Paul Congdon
Dr. Adam Miglio
New Testament Archeology
DATE
Mark 7:1-24 Exegesis
Following is a commentary on the Mark 7:1-24 account, addressing the content of the passage through two lenses: historical/archeological and literary. Through these two lenses, the original intent of the account can be understood.
Jews did not all adhere to the same purity principles. Jewish law, while quite detailed in some areas, leaves some room for interpretation in others. Gradually, religious leaders developed more specific regulations to clarify the original law in those instances. In the text, these pseudo laws are referred to as the “traditions of the elders” (v. 7). As time passed, the line between tradition and law was blurred, causing many to unknowingly …show more content…
5) to mere "human precepts" (v. 7) that misinterpret “the commandment of God” (v. 8). As a brief aside, Jesus refers to the Pharisees and scribes as “hypocrites”, a term used for actors performing in one of the numerous Greek theatres found in nearly all Greco-Roman cities at the time (v. 7). Actors were pretenders, people who seemed to be someone other than who they actually were. Jesus’s use of the term carried a very specific message. To continue, having studied the law, the Pharisees and scribe’s interest in Jesus, which may have lead them to follow him to Galilee and ask pestering questions, would have been confirmed by His impressive knowledge of the Old Testament and the authority with which He spoke. Back to His comment regarding Isaiah 29:13, Jesus is not denying the validity of either the Mosaic law in general or its individual commandments. Jesus’ disagreement with the Pharisees and scribes pertains to traditions that had been established around the law, not with the law itself. As mentioned above, these traditions were developed as an attempt by early Jewish teachers to outline specific applications of the law in situations not addressed in the Old Testament; truly an honorable attempt to actively live as the people God, people of the law. The problem came when they began to associate these traditions with the law itself. What Jesus is saying is that certain interpretations of Old Testament Law, which have yielded certain practices, have diverged from, or obscured the intent of laws meant to preserve purity and, perhaps more importantly, express love to God. Despite the sweeping nature of the first part of verse 15, "there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile," it is not likely that Jesus was omitting dietary laws and other Jewish traditions. Jesus Himself, on many occasions, is recorded participating in various Jewish
Dr. Adam Miglio
New Testament Archeology
DATE
Mark 7:1-24 Exegesis
Following is a commentary on the Mark 7:1-24 account, addressing the content of the passage through two lenses: historical/archeological and literary. Through these two lenses, the original intent of the account can be understood.
Jews did not all adhere to the same purity principles. Jewish law, while quite detailed in some areas, leaves some room for interpretation in others. Gradually, religious leaders developed more specific regulations to clarify the original law in those instances. In the text, these pseudo laws are referred to as the “traditions of the elders” (v. 7). As time passed, the line between tradition and law was blurred, causing many to unknowingly …show more content…
5) to mere "human precepts" (v. 7) that misinterpret “the commandment of God” (v. 8). As a brief aside, Jesus refers to the Pharisees and scribes as “hypocrites”, a term used for actors performing in one of the numerous Greek theatres found in nearly all Greco-Roman cities at the time (v. 7). Actors were pretenders, people who seemed to be someone other than who they actually were. Jesus’s use of the term carried a very specific message. To continue, having studied the law, the Pharisees and scribe’s interest in Jesus, which may have lead them to follow him to Galilee and ask pestering questions, would have been confirmed by His impressive knowledge of the Old Testament and the authority with which He spoke. Back to His comment regarding Isaiah 29:13, Jesus is not denying the validity of either the Mosaic law in general or its individual commandments. Jesus’ disagreement with the Pharisees and scribes pertains to traditions that had been established around the law, not with the law itself. As mentioned above, these traditions were developed as an attempt by early Jewish teachers to outline specific applications of the law in situations not addressed in the Old Testament; truly an honorable attempt to actively live as the people God, people of the law. The problem came when they began to associate these traditions with the law itself. What Jesus is saying is that certain interpretations of Old Testament Law, which have yielded certain practices, have diverged from, or obscured the intent of laws meant to preserve purity and, perhaps more importantly, express love to God. Despite the sweeping nature of the first part of verse 15, "there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile," it is not likely that Jesus was omitting dietary laws and other Jewish traditions. Jesus Himself, on many occasions, is recorded participating in various Jewish