Ephphatha

The term "ephphatha" is Aramaic. Mark gives us five more Aramaic terms. In 3:17 he calls James and John Boanerges which means sons of thunder. In 5:41 he says to the little girl, "talitha kum," little girl, I say to you arise. In 7:11 he records the term "Corban" to describe a gift designated to God. In 14:36 Mark records Jesus' words on the cross, "Eloi, Eloi. Lama Sabachthani" meaning "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" These exact quotes in Jesus' original language may indicate an eyewitness account, or merely a desire to give us a little more precise insight into the language of Jesus. (BTW, remember the rest of the New Testament was written in Greek.)

The word "Ephphatha" means "Be Opened!" and was spoken to deaf ears (Mark 7:34) as Jesus sighed. Oh, how Jesus wanted what was closed to be opened! Jesus didn't like closed doors. He did not like closed ears. And, he surely did not like closed hearts. In this case closed ears had the added consequence of closed mouths, or at least stammering mouths. How can the mouth form sounds it cannot hear? Not very well, of course. If you want someone to be able to open their mouths, then you must help them have open ears. Understanding should always precede speaking. This is good communication. Isaiah 35:5 prophesies that the Messiah will do this. But, he does so with such drama and intensity. I cannot think of this story without thinking of 2 Cor.6:11-13 when Paul was contending with the brothers and sisters in this local church over the matter of open hearts. Their hearts had been closed to him, and he pleaded (as did Jesus) for their hearts to be opened, and for them to extend again their affection for him. How being closed off from people you love hurts and causes a longing for a return to those times when it seemed things were more open! In 2 Cor.7:2 Paul pleads with them to "make room in their hearts for him." For some, there is no room in the Inn.

In our present story of the deaf and stammering man the Greek literally says that Jesus loosed the bond of his tongue. I like that. Loosing the bonds is what Jesus is about. To the attendants at the tomb of Lazarus Jesus commanded them to "Loose him" from the grave clothes he wore. Jesus too was loosed from the bonds of death itself as he came out of the tomb. We are all bound by something. We are all closed off in some way and need loosing. We all need to be set free. We all long to hear the words "Ephphatha" from Jesus' lips. BE OPENED! Our hearts and spirits can get closed off from God and others. We "shut down" in many ways because of the hurts we experience. If this fits you, stop right now and pray the Ephphatha prayer and receive the healing you need.

Sigh

There are so many interesting features to the story of the deaf stammering man on Mark 7, not the least of which is the "sigh" that Jesus let out. The scientist say the reason humans sigh is to reset the breathing patterns that are getting out of whack and keep our respiratory system flexible. That is a little too scientific for me, though no doubt a sigh might serve this physical purpose. I doubt the kind of sigh we see here originated in the lungs. This kind of sigh originates in the inner man. Notice Mark calls it a deep sigh. Life threatens to knock the breath from us, the breath of our souls. We despair to see what we see. We struggle with the experiences of life and express our difficulty through sighing. Jesus dealt with the effects of the Fall of man in every healing service. Damaged people came one after another after another to be healed. There was no end. The line stretched around the earth and back again. Was there no end of the sick people in Israel? It seemed that no one was untouched by the effects of sin in the world. For every physical defect Jesus saw He knew that the sin defects were even more serious. Jesus ministered to damaged people. Day in a day out ministry produces the sigh.

This word is used in a more intense way in Mark 8:12 in response the Pharisees who came to him seeking more signs in order to test Him. At their request Jesus gave this non verbal cue. He let out a deep sigh. "Why does this generation seek for a sign?" I personally don't see this as an angry sigh, but a profoundly sad sigh. How He wants them to "get it" and they do not. How He wants to gather them as a hen gathers her chicks and they would not be gathered. (Matt.23:37) It is the sigh before the cry. Paul says we groan or sigh awaiting the redemption of our bodies (Rom.8:23) along with the creation itself. Perhaps some of our natural disasters are no more than the earth sighing. Even the Spirit sighs with groans too deep for words (Rom.8:26) as he interprets to God what we cannot say. While in this body we groan longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling (2 Cor.5:2). Life tugs at our tent pegs, and we fear we will be left exposed and naked. We long for what is mortal in us to be swallowed up by life (2 Cor.5:4). This groaning is what God heard from Egypt when he delivered the Israelites (Acts 7:34) and it is what Christian leaders feel in their grief when their flock will not be persuaded by them to follow where they lead (Heb.13:17). When the sigh turns to complaint we are told to stuff it (Jas.5:9).

So much is spoken in this one word "Sigh" to help us understand Jesus and how He thinks. He is touched deeply by what he experiences in man. He is burdened like a horse whose load is sometimes too heavy and constant, and needs to let out a large sigh, expanding its chest to take in a large amount of air and then letting it out. For some reason we often feel better after the sigh. Perhaps we do reset the system taking in more needed spiritual oxygen to get us through another day of living in a Fallen world. Sigh.......

Of Ear Wax and Spit

The story of the deaf man of stammering speech in Mark 7 is truly an interesting story of one of Jesus' healings. Jesus had a very elaborate "ritual" that he followed in this healing. He 1) took the man aside from the multitude; 2) He put his fingers in his ears; 3) He spat and touched the man's tongue with the saliva; 4) He looked up to heaven; 5) He sighed deeply; 6) And he spoke to the ears telling them to be opened; 7) He told them not to tell anyone. Is it just me or does this seem pretty odd to you? Let's just take two of the seven steps he followed. By the way, since we are big on finding patterns in the New Testament for the way things should be done (i.e. "approved examples"), how is this for a divine pattern for healing deaf people? But I digress.

When we were raising our kids we played the "wet willy" game. We would lick a finger and hold our children down and place the wet finger in one of their ears. I know, pretty gross. But, they loved it. Another similar game was to hold them down and blow on their stomach. I guess if you over think these things it is a little wired. But, can you even begin to imagine what Jesus did to this man, this deaf stranger? He stuck his fingers in his ears and wet his finger with his spit and touched his tongue. Sounds pretty offensive to me. Why would anyone stand still for such a ritual? Jesus has the man's ear wax on two of his fingers and the man has Jesus' spit in his mouth. If you are having some trouble with this picture right now, talk to Jesus. He did it. Touching some one's head and certainly any exchange of bodily fluids is a very intimate act. Remember Jesus did not have to do this in order to heal the man. This was not a prescribed procedure for healing deaf folks. It was a decision Jesus made. Remember there was another healing where Jesus made some mud from his spit and put it on a man's eyes. (John 9) I wonder if this flashed through Jesus' mind when the spit of scorn was streaming down his face on the way to the cross. Spit is not always a solution for healing.

I wonder if this method Jesus used is like his reference to the Gentile woman in the previous story when he called her a dog. Both seem offensive. Both required those seeking a miracle to stand and take it, and to not allow their sensitivities to be assaulted to the point of missing their healing. Think of it this way. Doctors often do some pretty disgusting things to help us maintain our health and to regain our health. They stick things in places that we don't want to think about. But, why? Of course for them it is the only way to heal us. This is their best practice. But, Jesus didn't have to stick his fingers in the man's ears and put his spit in the man's mouth. So why? Maybe, just maybe, because of the reason we are talking about it right now. There could be no mistake on how this man was healed. It was Jesus' fingers in his ears-no one else. It was Jesus' spit in his mouth-no one else. It was this intimate, invasive, uncomfortable, and humbling connection with Jesus that led to the man's healing. Am I willing to submit to such an intimate, invasive, uncomfortable and humbling touch from Jesus in order to be healed?

Details

In transitioning to a new section in Mark 7 and Matthew 15, there are subtle details that raise questions about the mind of Christ. I find myself asking "why did Jesus do this or that" or "why did Jesus say this or that?" The answer is not always clear. People and Jesus do things for reasons. This may not seem significant, and perhaps it is not compared to other matters in Scripture, but it is interesting. If you put Matthew and Mark's accounts together we see something of the route Jesus took from one place to another. His beginning point was the region around Tyre in Phoenicia. This is the northwest corner of Israel along the Mediterranean Sea. It was primarily a Gentile area. Tyre was the southernmost major city of the region, and Sidon was the northernmost major city of this area. Jesus' destination was the east side of the Sea of Galilee. So he wants to go southeast from where he is but instead he travels almost due north, and then takes a sharp right turn through the mountains to THE mountain, the highest point in Israel, Mt. Hermon. Mt. Hermon is over 9000 ft above sea level. This is not a major mountain in the world, but in that region it is the highest. So when Matthew said in Matthew 15:29 that Jesus went up to the mountain, the mountain was Mt. Hermon. After leaving there he took another right hand turn and traveled south to the Decapolis (the ten cities) which is on the east side of the Jordan. If this is confusing get a map of this area during the time of Christ.

Having traveled to the holy lands and seeing Mt. Hermon I am more aware that not only is this not the most direct route to where He was going, but it is a difficult route. For Jesus and His apostles this would not be easy, and it would take some time to walk, and climb. This would be like walking through the Smokey Mountains. Again, why would he do this? What motivated him to take such a roundabout way to get to his destination? Was he trying to avoid large cities and crowds so that he would not have to face unnecessary controversy? Was he just wanting to spend some time in the mountains with His apostles? Was he killing time so that he would not be killed prematurely? All of these have merit, but how can we be sure? When Jesus called his apostles to come follow Him they had no clue where it would take them. But follow they must, even  in the details that may seem so, well, "detailed" to us.

A Faith Answer

Jesus is looking for faith answers. These are responses that reveal our faith in Him. These do not always come in simple confessions that Jesus is Lord or that Jesus is the Son of God. In fact, these may not really be faith answers, but rather expected answers. We sometimes say what is expected of us instead of what our faith demands. In reading Matthew and Mark about the Gentile woman whose daughter was demon-possessed, we see her faith answer and Jesus' response to that answer. Her answer was "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs." This is a faith answer. His response was "Because of this answer go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter." And, again, "O woman, your faith is great; be it done to you as you wish."  This is only the second time Jesus tells someone they had great faith, and both were Gentiles. So what was it about this answer that caused Jesus to call it Great Faith?

First, she was not offended by His answer. Remember we just had the story earlier in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 about the Pharisees and scribes being offended by what Jesus said to them. Surely it is no accident that the next story we have has a completely different outcome. It is as if Jesus said, "Let me show you how someone should respond to me when they could be offended by me." The contrast is stark. The woman could have obtained an attorney to sue Jesus for racist insensitivity. "I'll teach Him to call me a dog!"  She could have walked away in a huff and said "forget you." So many people today never put their faith in Jesus because they do not like being called a sinner or an adulterer or a fornicator or a thief or any other type of sinner. Instead of humbling themselves before the Healer, they would rather criticize his bedside manner as being too harsh or too insensitive. Second, this woman's faith was great because her need outweighed anything else. She knew her need was great and there was no where else to turn. Just as Peter had proclaimed in John 6 that Jesus had the words of eternal life and there was no where else to go, this woman knew no one else could cast out this demon. The Pharisees did not think they needed anything from Jesus. They thought they had eternal life. So their answers were not faith answers. We only exercise faith when we know who has the words of eternal life. This woman also knew she did not have to have the entire slice of bread, crumbs would do. In fact, there is no indication that Jesus even knew her name. He called her "woman." She needed no recognition or special place in the kingdom. She needed one thing: for her daughter to be healed.

Thirdly, great faith was indicated in her persistence. She did not give up. She was not put off. She was not deterred. She came for an answer from Jesus. She had to have it for her daughter's sake, and she got it, and Jesus honored her for it. It reminds us of the persistent widow story in Luke 18. This Gentile woman living in a remote area of Israel far from the temple, and never having studied in a synagogue demonstrated that faith answers can come from the most unexpected places.
(BTW, in a previous post I indicated that Jesus went to her house. On second read, I was wrong or only assumed that he did.)

Crumbs

Still in the story of the Gentile woman who's daughter is demon-possessed, there is a very interesting twist that involves the spirit and the letter of the law. The letter of what Jesus says is found in two statements. "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."  That sounds pretty exclusive. Only means only, doesn't it?  His mission target was laid out as were other aspects of the mission. For instance in the next chapter (Matt.16) Jesus told his apostles that he MUST go to Jerusalem to suffer and die, at which Peter rebuked Jesus and told Him "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to you." You remember the counter-rebuke of Jesus calling Peter "Satan" for not minding the things of God, but the things of men. Well, isn't our present case the same? It is God's will for Jesus that He go ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Doesn't that prevent Him from going to others, to Gentiles and Samaritans? Well, He has already gone to the Samaritans (John 4). He has already told His apostles to go ONLY to the towns of the Jews (Matt.10) which is consistent with God's will for Jesus' earthly ministry. God sets the parameters of the mission. God commands and Jesus is to obey. Jesus came to do the will of His Father who sent Him, not His own will, right? So why didn't Jesus just explain this to the woman? He tried, it seems.

Next He says, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." That pretty much settles it. "It is not good." The word "good" has three meanings: 1) Good as to quality and character; 2) Good as to its effect or influence (useful, profitable); 3) Good in the moral sense, i.e. virtuous. So in which sense is it not good for Jesus to give this women the children's bread. I don't like my choices. Since Jesus does give her bread He is going to be guilty of violating one of these standards of goodness, and that prospect does not seem good to me. Was the pressure too great for Jesus? Was the woman too persuasive (you know women can be persuasive!)? Was Jesus caving? How could Jesus say something was "not good" and do it anyway? I recall when Jesus asked if it were lawful to do good or evil on the Sabbath day, to save life or destroy? (Mark.3:4) But what was the higher "good" in this case, i.e. to not give the children's bread to a Gentile, or to heal a little girl who was suffering? Wow!  Is Jesus trapped? Does He follow the letter or the spirit of the law?

The answer comes in two ways. The word ONLY can mean primarily. Jesus did come primarily to the Jews, and his ministry was primarily to them, but not exclusively. The mystery of Jews and Gentiles being one in Christ( Eph.2-3) and Jesus bringing both parts of His flock together (John 10) was certainly in the will of God. But God's strategy was the Jew First (primarily) and also the Greek. The second key to understanding this passage is that the woman did not expect the loaf but the crumbs. She understood, it seems in some way, that Jesus' primary mission was not to her. So instead of asking for the Jewish share, she asked for crumbs. It was NOT GOOD to give her the loaf, but it was GOOD to give her the crumbs, and the crumbs of Jesus are sufficient to heal her daughter. Jesus certainly was within the spirit of the law, and did not get trapped by the letter of it.

Food

In the midst of Jesus' response to the hand-washing matter with the Pharisees, and his subsequent explanations with his disciples, Mark throws in a parenthesis of implication. It says, "Thus he declared all foods clean."  Clearly someone inferred by what Jesus said that he was making a pronouncement by implication that all foods were OK to eat, and that Jewish dietary laws were rendered null and void. So what did Jesus say that led to this conclusion. It was the part where he said that it is not what goes into man that makes him unclean or defiles him. Paul reaffirms this teaching in 1 Tim.4 when he discussed those who tried to make abstinence from certain foods and marriage a condition of salvation. He says regarding food, "...which God created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer." (By the way, why do we only pray before meals? Why don't we also read the word of God? Families used to do both at meals. We preserved one tradition and dropped another showing we pretty much follow what we want and leave behind what we don't want.)  In a day where we are "food obsessed" for health purposes it would be easy to equate what and how much goes into our mouths with spirituality. Not only did Jesus say all food is good but that man is not "defiled" by the eating of it, even with unwashed hands. I am not advocating for gluttony or a lack of concern for taking care of the temple of God by controlling out intake of food, but I am saying just as the Pharisees had turned their priorities upside down we can too.

Jesus switched the focus from intake to output. It is not what goes into a man that defiles him but what comes out of a man. By saying this Jesus is teaching that the heart is the seat of desire, and desire is the manufacturing plant of sin. James says as much in his anatomy of a sin. He says, "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then, when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." (1:14-15) This thing James calls lust or desire is the beginning stage of sin. It is not sin itself but conceives sin. Man has sexual desire implanted within by God Himself as a means of both expressing love for one's married partner and for the procreation of the species. But, this same desire that accomplishes their wholesome and essential functions can be directed toward someone other than a spouse and now desire has conceived sin. This sin left unchecked can produce death in the person instead of life that was intended by the desire. This is what Jesus is saying defiles men. This originates in the heart. This comes out in actions and words.

Granted, childhood obesity is a serious matter in our society. But, Jesus would say that our society has a much more serious problem. The appetite that originates in the stomach is not our greatest enemy. It is the appetite that originates in the heart.