The Berean Table

Field	Detail
Pericope	Mark 7:1–37
Theme	The clash between the traditions of men and the commandment of God, the true source of defilement in the human heart, and the overflow of the Messiah’s mercy to the Gentiles — Jesus exposes ceremonial hypocrisy, declares all foods clean, locates sin within, and brings the bread of grace and the opening of ears to those outside Israel, fulfilling the prophetic promise that the deaf shall hear and all shall be made new

---

Opening Prayer

---

Closing Prayer

---

Timeline Context

Mark 7 falls within the great Galilean ministry of Jesus, in the section of Mark’s Gospel (chs. 6–8) that oscillates between Jesus’ mighty works, growing opposition, and the slow-dawning (and often failing) understanding of the disciples. The chapter opens on the heels of the feeding of the five thousand (6:30–44), the walking on the water (6:45–52), and a summary of widespread healings at Gennesaret (6:53–56). The delegation of “Pharisees… with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem” (7:1) signals that the religious establishment of the capital is now formally investigating this Galilean teacher, a note of mounting hostility that Mark has been building since the earlier controversies (2:1–3:6). Jerusalem’s scribes had already accused Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebul (3:22); now they come to catch Him on the question of ritual purity.

Historically, the events belong to roughly A.D. 29–30, during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, while Pontius Pilate governed Judea and Herod Antipas (whose murder of John the Baptist Mark has just narrated in 6:14–29) ruled Galilee and Perea as tetrarch. The Pharisees were a lay renewal movement devoted to applying the priestly purity laws to everyday life, guided by an expanding oral “tradition of the elders” — the accumulated rulings later codified in the Mishnah. Geographically the chapter ranges widely: from Galilee (vv. 1–23), northwest into pagan Gentile territory around Tyre and Sidon on the Phoenician coast (vv. 24–30), and then back through Sidon to the Decapolis, the largely Gentile region of ten cities east and southeast of the Sea of Galilee (vv. 31–37).

Redemptive-historically, the chapter stands at a hinge. Jesus first exposes the bankruptcy of a religion of external ceremony and human tradition, then relocates defilement in the sinful heart, and finally — having in principle declared all foods clean (v. 19) — crosses into Gentile lands to dispense the mercy of the kingdom. The movement of the chapter enacts a theology: once the ceremonial barrier of clean and unclean is pronounced fulfilled, the bread of the covenant begins to reach the nations. The Syrophoenician woman and the deaf man of the Decapolis are firstfruits of the ingathering of the Gentiles that Acts will describe and Paul will explain. Mark, likely writing to a Roman (largely Gentile) church around A.D. 60–70, presents this chapter as a charter for the gospel’s outward reach: the Messiah who cleanses the heart also opens the ears of the nations.

---

Historical-Grammatical Study

Genre. Mark 7 is Gospel narrative — a mixture of controversy dialogue (vv. 1–13), pronouncement and explanatory saying (vv. 14–23), and two miracle accounts (vv. 24–30, 31–37). Mark writes fast-paced, vivid narrative marked by his characteristic “immediately” (euthys) and by an editorial habit of pausing to explain Jewish customs (vv. 3–4) and to translate Aramaic (v. 34) — clear signs he addresses Gentile readers unfamiliar with Palestinian practice.

Key grammatical and syntactical features.

• “Tradition of the elders” (paradosis tōn presbyterōn, v. 3). Paradosis means “that which is handed down”; the noun recurs as a drumbeat through vv. 3, 5, 8, 9, 13, setting the human “tradition” over against “the commandment of God” (tēn entolēn tou theou, v. 8).
• “Hypocrites” (hypokritai, v. 6). Originally a stage actor speaking behind a mask; Jesus applies Isaiah’s charge of mouth-worship divorced from the heart to the Pharisees’ playacted piety.
• “You leave… you hold” (aphentes… krateite, v. 8). Two present-tense verbs in sharp antithesis — abandoning God’s command while clinging fast to human rule.
• “Making void the word of God” (akyrountes ton logon tou theou, v. 13). Akyroō is a legal term for annulling or invalidating a document; their tradition legally cancels God’s own Word.
• “Corban” (korban, v. 11). A transliterated Hebrew/Aramaic term (qorbān) meaning “an offering devoted to God”; Mark glosses it for his readers (“that is, given to God”). A vow that shielded a man’s assets from being used to support his parents.
• “Thus he declared all foods clean” (katharizōn panta ta brōmata, v. 19). A participial editorial comment by Mark drawing out the momentous implication of Jesus’ words — the ceremonial food laws of Leviticus 11 are pronounced fulfilled.
• “Out of the heart” (ek tēs kardias, v. 21). The kardia is the whole inner person — mind, will, affections — the biblical seat of moral life (cf. Proverbs 4:23). The vice list of thirteen items (vv. 21–22) inventories what flows from the corrupt spring within.
• “Dogs” (kynaria, v. 27). A diminutive — “little dogs,” household pets rather than the wild scavenger dogs (kynes); the tenderness of the diminutive softens the saying and the woman seizes on it.
• “Ephphatha” (ephphatha, v. 34). An Aramaic imperative, “be opened,” preserved and translated by Mark; the ipsissima verba of Jesus, recalling His mother tongue and His personal touch.
• “He has done all things well” (kalōs panta pepoiēken, v. 37). The crowd’s verdict echoes Genesis 1:31 (LXX), “God saw everything… and behold, it was very good” — casting Jesus’ healings as new-creation work.

First-century background. The Pharisaic system of ritual purity extended priestly holiness codes to the ordinary table, requiring the washing of hands and vessels (vv. 3–4). Vows of “Corban” were a real and abused practice (attested in later rabbinic literature, which itself sought to curb such misuse). The regions of Tyre, Sidon, and the Decapolis were Gentile territory, where the categories of “clean” and “unclean” reached their sharpest social edge.

Covenantal themes. The chapter turns on the transition from the ceremonial law of the old covenant — with its clean/unclean distinctions that fenced Israel off from the nations — to its fulfillment in Christ, who cleanses the heart and thereby opens the covenant of grace to the Gentiles. The citation of Isaiah 29:13 (vv. 6–7) and the fulfillment of Isaiah 35:5–6 (v. 37) frame the chapter within the prophetic hope of a renewed people whose hearts are near to God and whose ears are unstopped.

---

Expanded Outline

Section 1 — The Tradition of the Elders versus the Commandment of God (Mark 7:1–8)

Key Insight

The scene opens with an official delegation: “the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem” (v. 1). This is no casual encounter but a formal inspection from the religious authorities of the capital. Their complaint is precise: “they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed” (v. 2). Mark pauses, as he often does for Gentile readers, to explain the custom: the Pharisees and “all the Jews” (that is, all who followed Pharisaic practice) ceremonially washed before eating, “holding to the tradition of the elders” (v. 3), together with “the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches” (v. 4). The issue is not hygiene but ritual purity — the extension of priestly holiness to the common table. The whole controversy turns on a single word repeated like a hammer-blow: paradosis, “tradition,” that which is handed down by men, set against the commandment handed down by God.

The scribes press their charge: “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” (v. 5). Jesus answers not with a defense of hand-hygiene but with a prophetic indictment, quoting Isaiah 29:13: “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites… ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’” (vv. 6–7). The word “hypocrites” (hypokritai) named the masked actors of the Greek stage; Jesus charges the Pharisees with a religion of the mask — mouths full of worship while the heart is far away. Isaiah’s ancient rebuke of Judah’s mechanical piety lands with fresh force upon the Pharisees, whose meticulous externals concealed a heart estranged from God.

The climax is the antithesis of verse 8: “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” The two verbs are pointed: they abandon (aphentes) what God commands and grip fast (krateite) what men have devised. Calvin observes that “there is nothing to which men are more prone than to worship God with outward pomp, while they neglect the true holiness of the heart.” Matthew Henry notes that the Pharisees “were more careful to keep up the tradition of the elders than to keep the commandments of God.” R. C. Sproul warns that “the essence of hypocrisy is the substitution of the external for the internal.” When human tradition is elevated to the level of divine command, worship becomes vain, and the heart drifts even as the hands are scrubbed. Christologically, Jesus stands here as the true Prophet who, greater than Isaiah, reads the heart and calls His people back from empty ceremony to living communion with God. He is Himself the reality to which all the ceremonial washings pointed — the One who alone can make the heart clean.

Application

This passage searches every religious heart. First, it exposes the perennial danger of substituting external observance for internal reality. We can multiply spiritual routines — attendance, giving, disciplines, correct opinions — while our hearts remain far from God. The peril is not the disciplines themselves but the assumption that they suffice while the heart is neglected. Ask honestly: do I honor God with my lips while my affections wander? Second, beware of elevating human preferences and traditions to the status of divine commands. Every church culture accumulates its own “traditions of the elders” — worthy customs that harden into tests of spirituality. When our rules bind consciences that God has left free, or when we prize them above His plain Word, we repeat the Pharisees’ error. Third, the passage calls us to worship that flows from a heart near to God, not from a masked performance for others. Cultivate the inward reality: love, reverence, faith, and repentance — the worship “in spirit and truth” (John 4:24) that no external ceremony can counterfeit. Beware, however, the opposite misapplication: this text does not license the neglect of outward obedience or ordered worship, as though only the heart mattered and forms were irrelevant. Jesus attacks the divorce of the external from the internal, not the external as such. The remedy is not to abandon reverent practice but to fill it with a heart truly near to God.

---

Section 2 — Corban: Nullifying the Word of God (Mark 7:9–13)

Key Insight

Having stated the principle, Jesus now presses it with a devastating example. “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!” (v. 9). The words drip with holy irony: their skill lies precisely in setting aside God’s command so as to prop up their own. He cites the fifth commandment as His test case: “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die’” (v. 10, citing Exodus 20:12 and 21:17; Deuteronomy 5:16). The command to honor parents carries an implied duty of material care for them in old age, and its violation was capital in the Mosaic law. Jesus chooses the fifth commandment deliberately: the very command that governs family duty is the one the Pharisees’ tradition allowed a man to evade.

The mechanism was the vow of “Corban”: “But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”‘ (that is, given to God)— then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother” (vv. 11–12). Corban (korban) was a Hebrew term for a gift dedicated to God. By pronouncing his assets “Corban,” a man could declare them off-limits for supporting his parents — ostensibly devoting them to God, but often continuing to use them himself while shielding them from the claim of filial duty. A vow supposedly made to honor God was twisted into an instrument for dishonoring one’s parents, and the tradition treated the selfish vow as binding while the divine command was set aside. The scribes’ casuistry made the human vow inviolable and the divine command negotiable.

Jesus draws the verdict: “thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do” (v. 13). The verb “making void” (akyrountes) is a legal term for annulling a contract — their tradition did not merely add to God’s Word; it legally cancelled it. And the closing note, “many such things you do,” shows this was no isolated abuse but a pattern. D. A. Carson observes that “the tradition, designed to hedge the law, ends by annulling it.” R. T. France notes that “what began as a way of taking God’s law seriously has become a way of evading its real demands.” Matthew Henry writes pointedly that “they that will be superstitious… are commonly unnatural; and while they pretend piety toward God, they break the bonds of natural affection.” Christologically, Jesus here defends the abiding authority of God’s moral law even as He overturns the ceremonial system that surrounded it. He honors His Father perfectly, and He calls His people to a righteousness that fulfills, not evades, the heart of the law. The One who is Himself the Word made flesh will not permit the Word of God to be made void by the traditions of men.

Application

This passage warns against the subtle art of using religion to escape obedience. First, examine whether any of your spiritual commitments have become a cover for neglecting plain duties. The Pharisees used a religious vow to dodge caring for their parents; we can use “ministry,” “calling,” or piety to excuse the neglect of family, honesty, or justice. God is not honored by devotion that tramples His clear commands. Second, take seriously the fifth commandment’s enduring claim: honoring parents includes providing for them in age and need (cf. 1 Timothy 5:4, 8, “if anyone does not provide for… his household, he has denied the faith”). Care for aging parents is not optional piety but commanded obedience. Third, beware casuistry — the clever construction of loopholes that technically satisfy a rule while betraying its intent. God reads the heart’s aim, not merely the letter of our compliance. Finally, this passage exalts the authority of God’s Word over every human addition; let nothing you have “handed down” — however venerable — be permitted to nullify what God has plainly said. The warning against misapplication is this: Jesus does not forbid vows or generosity to God as such (Scripture commends both), but condemns using them to escape a competing, God-given duty. True devotion never pits one of God’s commands against another; it honors them all.

---

Section 3 — What Truly Defiles a Person: The Heart (Mark 7:14–23)

Key Insight

Jesus now turns from the scribes to the crowd, summoning them with solemn urgency: “Hear me, all of you, and understand” (v. 14). What follows is a principle that overturns the whole clean/unclean framework of the ceremonial law: “There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him” (v. 15). Defilement is not a matter of what enters the body from without, but of what proceeds from the heart within. This was a revolutionary saying, striking at the root of the elaborate purity system built around food and washing.

In the privacy of the house, the disciples — dull as ever in Mark’s account — ask Him “about the parable” (v. 17). Jesus marvels at their slowness: “Then are you also without understanding?” (v. 18). He explains that food “enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled” (v. 19) — it never touches the moral center of the person. Then Mark adds his own momentous editorial comment: “(Thus he declared all foods clean.)” With these words Mark draws out the staggering implication: the ceremonial food laws of Leviticus 11, which had for centuries fenced Israel off from the nations, are pronounced fulfilled and set aside in Christ. What Peter would later be taught by vision on the rooftop (Acts 10:15, “What God has made clean, do not call common”), Jesus here declares by His own authority. This is not the abolition of God’s moral law but the fulfillment of the ceremonial law that pointed forward to Him.

Jesus then locates defilement precisely: “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts” (vv. 20–21). There follows a catalog of thirteen vices — “sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness” (vv. 21–22) — a comprehensive inventory of the corrupt heart’s output, spanning acts, dispositions, and attitudes, and touching the second and even the first table of the law. “All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person” (v. 23). The problem of humanity is not external and ceremonial but internal and moral: the heart is a fountain of pollution, and no ritual washing can cleanse it. Calvin comments that Christ “shows that the source of all pollution is within, in the heart,” and that “the whole of religion is here made to consist… in the purity of the heart.” Sinclair Ferguson observes that “Jesus was the greatest realist about human nature who ever lived; He knew what was in man.” The doctrine of the sinful heart here anticipates the doctrine of total depravity. Christologically, Jesus exposes the depth of the human need precisely in order to point to Himself as the only remedy — the One who by His Spirit gives a new heart (Ezekiel 36:26) and by His blood cleanses the conscience (Hebrews 9:14). Only the great Physician who sees to the heart’s depths can cleanse it; and He came to do just that.

Application

This passage redraws the map of what we should fear and where we should look for cleansing. First, it teaches us to locate our deepest problem within, not without. We are quick to blame our environment, our circumstances, our associations — but Jesus says the pollution comes from our own hearts. Real change begins not with rearranging externals but with a heart made new by grace. Second, guard your heart as the wellspring of life (Proverbs 4:23), for from it flow the evils Jesus lists. The battle for holiness is fought first in the thoughts, desires, and affections, long before it reaches the hands. Third, take honest stock of the vice-list: evil thoughts, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness — these are not the sins of gross outsiders only but the native produce of every human heart, including yours. Let the mirror of this catalog drive you not to despair but to Christ, the only one who can cleanse the fountain. Finally, rejoice in the freedom Christ has won: the ceremonial barriers are down, and cleanness is now a matter of the heart renewed by the Spirit, available to all who trust Him. The misapplication to avoid is antinomian — as though “it’s what’s in the heart that counts” excused careless outward sin. Jesus’ point is the opposite: because the heart is the source, outward sins are all the more serious as evidence of inward corruption, and the remedy is a renewed heart that bears clean fruit, not a heart that excuses dirty hands.

---

Section 4 — The Syrophoenician Woman: Crumbs of Grace for the Gentiles (Mark 7:24–30)

Key Insight

Immediately after declaring all foods clean, Jesus does something startling: “from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon” (v. 24) — Gentile territory on the Phoenician coast. The narrative movement is theological: having pronounced the ceremonial barrier fulfilled, Jesus crosses into the land of the “unclean” nations, and the bread of the kingdom begins to reach the Gentiles. He sought seclusion — “he entered a house and did not want anyone to know” — “yet he could not be hidden” (v. 24), for His fame had spread even to the Gentiles.

A desperate mother comes: “a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet” (v. 25). Mark stresses her outsider status: “the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth” (v. 26) — doubly outside the covenant as both Gentile and, culturally, an ancient enemy of Israel. She begs Him to cast out the demon. Jesus’ reply is famously hard: “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs” (v. 27). The word for “children” is Israel, to whom the Messiah came first (Romans 1:16, “to the Jew first”); the “bread” is the blessing of the kingdom. Yet the tenderness is in the details: Jesus says “first” (implying a “then” for others), and the word for “dogs” is kynaria, the diminutive — not the wild scavengers of the street but the household pets under the table. Jesus’ words are a test that both honors the redemptive-historical priority of Israel and, by their very wording, leaves a door open for Gentile faith.

The woman’s reply is a masterpiece of humble, persistent faith: “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs” (v. 28). She does not dispute her place; she accepts it — “yes, Lord” — but she seizes on His own image and turns it into a plea: even the little dogs get the crumbs. She asks not for the children’s loaf but only for a crumb of that abundance, confident that Christ’s grace overflows even the table’s edge. Jesus marvels and grants her request: “For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter” (v. 29). She goes home and finds “the child lying in bed and the demon gone” (v. 30). Matthew’s parallel records Jesus’ explicit commendation, “O woman, great is your faith!” (Matthew 15:28). Calvin observes that “she did not… give way to despair, but… turned the very objection into an argument in her favor,” calling this “an example of extraordinary faith.” R. T. France notes that “her repartee shows a faith which will not be put off, and which finds hope even in a discouraging response.” Christologically, this scene displays the Messiah whose mission, though ordered to Israel first, was always destined to overflow to the nations (Genesis 12:3; Isaiah 49:6); the Gentile woman’s crumb is a firstfruit of the feast Christ will spread for all peoples. The One who declared all foods clean now feeds a Gentile with the bread of grace, and her persevering, self-emptying faith becomes a model for every sinner who comes with empty hands.

Application

This account instructs and encourages the humble seeker. First, it models the kind of faith that pleases Christ: humble, persistent, and clinging to His mercy even when His providence seems to rebuff us. The woman took what looked like a closed door and made it a doorway of faith, refusing to let go of Christ’s goodness. When God’s dealings seem hard or His answers delayed, do not turn away; press in, taking Him at His word and appealing to His mercy. Second, it teaches us to come as she came — not claiming rights or worthiness, but content to receive even a crumb of grace. True faith does not demand; it pleads, and it counts the least of Christ’s mercies as more than enough. Third, it displays the vast reach of the gospel: no one is too far outside, too unclean, too unworthy to receive Christ’s mercy. If a Gentile mother could obtain grace, so can you, whatever your background or barrier. Fourth, it dignifies the persistent prayers of parents for their children; her intercession for her daughter was heard. Persevere in prayer for those you love. The misapplication to avoid is reading Jesus’ words as harsh or reluctant; rather, He tests to draw out and display faith, and He grants the request fully. Nor should we conclude that Israel’s priority meant Gentile exclusion — the whole thrust is that the crumbs from Israel’s table were always meant to feed the world.

---

Section 5 — Ephphatha: Healing the Deaf Man of the Decapolis (Mark 7:31–37)

Key Insight

Jesus continues His Gentile-region ministry: “he returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis” (v. 31) — the largely Gentile ten-city region east of the sea. Again the setting is Gentile territory, and again grace flows to the outsider, this time to a man “who was deaf and had a speech impediment” (v. 32), brought by others who “begged him to lay his hand on him.” The man could neither hear the word nor speak it plainly — a living picture of humanity’s spiritual condition apart from grace.

Jesus’ method is unusually tender and tactile: “taking him aside from the crowd privately, he put his fingers into his ears, and after spitting touched his tongue” (v. 33). He condescends to the man’s condition, using sign-language of touch that the deaf man could understand, communicating His intent to heal the very organs that failed. “And looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, ‘Ephphatha,’ that is, ‘Be opened’” (v. 34). The look to heaven acknowledges the Father as the source of healing; the sigh (estenaxen, a groan) expresses Jesus’ compassionate grief over the ravages of sin and death upon the good creation (cf. Romans 8:22–23). And the word “Ephphatha” — Mark preserves the very Aramaic that fell from Jesus’ lips — is a sovereign command: “Be opened.” The Creator’s word, which once said “Let there be light,” now says over ruined ears and tongue, “Be opened,” and it is so. “His ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly” (v. 35). The healing is instant and complete.

Jesus charges secrecy — “tell no one” — but “the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it” (v. 36), the familiar “messianic secret” motif of Mark, restraining premature or political misunderstanding of His messiahship. The crowd’s response forms the chapter’s climax: “They were astonished beyond measure, saying, ‘He has done all things well. He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak’” (v. 37). Their verdict, “He has done all things well,” echoes the refrain of creation, “God saw… it was very good” (Genesis 1:31), casting Jesus’ work as the dawning of new creation. And the specific wonder — the deaf hear and the mute speak — directly fulfills the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 35:5–6, “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped… and the tongue of the mute sing for joy.” Calvin comments that in this miracle Christ “gave a proof of his divine power” and that the people “acknowledged… that God was present.” Sinclair Ferguson notes that the opening of the deaf man’s ears pictures “the opening of the ears of the spiritually deaf to hear the gospel.” Christologically, this closing miracle gathers up the whole chapter: the Messiah who cleanses the heart and reaches the Gentiles is the new-creation Redeemer who unstops deaf ears — first physical, and ultimately spiritual — that His people may hear His word and confess His name. Every believer is a spiritual Ephphatha: once deaf to the gospel and unable to confess Christ, now, by His sovereign word, opened to hear and freed to speak His praise.

Application

This closing scene both comforts and summons. First, marvel at the compassion and condescension of Christ. He takes the man aside, touches the very organs that failed, sighs over the brokenness of the world, and speaks a word of power — He deals with each of us personally and tenderly. The Savior is not distant from your specific need; He draws near, understands, and acts. Second, see in the deaf man a picture of your own spiritual state apart from grace: deaf to God’s word, unable to confess Him rightly, until Christ says, “Ephphatha.” Give thanks that if you now hear the gospel and confess Christ, it is because He has sovereignly opened your ears and loosed your tongue. Third, let the crowd’s confession become yours: “He has done all things well.” In all Christ’s dealings — even the hard providences — trust that He does all things well, for His works are the works of the new creation. Fourth, having been given ears to hear and a tongue to speak, use them: hear His word gladly and proclaim His praise zealously, as the crowd could not be silenced. Beware two misapplications: treating the physical miracle merely as a moralistic lesson while missing its testimony to Christ’s deity and messianic identity, and presuming that spiritual hearing is our own achievement rather than His gracious gift. The right response is worship, gratitude, and glad proclamation.

---

Cross References

Comparative Gospel Study

Mark 7 is Gospel narrative, and its first half runs closely parallel to Matthew 15:1–20, while the two miracles have distinctive placement. A harmonization is instructive.

The controversy over tradition (Mark 7:1–13; Matthew 15:1–9). Both Gospels record the Jerusalem delegation, the charge about unwashed hands, Jesus’ citation of Isaiah 29:13, and the Corban example. Matthew’s order presents the Corban case (Matthew 15:3–6) before the Isaiah citation (15:7–9), whereas Mark cites Isaiah first (7:6–7) then Corban (7:9–13); the substance is identical. Mark, writing for Gentiles, uniquely inserts the explanatory parenthesis about Jewish washing customs (7:3–4), which Matthew, writing for a more Jewish audience, omits as unnecessary.

What defiles (Mark 7:14–23; Matthew 15:10–20). Both record the pronouncement that defilement comes from within and the vice-list from the heart. Mark alone adds the decisive editorial comment, “(Thus he declared all foods clean)” (7:19), drawing out for his Gentile readers the momentous implication that the food laws are fulfilled — an implication especially relevant to a church wrestling with Jew-Gentile table fellowship. Matthew’s list of vices is slightly shorter and ordered around the second table of the Decalogue.

The Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24–30; Matthew 15:21–28). Matthew adds details Mark omits: the disciples’ request to send her away (Matthew 15:23), Jesus’ word that He was “sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24), and His explicit commendation, “O woman, great is your faith!” (15:28). Mark uniquely notes the woman was “a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth” (7:26), sharpening her outsider status for Gentile readers. The two accounts are fully complementary, together displaying both Israel’s priority and the reach of Christ’s mercy.

The deaf man (Mark 7:31–37). This miracle is unique to Mark; Matthew instead gives a summary of many healings in the same region (Matthew 15:29–31), concluding that the crowds “glorified the God of Israel” — a Gentile crowd praising Israel’s God, echoing Mark’s theme. Mark’s detailed, tender account, preserving the Aramaic “Ephphatha,” reflects his vivid eyewitness-shaped narrative (traditionally, Peter’s testimony).

Old Testament Connections

Pentateuch. The clean/unclean food distinctions Jesus sets aside derive from Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14; the whole ceremonial purity system stands behind the hand-washing controversy. The fifth commandment Jesus defends — “Honor your father and your mother” — is from Exodus 20:12 and Deuteronomy 5:16, with its penalty from Exodus 21:17. God’s promise that Abraham’s seed would bless “all the families of the earth” (Genesis 12:3) undergirds the Gentile mission of the chapter’s second half.

Historical Books. The ministry of Elijah to the Gentile widow of Zarephath “in the land of Sidon” (1 Kings 17:8–24) — the very region of the Syrophoenician woman — foreshadows Christ’s grace crossing into Gentile territory; Jesus Himself cited this precedent (Luke 4:25–26). Naaman the Syrian, cleansed by Elisha (2 Kings 5), likewise anticipates Gentile inclusion.

Wisdom Literature. “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life” (Proverbs 4:23) stands directly behind Jesus’ teaching that defilement flows from the heart. The Psalms’ cry for inward purity — “Create in me a clean heart, O God” (Psalm 51:10) — anticipates the heart-cleansing Christ provides.

Major Prophets. Isaiah 29:13, quoted by Jesus (vv. 6–7), condemns lip-service worship. Isaiah 35:5–6 (“the ears of the deaf unstopped… the tongue of the mute sing for joy”) is fulfilled in the deaf man’s healing. Isaiah 49:6 (“a light for the nations”) and Isaiah 56:6–8 (foreigners gathered to God’s house) frame the Gentile ingathering. Ezekiel 36:26 (“I will give you a new heart”) promises the inward renewal that answers the corrupt heart Jesus exposes. Jeremiah 31:33 (the law written on the heart) and Jeremiah 17:9 (the deceitful heart) are both echoed.

Minor Prophets. Joel 2:28–32 and the prophetic hope of the nations streaming to Zion (Micah 4:1–2) anticipate the Gentile inclusion enacted here.

New Testament Fulfillment

Gospels and Acts. The declaration that all foods are clean (v. 19) is dramatically confirmed in Peter’s rooftop vision — “What God has made clean, do not call common” (Acts 10:15) — which opens the door to the Gentile Cornelius, and in the Jerusalem Council’s freeing of Gentiles from the ceremonial law (Acts 11:1–18; 15:1–29). The Syrophoenician woman and the deaf man of the Decapolis are living previews of the Gentile mission that Acts narrates. Jesus’ answer to John the Baptist, “the deaf hear… and the poor have good news preached to them” (Matthew 11:5), interprets the deaf man’s healing as a messianic sign.

Paul’s Epistles. Paul develops the freedom from ceremonial food laws — “nothing is unclean in itself” (Romans 14:14) and “let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food… These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ” (Colossians 2:16–17). The Gentile inclusion is Paul’s great theme: the “dividing wall of hostility” is broken down (Ephesians 2:11–22), and Gentiles are grafted into the olive tree of God’s covenant people (Romans 11:11–24). The corrupt heart Jesus exposes is anatomized in Romans 1:29–31 and Galatians 5:19–21, and answered by the new heart of Romans 6 and the new creation of 2 Corinthians 5:17.

General Epistles and Revelation. Hebrews explains that the ceremonial regulations “deal only with food and drink and various washings” and are “imposed until the time of reformation” (Hebrews 9:10), now fulfilled by Christ who cleanses the conscience (Hebrews 9:14). James warns against a religion of hearing without doing and lip-service faith (James 1:22–27). Revelation’s vision of “a great multitude… from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Revelation 7:9) is the consummation of the Gentile ingathering the chapter foreshadows.

Redemptive-Historical Context

Mark 7 stands at a decisive juncture in the unfolding drama of redemption, and its several parts together trace the movement from Creation through Fall to Redemption and Consummation.

At Creation, God made all things “very good” (Genesis 1:31) — the very refrain the crowd echoes when it says of Jesus, “He has done all things well” (v. 37). The human heart, made for communion with God, and the human faculties of hearing and speech, made for hearing His word and praising Him, were fashioned in that original goodness. The chapter’s closing miracle, casting Jesus’ work as a restoration of what creation intended, signals that in Him the new creation has dawned.

The Fall accounts for the chapter’s central diagnosis. From Adam’s rebellion flows the corruption Jesus exposes in verses 21–23: “from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts… All these evil things come from within.” The heart, once a fountain of communion, has become a spring of pollution (Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9). The Fall also erected the barriers of sin and death that the deaf man’s affliction embodies — the ruin of the good creation, over which Jesus sighs (v. 34). And the Fall lies behind the whole tragedy of a religion that scrubs the hands while the heart remains far from God (v. 6).

In Redemption, Christ addresses the true problem at its root. He first strips away the false remedy of external ceremony, then locates defilement in the heart, then acts to cleanse and open what sin has corrupted. Crucially, by declaring all foods clean (v. 19), He pronounces the ceremonial law — the shadow that fenced Israel from the nations — fulfilled in Himself, so that the covenant of grace, long administered through Israel alone, now visibly overflows to the Gentiles. The Syrophoenician woman’s crumb and the Decapolis man’s opened ears are firstfruits of the ingathering of the nations promised to Abraham (Genesis 12:3) and foretold by Isaiah (Isaiah 49:6). The chapter thus dramatizes the transition from the old-covenant administration to the new, from Israel-and-the-nations-apart to one people gathered in Christ (Ephesians 2:11–22). The “already/not yet” tension appears throughout: the kingdom’s cleansing and inclusion are already breaking in, yet the messianic secret (v. 36) restrains their full disclosure until the cross and resurrection.

The Consummation is anticipated in the chapter’s fulfillment of Isaiah 35, the prophecy of the age when God comes to save, the deaf hear, and the mute sing. What Jesus does in part and in preview — opening ears, casting out demons, cleansing hearts — He will do in fullness when the new creation is complete and “a great multitude… from every nation” (Revelation 7:9) stands before the throne. The Gentile mother’s crumb will give way to the marriage supper of the Lamb; the opened ears of one deaf man foreshadow a redeemed humanity that hears and confesses that Christ has, indeed, done all things well. Mark 7 traces the whole arc: the good creation marred by the corrupt heart, redeemed by the Christ who cleanses hearts and opens ears, and consummated in a new creation gathered from every nation to the praise of God’s grace.

---

Systematic Theology Connection

Sola Scriptura: The Supremacy of God’s Word over Human Tradition. The controversy of verses 1–13 is, at bottom, a controversy about authority. Jesus indicts the Pharisees for setting “the tradition of men” over “the commandment of God” (v. 8) and for “making void the word of God” by their tradition (v. 13). This establishes the Reformation principle that Scripture alone is the supreme and final authority for faith and life, and that all human tradition must be subordinate to and judged by the written Word. The Westminster Confession (1.6) declares that nothing is to be added to Scripture “whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men,” and (1.10) that the supreme judge in all controversies is “the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture,” above “all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men.” Practically, this doctrine calls the church to continual reformation according to the Word, guarding against every accretion — however ancient or revered — that would bind consciences beyond God’s revealed will. It frees the believer’s conscience from man-made rules while binding it firmly to God’s actual commands (Isaiah 8:20; 2 Timothy 3:16–17). Where tradition contradicts Scripture, Scripture governs; where tradition serves Scripture, it may stand, but never as its master.

Total Depravity: The Corrupt Human Heart. Jesus’ teaching that “from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder… pride, foolishness” (vv. 21–22), and that “all these evil things come from within, and they defile a person” (v. 23), is a locus classicus for the doctrine of total depravity. Sin is not merely a matter of bad external influences but of a heart pervasively corrupted at its source. The Westminster Confession (6.4) teaches that from original corruption “we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil”; the Larger Catechism (Q. 25) describes the sinfulness of that estate as including “the corruption of his whole nature.” The comprehensive vice-list, spanning acts, dispositions, and attitudes, shows that no faculty escapes the taint (Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10–18). Practically, this doctrine humbles all self-righteousness, exposes the futility of merely external religion, and drives the sinner to seek a remedy that reaches the heart. If the fountain is polluted, no washing of the hands will do; only a new heart, given by grace, can make the streams clean.

Regeneration: The New Heart. The corrupt heart Jesus exposes demands, as its only remedy, the inward renewal promised in the prophets and accomplished by the Spirit — a new heart (Ezekiel 36:26, “I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you”). The healing of the deaf man, opened to hear and loosed to speak by Christ’s sovereign word “Ephphatha” (v. 34), pictures this regenerating work: the spiritually deaf are given ears to hear the gospel and tongues to confess Christ, entirely by grace. The Westminster Confession (13.1) teaches that those effectually called and regenerated have “a new heart and a new spirit created in them.” Regeneration is monergistic — the impartation of new spiritual life to those dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1, 5; John 3:3–8; 5:25). Practically, this doctrine locates the hope of transformation not in willpower or external reform but in the sovereign, life-giving work of God. Because the problem is a dead and defiled heart, the solution must be a heart made new by God, who alone can say “Be opened” over the deaf soul.

The Ceremonial Law Fulfilled in Christ. Mark’s comment that Jesus “declared all foods clean” (v. 19) teaches that the ceremonial law — the clean/unclean distinctions, dietary rules, and ritual washings of the old covenant — has reached its appointed fulfillment in Christ and is now abrogated. The Westminster Confession (19.3) states that the ceremonial laws, “prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits,” are “now abrogated under the New Testament.” These laws were a temporary, typological pedagogy pointing to the purity Christ alone provides (Colossians 2:16–17; Hebrews 9:9–14). Yet the same Confession (19.5) affirms that the moral law “doth forever bind all,” so that Christ’s fulfillment of the ceremonial law in no way loosens the moral commands He defends in the same chapter (vv. 10–13). Practically, this doctrine frees believers from kosher and ritual restrictions while binding them to God’s abiding moral law, and it reveals the redemptive-historical unity of Scripture. Christ did not abolish the law but fulfilled it: the shadows are gone because the substance has come.

The Extension of the Covenant of Grace to the Gentiles. The Syrophoenician woman (vv. 24–30) and the deaf man of the Decapolis (vv. 31–37) enact the extension of the covenant of grace to the nations. Reformed covenant theology confesses one covenant of grace, administered first through Israel and then, with Christ’s coming, opened to all peoples (Westminster Confession 7.5–6). The Gentile woman’s crumb and the Gentile crowd’s praise fulfill the Abrahamic promise that “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3) and the Servant’s calling as “a light for the nations” (Isaiah 49:6). Ephesians 2:11–22 explains that the “dividing wall of hostility” — the ceremonial law now fulfilled — is broken down, making Jew and Gentile “one new man.” Practically, this doctrine assures every outsider that Christ’s grace reaches them, humbles Gentile believers as branches grafted into Israel’s tree (Romans 11), and grounds the church’s global mission. The crumbs from Israel’s table were always the bread destined to feed the world.

Effectual Calling and Humble, Persevering Faith. The Syrophoenician woman’s faith — humble, persistent, resting wholly on Christ’s mercy (v. 28) — illustrates both the nature of saving faith and the sovereign grace that produces it. Saving faith is “a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon [Christ] alone for salvation” (Shorter Catechism Q. 86), and it perseveres through testing. Behind such faith lies God’s effectual calling, “enlightening their minds… renewing their wills… effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ, yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace” (Westminster Confession 10.1–2). The woman comes with empty hands, claiming no merit, yet clinging to Christ’s goodness — the very posture God’s grace produces in the called. Practically, this doctrine teaches sinners how to come to Christ (humbly, persistently, resting on mercy) and assures them that such faith is itself His gift, never turned away. Faith that receives grace is not a work that earns it, but the empty hand that God Himself opens to receive His Son.

Christ as the New-Creation Redeemer. The crowd’s confession, “He has done all things well” (v. 37), deliberately echoes the creation refrain, “God saw everything… it was very good” (Genesis 1:31), and the fulfillment of Isaiah 35 marks the dawning of the promised age of salvation. This reveals Christ as the new-creation Redeemer, whose works of cleansing hearts, casting out demons, and opening deaf ears are the firstfruits of the restoration of all things (Romans 8:19–23; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Revelation 21:5, “Behold, I am making all things new”). His sigh over the deaf man (v. 34) unites Him with the groaning creation He came to redeem. Practically, this doctrine assures believers that Christ’s redemptive work is comprehensive — reaching the heart, the body, the nations, and finally the whole cosmos — and it fuels hope for the consummation. The Christ who does all things well is remaking the good creation that sin has marred, beginning with the human heart and ending with a new heaven and new earth.

---

Reformed Theology

Mark 7 richly rewards a Reformed, covenantal reading, for it gathers together several of the tradition’s central concerns: the supremacy of Scripture over tradition, the depravity of the human heart, the sovereignty of grace in regeneration, the unity and progressive administration of the covenant of grace, and the fulfillment of the law in Christ. Reformed theology reads the chapter as a hinge in redemptive history, where the shadows of the ceremonial economy give way to the substance found in the Messiah, and the covenant of grace, long administered through Israel, begins visibly to embrace the nations.

The opening controversy furnishes a charter for sola Scriptura. When Jesus sets “the commandment of God” against “the tradition of men” (v. 8) and charges the Pharisees with “making void the word of God” by their tradition (v. 13), He establishes the principle that Scripture alone binds the conscience with divine authority, and that all tradition stands under its judgment. Calvin, commenting on this passage, warns that “the world has always been prone to worship God according to its own fancy,” and insists that “we ought to embrace nothing but what is founded on the word of God.” This is the very principle the Westminster divines codified in the first chapter of the Confession, making Scripture the supreme judge above councils, fathers, and human doctrines. The regulative principle of worship — that God is to be worshiped only as He has commanded (Westminster Confession 21.1) — flows directly from Jesus’ rebuke of worship offered “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (v. 7).

The chapter’s anthropology is thoroughly Reformed. Jesus’ teaching that defilement arises “from within, out of the heart of man” (v. 21), and His comprehensive vice-list, ground the doctrine of total depravity: sin is not peripheral but radical, seated in the heart, corrupting every faculty. As John Calvin observed, “the heart of man is a factory of idols,” and here Christ Himself testifies that it is a factory of every evil. This diagnosis demands the Reformed remedy of monergistic regeneration — the new heart of Ezekiel 36:26, pictured in the sovereign opening of deaf ears by Christ’s word “Ephphatha” (v. 34). Sinclair Ferguson notes that Jesus “was the greatest realist about the human heart,” and that the healing of the deaf man illustrates “the sovereign grace by which alone the spiritually deaf come to hear.” Herman Bavinck’s insistence that grace restores and renews nature is beautifully displayed in the crowd’s verdict, “He has done all things well” — the language of new creation.

Covenantally, Reformed theology sees in the second half of the chapter the outworking of the one covenant of grace across its several administrations. Geerhardus Vos and the biblical-theological tradition read the movement from the abrogation of the food laws (v. 19) to the ministry among Gentiles (vv. 24–37) as the redemptive-historical unfolding by which the covenant, once fenced within Israel, opens to the nations — fulfilling the Abrahamic promise (Genesis 12:3) and the Isaianic hope (Isaiah 49:6; 35:5–6). G. K. Beale’s emphasis on the temple and the ingathering of the nations, and the covenantal reading of Ephesians 2, illuminate the “dividing wall” now falling. The law/gospel distinction, and the threefold division of the law (moral, ceremonial, judicial), are on full display: Christ upholds the moral law (the fifth commandment, vv. 10–13) while declaring the ceremonial law fulfilled (v. 19) — precisely the distinction the Westminster Confession (19) draws.

Finally, the Syrophoenician woman offers a Reformed portrait of saving faith: humble, persevering, empty-handed, resting on Christ’s mercy alone. Spurgeon preached that her faith “took Christ’s own words and made a plea of them,” and that “great faith is faith that will not be denied.” R. C. Sproul underscored that grace is never a reward for merit; the woman claims none, and receives all. Thus Mark 7, read through Reformed eyes, magnifies the authority of the Word, the depth of human sin, the sovereignty of grace, the unity of the covenant, and the sufficiency of Christ, in whom the shadows are fulfilled and the nations are gathered.

---

Dispensational Theology

Dispensational interpreters, employing a consistently literal-grammatical hermeneutic and maintaining a clear distinction between Israel and the Church, read Mark 7 within the framework of Christ’s offer of the kingdom to Israel, the exposure of the nation’s spiritual leadership, and the anticipatory foreshadowing of the coming age of Gentile blessing. For dispensationalism, this chapter occurs during the period of Christ’s earthly ministry when the messianic kingdom was being genuinely offered to Israel, and the chapter records both the mounting rejection of that offer by Israel’s leaders and gracious previews of God’s future dealings with the Gentiles.

The controversy over the tradition of the elders (vv. 1–13) is read as Christ’s authoritative exposure of the corruption of Israel’s religious leadership. Dispensationalists emphasize the historical reality of the Pharisaic oral tradition and the specific abuse of the Corban vow, taking the text at face value as a literal account of a real confrontation. Charles Ryrie stressed that the Pharisees “had elevated their traditions to the level of Scripture,” and that Christ here defends the plain authority of the written Word of God against human accretion — a concern dispensationalists share with the Reformed, given their high view of biblical inerrancy and literal interpretation. The Scofield Reference Bible notes the Lord’s insistence on the primacy of the divine commandment over human tradition. This exposure of the leaders forms part of the growing evidence, in dispensational reading, that the nation, under its blind guides, was rejecting its King.

The teaching on defilement (vv. 14–23) is understood literally as Christ’s revelation that the true problem is the sinful human heart, not ceremonial impurity. Dispensationalists note Mark’s parenthetical comment that Jesus “declared all foods clean” (v. 19) but characteristically locate the actual setting-aside of the dietary laws not in this saying alone but in its full application after the cross and especially in the Church age, confirmed to Peter in Acts 10. Because dispensationalism distinguishes the dispensations, it stresses that the Mosaic dietary code governed Israel under the Law, and that freedom from it belongs properly to the Church, inaugurated at Pentecost. The Levitical distinctions were part of Israel’s God-given covenant program; their setting-aside marks the transition toward a new dispensational arrangement.

The Syrophoenician woman (vv. 24–30) is especially significant for dispensational theology. Christ’s words, “Let the children be fed first” — with Matthew’s parallel, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 15:24) — are taken literally as affirming that Christ’s earthly mission was directed to national Israel. J. Dwight Pentecost and John Walvoord emphasized that the Gentile woman received blessing not as a member of a covenant people but by exception, as a “crumb” of grace, precisely because the full-scale blessing of the Gentiles awaited a later program. Dispensationalists see here a preview of the age when, Israel having been temporarily set aside, the gospel would go to the Gentiles — yet they insist this does not erase God’s distinct future purposes for national Israel, whose kingdom blessings are postponed, not cancelled. The woman’s faith is genuine and rewarded, but the ordering of “children first” preserves Israel’s covenant priority.

The healing of the deaf man in the Gentile Decapolis (vv. 31–37) and the fulfillment of Isaiah 35:5–6 are read, in dispensational hermeneutics, as a genuine present sign that also anticipates the literal, future messianic kingdom. Dispensationalists hold that Isaiah 35 describes conditions of the coming earthly millennial kingdom, when Messiah will reign from Jerusalem and the whole creation, including the nations, will be blessed and restored. The deaf man’s healing is thus a foretaste — a “sign of the kingdom” — of that literal future age, offered to authenticate the King, while its full and universal realization awaits Christ’s second coming and millennial reign. Walvoord stressed that Christ’s miracles were credentials of His messianic office and previews of kingdom conditions. Thus, while affirming the present grace shown to Gentiles, dispensationalism reads the chapter as preserving Israel’s priority, anticipating the Church age of Gentile blessing, and pointing forward to the literal fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies in the future millennial kingdom, when the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped throughout a restored and glorified earth.

---

Bibliography

• Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
• Beale, G. K. A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
• Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society.
• Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
• Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to Matthew (Expositor’s Bible Commentary). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
• Cole, R. Alan. Mark (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
• Edwards, James R. The Gospel According to Mark (Pillar New Testament Commentary). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
• Ferguson, Sinclair B. Let’s Study Mark. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth.
• France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark (New International Greek Testament Commentary). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
• Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Peabody: Hendrickson.
• Hendriksen, William. The Gospel of Mark (New Testament Commentary). Grand Rapids: Baker.
• Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark (New International Commentary on the New Testament). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
• Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
• Poole, Matthew. A Commentary on the Holy Bible. Peabody: Hendrickson.
• Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Publishers.
• Scofield, C. I., ed. The Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Sproul, R. C. St. Andrew’s Expositional Commentary: Mark. Orlando: Reformation Trust.
• Spurgeon, Charles H. The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit. London: Passmore & Alabaster.
• Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
• Walvoord, John F. Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come. Chicago: Moody Press.
• The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth.