Mark 7:32,33 - Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible

And had an impediment in his speech:— Μογιλαλον. He was not absolutely dumb, but stammered to such a degree, that few understood his speech, Mark 7:35. However, the circumstance of his being able to speak in any manner, shews that his deafness was not natural, but accidental. He had heard formerly, and had learned to speak; but was now deprived of hearing, perhaps, through some fault of his own, which might be the reason that Jesus sighed for grief when he cured him. The friends of this man brought him to Jesus, and interceded for him, because he was not able to intercede for himself: his desire, however, of a cure, may have prompted him to do his utmost in speaking, whereby all present were made sensible of the greatness of the infirmity under which he laboured. Our Lord's exuberant goodness easily led him to give this person the relief that his friends begged for him; yet he would not do it publicly, lest the admiration of the spectators should have been raised so high, as to produce bad effects; for the whole country was now following him in expectation that he would soon set up his kingdom: or, as Gadara, where his miracle upon the demoniacs had been so ill received, was part of this region, (see Luke 8:26.) he might shun performing the miracle publicly, because it would have no effect upon so stupid a people. Whatever was the reason, he took the man with his relations aside from the crowd; and because the deaf are supposed to have their ears shut, and the dumb their tongues so tied or fastened to the under part of their mouth, as not to be able to move it, (see Mark 7:35.) he put his fingers into the man's ears, and then touched or moistened his tongue with his spittle, to make him understand that he intended to open his ears, and loosen his tongue. This, perhaps, was the only reason for these symbolical actions. Spiritual writers have given different interpretations of them."If any one should ask," says Dr. Doddridge, "why our Lord used these actions, when a word alone would have been sufficient, and when such means, if they may be called means, could in themselves do nothing at all to answer the end? I frankly confess I cannot tell;—nor am I at all concerned to know; yet I am ready to imagine it might be intended to intimate, in a very lively manner, that we are not to pretend to enter into the reasons of all his actions; and that where we are sure that any observance whatever is appointed by him, we are humbly to submit to it, though we cannot see why it was preferred to others, which our imagination might suggest. Had Christ's patients, like Naaman, (2 Kings 5:11-12.) been too nice in their exceptions on these occasions, I fear they would have lost their cure: and the indulgence of a curious or a petulant mind would have been but a poor equivalent for such a lo