 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
The Gospel of Mark
|
BIBLE STUDY MARK 7:1-37 REVIEW: Chapter 6 began with an account of Jesus’ visit to his hometown – presumably Nazareth. But in contrast to how he had been received elsewhere as a great teacher and healer, the people in Nazareth tended to focus upon his familiarity. Therefore they were not able to receive and experience his ministry in powerful ways. Indeed, Mark emphasizes that Jesus was not able to do deeds of power in his hometown because of their unbelief. In contrast to the people of Nazareth, however, the people in other villages were much more receptive to his ministry. Jesus multiplied his ministry by commissioning the twelve and sending them out two by two. His instructions to them seem to be influenced by his experience in Nazareth – that is: stay and do ministry where people were ready to welcome and hear them – or leave and move on when people were NOT ready to welcome and hear them (because they would not be able to accomplish any significant ministry in that climate. In the next section of chapter 6, we hear that Jesus’ name was becoming known. Many were speculating as to who he might be. King Herod (the Tetrarch) saw him as being John the Baptist come back to life. Mark then presents a “flashback” about John the Baptist’s death at the hands of Herod. Through the details, it becomes evident that Mark sees John the Baptist as being Elijah. (For example, Herodias is similar to Queen Jezebel who wanted to kill Elijah.) Elijah was understood as being the “precursor” of the Messiah (understood by Mark’s readers as being Jesus). Also, this story is a sobering reminder of the suffering that prophetic figures may be expected to endure – and that Mark’s original readers were likely experiencing as well. The next section of chapter 6 was the “Feeding of the Five Thousand.” In one sense, this miracle is a “recasting” of a biblical image from the Old Testament – Elisha’s feeding of one hundred people from twenty loaves, and yet having some left over. (Jesus’ feeding, of course, is shown as being much greater than that!) The main imagery, however, is the theme of REST – both physical rest needed by the disciples and the emotional/spiritual rest implied by everyone having a “sit-down meal” on the green grass (reminiscent of Psalm 23:2-5). A final section of chapter 6 was that of Jesus coming to his disciples by walking on the water – in a way “reenacting” God’s revelation of himself to Moses in Exodus 23:19-22 and 34:6). It is another demonstration as to who Jesus truly is – as well as a reminder of people’s failure to be able to fully comprehend this. The chapter concluded with another “transitional summary” of Jesus’ mighty works – that serves as a “bridge” to the next major section of Mark’s gospel – more adversarial encounters with the Pharisees and scribes. CHAPTER 7:1-8 “The Controversy Over the Necessity of Human Traditions” “Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him, they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.) So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’ You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.” To root cause of this controversy was the Pharisaic understanding of how we should observe God’s Law (Torah). Their concern was to “erect a fence” around the Torah, so that people might not even accidentally transgress it. Over the course of time, many rituals and traditions came into being – with the purpose of helping us to avoid transgressing God’s Torah. So it was with the tradition of washing hands before eating. The purpose of this hand washing was not necessarily physical cleanliness but ritual purity. Leviticus 11-15 is the source for many of the “cleanliness” laws in scripture. “Uncleanness” was viewed as something that could be contacted, like a disease. Therefore, over time many traditions came into being that would help people to avoid being contaminated by “uncleanness”. Mark lists a number of these traditions with regard to washings. (In another source, John in his gospel notes that the six stone water jars at the wedding in Cana were for the Jewish rites of purification.) Even today, many Jews and Muslims observe washings of hands and feet before prayer or going into a holy place. (The “elders” refer to great scribes and rabbinical teachers of the past whose teachings were often cited and observed in religious matters.) Even the Pharisees and scribes would admit that the ceremonial washing of hands was not a commandment from God. But they did maintain that observing this tradition was a mark of a “religious” person. Therefore, their view was that if Jesus did not promote the observance of the hand washing tradition among his disciples, he was not a truly “religious” teacher. Jesus in his reply gets to the heart of the dispute. He quotes from Isaiah 29:13 to show that human traditions are NOT the same as God’s commandments and should not in anyway be put “on par” with them. QUESTION: In what ways do people today sometimes equate their traditions as being a part of their religion? CHAPTER 7:9-13 “Traditions that can Oppose God’s Law” “Then he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.’ But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, ‘Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban’ (that is, an offering to God) – then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.” Jesus uses this hypothetical example to show how a scribal tradition can actually be in conflict with a direct commandment of God. “Corban” literally means “gift” – something that has been vowed to God. It is important to understand that in the example Jesus cites, there are actually two commandments from the Torah at stake. The commandment about honoring one’s father and mother is very familiar to us as one of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:12, Deut. 5:16). But the commandment about the importance of keeping vows to God is also in the Torah (Num. 30:1-2, Deut. 23:21-23). The tradition that Jesus attacks is that in cases of conflict between two commandments, VOWS to God must take priority over any commandments dealing with human obligations. So in the example that Jesus gives, a person could say that his property is “Corban” – a dedicated gift to God – although in practice the property would only revert to the Temple after his death (as an inheritance gift). Theoretically, a person could even make a vow to give his property as an inheritance gift to the Temple in order to avoid supporting his parents in their old age. Throughout the gospels, however, Jesus consistently states that the claim of human love must always take precedence over legalistic rules (for example, his defending of the disciples plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath (Mk. 2:23-28) and his healing of the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath (Mk. 31-5). William Barclay in his Daily Study Bible commentary puts it this way: “Jesus was attacking a system which put rules and regulations before the claim of human need. The commandment of God was that the claim of human love should come first; the commandment of the scribes was that the claim of legal rules and regulations should come first. Jesus was quite sure that any regulation which prevented a man from giving help where help was needed was nothing less than a contradiction of the law of God. We must have a care that we never allow rules to paralyze the claims of love. Nothing that prevents us helping a fellowman can ever be a rule approved by God.” CHAPTER 7:14-23 “The Real Defilement” “Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.” When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. He said to them, “Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” This passage is one of the most revolutionary sayings of Jesus in the entire gospel – and it is a teaching that sets Christianity apart from all other major religions in the world. All other major religions have various “taboos” on what persons should eat or drink – Jews are prohibited from eating pork or shellfish; Muslims are prohibited from eating pork or drinking alcohol; Hindus are prohibited from eating beef, etc. Jesus, however, makes the claim that things cannot be either unclean or clean in any real sense of the term. Only persons can make things clean or unclean by their use or abuse of them. What makes persons abuse things – what truly defiles them – are the evil intentions that are in their hearts. The full ramifications of this teaching are still hard for people – even many Christians – to comprehend. The apostle Paul had to deal with this issue in Romans 14:1-22 and 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 because some Christians believed that eating meat was wrong and would defile them. Even today, some Christians sincerely believe that certain foods or drink in and of themselves will harm and defile. But as Jesus makes clear, the things that we consume do NOT defile us. Jesus then gives a list of “things” that come from the heart that defile a person. Every outward act of sin is preceded by an inward act of evil intention. Let us briefly look at each of the “evil intentions” that Jesus mentions…
This is truly a terrible list of evil intentions that come from the human heart. According to Jesus, it is these evil intentions – NOT ceremonially unclean things that we may eat or drink – that defile a person! CHAPTER 7:24-30 “The Syrophoenician Woman” “From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” But she answered him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Then he said to her, “For saying that, you may go – the demon has left your daughter.” So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.” This narrative portrays an array of “boundary crossings”. First, we see that Jesus leaves the traditional land of Israel to go into region of Tyre. Secondly, the woman crosses two boundaries: the one separating Jews and Gentiles; and also the one separating males and females. Unlike in Matthew’s account of this encounter (Mt. 15:21-28), Mark emphasizes Jesus’ humanness. Jesus seems to have an attitude and prejudice that would be typical of a first century Jewish male. Some commentators have tried to explain Jesus’ initial reply to the woman’s request by saying that he must have made it “with a smile and twinkle in his eye” – but that is an assumption that is not indicated by Mark. On the face of it, Jesus reacts to the woman’s request by INSULTING her by comparing her to a “dog”. In her reply, however, the woman helps Jesus to understand that she still has a claim on his mercy. Jesus seems to understand that he has actually been BESTED in this debate, and tells her that “for saying that” she would have her request granted. (This is in contrast to Jesus praising her “faith” in Mt. 15:28.) At the beginning of this chapter (vs. 1-8) Jesus makes a distinction between observing human tradition and obeying God’s commandments. Apparently, in this section he himself is taught about the full ramifications of what this means! “Human traditions” that divide people from each other and prohibit the helping others in need must be set aside. This narrative very likely addressed an issue that was familiar to Mark’s original readers. In the early Church, a major issue was how Jewish and Gentile Christians could relate to each other. Some conservative Jewish Christians refused to eat with Gentile Christians (Galatians 2:11-14). But this passage shows that EVERYONE (Jew and Gentile, male and female, etc.) has a claim on God’s mercy – and that in Christ the cultural and social boundaries that separate us from each other are being overcome. CHAPTER 7:31-37 “Jesus Heals a Deaf and Mute Man” “Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis. They brought to him a deaf man who had an impediment in his speech; and they begged him to lay his hand on him. He took him aside in private, away from the crowd, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue. Then looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, “Ephphatha,” that is, “Be opened.” And immediately his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly. Then Jesus ordered them to tell no one; but the more he ordered them, the more zealously they proclaimed it. They were astounded beyond measure, saying, “He has done everything well; he even makes the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.” This story is found only in Mark – neither Matthew nor Luke mention this healing in their gospels. Jesus is still in Gentile territory, and apparently the people and the man he heals are also Gentiles. Daniel Harrington and John Donohue in their commentary on The Gospel of Mark state that the details of Jesus’ healing of the man (fingers into his ears, spitting, touching his tongue, his sighing, etc.) are similar to magical cures current in the Hellenistic world. Perhaps Jesus used these actions because they would have been familiar to Gentiles. Jesus’ taking the man aside in private was perhaps for two reasons: 1) because he was concerned for his feelings – so that he would not have to be on “display”; and 2) because of the “messianic secret” motif. Be that as it may, the result of the healing is that Jesus’ power and authority are manifested yet again. The reaction of the people (Gentiles this time!) is the same amazement that had accompanied Jesus’ earlier healings such as his casting out an unclean spirit in Mk. 1:27-28 and healing the paralyzed man in Mk. 2:12. -------------------- George R. Karres, Pella Lutheran Church 418 W. Main Street Sidney, MT 59270
|
||||