vii. 1–23. Questions regarding washings: cf. Matt. xv. 1–9.
The fact that the disciples of Jesus were observed to eat without performing the usual ceremonial ablutions was made a matter of complaint. Jesus uses the occasion to expose the false ideas that were current on the questions of tradition and defilement.

1. certain of the scribes, which had come from Jerusalem. These have been mentioned in iii. 22. An opportunity for trying him again with entangling questions is furnished by something they had seen his disciples do. On what occasion they had observed the practice in question is not stated. [Salmond, 1906]

defiled (or, common), that is, unwashen, hands. Mark explains the technical Jewish term for the sake of his Gentile readers. What is in view is the traditional ceremonial ablution, to which great importance was attached. [Salmond, 1906]

the Pharisees, and all the Jews. This is the only instance in which the term ‘the Jews’ is used by itself in Mark, although we have also the designation ‘the King of the Jews.’ In John’s Gospel it has the more definite sense of Jews as opposed to Christians, and in particular, the scribes, priests, members of the council, and official classes generally as representatives of the hostile hostility of the nation to Christ and his followers. It is possible that it has something approaching that sense here. But more probably it is a large and general application of the ordinary sense, indicating that the practice, which had begun with the rigid Pharisees, had got hold of the mass of the people.

diligently: the word is a difficult one, and is variously rendered ‘frequently,’ ‘up to the elbow,’ ‘to the wrist,’ ‘with the fist,’ &c. According to the last, which is the rendering preferred by some of our best scholars, the idea is that they performed the scrupulous ceremonial act by placing the closed fist in the hollow of the other hand and rubbing and rolling it there.

the tradition of the elders. That is, the rules which had come down from the scribes of ancient times. In the Gospels the word ‘tradition’ occurs only here and in the parallel passage in Matthew. It means the collection of oral interpretations of the written Law of Moses which had been given by the Rabbis from time to time and handed down from one generation to another. Cf. ‘the traditions of my fathers’ of which Paul wrote (Gal. i. 14). [Salmond, 1906]

except they wash themselves: rather, ‘except they baptize themselves.’ The word is baptize, a term always conveying in its N.T. occurrences the sense of immersion. There were, therefore, two kinds of ceremonial washing, first the washing of the hands at a bath, which had to be done only when a Jew came from the market-place, where the multitude and the mixture of people made the risk of defilement so great. [Salmond, 1906]

hypocrites: the only occurrence of this word in Mark.

this people honoureth me with their lips. The quotation beginning with these words is from Isa. xxix. 13. It differs somewhat from the form it has in the O.T. These hypocritical tradition-bound scribes of Christ’s day were like the Jews of Isaiah’s time, and the rebuke of the latter fell upon the former. In each case the human got the place of the divine, and the vain thoughts of narrow precept-mongers were taught as the doctrines of God. [Salmond, 1906]

ye leave the commandment of God. Not only did they inculcate their own rules as if they were the Divine Law, but they forsook the latter for the former. These traditional rules, which in most cases went far beyond anything contained in the ordinances of Moses, came to be regarded as of more importance than the written Law itself. The scribes sought to justify this preference by strained interpretations of such passages as Deut. iv. 14, xxii. 10. [Salmond, 1906]

Moses said: see Exod. xx. 12, xxi. 17.

die the death: that is, ‘surely die,’ as in the margin. The quotation expresses the value which the Law put upon that duty of children to parents which was so lightly evaded. [Salmond, 1906]

Corban: a Hebrew word meaning an offering. It is explained for the sake of non-Jewish readers to mean something ‘given’—something set apart for God or for the Temple. The law did not give offerings the precedence over moral duties. For it had the Decalogue in its heart. But the inventions of the scribes had so perverted the moral intelligence that it had come to be a recognized thing that to declare any possession Corban left one free to refuse to use it for the help even of father or mother. [Salmond, 1906]

making void. A strong word meaning to invalidate. It occurs only in this paragraph, the corresponding section in Matthew, and Gal. iii. 15, 17. [Salmond, 1906]

called to him the multitude again. The people seem, therefore, to have been dismissed or to have withdrawn for a time, while he spoke these stern words about tradition to the company of Pharisees and scribes. They are recalled in order to hear a declaration of principle in which all required instruction, and which went to the quick of these questions of the clean and the unclean. [Salmond, 1906]

nothing from without the man … can defile him. He takes them at once beyond all ceremonial conditions to moral verities, and from the outward to the inward. He enunciates a general principle which struck at the heart of these mechanical observances of the unwritten law, and indeed at the ancient Levitical system of distinctions between things clean and things unclean which was but for a time.
Verse 16 of the A.V. is omitted by the R.V. as insufficiently attested. [Salmond, 1906]

entered into the house. He had stated the principle broadly to the people without. He states it again and explains it now to the disciples within at their request. [Salmond, 1906]

making all meats clean. The A.V. adopts the reading ‘purging all meats,’ according to which the reference would be to the separation of all impurities from the food which is effected by its being passed into the draught. But the reading of the R.V. is the better supported, and it also gives the better sense. It makes Jesus the Speaker, and represents him as emitting a great revolutionary declaration. The sentence becomes a note explaining that Jesus, in speaking as he did, abolished the old Levitical ideas of distinction, though the disciples did not discern it, and pronounced all meats to be things in themselves equally clean. [Salmond, 1906]

from within, out of the heart of men. Real uncleanness, moral defilement, has its source and its seat in the centre of the moral feeling and intelligence—the heart.

evil thoughts. The mental acts, the ideas of evil, that precede and prompt all sinful deeds. Or it may be that in the evil thoughts we have the general term, and that in the terms which follow we have the particulars—so many forms of evil in which the evil thoughts take effect.

fornications, &c. So many plural terms are used first, denoting different acts of sin. [Salmond, 1906]

covetings. The Vulgate and Wycliffe make it ‘avarices.’ The word is not to be limited to what comes under the idea of the lust of gold. It is mentioned not only along with thefts and extortion (1 Cor. v. 10), but also with sins of the flesh (1 Cor. v. 11; Eph. v. 3, 5; Col. iii. 5). It includes all forms of grasping self-seeking and self-gratification.

deceit, &c. Next come so many singular terms, expressing each a particular disposition.

lasciviousness. A strong term, meaning in classical Greek insolence, in later Greek sensuously. It expresses the kind of sensuality or wantonness that ‘shocks public decency’ (Lightfoot).

an evil eye. That is, envy.

pride. A term common enough in classical Greek, but in the N.T. not often used, though the corresponding adjective occurs repeatedly (Luke i. 51; Rom. i. 30; 2 Tim. iii. 2; James iv. 6; 1 Pet. v. 5). It means the pride that is arrogant, such as is seen, e.g. in the attitude of the typical Pharisee to other men.

foolishness. In the ethical sense, not mere lack of reason, but moral senselessness, ‘foolishness of moral practice’ (Meyer).
Mark enumerates thirteen sins, or, as it may also be put, twelve particular forms included in the ‘evil thoughts.’ Matthew’s list contains only seven, or six particular forms emphasised as the ‘evil thoughts.’ Nor are the forms entirely the same in the two lists. Attempts to classify them have been made, but with very partial success. [Salmond, 1906]

vii. 24–30. The case of the Syrophœnician woman and her daughter. Cf. Matt. xv. 21–28. The spirit of hostility is rising, and Jesus quits those districts of Galilee in which he had been moving about for a time. But though he withdraws to new parts at a considerable distance from the scenes of the events which had spread his fame abroad, he is not allowed to remain unnoticed or unapproached. Matthew’s report makes more of what was said, Mark’s more of what was done on the occasion. The two together give us a remarkably complete account of the incident.

24. the borders of Tyre and Sidon. Compare Elijah’s journey to ‘Zarephath, which belongeth to Zidon’ (1 Kings xvii. 9, 10). Matthew says, ‘into the parts of Tyre and Sidon.’ The question arises—Did Jesus actually cross the boundary and enter the Gentile territory? Or did he keep on the Galilean side? Mark’s word ‘the borders’ may mean either the parts touching the cities, or the parts which belonged to the cities. The statement in verse 31 that in leaving *‘the borders of Tyre’ Jesus ‘came through Sidon’ favours the former view, as also does Matthew’s phrase on the whole. Nor would there be anything inconsistent with the plan of his ministry in his crossing into Gentile territory for a space. For the narratives mean that it was with a view to retirement and not for the purpose of teaching or of doing his wonderful works, that he came so far. Such is implied in the statement that he ‘would have no man know it’ (ver. 24).

Tyre. The ‘Rock,’ as the word meant, in ancient days was the merchant city of the peoples unto many isles (Ezek. xxvii. 3). It was a fortified city in Joshua’s time, as it was repeatedly referred to in the O.T. (2 Sam. xxiv. 7; Isa. xxiii. 1; Zech. ix. 3). The Tyrians were amongst the most famous sailors of ancient times. By its mighty vessels, its famous dyes, and its maritime enterprise the city acquired great wealth. In our Lord’s time it was still a powerful and populous town, known as the city of Hiram and of Jezebel. It was planted in the Phoenician plain between Zidon and Acre. Nothing remains of it but some ruins on which a poor modern town is built.

Sidon: or ‘Zidon,’ ‘Fishtown,’ the rival of Tyre, situated about twenty miles north of that city and about the same distance south of Beyrout. Zidon, originally a fishing village, rose to the proud position of a great commercial city before Tyre became of importance, and in Isaiah the latter is spoken of as ‘the daughter of Zidon’ (xxiii. 12). But the power had passed from Zidon to Tyre by Solomon’s day at least, and the latter became ‘the mart of nations’ (Isa. xxiii. 3). Men of Tyre and Sidon were among those who came to Jesus at the sea in his early ministry (Mark iii. 8). The two cities appear in the story of Herod in Acts (xii. 20). Paul touched at Sidon on his voyage to Italy (Acts xxvii. 3). [Salmond, 1906]

straightway. The fame of Jesus had penetrated even into Phœnicia, so much so that at once when it became known that he had come to those distant parts the seclusion which he sought was broken in upon by a suppliant. [Salmond, 1906]

a Greek, a Syrophœnician. Matthew describes her as ‘a Canaanitish woman.’ The designations express her connexions by religion and by race. As a ‘Greek’ she was a Gentile; as a Canaanitish she was of the stock of the doomed race that was dispossessed by Israel; as a ‘Syro-Phœnician’ she belonged to the Phœnicians of the Roman province of Syria, as distinguished from the Libo-Phœnicians or Liby-Phœnicians, the Phœnicians of Libya on the Punic or Carthaginian coast. The conjunction of the words also suggests that the woman, though a Phœnician, spoke Greek.

besought him. Matthew tells us how she adjured him by the title ‘Son of David’ to have mercy on her. Intercourse with the Jews of the vicinity had made her acquainted no doubt with their Messianic expectations generally, and with this Messianic name in particular. [Salmond, 1906]

let the children first be filled. So he enunciates the principle on which his own mission was to proceed, and on which the Apostles also acted subsequently—‘to the Jew first.’ But while the Jew had the first claim it did not follow that he had the only claim. It was ‘also to the Greek.’

dogs. In Scripture the dog is seldom, if ever, mentioned, but in terms of contempt. Evil qualities, cowardliness, treachery, laziness, filthiness, and the like are always associated with him. It is the street dog that is in view, the outcast animal that infested the towns and villages of the East. (Cf. such passages as Deut. xxiii. 18; Job xxx. 1; 2 Kings viii. 13; Phil. iii. 2; Rev. xxii. 15). The ancient Jew spoke of the heathen as dogs. Here, however, it is not the usual term for ‘dogs’ that is used, but a diminutive form which softens the harshness of the words and points to the little house-dogs that might be about, and most naturally under the table. This is the more likely, because our Lord speaks in terms of a family meal. [Salmond, 1906]

Yea, Lord: even the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs. It is as if she said—‘I grant, Lord, that the meal is for the family, and that the children must be fed. But are not the dogs about the house, and is there not something for them in their turn?’ She does not think of contradicting Jesus, but accepts what he says as true, and turns it into an argument in favour of her appeal. [Salmond, 1906]

For this saying. Her words expressed a confidence in him so assured that it could not contemplate denial. In Matthew the greatness of her faith is explicitly mentioned as the reason for Christ’s compliance. [Salmond, 1906]

the child laid upon the bed, and the devil (demon) gone out. Her faith had its reward. The evil spirit was gone, though the child was not yet recovered from the exhaustion of the conflict. So in the case of the nobleman’s son, the ‘fever left him’ and he ‘began to amend’ (John iv. 52).

Matthew’s narrative is fuller at some points, giving, e.g., the several steps in the trial of the woman’s faith. He tells how Jesus met her first by silence (xv. 23), then by refusal (xv. 24), and finally, by rejection in what seemed harsh words, but supplied notes of interest. It was done on the ground of the faith, not of the sufferer herself, but of her mother. It is also one of the three instances of healing effected at a distance. The others are the nobleman’s son (John iv. 46–54) and the centurion’s servant (Luke vii. 1–10). [Salmond, 1906]

vii. 31–37. Healing of a deaf man with an impediment in his speech. This narrative is peculiar to Mark. Matthew attaches to his account of the Syro-Phœnician woman only a general statement regarding the departure of Jesus, and the multitudes healed by him (xv. 29–31).

31. through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee. Leaving the neighbourhood of Tyre he made his way back to the familiar Lake. But he did this by a peculiar course, the reason for which is not stated. He travelled first in a northerly direction by the coast-line, and (as is indicated by the reading rightly adopted by the R.V., though not by the A.V.) passed through the Gentile city of Sidon. From these parts he took his journey across to the Sea of Galilee—to the eastern side of the Jordan and again into the region of Decapolis. This meant a considerable détour. But modern travellers tell us that there was a road from Sidon to Damascus, leading over the hills, across the Leontes, and by the Lebanon. [Salmond, 1906]

they bring unto him one that was deaf. Jesus had been in the neighbourhood of Decapolis before, and had been asked to quit it (v. 1–20). Returning now he is received in a different manner. The healing of the deaf was one of the signs of his Messiahship to which he pointed John’s disciples (Matt. xi. 5). It was a note of the same in ancient prophecy (Isa. xxxv. 5; xlii. 18).

an impediment in his speech. Not only deaf, but a deaf-mute, if not absolutely dumb, incapable of speaking intelligibly. [Salmond, 1906]

took him aside. For the most part, the works of Jesus were done in the sight of all. But there were cases, of which this was one, in which they were done apart, and with more privacy. There were no doubt special reasons for this in each case in the circumstances or the mental condition of the subject or in the attitude of the people to the Healer and his mission.

put his fingers into his ears. Rather ‘thrust’  them in. It was a sign of what he was to do, suitable to the man’s state of mind and fixing his attention.

spat: spittle was thought to have medicinal virtue, and was often accompanied by magical formulae. Here it is simply the medium of the healing power (as was the case with the oil, vi. 13), or a second visible sign to help the man’s faith. [Salmond, 1906]

spake plain: what he said is not recorded. The significant fact was that he could speak, not with stuttering sounds, but articulately and at once. [Salmond, 1906]

the more a great deal they published it: the injunction to silence had been earnestly and repeatedly laid upon them. In their excitement they disregarded it, and the more the charge was urged the more did it stimulate their zeal to proclaim the cure. ‘The conduct of the multitude is a good example of the way in which men treat Jesus, yielding him all homage, except obedience’ (Gould). [Salmond, 1906]

the more a great deal they published it: the injunction to silence had been earnestly and repeatedly laid upon them. In their excitement they disregarded it, and the more the charge was urged the more did it stimulate their zeal to proclaim the cure. ‘The conduct of the multitude is a good example of the way in which men treat Jesus, yielding him all homage, except obedience’ (Gould).

beyond measure: a very strong word, of which this is the one occurrence in the N.T. The impression produced in all cases by our Lord’s mighty works was in this case, and among these half-pagan people, far greater than ever.

He hath done all things well: ‘he has been gracious everywhere and successful in everything’ (Clarke).

This miracle is remarkable not only for the comparative privacy in which it was performed and the manifestation of the Healer’s feelings which accompanied it, but for the fact of tangible signs and the gradual way in which it was done, by so many distinct acts— taking the man aside, putting the fingers into his ears, applying spittle, touching the tongue, and then the upturned look, the groaning, and finally the short word of command. [Salmond, 1906]