Lectionary Calendar
Sunday, July 20th, 2025
the Week of Proper 11 / Ordinary 16
the Week of Proper 11 / Ordinary 16
video advertismenet
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
Attention!
StudyLight.org has pledged to help build churches in Uganda. Help us with that pledge and support pastors in the heart of Africa.
Click here to join the effort!
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Commentaries
International Critical Commentary NT International Critical
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Driver, S.A., Plummer, A.A., Briggs, C.A. "Commentary on Mark 7". International Critical Commentary NT. https://studylight.org/commentaries/eng/icc/mark-7.html. 1896-1924.
Driver, S.A., Plummer, A.A., Briggs, C.A. "Commentary on Mark 7". International Critical Commentary NT. https://studylight.org/
Whole Bible (43)New Testament (15)Gospels Only (6)Individual Books (13)
Verses 1-99
DISPUTE WITH THE PHARISEES ABOUT EATING WITH UNWASHED HANDS
7:1-23. Certain Scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem, seeing the disciples eating with unwashed hands, complain of the violation of tradition. Jesus denies the force of tradition, and the possibility of material defilement of the spirit.
This dispute is occasioned by the disregard of the disciples for the ceremonial law about eating with unwashed hands. But the Pharisees, who make the attack, signalize it by complaining of this unconventional act as a violation of the tradition of the fathers. And Jesusâ answer is at first directed towards this feature of their complaint. It is a case, he says, of the commandments of men versus the commandments of God, of tradition against law. They even set aside the law of God, in order to keep their tradition. But then, taking up the more immediate question of unwashed hands, Jesus strikes at the root not only of traditionalism, but of ceremonialism, saying that it was not what a man took into his stomach, but what came out of his heart, that defiled him. And this, Mk. says, had the effect of cleansing all foods. And of course, as the distinction between clean and unclean belonged not to tradition, but to the written law, this made a breach in the law itself. It released men from the obligation of a part of the law said to have been given by God to Moses. And it affirmed the distinction between outward and inward in religion. It was no wonder that Jesusâ fate hastened to its end, and that the next record of him marks practically the end of his Galilean ministry.
1. ÏÏ Î½Î¬Î³Î¿Î½Ïαι ÏÏá½¸Ï Î±á½Ïὸν οἱ ΦαÏιÏαá¿Î¿Î¹âthere gather together to him the Pharisees.1 The distinction made between the Pharisees and certain of the Scribes would seem to mean that the Scribes were not so well represented.
This renewed activity of the Scribes and Pharisees against Jesus is another indication that there was a Passover at some time just before this, at which either the presence of Jesus himself, or the reports brought from Galilee, drew fresh attention to him. It would not be enough of itself, but it adds to the strength of other indications of the same thing. See on 6:39.
2. καὶ ἰδÏνÏÎµÏ ÏÎ¹Î½á½°Ï Ïῶν μαθηÏῶν αá½Ïοῦ á½ Ïι κοιναá¿Ï ÏεÏÏί, ÏÎ¿Ï Ïʼ á¼ÏÏιν�
4. á¼á½°Î½ μὴ βαÏÏίÏÏνÏαιâunless they bathe, Amer. Rev. The contrast between this and the preceding case is indicated by the�Leviticus 14:8, Leviticus 14:9, Leviticus 14:15:5, Leviticus 14:6, Leviticus 14:8, Leviticus 14:10, Leviticus 14:11, Leviticus 14:13, Leviticus 14:16, Leviticus 14:21, Leviticus 14:22, Leviticus 14:27, Leviticus 14:16:4, Leviticus 14:24, Leviticus 14:26, Leviticus 14:22:6. Moreover, Edersheim says that immersion of the things washed was the Jewish ritual provided in such cases. Dr. Morison contends that sprinkling was the ritual method provided in such cases, and attempts to overthrow the plain meaning of the word by the supposed custom. But he does not prove the custom, only the supposed impossibility of wholesale bathing. Moreover, the contrast would be a very lame one in that case, since the custom required careful washing of the hands, and so an actual removal of defilement, but in the case of extreme defilement, only a sprinkling of the body for formâs sake is supposed. And his argument, that words constantly undergo such changes, amounts to nothing, as it is unaccompanied by proof that this word has gone through the process of change.
WH. non marg. RV.marg. ῥανÏίÏÏνÏαι, sprinkle, instead of βαÏÏίÏÏνÏαι, with × B 40, 53, 71, 86, 237, 240, 244, 259. A manifest emendation.
ÏαÏÎλαβονâthe counterpart of ÏαÏάδοÏιν, denoting the process of receiving a thing by transmission, as the latter does its giving. ÏοÏηÏίÏν κ. ξεÏÏῶν κ. ÏαλκίÏνâcups, and wooden vessels, and brazen vessels. κ. κλινῶν,âand of beds, is omitted.1 Edersheim shows that the Jewish ordinance required immersions, βαÏÏιÏμοὺÏ, of these vessels.
Omit καὶ κλινῶν, Tisch. WH. RV. × BL Î 102, Memph.
5. καὶ á¼ÏεÏÏÏá¿¶Ïινâand they question. ÏεÏιÏαÏοῦÏινâwalk; the figurative use of this word to denote manner of life, conduct, is Hebraistic.
καὶ, instead of á¼ÏειÏα, then, before á¼ÏεÏÏÏá¿¶Ïιν, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. × BDL 1, 33, 209, Latt. Pesh. Memph.
κοιναá¿Ï ÏεÏÏὶνâwith unclean hands.
κοιναá¿Ï, instead of�
This quotation is from Isaiah 29:13, and conforms for the most part to the LXX., which reads á¼Î³Î³Î¯Î¶ÎµÎ¹ μοι á½ Î»Î±á½¸Ï Î¿á½ÏÎ¿Ï á¼Î½ Ïá¿· ÏÏÏμαÏι αá½Ïοῦ, καὶ á¼Î½ Ïαá¿Ï ÏείλεÏιν αá½Ïοῦ ÏιμῶÏί με, ἡ δὲ καÏδία αá½Ïῶν ÏÏÏá¿¥Ï�
7. διδάÏκονÏεÏâthe part. gives the reason for the vanity or uselessness of their worship, and may be translated, while teaching. διδαÏκαλίαÏâis in apposition with á¼Î½ÏάλμαÏα, and may be translated for teachings. á¼Î½ÏάλμαÏα�
10. For quotations, see Exodus 20:12 and 21:17. θανάÏῳ ÏÎµÎ»ÎµÏ ÏάÏÏâlet him surely die (RV.marg.), a rendering of the Heb. inf. abs. which simply intensifies the meaning of the verb. This last command, affixing the capital penalty to the sin of reviling parents, is adduced by our Lord to show how seriously the Law takes this fifth commandment.
11. With the omission of καὶ, and, at the beginning of v. 12, the two verses belong together, and read, But you say, âIf a man say to his father or his mother, âAnything in which you may be profited by me is Corban (that is, an offering),â â you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother.2
Omit καὶ, and, at beginning of v. 12, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. × BD Î 1, 13, 28, 69, 102, 346, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph.
κοÏβᾶν is the Hebrew word for an offering. It is the predicate, having the antecedent of the relative for its subj. The meaning is, that a man had only to pronounce this word over anything, setting it aside to a Divine use, in order to escape the obligation of giving it for the relief or comfort of his parents. Even when said in good faith, this contravenes the Divine Law, since the duty to the parent takes precedence of the obligation to make offerings. The choice in such cases is not between God and man, but between two ways of serving God, the one formal and the other real. Offerings belong to the formal side of worship, whereas God is really served and worshipped in our human duties and affections. But it was not necessary that the banning should be carried out on its positive side. The word having once been uttered, the man was freed from the human obligation, but needed not to make the offering. Nay, he was positively forbidden to use the article any longer for the human purpose with reference to which the Korban had been uttered. The regulation was not invented for this purpose, but was intended to emphasize the sacredness of a thing once set apart, even by a thoughtless word, to Divine uses. But it failed, as the uninspired mind generally does, to define Divine uses, and left out what was of real importance, while emphasizing and retaining the unimportant.
Omit αá½Ïοῦ after ÏαÏÏá½¶, Tisch. Treg. WH. × BDL Î 28, 69, 240, 244, 245, 346, mss. Lat. Vet. Omit αá½Ïοῦ after μηÏÏá½¶ × BDL 1, 13, 28, 56, 69, 240, 244, 346, Latt.
13.�
5 See 1 Samuel 15:22, 1 Samuel 15:27.
6 See on 1:22.