The passage
      v1-2. Jesus is confronted by local Pharisees, along with some from Jerusalem. They are critical of his laxity toward matters of ritual purity, particularly in allowing his disciples to defile themselves by eating with unwashed hands.
      v3-4. In an editorial note, Mark gives a general overview of purity rituals practiced by the Pharisees.
      v5. The Pharisees assume that their traditions have authority and so question Jesus' failure to address them. Jesus happily rises to the occasion.
      v6-7. Jesus sets out to expound the quote from Isaiah 29:13. First, that the religion of Israel is now shaped by externals based on human traditions, and second, that defilement is a product of a corrupted heart, quite apart from externals.
      v8. In grasping onto subjective traditions, the Pharisees have neglected God's authoritative word.
      v9. Jesus goes on to make the point that the Pharisees have actually set aside the commandments for the sake of their traditions.
      v10-12. In quoting the fifth commandment, Jesus adds the penalty for dishonoring parents, namely death. The Pharisees had found a way around honouring parents, as to providing financial help, through a device whereby the son's funds were declared "divine property."
      v13. Jesus sums up his argument, namely, that the Pharisees had dared to nullify the commandments in favour of their traditions.
      v14-15. Addressing the crowd, Jesus presents a short parable. Defilement is from within, not from without.
      v17-19a. As is typical, Jesus later explains the parable to the disciples. An external, such as food, does not defile a person's being ("heart"), it simply passes through.
      v19b. Mark makes his own comment here about the issue of Levitical regulations, particularly food regulations. The issue had caused division in the early church between Gentiles and Jews. The comment doesn't actually seek to dispense with the regulations as such, rather make the point that purity, in the end, has nothing to do with what we eat.
      v20-23. It is what is within the inner being that defiles us, for from within comes "evil devisings which issue in degraded acts and vices", Taylor. By means of these words, Jesus has demolished any idea that pious regulations can purify. In the end, we are all left with a "desperate need for the renewal and cleansing of the human heart", Lane.

The heart of the matter
      "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me", Isaiah 29:13.
      The teaching of this passage is quite straightforward. The Pharisees had developed their own particular religiosity, their "kosher" faith. Jesus, of course, ignores their religious correctness. They respond by questioning his faith. Jesus then points to their hypocrisy. They practice religious correctness while ignoring matters of substance, matters of justice. Jesus then pushes to the core problem facing all humanity. The human heart is the source of corruption and out of it comes all manner of evil.
      Pious traditions have no authority in themselves and certainly no capacity to purify the inner being. In fact, they are a product of human reasoning. Even the purity regulations of Leviticus can't purify. All the law does is identify our defilement, but it certainly can't cure it. Our problem is a spiritual one; we all need spiritual renewal.
      So again, Jesus' teaching drives us to the cross for renewal, for the gift of a new heart within. As we stand in the shadow of the cross, saved by grace through faith, we do wonder about the propriety of, not so much religious traditions that are nothing more than cultural innovations, but the so many Levitical regulations on food and the like. In fact, we may well wonder to what extent the moral law applies to those with a renewed heart.
      The fact is, Jesus hasn't actually wiped away the law, not even the food laws. His point is that externals, in themselves, neither purify nor pollute the inner being. The law is a guide to godliness with some elements more important than others. The eating, or not eating, of crustaceans, is not very important, whereas the honouring of parents is important, but in the end, no law can purify. A new heart within is always a gift of God through faith, apart from works of the law.

v3
      This, and the following verse, serves as a parenthetical comment on Jewish ritual food regulations, and is best bracketed as in the NIV.
      panteV oiJ Ioudaioi "All the Jews" - Many of the Pharisees practiced rigorous purity rituals, but certainly not "all the Jews." "Many other Jewish people", CEV.
      pugnm/ (h) "ceremonial" - with the fist. This word obviously has another meaning other than "fist", but it is not known. Yet, the point of the sentence is clear; religious Jews practiced ritual purification. Gundry suggests "raising hands that are cupped in a fist-like fashion, but with fingers held slightly apart to allow full coverage with the least possible amount of water."

v4
      kai ap agoraV "when they come from the marketplace" - from the market. There is no verb and the word "market" needs something to relate to. Some suggest "things brought from the market" are subsequently ritually washed, while others suggest "those (persons) coming from the market" are ritually washed. "They decline to eat what comes from the market", Moffatt.
      kai alla polla estin aJ parelabon kratein "and they observe many other traditions" - and many other there are which they received. A catch-all for the many traditions of ritual purification. Note the textual variant that includes even the washing of "beds."

v5
      eperwtwsin (eperwtaw) pres. "asked" - question, ask. Historic present tense. "So the Pharisees and Scribes put this question to Jesus", Phillips.
      peripatousin (peripatew) pres. "live" - walk about. Used in the sense of "conduct oneself."
      kata + acc. "according to" - in accordance with. The only time this preposition takes this meaning in Mark.
      paradosin twn presbuterwn "tradition of the elders" - The Pharisees assume that there is an inherent authority in this tradition, which assumption Jesus happily challenges. As far as Jesus is concerned, their received wisdom is man-made. "What our ancestors taught us to do", CEV.

v6
      town uJpokritwn "[you] hypocrites" - This popular Matthean term is only used once in Mark. Note how Mark says that Isaiah's words are for "you". The prophets words are for their own generation, but also for subsequent members of the kingdom.
      ceiloV .... kardia "lips .... hearts" - The issue of scribal religion being external rather than internal (a problem of belief necessitating inner renewal) is developed in v14-23.

v7
      mathn "vain" - futile. The word is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied.
      didaskonteV (didaskw) pres. part. "teachings" - teaching [teachings commandments of men]. Participle of means, expressing how their worship is in vain. Also not in the Hebrew, but in the LXX, and applicable here in referring to the Pharisees. "Rules and regulations based on merely human authority do not provide the sort of response which God requires", France. This idea, conveyed in the second half of the quote, is expounded in v8-13. "They teach as divine commandments man-made rules and regulations", Barclay.

v8
      afenteV (afihmi) aor. part. "you have let go" - having abandoned, forsaken, left. A participle of means, further expressing how their worship is in vain. Here the sense is "neglect" (let go by default) rather than wilfully abandoned. God's word is authoritative while human traditions are subjective. Such traditions may be useful, but cannot be mandatory. "You have put aside the commandment of God", NJB.
      krateite (kratew) "holding on to [the traditions]" - you are holding to, grasping [the traditions]. This verb with the accusative usually means "to hold firmly and completely", "cling to", NAB, but here probably with the sense "keep / observe", NJB; "maintain", REB.

v9
      elegen (legw) imperf. "he said [to them]" - he was saying. The imperfect is either durative, indicating not just a once said word, but a word with ongoing implications, or inceptive, emphasizing the beginning of the action, "he began to say to them." "He went on to say to them", Barclay.
      afeteite (afetew) pres. "you have [a fine way of] setting aside" - you have set aside. The word is much stronger than the "let go" of v 8, pushing toward "reject", even "despise". "You are good at rejecting God's commands", CEV.
      iJna + subj. "in order" - in order that. Forming a purpose clause. They set aside God's commands in order that they might obey their own.

v10
      MwushV "Moses" - Moses is identified as the author of the words to show that the quote comes from the weightier Torah rather than the Prophets or the Writings.
      oJ kakologwn (kakologew) pres. part. "anyone who curses [his father..]" - the one reviling. Possibly "curses", following the AV, although better, "speaks evil of", NRSV.
      qanatw/ teleutatw "must be put to death" - by death let him die. An imperative with a dative serving to represent the Hebrew infinitive absolute, "let him surely die", Taylor.

v11
      ean + subj. "if" - Introducing a conditional clause, 3rd class.
      oJ ean ex emou wfelhqh/V "whatever help you might otherwise have received from me" - whatever by me you shall be profited. The Greek is difficult although the sense is clear. "If anyone says to his father or mother 'Corban' (that is, given to God)" is followed by an explanation in the form of a conditional clause, but missing the substance of the protasis, something like "if it had not been given (to God) then", followed by the apodosis "by me you might have benefited", cf. Moule. The verb is either indicative or subjunctive and is passive, "be benefited / helped." "Anything of mine that might have been of use to you is Corban", Goodspeed.
      korban "Corban" - divine property, something offered or dedicated to God. Possibly just "gift". Clearly the funds now denied to the parent, can be accessed by the son, but how this is possible if they are "divine property" is unclear. The best we can say is that the gift remains at the son's disposal even though not possessed by him, ie. it is "considered" as given to God, Black. The illustration serves to demonstrate how the Pharisees have given greater weight to their traditions rather than to God's law.

v13
      akurounteV (akurow) pres. part. "you nullify" - cancelling, nullifying, repealing. The participle expressing either purpose, "in order to", or result, "with the result that", "thus", NIV, or manner, "in this way", REB. Possibly epexegetic, "that is, repealing the word of God ..", Moffatt. The Pharisees have dared to nullify the Word of God.
      ton logon tou qeou "the word of God" - Here specifically the fifth commandment, not the scriptures as a whole. In Acts the phrase refers to the gospel, again not to the scriptures as a whole.
      hJ/ dat. "that" - which. The dative antecedent "by your tradition" has attracted the relative pronoun "that", even though in normal circumstances the case of a relative pronoun is determined by its function in the clause within which it resides.

v14
      proskalesamenoV (proskaleomai) aor. part. "called" - having summoned, called. The participle possibly forms a temporal clause, "then he recalled the crowd to him", Moffatt.
      ton oclon (oV) "crowd" - Jesus now moves his attention from the Pharisees to the crowd, from specific argumentation to parables.
      akousate (akouw) aor. imp. "listen" - take heed. A call to give careful thought to the words that follow, cf. 4:3. "Pay attention and try to understand what I mean", CEV.

v15
      ouden "nothing" - nothing [outside ...... entering in]. Emphasizing that defilement is not caused by contamination from unwashed hands, v5, or anything, eg. contact with a dead body or bodily fluids, foods.... Jesus is not actually demolishing Leviticus 15, nor the image of purity required of God's people as illustrated in the food laws etc., but rather the foolish notion that a person can literally obey these regulations and as a consequence be declared holy. The law serves to expose sin and so to "complete" this function of the law Jesus moves from externals, which can be kept, to internals, which cannot be kept. It's what comes from within that defiles us, not words as such, but the heart that shapes the thoughts that shape the words and actions. It is this that defiles us, and so we are all defiled. Of course, once we understand that holiness is a necessary requirement for our being if we would gain eternal life, the external image (food laws etc.) becomes an unnecessary appendage, and in its place we pursue inward renewal. "The food that you put into your mouth doesn't make you unclean and unfit to worship God", CEV.
      eisporeuomenon (eisporeuomai) pres. part. "by going [into him]" - entering. This participle is usually treated as an adjective modifying "nothing"; "nothing which enters a man", Barclay.
      exwqen "outside" - from without, the outside.
      koinwsai "unclean" - make common. Here "defile".

v16
      "If any man has ears to hear, let him hear." Taylor argues that this verse should be retained, but most commentators feel that its appropriateness is responsible for its addition to the original text, cf. 4:9.

v17
      ephrwtwn (eperwtaw) imperf. "asked" - were asking. Probably an inceptive imperfect, "his disciples began to ask him", Weymouth.
      parabolhn "parable" - Probably better, a "parabolic saying." A parabolic saying is often a riddle, a "dark saying", which aligns with the intention of Jesus' kingdom parables, namely, to draw out those with eyes to see. Taken literally, Jesus could be saying that food doesn't defile, only bodily fluids or a foul mouth defiles. The hidden intent is to expose the sinful state of the true seeker and so drive them to God for mercy. Note how the apostles come to Jesus privately for an explanation of the riddle. "Riddle", Gould.

v18
      ouJtwV - then. The point made in v15 is repeated. The sense is more likely an inferential statement. "He said to them, 'then you are without understanding.'"
      ou noeite (noew) pres. "don't you see" - don't you perceive, understand, apprehend. "Don't you realize."

v19
      oJti "for" - because.
      thn koilian (a) "stomach" - intestines.
      afedrwna ekporeuetai "out of his body" - goes out (into) the latrine. "Evacuated into the drain by natural process", Barclay.
      kardian (a) "heart" - The word for "intestines" is sometimes used for the inner being, but "heart" is the preferred word. The heart is the source of spiritual and intellectual processing; it is the part of our being that relates to God, but is not the seat of emotions as in Western thought. The point made by Jesus is that in the digestive process, food does not come into contact with the source of our being, the psychological center of our existence, and therefore does not pollute it. Would we be better saying that "it doesn't enter our brain, but rather our stomach"?
      kaqarizwn panta ta brwmata "(in saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean)" - cleansing all foods. A parenthetical comment by the editor referring to Jesus' teaching in 18a "he asked (he said to them)." The question of course is, was Mark right in interpreting Jesus words as a blanket cleansing of all food as far as a source of ritual impurity is concerned? Well! of course Mark was right, otherwise we undermine Biblical authority. God's word to us is the author's words, and the words here make up a clear propositional statement applying to all people for all time. As is always the case, the problem rests with our interpretation of the words. As already noted, Jesus is not demolishing Levitical food laws, but rather moves to the substance of the law, cf. Matt.5:17-20. Food laws only illustrate the idea of purity, they do not create purity, nor can a ritually impure food actually erode purity. Purity is a matter of the heart/mind, and the purity regulations serve, first and foremost, to remind us that our being/self is impure. With all the care in the world, no one can even keep these limited regulations perfectly. When the regulations themselves become the focus, rather than the state of the heart, then radical incisive teaching is the order of the day. Once the substance of the issue is understood, it is then quite proper for the Jewish believers to continue to practice ritual law, just as it is quite proper for Paul to seek exemption for the Gentiles from cultic law (possibly all law as such - see Moo on Romans for an antinomian view of the place of the law in the believer's life. eg. Encountering the Book of Romans, Baker, 2002, or NICNT on Romans). A problem only develops when it is necessary to amalgamate both positions in a single congregation. Both Galatians and Romans (the weak and the strong) address the issue and it is this issue which was the focus of the Jerusalem conference recorded in Acts 15.

v20
      elegen de "he went on" - he said. Resuming Jesus' exposition of the parable, and now dealing with what does actually defile.
      oJti "-" - Here serving to identify a direct or indirect quotation, what Jesus went on to say.

v21
      eswqen "from within, [out of a man's heart]" - from within, inside. It's what comes out that defiles, or better, sin that inevitably comes out of a corrupt heart is what defiles.
      dialogismoi (oV) "[evil] thoughts" - reasoning, deliberations, designs. "Thoughts" is somewhat misleading as the reasoning is active, rather than a passive evil thought. The phrase serves to cover all the evils that follow. In the sins that follow, the first six are plural referring to the act itself, while the last six are singular, referring to the sin. "Evil devisings which issue in degraded acts and vices", Taylor.

v22
      preonexiai (a) "greed" - covetousness with a sexual connotation. "Lust", Moffatt.
      aselgeia "lewdness'' - wantonness. "Indecency", Goodspeed.
      ofqalmoV ponhroV "envy" - evil eye. "Jealousy", Barclay.
      afrosunh "folly" - foolishness, stupidity. Yet not so much intellectual foolishness, but rather the "wrongheadedness of unbelief and sin", Swete.