Mark 7:1–37

The scribes were people learned in the law, and the Pharisees belonged to the religious sect that people respected most; as Paul says, "According to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee" (Acts 26:5); and they came from Jerusalem, the very centre of God's government of Israel, so that everything that could give the weight of authority to "religion" was there.

Among the simple, unschooled country people (John 7:48-49), they took on the professional role of official interpreters of the law of Moses, and of all the rules contained in the Old Testament scriptures. As judges, they condemned the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom of God. They said it went against the first principles of Jewish knowledge. Crowds of Galileans were flocking to hear the Prophet of Nazareth, and that could not be denied. So they had come down from the centre of religious learning and zeal to hold an official inquiry into the claims and teaching of Jesus, and to denounce both the preacher and His teaching as contrary to the approved standards of the Sanhedrin.

In their own minds they now had what convicted the disciples as very obvious sinners. Breaking such a tradition was, with these men, a greater sin than breaking the law itself.

He had returned to the west side of the lake, to the land of Gennesaret, and ministered to those who had need, even to all who touched the border of His garment (6:53-56). But the Pharisees and scribes showed their determined opposition again. Those wretched opponents had no share in the happiness of the people He healed. Our Lord's healing power meant nothing to them when the disciples did not keep the tradition of the elders!... Any excuse is good enough if it can stop or hinder the working of God in grace.

There was nothing moral in this. Nothing in it could touch the soul or affect a person's relationship with God. But it went against their traditions, so they found fault. It is easy to imagine that this tradition may have had a devout origin. These leaders may have wanted to keep the importance of personal purity before the people. Washing the hands would be a very natural sign that God looks for and insists on holiness in the works of His people.

Now the real terms of the dispute come out, and the plain state of things between Him and the Jewish people. The Pharisees and some of the scribes come from Jerusalem and gather together. The question of principles, as between two opposite parties, comes out between them. It turns on what is always the hinge... tradition and the Word of God... These things were handed down to be kept — such harmless things! Why give offence? Why not submit to the reverence and authority of the elders? It is just self-will and self-exaltation.

The chapter opens with the religious leaders of the nation coming to Jesus. They come with no sense of their need or of His grace. They come instead to oppose Christ, finding fault with His disciples because they ate bread with unwashed hands. The religion of these men consisted in honouring the tradition of their ancestors. They performed certain outward forms and ceremonies which anyone can do. Such things build a reputation before others, but leave the heart far from God.

In the New Testament it also appears in the sense of having "all things common," Acts 2:44; "the common faith," Titus 1:4; and the "common salvation," Jude 3. It may mean "unclean" of animals forbidden by the law as food, or of Gentiles in contrast with Jews, Acts 10:14, 28; they were not sanctified. Of food it is translated "unclean," Rom. 14:14. Of unwashed hands it is "defiled," Mark 7:2.

They came from the holy city of ancient religion, clothed with the credit of Divine law and authority. They saw some of His disciples eating with unwashed hands. Now, there was nothing moral in this. Nothing here could touch the soul or affect a man's relationship with God. But it went against their traditions, and so they found fault. It is easy to think that this tradition may have had a pious origin. There may have been in the minds of these leaders an idea of keeping the importance of personal purity before the people.

Wherever the Servant of Jehovah went — in country, village, or town — the people brought their sick into the marketplaces. They came to touch the edge of His garment and be healed (Mark 6:56). The disciples may well have taken an active part in this work of healing. The disciples had mixed with many kinds of sick and needy people. It was after this that the Pharisees saw their unwashed hands and found fault.

The Old Testament says nothing at all about such washing of hands. But the oral law piles rule upon rule about this ceremony. If a man neglected it, they counted it a great sin, worthy of being put out of the congregation. A man was even allowed to eat unclean meats, forbidden in the law, and to drink unclean drinks. He only had to keep the traditions of the elders and wash his hands before he broke the law.

Where God lays down no positive command of His own, woe to the man who takes away liberty. Man, on the other hand, takes advantage of the opening. Where God has not made a law, man makes one of his own. But God has given no warrant to legislate like this, and half the disputes and divisions in the Christian world come from this cause.

Washing their hands before they ate bread was in itself neither right nor wrong. It even carried an excellent meaning. What is more important than moral purity, or more widely agreed on as a picture of it? The simple answer was this: it destroyed the wholeness and the importance of the commands of God. If I may add a rule, and a person must keep it, we call the completeness of God's revealed will into question. Mixing other things in as equally binding cancels the distinct claim of God's will on the soul.

The Lord did not reply to the Pharisees in His own authority, but condemned the fault-finders with a quotation from the prophecy of Isaiah. He did not discuss with them the legality of this particular tradition, but brought the written word of God to bear upon their spiritual state. They were showing undeniable zeal, but it was not according to God. They were deceiving both themselves and others.

Washing hands and cups and pots deals only with defilement from outside. But moral defilement springs from the evil inside the heart. This cuts at the root of all worldly religion of the flesh, which deals only with the outside and leaves the heart untouched. God works from within and deals with the conscience and heart. The real source of defilement is not a man's surroundings but himself.

The evangelist explains that the custom of washing was not limited to the Pharisees, but was common among all the Jews. Here we meet the term "Jews," which is rare in the first three Gospels, while it occurs often in the Gospel of John.

Most of the manuscript evidence supports the Greek word pygme. It means "with the fist," or "up to the elbow." The usual translation is "diligently" or "often," "with vigour" or "with precision."

They joined the tips of the ten fingers and lifted them up, so that the water ran down to the elbows. Then they turned their hands so that it ran off to the ground. The washing itself meant rubbing the fist of one hand in the hollow of the other. Before a meal they had to hold their hands up; after a meal, down. They argued hotly over whether the cup of blessing or the hand-washing should come first.

The principle involved was not physical cleanliness on health grounds, but ceremonial pollution. "They shrank back from defilement, not from dirt." They thought they might have touched a Gentile or a tax collector in the public streets. Strangers' lips might have touched their cups.

In their minds this convicted the disciples as very obvious sinners. For these men, breaking such a tradition was a greater sin than breaking the law itself. Indeed, by a plain twisting of Exodus 34:27, they argued that this oral law, and not the written one, contained the terms of God's covenant with Israel.

It is easy to imagine that this tradition may have had a devout origin. These leaders may have wanted to keep the importance of personal purity before the people. Washing the hands would be a very natural sign that God looks for and insists on holiness in the works of His people. No doubt they drew it from the word of God, because there were certain washings which men always practised.

The language of the Spirit of God breathes a quick, cutting condemnation of the whole principle, root and branch. Every spiritual man must feel it. However restrained the tone, it treats the whole thing as utterly weak and childish. It puts the washing of people in the same class as the washing of cups and vessels. Many like things they do. What a religion!

They washed cups and pots, but not their hearts; and, provided that the priests — religion — gained by it, they set aside the duties of children to their parents. But God looked at the heart, and out of the heart of man came every kind of impurity, wickedness, and violence. That was what defiled the man — not his unwashed hands.

They did not just set aside some particular commandment in order to keep their tradition. By this they cancelled and rejected the authority of the whole word of God. When I set up another authority, I push aside and make void the whole word of God, which claims all authority. If another can direct, I am not sole master. Even if it is only about washing my hands, another can step in and claim obedience — the word of God is not the sole authoritative rule.

In the law there were many ceremonial defilements, each of which had its appointed purification. To these the scribes and Pharisees added others, such as washing the hands before eating, and washing cups and plates. They were very eager about these things, while inside they were full of greed and self-indulgence.

In His reply to the Pharisees the Lord did not rule on whether their practices were lawful. He showed instead that they had given the washing ritual a spiritual meaning and value it could not carry. The principle they claimed was not bodily cleanliness for health reasons, but ceremonial pollution. "They were afraid not of dirt, but of defilement." They thought they might have brushed against a Gentile or a tax collector in the public streets. They might have handled something the rules counted unclean. Strangers' lips might have touched their cups. People whom the tradition of the elders counted defiled might have used their couches.

Mark 7:4, "dip" is more literal than "bathe" or "wash."

In Mark 7:4 the word translated 'table' is klinē, 'a couch,' often translated 'bed'…

"The rule was that the hands must first be washed clean. The tips of the ten fingers were then joined and lifted up, so that the water ran down to the elbows, then turned so that it might run off to the ground… The washing itself had to be done by rubbing the fist of one hand in the hollow of the other… They argued fiercely over whether the cup of blessing or the handwashing should come first; whether the towel belonged on the table or on the couch; and whether the table should be cleared before the final washing or after it."

Tradition may be from God… Or it may be from man, as was the tradition of the elders of Israel. The Lord condemned it strongly, and declared that it set aside the commandments of God… What man sets up, man holds on to most stubbornly.

The traditions of men, which they "received to hold" (Mark 7:4) were more to them than the glory of the "Word."

Every spiritual person must feel the sharp, cutting condemnation of the whole principle, root and branch, that breathes through the words of the Spirit of God. However quiet the tone, the whole thing is treated as completely weak and childish. It puts the washing of people in the same class as the washing of cups and vessels. Many like things they do. What a religion!

They washed cups and pots, but not their hearts. As long as the priests — religion — gained by it, they set aside the duties of children to their parents. But God looked at the heart, and out of the heart of man came every kind of impurity, wickedness, and violence.

Those wretched opponents had no share in the joy of the people who were healed. Our Lord's healing power had no interest for them, because the disciples had not kept the tradition of the elders! So the bright sky had to be clouded over. In their eyes the tradition of the elders mattered above everything. His teaching condemned these men who clung to tradition, so they seize the chance to attack Him by charging His disciples with neglecting the traditions. "Your disciples," they said, wanting to draw Him into an argument about eating with unwashed hands. Any excuse is good enough if it can stop or hinder the working of God in grace.

There was plainly nothing moral in this. Nothing here could touch the soul or affect a man's relationship with God. But it went against their traditions, and so they found fault. It is easy to imagine that this tradition may have begun with a godly motive. These leaders may have wanted to keep the importance of personal purity before the people. Washing the hands would be a very natural sign that God looks for holiness in the works of His people, and insists on it.

The chapter opens with the religious leaders of the nation coming to Jesus. They come with no sense of their need and no sense of His grace. Sadly, they come to oppose Christ by finding fault with His disciples for eating bread with unwashed hands. The religion of these men was honouring the tradition of their ancestors by carrying out certain outward forms and ceremonies. Anyone can do such things. They build a reputation in front of others, but leave the heart far from God.

"Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?" First, then, they did not. Next, washing their hands before they ate bread was a thing of no moral weight in itself — yet its meaning was excellent, for what is more important than moral purity, or more widely agreed as a picture of it? The simple answer was this: it destroyed the wholeness and the weight of the commands of God. If I may add something, and a person must then do it, the completeness of God's revealed will comes into question. Mixing other things in with it, as though they were binding, cancels the distinct claim that the will of God has on the soul.

The washing of people falls into the same class as the washing of cups and pots. And they do many other things like these. What a religion! "And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, 'Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?'" The way the Lord answers them is remarkable. He does not discuss where the tradition came from, or show how pointless it is. He goes straight to its whole character, and to its moral effect on the obedience owed to God. This is surely an excellent pattern for every Christian.

In His reply to these men, the Lord shows how empty their religion is. It consists of nothing but outward forms. First, it leaves men as mere hypocrites, and Scripture proves it, for Isaiah said of such people, "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." Hypocrisy is pretending to be what we are not. By their religious acts they claimed great piety before men. By their words they claimed to reverence God. But in reality their hearts were far from God. (Isaiah 29:13; Ezekiel 33:31.)

"This people draws near to me with their mouth ... and honors me with their lips; BUT their heart is far from me." They were not sinners in the ordinary sense of the word — that is, irreligious, with no profession or thought about God. Quite the opposite: the thing said of them here is, "This people draws near to me." … All this religion and religiousness is dismissed at once. There is a worship which is worshipping God in vain.

So in Isaiah's day the people of Judah kept up an outward regard for the law of Moses and for the worship of God. But they had no inward reverence for the LORD Himself. In the Lord's day it was so again with the people. Their house was swept of idols and decorated with "pious" deeds, but it was an empty shrine. Though God was on their tongues, He was not in their thoughts.

The Lord did not reply to the Pharisees on His own authority. He condemned the objectors with a quotation from the prophecy of Isaiah. He did not discuss with them whether this particular tradition was lawful. Instead He brought the written word of God to bear on their spiritual state. They were showing undeniable zeal, but it was not according to God. They worked hard to set up their own righteousness by works that lay outside the ritual God gave through Moses. They were deceiving both themselves and others.

Two evils are marked out for condemnation in this quotation — (1) Insincerity before God — honouring Him with the lips, but paying Him no regard in the heart. (2) Putting human authority in the place of God's — seeking to worship Him by the commandments of men instead of by His own will.

The Lord exposes the hypocrisy that would cover up evil by outward forms. You can trace the downward steps away from God taken by the religiousness of the flesh that pretends to draw near to Him. They teach as doctrines the commandments of men (v. 7). Laying aside the commandment of God, they hold the tradition of men (v. 8). Next they reject the commandment of God to keep their own tradition (v. 9). And finally they make the word of God of no effect through it (v. 13).

There is the process: give up what is of God, and then you will fall into the hands of man. There is great importance in the principle. It is not a comparison of things as to whether this is better than that. The evil is laying aside the commandment of God, and preferring man's tradition to it.

The Lord judges all this human religion — outward, Pharisaical, priestly — once and for all time. God demands a pure heart and true obedience.

The Lord shows that such religion is "in vain". It may win its followers a reputation for piety before people, but it is worthless in God's sight.

The washing of hands might look like something in line with God, for the Lord Himself uses water as the picture of purity. But it served their own purposes, and the Lord says that, whatever it was, it was a commandment of men — that was all. And it was in vain. There is a worship which is worshipping of God in vain.

It is worth noticing that a rare Greek word stands in the New Testament for commandments that come from man. The usual word is entole, but entalma occurs only three times: in Mark 7:7, in the matching passage Matt. 15:9, and in Col. 2:22. In each case it forms part of the phrase translated "the commandments of men." The word also appears three times in the Greek Old Testament, and one of those places, Isaiah 29:13, is what our Lord quoted here. In all these passages the word seems to point to the moral sayings and rules of conduct which men tried to lay as heavy burdens on the shoulders of others, but which the Lord showed had no authority.

So the people generally kept the outward rules of their ancient law. But sadly, in the eye of Jehovah this was only a form of piety without the power. The prophet said that a spirit of deep sleep was on them, on their rulers and on their prophets.

It adds weight to this passage to remember who these Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem were. They were the religious leaders of the remnant, the people delivered from Babylon… They were no longer idolaters. Outwardly they were very pious before men, and with their lips they made a fair profession before God. But we learn that all this is possible while the heart is far from God, and while the traditions of men set aside the word of God.

A Muslim likes Muslim tradition. A state-church member likes the tradition of the state church. A Roman Catholic likes Roman Catholic tradition. A Greek likes Greek tradition. It is his own, and it has that value to him. Nothing is so dear to a man as the cover of his corruption. Nothing is so full of Satan's power as false religion… If I add anything, then God is imperfect in what He gave as a guide… And if God has been imperfect in one detail, I can count on Him in none of the rest.

There is the process: give up what is of God, and then you will fall into the hands of man. It is not a question of whether one thing is better than another. The evil is laying aside the commandment of God, and preferring man's tradition to it. The only thing that has a claim upon the Christian heart is what comes from God.

Let us not flatter ourselves that we are exempt from wrong worship. I remember an old and honoured man speaking in a meeting. He said that when we come together to remember the Lord's death, we should break the bread and drink the cup within half an hour of the start. This is an example of "teaching as doctrines the commandments of men," and such worship is empty and in vain. Those who worship the Father must worship Him in spirit and truth.

It drew men into disobedience, and made excuse for sin, or rather denied it... He does not call it a wicked tradition; it was "of men," and it is not to be held... There is the process: give up what is of God, and then you will fall into the hands of man. It is not a comparison of things as to whether this is better than that. The evil is laying aside the commandment of God, and preferring man's tradition to it. The only thing that has claim upon the Christian heart is what comes from God.

These four terms, used about this one sin, seem to show an ascending scale of error. At the point of departure, the commandment is (1) left on one side or ignored. It is then (2) rejected and its claims refused. Next, it is (3) crossed and violated. Last of all, it is (4) made useless and void, because a human rule takes its place.

Theirs was not a sudden, violent rebellion against the authority of God. It was a quiet and gradual decline from their faithfulness. They turned aside, almost without noticing it at first, and wandered out of the way of God's commandments. They let their regard and reverence for the expressed will of God grow weak. They strayed from the green pastures and the still waters, and forgot His precepts.

The Lord calls all tradition "your tradition." That includes the tradition of the elders, which Scripture names so, and which man calls by that name too, because it has authority with him. Man's religion glorifies man; it is his... A Muslim likes Muslim tradition. A Roman Catholic likes Rome's tradition. A Greek likes the tradition of the Greeks. It is his own, and it has that value to him. Nothing is so dear to a man as the cover of his corruption, or so full of Satan's power as false religion.

They set aside a commandment so that they might keep their tradition. But they did more than that: by doing this they made null and rejected the authority of the whole word of God... When I set up another authority, I displace the whole word of God and make it void, and that word claims all authority... Even if it is only about washing my hands, someone else can step in and claim obedience. Then the word of God is not the only rule with authority.

The Lord not only said this; He proved it. He gave an example of the way they set aside the fifth commandment by their rules about "Corban," that is, things devoted to the service of God. Under cover of "Corban" many a Jew rid himself of all his rightful duties towards his poor old parents. And he did it with an air of holiness, for did it not look more godly to devote things to God rather than to one's parents?

It is always easier to follow tradition than the written word of God. When we follow it, our conscience is not put to work. We also avoid the difficulty — sometimes a serious one — of giving reasons for what we do... What has been handed down from father to son may not be bad in itself. It may have been good, at least for the time. But a false standard and a human authority take their place in the soul. Even if this does not deny the authority of the word of God, it will surely put that word second.

These four terms about this one sin seem to show a rising scale of error. At the starting point, the commandment is (1) left on one side or ignored. Then it is (2) rejected and its claims refused. Next it is (3) crossed and violated. Lastly it is (4) made ineffective and void, as a human rule takes its place.

Further, these boastful zealots had rejected the commandment of God. In the original, the verb seems to mean slighting or disregarding the claims the law had on them. They acted as if those claims were not worth noticing (compare Hebrews 10:28, Greek). The Lord used the same word when He spoke to the seventy He sent out to preach: "The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).

There is the process: give up what is of God, and then you will fall into the hands of man. It is not a comparison of things as to whether this is better than that. The evil is laying aside the commandment of God, and preferring man's tradition to it. The only thing that has a claim upon the Christian heart is what comes from God.

The word of God gives plain directions for children to honour their parents. But they had a tradition by which they could claim to set aside their property for the use of God. They said "It is Corban," meaning a gift devoted to God, so it could not go to help a needy parent. So, by their tradition, they set aside the word of God. They avoided their duty to needy relatives and served their own greed.

Many a Jew used "Corban" as a cover, and so dropped all his rightful duties towards his poor old parents. And he did it with an air of holiness, for did it not seem more pious to devote things to God rather than to one's parents?

They did not only set aside one commandment so that they might keep their tradition. By doing this they also made null and rejected the authority of the whole word of God. If I break one, I am guilty of all; but in setting up another authority, I displace and make void and null the whole word of God, which claims all authority. If another can direct, I am not sole master, and the man is not my servant. This not only misleads the servant; it sets the master aside.

To hear men of God, to get help from servants of God, to value an explanation of the truth — all this is good. But it is very different from an authoritative rule or creed that men impose as binding on the conscience. It is never right to accept in that way what comes from man. God alone and His word bind the conscience. His servants may teach, but if they teach rightly, it is the truth of God.

We must not think that the Lord in any way played down the purely divine origin of the law. On the contrary, it is clear that Moses was at the same time presented as the mediator between God and His people. This we may see by comparing this passage with its parallel in Matthew. There the words of Jesus are reported as, "God said, Honor your father and your mother." Both records are, of course, true. The Lord's full statement was that (1) God spoke, and (2) He spoke through His servant Moses. Each writer kept the part of the Lord's words that best fitted the purpose of his own account. Matthew shows that the tradition of the elders clashed with the words of God. Mark stresses that it clashed with the words of the nation's lawgiver.

First, then, the Lord brings forward the law of Moses, the word of God: "Honor your father and your mother." This command clearly made it a duty for the Jews to provide for their parents when needed. (See Proverbs 3:9 for a similar use of the word "honour.") But they wanted to escape this responsibility, so they invented a holy-sounding excuse.

The word of God promised long and prosperous days in the land to the obedient, but a criminal's death to the disobedient (compare Lev. 20:9; Deut. 27:16; Prov. 20:20; Prov. 30:11). And the solemn charge spoken from Mount Ebal was, "Cursed be anyone who dishonors his father or his mother" (Deut. 27:16).

To honour parents is right and of God; to make light of them unfits a man to live, in God's estimate.

Under cover of "Corban" many a Jew stripped himself of all his rightful duties towards his poor old parents. And he did the thing with an air of sanctity, for did it not appear more pious to devote things to God rather than to one's parents?

This was simply a matter of the tradition treating the son's cold-hearted selfishness as holy... It was not merely a tradition added to the Word (which is bad enough), but a tradition opposing God's Word. The Lord adds, "and many such things you do." This was only one example. Once men despise the Word of God in the smallest matter, it is not long before their cunning deceit undermines anything and everything it pleases.

God's word is a living reality, and a complete standard of truth and practice. Everything that man adds as a supplement is a deformity; it is that which, as it does not flow from God, is inconsistent with the light. Man is incompetent to regulate what belongs to God.

This is the Greek word korban, standing for the Hebrew word qorban, "an offering." It means anything brought near or devoted to God. The Jews allowed, and perhaps encouraged, sons to devote their property to God. The sons could then refuse to help their parents, saying that their goods were "corban," or devoted. The Lord blames the rulers for this. It was one of their traditions, and by it they made the word of God of no effect.

A man sees his father and mother in need. He has the earthly goods that would relieve them. But the makers of tradition have invented a plan to benefit so-called religion at the cost of a child's duty. If a man said "Corban," the duty changed completely: what the parent should have had now went to the priest. However great the need of father and mother, that word "Corban" stopped all action of heart or conscience. The leaders had devised the scheme to secure property for religious purposes, and to keep people from any trouble of conscience about the word of God.

Saying the vow-word "Corban" did not always dedicate a thing to the Temple, even though the word means a "gift" or "given to God." Usually it meant only that the thing was to be treated like Corban. For the person named, it counted as if it lay on the altar, put completely out of their reach. Though both carried the same name, there were really two kinds of vows: vows that set something apart for God, and vows of personal obligation. The second kind was the more common.

The things that came under "Corban" were not things God demanded. If they had been, His demand would have come first. A person could dedicate such things if he wished. But the duty to support parents was a clear command. The Pharisees' tradition let a man use an optional arrangement to avoid obeying a clear command.

By their tradition they set aside the word of God, evaded their responsibility to their needy relatives, and fed their own covetousness.

Man's religion glorifies man; it is his… A man, such as he is, can wash his hands, and say "Corban."… First, it is "tradition of men," then "your tradition."… Nothing is so dear to a man as the cover of his corruption.

It is no doubt good to do all the good we can; but let us look carefully at the way we do it. Let us not fool ourselves with the vain idea that God will ever accept service built on outright disobedience to His Word. "It is a gift," said the elders, as they walked boldly over the plain commandment of God. They acted as if He would be pleased with a gift offered on such a ground. There is a close connection between the ancient "corban" and the modern "expediency."

Suppose a man said to his father or mother, "What you might have had from me is Corban" — that is, given to God. By this formula his goods counted as set apart for the service of God. From then on, according to the tradition of the elders, no one could turn them to the relief of his parents. The scribes, it is said, held that once a man spoke this word over any of his possessions, he was free from every natural duty. That held true even if he kept the goods back for a time from the service of the temple. This agrees with our Lord's word, "You no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother."

Just consider what an issue this was. A man sees his father and mother in need. He has received the goods that would relieve them. But the tradition-makers have invented a plan to benefit so-called religion at the cost of a son's duty. If anyone said "Corban," the duty changed completely, and what the parent should have received must now go to the priest. No matter what the need of father and mother, that word "Corban" stopped every movement of heart or conscience.

The things that came under "Corban" were not things God demanded. Had they been, His demand would have had to prevail. A person could dedicate certain things if he wished. But the duty to support parents was a definite command. Pharisaic tradition let a man use a permission to avoid obeying a definite command.

The word of God gives plain directions for children to honour their parents. But they had a tradition by which they could claim to set their property aside for the use of God, so that it could not help a needy parent. In this way their tradition set aside the word of God, dodged their responsibility to needy relatives, and served their own covetousness.

The Lord treats this tradition of saying "Corban" not only as a wrong done to the parents, but as an act of rebellion against the express commandment of God.

They did not just set aside one commandment to keep their tradition. By doing so they cancelled and rejected the authority of the whole word of God. If I break one, I am guilty of all. But when I set up another authority, I push aside and cancel the whole word of God, which claims all authority.

"Corban" applied to the service of our Lord in the fullest sense of the word, for He gave Himself in sacrifice on the altar. Yet He committed His mother to the care of the beloved disciple. That proves He did not fail to provide for her future, even on the cross.

May we all bear in mind how deeply we need to watch against the spirit of tradition. Wherever we impose with absolute authority a thing that does not come from God Himself, it is a tradition. It matters more than anything that we strengthen each other in this: nothing but the word of God has the right to govern the conscience.

They did not just set aside one commandment so that they could keep their tradition. By doing this they also cancelled and rejected the authority of the whole word of God. If I break one command, I am guilty of all. But if I set up another authority, I push aside and cancel the whole word of God, which claims all authority. If someone else can direct me, I am not the only master, and the man is not my servant. That misleads the servant, and it sets the master aside too. Anyone who adds even the smallest stroke sets aside God's authority, and His revealed will as authority, altogether. Even if the rule is only to wash my hands, someone else can step in and claim obedience. Then the word of God is not the only rule with authority.

A man sees his father and mother in need. He owns enough to relieve them. But the dealers in tradition have invented a plan that benefits so-called religion at the cost of a son's duty. Say "Corban," and the duty changed completely: what the parent should have received now had to go to the priest. However great the need of father and mother, that word "Corban" stopped all action of heart or conscience. The leaders had invented the scheme to secure property for religious use, and to stop people feeling any trouble of conscience about the word of God.

Here the tradition simply gave a holy name to the cold-hearted selfishness of the son. Such pretence is contemptible, of course, but the Pharisees encouraged it, and so made the Word of God of no effect. It was not merely a tradition added to the Word (which is bad enough), but a tradition opposing God's Word. The Lord adds, "And many such things you do." This was only one example. Once men despise the Word of God in the smallest matter, it is not long before their cunning deceit undermines anything and everything it pleases.

The Lord calls all tradition "your tradition." Scripture names it the tradition of the elders, and man calls it that too, because it carries authority with him. Man's religion glorifies man; it is his... A Muslim likes Muslim tradition. A member of the state church likes the tradition of the state church. A Roman Catholic likes the tradition of Rome, and a Greek that of the Greeks. It is his own, and it has that value to him. Nothing is so dear to a man as the cover of his corruption, or so full of Satan's power as false religion.

He went on to call God's own sayings "the word of God" (see also John 10:35; Rom. 9:6), and charged them with cancelling it, or making it void, by their tradition. This change of name for the law matters. It carries us back to the Author of the Scriptures, which tell us His mind and will about men... The phrase points not so much to the letter of the law as to its inmost meaning — its spirit. So the Lord showed that their tradition did more than break God's commandment. It made void the very mind and meaning of what He had said to them.

Think again about our Lord's words to the Pharisees. It is startling to learn that small man can make the word of the living God ineffective. We know that word is eternal and unchanging, "settled in the heavens." It stands more firmly than heaven and earth. The picture of the living, imperishable seed shows its inward power. That is its true and unique character. And yet the truth holds a seeming paradox, which one well known parable of our Lord's sets out: birds of the air can carry it away, the sun can wither it, and thorns can spring up and choke it.

Now we turn to another subject — the condition of man. We are first shown that religion without Christ is only hypocrisy, and that man's interference in divine things ends in setting God's word aside to keep his own tradition. The next thing we see is what man really is, religious or not. … The Lord here brings to light the broad principle which by itself would account for His sentence on all tradition. Does it come from man? That is enough.

So the Lord called the crowds together again. He gave them the truth on this subject in simple, short words such as they might "hear and understand." He spoke to the crowds directly, with no one in between. So these simple country people of Galilee could drink from the well-spring of truth itself. He called everyone to pay attention to Him and to take hold of His words.

He calls up the "crowd" — no matter who or what they might be… and He addresses Himself directly and fully to what is within. He passes by everything that Satan had known how to use to blind the conscience. He goes straight to the root of the matter, to this fact — "You know that what comes out of the heart is not of God, and that is you." … If their conscience had been before God, they could not have hidden this truth from themselves. They did not need Pharisees for that; they did not need scribes for that; their own hearts could answer it.

suniemi (from sun and iemi) is "to bring or set together"… It becomes the expression of the soul's inborn capacity to do so. It connects the outward object with the inward sense. It is to weigh a thing, consider it carefully, and so grasp its meaning.

He established truth as well as exposed error. In His teaching the Great Servant-Prophet of Jehovah tore down every evil form and corrupt tendency. He also built up what was good and of God… He swept away the false idea that material means could cleanse spiritual defilement. He announced the deep-seated cause of man's moral uncleanness. Inside a person, He taught, is an overflowing spring of pollution. Men fooled themselves by paying attention only to outward ways of cleansing.

Washing hands and cups and pots only deals with defilement from outside. But the source of moral defilement is the inward evil of the heart. This cuts at the root of all worldly religion of the flesh, which only deals with outward things and leaves the heart untouched. God works from within and deals with the conscience and heart. The real source of defilement is not a man's environment but himself. It is true that man is a fallen creature. If he goes into scenes of evil and temptation, his surroundings will stir up his lusts within. But even so, the source of the evil is from within. An angel can pass through Sodom and not be defiled, but not so Lot. There was no evil heart in the angel to answer to sin; there was in Lot.

The saying was weighty. Only the sons of faith, now as well as then, receive this truth. It condemns men down to the very core of their being. There must be the "ear to hear."

The Lord's subject in this saying is not the means of cleansing, but the cause of defilement. He is not speaking here about how useless ceremonial washing is, or about using water to remove the stains of immorality. He had already told the Pharisees about that. Now He teaches those who were never taught the law where defilement really comes from. Cleansing assumes there is something unclean. How then does man become unclean? Does it happen when polluting things from outside enter his body? The Lord declared that the cause of his uncleanness lies within: in the motives from which his words and actions spring.

Nothing from outside, entering into a man, can defile him. Spiritual defilement does not come that way. Of course a man may eat food that harms his body. He may even take poison. But that in itself does not defile him spiritually. But the things that come out of a man (not physically of course) are those that defile him.

The real source of defilement is not a man's environment but himself. It is true that man is a fallen creature. If he goes into scenes of evil and temptation, his surroundings will stir up the lusts inside him. But even so the source of the evil is from within. An angel can pass through Sodom and not be defiled, but not so Lot. There was no evil heart in the angel to answer to sin; there was in Lot.

The Lord here brings to light the broad principle which of itself would account for His sentence on all tradition. Does it come from man? That is enough… Apply that principle in full, and it shows what tradition really is. Tradition comes out from man. It is not a word spoken to man with the authority of God. It is a human word, and shabby pride would gladly dress it in purple and gold to cover its nakedness.

The saying was weighty. Now, as then, only the sons of faith receive this truth, which condemns men down to the very core of their being. There must be the "ear to hear."

What stronger proof could we have that it is not reformation men need, but a new creation! What proof, too, that outward practices can never be enough on their own, because they cannot reach what is within! If men only saw their own inborn corruption, as the Lord Jesus sets it out, they would trifle no more with priests and their doings. They would hurry straight to the Saviour's feet. There, and nowhere else, they find blessing for eternity.

In a word, the doctrine is plainly laid down here. Man — that is, man in his present state — is only the source of what is evil. I need another absolutely perfect One, outside me, to be my life, and such a One I have in Christ. If I am a Christian at all, Christ is my life. From then on my business is to live on that good which I have found in Christ, and to live according to it. So the happy man is the one who is always thinking of Christ and delighting himself in Him.

Perfect Man! He turned away from popularity, though the natural man finds it so pleasing. That fits with how often we read of His being in a house. How interesting and instructive are these notices of the life and ways of Him who is both our life and our example!

Peter was now the spokesman for the rest, and all the disciples were asking through him, as Mark tells us (Mark 7:17). None of them had grasped what the Lord's saying meant. But they were different in spirit from the Pharisees: they did not know, yet they wanted to know. So they came asking, believing the Lord would make the matter plain to them... Like multitudes since, they had much to unlearn before they could learn.

Nothing in the heart of man blocks his understanding as much as the influence of religious tradition... On this point the disciples were slow to understand, yet there was not one unclear word in what Christ said.

The disciples do not understand, and they ask for an explanation. The tradition of the elders had blinded their natural intelligence. The way of reasoning they had picked up from the elders had spoiled their understanding. And indeed, do we not find many who believe that what enters a man's mouth defiles him? And yet they are sincere souls... Here we see the Lord judging many things that keep many souls in bondage — even sincere souls, like those of the disciples.

There seems to be some reproach in this question. The Pharisees had not understood; the crowd did not understand (Isa. 6:9; Mark 4:12); but how was it that the Lord's own company did not understand Him? He said to the people, Hear and understand (v. 14), but the apostles also failed to understand. And by asking this, the Lord implies that they were to blame for having to admit such ignorance.

Man is corrupt in his nature. What comes from his very heart defiles him. Out of his heart proceed evil thoughts which develop into every kind of evil action. This is the most tremendous indictment of human nature ever uttered.

What stronger proof could we have that it is not reformation men need, but a new creation! It also proves that outward rituals can never be enough by themselves, because they cannot reach what is inside! Suppose men really saw their own inborn corruption, as the Lord Jesus sets it out here in answer to Peter's question. They would trifle no longer with priests and their doings. They would hurry at once to the Saviour's feet, the only place where blessing can be found for eternity.

The disciples do not understand, and they ask Him to explain it. The tradition of the elders had blinded their natural intelligence. The way of reasoning they had picked up from the elders' authority had spoiled their understanding. And indeed, do we not find many who believe that what enters a man's mouth defiles him? And yet they are sincere souls. Not only that: they also believe that eating a certain food on one day defiles, and on another day it does not. And this because of the tradition of the elders. This is in substance what the disciples were doing. So the Lord reproves them: "Then are you also without understanding?" Here we see the Lord's judgment against many things that keep many souls in bondage — even sincere souls, like those of the disciples.

There seems to be some reproach in this question. The Pharisees had not understood; the crowd did not understand (Isa. 6:9; Mark 4:12); but how was it that the Lord's own company did not understand Him? He said to the people, listen and understand (v. 14), but the apostles also failed to understand. And by His question the Lord implies that it was blameworthy on their part to confess such ignorance.

Whatever physical food one eats does not have any spiritual effect. It affects the stomach, and so the physical condition of the person, but not the heart. Here the heart stands for the spiritual inner being of the person. God had made provision for physical purging in the disposal of waste. But there was a far more serious issue involved in spiritual defilement.

This deliverance is an important doctrine for the Lord's followers to hold today as ever. The Son has made us free, and Scripture urges us: "stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal. 5:1). The rules "do not handle, do not taste, do not touch" follow the precepts and commandments of men. The death of Christ has delivered us from them (Col. 2:20-23).

The real source of defilement is not a man's environment but himself. It is true that man is what he is — a fallen creature. If he goes into scenes of evil and temptation, his surroundings will stir up the lusts within him. But even so the source of the evil is from within. An angel can pass through Sodom and not be defiled, but not so Lot. There was no evil heart in the angel to answer to sin; there was in Lot.

In a word, the doctrine is laid down here in the plainest way: man — that is, man in his present state — is only the source of what is evil. I need another, absolutely perfect One, outside myself, to be my life, and such a One I have in Christ. If I am a Christian at all, Christ is my life. From then on my business is to live on that good which I have found in Christ, and to live according to it. So the happy man is the one who is always thinking of Christ and delighting in Him. The man who tries to find some good in himself falls into the same error as the disciples, before they learned better.

Whatever physical food one eats does not have any spiritual effect. It affects the stomach, and so the body's condition, but not the heart. Here the heart stands for the inner, spiritual part of the person. God provided for physical cleansing in the way the body disposes of waste. But spiritual defilement is a far more serious matter.

The soul was separate from man's body, and greater than it. What went into a man fed and maintained his body — the house of the soul and spirit. The things which mattered most were those which proceeded from a man. His schemes, his motives, his desires, his character, his moral colour — these made a man a centre of power, radiating influences either for good or for evil.

We learn from this passage how the Lord put an end to the whole taboo of the Sabbath, as, in Mark 7:19, He did to that of meats.

It is true that the law forbade certain meats to Israelites (Lev. 11), but not because eating them was sinful in itself. It was a picture-lesson to the Jews, teaching them to keep clearly separate from the Gentile nations... Acts 10 shows this clearly. God gave Peter a vision of a container let down from heaven holding every kind of animal, and told him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." When Peter objected, God said, "What God has made clean, do not call common."

This freedom is an important teaching for the Lord's followers to hold today as much as ever. The Son has made us free, and we are urged to "stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal. 5:1). Rules like "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" come from human teaching and human commands, and the death of Christ has set us free from them (Col. 2:20-23).

There is nothing in the heart of man that so hinders his intelligence as the influence of religious tradition. Not only that: tradition darkens a disciple wherever it works, and one effect that always goes with it is a refusal to bow to the humbling truth that there is no good thing in man.

The real source of defilement is not a man's environment but himself. It is true that man is a fallen creature. If he walks into scenes of evil and temptation, his surroundings will stir up the desires already inside him. Even so, the evil comes from within. An angel could pass through Sodom without being defiled, but Lot could not. The angel had no evil heart to respond to sin; Lot did.

What stronger proof could we have that it is not reformation men need, but a new creation! What proof, too, that outward practices can never be enough on their own, because they cannot reach what is inside!

I need another One, perfect in every way, outside of me, to be my life — and I have such a One in Christ.

In the verses that follow (vv. 20–23) we have a second statement of our Lord. The narrative introduces it with the words, "And he said." The statement before it has the slightly different phrase, "And he says unto them" (v. 18). The first deals with this truth: food and drink cannot spiritually defile a man. The second adds the truth that completes it: the evil thoughts, words, and deeds that come out of the heart within do defile him.

The Pharisees cleaned the outside of the cup and dish, but that did not cleanse the inside. It is what comes from within that defiles the man. The stream was bitter because the fountain was bitter; and the fruit was bad because the tree was bad. The fountain of a man's defilement lies in his own heart. Attending a religious ritual could be of no value at all. That alone only made men hypocrites.

As to the things that defile, they come out of the man. They always spring from within, from the corrupt will of man. For instance, suppose the law carries out the death sentence on a criminal. That is not murder. It is the vindication of God's authority in the earth. It is not a question of evil feeling against the guilty man, and there is nothing defiling in it. But if you were so much as to injure a man in deed, word, or thought, there you have what defiles. Something that is part of your self-will, without God, comes out of you, and you yield to it. At that moment there is the taint of defilement.

The Lord does not only tear away the veil of hypocrisy, He also uncovers what the heart produces. This is what God does; He searches our hearts and shows them to us, and then reveals His own. This uncovers not only the hearts of the Pharisees, but the hearts of all people. What goes out of the mouth defiles the man, because it comes from the heart.

The great general snare is denying the evil of men. Satan's constant deception now is the idea that man is not so bad, and that moral training can improve him. There are societies for every good cause, and for the improvement of man. People look for the faults in circumstances and surroundings instead of in man himself.

This is what both your heart and mine contains, dear reader. If the worst of these evils have not broken out, that is due to the mercy of God in the setting where He has been pleased to place us. But the evils are certainly within us. They wait only for the opportunity to show themselves in all their ugliness. What stronger proof could we have that what men need is not reformation but a new creation! And what proof, too, that outward observances can never be enough on their own! They cannot reach what is within.

In a word, the teaching here is plain: man — that is, man in his present state — is only the source of what is evil. I need another absolutely perfect One, who is outside me, to be my life, and such a One I have in Christ. If I am a Christian at all, Christ is my life. From then on my business is to live on the good I have found in Christ, and to live according to it. Therefore the happy man is the one who is always thinking of Christ and delighting himself in Christ.

When they questioned Him in the house, the Lord told His disciples two things: (1) what the root of evil in men was, and (2) what its fruits were. The root was the evil thought of the heart. The fruits were the specific acts of wickedness, some of which He named. So the evil thought already holds the evil deed in seed form.

Evil thoughts. These are the inward reasonings and debates of man's mind. Inside himself he weighs things up, he calculates, he plans his schemes of sinful indulgence or deliberate rebellion. "Things come into his mind, and he devises an evil scheme" (Ezek. 38:10; Micah 2:1-2)... His thoughts are hidden inside his heart. So he falls into one of man's strange delusions: he thinks they are hidden from God, who knows all things.

Out of what heart? Is it the heart of some horribly depraved and disgusting wretch, completely unfit to appear in decent society? No; it is out of the human heart — the heart of the writer and of the reader of these lines.

This is what both your heart and mine contains, beloved reader. If the worst of these evils have not broken out, that is due to the mercy of God in the surroundings He has been pleased to place us in. But the evils are certainly within us. They are only waiting for an opportunity to show themselves in all their ugliness. What stronger proof could we have that what men need is not reformation but a new creation! What proof, too, that mere outward observances can never be enough in themselves, because they cannot reach what is inside.

Jeremiah had told Israel long before, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jer. 17:9). Man may blame every outward circumstance for his own sin, but it comes from within himself. How could this be cleansed? Let us at least learn to judge ourselves fully, instead of blaming our wrongs on others or on circumstances. Actual cleansing needs more than this, of course — the great sacrificial death of the Lord of glory. But they had to learn the condition of their heart before they would be ready to receive the remedy.

But God must also show His own heart. Jesus judged the heart of man with the eye of God. He showed His ways and His faithfulness to Israel. Yet through it all He displayed what God was to those who felt their need of Him and came to Him in faith, owning and resting on His pure goodness.

In reply to the questions put to Him in the house, the Lord declared to His disciples (1) what was the root, and (2) what were the fruits of evil in men. The root was the evil thought of the heart, and the fruits were the specific acts of wickedness, some of which He named. In the evil thought, therefore, the evil deed is contained in embryo.

These six offences are named by Mark only: covetousness, deceit, sensuality, an evil eye, pride, foolishness. They are closely tied to the inward workings of man's heart. If the others named before may be described as the lusts of the flesh, these are the desires of the mind (Eph. 2:3). If those showed the filthiness of the flesh, these show the filthiness of the spirit (2 Cor. 7:1).

This is the selfish greed within a man's heart. It wants to take hold of things other than those God has given him, and only what God has given him is his rightful possession… Scripture calls the covetous man an idolater (Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5), for he sets up another god within himself whom he serves with his whole heart.

The eye is a main road to and from the heart. In the Scriptures, the evil eye is often seen as a close companion of covetousness, selfishness and envious jealousy. It ignores the sufferings of others when there is personal gain in doing so. The LORD warned the people of Israel against having an evil eye toward a poor brother in need and withholding the help owed to him (Deut. 15:7-9; Deut. 28:54-55).

The word used here conveys the sense of a spirit of self-exaltation in a man, joined with the belittling of others. The Pharisees are glaring examples. They trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others (Luke 18:9)… This arrogance shows itself in boastful words and vain deeds. But its origin is within the heart, as that line from Mary's song shows: "He has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts" (Luke 1:51).

Foolishness seems to be that gross form of stupidity which shuts God out of the running of a life. In the words of the Psalmist, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Ps. 14:1)… Foolishness comes last in the list, says one writer, because it makes all the others incurable.

This is what both your heart and mine contains, dear reader. If the worst of these evils have not broken out, that is because of the mercy of God in the setting where He has been pleased to place us. But the evils are certainly within us. They are only waiting for an opportunity to show themselves in all their ugliness. What stronger proof could we have that what men need is not reformation but a new creation!

In a word, the teaching plainly laid down here is that man — that is, man in his present state — is only the source of what is evil. I need another, absolutely perfect One, outside myself, to be my life. I have such a One in Christ… The happy man is the one who is always thinking of Christ and delighting himself in Him.

The evil that fills the earth is not forced on man from outside. It is something he produces from within.

Man may blame every outward circumstance for his own sin, but it comes from within himself. How could this be cleansed? Let us learn to at least judge ourselves thoroughly, rather than blame our wrongs on others or on circumstances.

The root was the evil thought of the heart. The fruits were the specific acts of wickedness, some of which He named. So the evil thought already holds the evil deed in seed form.

Some say that deliverance from sin is a matter of personal effort. They say evil habits can and should be beaten by one's own firm resolve and perseverance. But this advice misses something. Willpower alone may stop the wicked deed, yet the sinful desire has already filled the heart... The evil thought defiles the whole man, as well as the evil word and the evil act.

Sins named by Mark only. These six offences — covetousness, deceit, sensuality, envy, pride, foolishness — are closely tied to the inward workings of man's heart. If the others already named may be called the lusts of the flesh, these are the desires of the mind (Ephesians 2:3). If those showed the filthiness of the flesh, these show the filthiness of the spirit (2 Corinthians 7:1).

Out of what heart? Is it the heart of some deeply corrupt and disgusting person, unfit to appear in decent society? No; it comes out of the human heart — the heart of the writer and the reader of these lines.

If the worst of these evils have not broken out, that is due to God's mercy in the surroundings He has chosen for us. But the evils are certainly within us, only waiting for a chance to show themselves in all their ugliness. What stronger proof could we have that what men need is not reformation, but a new creation!

Having a low estimate of sin, such a system offers just as low a remedy. It does not, and cannot, touch the heart within. Pharisaism washed the hands. The whole spring of moral action, the heart, is corrupt before God. What man is taints what he does. So while the human method is to cut off this and that, God's method is first of all to make the tree good.

The teaching is laid down here most plainly. Man — that is, man as he is now — is only the source of what is evil. I need another absolutely perfect One, outside myself, to be my life, and I have such a One in Christ.

We have seen what comes out of man, and how defiling it all is. We are now to learn what comes from God, and how full of mercy and goodness this is, delivering those oppressed by the devil. But I am convinced that His going away from that scene was itself a meaningful act. There He had rebuked the traditions of earthly religion, and exposed the whole sink of corruption in the heart and all that flows out of it — which those traditions only cover up. The only real remedy is the deliverance of sovereign grace in Christ.

The Lord had left the Pharisees and the places they gathered. He came into the region of Tyre and Sidon. This land had been allotted to Israel, but Gentiles held it — Israel's enemies among the nations. It was Israel's by title, yet Gentile in fact, so He had left what in practice made up Israel at that time. There He would have been alone, not out of the territory of Israel but away from Israel.

Their wickedness was so great that our Lord classed them with Sodom, as monuments of the world's evil and its departure from God (Matt. 11:22-23). And yet the Lord also said that if the mighty works He did in Chorazin and Bethsaida had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes, just as Nineveh did when Jonah preached.

This voluntary seclusion shows us the amazing perfection of this Servant of God. He accepted the rebuffs to His service with such meekness. Though the rebuffs came directly from the men of Israel, He saw the hand of His God above it all. So He bowed to them, as to the will of Him that sent Him. Jerusalem and Galilee had joined against Him. So He sought a secret place away from His enemies. There He could spread out the disappointment of His loving heart before His Father.

At the dedication of the magnificent temple on Mount Zion, Solomon compared what it meant with the infinite and essential glories of Jehovah. He cried out, "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!" The house on the borders of Tyre and Sidon could not contain or confine the glory of Jehovah's Servant either. "He could not be hidden."

If God humbles Himself, He is still God; it is always He who does it. "He could not be hidden." This absolute obedience gave perfect grace and fragrance to all He did. He always appeared as one sent. He sought the glory of the Father who sent Him.

Mark's Gospel seems to make a special point of recording times when our Lord withdrew from men because they opposed and persecuted Him. And the very act of retreating before the power of His enemies brought further witness to His glory. Needy people followed Him into His solitude... So it was here. Jesus retired to a house after meeting the stubborn will and blindness of the guides of Israel, and the ignorance of His own disciples. There the Syrophoenician stranger sought Him out.

Here it is "He could not be hid." This was not a burdened heart flowing out to sorrow and need. It was what God, so to speak, must be where faith is — Himself. He cannot deny Himself. Grace still rises above all promise and curse, and God is revealed... goodness overflows from God. It does not answer a promise. It goes out in free grace to need, where there was no promise and no claim. There it finds its comfort.

The Lord goes into the borders of Tyre and Sidon. He wishes to be quiet, but goodness joined with power is too rare in the world to go unnoticed. And need, when it is felt, wakes the soul up and makes it clear-sighted. A poor woman had a daughter under the power of an unclean spirit. Feeling her own wretchedness and believing in Jesus' power, she goes to seek Him. The weight of misery that pressed on her made her hope in His goodness.

God had shown His goodness and His power too plainly for Him to stay hidden whenever there was need. The report of what He was had gone out, and the quick eye of faith found the one thing that could meet its need. This is what finds Jesus, while all who outwardly had a right to the promises are deceived by that very claim and by their privileges. It is faith that knows its need, knows only that, and knows that Jesus alone can meet it.

Mark tells us that her 'thugatrion' — a small, affectionate form of the word 'daughter' — had an unclean spirit. Jairus had come to the Lord not so long before, using the same form for his daughter (Mark 5:23). These are the only places in the New Testament where we find this word, and both are in Mark; it was Mark, more than any other, who tells us the small detail of some special word or look. In English we have no such form of 'daughter'. The translators have done their very best: 'little daughter', or 'young daughter', or 'dear daughter,' but I am sure it does not tell half the story.

In the Gospel accounts the terms "unclean spirits" and "demons" are in many places used of the same case. So we read that the daughter of the Syrophenician woman "had an unclean spirit," and that she begged the Lord that He would "cast forth the demon out of her daughter" (Mark 7:23-30).

"But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of Him and came and fell down at His feet." What claim had she? Not the smallest. "The woman was a Greek [or Gentile], a Syrophoenician by race." She came from the fertile stock of Israel's enemies, the corrupt and idolatrous despisers of the true God. But suppose Jesus wanted an opportunity to show the grace of God, apart from every question of right or deserving, with no plea at all except utter misery thrown on Divine mercy in Him. Then there was never a more needy person asking.

A wealthy queen among the Gentiles heard of the wisdom of Solomon. She came to him from the ends of the earth with her choice gifts, so that she might see and hear for herself. A greater than Solomon was now staying in an out-of-the-way corner of Galilee. But the one who came to do homage at His feet and present her request was only a descendant of Canaan, weighed down from the days of Noah with a curse (Gen. 9:25)... This poor woman had nothing to bring to Jesus except her own child, held, sadly, by an evil demon.

In the home the terrible effects of sin, and of the way it works, are perhaps more visible than anywhere else. There, too often, example and advice fail to deliver anyone from corrupting and destroying evil. But the cases given in the Gospels encourage mothers, fathers and masters — the responsible ones of the household — to make believing appeals to Jesus for those in their care. He is able to control and heal the evils of the soul, just as He did the diseases of the body.

The description of the woman whose daughter was possessed by a demon. She belonged to Phoenicia in Syria, and the name "Syrophoenician" holds both of these names together. By birth she was a Greek, which here probably means simply "Gentile." Mark 7:26. In Matthew 15:22 she is called "a woman of Canaan."

The evil of the human heart has been exposed. Now, in the story of the Syrophenician woman, we have a wonderful unfolding of the heart of God. His heart is full of love. It holds to the truth while giving grace to needy sinners. The Lord, as He passed through this world that had rejected Him, would gladly have stayed hidden... But His perfection was so great, and the contrast with everything around Him so sharp, that He could not stay hidden. As one writer said, "Goodness joined with power is too rare in the world to go unnoticed."

What claim had she? Not the smallest. "The woman was a Greek [or Gentile], a Syrophoenician by race." She came from the fertile stock of Israel's enemies — corrupt, idolatrous people who despised the true God. But suppose Jesus wanted a chance to show the grace of God, apart from any question of right or deserving, and apart from any plea we can imagine except sheer misery thrown on divine mercy in Him. Then there was never a more needy applicant.

He fully and clearly upheld the claims of the Jews as the covenant people. He said to the Gentile woman, "It is not right to take the children's bread and give it to dogs" (Matthew 15)... But suppose the condition of those people was such that they could not take in the goodness of God that had come to them in their own Messiah. Then that same goodness would overflow every barrier of God's arrangements. It would meet the need of those who had no claim on Him.

Mark tells us that her "thugatrion" (diminutive of "daughter") had an unclean spirit. Matthew tells us she was "miserably possessed" by a demon. Jairus had come to the Lord not long before, using the same diminutive for his daughter (Mark 5:23). These are the only places in the New Testament where we find this word. Notice that both are in Mark. It was Mark, more than any other writer, who tells us the small detail of some special word or look. How can we translate it? I do not know, for English has no diminutive of "daughter".

But the cases given in the Gospels encourage mothers, fathers, masters — the responsible ones of the household. They can make believing appeals to Jesus for those in their care. He is able to control and heal the evils of the soul, just as He did the diseases of the body.

Yet if the woman's faith was to triumph, it was no less tested. And I find it instructive to notice one thing. The richest grace on Christ's part does not make the trial of faith less, but more. The soul that is little exercised never eats the kernel of the blessing. It never proves the depths that are in God and in His grace.

Even in this desperate case, her need did not give the woman the right to set aside the rule and ways God had kept for centuries. God sent the Messiah to Israel, and salvation came from the Jews. She must learn that her only hope lay in the sovereign mercy of God.

He used the word tekna: the ones who have the dignity and position by birth. Then He said, "It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the little dogs." The poor mother had been pleading for her "little girl", and the Lord takes up her word. He speaks of the "little dogs" — the small, affectionate form of the word. The fierce, horrible dogs of that land were not allowed in the houses. But the little dogs, the cute puppies, could come in. So the Lord gently leads her faith on, giving her this special, unusual word to encourage her.

Even here our Lord holds to the principle of "the Jew first," while her simple faith presses on to "and also the Gentile." But there is more. Grace speaks out the whole truth. And grace strengthens the one who receives it, so that she can bear it, confess it, and delight in it.

The Lord draws out her faith by this saying. It was a great test for faith. She might have argued, "Then I am only a dog and have no claim on the Lord; the blessing belongs only to the children." But her faith wins over this difficulty. She admits the truth about herself and falls back on the grace that is in His heart. She can say, as it were, "Yes, as far as I am concerned, it is true I cannot claim the place of a child. I am only a dog. But my whole trust is in what You are, not in what I am." This is always the way of faith: to own the wretchedness, the vileness, and the unworthiness of our hearts, and to rest in the perfect grace of His heart.

She was but a Gentile dog, yet such was the goodness of God that He had bread even for dogs. Christ is the perfect expression of God, God Himself made known in the flesh. He could not deny His goodness and His grace. He could not say that faith had a higher view of God than was true, for He was Himself that love. Her faith, with an understanding given by God, took hold of the grace that reached beyond the promises made to Israel.

The Gentiles are no longer regarded as "dogs" in contrast with "the children." It is the time of salvation for the Jew first and also for the Greek. God grants salvation to the Gentiles. The fall of the Jews has been the reconciling of the world.

In Matthew 15:27, Mark 7:28, it is simply "yes, Lord," that is, "yes, Lord, You can do it" even on Your own ground, "for even," or "since." It challenges any opposition.

The Lord draws out her faith by what He says. She might have argued, "Then I am only a dog and have no claim upon the Lord; the blessing only belongs to the children." Her faith wins over this difficulty. She admits the truth about herself and falls back on the grace that is in His heart. She can say, as it were, "Yes, as far as I am concerned, it is true I cannot claim the place of a child. I am only a dog, but my whole trust is in what You are, not in what I am. I see there is such grace in Your heart that You would not deny a crumb to a dog."

Even here our Lord does maintain the principle of "the Jew first," while the simple faith in her — and what is more intelligent than that? — urges "and also the Gentile." … The Lord teaches her to take her true place. But she holds with unshaken assurance to the certainty that He will not deny His own. She was no better than a dog; but is not God full of bounty and goodness even to the dogs?

The last word "dogs" is not the word for the wild, homeless, scavenging creatures of the eastern streets. They are still "dogs," but the "little dogs," the house or pet dogs; the kind that would look, as she was doing, for something in the house. So the way into blessing has truly been opened for her — if only she has humility enough to take it. Faith and humility — which in a sinner is repentance — are twin companions that never part. He who is lowly enough to take the place of a dog will soon discern God's way of grace.

It was as though she said, "I know that You have spread the table for the house of Israel, in keeping with all the promises of the past. But Your provision is so rich that the table will not hold it. It must overflow, and I will be satisfied with the overflow." She got her desire, she tasted that the Lord is gracious.

I have no title; I am just a wretched dog; but there is goodness enough in God for those who have no title.

The children have their place at the table, the dogs are underneath it, so can only eat of the crumbs which fall from it (Mark 7:28). While the wall that divided Jew from Gentile still stood, she could only be as a dog, and could not take a child's place. Thank God, it is not so now. All believers on the Lord Jesus are born of God, and so are members, through divine grace, of His family. They can look forward to the Father's house as their permanent, everlasting home.

What claim had she? Not the smallest. "The woman was a Greek [or Gentile], a Syrophoenician by race." She came from the stock of Israel's enemies — corrupt idol-worshippers who despised the true God. But if Jesus wanted a chance to show the grace of God, there was never a needier applicant. That grace stands above every question of right or deserving. It is above any plea you can imagine, except sheer misery thrown on divine mercy in Him.

Yet if the woman's faith was to triumph, it was no less tested. And I think this is morally instructive: the richest grace on Christ's part does not make the trial of faith less, but more. The soul that is little exercised never eats the kernel of the blessing, never proves the depths that are in God and in His grace.

Her faith triumphs over this difficulty by admitting the truth about herself and falling back on the grace that is in His heart. She can say, in effect, "Yes, as far as I am concerned, it is true — I cannot claim the place of a child. I am only a dog, but my whole trust is in what You are and not in what I am. I see there is such grace in Your heart that You would not deny a crumb to a dog." This is always the way of faith. It owns the wretchedness, the vileness and unworthiness of our hearts, and rests in the perfect grace of His heart.

This was a faith that the Lord would not, and could not, deny. He could not say, "I am not as good as you suppose," or "My grace is not as great as you imagine." Blessed be His Name! His grace exceeds all our faith. He delights to respond to the smallest faith.

The Lord's mercy necessarily flowed out; had it not, it would have been a denial of Himself. This is the force of faith acting on what the Lord is, according to His mind and will.

Her faith showed itself in following the Lord until He answered her. It showed itself again when she left Him and went home, fully sure that her daughter was healed. Before she reached her own door, and even before she left Him, the deliverance she had asked for was already done. The deliverance was complete without the Lord seeing the child, and without a single audible word of command leaving His lips. She was a Gentile and a Canaanite, and she proved there was mercy for her as well as for others. God can have mercy on all, if only all are willing to receive it.

She had no claim on His mercy and power, for she was under the curse. Her daughter had a demon. And though she had no claim on His power and no promise, she believed in His love. She takes the place He gave her, and He restored her daughter. What a display of grace! ... In that moment His all-seeing eye must have seen the crowds of Gentiles who would believe in His love after His death on the cross. They were lost sinners with no promise, strangers to the commonwealth of Israel.

She might have argued, "Then I am only a dog and have no claim upon the Lord; the blessing only belongs to the children." Her faith triumphs over this difficulty by admitting the truth about herself and falling back on the grace that is in His heart. She can say, in effect, "Yes, as far as I am concerned, it is true I cannot claim the place of a child. I am only a dog, but my whole trust is in what You are and not in what I am. I see there is such grace in Your heart that You would not deny a crumb to a dog."

Yet if the faith of the woman was to triumph, it was tested no less. And I think there is a moral lesson here. The richest grace on Christ's part does not make the trial of faith less, but more. The soul that is little tested never eats the kernel of the blessing. It never proves the depths that are in God and His grace.

The Lord's mercy had to flow out; if it had not, it would have been a denial of Himself. This is the force of faith acting on what the Lord is, according to His mind and will. He must show Himself that way, or it would be the denial of Himself. "For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter." She did believe His word and acted on it — the answer of faith. She went off to her house and found the demon gone — a further witness of power and mercy!

She found that what He had said was true. When she went back into her house, she found her child laid on the bed and the demon gone. Before she reached her own doorway — even before she left Him — the deliverance she had asked for was done. Divine, delivering power had reached the daughter while the mother was still away on her errand. And the deliverance was complete: the Lord never saw the child, and not one audible word of command left His lips. The demon had gone out, and mother and daughter could now rejoice together in the power and grace of their Deliverer.

Returning home, she of course found His words to be true, her daughter laid on a bed, perhaps exhausted from her previous ordeal.

He went north, then east, and probably crossed the Jordan at Dan. He came through the region east of that river until He reached the shores of the Lake of Tiberias.

A district made up of ten cities, as its name implies. After the Romans conquered Palestine, these cities were rebuilt and partly settled by colonists, and they had special privileges. Historians do not quite agree on which the ten cities were. Most now hold them to have been Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Philadelphia, Gerasa, Dion, Canatha, Damascus, Raphana, and Scythopolis. All were east of the Jordan except Scythopolis. But the name Decapolis seems to have been used for a district west of the Jordan as well as east.

Later on (7:31) the Lord was again found in Decapolis. Then His presence was welcomed. Was this change the result of that man's labour? We do not know. But the Lord's reply to that man surely held a lesson for the time being. It taught the disciples, and us also, that the ranks of true labourers for an absent Lord are recruited by those who have themselves tasted divine grace.

Decapolis seems to have been a place where the word of the Sower fell into "good ground," and produced fruit in abundance. The name appears in Matthew's summary of the Lord's work early in his Gospel. Matthew names five districts there, and Decapolis is one of those where crowds gathered to His ministry; the others are Galilee, Jerusalem, Judea, and "beyond Jordan" (Matt. 4:23-25). For this territory was the Galilee of the Gentiles. Isaiah prophesied about the people who lived there: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined" (Isa. 9:2).

The empty ritual of the first part shows Israel's self-sufficiency. The reaching out to the Syrophoenician woman speaks of mercy to the Gentiles. Returning to Israel, He finds deafness and an inability to speak. The two go together. As in nature, no one can speak rightly who has not heard rightly. The Lord opens the ears as well as the lips, and the man who could not speak speaks plainly.

Still, their sin cannot change His heart of love. So He will not turn away a case of need. If He will not send away a Gentile woman, neither will He refuse an appeal on behalf of a needy Jew... He is not indifferent to their rejection of Himself. If He works among them it is because of their need, and not because they are Jews. Sin has put Jew and Gentile on one common level, and grace can bless either on the ground of their need.

Decapolis seems to have been a place where the word of the Sower fell into "good ground," and produced much fruit… This territory was the Galilee of the Gentiles. Isaiah prophesied about its people: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shone" (Isa. 9:2).

Deafness is interesting because loss of speech goes with it. In fact, the same Greek word is translated both "deaf" and "mute." Its literal meaning is dull. When the way between the soul and God is closed, there can be no speaking out His praise.

They brought Him a man who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech. He is a humbling picture of every man's moral and spiritual condition as the fruit of the fall. God lost man's ear in the garden of Eden. Ever since that fatal day the whole human family would rather listen to anyone than to God… The tongue of the unconverted man is as much a stranger to God as the ear. No one can deny it. The most eloquent talker shows an impediment in his speech as soon as the things of God and Christ come up.

The afflicted man was only an emblem of the state of Israel. Through unbelief they were unwilling and unable to hear God, or to speak out their own misery and His praise. But once he was brought to Him, he pictured the remnant on whom light dawned in a region of the shadow of death.

This case differs from others. The man is not said to have been completely mute, but to have spoken with difficulty, as well as being deaf. Even so, the Lord takes special pains with him. Here He was pleased to show His tender interest in detail, and His compassionate love as well as His power to heal. He does much more than those who brought the patient to Him asked for. Putting the hand on the needy one was the usual sign of blessing. Less than this — a word — would have been enough, if the obedient Lord had seen it right for God's glory.

He is asked only to put His hand on the man, but the Lord does seven things for him. We may think we know what souls need, and pray for them that way, but the Lord knows better than we do. Mark's Gospel emphasises His service. So we see in these seven steps the patient persistence of His work for the blessing of one soul.

The kind friends asked the Lord to lay hands on the man. So He took him aside on his own. He put His fingers into the deaf ears, and touched the bound tongue… From this we may learn how completely the Lord, in His deep sympathy, put Himself in contact with the weaknesses of those He blessed. If He had power alone, He might have shown it from far off. But there was love also, and love in action must be near at hand… For God's love for the sinner was even more wonderful than His power to heal.

Their sin cannot change His heart of love. So He will not turn away a case of need. If He will not send away a Gentile woman, neither will He refuse an appeal on behalf of a needy Jew. But in giving grace, He will, in both cases, hold to the truth. So we read that He took him aside from the crowd privately. He is not indifferent to their rejection of Him. If He works among them it is because of their need, and not because they are Jews. Sin has put Jew and Gentile on one common level, and grace can bless either on the ground of their need.

He took the deaf man aside from the multitude. The two were now alone together, the deaf man in the company of the Son of God. Attention was directed first to his ears, then to his tongue. He had to hear sounds correctly before he could speak clearly. The Lord putting His fingers into his ears first gives the impression that the man had been deaf from birth, and had never heard the sounds of human speech.

Hidden from the Jews, He is grace to the sinner. When He heals the deaf man of his deafness and his speech impediment, He takes him aside from the crowd, looks up to heaven and sighs. The unbelief of the people weighed on His heart. He looks up to the sovereign Source of all goodness and all help for man, and grieves at the condition in which man is found.

This case differs from others. The sufferer is not said to have been completely mute. He had an impediment of speech, or spoke with difficulty, as well as being deaf. Even so, the Lord takes special pains with him. The manner reveals the divine Servant's grace. There was no question of His power. Normally He healed all who needed it in a moment, no matter how extreme the case. Here He was pleased to show His tender interest in detail. He showed His compassionate love no less than His power to heal. He does much more than those who brought the patient to Him asked.

It is not only the cure, but the manner of it, that is so strikingly brought out here. Who could interfere with that scene between the perfect servant of God and the needy one? "He put His fingers into his ears." What would He not do to prove His interest? "And after spitting touched his tongue; and looking up to heaven, He sighed." As He weighed the distressing results of sin, what a burden was on His heart!

In showing grace the Lord looked up to heaven and sighed. He always acted in dependence on the Father and in agreement with the mind of heaven. His heart was sustained by heaven even while it was broken by the sorrows of earth. We too, as the sorrows of earth press on our spirits, may well sigh; but too often we sigh without looking up to heaven, and so become cast down and depressed. Looking around we sigh; but looking up we are sustained.

The afflicted man was only a picture of the state of Israel. Through unbelief they were unwilling and unable to hear God, or to speak out their own misery and His praise. But as brought to Him he pictures the remnant on whom light dawned in a region and shadow of death. And "immediately" is a word that marks this Gospel of His service. His ears were opened, the tie of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke correctly.

In showing grace the Lord looked up to heaven and sighed. He always acted in dependence upon the Father and in accord with the mind of heaven. Heaven sustained His heart, even when the sorrows of earth broke it. We too may well sigh as the sorrows of earth press on our spirits. But too often we sigh without looking up to heaven, and so become cast down and depressed. Looking around we sigh; but looking up we are sustained.

The burden of the world's sin, and the many miseries that come with it, weighed on His gracious spirit. He recalled the day when, ages before, He pronounced His whole creative work "very good" (Gen. 1:31), and He groaned as He considered all the ruin that Satan and man had caused through sin. This is what brought Him from above. But He had come, not to heal physical diseases only, but to make atonement for sin by His blood.

"Looking up to heaven He groaned." Surely this suggests that He was seeing this man's condition as it affected God. Estranged from the life of God, held in Satan's grip, man's ear is not tuned to the speaking of God. In the Old Testament we read of the many times God pleaded with His earthly people — "Hear, My people"!

Following His touch of sympathy, the Lord uttered His word of command, Ephphatha. The Servant of Jehovah spoke in the fullness of His rights as the Son of God, and it was done. His word was as able to control and to correct as it was to create. Had He not "planted the ear" (Ps. 94:9)? If He made the hearing ear (Prov. 20:12), should He not cause the deaf ear to hear His voice? So He spoke to the helpless part rather than to the man himself: Be opened. At once the deaf man's ears opened, the bond on his tongue gave way, and he spoke plainly.

He saw in both acts how everything depended on bringing Himself personally to bear on the actual need. The One who worked was man, yet no less was He God, the Son become flesh and on earth, in His pitying love serving God and man. He did not only apply what came from within Himself to the man's tongue. He also looked up to heaven, groaned, and said to him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.

A humiliating picture of every man's moral and spiritual condition as the fruit of the fall. God lost man's ear in the garden. Ever since that fatal day the whole human family has been inclined to listen to anyone rather than to God… The tongue of the unconverted man is as estranged from God as the ear. Nobody can deny that the most eloquent speaker shows an impediment in his speech as soon as the things of God and Christ come up.

We see Jesus here, His heart moved at the condition of man, and even more at the state of His ever-loved Israel. This poor sufferer was a striking picture of it. He causes the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak. So it was individually, and so it will be with the whole remnant of Israel in the latter days.

What a summary of the service of our blessed Lord! Opening men's ears to the gracious revelation from God — and loosing their tongue to answer His speaking with understanding.

Following His touch of sympathy, the Lord uttered His word of command, Ephphatha. The Servant of Jehovah spoke in the fullness of His rights as the Son of God, and it was done. His word was as powerful to correct and control as it was to create. Had He not "planted the ear" (Ps. 94:9)? If He made the hearing ear (Prov. 20:12), should He not cause the deaf ear to hear His voice? So He spoke to the disabled part, not to the man himself: Be opened.

The Saviour touched first the ears of the afflicted one, and then his tongue. This order is significant. In spiritual things the ear must first be opened to receive God's teaching. Only then can the tongue speak out His praise… The man who has taken the gospel of Christ into his heart through his ear will delight to tell everyone around him about the wonders of God's grace.

Being unable to speak is the result of being unable to hear. Children hear sounds and then learn to copy them. That is, they learn to repeat what they hear other people say. This is how every one of us has learned to speak. But the deaf child hears nothing. It cannot copy, so it never learns to speak… The ear is the guide and director of the tongue.

A man was brought to Him who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech (Mark 7:31-37). It is a humbling picture of every man's moral and spiritual condition as the fruit of the fall. God lost man's ear in the garden. Ever since that fatal day the whole human family would sooner listen to anyone than to God… The tongue of the unconverted man is as much a stranger to God as the ear. No one can deny it: the most eloquent talker shows an impediment in his speech as soon as the things of God and Christ come up.

The afflicted man was only a symbol of the state of Israel. Sadly, the nation was unwilling, and through unbelief unable, to hear God or to speak out their own misery and His praise. But as brought to Him he pictured the faithful remnant on whom light dawned in a region and shadow of death. And "immediately" — a word so typical of this Gospel of His service — his ears were opened. The tie of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke rightly.

He makes the deaf hear and the mute speak. So it was for this one man, and so it will be for the whole faithful remnant of Israel in the last days. He acts Himself, and He does all things well. The power of the enemy is destroyed.

Then will come the fulfilment of the prophecy that this Galilean miracle guaranteed: "Behold your God… will come and save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped… and the tongue of the mute sing for joy. And the ransomed of the LORD shall return and come to Zion with singing… and sorrow and sighing shall flee away" (Isa. 35:4-10).

People brought to Jesus a man who was deaf and could not speak properly. Jesus opened his ears and loosed his tongue… What a wonderful summary of the work of Christ! He opens men's ears so that they may hear the speaking of God, and unlooses their tongues so that they may respond in praise to Him. The verb is in the perfect tense — ears are still being opened to divine speaking, and lips are opened in response.

After healing the man He charges them to tell no one. He was here as the perfect Servant, so He would not use His mighty power and grace to exalt Himself. His mind was to make Himself of no reputation. But He could not stay hidden.

As the Servant of God, here in Mark, He was hiding Himself, as far as His service allowed it. Service is never perfect without that. A servant is not to know himself. He is to know only his master, and to be very willing that others likewise should not know him, but only his master. And it is so with the Lord. He goes on with His work. If that gathers notice, His way is still to go on, and to hide Himself again under fresh service.

He worked the miracle in secret, and not as a public sign. So the Lord, having opened the ears and mouth of the man brought to Him, gave the order to tell no one. But this command fell upon the deaf ears of disobedience, for the more He charged this upon them, so much the more they published it.

He still showed mercy. But it was not His object now to be known by these miracles. He was now separating and distinguishing within a nation that had rejected Him — or rather, a nation that had rejected itself. So afterwards, they were to tell no one about Him. They confessed that He was the Christ. Yet morally, as Son of God in all His grace, they had rejected Him. He was not now to take reputation as Christ. They were morally bad, they were rejecting the Lord, and they had no taste for what was true in it.

For the moment it was all in vain. He charged them to tell no one, but the more He did, the more they spread it. Yet, true as it might be in words, it was not faith in the heart, but rather extreme astonishment.

Yet the Lord wanted no advertising: He charged them to tell no one of this miracle, as we have seen He did on other occasions. But men were more impressed by what they saw than by the authority of the Lord's word. They appreciated Him and His power, but were not prepared to obey His Word. Today this is a common illness too. Admiration of Him without obedience is an illness more serious than we imagine.

The word "proclaim" is not restricted to an official class at all. It is used of the healed leper, and of the man freed from demons, when they proclaimed what the Lord had done for each of them (Mark 1:45; Mark 5:20). It is used as well of those who published the cure of the deaf and dumb man (Mark 7:36).

"He has done all things well." As that is a saying peculiar to Mark, so it is everywhere a truth illustrated in it; and it is the great point we have brought out here. It was not only that He did what He did with unfailing energy, but the manner in which He wrought was no less admirable.

There was no question of His power. Usually He healed everyone who needed it in a moment, however extreme the case. He healed that way even when an unclean spirit caused the muteness, and not a physical defect. Here He chose to show His tender interest in the details. He showed His compassionate love as much as His power to heal. He does far more than the people who brought the man to Him asked. Laying a hand on the needy one was the usual sign of blessing. Even less than that — a single word — would have been enough, if the obedient Lord had seen it right for God's glory.

In showing grace the Lord looked up to heaven and sighed. He always acted in dependence on the Father and in agreement with the mind of heaven. The sorrows of earth broke His heart, but heaven sustained it. We too may well sigh as the sorrows of earth press on our spirits. But too often we sigh without looking up to heaven, and so we become cast down and depressed. Looking around we sigh; but looking up we are sustained.

What a picture of the helplessness sin has brought man to — unable to hear the Lord's voice, unable to tell Him his need!

He took him aside from the crowds, so He could deal with him in private. His fingers, symbolic of divine action, touch his ears. That which came from His mouth touched the mouth of the mute man. So the work was done, and the deaf and mute man both heard and spoke. If any ears are opened to hear the voice of the Lord, it is the fruit of divine action which takes place in secret. And if any tongue can speak the praise of God or the Word of God, it is because what comes from His mouth has touched ours.

What a wonderful summary of the work of Christ! He opens men's ears so they may hear the speaking of God, unloosing their tongues so they may respond in praise to Him. The verb is in the perfect tense — He is still opening ears to divine speaking, and still opening lips in response.

For the moment it was all in vain. He told them to say nothing, but the more He told them, the more they spread the news. Their words were true, but it was not faith in the heart. It was extreme astonishment. Even so, what a comment on Christ's service! "He has done all things well; He makes both the deaf to hear and the speechless to speak."

In the day of God's glory on the earth, this constant burden on the spiritual heart will be taken away. No one will hear the sigh or groan of the needy and the imprisoned any more. Then this prophecy will be fulfilled, and this Galilean miracle was its pledge: "Behold your God … will come and save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped … and the tongue of the mute sing for joy … and the ransomed of the LORD shall return and come to Zion with singing … and sorrow and sighing shall flee away" (Isa. 35:4-10).