Breaking Human Traditions, 1-13

7:1 Now the Pharisees and some of the experts in the law who came from Jerusalem gathered around him. 7:2 And they saw that some of Jesus’ disciples ate their bread with unclean hands, that is, unwashed.

Here is another fact-finding (or, rather fault-finding) investigation (see Mk 3:22) of what Jesus was getting up to.  It is an indication both of his increasing fame and the Jews’ increasing concerns.  This enquiry is biased and fault-finding from the start.

They were guilty of misplaced zeal:

‘These Pharisees and scribes with whom he had this argument, are said to come from Jerusalem down to Galilee – fourscore or a hundred miles, to pick quarrels with our Saviour there, where they supposed him to have the greatest interest and reputation. Had they come so far to be taught by him, their zeal had been commendable; but to come so far to oppose him, and to check the progress of his gospel, was great wickedness.’ (MHC)

Teachers of the law = scribes.

Note the contrasts between these Jewish leaders and Jesus:

‘His humility (Lk 22:27) contrasted sharply with their pomposity (Mt 23:5-7); his sincerity (Jn 8:46), with their hypocrisy (Mk 7:6); his sympathy (Mk 6:34), with their cruelty (Mt 23:14). To a considerable extent their “religion” was activity in the interest of self (Mt 6:2, 5, 16); his ministry was a sacrifice in the interest of others (Mk 10:45) and to the glory of the Father (Jn 17:1, 4).’ (Hendriksen)

This is not the only time that Jesus is criticised indirectly, because of the behaviour of his disciples.  See Mk 2:18, 24.

The hand-washing referred to here has nothing to do with hygiene, nor was it required by the Law of Moses.  It was ritual washing prescribed by the oral traditions of which the scribes and Pharisees were the custodians.  Such rituals may well have functioned as ‘boundary-markers’ distinguishing Jews from the Gentiles.  But they hardly fit into E.P. Sanders’ category of ‘covenantal nomism’, for they do not derive from the Mosaic Law.

Ryle remarks that we have here evidence of the decay into which the Jewish religion had fallen, at the time of Jesus:

‘From the religion of the books of Deuteronomy and Psalms, to the religion of washing hands, and pots, and cups, how great was the fall!  There are branches of the Church of Christ at this day in which the Scriptures are never read, and the Gospel never preached, – branches in which the only religion now remaining consists in using a few unmeaning forms and keeping certain man-made fasts and feasts, – branches which began well, like the Jewish Church, and like the Jewish Church have now fallen into utter barrenness and decay.’

7:3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they perform a ritual washing, holding fast to the tradition of the elders. 7:4 And when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. They hold fast to many other traditions: the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and dining couches.)

The Pharisees and all the Jews – Mark is explaining for the benefit of his Gentile readers what was general Jewish practice.  The common people – the so-called ‘sinners’ were not careful about ritual cleanness.  Mark is referring to ‘the Jews generally’.

The tradition of the elders – What was being questioned was a matter of ritual not drawn from the Torah, but from the traditions that had grown up around the law.  Ex 30:19; 40:13 required priests to wash their hands and feet before entering the Tabernacle.  But this was vastly expanded over time so that ordinary Jews applied the purity laws to their own daily routines of praying and eating.  As Lane remarks, there was something potentially noble about this – an attempt to recognise ‘the priesthood of all believers’ and a desire to sanctify all aspects of daily life.

We could say many positive things about the scribes and Pharisees – not only their zeal and singlemindedness, but also their determination to live out their religion in everyday life.

7:5 The Pharisees and the experts in the law asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with unwashed hands?”

“The tradition of the elders” was a vast system of interpretation and application of the law.  It had developed in order to cover virtually every aspect of personal and corporate life, and was safeguarded, in oral form, by the scribes.

7:6 He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me.
7:7 They worship me in vain,
teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.’

7:8 Having no regard for the command of God, you hold fast to human tradition.”

‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me’ – The quote is from Isaiah 29:13.  We do well to remember this in both our public worship.  We must not, as Ryle puts it, take our bodies to church but leave our hearts at home.  Our bowed heads, serious expressions, and dutiful responses may impress other people, but they do not impress God, who looks upon the heart.  And in our private devotions, too, let us remember that God does not regard the length or fluency of our prayers, but their heartfelt sincerity.

All of this is a long way from true, heartfelt worship.  Archbishop William Temple  defined such worship as follows:-

‘To worship is to quicken the conscience by the holiness of God, to feed the mind with the truth of God, to purge the imagination by the beauty of God, to open the heart to the love of God, and to devote the will to the purpose of God.’

“You hypocrites” – This is the only place in Mark where this term is used.  It is used three times in Luke and yet more times in Matthew:

‘The hypocrite is the man who hides or tries to hide his real intentions under (hypo) a mask of simulated virtue.’ (Hendriksen)

Why does Jesus react so strongly?

‘It is because he sees, in their attitude, a fulfilment of biblical prophecy, and a vindication of the authority of the very Scripture upon which they should have leaned.’ (Cole)

The same writer adds that

‘we may perhaps compare the prophetic attack on much of the meaningless and hollow religious ritual of the days of the kings.’

And, after all, this was not an isolated and innocent enquiry on the part of the Jewish teachers, but a deliberate inquisition, v1.  Moreover, behind what they had presented as an infraction of a divine commandments lie, in fact, an intention to destroy the Son of Man.  (Cf. Hendriksen)

‘They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men’ – The Jewish leaders were not only insincere; they were also mistaken.

“Having no regard for the command of God, you hold fast to human tradition” – And what a burden this human tradition was! –

‘The rabbis had divided the Mosaic law or Torah into 613 separate decrees, 365 of these being considered prohibitions and 248 positive directives. Then, in connection with each decree, by drawing arbitrary distinctions between what they considered “permitted” and “not permitted,” they had attempted to regulate every detail of the conduct of the Jews: their sabbaths, travel, meals, fasts, ablutions, trade, relation toward outsiders, etc., etc. One finds an example of their hair-splitting, casuistic reasoning in Mt 23:16-18…Thus, having an eye only for the multiplicity of the decrees and of their myriad applications to concrete life situations, they had piled up precept upon precept (cf. Isa 28:10, 13) until at last, by most of these scribes and Pharisees, the unity and purpose of God’s holy law—see Deut 6:4; then Lev 19:18; Mic 6:8; cf. Mk 12:28-34—had suffered a total eclipse.’ (Hendriksen)

There was a vast difference between original intent and actual effect:

‘Theoretically, the oral law was a fence which safeguarded the people from infringing the Law.  In actuality, it represented a tampering with the Law which resulted inevitably in distortion and ossification of the living word of God.’ (Lane)

7:9 He also said to them, “You neatly reject the commandment of God in order to set up your tradition. 7:10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death.’ 7:11 But you say that if anyone tells his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you would have received from me is corban’ (that is, a gift for God), 7:12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother. 7:13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like this.”

There is some evidence that some of the Pharisees and scribes did elevate the status of the oral tradition above that of the Torah itself.

Jesus distinguished sharply between the Scripture as the Word of God and tradition as the teaching of men, and insisted that all the traditions of the elders must be subordinated to the supreme authority of Scripture, Mk 7:1 ff. This means ‘that we always have the duty and the right to appeal back from the tradition to the Scripture which it claims to be interpreting.’

“For Moses said…” – Note how Jesus regards the law of Moses as the very word of God.

Jesus now goes on to give an example of how possible it is for tradition to violate God’s law, instead of merely clarifying or applying it.

The quotations are from Ex 20:12 (= Deut 5:16) and Ex 21:16 respectively.

‘Honour your father and your mother’ – ‘To honor father and mother means more than to obey them, especially if this obedience is interpreted in a merely outward sense. It is the inner attitude of the child toward his parents that comes to the fore in the requirement that he honor them. All selfish obedience or reluctant obedience or obedience under terror is immediately ruled out. To honor implies to love, to regard highly, to show the spirit of respect and consideration. This honor is to be shown to both of the parents, for as far as the child is concerned they are equal in authority.’ (Hendriksen)

‘Whoever insults his father or mother must be put to death’ – See Deut 21:18-21.  Jesus does hesitate to offer this stern warning from Deut 21:18-21.  So much for the modern tendency to draw a sharp contrast between the teaching of the Old Testament and that of our Lord in such matters!

Steve Wells (Skeptic’s Annotated Bible) thinks that Jesus is here telling us:

‘to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell.’

This reading is utterly without merit, and demonstates intellectual laziness on the part of the writer.

In his commentary on Leviticus, Gordon Wenham notes that the NT endorses the moral principles enshrined in Lev 18 – adultery, incest, homosexual practices and the like.  He notes that Lev 20 goes further in laying down the death penalty for such sins.  Wenham comments that

‘the position of the NT on these penalties is not clear-cut. On the one hand Christ appears to endorse the death penalty for dishonoring parents (Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10). Paul sums up the list of grievous sins in Rom 1:18–32 with the words “those who do such things deserve to die” (v. 32). On the other hand Christ did not insist on the death penalty for the woman taken in adultery (John 8:1ff.).’

This could be because, as Calvin remarks, Jesus came to save, not to condemn.  But this does not lessen the main import of the law, which applies now as it did then: such conduct merit’s God’s grave displeasure.

“Corban” (that is, a gift to God) – Money or other property could be designated as an offering to God, thus banning other uses.  Lane mentions a recently-discovered Jewish ossuary inscription: ‘All that a man may find-to-his-profit in this ossuary (is) an offering to God from him who is within it.’

‘In the hypothetical situation proposed by Jesus, if the son declared his property qorban to his parents, he neither promised it to the Temple nor prohibited its use to himself, but he legally excluded his parents from the right of benefit.’ (Lane)

If the son regretted his decision, and brought the case to the scribes for arbitration, they would tell him him that his vow must be honoured.

Commenting on vv9-13, Cole says,

‘this is a wise warning that the passage about hating parents for Christ’s sake (Lk 14:26) is to be seen in the context of genuine filial piety as a Christian duty.’

“You nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down” – The scribes would have argued that a vow made to God takes precedence over responsibilities towards one’s parents.  But Jesus will not allow human tradition to pitch one commandments against another:

‘This interpretation of Num 30:1f seized upon the letter of the passage in such as way as to miss the meaning of the Law as a whole.’ (Lane)

Lane suggests that in this context the quotation from Isa 29:13 is particularly relevant:

‘The quotation indicates that Jesus is not so much attacking a particular scribal practice as he is showing that the scribes cannot properly honour God.  In their concern for the fulfilment of the letter of Scripture they forget that the Law was provided not for its own sake but to benefit men.  It is an expression of God’s covenant faithfulness as well as of his righteousness and in no circumstance was obedience to one commandment intended to nullify another.’

Jesus did not attack the law, but scribal evasions of it:

‘Jesus did not think of himself as setting aside the Mosaic Torah; it was not the Torah but the scribal evasions of it (“the traditions of the elders”) which he attacked. He calls the Torah “the word of God.” His own “new teaching” was designed to correct the accommodations which had had to be made in the Torah because of the hardness of men’s hearts; (Mk 10:5) he was concerned to restore its original intention and to fulfil it.’ (Mt 5:17)

(Alan Richardson, Introduction to New Testament Theology, p166)

‘God’s statutes shall not only lie forgotten, as antiquated obsolete laws, but they shall, in effect, stand repealed, that their traditions may take place. They were entrusted to expound the law, and to enforce it; and, under pretence of using that power, they violated the law, and dissolved the bonds of it; destroying the text with the comment.’ (MHC)

And you do many things like that – Jesus declares that this was not an isolated example, but one of many.

7:14 Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand. 7:15 There is nothing outside of a person that can defile him by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles him.”

Having exposed the Jewish leaders’ general attitude towards God law and human traditions, he now turns, as he addresses the crowd, to the particular point that had been raised about ‘uncleanness’.

“Listen to me, everyone, and understand” – Underscoring the importance and seriousness of what Jesus is about to say.

‘In endeavouring thus to fix the attention, and to engage in active operation the mental faculties, of his hearers, our Lord sets an example which should be followed by every religious teacher.  There is no pouring christian truth passively into the minds of men.  If men will not listen, and reflect, and examine the meaning of statements, the validity of arguments, and force of motives, the best possible teaching will not make them wiser and better.  It is anything but a recommendation to a sermon, that it saves the audience the trouble of thinking.’ (Brown)

‘Corrupt customs are best cured by rectifying corrupt notions.’ (MHC)

v15 This is a thorough contradiction of rabbinic teaching.  The rabbis assumed an initially pure state, that was then corrupted by something external.  Jesus has a much more profound and unsettling view of human impurity: it comes from within, from the heart.  The problem is not one of ceremonial impurity, but of moral impurity.

‘What, then, are we to make of the apparent identification of ritual and moral in, say, Leviticus?’:

‘Perhaps it is rather akin to the wise mother’s insistence that he child be scrubbed and in clean clothes on Sunday, that by outward things the child’s mind may appreciate at least something of the nature of God.  Paul is clear that the ritual law – though not the moral law – belonged to God’s kindergarten for his people, Gal 4:9.’ (Cole)

“It is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean'” – That is to say, it is what comes up from a person’s inmost being, and is then expressed in word and action, that defines a person’s purity.  This is, of course, frequently stress in the OT.

‘As a corrupt fountain sends forth corrupt streams, so doth a corrupt heart send forth corrupt reasonings, corrupt appetites and passions, and all those wicked words and actions which are produced by them.’ (MHC)

Mark 7:16

The best manuscripts omit this verse.

7:17 Now when Jesus had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. 7:18 He said to them, “Are you so foolish? Don’t you understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him? 7:19 For it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and then goes out into the sewer.” (This means all foods are clean.) 7:20 He said, “What comes out of a person defiles him. 7:21 For from within, out of the human heart, come evil ideas, sexual immorality, theft, murder, 7:22 adultery, greed, evil, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, pride, and folly. 7:23 All these evils come from within and defile a person.”

As is the case with the parable of the sower, Mk 4, the disciples themselves claim not to understand and so receive an explanation from Jesus.

“Are you so foolish?” – The disciples repeatedly failed to understand Jesus’ teaching (cf. Mk 8:16), and the same dullness characterises the mind of the unbeliever, 2 Cor 3:14.  A change of heart will go along with a change of mind, and this will be a key part of the ministry of the Holy Spirit, Jn 14:26.

Jesus has no intention of denying the validity of the Law of Moses.  He is, rather, stressing that outward observance is useless without the appropriate inward attitude.

(This means all foods are clean) – Lit, ‘declaring all foods clean’.

Cole remarks:

‘If we see this interpretative comment as emanating from the preaching of Peter, then it takes a new meaning in view of Peter’s vision before the visit to Cornelius, Acts 11:5ff.’

The early church had difficulty in resolving issues around the Jewish food laws (Gal 2:11-17; Rom 14:14; Col 2:20-22).  It took some time to see that the old rituals were intended as outward signs of inward purity.

All of this feeds into the wider teaching of the New Testament on who are the ‘true’ people of God.  A person is a member of the Israel of God not through human descent, nor because of outward observance of the Law of Moses.  Rather, the true Israelite is the person – Jew or Gentile – who loves and serves God from the heart.

There is debate about the correct translation.  Consider the following:

NIV84 – ‘(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”).  Also updated NIV; TNIV.
ESV – (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
NASB – (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
RSV, NRSV – (Thus he declared all foods clean.)
GNB – (In saying this, Jesus declared that all foods are fit to be eaten.)
NLT – (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God’s eyes.)

So also the commentaries by Cole, Hendriksen, Hooker, Schnabel, Edwards, Strauss, Kernaghan, France, Tan, Turner, Gundry, Brooks (but with half an eye on the sort of alternative interpretation now proposed by Williams – see below);

Contrast these modern translations, which all say much the same thing, with the following older versions:

Tyndale – ‘…that pourgeth out all meates.’
Wycliffe – ‘…purgynge alle metis.’
AV – ‘…purging all meats’

In the modern versions, we have a parenthetical comment; in the older versions, something rather different.

Hurtado offers a helpful summary:

‘In Greek, the phrase is a participial clause, reading literally after the preceding sentence “cleansing all foods.” The phrase as translated here is taken as Mark’s own comment and the participle is taken as dependent on “he asked” in v. 18. The phrase could also be understood as dependent on the immediately preceding clause thus: “and then goes on out of the body, cleansing all foods,” meaning that all foods wind up in the same place! The KJV renders the phrase quite literally. If the popular opinion of the meaning of the phrase (as reflected in the NIV translation) is correct, Mark intended by this phrase to make the application of Jesus’ teaching plain to his readers. There are other examples of such editorial comments in Mark (e.g., Mk 3:30; 5:8; 7:3–4; 13:14).’

Dr Logan Williams argues that Jesus’ teaching here is not about ‘food laws’ at all.  Nowhere does the Torah prescribe handwashing before eating; nor does it prohibit the eating of food that has become impure.  These requirements are both extrabiblical traditions, as is made clear by the Pharisees’ objection in v5 – ‘Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders’.  See also v13.

Conversely, Jesus upholds the Law of Moses, calling it ‘the word of God’ and ‘the commandment of God’.  Furthermore, he objected to the Pharisees’ tradition on the grounds that it ‘made void’ the Mosaic Law.  On Jesus affirmation of the authority of the Torah, see also Mk 1:14; 10:17-19; Mt 5:19; 19:17; 23:23.

In his disputes about the law, then, Jesus does not question its ongoing validity.  What he questions are the extrabiblical traditions which add to it, subtract from it, or insist on false interpretations and applications.

It seems that Jews generally thought that eating the flesh of prohibited animals was sinful, it did not transfer ritual impurity to the eater.  Jesus agrees that nothing a person eats can defile, or render impure, that person:

‘Jesus’ assertion therefore specifically addresses the transmission of ritual impurity through ingestion, not the laws of permitted and prohibited animals. Jesus’ statement impinges in no way on those regulations as found in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.1–21.’

Williams says that the common translation – ‘(Thus he declared all foods clean)’ – is highly unlikely.  A correct, if rather wooden , translation would be:

‘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 their heart but the stomach and goes out into the sewer purifying all the food.’

This leads to:

‘Do you not understand that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not their heart but the stomach, and goes out into the latrine, (the person) thus purifying all foods?’

Jesus’ argument, accordingly, would be that:

‘Ritually defiled food cannot defile humans through ingestion because humans purify all foods from ritual impurity through digestion.’

This is more in line with the older translations, cited above.

Older commentators, too, offer an interpretation similar to that of Williams:

‘That that which we eat and drink cannot defile us, so as to call for any religious washing; it goes into the stomach, and passes the several digestions and secretions that nature has appointed, and what there may be in it that is defiling is voided and gone.’ (MHC)

‘What is thrown out of the body is the innutritious part of the food taken into the stomach, and leaving only that which is proper for the support of life; and it cannot, therefore, defile the soul.’ (Barnes)

Brooks supports the majority interpretation, but with the following comment:

‘It is barely possible that the reference is not to the intention of Jesus’ teaching but to food ultimately being disposed of in a latrine, namely, that all foods are equal in the end.’

Alone amongst the modern commentators (that I have found so far), France leans in the direction of the interpretation just outlined:

‘Many take 7:19b as the narrator’s aside that crowns the argument. The NIV reflects this interpretation: “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods ‘clean.’ ” The phrase “In saying this, Jesus declared,” however, is not to be found in the text. Literally the words used here translate, “cleansing all foods.” The masculine nominative participle, “cleansing” (katharizon, with an omega), would modify the verb “he says” in 7:18. A well-attested variant reading, however, has a nominative neuter participle (katharizon, with an omicron). It is the hardest reading and may be the best. It would affirm that the food has somehow become clean in the process of its elimination. This reading has two things to commend it. It would help explain why such a dramatic pronouncement from Jesus that declared all foods to be clean was not cited to settle the later debate over this issue in the churches. Jesus’ explanation does not explicitly declare that all foods are clean, only that they somehow come out clean.

‘Furthermore, the statement fits the rabbinic perspective on defecated food. According to the Mishnah, excrement is not ritually impure though it may be offensive. This surprising judgment may be the key to Jesus’ argument. With a droll twist Jesus argues that if food defiles a person, why is it not regarded as impure when it winds up in the latrine—at least according to the tradition of the Pharisees? Defilement must come from some other source than food. Jesus’ logic derives from the Pharisees’ own rules regarding clean and unclean, which sets up his concluding words on the real source of defilement.’

From within, out of men’s hearts – ‘The source of true defilement in men is the human heart, and the tragedy of men’s having to sin reaches its demonic fulfilment in man’s wanting to sin.  There is no heart in which this radical evil has failed to take root.’ (Lane)

Jesus does not remove the requirement for purity but relocates it and deepens it:

‘This explanation places the question of defilement and purity on a fundamentally different plane than that presupposed by the scribes and Pharisees.  By this interpretation Jesus does not alleviate the demand for purity but sharpens it…The capacity for fellowship with God is not destroyed by material uncleanness of food or hands; it is destroyed by personal sin.’ (Lane)

It is not possible, in the light of this teaching, to accept the assertion by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann (The Lost Message of Jesus, p67) that ‘Jesus believed in original goodness’ (i.e. not ‘original sin’).  Subsequently, Chalke defended this contention by reference to Gen 1:31, but this, of course, comes before the Fall, a fact inexplicably ignored by him.

Other lists of vices are found in Rom 1:18-32; 13:13; 1 Cor 5:9-11; 6:9-10; 2 Cor 12:20; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 4:19; 5:3-5; Col 3:5-9; 1 Thess 2:3; 4:3-7; 1 Tim 1:9-10; 6:4-5; 2 Tim 3:2-5; Tit 3:3, 9-10; 1 Pet 4:3; Rev 21:8, 22:15.

Evil thoughts – ‘Our hearts are of that colour which our most constant thoughts dye into it. Transient fleeting thoughts, whether of one kind or another, do not alter the temper of the soul. Neither poison kills nor food nourishes, unless they stay in the body; nor does good or evil benefit or harm the mind unless they abide in it.’ (Gurnall)

Sexual immorality – ‘porneia‘, a broad term used for all sexual activity outside marriage.  ‘None of Jesus’ hearers would have doubted that his reference to porneia included homosexual behaviour.’  (Allberry, Sam. Is God anti-gay?)

“Adultery” – ‘This is the violation of the marriage bond: a married man’s voluntary sexual intercourse with someone other than his wife; or a married woman’s voluntary sexual intercourse with someone other than her husband.  It should be made clear, however, that Jesus sharpened the edge of every commandment. He taught that hatred is murder (Mt 5:21-22), and that a married man’s lustful look at another woman is adultery (Mt 5:28).’ (Hendriksen)

“Lewdness” – ‘The term stresses the lack of self-control that characterizes the person who gives free play to his perverse impulses.’ (Hendriksen)

“Envy” – ‘One of the most soul-destroying vices is envy…Our English word envy comes from the Latin in-video, meaning “to look against,” that is, to look with ill-will at another person because of what he is or has. It is interesting to note that the Greek original which is found here in Mk 7:22 expresses this idea literally, for its basic meaning is “a sinister eye,” an eye that views another person with fierce and grudging displeasure.’ (Hendriksen)

…and make a man ‘unclean’ – ‘they render a man unfit for communion with God, they bring a stain upon the conscience; and, if not mortified and rooted out, will shut men out of the new Jerusalem, into which no unclean thing shall enter.’ (MHC)

A Syrophoenician Woman’s Faith, 24-30

7:24 After Jesus left there, he went to the region of Tyre. When he went into a house, he did not want anyone to know, but he was not able to escape notice. 7:25 Instead, a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him and came and fell at his feet. 7:26 The woman was a Greek, of Syrophoenician origin. She asked him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 7:27 He said to her, “Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and to throw it to the dogs.” 7:28 She answered, “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” 7:29 Then he said to her, “Because you said this, you may go. The demon has left your daughter.” 7:30 She went home and found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

Tyre was situated on the Mediterranean coast.

There are Old Testament precedents (notably the Sidonian woman and Elijah, 1 Kings 17:18–19) and the Shunammite woman with Elisha (2 Kings 4:28) for Gentile women pleading for help from a prophet, and refusing to take no for an answer.

According to Mt 15:22, this woman is a Canaanite.  Peter Enns (The Bible Tells Me So, p42) thinks that the woman isn’t really a Canaanite – Matthew just calls her that, as if to make the point that the only mention in the NT of Israel’s ancient enemies is in the context of our Lord’s favour towards them.  (Enns adds that if there were any ‘Canaanites’ living in the land in Jesus’ day, it was the Romans – and Jesus made perfectly clear that these ‘enemies’ were to be ‘loved’ by his followers.)

Actually, this woman’s ethnic and cultural background would seem a little more complex than Enns allows.  Mark describes her as ‘Greek’, suggesting that she was Hellenised to some degree.  Her conversation with Jesus was presumably carried out in Greek.  Then her opening words are in Jewish idiom, with ‘Son of David’ being a Jewish title for the Messiah.  And, as France points out, her subsequent dialogue with Jesus

‘suggests a more sophisticated awareness of the significance of Jesus’ role as the Jewish Messiah.’

Against ‘progressive’ readings which ascribe a racist attitude towards Jesus, I believe that our Lord’s comment is designed to draw the woman out and to explore what kind of faith she has in him as ‘Son of David’.  See longer note, following.

‘Every accepted prayer is not immediately an answered prayer. Sometimes God seems not to regard his people’s prayers, like a man asleep or astonished; (Ps 44:23; Jer 14:9; Ps 22:1,2) nay, to be angry at them; (Ps 80:4; Lam 3:8,44) but it is to prove, and so to improve, their faith, and to make his after-appearances for them the more glorious to himself, and the more welcome to them; for the vision, at the end, shall speak, and shall not lie, Heb 2:3. See Job 35:14.’ (MHC)

v28 Consistent with the interpretation given of the previous verse, the woman’s reply gives no indication that she feels insulted.  Her reply, however, does suggest remarkable perception

‘in recognising both the primary scope of Jesus’ mission to Israel and also the fact that that was not to be its ultimate limit.  She thus, like the centurion, foreshadows the time when the true Israel will transcend the boundaries of culture and nationality.’ (France)

‘The woman’s answer is masterly. Those two words “but even” reveal immense wisdom and faith. She does not argue that her needs make her an exception, or that she has a right to Israel’s covenanted mercies, or that the mysterious ways of divine election and justice are unfair. She simply asks for help, hopeful that she may be allowed to receive a crumb from the kindness of the Lord.’ (EBC)

Healing a Deaf Mute, 31-37

7:31 Then Jesus went out again from the region of Tyre and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the region of the Decapolis. 7:32 They brought to him a deaf man who had difficulty speaking, and they asked him to place his hands on him. 7:33 After Jesus took him aside privately, away from the crowd, he put his fingers in the man’s ears, and after spitting, he touched his tongue. 7:34 Then he looked up to heaven and said with a sigh, “Ephphatha” (that is, “Be opened”). 7:35 And immediately the man’s ears were opened, his tongue loosened, and he spoke plainly. 7:36 Jesus ordered them not to tell anything. But as much as he ordered them not to do this, they proclaimed it all the more. 7:37 People were completely astounded and said, “He has done everything well. He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.”

From the region of Tyre and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee – This would have been a horseshoe-shaped journey of around 120 miles.  For some commentators, it is evidence of the Evangelist’s lack of knowledge of the geography of Palestine.  H. Anderson, for example, says that this ‘is like travelling from Cornwall to London via Manchester.’  Many scholars take it as evidence that the author of Mark’s Gospel was not a native Palestinian.

Edwards does not share the scepticism of some scholars:

‘Contrary to the judgments of some scholars, I find Mark’s geographical designations to be both defensible and accurate in every instance where they can be checked. That includes the present description.’

He points out that such a circuitous route is not unknown: two examples of ‘hairpin’ journeys can be found in 2 Kings 2.  He writes:

‘This journey can be plausibly explained by a desire on Jesus’ part to escape the growing opposition of the Pharisees and Antipas. Jesus is not simply evading opposition or buying time, however. The journey deep into Gentile territory—indeed notorious Gentile territory—indicates his willful inclusion of the non-Jewish world in his ministry.’

v32 ‘One man whom Jesus healed was deaf and had ‘an impediment in his speech’ (mogilalos, ‘speaking with difficulty’, Mk 7:32) which was probably caused by his deafness (but obviously might have been due to a separate mechanical defect, as AV ‘the string’, lit. bond, ‘of his tongue was loosed’ might suggest). It is surely significant that his hearing was healed first. Some authorities consider that the man was deaf and dumb but the Greek does not suggest this. It is more likely that he could make noises but, because he could not hear them (or other people’s words), they did not form normal speech.’ (NBD)

“He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak” – According to Hurtado, Mark, in recording this, may have intended his readers to think of Isaiah 35, with its reference to the same geographical area (Lebanon, Isa. 35:1–2/Tyre and Sidon), its promise of miracles of healing, Isa 35:5–6, and its expectation that God’s people will be gathered and follow him in holiness, Isa 35:8-10.  The linkage with Isaiah 35 is made even stronger by the fact that Mark does not describe the man as having actually been mute, whereas Isa 35:5f does refer to ‘the ears of the deaf’ and ‘the mute tongue’.