," of whom we read in the Acts, and who was "sister's son to Barnabas" (Col 4:10). But no reason whatever is assigned for this opinion, for which the tradition, though ancient, is not uniform; and one cannot but wonder how it is so easily taken for granted by WETSTEIN, HUG, MEYER, EBRARD, LANGE, ELLICOTT, DAVIDSON, TREGELLES, &c. ALFORD goes the length of saying it "has been universally believed that he was the same person with the John Mark of the Gospels. But GROTIUS thought differently, and so did SCHLEIERMACHER, CAMPBELL, BURTON, and DA COSTA; and the grounds on which it is concluded that they were two different persons appear to us quite unanswerable. "Of John, surnamed Mark," says CAMPBELL, in his Preface to this Gospel, "one of the first things we learn is, that he attended Paul and Barnabas in their apostolical journeys, when these two travelled together (Act 12:25; Act 13:5). And when afterwards there arose a dispute between them concerning him, insomuch that they separated, Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas, and Silas attended Paul. When Paul was reconciled to Mark, which was probably soon after, we find Paul again employing Mark's assistance, recommending him, and giving him a very honorable testimony (Col 4:10; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24). But we hear not a syllable of his attending Peter as his minister, or assisting him in any capacity. And yet, as we shall presently see, no tradition is more ancient, more uniform, and better sustained by internal evidence, than that Mark, in his Gospel, was but "the interpreter of Peter," who, at the close of his first Epistle speaks of him as "Marcus my son" (1Pe 5:13), that is, without doubt, his son in the Gospel--converted to Christ through his instrumentality. And when we consider how little the Apostles Peter and Paul were together--how seldom they even met--how different were their tendencies, and how separate their spheres of labor, is there not, in the absence of all evidence of the fact, something approaching to violence in the supposition that the same Mark was the intimate associate of both? "In brief," adds CAMPBELL, "the accounts given of Paul's attendant, and those of Peter's interpreter, concur in nothing but the name, Mark or Marcus; too slight a circumstance to conclude the sameness of the person from, especially when we consider how common the name was at Rome, and how customary it was for the Jews in that age to assume some Roman name when they went thither."

Regarding the Evangelist Mark, then, as another person from Paul's companion in travel, all we know of his personal history is that he was a convert, as we have seen, of the Apostle Peter. But as to his Gospel, the tradition regarding Peter's hand in it is so ancient, so uniform, and so remarkably confirmed by internal evidence, that we must regard it as an established fact. "Mark," says PAPIAS (according to the testimony of EUSEBIUS, [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39]), "becoming the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, though not in order, whatever he remembered of what was either said or done by Christ; for he was neither a hearer of the Lord nor a follower of Him, but afterwards, as I said, [he was a follower] of Peter, who arranged the discourses for use, but not according to the order in which they were uttered by the Lord." To the same effect IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3,1]: "Matthew published a Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church at Rome; and after their departure (or decease), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, he also gave forth to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter." And CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA is still more specific, in a passage preserved to us by EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.14]: "Peter having publicly preached the word at Rome, and spoken forth the Gospel by the Spirit, many of those present exhorted Mark, as having long been a follower of his, and remembering what he had said, to write what had been spoken; and that having prepared the Gospel, he delivered it to those who had asked him for it; which, when Peter came to the knowledge of, he neither decidedly forbade nor encouraged him." EUSEBIUS' own testimony, however, from other accounts, is rather different: that Peter's hearers were so penetrated by his preaching that they gave Mark, as being a follower of Peter, no rest till he consented to write his Gospel, as a memorial of his oral teaching; and "that the apostle, when he knew by the revelation of the Spirit what had been done, was delighted with the zeal of those men, and sanctioned the reading of the writing (that is, of this Gospel of Mark) in the churches" [Ecclesiastical History, 2.15]. And giving in another of his works a similar statement, he says that "Peter, from excess of humility, did not think himself qualified to write the Gospel; but Mark, his acquaintance and pupil, is said to have recorded his relations of the actings of Jesus. And Peter testifies these things of himself; for all things that are recorded by Mark are said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses." It is needless to go farther--to ORIGEN, who says Mark composed his Gospel "as Peter guided" or "directed him, who, in his Catholic Epistle, calls him his son," &c.; and to JEROME, who but echoes EUSEBIUS.

This, certainly, is a remarkable chain of testimony; which, confirmed as it is by such striking internal evidence, may be regarded as establishing the fact that the Second Gospel was drawn up mostly from materials furnished by Peter. In DA COSTA'S'S Four Witnesses the reader will find this internal evidence detailed at length, though all the examples are not equally convincing. But if the reader will refer to our remarks on Mar 16:7, and Joh 18:27, he will have convincing evidence of a Petrine hand in this Gospel.

It remains only to advert, in a word or two, to the readers for whom this Gospel was, in the first instance, designed, and the date of it. That it was not for Jews but Gentiles, is evident from the great number of explanations of Jewish usages, opinions, and places, which to a Jew would at that time have been superfluous, but were highly needful to a Gentile. We can here but refer to Mar 2:18; Mar 7:3-4; Mar 12:18; Mar 13:3; Mar 14:12; Mar 15:42, for examples of these. Regarding the date of this Gospel--about which nothing certain is known--if the tradition reported by IRENÆUS can be relied on that it was written at Rome, "after the departure of Peter and Paul," and if by that word "departure" we are to understand their death, we may date it somewhere between the years 64 and 68; but in all likelihood this is too late. It is probably nearer the truth to date it eight or ten years earlier.

JFB: Mark (Outline)

• THE PREACHING AND BAPTISM OF JOHN. ( = Mat 3:1-12; Luke 3:1-18). (Mar 1:1-8)
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF CAPERNAUM AND THEREAFTER OF SIMON'S MOTHER-IN-LAW AND MANY OTHERS--JESUS, NEXT DAY, IS FOUND IN A SOLITARY PLACE AT MORNING PRAYERS, AND IS ENTREATED TO RETURN, BUT DECLINES, AND GOES FORTH ON HIS FIRST MISSIONARY CIRCUIT. ( = Luk 4:31-44; Mat 8:14-17; Mat 4:23-25). (Mark 1:21-39)
• HEALING OF A PARALYTIC. ( = Mat 9:1-8; Luk 5:17-26). (Mar 2:1-12)
• PARABLE OF THE SOWER--REASON FOR TEACHING IN PARABLES--PARABLES OF THE SEED GROWING WE KNOW NOT HOW, AND OF THE MUSTARD SEED. ( = Mat. 13:1-23, 31, 32; Luk 8:4-18). (Mark 4:1-34)
• THE SOWER, THE SEED, AND THE SOIL. (Mar 4:3, Mar 4:14)
• JESUS CROSSING THE SEA OF GALILEE, MIRACULOUSLY STILLS A TEMPEST--HE CURES THE DEMONIAC OF GADARA. ( = Mat 8:23-34; Luke 8:22-39). (Mark 4:35-5:20)
• THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS RAISED TO LIFE--THE WOMAN WITH AN ISSUE OF BLOOD HEALED. ( = Mat 9:18-26; Luke 8:41-56). (Mark 5:21-43)
• HEROD THINKS JESUS A RESURRECTION OF THE MURDERED BAPTIST--ACCOUNT OF HIS DEATH. ( = Mat 14:1-12; Luk 9:7-9). (Mark 6:14-29)
• THE TWELVE ON THEIR RETURN, HAVING REPORTED THE SUCCESS OF THEIR MISSION, JESUS CROSSES THE SEA OF GALILEE WITH THEM, TEACHES THE PEOPLE, AND MIRACULOUSLY FEEDS THEM TO THE NUMBER OF FIVE THOUSAND--HE SENDS HIS DISCIPLES BY SHIP AGAIN TO THE WESTERN SIDE, WHILE HE HIMSELF RETURNS AFTERWARDS WALKING ON THE SEA--INCIDENTS ON LANDING. ( = Mat. 14:13-36; Luk 9:10-17; John 6:1-24). (Mark 6:30-56)
• THE SYROPHœNICIAN WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER--A DEAF AND DUMB MAN HEALED. ( = Mat 15:21-31). (Mar 7:24-37)
• FOUR THOUSAND MIRACULOUSLY FED--A SIGN FROM HEAVEN SOUGHT AND REFUSED--THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES--A BLIND MAN AT BETHSAIDA RESTORED TO SIGHT. ( = Mat. 15:32-16:12). (Mark 8:1-26) In those days the multitude being very great, &c.
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC BOY--SECOND EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH AND RESURRECTION. ( = Mat 17:14-23; Luk 9:37-45). (Mark 9:14-32)
• STRIFE AMONG THE TWELVE WHO SHOULD BE GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, WITH RELATIVE TEACHING--INCIDENTAL REBUKE OF JOHN FOR EXCLUSIVENESS. ( = Mat 18:1-9; Luk 9:46-50). (Mark 9:33-50)
• THIRD EXPLICIT AND STILL FULLER ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION--THE AMBITIOUS REQUEST OF JAMES AND JOHN, AND THE REPLY. ( = Mat 20:17-28; Luk 18:31-34). (Mar 10:32-45)
• THE BARREN FIG TREE CURSED WITH LESSONS FROM IT--SECOND CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE, ON THE SECOND AND THIRD DAYS OF THE WEEK. ( = Mat 21:12-22; Luk 19:45-48). (Mark 11:11-26)
• ENTANGLING QUESTIONS ABOUT TRIBUTE THE RESURRECTION, AND THE GREAT COMMANDMENT, WITH THE REPLIES--CHRIST BAFFLES THE PHARISEES BY A QUESTION ABOUT DAVID, AND DENOUNCES THE SCRIBES. ( = Mat. 22:15-46; Luke 20:20-47). (Mark 12:13-40)
• CHRIST'S PROPHECY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM, AND WARNINGS SUGGESTED BY IT TO PREPARE FOR HIS SECOND COMING. ( = Mat. 24:1-51; Luke 21:5-36). (Mark 13:1-37)
• THE CONSPIRACY OF THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES TO PUT JESUS TO DEATH--THE SUPPER AND THE--ANOINTING AT BETHANY--JUDAS AGREES WITH THE CHIEF PRIESTS TO BETRAY HIS LORD. ( = Mat. 26:1-16; Luk 22:1-6; Joh 12:1-11). (Mar 14:1-11)
• JESUS ARRAIGNED BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM CONDEMNED TO DIE, AND SHAMEFULLY ENTREATED--THE FALL OF PETER. ( = Mat. 26:57-75; Luke 22:54-71; Joh 18:13-18, Joh 18:24-27). (Mark 14:53-72)
• ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE WOMEN ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--HIS APPEARANCES AFTER HIS RESURRECTION--HIS ASCENSION--TRIUMPHANT PROCLAMATION OF HIS GOSPEL. ( = Mat 28:1-10, Mat 28:16-20; Luke 24:1-51; Joh 20:1-2, John 20:11-29). (Mark 16:1-20)

TSK: Mark 7 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Mar 7:1, The Pharisees find fault with the disciples for eating with unwashed hands; Mar 7:8, They break the commandment of God by the traditions of men; Mar 7:14, Meat defiles not the man; Mar 7:24, He heals the Syrophenician woman’s daughter of an unclean spirit; Mar 7:31, and one that was deaf, and stammered in his speech.

Poole: Mark 7 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 7

MHCC: Mark (Book Introduction)

Mark was a sister's son to Barnabas, Col 4:10; and Act 12:12 shows that he was the son of Mary, a pious woman of Jerusalem, at whose house the apostles and first Christians assembled. From Peter's styling him his son, 1Pe 5:13, the evangelist is supposed to have been converted by that apostle. Thus Mark was closely united with the followers of our Lord, if not himself one of the number. Mark wrote at Rome; some suppose that Peter dictated to him, though the general testimony is, that the apostle having preached at Rome, Mark, who was the apostle's companion, and had a clear understanding of what Peter delivered, was desired to commit the particulars to writing. And we may remark, that the great humility of Peter is very plain where any thing is said about himself. Scarcely an action or a work of Christ is mentioned, at which this apostle was not present, and the minuteness shows that the facts were related by an eye-witness. This Gospel records more of the miracles than of the discourses of our Lord, and though in many things it relates the same things as the Gospel according to St. Matthew, we may reap advantages from reviewing the same events, placed by each of the evangelists in that point of view which most affected his own mind.

MHCC: Mark 7 (Chapter Introduction)

(Mar 7:1-13) The traditions of the elders.

(Mar 7:14-23) What defiles the man.

(Mar 7:24-30) The woman of Canaan's daughter cured.

(Mar 7:31-37) Christ restores a man to hearing and speech.

Matthew Henry: Mark (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Mark

We have heard the evidence given in by the first witness to the doctrine and miracles of our Lord Jesus; and now here is another witness produced, who calls for our attention. The second living creature saith, Come, and see, Rev 6:3. Now let us enquire a little,

I. Concerning this witness. His name is Mark. Marcus was a Roman name, and a very common one, and yet we have no reason to think, but that he was by birth a Jew; but as Saul, when he went among the nations, took the Roman name of Paul, so he of Mark, his Jewish name perhaps being Mardocai; so Grotius. We read of John whose surname was Mark, sister's son to Barnabas, whom Paul was displeased with (Act 15:37, Act 15:38), but afterward had a great kindness for, and not only ordered the churches to receive him (Col 4:10), but sent for him to be his assistant, with this encomium, He is profitable to me for the ministry (2Ti 4:11); and he reckons him among his fellow-labourers, Phm 1:24. We read of Marcus whom Peter calls his son, he having been an instrument of his conversion (1Pe 5:13); whether that was the same with the other, and, if not, which of them was the penman of this gospel, is altogether uncertain. It is a tradition very current among the ancients, that St. Mark wrote this gospel under the direction of St. Peter, and that it was confirmed by his authority; so Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccles. Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri, juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, legatus Roma à fratribus, breve scripsit evangelium - Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, being sent from Rome by the brethren, wrote a concise gospel; and Tertullian saith (Adv. Marcion. lib. 4, cap. 5), Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus - Mark, the interpreter of Peter, delivered in writing the things which had been preached by Peter. But as Dr. Whitby very well suggests, Why should we have recourse to the authority of Peter for the support of this gospel, or say with St. Jerome that Peter approved of it and recommended it by his authority to the church to be read, when, though it is true Mark was no apostle, yet we have all the reason in the world to think that both he and Luke were of the number of the seventy disciples, who companied with the apostles all along (Act 1:21), who had a commission like that of the apostles (Luk 10:19, compared with Mar 16:18), and who, it is highly probable, received the Holy Ghost when they did (Act 1:15; Act 2:1-4), so that it is no diminution at all to the validity or value of this gospel, that Mark was not one of the twelve, as Matthew and John were? St. Jerome saith that, after the writing of this gospel, he went into Egypt, and was the first that preached the gospel at Alexandria, where he founded a church, to which he was a great example of holy living. Constituit ecclesiam tantâ doctrinâ et vitae continentiâ ut omnes sectatores Christi ad exemplum sui cogeret - He so adorned, by his doctrine and his life, the church which he founded, that his example influenced all the followers of Christ.

II. Concerning this testimony. Mark's gospel, 1. Is but short, much shorter than Matthew's, not giving so full an account of Christ's sermons as that did, but insisting chiefly on his miracles. 2. It is very much a repetition of what we had in Matthew; many remarkable circumstances being added to the stories there related, but not many new matters. When many witnesses are called to prove the same fact, upon which a judgment is to be given, it is not thought tedious, but highly necessary, that they should each of them relate it in their own words, again and again, that by the agreement of the testimony the thing may be established; and therefore we must not think this book of scripture needless, for it is written not only to confirm our belief that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, but to put us in mind of things which we have read in the foregoing gospel, that we may give the more earnest heed to them, lest at any time we let them slip; and even pure minds have need to be thus stirred up by way of remembrance. It was fit that such great things as these should be spoken and written, once, yea twice, because man is so unapt to perceive them, and so apt to forget them. There is no ground for the tradition, that this gospel was written first in Latin, though it was written at Rome; it was written in Greek, as was St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, the Greek being the more universal language.

Matthew Henry: Mark 7 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter we have, I. Christ's dispute with the scribes and Pharisees about eating meat with unwashen hands (Mar 7:1-13); and the needful instructions he gave to the people on that occasion, and further explained to his disciples (Mar 7:14-23). II. His curing of the woman Canaan's daughter that was possessed (Mar 7:24-30). III. The relief of a man that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech (Mar 7:31-37).

Barclay: Mark (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MARK

The Synoptic Gospels

The first three gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are always known as the synoptic gospels. The word synoptic comes from two Greek words which mean to see together; and these three are called the synoptic gospels because they can be set down in parallel columns and their common matter looked at together. It would be possible to argue that of them all Mark is the most important. It would indeed be possible to go further and to argue that it is the most important book in the world, because it is agreed by nearly everyone that it is the earliest of all the gospels and therefore the first life of Jesus that has come down to us. Mark may not have been the first man to write the life of Jesus. Doubtless there were earlier simple attempts to set down the story of Jesusife; but Markgospel is certainly the earliest life of Jesus that has survived.

The Pedigree Of The Gospels

When we consider how the gospels came to be written, we must try to think ourselves back to a time when there was no such thing as a printed book in all the world. The gospels were written long before printing had been invented, compiled when every book had to be carefully and laboriously written out by hand. It is clear that so long as that was the case only a few copies of any book could exist.

How do we know, or how can we deduce, that Mark was the first of all the gospels? When we read the synoptic gospels even in English we see that there are remarkable similarities between them. They contain the same incidents often told in the same words; and they contain accounts of the teaching of Jesus which are often almost identical. If we compare the story of the Feeding of the Five Thousand in the three gospels (Mar_6:30-44 ; Mat_14:12-21 ; Luk_9:10-17 ) we see that it is told in almost exactly the same words and in exactly the same way. A very clear instance of this is the story of the healing of the man who was sick of the palsy (Mar_2:1-12 ; Mat_9:1-8 ; Luk_5:17-26 ). The accounts are so similar that even a little parenthesis--"he said to the paralytic"--occurs in all three in exactly the same place. The correspondences are so close that we are forced to one of two conclusions. Either all three are taking their material from some common source, or two of the three are based on the third.

When we study the matter closely we find that Mark can be divided into 105 sections. Of these 93 occur in Matthew and 81 in Luke. Only four are not included either in Matthew or in Luke. Even more compelling is this. Mark has 661 verses; Matthew has 1,068 verses; Luke has 1,149 verses. Of Mark661 verses, Matthew reproduces no fewer than 606. Sometimes he alters the wording slightly but he even reproduces 51 per cent. of Markactual words. Of Mark661 verses Luke reproduces 320, and he actually uses 53 per cent. of Markactual words. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce 31 are found in Luke. So the result is that there are only 24 verses in Mark which do not occur somewhere in Matthew and Luke. This makes it look very like as if Matthew and Luke were using Mark as the basis of their gospels.

What makes the matter still more certain is this. Both Matthew and Luke very largely follow Markorder of events. Sometimes Matthew alters Markorder and sometimes Luke does. But when there is a change in the order Matthew and Luke never agree together against Mark. Always one of them retains Markorder of events.

A close examination of the three gospels makes it clear that Matthew and Luke had Mark before them as they wrote; and they used his gospel as the basis into which they fitted the extra material which they wished to include.

It is thrilling to remember that when we read Markgospel we are reading the first life of Jesus, on which all succeeding lives have necessarily been based.

Mark, The Writer Of The Gospel

Who then was this Mark who wrote the gospel? The New Testament tells us a good deal about him. He was the son of a well-to-do lady of Jerusalem whose name was Mary, and whose house was a rallying-point and meeting place of the early church (Act_12:12 ). From the very beginning Mark was brought up in the very centre of the Christian fellowship.

Mark was also the nephew of Barnabas, and when Paul and Barnabas set out on their first missionary journey they took Mark with them to be their secretary and attendant (Act_12:25 ). This journey was a most unfortunate one for Mark. When they reached Perga, Paul proposed to strike inland up to the central plateau; and for some reason Mark left the expedition and went home (Act_13:13 ).

He may have gone home because he was scared to face the dangers of what was notoriously one of the most difficult and dangerous roads in the world, a road hard to travel and haunted by bandits. He may have gone home because it was increasingly clear that the leadership of the expedition was being assumed by Paul and Mark may have felt with disapproval that his uncle was being pushed into the background. He may have gone home because he did not approve of the work which Paul was doing. Chrysostom--perhaps with a flash of imaginative insight--says that Mark went home because he wanted his mother!

Paul and Barnabas completed their first missionary journey and then proposed to set out upon their second. Barnabas was anxious to take Mark with them again. But Paul refused to have anything to do with the man "who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia." (Act_15:37-40 .) So serious was the difference between them that Paul and Barnabas split company, and, so far as we know, never worked together again.

For some years Mark vanishes from history. Tradition has it that he went down to Egypt and founded the Church of Alexandria there. Whether or not that is true we do not know, but we do know that when Mark re-emerges it is in the most surprising way. We learn to our surprise that when Paul writes the letter to the Colossians from prison in Rome Mark is there with him (Col_4:10 ). In another prison letter, to Philemon, Paul numbers Mark among his fellow-labourers (Phm_1:24 ). And, when Paul is waiting for death and very near the end, he writes to Timothy, his right-hand man, and says, "Take Mark and bring him with you; for he is a most useful servant to me." (2Ti_4:11 .) It is a far cry from the time when Paul contemptuously dismissed Mark as a quitter. Whatever had happened Mark had redeemed himself. He was the one man Paul wanted at the end.

MarkSources Of Information

The value of any manstory will depend on the sources of his information. Where, then, did Mark get his information about the life and work of Jesus? We have seen that his home was from the beginning a Christian centre of Jerusalem. Many a time he must have heard people tell of their personal memories of Jesus. But it is most likely that he had a source of information without a superior.

Towards the end of the second century there was a man called Papias who liked to obtain and transmit such information as he could glean about the early days of the Church. He tells us that Markgospel is nothing other than a record of the preaching material of Peter, the greatest of the apostles. Certainly Mark stood so close to Peter, and so near to his heart, that Peter could call him "Mark, my son." (1Pe_5:13 .) Here is what Papias says:

"Mark, who was Peterinterpreter, wrote down accurately, though

not in order, all that he recollected of what Christ had said or

done. For he was not a hearer of the Lord or a follower of his. He

followed Peter, as I have said, at a later date, and Peter adapted

his instruction to practical needs. without any attempt to give

the Lordwords systematically. So that Mark was not wrong in

writing down some things in this way from memory, for his one

concern was neither to omit nor to falsify anything that he had

heard."

We may then take it that in his gospel we have what Mark remembered of the preaching material of Peter himself.

So, then, we have two great reasons why Mark is a book of supreme importance. First, it is the earliest of all the gospels; if it was written just shortly after Peter died its date will be about A.D. 65. Second, it embodies the record of what Peter preached and taught about Jesus; we may put it this way--Mark is the nearest approach we will ever possess to an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus.

The Lost Ending

There is a very interesting thing about Markgospel. In its original form it stops at Mar_16:8 . We know that for two reasons. First, the verses which follow (Mar_16:9-20 ) are not in any of the great early manuscripts; only later and inferior manuscripts contain them. Second, the style of the Greek is so different that they cannot have been written by the same person as wrote the rest of the gospel.

But the gospel cannot have been meant to stop at Mar_16:8 . What then happened? It may be that Mark died, perhaps even suffered martyrdom, before he could complete his gospel. More likely, it may be that at one time only one copy of the gospel remained, and that a copy in which the last part of the roll on which it was written had got torn off. There was a time when the church did not much use Mark, preferring Matthew and Luke. It may well be that Markgospel was so neglected that all copies except for a mutilated one were lost. If that is so we were within an ace of losing the gospel which in many ways is the most important of all.

The Characteristics Of MarkGospel

Let us look at the characteristics of Markgospel so that we may watch for them as we read and study it.

(i) It is the nearest thing we will ever get to a report of Jesusife. Markaim was to give a picture of Jesus as he was. Westcott called it "a transcript from life." A. B. Bruce said that it was written "from the viewpoint of loving, vivid recollection," and that its great characteristic was realism.

If ever we are to get anything approaching a biography of Jesus, it must be based on Mark, for it is his delight to tell the facts of Jesusife in the simplest and most dramatic way.

(ii) Mark never forgot the divine side of Jesus. He begins his gospel with the declaration of faith, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." He leaves us in no doubt what he believed Jesus to be. Again and again he speaks of the impact Jesus made on the mind and heart of those who heard him. The awe and astonishment which he evoked are always before Markmind. "They were astonished at his teaching." (Mar_1:22 .) "They were all amazed." (Mar_1:27 .) Such phrases occur again and again. Not only was this astonishment in the minds of the crowds who listened to Jesus; it was still more in the minds of the inner circle of the disciples. "And they were filled with awe, and said to one another, o then is this, that even wind and sea obey him? (Mar_4:41 .) "And they were utterly astounded." (Mar_6:51 .) "The disciples were amazed at his words." (Mar_10:24 , Mar_10:26 .)

To Mark, Jesus was not simply a man among men; he was God among men, ever moving them to a wondering amazement with his words and deeds.

(iii) At the same time, no gospel gives such a human picture of Jesus. Sometimes its picture is so human that the later writers alter it a little because they are almost afraid to say what Mark said. To Mark Jesus is simply "the carpenter." (Mar_6:3 .) Later Matthew alters that to "the carpenterson" (Mat_13:55 ), as if to call Jesus a village tradesman is too daring. When Mark is telling of the temptations of Jesus, he writes, "The Spirit drove him into the wilderness." (Mar_1:12 .) Matthew and Luke do not like this word drove used of Jesus, so they soften it down and say, "Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness." (Mat_4:1 ; Luk_4:1 .) No one tens us so much about the emotions of Jesus as Mark does. Jesus sighed deeply in his spirit (Mar_7:34 ; Mar_8:12 ). He was moved with compassion (Mar_6:34 ). He marvelled at their unbelief (Mar_6:6 ). He was moved with righteous anger (Mar_3:5 ; Mar_8:33 ; Mar_10:14 ). Only Mark tells us that when Jesus looked at the rich young ruler he loved him (Mar_10:21 ). Jesus could feel the pangs of hunger (Mar_11:12 ). He could be tired and want to rest (Mar_6:31 ).

It is in Markgospel, above all, that we get a picture of a Jesus of like passions with us. The sheer humanity of Jesus in Markpicture brings him very near to us.

(iv) One of the great characteristics of Mark is that over and over again he inserts the little vivid details into the narrative which are the hall-mark of an eyewitness. Both Matthew and Mark tell of Jesus taking the little child and setting him in the midst. Matthew (Mat_18:2 ) says, "And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them." Mark adds something which lights up the whole picture (Mar_9:36 ). "And he took a child and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them..." In the lovely picture of Jesus and the children, when Jesus rebuked the disciples for keeping the children from him, only Mark finishes, "and he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them." (Mar_10:13-16 ; compare Mat_19:13-15 ; Luk_18:15-17 .) All the tenderness of Jesus is in these little vivid additions. When Mark is telling of the Feeding of the Five Thousand he alone tells how they sat down in hundreds and in fifties, looking like vegetable beds in a garden (Mar_6:40 ) and immediately the whole scene rises before us. When Jesus and his disciples were on the last journey to Jerusalem, only Mark tells us, "and Jesus went before them." (Mar_10:32 ; compare Mat_20:17 ; Luk_18:31 ); and in that one vivid little phrase all the loneliness of Jesus stands out. When Mark is telling the story of the stilling of the storm he has one little sentence that none of the other gospel-writers have. "And he was in the hinder part of the ship asleep on a pillow" (Mar_4:38 ). And that one touch makes the picture vivid before our eyes.

There can be little doubt that all these details are due to the fact that Peter was an eyewitness and was seeing these things again with the eye of memory.

(v) Markrealism and his simplicity come out in his Greek style.

(a) His style is not carefully wrought and polished. He tells the story as a child might tell it. He adds statement to statement connecting them simply with the word "and." In the third chapter of the gospel, in the Greek, there are 34 clauses or sentences one after another introduced by "and" after one principal verb. It is the way in which an eager child would tell the story.

(b) He is very fond of the words "and straightway," "and immediately." They occur in the gospel almost 30 times. It is sometimes said of a story that "it marches." But Markstory does not so much march; he rushes on in a kind of breathless attempt to make the story as vivid to others as it is to himself.

(c) He is very fond of the historic present. That is to say, in the Greek he talks of events in the present tense instead of in the past. "And when Jesus heard it, he says to them, ose who are strong do not need a doctor, but those who are ill (Mar_2:17 .) "And when they come near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and to Bethany, to the Mount of Olives, he sends two of his disciples, and says to them, into the village opposite you... (Mar_11:1-2 .) "And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of The Twelve, comes." (Mar_14:43 .)

Generally speaking we do not keep these historic presents in translation, because in English they do not sound well; but they show how vivid and real the thing was to Markmind, as if it was happening before his very eyes.

(d) He quite often gives us the very Aramaic words which Jesus used. To Jairus aughter, Jesus said, "Talitha (G5008) cumi (G2891)." (Mar_5:41 .) To the deaf man with the impediment in his speech he said, "Ephphatha (G2188)." (Mar_7:34 .) The dedicated gift is "Corban (G2878)." (Mar_7:11 .) In the Garden he says, "Abba (G5), Father." (Mar_14:36 .) On the Cross he cries, "Eloi (G1682) Eloi (G1682) lama (G2982) sabachthani (G4518)?" (Mar_15:34 .)

There were times when Peter could hear again the very sound of Jesusoice and could not help giving the thing to Mark in the very words that Jesus spoke.

The Essential Gospel

It would not be unfair to call Mark the essential gospel. We will do well to study with loving care the earliest gospel we possess, the gospel where we hear again the preaching of Peter himself.

FURTHER READING

P. Carrington, According to Mark (E)

R. A. Cole, The Gospel According to St Mark (TC; E)

C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark (CGT; G)

F. C. Grant, The Earliest Gospel (E)

A. M. Hunter, St Mark (Tch; E)

Sherman E. Johnson, The Gospel According to St Mark (ACB; E)

R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St Mark (E)

A. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel (G)

D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark (PC; E)

A. E. J. Rawlinson, The Gospel According to St Mark (WC; E)

H. B. Swete, The Gospel According to St Mark (MmC; G)

V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St Mark (MmC; G)

C. H. Turner, St Mark (E)

Abbreviations

ACB: A. and C. Black New Testament Commentary

CGT: Cambridge Greek Text

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

PC: Pelican New Testament Commentary

TC: Tyndale Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

WC: Westminster Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Mark 7 (Chapter Introduction)

Clean And Unclean (Mar_7:1-4)

God's Laws And Men's Rules (Mar_7:5-8)

An Iniquitous Regulation (Mar_7:9-13)

The Real Defilement (Mar_7:14-23)

The Forecast Of A World For Christ (Mar_7:24-30)

Doing All Things Well (Mar_7:31-37)

Constable: Mark (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Writer

The writer did not identify himself as the writer anywhere in this Gospel. There are many statements of the early church fathers, however, that identify John Mark as the writer.

The earliest reference of this type is in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (c. 326 A.D.).¹ Eusebius quoted Papius' Exegesis of the Lord's Oracles (c. 140 A.D.), a work now lost. Papius quoted "the Elder," probably the Apostle John, who said the following things about this Gospel. Mark wrote it though he was not a disciple of Jesus during Jesus' ministry nor an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry. He accompanied the Apostle Peter and listened to his preaching. He based his Gospel on the eyewitness account and spoken ministry of Peter. Mark did not write his Gospel in strict chronological sequence, but he recorded accurately what Peter remembered of Jesus' words and deeds. He considered himself an interpreter of Peter's content. By this John probably meant that Mark recorded the teaching of Peter for the church though not necessarily verbatim as Peter expressed himself.² Finally the Apostle John said that Mark's account is wholly reliable.

Another important source of the tradition that Mark wrote this Gospel is the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark (160-180 A.D.). It also stated that Mark received his information from Peter. Moreover it recorded that Mark wrote after Peter died and that he wrote this Gospel in Italy.

Irenaeus (c. 180-185 A.D.), another early church father, added that Mark wrote after Peter and Paul had died.³

Other early tradition documenting these facts comes from Justin Martyr (c. 150-160 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 A.D.), Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.), the Muratorian Canon (c. 200 A.D.), and Origen (c. 230 A.D.). Significantly this testimony dates from the end of the second century. Furthermore it comes from three different centers of early Christianity: Asia Minor (modern Turkey), Rome (in Italy), and Alexandria (in Egypt). Thus there is strong evidence that Mark wrote this Gospel.

The Mark in view is the John Mark mentioned frequently in the New Testament (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:36-39; Col. 4:10; Phile. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:13). He was evidently a relative of Barnabas who accompanied Barnabas and Paul on their first missionary journey but left these apostles when they reached Perga. He became useful to Paul during Paul's second Roman imprisonment. He was also with Peter when Peter was in Rome, and Peter described him as his "son," probably his protégé.

It seems unlikely that the early church would have accepted this Gospel as authoritative, since its writer was a secondary figure, without having convincing proof that Mark wrote it. Perhaps Luke showed special interest in John Mark in Acts because he was the writer of this Gospel more than because he caused a breach between Paul and Barnabas.⁴

Date

The earliest Mark could have written, if the testimonies of the Anti-Marcionite Prologue and Irenaeus are correct, was after the death of Peter and Paul. The most probable dates of Peter's martyrdom in Rome are 64-67 A.D. Paul probably died as a martyr there in 67-68 A.D. Clement of Alexandria and Origen both placed the composition of this Gospel during Peter's lifetime. This may mean that Mark wrote shortly before Peter died. Perhaps Mark began his Gospel during Peter's last years in Rome and completed it after Peter's death.

The latest Mark could have written was probably 70 A.D. when Titus destroyed Jerusalem. Many scholars believe that since no Gospel writer referred to this event, which fulfilled prophecy, they all wrote before it.

To summarize, Mark probably wrote this Gospel sometime between 63 and 70 A.D.

Origin and Destination

Early tradition says Mark wrote in Italy⁵ and in Rome.⁶

This external testimony finds support in the internal evidence of the Gospel itself. Many indications in the text point to Mark's having written for Gentile readers originally, particularly Romans. He explained Jewish customs that would have been strange to Gentile readers (e.g., 7:2-4; 15:42). He translated Aramaic words that would have been unfamiliar to Gentiles (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 15:22). Compared to Matthew and Luke he used many Latinisms and Latin loan words indicating Roman influence. He showed special interest in persecution and martyrdom that would have been of special interest to Roman readers when he wrote (e.g., 8:34-38; 13:9-13). Christians were suffering persecution in Rome and throughout the empire then. Finally the early circulation and widespread acceptance of this Gospel among Christians suggest that it originated from and went to a powerful and influential church.⁷

Characteristics

Notice first some linguistic characteristics. Mark used a relatively limited vocabulary when he wrote this Gospel. For example, he used only about 80 words that occur nowhere else in the Greek New Testament compared with Luke's Gospel that contains about 250 such words. Another unique feature is that Mark also liked to transliterate Latin words into Greek. However the Aramaic language also influenced Mark's Greek. He evidently translated into Greek many of Peter's stories that Peter spoke in Aramaic. The result was sometimes rather rough and ungrammatical Greek compared with Luke who had a much more polished style of writing. However, Mark used a forceful, fresh, and vigorous style of writing. This comes through in his frequent use of the historical present tense that expresses action as happening at once. It is also obvious in his frequent use of the Greek adverb euthys translated "immediately."⁸ The resulting effect is that as one reads Mark's Gospel one feels that he or she is reading a reporter's eyewitness account of the events.

"Though primarily engaged in an oral rather than a written ministry, D. L. Moody was in certain respects a modern equivalent to Mark as a communicator of the gospel. His command of English was seemingly less than perfect and there were moments when he may have wounded the grammatical sensibilities of some of the more literate members of his audiences, but this inability never significantly hindered him in communicating the gospel with great effectiveness. In a similar way, Mark's occasional literary lapses have been no handicap to his communication in this gospel in which he skillfully set forth the life and ministry of Jesus."⁹

Mark also recorded many intimate details that only an eyewitness would observe (e.g., 1:27, 41, 43; 2:12; 3:5; 7:34; 9:5-6, 10; 10:24, 32). He addressed his readers directly (e.g., 2:10; 7:19), through Jesus' words (e.g., 13:37), and with the use of rhetorical questions addressed to them (e.g., 4:41). This gives the reader the exciting feeling that he or she is interacting with the story personally. It also impresses the reader with the need for him or her to respond to what the story is presenting. Specifically Mark wanted his readers to believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God and to follow Him.

Mark stressed Jesus' acts and gave a prominent place to His miracles in this Gospel. He recorded fewer of Jesus' words and more of His works. Jesus comes through Mark's Gospel as a man of action. Mark emphasized Jesus' role as the Servant of the Lord.

"Mark's story of Jesus is one of swift action and high drama. Only twice, in chapters 4 and 13, does Jesus pause to deliver extended discourses."¹⁰

Candor also marks this Gospel. Mark did not glorify the disciples but recorded them doing unflattering things such as criticizing Jesus. He also described the hostility of Jesus' family members toward Him. He stressed the human reactions and emotions of Jesus.

This Gospel presents a high christology beginning with the introduction of Jesus as the Son of God (1:1). Mark revealed Jesus' preference for the title "Son of man," which He used to describe Himself frequently.

Purpose

These characteristics help us understand Mark's purpose for writing, which he did not state directly. Mark's purpose was not just to give his readers a biographical or historical account of Jesus' life. He had a more practical purpose. The biographical material he chose to include and omit suggests that he wanted to enable his Christian readers to endure suffering and persecution for their faith effectively. To do this he recorded much about Jesus' sufferings. About one third of this Gospel deals with the passion of Jesus. Moreover there are many other references to suffering throughout the book (e.g., 1:12-13; 3:21-22, 30-35; 8:34-38; 10:30, 33-34, 45; 13:8, 11-13). Clearly Mark implied that faithfulness and obedience as a disciple of Jesus will inevitably result in opposition, suffering, and perhaps death. This emphasis would have ministered to the original readers who were undergoing persecution for their faith. It is a perennial need in pastoral ministry.¹¹

Mark had a theological as well as a pastoral purpose in writing. It was to stress the true humanity of the Son of God. Whereas Matthew presented Jesus as the Messiah, Mark showed that He was the human servant of God who suffered as no other person has suffered. Mark stressed Jesus' obedience to His Father's will. This emphasis makes Jesus an example for all disciples to follow (10:45). One wonders if Mark presented Jesus as he did to balance a tendency that existed in the early church to think of Jesus as divine but not fully human.

Mark's position among the Gospels

It is common today for scholars to hold Markan priority. This is the view that Mark wrote his Gospel first and the other Gospel evangelists wrote after he did. This view has become popular since the nineteenth century. Before that most biblical scholars believed that Matthew wrote his Gospel first. Since then many scholars have concluded that Mark was one of the two primary sources that the other Synoptic Gospel writers used, the other being Q.¹² There is presently no definitive solution to this problem of which came first.

Scholars favoring Markan priority base their view on the fact that Mark contains about 90% of what is in Matthew and about 40% of what is in Luke. Matthew and Luke usually follow Mark's order of events, and they rarely agree against the content of Mark when they all deal with the same subject. Matthew and Luke also often repeat Mark's wording, and they sometime interpret and tone down some of Mark's statements. Normally Mark's accounts are fuller than Matthew and Luke's suggesting that they may have edited his work.

However sometimes Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in a particular account. Luke omitted a large section of Mark's material including all of what is in Mark 6:45-8:26. Moreover in view of the traditional dating of Mark late in the 60s, if Mark wrote first, Matthew and Luke must have written after the fall of Jerusalem. This seems unlikely since that event fulfilled prophecy, but neither writer cited the fulfillment as such.¹³

All things considered I favor Matthean priority. However this debate is not crucial to the interpretation of the text.

Message¹⁴

Matthew presents Jesus in the purple and gold of royalty. Mark portrays Him in the brown and green of a servant who has come to do His Father's will.

The message of the book is similar to Matthew's message. A concise statement of it appears in 1:14-15. This is the message that Jesus proclaimed throughout His earthly ministry.

Another verse that is key to understanding the message of this Gospel is 10:45. This verse provides the unique emphasis of the book, Jesus' role as a servant, and a general outline of its contents.

First, the Son of Man came. That is the secret of the Incarnation. The Son of Man was God incarnate in human nature. His identity is a major theme in this Gospel.

Second, the Son of Man did not come to be ministered to but to minister. That is the secret of service. This Gospel also has much to teach disciples about service to God and mankind.

Third, the Son of Man came to give His life a ransom for many. That is the secret of His sufferings. Mark's Gospel stresses the sufferings of the Suffering Servant of the Lord. Mark is the Gospel of the Servant of God.

Jesus was, of course, by nature the Son of God. He is and ever has been equal with the Father because He shares the same divine nature. However in the Incarnation, Jesus became the Servant of God.

The idea of a divine Servant of God was an Old Testament revelation. Isaiah had more to say about the Servant of the Lord than any other Old Testament prophet, though many other prophets spoke of Him too.

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul expounded the significance of Jesus becoming the Servant of God more than any other writer. His great Kenosis passage in Philippians 2 helps us grasp what it meant for the Son of God to become the Servant of God. In the Incarnation, Jesus limited Himself. He did not cease to be God, but He poured Himself into the nature and body of a man. This limited His divine powers. Moreover He submitted Himself to a mission that the Father prescribed for Him that constrained His divine freedom. Mark presents Jesus as a real man who was also God in the role of a servant.

Let us consider first the nature of Jesus' service. The first and the last verses of this Gospel help us understand the nature of Jesus' service. Notice 1:1.

The second person of the Trinity became a servant to create a gospel, to provide good news for human beings. This good news is that Jesus has provided salvation for mankind. To provide salvation the eternal Son became a servant. Whenever the Bible speaks of Jesus as a servant it is always talking about His providing salvation.

Mark began by citing Isaiah who predicted the Servant of God (1:3, from Isa. 40:3). The quotation from Malachi in verse 2 is only introductory. This is very significant because Mark, unlike Matthew, rarely quoted from the Old Testament. Isaiah pictured One who would come to accomplish God's purpose of providing a final salvation. His picture of the Servant became more distinct and detailed, like a portrait under construction, until in chapter 53 Isaiah depicted the Servant's awful sufferings. This chapter is the great background for the second Gospel, as Psalm 110 lies behind the first Gospel.

The picture of the Servant suffering on the Cross is the last in a series that Mark has given us. He also shows the Servant suffering in His struggle against the forces of Satan and His demons. Another picture is of the Servant suffering the opposition of Israel's religious leaders. Another one is of the Servant suffering the dullness and misunderstanding of even His own disciples. These are all major themes in Mark's Gospel that have in common the view of Jesus as the Suffering Servant.

Turning to the Apostle Paul's theological exposition of the Suffering Servant theme in Scripture we note that he picked up another of Mark's emphases. Mark did not just present Jesus as the Suffering Servant as an interesting theological revelation. He showed what that means for disciples of the Suffering Servant. We need to adopt the same attitude that Jesus had (Phil. 2:5). Disciples of the Suffering Servant should expect and prepare for the same experiences He encountered. We need to have the same graciousness, humility, and love that He did. The Son of God emptied Himself to become a servant of God and man. We must also sacrifice ourselves for the same purpose.

Isaiah revealed that the central meaning of the Servant's mission was to provide salvation through self-sacrifice (Isa. 53). Paul also revealed that the Son became a servant to provide salvation through self-sacrifice (Phil. 2). The only sense in which the Son of God became the Servant of the Lord is that He created a gospel by providing salvation from the slavery of sin.

When Jesus began His public ministry He announced, "The time is fulfilled" (1:15). The person Isaiah and the other prophets had predicted had drawn near. God had drawn near by becoming a man. He had drawn near in the form of a humble servant. He was heading for the Cross. He would conquer what had ruined man and nature. He would provide good news for humankind, and He would return one day to establish His righteous empire over all the earth in grace and glory.

"Jesus" was His human name. "Messiah" was the title that described His role, though most people misunderstood it. "Son of God" was the title that represented His deity. These three are primary in Mark's Gospel.

Second, we need to observe what Mark teaches about the characteristics of Jesus' service.

Note Jesus' sympathy with sinners. Mark recorded no word of severity coming from Jesus' lips for sinners. Jesus reserved His severity for hypocrites, those who pretend to be righteous but are really rotten. He was hard on them because they ruined the lives of other people.

Sympathy comes from suffering. We have sympathy for someone who is undergoing some painful experience that we have gone through. It is hard to sympathize with someone whose experience is foreign to us.

Sympathy comes from suffering and it manifests itself in sacrifice. It involves bearing one another's burdens. Jesus' sympathy for us sinners arose from His sharing our sufferings, and it became obvious when He sacrificed Himself for us. If there was ever anyone who bore the burdens of others, it was Jesus (10:45).

Third, note the result of Jesus' service. It is the gospel. Reference to the gospel opens and closes this book (1:1; 16:20). The gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

When Jesus arose from the dead, His disciples were fearful, and they refused to believe He was alive. Jesus' strongest words of criticism of them occur in 16:14. This is the climax of the theme of the disciples' unbelief that runs through this Gospel. Look what He said to them immediately after that (16:15). He sent them out to proclaim the good news of salvation accomplished to every creature. The resurrection of the Servant is the great proof of the acceptability of His service, and it demands service of His disciples.

The abiding appeal of this book is, "Repent and believe the gospel" (1:15). Repenting is preliminary. Believing is the essential call.

Jesus did not preach that people should believe into the gospel (Gr. eis) nor that they should believe close to the gospel (Gr. apo). He called them to rest in the gospel (Gr. en). The gospel is a sphere of rest. We can have confidence in the gospel, put our trust in it, and rest in it.

The unbelievers in Mark's Gospel refused to rest in the reality that Jesus was not just a human Messiah come to deliver Israel from Rome but the divine Son of God. The disciples had little rest because they still could not overcome the limited traditional misconceptions of Messiah's role in history even though they believed that Jesus was God's Son.

The application of this Gospel to the church as a whole is, "Believe the gospel." As the disciples believed but struggled to believe, so the church needs to have a continuing and growing confidence in the gospel of the Servant of God.

It is a message of pardon and of power. Peter had to learn that it was a message of pardon after his triple denial of Jesus. All the disciples had to learn it is a message of power after they refused to believe that God had raised Jesus back to life.

When the church loses its confidence in the gospel, its service becomes weak. If we doubt the power of the gospel, we have no message for people who are the servants of sin. The measure of our confidence in the gospel will be the measure of our effectiveness as God's servants.

How can we have greater confidence in the gospel? It is not by studying or trying or experiencing. It is by the illuminating work of God's Holy Spirit in our hearts. Jesus' disciples were blind until God opened their eyes first to Jesus' true identity and then to Jesus' central place in time and history. They huddled in unbelief following the resurrection until the Holy Spirit illuminated their understanding about the significance of the resurrection. Then they went everywhere proclaiming the gospel (16:20).

Mark calls individual disciples of Jesus to believe in this gospel, to rest in it for pardon from sin and for power for service. It tells the story of the perfect Servant of God whose perfected service is perfecting salvation. God's Son became a servant to get near people, to help them, to lift us. That is the good news people need to hear. That is what it means to preach the gospel.

Constable: Mark (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-13

A. The title of the book 1:1

B. Jesus' preparation for ministry 1:2-13

1. The ministry of John the Baptist 1:2-8

2. The baptism of Jesus 1:9-11

3. The temptation of Jesus 1:12-13

II. The Servant's early Galilean ministry 1:14-3:6

A. The beginning of Jesus' ministry 1:14-20

1. The message of the Servant 1:14-15

2. The first disciples of the Servant 1:16-20

B. Early demonstrations of the Servant's authority 1:21-34

1. Jesus' teaching and healing in the Capernaum synagogue 1:21-28

2. The healing of Peter's mother-in-law 1:29-31

3. Jesus' healing of many Galileans after sundown 1:32-34

C. Jesus' early ministry throughout Galilee 1:35-45

1. The first preaching tour of Galilee 1:35-39

2. The cleansing of a leprous Jew 1:40-45

D. Jesus' initial conflict with the religious leaders 2:1-3:6

1. The healing and forgiveness of a paralytic 2:1-12

2. The call of Levi and his feast 2:13-17

3. The religious leaders' question about fasting 2:18-22

4. The controversies about Sabbath observance 2:23-3:6

III. The Servant's later Galilean ministry 3:7-6:6a

A. The broadening of Jesus' ministry 3:7-19

1. Jesus' ministry to the multitudes 3:7-12

2. Jesus' selection of 12 disciples 3:13-19

B. The increasing rejection of Jesus and its result 3:20-4:34

1. The increasing rejection of Jesus 3:20-35

2. Jesus' teaching in parables 4:1-34

C. Jesus' demonstrations of power and the Nazarenes' rejection 4:35-6:6a

1. The demonstrations of Jesus' power 4:35-5:43

2. Jesus rejection by the Nazarenes 6:1-6a

IV. The Servant's self-revelation to the disciples 6:6b-8:30

A. The mission of the Twelve 6:6b-30

1. The sending of the Twelve 6:6b-13

2. The failure of Antipas to understand Jesus' identity 6:14-29

3. The return of the Twelve 6:30

B. The first cycle of self-revelation to the disciples 6:31-7:37

1. The feeding of the 5,000 6:31-44

2. Jesus' walking on the water and the return to Galilee 6:45-56

3. The controversy with the Pharisees and scribes over defilement 7:1-23

4. Jesus' teaching about bread and the exorcism of a Phoenician girl 7:24-30

5. The healing of a deaf man with a speech impediment 7:31-36

6. The preliminary confession of faith 7:37

C. The second cycle of self-revelation to the disciples 8:1-30

1. The feeding of the 4,000 8:1-9

2. The return to Galilee 8:10

3. Conflict with the Pharisees over signs 8:11-13

4. Jesus' teaching about the yeast of the Pharisees and Herod 8:14-21

5. The healing of a blind man near Bethsaida 8:22-26

6. Peter's confession of faith 8:27-30

V. The Servant's journey to Jerusalem 8:31-10:52

A. The first passion prediction and its lessons 8:31-9:29

1. The first major prophecy of Jesus' passion 8:31-33

2. The requirements of discipleship 8:34-9:1

3. The Transfiguration 9:2-8

4. The coming of Elijah 9:9-13

5. The exorcism of an epileptic boy 9:14-29

B. The second passion prediction and its lessons 9:30-10:31

1. The second major prophecy of Jesus' passion 9:30-32

2. The pitfalls of discipleship 9:33-50

3. Lessons concerning self-sacrifice 10:1-31

C. The third passion prediction and its lessons 10:32-52

1. The third major prophecy of Jesus' passion 10:32-34

2. Jesus' teaching about serving 10:35-45

3. The healing of a blind man near Jericho 10:46-52

VI. The Servant's ministry in Jerusalem chs. 11-13

A. Jesus' formal presentation to Israel 11:1-26

1. The Triumphal Entry 11:1-11

2. Jesus' judgment on unbelieving Israel 11:12-26

B. Jesus' teaching in the temple 11:27-12:44

1. The controversy over Jesus' authority 11:27-12:12

2. The controversy over Jesus' teaching 12:13-37

3. Jesus' condemnation of hypocrisy and commendation of reality 12:38-44

C. Jesus teaching on Mt. Olivet ch. 13

1. The setting 13:1-4

2. Warnings against deception 13:5-8

3. Warnings about personal danger during deceptions 13:9-13

4. The coming crisis 13:14-23

5. The second coming of the Son of 13:24-27

6. The time of Jesus' return 13:28-32

7. The concluding exhortation 13:33-37

VII. The Servant's passion ministry chs. 14-15

A. The Servant's anticipation of suffering 14:1-52

1. Jesus' sufferings because of betrayal 14:1-11

2. Jesus' sufferings because of desertion 14:12-52

B. The Servant's endurance of suffering 14:53-15:47

1. Jesus' Jewish trial 14:53-15:1

2. Jesus' Roman trial 15:2-20

3. Jesus' crucifixion, death, and burial 15:21-47

VIII. The Servant's resurrection ch. 16

A. The announcement of Jesus' resurrection 16:1-8

B. The appearances and ascension of Jesus 16:9-20

1. Three post-resurrection appearances 16:9-18

2. Jesus' ascension 16:19-20

Constable: Mark

Mark

Bibliography

Adams, J. McKee. Biblical Backgrounds. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1965.

Alexander, Joseph Addison. The Gospel According to Mark. 1881. Reprint ed. London: Banner of Truth, 1960.

Alexander, William M. Demonic Possession in the New Testament: Its Relations Historical, Medical, and Theological. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.

Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible series. Greenwood, S. C.: Attic Press, 1976.

Andrews, Samuel J. The Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth. 1862. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954.

Bailey, Mark L., and Constable, Thomas L. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 1999.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. A Commentary on Mark Thirteen. London: Macmillan, 1957.

Best, E. The Temptation and the Passion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Bishop, Eric F. F. Jesus of Palestine: The Local Background to the Gospel Documents. London: Lutterworth, 1955.

Blunt, A. W. F. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. The Clarendon Bible series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929.

Boobyer, G. H. "Mark II, 10a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic." Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954):115-20.

Bratcher, R. G., and Nida, E. A. Translator's Handbook on Mark. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961.

Brown, William E. "The New Testament Concept of the Believer's Inheritance." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984.

Bruce, Alexander Balmain. "The Synoptic Gospels." In The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1910.

Burgon, John W. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark. 1871. Reprint ed. N. c.: Sovereign Grace Book Club, 1959.

Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Carl, Harold F. "Only the Father Knows: Historical and Evangelical Responses to Jesus' Eschatological Ignorance in Mark 13:32." A paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 16, 2000, Nashville, TN.

Carrington, P. According to Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Chantry, Walter J. "Does the New Testament Teach the Fourth Commandment?" The Banner of Truth 325 (October 1990):18-23.

Clarke, W. N. "Commentary on the Gospel of Mark." In An American Commentary. 1881. Reprint ed. Phildelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, n. d.

Cole, R. A The Gospel According to Mark. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. 2nd ed. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

_____. "St. Mark 13." Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (April 1953):165-96; (July 1953):287-303; 7 (April 1954):284-303.

Davis, C. Truman. "The Crucifixion of Jesus. The Passion of Christ from a Medical Point of View," Arizona Medicine 22:3 (March 1965):185-87.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Use of euthys (immediately') in Mark." Journal of Ministry and Theology 1:1 (Spring 1997):90-121.

A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1906 ed. S.v. "Numbers, Hours, Years, and Dates," by W. M. Ramsay, extra volume:473-84.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Donahue, J. R. "Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971):39-61.

Doriani, Daniel. "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):333-50.

Earle, Ralph. The Gospel According to Mark. The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services. London: Religious Tract Society, n. d.

Edwards, James R. "The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1994):217-33.

Ellenburg, B. Dale. "A Review of Selected Narrative-Critical Conventions in Mark's Use of Miracle Material." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:2 (June 1995):171-80.

English, E. Schuyler. "A Neglected Miracle." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):300-5.

Garlington, Don B. "Jesus, the Unique Son of God: Tested and Faithful." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):284-308.

Gould, Ezra P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Internationa Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896.

Grassi, Joseph A. "Abba, Father (Mark 14:36): Another Approach." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50:3 (September 1982):449-58.

Grassmick, John D. "Mark." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 95-197. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Green, Michael P. "The Meaning of Cross-Bearing." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:558 (April-June 1983):117-33.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993.

Heil, John Paul. "Mark 14, 1-52: Narrative Structure and Reader Response." Biblica 71:3 (1990):305-32.

Hellerman, Joseph H. "Challenging the Authority of Jesus: Mark 11:27-33 and Mediterranean Notions of Honor and Shame." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:2 (June 2000):213-28.

Hiebert, D. Edmond Mark: A Portrait of the Servant. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Hodges, Zane C. "The Blind Men at Jericho." Biblitheca Sacra 122:488 (October-December 1965):319-30.

_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):301-9.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Hort, A. F. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 1902. Reprint ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928.

Hunter, A. M. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Torch Bible Commentary series. London: SCM, 1967.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. A Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments. 2 vols. Hartford: S. S. Scranton, n. d.

Jeremias, Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 2nd ed. New York: Scribners, 1966.

_____. New Testament Theology. New York: Scribners, 1971.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM, 1963.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):309-11.

Johnson, Sherman E. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Black's New Testament Commentaries series. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1960.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kelly, William. An Exposition of the Gospel of Mark. Reprint ed. London: C. A. Hammond, 1934.

Kingsbury, J. D. Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel. Minneapolis: Wartburg Press, 1946.

Lowery, David K. "A Theology of Mark." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 65-86. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

MacArthur, John A., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Maclaren, Alexander. "St. Mark." In Expositions of Holy Scripture. Vol. 8. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1944.

Maclear, G. F. "The Gospel According to St. Mark." In Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890.

Martin, R. P. Mark: Evangelist and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972.

Matera, Frank J. "The Prologue as the Interpretitive Key to Mark's Gospel." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (October 1988):3-20.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. "Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospels of Mark and Luke." In Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Translated, revised, and edited by William P. Dickson. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morison, James. A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. 8th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1896.

Moule, C. F. D. The Gospel According to Mark. The Cambridge Bible Commentary series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Moulton, James Hope, and Milligan, George. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1930.

Murray, John. Divorce. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974.

Nineham, D. E. Saint Mark. Pelical Gospel Commentary series. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Peterson, Robert A. "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?" Bibliotheca Sacra 156:621 (January-March 1999):13-27.

Plummer, Alfred. "The Gospel According to St. Mark" In The Cambridge Greek Testament. 1914. Reprint ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Rawlinson, A. E. J. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Westminster Commentaries series. London: Methuen, 1949.

Rhoads, David M., and Michie, Donald M. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

Riddle, Matthew B. "The Gospel According to Mark." In International Revision Commentary on the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1881.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March):71-84.

Santos, Narry F. "Jesus' Paradoxical Teaching in Mark 8:35; 9:35; and 10:43-44." Bibliotheca Sacra 157:625 (January-March 2000):15-25.

_____. "The Paradox of Authority and Servanthood in the Gospel of Mark." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):452-60.

Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Mark. London: SPCK, 1971.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Smith, Geoffrey. "A Closer Look at the Widow's Offering: Mark 12:41-44." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:1 (March 1997)27-36.

Smith, George Adam. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. New York: Armstrong and Son, 1909.

Stauffer, Ethelbert Jesus and His Story. Translated by Richard and Clara Winston. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960.

Sugirtharajah, R. S. "The Syrophoenician Woman." The Expository Times 98:1 (October 1986):13-15.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 1898. Reprint ed. London: Macmillan, 1905.

Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 2nd ed. New York: St. Martins Press, 1966.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. S.v. "basilia," by K. L. Schmidt.

_____. S.v. "pais," by Albrecht Oepke.

Unger, Merrill F. Biblical Demonology: A Study of the Spiritual Forces Behind the Present World Unrest. Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1952.

_____. Demons in the World Today. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1971.

_____. "Divine Healing." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):234-44.

Van der Loos, H. The Miracles of Jesus. Supplements to Novum Testamentum series. Vol. VIIII. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965.

Warfield, Benjamin B. An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1899.

Wessel, Walter W. "Mark." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Williams, George. The Student's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 5th ed. London: Oliphants, 1949.

Williams, Joel F. "Discipleship and Minor Characters in Mark's Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):332-43.

_____. "Literary Approaches to the End of Mark's Gospel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):21-35.

Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret. 1901. Reprint ed. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "Sadducees," by D. A. Hagner.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p41mar-3@

Haydock: Mark (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. MARK.

INTRODUCTION.

St. Mark, who wrote this Gospel, is called by St. Augustine, the abridger of St. Matthew; by St. Jerome, the disciple and interpreter of St. Peter; and according to Origen and St. Jerome, he is the same Mark whom St. Peter calls his son. Stilting, the Bollandist, (in the life of St. John Mark, T. vii. Sep. 27, p. 387, who was son of the sister of St. Barnabas) endeavours to prove that this was the same person as our evangelist; and this is the sentiment of St. Jerome, and some others: but the general opinion is that John, surnamed Mark, mentioned in Acts xii. was a different person. He was the disciple of St. Paul, and companion of St. Barnabas, and was with St. Paul, at Antioch, when our evangelist was with St. Peter at Rome, or at Alexandria, as Eusebius, St. Jerome, Baronius, and others observe. Tirinus is of opinion that the evangelist was not one of the seventy-two disciples, because as St. Peter calls him his son, he was converted by St. Peter after the death of Christ. St. Epiphanius, however, assures us he was one of the seventy-two, and forsook Christ after hearing his discourse on the Eucharist, (John vi.) but was converted by St. Peter after Christ's resurrection, hær. 51, chap. v. p. 528. --- The learned are generally of opinion, that the original was written in Greek, and not in Latin; for, though it was written at the request of the Romans, the Greek language was commonly understood amongst them; and the style itself sufficiently shews this to have been the case: ---

----------Omnia Græce;

Cum sit turpe magis nostris nescire Latine.--- Juvenal, Satyr vi.

The old manuscript in Latin, kept at Venice, and supposed by some to be the original, is shewn by Montfaucon and other antiquaries, to have been written in the sixth century, and contains the oldest copy extant of St. Jerome's version. --- St. Peter revised the work of St. Mark, approved of it, and authorized it to be read in the religious assemblies of the faithful; hence some, as we learn from Tertullian, attributed this gospel to St. Peter himself. St. Mark relates the same facts as St. Matthew, and often in the same words: but he adds several particular circumstances, and changes the order of the narration, in which he agrees with St. Luke and St. John. He narrates two histories not mentioned by St. Matthew; the widow's two mites, and Christ's appearing to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus; also some miraculous cures; (Mark i. 40; vii. 32; viii. 22, 26) and omits many things noticed by St. Matthew ... But nothing proves clearly, as Dom. Ceillier and others suppose, that he made use of St. Matthew's gospel. In his narrative he is concise, and he writes with a more pleasing simplicity and elegance.

It is certain that St. Mark was sent by St. Peter into Egypt, and was by him appointed bishop of Alexandria, (which, after Rome, was accounted the second city of the world) as Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and others assure us. He remained here, governing that flourishing church with great prudence, zeal, and sanctity. He suffered martyrdom in the 14th year of the reign of Nero, in the year of Christ 68, and three years after the death of Sts. Peter and Paul, at Alexandria, on the 25th of April; having been seized the previous day, which was Sunday, at the altar, as he was offering to God the prayer of the oblation, or the mass.

====================

Gill: Mark (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO MARK

This is the title of the book, the subject of which is the Gospel; a joyful account of the ministry, miracles, actions, and sufferings of Christ: the writer of it was not one of the twelve apostles, but an evangelist; the same with John Mark, or John, whose surname was Mark: John was his Hebrew name, and Mark his Gentile name, Act 12:12, and was Barnabas's sister's son, Col 4:10, his mother's name was Mary, Act 12:12. The Apostle Peter calls him his son, 1Pe 5:13, if he is the same; and he is thought to have wrote his Gospel from him ^a, and by his order, and which was afterwards examined and approved by him ^b it is said to have been wrote originally in Latin, or in the Roman tongue: so say the Arabic and Persic versions at the beginning of it, and the Syriac version says the same at the end: but of this there is no evidence, any more, nor so much, as of Matthew's writing his Gospel in Hebrew. The old Latin copy of this, is a version from the Greek; it is most likely that it was originally written in Greek, as the rest of the New Testament.

College: Mark (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

No story is more important than the story of Jesus. I am confident that my comments do not do it justice. Even granting the limitations of a historical commentary (see the Introduction) there is so much more to be said. Nevertheless, the completion of a commentary on the Gospel of Mark accomplishes a goal I have wanted to reach for many years. I pray that my comments will help readers to develop a deeper understanding of Mark's story of Jesus as a basis for reflecting on Jesus' significance for their own lives.

I thank College Press for the opportunity to write in this series. I thank my colleague at Harding Graduate School Richard Oster (whose commentary on 1 Corinthians has appeared in the same series) for reading my manuscript and making many valuable suggestions. Another friend and colleague John Mark Hicks also provided helpful comments on several sections.

Most of all I thank Nancy, Amy, and Stacey, whose love and support are the dearest things on earth to me. The blessing they have been to me is second only to the blessing God has given to us all in the story about which I have been privileged to comment.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

ABOUT THIS COMMENTARY

The intended audience of this book is the general reader with a serious interest in Scripture. This is not a work for scholars seeking to explore and press forward the edges of contemporary scholarship on Mark. Rather, I seek to make some of the fruits of others' scholarly research available to the general reader. I have been especially influenced by the commentaries by William Lane and Robert Gundry, the incomplete commentary on 1:1-8:26 by Robert Guelich, and the magisterial work on the death of Jesus by Raymond Brown. I often refer the reader to their scholarly works for further information, and even where I do not the reader would be well advised to consider them for a scholar's depth of treatment. Another fine source for further treatment with respect to many topics that arise in Mark is the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels , edited by Joel Green and Scot McKnight.

The purpose of the commentary is to provide a historical interpretation of the Gospel of Mark; that is, an interpretation of what Mark meant to say to his ancient audience. I write with the conviction that modern readers can only determine God's message to us after and on the basis of a determination of Mark's message to his ancient contemporaries. Because I believe God worked through Mark and inspired his work, I believe it has great relevance to every reader in every age. But we can only determine what it means to us if we have first determined what it meant when Mark wrote it. It is this latter task that it the focus of most commentaries, including this one. I will occasionally make comments about what a given passage means today, but not consistently. I will consistently comment on what Mark meant to say to his ancient readers. I hope and pray that my readers will recognize the contemporary relevance of Mark's work even though it will not be my purpose to point it out or illustrate it. My purpose is to provide a base to build on for contemporary application.

The commentary deals with historical meaning or intention on two levels. The first of those is the meaning intended by Mark for his contemporaries. John 21:25 says, "Jesus did many other things as well. If everyone of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." John points out that every Gospel writer must be selective. That is true with respect to which stories or sayings are selected and with respect to the perspective from which they are told and the amount of detail which is provided. The commentary consistently asks why Mark might have made his particular choices (which I assume were made under divine guidance).

The second level of meaning is the level of the intent of the historical characters Mark wrote about, especially Jesus. What did Jesus intend to convey to his contemporaries by his words and actions? A major part of Mark's intended meaning is to convey his understanding of Jesus' intended meaning. Therefore, it is important to ask both "What did Mark want his contemporaries to understand from this action or saying?" and "What did Jesus want his contemporaries (two to three decades earlier) to understand from this action or saying?" Concerning the latter question, the commentary will focus primarily on what one could learn about Jesus' intentions from Mark's account alone. On a few occasions, another Gospel will be brought into the discussion - but primarily for the purpose of solving some ambiguity or otherwise illuminating Mark's account.

I have generally not commented on the scholarly disputes concerning the historicity of various events and sayings in Mark. Most of them arise from the presupposition that Jesus did not work miracles. In this commentary I presuppose that he did and I assume the basic historicity of Mark's account. I comment only on a few well known problems of historicity which do not stem from antisupernaturalistic presuppositions.

In general, I have sought to provide deeper treatment of any recurring subject at the point where it is first mentioned in the text. For example, the titles "Christ" and "Son of God" are discussed primarily when they first arise in 1:1, and "Son of Man" is discussed in connection with 2:10. This means that the first chapter of the commentary is particularly important. It also means that readers will often want to look at the first text that mentions a particular theme. For example, it is important to supplement the comments on the centurion's confession of Jesus as the Son of God at 15:39 with the comments on the Son of God title at 1:1.

I have commented on the NIV text. In some places where it seems deficient, I have provided an alternative translation, often from the NRSV. The commentary makes note of the most significant textual variants and my opinions concerning them, but does not provide a list of manuscripts, versions, or church fathers. Interested readers should use the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament .

AUTHORSHIP

The author of the Gospel of Mark is not indicated within the text itself. However, the traditional understanding of the author is supported by the title and by early Christian writers.

The titles of the Gospels are first found in ancient manuscripts dating from the late second or early third centuries. Some scholars readily dismiss them as late second century creations. It is true that they seem to be creations of early church tradition rather than of the authors themselves. This can be observed by noting their stereotypical form "The Gospel according to _________" and by the clearer evidence that other New Testament book titles were not original. For example, Paul would hardly have designated the letter we know as 1 Corinthians by that name. Not only did letters not need a name but in 1 Cor 5 he speaks about a former letter he had written them. The titles of Paul's letters and of the Gospels represent the perspectives of those who collected and circulated them.

But that does not mean they are not to be trusted. Martin Hengel has well argued that the titles of the Gospels go back to the earliest days of their collection and distribution. Papias, a bishop in Asia Minor in the early second century, apparently knew of them. So did his source, "the elder" - presumably a generation older than Papias. Hengel correctly argues that as soon as there was more than one Gospel to read at church, it would have become necessary to name them. The lack of competing titles suggests that these titles were uniformly applied from the earliest days.

The second most important piece of information concerning the authorship of Mark is a paragraph written by the above-named Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (near Colossae and Laodicea). The pertinent statements were preserved by Eusebius from Papias's work, Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord , which was probably written within the first three decades of the second century. According to Eusebius Papias wrote:

And the presbyter used to say this: "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them."

Papias believed a) that the author was a Mark closely associated with Peter and b) that what he wrote was essentially the preaching of Peter. These traditional understandings were repeated favorably by subsequent church fathers. Justin Martyr (writing c. A.D. 155-60) spoke of Mark's Gospel as "Peter's memoirs." In the late second century Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria described Mark as writing Peter's preaching. In the early third century Origen and Tertullian affirm the same tradition. The early date of Papias and the widespread support of his statements suggest that they might be correct.

The connection between Peter and Mark is supported by Peter going to John Mark's mother's house in Acts 12:12 and by Peter's reference to "my son Mark" in 1 Pet 5:13. The idea that Mark's Gospel was based on Peter's preaching is probably trustworthy. It is probably also true that what Peter usually did was tell various individual stories about Jesus rather than a sustained account. Mark's Gospel, like the others, is not in strict chronological order, although it does generally follow chronological lines.

Acts 12:12 and 25 suggests that the Mark that Peter would later refer to as "my son" was the same as the John Mark who was a companion of Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey and a source of dispute between them over whether to take him on their return trip (Acts 15:36-40). Col 4:10; Phlm 24; and 2 Tim 4:11 indicate that Paul was eventually reconciled with John Mark (and that John Mark was Barnabas' cousin). According to Acts 12:12 John Mark was from Jerusalem, but Papias and other ancient writers say that he did not follow Jesus before Jesus' death.

I will assume the author was John Mark of Jerusalem and that his Gospel was to some extent based upon the preaching of Peter.

AUDIENCE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION

In the late second century Clement of Alexandria commented on the circumstances of Mark's writing, including the audience he wrote for and the place where he wrote. According to Eusebius Clement believed that:

When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the Gospel, those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said: and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And that when the matter came to Peter's knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward.

However, Clement is not a very trustworthy source and his contemporary Irenaeus contradicted him by saying that Mark wrote his Gospel after the death of Peter.

Clement could be correct about Rome as the location for Mark's audience and his place of composition. Two other factors provide mild support for Rome. In 1 Pet 5:13, where Peter mentions Mark and calls him "my son," he indicates that he and Mark were in "Babylon." Most scholars believe Peter is referring to Rome, thus placing himself and Mark in Rome. Furthermore, Gundry and others argue that the frequent Latinisms (Latin loan words or other Latin influence on Mark's Greek) point to Italy. The Latinisms argument is, however, problematic. Some are not persuaded because many of the Latin terms used in Mark are military, judicial, or economic in nature and would be present throughout the empire.

What can be affirmed with more confidence is that Mark's audience contained many Gentiles. This is made clear in 7:3-4 when Mark must explain ritual cleanliness customs which he says are the practice of "all the Jews." Mark must envision non-Jews who would not know these practices. This does not mean he did not envision some Jews reading his work, but only that he included comments clearly aimed at Gentiles.

It is probable that the readers Mark had in mind were already Christians. Beginning with the citation of Scripture in 1:2-3 he occasionally cites or alludes to Scriptures in a way that seems to assume knowledge of and appreciation for the Old Testament. Coupled with the indications of a Gentile audience, the assumed knowledge of the Old Testament suggests either Gentiles who had been attracted to the synagogue or who had become Christians. Occasionally, more distinctly Christian knowledge seems to be assumed. For example, Mark never explains what John meant by Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit (1:8). Christian readers would know. A particularly interesting case is 15:21, which identifies Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus. Apparently, the readers of Mark knew the two sons. But they were not well-known public figures. The most likely hypothesis to explain Mark's assumption is that they were known within the Christian community or at least that element of it which he had in mind.

Mark may have written his Gospel in Rome and for Roman Christians. In any case, he probably envisioned a Christian audience with many Gentiles.

DATE

As noted above, the earliest comments reflecting the date of Mark are by the late second century writers Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, who disagree on whether Mark was written prior to or after Peter's death. Very little concrete data is available to supplement their conflicting reflections. The most significant data in my opinion is the widespread hypothesis that Luke was dependent upon Mark coupled with a relatively early date for Luke-Acts. If Luke-Acts was complete by c. A.D. 62 and if Luke used Mark's Gospel, then Mark completed his work by the early sixties.

MAJOR THEMES AND STRUCTURE

A number of scholars agree that two themes stand out in Mark and that they are developed in a two-part structure for the book.

1. CHRISTOLOGY

One of the pervasive concerns of Mark is to portray Jesus as the authoritative Son of God and as the ultimate model of sacrificial service to God and humanity.

From the opening verse, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (1:1), it is clear that Mark wants to paint a portrait of Jesus. Although it is an obvious oversimplification, it is useful to look at Mark's portrait by emphasizing a key word for the first half of the book, "authority," and a key word for the second half, "service." The pivotal center of Mark's Gospel is the confession by Peter in 8:27-30 and the crucial discussion that follows in 8:31-9:1. The turning point is the disciples' confession that Jesus is the Christ. The first half of the book leads to this confession; the second half builds on it and defines the role of the Son of Man as that of service unto death.

In 1:1-8:30, the focus is on the authority of Jesus as exhibited in his miracles and teaching and in the testimony of others. John the Baptist says, "After me will come one more powerful than I" (1:7). God declares, "You are my Son, whom I love" (1:11). Jesus summons fishermen, and they drop everything to follow him (1:16-20). When he teaches, the people "were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority" (1:22). When he casts out demons, they declare, "He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him" (1:27). The first eight chapters are permeated with features like these examples from the first chapter. Jesus' authority is repeatedly emphasized.

The question underlying most of these stories surfaces plainly in 4:41, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!" Who, indeed, is this one with such authority that his teaching transcends that of the teachers of the law, that he forgives sins, that he controls sickness, disease, demons, nature, and even death?

The resounding answer is already given to the reader in 1:1, but is finally clear to the disciples in 8:29. At this point a new stage is opened up: "He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things . . ." (8:31). The disciples do not readily grasp this new understanding either. Peter immediately objects (8:32). Throughout the remainder of the book, Jesus repeatedly works with the disciples to try to get them to see that the Son of Man "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45).

The fact that this authoritative figure who commanded nature, disease, demons, and death would submit to death in suffering service is a key theme permeating everything after 8:31. Even though the second half of the book continues to emphasize Jesus' authority, the focus turns more and more toward the cross. This focus is explicit in Jesus' own statements about his coming suffering (8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:32-34, 45; 14:18-21, 24-25, 27, 41). The shadow of his death lies over the second half of the book in other ways as well. One thinks, for example, of the fate of the son in the parable of the wicked tenants (12:6-8) or the anointing at Bethany (14:1-9) and of all the events from the Lord's Supper to the end of the crucifixion (14:12-15:47). In the second half of the book, Mark underscores the fact that the powerful, authoritative Son of God willingly submitted himself to the most shameful and inhumane of deaths because he had the heart of a servant.

2. DISCIPLESHIP

The theme of Christology carried out in the emphasis on Jesus' authority and then his suffering service is brought to bear on Mark's readers' lives through the emphasis on discipleship. To submit to Jesus' authority involves following in Jesus' footsteps in suffering service.

This point is first enunciated in 8:34-35 and then driven home by repetition, especially in 9:33-37 and 10:35-45. It is no accident that these sections of vital instruction on discipleship immediately follow the three repetitions of Jesus' predictions regarding his own death in Jerusalem. Disciples are to be like their master.

In each of these three instances, Jesus' prediction is followed by immediate indication that the disciples are out of step with their Lord. In 8:32, Peter even "rebukes" Jesus for what he said would happen. Having rebuked Peter, Jesus calls all the people together with his disciples and explains that what he plans to do bears not only on him but on what it means to be a follower: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (8:34).

In the second instance Mark writes that the disciples did not understand Jesus' prediction concerning himself (9:32), then immediately shows that they did not grasp its implications for themselves. They are interested in establishing which of them is the greatest (9:33-34), but Jesus tells them that followers of one who takes the role of a servant must be servants themselves (9:35).

The third instance is similar. Here, again immediately following a prediction concerning Jesus' death, James and John seek the chief places in the coming kingdom (10:35-37). Jesus' reply is explicit in the way it ties discipleship to Christology: "whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:43-45). These verses, 10:43-45, provide a convenient summary of the main point with respect to discipleship. This emphasis permeates the second half of the book.

3. FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON MARK'S STRUCTURE

In addition to the major division of Mark at 8:30 / 8:31, a few further divisions may be discerned with varying levels of confidence.

Most scholars identify either 1:1-8, 1:1-13, or 1:1-15 as an introduction. I have chosen 1:1-15 for reasons that are described at the beginning of the comments on chapter 1. These verses set the stage for all that follows.

It is questionable whether there is a clearly discernible substructure for the rest of the first half of the book (1:16-8:30). I have chosen the popular three-part structure proposed by Leander Keck largely as a matter of convenience for the memory. Keck's outline is easily learned because each section begins with a new stage in the disciples' development: the call of the four fishermen (1:16-20), the appointment of the twelve apostles (3:13-19), and the mission of the twelve (6:6b-13).

The second half of the book is easily divisible according to stages in Jesus' ministry. In 8:31-10:52 he journeys to Jerusalem. Beginning at 11:1 Mark focuses over one third of his book on Jesus' last week, from the triumphal entry to the resurrection.

In addition to the overall structure of the book, there are smaller structural features discernible in various sections. Some of these are identified in the outline, such as the collection of five controversy stories in 2:1-3:6 or the parable section in 4:1-34. Others are discussed as they arise in the commentary, such as the "sandwich" phenomenon discussed first at 3:20-35.

PURPOSE

Mark does not provide a statement of purpose for his work. It is difficult to construct a hypothetical statement of purpose that is well focused and yet broad enough to include all of Mark's material. Any statement of Mark's purpose should take into account his intended audience, particularly the probability that he wrote primarily for those who had already become Christians.

Mark's overall purpose might be stated as follows: to tell the story of Jesus from his baptism to his death and resurrection in order to strengthen the faith and deepen the understanding of his readers. The weakness of this statement is that it is so broad as to include virtually anything Mark might have known about Jesus.

As stated above on pages 11-13, each Gospel writer had some particular emphases that guided his selection. In Mark's case there is one particular emphasis that dominates the overall structure of the book and presumably was the primary principle of selection for much of its contents: the emphasis on discipleship as self-sacrificing service. Mark presents Jesus as the model of service: "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45). As is demonstrated in the above section on the structure of the book, Mark organizes his book around Jesus' effort to explain this to his disciples and to bring them to the understanding that "whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all" (10:43-44). This focus may account for many of Mark's choices.

Lane (and others) would be more specific. In particular, he believes the purpose of Mark was to encourage Roman Christians to sacrificial service during the time of the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. But I have argued above that Mark was probably written by A.D. 62 and that the tradition that his intended audience was in Rome is possibly true, but not a tradition to hold with confidence. It is questionable whether Mark wrote primarily for a persecution setting, Neronian or otherwise. There are only a few explicit references to persecution (4:17; 8:34-38; 10:29-30, 39; and 13:9-13). Certainly Mark's Gospel could have been used for encouragement by persecuted Christians, but it is preferable to state his primary focus in broader terms of sacrificial service.

SUMMARY OF INTRODUCTORY CONCLUSIONS

The Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark of Jerusalem, an associate of Paul and of Peter. It probably reflects Peter's preaching about Jesus. Mark composed it by the early sixties. The audience he had in mind were predominantly Gentile Christians, possibly in Rome. He wrote the story of Jesus in order to strengthen their faith and deepen their understanding, particularly with respect to their need to follow Jesus in the path of sacrificial service to God and humanity.

Mark focused on christology and discipleship and their interrelationship. In the first part of the Gospel (1:1-8:30) he focused on Jesus' authority and the need for disciples to believe in him. Then, beginning in 8:31, he focused on how Jesus submitted himself to death in sacrificial service and on the need for disciples to follow his example.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. The Greek New Testament. Fourth Revised Edition. Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, United Bible Societies, 1993.

Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Batey, Richard, A. Jesus and the Forgotten City: New Light on Sepphoris and the Urban World of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature , 2nd ed. Rev. by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. Baptism in the New Testament. London: MacMillan, 1962.

. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Best, Ernest. Mark: The Gospel As Story. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983.

Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. WUNT 2.40. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1991.

Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990.

. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1987.

. Matthew. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Bock, Darrell L. "Elijah and Elisha." DJG 203-206.

Bratcher, Robert G. and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961.

Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah. Anchor Bible Reference Library, 2 Volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988.

Cargounis, C.C. "The Kingdom of God/Heaven." DJG 417-430.

Carson, Donald A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Carson, Donald A. "Matthew." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Cranfield, C.E.B. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge, England: University Press, 1959.

Davids, Peter. Commentary on James. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Dodd, C.H. "The Kingdom of God Has Come." Expository Times 48 (1936-37): 138-142.

. The Parables of the Kingdom. London: Nisbet, 1935.

Farmer, William R. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. SNTSMS 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Aramaic Qorban Inscription from Jebel Hallet et-Turi and Mark 7:11/Matt. 15:5." Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 60-65.

. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Anchor Bible Commentary, Vol. 28A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981.

France, Richard T. Jesus and the Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1971.

. Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Geldenhuys, Norval G. Commentary of the Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Green, Joel B. and Scot McKnight, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1:1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989.

Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Hawthorne, Gerald F. "Amen." DJG 7-8.

Heard, Warren J. "Revolutionary Movements." DJG 688-698.

Helton, Stanley N. "Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9-20." Restoration Quarterly 36 (1994): 32- 52.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. London: SCM, 1977.

. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Trans. John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Herzog, William R., II. "Temple Cleansing." DJG 817-821.

Hoehner, Harold.W. Herod Antipas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972.

. "Herodian Dynasty." DJG 317-326.

Hooker, Morna. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Black's New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

Hurtado, Larry W. Mark. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965.

Judge, E.A. "The Regional Kanon for Requisitioned Transport." In New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Ed. G.H.R. Horsley. North Ryde, Australia: Macquarie University, 1976.

Juel, Donald. Messianic Exegesis. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Keck, Leander E. "The Introduction to Mark's Gospel." New Testament Studies 12 (1965-66): 352-372.

Lane, William L. The Gospel according to Mark. New International New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Marcus, Joel. "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark." Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 443-446.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

. The Origins of New Testament Christology. Updated ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990.

McGarvey, J.W. "Biblical Criticism." Christian Standard 32 (1896): 1367.

. The New Testament Commentary. Vol. 1: Matthew and Mark. Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 1875.

McIver, Robert K. "One Hundred-Fold Yield - Miraculous or Mundane? Matthew 13.8, 23; Mark 4.8, 20; Luke 8.8." New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 606-608.

McRay, John. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1993.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. Stuttgart: Wurttemberg Bible Society, 1994.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 49. Dallas: Word, 1988.

Roads, David and Donald Michie. Mark As Story. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

Rousseau, John J. and Rami Arav, eds. Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Sanders, E.P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63BCE-66CE. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992.

Schmidt, Thomas E. "Taxes." DJG 804-807.

Twelftree, G.H. "Blasphemy." DJG 75-77.

. "Demon, Devil, Satan." DJG 163-172.

. "Sanhedrin." DJG 728-732.

. "Scribes." DJG 732-735.

Westerholm, Stephen. "Pharisees." DJG 609-614.

Wilkins, Michael J. "Sinner." DJG 757-760.

Williamson, Lamar, Jr. Mark. Interpretation Commentary. Atlanta: John Knox, 1983.

Willis, Wendell, ed. The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Wuellner, Wilhelm H. The Meaning of "Fishers of Men." The New Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD . . . A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed., eds. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

DJG . . . Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

LXX . . . The Septuagint (An ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament)

NIV . . . The Holy Bible, New International Version

NRSV . . . The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version

SNTSMS . . . Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas Monograph Series

UBS ⁴ . . . The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 4th ed.

WUNT . . . Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum NT

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Mark (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. INTRODUCTION - Mark 1:1-15

A. The Beginning of the Gospel - 1:1-8

B. John Baptizes Jesus - 1:9-11

C. Temptation in the Wilderness - 1:12-13

D. The Gospel Jesus Preached - 1:14-15

II. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION ONE - 1:16-3:12

A. The Call of the First Disciples - 1:16-20

B. Jesus Demonstrates His Authority in Capernaum - 1:21-28

C. Healing Simon's Mother-in-Law - 1:29-31

D. Other Healings at Capernaum - 1:32-34

E. What Jesus Came to Do - 1:35-39

F. Healing A Leper - 1:40-45

G. Stories of Controversy between Jesus and the Religious Authorities - 2:1-3:6

1. Controversy over Forgiving Sins - 2:1-12

2. Controversy over Eating with Tax Collectors and Sinners - 2:13-17

3. Controversy over Fasting - 2:18-22

4. Controversy over Picking Grain on the Sabbath - 2:23-28

5. Controversy over Healing on the Sabbath - 3:1-6

H. Summary Statement about the Crowds and Healings - 3:7-12

III. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION TWO - 3:13-6:6a

A. The Appointment of the Twelve Apostles - 3:13-19

B. Jesus Accused of Lunacy and Being Possessed - 3:20-35

C. Jesus Teaches in Parables - 4:1-34

1. The Parable of the Sower - 4:1-9

2. The Purpose of the Parables - 4:10-12

3. The Interpretation of the Sower - 4:13-20

4. The Parable of the Lamp - 4:21-23

5. The Parable of the Measure - 4:24-25

6. The Parable of the Growing Seed - 4:26-29

7. The Parable of the Mustard Seed - 4:30-32

8. Teaching in Parables - 4:33-34

D. Jesus' Authority over Nature, Demons, Disease and Death - 4:35-5:43

1. Authority over Nature - 4:35-41

2. Authority over Demons - 5:1-20

3. Authority over Disease and Death - 5:21-43

E. Rejection at Nazareth - 6:1-6a

IV. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION THREE - 6:6b-8:30

A. The Mission of the Twelve - 6:6b-13

B. Herod Hears about Jesus - 6:14-16

C. Herod Has John Beheaded - 6:17-29

D. Feeding the Five Thousand - 6:30-44

E. Walking on the Water - 6:45-52

F. Healing at Gennesaret and Beyond - 6:53-56

G. The Controversy over Eating with Unwashed Hands - 7:1-23

H. The Syrophoenician Woman - 7:24-30

I. Healing a Deaf Man with a Speech Impediment - 7:31-37

J. Feeding the Four Thousand - 8:1-10

K. The Pharisees Demand a Sign - 8:11-13

L. The Yeast of the Pharisees and Herod - 8:14-21

M. The Blind Man at Bethsaida - 8:22-26

N. Peter's Confession at Caesarea Philippi - 8:27-30

V. THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM - 8:31-10:52

A. Jesus Predicts His Death and Resurrection - 8:31-33

B. The Costs of Discipleship - 8:34-9:1

C. The Transfiguration and the Subsequent Discussion - 9:2-13

D. Jesus Casts a Spirit from a Man's Son - 9:14-29

E. The Second Passion/Resurrection Prediction - 9:30-32

F. Teachings on Servanthood - 9:33-50

1. Who Is the Greatest? - 9:33-35

2. An Example Based on Welcoming Children - 9:36-37

3. Jesus Rebukes the Disciples' Pride - 9:38-41

4. Getting Rid of Pride and Getting Along with Each Other - 9:42-50

G. Jesus Questioned About Divorce - 10:1-12

H. Receiving the Kingdom Like a Child - 10:13-16

I. The Rich Man and Jesus' Teaching Concerning Wealth - 10:17-31

J. The Third Passion/Resurrection Prediction - 10:32-34

K. The Request of James and John - 10:35-45

L. Bartimaeus Receives His Sight - 10:46-52

VI. THE LAST WEEK: JERUSALEM, THE CROSS, AND THE RESURRECTION - 11:1-16:8[20]

A. The Triumphal Entry - 11:1-11

B. Cursing the Fig Tree and Cleansing the Temple - 11:12-19

C. A Lesson from the Withered Fig Tree - 11:20-25

D. Another Series of Controversies with the Religious Authorities - 11:27-12:44

1. The Question about Authority - 11:27-33

2. The Parable of the Tenants - 12:1-12

3. The Question about Paying Taxes - 12:13-17

4. The Question about the Resurrection - 12:18-27

5. The Question about the First Commandment - 12:28-34

6. Jesus' Question about David's Son - 12:35-37

7. Jesus Denounces the Teachers of the Law and Commends a Poor Widow - 12:38-44

E. Jesus Instructs the Disciples Concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Coming - 13:1-37

1. The Setting of Jesus' Last Days Discourse - 13:1-4

2. General Description of the Birth Pains - 13:5-13

3. The Sharp Pain: The Destruction of Jerusalem - 13:14-19

4. Warnings Against False Messiahs during the Birth Pains - 13:20-23

5. The Second Coming - 13:24-27

6. The Significance of the Birth Pains for the Second Coming - 13:28-31

7. No One Knows the Day or Hour of the Second Coming - 13:32-37

F. Jesus Honored and Betrayed - 14:1-11

G. The Passover Meal - 14:12-31

1. Preparation for the Passover - 14:12-16

2. Jesus Predicts His Betrayal - 14:17-21

3. The Institution of the Lord's Supper - 14:22-25

H. Jesus Predicts the Flight of the Disciples and Peter's Denial - 14:26-31

I. Prayer in Gethsemane - 14:32-42

J. Betrayal, Arrest, and Flight - 14:43-52

K. Jesus and Peter Put on Trial - 14:53-72

1. Jesus' Trial Before the Sanhedrin - 14:53-65

2. Peter's Denials - 14:66-72

L. Jesus' Trial Before Pilate - 15:1-15

M. Pilate's Soldiers Mock Jesus - 15:16-20

N. The Crucifixion - 15:21-41

O. The Burial of Jesus - 15:42-47

P. The Resurrection - 16:1-8

Q. Post-Resurrection Appearances - 16:9-20

1. The Appearance to Mary Magdalene - 16:9-11

2. The Appearance to Two Disciples - 16:12-13

3. The Appearance to and Commission of the Eleven - 16:14-18

4. The Ascension and the Disciples' Mission - 16:19-20

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV