Mark 7:1-13 meaning

The parallel gospel account for Mark 7:1-13 is found in Matthew 15:1-9.

In Mark 7:1-13, Jesus rebukes the Pharisees and scribes for elevating human traditions above the commandment of God, exposing their hypocrisy by citing their practice of nullifying God’s word through man—made rules such as declaring possessions “Corban.”

Mark resumes his account of Jesus’s ministry, with a confrontation between Jesus and the religious leaders.

The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem (v 1).

Mark notes that at least some of the Pharisees and the scribes who gathered around Jesus were not from the local area—most likely the district of Galilee. They had come from Jerusalem, around 80 miles south of Galilee to confront Him.

These appear to have been more experienced leaders, possibly called in after the local Pharisees’ earlier encounter with Jesus in Mark 2 ended in failure.

The Pharisees, as religious teachers and cultural guardians, were joined by scribes—legal experts—who also came from Jerusalem to challenge Jesus. Given that they were from Jerusalem, these men were either members of the Sanhedrin Council, the highest Jewish court, or they were commissioned by it. Their presence was evidence that Jesus had attracted the (negative) attention of the national leadership of the Jews.

These Pharisees and scribes came with the intent to publicly entrap and frame Jesus as a violator of their religious laws. These religious experts watched Jesus and His disciples carefully to see which of their religious laws they might break, and then accuse, condemn, and shame Him in front of the people.

Mark tells us what they observed:

and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed (v 2).

The Pharisees and scribes did not see Jesus eat bread with unwashed and impure hands in violation of their religious code. But they had seen that some of His disciples were eating with impure and unwashed hands.

Jews would have instantly understood that eating with unwashed hands was a violation of religious law. But Romans would not necessarily understand this religious faux pas so readily.

Therefore, Mark, who was writing this gospel to a Roman audience, took a moment to break from his narration to parenthetically explain this Jewish religious rule to his readers, so that they could better understand why eating with unwashed hands was a sensitive religious matter.

(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots) (vv 3-4).

Mark explains that the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat anything until they have carefully washed their hands. Mark specifies that this religious rule of carefully washing hands before eating came from the traditions of the elders.

The tradition of the elders was the oral law that was developed, multiplied, and enforced by the Pharisees upon the people. The Jewish name for the tradition of the elders is “the Mishnah.” This massive oral tradition was the elders’ interpretation of the written Law handed down from God through Moses.

The Mishnah would take a Mosaic Law about something and then add dozens, sometimes hundreds, of additional laws surrounding it. The traditions of the elders grew exponentially after Judah’s return from Babylonian exile. Its original purpose was to create a safeguard around God’s law to prevent future disobedience and exile—essentially, “Let’s make sure we don’t even come close to breaking God’s law.”

Over time, however, these man—made traditions became more revered by the Pharisees and scribes than the commandments themselves. What began as a protective measure eventually took precedence over the very people and principles it was supposed to serve, becoming an institution concerned primarily with preserving its own authority.

The functional result of the tradition of the elders was not righteousness but limitless legalism.

The Pharisees and scribes’ manufacturing of these religious rules stretched further and further so that their rules hardly resembled the Mosaic Law. And as Jesus will point out in verses 8 and 13, some of their man—made rules served to invalidate the word of God.

By Jesus’s day, the Mishnah was used to oppress the common people (who could not keep the tens of thousands of religious rules), and to elevate the superiority of the Pharisees and scribes who would hypocritically find loopholes for their violations.

Jesus had harsh criticisms of the Pharisees and scribes for their religious abuse of the people—see Matthew 23.

One of the Mishnah’s most egregious stretches of the Mosaic commandments involved the religious rules for washing of hands before meals.

The Law of Moses never commanded the people to wash their hands before eating.

• The Law of Moses did command the priests to wash their hands and feet before entering the tabernacle, and before performing a sacrifice on the altar or burning incense to the LORD.
  (Exodus 20:20-21)

• The Law of Moses also stipulated that anyone who came into contact with a person who was bleeding or who handled bloody clothes was to be considered unclean until evening and they had washed their hands.
  (Leviticus 15:7-12)

• The washing of hands was also commanded through Moses as a ritual cleansing for city leaders when concluding a homicide case.
  (Deuteronomy 21:6)

None of these instructions (or any others in the Mosaic Law) command people to wash their hands before eating food. But over time, Mishnah and the tradition of the elders began to add to these hand—washing rules. And the Pharisees and scribes elevated their additional rules and their enforcement of them to the extreme.

For instance, the Greek word that is translated as carefully in verse 3 means “up to the elbow.”

Mark also points out that whenever the Pharisees and scribes come from the market place they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves. In other words, the Pharisees and scribes wash their hands many times a day. Every time they go out in public they cleanse and scrub themselves down to the elbows before they will take a bite.

Mark adds that the carefully washing of hands is not the only ordinance they follow.

And there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.

Jesus also referenced the scribes and Pharisees’ religious rules about washing cups and dishes when He pointed out their self—righteous hypocrisy:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self—indulgence. You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.”
(Matthew 23:25-26)

Jesus perfectly followed God’s Law (Matthew 5:17). But Jesus did not care if He violated the traditions of the elders—especially when its rules went against the spirit or letter of God’s Law.

The Pharisees and scribes opposed Jesus not because He broke the Law of Moses. They opposed Him and killed Him because He broke their rules and exposed their corruption and hypocrisy.

After the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem who came to entrap Jesus had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with unwashed hands, which rendered them impure according to the traditions of the elders, they questioned Jesus about this violation.

They were trying to frame Jesus.

The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, ‘Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?’” (v 5).

They cited how Jesus’s disciples ate bread with impure hands. This citation was actually an accusation against Jesus.

They were blaming Jesus for permitting His disciples to break religious laws.

Their framing presumed that eating food with unwashed and therefore impure hands was nothing a righteous Rabbi would permit His disciples to do. And because His disciples did not walk or act in compliance with this particular tradition of the elders, Jesus was an unworthy Rabbi.

Their question was a trap. It was crafted to presume guilt—designed to create the appearance of wrongdoing. Had Jesus answered it directly, He would have been conceding that His disciples had violated tradition and He would have acknowledged the Pharisees and scribes’ moral authority over Him. These things were exactly what the Pharisees and scribes were hoping to establish.

And if established, Jesus would have been framed as a fraudulent Rabbi for permitting His disciples to violate their all—important religious traditions.

Instead, Jesus ignored their deceitful framework and responded with the truth of God’s word.

Jesus opened with a sharp rebuke:

And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites…” (v 6a).

The term hypocrites is from the Greek word for “actor.” It publicly exposed the Pharisees and scribes as pretenders and moral impostors. Jesus’s rebuke did several things at once.

First it claimed that the prophet Isaiah was against the Pharisees and scribes. Isaiah was an important prophet in Israel history. It was a more serious offense to be condemned by Isaiah’s writings than it was to be condemn by the traditions of the elders.

Second, Jesus was amazed at how spot—on Isaiah was about the Pharisees and scribes’ hypocrisy. He was marveling out loud at how uncanny Isaiah’s seven—hundred—year—old prophetic statement was.

Third, Jesus’s rebuke implied a situational irony. The unrighteous Pharisees and scribes were morally blind to the Law and Prophets and yet they vigorously enforced their manufactured legal code with self—righteous zeal.

In Matthew’s account, Jesus explained this situational irony to His disciples when He described the Pharisees as “blind guides of the blind” (Matthew 15:14).

Jesus then went on to quote Isaiah’s prophecy that described the Pharisees and scribes’ hypocrisy.

as it is written:
“This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” (v 6a—7).

Jesus was quoting Isaiah 29:13, which is from God’s perspective; God is lamenting how His people follow their own religious rules instead of following Him. The pronoun—Me—in this context is the LORD referring to Himself.

According to Jesus’s application of Isaiah 29:13, the expression—this people—refers to the Pharisees and scribes.

The phrase honor Me with their lips means they speak as if they truly love and honor God, but in reality their heart is far away from God. Their love for God is mere lip service. They do not love Him sincerely from the heart. Their religious observance is only superficial. Instead, their hearts are distant from God, focused instead on human approval and worldly power.

Legalism imitates authentic acts of faith. But legalism is man—made rules far from God. And as legalists, they teach the precepts and opinions of men as if they were doctrines from God.

 Jesus finishes Isaiah's quote as saying:

“But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” (v 7).

To grasp the full meaning of Jesus's statement against the Pharisees' vain worship, it could be helpful to look at the Greek meaning for the term translated as worship. Vain of course means "empty", "hollow" and/or "worthless". In a modern American context, worship is usually understood as singing songs to God as in "praise and worship". This understanding of worship is limited to music and singing. But this is not what Jesus is talking about. He is not chastising the Pharisees for their singing. Jesus is rebuking them for what their hearts are devoted to.

The Greek word that is translated as worship in v 7 is a form of the Greek verb: σέβω (G4576 — pronounced: "seb—ō"). It means to revere, be dedicated, be devoted, or to worship. In Acts 13:43 and Acts 1:4 this same term is translated as "God—fearing" and in Acts 13:50 as "devout".

So when Jesus quotes Isaiah, He is saying that their devotion, their actions do not line up with what they say. In other words, when Jesus applies Isaiah's prophecy:  But in vain do they worship Me — He was telling the Pharisees that all their devotion, all their religion all their professions of love for God all their worship is all empty words and vain actions. 

And the reason the Pharisees' worship was vain was because they were teaching precepts of men as doctrines of God.  In other words they were elevating their rules and tradition above God.

After He quoted Isaiah, Jesus stated one of His core issues against the scribes and Pharisees:

“Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men” (v 8).

As mentioned earlier, the Pharisees wrongly behaved as if their traditions and rules were more important that God’s divine Law. The result of this behavior was that they neglected the commandment of God (which was of utmost importance) so that they could keep and hold to their own rules (which were irrelevant compared to God’s).

Jesus elaborated on how the Pharisees and scribes neglected God’s commandment for the sake of their tradition and reframed the issue of disobedience.

He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.” (v 9)

Recall how when the scribes and Pharisees initially questioned Jesus, they asked Him why His disciples neglected the tradition of the elders. Jesus swatted away their evil framing designed to humiliate and put Him down and instead He used the truth to turn their trap upon themselves.

Jesus turned the tables by accusing them—not of breaking human tradition, but of violating God's command.

Jesus responded directly and forcefully and reframed the entire set up. In doing so, He not only dismisses their charge but exposes their tradition as a tool used to justify disobedience to God’s word.

Jesus then explained to them—and to everyone listening—one way in which they were using their tradition to set aside the commandment of God.

Jesus did so by showing how they used their Mishnah tradition to nullify one of the Ten Commandments. This was a powerful example because the Jews believed the Ten Commandments were among the most sacred Laws, given by God Himself to Moses on Mount Sinai.

First, Jesus cited a commandment of God which the Pharisees and scribes flaunted with their tradition. He cited the fifth commandment and a follow up to it.

For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’ (v 10).

The commandment is: Honor your father and your mother (Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16). Jesus followed up this commandment by quoting the Law to emphasize its importance when He said: “He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death" (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9).

Despite this importance of God’s commandment, the Pharisees and scribes excused their violations by citing their own man—made precepts.

Then Jesus made His charge: “But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that” (vv 11-13).

One of the ways the elderly and infirm were provided for in the Jewish society was by their grown children. These provisions cost time and money.

But the religious leaders, who should have been setting an example for the people of honoring their father and mother in this way, used their tradition to create loopholes around it.

According to their tradition, they could claim that their property was “Corban,” which as Mark helpfully explains means: given to God. If a person declared their property Corban that meant they could only use it for themself or God. They could not give or donate anything that was called Corban to another person.

Thus, the religious leaders would declare their property Corban as a way of keeping money to spend on themselves and avoiding the financial responsibility of taking care of and honoring their father or mother.

Legally, because they called their property Corban whenever their parents asked for or needed help, they could say something like: “Sorry, Father and Mother, I have nothing left to give to support you, because I’ve already devoted it as a righteous offering according to the tradition of the elders.”

This tradition also allowed people to say, “The resources I could have used to help my parents were instead given to the synagogue.”

Even though Jesus does not say so explicitly, this arrangement ultimately benefitted the elders themselves.

Jesus is accusing the Pharisees and Scribes of using their Mishnah rules to teach and endorse the idea that such a dishonorable son is justified in disregarding God’s commandment to honor his father and mother. They had created a loophole that allowed people to disobey God's Law to uphold their manmade tradition.

Jesus completely dismantled the Pharisees’ trap and turned their accusation back on them.

Instead of defending His disciples, He issued a far more serious charge: that the Pharisees and scribes regularly violated the commandment to honor their father and mother. They did so by using their tradition of giving money to the synagogue as an excuse to withhold support from their parents in their time of need.

Jesus made His point forcefully, and in front of a public audience. Mark does not record any response from the Pharisees, suggesting they may have simply walked away defeated, humiliated, and resentful. In time, they would seek to have Jesus crucified for breaking their human precepts and for exposing their hypocrisy.