Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Mark 7:1 - 7:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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 Jesus’ 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 Jesus’ fate hastened to its end, and that the next record of him marks practically the end of his Galilean ministry.
1. σνγνα πὸ ατνο Φρσῖιthere 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. κὶἰότςτνςτνμθτνατῦὅικιαςχρί τυʼἔτνἀίτι, ἐθοσντὺ ἄτυ—omit ἐέψνοwith this omission it reads, they gather to him, having come from Jerusalem, and having seen that certain of his disciples are eating with common hands, that is, unwashed.
ὅι…ἐθοσν instead of ἐθοτς Tisch. Treg. RV. אBL Δ33 (Memph. Pesh.). Omit ἐέψνο found fault, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABEGHLVX Γ one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph.
κιαςliterally, common. In the Greek, it denotes simply what is common to several people, as common property. It is only in later Greek, that it comes to denote what is ordinary, or vulgar, or profane, as distinguished from select or sacred things. Under this general head, it comes to mean ceremonially unclean. The Pharisees did not seek by these washings to remove dirt, but the defilement produced by contact with profane things.
3. Φρσῖικὶπνε ο Ἰυαο—The Pharisees and all the Jews. This custom had become general among the Jews, though it originated with the Pharisees. πγῇthis means with the fist. But the awkwardness of the process has led to doubt from the very first, whether this is the meaning intended. But the doubt has not led to the substitution of any justifiable alternative rendering. The meanings, up to the wrist, or elbow, RV.marg. are both linguistically and grammatically disallowed. With a fist full of water needs too much read between the lines, and, besides, the word denotes the closed fist. Finally, frequently, or diligently, RV., was probably taken in the first instance, in the Lat. Vet. and Syrr., from the reading πκὰ The supposition that πγῇhad come to have this figurative meaning, seems forced, and besides, there is no warrant for it in actual usage. Edersheim quotes from the Jewish ordinance the provision that the hands should be held up in order that the water might run down to the wrist, and says that the provision that washing should be performed with the fist is not found in the Jewish law. This is, of course, a serious consideration, but does not seem to compare in importance with the other fact, that the Greek word does not mean this, nor the Greek case. The custom was not necessarily a part of the law, and may have been merely a usage arising from a desire for scrupulous observance. The very fact that the reading πγῇoccasions this difficulty, makes the strong external evidence for that reading still more convincing, and with this reading the only translation possible seems to be with the fist.
πκὰ Tisch. אmss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Syrr.
τνπρδσνthe tradition. It is the Greek etymological equivalent of tradition, and denotes what is passed along from one to another, and among the Jews, the body of Rabbinical interpretation of the written law, preserved by oral transmission from one generation to another. The word occurs in the Gospels only in this account and in the parallel passage in Mt. In attacking this, Jesus was assailing the very citadel of the Judaism of his time.1
τνπεβτρνthe elders. The word is used here in the sense of fathers, or ancestors.
4. ἐνμ βπίωτιunless they bathe, Amer. Rev. The contrast between this and the preceding case is indicated by the ἀὸἀοᾶ, from the market place. These words are put first, in order to indicate that this is a special case, inasmuch as in the market place they would contract special defilement, owing to its being a place of public resort, where they would meet all sorts and conditions of men. This case would require special treatment, denoted by the difference between νψνα τ χῖα, and βπίωτι they wash their hands, and they wash themselves all over. This case required the washing of the whole body. For instances of such washings, see Lev_14:8, Lev_14:9, Lev_14:15:5, Lev_14:6, Lev_14:8, Lev_14:10, Lev_14:11, Lev_14:13, Lev_14:16, Lev_14:21, Lev_14:22, Lev_14:27, Lev_14:16:4, Lev_14:24, Lev_14:26, Lev_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 form’s 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. ῥνίωτι sprinkle, instead of βπίωτι with אB 40, 53, 71, 86, 237, 240, 244, 259. A manifest emendation.
πρλβνthe counterpart of πρδσν denoting the process of receiving a thing by transmission, as the latter does its giving. πτρω κ ξσῶ κ χλίνcups, and wooden vessels, and brazen vessels. κ κιῶ,—and of beds, is omitted.1 Edersheim shows that the Jewish ordinance required immersions, βπιμὺ, of these vessels.
Omit κὶκιῶ, Tisch. WH. RV. אBL Δ102, Memph.
5. κὶἐεωῶι—and they question. πρπτῦι—walk; the figurative use of this word to denote manner of life, conduct, is Hebraistic.
κὶ instead of ἔετ, then, before ἐεωῶι, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDL 1, 33, 209, Latt. Pesh. Memph.
κιαςχρὶ—with unclean hands.
κιας instead of ἀίτι, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אB 1, 28, 33, 118, 209, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph.
6. κλςwell; i.e., in this case, truly. τνὑορτνthe hypocrites. This is the only passage in Mk. in which this word occurs. It means properly a play-actor, and hence a person who is playing a part in life, whose real character is not represented by what men see. This secondary meaning belongs to Biblical Greek.
Omit ἀορθὶ, answering, at the beginning of this verse, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL Δ33, 102, Memph. Pesh. Omit ὅιbefore κλς Tisch. (Treg.) WH. אBL Δ33, 102, most mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Pesh. ἐρφτυε, instead of ποφτυε, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אB* DL Δ1, 13, 33, 124, 346.
ὡ γγατιὅιὁλὸ οτςliterally, as it has been written, that this people.
Insert ὅιbefore ὁλὸ, Tisch. WH. אBL Pesh.
This quotation is from Isa_29:13, and conforms for the most part to the LXX., which reads Ἐγζιμιὁλὸ οτςἐ τ σόαιατῦ κὶἐ τῖ χίει ατῦτμσ μ, ἡδ κρί ατνπρωἀέε ἀʼἐο; μτνδ σβνα μ δδσοτςἐτλααἀθώω κ δδσαίςThis people draws near to me with its mouth, and with their lips they honor me, but their heart is far from me. But in vain they honor me, teaching commandments and teachings of men. The Heb. is translated in the RV., Forasmuch as this people draw nigh to me, and with their mouth and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment of men which hath been taught them. The principal difference is in this last clause, which in the original charges them with fearing God only in obedience to a human commandment; while in our passage and in the LXX., it states the vanity of their worship, owing to their substitution of human commands for the Divine law. It is this misquoted part which makes the point of the quotation, and it is the misquotation which makes it available.
7. δδσοτςthe part. gives the reason for the vanity or uselessness of their worship, and may be translated, while teaching. δδσαίςis in apposition with ἐτλαα and may be translated for teachings. ἐτλααἀθώω1—commandments of men. These two words contain the gist of the charge, and it is this inculcation of human teachings for the Divine law that is developed in what follows.
8. ἈέτςτνἐτλντῦΘο—Leaving the commandment of God.
Omit γρafter ἀέτς Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL Δ 124, Memph.
This statement, that the Scribes and Pharisees leave Divine commands for human, is a singular comment on their attempt to build a hedge about the Law. The oral tradition was intended by them to be an exposition of the Law, and especially of the application of its precepts to life. They devised it so that men should not by ignorance and misunderstanding come short of the righteousness prescribed in the Law. But, in the first place, their method of interpretation was fitted to bring out anything except the real meaning of the Scripture, being to the last degree fanciful and arbitrary; and then in the second place, they proceeded to make this interpretation authoritative, so that really a human word got to be substituted for the Divine in most cases. Their mistake does not stand by itself; it has been repeated in every age. Everywhere, the same fatality attends authoritative exposition, nay, is involved in its very nature. The human exposition gets substituted for the Divine word, and so the worship of man becomes vain.
Omit last part of this verse, beginning βπιμὺ, washings, Tisch. (Treg.) WH. RV. אBL Δ1, 209, 251, Memph.
9. κλςἀεετ1—well do you set aside. κλςis used here ironically, like our word bravely.
10. For quotations, see Exo_20:12 and 21:17. θντ τλυάωlet 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 κὶ and, at the beginning of v. 12, the two verses belong together, and read, But you say, “If a man say to his father or his mother, ‘Anything in which you may be profited by me is Corban (that is, an offering),’ ” you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother.2
Omit κὶ and, at beginning of v. 12, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBD Δ1, 13, 28, 69, 102, 346, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph.
κρᾶ 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 ατῦafter πτὶ Tisch. Treg. WH. אBDL Δ28, 69, 240, 244, 245, 346, mss. Lat. Vet. Omit ατῦafter μτὶאBDL 1, 13, 28, 56, 69, 240, 244, 346, Latt.
13. ἀυονε—invalidating is an exact translation of the Greek word, which means to deprive a thing of its strength. πρδσιὑῶ ᾗπρδκτ—the tradition which you handed down. It is impossible to render into English the paronomasia here. The verb describes the handing along from one generation to another which constitutes tradition. πρμι—nearly like.1
14. ποκλσμνςπλντνὄλνHaving called up the crowd again. It seems that the previous conference has been held with the Scribes and, Pharisees alone. But Jesus wishes what he says now about the matter to be heard by the people. It is a matter, not of private conference or debate, but of the utmost importance for the popular understanding of true religion.
πλν again, instead of πνα all, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDL Δmss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Harcl. marg.
Ἀοστ μυπνε κ σντ—This is no formal introduction, but calls on his hearers to lend him not only their ears, but their understandings, in view of the special importance of what follows. He may well do so, since what he says abrogates the distinction between clean and unclean, which forms so essential a part not only of tradition, but also of the Levitical part of the Law itself.
ἀοστ, instead of ἀοεε Tisch. Treg. WH. BDHL. σντ,2 instead of σνεε Tisch. Treg. WH. BHL Δ238.
Οδνἐτνἔωε τῦἀθώο εσοεόεο εςατν ὃδντικιῶα ατνThere is nothing outside the man entering into him, which can defile him. The reason that Jesus gives for this statement shows that he meant to make the distinction between outward and inward in the sense of material and spiritual. The things from outside cannot defile, because they enter the belly, and not the heart, while those from within are evil thoughts of all kinds. This has nothing to do, therefore, with the question, whether, among spiritual things, it is only those from within the man himself that can hurt him. Inwardness in this sense belongs to things within the man himself and within others, and externality is to be taken in the same sense. ἀλ τ ἐ τῦἀθώο ἐπρυμν ἐτ τ κιονατνἄθωο—but the things coming out of the man are the things which defile the man. The repetition of the noun man, instead of using the pronoun, which here amounts to inelegance, is quite in Mk.’s manner.
ἐ τῦἀθώο ἐπρυμν, coming out from the man, instead of ἐπρυμν ἀʼατῦ coming out of him, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDL Δ33, Latt. Memph. Omit ἐεν, those, Tisch. (Treg.) WH. אBL Δ102, Memph.
Verse 16 is omitted by Tisch. WH. RV. (bracketed by Treg.) אBL Δ28, 102, Memph.
17. τνπρβλνthe parable (riddle).From the use of this word to represent the Heb. word משָ, it loses sometimes its proper sense of similitude, and comes to be used of any sententious saying, or apothegm, in which the meaning is partly veiled by the brevity, but especially by the material and outward form of the saying. Here, entering from the outside, and coming out, are used to express the contrasted ideas of material and spiritual, and what the saying gains in pungency and suggestiveness it loses in exactness. Hence it is called a πρβλ.
τνπρβλν the parable, instead of πρ τςπρβλς concerning the parable, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDL Δ33, Latt.
18. κὶὑεςYou too, as well as the multitude. Jesus’ saying was a riddle to them, not only because of the concrete form of statement, but also because of its intrinsic spirituality. They had been trained in Judaism, in which the distinction between clean and unclean is ingrained, and could not understand a statement abrogating this. It was all a riddle to them.
πντ ἔωε …ο δντι. κιῶα—nothing outside can defile.1
19. This verse gives the reason why outward things cannot defile. They do not enter the inner man, the κρί, but the κιί, belly, belonging to the outward man, and are passed out into the ἀερν the privy.2
κθρζνπνατ βώααRV. This he said, making all things clean. The part. agrees with the subj. of λγι he says (v. 18). That is, the result of this statement of Jesus was to abrogate the distinction between clean and unclean in articles of food. The use of quotation marks would show this connection as follows: He says to them, “Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive that nothing which enters into the man from without can defile him; because it does not enter into the heart, but into the belly, and goes out into the privy,” so making all foods clean.
With the reading κθρζν the part. agrees with the preceding statement; that is, the going out into the privy purifies the food, as that receives the refuse parts which have been eliminated in the process of digestion. With the masc., it is possible to connect it with ἀερν, but the anacoluthon involved is rather large-sized and improbable, as only a single word separates the noun from its unruly adjunct. The only probable connection is with the subject of λγι(v. 18).
κθρζν instead of κθρζν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABEFGHLSX Δ1, 13, 28, 69, 124.
20. τ ἐ τ ἀθῶο ἐπρυμν ἐεν κιο—what cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. Coming out is used here to denote the spiritual, as entering in is to denote the material. Spiritual things can defile the man, and these only, not such material articles as food. And of course, this means that the real man is the spiritual part, and that defilement of the physical part does not extend to the spiritual part, which constitutes the real man. That can be reached only by spiritual things akin to itself. This principle, that spiritual and spiritual go together, and that the material cannot penetrate the spiritual, which is impervious to it, is needed in the interpretation of Christianity, as well as in the reform of Judaism.
21. ο δαοιμὶThe article denotes the class of things collectively, whereas the anarthrous noun denotes them individually. This is the general term, under which the things that follow are specifications. The noun denotes the kind of thought which weighs, calculates, and deliberates. It is used here of designs or purposes. It is in accordance with our Lord’s whole course of thought here, that he designates the evil as residing rather in the thought than in the outward act. The order of the first four specifications is as follows: πρεα, κοα, φνι μιεα, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries. The arrangement of the TR. is an attempt at a more studied order, bringing together things that are alike. The only principle of arrangement in Mk.’s enumeration is the distinction between these grosser, more outward forms of sin, and the more subtle, inward manifestations which follow in v. 22.1
πρεα, κοα, φνι μιεα, instead of μιεα, πρεα, φνι κοα, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL ΔMemph.
22. πνρα—In general, this is a generic term for evil. Where it is used specifically, as here, it probably denotes malice as a distinct form of evil. δλςdeceit does not convey the flavor of this word, which, starting from the idea of bait, comes to denote any trick, and abstractly, trickery, cunning, craft. ἀέγι—Here also, the EV. lasciviousness, fails to convey the meaning. The word denotes in a general way the absence of self-restraint, unbridled passion, or cruelty, and the like. License, or wantonness, may be used to translate it. ὀθλὸ πνρςan evil eye—a Hebrew expression for envy. βαφμαa general word for evil or injurious speech, either of God or man. Toward the former it is blasphemy, toward the latter, slander. In this connection it is probably slander. ὑεηαί—a common Greek word, but found only here in the N.T. It includes pride of self and contempt of others, arrogance. ἀρσν—folly translates this better than foolishness, as it denotes the morally foolish.
23. ἔωε—from within. These things are morally unclean, while only the physically unclean comes from without.
What Jesus says here is directed specially against the traditional law, but the thing condemned, the distinction between clean and unclean, belongs also to the written law. Plainly, then, the distinction between the word of God and the word of man has to be carried within the Scripture, and used in the analysis of its contents. The thing that Jesus calls a word of man here is found also in the O.T. itself, and is fundamental in the Levitical law.
HEALING OF THE SYROPHŒ WOMAN’S DAUGHTER IN THE VICINITY OF TYRE AND SIDON
24-30. Jesus leaves Galilee and comes into Syrophœ A woman of the place asks him to heal her daughter, and overcomes Jesus’ apparent reluctance by her shrewd wit and faith.
The account reads simply that Jesus departed from that place into the borders of Tyre, where he wished to remain unknown, but could not hide his presence. For a Gentile woman, a Syrophœ found him out, and begged him to cast the evil spirit out of her daughter. Jesus was not there for the purposes of his work, and in general confined himself to the Jews in his ministrations. But he feels the irony of the situation that makes the Jew plume himself on his superiority to the Gentile, and reflects it in his answer, that it is not a good thing to cast the children’s bread to the dogs. The quick wit of the woman catches at these words, and her faith feels the sympathy veiled in them, so that she answers, yes, and the dogs eat the crumbs. That word is enough; Jesus assures her of her daughter’s cure, and she goes home to find the evil spirit gone. So far the account. But when we find in the succeeding chapters that Jesus’ excursion into the Gentile territory is not confined to this case, but that he continues there in one place and another, rather than in Galilee, that his teaching is restricted mostly to his disciples, and that he begins to warn them of his approaching fate, it is evident that this journey marks practically the close of our Lord’s ministry in Galilee, and that this dispute with the Pharisees about clean and unclean marks a crisis in his life. These are not missionary journeys, but are undertaken to enable Jesus to be alone with his disciples.
24. Ἐεθνδ ἀατς ἀῆθνεςτ ὅι ΤρυAnd from thence he arose and went into the coasts of Tyre.
Ἐεθνδ, instead of Κὶἐεθν Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. RV. אBL ΔHarcl. marg. ὅι, instead of μθρα Tisch. Treg. WH. אBDL Δ1, 13, 28, 61 marg. 69, 209, 346. Omit κὶΣδνς Tisch. (Treg. marg. WH.) RV.marg. DL Δ28 mss. Lat. Vet. It is a case in which a copyist, used to the conjunction of the two places, might easily insert the words, but the omission is improbable for the same reason. And Mk. evidently meant to discriminate, since he says afterwards that Jesus left the region of Tyre, and came through Sidon, v. 31 (Tisch. Treg. WH. RV.).
τ ὅι—The word denotes primarily the boundaries of a territory, and then the country itself included within those limits. It has been contended that the original meaning of the word is to be retained here, and that Jesus did not penetrate Gentile territory, but only its borders, that part of Galilee which bordered on Syrophœ But this would be the single case of this restricted meaning in the N.T., and the universally accepted reading, δὰΣδνς(v. 31), shows that he did penetrate the Gentile territory. Mt., however, in accordance with the plan of his Gospel, seems to represent this event as taking place on Jewish soil (15:22). Tyre and Sidon belonged to Syrophœ a strip of territory on the Mediterranean, noted for its antiquity, wealth, and civilization, which had remained practically independent of Jewish, Greek, and Assyrian rule, though subject to the Romans since the time of Augustus.
κὶεσλὼ εςοκα, οδν ἤεεγῶα, κὶοκἠυάθ λθῖ—And having entered a house, he wished no one to know it, and he could not be hidden.
Omit τνbefore οκα, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אABLNX ΓΠPesh. ἠυάθ,1 for ἠυήη Tisch. WH. אB.
οδν ἤεεγῶα—he wished no one to know it. This was in accordance with his purpose in resorting to this unaccustomed place. Morison makes a foolish distinction here between the wish of Jesus and his purpose, evidently with the idea that a purpose of Jesus could not be defeated. But aside from the fact, that N.T. usage does not bear out such a distinction, it would be difficult to draw the line between a wish that one is at pains to carry out, and a purpose. No, this is one of the cases in which the human uncertainty belonging to action based on probabilities, not certainties, appears in the life of Jesus. οκἠυάθ λθῖ—he could not be hid. The inability is put over against the wish. This statement, which prepares the way for what follows in regard to Jesus’ unreadiness to perform the miracle, is peculiar to Mk.
25. ἀλ εθςἀοσσ—but immediately having heard. Jesus had no sooner arrived than this took place.
This reading, instead of ἀοσσ γρ for having heard, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL Δ33, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. edd. Harcl. marg.
ἧ εχ τ θγτινατςwhose daughter had.2
Tisch. reads εσλοσ, having entered, instead of ἐθῦα having come, with אL Δmost mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. A very probable reading.
26. Ἑλνς Σρφιίισ τ γνιa Greek, a Syrophœ by race. That is, she was in general a Gentile, and more particularly a Syrophœ
Ἑλνςis literally, a Greek, but used by the Jews to designate any Gentile, owing to the wide diffusion of the Greek race and language. Syrophœ is a more particular designation of the race to which she belonged. The prefix denotes that part of Phœ which belonged to Syria, in distinction from Libophœ or the Carthaginian district in the north of Africa.
Σρφιίισ, instead of Σρφίισ, Tisch. WH. txt. אAKLS marg. V marg. Δ 1.
κὶἠώαατνἵα…ἐβλ—and she asked him to cast out.1
ἐβλ, instead of ἐβλῃ Tisch. Treg. WH. אABDE, etc.
27. κὶἔεε—and he said.
This reading, instead of ὁδ Ἰσῦ επν and Jesus said, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL Δ33, Memph.
Ἄε πῶο χραθνιτ τκαlet the children be fed first. In this word, first, Jesus hints that the time of the Gentiles is coming, as he frequently does in the course of his teaching, while he restricts his own work to the Jews. Mt. omits this, and makes Jesus’ refusal to be much more definite and positive. τ τκω …τ κνροςBy these terms, Jesus distinguishes between the Jews, who are the children of the household, and the Gentiles. Dogs is a term expressing the contempt of your true Jew for the heathen, and sounds strange in the mouth of our Lord. Weiss denies the contemptuous use of the term dog, and makes it merely a parable, in which an arrangement of the kingdom of God is expressed in the terms of household economy, in which the contempt for dogs plays no part. But this is to ignore the fact that “dog” is always a term of contempt, especially in the East; that as such, it was applied by Jews to Gentiles; and that, if Jesus did not mean to express contempt, his language was singularly ill-chosen, as the woman would be sure to understand him so. See Bib. Dic. But I am inclined to believe that Jesus did not use the term seriously, but with a kind of ironical conformity to this common sneer, having felt in his own experience how small occasion the Jews of his time had to treat any other people with contempt. He had good reasons for confining his work to the Jews, but they did not arise from any acceptance of their estimate of themselves or of others. It is as if he had put in a “you know,” to indicate a common opinion.
28. Νί κρε κὶτ κνρα…ἐθοσνYes, lord; and the dogs …eat.
Omit γρbefore τ κνρα Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBH Δ13, 28, 33, 69, Memph. Pesh. ἐθοσν instead of ἐθε, Tisch. Treg. WH. אBDL Δ
This use of Jesus’ own words to neutralize the force of his seeming rebuff has been regarded rightly always as a unique combination of faith and wit. But it is not simply a trick of words; the beauty of it is, that it finds the truth that escapes superficial notice in both the analogy and the spiritual fact represented by it. It means, there is a place for dogs in the household, and there is a place for Gentiles in God’s world. And further, her faith was quickened by what she saw of Jesus. She knew intuitively that he was a being to take a large and sympathetic view of things, not the hard and narrow one, and that he had really prepared the way for her statement. This is of the essence of faith, to hold fast to what your heart and the highest things in you tell of God, in spite of all appearances to the contrary.
30. τ πιίνββηέο ἐὶτ κίη—the child thrown upon the bed. Probably the cure had been attended by violent convulsions, as in other cases of the same kind in the Gospels.1
τ πιίνββηέο ἐὶτνκίη, κὶτ διόινἐεηυό, instead of τ διόινἐεηυό, κὶτ πιίνββηέο ἐὶτςκίη, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDL Δmost mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Pesh.
CURE OF A DEAF AND DUMB MAN IN THE REGION OF DECAPOLIS
31-37. From the region of Tyre, Jesus went still further north, through Sidon, and then south again to Decapolis, on the SE. shore of the lake. Here they bring him a deaf man, whose speech has been impaired by his deafness, to be cured. Jesus is not here for the purposes of his mission, and in order to call as little attention to the cure as possible, he takes the man aside from the multitude. And as the man is deaf, and Jesus needs to establish communication with him in some way in order to draw out his faith, he employs signs, thrusting his fingers into his ears, and putting spittle on his tongue, and casting his eyes to heaven. The man is cured, and then Jesus enjoins silence in regard to the cure. But in vain, as they are more eager to tell the story of his beneficent power, the more he tries to prevent it.
31. ἦθνδὰΣδνςεςτνθλσα—he came through Sidon to the sea.
δὰΣδνςεςτνθλσα, instead of κὶΣδνς ἦθ πὸ τνθλσα, and of Sidon, he came to the sea, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBDL Δ33, Latt. Memph.
This reading establishes the fact that Jesus entered Gentile territory in this visit, and also that Mk. does not mean by τ ὅι Τρυ(v. 24), the Galilean territory adjoining Syrophœ The two statements taken together show that he means to distinguish between two districts of Syrophœ the one about Tyre, and the other about Sidon.
ἀὰμσντνὁίνΔκπλω—into the midst of the region of Decapolis1 (through the midst, EV.). But plainly Jesus came to, not through, Decapolis, as he went by boat to the west shore of the lake after the feeding of the multitude (8:1-10). Jesus had been in this district before, at the time when he healed the Gadarene demoniac, and had been driven away. He meets with a different reception now.
κφνκὶμγλλν deaf and having an impediment in his speech. μγλλνis a Biblical word, found in the Sept., but only here in the NT. Literally, it means speaking with difficulty; but in the LXX., it is used to translate the Hebrew word meaning dumb. In this case the cure is said to have resulted in the man’s speaking rightly, implying that before he had spoken, but defectively.
Insert κὶbefore μγλλν Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBD ΔLatt.
33. κὶἀοαόεο ατνἀὸτῦὄλυκτ ἰίνand having taken him aside from the crowd by himself. The AV. gives the meaning of κτ ἰίνbetter than the RV., which translates it privately. It means apart, by himself. ἔαε—he thrust. Put, EV. does not give the force of the word. Our Lord’s symbolic action here is intended to convey by signs to the deaf man’s mind what Jesus means to do for him, and so to give him something for his faith, as well as his intelligence, to act upon.
In explaining Jesus’ action in taking the man apart from the multitude, we have to consider two things: first, the condition of the man, and the necessity of concentrating his attention on what Jesus was doing. It goes along with the other signs employed by our Lord to convey his purpose to the man, cut off from other means of communication. And secondly, Jesus’ unusual reasons for desiring secrecy. He was engaged with his disciples on this journey, not with the multitude, and he did not want the one miracle to grow into his ordinary engrossing work. The peculiar methods of this miracle have to be coö with those of 8:22-26, and it is evident that, in both cases, this motive of secrecy is strong. Jesus avoided publicity in all his miracles, but especially in this period of retirement.
κὶπύα ἥαοτςγώσςατῦ κὶἀαλψςεςτνορννἐτνξ—and having spit, he touched his tongue (with the spittle), and having looked up to heaven, he groaned. This is a part of the language of signs employed by our Lord, and is intended to convey to the man’s mind, first the help that he is to receive, the loosening of his tongue, and secondly, the heavenly source from which his help was to come. The groan was an expression of his own feelings, stirred to sympathy by the sight of human suffering, of which there was so much that he could not relieve. Ἐφθ1—Be opened. This is addressed to the man, who was himself to be opened to sound and speech through the opening of his organs.
35. κὶἠογσν ατῦα ἀοίAnd his ears were opened.
Omit εθω, Tisch. Treg. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. אBDL Δ33, mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. ἠογσν instead of δηοχηα, Tisch. Treg. WH. אBD Δ1, etc.
ἀοίliterally, hearings, but applied by metonymy to the organs of hearing. δσὸ τςγώσςbond of his tongue. Probably, as this was a case in which deafness and dumbness went together, the dumbness was occasioned by the deafness, and δσό denotes figuratively whatever stood in the way of his speech, and not necessarily a defect in the organ of speech itself. The bond in this case would be the deafness which tied his tongue. ὀθςrightly. This confirms the view, that the defect has been primarily in his hearing, and that this had resulted in partial, but incomplete loss of speech. See on μγλλν v. 32.
36. κὶδετίαοατῖ ἵαμδν λγσν ὅο δ ατῖ δετλεο ατῖμλο πρσόεο ἐήυσνand he commanded them to tell no one. But the more he commanded them, the more exceedingly they heralded it.3
λγσν instead of επσν Tisch. Treg. WH. אBL Δ28, 33. Omit ατςafter ὅο δ, Tisch. Treg. WH. אABLX Δ1, mss. Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Insert ατὶbefore μλο, Tisch. Treg. WH. אB(D) LN Δ33, 61, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. Pesh.
Jesus accompanies this miracle with the ordinary injunction of secrecy, but it only inflamed their zeal to publish it.4 The conduct of the multitude is a good example of the way in which men treat Jesus, yielding him all homage, except obedience.5
37. ὑεπρσῶ—a word not found elsewhere, and expressing, like the double comparative μλο πρσόεο, the excessive feeling and demonstration of the people. ἐελσοτ—another strong word, meaning literally were struck out of their senses.6
κὶἀάοςλλῖ—and dumb to speak.
Omit τὺ before ἀάος Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. אBL Δ33.
1 Are gathered, RV., would require the perf. pass. This is the historical present.
Tisch. Tischendorf.
Treg. Tregelles.
RV. Revised Version.
אCodex Sinaiticus.
B Codex Vaticanus.
L Codex Regius.
ΔCodex Sangallensis
33 Codex Regius.
Memph. Memphitic.
Pesh. Peshito.
WH. Westcott and Hort.
A Codex Alexandrinus.
E Codex Basiliensis.
G Codex Wolfi A.
H Codex Wolfi B.
V Codex Mosquensis.
ΓCodex Tischendorfianus
Lat. Vet. Vetus Latina.
RV. Revided Version marg.
Syrr. Syriac Versions.
Vulg. Vulgate.
1 See Schü N. Zg. II. I. 25, on Scribism.
1 AV. tables!
102 Codex Bibliothecae Mediceae.
D Codex Ephraemi.
1 .Codex Basiliensis
209 An unnamed, valuable manuscript.
Latt. Latin Versions.
28 Codex Regius.
13 Codex Regius.
346 Codex Ambrosianus.
1 ἐτ μτ belongs to Biblical Greek. ἐτλ is the Greek word.
1 ἀεετ is a later Greek word.
2 This is an anacoluthon, as the condition belongs to the saying of the Jews, and the conclusion to the statement of Jesus.
69 Codex Leicestrensis.
1 This word, which is common in classical Greek, is found only here in the N.T.
Harcl. Harclean.
2 This form, sec. aor. imp., occurs only here in N.T. The aor. imperatives here are appropriate to the beginning of discourse.
1 πνο δντι everything cannot, is the inexact, Hebrew form of the universal negative; the logical, Greek form being οδνδντι nothing can. Win. 3 c, 1.
2 τνκρίνis the heart, in the broad, Scriptural sense of the inner man. ἀερν is a barbarous word, probably of Macedonian origin, the proper Greek equivalent being ἄοο.
F Codex Borelli.
S Codex Vaticanus.
1 On the use of the plural of the abstract noun to denote the forms or manifestations of a quality, see Win. 27, 3.
1 This use of ἀατςcorresponds to the Heb. ויָָ, and belongs to Oriental fulness, if not redundancy, of speech. Win. 64, 4, Note at end, contends that it is not redundant in all cases, but admits its redundancy here. Thay.-Grm. Lex. denies its redundancy altogether. And it is not redundant in one sense, since it is included in the action. But so is the straightening out of the limbs. It is so far redundant that the Greek, with its finer sense of the needful in speech, would omit it.
N Codex Purpureus.
ΠCodex Petropolitianus
1 On the form, see Thay.-Grm. Lex.
2 This is a literal translation of the Heb. idiom, which inserts the personal pronoun after the relative.
K Codex Cyprius.
1 There is a double irregularity here: first, in the use of ἠώαto denote a request, instead of a question; and secondly, in the use of ἴαwith the subj., instead of the inf., to denote the matter of the petition. Burton, 200, 201.
Bib. Dic. Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible (1st or 2d edition).
1 See 1:26, 9:26.
1 On Decapolis, see on 5:1-20.
AV. Authorised Version.
1 Ἐφθ represents the Aramaic אתפַָ, the ethpael imper. of the verb פְַ, Heb. פַָ.
2 Both the augment on the prep., and the sec. aor. in ἠογσνbelong to later Greek.
3 The regular form of stating this proportion is τσύῳὅο, with a comparative in each member. μλο strengthens a comparative with which it is joined.
4 See on 1:44. Cf. 5:19, 43, Note; 6:45, Note.
5 See 1Sa_15:22, 1Sa_15:27.
6 See on 1:22.