From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of
Mark Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2013
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
and compiler credit is given and the text is
not altered.
CHAPTER 7:
7:1 Translations
Weymouth: Then the
Pharisees, with certain Scribes who had come from Jerusalem, came to Him in a
body.
WEB: Then the Pharisees, and some of the scribes gathered together to him,
having come from Jerusalem.
Young’s: And gathered together unto him are the Pharisees, and
certain of the scribes, having come from Jerusalem,
Conte (RC): And the
Pharisees and some of the scribes, arriving from Jerusalem, gathered together
before him.
7:1 Then came together unto
him the Pharisees. i.e., members of the well known party so
called (2:16; 3:6). [3]
and certain of the scribes. The official guardians and expounders of the Law, who were
generally Pharisees and often priests or Levites. [3]
which came from Jerusalem. Either Galilean scribes and
Pharisees who had recently been to Jerusalem, or a party that had been sent
from Jerusalem; probably the latter (cf. 3:22).
[35]
7:2 Translations
Weymouth: They had
noticed that some of His disciples were eating their food with 'unclean' (that
is to say, unwashed)
WEB: Now when
they saw some of his disciples eating bread with defiled, that is, unwashed,
hands, they found fault.
Young’s: and having
seen certain of his disciples with defiled hands -- that is, unwashed -- eating
bread, they found fault;
Conte (RC): And when
they had seen certain ones from his disciples eating bread with common hands,
that is, with unwashed hands, they disparaged them.
7:2 And
when they saw some of His disciples. It is not implied that the Pharisees and
scribes were [eating] with Jesus and His disciples; but in their vigilant
espionage, they had seen some of His disciples, either at their ordinary meal,
or in the hurried eating forced upon them by the constant attendance of the
crowd, neglect one of their ceremonial observances. [45]
eat bread with
defiled, that is to say, with unwashen hands. The objection did not mean
that the followers of Jesus ate with hands which were physically unclean. It meant that these disciples had neglected
the ceremonial washings which were required by Jewish traditions. These traditions consisted in the collected
interpretations of the Old Testament Law, which had been given by the rabbis. [14]
they found
fault. Not for
loudly and publicly challenging their teaching on the matter but for merely ignoring
to practice their religious standards.
They considered themselves the proper group to establish religious
practices and whoever dared do different was, automatically, a sinner. [rw]
7:3 Translations
Weymouth: (Omitted)
WEB: (For the
Pharisees, and all the Jews, don't eat unless they wash their hands and
forearms, holding to the tradition of the elders.
Young’s: for the
Pharisees, and all the Jews, if they do not wash the hands to the wrist, do not
eat, holding the tradition of the elders,
Conte (RC): For the
Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat without repeatedly washing their hands,
holding to the tradition of the elders.
7:3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews. The
term “all” is used in a restricted sense; for the Sadducees rejected tradition
entirely: but they were a small body of
men and had little influence with the people.
The masses were influenced by the Pharisees and kept the
traditions. [38]
Note the proof that Mark
wrote for Gentile readers in this explanation of the customs of the Jews. [48]
except they wash their hands oft [in a special way,
NKJV], eat not. Literally,
"with the fist." The
two interpretations now most generally adopted are: (1) Actually
"with the fist,” as a peculiar ceremony on such occasions. "Probably it was part of the rite, that
the washing hand was shut; because it might have been thought that the open
hand engaged in washing would make the other unclean, or be made unclean by it,
after having itself been
washed" (Lange). (2)
"Diligently,” thoroughly, in accordance with a Hebrew expression
which uses the fist as meaning strength.
But Mark is giving an explanation to Gentile readers and he would hardly
use a Hebrew expression. "Up to the
elbow” is an interpretation not a translation.
The literal sense is the correct one; but it conveys no meaning to the
ordinary reader without a long explanation.
[11]
holding the tradition of the elders. A phrase which shows that all these
regulations were looked upon as religious, not as sanitary regulations or
matters of social propriety. [35]
tradition. They
did not pretend to found the necessity of it on the written scripture. [25]
the elders. Their ancestors or perhaps
the Rabbis who had lived before them.
They [also claimed] that there had been a certain
unwritten tradition, coming down in the hands of certain men in each
generation. [25]
The Pharisees pretended
that this tradition had been orally delivered by God to Moses on Mount Sinai
and then transmitted orally down to their time.
These oral precepts were afterwards embodied in the Talmud. [39]
7:4 Translations
Weymouth: and when they
come from market they will not eat without bathing first; and they have a good
many other customs which they have received traditionally and cling to, such as
the rinsing of cups and pots and of bronze utensils, and the washing of beds.)
WEB: They
don't eat when they come from the marketplace, unless they bathe themselves,
and there are many other things, which they have received to hold to: washings
of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.
Young’s: and,
coming from the market-place, if they do not baptize themselves, they do not
eat; and many other things there are that they received to hold, baptisms of
cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and couches.
Conte (RC): And when
returning from the market, unless they wash, they do not eat. And there are
many other things which have been handed down to them to observe: the washings
of cups, and pitchers, and bronze containers, and beds.
7:4 And
when they come from the market [marketplace,
NKJV]. Where, in the
crowd, defilement might most easily be contracted. [23]
The Pharisaic handwashing was based on the fear that there might be
something on the hands that was ceremonially "unclean," which, in
eating his food, a man might swallow without knowing it, and so defile himself. [35]
Except they wash, they eat not. Mark evidently intends to assert something
that they did after coming from the market, which they did not on ordinary
occasions. The difference is very clear
in the original. The term rendered
“wash" in verse 3 is nipsontai, correctly so rendered, whereas the one
rendered "wash" in verse 4, is
baptisontai,
"they immerse themselves."
When we remember that [ritualized] bathing was a daily practice among
the Pharisees, we are less surprised at this observation. [38]
And many other
things there by, which they have received to hold. Be
it observed that such practices, though based only on “the tradition of the
elders,” might seem even to conscientious Israelites in the highest degree
laughable. It was a ceremonial conomy they lived under; and as one principal design of
this economy was to teach the difference between clean and unclean by external
symbols, it was natural to think that the more vividly and variously they could
bring this before their own minds, the more would they be falling in with the
spirit and following out the design of that economy. [11]
As the washing of cups and pots, brazen
[copper, NKJV] vessels, and of tables [couches, NKJV]. It
was not peculiar to the Pharisees to wash cups, pots, and brazen vessels; for
everybody does it yet. Surely Jesus did
not reproach them for keeping clean their drinking and cooking
vessels. But it was immersing them when
they needed no washing, immersing them for an imaginary religious
purification, for which He condemned them.
[38]
copper vessels. [Such] vessels appear to be mentioned because
earthen vessels, if polluted, were not purified by washing, but were broken. [48]
washing . . . of tables. Immersing
is the meaning of the word translated "washing” and such the
significance's of the practice. It is
objected to this that couches (incorrectly rendered “tables” in the [KJV] text)
could not have been immersed. Even
Alford affirms that the act “as applied to couches, were certainly not
immersions, but sprinklings or effusions of water." No reason is given to support this assertion,
and the only one implied is the assumption that couches could not be immersed,
but this is not true. They certainly could
be immersed and when the text declares that they were, this should be an end of
controversy. Nothing but the modern
practice of sprinkling for baptism, a practice which Alford himself admits was
not known to the apostles, could have suggested the thought of sprinkling in
this case. [38]
7:5 Translations
Weymouth: So the Pharisees
and Scribes put the question to Him: "Why do your disciples transgress the
traditions of the Elders, and eat their food with unclean hands?"
WEB: The
Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk
according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed
hands?"
Young’s: Then
question him do the Pharisees and the scribes,
'Wherefore do thy disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders,
but with unwashed hands do eat the bread?'
Conte (RC): And so the
Pharisees and the scribes questioned him: "Why do your disciples not walk
according to the tradition of the elders, but they eat bread with common
hands?"
7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, Why walk
not Thy disciples. How could He, for really they meant the
accusation for Him, professing to be a religious guide, allow His disciples to
regard these most sacred traditions? [45]
according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands.
They do not contest Him on the
ground of Scripture or any “thus sayeth the
Lord.” The fact that a
consensus of religious leaders have embraced a practice is regarded as
sufficient to require all others to follow it.
By such insistence, they raise their humanly invented traditions to the
level of Scriptural authority. [rw]
7:6 Translations
Weymouth: "Rightly
did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites," He replied; "as it is
written, "'This People honour Me
with their lips, while their hearts are far away from Me:
WEB: He
answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is
written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but
their heart is far from me.
Young’s: and he
answering said to them -- 'Well did Isaiah prophesy concerning you, hypocrites,
as it hath been written, This people with the lips doth honour
Me, and their heart is far from Me;
Conte (RC): But in
response, he said to them: "So well did Isaiah prophesy about you
hypocrites, just as it has been written: 'This people honors
me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7:6 He answered
and said unto them, Well hath Esaias [Isaiah,
NKJV] prophesied. He defended His disciples not by a
finely-drawn, hair-splitting distinction, such as their accusers were
accustomed to, in their own teachings and in the traditions of the elders, but
by bringing a direct charge against the Pharisees and scribes drawn from
prophecy, which showed that their accusation itself was proof that a
hollow-hearted hypocrisy underlay all their parade of strict religious
observances. [45]
Isaiah. [They required ceremonially washed hands by]
grafting their traditional precepts upon the letter of such commands as are
found in Isaiah (1:16), "Wash you, make you clean," unmindful of
those words which immediately follow:
"Put away the evil of your doings from before mine
eyes," or those of Jeremiah:
"Wash thine heart from
wickedness." [24]
of you. Appropriately did He describe a national
characteristic, common to their ancestors and to them. [44]
The meaning is not that
the Jews of Christ's time were the formal and direct theme of the prophecy, but
rather that in speaking of his own contemporaries, [Isaiah] drew an admirable
picture of their children in the time of Christ. [3]
As it is written. They
argue “tradition;” Jesus argues Scripture.
They say tradition obeying is obligatory; Jesus contends that loyalty to
Scripture is even more so. [rw]
This people honoureth
Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. The
words are found in Isaiah 29:13. [8]
Giving God honor with the lips is fine, but unless the heart actually
is committed to obeying Him as well, all the words of praise are but empty
rhetoric. The modern idiom is “words are
cheap.” They can also substitute for
actually doing anything to make the words come true. [rw]
7:7 Translations
Weymouth: But idle is
their devotion while they lay down precepts which are mere human rules.'
WEB: But in
vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
Young’s: and in
vain do they worship Me, teaching teachings, commands of men;
Conte (RC): And in vain
do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and precepts of men.'
7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship Me. No
religious service can be acceptable to God if He has not enjoined it, and even
a religious service which He has enjoined, can be acceptable to Him only if it
be performed out of regard to His authority, and not from any other motive. [24]
teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men. Begun as additions, they become substitutes;
and [ultimately] for "the precepts of men" there is claimed the same
reverence as for divine ordinances. [45]
7:8 Translations
Weymouth: "You
neglect God's Commandment: you hold fast to men's traditions."
WEB: "For
you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of
men--the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things."
Young’s: for,
having put away the command of God, ye hold the tradition of men, baptisms of
pots and cups; and many other such like things ye do.'
Conte (RC): For
abandoning the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men, to the
washing of pitchers and cups. And you do many other things similar to
these."
7:8 For laying aside the
commandment of God. He charges them not with addition but with
substitution. [23]
ye hold the tradition of men. "Men” as in contrast to "God,” implying that the “elders”
(verse 5) had no other than human authority. [11]
The elders are their
chief authority, not Moses or Jehovah. [23]
as the washing
of pots and cups: and many other such things ye do. These were only specimens of their
traditional requirements. [45]
It wasn’t as if there were only an isolated problem—the occasional
exception that might, perhaps, be best overlooked. “Many” shows that this had become commonplace,
everyday, ordinary: Wherever you turned,
you were going to run into the problem of human traditions being observed as if
they were Divinely given ordinances. [rw]
7:9 Translations
Weymouth: "Praiseworthy
indeed!" He added, "to set at nought God's Commandment in order to observe your own
traditions!
WEB: He said
to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may
keep your tradition.
Young’s: And he
said to them, 'Well do ye put away the command of God that your tradition ye
may keep;
Conte (RC): And he said
to them: "You effectively nullify the precept of God, so that you may
observe your own tradition.
7:9 And He said unto them, Full well [All too well,
NKJV] ye reject the commandment of God. Their
innovations might seem totally harmless to them—they were certainly intended
to be of benefit and to encourage loyalty to God—but the fact remained that
they put their own innovations on the same level of authority as that which God
had commanded through Moses and the prophets.
Because these were purely of human manufacture, following them
when they undermined the principles of the Old Testament meant an outright “reject[ion of] the commandment of God.” They had learned to substitute verbal loyalty
and rationalization to Torah for genuine obedience. [rw]
that ye may keep your own tradition. It is as though our Lord said, "Your
traditions are not instituted by God, or by His servants the prophets, but they
are modern inventions, which you desire to defend, not out of love or reverence
for them, but because you are the successors of those who invented them, and
arrogate to yourselves the power of adding to them and making similar new
traditions." [39]
7:10 Translations
Weymouth: For Moses
said, 'Honour thy father and thy mother' and again,
'He who curses father or mother, let him die the death.'
WEB: For Moses
said, 'Honor your father and your mother;' and, 'He who speaks evil of father
or mother, let him be put to death.'
Young’s: for Moses
said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, He who
is speaking evil of father or mother -- let him die the death;
Conte (RC): For Moses
said: 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever
will have cursed father or mother, let him die a death.'
7:10 For Moses said. Matthew: "For God said,” assuming that God spoke
through Moses in the law (Exodus 20:12).
[11]
To illustrate the validity of his accusation, He is now going to give
an example of the conduct that appalls Him. [rw]
Honor thy father and thy mother. Here
"honour" means not only reverence and love,
but support--as is clear from verse 12. [39]
And whoso curseth father or mother, let him die
the death. Thus Jesus recognized the Mosaic legislation
as the law of His Father; and not merely the milder parts of it, but even the
provision for the execution of the disobedient and insulting child. [23]
7:11 Translations
Weymouth: But *you*
say, 'If a man says to his father or mother, It is a Korban
(that is, a thing devoted to God)
WEB: But you
say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever profit you might
have received from me is Corban, that is to say,
given to God;"'
Young’s: and ye
say, If a man may say to father or to mother, Korban
(that is, a gift), is whatever thou mayest be
profited out of mine,
Conte (RC): But you say,
'If a man will have said to his father or mother: Korban,
(which is a gift) whatever is from me will be to your benefit,'
7:11 But ye say. If
the language of sermons be vague and general, if it do not apply clearly and
directly to our own times, our own ways of life, and habits of thought and
action, men [avoid] its [teaching] with a wonderful dexterity; and, keeping
their practices safe out of reach, they deceive themselves by their willingness
to hear [the Biblical message] (6:20), and by their acquiescence and even
delight in it (Ezekiel 33:3-6; Romans 7:22).
[24]
If a man shall say to his father or mother. It
didn’t matter which. Especially in an
age when widowhood was so often extremely difficult, to try to get out of one’s
obligations to one’s mother should have been regarded as especially
horrendous. [rw]
It is Corban, that is to say, a
gift by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
he shall be free. This extraordinary practice
defended by the Pharisees, by which a man might by applying the term "Corban" (properly signifying that it was devoted to
God), in reality simply exclude
it from the use of a particular person, is well authenticated in Jewish
writings. [44]
The "Corban" gives no real consecration to God in such a
case: it is only a fictitious
arrangement for releasing him from a duty that has become irksome. Thus the tradition of men enables them to
annul or virtually repeal the commandment of God. [23]
This “out” for an obligation would be
especially useful for a synagogue leader whose prestigious member had to choose
between helping kin and funding a promised improvement to the synagogue or gift
to the Temple. In other words, such
pledges might grow out of not just a warped personal spiritual mind, but also out
of the self-centered mentality of a “leader” whose synagogue would be
especially benefited. After all, was not
the gift to “glorify God”? How could
that possibly be wrong? [rw]
7:12 Translations
Weymouth: And so you no longer allow him to do anything for his father
or mother,
WEB: then you
no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother,
Young’s: and no
more do ye suffer him to do anything for his father or for his mother,
Conte (RC): then you do
not release him to do anything for his father or mother,
7:12 And ye suffer him no more [you
no longer let him, NKJV]. Not
only not require him, but forbade him to do anything for his parents. [44]
Strangely enough they
did not insist that he should in any practical way [actually] devote [or give
it] to God. He could keep it and use it
for himself just as before. Thus in putting
a strained emphasis on the sacredness of the vow, they set aside the plain duty
to care for one's parents. [35]
Alternative
interpretation: Not necessarily
that they actively forbade it, but their teachings virtually permitted him to
neglect his father and mother altogether.
This is the comment of our Lord, not the language of the
Pharisees. [11]
To do ought [anything, NKJV] for
his father or his mother. In other words it could apply to any
kind or degree of commitment either morally required or which had already been previously
agreed to. God is always to be put
before family, but God is never to be used as a pretext for avoiding
one’s proper obligations either. [rw]
7:13 Translations
Weymouth: thus
nullifying God's precept by your tradition which you have handed down. And many
things of that kind you do."
WEB: making
void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many
things like this."
Young’s: setting
aside the word of God for your tradition that ye delivered; and many such like
things ye do.'
Conte (RC): rescinding
the word of God through your tradition, which you have handed down. And you do
many other similar things in this way."
7:13 Making the
word of God. i.e., concerning the command to honor
one's parents. [44]
Thus Jesus recognizes
the Mosaic legislation as the law of His Father and not merely the milder parts
of it, but even the provision for the execution of the disobedient and
insulting child. [23]
of no effect. The [Greek] word is found in the New
Testament only in this discourse and in Galatians 3:17; it means "to
deprive of authority or lordship," and so, of a law, "to
annul." It implies more than
neglect: it tells of actual
nullification. [23]
through your tradition, which ye have delivered [which you have
handed down, NKJV]. Somehow one expects that this did not begin
as draconian a measure as it had become or as all encompassing. One “small” deviation from God’s will—even
when enjoined by theologians or their equivalent—easily becomes the precedent
to take the error even further. Thus the
situation is today and no doubt has always been. [rw]
And many such like things do ye. This was but a
specimen; other commandments were set aside in a similar manner. [45]
Their traditions affected “many” matters and
not just this alone. Jesus presumably
chose this example because it was particularly blatant and the injustice of it
would ring in the ears of just about any listener. Accepting it did not hinge upon theological
sophistication or advanced education, only upon family affection and loyalty. [rw]
7:14 Translations
Weymouth: Then Jesus
called the people to Him again. "Listen to me, all of you," He said,
"and understand.
WEB: He called
all the multitude to himself, and said to them,
"Hear me, all of you, and understand.
Young’s: And having called near all the multitude, he said to them,
'Hearken to me, ye all, and understand;
Conte (RC): And again,
calling the crowd to him, he said to them: "Listen to me, all of you, and
understand.
7:14 And when He had called all
the people [multitude, NKJV] to Him. The verb (proskaleo)
here used implies that the multitude were elsewhere, or at least so removed
from Him by distance or inattention, most probably the former, as to be no part
of His audience until they were called to Him.
[45]
He said unto them, Hearken unto me.
Give close attention; I am about to make a statement, which at once
deserves and requires attention. [24]
The question of
defilement had given rise to the broader one of human tradition and divine authority. Jesus calls them back now to the particular
question of defilement. [44]
every one of you.
Hence this applies to all of God’s
people and not just to those claiming to be its leaders. [rw]
and understand. Give intelligent attention not
merely to My words but to their meaning. [3]
7:15 Translations
Weymouth: There is
nothing outside a man which entering him can make him unclean; but it is the
things which come out of a man that make him unclean."
WEB: There is
nothing from outside of the man, that going into him can defile him; but the
things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.
Young’s: there is
nothing from without the man entering into him that is able to defile him, but
the things coming out from him, those are the things defiling the man.
Conte (RC): There is
nothing from outside a man which, by entering into him, is able to defile him.
But the things which procede from a man, these are
what pollute a man.
7:15 There is nothing from without a man that entering, that entering into him can
defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile. The contrast, as the context shows, is
between physical food that goes into the man and moral action which proceeds
from him. [44]
The Levitical law (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14) distinguished
between clean and unclean meat, what would and what would not defile the
eater. The primary object of this legal
distinction was not, a has been often asserted, to keep the Israelites separate
from other nations, although this may have been a secondary goal (Acts
10:14-15), but as distinctly declared, to teach and impress upon them the idea
of moral purity, holiness; for in this immediate connection God uttered twice
the injunction: "Ye shall be holy,
for I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44-45).
Jesus does not mean here to set aside this law, which would continue to
the end of the ceremonial dispensation; but He teaches that the ceremonial
defilement, contracted by eating what was forbidden, did not carry with it moral
defilement. [45]
7:16 Translations
Weymouth: (Omitted)
WEB: If anyone
has ears to hear, let him hear!"
Young’s: If any
hath ears to hear -- let him hear.'
Conte (RC): Whoever has
ears to hear, let him hear."
7:16 If anyone has ears to hear,
let him hear. This is a proverbial form of expression,
calling attention to matters of great import, frequently used by our Lord (Mark
4:9, 23; 7:16; Matthew 11:15; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29, etc.). [45]
7:17 Translations
Weymouth: After He had left the crowd and gone indoors, His disciples
began to ask Him about this figure of speech.
WEB: When he
had entered into a house away from the multitude, his disciples asked him about
the parable.
Young’s: And when he entered into a house from the multitude, his
disciples were questioning him about the simile,
Conte (RC): And when he
had entered into the house, away from the crowd, his disciples questioned him
about the parable.
7:17 And when He was entered into
the house from the people. On other occasions, for example, when He
spoken the parables by the seaside (4:10, 34), He explained His teachings in
private to His disciples. [45]
His disciples asked Him. From Matthew we learn that the
questioner was Peter (Matthew 15:15).
Mark omits the name of the person, perhaps in deference to Peter's
feeling. [8]
conerning the parable. So they regarded the words
uttered in the hearing of the multitude, and which deeply offended the
Pharisees (Matthew 15:12). [8]
7:18 Translations
Weymouth: "Have
*you* also so little understanding?" He replied; "do you not
understand that anything whatever that enters a man from outside cannot make
him unclean,
WEB: He said
to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that
whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him,
Young’s: and he saith to them, 'So also ye are without understanding! Do ye
not perceive that nothing from without entering into the man is able to defile
him?
Conte (RC): And he said
to them: "So, are you also without prudence? Do you not understand that
everything entering to a man from outside is not able to pollute him?
7:18 And He saith unto them,
Are ye so without understanding also? He
understood how others would have trouble grasping some of His teaching, but
these were His apostles, His inner group, and they had already gone out
teaching on His behalf. Hence He
expected them to comprehend these matters easier than outsiders. [rw]
Do ye not perceive. Jesus
appeals to the moral perceptions, the common-sense of the disciples, and that
as against not only the traditions of the elders but the statutes of the Old
Testament law (cf. vs. 19). The fact is
one of the greatest significance. It
shows, not only that Jesus had within Himself a standard of authority in morals
higher than that of the Old Testament--and one by which this latter was to be
tested--but that this standard was shared, though with far less clearness of
perception, by other men. [44]
That whatsoever thing from without entereth
into the man, it cannot defile him.
To those who gave disproportionate
authority to human figures—scribes, Pharisees, and the such like—this was not
an easy concept to grasp. Not coming
from within their type of mind frame, it is far easier for us to understand,
however. On the other hand, what of
contemporary theology that sometimes seems to stand “scripture on its head” as
prominent preachers and theologians happily advocate ideas that seem directly
contradictory to the text(s) they are working from? How easy do we find it to conclude that they
might also be arrogating similar unwarranted authority to themselves? [rw]
7:19 Translations
Weymouth: because it
does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and passes away ejected from
him?" By these words Jesus pronounced all kinds of food clean.
WEB: because
it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus
purifying all foods?"
Young’s: because it
doth not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it doth
go out, purifying all the meats.'
Conte (RC): For it does
not enter into his heart, but into the gut, and it exits into the sewer,
purging all foods."
7:19 because it entereth
not into his heart.
Does not reach or affect the
mind, the soul, and consequently cannot pollute it. Even if it should affect the body, yet it
cannot the soul, and consequently cannot need to be cleansed by a religious
ordinance. [42]
but into the
belly [his stomach, NKJV] and goeth out into the
draught [is eliminated]. It should be obvious that physical foods do
not have any direct impact on our spiritual nature, only moral matters do. Hence the propriety of
eliminating foods as a source that will make us “unclean.” Ritually certain foods might do so,
but spiritually, never. And
Jesus’ foes seemed far more concerned with the former and too little about the
latter. [rw]
purging all
meats [thus purifying all foods, NKJV]. This
phrase is difficult, if not obscure.
Alford, Meyer, Weiss, and others, connect it
with draught and make it refer to the purifying or removal of the useless
portion of the food from the body. But
there is a grammatical difficulty in this view.
The revisers, following an old explanation, add: “This he saith,
making all meats clean.” Chrysostom early suggested this interpretation, and it is accepted by
Scrivener, Ellicott, and Plumptre. [8]
However: Compare Acts 10:14-15; Romans 14:14. An objection to this interpretation, however,
may be found in the fact that Jesus did not during His ministry abrogate the
ceremonial system, and it would be incongruous to abrogate this single element
in it. [45]
There is a profound difference between immediately
eliminating ceremonial defilement and preparing their minds with a rationale
and justification for when that did occur. [rw]
7:20 Translations
Weymouth: "What
comes out of a man," He added, "that it is which makes him unclean.
WEB: He said,
"That which proceeds out of the man, that defiles
the man.
Young’s: And he
said -- 'That which is coming out from the man, that doth defile the man;
Conte (RC): "But,"
he said "the things which go out from a man, these pollute a man.
7:20 And He said, That which cometh
out of the man. The idea throughout is that ethical
defilement is alone of importance, all other defilement, whether the subject of
Mosaic ceremonial legislation or of scribal tradition, a trivial affair. Jesus here is a critic of Moses as well as of
the scribes and introduces a religious revolution. [17]
that defileth the man. Defilement
is “home grown.”
To whatever degree it exists, it is a product of our own actions,
thoughts, and attitudes. Jesus puts the element of personal responsibility front and center,
rather than permitting the rogue to hide behind a veneer of “proper” external
ritual and dietetic consumption.
[rw]
7:21 Translations
Weymouth: For from within, out of men's hearts, their evil purposes
proceed--fornication, theft, murder, adultery,
WEB: For from
within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual
sins, murders, thefts,
Young’s: for from
within, out of the heart of men, the evil reasonings
do come forth, adulteries, whoredoms, murders,
Conte (RC): For from
within, from the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications,
murders,
7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men proceed. Sin
is always committed in the heart before it appears outwardly. There is no sin without the love of ourselves; as there is no good work without the love of God. [20]
Thirteen forms of evil
are here noticed as proceeding from the heart.
The first seven in the plural number, are predominant actions,
the plural possibly indicating either the multitude of them, or the variety of
forms under which each sin is committed.
The latter six, in the singular, are dispositions. The change to singular may be for euphony;
there seems to be nothing in the nature of the sins calling for it. Compare the blending of the singular and
plural in Paul's enumeration of the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21). [8]
evil thoughts. The word is a compound one and refers rather
to thought as organized and connected, rather to trains of thought than to
single thoughts. These evil thoughts
defile as truly and deeply as evil deeds; yet not so that the deed will add
nothing to the guilt. So in Matthew
5:27-28: the deliberate thought of
adultery is adultery is the heart. [23]
adulteries, fornications, murders. The
one fact concerning them to which our Lord would especially call attention is
that they come forth from the heart; these outward deeds are really inward
deeds, and are to be judged not solely from their outward effect, their effect
upon society, but as expressions of the inward man. Coming forth, they reveal the source from
which they sprang. [23]
adulteries. Violations of the marriage vow. [8]
fornications. Violations of chastity by
unmarried persons. [8]
murders. Malicious homicides, placed first by Matthew
(15:19). [3]
A highly appropriate item for inclusion due to the way He Himself would
be unjustly railroaded to death. [rw]
7:22 Translations
Weymouth: covetousness,
wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, reviling, pride, reckless folly:
WEB: covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil
eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness.
Young’s: thefts,
covetous desires, wickedness, deceit, arrogance, an evil eye, evil speaking,
pride, foolishness;
Conte (RC): thefts,
avarice, wickedness, deceitfulness, homosexuality, an evil eye, blasphemy, self-exaltation,
foolishness.
7:22 Thefts.
Including in later Greek
usage both stealing and robberies; and according to our Saviour's
interpretation of the wide-reaching character of the law, it includes all
violations of the eighth commandment, every shade and degree of stealing. [45]
covetousness. The usage of the Greek word shows that it includ[es] both greedy covetous desires, and plans and purposes of
fraud and extortion. We may understand
Jesus as including violations of the tenth commandment. [45]
wickedness. The word used (poneria) means malignity in action and not merely in
thought. [23]
It denotes the active
working of evil, or, as Jeremy Taylor explains it, an "aptness to do
shrewd turns, to delight in mischief and tragedies; a love to trouble our neighbour and to do him ill offices; crossness,
perverseness, and peevishness of action in our [relations with
others]."--Trench. [8]
deceit. Fraud, including all forms
of dishonesty not [included] under “theft.” [3]
lasciviousness
[lewdness, NKJV]. The word, in classic Greek,
denotes all excess and extravagance, and in later writers, lust. In the New Testament it is generally
translated “lasciviousness,” as here and 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19;
Ephesians 4:19; 1 Peter 4:3; 2 Peter 2:18; sometimes (2) “wantoness,”
as in Romans 13:13. [8]
Licentiousness,
wantonness, or unbridleness. A word that can scarcely be
referred to any special form of sin.
It is rather to the underlying thought or temper of the heart by which
many sins are made possible and easy. It
is not unchastity alone, it
is rather the recklessness of spirit that opens the way to unchastity
and to many another sin. [23]
an evil eye. A malicious, mischief-working eye, with the meaning of positive,
injurious activity. [53]
It is a natural impulse to attribute envy in
action to the circumstances that have aroused it and to blame the object of our
envy rather than ourselves, but our Lord was plainly right in tracing it to the
heart. [23]
blasphemy. Blasphemy
is not merely the speaking profanely against God as one might infer from the
modern usage. The Scriptural usage is
broader: it is evil-speaking in general,
defamation, slander, railing. So it is used in Ephesians 4:31; 1 Timothy
6:4. In the Epistles, the word refers
oftener to evil-speaking against men than to what we call blasphemy, profanity
toward God. [23]
pride. Pride
is the false and extravagant estimate of one's self by which all the thoughts
and conduct of the life are put upon a false basis. With pride dominant in the heart, no thought
about one's self is correct and truthful and hence no comparison of one's self
with others can be just and no true recognition will be made of the claims of
God. Pride is the omnipresent poisoner of motive, vitiator of
judgment, murderer of virtue; and its seat is in the heart. [23]
foolishness. Senselessness, unreasoning folly, in thought, as well as in the
words and acts which result. [11]
The
lack of true wisdom or, rather, the state and character that result when true
wisdom is absent. [23]
7:23 Translations
Weymouth: all these
wicked things come out from within and make a man unclean."
WEB: All these
evil things come from within, and defile the man."
Young’s: all these
evils do come forth from within, and they defile the man.'
Conte (RC): All these
evils procede from within and pollute a man."
7:23 All these evil things come
from within. He has declared man to be self-defiled, the
fountain of his own uncleanness. Nor
does He leave any one at liberty to say that the defiling power resides either
in acts alone or in thoughts alone; for He has dragged to the light both
sins of action and sins of thought.
By no conceivable utterance could our Lord have made a deeper or more
irreparable break with the Pharisees and the whole spirit of their teaching. [23]
and defile the man. The evil that men do, their
evil thoughts and deeds, do not simply show their wickedness, but defile
them, make them wicked. Men are not,
then, the helpless victims of evil hearts born in them, but the creators of
their own evil characters. What Jesus is
emphasizing is that a man is not made sinful by eating something that is
ceremonially unclean, but by thinking and doing what is morally
wrong. [35]
7:24 Translations
Weymouth: Then He rose
and left that place and went into the neighbourhood
of Tyre and Sidon. Here He
entered a house and wished no one to know it, but He could not escape
observation.
WEB: From
there he arose, and went away into the borders of Tyre
and Sidon. He entered into a house, and didn't want
anyone to know it, but he couldn't escape notice.
Young’s: And from
thence having risen, he went away to the borders of Tyre
and Sidon, and having entered into the house, he
wished none to know, and he was not able to be hid,
Conte (RC): And rising
up, he went from there to the area of Tyre and Sidon. And entering into a house, he intended no one to
know about it, but he was not able to remain hidden.
7:24 And
from thence He arose and went into the borders
[region, NKJV] of Tyre and Sidon. In order to devote Himself entirely to His disciples, Jesus leaves the Jewish
country, where new attacks were always being made upon Him, and crossing the
western border in the neighborhood of Tyre, enters a
house. Mark places this episode at a
moment when Jesus by His actions could confirm the principles just enunciated
by Him, in reference to clean and unclean things. He does not regard Himself as defiled, as the
Jews would have done, by entering into the house of a heathen, which is really
not forbidden anywhere in the law of God.
[22]
Both these cities were
renowned for their extensive commerce and for their wealth. St. Mark (3:8) has already informed us that
His fame had spread to those about Tyre and Sidon. [39]
Tyre. Tyre and Sidon were the chief cities [of Phoenicia]. Tyre is about
thirty-five miles, in an air line, northwest from the Sea of Galilee. [35]
Hiram, King of Tyre, sent cedar wood and workmen to David and afterwards
to Solomon (2 Samuel 5:11; 1 Kings 9:11-14; 10:22). Ahab married a daughter of Ithobal, King of Tyre (1 Kings
16:31). It was besieged by
Nebuchadnezzar; captured by Alexander the Great, after seven months' siege, but
became again a
populous and thriving city in the time of Christ. Strabo gives an
account of it at this period, and speaks of the great wealth which it derived
from the production of the celebrated Tyrian purple. [8]
It was celebrated for
wealth, manufactures, commerce, and purple dye.
[24]
Sidon. It is about twenty-five miles north of Tyre. [24]
Both [cities are
located] on the Mediterranean coast. [35]
It is mentioned in the
Old Testament (Genesis 10:19; Joshua 11:8; Judges 1:31), and in ancient times
was more influential even than Tyre, though from the
time of Solomon it appears to have been subordinate to it. Homer has many allusions to the skill of the Sidonians and Herodotus speaks of its kings and ships. The city was captured by Alexander the Great,
B.C. 333. The ruins of the ancient city
are extensive. [8]
And
entered into an house, and would have no man know it. Equals = He attempted to keep it a
secret. [rw]
This remark shows that Jesus had not gone
into this Gentile region for the purpose of preaching and working
miracles. He was doubtless aiming to
give a large amount of private instruction to the twelve. [38]
but He could not be hid. The best intentioned of plans do not always work out the way we would
prefer. If that could be the case with
Jesus upon occasion, why should we think it odd if it happens to us as
well? [rw]
7:25 Translations
Weymouth: Forthwith a
woman whose little daughter was possessed by a foul spirit heard of Him, and
came and flung herself at His feet.
WEB: For a
woman, whose little daughter had an unclean spirit, having heard of him, came
and fell down at his feet.
Young’s: for a
woman having heard about him, whose little daughter had an unclean spirit,
having come, fell at his feet, --
Conte (RC): For a woman whose daughter had an unclean spirit, as soon as she
heard about him, entered and fell prostrate at his feet.
7:25 For a certain woman whose
young daughter had an unclean spirit. Such
possession was, therefore, not confined to Jews. [11]
heard about Him. She had learned of His casting out demons,
and as soon as she heard of His presence in her town or neighborhood, she came
to ask Him to release her daughter from the power of an unclean spirit. [45]
and came and fell at His feet. In deep reverence, showing,
too, her great earnestness in [making] the request. [45]
7:26 Translations
Weymouth: She was a
Gentile woman, a Syro-phoenician by nation: and again
and again she begged Him to expel the demon from her daughter.
WEB: Now the
woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by race. She
begged him that he would cast the demon out of her daughter.
Young’s: and the
woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phenician by nation -- and
was asking him, that the demon he may cast forth out of her daughter.
Conte (RC): For the
woman was a Gentile, by birth a Syro-Phoenician. And
she petitioned him, so that he would cast the demon from her daughter.
7:26 The
woman was a Greek. The term “Greek” is here used, as it was
frequently by the Jews, in the sense of Gentile (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:24). After Alexander's conquests, when all the world was in subjection to the Greeks, the Jews
divided the world politically into Jews and Greeks. [38]
a Syro-Phoenician
by birth. [The] region [was] so named to
distinguish the Phoenicia which was in Syria from the district in northern
Africa. [14]
Matthew speaks of her as
a Canaanitish woman (cf. Matthew 15:22). The terms Phoenicia and Canaan are sometimes
used interchangeable to denote the coastlands of Palestine, especially from Carmel
northward (Isaiah 23:11 and the Tel Amarna tablets),
though Canaan more frequently denotes the whole of western Palestine, from
Lebanon to the Dead Sea. [44]
And she besought him that He would cast forth the devil out
of her daughter. The fact that the affliction was recognized
as demonic in nature argues that the symptoms were of such a nature that they
could not reasonably be confused with those of natural disease. [rw]
7:27 Translations
Weymouth: "Let the
children first eat all they want," He said; "it is not right to take
the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." "Let the children
first eat all they want," He said; "it is not right to take the
children's bread and throw it to the dogs."
WEB: But Jesus
said to her, "Let the children be filled first,
for it is not appropriate to take the children's bread and throw it to the
dogs."
Young’s: And Jesus
said to her, 'Suffer first the children to be filled, for it is not good to
take the children's bread, and to cast it to the little dogs.'
Conte (RC): And he said
to her: "First allow the sons to have their fill. For it is not good to
take away the bread of the sons and throw it to the dogs."
7:27 But Jesus said unto her. This our Saviour said to test the woman's faith. The Jews were the children of the kingdom;
this woman was of the Gentiles, whom the Jews denominated heathen and dogs. [24]
Let the children first be filled. By
the word “first” He quietly conveys a promise and suggests the principle of
Romans 1:16--"to the Jew first and also the Greek,” or Gentile--but there
was no immediate fulfillment even hinted at for the Gentile. [23]
Our Lord
makes at first as though He would refuse her request; and yet it is not an
absolute denial. There might be hope for
her when the children were filled. Thus
Christ oftentimes deals with holy souls, namely, by humbling and mortifying
them when they desire anything at His hands, in order that with yet greater
importunity and humility they may seek and obtain it. St. Chrysostom
says, “Whether we obtain that which we seek for, or whether we obtain it not,
let us ever persevere in prayer. And let
us give thanks, not only if we obtain but even if we fail to obtain. For when God denies us anything, it is no
less a favour than if He granted it; for we know not
as He does what is most expedient for us."
[39]
For it is not meet [good, NKJV] to
take the children’s bread, and cast it unto the dogs. In
the original the diminutive is used, “little dogs.” The Jews, “the children of the kingdom” (Matthew
8:12) were wont to designate the heathen as “dogs,” the noble characteristics
of which animal are seldom brought out in Scripture (compare Deuteronomy 23:18;
Job 30:1; 2 Kings 8:13; Philippians 3:2; Revelation 22:15). The Syrian dog is a howling scavenger, and
not the companion of man, as the dog is among us. Here, however, the term is somewhat
softened. Alexander thinks the heathen
are compared to the small dogs in the house, not to the great wild dogs
infesting Eastern towns; but the dog was an unclean animal to the Jews and not
kept as with us. If He was in heathen
territory, as inferred above, the expression would still more naturally refer
to the Jewish designation of heathen, and, therefore, not convey the “revolting
harshness” which Alexander supposes. [8]
7:28 Translations
Weymouth: "True,
Sir," she replied, "and yet the dogs under the table eat the
children's scraps."
WEB: But she
answered him, "Yes, Lord. Yet even the dogs under the table eat the
children's crumbs."
Young’s: And she answered and saith to him,
'Yes, sir; for the little dogs also under the table do eat of the children's
crumbs.'
Conte (RC): But she
responded by saying to him: "Certainly, Lord. Yet the young dogs also eat,
under the table, from the crumbs of the children."
7:28 And she answered and said
unto Him. Some would be so embarrassed by the refusal
as to wander off quietly. Others (today
at least) might argue that it was their “right” to be healed and how dare He
not do it! Others might plead for
pity. She chooses a different tack, one
that shows she had a good brain and was quite willing to use it. [rw]
Yes, Lord.
She agrees that the principle is
sound but appeals to a universally recognizable exception. [rw]
Yet the dogs [little dogs, NKJV]
under the table eat of the children's crumbs. The
dogs do not get ignored. Because they do
not get priority does not mean that they get nothing at all. [rw]
"One crumb of power from Thy
table shall cast the devil out of my daughter." O what lightning-quickness, what reach of
instinctive ingenuity, do we behold in this woman. [43]
7:29 Translations
Weymouth: "For
those words of yours, go home," He replied; "the demon has gone out
of your daughter."
WEB: He said
to her, "For this saying, go your way. The demon has gone out of your
daughter."
Young’s: And he
said to her, 'Because of this word go; the demon hath gone forth out of thy
daughter;'
Conte (RC): And he said
to her, "Because of this saying, go; the demon has gone out of your
daughter."
7:29 And He said unto to her.
"O woman, great is thy faith:
be it unto thee even as thou wilt" (Matthew 15:28). [45]
For this saying go thy way. There were two notable examples of faith found
in heathen persons and commended by Jesus:
this woman and the centurion. [8]
the devil has gone out of thy daughter. That
moment the deed was done. [43]
This is an instance of a cure effected at a
distance; other instances are (1) the nobleman's son at Capernaum (John
4:46); (2) the centurion's servant (Luke
7:6). [8]
7:30 Translations
Weymouth: So she went home, and found the child lying on the bed, and the
demon gone.
WEB: She went
away to her house, and found the child having been laid on the bed, with the
demon gone out.
Young’s: and having
come away to her house, she found the demon gone forth, and the daughter laid upon the couch.
Conte (RC): And when she
had gone to her house, she found the girl lying on the bed; and the demon had
gone away.
7:30 And when she was come to her house. Not doubting the word of Jesus, she returned
to find it according to her faith. [45]
she found the devil gone out. Whatever physical phenomena it manifested
was no longer present, as she could verify by her own eyes. What had happened when the demon left would
have to be learned from whoever was keeping an eye on the child. [rw]
and her
daughter laid upon the bed.
Demons, when expelled from persons, sometimes threw them into
convulsions and left them in an extremely prostrate condition (cf. 1:26;
9:26). Such was the case with this girl,
who had probably been lifted from the floor and placed on the bed before her
mother came in. [38]
7:31 Translations
Weymouth: Returning
from the neighbourhood of Tyre,
He came by way of Sidon to the Lake of Galilee,
passing through the district of the Ten Towns.
WEB: Again he
departed from the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and came to the sea of
Galilee, through the midst of the region of Decapolis.
Young’s: And again, having gone forth from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the
sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis,
Conte (RC): And again,
departing from the borders of Tyre, he went by way of
Sidon to the sea of Galilee,
through the midst of the area of the Ten Cities.
7:31 And again, departing from
the coasts [region, NKJV] of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the Sea of Galilee, through the midst
of the coasts of Decapolis. The
direction of the journey was first northward toward Lebanon; thence from the
foot of Lebanon north-easterly, and back through the district of Decapolis, that is back through the region which lay to the
east, or the farther side of the Jordan, to the eastern bank of the Sea of
Galilee. [24]
It was
almost entirely outside of Jewish territory, and was not a preaching tour, but,
doubtless, like the journey from Galilee northward (verse 24), for quiet and
rest. If Jesus took the road going east
from Sidon, He crossed the Lebanon and anti-Lebanon
mountains, and passed on toward Damascus, then south, and finally west to the
Sea of Galilee. If He followed the road
leading southeast from Sidon, He went to Cesarea Philippi, thence southeast, and then southwest
toward the sea, passing through the midst of the Decapolis. [35]
7:32 Translations
Weymouth: Here they
brought to Him a deaf man that stammered, on whom they begged Him to lay His
hands.
WEB: They
brought to him one who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech. They
begged him to lay his hand on him.
Young’s: and they
bring to him a deaf, stuttering man, and they call on him that he may put the
hand on him.
Conte (RC): And they
brought someone who was deaf and mute to him. And they begged him, so that he
would lay his hand upon him.
7:32 Then they bring unto Him.
This incident probably took place on Jesus' return into the vicinity of
the Sea of Galilee; there is nothing to show that the man was a gentile. [35]
one that was deaf. How he lost his hearing is not
stated, but disease of the ears or some accident that affected his ears, may
have been the cause. [32]
and had an impediment in his speech. Had
he been born deaf, he would not have been able to speak at all. He must, therefore, at one time have heard
with more or less distinctness. [32]
and they
beseech [begged, NKJV] Him to put His
hand upon him. This is
one of the few instances where the friends of the sufferer brought the sick man
to Christ. So the paralytic was borne of
four (Mark 2:3-5); the blind man of Bethsaida was
also led to Jesus (Mark
8:22-26. [9]
7:33 Translations
Weymouth: So Jesus
taking him aside, apart from the crowd, put His fingers into his ears, and
spat, and moistened his tongue;
WEB: He took
him aside from the multitude, privately, and put his fingers into his ears, and
he spat, and touched his tongue.
Young’s: And having taken him away from the multitude by himself, he
put his fingers to his ears, and having spit, he touched his tongue,
Conte (RC): And taking
him away from the crowd, he put his fingers into his ears; and spitting, he
touched his tongue.
7:33 And He took him aside from the multitude. Jesus
was still aiming to preserve a good degree of privacy; hence His withdrawal
from the multitude when about to heal this man and His subsequent charge to the
man's friends, “that they should tell no man" (verse 36). [38]
Alternative
interpretations: He had cured other
"dumb" persons in the presence of this multitude (Matthew 15:30);
why, then, did He go aside to perform this miracle in private--that is, we may
suppose in the presence of the twelve
and the particular friends of the sufferer (verse 36)? Several reasons may be assigned, one or all
of which may have led to this course.
Those who brought the men may have desired an ostentatious display of
His power, “seeking after a sign,” a spirit which Jesus neither festered nor
tolerated. He did not come as a worker
of wonders. Quiet and unostentatious, He
would not strive nor cry, neither should His voice be heard in the street
(Matthew 12:19); but He would make the basis of His success, yea, of the
success of His religion in the world, the truth. Again:
Since the miracles of healing were often, if not always accompanied by
the bestowment of salvation (cf. 2:5; 5:15, 34), this withdrawing from the
multitude may have had reference to the man's spiritual state. [45]
And put His fingers
into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue. The purpose of all this is hidden from us,
but perhaps we shall not err if we suppose that these different actions of
Christ were designed to strengthen the faith of the deaf man. He could not hear, therefore if he were to be
encouraged at all, it had to be by touch; and so the Saviour
touched alike his ears and his tongue. [32]
He spit, and touched his tongue. On what, the tongue of the dumb man as on the eyes of the blind
(8:23)? So
Meyer. Or on His
own finger, with which He then touched the tongue? So Weiss, Schanz, Kloster, Holts, Koil. [17]
Or: The natural inference is that He spit on the
ground. [38]
7:34 Translations
Weymouth: and looking up to Heaven He sighed, and said to him, "Ephphatha!" (that is, "Open!")
WEB: Looking
up to heaven, he sighed, and said to him, "Ephphatha!"
that is, "Be opened!"
Young’s: and having
looked to the heaven, he sighed, and saith to him, 'Ephphatha,' that is, 'Be thou opened;'
Conte (RC): And gazing
up to heaven, he groaned and said to him: "Ephphatha,"
which is, "Be opened."
7:34 And looking up to heaven. To
indicate that this was an act that depended upon a heavenly power--an act, indeed,
of Heaven upon the earth. [23]
This upturned look, expressive of an act of
prayer, occurs also (1) in the blessing of the five loaves and two fishes
(Matthew 14:19; Mark 6:41); (2) at the raising of Lazarus (John 11:41); and (3)
before the great high-priestly prayer for the apostles (John 17:1).8
He sighed. Perhaps in sorrow over the vast
multitude of human sufferers who would have to suffer on without having Him
present to relieve them; or perhaps in [quiet, nonverbal] supplication to His
Father. [32]
and saith unto him, “Ephphata,” that is,
Be opened. The actual
Aramaic word used by our Lord, like the "Talitha
cum" or "cumi" in Mark 5:41. [8]
7:35 Translations
Weymouth: And the man's
ears were opened, and his tongue became untied, and he began to speak
perfectly.
WEB: Immediately
his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue was released, and he
spoke clearly.
Young’s: and
immediately were his ears opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed, and
he was speaking plain.
Conte (RC): And
immediately his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue was
released, and he spoke correctly.
7:35 And straightway
[immediately, NKJV] his ears were opened, and the string [impediment, NKJV] of
his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain [plainly,
NKJV]. Christ first
opened his ears, then [healed] his tongue, because we must hear well before we
can speak well (Job 32:6-7; Proverbs 15:2; James 1:19). [24]
7:36 Translations
Weymouth: Then Jesus
charged them to tell no one; but the more He charged them, all the more did
they spread the news far and wide.
WEB: He
commanded them that they should tell no one, but the more he commanded them, so
much the more widely they proclaimed it.
Young’s: And he charged them that they may tell no one, but the more
he was charging them, the more abundantly they were proclaiming it,
Conte (RC): And he
instructed them not to tell anyone. But as much as he instructed them, so much
more did they preach about it.
7:36 And He charged [commanded, NKJV] them. The
word is a strong one: "He gave them
clear and positive orders." [39]
that they
should tell no man. During
this entire period, He was seeking for seclusion and wished to escape all
popular notice.14
The injunction seems to
have been given both to the deaf and dumb man and to those who brought him. [39]
Into this very region He
had sent the man out of whom had been cast the legion of devils to
proclaim "what the Lord had done
for him" (5:19). Now He will have
them "tell no man." But in the former case, there was no danger
of obstructing His ministry by “blazing the matter” as He Himself had left the
region; whereas now He was sojourning in it.
[43]
But the more He charged
[commanded, NKJV] them,
so much the more a great deal they published it [widely they proclaimed it,
NKJV]. By a singular, but very common freak
of human nature, the more He charged them to keep the cure a secret, “the more
a great deal they published it."
His very anxiety to avoid publicity made Him the more wonderful in their
eyes and inspired them with a greater desire to sound His praise abroad. [38]
7:37 Translations
Weymouth: The amazement
was extreme. "He succeeds in everything he attempts," they exclaimed;
"he even makes deaf men hear and dumb men speak!"
WEB: They were
astonished beyond measure, saying, "He has done all things well. He makes
even the deaf hear, and the mute speak!"
Young’s: and they
were being beyond measure astonished, saying, 'Well hath he done all things;
both the deaf he doth make to hear, and the dumb to speak.'
Conte (RC): And so much
more did they wonder, saying: "He has done all things well. He has caused
both the deaf to hear and the mute to speak."
7:37 And
were beyond measure astonished, saying, He
has done all things well. A great change had come
over these people since the legion of demons was cast out. They had then feared Him greatly, and desired
Him to leave their coasts; but now they exclaim, with reference both to that
miracle and this, “He hath done all things well."
In this paragraph, and
the parallel in Matthew, a characteristic difference between the two writers is
seen. Matthew says that "great multitudes came to Him, having
with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast
them down at Jesus' feet, and He healed them" (Matthew 15:30); but he gives no particular
description of any single case. Mark, on
the other hand, selects a single one of these cures, perhaps the first of all,
and describes minutely both it and its effect on the people. [38]
He maketh both the deaf to hear,
and the dumb to speak. They recognize that no impediment coming
from nature or demon can stop Him—in vivid contrast to any doctor or alleged
exorcist they had come in contact with. They
may well have placed hope in such; in this Man, however, they
found the reality of Divine power being expressed in this physical world
of ours. [rw]