CHAPTER 7
Conflict with the Pharisees concerning purity and impurity. Mark 7:1-23. Parallel to Matthew 15:1-20.
Mc7.1 The Pharisees and several scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus. — The days of happiness we mentioned earlier were not long-lasting. Already the Pharisees and the Scribes are taking it upon themselves to interrupt them. Moreover, conflicts will now multiply between Jesus and his adversaries: the divine Master will take advantage of this to warn his disciples against the moral corruption and hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The phrase "gathered" denotes an official meeting. Coming from Jerusalem. St. Mark, like St. Matthew, seems to emphasize the name of Jerusalem. The newcomers were not just anyone, but rather Doctors of the Church from the capital. It is generally accepted that they had been sent expressly to spy on and attack Jesus. The Pharisees of Galilee, feeling unable to stand up to Our Lord, had asked their friends in Jerusalem for reinforcements, and the latter were at that very moment sending them their most skilled scribes.
Mc7.2 Having seen some of his disciples eating with unclean hands, that is, unwashed hands. The event mentioned in this verse, and the archaeological notes that serve as commentary in the following two, constitute one of the many special features found on every page of the second Gospel. This event and these notes contain an important document for the history of the period in which Our Lord lived. Having seen some of his disciples eating bread…This was the occasion for the conflict. It is important to note that it was not all of Jesus' disciples, but only a few of them, who had taken the liberty condemned by the Scribes. This did not prevent these purists from generalizing the accusation (v. 5) and speaking as if the Savior's followers regularly neglected traditional ablutions. With unclean hands. «The Hebrews called common those things used for common purposes, because it was presumed that, being touched indiscriminately by all kinds of people, it is morally impossible that they should not contract some defilement, whereas holy and pure things and people were separated from all common and profane use» [331]. Cf. 1 Maccabees 1:47, 62; Acts 10:14, 28; 11:8; Romans 14:14; Hebrews 10:29; Revelation 21:27. «With profane hands»—this, then, is the meaning of this technical expression. Moreover, the narrator explains it for his non-Jewish readers, adding immediately: that is to say, unwashed.
Mc7.3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they have carefully washed their hands, according to the tradition of the elders. 4 And when they return from the public square, they do not eat without having performed ablutions. They also observe many other traditional practices, such as the purification of cups, jugs, bronze vessels, and beds. — 1. Washing hands before meals. The Pharisees and all the Jews. Initially restricted to the sect, they gradually became, thanks to its influence, almost universally practiced among the Jews contemporary with Our Lord. They took place frequently, often, and at the slightest pretext, but especially before meals. Being faithful to this was called "holding (the Greek κρατούντες is very energetic) the traditions bequeathed by the Ancients." Cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:14. — They washed the part of the arm between the elbow and the fingertips. They performed this operation carefully and thoroughly. — This does not refer to personal hygiene, but to purely ceremonial ablutions, imposed on the people by the Doctors, and similar to those that Muslims still perform five times a day (without soap and without hot water). — 2. Ablutions after going out and visiting. In public squares and streets, where one encounters all sorts of people, those whose conduct is described could, without realizing it, have come into contact with legally impure objects and thereby contracted some defilement. They needed further ablutions to purify themselves. Does the phrase "having washed" here refer to a complete bath or simply a washing of the hands? It is rather difficult to determine. However, we would readily accept, with Meyer, Bisping, and others, the former view. This yields an ascending gradation, which seems to have been intentional on the part of St. Mark. Before their meals, they simply wash their hands; if they come from outside, they immerse themselves entirely in water. Olshausen and Bleek make a clear misinterpretation when they translate as if there were: "they do not eat food from the market without having washed it." The Codex Sinaiticus contains the curious variant "to sprinkle, to water", instead of "to wash". — 3° Ablutions of utensils used for meals. The trophies Those from which one drank. Earthenware vases : the amphorae and ewers placed on the table [See Anthony Rich, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, s.v. Urceus.]. The corresponding Greek word, ξεστῶν (ξεστής in the nominative case), is one of St. Mark's Latinisms, cf. Preface, § 4, 3. It derives, by a slight transposition (sex being changed to xes; cf. Xystus and Sixtus), from "sextarius," the name of a Roman measure used for both liquids and dry substances, containing one-sixth of a "congius," one-quarter of a "modius," approximately three-quarters of a liter [See Anthony Rich, op. cit., under the word Sextarius.]. The bronze vases. These were the large bronze, sandstone, or clay vessels placed in the banquet hall, containing the provisions of wine and water used to refill the empty sextarii. Cf. John 2:6. The beds or couches on which one would half-recline to eat meals. These various objects having been desecrated, although without everyone knowing, by the contact of some impure person, the Pharisees, in accordance with their principles, did not allow them to be used without first sanctifying them by ablutions.
Mc7.5 The Pharisees and the Scribes therefore asked him, «Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders and eat with unclean hands?» — After indicating the occasion for the conflict (v. 2) and providing some details necessary for his readers to clearly understand the narrative (vv. 3 and 4), St. Mark returns to the Savior's enemies and their challenge. They asked him ; In Greek, the verb is in the present tense. They do not observe, Literally: they do not walk, a picturesque word. "It means that they do not make a life choice. From a Hebrew idiom, according to which walking has the same meaning as living. And the word way indicates the kind of life that someone leads, as if they were following a path.".
Mc7.6 He answered them, «Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.’. 7 Their worship of me is in vain, teaching doctrines that are precepts of men. «Through reasoning, Christ minimizes the superfluousness of the Pharisees, which they flaunt,» says Saint Jerome forcefully. Jesus’ response is more than a defense: it is a vigorous attack that silences the Pharisees and the Scribes. Although the argument is essentially the same in both Matthew and Mark, it is not presented in the same order. According to the first Evangelist, Our Lord, replying to his enemies with a counter-question, first reproaches them for violating God’s most serious commandments, especially the fourth, under the pretext of observing their vain traditions. Then, broadening the question, he shows them, with the help of the text from Isaiah, the full extent of their hypocrisy. In the second Gospel, we find these two parts: only, the second, which is more general, appears first; the specific incident concerning the Corban comes only afterward. It would be very difficult to say what order Jesus actually followed. — Isaiah prophesied correctly.…This terrible prophecy, which Isaiah (24:3) addressed directly to his contemporaries, was later to find a second fulfillment, willed by the Holy Spirit, in the conduct of the Pharisees. It describes in very vivid terms the horror that purely external worship inspires in God, and the honor that sincere homage brings Him. See the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 15:7. It is in vain that they honor me. The literal translation of this word in Hebrew would be: Their worship is a "tohu" (תהו denotes emptiness, chaos). But Isaiah did not write it in this passage: he expresses, at the very least, the divine thought very well.
Mc7.8 You set aside the commandments of God and hold fast to human traditions, purifying vessels and cups and doing many other such things. — Jesus now goes on to provide proof of his previous assertion. Leaving aside God's commandment… A beautiful antithesis, expressed even more forcefully in the Greek text, literally: «Abandoning» the divine precepts, you cling to purely human observances. Purifying the vessels and cups…from Bede the Venerable: «It was a superstitious custom to continually return to washing once one was clean, and not to eat before performing purifications. But it is necessary for those who desire to partake often of the bread come down from heaven to frequently purify their works with tears, almsgiving, and other fruits of righteousness. Thus, through the ceaseless action of good works and good thoughts, one must purify the defilements that worldly concerns may have caused. It is in vain that the Jews wash their hands and purify themselves outwardly, as long as they refuse to come and purify themselves at the fountain of the Savior, and it is in vain that they observe the purification of vessels, when they neglect to purify their bodies and hearts of their true defilements.».
Mc7.9 You know very well, he added, how to thus nullify God's commandment, in order to observe your tradition. — He added. St. Mark often uses this short transitional formula to mark pauses in Jesus' discourses. It is equivalent to our paragraph breaks in the West. You know very well… how to destroy the command…The Savior repeats the same thought for the third time. Cf. verses 7 and 8. Here there is an ascending gradation: now it is no longer a simple neglect of the divine commandments, but their absolute violation. The adverb καλῶς (well, properly), which Jesus pronounces for the second time within a few lines (cf. verse 6), is used ironically. Compare 2 Corinthians 11:4. To observe your tradition. Heretical commentators have sometimes used this passage to attack the Catholic Church's definitions of tradition and to claim that the Bible should be our sole rule of faith. But in doing so, they have made a gross misinterpretation. Indeed, 1) Jesus is not speaking here of tradition in general, nor of tradition as it originates with God, but of abusive traditions invented by men. 2) He is not speaking of traditions concerning dogma and morality, or at least related to them, but of purely disciplinary customs, which are opposed to morality. 3) Tradition, as understood by the Roman Catholic Church, is nothing other than the divine word developed and explained. Moreover, we challenge our adversaries to cite a single one of our Catholic traditions that is in the least opposed to the word of God.
Mc7.10 For Moses said: Honor your father and your mother, and: Whoever curses his father and his mother, let him be put to death. — For Moses said. Jesus will demonstrate, in verses 10-14, through a striking example drawn from Jewish casuistry and compared with God's commandments, the validity of the accusation he leveled three times against his enemies. We will see the immoral results produced by substituting Pharisaic customs for the Torah. The texts cited by Jesus are taken from the Exodus, 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16: they concern the fourth precept of the Decalogue, which they first present in a positive way, Honor…, then negatively, He who will curse…
Mc7.11 And you say: If a man says to his father or mother, "Whatever good I could have done for you is qorban," that is, a gift given to God, 12 You no longer allow him to do anything for his father or mother., — And you…You, in opposition to Moses, that is to say, in opposition to God, of whom Moses was the representative. If a man says… qorban. St. Mark alone preserved this Hebrew word, which appears frequently in the books of Leviticus and Numbers, but is found only twice in the Old Testament outside the Pentateuch (Ezekiel 20:28; 40:43). The Rabbis use it very frequently. It served to designate all kinds of religious offerings and even, according to the historian Josephus, the people who devoted themselves to the service of the Lord [Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 4, 4, 4]. That is to say, offering. The Evangelist indicates in parentheses to his non-Jewish readers the meaning of קרבן. Josephus, in the passage we have just quoted, gave an identical interpretation. What I could have helped you with. The grammatical difficulties presented by the Greek text and their solutions are here almost the same as for the parallel passage in Matthew 15:5-6. We can translate: "It is Qorban," or, "Let it be Qorban, whatever I can help you with." We can also admit a figure of omission, which would leave the sentence unfinished: "You say: 'If anyone says to their father or mother, "Whatever I offer in Qorban will benefit you…," and you no longer allow them to do anything for their father or mother.'" We have demonstrated in our commentary on Matthew 15:5 that the first of these two interpretations is the most plausible. — Saint Ambrose stigmatizes in these terms Christians of his time who wanted to introduce the Pharisaical Qorban into the Church of Christ: "Those who believe that evil thoughts are sent by the devil, that they do not arise from our own will, conclude from this phrase." The devil can be the instigator and helper of evil thoughts, but he cannot be their author« [Saint Ambrose of Milan, Enarratio in Luc, 18.].
Mc7.13 "Thus nullifying the word of God by the tradition you teach. And you do many other things like this."» — It was not possible to cite a more striking example of the reversal of divine Law by the traditions of men. Thus Jesus can victoriously repeat, for the fourth time, his assertion of verse 7. By adding: And other similar things…, he shows that he has pointed out only one feature in favor of his thesis, but that, if he had wanted to multiply similar facts, he would have had an embarrassment of riches, so much did Pharisaic morality multiply them on all points of practical conduct.
Mc7.14 Having called the people together, Jesus said to them, «Listen to me, all of you, and understand. — When the Pharisees and Scribes arrived, the crowd surrounding Jesus respectfully withdrew. After silencing his opponents, Jesus called them back to him to give them an important instruction. «He presented the substance of the debate in one of those sharp, sometimes paradoxical and more or less figurative formulas by which he knew so well how to awaken reflection» [Edward Reuss, Gospel History, p. 379].
Mc7.15 Nothing that is outside a person can defile them by going into them, but what comes out of a person defiles them. — Nothing that is external to man…A principle of extreme importance for the spiritual life, showing man, on the one hand, what makes him impure, and on the other, what is incapable of defiling him. Jesus presents it in the form of a striking antithesis and a familiar image. — 1. In general, and barring extraordinary circumstances, the things a person eats have no influence on their moral condition. It matters little whether they consume this or that food, this or that drink; it matters even less whether they sit down to eat without having first washed their hands. These are things that take place outside their soul: they cannot, therefore, render them impure and profane. — 2. It is not the same with what comes out of a person: this (with emphasis) is what, being part of their innermost being, can contribute to defiling them. For the moment, the Savior is content to proclaim this profound truth: he will explain it to his disciples in a few moments (vv. 18-23). St. Matthew expresses it in almost the same terms, but with a slight nuance that makes it clearer and more striking. Instead of the general notions "enters into him... comes out of man," he uses these words, which develop the image: "It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this is what defiles a person." See the commentary on Matthew 15:11. But just as, in the first Gospel, "mouth" was taken successively in two distinct senses, first literally, then figuratively, so too, in St. Mark, the phrase "enters into man" expresses a real fact, while "comes out of man" must be understood morally. The Savior plays on this variety of meanings. — It is unlikely that verse 15 is, as has been said, only the summary, in a way the text, of a long discourse delivered on this occasion by Our Lord.
Mc7.16 Let those who have ears hear well.» — This verse is omitted from several important manuscripts (B, L, Sinaiticus, and some minuscules). Nevertheless, it is too heavily emphasized everywhere else to be merely an interpolation. The formula it contains, often repeated by Jesus, is intended to draw the listeners' attention to the great principle they had just heard. It is equivalent to the words "Listen to me, all of you, and understand," which preceded the mention of this principle, verse 14.
Mc7.17 When he had gone into a house, away from the crowd, his disciples asked him about this parable. — When he entered a house. St. Mark alone has preserved this detail; however, he omits an interesting dialogue which, according to the first Evangelist, Matthew 15:12-14, took place between Jesus and his followers immediately after they had separated from the crowd. His disciples questioned him. According to Matthew 15:15, it was Saint Peter who addressed this request to Our Lord in the name of the apostolic college. Here, as on other similar occasions (see the note on Mark 6:50), the Prince of the Apostles modestly omitted his name from the accounts he gave of the Life of Jesus to the Romans and to Saint Mark himself. But Saint Matthew, an eyewitness, took care to note it. Parable. The word parable is used in a broad sense, to designate, according to the definition given in this place by Theophylact, an obscure and enigmatic saying, such as was the saying in v. 15. Kindness with which Jesus had once deigned to explain to his disciples the parables of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Mark 4:10 ff.) rightly gives them hope that he will again come, in the present case, to the aid of their understanding.
Mc7.18 He said to them, «Are you so dull? Do you not understand that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?”, 19 Because it does not enter his heart, but goes to his stomach and is expelled to the secret place, thus purifying all food? — The divine Master's response begins with a reproach we have already encountered in similar circumstances. Cf. Mark 4:13. You too. Even you. You, who should have easily understood what concerns the inner man. — Jesus, then returning to his aphorism, considers its two parts separately and explains its most difficult expressions. First part, verses 18 and 19. How could food and drink, things entirely external to man, defile his soul, with which they have no connection? Nothing that penetrates. Eating and drinking are purely physical phenomena. Food enters the stomach, not the heart. There, it undergoes processes in which the moral man plays no part whatsoever. After its digestible parts have been absorbed, its coarsest elements are expelled by nature. Thus, the Savior continues, the remaining food is purified and can enter the human body without harm. Nutrition, therefore, is a physiological phenomenon, foreign to religion: one eats and digests; this has no bearing whatsoever on the spiritual part of man. — What astonishing simplicity of language! But at the same time, what clarity is shed on the question of purity and impurity. However, some have misused these words: "It is not what enters the body that defiles the soul," claiming that the Church had inappropriately forbidden the consumption of meat at certain times and prescribed fasts and specific abstinences at others. But she never issued these prohibitions believing these creatures to be evil; she forbade them in order to instill in her children the virtues of penance and mortification. She was firmly convinced that every creature of God is good in itself, and that one can use them with thanksgiving. (Cf. 1 Timothy 4:4). However, as soon as a legitimate authority forbade their use, the thing became forbidden: the disobedience and intemperance of those who use them against the laws defile their souls and render them guilty in the eyes of the Creator and of Jesus Christ, head of the Church. From this perspective, the Protestant Stier is right to say that "what one eats or drinks is not a completely indifferent thing, for this too comes from the heart and acts in the heart.".
Mc7.20 But he added, what comes out of a man is what defiles him. — Jesus develops the second half of his aphorism in verses 20-24. Cf. verse 15.
Mc7. 21 For it is from within, from the hearts of men, that evil thoughts, adultery, fornication, and murder come., 22 theft, avarice, wickedness, fraud, debauchery, envy, slander, pride, madness. — Because it comes from within, from the heart…A pleonasm, to better highlight the opposition between the two parts of the aphorism commented on by Jesus. The heart is therefore truly the laboratory where all that is good and bad in man, considered as a moral being, is prepared. This is what the Egyptians ingeniously expressed in their funerary frescoes. Men, judged by Osiris after their death, are represented there by the heart that once animated them, placed and weighed in a balance, as the source of their merits and demerits. — The ancient mystics and exegetes based profound reflection on these words of the Savior. In practical life, they said, we forget that we carry within ourselves the seed of all crimes: we too often blame our temptations on the devil, not enough on our own hearts. «This serves as an answer to those who think that evil thoughts come from the devil and not from their own will.» The devil can help and encourage evil thoughts, but he cannot be their author.” Bede. — In the enumeration of St. Mark, which is more complete than that of St. Matthew, the Savior points out thirteen particular forms of evil, as having their source in the heart of man: the first seven are named in the plural and designate acts, the other six are named in the singular (in the Greek text) and seem to represent primarily dispositions. There is no strictly systematic order in this nomenclature. Avarice. The Greek expression has a broader meaning. It indicates all the means by which man attracts creatures to himself, at the expense of the worship he owes to God. The evil eye. The evil eye, עין רע, is well known throughout the East, and even in Western Europe where its effects are greatly feared. Cf. Proverbs 23:6; 28:22; Matthew 20:45. Here it represents envy. Madness, the opposite of wisdom. The reason madness is placed last is that it renders all things incurable.
Mc7.23 All these evil things come from within and defile a person.» After this enumeration, Jesus repeats the same thought in a general form: «All the evils I have just mentioned obviously come from within a person; obviously, they also defile a person.» Consequently, the truth he wanted to demonstrate is now rigorously proven. The lesson that emerges from this entire passage is quite clear. Human nature is fundamentally depraved. From this deleterious source spring countless sins; therefore, it is the inner person that must be regenerated. Purely external practices, such as the ablutions to which the Pharisees attached so much importance, are entirely insufficient to achieve this result.
Mark 7:24-30. Parallel. Matt. 15, 21-28.
St. Matthew's account is a little more complete: nevertheless, we find in St. Mark's some of those characteristic brushstrokes to which he has long accustomed us.
Mc7.24 He then left that place and went to the territories of Tyre and Sidon. And having entered a house, he wished that no one would know, but he could not remain hidden. — He then left. Literally, a Hebraism equivalent to "rising from there." The word "rising" is placed six hundred times before the words "go" and "depart." This prompt departure of Our Lord is not, strictly speaking, a flight from adversaries whom he knows he has exasperated (cf. Matthew 15:42), for his great heart did not fear men; it is, however, a wise retreat, which he will use to complete the instruction of his Apostles. He does not wish to hasten the hour that divine Providence has fixed for his Passion and death. of Tyre and Sidon. First, the Savior did not cross the boundaries of the territory of these two cities. See the Gospel according to St. Matthew, 15:21. The house in which he settled seems to have been built not far from the border. Tyre and Sidon, these ancient rival cities, famous for their misfortunes as much as for their glory, enjoyed a certain splendor at that time. Their population was overwhelmingly pagan. He wanted no one to know. is a literal translation from the Greek; the phrase can mean either: He wanted to know no one, or: He wanted to be recognized by no one. The context shows that the first of these two meanings should be adopted. Jesus' intention was therefore, as they say, to remain incognito; nevertheless, he could not remain hidden, like a fragrance that soon betrays its presence. These last words prove that the Savior's will was not absolute in this circumstance. It amounts to saying that he acted like a traveler seeking to avoid publicity. — The details contained in the second half of this verse are specific to St. Mark.
Mc7.25 For no sooner had a woman, whose little girl was possessed by an unclean spirit, heard of him than she came and threw herself at his feet. — The evangelist moves on to a specific event, intended to demonstrate the accuracy of his previous assertion: "he could not remain hidden." Having heard about him As soon as this woman learned of Jesus' presence in the area, the news of the Savior's miracles had long been spreading in Phoenicia. (See Mark 3:8; Luke 6:17.) she came and threw herself at his feet… A picturesque description of all the steps taken by this poor mother.
Mc7.26 This woman was a pagan, of Syro-Phoenician nationality; she begged him to drive the demon out of her daughter. — pagan. The equivalent of "pagan" in the original text is Ἑλληνίς, "Greek." And yet the rest of the verse proves that the supplicant was by no means of Greek origin. But it must be remembered that, for the Jews, the word Ἑλλην was used to designate all pagans, without distinction of nationality. The name Frank had a similar fate in modern Palestine: after initially representing only the French, it later became synonymous with Westerner in general. Syro-Phoenician nation. Pagan from a religious standpoint, the woman we saw prostrate herself at Jesus' feet was of Canaanite origin: this is indeed the meaning of Συροφοίνισσα (some ancient manuscripts read Συραφοινίκισσα and Συροφοινίκισσα). Cf. Matthew 15:22: "a Canaanite woman." But St. Mark's expression is more perfectly accurate. Although the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon belonged to the larger Canaanite family (see Genesis 10:15-19), their true name was nonetheless "Phoenicians." Now, in Jesus' time, Phoenicia was an integral part of the Roman province of Syria: hence the two words combined, Syro-Phoenicians, to distinguish its inhabitants from the Carthaginians, who were sometimes called Λιϐυφοίνικες, Phoenicians of Africa. St. Matthew used the expression more commonly used among the Jews, while St. Mark used the Greco-Roman name [Cf. Juvenal, Satires, 8, 159 and 160]. And she prayed to him… St. Matthew preserved the very words of this urgent plea: «Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is terribly tormented by a demon.» He then notes, in Matthew 15:23-25, various incidents that our Evangelist omitted in order to get straight to the heart of the episode.
Mc7.27 He said to him, «Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.» — In his reply, Jesus uses stern language in order to test the Canaanite woman's faith. Let the children eat their fill first.. We read these words only in the Gospel of Mark. They express an important idea: the right of the Jews, children of God more than any other people, to receive the blessings that accompany the Gospel before the Gentiles. See our commentary on Matthew 1:22-23. Nevertheless, by "first," the Savior delicately indicated that the Gentiles would soon have their turn [Cf. Theophylact and Bede the Venerable, h. l.]. His refusal to grant the supplicant's prayer was thereby somewhat softened. For it is not good to take the children's bread…A truth all the more evident since Jesus was speaking to a mother. Would the Canaanite woman ever have consented to deprive her daughter of food to feed the dogs at her expense? The comparison contained in the words children And dogs (from the Greek: little dogs) serves to better express the distance that separated the Jews from the pagans in terms of divine blessings. Moreover, "it is to demonstrate the constant faith of this woman that the Lord delays and does not answer her immediately. He also wants to teach us not to abandon our prayer at first, but to persist in obtaining it." Theophylact.
Mc7.28 »That’s true, Lord,” she replied, “but even little dogs eat children’s crumbs under the table.” — «Now, she bore it all without difficulty,» says St. John Chrysostom, “and, with a voice full of reverence, she only confirmed the Savior’s words. It is out of reverence for Jesus that she places herself in the company of dogs, as if she were saying: ‘I consider it a blessing even to be placed among the dogs, and to eat, not at a stranger’s table, but at my master’s table’” [Golden Chain, St. Thomas Aquinas, on Mark 7:28]. The small dogs eat under the table. A picturesque turn given to thought in the second Gospel. We read in St. Matthew: "Even the little dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Children's crumbs Another detail, no less dramatic, and specific to St. Mark, shows the children of the family crumbling some of their bread for the little dogs waiting for this good fortune under the table.
Mc7.29 Then he said to her, "Because of this statement, go, the demon has left your daughter."« 30 Having returned home, she found her daughter lying on her bed; the demon had left her. — Because of this faith-filled reflection, of’humility In his wisdom, Jesus consented to cross the boundaries he had set for himself regarding the Gentiles, and he immediately granted the supplicant the miracle she implored from his Goodness. For a few moments, he had shown her, as Joseph had once shown his brothers, a stern face; but, like Joseph, he could not maintain this expression for long. What joy filled the heart of this grieving mother when she heard the Savior's promise: "The demon has left your daughter." What even greater joy when she found the sick girl healed! St. Mark's description of the young girl lying on the bed is entirely vivid: the girl who, before, had been constantly tormented by convulsions caused by the evil spirit, is now peacefully lying on her bed and enjoying a restful rest. — This was the third of the healings performed remotely by Our Lord: the other two had been accomplished for the son of a royal steward, John 4:45, and for the servant of a centurion, Luke 7:6. The demon had left. Here, the description represents things as the mother found them upon her return; there, it follows the actual order of events. — See, in the Clementine Homilies, 2, 19, various legends relating to the subsequent life of the Canaanite woman.
Mc7.31 Leaving the country of Tyre, Jesus returned via Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the center of the Decapolis. — Leaving again. This verse briefly describes one of the most significant journeys of Our Lord Jesus Christ. While St. Matthew speaks of it only in very vague terms, "Leaving there, Jesus came to the Sea of Galilee," Matthew 15:29, St. Mark's note very clearly indicates the route taken by Jesus. The borders of Tyre That was the starting point. The words by Sidon designates the first part of the journey. After having, in all likelihood, crossed the Jewish border and traversed part of the territory of Tyre, the Savior headed straight north, towards Sidon. It is unlikely that Jesus entered this pagan city: therefore, the phrase "through Sidon" should not be taken too literally. It could very well mean: Through the land that depended on Sidon. Crossing the middle of the Decapolis. Since the Decapolis was located east of the Jordan River (cf. Matthew 4:24), to reach the Sea of Galilee through its territory, when one was near Sidon, one had no choice but to take several routes. One had to head first eastward through the mountain range of Lebanon southern, crossing the deep gorge of Coele-Syria or Syria hollow, and arrive in the Anti-Lebanon Mountains near the sources of the Jordan River. From there, they were to travel directly south, passing through Caesarea Philippi and Bethsaida Julia. The journey probably lasted several weeks. In these solitary regions, Jesus and his disciples were able to enjoy the peace and quiet they had sought in vain some time before. Cf. Mark 6:31 ff.
Mc7.32 There, they brought a deaf-mute man to him and asked him to lay hands on him. — On the eastern shore of the lake (cf. Matthew 15:29-39 and the commentary), the Savior performed many miracles: «Great crowds came to him, bringing with them the mute, the blind, the lame, the crippled, and many others who were sick, and they threw them at his feet, and he healed them.» Instead of noting all these miraculous healings, St. Mark chose to highlight just one, which was particularly noteworthy. This account, which is his own (vv. 32-37), abounds in dramatic details. A deaf and mute man. The Recepta states: a deaf man speaking with difficulty, from which Vatable, Calmet, Maldonat, M. Schegg, etc., conclude, and this seems quite rightly, that the disabled man was neither deaf from birth nor completely mute, but that he had lost his hearing early on, as a result of some accident, and to a large extent, his speech. Cf. v. 35. The Peschito calls him a קאפא, "someone who speaks with difficulty, obscurely." We must say, however, that the Septuagint translates at least once (Isaiah 35:5) the Hebrew אים, "mute," as μογίλαλος, "who speaks with difficulty." Nothing proves that the sick man was possessed by a demon, as Theophylact and Euthymius conjectured. He was begged. The Greek verb is in the present tense. This is one of the rare instances where the Gospel shows us friends interceding for their friends with the divine Master. Cf. Mark 11:3-5; 8:22-26. To lay hands on him. «They asked Christ to lay his hands on them, either because they knew he had healed many other sick people by the laying on of hands, or because it was the custom of the prophets and saints of the past to heal by the laying on of hands.» Maldonat. It was an indirect, but obvious, request for healing.
Mc7.33 Jesus, pulling him aside from the crowd, put his fingers in his ears and spit on his tongue, — Jesus having taken him aside. Why did Jesus, before healing this unfortunate man, take him away from the crowd to lead him aside? Many have tried to justify this act with a hundred different reasons. We believe that the Savior simply intended to awaken the faith of the disabled man, according to his custom, and, on the other hand, to avoid the enthusiasm of the multitude. He rarely performed his miracles before the eyes of the masses. — But the other circumstances that accompanied this healing are even more extraordinary. After isolating the deaf-mute, he He put his fingers in her ears, That is to say, he put the index finger of his right hand in his left ear, the index finger of his left hand in his right ear; then, he touched his tongue with his saliva, That is to say, having moistened his finger with a little saliva, he touched the tongue of the disabled person. These were obviously symbolic gestures. «And because the deaf seemed to have their ears blocked by something, he put his finger in the ears of a deaf person, as if he wanted to pierce closed and obstructed ears. And because those who are mute seem to have their tongues bound and dried out, or stuck to the palate, and that is why they cannot speak, as the Prophet says: my tongue sticks to my throat (Psalm 21:15)…he sends saliva into the mouth of the mute person, as if to moisten their tongue» [Juan Maldonat. Cf. Cornelius a Lapide, Jansenius, Fr. Luc.]. It is on the sense of hearing that the Savior acts first, for deafness was, as in all such cases, the principal affliction. The disabled man spoke indistinctly only because he could not hear. But why does Jesus perform so many ceremonies, instead of effecting healing with a simple word, as was most often the case? That is his secret. We can nevertheless say again with the wise Maldonatus, from whom we like to borrow: «It seems that Christ did not always wish to declare his divinity and power in the same way, because he judged that it was not always appropriate, even if the reason eludes us. Sometimes, with a single word, he casts out demons, raises the dead, showing that he is God.» But, on other occasions, it is with touch, saliva or mud that he heals the sick, adapting his power to the way natural causes act, to the senses and to custom.
Mc7.34 Then, raising his eyes to heaven, he sighed and said to her, "Ephphatha," meaning, open up. — Looking up at the sky. St. Mark omitted no detail: he recreates the scene before our eyes. — With what spontaneity Jesus' gaze must have turned toward heaven! Cf. John 17:1. But this gesture was especially familiar to the divine Master when he was about to perform some great miracle. Cf. Matthew 14:19 and parallels; John 10:41, 42. He thus showed that intimate ties united him to the heavenly Father. It was a silent, but urgent prayer from our Mediator. He sighed. This groan expressed, according to the beautiful thought of Victor of Antioch [John Anthony Cramer, Catenæ Græcorum Patrum in Novum Testamentum, h. l.], the feeling of profound pity that aroused in the heart of Jesus at the sight of the deep misery that the envy of the devil and the sin of our first parents had brought upon fallen humanity. The poor deaf-mute was indeed a living example of all the physical and moral infirmities to which humankind is subject on this earth. Effata. We have already seen, in verse 14, our Evangelist quoting the words of the Savior in Aramaic. This is one of the distinctive features of his vivid and graphic narrative. Cf. Mark 12:3. — The translation added for non-Jewish readers of the Gospel, open up, is quite literal. — When the Catholic priest confers solemn baptism, he addresses these same words to the catechumen, whose nostrils and ears he moistens with a little saliva. This twofold borrowing from the Savior's conduct aims to indicate that before the regeneration effected by the sacrament of baptism, man is deaf and mute with respect to matters of faith. Hence this address of Saint Ambrose to the newly baptized: «Open your ears, then, and breathe in the sweet fragrance of eternal life that emanates from the gift of the sacraments, which we will communicate to you when, celebrating the mystery of the opening, we say epheta, which means 'be opened'» [Saint Ambrose of Milan, De Mysteriis, 1.].
Mc7. 35 And immediately the man's ears opened, his tongue loosened, and he spoke distinctly. — And immediately. Jesus' words had an immediate effect. Ears were opened, St. Mark recounts in his vivid style, the bond that had hitherto held the tongue captive was broken in the blink of an eye, and the mute of a moment ago spoke perfectly. "The Creator of nature had provided what nature lacked." Victor of Antioch. — Words he spoke distinctly, The exegetes whose names we cited above (see the note on verse 32) rightly conclude that the disabled man was neither deaf nor mute from birth. «For no one can speak like that, even after every obstacle has been removed from their tongue, for a person cannot speak what they have not learned.» (Luke of Bruges). Although all things were possible for Jesus, we have no particular reason to suppose that, by some new miracle, he suddenly imparted to the deaf-mute the knowledge of the Aramaic language.
Mc7.36 Jesus forbade them to tell anyone. But the more he forbade them, the more they proclaimed it., — He forbade them…This plural pronoun refers to all the witnesses to the miracle, therefore the disabled man, his friends who had led him to Jesus, and the disciples. Prohibitions of this kind were almost always violated; moreover, those concerned, carried away by enthusiasm and gratitude, hardly felt bound by secrecy. In this instance, as in many others, the opposite of what the Savior had prescribed occurred. The Evangelist uses both forceful and colloquial language to express this fact: The more he forbade it to them, the more they talked about it., This is particularly noteworthy.
Mc7.37 And filled with boundless admiration, they said, "Everything he has done is marvelous. He makes the deaf hear and the mute speak."« — And filled with admiration. All those who heard the account of this miraculous cure were filled with the most profound admiration. — Surprise elicited a touching exclamation from the crowds, He did everything right., which contains «a beautiful defense of the Savior against the accusations and murmurings of the Pharisees, a praise properly befitting God alone.» Calmet. «The works of the Lord are all very good,» Ecclesiasticus 39:16; «And God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good,» Genesis 1:31, it is said of God the Creator. — The words He made the deaf hear and the mute speak. are a reminiscence of the famous prophecy of Isaiah, Isaiah 35, 5-6, whose perfect fulfillment they sing: "Then (in the time of the Messiah) the eyes of the blind will be opened and the ears of the deaf will be unstopped... and the tongues of the mute will be loosed.".
