Mark 7:9-10 Exegesis and Interpretation
Exegesis and Interpretation of Mark 7:9-10
Mark 7:9-10 reads, "And he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.'" (ESV) [1]. Jesus here confronts the Pharisees about their tradition of Corban, which allowed individuals to dedicate their resources to God, thereby avoiding their familial obligations.
The passage is part of a larger unit where Jesus critiques the Pharisees' emphasis on ritual purity over moral purity (Mark 7:1-23). The surrounding context is Jesus' encounter with the Pharisees and scribes from Jerusalem, who question him about his disciples' failure to follow traditional washing rituals before eating (Mark 7:1-5).
The commandment Jesus references, "Honor your father and your mother," is from Exodus 20:12, a key text in the Decalogue [2]. By invoking Moses, Jesus grounds his critique in the authority of Scripture. The second quotation, "Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die," is also rooted in the Mosaic law (Exodus 21:17).
The key terms here are "tradition" (paradosis) and "commandment" (entolē), highlighting the tension between human tradition and divine command. Jesus' critique is not against tradition per se but against the way it can be used to circumvent God's law [1].
The interpretive work in this passage hinges on understanding Jesus' argument that the Pharisees' tradition undermines God's command. According to John Calvin, this passage illustrates the tension between human traditions and divine law, emphasizing the need to prioritize God's commandments over human practices [6].
The early church fathers also grappled with the implications of this passage. Augustine, for instance, often used such passages to discuss the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, highlighting the continuity between the moral law and the teachings of Jesus [3].
In the Reformed tradition, Charles Hodge interprets Jesus' statement as a critique of the Pharisees' casuistry, which allowed them to evade their moral obligations through clever legal interpretations [5].
The Eastern Orthodox tradition, as represented by John of Damascus, sees in Jesus' teachings a deeper understanding of the nature of God's law and its fulfillment in Christ [4].
Mark 7:9-10 has functioned in Christian tradition as a warning against the dangers of elevating human traditions to the level of divine law. It has been used in various controversies throughout church history, including debates over ecclesiastical traditions and practices.
The passage remains significant in contemporary Christian theology, serving as a reminder of the importance of prioritizing God's commandments over human traditions.
Sources
- OpenBible.info “Cross-reference: Matt.17.5 → Mark.9.7 (confidence: 10 votes)”
- OpenBible.info “Cross-reference: Mark.7.10 → Exod.20.12 (confidence: 10 votes)”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 6: Augustine — Homilies on the Gospels — CHAP. XV.--OF THE CONSISTENCY OF THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN BY MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PARTIES WHO INSULTED THE LORD.: 52. Matthew goes on in the following strain: "And they that passed by reviled Him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross."[1] Mark's statement agrees with this almost to the letter. Then Matthew continues thus: "Likewise also the chief priests, mocking Him, with the scribes and elders, said”
- CCEL (Eastern Orthodox) “John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, section 60: Chapter XIV .— Concerning the volitions and free-will of our Lord Jesus Christ. Since, then, Christ has two natures, we hold that He has also two natural wills and two natural energies. But since His two natures have one subsistence, we hold that it is one and the same person who wills and energises naturally in both natures, of which, and in which, and also which is Christ our Lord: and moreover that He wills and energises without separation but as a united whole. For He wills and energises in either form in close commun”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 72: sins.” ( Verse 10 .) It is plain, therefore, that Christ came to execute a work, that He was sent of the Father to fulfil a plan, or preconceived design. It is no less plain that special promises were made by the Father to the Son, suspended upon the accomplishment of the work assigned Him. This may appear as an anthropological mode of representing a transaction between the persons of the adorable Trinity. But it must be received as substantial truth. The Father did give the Son a work to do, and He did promise to him a reward upon its ac”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 109: 10:4 11:19 11:19 11:19-20 11:26 12:13 13:9 13:9 14:9 14:14 16:20 16:20 18:4 18:7-8 18:9 18:20 18:20 18:20 18:20 18:20 18:21 18:21 18:21-22 18:23 18:23 18:24 18:24 18:27 18:31 18:32 18:32 20:10 20:12 20:43-44 22:25-26 28:10 29:4 34:4 34:23 34:24 34:25 36:22 36:22 36:22 36:25 36:26 36:26 36:26-27 36:32 37:4 37:24-26 48:21 48:35 Daniel 2:21 2:34 2:37 2:37-38 2:44 4:17 4:25 4:27 4:27 5:18-19 6:22 7:9 7:10 7:10 7:10 7:25 9 9:5 9:7 9:18 9:18-20 9:20 9:24 9:24 9:26-27 9:27 10:13 10:13 10:20 10:21 12:1 12:1-2 12:2 12:3 Hosea 1:11 2:2 2:9 ”