The Gospel of Mark step-by-step

[patrick457]

7:1-10: And there came together to Him the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem. And they had seen that some of His disciples were eating their loaves of bread with ‘common’ hands, that is, unwashed (because the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands with the fist, holding fast to the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And they hold fast to many other traditions — the washing of cups and measuring bowls and copper vessels [and beds]).

DEFINITIONS

Pharisees: The Pharisees have appeared earlier in controversy with Jesus at 2:16, 24 and 3:16. The Greek text could be translated so as to say that both the Pharisees and the Scribes came from Jerusalem (indeed, the geographical base of the Pharisees was far to the south in Judea).

Scholars debate the extent of Pharisaic activity in the region of Galilee at the time of Jesus; some (such as Birger A. Pearson) believe that there were Pharisees in Galilean towns and cities, while others (such as Morton Smith) suggest that there were few, if any, Pharisaic followers in Galilee at that time. What is certain is that in the century following Jesus’ death, schools based on the Pharisaic tradition started to be established in Galilee.

Scribes (Grammateis): Again as mentioned, the ‘scribes’ are not a distinct sect from the Pharisees or Sadducees, but is rather a type of profession that is common to both sects (though many scribes generally belonged to the Pharisaic sect); not all Pharisees were scribes and not all scribes were Pharisees.

At the time of Jesus, there were many scribal schools in Palestine, most of them based in Jerusalem, which would explain Mark’s comment that they came from there. The mention of “Jerusalem” throughout the Gospel foreshadows the place of Jesus’ death.

Some: The mention of ‘some’ may mean that other disciples of Jesus obeyed the food laws. The actions of the disciples rather than those of Jesus evoke opposition also in the disciples over religious obligations in 2:18, 24. The issue this time is not one of obedience to the New Testament laws, but of rules subsequently developed in Pharisaic circles.

An interesting anecdote worth relating here is that at the time the Jewish oral tradition was finally written, when these hand-washing regulations were already firmly established, the rabbis defended them as merely ‘the words of the scribes’, not as having the authority of the Torah.

’Common’ (koinos) hands: In classical Greek ‘common’ is the antonym of ‘private’ (idios), but the word appears in 1 Maccabees 1:47, 62 in reference to unclean animals and unclean food (also see Acts 10:14, 28; 11:8; Rev. 21:27). The meaning arises from a distinction between what is available for ‘common’ or ‘profane’ use and what has been particularly set apart (for example, the Greek word for “holy,” agios, comes from agiazein, “set apart” or “consecrate”).

Unwashed: While no doubt it could normally be expected that hands would be washed before a meal for hygienic reasons (since food was often taken from a common dish), the only hand washing required in the Old Testament for purposes of ritual impurity is that of priests before offering sacrifices (Exodus 30:18-21; 40:30-32). The extension of the principle to the eating of ordinary food, and to the Jewish people other than priests, was a matter of scribal development, and it is uncertain how far it had progressed by the time of Jesus.

A good case can be made from (admittedly ambiguous) rabbinic references that as early as Hillel and Shammai the ritual uncleanness of hands was a matter of discussion. However, Roger P. Booth (author of Jesus and the Laws of Purity) argues that the sort of impurity conveyed by the hands in the likely circumstances of the disciples would not be removed by washing merely the hands but would require total immersion; he suggests therefore that the ‘Pharisees’ concerned were actually chaverim, literally meaning “companions,” “friends,” “associates,” or “fellows,” who practiced strict laws on purity and tithing and avoided the 'am ha-aretz (“people of the land,” i.e. non-members) in general. Most scholars connect these otherwise mysterious group in some way with the Pharisees (either as a group inside the Pharisaic sect, a group allied with or had members also affiliated with the sect, or as another name for the sect itself), albeit with some reservations.

They may have practiced a supererogatory hand washing not technically required by Pharisaic law as such; thus they may have been trying here to influence Jesus and His disciples to adopt this distinctive and then-uncommon (at least for ordinary Jews) custom and thus also become one of them. Surely a self-proclaimed religious teacher might be expected to require rigorous rituals of His followers as the Pharisees expected of theirs, and not let them behave like the 'am ha-aretz.

Loaves of bread (tous artous): The plural is unexpected; the singular would normally be used to refer to bread, or to food in general. Some commentators therefore see a reference back to the five loaves of 6:38-44; again referred to in the plural in 6:52; 8:59.

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS
All the Jews: Mark’s explanation of Jewish purity rituals is apparently directed to a Gentile audience. It is a broad-brush account which conveys a general sense of meticulous concern to avoid defilement rather than a nuanced presentation of the purity laws of the Old Testament and of scribal tradition. The inclusion of this phrase is more impressionistic than historically exact, since there is no evidence that the sort of precautions described were practiced by all Jews in general, if indeed they ever were.

With the fist (pygmē): This puzzling phrase has spawned a number of manuscript variations and continual interpretations. A few MSS (such as Δ, Sinaitic Palimpsest [sys], Sahidic [copsa]) simply omit the term while other good MSS, such as א, W, etc. read pykna (“often” or “thoroughly”), which is the rendering followed by some English Bibles (such as the NRSV, NAB, or the NASB). Possible interpretations include:

1.) Rubbing water into one hand with a closed fist;
2.) Pygmē refers to a unit of measure found in secular Greek, with the meaning of washing hands up to the wrist or elbow;
3.) Washing both hands and wrists;
3.) Washing the hands with a handful of water, i.e. with a cupped fist.

Whatever form it took, Mark may have had ritual purification than hygienic washing in mind when he describes such practice.

Tradition of the elders (Paradōsin tōn presbyterōn): “Tradition” is authoritative teaching that is ‘handed down’ orally from teacher to teacher or to school to school. Josephus (Ant. 13.297) says that the Pharisees handed on certain regulations not found in the (written) Law of Moses (Torah Shebiktav), dubbed the ‘oral Torah’ (Torah Shebe’al Peh), and that the Sadducees, who stuck with a more literal and stringent understanding of the written Law (very much the Jewish version of Sola Scriptura), rejected the Pharisees for this very belief in an oral Law handed down from generation to generation. The phrase “tradition of the elders” appears in Ant. 10.51, and a similar expression is found in Philo (Spec. Leg. 4.150). The Mishnaic tractate Avot (1:1-15) begins with a long chain of tradition handed down from Moses to Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel:

Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders to the prophets; and the prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: “Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah.”

Early Christians later adopted the term paradōsis for authoritative teaching, the revelation of Jesus ‘handed down’ to successive generations (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2, 23; 15:3; also see 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Timothy 2:2).

When they come from the marketplace (ap’ agoras): The words ‘when they come from’ is not present in the original Greek in some textual traditions, making it awkward and needing something else to be supplied for it to relate to. This might be a verb, as in the rendering given here (also used in the Western textual tradition; i.e. otan elthōsin, “when [they] come”), or a noun, such as “things from the market,” i.e. ‘they do not eat things from the market unless they wash it first.’

Since the rest of the comment is on the washing of hands and vessels rather than the purification of food itself (and since there is little evidence that food washing was customary), it is more likely that the Western reading represents Mark’s intention, even if not his text. The reference then is the need for those who have been in the market, and thus may have been exposed to possible sources of ritual impurity, to ritually purify themselves before eating.

They wash (rantisōntai, more literally ‘sprinkle’): The verb ‘wash’ here, present in certain MSS, is probably a correction from baptizomai (‘they immerse’, from bapto, “to dip”). The ‘correction’ was perhaps by a scribe who, being confronted with the description of a Jewish ritual washing in the same terms as the Christian baptism, may have wished to substitute a ‘less-Christian’ sounding word. Another possibility is that the awkward syntax of the sentence caused some to read ap’ agoras as the object of the verb (“things from the market”), for which the middle voice baptizomai would not be appropriate.

In this case the washing does not involve merely the hands, but a ritual bath or immersion (baptizo, mikvah) of the whole person, which was constantly practiced especially in some communities, such as the Essenes (who took one everyday; such who immersed daily were called tovelei shaharit “dawn-bathers” or hemerobaptists “day-immersers”) and the group thought to be connected to the Pharisees called the chaverim (who immersed themselves before communal meals).

Cups and measuring bowls and copper vessels:

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS
All the Jews: Mark’s explanation of Jewish purity rituals is apparently directed to a Gentile audience. It is a broad-brush account which conveys a general sense of meticulous concern to avoid defilement rather than a nuanced presentation of the purity laws of the Old Testament and of scribal tradition. The inclusion of this phrase is more impressionistic than historically exact, since there is no evidence that the sort of precautions described were practiced by all Jews in general, if indeed they ever were.

With the fist (pygmē): This puzzling phrase has spawned a number of manuscript variations and continual interpretations. A few MSS (such as Δ, Sinaitic Palimpsest [sys], Sahidic [copsa]) simply omit the term while other good MSS, such as א, W, etc. read pykna (“often” or “thoroughly”), which is the rendering followed by some English Bibles (such as the NRSV, NAB, or the NASB). Possible interpretations include:

1.) Rubbing water into one hand with a closed fist;
2.) Pygmē refers to a unit of measure found in secular Greek, with the meaning of washing hands up to the wrist or elbow;
3.) Washing both hands and wrists;
3.) Washing the hands with a handful of water, i.e. with a cupped fist.

Whatever form it took, Mark may have had ritual purification than hygienic washing in mind when he describes such practice.

Tradition of the elders (Paradōsin tōn presbyterōn): “Tradition” is authoritative teaching that is ‘handed down’ orally from teacher to teacher or to school to school. Josephus (Ant. 13.297) says that the Pharisees handed on certain regulations not found in the (written) Law of Moses (Torah Shebiktav), dubbed the ‘oral Torah’ (Torah Shebe’al Peh), and that the Sadducees, who stuck with a more literal and stringent understanding of the written Law (very much the Jewish version of Sola Scriptura), rejected the Pharisees for this very belief in an oral Law handed down from generation to generation. The phrase “tradition of the elders” appears in Ant. 10.51, and a similar expression is found in Philo (Spec. Leg. 4.150). The Mishnaic tractate Avot (1:1-18) begins with a long chain of tradition handed down from Moses to Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel and continues a bit from there:

Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders to the prophets; and the prophets handed it down to the men of the Anshei Knesset, etc.
Simon the Just was one of the last survivors of the Anshei Knesset, etc.
Antigonus of Sokho received the Torah from Simon the Just, etc.
Jose ben Joezer of Tzeredah and Jose ben Jochanan of Jerusalem received the Torah from them, etc.
Joshua ben Perachya and Nittai the Arbelite received the Torah from them, etc.
Judah ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shetach received the Torah from them, etc.
Sh’maya and Avtalion received the Torah from them, etc.
Hillel and Shammai received the Torah from them, etc.
Rabban Gamaliel said…
Shimon his son said…

Early Christians later adopted the term paradōsis for authoritative teaching, the revelation of Jesus ‘handed down’ to successive generations (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2, 23; 15:3; also see 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Timothy 2:2).

When they come from the marketplace (ap’ agoras): The words ‘when they come from’ is not present in the original Greek in some textual traditions, making it awkward and needing something else to be supplied for it to relate to. This might be a verb, as in the rendering given here (also used in the Western textual tradition; i.e. otan elthōsin, “when [they] come”), or a noun, such as “things from the market,” i.e. ‘they do not eat things from the market unless they wash it first.’

Since the rest of the comment is on the washing of hands and vessels rather than the purification of food itself (and since there is little evidence that food washing was customary), it is more likely that the Western reading represents Mark’s intention, even if not his text. The reference then is the need for those who have been in the market, and thus may have been exposed to possible sources of ritual impurity, to ritually purify themselves before eating.

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued
They wash (rantisōntai, more literally ‘sprinkle’): The verb ‘wash’ here, present in certain MSS, is probably a correction from baptizomai (‘they immerse’, from bapto, “to dip”). The ‘correction’ was perhaps by a scribe who, being confronted with the description of a Jewish ritual washing in the same terms as the Christian baptism, may have wished to substitute a ‘less-Christian’ sounding word. Another possibility is that the awkward syntax of the sentence caused some to read ap’ agoras as the object of the verb (“things from the market”), for which the middle voice baptizomai would not be appropriate.

In this case the washing does not involve merely the hands, but a ritual bath or immersion (baptizo, mikvah) of the whole person, which was constantly practiced especially in some communities, such as the Essenes (who took one everyday; such who immersed daily were called tovelei shaharit “dawn-bathers” or hemerobaptists “day-immersers”) and the group thought to be connected to the Pharisees called the chaverim (who immersed themselves before communal meals).

Cups and measuring bowls and copper vessels (Potēriōn kai xestōn kai chalkiōn): The Mishna (treatise Kelim, esp. 8:2-11:3) contains careful instructions for washing cooking utensils. “Measuring bowl” translates xestos, a loanword from the Latin sextarius, a unit of measurement transferred to a cup or bowl equivalent to 54 centilitres (liquid and dry).

And beds (kai klinōn): Some ancient MSS have this phrasem perhaps under the influence of Leviticus 15:15-20. Yet in Leviticus the issue is the cleansing of beds after ritual impurity, which would be a surprising addition to Mark’s list of cleaning various utensils. Then again, it is perhaps a little more likely that scribes omitted the phrase because it seemed inappropriate to be with such a list than that it was subsequently added in order to provide a fuller list of Jewish purification rituals (the washing of the bed is not explicitly mentioned in Leviticus 15). Others suggest that the term is best translated as ‘dining couch’, but there is little evidence for such a custom.

COMMENTARIES

Ver. 2. With common hands. It may be translated, with defiled hands; as also ver. 15; but the circumstances plainly show the sense. (Witham)

Ver. 3. Often washing, etc.[1] Some would have the Greek to signify unless they wash up to the elbows, but I think without sufficient grounds. (Witham)

Ver. 4. Washed: literally, baptized. By beds are not understood night beds, but couches to eat upon, as it was then the custom. (Witham)

[1] Ver. 3: Crebo, Greek: ean me pugme. Mr. Bois, prebend of Ely, defends the Latin version, and says Greek: pugme comes from Greek: pukna and Greek: puknos. But Theophylactus would have it to signify, up to the elbows; Greek: achri tou agkonos.

2.) From Cornelius Lapide’s Commentary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And beds: on which they reclined at table.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/8676/gobletsyo9.jpg
A stack of V-shaped drinkinggoblets found in Qumran dating from the 1st century B.C. to the 1st century A.D.

3.) From St. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea:

Bede, in Marc., 2, 29: The people of the land of Gennesareth, who seemed to be unlearned men, not only come themselves, but also bring their sick to the Lord, that they may but succeed in touching the hem of His garment. But the Pharisees and Scribes, who ought to have been the teachers of the people, run together to the Lord, not to seek for healing, but to move captious questions.

Wherefore it is said, “Then there came together unto Him the Pharisees and certain of the Scribes, coming from Jerusalem; and when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with common, that is, with unwashen hands, they found fault.”

Theophylact: For the disciples of the Lord, who were taught only the practice of virtue, used to eat in a simple way, without washing their hands; but the Pharisees, wishing to find an occasion of blame against them, took it up; they did not indeed blame them as transgressors of the law, but for transgressing the traditions of the elders.

Wherefore it goes on: “For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.”

Bede: For taking the spiritual words of the Prophets in a carnal sense, they observed, by washing the body alone, commandments which concerned the chastening of the heart and deeds, saying, “Wash you, make you clean;” [Isa 1:16] and again, “Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord.” [Isa 52.11]

It is therefore a superstitious human tradition, that men who are clean already, should wash oftener because they eat bread, and that they should not eat on leaving the market, without washing. But it is necessary for those who desire to partake of the bread which comes down from heaven, often to cleanse their evil deeds by alms, by tears, and the other fruits of righteousness. It is also necessary for a man to wash thoroughly away the pollutions which he has contracted from the cares of temporal business, by being afterwards intent on good thoughts and works.

In vain, however, do the Jews wash their hands, and cleanse themselves after the market, so long as they refuse to be washed in the font of the Saviour; in vain do they observe the washing of their vessels, who neglect to wash away the filthy sins of their bodies and of their hearts.

4.) Commentary by St. John of Damascus:

Pharisee is a name meaning “those who are set apart.” They followed a way of life which they regarded as most perfect. They esteemed their way as superior to others. They affirmed the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels, and holiness of life (cf. Acts 23:8). They followed a rigorous way of life, practicing asceticism and sexual abstinence for periods of time and fasting twice a week (cf. Lk. 18:12). They ceremonially cleansed their pots and plates and cups, as did the scribes. They observed the paying of tithes (cf. Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42), the offering of first fruits, and the recitation of many prayers*.

*This was, to some extent, a caricature, as subsequent studies of Pharisees have shown. See Jacob Neusner, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1973)

 

[patrick457]

5-8: And the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with common hands?” And He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied rightly about you pretenders, as it is written:'This people honor me with their lips,
But their heart is distant from me;
But they worship me in vain,
Teaching teachings, the precepts of men.'For disregarding the command of God, you hold fast to the tradition of men [the washing of measuring bowls and cups, and many other things you do]!”

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/760/391955.JPG
Isaiah prophesied rightly about you pretenders…
DEFINITIONS

Isaiah: cf. Isaiah 29:13. The quote, while agreeing with the Septuagint more than the Hebrew, also has variations from the Septuagint. Though Mark cites and alludes to Isaiah frequently (cf. 1:3; 2:7; 3:21; 9:12; 10:34, 45; 11:17; 12:32, 40; 13:8, 13, 31; 14:49, 61; 15:27), the verb ‘prophesy’ (eprophēteusen) only appears here.

Pretenders (hypokritōn, i.e. hypocrites): The word hypocrisy derives from the Greek hypokrisis, which means “play-acting”, “acting out”, “feigning, dissembling” or “an answer.”

In turn, the word hypocrite is from the Greek word hypokritis, the agentive noun associated with hypokrinomai, i.e. “I play a part.” Both derive from the verb krinō, “judge” (krisē, “judgement” kritiki, “critics”) presumably because the performance of a dramatic text by an actor was to involve a degree of interpretation, or assessment, of that text.

Whereas hypokrisis applied to any sort of public performance (including the art of rhetoric), hypokritis was a technical term for a stage actor and was not considered an appropriate role for a public figure. In Athens in the 4th Century BC, for example, the great orator Demosthenes ridiculed his rival Aeschines, who had been a successful actor before taking up politics, as a hypokritis whose skill at impersonating characters on stage made him an untrustworthy politician. This negative view of the hypokrites, perhaps combined with the Roman disdain for actors, later shaded into the originally neutral hypokrisis. It is this later sense of hypokrisis as “play-acting,” i.e. the assumption of a counterfeit persona, that gives the modern word its negative connotation.

But they worship me in vain: Here Mark follows the Septuagint, while the Hebrew has no such phrase. The word translated as ‘worship’ (sebomai) can also mean ‘fear’ or ‘awe’, and the word translated as ‘in vain’ (matēn) also means ‘falsely;’ thus the phrase can (and perhaps should) also be alternatively rendered as “but their fear of me is false, teaching [my] teachings, precepts of men,” which would be quite close to the Hebrew (and Septuagint) version of the text:

Hebrew: And the Lord said: ‘Because these people draw near with their mouths, and honor me with their lips alone, though their heart is far from me; and their fear (yi’rah, i.e. “fear of God”) of me is taught by the precept of men (mitzvah 'anashim)…’

Septuagint: And the Lord said: ‘These people draw near me; they honor me with their lips, while their heart is far from me, and falsely (matēn) do they fear (sebontai) me, teaching precepts of men (entalmata anthrōpōn) and teachings (didaskalias)…’

For short, this rendering shows the fear of God is shown as coming from the (over-)emphasis of God’s wrath instead of God’s love. His commands are treated like human orders, which we must obey out of fear of punishment, instead as instructions given to us out of love so we could live our life ‘to the full’.

Another noticeable element is that Mark (Jesus?) subtly sharpens the ‘empty reverence’ charge by omitting the ‘and’ (kai) present in the Septuagint text, thus having Isaiah charge the people with making human laws into doctrines rather than simply teaching human precepts and teachings.

Disregarding…hold fast: The particle aphentes (“disregarding” or “laying aside;” this is the same word as aphiēmi, which usually means “to forgive” but literally means “to let go,” “to get rid of” or “to remit”) modifies the verb krateite (“hold on to”), which emphasizes the causal connection between observance of human precepts and the neglection of divine command.

Command (entolē): This word is only used by Mark here and in 10:5, 19; 12:28, 31. In every case the citation is from the Torah, and each citation contains a central belief of Israel. Mark thus contrasts the solemnity of an entolē with mere entalmata (“precepts,” “doctrines”). At the stake in the dispute is what really constitutes fidelity to God’s commandments versus human tradition.

 

[patrick457]

DEFINITIONS, continued

The washing of measuring bowls: The majority of MSS, mostly Byzantine, have this phrase ([A] Ë13 33 Ï). A slight variation on the wording occurs at the very beginning of v. 8 in mostly Western witnesses (D, Θ, 0131vid, 28, 565, Vetus Latina [it]). Such floating texts are usually signs of scribal emendations. The fact that the earliest and most reliable MSS, as well as other important witnesses (Ì45 א, **(“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus”), L, W, Δ, 0274, Ë1 2427 co), lacked this material also strongly suggests that the longer reading is secondary.

COMMENTARIES

Ver. 7. See the annotations Matthew 15:9, 11. It is groundless to pretend from this text, that the precepts and traditions of the Church are not binding and obligatory, for Christ himself has commanded all to hear his Church, and obey their lawful pastors. These indeed may be called the precepts of men, but they are precepts of men invested with power and authority from God, and of whom Christ himself said, (Luke 10:16) He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me.

Matthew 15: Ver. 9. In vain they worship, or think they worship God, who neglect the divine commandments to observe the commands of men. We must not here suppose that Christ censures the commands of the Church, or the tradition of the apostles, because these are in nowise contrary to the divine law, but rather serve to enforce it, and reduce it to practice; nor are they so much the commands of men, as of God, delivered to us by his ambassadors. Christ censures such as are merely human, such as those mentioned here, which are vain and futile, as the superstitious washing of hands or erroneous, as that the soul is defiled by meat; or openly contrary to natural and divine law, as the defrauding parents of their just support. (Tirinus)

It is evidently erroneous to argue from this text against apostolic traditions. St. Paul tells the Thessalonians, to stand fast, and hold the traditions which they had been taught, whether by word of mouth or by epistles. (2 Thessalonians 2:14)

Commandments of men. The doctrines and commandments here reprehended, are such as are either contrary to the law of God, (as that of neglecting parents, under pretence of giving to God) or at least are frivolous, unprofitable, and no ways conducing to true piety, as that of often washing hands, etc. without regard to the purity of the heart. But as to the rules and ordinances of the holy Church, touching fasts, festivals, etc. these are no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God’s holy word, and all Christian piety; neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men, because they proceed not from mere human authority, but from that which Christ has established in his Church; whose pastors he has commanded us to hear and obey, even as himself. (Luke 10:16.; Matthew 18:17) (Challoner)

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued
2.) From St. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea:

It goes on: “Then the Scribes and Pharisees asked Him, Why walk not thy disciples after the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with common hands?”

Jerome, Hier. in Matt., 15: Wonderful is the folly of the Pharisees and Scribes; they accuse the Son of God, because He keeps not the traditions and precepts of men. But “common” is here put for unclean; for the people of the Jews, boasting that they were the portion of God, called those meats common, which all made use of.

Pseudo-Jerome: He beats back the vain words of the Pharisees with His arguments, as men drive back dogs with weapons, by interpreting Moses and Isaiah, that we too by the word of Scripture may conquer the heretics, who oppose us.

Wherefore it goes on: “Well hath Esaia prophesied of you hypocrites; as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me (Isa 29:13).”

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: For since they unjustly accused the disciples not of trangressing the law, but the commands of the elders, He sharply confounds them, calling them hypocrites, as looking with reverence upon what was not worthy of it. He adds, however, the words of Isaiah the prophet, as spoken to them; as though He would say, As those men, of whom it is said, “that they honour God with their lips, whilst their heart is far from Him,” in vain pretend to observe the dictates of piety, whilst they honour the doctrines of men, so ye also neglect your soul, of which you should take care, and blame those who live justly.

Pseudo-Jerome: But Pharisaical tradition, as to tables and vessels, is to be cut off, and cast away. For they often make the commands of God yield to the traditions of men.

Wherefore it continues, “For laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold to the traditions of men, as the washing of pots and cups.”

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: Moreover, to convict them of neglecting the reverence due to God, for the sake of the tradition of the elders, which was opposed to the Holy Scriptures, He subjoins, “For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”

PARALLELS IN OTHER GOSPELS: Matthew 15:3-9.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

Some anti-Catholics, either the ‘genuinely misinformed’ or ‘genuinely hateful’ types, commonly use Mark 7:6-8 above in attempt to discredit the Catholic belief in Apostolic Tradition. Usually it may run like, ‘See? God’s Word condemns human tradition, saying that it runs contrary to His commandments! Why then do you Catholics and Orthodox believe in Holy Tradition? Don’t you commit a violation in so doing?’

However, it is clear in context that what is condemned here is not the Tradition of Christians, but the mere ‘paradōsin of the elders’. While Jesus did sometimes condemn customs or disciplines, (only if they were contrary to God’s commands) He never condemned sacred Tradition, and he didn’t even condemn all human tradition. It really shows only that He opposed human traditions which contradicted Scripture, not that He rejected all tradition. Elsewhere, Jesus Himself instructed His followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments (Matt. 23:2–3).

We need to be mindful, however, that Sacred Tradition should not be confused with mere customs and disciplines, take for example, the rosary, priestly celibacy, and not eating meat on Fridays in Lent. These are things that are good, useful, and helpful, but they are not doctrines. Sacred Tradition preserves doctrines first taught by Jesus to the apostles and later passed from generation to generation down to us through the successors of the apostles, the bishops.

Finally, here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church defining what Tradition is:

77 “In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.” Indeed, “the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.”

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” “The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer.”

…

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

 

[patrick457]

9-13: And He was also saying to them, "*Is it correct that you set aside the commands of God in order to guard your own traditions? For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must be put to death.’

But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, ‘whatever help you would have received from me is korban (that is to say, a gift to God),’ you no longer allow doing anything for a father or mother, nullifying the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this!*"

DEFINITIONS

Is it correct: Most translations render this sentence in an ironic sense. The translation here interprets the sentence as a question. Evidence is provided by Matthew, who introduces the quotation with the command to honor parents with a question (cf. Matt. 15:3). This verse is a virtual restatement of v. 8 (it repeats much of its form and wording, which has led some interpreters to see a separate source here, with Mark combining two independent traditions; however, given Mark’s penchant for repetition this explanation is not necessary.

Moses said: cf. Exodus 20:12; 21:17 (also see Deut. 5:16) LXX. Matthew’s version of the events (15:4) reads ‘God’ instead of ‘Moses’, increasing the seriousness of the dispute.

Korban (Hebrew: קרבן qorban, “sacrificial offering” or “gift”): In Judaism, korban is the term for a variety of sacrificial offerings described and commanded in the Torah. Such sacrifices were offered in a variety of settings by the ancient Israelites, and later by the Jewish priesthood, the Kohanim, at the Temple in Jerusalem. A korban was usually an animal sacrifice, such as a sheep or a bull that underwent shechita (Jewish ritual slaughter), and was often cooked and eaten by the offerer, with parts given to the Kohanim and parts burned on the Temple altar. Korbanot could also consist of turtle-doves, grain, incense, fruit, and a variety of other offerings.

Josephus (Ant. 4.73) says that the Nazirites describe themselves as korban to God, which he then interprets in Greek as “gift.” In Against Apion 1.167 he describes an oath taken by Jews also as korban and again explains it as ‘a gift’.

In the course of time the term also became associated with an objectionable practice. Anything dedicated to the Temple under the pretense of korban forthwith belonged to the Temple, but only ideally; actually it might remain in the possession of the person who made the vow. Since a person’s offering may have been accompanied by a solemn oath, the offerer was no longer permitted from ever using the property offered to the Temple for the support of himself or anyone else even if the gift remained in his possession; so a son might be justified in not supporting his old parents simply because he designated his property or a part of it as a gift to the Temple, that is, as korban.

There are instances of Aramaic inscriptions from around the first century that use the word korban to mean “gift,” one of which is found on an ossuary, which says, “*All that a man may find to his profit in this ossuary [is] *korban to God from him who is within it.” Apparently, the word itself was also written on clay and metal pots to indicate that the container and its contents or simply the contents was a gift to the Temple. Thus to say that something is korban is to say both that it is a gift to the Temple and that it is forbidden to others (see the Mishna, Nedarim 3.2: “*May they [figs] be *korban to you.”).

In an honor-shame culture, such as 1st century Palestine, it was difficult if not impossible to repent of something said using an oath or a vow, even it was in haste or anger (which is the reason why Jesus warned against taking oaths at all in Matt. 5:33-37). The Torah itself contains solemn prescriptions on the observance of vows (Num. 30:1-2; Deut. 23:21-23); in addition, some early Jewish teachers taught that if one broke an oath, one’s life would be forfeited and indeed one would stand in danger of God’s judgment in the last day. Thus there is a conflict here of two solemn obligations: honoring one’s parents and observing vows.

A gift to God (dōron): The original Greek lacks the words ‘to God’, which has been supplied here to make the statement more clearer. The word korban itself is usually rendered as dōros in the Septuagint.

Nullifying (akyrountes): This word is a legal term (Josephus, Ant. 18.304; 20.183) used only here, in the Matthean parallel (15:6) and in Galatians 3:17 where the Law does not “annul” a covenant ratified by God.

 

[patrick457]

PARALLELS IN OTHER GOSPELS: Matthew 15:3-6.

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 9. Well do you. Christ here speaks by the figure called irony. (Witham)

2.) From St. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea:

Bede: The sense of the word honour in Scripture is not so much the saluting and paying court to men, as alms-giving, and bestowing gifts; “honour,” says the Apostle, “widows who are widows indeed.” [1 Tim 5:3]

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: Notwithstanding the existence of such a divine law, and the threats against such as break it, ye lightly transgress the commandment of God, observing the traditions of the Elders.

Wherefore there follows: “But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;” understand, he will be freed from the observation of the foregoing command.

Wherefore it continues, “And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother.”

Theophylact: For the Pharisees, wishing to devour the offerings, instructed sons, when their parents asked for some of their property, to answer them, what thou hast asked of me is corban, that is, a gift, I have already offered it up to the Lord; thus the parents would not require it, as being offered up to the Lord, (and in that way profitable for their own salvation). [ed. note: the words in the parenthesis are not in Theophylact]

Thus they deceived the sons into neglecting their parents, whilst they themselves devoured the offerings; with this therefore the Lord reproaches them, as transgressing the law of God for the sake of gain. Wherefore it goes on, “Making the word of God of none effect through your traditions, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye;” transgressing, that is, the commands of God, that ye may observe the traditions of men.

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: Or else it may be said, that the Pharisees taught young persons, that if a man offered a gift in expiation of the injury done to his father or mother, he was free from sin, as having given to God the gifts which are owed to a parent; and in saying this, they did not allow parents to be honoured.

Bede: The passage may in a few words have this sense, Every gift which I have to make, will go to do you good; for ye compel children, it is meant, to say to their parents, that gift which I was going to offer to God, I expend on feeding you, and does you good, oh father and mother, speaking this ironically. Thus they would be afraid to accept what had been given into the hands of God, and might prefer a life of poverty to living on consecrated property.

Pseudo-Jerome: Mystically, again, the disciples eating with unwashed hands signifies the future fellowship of the Gentiles with the Apostles. The cleaning and washing of the Pharisees is barren; but the fellowship of the Apostles, though without washing, has stretched out its branches as far as the sea.

3.) Commentary by St. Jerome (Letter 123, To Ageruchia):

In the gospel when the Lord discusses that commandment of the Law which says: Honour your father and your mother, (Exodus 20:12) He declares that it is to be interpreted not of mere words which while offering an empty show of regard may still leave a parent’s wants unrelieved, but of the actual provision of the necessaries of life. The Lord commanded that poor parents should be supported by their children and that these should pay them back when old those benefits which they had themselves received in their childhood. The scribes and pharisees on the other hand taught the children to answer their parents by saying: It is Corban, that is to say, a gift (Mark 7:11) which I have promised to the altar and engaged to present to the temple: it will relieve you as much there, as if I were to give it you directly to buy food. So it frequently happened that while father and mother were destitute their children were offering sacrifices for the priests and scribes to consume. If then the apostle compels poor widows — yet only those who are young and not broken down by sickness — to labour with their hands that the church, not charged with their maintenance, may be able to support such widows as are old, what plea can be urged by one who has abundance of this world’s goods, both for her own wants and those of others, and who can make to herself friends of the mammon of unrighteousness able to receive her into everlasting habitations? (Luke 16:9)

 

[patrick457]

This post is dedicated to my great-grandmother, who is now hospitalized (and hasn’t got that much long to live, or so they say). Dear reader, please do keep her in your prayers.

15-17: And again He called the multitude again and said to them, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand. There is nothing outside a person which, going into him, can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a person. [He who has ears to hear, let him hear!]"

http://www.cibike.org/CartoonEating.gif
There is nothing outside a person which, going into him, is able to make them ‘common’; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a person.

PARALLELS IN OTHER GOSPELS: Matthew 15:10-11; also see Gospel of Thomas 14 for a non-canonical parallel.
DEFINITIONS
He called the multitude again: Thus far in the narrative Jesus has been talking only to the Pharisees and the scribes in a private discussion. With the change of audience not only is a new phase in the dispute inaugurated, but the content (external versus internal defilement) is radically different since the first dispure dealt with how a person should eat (with washed or unwashed hands) while here an implicit discussion is what a person should eat and not eat.

The Pharisees and the scribes are not mentioned again in the narrative; their argument has been rebutted, and now Jesus takes the initiative in raising publicly a much more fundamental issue of purity which goes far beyond the limited question of the validity of the scribal rules of hand washing.

Listen to me, everyone, and understand: Similar calls for attentiveness and discernment occur in 4:3, 9, 23-24; 9:7. This solemn summons, along with the designation of the following saying as a parabolē (7:17) and the private instruction given to the disciples (7:18-23), creates echoes of Mark 4:1-34.

Can defile him: Some manuscript traditions have “can make him ‘common’ (i.e. unclean).”

But the things which come out of him: Like many of the proverbial sayings (mashal) and aphorisms of Jesus, this would strike His original audience as paradoxical or even outright strange, even offensive. For a culture thoroughly concerned about dietary laws (Kashrut) the opposite would hold true: what goes in causes impurity.

Some would argue that Jesus had actually violated the Law when He said this, which would contradict His words in Matthew 5:17-18 where He says that He did not come to destroy, but to fulfill the Law. However, these words in Mark 7 alter or ignore no Jewish law; they merely stress the obvious point that it is the disobedience, not the food itself, that is the essence of the violation.

He who has ears to hear: This verse is included in A, D, W, Θ, Ë1,13, 33, Vetus Latina+Vulgate [latt], Syriac [sy], but is lacking in important Alexandrian MSS and a few others (א **(“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus”) L Δ* 0274, 28, 2427). It is thus thought to be a scribal gloss (see 4:9 and 4:23), perhaps introduced as a reiteration of the thought in 7:14, and thus virtually all modern translations and editions omit it.

 

[patrick457]

This post is dedicated to my great-grandmother, who is now hospitalized (and hasn’t got that much long to live, or so they say). Dear reader, please do keep her in your prayers.

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

(Matthew 15) Ver. 11. Not that which goeth into the mouth, etc. We must heartily pity and pray to God for those who blindly pretend from hence, that to eat any kind of meats, or as often as a meats, or as often as a man pleaseth on fasting-days, can defile no man. (Witham)

No uncleaness in meat, nor any dirt contracted by eating it with unwashed hands, can defile the soul; but sin alone, or a disobedience of the heart to the ordinance and will of God. And thus, when Adam took the forbidden fruit, it was not the apple which entered into his mouth, but the disobedience to the law of God, which defiled him. The same is to be said if a Jew, in the time of the old law, had eaten swine’s flesh; or a Christian convert, in the days of the apostles, contrary to their ordinance, had eaten blood; or if any of the faithful, at present, should transgress the ordinance of God’s Church, by breaking the fasts: for in all these cases the soul would be defiled, not indeed by that which goeth into the mouth, but by the disobedience of the heart, in wilfully transgressing the ordinance of God, or of those who have their authority from him. (Challoner)

Jesus Christ by no means prohibits fasting and abstinence from certain food, and at certain times, or he would have been immediately accused of contradicting the law; he only says, that meat which they esteem unclean does not of itself, and by its own nature, defile the soul; which is what the Pharisees (and before them Pythagoras, and after them the Manicheans) maintained, and which St. Paul warmly confutes. (1 Timothy 4:4) (Tirinus)

If a man gets intoxicated, adducing this same plea, that what entereth by the mouth, etc. is not the answer obvious; that it is not the wine, but the intemperance, contrary to the law of God, which defileth him: for drunkards shall not possess the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:10)

2.) From Cornelius Lapide’s Commentary:

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

3.) From St. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea:

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: The Jews regard and murmur about only the bodily purification of the law; our Lord wishes to bring in the contrary.

Wherefore it is said, “And when He had called all the people unto Him, He said unto them, Hearken unto Me every one, and understand: there is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him, but the things which come out of a man, those are they which defile a man;” that is, which make him unclean.

The things of Christ have relation to the inner man, but those which are of the law are visible and external, to which, as being bodily, the cross of Christ was shortly to put an end.

Theophylact: But the intention of the Lord in saying this was to teach men, that the observing of meats, which the law commands, should not be taken in a carnal sense, and from this He began to unfold to them the intent of the law.

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: Again He subjoins, “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” For He had not clearly shewn them, what those things are which proceed out of a man, and defile a man; and on account of this saying, the Apostles thought that the foregoing discourse of the Lord implied some other deep thing.

 

[patrick457]

18-19: And when He had entered into the house away from the multitude, His disciples asked Him about the parable. And He says to them, “Are you so stupid also? Don’t you understand that whatever enters a person from outside is not able to make him ‘common’ because it does not enter his heart but his stomach and then goes out into the toilet?” (Thus making clean all foods.)

PARALLELS IN OTHER GOSPELS: Matthew 15:12-18.

DEFINITIONS

When He had entered into the house: This is an instance of the familiar Markan pattern of private explanation to the disciples following public teaching (4:10-12; 4:34; 7:17-23; 10:10-12; 10:23-31).

Parable (Parabolē): The word ‘parable’ here is used in the sense of riddle or an apothegm.

Stupid (Asynetos): Can also mean means “foolish” or “witless.” The word means literally “not” synetos (a-synetos), that is, “intelligent” or “wise.”

Are you so foolish also? The last time the disciples appeared (6:52), they also lacked understanding. Now they all continue to be obtuse. This criticism of the disciples’ lack of understanding echoes 4:13, 40 and foreshadows 8:17-21. What differentiates the disciples is not their ability to grasp spiritual truth, but the fact that they were privileged to receive special instruction from Jesus.

Not able to make him ‘common’ (koinoō): The word (also translated as “defile”) can also mean “communicate” and “share.” The idea (as in v. 15, to which this statement is very similar) is that the things coming out of a person ‘communicates’ or ‘shares’ (i.e. reveals) what he is. Thus Jesus’ words has another layer of meaning here: one cannot see what goes inside another person’s body so how can it say anything about what that person is truly like?

It does not enter his heart (kardia): This part of the saying has an ironic character: no one really believed that food could enter into the heart. The heart in biblical thought is very much the center of a person’s life. People give praise and thanks to God through their hearts (Psalm 9:1; 13:5; 16:9; 19:8; 28:7; Isaiah 30:29), yet evil and rebellion also flows from it (Genesis 6:5; 8:21; Psalm 55:21; 66:18; 78:18).

Whereas in English ‘heart’ tends to connote emotion, in Hebrew and Greek it conveys equally, and perhaps more strongly, the spiritual and intellectual processes, including the will. The heart is what makes the person what they really are. It is thus with the ‘heart’ that people relate to God, and a purported relationship with God which bypasses the heart is a mockery. This is why Jesus said that the heart is unaffected by what comes in from outside. Food is merely of a nutritional significance, and has no bearing on a person’s relationship with the Divine.

But his stomach (koilia): ‘Stomach’ is commonly used in the Bible positively for “womb” (), but oftentimes also with negative overtones to signify the place of digestion (Romans 16:18; 1 Tim. 5:23; Phil. 3:19; 1 Corinthians 6:13; Rev. 10:9-10). A similar idea also exists in Greek, where the koilia could be used to denote a person’s less spiritual aspect in contrast to the kardia, with it serving as the home of the lower emotions and impulses.

Toilet (Aphedrōna, a rare word literally meaning “a place of sitting apart;” alternatively “sewer”): Sanitary arrangements varied widely in the ancient Mediterranean world, even during the time of the Roman empire. Since many private homes lacked toilet facilities, people either had to use a chamber pot or simply went outdoors into the streets. The Bible itself refers to a male as one “who urinates against a wall” (1 Samuel 25:22, 34; 1 Kings 14:10).

Some cities had sewers running under the street, but house drains were rare. Cisterns were common, but susceptible to contamination. Refuse of all kinds, polluted water, and contaminated food created unsanitary conditions, which were responsible for a high infant mortality as well as deadly diseases.

http://www.sewerhistory.org/chronos/images/roman- era_ad.jpg
A 1st-century public toilet in Ephesus.

Available alternatives in some cities or more fortunate homes include private or public latrines (usually adjacent to public baths), which were usually wood or stone seats built over a cesspool. When the cesspool fills up, a merchant is usually called upon to dispose of the waste and sell it as fertilizer. The Romans also provided huge vases (port-a-potties) at the edges of towns at entrance roads and at exit roads in some places of the Empire.

The community at Qumran itself is believed to have had dug trenches to serve as latrines 500 meters north of the site; however, there was a toilet inside the settlement itself, which led some to question the majority view that those who settled in Qumran were Essenes (this is answered by the hypothesis that this second latrine is for ‘emergency purposes’; 9 minutes outside the camp is just too far to go when one is in a hurry).

Thus making clean all foods: The syntax in the original Greek clearly marks this out as a parenthetical editorial comment, since there is no masculine singular subject within the speech to which it can relate (some MSS, whose scribes did not apparently recognize the parenthetical nature of the clause, have attempted to correct the syntax here). The subject therefore is Jesus, whom Mark interprets as ‘cleansing all foods’ in the sense of declaring that it is no longer ‘ritually unclean’.

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES
1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 17. Asked him the parable. Asked him to explain its meaning.

2.) From Cornelius Lapide’s Commentary:

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

3.) From St. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea:

Wherefore there follows: “And when He was entered into the house from the people, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable;” they called it parable, because it was not clear.

Theophylact: The Lord begins by chiding them, wherefore there follows, “Are ye so without understanding also?”

Bede: For that man is a faulty hearer who considers what is obscure to be a clear speech, or what is clear to be obscurely spoken.

Theophylact: Then the Lord shews them what was hidden, saying, “Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot make him common?”

Bede: For the Jews, boasting themselves to be the portion of God, call common those meals which all men use, as shellfish, hares, and animals of that sort. Not even however what is offered to idols is unclean, in as far as it is food and God’s creature; it is the invocation of devils which makes it unclean; and He adds the cause of it, saying, “Because it entereth not into his heart.”

The principal seat of the soul according to Plato is the brain, but according to Christ, it is in the heart.

Gloss [ed. note: It is probable that most, if not all the Glosses which cannot be found, are from St. Thomas himself, and this one is especially like his language, as may be seen by referring to Summa, 2, 2, Q148, Art 1, and 1, Q119, Art 1, in both of which places also he quotes the passages in St. Matthew parallel to this part of St. Mark.]: It says therefore into his heart, that is, into his mind, which is the principal part of his soul, on which his whole life depends; wherefore it is necessary, that according to the state of his heart a man should be called clean or unclean, and thus whatsoever does not reach the soul, cannot bring pollution to the man.

Meats therefore, since they do not reach the soul, cannot in their own nature defile a man; but an inordinate use of meats, which proceeds from a want of order in the mind, makes men unclean.

But that meats cannot reach the mind, He shews by that which He adds, saying, “But into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats.” This however He says, without referring to what remains from the food in the body, for that which is necessary for the nourishment and growth of the body remains. But that which is superfluous goes out, and thus as it were purges the nourishment, which remains.

Augustine: For some things are joined to others in such a way as both to change and be changed, just as food, losing its former appearance, is both itself turned into our body, and we too are changed, and our strength is refreshed by it.

[ed. note: The last words of this comment are not in St. Augustine, but in Bede, who took them originally from St. Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew, from whence most of Bede’s remarks on this passage are taken word for word. As the sentence marked Bede is not found in him, it probably belongs to the Gloss, and his name has been transferred from the former sentence.] Further, a most subtle liquid, after the food has been prepared and digested in our veins, and other arteries, by some hidden channels, called from a Greek word, pores, passes through us, and goes into the draught.

Bede: Thus then it is not meat that makes men unclean, but wickedness, which works in us the passions which come from within.

 

[patrick457]

Once more dedicated to the memory to my great-grandmother, who has now passed into eternal repose.

20-23: And He said, “What comes out of a person is what makes him ‘common’. Because from inside, out of a person’s heart come out evil designs: sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, adulteries, greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, the evil eye, blasphemy, arrogance, folly. All these evils pour out from within and make a person ‘common’.”

PARALLELS IN OTHER GOSPELS: Matthew 15:18-20.

DEFINITIONS
Evil designs (Dialogismoi oi kakoi): The things which come out of the heart and defile a person, spelled out in detail later, is first described by an umbrella term. While the term is usually rendered as “evil thoughts” in some Bibles, we should note that the word dialogismos carries a more purposive sense than just thinking and is more properly rendered as “purpose,” “debate,” or “argument;” i.e. the sense here is something like “evil machinations.”

Sexual immoralities, thefts, etc. It has been suggested that this list is based roughly on the Ten Commandments, with the ‘evil eye’ being an exception. A curious feature of this list in the original Greek is that the first six evils listed here is in the plural, with the other six in the singular (compared to Matthew where all the nouns are in the plural). It may help to account for this if we note that some of the nouns on the first half represent specific, and therefore repeatable acts, with the other half representing more abstract vices. Since the plural of abstract expressions frequently appears in poetry or prose as a designation of concrete phenomena, it may serve to connote individual acts of say, sexual misconduct or murder rather than of the concept in the abstract.

Lists of vices and virtues are common in Hellenistic moralists and are found in later Jewish literature (cf. Wisdom 14:25-26; 3 Baruch 4:17; 1 Enoch 91:6-7; Jubilees 23:14; 4 Maccabees 1:2-4) and Qumran (1QS 4:2-14):

9: …But (the ways of) the spirit of deceit are: inextinguishable desire and inertia in righteous activity, impiety and falsehood, pride
10: and haughtiness, atrocious disguise and falsehood, great hypocrisy, fury, great vileness, shameless zeal for abominable doings in a spirit of fornication, filthy ways in unclean worship,
11: a tongue of blasphemy, blindness of eyes and deafness of ear, stiffness of neck and hardness of heart, walking in all
12: the ways of darkness, and craft. The visitation of all those who walk in it will be many afflictions by all the angels of punishment, eternal perdition by the fury of God’s vengeful wrath,
13: everlasting terror and endless shame, together with disgrace of annihilation in the fire of murky Hell. And all their times of generations (will be spent) in woebegone suffering and <bitter
14: misery> in dark abysses until they have been destroyed, there being no remnant and rescue for them.

In the Gospels they appear only here and in the Matthean parallel (15:18-19), but they are frequent in Pauline epistles (Rom. 1:29-31; Gal. 5:19-20; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; 2 Tim. 3:2-4).

 

[patrick457]

Once more dedicated to the memory to my great-grandmother, who has now passed into eternal repose.
DEFINITIONS, continued
The evil eye (opthalmon ponēron, Hebrew: ayin ha’ra): The idea of the evil eye, which is widespread in many cultures, is well known in earlier Jewish literature (cf. Sirach 14:6, 8; Wisdom 4:12) and is attested in other literature as well. The basic concept is that certain beings have the power of casting an evil spell on others or causing mishap to fall upon them by merely gazing at them, since the eye was believed to be the window on the heart or the soul and the channel through which one’s thoughts, emotions, desires or intentions could be conveyed. This concept is usually chiefly connected to envy or jealousy, which is why this phrase is usually translated and (perhaps more properly) interpreted as ‘envy’.

There was considerable fear of the evil eye in Jesus’ and Mark’s world, which was seen as a form of sorcery (Socrates was actually believed by some to possess the evil eye and that his disciples and admirers were fascinated, “hypnotized” by his insistently glaring eyes); especially since in Roman days not only were individuals considered to possess the power of the evil eye but whole tribes, such as the Pontians or the Scythians. Many people therefore used curses, wore amulets, threw salt, or spat in an attempt to ward it off.

The Jews themselves had a number of superstitions concerning the ayin ha’ra. For example, babies were protected from it using red threads and fathers and sons were not allowed to be called successively to the reading of the Torah in synagogue (since that has a potential to be a cause of jealousy and thus the ‘evil eye’).

Folk belief (seen in the Talmud) has it that fishes are immune to the evil eye because they are covered with water. The Talmud also states that it is forbidden to stand in a neighbor’s field when the crops are fully grown. Rashi explains that this is forbidden because of the ayin ha’ra.

Some Jews, however, believe that the evil eye is mere superstition and explains any mishap attributed to it as God hearing the complaint of the jealous person and lowering the other so as to redress the balance between the two persons.

Blasphemy: The term may also be used here in the secular sense of “slander” (cf. 2 Tim. 3:2).

All these evils pour out from within: This sentence is a virtual summary and a repetition of v. 20 and stresses the main point of vv. 15-23.

COMMENTARIES

1.) From St. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea:

Gloss: The meaning of which He points out, when He subjoins, “for from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts.”

And thus it appears that evil thoughts belong to the mind, which is here called the heart, and according to which a man is called good or bad, clean or unclean.

Bede: From this passage are condemned those men who suppose that thoughts are put into them by the devil, and do not arise from their own evil will. The devil may excite and help on evil thoughts, he cannot be their author.

Gloss: From evil thoughts, however, evil actions proceed to greater lengths, concerning which it is added, adulteries, that is, acts which consist in the violation of another man’s bed; fornications, which are unlawful connexions between persons, not bound by marriage; murders, by which hurt is inflicted on the person of one’s neighbour; thefts, by which his goods are taken from him; covetousness, by which things are unjustly kept; wickedness, which consists in calumniating others; deceit, in overreaching them; lasciviousness, to which belongs any corruption of mind or body.

Theophylact: An evil eye, that is, hatred and flattery, for he who hates turns an evil and envious eye on him whom he hates, and a flatterer, looking askance at his neighbour’s goods, leads him into evil; blasphemies, that is, faults committed against God; pride, that is, contempt of God, when a man ascribes the good, which he does, not to God, but to his own virtue; foolishness, that is, an injury against one’s neighbour.
Gloss. [ed. note: see Summa 2, 2, Q46, 1, and 1, 2, Q1, 1]: Or, foolishness consists in wrong thoughts concerning God; for it is opposed to wisdom, which is the knowledge of divine things. It goes on: “All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.” For whatsoever is in the power of a man, is imputed to him as a fault, because all such things proceed from the interior will, by which man is master of his own actions.

2.) Commentary by Origen (Commentary on Matthew 11.12):

We are clearly taught in these words by the Savior that, when we read in Leviticus and Deuteronomy the precepts about meat clean and unclean, for the transgression of which we are accused by the material Jews and by the Ebionites who differ little from them, we are not to think that the scope of the Scripture is found in any superficial understanding of them. For if not that which enters into the mouth defiles the man, but that which proceeds out of the mouth (Matthew 15:11), and especially when, according to Mark, the Savior said these things making all meats clean (Mark 7:19), manifestly we are not defiled when we eat those things which the Jews who desire to be in bondage to the letter of the law declare to be unclean, but we are then defiled when, whereas our lips ought to be bound with perception and we ought to make for them what we call a balance and weight (Sirach 28:25), we speak offhand and discuss matters we ought not, from which there comes to us the spring of sins.

 

[patrick457]

Once more dedicated to the memory to my great-grandmother, who has now passed into eternal repose.

24-26: From there He arose and went to the borders of Tyre [and Sidon]. And He entered a house and did not want anyone to know, but He could not be hidden. Instead, immediately a woman after hearing about Him, whose young daughter of her had an unclean spirit, came and fell at His feet (but the woman was a Greek, of the Syrophoenician race). And she begged Him to cast the demon out of her daughter.

http://www.clarionfmc.org/Canaanite_woman___Jesus.jpg

PARALLELS IN OTHER GOSPELS: Matthew 15:21-28.

DEFINITIONS
From there He arose (anastas): Mark uses this somewhat solemn phrase when describing Jesus as embarking on a significant new activity (cf. 1:35; 10:1). Here Jesus begins His journey northward, leaving Galilee to travel north toward gentile territory. In 10:1 Jesus begins His final journey to Jerusalem where He will die and be raised up (anastēnai).

The borders of Tyre: This refers to the lands bordering Galilee that were under the jurisdiction of Tyre. The area, whose territory adjoined northern Galilee, had long been an important city. It had close links with Palestine, particularly under Herod the Great, and its coinage was widely circulated there; indeed, it exercised considerable economic dominance over the neighboring area of Galilee. Even so, Josephus claims that Tyrians were “notoriously our bitterest enemies” (Against Apion 1.13), and notes that at the outbreak of the Jewish War killed or imprisoned many of them (War 2.478). The significance of this is that Jesus enters a territory that is not only gentile but also potentially hostile to them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lestine.gif/300px-First_century_palestine.gif

Mark does not tell us that Jesus entered the city itself, but was merely in its ‘borders’ (oria), the administrative district for which it was responsible, which would be consistent with Mark’s portrayal of Jesus who do not generally frequent cities, but remains out in the countryside.

[And Sidon]: Most MSS, including early and important witnesses (א A B Ë1,13 33 2427 Ï lat), have this phrase. The Western text, as well as several other important MSS (D L W Δ Θ 28 565 it), lack the words. Although the external evidence is on the side of inclusion, it is difficult to explain why scribes would omit the mention of Sidon. On the other hand, the parallels in v. 31 and Matt 15:21 would be sufficient motivation for scribes to add Sidon here. Furthermore, every other mention of Tyre in the Gospels is accompanied by Sidon, putting pressure on scribes to conform this text as well. The shorter reading therefore, though without compelling external evidence on its side, is strongly supported by internal evidence, rendering judgment on its authenticity fairly certain.

Did not want anyone to know: Frequently does the Markan Jesus want to be incognito, seeking anonymity or privacy only to be discovered or proclaimed.

But He could not be hidden: This report about Jesus’ fame brings us to mind of the people from “Tyre and Sidon” in 3:8, heightening Jesus’ popularity amongst the Gentiles.

Whose young daughter of her: This phrase, with its repetition of the possessive (autēs) after the relative pronoun (hēs), reflects Semitic grammar.

But the woman was a Greek: A ‘Greek’ (used only here in Mark) does not necessarily mean someone who is ethnically Greek but can be used as a generic term for a non-Jew (like ‘gentile’). It can also mean someone who had assimilated Greek culture and language.

Of the Syrophoenician race: In contrast to Matthew’s more racially loaded Canaanite, Mark calls the woman a Syrophoenician. Long after Phoenician culture had flourished, or Phoenicia had existed as any political entity, Hellenized natives of the region where Canaanites still lived were referred to as Syrophoenician, in order to distinguish them from Libophoenicians, which were used for Phoenicians in north Africa (as were the Carthaginians).

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES

1.) From the Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 24. If he desired to conceal himself, and could not, his will it seems was under control; but this is impossible. His will must always take place. On this occasion, therefore, he wished himself to be sought for by these Gentiles, but not to be made known by his own apostles. Wherefore it came to pass, that not the persons who were his followers, but the Gentiles who entered the house in which he was, published his fame abroad. (St. Augustine)

Jesus Christ commanded his disciples not to publish that he was come into that country; not that he intended to cease from healing the infirm, and curing diseases, when he saw the faith of the inhabitants deserved it; for he informed the Gentile woman of his coming, and made it known to as many others as he thought worth; but that he might teach us, by his example, to decline the applause of men. (Ven. Bede)

Ver. 25. This part, in which St. Mark says that Christ was in the house, when the woman came to petition in behalf of her daughter, seems to differ from the narration of St. Matthew, who says that the disciples besought Christ to dismiss her, because she cried after them; by which he signifies, that she followed them as they were on the road. These apparent differences may thus easily be reconciled. The woman came to our Lord when he was in the house, and he, according to St. Matthew, not answering her a word, went out during the silence: the woman followed after, and by her perseverance obtained her request. (St. Augustine)

2.) From Cornelius Lapide’s Commentary:

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

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

 

[patrick457]

COMMENTARIES, continued
3.) From St. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea:

Theophylact: After that the Lord had finished His teaching concerning food, seeing that the Jews were incredulous, He enters into the country of the Gentiles, for the Jews being unfaithful, salvation turns itself to the Gentiles.

Wherefore it is said, “And from thence He arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon.”

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: Tyre and Sidon were places of the Canaanites, therefore the Lord comes to them, not as to His own, but as to men, who had nothing in common with the fathers to whom the promise was made. And therefore He comes in such a way, that His coming should not be known to the Tyrians and Sidonians.

Wherefore it continues: “and entered into a house, and would have no man know it.” For the time had not come for His dwelling with the Gentiles and bringing them to the faith, for this was not to be, till after His cross and resurrection.

Theophylact: Or else, His reason for coming in secret was that the Jews should not find occasion of blame against Him, as if He had passed over to the unclean Gentiles.

It goes on: “But He could not be hid.”

Pseudo-Augustine, Quaest e Vet. et N. Test. 77: But if He wished to do so and could not, it appears as if His will was impotent; it is not possible however that our Saviour’s will should not be fulfilled, nor can He will a thing, which He knows ought not be.

Therefore when a thing has taken place, it may be asserted that He has willed it. But we should observe that this happened amongst the Gentiles, to whom it was not time to preach; nevertheless not to receive them, when they came to the faith of their own accord, would have been to grudge them the faith.

So then it came to pass that the Lord was not made known by His disciples; others, however, who had seen Him entering the house, recognized Him, and it began to be known that He was there. His will therefore was that He should not be proclaimed by His own disciples, but that others should come to seek Him, and so it took place.

Bede, in Marc., 2, 30: Having entered also into the house, He commanded His disciples not to betray who He was to anyone in this unknown region, that they, on whom He had bestowed the grace of healing, might learn by His example, as far as they could, to shrink from the glory of human praise in the shewing forth of their miracles; yet they were not to cease from the pious work of virtue, when either the faith of the good justly deserved that miracles should be done, or the unfaithfulness of the wicked might necessarily compel them. For He Himself made known His entry into that place to the Gentile woman, and to whomsoever He would.

Pseudo-Aug.: Lastly, the Canaanitish woman came in to Him, on hearing of Him; if she had not first submitted herself to the God of the Jews, she would not have obtained their benefit. Concerning her it continues: “For a woman, whose daughter had an unclean spirit, as soon as she had heard of Him, came in and fell at His feet.”

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: Now by this the Lord wished to shew His disciples that He opened the door of faith even to the Gentiles, wherefore also the nation of the woman is described when it is added, “The woman was a Gentile, a Syrophenician by nation,” that is, from Syria and Phaenice.

It goes on: “and she besought Him that He would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.”

Augustine, de Con. Evan., 2, 49: It appears however that some question about a discrepancy may be raised, because it is said that the Lord was in the house when the woman came, asking about her daughter. When, however, Matthew says that His disciples had suggested to Him, “Send her away, for she crieth after us,” [Matt 15:23] He appears to imply nothing less than that the woman uttered supplicating cries after the Lord, as He walked. How then do we infer that she was in the house, except by gathering it from Mark, who says that she came in to Jesus, after having before said that He was in the house? But Matthew in that he says, “He answered her not a word,” gave us to understand that He went out, during that silence, from the house; thus too the other events are connected together, so that they now in no way disagree.

 

[patrick457]

In memory of my late-great-grandmother.

27-30: And He said to her, “Let the children be satisfied first because it is not proper to take the bread of the children and to throw it to the house dogs.” And she retorted and says to Him, “Yes, sir, but even the house dogs under the table eat from the crumbs of the children.” And He said to her, “Because of your word, go; the demon has left your daughter.” And going away to her house, she found the child lying on the bed and the demon having left.

http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/8851/cananeeneix1.jpg

DEFINITIONS
House dogs (kynaria): The term does not refer to wild and unkempt street dogs in this context, but to small dogs taken in as house pets (this, the diminutive form of the word kyōn “dog” originally referred to puppies or little dogs, then later extended to lap dogs). It is thus not a derogatory term per se, but is instead intended by Jesus to indicate the privileged position of the Jews (especially His disciples) as the initial recipients of Jesus’ ministry.
*

Roman dog mosaic from Pompeii, with the words “Cave Canem” (Beware the dog).*
While calling someone ‘dog’ was insulting (1 Sam. 17:43; 2 Sam. 16:9; Ps. 22 [21]:16; Isa. 56:10-11), Jewish people did not regularly call non-Jews “dogs,” as some commentators have argued (this is, at best, a caricature; however, gentiles were at times likened to dogs, more specifically the wild scavenger types). Rather, Jesus is making his point by way of illustration. Worthless food would be cast to the dogs (cf. Ex 22:31). In Jewish Palestine, street dogs were regarded as scavengers and therefore unclean, but in well-to-do households influenced by Greek custom, dogs were sometimes considered as pets. Jesus is thus making an illustration here: the children of the house must be fed before the pets, and the Jewish people (the ‘children’) therefore had first claim over the gentiles (the ‘house dogs’), since it was to them that the Messiah came.

Bread of the children…crumbs of the children: There is a subtle difference here that is not apparent in English. Jesus uses the word teknon (biological children) when referring to the “children’s bread,” while the woman used the word paidion, a more inclusive word implying both ‘children’ and ‘servants’. The change in terminology suggests that the woman understands the mercies of God to extend beyond ethnic Israel.

Eat from the crumbs of the children: Jesus’ image (and His mention of the children being satisfied first) gives the woman the cue she needs, and enable her, on the basis of His own saying, to refute His words and replace it with a defiant “Yes, sir (or Lord; the Greek word Kyrie can mean both), it is right.” This is a remarkable twist to the argument, and one which displays the woman’s humility as it does shrewdness on her part. The woman does not object the lower place that Jesus’ saying assumes for the Gentiles and even accepts the epithet ‘dog’, but insists that the dogs, too, must have their day. The mission of the Messiah, while it must of course begin with Israel, cannot be always confined there. The gentiles may have to wait, but they are not excluded from the benefits which the Messiah brings. She is bold enough to pursue her request: even the crumbs would suffice.

The demon has left (exelēlythen): Unlike other exorcisms, there is no physical confrontation between the exorcist and the demon, nor is there any explicit word of command; the removal of the demon is already spoken of as a past event. Thus, this healing from a distance (an attested motif in ancient miracle stories), coupled with the use of the perfect tense of the verb exelēlythen, which describes completed action in the past, serves to heighten the power of Jesus.

Bed (klinē): This word, which could mean ‘dining couch’, while echoing 2 Kings 4:32, may also suggest a higher social level for the woman and her daughter.