(for the Pharisees and all the Jews, unless they wash their hands diligently, do not eat, holding what has been delivered by the ancients;
Mark pauses the story here to explain a custom his readers may never have seen. It sets up the argument that follows: what was "the tradition of the elders," and why did washing hands matter so much?
Mark breaks off to explain the practice, and tells us who kept it.
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.
Translators have long argued over the word behind "properly" (older versions read "diligently").
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."
Writers on Jewish customs describe the ritual in detail. The fist appears again in it.
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 point at issue was never hygiene.
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 eyes "the tradition of the elders" was no minor custom.
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.
Where did such a custom come from?
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.
Read verses 3 and 4 together and the tone comes through. Mark sets people beside kitchenware.
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!
The chapter moves from the outside of a man to the inside.
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.
Adding a rule does more than add a rule; it puts a second authority beside God's.
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.
- Explanation: Mark stops to explain the custom. It belonged to all the Jews, not just the Pharisees.
- Ceremony: They feared ritual defilement, not dirt. Contact with a stranger worried them; grime did not.
- Escalation: Breaking this tradition counted as a worse sin than breaking the law itself.
- Exposure: Mark lists the washing of people beside the washing of cups and pots. The system condemns itself.
- Heart: They washed hands and left hearts alone. Defilement, the Lord shows, comes out of the heart, not into it.
and [on coming] from the market-place, unless they are washed, they do not eat; and there are many other things which they have received to hold, the washing of cups and vessels, and brazen utensils, and couches),
In Mark 7, leaders from Jerusalem watch the disciples eat with unwashed hands. This verse explains the custom behind their complaint, and it raises the question the Lord will answer: what really makes a person unclean?
God's law had its own rules for cleansing. These washings were not among them.
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.
Washing after the market was not about hygiene. It was about contact — with a Gentile (a non-Jew), a tax collector, or an object the elders counted unclean.
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.
One writer says the word translated "wash" here has a more literal rendering.
Mark 7:4, "dip" is more literal than "bathe" or "wash."
Older translations end the list with "tables." The ESV has "dining couches."
In Mark 7:4 the word translated 'table' is klinē, 'a couch,' often translated 'bed'…
The phrase "many other traditions" covered a detailed routine.
"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."
Where the ESV says these traditions are ones they "observe," older translations read "received to hold" — handed down, then held onto. One writer says the grip is tightest when the source is human.
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.
That grip came at a cost.
The traditions of men, which they "received to hold" (Mark 7:4) were more to them than the glory of the "Word."
Notice how the verse arranges its items: people and cooking pots in one list.
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!
One thing in the list was left unwashed.
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.
- Added — The law had its own cleansings. Hand-washing before meals, and washing cups and plates, were extras the scribes and Pharisees piled on top.
- Feared — What they dreaded was defilement, not dirt: a non-Jew met in the street, a stranger's lips on a cup, a couch someone else had used.
- Held — Older translations say they "received to hold" these rules. What man sets up, man holds on to most stubbornly — even above the glory of the Word.
- Levelled — The verse lists washed people beside washed pots. That wording treats the whole system as weak and childish.
- Unwashed — They washed cups and pots, but not their hearts. God looks at the heart, and that is where the real impurity comes from.