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?
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?
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
WORD
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.
WALK
5. This woman had a tenacious faith. Does that describe ours?
6.
Where do you see elements of the Gospel in this chapter?
EXTRA
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.
7:6–7
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.
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.
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
[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.
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.
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.
