Sunday, August 21, 2016

Ouotes - Hitler's Cross by Erwin W. Lutzer

Chapter One
"We are naive if we think Nazi Germany cannot happen again.  In fact, the Bible predicts that it will."  p.21

The First Reich (800-1806)
The marriage of the church and state, with the state being the sword of the church.
"Interestingly, many true believers claimed that little changed when the Roman Empire was "christianized."  Previously, they were persecuted by pagan Rome; next they were persecuted by religious Rome.  Either way, the sword hurt just as much."  pp. 23-24

The Second Reich (1871-1918)
"If the First Reich prepared the way for Hilter by unifying church and state, the Second Reich contributed to the paralysis of the church by teaching that there must be a split between private and public morality."  p.25
"What is taught in philosophy classrooms today is believed by the man on the street tomorrow."  p.27

James sermon

James theme:  A whole faith for a whole person.
Open discussion:  What were some main ideas in the three primary topics in James?
(Use three columns to write ideas.)
  • Trials
  • Wisdom/speech
  • Money
Open Discussion:  Where do you see Christ in this book?

What final admonition concludes and wraps up the book of James?

19 Brethren, 

If - Third Class Condition - Traditionally known as the 'More Probable Future
I. TRUTH  v.19
"if anyone among you wanders from the truth,"
ἀλήθεια alētheia: 
(a) objectively, signifying "the reality lying at the basis of an appearance; the manifested, veritable essence of a matter" (Cremer), e.g., Rom 9:1; 2Cr 11:10; especially of Christian doctrine, e.g., Gal 2:5, where "the truth of the Gospel" denotes the "true" teaching of the Gospel, in contrast to perversions of it;
(b) subjectively, "truthfulness," "truth," not merely verbal, but sincerity and integrity of character, Jhn 8:44; 3Jo 1:3,

"The truth" is a set of facts that are known and believed
"The truth" also speaks to what we do

Galatians 3:1

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?

Galatians 5:7

You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?

James 3:14

But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth.
1 John 1: 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth
1 John 3
17 But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him? 18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him.

 Note, verse 20.  the error of his way.  This is not just what you believe with your mind and heart.

"if anyone among you wanders from the truth,"
 πλανάω  planaō:
1. in the Passive form sometimes means "to go astray, wander," 

Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray,; 
1Pe 2:25; For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
 Hbr 11:38; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and [in] mountains, and [in] dens and caves of the earth.
2. frequently Active, "to deceive, by leading into error, to seduce," e.g., Mat 24:4,5,11,24; Jhn 7:12,
3. In Rev 12:9 the present participle is used with the definite article, as a title of the Devil, lit., "the deceiving one."   

1. When you wander from the truth, you are living in error, living a lie.  Your life does not tell the truth about who God is.  JKV translate this error. [add to margin of Bible]

2. The deviation from the truth here must be a serious one.  Note in verse 20, "saved from death."

2. When do we wander?  When we loose our focus.
Hebrews 2.1  Therefore, we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard lest we drift away.

3. Open Discussion:  How do you identify someone who is beginning to drift?
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

What has God given us to prevent us from wondering?  (Spirit, Word, other saints)

"and someone turns him back,

 ἐπιστρέφω epistrephō:  to turn to, turn back

ylt, nasb95,nkjv, netturns; kjvconverts;  esv, niv84, nltbrings;  wetbrings/turned
"Turns" is different than,  μετανοέω metanoeō ,  the word usually translated "repent."

Ezekiel 34.15-16a
15 I will feed My flock, and I will make them lie down," says the Lord God.  
16 I will 
               seek what was lost and 
               bring back what was driven away, 
               bind up the broken and 
               strengthen what was sick; 

Galatians 6
1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 3 For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.  

  • Who in our flock do you know well enough to notice something is wrong and say, "I've noticed _________, What's happening?"
  • Who at TBC has permission and knows you well enough to say something to you.

(ERROR / wandering n.)
20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will 
(noun form of same word as in v. 19)

ylt, nkjv, netturns; nasb95turns/errorkjvconverts;  esv, niv84, nltbrings;  wetbrings/turned


1. save a soul from death and 
  • The soul of the wanderer is in view here.
  • Two ways: the path that leads to life and the path that leads to death.  The one you are one determines your eternal destination.

2. cover a multitude of sins.
1 Peter 4.8
7 But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers. 8 And above all things have fervent love for one another, for "love will cover a multitude of sins."  
  • The repentance of the reclaimed sinning believer results in the forgiveness (covering) of his or her sins. This description of forgiveness harks back to Old Testament usage where the biblical writers described sin as covered when forgiven.  Such usage was understandable for James who was a Jewish believer writing to other Jews primarily..."  -- Thomas Constable
  • "So often when a person drifts away from active involvement in church and even from the faith, it is due to unresolved personal offenses within the congregation. --ECNT 

  •  The words “cover over a multitude of sins” constitute at least an allusion to, and perhaps a deliberate quotation of, Prov. 10:12, where hate and love are contrasted: “Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers all wrongs.”  ---CNTUOT 
  • ...the idea is not that the wrongs are concealed but not dealt with, but rather that the love itself reconciles the alienated offender and changes everything.    ---CNTUOT
  • It is not enough not to retaliate against an enemy; it is essential to love one’s enemy. So too here at the end of James’s epistle: it is not enough to try to be faithful ourselves; rather, it is essential to try to secure the faithfulness of others. We overcome evil with good.     ---CNTUOT 

2 Timothy 2:11-13

Thomas Constable's Expository Notes on 2 Timothy
3. A popular saying 2:11-13

To encourage Timothy further to endure hardship Paul cited, or perhaps adapted, a commonly accepted and used quotation that encouraged believers to remain faithful to their Christian profession (cf. 1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; Titus 3:8). It may have been part of a baptismal ceremony, a hymn, or a catechism. It consists of four couplets, two positive and two negative. Each one represents a condition Paul assumed for the sake of his argument to be real, not hypothetical, since each is a first class condition in the Greek text.

“Each protasis (the ‘if’ clause) describes an action of a believer.”[41]

2:11-13 The first couplet (v. 11) is a comforting reminder that since the believer died with Christ (Col. 2:20; 3:1, 3) he or she has also experienced resurrection with Him to newness of life (cf. Rom. 6:2-23, esp. v. 8). This seems to be a better interpretation than the one that views this statement as a reference to dying as a martyr.[42] The first class condition and the aorist tense of the verb synapethanomen, translated “died,” argue for the former view.[43]

Knight suggested that since Paul wrote this epistle from Rome, it is possible that the church in Rome developed this first line by reflecting on Romans 6, especially verse 8. Water baptism symbolizes the death and resurrection of the believer.[44]

The second couplet (v. 12a) is also a comfort. If the believer successfully endures temptations to apostatize, he or she will one day reign with Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8; Rev. 3:21; 5:10). While all Christians will reign with Christ in the sense that we will be with Him when He reigns, the faithful will reign with Christ in a more active sense (cf. Matt. 10:33; Luke 12:9).[45] The Bible seems to teach that there are degrees of reigning as there are differences in rewards (cf. Luke 19:11-27; Rev. 2:26-27; 3:21). The idea that all Christians will remain faithful is true to neither revelation nor reality (cf. Luke 8:13; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 3:12; cf. 2 Tim. 4:4).

The third couplet (v. 12b) is a warning. If the believer departs from following Christ faithfully during his or her life (i.e., apostatizes), Christ will deny him or her at the judgment seat of Christ (Matt. 10:33; Mark 8:38; Luke 12:9; cf. Luke 19:22; Matt. 22:13).[46] The unfaithful believer will not lose his salvation (1 John 5:13) or all of his reward (1 Pet. 1:4), but he will lose some of his reward (1 Cor. 3:12-15; cf. Luke 19:24-26). To deny Christ clearly does not mean to deny Him only once or twice (cf. Luke 22:54-62) but to deny Him permanently since the other three human conditions in the couplets are permanent.

“Denial of Christ manifests itself in various ways in the NT. It can consist in denying his name (Rev. 3:8) or faith in him (Rev. 2:13). It can thus take the form of forsaking or repudiating the Christian faith and its truths, particularly the truth concerning Jesus. In doing so one personally denies Christ (and the Father, cf. 1 Jn. 2:22-23). The denial can also manifest itself in the moral realm. Some may ‘profess to know God, but by their deeds deny him’ (Tit. 1:16; cf. 1 Tim. 5:8).”[47]

The fourth and final couplet (v. 13) is another comforting reminder that if the believer is unfaithful to God Christ will still remain faithful to him or her. The Greek word apistoumen can mean either “unbelief” or “unfaithful.” The context makes clear that “unfaithful” is the meaning here since the contrast is with “faithful.” The present tense of the Greek word translated “faithless” denotes a continuing attitude. Christ will not renege on His promises to save us (cf. 1 Cor. 1:9; 10:13; 2 Cor. 1:18-20; 1 Thess. 5:24; et al.) even though we may go back on our commitments to Him (1 John 5:13). God’s dealings with the Israelites in the Old Testament are the great proof that God will not cast off or abandon those He has redeemed and adopted even if they prove unfaithful and unbelieving. Christ’s faithfulness to us should motivate us to remain faithful to Him (cf. Luke 22:31-32; John 21:15-22).

The point of this quotation is that Christians should continue to endure hardship and remain faithful to the Lord in view of what Jesus Christ has done and will do.[48],” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 1:1 (Autumn 1988):21-33.

Some interpreters believe the references to denying the Lord and being denied by him refer to unbelievers. However, there is nothing in the context to indicate that Paul had unbelievers in mind. On the contrary he used “we” and “us,” which without further explanation would naturally include Paul and Timothy. In the context Paul made frequent references to the judgment seat of Christ (1:12, 18; 4:8). This whole epistle constitutes an exhortation for Christians to remain faithful to the Lord in view of that coming event.

The Gospel of Mark: A Serving Savior / Lesson 9 -- Inside Out -- Mark 7:1-37

Lesson 9    “Inside Out”    Mark 7:1-37
ID: Inductive Questions (Asking the text questions like who, what, where, when, why, & how?”)
CR: Cross References (Comparing Scripture to Scripture, understanding the vague by the clear.)
WS: Word Study (Understanding definition, theological meaning, and usages in other passages.)
The WORD: What does the Bible say?
Context:  Read Mark 6:54-8:3 to help understand the context of this passage.  Read Mark 7:1-37in a more literal or more dynamic translation than you usually use.  Read Deuteronomy 5:16; Exodus 20:12 and 17, Proverbs 20:20, and Isaiah 29:13 for helpful background on OT allusions in this passage.
1.     CR: (7:1-7) What was the original context of the quote from Isaiah? How did the Pharisees’ rule about washing illustrate Isaiah 29:13?
2.     WS/CR: (7:9-13) What was Corban?  How could dedicating money to God be a bad thing?  What do these verses teach us about the fifth commandment? (Exodus 21:17; Leviticus 19:3; 20:9; Deuteronomy 5:16; 27:16; Proverbs 23:22; 30:17; Ephesians 6:1)
3.     WS/ID: (7:14-23) What proceeds from the heart and defiles (koinoō) a man?  Do you notice any groupings or progression in this list?  Were there any that you didn’t expect to be in this list?
4.     CR: (27:24-30) Why did Jesus hesitate to heal the Syro-Phoenician Greek woman’s child?  What was so remarkable about her answer? (Matt. 15:21–28)
5.     CR: (7:31-37) How did Jesus come into contact with the deaf man with the speech impediment?  What was the response of the people to the healing?
The WALK: What should I do?
1.     Does the expression “tradition of the elders” have any relevance for us today?  What traditions or cultural applications of a Scriptural principle have we, in effect, put on the level of Scripture? 
2.     Do we ever make the Word of God of no effect through our traditions?
3.     Does the way we follow the admonition to honor our parents change as we grow older? How or why not?
4.     What does the use of the particular Greek word for “defiles” (Walk question 3) in verses 7:20-23 teach us about sins?
5.     One commentary described the Syro-Phonesian woman’s faith as “holy chutzpah.”  What do you think about that description and her interaction with Jesus?  What lessons can we learn from her?
6.      Where in this passage do we see Gospel truths about God, Man, Christ, and our response?  Going Beyond:  Something to memorize or study further.
Going Beyond:  What areas of theology are touched on in this passage?
   The Bible     God    God the Father    Jesus Christ      The Holy Spirit      Man     Salvation     The Church     Angels & Satan     Future Things –

Answer: The Hebrew word translated “unclean” in Leviticus is used nearly one hundred times in this one book, clearly emphasizing “clean” status versus “unclean.” Animals, objects, food, clothing, and even people could be considered “unclean.”
Generally, the Mosaic Law spoke of something as “unclean” if it was unfit to use in worship to God. Being “clean” or “unclean” was a ceremonial designation governing the ritual of corporate worship. For example, there were certain animals, like pigs, considered unclean and therefore not to be used in sacrifices (Leviticus 5:2); and there were certain actions, like touching a dead body, that made a living person unclean and temporarily unable to participate in the worship ceremony (Leviticus 5:3).
Leviticus 10:10 taught, “You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean” (ESV). The parallel between “holy” and “clean” (and “common” and “unclean”) reveals that the command was related to one’s spiritual condition, though physical actions were often involved.
Certain foods were unclean for Jews and forbidden for them to eat, such as pork, certain fish, and certain birds. A skin infection could make a person unclean or unfit for presence at the tabernacle or even in the community (Leviticus 13:3). A house with certain kinds of mold was unclean. A woman was unclean for a period of time following childbirth. On holy days couples were restricted from engaging in sexual activity as the release of semen made them unclean until evening (Leviticus 15:18).
While a wide variety of circumstances could make a person, animal, or item unclean, the majority of the laws concerned activities disqualifying a person or animal in connection with the tabernacle offerings. An animal offered for sacrifice had to be without defect. The person who offered the sacrifice also had to be “clean” before the Law; i.e., the worshiper had to comply with the Law and approach God with reverence.
In the New Testament, Jesus used the idea of being “clean” to speak of being holy. In Luke 11:39–41 He says to the Pharisees, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But now as for what is inside you–be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.”
“Clean” and “unclean” were concepts very familiar to those under the Old Testament Law. God called His people to separate themselves from the impurities of the world. The principle of being clean crosses into the New Testament as well, with the idea of living spiritually pure (2 Corinthians 6:17) and seeking to be holy, living a life worthy of our calling (Colossians 1:10).
© Copyright 2002-2015 Got Questions Ministries

An Apparent Contradiction of Ezekiel’s Prophecy
(7:24, 31) "And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre."
Ezekiel (26:14, 21, 27:36) prophesied that Tyre would be completely destroyed, never to be built again. But it wasn't destroyed and continued to exist, as shown by this verse in which Jesus visits Tyre.
But Isaiah had already prophesied (Is. 23:15) that Tyre would be rebuilt. Therefore, as John Gill comments, this should not be understood as if Tyre would never be completely rebuilt, but it should be understood as not rebuilt in the same grandeur and occupy the same position among the nations.
But there are more layers in this prophesy. Tyre was also destroyed by Alexander. And it was he who destroyed the city completely. And by founding Alexandria he changed the track of commerce forever.

Lesson 9 – Mark 7

1.  I have additional information about this question for the Commentary on the NT Use of the OT below.
3. There are many words that could have been chosen to describe what sin does to us.  I see in the idea of making us “unfit” or “unsuitable” in the word koinoo.  I have commentary on the sins and the word “defiles” below.

5.  This woman had a tenacious faith.  Does that describe ours?
6. Where do you see elements of the Gospel in this chapter?

There are two things in the extra section.  One is an article on the concept of “unclean” in the Bible that relates to Word question # 3 and Walk question # 4.
I also put a couple notes about an apparent contradiction between Ezekiel’s prophecy about Tyre and its existence in Christ’s time on earth.

The Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament does a very thorough job of exploring all the connections of New Testament allusions and quotes from the Old Testament.  This is an example from Mark 7.
A. NT Context: Tension over Purity. As we come to this story about Jesus’ disciples eating with unwashed hands, its topic (purity), extent, fieriness, and hitherto unmatched concentration of some weighty OT texts should alert us to its importance. Israel was defined by the command “Be holy, for I am holy” (Lev. 11:44) and was in exile for failing to be so. It has been on the agenda from the moment John the Baptist appeared to prepare for holy Yahweh’s coming and Jesus’ first mighty deed in casting out an unclean spirit (cf. 1:13, 26–27; 3:11; 5:2, 8, 13; 6:7; also healings: 1:41; 2:5, 11–12, 17; 5:28–29, 41–42; see Neyrey 1986).
Following the feeding of the five thousand (6:32–44) and a second demonstration of Jesus’ power over the sea (6:45–52)—both having obvious exodus/new-exodus overtones (see, e.g., Neh. 9:11–15; Ps. 78:12–20; cf. Job 9:8; Tg. Zech. 10:11; see R. E. Watts 2000: 160–63, 177–79)—Mark offers his final summary statement concerning Jesus’ popularity (6:53–56). Although chapter 7 is regarded as the midpoint of the larger section 6:6b–8:21 (e.g., Donahue and Harrington 2002: 226), it is near universally understood to break with the preceding narrative (e.g., Lane 1974; Gundry 1993; Hooker 1988; Gnilka 1978–1979; Moloney 2002). However, the occurrence of the rare “marketplace” (agora) for the first time in Mark in 6:56 (en tais agorais) and then soon after in 7:4 (ap’ agoras [elsewhere only in 12:38]), where both are editorial, strongly suggests otherwise. The motif of “touching,” whether conveying restoration (6:56) or impurity (7:1–5), similarly unites the two accounts. Instead of breaking the flow, this final summary allows Mark to juxtapose Jesus’ healings in the marketplace with Jerusalem’s antagonism over purity laws.
The appearance, then, in 7:1 of Pharisees and some scribes signals a return to the pattern of official opposition not seen since the pivotal Beelzebul controversy (3:19b–35). (As in several previous incidents, it is the disciples’ behavior, not that of Jesus, that provokes the clash [cf. 2:18, 23–24]). The leaders “gathering to him” recalls the last of Mark’s first five controversy stories (the Sabbath healing in 3:1–6) and similarly suggests hostile intent (cf. 7:5 with 2:16, 18, 24). J. Marcus (1997: 192n 44) detects here an echo of the coalition against the Lord’s anointed in Ps. 2:2—a text already of some importance for Mark and whose interpretation in Jewish tradition concentrated on the eschatological purification of Jerusalem (see above and note the origin here of Jesus’ opponents)—and also of the wicked against the righteous (Ps. 30:14 LXX [31:13 ET]; 34:15 LXX [35:15 ET]).
But whereas in the past Mark’s Jesus responded by asking questions (2:8–9, 19, 25; 3:4, 23–26), delivering aphorisms (2:17, 27; 3:27), or issuing warnings (3:28–30), here for the first time, ominously, he employs an Isaianic judgment text in a scathing denunciation of the Jerusalem authorities’ criticism as a faithless abandonment of God’s will for the sake of merely human tradition (7:6–8; see Isa. 29:13).
Several points are worth noting. First, Jesus has already been shown to be Israel’s Davidic/Yahweh shepherd. Thus, in the context of shepherding Israel (6:34) Mark’s emphasis on Jesus’ “tassel” (6:56) suggests, in addition to Jesus’ Torah-observant practice (Rudolph 2002: 299), his kingly and priestly authority (see Milgrom 1983; Waldman 1989; Matthews and Benjamin 1993: 147). As such, he has been dispensing to the common folk in the villages, cities, farms, and marketplaces of the entire region (6:55–56) nothing less than new-exodus healings—what else could they be, given Mark’s overarching new-exodus horizon and the immediately preceding feeding and power over the sea stories (cf. Ps. 78:12–20, 70–72, again linking Yahweh and David)? Since sin, sickness, healing, and forgiveness, and therefore wholeness and purity, were closely connected in much Jewish tradition (cf., e.g., Ps. 107:17; Isa. 33:24; Mark 2:1–12; John 9:2; James 5:14–15; b. Šabb. 55a, citing Ezek. 18:20; Ps. 89:32), these new-exodus healings necessarily restore holiness and purity (see Phelan 1990). Thus, in contrast to the scribes who see the marketplace as a source of impurity from which they must outwardly wash their hands (even if inwardly they love the honorific greetings received therein [12:38]), Mark’s Jesus, already declared to be the Holy One of God in Mark’s first mighty deed (1:24) and having cleansed lepers (1:40–42), forgiven sins (2:1–12), restored the impure woman (5:29–34), raised the unclean corpse (5:41–42), and cast out unclean spirits (1:23–27; 3:11; 5:2–13; 6:7), not only sees no threat but also recognizes an opportunity to extend purity to others (see Neyrey 1986: 105–22; Bockmuehl 2000: 11).
Jesus’ opponents did not see things this way. That they are “from Jerusalem,” said for only the second time in Mark, not only highlights their special authority but also links them with the earlier, crucial Beelzebul confrontation (3:22). In that clash the Jerusalem scribes attributed Jesus’ power to Satan, and nothing here suggests that they have changed their minds. On that occasion Mark’s Jesus regarded their assessment as blasphemy against the Holy (= pure) Spirit, which, in making God their enemy, led directly to the implementation of Isa. 6’s judgment through the parables. This second encounter again results in an extended citation, again from Isaiah (also for only the second time), but now from Isa. 29, which also echoes Isa. 6.
Textually, Jesus’ initial response is a close citation of Isa. 29:13. The several variants in both the Hebrew (including 1QIsaa; cf. the Targum) and Greek traditions suggest some form of early corruption (J. D. W. Watts 1985: 384; Stendahl 1968: 56–58; Gundry 1967: 14). The LXX differs from the MT in (1) omitting the opening causal particles (yaʿan kî ) and sometimes bĕpîyw (“with its mouth” [as in א, A, Q]), (2) apparently reading wĕtōhû (LXX: matēn, “in vain”) over against wattĕhî (“it is”), (3) using a predicate instead of a nominal phrase when reading sebontai (“they worship me”) for the MT’s yirʾātām ʾotî (“their fear of me” [1QIsaa drops the suffix]), (4) doubly translating the singular miṣwat (1QIsaa and the Targum add the smoothing preposition k) with the pluralized entalmata … kai didaskalias, and (5) reading Piel masculine plural mĕlammĕdîm (“teaching” [so too the Targum]) instead of the MT’s Pual feminine singular mĕlummādâ (“that is taught”), thereby possibly suggesting a causal clause.
Though dropping the LXX’s and MT’s “draw near,” Jesus’ citation generally follows the tradition contained in the LXX. The minor variations include (1) transposing the demonstrative houtos to the emphatic position, (2) employing the singular verb tima, in keeping with the singular subject (and the MT), and omitting the possessive, whether the LXX’s third-person plural or the MT’s singular, (3) moving the subject “me” to before the verb sarcastically to emphasize the contrast with “this people,” (4) omitting kai (with the MT), and (5) advancing didaskalias to create a double accusative. These variations, mostly for emphasis and consistent with first-century conventions (Stanley 1992), make no impact on the overall sense.
B. Isa. 29:13 in Context. Our text belongs to that series of woe oracles (Isa. 28–31) that, in building on the earlier polemics against idolatrous wisdom (see Petersen 1979), constitute Isaiah’s most sustained attack on the nation’s rulers (Sweeney 1988: 56–58; Vriezen 1962: 134n9). Although Isa. 28 opens with a declaration of coming judgment against the proud garland of Ephraim’s drunken and corrupt princes (28:1–4), the overall thrust is clearly against the Jerusalemite leaders who have rejected the prophet’s message (28:14) (see Exum 1979: 124; Wildberger 1972–1982: 1044; cf. Clements 1980a: 229). The setting is Judah’s abortive participation in a rebel coalition with Egypt against Assyria, but the issues remain largely unchanged from those earlier in the work (Jensen 1973: 115–18; Goldingay 2001: 151; Beuken 1992a [see commentary on Mark 4:12 above]). Those purported to be “wise” are in fact nothing more than “obstinate children” (30:1, 9; cf. 1:2 [see the discussion below on children honoring parents]) who reject Yahweh’s instruction (30:9–11), relying instead on their own clever strategies (28:15; 30:1–5, 6–7; 31:1–3). But Yahweh’s purging purpose will stand (28:2–3, 18–20; cf. 6:10–13), and the policies of Judah’s blind and deaf leaders will lead irrevocably to the land’s devastation and the nation’s exile (30:1–5, 12–17; 31:1–3; cf. 6:11–13).
Chapter 29 begins with yet another woe oracle, which captures the essence of Yahweh’s “strange plan.” On the one hand, it announces that Yahweh himself will lay siege to Jerusalem (29:1–4) but then unexpectedly envisages the “sudden” (lĕpetaʿ ) theophanic visitation of the Lord of Hosts to deliver his city (29:5–8). But that lies in the future. In the meantime, 29:9–14, a chiastic formulation in which each stanza is a variation on the theme of incomprehension (Exum 1981: 347), forms a derisive indictment of Jerusalem’s blind and deaf leaders. Here too, although 29:13 has “this people,” the nation’s leadership is clearly the primary target (cf. 29:10, 14b; see McKane 1965: 70–71; Jensen 1973: 51, 55–56; Clements 1980a: 236).
Although difficult in some respects, the point of 29:9 is clear enough: those leaders who ought to have known Yahweh’s will but have rejected it are mockingly likened to staggering drunkards upon whom the Lord has poured out a spirit of deep sleep (cf. 28:7). The fact that this insensible condition is Yahweh’s doing (29:10), in combination with the unique expression hištaʿašʿû wāšōʿû (“blind yourselves and be blind” [29:9a]), the reference to shutting the eyes (wayʿaṣṣēm ʾet-ʿênêkem, “he has shut your eyes” [29:10b]), and the twice-occurring “this people” (29:13–14), strongly suggests that this is a continuation of the trajectory initiated with Isaiah’s earlier commission in 6:10–13 to close the eyes (wĕʿênāyw hāšaʿ ) of “this people” until the whole land lies desolate (J. D. W. Watts 1985: 385; cf. Clements 1980a: 238; McLaughlin 1994 [although lacking the reference to blinding in 29:9a, the LXX does have kammysei in 29:10]). As a result, Judah’s head and eyes—its prophets and seers—are now so incapable of comprehending Yahweh’s prophetic “plan” that it has become as doubly impenetrable as a sealed book to an illiterate (29:12).
Nevertheless, and just as in the events preceding Isaiah’s commissioning (cf. 1:10–15), leaders and people together persist in earnest prayers and performance of religious duties even as they pursue strategies that are directly at odds with Yahweh’s word (29:13; see Clements 1980a: 238–39; Dietrich 1976: 173–75; Wildberger 1972–1982: 1120; cf. Hos. 7:14; 10:1–2; Mic. 3:11; 6:6–8). And again Yahweh indignantly rejects this “honor” as worthless lip service and empty adherence not even to his word, but rather, adding insult to injury, to merely human requirements (whether cultic regulations [Wildberger 1972–1982: 1121–22] or the wisdom tradition [Jensen 1973: 67]). Deliberately employing language evoking his past saving acts, especially in the exodus/conquest (forms of plʾ occur three times in 29:14; cf., e.g., Josh. 3:5; Ps. 78:12; 98:1), Yahweh declares that he will again do amazing things. This time, however, his own people will feel the strength of his mighty arm as he demolishes both the oppressive wisdom of the self-reliant wise and the nation—a theme that pervades these chapters (29:14, 20; cf. 28:1–4, 13–22; 29:1–4; 30:1–5, 12–15; Clements 1980a: 239; Exum 1981: 348; McKane 1965: 70–71).
In responding to rebellious Israel, Isa. 29:13 thus describes a national leadership already under the judicial blinding of Isa. 6 now further given over to their own foolish wisdom and hence destruction, even as they continue to profess loyalty to Yahweh by their adherence to what he dismisses as merely human tradition.
C. Isa. 29:13 in Judaism. Several intertestamental texts envision an eschatological Jewish apostasy in the substitution of human commandments for the divine Mosaic law (Berger 1972: 489–90, citing CD-A IV–V; Jub. 23:21; T. Ash. 7:5; T. Levi 14:4; 16:2). Of these, CD-A V, 20 speaks of the “Boundary Shifters”—an unidentified group of Israelites, perhaps priests or scribes who from the sectarians’ point of view misinterpreted the law (cf. CD-A VIII, 3 with CD-B XIX, 15–16)—who revile the statutes of the covenant, claiming that they are not well-founded. A people without insight (CD-A V, 16, citing Isa. 27:11), they led Israel astray by inciting rebellion against the law of Moses (CD-A V, 20–21). We also know that the sectarians denounced the “seekers of smooth things” (or “flatterers” [probably the Pharisees]) for being hypocrites (e.g., 1QHa XI, 28; XII, 13; XV, 34) who meddled with Torah, presumably substituting their own human traditions for God’s (e.g., CD-A I, 18; 1QHa XII, 10, 13; 4Q163 23 II, 10–15, citing Isa. 30:19–21; 4Q169 3–4 II, 2–5). The fragmentary Isaiah commentary 4Q163, although having a lacuna at precisely this point, apparently sees Isa. 29–30 as describing God’s eschatological judgment on the “congregation of those looking for easy interpretations who are in Jerusalem,” which might refer to the same group (4Q163 23 II, 10–11; cf. 1QS XI, 1, which might allude to Isa. 29:14; see Ploch 1993: 222–23).
The patriarch Asher attributes the desolation of the land, the destruction of the sanctuary, and Israel’s exile to the Sodom-like behavior of his children, “corrupted by evil, heeding not the Law of God but human commandments” (T. Ash. 7:5). More extensively, Levi complains of the future impiety of his priestly offspring in the last days (T. Levi 14:1). Inflated with pride on account of their priesthood, they will bring a curse upon the nation because, having abandoned God’s requirements for purity, they will teach commandments that are opposed to his just ordinances (14:4–8). Through their wicked perversity they will set aside the law, nullify the words of the prophets, and persecute the righteous (16:2), resulting in God’s severe judgment and the temple’s destruction (15:1) (on the issue of Christian reworking of this material, see §C of commentary on Mark 1:10 above).
The Targum introduces two significant changes. The addressees, “the seers and the prophets,” reflecting the later setting of the Targum, become “the prophets and the scribes and the teachers who were teaching the teaching of the law” (29:10). More importantly, whereas in Isaiah these blinded rebels were responsible for Jerusalem’s destruction, the Targum not only absolves them but also rehabilitates them. The vision is no longer hidden from these teachers. Instead, as bearers of God’s word, they are hidden from the people. The people, on the other hand, are censured because of their insincere fear of the Lord, regarding God’s word as no more than a merely human commandment (29:14).
In rabbinic tradition, in a discussion on Torah regulations, Deut. 28:59 (the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful) is interpreted by Isa. 29:14, and it is said that God’s amazing and wonderful work means that Torah will be forgotten in Israel (the wisdom of the wise will perish) and no one will be able to tell the clean from the unclean (b. Šabb. 138b). Elsewhere, Isa. 29 explains God’s severe judgment on arrogant and idolatrous Pharaoh and his advisors (Exod. Rab. 5:14), whose willful hard-heartedness is the cause for God’s lex talionis or hard judgment (Midr. Prov. 27). Similarly, the smearing of the eyes in Isa. 29:10 is the lex talionis judgment on Israel’s sinning with the eye (Pesiq. Rab. 33:13, citing Isa. 3:16; cf. Isa. 6:10).
Seder Eliyahu Rabbah (26)24, in the context of discussing the commandment to honor one’s father and mother (Exod. 20:12), cites Isa. 29:13–14 as evidence of God’s harsh decrees against those who in the name of doing the will of God forgo honoring their parents by not providing for them.
In these various traditions, some earlier than others, there is then a clear awareness that (1) unscrupulous leaders or teachers could and did employ merely human tradition to subvert the law’s true intent and that doing so would invite God’s severe judgment; (2) some of God’s people, both leaders and the rank and file, took his word no more seriously than merely human commandments; and (3) judgment on the self-reliant wise was seen to find its greatest expression in God’s response to Pharaoh’s hard-heartedness during the exodus.
D. The Use of Isa. 29:13 in Mark. It is often claimed that the Markan Jesus’ argument depends particularly on the LXX’s attack on the “teachings of men” because the MT and the Targum are concerned instead with deficient worship “commanded by men and learned by rote” (e.g., Schweizer 1971: 145; Nineham 1963: 194–95; Booth 1986: 91; Poirier 2000). However, there is in fact no substantive difference between them, since in each case the fundamental issue is Yahweh’s refusal to accept worship when the worshipers themselves are actively disregarding him (e.g., Banks 1975: 134–35; Guelich 1989: 367; Gundry 1993: 351; Schneck 1994: 171; France 2002: 284–85). In this respect, adherence to “the traditions of men” is only a symptom of this deeper issue (as is evident in the perspective of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Targum on those who set aside God’s law for their own). Obviously, such worship is “empty,” as the LXX pointedly notes.
Likewise, although it is often remarked that Mark’s Jesus alters the addressees from the entire nation, “this people” (Isa. 29:13), to the Jerusalemite authorities, “Pharisees and scribes” (e.g., Gundry 1993: 351), his emphasis accurately reflects not only the original context, as we noted above, but also the targumic gloss in Isa. 29:10, “the scribes and the teachers who were teaching the teaching of the law” (although obviously, in retaining the original force, Jesus rejects the Targum’s absolution).
Whatever the status and nature of handwashing practice at the time (see Booth 1986: 23–144; Gundry 1993: 358–60; Gnilka 1978–1979: 1:279–80; Poirier 1996; France 2002: 280–82; Marcus 1999: 440–42), the only scriptural requirement for this kind of ritual purity concerned the priests prior to offering sacrifice (Exod. 30:18–21; 40:30–32), or an Israelite having a discharge (Lev. 15:11), or the elders after the special sacrifice of the heifer (Deut. 21:6). As b. Ber. 52b recognizes when it states that the washing of hands for secular food is not from the Torah, the Pharisees’ implicit demand is based merely on human tradition.
The question for Mark’s Jesus is not whether Torah required reinterpreting due to changing historical circumstances. As in Isaiah, he was concerned with the hypocrisy inherent in the leaders’ professed devotion to God expressed in their excessive concern for ritual purity alongside their employment of that merely human tradition to reject the sanctifying new-exodus work that God was accomplishing through Jesus before their very eyes (see Marcus 1997: 192). Hence Jesus’ use of “hypocrite,” which denotes “the wicked man who has alienated himself from God by his acts” (TDNT 8:564; cf. Suhl 1965: 81). (Since it is unlikely that Jesus would have judged Isaiah to have prophesied “badly” about the Pharisees, we probably should see in his statement not a conviction that Isaiah had them in mind, but rather that his prophetic words are particularly apt.)
In this case, unlike the probable relaxation of Torah’s purity requirements against which the Dead Sea Scrolls, Testament of Asher, and Testament of Levi fulminate, the issue is the reverse. They have gone beyond what God required, and though seemingly a pious act, it still placed human commands ahead of God’s (see Rudolph 2002: 296). The commandment that they have laid aside (Mark 7:8) is most likely the much more limited Mosaic injunctions concerning washing listed above, though the reference to “heart” could also indicate a more fundamental breach of the great commandment to love God with all one’s heart (cf. Deut. 6:4–5; see Pesch 1976–1977: 1:373). For the Pharisees and scribes, their attempts at heightened holiness were a sign of commitment, but for Jesus, their polemical intent and the ultimately marginalizing impact of their traditions both on the common people, whom they were meant to shepherd, and himself, Israel’s holy (e.g., 1:11, 24; 3:29) and true shepherd, rendered such “worship” utterly vain.
Moreover, if Isa. 29 describes the outcome of Isa. 6, then its application here is even more appropriate. Only those whose soil/heart is hard (Mark 4:5 and Isa. 6:9–10; cf. Mark 3:5) and far from God (Mark 7:6) could continue to attack this good news. For the first time since the Isa. 6 warning concerning the parables, we meet those on the outside who, blinded by an idolatrous commitment to human regulations, truly do not and cannot see or understand that in Jesus Isaiah’s long-awaited new exodus has begun. Ironically, in the language of b. Šabb. 138b, the true understanding of Torah has indeed perished, and they cannot tell pure from impure. For the first time, they too, like idolatrous and hard-hearted Pharaoh, come under the “hard” judgment of Jesus’ first denunciation (as per Exod. Rab. 5:14; Midr. Prov. 27; cf. the Pharisees’ hard-heartedness in Mark 3:5).
But as J. Marcus (1999: 450) correctly observes, the same charge could, with some justification, be laid against Jesus: is not his teaching merely human precepts? Therein lies the rub. As I have argued throughout, for Mark, Jesus is no mere teacher or even a great prophet. Something much more is going on in this one in whom Yahweh himself seems present (Hooker [1988: 227–28] notes that Jesus, at one and the same time, upholds the law and exercises a greater authority than Moses). To reject him is to reject God (see Marcus 1999: 450).
E. Theological Use. That this is the only explicit reference to Isaiah outside Mark’s opening sentences should highlight, even if the extent of the material did not, the significance of this encounter. Eschatologically, in keeping with Malachi’s warning, it indicates the unpreparedness of Jerusalem’s Pharisaic and scribal authorities and, insofar as Isa. 29 can be seen as the fulfillment of Isa. 6, the beginning of the end for that self-reliant and blind leadership. Hence comes Jesus’ first explicit and public denunciation. If the traditional interpretations of Isa. 29 are anything to go by, such hard-hearted and idolatrous hypocrisy will lead to a new exile, which, for Mark, will mean the transfer of the vineyard (12:1–9; cf. T. Ash. 7) and destruction of the temple (13; cf. T. Levi 14–16). Correspondingly, if purity delimits the community, then the confrontation here turns on the question of who has the authority to define what constitutes the boundaries of Israel. In terms of ecclesiology, not only does that authority clearly lie with Jesus, around whom Israel is being reconstituted, but also the Jerusalem leadership is now disqualified because of its hypocrisy.
It is in respect of this last point that Mark’s high Christology is seen yet again. Implicit in all of this is the unmatched authority inherent in the person of Jesus. He not only effects Israel’s purification but also speaks authoritatively as to what true Torah purity entails.[1]

G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI;  Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic;  Apollos, 2007), 161–166.

(7:18, 19) Are ye so without understanding also? The idea is, “You also, as well as the multitude?” It was a cause of disappointment to Jesus that His own chosen pupils were still under the spell of the Pharasaic theological tradition and outlook. Gould says, “They had been trained in Judaism, in which the distinction between clean and unclean is ingrained, and could not understand a statement abrogating this.” Expositors says: “The idea throughout is that ethical defilement is alone of importance, all other defilement, whether the subject of Mosaic ceremonial legislation or of scribe tradition, a trivial affair. Jesus here is a critic of Moses as well as the scribes, and introduces a religious revolution.”
The word “belly” is koilia (κοιλια) “the bowels.” “Draught” is aphedrōn (ἀφεδρων). Liddell and Scott in their classical lexicon define this word as a privy, a place where the intestinal discharges are deposited. The word does not refer to a part of the physical body.
Vincent and Robertson say that the words, “purging all meats” are not our Lord’s, but Mark’s comment and interpretation of His words. Expositors mildly suggests the same thing, and explains the words as follows: “This He said, purging all meats; making all meats clean, abolishing the ceremonial distinctions of the Levitical law.” This ties up with the fact that Peter reported our Lord’s words to Mark and had the house-top experience of the vision teaching the same thing, as the background of his thinking. Peter never forgot the “What God hath cleansed, that call thou not common” (Acts 11:1–10).
Translation. And He says to them, In this manner, also, as for you, are you without understanding? Do you not know that everything which from the outside enters into the man, is not able to defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his intestines, and goes out into that which is designed to receive it? (This He said) making all the foods clean.
(7:20–23) The words “And He said,” favor the view that the phrase “purging all meats,” is an interpolated remark by Mark, and not Jesus’ own words.
“Evil thoughts,” hoi dialogismoi hoi kakoi (οἱ διαλογισμοι οἱ κακοι). The word “thoughts” carries the idea of discussion or debate, with an under-thought of suspicion or doubt, either in one’s own mind, or with another. “Evil” is kakos (κακος) “of a bad nature, not such as it ought to be, base, wrong, wicked.” The very sound of the word as it is pronounced, suggests the idea in the word “reprehensible.” “Covetings” is pleonexia (πλεονεξια) “a greedy desire to have more, avarice.” “Wickedness” is ponēria (πονηρια), “depravity, iniquity.” The word speaks of wickedness, not merely in the abstract, but active. It has in it, the ideas of “dangerous, destructive.” Our word “pernicious” excellently describes it. The word kakos (κακος) speaks of wickedness in the abstract. Ponēros (Πονηρος) speaks of wickedness in active opposition to the good. The kakos (κακος) man is content to perish in his own corruption. The ponēros (πονηρος) man is not content unless he pulls everyone else down with him into his own destruction. “Lasciviousness” is aselgeia (ἀσελγεια). Robertson defines it as unrestrained sexual instinct. Vincent states that this meaning is included in the word, but that in its context here, it would seem better to take it in as wide a sense as possible, that of lawless insolence and wanton caprice, the single word “wantonness” adequately rendering it here.
“Evil eye” is ophthalmos ponēros (ὀφθαλμος πονηρος). Vincent defines it as “a malicious, mischief-working eye,” with the meaning of positive, injurious activity.
“Blasphemy” is blasphēmia (βλασφημια). The word does not necessarily speak of blasphemy against God. It is used of reviling, calumny, evil-speaking in general, malicious misrepresentation.
“Pride” is huperēphania (ὑπερηφανια), from huper (ὑπερ) “above,” and phainesthai (φαινεσθαι) “to show one’s self.” The picture is that of a man who holds his head high above others. Vincent says, “It is the sin of an uplifted heart against God and man.”
“Foolishness” is aphrosunē (ἀφροσυνη) “lack of sense, folly, senselessness.”
Translation. And He was saying, That which is constantly proceeding out of the man, that thing defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men are constantly proceeding the depraved thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, perniciousness, deceit, wantonness, a malicious, mischief-working eye, malicious misrepresentation, pride, folly. All these pernicious things from within are constantly proceeding and are constantly defiling the man.[2]
1. Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), Mk 7:17–20.

53.33 κοινόωa; βεβηλόω: to cause something to become unclean, profane, or ritually unacceptable—‘to make unclean, to defile, to profane.’4
κοινόωa: πάντα ταῦτα τὰ πονηρὰ ἔσωθεν ἐκπορεύεται καὶ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ‘all these evil things come from inside a person and make him unclean’ Mk 7:23.
βεβηλόω: ὃς καὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἐπείρασεν βεβηλῶσαι ‘he also tried to defile the Temple’ Ac 24:6.
In a number of languages it is quite impossible to translate literally the concept of ‘unclean,’ for physical cleanliness and ritual acceptability are completely unrelated. In some languages it is necessary to translate κοινόωa or βεβηλόω as ‘to take away its holiness’ or ‘to make something unacceptable to God.’ In many cultures one must express this concept as involving so-called negative taboo.[3]
Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 535.

“To make common,” “to share,” found from the time of Aesch., Aristot. Pol., II, 5, p. 1263b, 40 ff.: τὰ περὶ τὰς κτήσεις ἐν Λακεδαίμονι καὶ Κρήτῃ τοῖς συσσιτίοις ὁ νομοθέτης ἐκοίνωσεν.
It does not occur in the LXX, which uses → βεβηλοῦν for “to profane,” and in the Apocr. the only instance is 4 Macc. 7:6 א: οὐδὲ τὴν θεοσέβειαν καὶ καθαρισμὸν χωρήσασαν γαστέρα ἐκοίνωσας μιαροφαγίᾳ, “to profane cultically,” “to deprive of the capacity for fellowship with God” (→ κοινός7, 790 f.).
It has three senses in the NT.
3. In Ac. 10:15; 11:9 it means “to declare unclean or profane.” The opposite → καθαρίζειν can also have this declarative sense.
Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 809.

b. Babylonian Talmud
Šabb. Šabbat
T. Levi Testament of Levi
T. Levi Testament of Levi
b. Babylonian Talmud
b. Babylonian Talmud
Ber. Berakot
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976
b. Babylonian Talmud
Šabb. Šabbat
T. Levi Testament of Levi
[1] G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI;  Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic;  Apollos, 2007), 161–166.
[2] Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), Mk 7:17–20.
4 4 βεβηλόω may differ significantly from κοινόωa in denoting a more serious degree of defilement, but this cannot be readily determined from existing contexts.
[3] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 535.
before the heading of an article indicates that all the New Testament passages are mentioned in it.
Aesch. Aeschylus, of Eleusis near Athens (525–456 b.c.), the first of the three great Attic dramatists, ed. U. v. Wilamowitz, 1915; Fragments, ed. A. Nauck in Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 1889.
Aristot. Aristotle, of Stageiros (c. 384–322 b.c.), with his teacher Plato the greatest of the Greek philosophers and the founder of the peripatetic school, quoted in each case from the comprehensive edition of the Academia Regia Borussica, 1831 ff.
Pol. Politica.
Hauck Friedrich Hauck †, Erlangen (Vol. 1–6).
[4] Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 809.