Mark 7:1-8

10. CONFLICT WITH PHARISEES 7:1-23.

a. Conflict over washings 7:1-8

TEXT 7:1-8

And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen, hands. For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders: and when they come from the marketplace, except they wash themselves, they eat not: and many other things there be, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels. And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands? And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

This people honoureth me with their lips,
But their heart is far from me.
But in vain do they worship me,
Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.

Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 7:1-8

318.

Did these Pharisees and scribes make a special trip from Jerusalem just to criticize Jesus? Discuss.

319.

What is meant by unwashen, or defiled hands?

320.

Are we to understand from Mark 7:3 that all the Jews observed the tradition of the elders?

321.

Who were the elders? What is meant by tradition?

322.

Why bathe after going to the marketplace?

323.

Is the word baptize here used i.e. in Mark 7:4 the same as used in reference to baptizing people? If so how could it be applied to couches?

324.

In what sense were the hands of the disciples common?

325.

Wasn-'t it unkind for Jesus to call these men hypocrites?

326.

In what sense had the Pharisees honored God with their lips?

327.

Just what is vain worship?

328.

Please show just how such persons left the command of God.

329.

Is Jesus saying such persons prefer the precepts of men to the commandments of God? Why?

COMMENT 7:1-8

TIMESummer A.D. 29.
PLACEIn or near Capernaum.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMatthew 15:1-2; Matthew 7-9.

OUTLINE1. Gathering for criticism, Mark 7:1-2. Mark 7:2. The ceremonial carefulness of the Pharisees, Mark 7:3-4. Mark 7:3. Criticism offered and answered, Mark 7:5-8.

ANALYSIS 7:1-8

I.

GATHERING FOR CRITICISM, Mark 7:1-2.

1.

Composed of Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem.

2.

They were there to criticize the lack of ceremonial washing.

II.

THE CEREMONIAL CAREFULNESS OF THE PHARISEES, Mark 7:3-4.

1.

Never ate until they were ceremonially cleani.e. according to traditionno law of God required it.

2.

Never returned from the marketplace or used cups, pots, pans without ceremonial washings.

III.

CRITICISM OFFERED AND ANSWERED, Mark 7:5-8.

1.

Why do your disciples fail to keep the tradition of the elders?

2.

You are fulfilling Isaiah's prophecy of the hypocrites who speak one thing and do another.

3.

Your worship is vain.

4.

You neglect the command of God for the traditions of men.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

1-4. The place is still Capernaum. Which came from Jerusalem. Literally, having come. The scribes and Pharisees who are mentioned here are probably Galilaeans who had been at Jerusalem and had just returned thence. The definite article is wanting before the participle. Its presence would indicate that they were a delegation from the capital; but probably these were Galilaean religionists, who, returning from Jerusalem, perhaps after consultation there, made it their first work to come together to Jesus and see what he was doing.They saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiledliterally, with commonhands, With hands in the ordinary state. Not with dirty handsthat was not the point of objectionbut with hands unwashen, not ceremonially purified according to their ideas of necessity.Some of his disciples were doing thus, not all of theman indication that he had given them teaching that would render them indifferent to the practice of the Pharisees in this matter, but that only a part of them had yet been freed from their scruples on the subject.Mark 7:3-4 are parenthetical, and the best manuscripts insert an and at the beginning of Mark 7:5, which disturbs the grammatical construction and makes a broken sentence. This led copyists to add they found fault in Mark 7:2, to complete the structure; but the addition is cancelled by all the chief editors of the text.

The parenthetical passage (Mark 7:3-4) is wholly peculiar to Mark and is devoted to the explanation, for the benefit of Gentile readers, of the custom of the Pharisees, shared by the Jews in general, about ceremonial cleansings. The Pharisees, and all the Jews, A loose popular expression to show that this custom of the Pharisees was widely received; not to be pressed, as if it declared absolute unanimity. Many, of course, had no time for these practices, and the Pharisees despised all who neglected them for that reason or for any other, and thought there was scarcely a hope for them. (See John 7:49 for an utterance of this feeling.)Except they wash their hands oft, or diligently, pugme. Literally, with the fist. Probably descriptive of the washing of one hand by rubbing it with the other. The Sinaitic Manuscript alone has pukna, frequently, which Tischendorf alone among editors adopts.And when they come from the market, where in the crowd defilement might most easily be contracted.Except they wash, they eat not. The word is baptizo, ean me baptisontai. So in Luke 11:38 the Pharisee wondered that Jesus had not first bathed himself (ebaptisthe) before dinner. It is not the baptizing of their hands, but of themselves, or, strictly, the being baptized or bathed, that was thus insisted upon. The word baptize is used precisely as in 2 Kings 5:14, where it is said of Naaman, He dipped himself seven times in Jordan. From the strict literal signification, to immerse or submerge, it comes naturally in certain connections to acquire the sense to wash by immersing, to cleanse, of course only in cases where the dipping is into clean water. So Grimm, N. T. Lexicon.) Bathe is an admissible translation in this connection, and any difficulties about giving the word its proper meaning here are purely imaginary. In Mark 7:4 the word for washings, in washings of cups, etc., is from the same root, baptismous, a derivative of baptizo. But it is not the word that is used to denote the Christian rite, which is a neuter word, baptisma, while this is masculine, a form that is found only here and in Hebrews 6:2; Hebrews 9:10. Its signification is properly given by Liddel and Scott in their Greek and English Lexicon, a dipping in water. It indicates sometimes, in certain connections, a thorough cleansing by water, which would naturally be made, in the case of the objects here mentioned, by dipping, according to the literal signification of the word. The cups (poteria) were drinking-cups.As for the pots, the Greek word xestai is a corruption of the Latin sextaurius, a pot that held about a pint. These were ordinarily wooden vessels.The brasenor properly bronzevessels were for similar purposes with the wooden. The law provided, at least in certain cases of defilement, that earthen vessels should be broken, and that wooden ones should be rinsed in water (Leviticus 15:12).The word translated tables (klinon) cannot possibly mean that; it is beds or couches, and may refer to the platforms on which they reclined around the table, which must often be thoroughly washed for fear of defilement, or to the cushions, which would need washing quite as much, and very likely would be washed oftener. But the words and of tables are omitted by some good manuscripts, by Tishendorf, and by the revisers.

The greater part of these minute requirements lay outside of the Mosaic law. These things, Mark says, they have received to hold; and they do them holding the tradition of the elders, the interpretations and supplements of the law, brought down orally from the men of an earlier time. Tradition was the ecclesiastical version of the lawthe law as it came out of the hands of the great teachers. It was regarded as equally authoritative with the written law itself, and, by some, more so. It was the very life and mission of the Pharisees to keep the traditional interpretations in full force. (See Farrar, Life of Christ, 2. 471.) Whoever reads such descriptions as are given by Farrar and Geikie of the ingenious wickedness with which this was attempted will not wonder at the denunciations of our Lord or be surprised that the Pharisees were his natural enemies. This was a part of the bondage from which he came to set men free.

Mark 7:5-7. Of course they must call him to account, and not the disciplesthe rabbi, not the pupils. He and they were reproved oftener for neglecting the traditions than for departing from the genuine law. His quotation in reply is almost verbally exact from Isaiah 29:13 in the LXX., the sole variationteaching for doctrines the commandments of men, instead of teaching doctrines and commandments of menbeing identical in Matthew and Mark. Traditionalism has met him in its extreme form, and he does not miss his opportunity to scorch it with the fire of his wrath.Perhaps the tone of indignation is even stronger in Matthew than in Mark. Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocritesi.e. concerning such hypocrites as you, in his own age or in any other. He condemned outward worship without heart, the profession of the lips with no inward devotion or obedience.Isaiah was full of such denunciations (as chap, Mark 1:11-20), and so were all the prophets. Often, as here, they declared that it was in vain; it was empty, fruitless work; it went for nothing, Besides the heartlessness, and as another reason for rejecting such worship, God condemns the foisting upon his religion of human traditions and commandments. His worship must be upon the basis of his own requirements, and no human arrangement may take its place beside what he has appointed. The introduction of human tradition was the point in which the passage from Isaiah was directly applicable to the Pharisees.

Mark 7:8. For should be omitted at the beginning of this verse, and so should as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do, at the end. So this strong statement stands alone: laying aside (or leaving) the commandment of God, ye hold the traditions of men. He charges them, not with addition, but with substitution. They have forsaken command for tradition, God for men. The elders are their chief authority, not Moses or Jehovah; they are not serving God. So, in spirit, Jeremiah 2:12-13. The rebuke is there for idolatry; but in the sight of God the sin of the Pharisees was as heinous as that. (W. N. Clarke)

FACT QUESTIONS 7:1-8

354.

What record does Luke give that is very much like this?

355.

Who were these scribes and Pharisees?

356.

Why conclude this was not an official delegation?

357.

Did the disciples have dirty hands?

358.

What has been said earlier about the lack of time for eating?

359.

For whose benefit were Mark 7:3-4 placed in the text?

360.

Read John 7:49 and show how it relates.

361.

What is the literal meaning of wash their hands oft.?

362.

Is there some connection with what Naaman the leper did (2 Kings 5:14) and what these Pharisees did? Explain.

363.

How is the word washing or baptismous different than the word used for the action of Christian baptism?

364.

Show how immersion is a perfectly natural thought in the washings here described.particularly with the tables or couches.

365.

How did the bondage of tradition become a yoke too heavy to bear?

366.

Why speak to Jesus and not to His disciples?

367.

Do you imagine the Jews who heard the rebuke of Jesus believed it? Did it make them angry? Was it fair? Was it loving?

368.

Jesus did not charge them with addition to the law of God but with what? Read Jeremiah 2:12-13.