Gospel Notes by Michael Whelan SM
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” (Mark 7:1-8 – NRSV).
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” (Mark 7:14-15 – NRSV).
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” (Mark 7:21-23 – NRSV).
Introductory notes
General
We find a similar passage in Matthew 15:1-20.
“The narrative combines three distinct disputes: the question of how one is to maintain purity when eating (7:1–8), a criticism of the misuse of the laws and commands of God by overemphasizing human traditions (7:9–13), and further instructions to a different audience (the crowd and the disciples) on what causes ritual impurity (7:14–23). The narrative is more dense with explanatory comments than any other section of Mark (see Notes), and is quite repetitious, especially in the second half. This is clearly a narrative that has gone through a complex development, though the exact stages may not be recoverable. ….
“Certain cautions and opportunities for contemporary actualization emerge from this narrative. The cautions arise around a tendency to characterize first-century ‘Judaism’ as legalistic and external in contrast to the more spiritual and compassionate moral code presented by Jesus. The controversy in Mark 7 unfolds within first-century Judaism. The Markan Jesus contrasts his interpretation of the Law and the Prophets to interpretations by specific Jewish groups—a widespread process within the different ‘Judaisms’ of the first century. Also, the spiritualization of the food laws manifest in vv. 17–23, which is presented to the disciples in the house, may well represent a later Christian development handed on in meetings of the ‘house churches’. But this is not simply a ‘hellenization’ of Jesus’ message, since such stress on interior morality was also strong in Judaism itself, especially in the Diaspora Judaism represented by someone like Philo.
“Nonetheless, the narrative does offer an opportunity for contemporary Christians to reflect on how and why strong religious commitment and devotion to tradition can result in a certain moral rigidity, and it sounds the warning that certain laws and customs must be continually reassessed in light of revelation, just as the Markan Jesus invokes the Torah against ‘human tradition’. The Second Vatican Council called Scripture the ‘soul of theology’ and in its ‘Decree on the Training of Priests’ (Optatam totius 16) said that special attention needs to be given to the development of moral theology, and that its scientific exposition should be more thoroughly nourished by scriptural teachings. In the intervening years since the Council there have been many attempts to ground moral theology in Scripture. At the same time there is currently a strong counter-tendency to ‘build a fence around the law’ with a renewed stress on codified moral directives, which seems to owe more to traditional teachings than to the biblical vision. There must be a constant interplay between Scripture and tradition lest Christians today end up ‘nullifying the word of God’ (7:13)” (J R Donahue & D J Harrington, The Gospel of Mark, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2002, 227 & 230-231).
Mark’s text is found in the middle of an extended account of Jesus’ mission to both Jews and Gentiles – see Mark 6:7-8:21. Sharing food is central to this narrative:
- Jesus has done many wonderful things, such as feeding the 5000 – see Mark 6:30-44; it is evident that the disciples do not understand the meaning of that event – see Mark 6:52;
- then we have an encounter with the Pharisees that quickly escalates into a disagreement over rituals relating to food, among other things;
- immediately following today’s Gospel, we have Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman over who is allowed to sit at the table and share the meal – see Mark 7:24-30;
- then we have a second miracle of the loaves – see Mark 8:1-10;
- further disputes with the Pharisees follow – see Mark 8:11-21.
Food – ie who gets to share the table – becomes a profoundly important metaphor of Jesus’ life and teaching. Jesus’ attitude to table fellowship also attracts criticism: “‘Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?’” (2:16). It is similarly reported in Matthew 9:10-13 and Luke 5:29-32.
Specific
Pharisees and some of the scribes: Mark has already reported conflicts with the Pharisees – see 2:16 & 24 and 3:6. But the scribes are much stronger opponents of Jesus than the Pharisees in Mark. In 3:22 they arrive from Jerusalem and accuse Jesus of being possessed of a devil. The reference to Jerusalem – both in today’s Gospel and in 3:22 – signals the ultimate destination of Jesus’ mission.
some of his disciples: It is the behaviour of the disciples, not Jesus himself, that brings on the complaint. This may suggest an experience of the post-resurrection community – see for example, Galatians 2:1-11. This incident – in Antioch – reported in the Letter to the Galatians, clearly points to a serious conflict between Paul and Peter: “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction” (2:11-12).
eating: There is a Greek word – artos, meaning “bread” – is strangely omitted from both the NRSV and the NJB translations. “The plural ‘loaves’ (artous) links this dispute with the previous sequence of ‘bread narratives’ (6:8, 37, 38, 41, 44, 52)” (Donoghue and Harrington, op cit., 219).
wash/the washing: The verb used is baptizō and the noun is baptismos.
You abandon the commandment of God: “At stake in the dispute is what really constitutes fidelity to God’s revelation versus human tradition. Such citations on the lips of Jesus show that the dispute between Jesus and those who challenge him is not about the authority of the Torah, but precisely over applications and interpretations of the Law by specific Jewish groups” (Donoghue and Harrington, op cit, 222).
The tradition of the elders: “The contention between Jesus and the Pharisees over clean and unclean was, however, only symptomatic of a deeper cleavage, the crux of which concerned the “tradition of the elders“ (vv. 3, 5, 8, 9, 13). In distinction from the Sadducees for whom the written law of the Torah alone was authoritative, Pharisees accepted the evolving oral law as equally authoritative (Josephus, Ant. 13.297). Along with the above cleansing rituals, the oral tradition also became more pronounced after the close of the OT. Indeed, the accusation of the Pharisees and scribes in v. 5 that Jesus’ disciples ate with unclean hands could not have been made or sustained on the basis of the Torah, but only on the basis of oral tradition. By Jesus’ day, adherence to the unwritten oral tradition was as important for the Pharisees as was adherence to the Torah itself. Although the claim cannot be sustained from the OT itself, rabbis promoted the idea that Moses had received two laws on Mt. Sinai, the written Torah and the oral Mishnah. The Mishnah was believed to preserve an unbroken chain of authorized tradition extending from Moses to the ‘Great Synagogue’ of Jesus’ day (m. Avot 1:1–13). The Mishnah called the oral interpretation ‘a fence around the Torah’ (m. Avot 3:13)—‘fence’ being understood as preservation of the integrity of the written law by elaborating every conceivable implication of it. In general, the Torah was understood as policy. Its commandments declared what God decreed, but not always how they were to be fulfilled. The Torah alone, according to advocates of the oral tradition, was believed to be too ambiguous to establish and govern the Jewish community. The oral tradition as preserved in the Mishnah, on the other hand, prescribed in infinite detail how the intent of the Torah ought to be fulfilled in actual circumstances.
“The rigor of the oral tradition was an indication of the seriousness with which Pharisees intended to uphold the Torah. The oral tradition, at least in theory, intended to express the intent of the law and extend it to matters of everyday life. In practice, however, ‘the tradition of the elders’ tended to shift the center of gravity from the intent of the Torah to an increasing array of peripheral matters that either obscured or perverted that intent. It is this latter effect that falls under Jesus’ withering critique in vv. 6ff” (J R Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark, W B Eerdmans, 2002, 208-209).
hypocrites: “When Jesus refers to the Pharisees as ‘hypocrites,’ he takes a term from the theater meaning to play a part on stage. Especially in Greek theater, actors wore various masks according to the roles they impersonated. The word ‘hypocrite,’ accordingly, comes to mean someone who acts a role without sincerity, hence a pretender. The quotation from Isa 29:13 (LXX) rightly defines ‘hypocrite’ as one who voices lofty and even noble sentiments that are divorced from the intentions of the heart. People who do this “‘worship me in vain,’” according to the quotation. The result of the pretense is that “‘their teachings are but rules taught by men,’” thus idolatry, that is, the replacement of the divine by the merely human. With regard to the oral tradition, the Pharisees substitute interpretations of the law for the law itself, indeed interpretations at variance with the intent of the law” (J R Edwards, op cit, 209).
Heart to heart
In today’s Gospel – Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23 – Jesus is in conflict with some scribes and Pharisees who have come down from Jerusalem. The conflict is not with these people as such or even the Law. Rather, it concerns the way the Law is being interpreted and applied. By way of contrast, note Mark’s report of a later exchange with another scribe in 12:28-34. In that second instance, the scribe asks Jesus, “Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answers, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart etc.” Mark then tells us: “When Jesus saw that (the scribe) answered wisely, he said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’”
What is the difference between this scribe and the scribes and the Pharisees that are in conflict with Jesus? Jesus cites the prophet Isaiah: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me’” (Isaiah 29:13). “Their hearts are far from me”! The second scribe knows that the Covenant is an affair of the heart, a loving relationship. The others think it is more like a contract, a transactional relationship. In fact, seeing it as if it is a contract, shifts the focus from the heart to the will. The heart tends to be the place of being drawn by delight. The will tends to be the place of being driven by duty. Perhaps the attraction of the second option is that it seems to hold out the possibility of control. A truly loving relationship is a matter of mutual surrender. That can be overwhelming, even frightening, precisely because we do not have control.
The Psalmist speaks highly of those who live from the heart: “Those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right, and speak the truth from their heart; who do not slander with their tongue, and do no evil to their friends … shall never be moved” (see Psalm 15:2-5). St Augustine, in describing his conversion, sees it as fundamentally an affair of the heart: “That grand struggle in my inner house, which I had vehemently stirred up with my soul in the intimate chamber of my heart …” (The Confessions, trans. Owen Chadwick, Oxford World’s Classics, (p. 146). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition).
St Francis de Sales (1567-1672), represents the heart of the Christian life: “To speak to God and to hear God speak in the depths of the heart. … Eye speaks to eye and heart to heart, and no one understands what passes save the sacred lovers who speak” (St Francis de Sales, Treatise On the Love of God, Book 6 (p. 323). DeSales Resource Center. Kindle Edition). Cardinal Newman took St Francis de Sales’ words as his motto: Cor ad cor loquitur – “Heart speaks to heart”. Might it be a motto for us all?