14 Now they had forgotten to bring bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat.

Jesus and his disciples have left the coastal town where the Pharisees argued with Jesus and sought to the test him. They Mark tells they are going to the opposite side of the Sea of Galilee, its quite the journey even by boat, they would need to eat eventually but they “had forgotten to bring bread” as if to say they “had forgotten to bring enough bread” the second part of the verse makes it clear they have at least one loaf between Jesus, the twelve and other disciples following Jesus around. Some see this as a contradiction but I think it is more plausible that they meant enough bread for them all, there is at least thirteen people here, one loaf is not enough. It seems silly for me to clarify this but you would be surprised at the amount of anti-christian scholars who have attempted to use this, of all things, as a “gotcha” moment.

15 And he cautioned them, saying, “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”

As Jesus usually does, he uses takes the topic at hand and turns it into a parable, a teaching opportunity. They have bread on the mind so the moment is not squandered and Jesus refers to the leaven, the yeast that makes bread and other baked goods rise as an analogy for the false teachings and influence of the Pharisees and Herod Antipas. This would make the Jewish people a loaf and they should be aware of what causes the Judeans to “rise” in the sense that the Pharisees and Herod want.

Sometimes what is perceived as good in the eyes of the world, is not actually a good thing at all in the eyes of God. Many people perceived the Pharisees as a “good influence” and the political power of Herod and his alliance with the Romans as good as well. Neither is true, beware their influence, very simple.

16 And they discussed it with one another, saying, “We have no bread.”

17 And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened?

18 Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember?

The disciples in their usual manner as well, fail to understand what Jesus was teaching completely. They are still focused on the material desires of food, whilst Jesus was trying to teach them something much more important. They, after discussing the matter, respond to Jesus with “We have no bread.”

Jesus realising that his teaching has not landed at all, going completely over their heads, just cuts to the point of their response. “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread?” They are unable to perceive the higher level of understanding that Jesus was trying to teach, beyond the simple desires of being hungry.

They are limited by their physical senses and Jesus adds on “Are your hearts hardened?” This phrasing should bring to mind that of Pharaoh whose heart was hardened, meaning his will/desire was sharpened at the cost of a soft open heart. The meaning being that when your heart is hardened as Jesus says, you will be limited in your perception. We all have desires and inclinations but something about our hearts being soft and open can negate the domination that our desires have on us and let us see the bigger picture.

He goes on to list their senses, eyes but cannot see, ears but cannon hear. My understanding of this, is that our physical body parts, obviously have a utility but that’s not their only purpose, they, like many things that God makes for us or asks us to make are living signs. Indicators that point to something else. Our sight should point us to the unseen and our ears should remind us of what can’t be heard. They are not perfect perception devices.

He then ends on asking if they remember.

19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.”

20 “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.”

21 And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

Mark now recounts in summary the two distinct feeding miracles and their unique numerical synbolic components. For anyone else still believing that the Gospel authors “accidentally” wrote down the same story twice, these verses should correct that notion.

For the five thousand Jews, Jesus breaks five loaves, leaving twelve baskets full at the end of it. For the four thousand Gentiles, Jesus breaks seven loaves, leaving seven baskets full and the end. He is trying to explain to them that they are not wanting for food, they shouldn’t ever be worried about food, they have miraculous leader who can literally multiply bread. Their perception limitations are made rigid by an understanding of life in only a natural lens despite the fact that Jesus has demonstrated that the supernatural is very much possible and he has done it multiple times.

11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him.

Immediately following Mark’s narration of the Feeding of the Four Thousand Gentiles, he tells us of a time when Pharisees, of no particular regional origin, could be Galilean or from Jerusalem, come and argue with Jesus. If this event chronologically follows the feeding miracle then it is likely local Pharisees at Magdala where they came to shore but it is also possible that this is days or weeks after. Mark does not waste word space to tell us exactly when this happened, just sometime after the feeding miracle.

The Pharisees themselves were rightful teachers of the Law, as acknowledged by Jesus as “sitting on the seat of Moses”. This is juxtaposed with the hereditary priesthood that sat on the symbolic seat of Aaron. The ancient world of Second Temple Judaism was much more organised than people gave them credit for because most people with a fascination with this time period exclude any information outside of the New Testament, unfortunately the New Testament is about Salvation, not the intricacies of religious and political life among the Judeans before and after Jesus. The Pharisees popularity came about during the Exile after the destruction of the first Temple the priesthood was rendered powerless with no liturgy or sacrifices to minister and the Davidic Dynasty was dismantled, the teaching authority filled the void of leadership.

As we have noted, they have rightful teaching authority from God but that does not mean they are always right but they did hold influence over the largest amount of Jews in this period, they were the most popular “sect” if you can even call them that, although structured, their method of delineating groups is not like our modern understanding. Life was about submitting to the Law of Moses, Pharisees had rightful teaching authority of the Law so they were both a religious and political force that guided the largest portion of Jewish laity.

It is members of this influential group that have come to Jesus specifically in order to argue with him. Take note that Mark explains they are there “to test him.” This is not some honest meaning questioning from a curious group of Pharisaic rabbis but enemies who are seeking to trap him. They demand a sign from Heaven as proof of his teaching authority most likely.

12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.”

Jesus sighs deeply “in his spirit” or in some translations “from his heart.” This type of expression is that of sorrow, specifically in response to the faithless leaders of God’s people. Jesus knows exactly who these people are and what authority they have. His deep sigh is in response to this, this is who is leading the sheep at this pivotal moment in Salvation history.

He asks the question “Why does this generation seek a sign?” This does two things. One it just bring to mind the rebellious generation of the Old Testament out in the wilderness with Moses, its very similar language but Jesus is not referring to every person literally of that generation, as the same with the Old Testament references that Jesus is riffing on, it was that generation of leaders, the faithless ones who grumbled at Moses just as these leaders of God’s people grumble at him. The second thing is as it relates to John’s Gospel, in John 8:44 Jesus refers to the Jewish leadership as being spiritual descendants of the devil, despite their biological origins. Those of that generation will not receive anything from him, except what they deserve in the end.

13 And he left them, and getting into the boat again he departed to the other side.

Jesus gives no further explanation to the Pharisees he simply gets into the boat, presumably with his disciples and departs for the other side. Once again we see what seems like a random arrival in a particular place but a very important event occurs and Jesus leaves immediately afterward. It appears his arrival here was for this purpose alone, to tell the Pharisees where they actually stand.

1 In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples to him, and said to them,

2 “I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days, and have nothing to eat;

3 and if I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way; and some of them have come a long way.”

“In those days” Mark is pointing out a detail here that informs the reader that this is occurring during Jesus’ short Gentile focused ministry work. This is important as it helps us separate rate todays feeding miracle from the similar sounding one done for the Jews.

A great crowd of the Gentiles have gathered around him, we already know from Chapter 7 that Jesus initially sought refuge from the crowds by going to the Gentile regions but his fame had actually spread so much there too that they also were crowding him. These crowds have witnessed healing miracles and teachings from Jesus and are obviously very impressed with what he can do and say. They let their desire for Jesus to takeover from the necessity to eat so they are following him around without providing for themselves. This is to be admired for a people that have little to no theological preparation of the Jewish messiah.

Jesus calls out to his disciples telling them that he has compassion for the crowds. They have been following him now for three days, again as we noted, setting Jesus as their priority over basic things like food and water. Imagine being so consumed by a persons words and actions that you forget to eat for three days. Quite the feat. He is keenly aware that its their focus on him that is nourishing them in a sense so if he sends them away, without him being a focus they would collapse from the lack of nourishment. Not all of the people following Jesus are local, they cannot make the journey back to their homes to secure food.

4 And his disciples answered him, “How can one feed these men with bread here in the desert?”

The disciples, despite seeing his countless miracles even by this point of his ministry, do not assume that he can do much about it. We should perceive their question as a doubtful one, not a question filled with optimism. “How can one feed these men with bread here in the desert?” It also indicates that they are in the barren regions outside the cities and towns of the land of the Gentiles. There question is a doubt filled challenge based on their environment.

5 And he asked them, “How many loaves have you?” They said, “Seven.”

He asks his disciples how much bread they have, they answer seven. This detail too separates it from the other miracle similar to this, the feeding of the five thousand. The Gospel writers are not misrepresenting the same event, they are explicitly different events for different people and the numbers involved may have symbolic significance to the receivers of the miracle.

6 And he commanded the crowd to sit down on the ground; and he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and they set them before the crowd.

Jesus commands the crowds to sit down on the ground, this is the typical posture to enjoy a meal, even within the home they would sit on the floor. He takes the seven loaves of bread and “having given thanks” he gives it first to the disciples who then give it out to the crowds. The word for “thanks” is eucharisteō in Greek. This is the origin of our Eucharist. This miracle in itself is a pre-figurment of the the New Covenant liturgical meal of the Eucharist. This is not a miracle of sharing as many modern homiletics might infer, this is a supernatural bread coming from the supernatural being who is Jesus.

7 And they had a few small fish; and having blessed them, he commanded that these also should be set before them.

Then Jesus turns his attention to the few fish that are also within the possession of the disciples. Notice here that he does not confer upon it any connotations of Eucharist, he simply blesses them before commanding the disciples to also distribute them out. The entire time Jesus has presided over the meal like the patriarch of a family would. He engages in priestly roles of acting as the intermediary in order thank his Father in heaven and also bless the food before it is distributed. This entire episode of Jesus’ ministry is liturgical at its foundation with him acting as the head mediator. He is the priest and unlike many Jews of the Second Temple period or otherwise, he is incorporating the Gentiles into this liturgy with the disciples acting as his appointed ministers. Consider the image of a priest in the Mass and his altar servers.

8 And they ate, and were satisfied; and they took up the broken pieces left over, seven baskets full.

9 And there were about four thousand people.

All four thousand people are able to eat till they are satisfied. The disciples gather up all the leftover pieces amounting to seven full baskets of food, more than they started with so any semblance of “the miracle of sharing” can be left out. The seven baskets might have symbolic significance on top of its literal happening. In the feeding of the five thousand Jews there are twelve baskets full, the symbolic number of fullness of the twelve tribes of Israel, a complete Israel is twelve. Here we see seven baskets, the number of covenant. The Jews lacked (many things) but a particular thing they lacked was the fullness of their own people, Jesus symbolically through his miracles re-establishes that fullness, the Gentiles however lack any covenant relationship with Yahweh at all so we get seven baskets, the number of Covenant that establishes what they are missing.

10 And he sent them away; and immediately he got into the boat with his disciples, and went to the district of Dalmanutha.

After the people are fed he sends them away, they no longer run the risk of fainting on the journey because they are nourished with miraculous bread. He gets in a boat with the disciples and goes on his way to the district of Dalmanutha. This place is actually completely unheard of and all the suggestions of where it is is guesswork. It is obviously on some shore of the Sea of Galilee. Ancient authorities read this as Magdan or Magdala which is a known place that has actually in modern times been dug up and excavated. So many Dalmanutha was an alternate name of Magdala that got lost to time or perhaps Dalmanutha was the name of the region in ancient times that Magdala resides in.

31 Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decapolis.

Similar to the event involving the Gergesene demoniac, a perceived random healing event is the only thing Jesus does when going out to the Gentile region according to Mark’s narrative. Previous to this it appeared that Jesus was just getting away from the Jewish crowds and hiding in the Gentile regions of Tyre and Sidon but the single act recorded of his going there was the healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s possessed daughter. It seems random but as soon as this act is done, Jesus leaves to go back to Galilee. Despite how it looks, that was the main purpose of Jesus going there. To plant seeds of faith in the gentile nations probably with the assumption that when the apostles go to these regions in their mission, they do not have to start from scratch.

Jesus travels through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the region of the Decapolis. This angle does not not actually make sense if you were trying to travel straight to Galilee. This is likely Mark’s method of summarising a multi-month long healing ministry tour through the Gentile regions. The Decapolis means ten cities. These were ancient Hellenistic cities on the eastern front of the Roman Empire in the southern Levant. They were Greek culture hubs in an otherwise Judean, Arab and Aramean region.

32 And they brought to him a man who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech; and they besought him to lay his hand upon him.

On his journey back Jesus is stopped by a non-specific group of people, likely Gentiles based on the geography. They are seeking Jesus’ help based on his healing abilities with a man who is both deaf and dumb. They know what Jesus can do and specifically seek him out in order for him to lay his hands on him.

33 And taking him aside from the multitude privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue;

This healing miracle is unique to Mark, which puzzles scholars and they come up with various excuses for why. It’s important to understand that “mainstream” scholarship on the Gospels maintain that essentially everything copies Mark, they aren’t truly their “own” narratives and that Mark’s Gospel is a copy of a never before found narrative known as the Q source. Mainstream scholarship claims that the reason Mark has this miracle within but the others do not is because they thought it was too graphic so they redact it. I think what is more likely is that authors of the Gospels are who tradition say they are and they all had a unique take on what they thought should be included their narratives.

The miracle itself is the most intimate and hands-on approach that Jesus takes in healing someone and to modern sensibilities, yes it is graphic but to the ancients, I do not think it was. Mark thought it was needed in his summary of events. As Dr Michael Heiser would say, “If its weird, its important” so what is so important about Jesus using his own spit to heal a mans tongue and put his fingers in his deaf ears?

The articulation of the incarnation from the position of a philosopher or theologian can be seen best expressed by the Apostle John, in both his Gospel and his epistles. John was a student of the prophet John the Baptist and had inside friends in the Temple, he was well educated in philosophy and theology.

The Mosaic typological fulfilment that the incarnation pronounces is best expressed by Saint Matthew, of the tribe of Levi and attention to detail that comes with being a tax-collector he leaned in on expressing Jesus’ humanity by him being the “New Moses”.

Saint Luke a physician by trade understood people and expresses the incarnation through deep relational bonds that Jesus had with his mother and people he met.

Saint Mark is no expert these fields and he is writing from the words of Saint Peter’s recollection, the sturdy “unlettered” fisherman. This perceivably graphic healing encounter is the most simple expression of how human Jesus was. He would heal someone with his own spittle, like a parent kissing the wounds of their children. He would use his fingers in the ears of the man like a parent rubs a scraped knee. It’s the most human expression of the incarnation in my opinion.

34 and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said to him, “Ephphatha,” that is, “Be opened.”

Jesus looks up heaven as he does when he prays to his father, he seeks that communion he has by being the second person of the trinity and “sighs”. The Greek word isn’t unique to the New Testament but it is rare, a better translation would be “groaned”. It is the same word used by Saint Paul in Romans 8 when talking about the Spirit “groaning” as he intercedes for us. Something similar is going on here.

Every so often as I like to make note of when it occurs, we get residual Aramaic phrases. This was the language our Lord spoke, it was the most common language in the world before Greek took over and it speaks to the authenticity of the event itself. Like the method of healing itself, it is a simple human way of saying “real” something is. There is no need to quote the exact wording but Mark does so for our benefit. He also, as elsewhere, includes the translation for the phrase. Jesus says in Aramaic, “Be Opened”.

35 And his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly.

36 And he charged them to tell no one; but the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it.

37 And they were astonished beyond measure, saying, “He has done all things well; he even makes the deaf hear and the dumb speak.”

The man is miraculously healed but Jesus charges them with not telling anyone. This is a part of what scholars refer to as the “Messianic Secret”. Jesus’ mission has a time schedule and all things must occur in their right order. Although they do not do what Jesus says, it is likely the outcome of him charging beforehand keeps the order of events to happen in the way Jesus’ needs them to as we already know, he is not late to his final hour.

This is a Gentile crowd who are likely foreign to the ideas of the healings of previous prophets of Yahweh. To them these healings are beyond anything they have ever seen, it does not have the same effect that it has on Jesus’ fellow Jews. For them when they see such things, they are considered “signs” indications of Jesus’ divine identity but to the Gentiles he most likely just appears as a phenomenal wonderworker, beyond any of their own mystical holy men.

24 And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house, and would not have any one know it; yet he could not be hid.

Jesus has just been teaching in the region of Galilee, his home base ministry and he now goes away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. This is Gentile exclusive territory. The lectionary inserts “Jesus left Gennesaret” but if these events are continuing directly from Jesus’ new teaching on the food laws then it makes more sense for him to be leaving Capernaum. Jesus is in new territory and is trying to pass about without being recognised but his fame has already reached these regions. One of those who has recognised Jesus has offered him entry to their home to where he seeks refuge from the crowds.

25 But immediately a woman, whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell down at his feet.

26 Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter.

It appears that maybe at the door of the house, another person, a Gentile woman of Greek origin prostrates before him, beseeching him to rid her daughter of an unclean spirit.

27 And he said to her, “Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

In response to the woman’s request Jesus responds with something that on the face of it, seems kind of rude but that is only because of our modern western context. We are going to have to see this through ancient eyes to understand what Jesus is saying.

Jesus first says, “Let the children first be fed” this would be Israel, as the descendants of Abraham and the people of the Old Covenant are considered the first born son of God. They entered a divine contract through this Covenant that binds them to God. After the Tower of Babel incident, Yahweh disinherited all the peoples of this original state before God. Something that Adam had and his descendants until God divided the nations at Babel, disinheriting them as sons and then taking Abraham as his new inheritance, promising it to his descendants also. This would be the Jews, the only “whole” tribe left of the original twelve born to Jacob aka Israel. Before the New Eternal Covenant is in place, in a divine legal sense, only the Jews are in a higher state of relation to Yahweh. Though they’re less like sons and more like domestic servants, still in the household though, unlike the Gentiles. The New Covenant which will come (we are in it now) makes us all children of Yahweh.

Jesus then compares his miraculous acts to bread, which is funny because bread does have a lot to do with his miracles, and him giving this bread to a Gentile would be like feeding the “dogs” before the children. First of all, this implies that although the Gentiles are not on the same level of relation to God as the Jews during the Old Covenant, they are in the queue at least. The english word “dogs” is not actually a very good translation of the term used. The Greek word is kynarion which whilst sounding like a Pokemon actually means something much more like “Little house puppy”.

That wouldn’t sound very good in an english translation but that is what the word means. Jesus is not calling Gentiles wild dogs, but more like household pets, which yes can still sound kind of insulting in the 21st century but in the ancient context it isn’t. He is actually stating for a fact that the Gentiles rank in the hierarchy is within the household of Yahweh but it is below that of little children, who were essentially slaves by legal right. That is the relationship at the time Jesus is talking. The New Covenant that he will bring, fullfiling his implication earlier, will raise us along with the Jews to be heirs with him, Sons and daughters of God. His mission is to the Jews first because they must be made heirs, then the Gentiles which is what he will send out his Apostles to do.

28 But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

Instead of arguing or being insulted, she calls him kyrios, Lord, the Greek rendition of the Holy Name of God in the Old Testament. She then acknowledges her lowly state and in fact weighs her claim upon that fact. Even domestic dogs get to eat the scraps dropped from the table.

29 And he said to her, “For this saying you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.”

30 And she went home, and found the child lying in bed, and the demon gone.

For this act of humility, Jesus accepts her request, with no need of physical contact or even seeing the woman’s daughter. Simply by his word, the demon leaves her daughter alone.

14 And he called the people to him again, and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand:

15 there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.”

Surrounded by the usual crowds, Jesus calls them closer to him give them a teaching, that on the face of it is a completely against what they already know. Up to this point, the areas of “new teachings” by Jesus exist within an facet of Jewish theology that was essentially non-existent, at least not authoritatively. The Kingdom of God was known about but the details were a total mystery. In other cases of teachings, Jesus correctly interprets the Mosaic Law more accurately than the teachers of his day. Now he is talking about food and the external cleanliness laws from the Torah. This area of Jewish belief was well expounded upon and had been applied rigidly.

Jesus overrides everything said about such rules of cleanliness, nothing that goes into a man can defile him. In the context of food this would mean the Kosher laws do not apply. This would be incredibly confusing to his listeners but that is because they do not understand Jesus’ authority, he isn’t just a wise rabbi, he is God incarnate and can declare earthly rules to be null if he wishes.

We should probably talk a little about what these laws were really about.

The dietary laws and sacrificial practices of the ancient Hebrews, as outlined in the Torah, were not merely about physical health or arbitrary restrictions. They served a profound theological purpose: to distinguish the Israelites from the surrounding cultures, particularly the Egyptians, Canaanites, and other Near Eastern societies. These laws and rituals were a means of reinforcing the Israelites’ monotheistic faith in Yahweh and preventing the adoption of idolatrous or pagan religious practices.

1. Egyptian Theology and Hebrew Sacrifice

The Israelites’ experience in Egypt deeply influenced their religious laws. In Egyptian theology, certain animals like cows, bulls, cats, and falcons were sacred and revered as manifestations of gods. For example, the Apis bull was considered divine, and cows were sacred to the goddess Hathor. In contrast, these same animals were central to Hebrew sacrificial worship. Bulls, sheep, and goats were sacrificed regularly, a practice that was not only ritual but a direct theological counterpoint to Egyptian animal worship. Yahweh’s command to offer these animals in daily sacrifices—such as the morning and evening lamb offerings—acted as a reminder to the Israelites that these creatures were not divine but were subject to the sovereignty of Yahweh. This practice rejected the Egyptian notion of animal divinity, reinforcing that only Yahweh, the Creator, was to be worshipped.

2. Canaanite Religious Practices and Hebrew Dietary Laws

The Canaanites, who lived alongside the Israelites, had their own religious customs that often involved animal worship and fertility rituals. A key example is the prohibition against boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk, found in Exodus and Deuteronomy, which scholars believe is a reaction against a Canaanite fertility ritual. The Canaanites may have used this practice in agricultural rites to ensure fertility, but Yahweh explicitly forbade it, emphasizing a rejection of Canaanite paganism and idolatry. This prohibition formed the basis for the broader kosher law against mixing meat and dairy, further separating the Israelites from their Canaanite neighbours.

The distinction between clean and unclean animals in Hebrew dietary laws also reflects this desire to differentiate from Canaanite and other pagan practices. Pigs, for example, were unclean for the Hebrews but may have had ritual significance for Canaanites and other Near Eastern cultures. By banning the consumption of pork, Yahweh further separated His people from these idolatrous practices.

3. Other Near Eastern Cultures and Animal Worship

Beyond Egypt and Canaan, other cultures in the ancient Near East, such as the Philistines, had deities associated with certain animals. The Philistine god Dagon, often depicted as part fish, provides a possible link to the Hebrew prohibition against eating fish without fins or scales. Shellfish and other unclean sea creatures may have had symbolic or religious significance in surrounding cultures, but they were forbidden by Yahweh as a way to maintain Israelite purity and prevent the adoption of foreign religious customs.

5. Summary: A Theological and Cultural Boundary

In essence, the dietary laws and sacrificial liturgies of the ancient Israelites were deeply rooted in theological distinctions designed to preserve the purity of their worship and their identity as Yahweh’s chosen people. By setting themselves apart from Egyptian, Canaanite, and other Near Eastern cultures, the Israelites rejected idolatry and animal worship, reinforcing their commitment to monotheism. The clean vs. unclean distinctions, the prohibition of certain rituals like boiling a goat in its mother’s milk, and the emphasis on blood as sacred all served to highlight Israel’s unique relationship with Yahweh, who alone was worthy of worship. These practices ensured that Israel remained spiritually distinct, rejecting the syncretism that often accompanied contact with neighbouring cultures.

God coming as Man marks the moment in salvation history where the image of God in humanity is to be raised up, this doesn’t make everyone automatically a good person but it gives everyone the opportunity to ascend higher into the beatific vision, communion with God. Now that man has been given a “higher rank” in the cosmological hierarchy of God’s creation, he is no longer bound by the training wheels of his preparation for this moment. Those training wheels being the Mosaic cleanliness laws.

Both the dietary laws and cleanliness laws are not equal to the Decalogue, those are eternally defined by God, that’s why “don’t eat cheeseburgers” were not inscribed on those tablets. Only the ten words, ten commandments were, rules that Jesus actually reinforces in his teachings as opposed to the training wheel rules that were a part of God’s divine pedagogical preparation of his people.

(16)  “If any man has ears to hear, let him hear”

This verse is very interesting because of historical and manuscript reasons. On the face of it, its a common phrase we hear from Jesus that he repeats in his ministry several times, it essentially means “what I have said is cryptic, but if you understand, put it to use and take it in, also if you don’t understand, don’t stop those who do”. Pretty simple right? The complication is that although this is a common phrase, in this particular place it is not present in all ancient manuscripts, it is debated whether or not it genuinely is meant to be there and depending on which Bible you use, you might have no verse 16 at all, the RSVCE that I use for these commentaries skips straight to verse 17. Kind of quirky.

17 And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.

This verse lets us know Jesus’ location at this time, he is in Capernaum, “the house” would be Jesus’ home base during his ministry which was Peter’s house in Capernaum. He enters Peter’s house with his disciples, leaving the crowds behind and they ask Jesus the meaning of the parable. This could mean three possibilities:

1. Parables are so broad in their definition that what Jesus said in the text is considered a parable.
2. The disciples are so shocked at his statements about the cleanliness laws that they think he must be giving a parable because its literality is too much for them.
3. Mark paraphrased Jesus’ substantial teaching without giving the parable itself that meant what he paraphrases.

Pick whatever works for you. I think the second possibility makes the most amount of sense considering the following verses.

18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him,

19 since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

20 And he said, “What comes out of a man is what defiles a man.

Jesus acknowledges their confusion at his teaching, they understand just as much as the crowds did. They are unable to see how the cleanliness laws are not meant to prepare them for something greater. It’s easy for us from out modern context but they do not have our outlook. To them, Yahweh said no pork, they think that their slavery to the Law is meant to be a permanent condition not a preparatory one. Food enters his stomach and passes through, no food can actually tarnish you but your heart, this would be their very being, is untouched by such things. What makes a man defile himself is what comes out of his being.

21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery,

22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.”

Jesus then goes on to elaborate what the things from the heart of man that can actually defile him. “Fornication” or in Greek Porneia is interesting, in protestant Bibles when Jesus speaks of marriage, “porneia” is the only thing that can be used to justify divorce and is translated as “adultery” but as you can see later in the list, adultery is listed alongside porneia. The Greek for adultery is moicheia, thats the explicit 1:1 meaning of the word. That means porneia must mean something different, sorry protestants. Fornication does not quite do justice either for the meaning, whereas moicheia is an easy 1:1 translation porneia would be better translated as “illicit sexual union” this would include how the RSV translates it as but would extend to all illicit sexual union, ANYTHING outside of the conjugal marriage of a man and wife. This would include sodomy, so people that try to claim Jesus does not forbid such things are biblically illiterate.

Stealing, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, lying, disregarding boundaries, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. These are all covered by the decalogue when understood fully. So we see Jesus overriding the preparatory rules (cleanliness laws) and reinforcing the Commandments immediately afterward. He is actually being incredibly clear about what rules are permanent and what ones are not and also, where the breaking of these rules come from. Man himself. They do not just injure neighbour, they injure and degrade the person breaking those commandments. Since the New Covenant is all about bring man back up to his rightful place in the cosmic hierarchy, partaking in these acts lowers him down again, thus defiling him.

1 Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,

Jesus is still doing his ministry work in Galilee and his healings and miracles have caused great attention to be drawn to him, news of his works have spread so far as Jerusalem and the Pharisees and their Scribes have come down from the Holy City to see him.

The Pharisees were the most populous and dominant group among first century Jews. Although within our modern context we might say “religious sect” or “political party” these terminologies do not encapsulate the divisions of Second Temple Judaism. The Law was the religious Law so there was no division between political and religious parties as Jews were beholden to God above all. They just had different groups that disagreed with each other yet were all within “The Book of Life” a supernatural and/or allegorical book of God’s chosen ones.

The Pharisees came out of the Exile period where the Priestly class lost their dominance with a lack of a Temple and the Davidic dynasty lost its influence without a Kingdom, leaving the pious well read Jews occupying the teaching Seat of Moses to be the most important. They, in their good meaning piety, started to apply the Levitical purity laws originally meant for the priesthood upon ordinary people, this led to the practices dominant in Jesus’ own time that he will critique in todays readings.

The Scribes were legal experts in the Mosaic Law, they did not align with any particular party but were essentially “hired” by different groups for consultations on applications of the Law. The Pharisees had their own Scribes, the Sadducees had theirs as did the Essenes along with independent minded Scribes. Their job was copying the Law, interpretation, application and consulting/teaching others on the Mosaic Law.

2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed.

3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders;

4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.)

The Pharisees and their Scribes observe disciples of Jesus eating whilst their hands were “defiled”, Mark then clarifies that this simply means unwashed. This doesn’t imply that they were dirty physically. Mark is portraying the Pharisaic standards in contrast with those that do not keep them. He then continues this illumination of the rigid rules by explaining that they do not eat without ritually washing their hands, this is made obvious with the term “observing the tradition of the elders” this is not about physical cleanliness. This high standard is applied to themselves for simply going to public places like markets and also regards any goods they buy from those markets. Everything must go through a ritual washing. This rule comes from a good place, it is an extrapolation of the Laws in Leviticus that applied to the priests and their cultic paraphernalia.

5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?”

The Pharisees and the Scribes propose the question to Jesus, asking why they reject the tradition of their elders. This tradition again, by Jesus time was relatively modern, maybe only a few centuries old but to the Scribes and Pharisees it was necessary. It is curious that they ask a question, instead of outright leaving which is typically what they would do.

6 And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;

7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’

8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.”

9 And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!

Jesus, as he does in such altercations, quotes from writings that his objectors accept. He quotes the Prophet Isaiah where God condemns the people of Judah for their outward religiosity but inward hardness of heart. It is in fact more of an insult to “fake it, till you make it” than to do all these outward expressions whilst internally rejecting his commandments. By Jesus’ time because of the reinforcement of the Pharisee’s teaching authority over the centuries, they had started to bind people with things that were far from what God actually required of them. They cling to the outward expressions because, as physical beings they are easier and more obvious, but do so in vain because they standards were invented by men and passed down as tradition.

Jesus calls out their hypocrisy and then tells them that their very keeping of these man made traditions were in fact the obstacle causing them to reject God’s commandments.

10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’;

11 but you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God)—

12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,

13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do.”

A key commandment is to honour your father and mother. This would include taking care of them financially in their old age when they are unable to work. Jesus, quoting Moses, refers to this law and the punishment for not keeping it; death. He then pivots from the Law to the actions the Pharisees take. A manipulation of the act of Corban.

Qorban means offering or sacrifice in Hebrew, in the context of the Old Testament it referred to things consecrated or dedicated to God. In Jesus’ day many Pharisees (and others) abused this honourable notion. They would say “I can’t give my money to my mother and father because it is to be used for God”, whilst it somehow staying in their own coin purse. This was a way that people could retain wealth and think they were getting past God’s commands, because you aren’t being greedy, it is for God, so they say.

By taking this bastardisation of the Law to this level, the Jews made void the substance of what the Law was there to do. To teach them to love their neighbour, beginning with their parents and family. There are quite a few examples of this style hijacking the Law in the first century and MANY in modern day Judaism which would make the Jew’s of Jesus’ day shudder. Chicken wire and light switch timers come to mind.

53 And when they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret, and moored to the shore.

Leaving Capernaum on the northwest side of the Sea of Galilee, they arrived on the more southern western side at Gennesaret. Whilst on the sea, Jesus did his famous miracle of walking on the water and initially charged his apostles with taking them to the western shore of Bethsaida. The reason they do not actually go to Bethsaida is up for debate and a lot of scholars provide various reasons but there is no concrete answer. My own personal take is that Jesus didn’t mean for them to go to Bethsaida at all but if he told them to go that way, they would go into the storm and wind ridden areas of the lake, providing Jesus the opportunity to do his miracle in a more profound environment.

54 And when they got out of the boat, immediately the people recognized him,

55 and ran about the whole neighborhood and began to bring sick people on their pallets to any place where they heard he was.

Gennesaret is not that far from Capernaum and Jesus is already massively famous in there so it is of no surprise that the people of Gennesaret also recognise him. They start running around the neighbourhood telling everyone they can that the miraculous rabbi is in there town. They start gathering their sick, even those who cannot move by their own, place them on pallets to carry them and take them to any of the locations that Jesus was at. This language continues to cement the summarisation nature of Mark’s writing, verse 55 is covering what could be weeks or even months of ministry work.

56 And wherever he came, in villages, cities, or country, they laid the sick in the market places, and besought him that they might touch even the fringe of his garment; and as many as touched it were made well.

The summary of Jesus ministry continues, Mark makes note of wherever Jesus ends up, villages, cities or out in the countryside, all the sick were brought to him even if they can only touch the fringe of his garment, referencing the story of the Woman with the haemorrhage perhaps. All who touched his garments were also made healthy again. This means that although we only have the specific story of the Woman with the haemorrhage touching Jesus’ clothing to be healed, Mark tells us in summary form that this happened on many occasions and like the previous verse this appears to only be a summary of a long standing high point of Jesus’ ministry. We should keep in mind that Mark’s Gospel is the shortest and a lot of time can be condensed in a few verses.

Marks Gospel has 16 chapters with 11,304 words in the original Greek text. Considering the writing materials used at the time, this was a comfortable fit for a single scroll of parchment or papyrus. It’s true that sizes varied, the wealthy obviously being able to afford longer and more in quantity but it appears that Mark made use of the most common affordable size of parchment, early Christians were not wealthy. Mark’s writing style with his use of these summaries enables him to fit his Gospel on a single piece.

30 The apostles returned to Jesus, and told him all that they had done and taught.

The previous verses of Mark’s Gospel have focused on a flashback to John the Baptist’s martyrdom but in the chronology of Mark’s narrative relating to Jesus’ ministry, Jesus has just sent out the twelve apostles to exorcise demons, heal the sick and preach repentance to the surrounding towns and villages. Now they have returned to Jesus and informed him of everything they have done, this includes teaching, although not explicitly listed in the Jesus’ charge to them, teaching comes with their authority that Jesus’ has bestowed upon them.

31 And he said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a lonely place, and rest a while.” For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat.

Throughout Jesus’ ministry he takes time before and after big moments to take a break and be alone with God. This pattern reflects the rest of God on the Sabbath after the six days of creation. This cycle is necessary in both a physical and spiritual way so Jesus makes sure to instruct his apostles after their little missionary work, to “Come away by yourselves to a lonely place, and rest awhile.” Not only would they need physical rest after what they have done but the spiritual space is required to give thanks for working through them. This is not a one and done incident, because of their actions after the bestowal of authority by Jesus, they are going to be approached by many more people and they need to take the time to eat and rest.

32 And they went away in the boat to a lonely place by themselves.

33 Now many saw them going, and knew them, and they ran there on foot from all the towns, and got there ahead of them.

In order to secure this place of solitude among themselves, they take to their boats. The limited space of a vessel meant even if people wanted to go with them, they couldn’t and people weren’t likely able to swim the distance they were travelling even if they were motivated to do so. This gives them space both on the journey and the location they decide to shore up.

Unfortunately as we will see, many just run around the shoreline, hoping they come to shore near them at the various towns and villages. The fame of Jesus as well as his authority is now upon the shoulders of the twelve already this early in Jesus’ ministry. They are perceived as wise teachers and thus must be listened to and followed about.

34 As he went ashore he saw a great throng, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.

As they arrive on the shore, no particular location is named in this section but we can presume that it is still within the Jewish geography, Jesus sees a great crowd awaiting him. Whenever we see this phrasing we should be envisioning multiple hundreds of people, his fame has only grown since he filled entire synagogues and town squares.

Jesus feels a compassion on the crowds he sees, the meaning behind the Greek term brings to mind a guttural sense of compassion, very raw emotion. He seems all these people who have been given a taste of the Word of God and now they are entirely dependant on it. They are like sheep without a shepherd, a common analogy used for the Hebrew people. God is their shepherd and the prophets promised God would come to shepherd them again closely. Jesus is subtly being positioned as the divine shepherd in these passages though it may be glanced over by modern readers. Because of the feelings he has for these people, Jesus instead of taking time to rest with his apostles, begins to teach them many things. Mark does not clarify what it is exactly but we can assume parables as that was his custom with the common folk, Mark is not writing a transcript, just a summary of what occurred in Jesus’ ministry after all.

14 King Herod heard of it; for Jesus’ name had become known. Some said, “John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him.”

Jesus’ fame has gone through all the lands, news of his healings and exorcisms have spread and now King Herod has heard of it. Herod was not a King in the normal sense, Mark uses this term to point him out as the highest ranking authority besides the Romans in the land. His actual rank as pointed out by Luke is Tetrarch, which means ruler of a quarter. The only king title that existed with the appointment of Herod’s father Herod the Great was King of the Jews, a gentile title for the Jewish leader of the region. The region was currently divided amongst his sons, one being “King Herod” mentioned by Mark who is Herod Antipas. He rules over Galilee and Perea.

Some individuals within the court suppose this news of Jesus was not actually a new individual at all but a resurrected John the Baptist. We should be clear that Jew in this time period did not believe in reincarnation, they think that Jesus is the resurrected John the Baptist. John was the most famous, before Jesus, prophet in the land. Herod feared his influence as the historian Josephus notes in his writings. They can only make sense of Jesus’ powers by being a resurrected person.

15 But others said, “It is Elijah.” And others said, “It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.”

Other in Herod’s court agree with the resurrection hypothesis but disagree on the individual. There are prophecies by Malachi that point to a return of the Prophet Elijah who, in his own day, was a popular wonder worker and messenger of God. So these court members suppose that Jesus is Elijah or one of the other prophets from their history. We should really try and digest the readiness people are to accept a resurrection of a prophet in this time period, considering how Jews and others react today to such things. The Jews of old are not like Jews now.

16 But when Herod heard of it he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.”

Herod Antipas upon hearing these murmurings within his court settles on the first one proposed. He believes that it is John the Baptist who has risen. This is likely because of current psychological situation, he has recently put John the Baptist to death by beheading. As noted before, Herod was deeply afraid of John the Baptist because the people believed him to be a prophet and it wasn’t without a lot of prompting (as we’ll see in later verses) that he had John killed and his remorse perhaps is keeping the Baptist in his head.

17 For Herod had sent and seized John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodi-as, his brother Philip’s wife; because he had married her.

18 For John said to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”

19 And Herodi-as had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him. But she could not,

20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. When he heard him, he was much perplexed; and yet he heard him gladly.

Herod is emblematic of a very weak ruler, succumbing to the will of those of influence around him. He only seized John and bound him in prison because John the Baptist called to public attention his breaking of several religious laws. The most important one being adultery. He married his brothers wife. She is the one who is most motivated to kill John but Herod, whilst fearing him, also listened to him gladly and believed him to be a prophet from God. Herod is perplexed and does not want to kill him and fears the repercussions, he has a fear of God whereas his new illicit wife wants him dead.

21 But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and the leading men of Galilee.

22 For when Herodi-as’ daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests; and the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will grant it.”

23 And he vowed to her, “Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom.”

24 And she went out, and said to her mother, “What shall I ask?” And she said, “The head of John the baptizer.”

25 And she came in immediately with haste to the king, and asked, saying, “I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.”

Herod until this point, despite imprisoning John the Baptist, was in a sense protecting him from Herodias. So she bides her time in order to see a moment to have him killed. Herod celebrates his birthday, this is kind of a funny detail but birthdays were not a common celebration at all, it was a Gentile custom and only for royalty. This is a part of Herod’s deep desire to be perceived as a king despite not actually be one. Herod being in good spirits, most likely drinking with his court members, decides to once again, do what a king would do, promise something that only a king can promise. He goes so far as to promise half his kingdom to his illicit wife’s daughter. This is something he is not legally allowed to do, he is a client ruler of the Roman empire, knowing this Herodias tells her daughter (named by Josephus as Salome, not mentioned in the New Testament) to ask for John the Baptist’s head on a platter. It’s important to note that Herod “vowed” in his offering, oaths are sworn before God and must be kept.

26 And the king was exceedingly sorry; but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her.

27 And immediately the king sent a soldier of the guard and gave orders to bring his head. He went and beheaded him in the prison,

28 and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl; and the girl gave it to her mother.

Herod is distraught but is bound by his own drunken oath and also his pride plays a rule. He cannot let his court see him break an oath and he must have done all this rather loudly since everyone can witness it. The entire interaction with Herod and Herodias reflects that of King Ahab and Jezebel in 1 Kings, with John the Baptist taking the place of Elijah. Herodias is definitely a Jezebel character whereas Herod is the weak king wrapped around the finger of his wife, holding dual competing fears of both their earthly attachments and their God.

Herod sends for his soldiers to deal with John the Baptist the way his daughter-in-law had requested, by the prompting of Herodias. The girl presents the severed head of John to Herodias. The beginning of the readings start with what we could considering the “present time” in the Gospel narrative and the martyrdom of John the Baptist is a flashback. It is a real example of the Markan Sandwich and the most famous. It shows us why Herod had so much on his mind as it pertains to John, he did not kill him as a just king punishing a person who broke the Law but a weak king, twisted by pride and fear into killing a holy prophet.

29 When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body, and laid it in a tomb.

John had many disciples and when they hear that their leader has be slain they take his body and lay it in a tomb. A cult to John the Baptist still exist to this day and they go by the name of Mandaeans. Their presence in the world today speaks to just how popular John was.