Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 7:2
And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
2. with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands ] Thus St Mark explains for his Roman readers, and then proceeds more fully to set forth certain Jewish usages. The Pharisees had probably crept in secretly into some of the social gatherings of the disciples.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 2. They found fault.] This is wanting in ABEHLV, nineteen others, and several versions: Mill and Bengel approve the omission, and Griesbach rejects the word. If the 3d and 4th verses be read in a parenthesis, the 2d and 5th verses will appear to be properly connected, without the above clause.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And when they saw some of his disciples,…. An opportunity soon offered of giving them an handle against him: for observing some of his disciples to sit down to meat, they took notice that they
eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with unwashen) hands, and
they found fault; with them, and charged them with the breach of the traditions of the elders, and took an occasion from hence of quarrelling with Christ. The Jews use the same phrase the evangelist here does, and interpret it in just the same manner: so, speaking of things eaten, , “with defiled hands”; that is, says the commentator i, it is all one as if it was said, , “without washing of hands”; which was esteemed a very great crime, and especially if done in a contemptuous way: for they say k,
“he that despiseth washing of hands, shall be rooted out of the world; for in it is the secret of the decalogue:”
and particularly to eat with unwashed hands, was unpardonable in a disciple of a wise man; for they looked upon this to be the characteristic of one of the vulgar people, a common and illiterate man: for they ask l,
“who is one of the people of the earth, or a plebeian? he that does not eat his common food with purity.”
By this also they distinguished a Jew from a Gentile; if he washed his hands, and blessed, he was known to be an Israelite, but if not, a Gentile m; [See comments on Mt 15:2].
i Bartenora in Misn. Cholin, c. 2. sect. 5. k Zoharin Numb fol. 100. 3. l T. Bab. Gittin, fol. 61. 1. m Bevaidbar Rabba, fol. 228. 4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
With defiled, that is unwashen hands ( , ‘ ). Associative instrumental case. Originally meant what was common to everybody like the Koine Greek. But in later Greek it came also to mean as here what is vulgar or profane. So Peter in Ac 10:14 “common and unclean.” The next step was the ceremonially unclean. The emissaries of the Pharisees and the scribes from Jerusalem had seen “some of the disciples” eat without washing their hands, how many we are not told. Swete suggests that in going through the plain the disciples were seen eating some of the bread preserved in the twelve baskets the afternoon before across the lake. There was no particular opportunity to wash the hands, a very proper thing to do before eating for sanitary reasons. But the objection raised is on ceremonial, not sanitary, grounds.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Defiled [] . Lit., common; and so Rev. in margin, Wyc., and Tynd.
That is. Added by way of explanation to Gentile readers.
Oft [] . Rev., diligently. A word which has given critics much difficulty, and on which it is impossible to speak decisively. The Rev. gives in the margin the simplest meaning, the literal one, with the fist; that is, rubbing the uncleansed hand with the other doubled. This would be satisfactory if there were any evidence that such was the custom in washing; but there is none. Edersheim (” Life and Times of Jesus, “2, 11, note) says” the custom is not in accordance with Jewish law. “But he elsewhere says (” The Temple,” 206, note), “For when water was poured upon the hands they had to be lifted, yet so that the water should neither run up above the wrist, nor back again upon the hand; best, therefore, by doubling the fingers into a fist. Hence (as Lightfoot rightly remarks) Mr 7:3, should be translated except they wash their hands with the fist.” Tischendorf, in his eighth edition, retains an ancient reading, pukna, frequently or diligently, which may go to explain this translation in so man; y of the versions (Gothic, Vulgate, Syriac). Meyer, with his usual literalism gives with the fist, which I am inclined to adopt.
Holding [] . Strictly, holding, firmly or fast. So Heb 4:14; Rev 2:25; denoting obstinate adherence to the tradition.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
Comments.
1) “And when they saw some of His disciples,” (kai idontes tinas ton matheton autou) “And when they observed, or detected some of His disciples,” not all the disciples.
2) “Eat bread with defiled,” (hoti koinais cherasin esthiousin tous artous) “That they ate bread with unclean hands,” as they were eating bread with unwashed hands, in a common or profane way, Rom 14:14.
3) “That is to say, with unwashen hands,” (tout estin aniptois) “That is without first washing their hands,” ceremonially unclean. This did not mean that they did not wash their hands, but that they neglected to do it in the traditional Jewish ceremonial form, Mat 5:1-9.
4) “They found fault.” (added as interpolation) It was expected of the disciples of Jesus, as followers of Jesus, a religious teacher, that they would comply with the definitive ritual or ceremony of the Law of Moses, actually a tradition of the elders, Mar 7:7-9.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(2) With defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands.The first word means literally common. This came to be associated, as in Act. 10:14, with what was unclean, and so, for Jews at all events, the word acquired a new meaning. St. Marks Gentile readers, however, were not likely to understand what was meant by common hands, and therefore he adds his explanation of unwashed.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Unwashen hands This was not the matter of cleanliness, but of superstitious purity. The Jews of Palestine at the present day wash, indeed, after the meal, because they have handled meat with their fingers, but they wash not, either for cleanliness or superstition, before the meal. According to the Eastern custom, they sometimes think it polite, as Dr. Thomson remarks, to present to the mouth of their guests a piece of food in fingers too dirty to be agreeable to a European taste.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashed hands. For the Pharisees and all the Judaisers do not eat unless they ceremonially wash with the fist, holding the traditions of the elders. And when they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they douse (or ‘purify’) themselves. And there are many other things which they have received to hold, drenchings of cups and pots and brass vessels.’
The first thing that caught the attention of these ‘pious men’ was that some of Jesus’ disciples were not observing the correct ritual with regard to cleanliness of the hands. And because they considered that to lie at the heart of being righteous it offended them deeply. It made them ‘hot under the collar’. For someone who failed to fulfil the correct ritual would almost certainly end up ritually unclean.
The initial point to note here is that this criticism of ‘some of His disciples’ brings out that Jesus Himself did observe these religious requirements. He did not set at nought these people’s cherished beliefs. Nor were they directly accusing Him of such a failure. Outwardly they had no case against Him Himself, as they acknowledged.
But what did stir Him to the attack was the fact that these great men of the Law, who were responsible for the teaching of the Jews, were laying more store on their own ritual requirements than on what mattered far more, fairness, human sympathy and obedience to God’s word and certain other aspects of the Books of Moses, and were intent on making their own requirements the basis for any future kingdom.
And He was also well aware that they had not come to give guidance in a positive way, but in order to attack and undermine His ministry. They were not saying, ‘let us come together and discuss how best the Kingly Rule of God can be established’, but rather ‘you are guilty of going about it the wrong way and are therefore fit only to be condemned’.
‘With unwashed hands.’ This lay at the centre of the argument for it was not of course a question of whether to wash the hands before meals for hygienic purposes (although it undoubtedly aided hygiene), but rather was a question of ritual washing to remove ‘religious defilement’, that is, the contact with what was ritually doubtful and ceremonially unclean. Indeed they laid great stress on these requirements. But in fact this particular ritual washing described here was an addition to the Law, for it was nowhere commanded in the Old Testament.
So these men were not excited about this new interest in God which was being aroused, and the new sense of sin which was bringing men to repentance and morally and spiritually changing their lives, they were simply out to maintain the status quo, and were there to drag people back into a pool of ritualism.
Mark then briefly pointed out to his Gentile readers some of the other similar requirements of the Pharisees to do with the washing of pots and cooking and drinking vessels.
Of what then did such defilement consist? To the Pharisees all Gentiles were unclean for a start, for they did not observe any of the rules of ‘cleanness’ (Leviticus 11-15) and were not careful about contact with dead things. Furthermore anything touched by them also became unclean (hollow vessels only if touched on the inside). And what was true of Gentiles was also, although not to the same extent, true of ‘sinners’. A ‘sinner’ was someone who did not tithe rightly or follow the strict purification requirements of the Pharisees. While they may mainly observe the requirements of the Books of Moses, they did not do so in the terms laid down by the Pharisees. To come in contact with either of these two groups, Gentiles and ‘sinners’ was to be defiled. The Scribal views thus excluded them from close contact with the majority of people.
According to their ideas if a man went to the marketplace he may well accidentally be ‘contaminated’ by contact with such people (although he would make every effort to avoid them) and would therefore need to make himself clean in accordance with the teachings of the Pharisees. In order to do so he would need to follow out the procedures for ritual washing before he ate his meal. It was a world of religious isolation.
It should be carefully observed that this argument is not about the Levitical requirements with respect to cleanness. There anyone who touched a dead body became unclean, as did anyone who touched a woman after child birth or a skin-diseased person, or a woman during her period, or a leper, or an unclean animal. And anyone who touched anyone who had touched any of these was unclean, and so on. If such an unclean person had touched cups, or pots (measures) or brass vessels these utensils too might have become unclean depending on where they were touched by something or someone unclean. These too had to be specially cleansed. And of course, if there was any doubt at all about whether they were clean, they had to be cleansed. In some cases, such as contact with death, the cleansing took seven days, for others it only lasted until the evening, but this is not what the argument is about. Both sets of people conformed with these requirements. There was no dispute about that. It was the question of ritual washings of the hands and of cooking utensils that was in question here, and of whether this should be central to the teaching concerning the Kingly Rule of God.
The Pharisees believed that because of the possibility of unknown contamination by persons who were ritually unclean or by some other unclean source it was necessary to wash both before every meal and in between courses. And this involved a complicated process. The water for washing had to be taken from large stone jars which had been kept ‘clean’ so that the water itself was kept ‘clean’. Such water could be used for no other purpose. First all dirt had to be removed. Then the hands might be held with the fingers pointed upwards and water was poured over them, having to run down to at least the wrist. Then while the hands were wet each had to be cleansed, seemingly with ‘the fist’ of the other, probably by the joint action of rubbing the palm over the fist. But the water was now unclean so the hands were then held downwards and water poured over them again so that it began at the wrists and ran off the end of the fingers. That was one way of doing it.
Alternately this might all be done by dipping the hands up to the wrist in a vessel containing clean water, again apparently rubbing on ‘the fist’. Then the hands were clean.
And if you went on a journey you had to ensure that you had the means to do this. This was what the Pharisees required, and this was what these accused disciples had failed to do (the phrase ‘some of the disciples’ may not mean that the twelve were included. ‘Disciples’ can mean the twelve, but it can also include the wider group. It is not a strictly defined number).
‘By the fist.’ (pugme). Various alternative renderings are suggested, ‘up to the elbow’ – ‘diligently’ (so a Syriac version) – ‘often’ (pukna) as in some MSS, but rubbing the palm on the fist seems quite natural and we can therefore accept ‘by the fist’. The alternatives are clearly to avoid the difficulty when looking at it generally.
‘The Pharisees and the Judaisers.’ The Pharisees and ‘the Jews’, those who followed Pharisaic teaching on the matter and saw themselves as true Jews, and saw those who did not agree with them as not being true Jews. Any of the common people who did not do this were seen as ‘sinners’.
‘The traditions of the elders.’ These included past decisions of Scribes, some made long before the time of Christ, on the teaching in the first five books of the Bible (‘The Torah or Law’). These formed the oral law and had been remembered by rote and passed on, and were subsequently recorded (as considerably expanded later) in the Mishnah in the second century AD. They covered many aspects of life in great detail and had to be assiduously learned by the pious Jew to ensure he always did the ‘right’ thing. Not necessarily morally right as we shall see, but religiously right. There were over six hundred of these ‘instructions’.
But what began as a helpful interpretation of Scripture had slowly developed into a hotchpotch of regulations which so interpreted the Law as to make it seemingly attainable, although only with great effort, and crowded out consideration of more important matters. It was a manipulation of the Law so that they would be able to ‘keep the covenant’ faithfully, and establish their own righteousness to their own satisfaction.
Paul had been like this. He pointed out that he had striven to attain ‘the righteousness of the Law’ and had seen himself as almost there, as blameless (Php 3:6). And then he had come across the commandment, “You shall not covet” and had looked in his heart and had discovered that he was still guilty (Rom 7:7), and that all his carefully built up righteousness had come crashing down. He had recognised that all his careful observances of ritual law had not made his heart and will pure, and that all his efforts had been in vain.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
Ver. 2. With defiled ] Gr. with common hands, . Common and defiled is one and the same in Greek and other languages; to show that those that come to holy things with common affections and carriages, profane them.
They found fault ] . They mumped at it, as we say; they dispraised, accused, complained. Vituperant homines quam collaudant promptius, saith one: another being demanded, what was the easiest thing in the world? answered, to find fault with another. , saith a third; it is easier to find a fault, than to mend it.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2. . . . . ] See ch. Mar 2:16 . A mark of particularity.
. is supposed by some to be a gloss, explaining : but the explanation seems necessary to what follows, especially for Gentile readers.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mar 7:2 . : the sentence beginning with these words properly runs on to the end of Mar 7:5 , but the construction of so long a sentence overtaxes the grammatical skill of the writer, so it is broken off unfinished after the long explanatory clause about Jewish customs, Mar 7:3-4 a kind of parenthesis and a new sentence begun at Mar 7:5 = and seeing, etc. (for the Pharisees, etc.), and the Pharisees and scribes ask; instead of: they ask, etc. The sense plain enough, though grammar crude. . ., some of the disciples, not all. When? On their evangelistic tour? (Weiss; Holtz., H. C.) We have here, as in Mar 1:24 , a case of attraction = seeing some that they eat ( , W.H [60] ), for seeing that some eat ( .). , unwashed, added to explain for Gentile readers the technical term = profane ( cf. Rom 14:14 ).
[60] Westcott and Hort.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
saw. Greek. eidon, App-133.
defiled = not ceremonially cleansed.
that is to say. Explanation for Gentile readers.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
2. . . . .] See ch. Mar 2:16. A mark of particularity.
. is supposed by some to be a gloss, explaining : but the explanation seems necessary to what follows, especially for Gentile readers.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mar 7:2. , that is to say) The Evangelist adds an interpretation, as in Mar 7:11, ch. Mar 5:41, etc.; himself not regarding unwashed hands as defiled.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
defiled: or, common, Act 10:14, Act 10:15, Act 10:28
they found: Dan 6:4, Dan 6:5, Mat 7:3-5, Mat 23:23-25
Reciprocal: Lev 11:8 – they are unclean Job 17:9 – clean Job 31:14 – when he Isa 29:13 – their fear Mat 15:2 – transgress Mar 8:11 – Pharisees Luk 11:38 – he marvelled Joh 2:6 – after Joh 3:25 – about Act 11:8 – common
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
These people were always watching to find a cause of complaint. They thought they had found something when they saw the disciples eating without washing.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mar 7:2. When they saw, i.e., on some very recent occasion.
That some of his disciples ate their bread. This incident naturally brings to view the constant and intrusive surveillance to which our Lord and His disciples were subjected (J. A. Alexander).
Defiled, or common. Comp. Act 10:14-15.
That is unwashen hands. This explanation shows that the Gospel was written for Gentile readers.The clause: they found fault, is to be omitted, the construction is broken by the explanation of Mar 7:3-4.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 2
The washing here referred to was not a measure of cleanliness, but a ceremonial rite.
Mark 7:3,4. The occurrence of these and similar explanations of the customs of the Jews, confirms the opinion that Mark prepared his narrative at Rome, and for the use of Roman Christians,–The washing of cups, &c.; that is, as a ceremonial rite.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples {a} eat bread with {b} defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
(a) Literally, “eat bread”: an idiom which the Hebrews use, understanding bread to represent every type of food.
(b) For the Pharisees would not eat their food with unwashed hands, because they thought that their hands were defiled with the common handling of things; Mat 15:11-12 .