Mark 7:16 — “If Any Man Have Ears to Hear, Let Him Hear”

“If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” — Mark 7:16

After Jesus calls the people to hear his teaching about defilement, the received text adds, “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” Several early witnesses pass directly from the public saying to the house where the disciples ask for an explanation.

The sentence appears elsewhere in Mark, especially 4:9 and 4:23. Critics therefore regard verse 16 as a stock refrain copied into an appropriate place. Its perfect fit can be made the argument against it: a familiar saying was exactly what a scribe expected after “hearken unto me.”

Public hearing and private misunderstanding

The refrain does real narrative work here. Jesus has summoned the entire crowd, declared that external food does not morally defile, and urged them to understand. Verse 16 closes that public appeal. Verse 17 then reveals that the disciples themselves have not understood. The ear saying becomes a hinge between universal invitation and private dullness.

Omission is mechanically uncomplicated. A self-contained proverb can disappear between two larger narrative units without leaving broken grammar. A lection may also move from the parable to its explanation. Once absent, nothing in verse 17 announces that words are missing.

Addition from chapter 4 remains possible, but repeated sayings are not automatically interpolations. Jesus used “he that hath ears” in more than one setting, and Mark uses repetition deliberately to bind his teaching about reception. In both chapters the issue is not possession of physical ears but moral readiness to receive the word.

The verse also guards against a casual reading of the food discussion. Jesus does not announce a slogan that can be detached from the dispute over human tradition and heart defilement. He demands attentive judgment. The disciples’ question shows that even close followers may hear the sound while missing the point.

The refrain’s distribution elsewhere gives both sides real internal arguments. Because Mark uses it repeatedly, addition from memory is credible; because it is characteristic of Mark, authorial use here is credible too. “Markan style” cannot decide a variant whenever the same characteristic is invoked to prove both interpolation and authenticity. The immediate public-to-private transition supplies the more discriminating literary evidence.

The received refrain has the broad continuity of ecclesiastical use and a precise structural place. Its resemblance to Mark 4 gives a source for scribal addition, but it also supplies Markan vocabulary and thematic coherence. The whole verse should stay. A warning about hearing is not made unauthentic simply because the church heard it often.

Sources and further reading

• F. H. A. Scrivener, ed., The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge, 1894).
• Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010), text and apparatus.
• Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on the stated passage.
• Mark 4:1–25; 7:14–23; Revelation 2–3.