7. Defilement According to the Tradition. Ch. 7:1–8
1And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,1
2and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled,2 that is, unwashen hands.
3(For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently,3 eat not, holding the tradition of the elders;4
4and when they come from the marketplace,5 except they bathe themselves,6 they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups and pots, and brasen vessels.)7
5And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk8 not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands?
6And he said unto them, Well9 did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
This people 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.
8Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.
The material of these verses has no definite connection with the preceding narratives and it is impossible to determine when or where the incident took place. In form the material resembles the accounts of controversy grouped in Chs. 2:1–3:6, and this unit could easily have been positioned there. For that reason Mark’s placement of the discussion concerning defilement is instructive. It stands in the center of the section that extends from Chs. 6:7 to 8:26, and functions as the formal prelude to three miracle narratives in which Jesus extends his grace to Gentiles. Its central position is similar to that occupied by the discourse on parables (to which it has important structural parallels), which stands in the middle of Chs. 3:7–6:6 and is also followed by three accounts of Jesus’ power. This is one more indication that prior to the redaction of the tradition Mark had a clear conception of the structure and arrangement he has followed in the building of the Gospel.
A sustained concern with defilement, traditional and real, indicates that Mark intends Ch. 7:1–23 to be taken as a single unit. The subdivision of the unit at verses 8 and 13 allows a consideration of the material in its logical divisions: the charge of the scribes and Pharisees and Jesus’ initial response (verses 1–8), the counter-charge that the scribal tradition is in conflict with the Law (verses 9–13), and finally the exposition of true defilement (verses 14–23). These are, however, three phases of a unified argument which focuses upon essential differences between Jesus and recognized interpreters of the Law. The distinctive feature of Mark’s treatment of this episode is his clarification of terms and issues unfamiliar to his readers (verses 2b–4, 11) and his careful delineation of the relevance of this discussion to the Church (verses 19b–23).
1–2a Jesus’ teaching differed fundamentally from that of the Pharisees on essential points of common piety. This has already been illustrated with respect to sharing table-fellowship with outcasts (Ch. 2:15–17), fasting (Ch. 2:18–22) and Sabbath observance (Ch. 2:23–28), and is now exhibited in regard to ritual defilement. This significant category extended beyond various washings to the distinctions between ritually clean and unclean foods and the vast complex of dietary laws. The reference to the Jerusalem scribes recalls the sharp conflict that was instigated by their charge that Jesus exercised the power of Beelzebul and was himself a possessed man (Ch. 3:22–30). It serves notice that far more is involved in the exchange between the scribes and Jesus than a rabbinic debate in which alternative decisions will be preserved and made the subject of further consideration. The eating of bread without proper concern for the removal of ritual defilement was merely the immediate occasion for this confrontation. Its ultimate occasion was Jesus’ evident disregard for the whole structure of oral tradition which examined virtually every aspect of personal and corporate life and sought to regulate it in a manner consistent with the Law under conditions often vastly different from those in which the Law was first handed down. In areas where the Law was silent the tradition was vocal, drawing the conclusions felt to be implicit in the mandates of the written code. The result was a vast legal complex, oral in form but definite in formulation, which was entrusted to the scribes, the recognized interpreters of the Law, and was regarded as binding upon all Israel.
2b–4 Aware that most of his readers will not understand the technical nature of the scribal charge nor its background in Jewish practice, Mark provides a simple definition of defilement and a thumbnail sketch of Pharisaic practice. The evangelist has been criticized for ascribing Pharisaic practice to “all the Jews,” since the common people, the so-called “sinners” (see on Ch. 2:15), certainly were not careful about ritual washings. In generalizing his explanation Mark was following accepted Jewish practice in describing Jewish customs to a Gentile audience. A close parallel is provided by the Letter of Aristeas § 305: “And as the custom of all the Jews, they washed their hands and prayed to God.” The same distinctions in practice which were current in first-century Judaism could be observed in the second century B.C. when this document was composed, but were not considered relevant to the issue under discussion.
The biblical mandate that the priests had to wash their hands and feet prior to entering the Tabernacle (Ex. 30:19; 40:13) provided the foundation for the wide-spread practice of ritual washings in Palestinian and diaspora Judaism. At least as early as the second century B.C. many Jews voluntarily assumed the purity laws of the priests and regularly washed their hands before morning prayer.10 The accompanying benediction was designed not for the priests, but for laymen: “Blessed be Thou O Lord, King of the universe, who sanctified us by thy laws and commanded us to wash the hands.”11 The custom of washing the hands before eating bread was also grounded in priestly practice, in the conviction that daily food should be eaten as if it were priestly food. By the third century A.D. the eating of bread without washing was strongly condemned,12 and this seems to have been a tendency already evident in Jesus’ day. The Pharisees surpassed the priests in their zeal to safeguard themselves from ritual defilement and were strong proponents of “the priesthood of all believers” in the sense that they considered the priestly regulations to be obligatory for all men. It is important to appreciate the concern to sanctify ordinary acts of life which lay behind this extension of priestly regulations to the laity. Its finest intention was the demonstration that all Israel was devoted to God and the Law, and the fulfilment of the injunction: “You shall be holy to me” (Lev. 20:26). The Pharisees were convinced that the strict discipline of human conduct was the necessary prelude to the true acknowledgment of God as sovereign.13
To restore Levitical purity after defilement it was necessary to cleanse by water, and Mark refers to the most common act of cultic cleansing, the washing of the hands,14 which was formally required only before the consumption of bread. The washing was accomplished by pouring water on the hands,15 and this fact excludes all suggestions of immersing the hands from Mark’s reference in verse 3. The evangelist correctly specifies that a handful of water was required.16 The position of the hand was cupped, with the fingers flexed to allow the water to pass between them so as to reach all parts of the hand. By cupping the hand the entire hand could be washed with a very small quantity of water.17 A distinction was maintained between this type of washing, sprinkling, and bathing or the immersion of the hands up to the joint of the fingers, and apparently it is this third category of ablutions to which reference is made in verse 4 in connection with food purchased in the marketplace.18 Up to this point Mark’s statements are factual and accurate. It is probable that a tone of irony is intended, however, when he makes a sweeping reference to the oral tradition (“and many other things there are, which they have received to hold”) and concludes his catalogue with reference to the “washing of cups and pots and copper vessels.” There may be here a certain justifiable impatience with the mass of detail which was later codified in the Mishnah tractate Kelim (Vessels), but it has the effect of exposing the oral law to ridicule. Mark’s final remark serves to broaden the issue from the washing of hands to cultic cleansing per se.
5 The sentence begun in verse 2a is completed in verse 5. Ostensibly the issue raised by the Pharisees and their scribes was the failure of certain of the disciples to observe the purity laws. The crucial element in the question as formulated, however, concerns walking according to the tradition of the elders. The binding character of the decisions handed down by honored Jewish teachers of the Law was an essential component in Pharisaic thinking. It was Jesus’ failure to support the validity of the oral law which made him an object of concerted attack by the scribes. The question posed is clearly a challenge to Jesus himself, and in his response, no reference is made to the disciples. The deeper intention behind the question of eating with defiled hands is suggested by a passage in the Mishnah: “But whom did they place under a ban? Eleazar ben Enoch, because he cast doubt on (the tradition of the Elders concerning) the cleansing of hands.”19
6–8 The question of the scribes receives a twofold answer. An immediate reply is provided by the pointed citation of Isa. 29:13, introduced with the ironic comment “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites!” This quotation is directly applied to the scribes and Pharisees in verse 8. A second answer is provided by the pregnant saying addressed to the crowd in verses 14 f., which exposes the deeper issue of the source of defilement which remains unaffected by cultic cleansing.
The quotation differs slightly in form from the Septuagint text and may have been drawn from a florilegium of prophetic passages used in Rome. It is probable that Jesus himself cited the Hebrew text or the Targum currently used in the synagogue. It has often been held that the charge of abandoning the commandment of God for the tradition of men (in verse 8) depends for its validity upon the Greek text where it differs from the Hebrew. This is clearly not the case. The Massoretic text contrasts formal lip-service to God with devotion from the heart and concludes, “this fear of me is a commandment of men which has been taught (to them).” This is certainly relevant to the larger issue of the oral tradition which was diligently handed down to each generation of the Pharisees. It implies that even the concern to sanctify all of life, which is presupposed in the assumption of the priestly purity laws, rests less upon the commandment above all others, the love of God with the whole heart (Deut. 6:4; cf. Mk. 12:28–34), than upon a tradition which has been received and passed on as an expression of formal piety. This gives pointedness to the charge of hypocrisy which emphasizes the contradiction between what a man seems to be in the opinion of his peers and what he is before God. In the outward appearance of their piety the Pharisees were impeccable since they scrupulously observed numerous prescriptions and commandments. It was, nevertheless, a lie because they had not surrendered themselves to God.20
Jesus’ sharp rebuttal sets in radical opposition the commandment of God and the halakhic formulations of the scribal tradition. Theoretically, the oral law was a fence which safeguarded the people from infringing the Law. In actuality it represented a tampering with the Law which resulted inevitably in distortion and ossification of the living word of God. The exaggerated reverence with which the scribes and Pharisees regarded the oral law was an expression of false piety supported by human precepts devoid of authority. Jesus categorically rejects the authority of the oral law.
8. The Conflict between Commandment and Tradition. Ch. 7:9–13
9And he said unto them, Full well21 do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep22 your tradition.
10For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death:23
11but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban,24 that is to say, Given to God;
12ye no longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother;
13making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do.
9 Jesus’ counter-charge that the scribes and Pharisees have abandoned the commandment of God in their zeal to observe the oral tradition does not stand unsupported. The charge is reaffirmed in verse 9 with biting irony and is then illustrated concretely with reference to the conflict between the fifth commandment and the position of the elders on the sanctity of an oath. The scribes had referred deferentially to the oral law as “the tradition of the elders” (verse 5); Jesus cited Isaiah in support of his claim that it deserved to be designated “the tradition of men” (verses 7–8), an example of human cleverness. He now baldly labels it “your tradition” and affirms that in order to establish it God’s commandment is nullified. Jesus refused to permit his adversaries to invoke against him a tradition which was capable of violating the Law of God.
10–12 The theoretical foundations of oral law were traced backward through a chain of tradition extending from the elders and the men of the Great Synagogue to the prophets and Joshua to Moses himself.25 Jesus, therefore, cites Moses against the developments in legal casuistry which were an essential component of the scribal tradition. The fifth commandment is cited in both its positive and negative formulations in almost literal agreement with the Septuagint text of Ex. 20:12a (= Deut. 5:16a) and 21:16.26 The second text indicates the seriousness of an offense against parents: the death penalty was decreed for those who cursed their parents or treated them with contempt.27 In spite of Moses’ unequivocal affirmation of filial responsibility, the effect of the scribal tradition on the binding character of an oath, even when uttered rashly, was to prohibit compliance with the commandment.
Qorban is a technical term within the priestly tradition of the OT (its use is limited to Lev., Num. and Ezek.) where it always denotes an offering made to God. In Mark’s explanatory note the term “gift” is a technical designation for an oblation precisely as in the Greek text of Lev. 2:1, 4, 12f. A fine contemporary parallel to the use of qorban in Mark has been provided by a recently recovered Jewish ossuary inscription: “All that a man may find-to-his-profit in this ossuary (is) an offering to God from him who is within it.”28 The importance of this inscription is that it preserves the formula in its completeness and furnishes a concrete example of how the formula was used. It indicates that Jesus was referring to a dedicatory-formula which was commonly used by Jews in the last centuries B.C. and well into the Christian era. The basic purpose of the formula was to place a ban on something, reserving it for sacred use and withdrawing it from profane use by another person. The vow creates a prohibition with regard to an object and fixes upon it the character of an offering dedicated to God. This did not necessarily mean that the object declared qorban had actually to be offered to God; it signified rather that it was withdrawn from its intended use and was no longer available for a particular individual “as if it were an offering.” In the hypothetical situation proposed by Jesus, if the son declared his property qorban to his parents, he neither promised it to the Temple nor prohibited its use to himself, but he legally excluded his parents from the right of benefit.29 Should the son regret his action and seek to alleviate the harsh vow which would deprive his parents of all of the help they might normally expect from him, he would be told by the scribes to whose arbitration the case was submitted that his vow was valid and must be honored.30 Jesus’ statement that the scribes do not allow him to do “anything” for his parents is not extreme. The renunciation of all profitability extended beyond financial support to such practical kindness as assistance in the performance of religious duties or the provision of care in sickness.31
13 The scribes sought to satisfy God’s legal claim; the recognition of the validity of a vow fulfills the letter of the commandment in Num. 30:1f.32 If, on the basis of a vow, the claims of God must be upheld even in opposition to those of a man’s parents, that is because God’s claims are fundamentally higher than man’s and must be given precedence. This argument acquires special force if qorban in this case signifies a genuine transference of parental claims to God and the transfer of property to the Temple. But Jesus categorically rejects the practice of using one biblical commandment to negate another. This interpretation of Num. 30:1f. seized upon the letter of the passage in such a way as to miss the meaning of the Law as a whole. It is in this context that the citation of Isa. 29:13 is particularly intelligible. For Jesus this is God’s own judgment on the scribal attempts to satisfy his legal claim. The quotation indicates that Jesus is not so much attacking a particular scribal practice as he is showing that the scribes cannot properly honor God. In their concern for the fulfilment of the letter of Scripture they forget that the Law was provided not for its own sake but to benefit men. It is an expression of God’s covenant faithfulness as well as of his righteousness and in no circumstance was obedience to one commandment intended to nullify another. The fault lay not in the commandments but in an interpretive tradition which failed to see Scripture in its wholeness. Jesus implicated the scribes who stood before him in this indictment when he referred pointedly to “your tradition, which you have delivered.” They are not merely passive guardians of an inherited tradition but have had an active and responsible role in shaping and transmitting the oral law. The case of the qorban vow, Jesus adds, is not an isolated example, but one of many which could be cited where the intention of Scripture had been obscured by the scribal tradition.
9. True Defilement. Ch. 7:14–23
14And he called unto him the multitude again,33 and said unto them, Hear me all of you, and understand:
15there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.34
17And when he was entered into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked of him the parable.35
18And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught?36 This he said, making all meats clean.37
20And he said, That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man.
21For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22covetings, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness:
23all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man.
14–15 Jesus’ demonstration of the contradiction between the halakhic tradition and the scriptural commandment was designed to shame and silence his adversaries. The question asked by the scribes and Pharisees in verse 5 receives a more direct reply in the teaching of verses 14b–15. Essential to a biblical consideration of defilement and cleansing is the question of the source of defilement and it is this deeper issue which Jesus now exposes through a single pregnant statement addressed to the crowd. The solemn call to attentive hearing recalls the summons of Ch. 4:3 and has its ultimate background in the prophetic call to hearing which provides the setting for the revelation of the word of God.38 It indicates that what follows is of revelatory significance and that it demands careful reflection.
With a mode of expression calculated to provoke thought, Jesus sets in radical opposition material purity and moral purity.39 The meaning of the first half of the riddle was intelligible in the light of the controversy with the scribes: a man is not defiled by what he eats, even when his hands are not properly washed. The second half, however, remained enigmatic, for it stands without an immediate context. The principle that uncleanness comes from within and not from without is grounded in the biblical teaching concerning the heart as the source of all spiritual and moral conduct,40 but this was not apparent to the crowd or to the disciples. The implications of Jesus’ teaching that nothing external to men defiles were to have far-reaching consequences for the Church, which Mark spells out in the light of further revelation in verse 19b. Here, however, Jesus’ expression is general and enigmatic. It did not abrogate the Mosaic laws on purification or erase the distinctions between clean and unclean and declare them invalid. It rather attacked the delusion that sinful men can attain to true purity before God through the scrupulous observance of cultic purity which is powerless to cleanse the defilement of the heart. It is this latter emphasis which is stressed in the exposition to the disciples in verses 17–19a.
17–19a It is in the nature of a pregnant saying that its tenor is not immediately apparent. The pattern of public teaching in parabolic speech and private interpretation to the disciples was characteristic of Jesus’ ministry according to Ch. 4:33f., and Mark frequently designates “the house” as the place of revelation (Chs. 9:28, 33; 10:10).41 In view of the character of the riddle in verse 15 an inquiry by the disciples was quite natural. Their lack of understanding, however, indicates that in spite of their privileged relationship to Jesus they are not fundamentally different from the crowd. The failure of the disciples to understand Jesus’ mighty acts and teaching is particularly emphasized in this section of the Gospel (Chs. 6:52; 7:18; 8:14–21) and is traced to hardness of heart.
The new element in Jesus’ interpretation is the specific reference to “the heart.” In Semitic expression the heart is the center of human personality which determines man’s entire action and inaction. This key to the statement in verse 15 was already available in the citation of Isa. 29:13: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” Jesus now makes this explicit when he traces the source of defilement to the heart, and shows that in an ultimate sense “food” and “the heart” have nothing to do with each other. The relevance of this explanation to the question posed in verse 5 is apparent: fulfilling the dictates of the oral law on cultic purity does not alter the heart of man with its warring impulses: the minutiae of the tradition are powerless to remove the pollution from the heart, the source of defilement in the actions of men. Jesus has no intention of denying that the purity laws occupy a significant place in the Mosaic code (Lev. 11:1–47; Deut. 14:1–20) or of detracting from the dignity of men who suffered death rather than violate the Law of God governing unclean foods (1 Macc. 1:62 f.). Rather he presses home the recognition that the ultimate seat of purity or defilement before God is the heart.
19b–23 The form of the concluding verses deserves careful attention. The elliptical expression in verse 19b (“cleansing all meats”) is almost certainly an interpretative comment of the evangelist which drew out the implications of Jesus’ statement. Verse 20 introduces an indirect, rather than a direct quotation and represents Mark’s paraphrase of what Jesus said.42 The possibility of catechetical influence on the arrangement of verses 21–22 is clear and is suggested by the symmetrical arrangement of the list in its present form: the general category “evil thoughts” is followed by six nouns in the plural denoting evil acts and six nouns in the singular denoting moral defects or vices.43 These combined features support the hypothesis that in verses 19b–23 there is another example of a word addressed to the Christian reader of the Gospel. It represents Mark’s interpretation of the word and explanation of Jesus.
The Church vacillated in its attitude toward the Jewish food laws and did not resolve this issue without anguish and controversy (Gal. 2:11–17; Rom. 14:14; Col. 2:20–22). The question of table-fellowship with Hellenistic Christians and even of the admission of Gentiles to the Church hinged upon the decisions which were taken with regard to cultic purity. The thrice-repeated vision which Peter received in Joppa, with its sharp admonition, “What God has cleansed you must not call common,” had a decisive influence on the Church’s recognition that the purity laws had fulfilled their function and were abolished (Acts 10:9–16; 11:2–18; 15:7–29). The ancient ritual prescriptions were only a sign of a more profound interior purification: that which God has purified (Acts 10:15). In the light of this further revelation to Peter (which offers the closest parallels in vocabulary to the language of defilement in Mk. 7)44 it could be seen that Jesus’ statement in verse 15 called into question not only the voluntary assumption of the priestly purity laws but the whole ritual system. “This he said, cleansing all meats” is Mark’s comment to his readers in Rome, some of whom may have continued to find this conclusion difficult (cf. Rom. 14:14). It expresses the implication of Jesus’ teaching, but not what he actually said at the time.45
Mark does not linger on this insight but develops Jesus’ explanation at the point where he had placed the emphasis—upon the heart as the center of the whole inner life and source of human action. The structure of the exposition follows the pattern of verses 18–19 where the substance of verse 15a was repeated (verse 18b) and then explained (verse 19a). Similarly, the substance of verse 15b is repeated in verse 20, followed by the explanation (verses 21–23). The source of true defilement in men is the human heart, and the tragedy of man’s having to sin reaches its demonic fulfilment in man’s wanting to sin. There is no heart in which this radical evil has failed to take root. The catalogue of sinful acts and dispositions which flow from the heart is thoroughly Jewish in character.46 At the head of the list is “evil thoughts” which stand behind the evil actions of men. Fornication is a broad term covering all acts of sexual immorality; it is wider than adultery, which presupposes the breach of the marriage bond, and “licentiousness,” which carries the nuance of open immorality.47 Theft, murder and adultery occur side by side in the decalogue and in Hos. 4:2. “Acts of coveting” may include deeds committed in lust since this word is frequently associated with other terms denoting sexual sins.48 “Wickedness” appears to be a general term denoting acts of deliberate malice. “Deceit” implies the components of cunning and treachery. “An evil eye” is a Semitic expression for stinginess (Deut. 15:9; Ecclus. 14:10; 31:13) or for that grudging jealousy with which a man looks upon the possessions of another.49 “Railing” can refer to “slander” (as in the RSV) directed toward a man, but in the OT it always describes an affront to the majesty of God, and a more accurate translation would be “blasphemy.” “Pride” carries the nuance of arrogance which expresses itself in self-approbation. “Foolishness” describes the dominant disposition of the man who is morally and spiritually insensitive; he does not know God and he does not wish to know him. These acts and dispositions, Jesus affirms, are what defile a man and they have their source in a heart which is in open rebellion against God.
This explanation places the question of defilement and purity on a fundamentally different plane than that presupposed by the scribes and Pharisees. By this interpretation Jesus does not alleviate the demand for purity but sharpens it. The requirement of cultic purity possessed an inner value and justification as a symbol pointing beyond itself to God’s demand for spiritual and moral purity. The capacity for fellowship with God is not destroyed by material uncleanness of food or hands; it is destroyed by personal sin. With this fundamentally biblical insight the older ritual concept of purity is transcended. At the same time every human attempt to manipulate the law and to make it manageable and complimentary to human self-complacency is shown to be useless and impious. It reduces men to the category of those who seem to honor God at the very moment their heart is removed from his judging and saving action. The focus upon the desperate need for the renewal and cleansing of the human heart lends to the entire discussion the character of a messianic sign.
10. The Faith of a Gentile. Ch. 7:24–30
24And from thence he arose, and went away into the borders50 of Tyre and Sidon.51 And he entered into a house, and would have no man know it; and he could not be hid.
25But straightway a woman, whose little daughter had an unclean spirit, having heard of him, came and fell down at his feet.
26Now the woman was a Greek,52 a Syrophoenician by race. And she besought him that he would cast forth the demon out of her daughter.
27And he said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.
28But she answered and saith unto him, Yea,53 Lord;54 even the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.
29And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the demon is gone out of thy daughter.
30And she went away unto her house, and found the child laid upon the bed, and the demon gone out.
Mark’s placement of the incident in the district of Tyre immediately following the discussion of clean and unclean provides a concrete example of Jesus’ disregard for the scribal concept of defilement. It invites comparison with Acts 10:9ff. where Peter, after being instructed in a trance not to regard as defiled what God has cleansed, ministered to the household of Cornelius in Caesarea. His free association with members of the household in repudiation of the old regulation prohibiting a Jew from visiting a Gentile (Acts 10:28f.; 11:3) translates the revelation he has received into action. Jesus’ response to a Gentile woman of faith and humility in the pagan environment of Tyre is the appropriate consequence of his teaching in Ch. 7:15. When Ch. 7:24–30 is seen as the intended sequel to Ch. 7:1–23, the faith of the Syrophoenician woman contrasts dramatically with the determined unbelief of the Pharisees and the scribes from Jerusalem, while her witty reply to Jesus indicates a degree of understanding which puts the disciples to shame (cf. 7:17f.). It is possible that Mark regards this episode as a symbol and prophecy of the gospel which will be proclaimed with power in the Gentile world. There can be no doubt that Gentile readers would be vitally interested in the account.55
24 The territorial district of Phoenicia was tangent to Galilee some twenty miles northwest of Capernaum. In his search for privacy Jesus seems to have left the plains of Gennesaret (Ch. 6:53–56) and proceeded northward. It is impossible to know how far he penetrated into this Hellenistic environment since “the region of Tyre” simply designates the district of which Tyre was the metropolitan center.56 This was apparently Jesus’ only excursion beyond the ancient borders of Israel and throughout his ministry he avoided having much contact with Gentiles. He does not seem to have entered any town of the district; the text is explicit that he wished to escape notice (cf. Ch. 9:30). This proved impossible, for he had already had contact with a delegation from Tyre and Sidon (Ch. 3:8) and the fame of his power over sickness and demonic possession had preceded him.
The purpose of Jesus’ withdrawal to Tyre was to secure the rest which had been interrupted both in the wilderness (Ch. 6:30–34) and in the district of Gennesaret (Ch. 6:53–56). The house provided a place of retreat for Jesus with his disciples. Mark’s reference to the house serves two purposes. It indicates to men engaged in missionary activity the necessity for rest (cf. Ch. 6:31). At the same time, persons who come seeking Jesus in a house are presented sympathetically in the Gospel as having full confidence in the Lord (Ch. 2:1–5; 3:20; 7:24–30).57
25–26 In the course of events Jesus was approached by a woman whose non-Jewish character is stressed. She was a member of the Hellenized citizen class in the Phoenician republic of Tyre, a Gentile by birth and culture. She is designated a Syrophoenician because Phoenicia belonged administratively to the province of Syria and was distinguished from Libophoenicia with its center at Carthage in North Africa.58 The woman had had no previous contact with Jesus but had heard of his ability to cast out demons, and her own daughter was demon-possessed.59 What this entailed for a child is sufficiently suggested by a later account where acute convulsions and uncontrollable falling into fire or water are the symptoms of possession in a young boy (Ch. 9:17 f., 20–22, 26). The mother’s anguish over her daughter’s condition is thoroughly understandable and does much to explain her bold persistence in begging Jesus to expel the demon from her child. Her prostration at Jesus’ feet was a mark of deep respect as well as of profound grief.60
27–28 The brief exchange between Jesus and the woman brings the account to its climax. Jesus promises her nothing, but develops a comparison between the children and the small dogs of the household which amounts to a refusal. The comparison can be understood on two quite distinct levels. It seems appropriate to interpret Jesus’ statement on the background provided by the OT and later Judaism where the people of Israel are designated as the children of God.61 Understood in this light, Jesus acknowledges the privileges of Israel and affirms that the time has not yet come for blessing to be extended to the Gentiles. “Let the children first be fed” has reference to God’s election of Israel and his appointment that the gospel be proclaimed “to the Jew first and (then) to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16; 2:9f.; Acts 3:26; 13:46). By reference to the distinction between the claims of the children of the household and the pet dogs Jesus sharply differentiates between the claims of Israel and those of the Gentiles upon his ministry, which is restricted to Israel.62 This is certainly the deeper meaning behind Jesus’ words, but it may legitimately be asked if the woman possessed the background necessary to appreciate the distinction drawn between Jews and Gentiles and the prerogative of Israel in the divine intention. The text stresses her Hellenistic background, whereas this common interpretation of the comparison presumes a high degree of theological sophistication. Moreover, while Gentiles are sometimes described as dogs by the Jewish tradition, particularly with reference to their vices,63 there is no parallel to the use of the pet dogs of the household in this pejorative sense. Yet Jesus’ statement and the woman’s reply depend upon the nuance in the diminutive “little dogs” (which are admitted to the house and can be found under the table at meal time in contrast to the yard dogs or the stray scavengers of the street). It is therefore doubtful that Jesus intended a reference to the Gentiles or that the woman understood his statement in this sense. On the contrary, he alludes to a current domestic scene, particularly in a Hellenistic household. The table is set and the family has gathered. It is inappropriate to interrupt the meal and allow the household dogs to carry off the children’s bread. On this level of understanding the metaphor is intelligible in the life-situation depicted in Ch. 7:24ff. It has specific reference to the necessity for rest, which accounts for Jesus’ presence in the district and to the woman’s intrusion upon that rest.64 It seems probable that the woman, at least, understood Jesus’ statement on this practical (non-theological) level.
Jesus’ apparent refusal to help in a situation of clear need conveys an impression of harshness and insensitivity. His reluctance to act immediately on the woman’s behalf may be due to the fact that in the Hellenistic world in the first century there were many “miracle-workers” who attracted popular followings. In Galilee Jesus had been regarded as one of these “divine men” and the crowds had thronged him for his benefactions (see on Chs. 3:7–10; 6:53–56). The power of God, however, is properly released not in a context of superstition and magic but in response to faith. Jesus therefore put before the woman an enigmatic statement to test her faith. The irony of comparison is intended to invite a renewed appeal.65
The woman clearly understood this and did not hesitate before the apparent obstacle before her. She felt no insult in the comparison between children of the household and the pet dogs. Instead she neatly turned it to her advantage: the crumbs dropped by the children, after all, are intended for the dogs! Jesus’ comparison is not rejected but carried one step further, which modifies the entire scene: if the dogs eat the crumbs under the table, they are fed at the same time as the children (and do not have to wait, as implied by the affirmation in verse 27a). Indeed, let the children be fed, but allow the dogs to enjoy the crumbs. There does not have to be an interruption of the meal, for what she requests is not the whole loaf but a single crumb. The acceptance of the comparison, the clever reply, and the profound respect for Jesus in her address show that her confidence in his power and good will has not been shaken.
29–30 The irresistible confidence of the woman in Jesus delighted him. Her interpretation of his statement bore eloquent witness both to her humility and her simple trust in his power to confront the demonic when all human help fails. This is the faith which is alone capable of receiving miracle. She placed herself unconditionally under Jesus’ lordship and received his acknowledgment and promise: “on the ground of this saying, go.” The command to return home is important, for in Mark Jesus speaks in this manner each time he perceives the profound confidence of those who request healing (Chs. 2:11; 5:34; 7:29; 10:52).66 No word of healing was spoken, but the woman was given the strong assurance that the demon had been expelled from her daughter. She returned home where she found her child lying on her bed where the demon had cast her with a final convulsion before leaving (cf. Ch. 9:26). Presumably she was exhausted, but her state of calmness indicated that the paroxysms of possession were past and her person healed.67
In later tradition this account was retold and embellished. The mother was given the name Justa and her daughter received the name Berenice.68 Mark, however, reduces the story to its bare minimum and presents this episode as an example of true faith toward the person of Jesus. While the scribes and Pharisees forget the reality of life in their attachment to casuistry and the disciples remain dull and hard-hearted (Ch. 7:1–23), a Hellenistic woman shows a profound confidence in Jesus and is not disappointed in her expectations.
11. Healing in the Decapolis. Ch. 7:31–37
31And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon69 unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis.
32And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech;70 and they beseech him to lay his hand upon him.
33And he took him aside from the multitude privately, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat, and touched his tongue;71
34and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha,72 that is, Be opened.
35And his ears were opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke plain.
36And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it.
37And they were beyond measure astonished, saying,
He hath done all things well;
he makes even the deaf to hear,
and the dumb to speak.
The episode of the healing of a man with defective hearing and speech is recorded only by Mark. The significance the evangelist finds in this incident is apparent when the account is seen in its larger context. In Ch. 6:31–7:37 Mark has presented a cycle of tradition which includes the feeding of the multitude, the encounter with Pharisaic unbelief and acts of healing. With Ch. 8:1 a new cycle is introduced, which follows a similar pattern,73 climaxed by the confession of Ch. 8:27–30. The recognition of this parallel in structural arrangement sheds light on the function of Ch. 7:31–37 in the Marcan outline. It serves to bring the first cycle of tradition to a close on a doxological note. The focus of the entire account is on the confession that Jesus does all things well.
31 The Phoenician republic of Sidon was located on the coast some twenty miles north of Tyre. Jesus apparently journeyed northward to the district of Sidon and then turned southeastward through Philip’s territory toward a point on the eastern shore of the Lake of Galilee within the region of the Decapolis. The route followed is only vaguely indicated and cannot be retraced now,74 but it may have been designed to preclude the necessity of entering Galilee. Jesus remained in territory with strong Gentile associations. The location of the episode in the Decapolis, however, proves nothing as to the participants since there were sizeable colonies of Jews in nearly all of the cities.75 It is difficult from the text to determine whether the crowd which approached Jesus was Jewish or Gentile in complexion.
32 A crowd brought to Jesus a man with defective hearing and speech. He was deaf and had a speech impediment so severe he could not articulate his words. He apparently suffered from a spasmodic condition of the tongue which can extend to the facial muscles as well. If the man had been born deaf and mute he would not have learned to speak and would possess no concept of language. This was not the situation. He had become deaf later in life apparently as a result of disease or injury and could speak only with great effort.76 Mark’s use of an extremely rare word to describe the man’s speech defect is almost certainly an allusion to Isa. 35:5f. which celebrates God as the one who comes in order to unstop the ears of the deaf and to provide song for the man of inarticulate speech. The fulfilment of the prophecy was expected in the Days of the Messiah in the exegetical tradition of the rabbis.77 By means of the biblical allusion Mark provides his readers with a sign that the promised intervention of God took place in the ministry of Jesus. The reference points forward to the confession of faith in verse 37.
The request for the laying on of hands (cf. Chs. 5:23; 6:5) indicates the presence of Jews or of Gentiles who were familiar with this Jewish practice in connection with blessing and healing. The great surprise exhibited by the people when the afflicted man spoke clearly suggests that they had not expected healing, but had brought the man to Jesus for his blessing.
33–35 Jesus took the man aside from the crowd in order to establish contact with him. He regarded the personal relationship between himself and the sick to be of supreme importance, and in this instance all of his actions are intelligible in the light of the necessity of communicating with a person who had learned to be passive in life. Through touch and the use of spittle Jesus entered into the mental world of the man and gained his confidence.78 He stretched open his ears and made it clear to him that he wished to make his tongue alive with his own life. Jesus prayed with him and for him and openly expressed the strong emotion he seems to have always felt in the presence of the ravages of demonic possession and disease. This sequence of actions indicated to the man that he was to expect healing from the one who stood before him. The act of healing itself was accomplished with the word of liberation addressed not to the defective auditory organs but to the man as a whole person: “Be opened.”
The results of Jesus’ actions are simply described: the ears were opened, the tongue was loosened, and the man began to speak clearly. The loosening of the tongue followed immediately upon the opening of the ears. There are parallels in Hellenistic texts to the statement that “the tongue was loosened” which have prompted the suggestion that this affliction was due to demonic possession; Jesus liberated the man from the fetters of the demon responsible for his severe condition.79 There is nothing in the Marcan text, however, to support this proposal and it is better to regard the phrase as a figurative description of the cure. Mark has stressed Jesus’ encounter with the demonic throughout the first half of the Gospel and it can be presumed that he would have stated that the man was possessed by a deaf and dumb spirit if this were the case.
The healing did not consist in the fact that the man spoke, but that he spoke without defect. His command of language confirms that he had not been born deaf and dumb. His normal speech formed the surprising contrast to his former stammering.
36–37 Jesus’ repeated injunctions to be silent concerning what had taken place were immediately disregarded; those who had witnessed the healing were exuberant and engaged in kerygmatic activity (cf. Chs. 1:45; 5:20). The parallel with Ch. 1:44 f. is particularly close since the violation of the injunction is described in both places as “proclamation,” the technical designation for preaching the gospel. The identical language in Ch. 1:44 f. and Ch. 7:36 suggests that the purpose of the injunction was to avoid a recurrence of the situation which developed subsequent to the healing of the leper when the presence of crowds in each town clamoring for Jesus’ healing touch hindered his movement and interrupted his preaching mission. It was apparently Jesus’ intention to remain in the region of the Decapolis for a period of time and he did not wish to be regarded as a Hellenistic wonder-worker.
The narrative concludes with a confession of faith which focuses on the messianic significance of the incident. In their excitement the crowd generalized the healing,80 perhaps with reference to what they had previously heard (cf. Chs. 3:8; 5:20) and was now confirmed by what they had seen. But Mark intends an allusion to Isa. 35:5f.81 The choral exclamation of the crowd is the response of faith which recognizes in all the works of Jesus the promised intervention of God.