Mark 9:2–13

Mark 9:2–13 (ESV): The Transfiguration

Passage

In the last passage Jesus had made a comment that some people would not taste death before they saw the kingdom of God come in power; the most common interpretation of that comment that I’ve heard is that he was referring to the event that takes place in this passage: The Transfiguration.

Jesus brings Peter, James and John up onto a high mountain, and is transfigured before them. We’re not told all of the details about what is different in Jesus’ appearance; Mark focuses on the fact that his clothes have become intensely white, whiter than anyone could possibly bleach them.

Not only has Jesus’ appearance changed, but Elijah and Moses also appear, and are talking to Jesus. The whole situation is terrifying to Peter, James and John, and Peter, not knowing what to say, offers to make three tents for Jesus, Elijah, and Moses.

I don’t know how long Moses and Elijah are there talking with Jesus, or how long his appearance is transfigured, but at some point a cloud overshadows them and a voice comes out of it, saying, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” (verse 7 (ESV)). With that, everything goes back to normal and when the disciples look around they see that Elijah and Moses are gone.

As the come back down the mountain Jesus charges them to tell nobody what they’ve seen “until the Son of Man [has] risen from the dead,” but the disciples don’t understand “what this rising from the dead might mean” (verses 9–10 (ESV)). They don’t ask Jesus about that, though, instead they ask him a different question:

And they asked him, “Why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” And he said to them, “Elijah does come first to restore all things. And how is it written of the Son of Man that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.” (verses 11–13 (ESV))

Thoughts

Although we are not told much about Jesus’ appearance in this passage (other than his clothes), it seems obvious to me that what the disciples are seeing is Jesus as He truly is: the Son of God. Or, if not fully as he is, they’re at least seeing a glimpse of it; more than they usually see.

When Elijah and Moses appear, in a sense they are representing all of Old Testament history up to this point; Elijah representing the prophets and Moses representing the Law. (It’s not an original thought to me, but I’ve heard it mentioned that this is Moses’ chance to finally step foot in the Promised Land, since he was originally denied entry by God for his sin.)

When it comes to the disciples understanding (or not understanding) the events that were about to happen with Jesus’ crucifixion, it is becoming painfully obvious that the Spirit isn’t opening their eyes to what is about to happen; I think of God “hardening Pharoah’s heart” in Exodus, as a similar example. Jesus is telling the disciples plainly, over and over, that he is going to be executed and rise on the third day; in the last passage he told them so plainly that the rebuked him, thinking that could never happen, yet here he is mentioning that is is going to rise from the dead and they still don’t understand. When this keeps happening over and over again, it makes it impossible to think that I’m smarter than them, or that they were just stupid; this is obviously the work (or lack thereof) of God.

When Jesus says that Elijah has come, he doesn’t seem to be referring to the appearance of Elijah that we just saw a few minutes ago on the mountain, he is actually talking about John the Baptist. That would probably be more clear if Jesus hadn’t, literally, been physically talking to Elijah shortly before, but the fact that Jesus is mentioning that “they did to Elijah whatever they pleased,” which didn’t happen a few minutes ago on the mountain, makes it clear that Jesus is referring to something/someone else.

Mark 8:27–9:1

Mark 8:27–9:1 (ESV): Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ, and Jesus Foretells His Death and Resurrection

Passage

I’m combining these passages together because… well, let’s face it, any time people talk about these passages they always talk about them together. It’s just a perfect opportunity to contrast a very good reaction from Peter with a very bad reaction from Peter. But I’m getting ahead of myself…

The passage starts with Jesus talking to his disciples. He asks them who people say that he is, and the disciples give a few answers: John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets. So then Jesus makes it more personal and asks them who they say he is, and Peter answers: “You are the Christ” (verse 29 (ESV)). In the parallel passage in Matthew, Jesus highly commends Peter for this answer:

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17–19 (ESV))

That’s not recorded in this passage, Jesus simply tells the disciples not to tell anyone about him.

He then starts to get very explicit in explaining to them what is about to happen:

And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this plainly. (verses 31–32a (ESV))

Peter, however, is having none of this, and “rebukes” Jesus (verse 32 (ESV)). You might expect that rebuking the Son of God would not go over well, and you’d be right: he first turns to see the disciples—the ESV Study Bible notes indicate that this means Jesus is making sure to include all of them in his rebuke, which I think is probably right—and tells Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” (verse 33 (ESV)). You can see why this passage contrasts so plainly with the first one; Jesus goes from praising Peter to calling him Satan!

But the suffering doesn’t stop with Jesus. After this blistering rebuke of the disciples Jesus calls the crowd together, and tells them that anyone who follows him needs to deny himself, and “take up his cross” and follow Jesus—in other words, be willing to die.

Then, in a pretty familiar passage, Jesus says:

For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (verses 35–38 (ESV))

Finally, Jesus tells his listeners that the kingdom of God is quite imminent: that there are people standing right there with him who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God “after it has come with power” (verse 9:1 (ESV)).

Thoughts

One of the things I like about this passage is how plain Jesus is speaking to his disciples about his imminent crucifixion. There are numerous passages in the Gospels where Jesus tries to explain these things to the disciples ahead of time and they don’t get it; in this passage he’s being as explicit as possible. However, instead of having an “aha” moment and finally believing him, they simply disregard him and assume that he must be wrong. And to be clear, though it is Peter speaking, I’m sure they are all in agreement with him.

Speaking of Peter, I’m sure his praise from Jesus for recognizing him as the Messiah is probably what prompts Peter to be so bold in this passage. Jesus has just finished confirming that yes, he’s the Messiah, so… surely he’s not going to suffer many things, or be killed. (Somehow I think the disciples just plain missed the part about him rising from the dead.)

I wonder, when reading this passage, if Jesus calls Peter “Satan” because Peter is tempting Jesus to forgo his crucifixion. This is yet another case where the fact that Jesus is fully man and fully God adds some room for confusion, for me, and I wonder if the “man” part of Jesus is being tempted to skip something that he obviously doesn’t want to do—we see that in Gethsemane. I don’t mean “tempted” in the sinful sense, that Jesus was really thinking about not doing it, I mean “tempted” in an external sense: Satan tempted Jesus in the dessert, but Jesus wasn’t tempted to do the things Satan suggested; Peter tempted Jesus here, but Jesus wasn’t tempted to do what Peter suggests. And to be clear, it would have been in Jesus’ power to not go through with it; he allowed himself to be crucified, which means that he could have decided not to allow it.

Later on, when Jesus talks about losing one’s life vs. saving it, we have to remember that he is using the word “life” in different ways; there is our earthly life, while we’re on this planet, which is inextricably tied to sin, and there is our eternal life with God (or lack thereof). If you cling to this life, you are going to forfeit the eternal life with God, but giving up your sinful life—dying to your sin—will bring you eternal life with God. When Jesus says that “whoever would save his life will lose it,” there is also a bit of a double meaning: If you cling to life on this planet, you have to be aware that no matter what you do, no matter how much you enjoy yourself or avoid enjoyment, no matter what you do or refrain from doing, however you choose to life your life, you are going to die.

Finally, when Jesus talks about those who will “not taste death” before they see the “kingdom of God after it has come with power,” this is a potentially confusing statement. The most common interpretation I’ve seen is that Jesus is talking about the three disciples who were with him and saw the Transfiguration; they actually saw Jesus as He is, God Incarnate. The post on Matthew 16:24–28 listed some other possible interpretations of this statement.

Mark 8:22–26

Mark 8:22–26 (ESV): Jesus Heals a Blind Man at Bethsaida

Passage

I don’t have much to say about this passage because it’s so similar in nature to 7:31–37; in that passage Jesus healed a deaf man and in this passage he heals a blind man, but the circumstances are very similar:

• He brings both men to a more isolated place to perform the healing
• In both cases Jesus has to do something, rather than just saying “be healed” and having the men be healed
• In both cases Jesus tells the men to keep it to themselves, though they may or may not have the same reaction. (In the 7:31–37 passage the people don’t follow Jesus’ direction, but we’re not told here whether they do or don’t. For the sake of giving them the benefit of the doubt, I’ll go ahead and assume that they listen to him and do what he says…)

Thoughts

As mentioned above, I don’t have anything interesting to add that I wouldn’t already have said for the 7:31–37 passage. Except that I smile whenever I read verse 24 (ESV); Jesus asks the man if he sees anything, and the man says, “I see people, but they look like trees, walking.”

Mark 8:14–21

Mark 8:14–21 (ESV): The Leaven of the Pharisees and Herod

Passage

When it comes to the differences between different Protestant denominations, or between Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christians and Mormons, or between Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology, I think a lot of our disagreements come from differences of opinion as to when a specific passage should be taken literally vs. taken figuratively. This is a very blatant example of Jesus using a metaphor which his disciples think should be taken literally.

The metaphor is that Jesus warns the disciples to beware of “the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod” (verse 15 (ESV)). What he means is that the disciples should beware of the teachings of the Pharisees and Herod; the ESV Study Bible notes say that he is referring to their self-centred self-reliance, which I think is a good explanation. (They also point out 1 Corinthians 5:6–7 (ESV), where we’re told that “a little leaven leavens the whole lump,” which also seems applicable here.)

Unfortunately, the disciples have forgotten to bring bread and have only one loaf to share, and this seems to be on their minds, so they assume that Jesus is telling them this because they have no bread. They seem to think that Jesus is worried that they’re going to borrow yeast from the Pharisees or Herod to make some more.

Jesus is not amused, however.

And they began discussing with one another the fact that they had no bread. And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?” (verses 16–21 (ESV))

Thoughts

This passage is remarkable, to me, simply because of how short Jesus is with the disciples. It’s one of those passages where you can just hear the tone of Jesus’ voice, when he asks them, “Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread?” He’s exasperated with them; why does he have to keep explaining things to them? Why are they not understanding? Why are they so slow of heart? It’s true that he’s not using the type of scathing language he uses with the Pharisees, whom he calls vipers and hypocrites and other such names, but he is clearly expecting that the disciples should understand what he is saying in this instance, and they don’t.

To me, there is a simple and obvious lesson that comes from this passage: When we read our Bibles, we should really pray for the Holy Spirit to open our eyes and our ears, to hear what is being said and to see the truth of it. We may have no idea what spiritual lessons we’re missing; we won’t know that we missed them until we understand, and then we can look back and realize that we’d been misunderstanding them. It’s true that we don’t have Jesus physically here with us, to explain our misunderstandings and correct our mistakes, but the Bible tells us that we don’t need that—we have the Word, and we have the Holy Spirit. We just have to make use of these gifts.

Mark 8:11–13

Mark 8:11–13 (ESV): The Pharisees Demand a Sign

Passage

Jesus has just fed the four thousand, then gotten into a boat and travelled somewhere else. When he lands the Pharisees find him, and begin to argue with him, demanding “a sign from heaven to test him” (verse 11 (ESV)).

Jesus’ response is to sigh “deeply in his spirit,” and ask aloud why this generation seeks a sign—and then to follow up by declaring that no sign will be given to it (verse 12 (ESV)). He then gets right back into his boat, and heads for the other side of the sea.

Thoughts

A fairly short passage, partially because Jesus simply refuses to interact with the Pharisees on this point. “Give us a sign from heaven that you are you who say you are!” they demand. “No,” Jesus replies.

Regular blog readers might be used to me trying to give the Pharisees the benefit of the doubt; I’ll do so again: On a certain level, you can see where the Pharisees are coming from. Jesus is making some big claims, claims that, if true, fundamentally change their entire relationship with God. What proof does He offer that these claims are true? I don’t think Jesus’ issue with the Pharisees is with this line of thinking; I don’t think He’d even disagree with them on this… up to a point. But by this point there have been a number of proofs offered, combining Jesus’ miraculous power with His knowledge of the Scriptures. The Pharisees should have had enough, by this point, to believe. If they didn’t, it must have been because they refused to believe—and in that case, what miracle could Jesus perform, what argument could He offer, what divine sign from the Father could he show, that would force them to give up their stubbornness? If the Pharisees were open to believing they would have done so by now; if they don’t, it’s because they weren’t open to believing.

This is directly applicable to people in our day. We’ve all known people who say that they’d believe if they just had proof, or if they could just see it with their own eyes. The Bible teaches us, however, that no amount of proof will be enough to soften a heart which is hard, whereas God is able to soften any heart that He wants. In other words, it’s not the amount or quality of the proof, it’s only a question of the work of the Holy Spirit: where He has softened a heart a person will believe, and where He hasn’t a person will refuse to believe. (This is good news when we give the Gospel. It means that all we have to do is deliver as much truth as we can, and let the Holy Spirit work; it’s not up to us to do all of the work of convincing someone to believe, though we should definitely try. At the end of the day, even if we explain things poorly, the Spirit can still use that to open a person’s heart.)

As for someone refusing to believe unless they see with their own eyes, I wonder: Does this mean that Jesus would need to come back, die for our sins, and rise from the dead in every single generation, so that people would believe in Him? As soon as a generation or two has gone by, people would be starting to doubt the accounts of His coming and rising from the dead, so it would have to be a repeat performance for Him to convince people generation after generation.

The fact is, although the Bible does offer proofs of its authenticity, the main thrust is not to convince us through argument, it’s to promote faith. By no means are we required to follow blindly, we should think about the things that we believe, and wrestle with difficult passages of the Bible, but neither is it ultimately up to us to be convinced. It’s up to us to have faith in God. This issue of trust vs. faith always brings me back to God leading the people out of Egypt; He parts the Red Sea, drowns Pharoah’s army, and then physically leads His people in their travels as a pillar of fire. He brings the people to a mountain and speaks to them, delivering the Ten Commandments. At this point the Israelites had no doubt whatsoever that there was a God, and that He had delivered them out of Egypt. Then God and Moses leave them alone for a little while, and the people immediately fashion an idol for themselves, and start giving it credit for their deliverance out of Egypt. In the entire history of the world I don’t think anyone ever had more proof of God’s existence than they did, but it wasn’t enough for them to trust Him.

By nature we’re all like that, to a greater or lesser extent.

Mark 8:1–10

Mark 8:1–10 (ESV): Jesus Feeds the Four Thousand

Passage

The last passage was interesting (to me) not because of what Jesus did, but because of how he did it. This passage is interesting to me not because of what happens (though it is a true miracle), but because of what came before. How can we not read this passage without thinking about 6:30–44 in which Jesus fed the 5,000? With that event in mind it’s completely shocking when…

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Similar to the previous miraculous healing, this episode begins with Jesus teaching a large crowd in a remote place, and him then having compassion on them because they have nothing to eat. It might even be worse this time because Jesus mentions that the crowd has been with him for three days; he tells his disciples that he’s afraid to send them home for fear that they might faint with hunger on the way. In the previous feeding Jesus had told his disciples to feed the crowd, but in this instance he doesn’t even get that far: they preempt his question before he can even ask it, and ask him how they can possibly feed this crowd.

Similar to the previous passage, Jesus asks them how much bread they have, has the crowd sit, and divides the bread amongst the people. Similarly, there are also some fish, which he also divides among them. At the end they end up with seven baskets of leftovers.

Jesus then sends the crowd away, and moves on to his next destination.

Thoughts

The parallels between this passage and the previous one are startling; if both stories weren’t in the same book—for example if Matthew had written about the feeding of the 5,000 and Mark had written about the feeding of the 4,000—I would have thought that it was the same incident with a simple disagreement about the size of the crowd. The two events are almost exactly the same, so that’s why I’m so flabbergasted when the disciples seem to have the same reaction they had the first time: “How are we supposed to feed all of these people?!?” When they had that reaction the first time I can understand it; whenever Jesus did anything new that they hadn’t seen before I can understand them being shocked. But in this case they’re in exactly the same situation they were the first time, so why would they be shocked that Jesus is going to do this?

Well… almost the same situation. In this case, just to make the irony even deeper, the crowd is smaller and they start off with more food than they’d had the last time.

The only thing I can think of is that when they ask Jesus, “How can one feed these people with bread here in this desolate place?” (verse 4 (ESV)), maybe it was an honest question. Meaning that they weren’t being disbelieving, they were honestly asking Jesus, “how do you want to go about this?” It doesn’t sound that way, the way it’s worded, but it’s possible.

And to nail the point home, before I start feeling superior to the disciples, how many times do we all do this? Get into a situation we’ve been in numerous times before, and then start to wonder how God could possibly get us out of it? Sometimes it seems silly or strange when someone else does it, but not when we ourselves do it.

Mark 7:31–37

Mark 7:31–37 (ESV): Jesus Heals a Deaf Man

Passage

This passage is interesting to me not so much because of what Jesus does, but more because of the way in which he does it. As Jesus continues his travels some people bring to him a man who is deaf and has a speech impediment to be healed. Jesus takes the man aside privately, puts his fingers in the man’s ears, spits, and touches the man’s tongue. He then looks up to heaven, sighs, and says “Ephphatha,” which means “be opened” (verse 34 (ESV)). I don’t know what language “Ephphatha” is; I’d guess Aramaic, but it’s just a guess; the study notes and footnotes I had available didn’t tell me.

At this point the man’s ears are opened and he is able to speak plainly. As is so often the case, Jesus tells them to keep it to themselves, and as usual they disregard him and go out and proclaim it. Or, as verse 36 (ESV) puts it:

And Jesus charged them to tell no one. But the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it.

The reason they can’t help but tell people is given in the next verse: they’re “astonished beyond measure” that Jesus is able to do such things, even making the deaf hear and the mute speak (verse 37 (ESV)).

Thoughts

As I say, it’s interesting how Jesus goes about healing this man. In some instances He simply says the word, sometimes even from great distances without ever laying eyes on the person being healed, and it just happens. But then you have this instance where Jesus pulls the man aside and touches the areas which are not working. Why does Jesus need (or want) to do so much for this man, when in other instances simply saying “be healed” is enough?

The ESV Study Bible notes say that Jesus took the man aside for his healing so as not to draw attention to it, which is feasible, and they also say that the reason Jesus sighs toward heaven is that he is sighing “over the hard-heartedness and physical weaknesses that had arisen on account of mankind’s fall,” which, to me, is definitely a plausible theory, but since the text doesn’t actually tell us why Jesus is sighing it’s just that: a theory.

Mark 7:24–30

Mark 7:24–30 (ESV): The Syrophoenician Woman’s Faith

Passage

In this passage Jesus travels to the region of Tyre and Sidon, and once again, though he would prefer to remain hidden, he is immediately recognized. One of the people who recognizes him is a Gentile woman who comes and falls at Jesus’ feet, begging him to cast out a demon which has possessed her daughter. His response might seem shocking to modern-day readers:

And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” (verse 27 (ESV))

In other words, the bread is only for the “children,” the Jews, not for the “dogs,” the Gentiles. Her response, however, is that even though this is the case, the dogs under the table still eat the children’s crumbs. Jesus tells her that for this response she can go her way, for the demon has left her daughter, and when the woman goes home she finds that it is so.

Thoughts

As mentioned, many modern-day readers are probably shocked by Jesus’ response to the woman. After all, we live in an age where it’s obvious that Christianity has spread outside of the Israelites, and is for all people rather than just for a specific people group. It might surprise us to learn that when Jesus was on the earth His ministry was focused on the Jews. This is one of only a few examples of Jesus ministering to a Gentile.

As surprised as we might be, however, the woman herself doesn’t seem surprised at all from what is indicated in the text. There doesn’t seem to be any kind of “how dare you” attitude; instead she simply points out that the “children” aren’t consuming all of the “bread,” so maybe it couldn’t hurt for her to take some of the crumbs that are left over. And I guess Jesus agrees with this reasoning, since He heals the woman’s daughter. (The ESV Study Bible notes make the assumption that Jesus had planned to heal the daughter all along and was simply testing the woman, which I’d mostly go along with. I’d probably put it more along the lines of Jesus specifically having this conversation with the woman to call the disciples’ attention to it, and thus calling the attention of the the Bible’s readers to it.)

I’m wondering if there are also cultural issues clouding modern readers’ understanding of this text, since Jesus calls the Gentiles “dogs.” In our society that’s considered insulting, you wouldn’t equate someone with a dog in this day and age, but it wasn’t necessarily insulting in Jesus’ culture. Again, I go by the woman’s response; she didn’t seem to be insulted at all by Jesus’ words. I’m thinking that this might have just been a metaphor, not the insult that it seems to be to our modern eyes.

Very, very minor change

I’ve long recognized that what I’ve been calling “synopses” are much, much more detailed than synopses; a synopsis should be short and concise, and mine are anything but. So I’ll stop calling them synopses.

Mark 7:1–23

Mark 7:1–23 (ESV): Traditions and Commandments, and What Defiles a Person

Synopsis

This passage starts off with a conversation between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees. The scribes and Pharisees notice that Jesus’ disciples don’t wash their hands before eating. (Or maybe just not washed in the way the Pharisees expect them to be? I don’t know much about their rules for handwashing.) In a parenthetical remark, Mark explains why the Pharisees and scribes find this surprising:

(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) (verses 3–4 (ESV), parentheses in original)

So they ask Jesus about this; they ask him why his disciples do not “walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands” (verse 5 (ESV)). Jesus doesn’t directly answer their question, though. He takes things to a higher level, and turns the accusations back around on the scribes and Pharisees:

And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honors me with their lips,
   but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
   teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

(verses 6–8 (ESV))

He goes on in verses 9–13 (ESV) to tell them that they have “a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God” for their own “traditions,” and gives an example of this: The Scriptures commanded the Israelites to honour their fathers and mothers, but they have a tradition which allows them to set that commandment aside, and tell their parents that anything that otherwise would have been theirs will instead go to God. Thus, they have created a tradition which they believe somehow supersedes the scriptures.

Jesus then goes back closer to the point the scribes and Pharisees had originally been making by calling the crowd back to him and telling them that people are not “defiled” by things that they consume, it is the things that come out of a person which defile him. But this issue isn’t just misunderstood by the Pharisees; when Jesus is along with the disciples they ask him about this. His response goes into more detail:

And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (verses 18–23 (ESV))

Thoughts

So the scribes and Pharisees find it surprising that Jesus’ disciples don’t wash (or don’t wash properly) before meals, and because I’m always trying to see things from others’ points of view—even when I know they’re wrong, as is the case here—I am thinking that this might be more than just them picking a fight with Jesus for the sake of picking a fight. It’s possible that they really are surprised that Jesus’ disciples aren’t washing before eating. By this point in history the Pharisees and scribes would have these rules so ingrained in them that they would automatically assume that any rabbi or teacher, even one that they disagree with, would at least adhere to traditions such as this.

Why do I mention this? Because I always wonder, when reading passages such as this, if we have our own “traditions” that we adhere to more fully than we adhere to the Scriptures. For example, our society will tell us that it’s okay to be “religious” as long as we’re not too religious. Do we, as Christians, believe that? Do we, like society, believe that we should be Christians on Sundays but chase the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR from Monday–Saturday? Do we feel that we can be “too Christian?”

Maybe that’s not a good example, but if I can’t think of many examples it makes me all the more worried that I might be blinded to them; that my culture or my upbringing or the wisdom of the day might be causing me to think improperly on some issues, which cause me to simply not see things that are there in the Scriptures. Things that people from other generations or cultures would see clearly. Make no mistake, this is part of the problem of the scribes and Pharisees Jesus is talking to in this passage. I do firmly believe that they firmly believed they were in the right; I think they were jealous of Jesus’ power and influence and wanted to eliminate a competitor, but I also think that they really did believe that they were Godly men, and that following their traditions was pleasing to Him. They shouldn’t have thought that, as Jesus points out to them they should have known better, but they did. So I come back to: what things in our generation and our culture blind us to the Scriptures? I would like to think—I would love to think—that there aren’t any such issues, and we’re doing fine, but somehow I doubt that’s the case.

Of course, in this passage we have the benefit of Jesus specifically telling us how the scribes and Pharisees were wrong, so there’s no guesswork. Anytime anything is considered more important than the Scriptures it’s a problem, and that’s obviously the case here. I sometimes go easy on the Pharisees and other religious leaders because I think their original intent was good; the rules they were creating were supposed to help them obey God. The Scriptures say “keep the Sabbath” (for example) so they tried to define how one keeps the Sabbath. Their problems were, in my mind, that: 1) they went too far in defining their rules and tried to get too precise (which I think has to do with a lack of faith, but I haven’t articulated in my mind how that’s the case), which led to, 2) they started to consider the rules to be more important than the Scriptures they’d originally been trying to clarify. They lost sight of the goal they’d originally had, and ended up in much worse shape than they’d started in. The problem, of course, is that this happened over the course of hundreds of years, so that gradual process made it very easy to get used to the status quo.

I’m sure they were even more surprised when Jesus told them that nothing outside of a person can defile them. On the face of it this actually contradicts the Old Testament Scriptures, because if you examine the laws, all kinds of things could make a person unclean. Touching a dead body, or a man’s emission, or a woman’s monthly flow, or, yes, eating forbidden food… there were many ways for a person to be unclean. In fact, even touching another person who was unclean would make you unclean; uncleanness was communicable. If you read Leviticus 11, as an example, you’ll get quite a list of clean and unclean food. (The link is to my post on Leviticus 11, not the chapter itself, but the post has a link to the text.)

But as is so often the case, Jesus is taking things a bit deeper than the Pharisees are. You can’t just follow the letter of the Law and think you’re good with God; He actually demands more of us than what the Law explicitly states. If you follow all of the dietary laws and wash your hands thoroughly, but have evil thoughts, or are sexually immoral, or steal, or commit murder (or hate people), or commit adultery, or covet, or are deceptive, or envy, or slander, or are proud, or even if you’re foolish, then you’re not clean.

There is actually a change to the law here, too. Or at least a change to God’s expectations of His people. In this passage Jesus tells his listeners—and Mark makes this explicit in verse 19 (ESV)—that food cannot make a person unclean, which means that the Old Testament Jewish dietary laws no longer apply. I’m not sure what to say about this, though; 2,000 years later we’ve taken for granted that there are no longer “unclean” foods that we need to avoid, but I’m guessing that at the time this was a bombshell from Jesus. This is no longer “you’ve been misinterpreting the law, here’s what it really means,” this is, “the law used to say something, but I’m now telling you that it’s changing.” However, I obviously don’t understand the nuances of this situation, because when the Pharisees and religious authorities put Jesus on trial they never mentioned this incident; I would have thought they’d be very upset by this. Frankly, it might even have been something that they’d have a leg to stand on, legally speaking, but they didn’t go there (at least not in the recorded events in the Gospels), so I’m assuming I’m missing something on this one.