One Man's Web

Mark Chapter 7 - Defilement and Difference

Mark 7:1-23 - Pharisees and Defilement

¹And are gathered before him the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, ²and they saw that some of his disciples with defiled hands, that is, without washing them are eating the breads—³For the Pharisees, and all the Judeans, unless they in a particular way wash their hands, do not eat , thus holding the tradition of the elders; ⁴and coming back from the market if they do not wash (again) they do not eat,  and there are also many other things they received that they observe, the washings of cups, pots, and bronze kettles. ⁵So the Pharisees and the scribes are asking him, 'Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but with defiled hands eat the bread?' ⁶He said to them, 'Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it has been written,

"This people honours me with their lips,
    but their heart is far distant from me;
⁷in vain do they worship me,
    teaching [as God's] teachings the commands of humans."

⁸Having left the commandment of God, you hold to human tradition.'

⁹ And he was saying to them, 'How excellently you set aside the commandment of God that you might keep your tradition! ¹⁰For Moses said, "Honour your father and your mother"; and, "Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die." ¹¹But you say that if someone (says to) father or mother, "It is Corban"; that is, an offering [to God], whatever help you might have had from me, ¹²then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, ¹³thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.'

¹⁴Then having called the crowd again he was saying to them, 'Listen to me, all of you, and understand: ¹⁵there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile a person, but the things that come out of a human are what defile the person.''

¹⁷And when he went into the house from the crowd, his disciples were asking him about the parable. ¹⁸He says to them, 'So you also are without understanding? Do you not perceive that everything from outside that goes into a person cannot defile, ¹⁹since it enters, not into the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?' (Thus he declared all foods clean.)^{[i] 20}And he said, 'It is what comes out of a human that defiles. ²¹(From) within, from the heart of people, the evil deliberations go forth: sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, ²²adulteries, covetous desires, wickedness, deceit, indecency, an evil eye, slander, pride, foolishness. ²³All these evils come from within, and they defile a person.'

¹Καὶ συνάγονται πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καί τινες τῶν γραμματέων ἐλθόντες ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων. ²καὶ ἰδόντες τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ὅτι κοιναῖς χερσίν, τοῦτ' ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις, ἐσθίουσιν τοὺς ἄρτους ³οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ⁴καὶ ἀπ' ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων [καὶ κλινῶν] ⁵καὶ ἐπερωτῶσιν αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς· διὰ τί οὐ περιπατοῦσιν οἱ μαθηταί σου κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ἀλλὰ κοιναῖς χερσὶν ἐσθίουσιν τὸν ἄρτον;

⁶Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν Ἠσαΐας περὶ ὑμῶν τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, ὡς γέγραπται [ὅτι]

οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ,
ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ' ἐμοῦ·
⁷μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με

διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων.

⁸ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. ⁹καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· καλῶς ἀθετεῖτε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν στήσητε. ¹⁰Μωϋσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν· τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, καί· ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητέρα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω. ¹¹ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε· ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί· κορβᾶν, ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, ¹²οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, ¹³ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε· καὶ παρόμοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε.

¹⁴Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος πάλιν τὸν ὄχλον ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· ἀκούσατέ μου πάντες καὶ σύνετε. ¹⁵οὐδέν ἐστιν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὃ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενά ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον.

¹⁷Καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς οἶκον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου, ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν παραβολήν. ¹⁸καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι ¹⁹ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ' εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα; ²⁰ἔλεγεν δὲ ὅτι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενον, ἐκεῖνο κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. ²¹ἔσωθεν γὰρ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἱ διαλογισμοὶ οἱ κακοὶ ἐκπορεύονται, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, φόνοι, ²²μοιχεῖαι, πλεονεξίαι, πονηρίαι, δόλος, ἀσέλγεια, ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός, βλασφημία, ὑπερηφανία, ἀφροσύνη· ²³πάντα ταῦτα τὰ πονηρὰ ἔσωθεν ἐκπορεύεται καὶ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. (NA28)

 

Setting the scene

Mark brought us ashore from the epiphany on the sea, and in the last verses of Chapter 6 reminded us of Jesus' compassion for the sick and the poor. The sense of desperation in those verses is clear from people's begging to be able to touch even only the fringe of his cloak. Now we will see the "tradition" lashing back.

The Pharisees and scribes were not making an esoteric criticism about the washing of hands or pots. The washing to which they referred was a boundary marker for Judaean identity.  The Eucharist, to which they were also referring, was indiscriminate even in the first banquet, and Jesus will shortly emphasise boundary crossing through the healing in Syrophoenicia, and then in the second banquet in Chapter 8. I will also suggest that embedded in the attack on Jesus is a criticism of the universality of the "breads."

Mark carefully notes that only some of the scribes agree with the Pharisees, matching the fact that only some of the disciples eat with impure hands. Does this suggest some controversy within Mark's community? In what follows, Jesus is no longer only angered and grieved at the Pharisee's hardness of heart; (cf Mark 3:1-6) he also speaks to them with the most savage language we have yet seen in the gospel. How is that heard by those in his community who do wash their hands?

Comments on the Text

Gathered before him… (vv1) The sunagontai pros auton (lit. are gathered toward him) implies a group gathered before a rabbi who is teaching. It invites the listener to see that these people who are attacking Jesus are actually in  a subordinate position.  Some of them come from Jerusalem, reminding us of the contrast the gospel makes between Galilee and Jerusalem. The tension of the pericope is increased when we remember that the Pharisees have already determined to destroy Jesus. (Mark 3:6) The question they will ask in verse 5 is part of that ongoing campaign. In the culture of the day, Jesus is responsible for the behaviour of his disciples^[ii], so the questions are not primarily interested in the behaviour of some of his disciples; rather, they are the means of an attack upon Jesus. We can add to this that "gathered" is used in the Septuagint for those who gather to oppose God and God's righteous people. (See LXX Ps 2:2, LXX Psalm 30:14, LXX Psalm 3434:15)^[iii]

Defiled… (vv2) Defiled or "common" hands will defile the breads/loaves, meaning there is a suggestion that the loaves of the Eucharist are being defiled. The longer I spend with this text, the more I feel an undercurrent of grief and anger, and the claim that the Eucharist is a defiled feast would indicate why! Hand washing was required only by the priests; it seems the Pharisees had extended that to lay people as an emulation of the holiness of the temple in their homes.^[iv]

Are eating the breads… (vv2) Neither RSV or NRSVa^[v] mention the bread, which might suggest an idiom where esthiousin ton arton simply means to eat. (Cf vv5) But Mark's artous is plural, an unusual^[vi] usage which suggests he is reminding his listeners of the breads (loaves) of the banquet in Chapter 6 which his disciples fail to understood. (Mark 6:52) The actions of Jesus in the first banquet are mirrored in his supper in Chapter 14. They foreshadow the Eucharist. No matter how much we might say the esthiousin ton artous is an idiom,  the echo of the artous of Chapter 6 remains, and is heard by Greek speakers. In Mark's mind, and that of his audience, the Pharisees have referenced the last supper.

Judeans… (vv3) Ioudaioi^[vii] does not mean Jews as we hear that word today. Mark is written during a change of meaning from Ioudaioi's original ethnogeographic sense to the religious sense of those who worship the God of Moses and of the Jerusalem temple. In the context of Mark, Ioudaioi  almost certainly adds to the sense of tension between the piety of Jerusalem (in Judea) and Galilee. Our tension is not to enable antisemitic readings of the word Jew on the one hand, or remove the Jewishness of Jesus on the other.

Unless they in a particular way wash… (vv3) The Greek word I have translated as particular is pygmē or fist. It is not clear exactly what the expression meant.^[viii]  What is indicated clearly is that Mark understands much of his audience is not clear about the nature of these food laws.

If they do not wash… (vv4) Agreeing here with the Scholars Bible contra NRSV's "do not eat anything from the market…"

Tradition… (vv3,5,8,9) Black makes the point that paradosin, the word for tradition, is cognate with paradidomi, 20 times used in Mark for betrayal and handing over.^[ix] (See Mark 3:19, already.) This connection echoes in the already charged emotions of the current text.

Traditions… and things received  vv3,4,5,8,9 The related expressions here imply holding to things received and handed over from one generation to the next. I have added things received to translate parelabon in verse 4; it is not the paradosis translated as tradition in the other places.  Many of us are attuned to thinking such things are "non-biblical," but as Davis points out, many of the traditions here are based in scripture.^[x] Is there, as Davis suggests, an argument here about whether even the Scriptures "contain both the 'teachings of God' and 'the received traditions of humans.' "^[xi]  

Walk according to the tradition... (vv5) Literally, it says why not walk (peripatousin) the disciples of you? Marcus points out that walking was a standard metaphor for "living in a certain way."^[xii] We, as disciples are also called to follow upon a Way.

Hypocrites… (vv6) In Classical Greek, human life was often compared to the stage and a hypokritḗs was an actor. When seen negatively, this could mean a play was a sham world and that the actors were deceivers. "Hence hypókrisis^[xiii] takes on the sense of pretense or pretext."^[xiv]  The behaviour of Apollonius, "peace pretending," (eirēnikon hypokritheis) but then falling upon the Judeans in Jerusalem during the Sabbath (LXX 2 Macc. 5:25) illustrates the savagery of Jesus' words about hypocrites for Jewish listeners; it was this event that led to the Maccabean revolt. In LXX Sirach 1:28-9 it says "Come not unto God (him) with a double heart. Be not an hypocrite …" (See the comments on Mark 6:52, where the heart is also singular.)

Lips and heart… (vv6) The lips are plural, the heart is singular. This singular implies something corporate rather than individual decision. The heart is the core of our identity, the person and people that we really are. Black translates this as "a distant heart."^[xv]

Is far distant from me… (v6) (porrō apechei.)  Porrō and apechei both imply far or distant. The expression is emphatic, which is why I use far distant from me instead of NRSV's far from me.

In vain… (vv7) The expression means "to no purpose or effect," or pointlessly.^[xvi] Davis notes that "'in vain' refers to the pretence of revering God, but actually revering human opinion instead. This story may well be a commentary on what the 3rd commandment means."^[xvii]

The commands of humans… (vv7) NRSV uses doctrines to translate didaskalias entalmata anthrōpōn.  We might think of doctrines as guard rails to our thought and actions, as in "past here lies danger." But entalmata, (an injunction or ordinance)^[xviii] means there is nothing suggestive here; humans are commanding, which is a trait of empire. Black makes the point that lay people were historically not required to wash their hands before eating in the time of Jesus. It was expected at a later date, so the washing here may have been an observance made by some Pharisees.^[xix]

How excellently you set aside… (vv9) Full on sarcasm here!

Must surely die… (vv10 ) This NRSV translation catches the imperative case of the Greek teleutatō: finishing or ending. More expansively we might say ["The life of] whoever speaks… must surely end in death," but there is no direct sense here that they should be executed. Note that the fifth Commandment of the Ten is the first specifically affecting our behaviour towards other humans; our parents are to be honoured above all people. This is to say that Jesus is not arguing about some trifling inconsistency here.

Corban… (vv11) Korban is from gift in Hebrew. It particularly meant an offering to God. In Matthew 27:6 the korbanan is the temple treasury. The Greek sentence is complicated but NRSV (see below) gives a good sense of it, especially the sense that people are commanded to ignore the fifth commandment in order to benefit the cultic structure; he is accusing his opponents of replacing true piety with self-interest. It has always seemed to me that implicit in Jesus' words was the sense that "calling Corban" would allow me to say I cannot support my parents because of my obligations to the temple, but then to conveniently not take all the money to the temple.

NRSV says Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban… but the Greek word order places the Corban first, awkward in English, but emphasising the faux holiness of the practice.

And you do many things like this… (vv13) This invites the listener to add their own examples of hypocritical behaviour.

The crowd… (vv14) Until this moment, there has been no crowd! The wooden way to read such anomalies is to suggest Mark has "pasted in" a received (perhaps oral) text. I suspect it is more likely that he expects us to notice the anomaly and look for what he is telling us. (See below.)

Defile… (vv14) He twice uses the same word as in verse 2.

Listen…understand… (vv14-15) These words of urgent command echo the Listen! Behold… of Mark 4:3, also introducing a parable. The irony is that the disciples clearly don't understand.

If anyone has ears to hear… (vv16) Verse 16 is generally taken to be a later scribal gloss,^[xx] and I have omitted it. 

Parable…are without understanding… (vv17-18) This is a reiteration of Mark 4:13 and its challenge.

Thus he declared… (vv17-19) Here, Jesus speaks as an authoritative interpreter of God's teaching.^[xxi] This would have been seen as a blunt challenge to the authority of the Torah.  The editorial note that he was declaring all foods clean also puts limits on what he meant; this is about food. Consumption of other things may well defile our heart.

The List… (vv21-23) The list of these verses reflects a culturally standard list of vices common across both Jewish and Gentile cultures.^[xxii]

Evil deliberations go forth… (vv 21) Dialogismoi has something deliberate about it; these are not simply thoughts that arise involuntarily.^[xxiii] They have been nursed. The structure of the sentence suggests that everything else is a function of these deliberations, hence the colon in the way I translate the text.^[xxiv] NRSV says these things come from the human heart, which the Greek can bear. This nicely reminds us of where they gestate, so to speak, but they also go out from the human heart in actions, so I prefer to use go forth.

Indecency, an evil eye… (vv22) Licentiousness (NRSV) is not a word anyone understands today, and the expression "evil eye^[xxv]" covers stinginess, covetousness, or jealousy, and seems to mean more than simple envy.[xxvi]

First Notes

There is a cultural assumption behind this pericope that impurity "flows" to, and defiles, that which is "clean." If your unclean neighbour defiles the breads, then the impurity of their unwashed hands flows on into you.  Implicit in the Pharisees' criticism of Jesus is the accusation that some folks' unwashed hands mean the Eucharist is a rite of defilement and separation from God rather than a celebration of God's acceptance and love. I suspect this was obvious to Mark's community even though we need to think about it. (It takes little thought to realise we often follow similar assumptions about defilement in our restriction of the Eucharist to those who allegedly know what Eucharist means, or who belong to the right denomination, and so on.) For Mark's listeners the accusation is an attack on the presence of the risen Jesus in the breads.^[xxvii]

Am I reading too much into "breads" of vv2? (See the notes on verse 2 above.)  I think not. Bread is ubiquitous in this part of Mark: We have Herod's banquet (without bread); Jesus' first banquet; the disciples not understanding about the breads (6:52) even immediately after the sea crossing where Jesus is presented as an epiphany of God, and now this argument about food laws. Soon to come is the woman asking for the crumbs from the bread of the children of God, Jesus' second banquet of breads, and the disciples not understanding about the breads^[xxviii] as they cross over the sea after Jesus' second banquet. (cf 7:28, 8:14ff)

The question to Jesus was laden with scorn and contempt, and was asked only to discredit him. It was part of the campaign to destroy him. (cf Mark 3:6) And in Mark's time the question is also contemptuous of the church and Eucharist.

Despite this, the language used in the pericope seems chosen to dampen the high emotion. There is a "matter of fact" description of the piety of "the Pharisees, and all the Judeans" but no criticism of the traditions, only of how they are observed and used. Indeed, the text of verse 2—some of his disciples—hints that some of these practices were also observed by some disciples of Jesus.

Indeed, the refutation and deflection of the Pharisee's criticism is notable for its restraint despite the emotion in the use of the word hypocrite and the sarcasm of "how excellently you set aside the commandment." There is none of the fabrication and slander so common in our disagreements with rivals. Jesus addresses a known controversy. We can infer this because Mishnah Nedarim 9^[xxix] (which is post-Mark) illustrates ways to get around the binding vows of Corban, which were recognised to be a problem.^[xxx] Jesus does say "you do many things like this," but then restrains himself from using the obvious rhetorical strategy of connecting the Pharisees to the "evil deliberations" of verse 21. He knows the evil deliberations of vv21-23 are also deliberations of his own disciples.

Instead, Jesus succinctly assures his community that the Pharisees are irrelevant as judges of Christian piety because they fail at the very first commandment listed after our duties towards God, and then… he ignores them. There is no call for revenge, and no threat of future judgement. The focus of the camera leaves them; their role is done.

In this, Mark's artistry is on full display. Jesus is about to upend people's understanding of holiness and defilement. The Pharisees will of course be outraged, but they are invisible because their opinions are irrelevant. By the time of Mark, the arguments about defilement are largely occurring among the disciples.

The crowd has been invisible because they were dismissed at the end of Jesus first banquet. Since that moment there have only been people (lit. they) in need who are trusting Jesus. But in the polluting presence of the "evil deliberations"^[xxxi] of the Pharisees and scribes they have again become a crowd.^[xxxii] (I am reminded of my sense above that evil deliberations not only come from us, they go forth from us… into crowd behaviour.) Jesus calls them and says:

Listen to me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile them, but the things that come out are what defile.

The language speaks to all people. It echoes the "Listen! Behold!" of Mark 4:3, signalling that we are facing the mystery of the Basileia of God. And, as in Mark 4, no one understands him.^[xxxiii]

When the disciples and Jesus "entered the house"—that synonym for the  church community—the disciples do not say to him, "What did you mean?" but "asked him about the parable." This also points us back to Chapter 4 and the mystery of the Basileia of God: will we remember that parables are an ambush,^[xxxiv] a liminal place where we may grow or where we may confirm our slavery to empire? And will we see that by asking if "you also fail to understand," Jesus links his disciples with the crowd! We are always on the edge of being crowd, unthinking destabilised empire.

Then he explains his pronouncement to his disciples "in the house." This is a moment of seated formal teaching; in Mark 7:24 he will stand up to leave for Tyre. He is saying to us that food and defilement are not the problem that undercuts human holiness. What defiles us and separates us from God is what comes out of us—all our evil deliberations which result in immorality and thefts and the rest. We suffer the same shortcomings as everyone else, and rules around food will not fix that, which means this pericope does not deal only with an historical issue.

But where do those evil deliberations come from; what generates and drives them? What is this corruption of the human heart which has been well understood at least since the writing of Genesis? (Cf Genesis 6:5, 8:21)

I wonder if Mark is not again directing us back to the discovery of Chapter 4 that there is no us and them, insiders and outsiders, but that there is only the us of humanity. I say this because Jesus has just repudiated both the Pharisaic claim of a law keeping elite, and any disciples' claim of an "understanding" elite, and will now immediately minister to Gentile people. After that he will repeat his banquet in an unmistakably Gentile setting. It challenges us to ask how much our "othering" is the source of our corruption?

All the defiling things Jesus lists are relational. When I covet your belongings, for example, I am treating you an object which is there for my gratification, as an "other" which is in the way of what I judge will fulfil me. Even if my covetousness is not physically acted out, it acts upon me, which affects how I will act towards you. This defiles me; that is, it separates me from God, for I am treating my neighbour as other.  In Chapter 12, Jesus and a lawyer discuss this: "to love one's neighbour as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices," says the lawyer. And Jesus replies that he is not far from the Basileia of God.

 

Mark 7:24-30 The Woman and the Deaf Man

²⁴From there, having stood up, he went away into the region of Tyre. And having entered a house he did not want anyone to know (he was there.) But he was not able to be hidden, ²⁵and immediately, having heard about him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit came and fell at his feet. ²⁶Now the woman was a Gentile, Syrophoenician by race, and was asking him that he might cast the demon out of her daughter. ²⁷And he said to her, ‘Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the bread of the children and throw it to the dogs.’ ²⁸But she answered and retorts, '(Yes) Lord, and even the dogs under the table eat the crumbs of the children.’ ²⁹Then he said to her, ‘For this word, Go—the demon has gone out of your daughter.’ ³⁰And having gone to her home, she found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

²⁴Ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἀναστὰς ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὰ ὅρια Τύρου. Καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς οἰκίαν οὐδένα ἤθελεν γνῶναι, καὶ οὐκ ἠδυνήθη λαθεῖν· ²⁵ἀλλ’ εὐθὺς ἀκούσασα γυνὴ περὶ αὐτοῦ, ἧς εἶχεν τὸ θυγάτριον αὐτῆς πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον, ἐλθοῦσα προσέπεσεν πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ· ²⁶ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἦν Ἑλληνίς, Συροφοινίκισσα τῷ γένει· καὶ ἠρώτα αὐτὸν ἵνα τὸ δαιμόνιον ἐκβάλῃ ἐκ τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς. ²⁷καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτῇ· ἄφες πρῶτον χορτασθῆναι τὰ τέκνα, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ τοῖς κυναρίοις βαλεῖν. ²⁸ἡ δὲ ἀπεκρίθη καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· κύριε· καὶ τὰ κυνάρια ὑποκάτω τῆς τραπέζης ἐσθίουσιν ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων τῶν παιδίων. ²⁹καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ· διὰ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ὕπαγε, ἐξελήλυθεν ἐκ τῆς θυγατρός σου τὸ δαιμόνιον. 30καὶ ἀπελθοῦσα εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτῆς εὗρεν τὸ παιδίον βεβλημένον ἐπὶ τὴν κλίνην καὶ τὸ δαιμόνιον ἐξεληλυθός. having stood up… vv24 (NA28)

Comments on the Text

Having stood up… (vv24) NRSV curiously leaves anastas (having stood up) out of the text. The word emphasises the authority of Jesus' previous words in 7:17-23, for Rabbis sat to teach.

Tyre… (vv24) Note  the OT tradition in Joel 3:4-8 and Ezekiel 26-28, where Tyre is a byword for hatred of outsiders. The pericope may also reflect current hostility towards Tyre because much food from Galilee went to Tyre causing hunger among Galileans. Taking food from the children's table would resonate with this!^[xxxv] There was also considerable hostility between Jewish and Gentile groups in this area during the Jewish War (and before.)^[xxxvi]  Mark may also intend an echo of Elijah's miracles for the widow of Zarapeth in 1 Kings 17:8-24.^[xxxvii]

Little daughter… fell at his feet… (vv25) Prosepesen is to fall or prostrate oneself, so here Mark is using a different word to the bowing or kneeling (prosekunēsen) of the Legion as it sought to negotiate with Jesus in Mark 5:6. The Gentile woman is being contrasted with that demon and compared to the synagogue leader Jairus who also fell[xxxviii] at Jesus' feet. Her little daughter recalls the little daughter of Jairus. Hearing about Jesus and falling at Jesus' feet, also recalls the actions of the woman of Mark 5:27-33.

Gentile… (vv26) Hellēnis literally means Greek. In this context it is "the functional equivalent"^[xxxix] of saying Gentile; that is, non-Jewish.  It is a boundary marking, othering word.

Syrophoenician by race… (vv26) (Syrophoinikissa tō genei) NRSV's of Syrophoenician origin is what we might say when we are trying to downplay or soften racial distinctions, but this pericope is all about race!^[xl] (genei) Matthew's blunt "Canaanite woman" makes this clear as it "invites"^[xli] people to succumb to the hatred of the old enemy from whom the land had been taken.

Fair… (vv27) The Greek word is kalon; ie good. NRSV translates this as fair, which I think captures the entitlement of empire which treats its designated outsiders as less than human.

Dogs… (vv27, 28) Kunarios is a diminutive form of the usual word for dog, (kuōn) and therefore formally means little dog. But normally one would use kunidion for a little dog, and kunarios is clearly used elsewhere in a non-diminutive sense. In his discussion of this, Marcus suggests that the diminutive of dog more likely matches the grammatical diminutive of the little daughter.^[xlii] In short, the word is not a softening of the word dog. To call a person a dog was an insult.^[xliii] It may well have been a casual racism in Jesus' time but, as always, was part of a larger rationale to degrade and rule over other people.^[xliv]

Retorts… Yes Lord, and even the dogs… (vv29) The text is literally but she answered and says, Lord… There is a Jewish tradition where a woman outwits the man in power,^[xlv] which this appears to mimic. In some later Greek texts the word Nai (Yes) precedes the word Lord, (Kurie.) Nai is absent in NA28.  Marcus suggests this indicates that the woman's reply to Jesus[xlvi] discomforted the copyists with her temerity. Yet one can also load the words "Yes Lord, and even the dogs…" with considerable sarcasm.   This all suggests that retorts is an appropriate translation here. One commentator says the woman's language was a mixture of respect and daring repartee.[xlvii] She showed respect by following the "polite" and socially accepted rules of discourse, but we should understand that people nonetheless heard a blunt confrontation in which it was obvious and unmistakable that Jesus was being corrected by a Gentile woman. The "polite" rules of discourse (which we have so often lost) check the violence that can easily burst out of a deadly serious discourse like this one, where a "dog" could nonetheless speak truth to power. Her temerity was so risky that it was only in hindsight that someone may have commented on how clever her rhetoric had been.

In Mark, "answered and says" (apekrithē kai legei) is an Old Testament formula^[xlviii] which has an echo of scriptural authority. With the small change to the present tense of legei used to increase its impact, Mark uses it here to preface the woman's words. Marcus says this is the only example in the Gospels where someone wins an argument with Jesus.^[xlix]

Lord (Kurie), could simply mean respectfully addressing Jesus as Sir. Or it could mean Lord as an allegiance and a statement of faith. The ambiguity questions us as listener or reader: are we politely listening, or is he our Lord?

For this word… (vv29) for this logon; it's the same word used in Chapter 4 for sowing the word, and for the word that he spoke to them.  (Mark 4:33) 

On the bed… (vv30) This phrase is superfluous to the narrative unless it does one thing, which is to remind us of the healing of Jairus' daughter, along with prosepesen and thugatrion, (see comment on vv25, above) . The two healings, and the two people, are being compared, and contrasted, with Herodias and her daughter. Remember, too, that the woman who was bleeding is also echoed by the woman from Tyre: both step out of the role assigned them and come to Jesus.

Othering and Race

This Gentile woman, a hated Syrophoenician to boot, is drawn by Mark as an equivalent of Jairus—indeed, more than Jairus: she calls him Lord! The contrast between the response of the Pharisees to Jesus at the beginning of Chapter 7, and the request of this Gentile woman, "could not be more stark."^[l] Yet Jesus responds to her with the same arrogance as those Pharisees!  The Children of Israel come first, then the Gentiles. More than this, we now (correctly) read his response to her as racist.

It is true that there was an understanding that in the time of eschatological blessings, Gentiles might be present in some of subordinate fashion.^[li] But Jesus does not say "Israel first then the Gentiles." Speaking in the context of bread (See the comments on Mark 7:2 above) he calls Gentiles—including this woman and her daughter—dogs. No argument about diminutives  or claims that Jesus is testing her can hide this. In the thinking of the time, dogs were on the same level as pigs.[lii] His words are a refusal to heal her daughter. If we have read Mark this far, knowing that in the Basileia there is only us, (See Mark 4:1-20 - All of Us, Just Us) there is no avoiding this dilemma: Jesus has used a casually racist epithet to refuse compassion. Jesus has recently redefined defilement; it comes from within.[liii] But he has not yet internalised some of the implications of this inspired insight, and still responds to the woman from the perspective of the holiness code he has "seen through."

But if we are scandalised by this reading, what are we saying? We are saying that we are better than Jesus because we are not racist, for we know better. The problem is that all people are inherently racist, including us. We are raised in the environment of empire which uses othering, especially racist othering, as boundary markers. This happens from our earliest experience, before we are aware of it. It happens even in self-consciously anti-racist settings.^[liv] It is laid down in our bones.  The healing of racism is a life-long journey. So the question Mark poses to us is, "What does the fully human Son of God do when a woman calls out his casual racism?"

He says to her, "For this logon, Go—the demon has left your daughter." We don't need John's theology of the Logos to hear a reference to the mystery of the Basileia in Mark's use of logon. Indeed, he makes the word of a Gentile woman authoritative for those who seek to follow him!

Jesus repents. He takes the woman's lesson and witness to him immediately—in the next breath. If Mark's community follows Jesus, and if we follow Jesus, there can be no inner ring^[lv] around the Eucharist or any other part of the house. There can only be an us. The tradition is true: Gentiles will be at the Feast. But they will not be second-class Christians feeding on the crumbs, for there are no such people.

In this extraordinary pericope Jesus does not call us to repentance; he models repentance in the very moments he discomforts us by violating our current understandings of racism.

Mark 7:31-37

³¹Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, through the middle of the region of the Decapolis. ³²And they bring to him a deaf who could hardly speak; and they are imploring him that he might lay the hand on him. ³³And having taken him away from the crowd in private, he thrust his fingers into his ears, and having spat he touched his tongue. ³⁴Then (kai) having looked up to heaven, he sighed and he says to him, ‘Ephphatha’, that is, ‘Be opened.’ ³⁵And his ears were opened, and immediately the binding of his tongue was released, and he spoke clearly. ³⁶Then he ordered them that they should tell no one; but the more he ordered them, the more (abundantly) they proclaimed it. ³⁷They were astonished beyond measure, saying, ‘He has made everything well; he makes both^[lvi] the deaf to hear and the speechless to speak.’

³¹Καὶ πάλιν ἐξελθὼν ἐκ τῶν ὁρίων Τύρου ἦλθεν διὰ Σιδῶνος εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ὁρίων Δεκαπόλεως. ³²Καὶ φέρουσιν αὐτῷ κωφὸν καὶ μογιλάλον καὶ παρακαλοῦσιν αὐτὸν ἵνα ἐπιθῇ αὐτῷ τὴν χεῖρα. ³³καὶ ἀπολαβόμενος αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου κατ’ ἰδίαν ἔβαλεν τοὺς δακτύλους αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰ ὦτα αὐτοῦ καὶ πτύσας ἥψατο τῆς γλώσσης αὐτοῦ, ³⁴καὶ ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐστέναξεν καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· εφφαθα, ὅ ἐστιν διανοίχθητι. ³⁵καὶ [εὐθέως] ἠνοίγησαν αὐτοῦ αἱ ἀκοαί, καὶ ἐλύθη ὁ δεσμὸς τῆς γλώσσης αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐλάλει ὀρθῶς. ³⁶καὶ διεστείλατο αὐτοῖς ἵνα μηδενὶ λέγωσιν· ὅσον δὲ αὐτοῖς διεστέλλετο, αὐτοὶ μᾶλλον περισσότερον ἐκήρυσσον. ³⁷καὶ ὑπερπερισσῶς ἐξεπλήσσοντο λέγοντες· καλῶς πάντα πεποίηκεν, καὶ τοὺς κωφοὺς ποιεῖ ἀκούειν καὶ [τοὺς] ἀλάλους λαλεῖν. (NA28)

Comments on the Text

Note that Mark 8:22-26 (the healing of a blind man) deliberately parallels this pericope.

Sidon… (vv31) Jesus' itinerary is about theology, not geography. Mark may have a "weak"^[lvii] knowledge of the region's geography, but going northward to Sidon in order to go south, is to say that he goes even deeper into Gentile territory after healing the little daughter.

Through the middle (meson) of the region of the Decapolis (vv31) NRSV doesn't mention the meson.^[lviii] The middle of the Decapolis emphasises that Jesus was in no way skirting around the edges of this strongly Gentile region.

They bring to him… (vv32) As with the Jewish people in 6:53-56, Gentile people now come to him with their sick. We could read into this that Mark wishes to emphasise the helplessness^[lix] of the deaf person by having them brought to Jesus, but how much does this assume the person thought they were helpless. (See more below.)

They bring to him a deaf who could hardly speak… (vv32) There is no deaf man in the Greek, only a kōphon which is an adjective for deaf. This person is an object defined by their lack of hearing. It is correct that this is idiomatic Greek,^[lx] but the idiomatic defines our reality. In English we also speak of "the deaf,"^[lxi] defining them by what we assume to be a disability. The man is only finally mentioned as him (autō) almost at the end of the sentence.

Thrust...^[lxii] (vv33) The primary Greek word here is to throw or cast. The mother asks for the demon to be cast out from the girl in 7:26, and the bread is cast or thrown to the dogs. (7:27). Although  ebalen[lxiii] can be to place or put (NRSV), the context is more vigorous. It implies something demonic in the man's affliction, an association strengthened by the binding[lxiv] or chaining of the tongue in vv35.

Spat… (vv33) The exact cultural reference here is unclear to us, and any or all of the following may have operated. 1. Spittle was believed to have healing properties. 2. In the story at hand, sympathetic magic may be understood: the spit transfers something from Jesus' tongue to the man whose tongue is bound. 3. The spit may also have been seen to have an anti-demonic effect. ^[lxv]

(There is other spitting in Mark. Jesus foretells the spitting at his crucifixion (10:34) and we see it happen at 14.65 and 15:19.)

Ephphatha… (vv35) The inclusion of the original Aramaic seems to have two effects. It adds narrative colour. More importantly, it probably reflects a sense that Jesus' original words carried their own power, rather like the experience of comfort and power we receive from the familiar words of a liturgy.

The binding of his tongue was released… (vv35) The Greek could simply mean his tongue was released, but it adds the word desmos which is chains or bonds.  Mark is being quite specific, I think, about the impediment being a form of imprisonment.

Spoke clearly… (vv35) Orthōs means correctly, or according to the norm.[lxvi] (We might wonder if there is a pun here, given that the word is part of the word orthodox.^[lxvii]) Since I want to say something about the tyranny of the norm, I'm using clearly instead of normally.[lxviii]

He has made everything well… (vv37) This verse seems to echo LXX Genesis 1:31^[lxix], and Isaiah 35:5-6 (the ears of the deaf unstopped… and the tongue of the speechless sing for joy.) Mark has Gentile people recognising the fulfilment of scripture and the return of God's people to Israel in the echoing of Isaiah. The echo of Genesis places Jesus very close to God. Marcus says Genesis 1:31 was widely quoted at the time, suggesting that at least some of Mark's listeners would recognise the quotation.^[lxx] The word epoiēsen (made) (which is the same word as Mark's pepoiēken and  poiei) is used repeatedly in Genesis 1. In Mark 7:37, Jesus healing has made everything well, but he still, ie in Mark's time and ours, makes those who are deaf hear.

Marcus^[lxxi] makes the important point here that Jesus is overturning an aspect of  First Isaiah which is that the Gentile nations will be destroyed:

For the Lord is enraged against all the nations,  and furious against all their hordes;  he has doomed them, has given them over for slaughter. (Isa 34:2)

Instead, Jesus brings healing to the Gentile nations.

Hearing Difference

In Mark, to see and to hear are synonyms for perceiving and understanding something of the Mystery of the Basileia. In this, Mark 4:10-13 reflects an Old Testament tradition, quoting Isaiah 6 at a defining point of his gospel.  The same imagery comes back into play in Mark 7 and 8, and again in Mark 10, with the healing of Bartimaeus. To see, to have one's ears unstopped, is a profound moment of healing in the process of recognising the Christ and beginning to follow him. We could use terms like "conversion" or "paradigm shift." But salvation and the Basileia are never only individual. They are corporate. They are a corporate healing from the illness of empire. And here, there is a difficulty.

What follows is loosely quoting Terry DeYoung, who points out that when Jesus cures an impairment or disability, it often reinforces our biomedical models of disability which suggest the problem resides in the individual and needs to be fixed or cured. A biomedical understanding of disability undercuts  insights into the social dimensions of disability, [and ethnomedical^[lxxii] understandings of illness and human diversity,] which contend that the social structures and built environments we’ve established—usually for the dominant, able-bodied population—can be limiting factors for people with disabilities.^[lxxiii]

Do you see how even to say this, DeYoung uses the words impairment,  disability, and able-bodied?^[lxxiv] Did the deaf man feel that he had a disability?  This can sound like semantics, and a ridiculous question,  but many of our objections are simply a reflection of our normalising of our own situations. DeYoung claims, people of Deaf culture^[lxxv]

typically reject identifying as disabled and aren’t interested in a physical cure. Deaf people who grew up without any hearing and used sign language as their primary language consider themselves culturally Deaf. ^[lxxvi]

Again, I emphasise that this is not semantics. Not neuro-typical, I can spend unusually long hours focused on a task. I make "sideways" conceptual connections that often take other folks longer to perceive. I have superior pattern recognition in some areas of life.  But my society is designed for the neurotypical: too noisy, too busy, hostile to focus, obsessed with monetary worth. Survival is hard work in an environment which thinks of me as neurodeficient rather than simply different from what it takes to be "normal." If Jesus offered to "heal" this aspect of me, would I be interested? I would no longer be what makes me me, so no, thankyou!^[lxxvii]

There is a deep irony in this text. Remarkably, Jesus is crossing the defining boundaries of society and empire. His actions say the alleged sin of being deaf (Cf blindness in John 9:1-3) does not exist! What John 9 makes clear is that blindness (and deafness) was often seen as punishment for sin, but then and now, we  extrapolate from a sin into the claim that a person is a sinner (by which we mean an habitual sinner) and that, not only sick, they are also less human than us.^[lxxviii]

Jesus' actions in this part of Mark also say Gentiles—that's most of us reading this!— are human beings equally loved by God! We are not dogs. Paul will later sum this up one line: In Christ, there is no longer Jew or Gentile.^[lxxix] But Mark communicates it by making a Gentile man who does not hear or speak in the usual fashion into an object lesson when Jesus heals him.

Here is the irony: Mark communicates this radical recasting of humanity as a corporate being  founded in Basileia rather than empire, by making a Gentile man who does not hear or speak in the usual fashion into an object lesson. As an allegedly disabled person, this offends me. The Greek Mark uses reduces people to their symptoms. The story is not about "a man who was also deaf," or even "a deaf man." It says they brought to him "a deaf." The substantive adjective kōphon reflects the prejudice of the culture. He is defined by his difference rather than his shared humanity.

We must read the story as a critique of empire, and therefore of ourselves, and not of the man who could not hear or speak clearly. And at the base of that we need to understand that disability is an arbitrary definition which is owned by empire. Disability is ultimately defined by what most reinforces the position of those in power. So the story (as Mark tells it) is not finally about a deaf man; it is a critique of ourselves and how we see people who are different from us. His healing of "the deaf" can only be embodied if we are all healed of our default scapegoating of those who are different. His healing questions us. Have we allowed Jesus to heal us?

(Andrea Prior 2026)

----------

[i] So NRSV
[ii] See Marcus, pp443 Rabbis are responsible for the behaviour of their disciples.
[iii] Note that Pss 30 and 34 is the LXX numbering. English Bibles follow the MT numbering meaning the references above are Ps 31 and Ps 35
[iv] Marcus pp449. Cf Ex 30:18-21, 40:31.
[v] Eg: "some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands" (NRSVa)
[vi] Cf Marcus, pp440
[vii] Shaye J.D. Cohen writes "Geek speaking Jews...regularly referred to themselves as Ioudaioi... best translated "Judeans," it designates the members of the ethnic group inhabiting the district of Judea, or their descendants wherever they might be." This began to change around the time of Jesus to "a religious term best translated Jews" Levine and Bretzler, JANT, pp513 See also Garoway, Ibid, pp524-526.
[viii] https://leftbehindandlovingit.blogspot.com/2012/08/ethical-hermeneutics-and-hermeneutical.html Davis, Mark D.  (Retrieved 8/1/2025)
[ix] Black, Mark, pp176
[x] See for example, Exodus 30:17-21.
[xi] https://leftbehindandlovingit.blogspot.com/2012/08/ethical-hermeneutics-and-hermeneutical.html Davis, Mark D.  (Retrieved 8/1/2025)
[xii] Marcus, pp443
[xiii] Generally, I use u to transliterate the Greek ὑ, but have reverted in this section to the y used by Kittel.
[xiv] Kittel, TDNT pp1122
[xv] Black, Mark,  pp175
[xvi] https://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/3155.htm
[xvii] https://leftbehindandlovingit.blogspot.com/2012/08/ethical-hermeneutics-and-hermeneutical.html
[xviii] https://biblehub.com/greek/entalmata_1778.htm
[xix] Black, Mark, pp172
[xx] Metzger, pp94
[xxi] καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα does not imply Jesus said making clean all foods… καθαρίζων is a dangling participle which leads scholars to think it implies an editorial comment in response the Jesus' words before it. See Scholars Bible, pp89. Hence, I have used the NRSV translation here.
[xxii] Marcus pp459
[xxiii] Metzger, pp233
[xxiv] Cf Marcus, pp459 who says the other vices are "in apposition to this overarching category" to the evil deliberations.
[xxv] So Scholars Bible, pp89,
[xxvi] Marcus, pp456, but probably not also meaning our common notion of putting a curse on someone.
[xxvii] I am building on the comment, "The final, great act of power in all the drama confronting the empire-sea is the bread, the self-giving of Jesus in Eucharist. In short the resurrected Jesus is placed next to the breads. We find him in the breads," which is in Mark 6:45-52 - Reflections above
[xxviii] I owe this insight to Clifton Black, Mark, pp150
[xxix] https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Nedarim.9.1
[xxx] Cf Marcus, pp445 and Black, Mark, pp176. Black directs us to m. Ned. 4:7-8 which has similar argumentation to that in m. Ned 9.1.
[xxxi] Cf Mark 3:6,7:21.
[xxxii] We might also note that just as he dismissed the crowd in 6:45, he now calls the crowd to himself. He is in charge.
[xxxiii] Hence he says "Do you also fail to understand?" See also 4:13
[xxxiv] See Mark 4:1-20 - The Ambush.
[xxxv] Marcus, pp462.
[xxxvi] Marcus, pp471
[xxxvii] Zarapeth was midway between Tyre and Sidon.
[xxxviii] Piptei, Mark 5:22. It means to fall. Prosepesen is to fall before.
[xxxix] Quoting Marcus, pp462
[xl] Both Marcus,  pp461, and the Scholars Bible agree on this point.
[xli] To be clear, Matthew's intention is for his Gospel to read us at this point—how will we respond to this word?
[xlii] Marcus, pp463
[xliii] Marcus pp 463
[xliv] Perhaps equivalent to "mowing the grass," an "Islamophobic narrative … [protraying] … Muslims as licentious, barbaric, and inherently anti-Semitic—to dehumanize Palestinians and cast them as an existential threat. In doing so, this process not only justifies the violence Israel enacts, which advances the elimination of the Indigenous Palestinian population…but also provides ideological cover for Israel’s further territorial expansion." Samir Sweida-Metwally  "Islamophobia: The discursive apparatus of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, Palestine" https://doi.org/10.1177/08969205251388085 (Retrieved 4/6/2026)
[xlv] See the woman from Tekoa in 2 Samuel 14, and the rebuke of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya by a woman.  &with=all&lang2=en, both referenced by Marcus, pp465 (Link retrieved 26/1/2026)
[xlvi] Marcus, pp465
[xlvii] Rhoads, see Marcus, pp469
[xlviii] Marcus, pp464
[xlix] Marcus, pp470
[l] Moloney, pp177
[li] Cf Marcus, pp464
[lii] Cf Matthew 7:6  "Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine…" See also Rev 22:14-15.
[liii] Cf Black, Mark, pp171 "the redefinition of Jewish defilement as what proceeds out of a person... This flies in the face of the OT's Holiness Code (Lev 17–26), the detailed regulations by which Israel was expected to separate (and thereby "purify") itself from other nations."
[liv] If you take issue with this, I am on this point inflexible. My experience working and living in cross cultural situations is that life is a constant realisation that we make racially based assumptions.
[lv] A nod to CS Lewis. (https://www.lewissociety.org/innerring/ Retrieved 4/6/2026)
[lvi] This is a kai…kai " which indicates that of two things one takes place no less than the other " https://biblehub.com/thayers/2532.htm
[lvii] Black, Mar, pp177 Then again, if as a South Australian I said I left Adelaide to go to Murray Bridge, via Clare, you might understand I was saying something non-geographic.
[lviii] Unlike Marcus, pp471 and Metzger, pp240.
[lix] So Marcus, p477
[lx] For example, the lame, crippled, blind and mute of Matthew 15:30, which parallels the current Markan pericope are all adjectives without accompanying nouns.
[lxi] Eg, "Hear him, ye deaf; his praise, ye dumb your loosened tongues employ…" , from Wesley's O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing
[lxii] So Marcus, pp473. Scholars Bible uses stuck.
[lxiii] Cf https://biblehub.com/thayers/906.htm
[lxiv] Byrne, pp128
[lxv] Cf Marcus, pp474-5
[lxvi] Hence our word orthodox.
[lxvii] See https://www.etymonline.com/word/orthodox (Retrieved 4/6/2026)
[lxviii] I'm avoiding the plainly of NRSV because that recalls John 10:24, 11:14 etc in which plainly translates a different word.
[lxix] τὰ πάντα, ὅσα ἐποίησε, καὶ ἰδοὺ καλὰ λίαν
[lxx] Marcus, pp476-7
[lxxi] Marcus, pp481
[lxxii] Cf Mark 1:21-28 - Synagogue for biomedical vs ethnomedical.
[lxxiii] DeYoung, "Is the Bible Tone-Deaf," Reformed Journal, https://reformedjournal.com/2024/05/12/is-the-bible-tone-deaf/ (Retrieved 30/1/2026)
[lxxiv] I do not say this as a criticism. Our culture has little language which is inclusive of those who are different, and equally little understanding of how to conceive what difference means. There is here the same limitation in communication that exists with the use of the word Basileia. See  Translation Notes - Mark 1:14-15
[lxxv] Cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaf_culture. See especially https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Three_views.webm  (Retrieved 4/6/2026)
[lxxvi] DeYoung, op. cit.
[lxxvii] If you have not yet perceived my little joke, read the paragraph again, beginning with "I am autistic…" and ask what difference that makes to your hearing my text.
[lxxviii] For example, when I was very small and on an outing with family friends, one of them saw a noticeably in-toed child coming towards us . She muttered, "Pigeon toed," in a vehement condemnatory tone. I could not understand why a kid who looked just like me was apparently evil and lesser.
[lxxix] Galatians 3:28. Greek in this context is synonymous with Gentile.