Mark 7:5–8

Mark 7:5 · Darby

then the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why do thy disciples not walk according to what has been delivered by the ancients, but eat the bread with defiled hands?

Jesus is healing crowds when a delegation from Jerusalem arrives. Their one question is not about His power but about hand-washing, and behind the polite wording lies a charge. Everything here turns on one point: does man's rule or God's word bind the conscience?

A pretext, not a question

The men who ask the question had no interest in the healings around them. Their own rule mattered more.

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.

Modernised from C E StuartOriginal wording

These were not local critics. Jerusalem sent them "to investigate the claims and teaching of Jesus, and to denounce the preacher and the teaching as contrary to the approved standards of the Sanhedrin" — the ruling council of the nation (The Bible Treasury).

Nothing moral at stake

The rule they seized on came from their ancestors, not from God's law. One writer allows that it may well have begun with a good motive.

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

A religion anyone can perform

This kind of religion is easy to keep and easy to see.

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.

Modernised from Hamilton SmithOriginal wording

The damage in an added rule

The practice itself was harmless, and it pictured something good. One writer grants all of that, then shows where the real damage lies.

"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.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

The Lord's answer

The Lord did not debate where the custom came from, or how empty it was.

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

The same writer says where accepting tradition leads: "give up what is of God, and then you will fall into the hands of man" (William Kelly).

Summary

- Pretext. The question was never a question. Healing crowds counted for nothing beside their broken custom. Any excuse served, if it could hinder God working in grace.

- Harmless. The charge touched nothing moral. Hand-washing was a fitting picture of purity, and may well have begun with a sincere wish to teach it.

- Cheap. Anyone can keep an outward form. It wins a reputation with people, and leaves the heart far from God.

- Fatal. Make one addition binding, and you call God's revealed will incomplete. His will then loses its unique claim on the soul.

- Pattern. Christ did not argue about where the custom came from, or how empty it was. He went straight to its effect on obedience — and that is the model to follow.

Mark 7:6 · Darby

But he answering said to them, Well did Esaias prophesy concerning you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honour me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me.

The Pharisees challenge Jesus because His disciples skipped a hand-washing ritual. He answers from Isaiah, and the verse judges a religion that looks right to people but is empty before God.

The Charge: Hypocrites

The Lord starts with a verdict: hypocrites. One writer explains the word and the proof behind it.

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.)

Modernised from Hamilton SmithOriginal wording

Near With the Lips, Far in the Heart

The people Jesus describes were not irreligious. That is the sting: the prophet grants that they come close, then names the distance. The writer below follows an older translation, which opens the verse with the line "This people draws near to me with their mouth"; the ESV does not have those words.

"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.

Modernised from The Christian's FriendOriginal wording

Why Isaiah's Words Fit Twice

Isaiah first spoke these words about the people of Judah in his own day. One writer shows why they fit a second time.

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.

Modernised from The Bible TreasuryOriginal wording

How Jesus Answered

He could have argued about whether the tradition of hand-washing was binding. He did something else.

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.

Modernised from The Bible TreasuryOriginal wording

Two Faults, Not One

The quotation carries a second charge as well as the first.

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.

Modernised from The Bible TreasuryOriginal wording

The Slide That Follows

One writer traces the order of the descent through the rest of the passage.

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).

Modernised from J. A. TrenchOriginal wording

Another writer puts his finger on where the damage begins:

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

What God Wants

The verse is not only a rebuke. Turned around, it shows what God asks for.

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

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

Summary

- Heart named. Hypocrisy is pretending to be what we are not — great piety on show before men, while the heart stays far from God.

- Heart absent. Their house was swept of idols and decorated with pious deeds, but it was an empty shrine. God was on their tongues, not in their thoughts.

- Heart replaced. Two evils are condemned: insincerity before God, and putting human rules where His will should be.

- Heart displaced. The slide runs in order — teach men's commandments, lay aside God's, reject God's, then make God's word of no effect.

- Heart required. Nothing counts with God if the heart is not right; He asks for a pure heart and true obedience.

Mark 7:7 · Darby

But in vain do they worship me, teaching [as their] teachings commandments of men.

The Pharisees ask why Jesus' disciples ignore the hand-washing rules of the elders, and He answers by quoting Isaiah against them. So what makes worship worthless to God, even when it looks careful and correct?

Worship that counts for nothing

The Lord does not attack the style of their worship. He says it gains nothing with God.

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.

Modernised from Hamilton SmithOriginal wording

A practice can look like something God taught and still serve only the people doing it.

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.

Modernised from The Christian's FriendOriginal wording

"The commandments of men"

The Greek word behind "commandments" here is a rare one, and where it appears tells you what kind of rule is meant.

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.

Modernised from The Bible TreasuryOriginal wording

Isaiah's words, and why they still fitted

Isaiah did not aim these words at open idolaters. He spoke them to people who were keeping the outward rules of their own law.

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.

Modernised from The Bible TreasuryOriginal wording

The men standing in front of Jesus were the heirs of that reformation, which is what makes the rebuke so serious.

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.

Modernised from Hamilton SmithOriginal wording

Why added rules always crowd God out

Adding to what God has said is not a small extra. It says that what He gave was not enough.

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.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

The exchange this verse exposes

The process has a fixed order, and it runs one way only.

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Not a danger confined to the Pharisees

Believers today are not exempt, down to small rules about the timing of a meeting.

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.

Modernised from G C WillisOriginal wording

Summary

- Heart — the fault is not the ritual but the distance behind it. Lips can be near while the heart is far.

- Substitute — "commandments of men" is a rare word. It marks rules men load on others, with no authority from God.

- Exchange — the process is always the same: let go of what God commanded, and you fall into the hands of man.

- Verdict — such worship is not just weak. It is empty: a name for piety among people, and nothing before God.

- Test — a reformed, idol-free religion can still fail. The one question for any practice is whether God said it.

Mark 7:8 · Darby

[For], leaving the commandment of God, ye hold what is delivered by men [to keep] -- washings of vessels and cups, and many other such like things ye do.

Religious leaders from Jerusalem complain that Jesus' disciples eat without the ritual hand-washing their tradition demanded. He does not debate the custom; He names what it had pushed out, and leaves one question — which authority does a person obey?

The Process Behind the Charge

The Lord's answer names what tradition had done, and traces the order of events behind it:

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.

Modernised from William KellyOriginal wording

Four Steps Down

The Lord describes this same sin in four ways. The wording gets heavier each time, and this verse stands at the top of the slope:

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.

Modernised from The Bible TreasuryOriginal wording

The first step is almost invisible. The same writer describes how it happened:

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.

Modernised from The Bible TreasuryOriginal wording

Why It Becomes "Your Tradition"

The Lord goes further and calls it "your tradition." One writer finds the pull of man-made religion in that word:

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.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

One Addition Unseats the Whole

Setting aside one command may look small. The same writer says the damage reaches much further:

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.

Modernised from J. N. DarbyOriginal wording

The Proof: Corban

The Lord does not leave the charge as an idea. He gives a case where tradition cancelled the duty to honour father and mother:

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?

Modernised from F. B. HoleOriginal wording

Why Tradition Still Wins

The pull of tradition is not only an old problem. One writer gives the reason it lasts:

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.

Modernised from The Bible TreasuryOriginal wording

Summary

- Leaving comes first. The failure starts in quiet. People do not attack God's commandment; they set it on one side.

- Then holding. Let go of what is of God, and man's tradition fills the empty place. You fall into the hands of man.

- Then owning. "The tradition of men" becomes "your tradition." Man's religion glorifies man and covers his corruption.

- Then nullifying. Adding even one requirement sets up a rival authority and voids the claim of the whole word of God.

- Corban proves it. A rule that looked holier than caring for one's parents shows where the slide ends. Tradition stays easier than Scripture, because it never searches the conscience.