I have been working on this study for a few days. The mystery of the passage is covered by doing word studies from the original language. Let me know what you think…

Mark 7:1-13  The tradition of men.  The Pharisees and scribes try another frontal attack on Jesus.  They are focused on the disciples eating with unwashed hands.  The oral torah that had been handed down from teacher to teacher forbade eating with unclean hands. The tragedy is that as teachers studied the true Torah, they came up with interpretations and these soon became torah that was taught. Before we are too hard on the Pharisees and scribes, we need to look in the mirror. Many Christian teachings are based on the teachings of teachers and not on the scriptures. When these teachings are put forth, instead of refuting the teachings, we look at the scriptures, pull them out of context and force the scripture to say what we want it to say. There are several teachings that just will not stand up to the scrutiny of scripture. Which ones? Just for a few, pre and post rapture, Sunday as the Sabbath, we are no longer under the law, and several others. The point is, if we are going to return to Torah, we need to be careful to return to Torah. Otherwise, we may turn to the religious teachings of man. Stern stated:

“Mark’s explanation of n’tilat-yadayim, ritual handwashing, in these verses corresponds to the details set forth in Mishna tractate Yadayim. In the marketplace one may touch ceremonially impure things; the impurity is removed by rinsing up to the wrist. Orthodox Jews today observe n’tilat-yadayim before meals. The rationale for it has nothing to do with hygiene but is based on the idea that “a man’s home is his Temple,” with the dining table his altar, the food his sacrifice and himself the cohen (priest). Since the Tanakh requires cohanim to be ceremonially pure before offering sacrifices on the Temple altar, the Oral Torah requires the same before eating a meal.”^[1]

It is interesting that they picked the specific instance of washing hands after going to the market. The Talmud is loaded with arguments back and forth on washing before meals. There are so many disagreements on this that it makes it comical to read. I wonder if they had a discussion regarding which type of washing to confront Yeshua with.  Note also that they had to observe the apostles to see that they had certainly come from the market and that they had not washed their hands since then. The accusation took a lot of homework and groundwork to formulate.  They invested a lot of time into the question.

Hand washing or failure to do so, directly violated the oral laws or traditions that were passed down from the ages.  These oral edicts were not inspired by God and were probably good to a certain extent because the washing of hands, cups, pitchers and pots probably helped to fend off germs.  At the time, they didn’t know what germs were, so the increased health probably seemed to be a blessing from God for following the traditions.

Two interesting things regarding the washing, the word used for washing the hands refers to dipping the hands or cupping a hand full of water.  The Greek word baptizo is used for washing the pots, from which we get the word baptism (Mark 7:4).

Jesus rebukes the Pharisees by quoting Isaiah (Isa 29:13; Mark 7:6-7).  Jesus being a righteous God, is irritated with man for adding to His word, and adding burdens to His people.  Remember, when reading a quote from the Old Testament, the writer expects you to be familiar with the context of the passage. When Mark quoted Yeshua in this one verse, it is expected that you apply the entire section of scripture to understanding what Yeshua said. In this instance, He was quoting from a messianic passage (Isa 29:13-24). Yeshua expounds upon the last phrase of Isaiah’s prophecy saying that by rote learning or oral traditions, they neglect God’s instructions (Mark 7:4).

Mark 7:9-13 Remember, context continues from the previous verses. Yeshua brings charge against the Pharisees and scribes for introducing oral torah that is contrary to the written Torah. Oral and written instructions not found in the Bible are vital for the wellbeing of a society. It would be impossible to run a society on just the Bible alone. Therefore, Yeshua is not criticizing the leaders for clarifying the Torah. He is criticizing them for nullifying the teachings of God by offering a variant interpretation.

Today we have a social system in place that provides for the elderly. There are various forms of monies available to take care of older people including retirement income, supplemental income, and social security income. Very few people retire well off though. In biblical days, retirement did not exist. When a person became older, the children stepped in to help them. This passage is focused upon physical and most likely financial help (Mark 7:11-12).  The financial focus comes from the Greek word that was transliterated, not translated as “Corban”.

Yeshua quotes one of the Ten Commandments, “Honor your father and your mother” (Ex 20:12; Deut 5:16). This commandment comes with a promise, if you honor your father and your mother, then your days will be prolonged. Honor in this case seems to be pointing to respecting a person. That is the idea we get from English. The Greek word carries an entirely different meaning. Let’s look to Kittle:

1. Greek and Hellenistic Literature.
2. Meanings. In general timḗ means “worth,” “evaluation,” “honor,” then “price.” Specific meanings are “appraisal,” “assessment,” “honor,” “dignity,” “honorarium,” “honors.” Similarly timáō means “to value,” “to honor,” passive “to be deemed worthy of honor.” Religiously the honoring of the gods is worship. The Greeks also believe that certain people are honored by the gods, e.g., with wealth, power, etc. timaí may be used for offerings, feasts, etc. that honor the gods, or for donations to them. Financially the terms are used for fixing value, appraising, and taxing.
3. The Concept of Honor. timḗ has at first a strong material orientation to possessions, strength, or social influence. Later, moral conduct plays a bigger part. The fact that timḗ can also mean “price” upholds the material connection, but timḗ as honor increasingly becomes inner worth as distinct from outward esteem. For Aristotle there is no honor without virtue; only on the basis of virtue should outward honor be shown. No honor is enough for perfect virtue, and the person of inner worth is finally above outward honor. In Stoicism inner honor is what counts. The sage, enjoying inward freedom, can live without external honor and can thus be relaxed in relation to it.
4. Hellenistic Judaism.
5. The LXX.
6. Hebrew has no exact equivalent for the group but does require the honoring of parents (Ex. 20:12) and of the moral commandments (Gen. 38:23). The LXX uses timḗ for 12 Hebrew terms. A first sense is honor, e.g., the honor that must be brought to God, the honor that God gives us, the honor that comes through doing good, the honor that must be shown others. We then find the meaning “price” with such nuances as “payment,” “compensation,” “evaluation.” Other senses are “valuables” and “tax.” Finally the term denotes royal dignity or honorable conduct.
7. timáō renders six Hebrew terms in such senses as “to honor” (God, kings, parents, the elderly, the poor, loyal slaves, doctors, or the temple), “to appraise,” and “to honor with money,” i.e., “to reward.”^[2]

Kittle went on to expound more upon the word. The Hebrew word found in Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16 for honor is very similar. It carries the idea of making a heavy decision, or heavy commitment. It is also linked to financial support or with wealth. The idea behind the word is that the object of honor is to be a heavy responsibility on the one honoring.[3] This goes beyond the flippant society that we have today because it involves commitment. Today people think they have honored their father or mother when they send a card on Mother or Father’s Day. Let’s get back to the passage now.

Yeshua adds a rebuke to His remarks on honoring the father and mother. If a person does not honor his father or mother, it is cursing them (Ex 21:17; Lev 20:9). And once again, it is not what you think. Cursing or “speaking evil” includes calling your mother or father names and even making derogatory remarks about them but much more. The idea behind the Hebrew word for cursing is to take lightly, declare cursed or accursed, consider to be insignificant or of little account. In short, it is to consider a person to be inferior or lacking in some way that qualifies them for pity or to disregard them as unimportant.

“But you say…” Mark 7:11-13: The idea behind saying that help is “corban” means that the help is now a gift to God. The implication of the word is that the finances have been donated to the temple. This means that the support that was supposed to go to the parents has been reallocated to go to the temple.  It falls back on Yeshua’s earlier statement. The parents are not considered to be important enough to be helped financially or physically. They are inferior to the temple. God’s greater good outweighs the responsibility to take care of the parents. In this way the teachers created a loophole to pad their pockets instead of observing monies going to parents.

I see this same thing take place in churches today. Christian teachers will declare that the “law” or basically “torah” is no longer in effect. Then they pass the basket and ask for a tithe, which is a command in Torah… I have heard many variants of this same message. One church I visited passed the basket four times in the same service for different purposes. Before we condemn the religious leaders of that day, we need to look at our own practices and call them into question.

^[1] David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary : A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament, electronic ed. (Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996), Mk 7:2.

LXX Septuagint

LXX Septuagint

^[2] Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey William Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1985), 1181.

[3] James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).