Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 3:1
And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
Ch. Mar 3:1-6. The Man with the Withered Hand
1. And he entered ] The narrative of St Mark here is peculiarly vivid and pictorial. He places the scene actually before us and relates it very much in the present tense. The incident occurred at Capernaum, and probably on the next Sabbath. See Luk 6:6.
a withered hand ] It is characteristic of the physician St Luke that he tells us it was his “ right hand.” It was probably not merely paralysed in the sinews, but dried up and withered, the result of a partial atrophy. Comp. 1Ki 13:4, for the parallel case of Jeroboam. Such a malady, when once established, is incurable by any human art.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
See this explained in Mat 12:9-13.
Mar 3:4
Or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? – It seems to have been a maxim with the Jews that not to do good when we have an opportunity is to do evil; not to save life is to kill or to be guilty of murder. If a man has an opportunity of saving a mans life when he is in danger, and does not do it, he is evidently guilty of his death. On this principle our Saviour puts this question to the Jews – whether it was better for him, having the power to heal this man, to do it, or to suffer him to remain in this suffering condition; and he illustrates it by an example, showing that in a manner of much less importance – that respecting their cattle – they would do on the Sabbath just as he would if he should heal this man. The same remark may apply to all opportunities of doing good. The ability to do good imposes an obligation to do it (Cotton Mather) He that has the means of feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked, and instructing the ignorant, and sending the gospel to the destitute, and that does it not, is guilty, for he is practically doing evil; he is suffering evils to exist which he might remove. So the wicked will be condemned in the day of judgment because they did it not, Mat 25:45. If this is true, what an obligation rests upon the rich to do good!
Mar 3:5
With anger – With a severe and stern countenance; with indignation at their hypocrisy and hardness of heart. This was not, however, a spiteful or revengeful passion; it was caused by excessive grief at their state: being grieved for the hardness of their hearts. It was not hatred of the men whose hearts were so hard; it was hatred of the sin which they exhibited, joined with the extreme grief that neither his teaching nor the law of God, nor any means which could be used, overcame their confirmed wickedness. Such anger is not unlawful, Eph 4:26. However, in this instance, our Lord has taught us that anger is never lawful except when it is tempered with grief or compassion for those who have offended.
Hardness of their hearts – The heart, figuratively the seat of feeling or affection, is said to be tender when it is easily affected by the sufferings of others – by our own sin and danger – by the love and commands of God; when we are easily made to feel on the great subjects pertaining to our interest, Eze 11:19-20. It is hard when nothing moves it; when a man is alike insensible to the sufferings of others, to the dangers of his own condition, and to the commands, the love, and the threatenings of God. It is most tender in youth, or when we have committed fewest crimes. It is made hard by indulgence in sin, by long resisting the offers of salvation, or by opposing any great and affecting appeals which God may make to us by his Spirit or providence, by affliction, or by a revival of religion. Hence, it is that the most favorable period for securing an interest in Christ, or for becoming a Christian, is in youth the first, the tenderest, and the best days of life. Nay, in the days of childhood, in the Sabbath-school, God may be found, and the soul prepared to die.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Mar 3:1-5
And there was a man there which had a withered hand.
The withered hand
I. What the withered hand may be said to symbolize.
1. It represents capacity for work. By the hand the toiling millions earn their bread.
2. The hand stands as the symbol of fellowship. This is what our custom of shaking hands expresses.
3. There is one more thing symbolized by the hand-generosity. By the hand we convey our gifts.
II. The causes of the hands withering.
1. The first suggestion is that, like some forms of blindness and certain deformities, it is sometimes a sad, inexplicable inheritance, possessed from birth.
2. The hand would become withered, I should think, if you fastened tight ligatures or bandages round the arm so as to impede the free circulation of blood. Our narrowness may cause the same result.
3. And then, perhaps, another cause may be cited-disuse of the hand, if long continued. Natures gifts are cancelled, if not made use of.
III. The means of healing.
1. The man is made to stand forth. The healthful effects which flow to a man when he is drawn out of the solitude of a self-shrouded life, and constrained by force of circumstances to come into contact with other human beings: We need to be stored up with all sorts of social agencies.
2. There is another thing in this narrative-obedience to Christ. His obedience evidenced his faith. (W. S. Houghton.)
The withered hand
I. The meaning of the withered hand. The disease was not like the palsy, a type of universal inaction; it was not like some consuming fever, a type of the way in which sin and vice pervert all the faculties of the soul; but there was a vivid picture of that infirmity which destroys a mans power of doing anything well in this world of ours. The hand of man is one of those noble physical features which distinguish him from the brute. The hand is but another name for human skill, power, and usefulness, and for She studied adaptation of means to ends.
1. The bigotry of these Pharisees rendered them useless in the great kingdom of God, and destroyed their power of serving Christ. Christ did not keep the Sabbath in their way, and that was enough for their malice. That man with a withered hand was an apt picture of the way in which their bigotry had incapacitated them for any holy service. Bigotry ties up mens hands still.
2. Prejudices wither up some of the energies of men. By prejudices I mean opinions taken up without sufficient reasons, and maintained with obstinacy; opinions that rest on feelings rather than on facts. There are many men-and professing Christians, too-who are so full of obstinate prejudices that they invariably find fault with every good work that has to be done, and with every possible way of doing it; but who very seldom do anything themselves. Their hand is withered.
3. Past inconsistencies often wither up the power of service. It is a mournful truth that if a man has once forfeited his character for integrity, or Christian prudence, he may have repented; but still his power for service is crippled.
4. Easily-besetting sins will paralyze the usefulness of any man who does not with earnestness wage war against them. Let a man yield himself indolently to the slavery of an evil habit, idle talk, vain thoughts, he will soon find that his hand is withered, that his power of serving God is gone. Indolence, fear of man, ungoverned temper, paralyze our energies.
II. The healing of the withered hand. Christ came into this world not mainly to set men free from the bondage of sin, but to emancipate all his faculties for holy service. There are three lessons we may learn from this narrative.
1. We may gather Christs willingness to heal us.
2. The way in which we are to make use of Divine strength. When the man willed to stretch forth his hand, God willed in him; the communication of Divine strength was granted to him at the very moment when he determined to obey the command of Christ. If we will we may make the Divine strength our own. Verily while we work out salvation with fear and trembling, God is working within us both to will and do of His good pleasure.
3. Here is the great rule by which at all times, through the help of Gods grace, we may overcome our listlessness and uselessness in His service. It is by our own vigorous effort to overcome the withering up of our faculties that we shall test the worth of Divine promises. (H. R. Reynolds, B. A.)
Restoring of the man with the withered hand
I. the scene of this miracle.
He went into their synagogue. We often find our Saviour in the synagogue.
1. To show respect for Divine institutions. Places of worship may be despised by some, but not by Christ who came to do His Fathers will.
2. To secure the great objects of His own mission. He appeared as a Divine Teacher, and frequented the synagogue in order to make known the glad tidings of His kingdom.
II. The person on whom this miracle was wrought. We are first shown-
1. The nature of his complaint. He was not affected in his whole body, but in one of his members.
2. Something similar to this was occasionally inflicted as a Divine judgment. Jeroboam (1Ki 13:1-34).
3. This case may be regarded as a representation of mans spiritual condition. By sin the powers of his soul have been paralyzed.
III. The dispute by which this miracle was preceded.
1. The question proposed-Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day?
2. The conclusive reply-What man shall there be among you, etc. Interest is a very decisive casuist, and removes mens scruples in a moment. It is always soonest consulted and most readily obeyed.
3. The verdict pronounced-The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath.
IV. The manner in which the miracle was performed.
1. An authoritative mandate-Stretch forth thine hand.
2. An instant compliance.
3. A gratifying result-And it was restored whole, like the other. (Expository Outlines.)
Withered hands
If there were no withered hearts there would be no withered hands-make the fountain clear, and the stream will be pure. (Dr. Parker.)
The human side of a miracle
No great stretch of imagination is needed to see in this narrative a picture of mans spiritual state. The gospel of Jesus not merely tells us what we ought to be, but gives the power by which we actually become that which it requires. There have been many teaching gospels, but this is the only transforming gospel. But the strength of grace is bestowed upon conditions, and these seem to be set forth in the text, Stretch forth thine hand. By the command of the text three conditions were demanded.
I. It is easy to see that there was faith required. His faith had much to encourage it; yet he would perhaps feel something of that diffidence which makes it hard to realize as possible to oneself the blessings which have come to others. His faith would also be somewhat severely tested by the manner in which the Saviour dealt with him. Moreover, it appears that there was no outward act on the part of our Lord. It was merely by a word that the invisible power was communicated. This faith was indispensable. It was a condition invariably demanded. Without it Jesus wrought no miracles. Unbelief hinders His merciful designs. Faith is the mysterious moral force which thrusts out the hand of humanity to take the gift Divine.
II. The faith of this man was accompanied by obedience. The commands, Stand forth, Stretch forth thine hand, were by no means easy to obey. But undaunted he obeyed, and in the very act of obedience he found the blessing that he craved. This obedience was the fruit of his faith, and the faith which does not produce obedience is of little worth. Saving faith is always obedient faith.
III. It seems evident that there was needed in the case of this man a strong resolution. This may appear from what has been already said. Still more if we consider the act which was required of him. But he found that the law of Christ is, Obey, and thou hast the power. (S. S. Bosward.)
Analogies of faith
You say, I have no faith. We answer, Believe, and faith is yours. Does it seem a paradox. But paradoxes are often great truths, and are only hard to us because they come to us from a higher region, where our poor logic is of small account. But how many analogies there are of this paradox of faith even in the lower spheres of life! How often is the ability to perform an act, not merely revealed, but actually developed or even created by the very effort to accomplish it! How many works exist today as monuments of genius which never would have existed if their authors had waited till they had the necessary power. So it is in the matter of salvation. You can never have it till you take it. You will never have the gift of faith until you believe. Your will is all God waits for. He speaks by His prophet thus: Hear, ye deaf, that ye may hear; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. And by His incarnate Son He says to every impotent soul, Stretch forth thine hand! (S. S. Bosward.)
Stretch forth thine hand
I. Christ sometimes enjoins what seems to be impossible.
II. Faith is shown in doing what He commands, even when it seems to be impossible.
III. Where there is the obedience of faith, power will be granted. (A. F. Muir, M. A.)
Divine kindness amid human opposition
The destructive effects of sin are abundantly seen in this life. It destroys mens mental eyesight, making them blind to their own best interests. Notice here-
I. The Divine Healer seeking opportunity to do good.
1. The pathway of filial obedience is the pathway of useful service. Jesus went to the synagogue because there He was sure to meet with human needs. He went to do good as well as to get good. These two things are identical at the root.
2. The comprehensiveness of Gods purpose puts to shame the selfish narrowness of mans. No place or day can be too sacred for giving free play to the love of God.
II. The Divine Healer disciplining the faith of the distressed. The measure of our present strength is not the limit of what we can do. Divine help supplements human endeavour.
III. The Divine Healer provoking the hostility of the proud.
1. It is possible for mans will to resist Divine influence.
2. The choicest blessing can he perverted into the direst curse.
3. Contact with Jesus makes men either better or worse. The ice that is not melted by the midsummer sun is greatly hardened thereby.
IV. The Divine Healer doing good, heedless of his own interests. Come what may, Jesus Christ must do good. It was the natural forth-putting of His inexhaustible love. It is as natural for Christ to show unmerited kindness as for the sun to shed its light, the rose to diffuse its fragrance. (D. Davies, M. A.)
A withered hand
We may behold our own weakness in this emblem, which represents that total inability of doing good to which sin has reduced mankind. A withered hand, in the sight of God, and in the eyes of faith, is-
(1) a covetous wretch, who bestows on the poor little or no alms at all;
(2) a lukewarm and negligent Christian, who performs no good works;
(3) a magistrate or person in authority, who takes no care to maintain order and justice;
(4) a great man who abandons the innocent when oppressed. None but Thou, O Lord, can heal this withered hand, because its indisposition proceeds from the heart, and Thou alone canst apply Thy healing and almighty hand to that. (Quesnel.)
Publicity
There is no public action which the world is not ready to scan; there is no action so private which the evil spirits are not witnesses of. I will endeavour so to live, as knowing that I am ever in the eyes of mine enemies. (Bishop Hall.)
The good eye and the evil eye
They watched Him. And He watched them. But with what different eyes! The evil eye, like the eye of the serpent, confuses with distress, overcomes by pain; and a good eye, like the eye of man fronting the wild beast of the forest, subdues. But the evil eye makes us a prey; the good eye subdues the beast of prey itself. If we can but gaze calmly on the angry face of the world, we have already half tamed that great foe. Christ went on His daily course surrounded with evil eyes. He did indeed face the angry world. Men quailed before Him, multitudes hushed, and enemies whose tongue was arrogantly loud, were silenced. But think not that courage can be exerted even by the best without frequent anguish. To be watched by the unkind, even if we can maintain our composure and good will, inflicts a pang; and to be watched in time of festive and unsuspicious pleasure by the enemy, instead of being permitted to utter all with unusual freedom through the presence of kind sympathy-this is indeed distressing. (T. T. Lynch.)
To save life or to kill?
The man was not in danger of his life, and he would have survived undoubtedly had no cure been wrought. But that question implied, that not to give health and strength, not to restore the vital power when the restoration lies within your reach, is equivalent to taking it away. To leave a good deed undone is hardly less sinful than doing a bad one. (H. M. Luckock, D. D.)
The sin of neglecting to do good
In Gods account there is no difference, in regard of simple unlawfulness, between not doing good to the body or life of our neighbour, in the case of necessity, and doing hurt unto them: he that doth not good to the body and life of his neighbour (when his necessity requireth, and when it is in his power) is truly said to do hurt unto them, at least indirectly and by consequence. The rich glutton, e.g., in not relieving poor Lazarus, may be truly said to have murdered him. The reason of which is, because both these, as well the not doing of good to our neighbours body and life, as the doing of hurt to them, are forbidden in the sixth commandment, as degrees of murder; therefore he that doth not good, he that shows not mercy to his neighbours body in case of necessity, is truly said to do hurt, and to show cruelty against it. How deceived, then, are those who think it enough if they do no harm to others, if they do not wrong or oppress them, though they take no trouble to relieve or help them. Let us clearly understand this: that not to save life is to destroy it, though not directly, yet indirectly and by consequence. They are both degrees of murder, though the latter is a higher degree than the former. Let this move us not only to forbear hurting our neighbour, but also to make conscience of doing good to him. (G. Petter.)
Christ and the Sabbath
They watched Him with an evil eye. Not to understand but to bring accusation against Him.
I. The world watched the Saviour; the world watches the Saviours disciples. No man liveth to himself. The eye of the world is always on the Church, on every disciple, just as it was on the Churchs and the disciples Lord. What a lesson of circumspection this should read!
II. The Saviour did good on the Sabbath day; it is the duty of his disciples to do good. Did men expect that He would be held within the stone walls of Jewish ceremonialism? (J. B. Lister.)
Good lawfully done on the Sabbath: or, love the over-ruling law
At other times the defence of the Lord was based on the nature of the works which He had performed. He held and taught that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath day. Nay, He went farther, and maintained that there is a class of duties which we not only may, but must perform on that day. It was ordained at first for the benefit of man, and, therefore, it was never intended that it should operate to his detriment. Whenever, therefore, an injury would be inflicted on a fellow man by our refusing to labour for his assistance on the Sabbath, we are bound to exert ourselves, even on that day, for his relief. Nay, more; in the case of the lower animals, when an emergency shall arise like that which a fire or a flood creates, or when a necessity exists like that which requires that they shall be regularly fed, the higher law of benevolence comes in and suspends, for the moment, the lower law of rest. There are thus degrees of obligation in moral duties. As a general rule children are bound to obey their parents; but when that obedience would interfere with their duty to God, the stronger obligation comes in and requires them to do what is right in the sight of God. In chemistry you may have a substance which, yielding to the law of gravitation, falls to the bottom of the vase; but when you introduce another ingredient, you shall see the particles, whose weight formerly held them down, rising in obedience to the mightier principle of affinity, and combining to produce a new result. Precisely so the new principle of love operates in the interpretation of law. All law is for the good of man and the glory of God; and when the highest welfare of the individual creates a necessity, love is to seek to meet that emergency, even though in doing so it may seem to be violating the Sabbath. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
The power of the human hand
The hand of a man is one of those noble physical features which distinguish him from the brute. The hand is but another name for human skill, power, and usefulness, and for the studied adaptation of means to ends. By his hand, as the servant of his intellect and his heart, man is put on a physical level with, if not far above, all other living beings, in respect of his power to defend himself against the formidable creatures who are furnished by nature with ponderous and deadly weapons, both of attack and resistance. By the aid of this wonderful instrument, he can cover his nakedness, he can build for himself a home, and make the whole world do his bidding; he can subdue it unto himself, and fill it with the trophies of his mastery. The houses, the roads, the bridges, the fleets, the palaces, the temples, the pyramids, of earth, have all been wrought by the little hands of men. The agriculture and industry by which the whole habitable face of our globe has been fashioned into the great bright useful thing it is, have been file work of mans hand. While the working mans hand is his sole capital, the hand of man is constantly used as the symbol of power and the type of developed and practical wisdom. The hand commits thought to paper, and imagination to marble and to canvas. Literature, science, and art are as dependent on its service, as are the toils of the labourer, or the fabric of the artizan. If manual toil is economized by machinery, still mans hand is essential for the construction of the machine, and for its subsequent control, so that the hand is the symbol and the instrument of all the arts of human life. We can, therefore, scarcely refrain from the thought that that withered hand in the synagogue was a type of uselessness and feebleness; and that right hand, as St. Luke describes it, robbed of its nourishment, hanging helplessly in a sling, was a picture of whatever deprives a man of the power of holy work, and renders him an encumbrance, if not a mischief, in Gods great kingdom. (H. R. Reynolds, B. A.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER III.
The man with the withered hand healed, 1-5.
The Pharisees plot our Lord’s destruction, 6.
Christ withdraws, and is followed by a great multitude, 7-9.
He heals many, and goes to a mountain to pray, 10-13.
He ordains twelve disciples, and, gives them power to preach
and work miracles, 14, 15.
Their names, 16-19.
The multitudes throng him, and the scribes attribute his
miracles to Beelzebub, 20-22.
He vindicates himself by a parable, 23-27.
Of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, 28-30.
His mother and brethren send for him, 31, 32.
And he takes occasion from this to show, that they who do the
will of God are to him as his brother, sister, and mother,
33-35.
NOTES ON CHAP. III.
Verse 1. A man there which had a withered hand.] See this explained on Mt 12:10, c., and on Lu 6:6, Lu 6:10.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
See Poole on “Mat 12:9“, and following verses to Mat 12:13. The word , used Mar 3:5, may be understood to signify blindness, or hardness, as it may derive from , callus, or , caecus, but the derivation of it from the former best obtains. Hardness being a quality in a thing by which it resisteth our touch, and suffers us not to make an impression upon it, that ill condition of the soul by which it becomes rebellious, and disobedient to the will of God revealed, so as it is not affected with it, nor doth it make any impression of faith or holiness upon the soul, is usually called hardness of heart. But for the argument of this history, proving acts of mercy lawful on the sabbath day, it is fully spoken to in the notes on Mat 12:9-13.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And he entered again into the synagogue,…. Perhaps in Capernaum, where he had before cast out the unclean spirit; but not on the same day, nor on that day he had had the debate with the Pharisees, about his disciples plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath day; but on another sabbath, perhaps the next; see Lu 6:6.
And there was a man there which had a withered hand; who came there either for a cure, knowing Christ to be in the synagogue, or for the sake of worship; [See comments on Mt 12:10].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Withered Hand Restored; Multitudes Healed. |
| |
1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. 2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. 3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. 4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. 5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. 6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him. 7 But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Juda, 8 And from Jerusalem, and from Iduma, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him. 9 And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him. 10 For he had healed many; insomuch that they pressed upon him for to touch him, as many as had plagues. 11 And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. 12 And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known.
Here, as before, we have our Lord Jesus busy at work in the synagogue first, and then by the sea side; to teach us that his presence should not be confined either to the one or to the other, but, wherever any are gathered together in his name, whether in the synagogue or any where else, there is he in the midst of them. In every place where he records his name, he will meet his people, and bless them; it is his will that men pray every where. Now here we have some account of what he did.
I. When he entered again into the synagogue, he improved the opportunity he had there, of doing good, and having, no doubt, preached a sermon there, he wrought a miracle for the confirmation of it, or at least for the confirmation of this truth–that it is lawful to do good on the sabbath day. We had the narrative, Matt. xii. 9.
1. The patient’s case was piteous; he had a withered hand, by which he was disabled to work for his living; and those that are so, are the most proper objects of charity; let those be helped that cannot help themselves.
2. The spectators were very unkind, both to the patient and to the Physician; instead of interceding for a poor neighbour, they did what they could to hinder his cure: for they intimated that if Christ cured him now on the sabbath day, they would accuse him as a Sabbath breaker. It had been very unreasonable, if they should have opposed a physician or surgeon in helping any poor body in misery, by ordinary methods; but much more absurd was it to oppose him that cured without any labour, but by a word’s speaking.
3. Christ dealt very fairly with the spectators, and dealt with them first, if possible to prevent the offence.
(1.) He laboured to convince their judgment. He bade the man stand forth (v. 3), that by the sight of him they might be moved with compassion toward him, and might not, for shame, account his cure a crime. And then he appeals to their own consciences; though the thing speaks itself, yet he is pleased to speak it; “Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, as I design to do, or to do evil, as you design to do? Whether is better, to save life or to kill?” What fairer question could be put? And yet, because they saw it would turn against them, they held their peace. Note, Those are obstinate indeed in their infidelity, who, when they can say nothing against a truth, will say nothing to it; and, when they cannot resist, yet will not yield.
(2.) When they rebelled against the light, he lamented their stubbornness (v. 5); He looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts. The sin he had an eye to, was, the hardness of their hearts, their insensibleness of the evidence of his miracles, and their inflexible resolution to persist in unbelief. We hear what is said amiss, and see what is done amiss; but Christ looks at the root of bitterness in the heart, the blindness and hardness of that. Observe, [1.] How he was provoked by the sin; he looked round upon them; for they were so many, and had so placed themselves, that they surrounded him: and he looked with anger; his anger, it is probable, appeared in his countenance; his anger was, like God’s, without the least perturbation to himself, but not without great provocation from us. Note, The sin of sinners is very displeasing to Jesus Christ; and the way to be angry, and not to sin, is it be angry, as Christ was, at nothing but sin. Let hard-hearted sinners tremble to think of the anger with which he will look round upon them shortly, when the great day of his wrath comes. [2.] How he pitied the sinners; he was grieved for the hardness of their hearts; as God was grieved forty years for the hardness of the hearts of their fathers in the wilderness. Note, It is a great grief to our Lord Jesus, to see sinners bent upon their own ruin, and obstinately set against the methods of their conviction and recovery, for he would not that any should perish. This is a good reason why the hardness of our own hearts and of the hearts of others, should be a grief to us.
4. Christ dealt very kindly with the patient; he bade him stretch forth his hand, and it was immediately restored. Now, (1.) Christ has hereby taught us to go on with resolution in the way of our duty, how violent soever the opposition is, that we meet with in it. We must deny ourselves sometimes in our ease, pleasure, and convenience, rather than give offence even to those who causelessly take it; but we must not deny ourselves the satisfaction of serving God, and doing good, though offence may unjustly be taken at it. None could be more tender of giving offence than Christ; yet, rather than send this poor man away uncured, he would venture offending all the scribes and Pharisees that compassed him about. (2.) He hath hereby given us a specimen of the cures wrought by his grace upon poor souls; our hands are spiritually withered, the powers of our souls weakened by sin, and disabled for that which is good. The great healing day is the sabbath, and the healing place the synagogue; the healing power is that of Christ. The gospel command is like this recorded here; and the command is rational and just; though our hands are withered, and we cannot of ourselves stretch them forth, we must attempt it, must, as well as we can, lift them up to God in prayer, lay hold on Christ and eternal life, and employ them in good works; and if we do our endeavour, power goes along with the word of Christ, he effects the cure. Though our hands be withered, yet, if we will not offer to stretch them out, it is our own fault that we are not healed; but if we do, and are healed, Christ and his power and grace must have all the glory.
5. The enemies of Christ dealt very barbarously with him. Such a work of mercy should have engaged their love to him, and such a work of wonder their faith in him. But, instead of that, the Pharisees, who pretended to be oracles in the church, and the Herodians, who pretended to be the supporters of the state, though of opposite interests one to another, took counsel together against him, how they might destroy him. Note, They that suffer for doing good, do but suffer as their Master did.
II. When he withdrew to the sea, he did good there. While his enemies sought to destroy him, he quitted the place; to teach us in troublous times to shift for our own safety; but see here,
1. How he was followed into his retirement. When some had such an enmity to him, that they drove him out of their country, others had such a value for him, that they followed him wherever he went; and the enmity of their leaders to Christ did not cool their respect to him. Great multitudes followed him from all parts of the nation; as far north, as from Galilee; as far south, as from Judea and Jerusalem; nay, and from Idumea; as far east, as from beyond Jordan; and west, as from about Tyre and Sidon, Mar 3:7; Mar 3:8. Observe, (1.) What induced them to follow him; it was the report they heard of the great things he did for all that applied themselves to him; some wished to see one that had done such great things, and others hoped he would do great things for them. Note, The consideration of the great things Christ has done, should engage us to come to him. (2.) What they followed him for (v. 10); They pressed upon him, to touch him, as many as had plagues. Diseases are here called plagues, mastigas—corrections, chastisements; so they are designed to be, to make us smart for our sins, that thereby we may be made sorry for them, and may be warned not to return to them. Those that were under these scourgings came to Jesus; this is the errand on which sickness is sent, to quicken us to enquire after Christ, and apply ourselves to him as our Physician. They pressed upon him, each striving which should get nearest to him, and which should be first served. They fell down before him (so Dr. Hammond), as petitioners for his favour; they desired leave but to touch him, having faith to be healed, not only by his touching them, but by their touching him; which no doubt they had many instances of. (3.) What provision he made to be ready to attend them (v. 9); He spoke to his disciples, who were fishermen, and had fisher-boats at command, that a small ship should constantly wait on him, to carry him from place to place on the same coast; that, when he had despatched the necessary business he had to do in one place, he might easily remove to another, where his presence was requisite, without pressing through the crowds of people that followed him for curiosity. Wise men, as much as they can, decline a crowd.
2. What abundance of good he did in his retirement. He did not withdraw to be idle, nor did he send back those who rudely crowded after him when he withdrew, but took it kindly, and gave them what they came for; for he never said to any that sought him diligently, Seek ye me in vain. (1.) Diseases were effectually cured; He healed many; divers sorts of patients, ill of divers sorts of diseases; though numerous, though various, he healed them. (2.) Devils were effectually conquered; those whom unclean spirits had got possession of, when they saw him, trembled at his presence, and they also fell down before him, not to supplicate his favour, but to deprecate his wrath, and by their own terrors were compelled to own that he was the Son of God, v. 1. It is sad that this great truth should be denied by any of the children of men, who may have the benefit of it, when a confession of it has so often been extorted from devils, who are excluded from having benefit by it. (3.) Christ sought not applause to himself in doing those great things, for he strictly charged those for whom he did them, that they should not make him known (v. 12); that they should not be industrious to spread the notice of his cures, as it were by advertisements in the newspapers, but let them leave his own works to praise him, and let the report of them diffuse itself, and make its own way. Let not those that are cured, be forward to divulge it, lest it should feed their pride who are so highly favoured; but let the standers-by carry away the intelligence of it. When we do that which is praiseworthy, and yet covet not to be praised of men for it, then the same mind is in us, which was in Christ Jesus.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Had his hand withered ( ). He had his ( the in the Greek, common idiom with article as possessive) hand (right hand, Lu 6:6) in a withered state, perfect passive participle (adjective in Matthew and Luke), showing that it was not congenital, but the result of injury by accident or disease. Bengel: Non ex utero, sed morbo aut vulnere.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
A withered hand [ ] . More correctly Rev., his hand withered. The participle indicates that the withering was not congenital, but the result of accident or disease. Luke says his right hand.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
WITHERED HAND RESTORED, V. 1-5
1) “And He entered again into the synagogue;” (kai eiselthen palin eis sunagogen) “And again He entered into a synagogue;- what synagogue is not known, a week before ‘the Passover, but such was His custom, “on the sabbath,” weekly sabbath day, Mar 1:21; Mar 1:39; Luk 4:16; Joh 18:20.
2) “And there was a man there which had a withered hand.” (kai en ekei anthropos ekeramenen echon ten cheira) “And there was (in the synagogue) a man having (who had) a withered (paralyzed) hand,” an abiding or continuing result of an injury or disease, not congenital or inherited, Mat 12:9-13; Luk 6:6-10.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES
Mar. 3:5. With anger, being grieved.His anger would be roused as He thought of the evil resulting to others from the bigotry and tyranny of their spirit; His pity, as He thought of the moral loss suffered by themselves in consequence thereof. Hardness.Dulness. Not the obduracy which cannot be impressed, but the obtuseness which cannot perceive. They were blind to their own blindness, deaf to their own deafness; and also blind and deaf to the needs and woes of others. Compassion and kindness of heart were as much dried up in them as this mans hand was in him.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mar. 3:1-6
(PARALLELS: Mat. 12:9-14; Luk. 6:6-11.)
A withered hand restored.Again it is Sabbaththe day on which the Divine Son of Man specially delighted to bring joy to the souls and healing to the bodies of His suffering brethren. Again, too, the sleuth-hounds are on His track, thirsting for His blood; and this time the trap is so skilfully baited that they feel sure of securing their prey. Had the ingenuity of these religionists only been directed arighthad they thought half as much of the salvation of sinners as they did of the safeguarding of their wire-drawn casuistrieswhat a mighty work for God could have been accomplished! But, alas! religion meant to them nothing but a round of outward observances; they were blind as owls to the light of God and true goodness, keen-sighted as hawks for trivial breaches of their cobweb regulations, and cruel as vultures to tear with beak and claw. Here they stand now in the synagogue, gloating over the spectacle of affliction that meets their eye, for they are convinced that Jesus will set at nought any number of Sabbath traditions, rather than fail to relieve misery.
I. A pitiable object.The mans right hand was not only paralysed in the sinews, but withered up and hopeless. An old tradition recorded in the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites adds, that he was a stonemason by trade, and that he besought Jesus to heal him and relieve him from having to beg for his bread. Let us hope, for the credit of human nature, that those are mistaken who believe the Pharisees themselves had bribed the man to come there and place himself in the Saviours way.
II. A fearless challenge.Jesus, fully aware of their hostile thoughts, as if to anticipate any action on their part, and make the matter as public as possible, bids the manStand forth. All is now excitement and expectation The looks of the audience pass rapidly from Jesus to the man, and from the man to the Pharisees, in the consciousness that a crisis is near. Then Jesus propounds a question, which in the nature of things admits of but one answera question which completely cuts the ground from under His enemies feet: Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? According to them, only actual danger to life warranted a breach of the Sabbath law. Jesus meets them, therefore, on their own terms, and shows how their own principles lead logically to the kind of Sabbath work that they condemn: All good-doing to mens bodies lies on the line of life; all withholding of good-doing lies on the line of killing, or of death. If it would be wrong, in the absence of higher claims, to withhold the good-doing that would save life, it must also be wrong, when the higher claims are still absent, to withhold the good-doing that may be needed to develop life into its fulness of vigour and beauty. Such reasoning was unanswerable, and could only be met by silence on the part of those who were not prepared to endorse and commend it. If there was still a soft spot in the heart of any one of them, surely Christs words must have suggested the contrast between their murderous designs on Him, and His zeal for the life and health of all men. But no such thought seems to have entered their minds. They are speechlessnot with conviction, but with conscious defeat.
III. A Divine look.St. Mark, who, more than any other Evangelist, records the lights and shadows that swept over the Saviours countenance, tells us that He looked round about upon them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their hearts. They had set themselves to prove Him guilty at all hazards, and the result was a gradual hardening of the heart, rendering them impervious to all spiritual impressions and impulses. The anger of Christ is directed against their sinful opposition to the truth, which was quite inexcusable; but His loving heart is full of commiseration for the men themselves, whose state of insensibility to goodness and compassion was truly perilous and pitiable.
IV. A life-giving command.Stretch forth thine hand. There is no manipulation of the stricken member, no touch, no word of healing even; nothing but a simple direction to the man to do what was forbidden to none, but what had been up to that moment impossible to him; and in doing as he was bid, in making the effort to obey, the vitality returned, and his hand was restored whole as the other. Thus calmly and quietly does Jesus show His enemies how easy it is for Him to evade their best-laid plots; thus incontrovertibly does He prove His superiority to all the powers of evil. Observe, too, that no offence to hypocrites, no danger to Himself, prevented Jesus from removing human suffering. Also that He expects from the man a certain co-operation involving faith; he must stand forth in the midst; every one must see his unhappiness; he is to assume a position which will become ridiculous unless a miracle is wrought. Then he must make an effort. In the act of stretching forth his hand, the strength to stretch it forth is given; but he would not have tried the experiment unless he trusted before he discovered the power. Such is the faith demanded of our sin-stricken and helpless soulsa faith which confesses its wretchedness, believes in the goodwill of God and the promises of Christ, and receives the experience of blessing through having acted on the belief that already the blessing is a fact in the Divine volition.
V. An unnatural alliance.The Phariseestheir pride humbled, their hopes disappointed, their hearts full of futile ragefirst commune one with another as to what course they should now pursue, and then, calling together the Herodians, took counsel against Him, how they might destroy Him. Misfortune, according to an old saw, often brings men into strange company, and certainly it was so in this case. In theology the Herodians, so far as they held any theological opinions, fraternised with the Sadducees, the latitudinarians of that day; in politics they were adherents of Herod Antipas, and so advocates of the Roman domination. To both these the Pharisees were diametrically opposed. Yet now they enter into an unholy alliance with those who were at once their political opponents and religious antagonists. Lifelong hatreds are put aside for the nonce, in order that they may make common cause against the Lord, and against His Anointed.
Lessons.
1. As Christs actions and words were watched, so are ours.
2. As this man found Christ in the sanctuary, so may we.
3. As this man took Christ at His word, and did exactly what He bade him, so let us.
4. Let us learn further
(1) For our warningthat not to do good is to do evil; and
(2) For our encouragementthat whatever good we attempt to do, Christs power will work with us and in us.
Mar. 3:5. Hardness of heart.It is a true rule and maxim in divinity that sins against the gospel are most heinous and of greatest provocation. As the sweetest and strongest wine makes the sourest and sharpest vinegar, so the choicest favours, if they be despised, provoke in God the greatest displeasure. Now the main sin against the gospel and grace of God is obstinate impenitency and unbeliefwhen we repel and put off from us the offers of Gods grace. And the root of that is the spirit of obduration and hardness of heart, when our hearts stand it out with God, and will not give way to the work of His grace. And this evil, more or less, in some degree or other, is in all men naturally; and this is that which our Saviour here discovers and reproves in His present auditors.
I. The parties affected with this great evil.
1. Look upon them as men in the state of nature, and then the observation is thus muchthat naturally every mans heart is full of hardness and obstinacy. God created us in a far different condition: our spirits were tender; our hearts, hearts of flesh; the whole frame and disposition of our souls pliant and yielding to every good motion. But now, as sin hath depraved and corrupted us, our hearts are not stirred or affected with any of these. Doth God appear to us, we take no notice of Him: doth He send His Word to us, we give no credit to it, it seems a fable to us: doth He command us, we will not obey Him: doth He promise us, we will not be persuaded: doth He threaten us, we slight and. contemn it. A hard heart is like a brazen wallshoot never so many arrows against it, it beats them all back again, they cannot enter: such is a hard heart; neither Gods Word nor His works, neither judgments nor mercies, can enter into it to make any impression. See how the Scripture describes and sets forth this hardness of heart (Eze. 11:19; Zec. 7:12; Jer. 6:28; Isa. 48:4). As they say of the disease of the stone, tis oftentimes hereditary; some children have drawn it from their parents, and been born with it: so this stone in the heart, tis an original evil; we are born in hardness of heart; tis our natural temper. Indeed, for natural and human affections we have flesh and tenderness. Self-love, tis quick of feeling, and so parents have their bowels to the fruit of their body; and, in point of humanity to others in misery, all are not hard-hearted; some are tender and pitiful: but in matters of God and spiritual duties, for the entertainments of grace, and the work of conversion, no stone, no adamant, exceeds us in hardness.
2. Look upon them as men living under the law. These men, whom the text speaks of, were not wild men and savages, but civil and orderly: yea, more than so, for their outward state, members of the visible Church, acquainted with the doctrine and discipline of Moses, they had the circumcision of the flesh, instructed in the law; and yet how doth Christ find them? Nothing changed or altered, not mollified or made tender; but dull, dead-hearted sinners for all that. See the state of the Jews (Jer. 9:26). Observe, tis not in the power of the law to alter or change us, to soften and mollify our hard hearts; that work belongs to Christ and His gospel, to His grace and Spirit. We see this work restrained to the new covenant; tis proper to the gospel (Jer. 31:31). The law teaches us, but the gospel enables us; that gives and works in us what the law requires of us (Joh. 1:17). The law hath power of conviction, but tis the gospel only hath a power of conversion. The law, thats the hammer that knocks at the door of our hearts; but the gospel, thats the key that opens it, puts back the bar of obduration, and lets in grace and the Spirit into it.
3. These men were very forward in outward devotion, frequenters of the synagogues, great Sabbatarians, and yet under all this seeming sanctity Christ espies a dead, hard, wicked heart lurking. Observe, seeming and outside sanctity may go together, and consist with inward and spiritual hardness and obstinacy. Tis the true constitution of a hypocrite; he is all for the outside of religionthere he is excellent; he will outgo and exceed all others in show: but look upon his heart; he wholly neglects it; thats full of hardness and stubborn impiety.
(1) Tis the easiest work. Outward observances in matter of religion, they cost but little pains; but to work upon the heart, and to bring that in order, thats painful and laborious. As in the practice of physic or chirurgery, tis more easy to cure an outward hurt of the body, that is ill-affected or wounded; but an inward distemper, when a vein is broken, and it bleeds inward, the curing of this is a great deal more difficult.
(2) Tis natural for hypocrisy to leave the heart in hardness, because it employs all its care in dressing and trimming and adorning the outside. As those distempers that send all the heat of the body outward, and cause great flushings in the face, they hinder the inward concoction, cool, and dead the stomach and vital parts, that they cannot perform their functions: so hypocrisy sends out all the heat of their piety to the outside, causes great flushings of piety in the outward man, but chills and cools and deadens the life of religion in the heart.
II. Their sinful disposition.Hardness of heart.
1. The subject of this evil quality is the heart. By heart we are not to understand that particular vital member of the body as in common speech we use to take it, but in the Scripture language: so it signifies the soul and spirit of a man. Thus Gen. 6:5; Jer. 19:9; Mat. 15:19. The whole soul, and all the faculties of it, are perverted and hardened, dead and dull to any goodness, froward and obstinate to any good motion or holy action. As in a distempered clock, wherein both the spring and the wheels are out of frame, it cannot strike one stroke right.
(1) The mind and understanding, thats over-grown with hardness and blindness. Eagle-eyed in worldly things, mole-eyed in spiritual.
(2) Our memory in matters of religion, how is that dulled and benumbed! how fluid! No retentive power in it for that which is spiritual. Let the seed of the Word be. sown in it; yet the devil comes and takes it out, that it can have no abiding in us.
(3) The will, of all others, how is that hardened, brawned, steeled! We may as easily remove mountains, pierce the rocks, melt the flint, as persuade and prevail with a hard, obdurate will.
(4) Our affections, which are quick and stirring in other matters, how dead and dull are they to spiritual duties!
2. The quality itself is called hardness. Now there is a threefold hardness of heart.
(1) There is, natural and inbred in us, a hardness of heart which we all bring with us into this world, which makes us so unteachable and untractable to any good.
(2) There is an acquired and a contracted hardness of heart, which increases that inbred and natural hardnesswhen custom in sinning begets in us a firm resolution to continue and persist and go on in sinning (Rom. 2:5; Heb. 3:13).
(3) There is a hardness inflicted by God, a penal and punishing hardnesswhen God punishes a wicked man with this spiritual judgment of a hard heart. The inquiry then would be, Wherein doth this hardness of heart consist? how shall we discern it? what are the properties and effects of it? Take these four following: (i) Durum non cedit. Those things that are hard, they are unyielding and impenetrable; whereas that which is soft will easily admit of any impression. But a stone, touch it, nay offer more force to it, and strike it, there is yet no yielding in it. And such is the condition of a hard heart, stubborn and impenetrable. Till this hardness be removed by the mighty hand of God, there is no working upon it; it will not give place to any means of grace that God hath appointed, though never so powerful. (ii) A second property and effect of a hard heart is, Durum non sentit; that which is hard and brawny is void of sense and apprehension. The tenderest flesh, tis of quickest apprehension; but a brawny heart is dull and insensible. Will you see the stupor and lethargy of a hard heart? Such a heart, no suggestions of Satan, though never so dreadful, affrights themthey startle not at them; no inspirations of Gods Spirit doth at all affect themthey perceive them not; the checks of conscience never move them; the guilt of sin doth not dare them or perplex them. They are like Solomons drunkard (Pro. 23:24). (iii) Another property of a hard heart is, Durum non flectitur; that which is hard is inflexible. A stone may sooner be broken than bent: and such is the temper of a hard heart, no art or endeavour can bow or bend it. (iv) Durum repercutit. There is not only a not yielding in that which is hard, but there is a resistance, a contrary action repelling and driving back any action upon it. Smite a stone, and it will not only not yield, but it enforces the stroke back again. There is a redaction and repercussion in resistance; it will drive back the strength upon him that smote it. And this is the disposition of a hard heart; it will resist and oppose itself against any action of God, and strive against it. And this resistance will show itself in three particulars. (a) In stiffness, and pertinacy, and wilfulness of opinion. (b) In obstinate continuance in wicked courses. (c) In quarrelling and cavilling at any evidence of truth, if it makes against us; it will not suffer us to yield to the obedience of faith, or captivate ourselves to Divine truth, but will exalt itself against the knowledge of God.
Conclusion.
1. Is every mans heart by nature thus hard? It gives us the reason why so few men are effectually wrought upon by the means of grace, why so few are converted. Tis more wonder to see any to yield and turn to God. Tis easier to get oil out of a flint than a good thought out of a stony heart.
2. Is the heart of man so overgrown with hardness? It shows the reason why the work of conversion, even where tis begun, goes so slowly forward, why such small progress is made in the work of grace. Engravers upon stone cannot rid much work: they that point and polish diamonds use much grinding to wear away a little unevenness. The heart of man, tis like metal, not melted but with much fire and heat; and take it off the fire, it will soon harden of itself. Grace in the heart, tis not like heat in the fire, but like heat in the water: as long as there is fire under it, so long it retains heat; but take it off the fire, it will soon grow cold again.
3. Is every mans heart overgrown with this callous obduration?
(1) Take heed of increasing it. (i) Be careful to avoid and abstain even from small sins; they may make up this evil of obduration. (ii) Especially be careful not to fall into more gross and notorious sins; they have a special force to harden the heart. Such sins waste the conscience, make havoc of grace, sear the conscience with a hot iron. (iii) Wouldst thou not increase this hardness of heart? Above all take heed of sinning against the light and evidence and dictates of conscience.
(2) Use all good means to remove it, and to get tender and feeling and softened hearts. (i) Complain to God, as to the Great Physician of thy soul, who alone is able to cure this malady. (ii) Then lay thine heart under the dint and stroke of the Word. That Word, enlivened by His Spirit, is a mighty instrument to bruise and soften and mollify the heart (Jer. 23:29). (iii) The daily practice of repentance is of great force to soften our hearts. A mournful heart will prove a mollified heart. There be two names given to repentance, which show the virtue of it to work upon the heart. (a) Compunction, that enters indeed, and goes to the quick. (b) Contrition, that bruises and breaks the hardness of heart, and makes capable of any good impression. A daily dropping upon a hard stone will pierce into it and wear it away: and so the daily distillations of penitential tears are of great force to wear away this spiritual hardness of an obdurate heart.Bishop Brownrigg.
OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Mar. 3:1-3. The hand was made for work, but there are many withered hands in society. A celebrated German economist divides industrial history into three periods. In the first, nature was chiefly productive; in the second, human toil; in the third, capital. Inventions have changed the hands labour; there has been a withering of the hand before the onward march of inventive genius. The hand is still required to guide the machine, but there are many who consider toil a disgrace. Fathers once humble in life, but now rich, make the mistake of not training their children in the same industrial habits of life, and in a spirit of self-reliance. Children of the rich scorn toil by reason of their inheritance; while the poor, through envy of the rich, lose consciousness of the inherent dignity of labour. Unto all such Christ says, Stretch forth thy hand. Six days shalt thou labour, etc.A. C. Ludlow.
Lessons.
1. Christs detection of human incompleteness. He instantly discovered that there was a man in the synagogue with a withered hand. The musician instantly detects a false note; the painter instantly detects an inartistic line; the complete Christ instantly detects the incomplete man.
2. Jesus Christs power over partial disease. The man had only a withered hand. In some cases Christ had to heal thoroughly diseased men; in this case the disease was local; yet in both instances His power was the same.J. Parker, D. D.
Mar. 3:1. Power of usefulness destroyed.This mans disease was not like the palsy, a type of universal inaction; nor like some consuming fever, a type of the way in which sin and vice pervert all the faculties of the soul; but there was a vivid picture of that infirmity which destroys a mans power of doing anything well. The hand of man is one of those noble physical features which distinguish him from the brute. The hand is but another name for human skill, power, and usefulness, and for the studied adaptation of means to ends.
1. The bigotry of these Pharisees rendered them useless in the great kingdom of God, and destroyed their power of serving Christ.
2. Prejudices wither up some of the energies of men.
3. Past inconsistencies often wither up the power of service.
4. Easily besetting sins will paralyse the usefulness of any man who does not earnestly wage war against them.H. R. Reynolds.
Withered hearts and hands.If there were no withered hearts, there would be no withered hands; make the fountain clear, and the stream will be pure. A miser, an unfruitful Christian, a negligent ruler, a strong man who will not help in any good workthese are all mere withered hands.
Mar. 3:2. Hollow profession.Where religion has become a body of maxims and doctrines, without life or warmth or motionwhere it is traditional observance handed down from father to son, devotions every grace, except the heartwhere it is all intellect and no affection, all logic without loveits professors are always strict to mark iniquities, and mere trivial breaches of religious etiquette may reap worse punishment than gross sins.G. Walker.
Mar. 3:5. Lessons.
1. It is the duty of a Christian to sorrow not only for his own sins, but also to be grieved for the sins of others.
2. All anger is not to be considered sinful.
3. He does not bear the image of Christ, but rather that of Satan, who can either behold with indifference the wickedness of others, or rejoice in it.
4. Nothing is more wretched than an obdurate heart, since it caused Him who is the source of all true joy to be filled with grief in beholding it.
5. Our indignation against wickedness must be tempered by compassion for the persons of the wicked.T. H. Horne.
Christs look.In that look there were two thingsthere were anger and grief, indignation and inward sorrow. His was not anger which desired evil to its object; no touch of malevolence was in it: it was simply love on fire, love burning with indignation against that which is unlovely. Mingled with this anger there was grief. He was heart-broken because their hearts were so hard. As Manton puts it, He was softened because of their hardness. His was not the pitiless flame of wrath which burns in a dry eye; He had tears as well as anger. His thunder-storm brought a shower of pity with it.
The only legitimate anger is a holy emotion directed against an unholy thing. Sin, not our neighbour, must be its object; zeal for righteousness, not our pride, must be its distinguishing character.Dr. Arnot.
Christs feelings.Everything that He touched burned that pure nature, which was sensitive to evil like an infants hand to hot iron. His sorrow and His anger were the two sides of the medal. His feelings on looking on sin were like a piece of woven stuff with a pattern on either side: on one the fiery threadsthe wrath; on the other the silvery tints of sympathetic pity. A warp of wrath, a woof of sorrow, and a dew of flame married and knit together.A. Maclaren, D. D.
What was hardening their hearts?It was He! Why were their hearts being hardened? Because they were looking at Him, His graciousness, His goodness, and His power, and were steeling themselves against Him, opposing to His grace and tenderness their obstinate determination. Some little gleams of light were coming into their houses, and they clapped the shutters up. Some tones of His voice were coming into their ears, and they stuffed their fingers into them. They half felt that if they let themselves be influenced by Him it was all over, and so they set their teeth and steadied themselves in their antagonism.Ibid.
Health by obedience.The way of health lay in obedience. Had the man said, No, I cannothad he debated, argued, My arm is witheredsurely the power of Christ had been restrained and the man had gone to his grave a cripple. Christ speaks to us. He tells us to do what seems impossibleto repent, believe, love, pray, trust. If we will be saved, if we will have soul-health, it must come to us in the way of obedience.G. Walker.
As we work God works.If we pass the clear light of day through a prism, we get many coloured rays. Our scientific men tell us that these rays have different properties. Some carry more heat than others; some are full of chemical force, and others have special electric properties. Now if a man should say, I will glaze my conservatory with different coloured glass; one compartment shall be red, another green, another blue, and so on; and I will pass my plants from one compartment to another, and play experiments upon them; and I will take the arrangement of light and shade into my own hands,you may imagine the result. He would make good scientific experiments, but he would have poor success as a gardener. He would not get flower or fruit in perfection. The Light of Men is full-orbed and many-rayed. To the healthy soul His light appears clear as the daylight. I fear we have sometimes too much spectral analysis in our heavenly things. We seek for sharp lines of demarcation. So one man will like the faith-producing ray, another the work-power, another the hope-power, another the will-producing influence. We seem to think, if we could but tinker up and amend the weak parts of our nature we might be saved. These works of mercy, these acted parables, all bring home to the heart one great truth, clear and pure as daylight. They present differences, but, amid all the difference, the one truth. They are full of the entire appeal of Jesus Christ to men. No matter what be our complaint, or special weakness, or sin; if all be diseased, be it ours to take Him in full reliance on His power and willingness to heal.Ibid.
Instant action.All that saved this man was that he did not stop to think. He proceeded as though there were no difficulties, and forthwith for him there were none. All Christs commands to unconverted men are in the present tense, which means that the command is issued without any allowance of time for comprehending the mysteries of salvation or for acquiring power to become a saved man. It is simply levelled to the range of the instant; not because thought is not advantageous in some circumstances, but because it is not in point here. Giving ourselves to Christ is not a matter of understanding what we are doing, but a matter of doing something, as when you tell your boy to raise his hand; he does not know how he raises his hand, and you know no more about it than he as regards the physiological intricacies of the act. And if he were to decline raising it until he understood the matter, you would tell him to do it first and understand at his leisure; your command was aimed at his will, and his resort to the intricacies of physiology only a side issue raised to divert your attention from his insubordination. Gods commands stand out of all relation to human power to grasp the problems, moral or theological, associated with obedience to those commands. Gods commands are like the pole-star, which with swift intuition finds out the magnetic needle as easily by night-light as by daylight, and beats upon it with relentless compulsion equally in the darkness and the sunshine. They are not a question of can, but of will; and with the will once trembling obediently on the verge of action, all needed resource of power is at its instant service.C. H. Parkhurst, D. D.
Mar. 3:6. The working of three determined and most mischievous powers.
1. The power of prejudice.
2. The power of technicality.
3. The power of ignorance. Prejudice as against Christ: technicality as opposed to humanity: ignorance as forgetful of the fact that in morals as well as in physics the greater includes the less. Sabbath-keeping is less than man-healing.J. Parker, D. D.
The madness of enmity.
1. It thinks that it can destroy Jesus.
2. It does not see how deeply it condemns itself.J. J. Van Oosterzee, D. D.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 3
Mar. 3:2. The world watches Christians.Now lads, said the late Duncan Matheson, the Scottish evangelist, to a lot of boys who had been converted at his meetings, the people here are not in the habit of reading their Bible to learn what God says to them, but Ill tell you what theyll read. Theyll read your lives and ways very carefully to see if you are really what you profess to be. And mind you this, if they find your lives to be inconsistent with your profession, the devil will give them this for an excuse in rejecting Christ. Very true indeed are these words. Would that we could lay them more constantly to heart! The life of the professing Christian is the only book of evidences that many people ever read in reference to Christianity. The Christian professors life is thus the worlds Bible. When there are inconsistencies and flaws in it, then the world makes these a plea against religion. Let us remember that the worlds eyes are upon us. Let us keep our book of evidences clear and pure.
Mar. 3:5. Anger checks wrongdoing.It might at first appear well for mankind if the bee were without its sting; but upon recollection it will be found that the little animal would then have too many rivals in sharing its labours. A hundred other lazy animals, fond of honey and hating labour, would intrude upon the sweets of the hive, and the treasure would be carried off for want of armed guardians to protect it. And it might at first appear well for mankind if the principle of anger were not a part of our constitution. But then we should be overrun with rogues. The presence of anger, always ready to start forth when an injury is done or intended, has the effect of suppressing much gross impudence and intolerable oppression. The sting of noble anger applied to a dastard who has bullied the weak or injured the unoffending has a most salutary influence in restraining him for the future, and in warning his fraternity of the like punishment which is all ready for them. But man should control his anger as the bee does her sting. It is not to be perpetually projected on every possible occasion, but to be used only when impertinence, laziness, injustice, or fraud requires.Scientific Illustrations.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
b. Healing On The Sabbath 3:1-6
TEXT 3:1-6
And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had his hand withered. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their peace, And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth: and his hand was restored. And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 3:1-6
104.
On what sabbath did this event occur? Please read Luk. 6:6 before answering.
105.
Just what is meant by a withered hand?
106.
Who was watching Jesus to accuse Him?
107.
Why call the man to stand forth in the midst?
108.
Was the question of Jesus in Mar. 3:4 based on scripture? Why ask the question?
109.
In what sense was Jesus angry with the Pharisees?
110.
Please explain in your own words the heart action described in Mar. 3:5.
111.
Did the willingness of the cripple relate to the healing? If so, how?
112.
Why the decision to kill Him? Why made at this particular time?
113.
Who were the Herodians?
COMMENT
TIMEEarly Summer A.D. 28although on a different sabbath than the one on which the disciples plucked the grain yet in the same summer.
PLACECapernaumin the synagogue of this city.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat. 12:9-14; Luk. 6:6-11.
OUTLINE1. The place of the healing, Mar. 3:1. 2. The critics of the healing, Mar. 3:2. 3. The man to be healed, Mar. 3:3. 4. The question of the purpose of healing and the sabbath, Mar. 3:4. 5. The attitude of Jesus and the healing, Mar. 3:5. 6. The sad reaction of the healing on those who refused to learn, Mar. 3:6.
ANALYSIS
I.
THE PLACE OF THE HEALING, Mar. 3:1.
1.
At Capernaum in the synagogue.
2.
In the midst of the Jewish worshippers in the synagogue.
II.
THE CRITICS OF THE HEALING, Mar. 3:2.
1.
The Pharisees and perhaps the Herodians.
2.
They were there to spy not to worship or learn.
III.
THE MAN TO BE HEALED, Mar. 3:3.
1.
An adult with a hand which was dried up.
2.
He was asked to arise so he could be seen by all in the service.
IV.
THE QUESTION OF THE PURPOSE OF HEALING AND THE SABBATH, Mar. 3:4.
1.
Some were worried about the purpose of the sabbathJesus asked if they really knew what should or should not be done on this day?
2.
They refused to answer the obvious question.
V.
THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS AND THE HEALING, Mar. 3:5.
1.
Searching the faces and hearts Jesus was grieved at what He saw.
2.
In the face of opposition and danger Jesus does good on the sabbath by healing.
VI.
THE SAD REACTION OF THE HEALING ON THOSE WHO REFUSED TO LEARN, Mar. 3:6.
1.
Left with their minds made up.
2.
Immediately agreed with their enemies to destroy Jesus.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I.
THE PLACE OF HEALING, Mar. 3:1.
Mar. 3:1. And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
Mark records another charge of Sabbath-breaking, probably to show how various were the outward occasions of such opposition; to illustrate the variety of Christs defenses; and mark the first concerted plan for his destruction. Again, that is, on a different occasion from the one referred to in Mar. 3:21. The synagogue, most probably the one there mentioned, which was in Capernaum. Here, as in Mar. 3:23, the absence of any more specific note of time shows that exact chronological order was of small importance to the authors object. There is somewhat more precision as to this point in the parallel accounts of Luke (Luk. 6:11) and Matthew (Mat. 12:9). There is no ground in the text of either gospel for the conjecture of some writers, that the presence of this sufferer had been contrived in order to entrap Christ. The constant application for his healing aid precludes the necessity of such supposition, and indeed suggests that this was only one of many miracles performed at this time, and is recorded in detail on account of its important bearing on the progress of Christs ministry. Withered, literally, dried or dried up, elsewhere applied to liquids (Mar. 5:29. Rev. 16:12), and to plants (Mar. 4:6, Mar. 11:20. Jas. 1:11), but also to the pining away of the human body. The passive participle adds to the meaning of the adjective (dry) employed by Matthew and Luke, the idea that it was not a congenital infirmity, but the effect of disease or accident, the more calamitous because it was the right hand that was thus disabled (Luk. 6:6). A similar affliction, preternaturally caused, was that of Jeroboam (1Ki. 13:4-6).
II.
THE CRITICS OF THE HEALING, Mar. 3:2.
Mar. 3:2. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath-day; that they might accuse him.
We have here a striking indication that the opposition to our Saviour was becoming more inveterate and settled, so that his enemies not only censured what he did, but watched for some occasion to find fault with him. Watched, i, e, closely or intently, as suggested by the compound form of the Greek verb, both here and in Act. 9:24. Whether he would, literally, if he will, a form of speech which represented the scene as actually passing. The motive of their watching was not simply curiosity, but a deliberate desire to entrap him. That they might accuse him, not in conversation merely, but before the local judges, who were probably identical with the elders or rulers of the synagogue, or at all events present at the stated time and place of public worship. The subject of the verb is not expressed by Mark and Matthew, although easily supplied from the foregoing context (Mar. 2:24. Mat. 12:2), and from the parallel account in Luke (Luk. 6:7), where the scribes and Pharisees are expressly mentioned.
III.
THE MAN TO BE HEALED, Mar. 3:3.
Mar. 3:3. And be saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth!
This direction to the patient is placed by Matthew (Mat. 12:13) after the address to his accusers, but without asserting that it was not given sooner, as would seem to be the case from the accounts of Mark and Luke, who represent it as a sort of preparation for the subsequent discourse, which would be rendered more impressive by the sight of the man standing in the midst, i.e. among them, and no doubt in a conspicuous position, but not necessarily in the exact center of the house or assembly. This phrase is omitted in our version, or included in the phrase stand forth. The Greek verb is the same with that in Mar. 1:31, Mar. 2:9, Mar. 11:12, and strictly means to rouse another or ones self, especially from sleep, (Compare Mat. 8:25. Luk. 8:24.)
IV.
THE QUESTION OF THE PURPOSE OF HEALING AND THE SABBATH, Mar. 3:4.
Mar. 3:4. And he saith unto them. Is it unlawful to do good on the sabbath-days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? but they held their peace.
Before proceeding to perform the miracle, he appeals to them as to the question of its lawfulness, retorting the same question which they had already put to him (Mat. 12:10), as if he had said, answer your own question; I will leave it to yourselves, and will abide by your decision, not however as expressed in words alone, but in your actions (Mat. 12:11-12). Is it lawful, not right in itself, but consistent with the law of Moses, and with your acknowledged obligation to obey it. To do good and to do evil may, according to etymology and usage, mean to do right and to do wrong in the general (1Pe. 3:16-17. 3Jn. 1:11), or to do good and to injure in particular (Act. 14:17). On the former supposition the meaning of the sentence is, You will surely admit that it is lawful to do right in preference to wrong on the Sabbath, as on any other day. But as this is little more than an identical proposition, or at least an undisputed truism (namely) that what is right is lawful), most interpreters prefer the other explanation, according to which our Lord is not asserting a mere truism, which his hearers were as ready to acknowledge as himself, but pointing out their obvious mistake as to the nature of the action which they had condemned beforehand. Stripped of its interrogative form, the sentence contains two distinct but consecutive propositions. The first is that it must be lawful, even on the Sabbath, to confer a favor or to do a kindness, when the choice lies between that and the doing of an injury. Even if not absolutely lawful, it would certainly become so in the case of such an alternative. The next proposition is that this rule, which is true in general, is emphatically true when the alternative is that of life and death. To this may be added, as a tacit influence, not formally deduced, but left to be drawn by the hearers for themselves, that such a case was that before them, in which to refuse help was virtually to destroy. This is not to be strictly understood as meaning that unless the withered hand were healed at once the man would die, but as exemplifying that peculiar method of presenting extreme cases, which is one of the most marked characteristics of our Saviours teaching. As in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, he instructs us what we must be prepared to do in an extreme case, thus providing for all others; so here he exhibits the conclusion, to which their reasoning naturally tended, as a proof that it must be erroneous. If the rest of the Sabbath was not only a divine requisition, but an intrinsic, absolute necessity, to which all human interests must yield, this could be no less true in an extreme case than in any other, so that life itself must be sacrificed to it. This revolting conclusion could be avoided only by admitting that the obligation of the Sabbath rested on authority, and might by that authority be abrogated or suspended. This implies that such authority belonged to him, that he was not acting as a mere man, or a prophet, but as the Son of man, and as such lord of the Sabbath; so that, although his answer upon this occasion is in form quite different from that before recorded, it amounts to the same thing, and proceeds upon the same essential principle. Thus understood, the sentence may be paraphrased as follows: You consider me a breaker of the law, because I heal upon the Sabbath; but you must admit that where the choice is between doing good and evil, for example, between saving life and killing upon that day, we are bound to choose the former. There is therefore some limit or exception to the obligation which you urge upon yourselves and others, not indeed to be decided by your own discretion or caprice, but by the same authority which first imposed it. Now that authority I claim to exercise, a claim abundantly attested by the very miracles on which your charge is founded, for no man can do such things unless God be with him. (Compare Joh. 3:2.)
V.
THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS AND THE HEALING, Mar. 3:5.
Mar. 3:5. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched (it) out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
We have here an instance of what some regard as characteristic of this gospel, and ascribe to Peters influence upon it, to wit, the occasional description of our Saviours feelings, looks and gestures, most of which details we owe exclusively to Mark. Three such particulars are here recorded, one external, two internal. Looking round upon (or at) them is an act mentioned by Luke also (Mar. 6:10), with the addition of the strong word all. But Mark tells what feelings were expressed by this act, or at least accompanied it. One was anger, a passion belonging to our original constitution, and as such not sinful in itself, and therefore shared by the humanity of Christ, in whom it was a holy indignation or intense displeasure at what really deserves it, unalloyed by that excess or that malignity which renders human anger almost always sinful. The absence of the quality last named in this case is apparent from the other feeling mentioned, that of grief or sorrow. Grieved with is in Greek a compound verb, admitting of two explanations, one of which makes the particle in composition refer to the anger previously mentioned, being grieved (in conjunction or at the same time) with that anger. But the classical usage of such writers as Plato. Theophrastus, Diodorus, is in favour of referring the particle in question, not to the anger, but to those who caused it, so as to express a sympathetic sorrow. Looking round with anger and yet grieving (sympathizing) with them. In the very act of condemning their sin, he pitied the miserable state to which it had reduced them. The specific object of this sympathetic grief or pity was the hardness of their heart, including intellectual stupidity and insensibility of feeling. The first Greek word is less exactly rendered blindness in the margin of our Bible, and in the text of Rom. 11:25. Eph. 4:18. But the figure, although not suggested by the Greek word, is expressive of two things which it denotes, a state of mental and spiritual apathy or insensibility. There is here no mention of external contact (as in Mar. 1:31; Mar. 1:41), nor of any other order or command than that to stretch out the hand, which could only be obeyed when the miracle was wrought, and is therefore not required as a previous condition. This is often and justly used to illustrate the act of faith, which is performed in obedience to divine command and by the aid of the same power which requires it. Whole (or sound) as the other, though expunged in this place by the critics as a mere assimilation to Mat. 12:13 (compare Luk. 6:10), may be used to illustrate Marks laconic phrase, in which it is really implied.
VI.
THE SAD REACTION OF THE HEALING ON THOSE WHO REFUSED TO LEARN, Mar. 3:6.
Mar. 3:6. And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.
One of the most important circumstances of this case, for the sake of which it was perhaps recorded (see Mar. 3:1), is the effect which it produced upon the Pharisees or High-Church Jewish party, whose religious tenets brought them into constant opposition to the Sadducees or latitudinarians, as their political or national exclusiveness arrayed them against the Herodians or followers of Herod, and as such defenders of the Roman domination, of which the Herods were the instruments and agents. Herod the Great, created king by the Romans, and enabled by their aid to take possession of his kingdom, was devoted to their service both from interest and inclination; and although upon his death his dominions were divided, and his eldest son Archelaus had been superseded in Judea by Roman procurators, two other sons of Herod were still reigning (Luk. 3:1), Antipas in Galilee, Samaria, and Perea, and Philip in Trachonitis and Iturea. Even in Judea, the Herodian interest and party still existed, as the most extreme political antithesis to that of he Pharisees. It is therefore a clear proof of growing hatred to our Saviour, that these opposite extremes should now begin to coalesce for his destruction, an alliance which appears to have continued till its object was accomplished. Going out (from the synagogue) immediately, as soon as the miracle was wrought, and therefore in full view of the proof which it afforded of our Lords divine legation; a conclusive confirmation of that hardness and judicial blindness which had excited his own grief and anger. Took counsel is a phrase peculiar to Matthew (Mat. 12:14; Mat. 22:15; Mat. 27:1; Mat. 28:12), Marks equivalent to which is made counsel, i.e. consultation. How they might destroy him, not for any past offenses, but how they might take advantage of his words or acts to rid them of so dangerous an enemy. The motives of this concerted opposition were no doubt various, religious, political, and personal, in different degrees and cases. That it should have been deliberately organized, at this time, out of such discordant elements and in the face of such conclusive evidence, can only be ascribed to the infatuation under which they acted (Luk. 6:11). (J. A, Alexander)
FACT QUESTIONS 3:1-6.
130.
What possible purposes were there in the record of Mark of the Sabbath healing?
131.
Was the cripple planted there to entrap Christ? Prove your answer.
132.
How did the man come to have a withered hand?
133.
In what manner and in what attitude did the Pharisees watch Jesus?
134.
How would the accusations of the enemies of Jesus be carried out?
135.
At what particular time in the action did Jesus ask the man to stand forth? What is meant by Stand forth?
136.
Why did Jesus ask the question of Mar. 2:4? Cf. Mat. 12:10.
137.
Was our Lord stating a truism?
138.
If this was not a truism what two propositions were involved in the statement?
139.
In what reference do some see the influence of Peter upon the writer Mark?
140.
How could Jesus look upon certain persons with anger and yet not sin?
141.
With whom was Jesus grieved? I thought He was angry with them? Explain.
142.
What was included in the expression hardness of heart?
143.
Was there any act of faith on the part of the man healed? Explain.
144.
How does Mar. 2:6 indicate the purpose for Mar. 2:1-6?
145.
Who were the Herodians? Why did the Pharisees want their help?
SIDELIGHTS 2:23-28
We see from these verses, what extravagant importance is attached to trifles by those who are mere formalists in religion.
The Pharisees were mere formalists, if there ever were any in the world. They seem to have thought exclusively of the outward part, the husk, the shell, and the ceremonial of religion. They even added to these externals by traditions of their own. Their godliness was made up of washings and fastings and peculiarities in dress and will-worship, while repentance and faith and holiness were comparatively overlooked.
The Pharisees would probably have found no fault if the disciples had been guilty of some offense against the moral law. They would have winked at covetousness, or perjury, or extortions, or excess, because they were sins to which they themselves were inclined.
We see, in the second place, from these verses, the value of a knowledge of Holy Scripture.
Our Lord replies to the accusation of the Pharisees by a reference to Holy Scripture. He reminds His enemies of the conduct of David, when he had need and was an hungered. Have ye never read what David did? They could not deny that the writer of the book of Psalms, and the man after Gods own heart, was not likely to set a bad example.
Let us observe in these verses, how our Lord Jesus Christ was watched by His enemies. We read that they watched Him, whether He would heal him on the Sabbath Day, that they might accuse Him.
What a melancholy proof we have here of the wickedness of human nature! It was the Sabbath Day when these things happened. It was in the synagogue, where men were assembled to hear the Word and worship God. Yet even on the day of God, and at the time of worshipping God, these wretched formalists were plotting mischief against our Lord. The very men who pretended to such strictness and sanctity in little things, were full of malicious and angry thoughts in the midst of the congregation. (Pro. 5:14).
Let us observe, in the last place, the feelings which the conduct of our Lords enemies called forth in His heart. We are told that He looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts.
This expression is very remarkable, and demands special attention. It is meant to remind us that our Lord Jesus Christ was a man like ourselves in all things, sin only excepted. Whatever sinless feelings belong to the constitution of man, our Lord partook of, and knew by experience. We read that He marvelled, that He rejoiced, that He wept, that He loved, and here we read that He felt anger.
It is plain from these words that there is an anger which is lawful, right, and not sinful. There is an indignation which is justifiable, and on some occasions may be properly manifested. The words of Solomon and St. Paul both seem to teach the same lesson. The north wind driveth away rain, so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue. Be ye angry and sin not. (Pro. 25:23; Eph. 4:26). (J. C. Ryle)
LESSONS
1.
Jesus did not remove Himself or His disciples from the ordinary course of lifeit was in the grain field and the synagogue He taught His lessons.
2.
Jesus never ate the grainwhereas He defended the actions of His disciples He was above reproachso should the teacher be.
3.
The sabbath was indeed made for manfor the Jewish man in Palestinethere are numerous persons who could not observe it because of the length of the day in the area where they livemost of all because God commanded no one but the Jews to observe it. Cf. Deu. 5:15.
4.
How many withered hands do we have in the church today? Jesus is commanding them to stand forth and be healed.
6.
We can expect some people to intentionally misunderstand and misinterpret all the good we do. A servant is not above His Master:
POINTS FOR TEACHERS
1.
How many of the Ten Commandments are reproduced in the New Testament? Give references.
2.
Is there any commandment in the New Testament to observe the Lords Day? Why do we observe it?
3.
Make a contrast between the sabbath and the Lords Day.
4.
Name some things we should do on Sunday.
5.
Is it right to keep drug stores and other stores open on Sunday?
6.
If a man works all day on Sunday and gives what he earns on that day to the Lords work, does that excuse him for working?
7.
What are some of the things causing the American people to misuse the Lords Day?
8.
Show how the forces of evil today are united.
9.
Show how the forces of good are divided.
10.
What is the unpardonable sin?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
8. THE SABBATH DISPUTE 2:233:6
a. Eating on the Sabbath. 2:23-28
TEXT 2:23-28
And it came to pass, that he was going on the Sabbath day through the cornfields; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Did ye never read what David did, when he had need and was an hungered, he and they that were with him? How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and did eat the shew-bread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him? And he said unto them. The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 2:23-28
96.
To where were Jesus and His disciples going as they went through the grain fields?
97.
Why were his disciples plucking the ears of grain? Wasnt this stealing?
98.
Of what did the Pharisees accuse the disciples?
99.
How could Jesus use the example of David when David lied to the priest in getting the shewbread?
100.
In what sense was the sabbath made for man?
101.
Is Jesus saying the Sabbath law was subject to man not man to the Sabbath law? Explain.
102.
In what sense is the Son of man Lord of the Sabbath?
103.
Wouldnt this arouse anger in the hearts of the Pharisees and therefore be wrong?
COMMENT 2:23-28
TIMEEarly summer of A.D. 28.
PLACEIn a grain field near Capernaum.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat. 12:1-8; Luk. 6:1-5.
OUTLINE1. Walking on the sabbath, Mar. 2:23. 2. The criticism of the Pharisees, Mar. 2:24. 3. Jesus answer, Mar. 2:25-26. 4. The application, Mar. 2:27-28.
ANALYSIS 2:23-28
I.
WALKING ON THE SABBATH Mar. 2:23
1.
Through the grain-fields with His disciples.
2.
As they went the disciples plucked the grain and ate it.
II.
THE CRITICISM OF THE PHARISEES. Mar. 2:24.
1.
Careful to watch for mistakes.
2.
objected to harvesting grain on the sabbath.
III.
JESUS ANSWER. Mar. 2:25-26.
1.
They were unaware of the record and meaning of the scripture.
2.
Davids exception would surely allow for theirs.
IV.
THE APPLICATION. Mar. 2:27-28.
1.
The true purpose of the sabbath.
2.
The claim to Divine prerogative.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I.
WALKING ON THE SABBATH. Mar. 2:23.
Mar. 2:23. . . . on the sabbath . . . his disciples began to pluck the ears. Matthew mentions the hunger of the disciples as the cause for plucking the grain. Both Jesus and His disciples had been so pressed with work that they had not time for eating. Deu. 23:25 makes provision for the poor and permits eating a few ears from the neighbors field. We do not know if this was a wheat field or a barley field.
II.
THE CRITICISM OF THE PHARISEES. Mar. 2:24.
Mar. 2:24. . . . why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? The Pharisees were accusing the disciples of working on the sabbathactually of harvesting on the Sabbath. The law was Exo. 20:10. The infraction of the law was a matter of legalistic interpretation.
III.
JESUS ANSWER, Mar. 2:25-26.
Mar. 2:25-26. The reply, as given by all three evangelists, cites a violation on the ground of necessity, and one in which the necessity, as now, is that of hunger. The sanctity is not that of the Sabbath alone, but also that of the shew-bread in the tabernacle. The reference is to 1Sa. 21:1-6 : In the days of Abiathar, the high priest; the mention of the name is peculiar to Mark, and is not without difficulty. The high priest who is mentioned in the original narrative is not Abiathar, but Ahimelech, his father. Abiathar succeeded his father in office not long after, and was high priest during Davids reign; so that his name is constantly associated with that of David in the history. Various attempts have been made to reconcile the difference, some supposing that Abiathar was already assistant to his father at the time of Davids visit and was present when he came, although this can be nothing but conjecture; others, that our Lord or Mark was content with mentioning the name of the chief high priest of Davids time, and the one that was chiefly associated with Davids name, which is the same as to say that absolute accuracy was not aimed at; others, that the name of Abiathar stands in the text of Mark as the result of a copyists error. The law of the shewbread is given at Lev. 24:5-9. Our Lords argument is again, as so often, an argumentum ad homineman appeal to the Pharisees on their own ground. The visit of David to the tabernacle was on the Sabbath, for the previous weeks shew-bread was just being changed for the fresh, and this was done on the Sabbath (1Sa. 21:6 with Lev. 24:8). So David violated the sanctity of the Sabbath (if the Pharisees were right), and at the same time the law that gave the sacred bread to the priests alone. Here was a double violation on the ground of necessity, and the Scriptures nowhere condemned it; nor would the Pharisees really condemn it. David was no Sabbath-breaker, as they all knew; neither were his disciples Sabbath-breakers for gathering and eating the ears of grain. In Matthew a second illustration is addedof the priests laboring in the temple on the Sabbath without sin; also a second citation of the Scripture quoted in Mar. 2:13I will have mercy, and not sacrificeas appropriate to this case also. The principle throughout is that higher requirements subordinate lower; the application of the principle, that necessity and mercy are of higher rank than any ceremonial or formal duties. The requirement of mercy was a rebuke to the spirit of the fault finders, who were very tender of the Sabbath, but cared nothing for the supplying of the needs of their fellow-men. The principle of Paul, Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law (Rom. 13:10), was to them utterly unknown.
IV.
THE APPLICATION. Mar. 2:27-28
Mar. 2:27-28. sabbath was made for man.These verses contain an argument not reported by either Matthew or Luke. That the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, implies that when the welfare of man conflicts with the observance of the Sabbath, the letter must give way. But of this, man himself is not to judge, because he can not judge with impartiality his own interests. No one is competent to judge in the case who does not know all that pertains to the welfare of man, and this is known only by the Lord. For this reason Jesus adds, Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath; that is, as the Son of man came to provide for mans welfare, and as the Sabbath law might need modification or even abrogation for the highest good of man, therefore lordship over the Sabbath was given to the Son of man. The passage teaches, then, not that man might violate the law of the Sabbath when their welfare seemed to them to demand it, but that Jesus could set it aside, as he afterward did, when his own judgment of mans welfare required him to do so. He made it clear on this occasion that said law was not to be so construed as to prevent men from providing necessary food on the Sabbath-day. (J. W. McGarvey)
FACT QUESTIONS 2:23-28
122.
Why did the disciples eat the grain?
123.
Why go through the field? Why not use the road?
124.
Was it wrong to eat the grain? What law provides for this?
125.
What law did the Pharisees imagine the disciples had violated?
126.
Please explain the difficulty in referring to Abiathar as the high-priestwhat explanation seems best?
127.
What principle was involved in the action of David which was also a part of the action of the disciples?
128.
In what sense was the sabbath made for man? When?
129.
Explain the point in saying the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
III.
(1-6) A man there which had a withered hand.See Notes on Mat. 12:9-14. St. Mark omits the reference to the sheep fallen into a pit, and, on the other hand, gives more graphically our Lords looking round with an anger which yet had in it a touch as of pitying grief. The form of the Greek participle implies compassion as well as sorrow. St. Mark alone names (Mar. 3:6) the Herodians as joining with the Pharisees in their plot for His destruction. On the Herodians, see Notes on Mat. 11:8; Mat. 22:16.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 3
THE CLASH OF IDEAS ( Mar 3:1-6 ) 3:1-6 Jesus went into the synagogue again; and there was a man there who had a hand which had withered; and they were watching him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath day, so that, if he did, they might be able to formulate a charge against him. He said to the man who had the withered hand, “Stand up and come out in to the middle of the congregation.” He said to them, “Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day? Or to do evil? To save a life? Or to kill it?” But they remained silent. He looked round on them with anger, for he was grieved at the obtuseness of their hearts. He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand!” He stretched it out; and his hand was restored. The Pharisees immediately went out and began to concoct a plot with Herod’s entourage against Jesus, with a view to killing him.
This is a crucial incident in the life of Jesus. It was already clear that he and the orthodox leaders of the Jews were quite at variance. For him to go back into the synagogue at all was a brave thing to do. It was the act of a man who refused to seek safety and who was determined to look a dangerous situation in the face. In the synagogue there was a deputation from the Sanhedrin. No one could miss them, for, in the synagogue, the front seats were the seats of honour and they were sitting there. It was the duty of the Sanhedrin to deal with anyone who was likely to mislead the people and seduce them from the right way; and that is precisely what this deputation conceived of themselves as doing. The last thing they were there to do was to worship and to learn; they were there to scrutinize Jesus’ every action.
In the synagogue there was a man with a paralysed hand. The Greek word means that he had not been born that way but that some illness had taken the strength from him. The gospel according to the Hebrews, a gospel which is lost except for a few fragments, tells us that the man was a stone mason and that he besought Jesus to help him, for his livelihood was in his hands and he was ashamed to beg. If Jesus had been a cautious, prudent person he would have conveniently arranged not to see the man, for he knew that to heal him was asking for trouble.
It was the Sabbath day; all work was forbidden and to heal was to work. The Jewish law was definite and detailed about this. Medical attention could be given only if a life was in danger. To take some examples–a woman in childbirth might be helped on the Sabbath; an infection of the throat might be treated; if a wall fell on anyone, enough might be cleared away to see whether he was dead or alive; if he was alive he might be helped, if he was dead the body must be left until the next day. A fracture could not be attended to. Cold water might not be poured on a sprained hand or foot. A cut finger might be bandaged with a plain bandage but not with ointment. That is to say, at the most an injury could be kept from getting worse; it must not be made better.
It is extraordinarily difficult for us to grasp this. The best way in which we can see the strict orthodox view of the Sabbath is to remember that a strict Jew would not even defend his life on the Sabbath. In the wars of the Maccabees, when resistance broke out, some of the Jewish rebels took refuge in caves. The Syrian soldiers pursued them. Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us that they gave them the chance to surrender and they would not, so “they fought against them on the Sabbath day, and they burned them as they were in caves, without resistance and without so much as stopping up the entrances of the caves. They refused to defend themselves on that day because they were not willing to break in upon the honour they owed to the Sabbath, even in such distress; for our law requires that we rest on that day.” When Pompey, the Roman general, was besieging Jerusalem, the defenders took refuge in the Temple precincts. Pompey proceeded to build a mound which would overtop them and from which he might bombard them. He, knew the beliefs of the Jews and he built on the Sabbath day, and the Jews lifted not one hand to defend themselves or to hinder the building, although they knew that by their Sabbath inactivity they were signing their own death warrant. The Romans, who had compulsory military service, had in the end to exempt the Jews from army service because no strict Jew would fight on the Sabbath. The orthodox Jewish attitude to the Sabbath was completely rigid and unbending.
Jesus knew that. This man’s life was not in the least danger. Physically he would be no worse off if he were left until to-morrow. For Jesus this was a test case, and he met it fairly and squarely. He told the man to rise and to come out of his place and stand where everyone could see him. There were probably two reasons for that. Very likely Jesus wished to make one last effort to waken sympathy for the stricken man by showing everyone his wretchedness. Quite certainly Jesus wished to take the step he was going to take in such a way that no one could possibly fail to see it.
He asked the experts in the law two questions. Is it lawful to do good or to do evil on the Sabbath day? He put them in a dilemma. They were bound to admit that it was lawful to do good; and it was a good thing he proposed to do. They were bound to deny that it was lawful to do evil; and, yet, surely it was an evil thing to leave a man in wretchedness when it was possible to help him. Then he asked, Is it lawful to save a life or to kill it? Here he was driving the thing home. He was taking steps to save this wretched man’s life; they were thinking out methods of killing himself. On any reckoning it was surely a better thing to be thinking about helping a man than it was to be thinking of killing a man. No wonder they had nothing to say!
Then Jesus with a word of power healed the man; and the Pharisees went out and tried to hatch a plot with the Herodians to kill him. This shows the lengths to which the Pharisees would go. No Pharisee would normally have anything to do with a Gentile or a man who did not keep the law; such people were unclean. The Herodians were the court entourage of Herod; they were continually coming into contact with Romans. For all normal purposes the Pharisees would have considered them unclean; but now they were prepared to enter into what was for them an unholy alliance. In their hearts there was a hate which would stop at nothing.
This passage is fundamental because it shows the clash of two ideas of religion.
(i) To the Pharisee religion was ritual; it meant obeying certain rules and regulations. Jesus broke these regulations and they were genuinely convinced that he was a bad man. It is like the man who believes that religion consists in going to church, reading the Bible, saying grace at meals, having family worship, and carrying out all the external acts which are looked on as religious, and who yet never put himself out to do anything for anyone, who has no sense of sympathy, no desire to sacrifice, who is serene in his rigid orthodoxy, and deaf to the call of need and blind to the tears of the world.
(ii) To Jesus religion was service. It was love of God and love of men. Ritual was irrelevant compared with love in action.
“Our Friend, our Brother, and our Lord,
What may Thy service be?
Nor name, nor form, nor ritual word,
But simply following Thee.”
To Jesus the most important thing in the world was not the correct performance of a ritual, but the spontaneous answer to the cry of human need.
IN THE MIDST OF THE CROWDS ( Mar 3:7-12 ) 3:7-12 So Jesus withdrew to the lakeside with his disciples, and a great multitude from Galilee followed him; and from Judaea and from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea and from the Transjordan country, and from the territory round Tyre and Sidon, there came to him a great crowd of people, for they were hearing about what great things he was doing. He told his disciples to have a boat ready waiting for him because of the crowd, so that they would not crush him; for he healed many, and the result was that all who were suffering from the scourges of disease rushed upon him to touch him. And as often as unclean spirits saw him, they kept flinging themselves down before him and shouting, “You are the Son of God.” Many times he sternly forbade them to make him known.
Unless Jesus wished to be involved in a head-on collision with the authorities he had to leave the synagogues. It was not that he withdrew through fear; it was not the retreat of a man who feared to face the consequences. But his hour was not yet come. There was much that he had still to do and say before the time of final conflict.
So he left the synagogues and went out to the lakeside and the open sky. Even there the crowds flocked to him from far afield. From all over Galilee they came; many made the hundred-mile journey from Jerusalem in Judaea to see him and to listen to him. Idumaea was the ancient realm of Edom, away in the deep south, between the southern borders of Palestine and Arabia. From the east side of Jordan they came; and even from foreign territory, for people came from the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon, which lie on the Mediterranean coast, northwest of Galilee.
So large were the crowds that it became dangerous and a boat had to be kept ready, just off the shore, in case he might be overwhelmed with the crushing of the mob. His cures brought him into even greater danger; for the sick people did not even wait for him to touch them; they rushed to touch him.
At this time he was faced with one special problem, the problem of those who were possessed by demons. Let us remember that, whatever our belief about demons may be, these people were convinced they were possessed by an alien and an evil power external to themselves. They called Jesus the Son of God. What did they mean by that? They certainly did not use the term in what we might call a philosophical or a theological sense. In the ancient world Son of God was by no means an uncommon title. The kings of Egypt were said to be the sons of Ra, their god. From Augustus onwards many of the Roman Emperors were described on inscriptions as sons of God.
The Old Testament has four ways in which it uses this term. (i) The angels are the sons of God. The old story in Gen 6:2, says that the sons of God saw the daughters of men and were fatally attracted to them. Job 1:6, tells of the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord. It was a regular title for the angels. (ii) The nation of Israel is the son of God. God called his son out of Egypt ( Hos 11:1). In Exo 4:22, God says of the nation, “Israel is my first-born son,” (iii) The king of the nation is the son of God. In 2Sa 7:14, the promise to the king is, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.” (iv) In the later books, which were written between the Testaments, the good man is the son of God. In Sir_4:10 , the promise to the man who is kind to the fatherless is,
“So shalt thou be a son of the Most High,
And he shall love thee more than thy mother doth.”
In all these cases the term son describes someone who is specially near and close to God. We get a parallel to this which shows something of its meaning in the New Testament. Paul calls Timothy his son ( 1Ti 1:2; 1Ti 1:18). Timothy was no blood relation to Paul at all, but there was no one, as Paul says ( Php_2:19-22 ), who knew his mind so well. Peter calls Mark his son ( 1Pe 5:13), because there was no one who could interpret his mind so well. When we meet this title in the simplicity of the gospel story we are not to think in terms of philosophy or theology or of the doctrine of the Trinity; we are to think of it as expressing the fact that Jesus’ relationship to God was so close that no other word could describe it. Now these demon-possessed men felt that in them there was an independent evil spirit; they somehow felt that in Jesus was one near and kin to God; they felt that in the presence of this nearness to God the demons could not live and therefore they were afraid.
We must ask, “Why did Jesus so sternly bid them to remain silent?” The reason was very simple and very compelling. Jesus was the Messiah, God’s anointed king; but his idea of Messiahship was quite different from the popular idea. He saw in Messiahship a way of service, of sacrifice and of love with a cross at the end of it. The popular idea of the Messiah was of a conquering king who, with his mighty armies, would blast the Romans and lead the Jews to world power. Therefore, if a rumour were to go out that the Messiah had arrived, the inevitable consequence would be rebellions and uprisings, especially in Galilee where the people were ever ready to follow a nationalist leader.
Jesus thought of Messiahship in terms of love; the people thought of Messiahship in terms of Jewish nationalism. Therefore, before there could be any proclamation of his Messiahship, Jesus had to educate the people into the true idea of what it meant. At this stage nothing but harm and trouble and disaster could come from the proclamation that the Messiah had arrived. It would have issued in nothing but useless war and bloodshed. First of all men had to learn the true conception of what the Messiah was; a premature announcement such as this could have wrecked Jesus’ whole mission.
THE CHOSEN COMPANY ( Mar 3:13-19 ) 3:13-19 Jesus went up into the mountain and invited to his service the men of his choice; and he appointed twelve that they might be with him, and that he might send them out to act as his heralds, and to have power to cast out demons. He chose Simon, and to him he gave the name of Peter; he chose James, Zebedee’s son, and John, James’ brother, and to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder; he chose Andrew and Philip and Bartholomew and Matthew and Thomas, and James, Alphaeus’ son, and Thaddeus and Simon, the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Jesus had come to a very important moment in his life and work. He had emerged with his message; he had chosen his method; he had gone throughout Galilee preaching and healing. By this time he had made a very considerable impact on the public mind. Now he had to face two very practical problems. First, he had to find some way of making his message permanent if anything happened to him, and that something would happen he did not doubt. Second, he had to find some way of disseminating his message, and in an age when there was no such thing as a printed book or newspaper, and no way of reaching large numbers of people at the one time, that was no easy task. There was only one way to solve these two problems: he had to choose certain men on whose hearts and lives he could write his message and who would go out from his presence to carry that message abroad. Here we see him doing exactly that.
It is significant that Christianity began with a group. The Christian faith is something which from the beginning had to be discovered and lived out in a fellowship. The whole essence of the way of the Pharisees was that it separated men from their fellows; the very name Pharisee means the separated one; the whole essence of Christianity was that it bound men to their fellows, and presented them with the task of living with each other and for each other.
Further, Christianity began with a very mixed group. In it the two extremes met. Matthew was a tax-collector and, therefore, an outcast; he was a renegade and a traitor to his fellow countrymen. Simon the Cananaean is correctly called by Luke, Simon the Zealot; and the Zealots were a band of fiery, violent nationalists who were pledged even to murder and assassination to clear their country of the foreign yoke. The man who was lost to patriotism and the fanatical patriot came together in that group, and no doubt between them there were all kinds of backgrounds and opinions. Christianity began by insisting that the most diverse people should live together and by enabling them to do so, because they were all living with Jesus.
Judging them by worldly standards the men Jesus chose had no special qualifications at all. They were not wealthy; they had no special social position; they had no special education–they were not trained theologians; they were not high-ranking churchmen and ecclesiastics; they were twelve ordinary men. But they had two special qualifications. First, they had felt the magnetic attraction of Jesus. There was something about him that made them wish to take him as their Master. And second, they had the courage to show that they were on his side. Make no mistake, that did require courage. Here was Jesus calmly crashing through the rules and regulations; here was Jesus heading for an inevitable collision with the orthodox leaders; here was Jesus already branded as a sinner and labelled as a heretic; and yet they had the courage to attach themselves to him. No band of men ever staked everything on such a forlorn hope as these Galilaeans, and no band of men ever did it with more open eyes. These twelve had all kinds of faults, but whatever else could be said about them, they loved Jesus and they were not afraid to tell the world that they loved him–and that is being a Christian.
Jesus called them to him for two purposes. First, he called them to be with him. He called them to be his steady and consistent companions. Others might come and go; the crowd might be there one day and away the next; others might be fluctuating and spasmodic in their attachment to him, but these twelve were to identify their lives with his life and live with him all the time. Second, he called them to send them out. He wanted them to be his representatives. He wanted them to tell others about him. They themselves had been won in order to win others.
For their task Jesus equipped them with two things. First, he gave them a message. They were to be his heralds. A wise man said that no one has any right to be a teacher unless he has a teaching of his own to offer, or the teaching of another that with all the passion of his heart he wishes to propagate. Men will always listen to the man with a message. Jesus gave these friends of his something to say. Second, he gave them a power. They were also to cast out demons. Because they companied with him something of his power was on their lives.
If we would learn what discipleship is we will do well to think again of these first disciples.
THE VERDICT OF HIS OWN ( Mar 3:20-21 ) 3:20-21 Jesus went into a house; and once again so dense a crowd collected that they could not even eat bread. When his own people heard What was going on, they went out to restrain him, for they said, “He has taken leave of his senses.”
Sometimes a man drops a remark which cannot be interpreted otherwise than as the product of bitter experience. Once when Jesus was enumerating the things which a man might have to face for following him, he said, “A man’s foes will be those of his own household.” ( Mat 10:36.) His own family had come to the conclusion that he had taken leave of his senses and that it was time he was taken home. Let us see if we can understand what made them feel like that.
(i) Jesus had left home and the carpenter’s business at Nazareth. No doubt it was a flourishing business from which he could at least have made a living; and quite suddenly he had flung the whole thing up and gone out to be a wandering preacher. No sensible man, they must have been thinking, would throw up a business where the money came in every week to become a vagrant who had not any place to lay his head.
(ii) Jesus was obviously on the way to a head-on collision with the orthodox leaders of his day. There are certain people who can do a man a great deal of harm, people on whose right side it is better to keep, people whose opposition can be very dangerous. No sensible man, they must have been thinking, would ever get up against the powers that be, because he would know that in any collision with them he would be bound to come off second best. No one could take on the Scribes and the Pharisees and the orthodox leaders and hope to get away with it.
(iii) Jesus had newly started a little society of his own–and a very queer society it was. There were some fishermen; there was a reformed tax-collector; there was a fanatical nationalist. They were not the kind of people whom any ambitious man would particularly want to know. They certainly were not the kind of people who would be any good to a man who was set on a career. No sensible man, they must have been thinking, would pick a crowd of friends like that. They were definitely not the kind of people a prudent man would want to get mixed up with.
By his actions Jesus had made it clear that the three laws by which men tend to organize their lives meant nothing to him.
(i) He had thrown away security. The one thing that most people in this world want more than anything else is just that. They want above all things a job and a position which are secure, and where there are as few material and financial risks as possible.
(ii) He had thrown away safety. Most people tend at all times to play safe. They are more concerned with the safety of any course of action than with its moral quality, its rightness or its wrongness. A course of action which involves risk is something from which they instinctively shrink.
(iii) He had shown himself utterly indifferent to the verdict of society. He had shown that he did not much care what men said about him. In point of fact, as H. G. Wells said, for most people “the voice of their neighbours is louder than the voice of God.” “What will people say?” is one of the first questions that most of us are in the habit of asking.
What appalled Jesus’ friends was the risks that he was taking, risks which, as they thought, no sensible man would take.
When John Bunyan was in prison he was quite frankly afraid. “My imprisonment,” he thought, “might end on the gallows for ought that I could tell.” He did not like the thought of being hanged. Then came the day when he was ashamed of being afraid. “Methought I was ashamed to die with a pale face and tottering knees for such a cause as this.” So finally he came to a conclusion as he thought of himself climbing up the ladder to the scaffold: “Wherefore, thought I, I am for going on and venturing my eternal state with Christ whether I have comfort here or no; if God doth not come in, thought I, I will leap off the ladder even blindfold into eternity, sink or swim, come heaven, come hell; Lord Jesus, if thou wilt catch me, do: if not, I will venture for thy name.” That is precisely what Jesus was willing to do. I will venture for thy name. That was the essence of the life of Jesus, and that–not safety and security–should be the motto of the Christian man and the mainspring of the Christian life.
ALLIANCE OR CONQUEST? ( Mar 3:22-27 ) 3:22-27 The experts in the law from Jerusalem came down. They said, “He has Beelzebub on his side.” They said, “It is by the ruler of the demons that he casts out the demons.” Jesus called them and spoke to them by way of analogy. “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan had risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand–he is finished. No one can go into the house of a strong man and plunder his gear unless he first binds the strong man–then he will plunder his house.”
The orthodox officials never questioned Jesus’ power to exorcise demons. They did not need to, for exorcism was a common phenomenon then, as it still is, in the East. What they did say was that Jesus’ power was due to the fact that he was in league with the king of the demons, that, as one commentator puts it, “it was by the great demon he cast out the little demons.” People have always believed in “black magic,” and that is what they claimed Jesus was practising.
Jesus had no difficulty in exploding that argument. The essence of exorcism has always been that the exorcist calls to his aid some stronger power to drive out the weaker demon. So Jesus says: “Just think! If there is internal dissension in a kingdom, that kingdom cannot last. If there are quarrels in a house, that house will not endure long. If Satan is actually making war with his own demons then he is finished as an effective power, because civil war has begun in the kingdom of Satan.” “Put it another way,” Jesus said. “Suppose you want to rob a strong man. You have no hope of doing so until you have got the strong man under subjection. Once you have got him tied up you can plunder his goods–but not until then.” The defeat of the demons did not show that Jesus was in alliance with Satan; it showed that Satan’s defences had been breached; a stronger name had arrived; the conquest of Satan had begun. Two things emerge here.
(i) Jesus accepts life as a struggle between the power of evil and the power of God. He did not waste his time in speculations about problems to which there is no answer. He did not stop to argue about where evil came from; but he did deal with it most effectively. One of the odd things is that we spend a good deal of time discussing the origin of evil; but we spend less time working out practical methods of tackling the problem. Someone put it this way–suppose a man wakes up to find his house on fire, he does not sit down in a chair and embark upon the reading of a treatise entitled “The Origin of Fires in Private Houses.” He grabs such defences as he can muster and deals with the fire. Jesus saw the essential struggle between good and evil which is at the heart of life and raging in the world. He did not speculate about it; he dealt with it and gave to others the power to overcome evil and do the right.
(ii) Jesus regarded the defeat of disease as part of the conquest of Satan. This is an essential part of Jesus’ thought. He desired, and was able, to save men’s bodies as well as men’s souls. The doctor and the scientist who meet the challenge of disease are sharing in the defeat of Satan as much as the preacher of the word. The doctor and the minister are not doing different work but the same work. They are not rivals but allies in God’s warfare against the power of evil.
THE SIN FOR WHICH THERE IS NO FORGIVENESS ( Mar 3:28-30 ) 3:28-30 “This is the truth I tell you–all sins will be forgiven to the sons of men–I mean all the insulting things that they say; but whoever insults the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven for ever but he has made himself guilty of the sin that not even eternity can wipe out.” This he said because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”
If we are to understand what this terrible saying means we must first understand the circumstances in which it was said. It was said by Jesus when the Scribes and Pharisees had declared that the cures he wrought were wrought not by the power of God, but by the power of the devil. These men had been able to look at the incarnate love of God and to think it the incarnate power of Satan.
We must begin by remembering that Jesus could not have used the phrase the Holy Spirit in the fun Christian sense of the term. The Spirit in all his fullness did not come to men until Jesus had returned to his glory. It was not until Pentecost that there came to men the supreme experience of the Holy Spirit. Jesus must have used the term in the Jewish sense of the term. Now in Jewish thought the Holy Spirit had two great functions. First, he revealed God’s truth to men; second, he enabled men to recognize that truth when they saw it. That will give us the key to this passage.
(i) The Holy Spirit enabled men to recognize God’s truth when it entered their lives. But if a man refuses to exercise any God-given faculty he will in the end lose it. If he lives in the dark long enough he will lose the ability to see. If he stays in bed long enough he will lose the power to walk. If he refuses to do any serious study he will lose the power to study. And if a man refuses the guidance of God’s Spirit often enough he will become in the end incapable of recognizing that truth when he sees it. Evil to him becomes good and good evil. He can look on the goodness of God and call it the evil of Satan.
(ii) Why should such a sin have no forgiveness? H. B. Swete says, “To identify the source of good with the impersonation of evil implies a moral wreck for which the Incarnation itself provides no remedy.” A. J. Rawlinson calls it “essential wickedness,” as if here we see the quintessence of all evil. Bengel said that all other sins are human but this sin is Satanic. Why should all this be so?
Consider the effect of Jesus on a man. The very first effect is to make him see his own utter unworthiness in comparison with the beauty and the loveliness of the life of Jesus. “Depart from me,” said Peter, “for I am a sinful man.” ( Luk 5:8.) When Tokichi Ishii first read the story of the Gospel he said, “I stopped. I was stabbed to the heart as if pierced by a five-inch nail. Shall I call it the love of Christ? Shall I call it his compassion? I do not know what to call it. I only know that I believed and my hardness of heart was changed.” The first reaction was that he was stabbed to the heart. The result of that sense of unworthiness and the result of that stabbed heart is a heartfelt penitence, and penitence is the only condition of forgiveness. But, if a man has got himself into such a state, by repeated refusals to listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, that he cannot see anything lovely in Jesus at all, then the sight of Jesus will not give him any sense of sin; because he has no sense of sin he cannot be penitent, and because he is not penitent he cannot be forgiven.
One of the Lucifer legends tells how one day a priest noticed in his congregation a magnificently handsome young man. After the service the young man stayed for confession. He confessed so many and such terrible sins that the priest’s hair stood on end. “You must have lived long to have done all that,” the priest said. “My name is Lucifer and I fell from heaven at the beginning of time,” said the young man. “Even so,” said the priest, “say that you are sorry, say that you repent and even you can be forgiven.” The young man looked at the priest for a moment and then turned and strode away. He would not and could not say it; and therefore he had to go on still desolate and still damned.
There is only one condition of forgiveness and that is penitence. So long as a man sees loveliness in Christ, so long as he hates his sin even if he cannot leave it, even if he is in the mud and the mire, he can still be forgiven. But if a man, by repeated refusals of God’s guidance, has lost the ability to recognize goodness when he sees it, if he has got his moral values inverted until evil to him is good and good to him is evil, then, even when he is confronted by Jesus, he is conscious of no sin; he cannot repent and therefore he can never be forgiven. That is the sin against the Holy Spirit.
THE CONDITIONS OF KINSHIP ( Mar 3:31-35 ) 3:31-35 His mother and his brothers came. They stood outside and sent someone in with a message to him. The crowd were sitting round him. “Look!” they said, “your mother and your brothers are outside inquiring for you.” “Who” he answered, “is my mother and my brothers?” He looked round those who were sitting in a circle round about him. “Look!” he said, “my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God’s will, he is my brother, my sister and my mother.”
Here Jesus lays down the conditions of true kinship. It is not solely a matter of flesh and blood. It can happen that a man is really nearer to someone who is no blood relation to him at all than he is to those who are bound to him by the closest ties of kin and blood. Wherein lies this true kinship?
(i) True kinship lies in a common experience, especially when it is an experience where two people have really come through things together. It has been said that two people really become friends when they are able to say to each other, “Do you remember?” and then to go on and talk about the things they have come through together. Someone once met an old negro woman. An acquaintance of hers had died. “You will be sorry,” he said, “that Mrs. So-and-so is dead.” “Yes,” she said but without showing any great grief. “I saw you just last week,” he said, “laughing and talking with each other. You must have been great friends.” “Yes,” she said, “I was friendly with her. I used to laugh with her; but to be real friends folk have got to weep together.” That is profoundly true. The basis of true kinship lies in a common experience, and Christians have the common experience of being forgiven sinners.
(ii) True kinship lies in a common interest. A. M. Chirgwin tells us a very interesting thing in The Bible in World Evangelism. One of the greatest difficulties that colporteurs and distributors of the Scriptures have is not so much to sell their books as to keep people reading them. He goes on, “A colporteur in pre-Communist China had for years been in the habit of going from shop to shop and house to house. But he was often disappointed because many of his new Bible readers lost their zeal, until he hit upon the plan of putting them in touch with one another and forming them into a worshipping group which in time became a duly organized Church.” Only when these isolated units became part of a group which was bound together by a common interest did real kinship come into being. Christians have that common interest because they are all people who desire to know more about Jesus Christ.
(iii) True kinship lies in a common obedience. The disciples were a very mixed group. All kinds of beliefs and opinions were mixed up among them. A tax-collector like Matthew and a fanatical nationalist like Simon the Zealot ought to have hated each other like poison and no doubt at one time did. But they were bound together because both had accepted Jesus Christ as Master and Lord. Any platoon of soldiers will be made up of men from different backgrounds and from different walks of life and holding very different opinions; yet, if they are long enough together, they will be welded into a band of comrades because of the common obedience which they all share. Men can become friends of each other when they share a common master. Men can love each other only when they all love Jesus Christ.
(iv) True kinship lies in a common goat There is nothing for binding men together like a common aim. Here there is a great lesson for the church. A. M. Chirgwin, talking of renewed interest in the Bible, asks, does this “point to the possibility of a new approach to the ecumenical problem based on biblical rather than on ecclesiastical considerations?” The churches will never draw together so long as they argue about the ordination of their ministers, the form of church government, the administration of the sacraments and all the rest of it. The one thing on which they can all come together is the fact that all of them are seeking to win men for Jesus Christ. If kinship comes from a common goal then Christians above all men possess its secret, for all are seeking to know Christ better and to bring others within his Kingdom. Wherever else we differ, on that we can agree.
-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible
34. THE WITHERED HAND, Mar 3:1-6 .
(See notes on Mat 12:9-14.)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1. Which had a withered hand In which the natural moisture had become lost, and the strength of the sinews had departed.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And he entered again into the Synagogue, and there was a man there who had a withered hand. And they watched him whether he will heal him on the Sabbath day, that they might accuse him.’
We are not told who brought the man, or where he came from. But that he was seen by the Pharisees as a test case was apparent. For knowing of the man and his expected presence in the Synagogue they had come to watch what Jesus would do. The Rabbis had strict rules about healing on the Sabbath. When there was an emergency case and life was threatened healing activity was allowed, but where that was not the case, and it could well await another day, healing was not allowed. Thus a woman in childbirth could be helped on the Sabbath. An affection of the throat could be treated for that was seen as possibly life threatening. But a fracture or sprain could not, for that could await another day. A cut could be bandaged (it could lead to death if uncovered) but it must then not have further treatment until after the Sabbath. These were the interpretations of the Rabbis and they were strictly enforced.
Any Rabbis and other prominent Pharisees who were in the Synagogue would sit in the ‘chief seats’ (Mat 23:6; Jas 2:2-3), which were those nearest to the reading desk where the scrolls of the Scriptures were placed to be read. There was also a special seat there, either for the most distinguished present, or to contain the scrolls of the Torah, which was called ‘Moses’ Seat’ (Mat 23:2). They thus had a good view of what was happening, while they awaited further events. It is worthy of note that the fact that they had come as they had, is testimony to the fact that they did believe that Jesus could heal the man. They had already seen what He could do and were not in any doubt about it. But they simply dismissed such healings as having no relevance because they were so prejudiced by their own ideas and had convinced themselves that some trickery or demon activity was involved. And yet what better testimony could we have to the Lord’s ability to work miracles, than that these His enemies came expecting Him to do so even though they did not want Him to be able to do so? And it gains the greater force in that it is not the main purpose of the recording of the incident.
‘And He entered again into the Synagogue.’ It was His usual habit to attend the Synagogue on the Sabbath, for He respected both the Synagogue and the Sabbath.
‘A man with a withered hand.’ This was probably caused by some kind of paralysis. He was thus unable to move it which was why it had withered. But it was not life threatening. He had had it for a long time. Yet such a withered hand contained in it much symbolism. As we have seen, the passages that we have been examining all contained references back to Old Testament ideas. What then of the withered hand?
We should note firstly that the hand was the means by which men exercised their power. We can compare with this how God’s activity was often described as being done by ‘the hand (or arm) of the Lord’. It was by the use of their hands that men accomplished their daily tasks. This man, in contrast, had lost his ability to do things because his hand was withered. And in that he was like Israel. In the Old Testament there were two prominent references to what was withered. The first concerned vegetation and fruit trees, which were often seen as a picture of Israel. This term ‘withered’ (or dried up) was regularly applied in LXX to vegetation and fruit trees when seen as a picture of Israel (Hos 9:16; Isa 27:11; Isa 40:24; Jer 23:10; Lam 4:8; Eze 17:9-10; Eze 17:24; Joe 1:12; Joe 1:17; Joe 1:20; Amo 1:2; Amo 4:7; Nah 1:4; Zec 10:2; compare Mar 11:20-21; Joh 15:6). The second well known application was to the dry (withered) bones in Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones (Eze 37:2; Eze 37:4). These too represented Israel. And in both cases it was God’s promise that one day these things that were dried up would be restored. So the withered hand of this man could be seen, and probably was by Mark, as like the withered hand of Israel which was dead and unable to bear fruit.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Son of Man Heals What Has Withered And Again Reveals Himself as Lord over the Sabbath (3:1-6).
In this narrative the Pharisees are seen as now deliberately out to trap Jesus. They had made their assessment and now it was a question of gathering evidence against Him. We have already seen how their opposition to Him had been growing (Mar 2:6; Mar 2:9-10; Mar 2:16; Mar 2:24), and it has now reached a climax (Mar 3:6). So they deliberately make use of a man with a paralysed and withered hand in order to test out what Jesus will do on the Sabbath day, having in fact little doubt what He would actually do, for they were now convinced that He treated the Law lightly, and especially the Sabbath, which in their eyes was a matter of huge importance. For to them strict observance of the Sabbath was one of the signs of a true Jew, and evidence of a true obedience to the covenant. Jesus, however, confuted them, not by diminishing the Sabbath, but rather, as in the previous example, by exalting it as of great benefit to mankind. Jesus was not anti-Sabbath. He was simply ‘anti’ the unnecessary restrictions put on it by the Scribes and Pharisees.
Analysis of 3:1-6.
a
b And he said to the man who had his hand withered, “come and stand among us” (Mar 3:3).
c And he says to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do good or to do harm, to save a life or to kill?” But they held their peace (Mar 3:4).
b And when he had looked round on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, he says to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out and his hand was restored (Mar 3:5).
a And the Pharisees went out and immediately, with the officials of Herod, took counsel against him how they might destroy him (Mar 3:6).
Note that in ‘a’ the Pharisees watch Him in order to accuse Him, and in the parallel they plan how they can destroy Him. In ‘b’ Jesus calls the man with the withered hand to stand among them, and in the parallel He looks round at the Pharisees and restores the man’s arm. Centrally in ‘c’ He demonstrates the fallacy of their thinking.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
SECTION 1. The Establishment of His Ministry (1:1-3:35).
This section commences with Jesus’ emergence from the wilderness as the Spirit anointed King and Servant (Isa 11:1-4; Isa 42:1-4; Isa 61:1-3) Who is God’s beloved Son (Mar 1:11), continues with His initial revelation of Himself as introducing the Kingly Rule of God (Mar 1:15), and as consequently doing mighty works in God’s Name, includes the idea of the formation of a group of disciples who are to extend His ministry (Mar 1:16-20; Mar 2:13-14; Mar 3:13-19), and finalises with the idea of the open community which is being formed who will do the will of God, and will thus reveal themselves as sharing with Him in His sonship as His ‘brother, sister and mother’ (Mar 3:31-35; compare Rom 8:15-17).
Analysis of 1:1-3:35.
a
b In the Spirit’s power He is driven into the wilderness to be tested by Satan, and is so tested among the wild beasts, while being assisted by heavenly resources (Mar 1:12-13),
c He goes about preaching the Kingly Rule of God and calls on four men to follow Him as His disciples, with the aim of their becoming ‘fishers of men’ (Mar 1:14-20).
d Crowds gather and wonder at Him, unclean spirits/demons are cast out, healings take place, and He warns the demons not to make Him known ‘because they knew Him’ (Mar 1:21-34).
e Jesus stresses that He must go to ‘the next towns’ in order to preach, for that is why He has been sent (Mar 1:35-39).
f Jesus heals a leper with a touch and a word and sends him as a testimony to the priests in Jerusalem (Mar 1:40 –45 ).
g The healing of a paralytic – the Scribes criticise Jesus for declaring that the man’s sins are forgiven and learn that ‘the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins’ (Mar 2:1-12).
h The ‘surprising’ calling of Levi, a public servant and outcast, to be a disciple (Mar 2:13).
i Jesus and His disciples feast in Levi’s house along with many public servants and sinners, and the Pharisees grumble because He eats with sinners (Mar 2:14-16).
j Jesus makes clear that He has come as the Healer of those who acknowledge that they are ‘sick’, that is, not of those who claim to be righteous but of those who acknowledge themselves as sinners (Mar 2:17).
i The disciples of John and the Pharisees fast, and they grumble because Jesus’ disciples do not fast, at which Jesus points out that He has come as the Bridegroom introducing what is totally new and incompatible with the old so that fasting would be out of place (Mar 2:18-20).
h He illustrates the fact that the new ways have come to replace the old (Mar 2:21-22).
g The Pharisees criticise Jesus’ disciples for eating in the grainfields on the Sabbath and learn that ‘the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath’ (Mar 2:23-28).
f Jesus heals the man with a withered hand, as a testimony to the Pharisees (Mar 3:1-6).
e Jesus goes out among the crowds to preach and they gather to Him from every quarter (Mar 3:7-9).
d Jesus heals many people, unclean spirits are cast out declaring Him to be the Son of God and He charges them not to make Him known (Mar 3:10-12).
c Jesus calls the twelve Apostles who are to go out and preach and have authority to cast out demons (Mar 3:13-19 a).
b Jesus in His coming is facing up to Satan and will prove to be the stronger, although being found among those who are His antagonists (are behaving like wild beasts), who, in contrast with the ‘sons of men’ who receive forgiveness, oppose the truth about Him, not recognising that the heavenly Holy Spirit is at work through Him (Mar 3:19-30).
a Those who gather to Jesus and hear Him are members of His true family (and therefore sons of God who have responded to the Holy Spirit) as long as they do the will of God (Mar 3:31-35).
Note that in ‘a’ the Son of God is here and does the will of God (He is well pleased with Him), and in the parallel the new sons of God are here, evidenced by the fact that they do the will of God. In ‘b’ Jesus faces Satan in the wilderness among the wild beasts with heavenly support, and in the parallel He outfaces Satan among antagonistic unbelievers, with the Holy Spirit’s support. In ‘c’ He goes out proclaiming the Kingly Rule of God and calls four disciples to follow Him so that they might become fishers of men, and in the parallel He calls His twelve Apostles and sends them out to preach and have authority over demons. In ‘d’ crowds gather and unclean spirits/demons are cast out who ‘know Him’, and He commands them not to make Him known, and in the parallel crowds gather, demons are cast out who reveal that they know Him for they declare Him to be the Son of God, and He commands them not to make Him known. In ‘e’ He stresses the urgency to go to other towns in order to preach, and in the parallel the crowds gather from everywhere to hear Him preach. In ‘f’ the leper is healed as a testimony to the priests, and in the parallel the man with the withered hand is healed as a testimony to the Pharisees. In ‘g’’ the Son of Man, Who is criticised by the Scribes, has power on earth to forgive sins, and in the parallel the Son of Man, Whose disciples are criticised by the Pharisees, is Lord of the Sabbath. In ‘h’ the new is contrasted with the old as Jesus calls an outcast public servant to be His disciple, and in the parallel He reveals in parables that the new ways have replaced the old. In ‘i’ Jesus and His disciples feast with sinners, and the Pharisees grumble, while in the parallel the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast, and grumble because Jesus disciples do not fast. Jesus explains that they cannot fast because He has come as the Bridegroom in order to bring joy to men. In ‘j’ Jesus declares that He has come as a Physician with a new message of ‘healing’ for sinners.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Six Incidents In The Life of Jesus Which Reveal His Unique Power and Authority and Lead to the Pharisees Plotting Against Him (1:40-3:6).
Jesus’ ministry having been established, and the presence of the Kingly Rule of God having been demonstrated by His power to cast out unclean spirits and heal, we are now presented with a series of incidents which reveal more of Who He is. Through them the glory of Jesus and Who He is, is brought out. The subsection commences with the healing of a seriously skin-diseased man. Such a man was an outcast from society and no one would go near him, or expected him to come near them. But attracted by what he had heard the man seeks out this new prophet. He no doubt remembered how another great prophet, Elisha, had helped Naaman so long ago (2 Kings 5), and felt that a new Elisha might be here. Jesus will later use this incident, among others, in order to demonstrate that He is the Coming One (Mat 11:5).
This is then followed by a series of incidents in which He reveals His authority on earth as the Son of Man to forgive sins (Mar 2:1-12), demonstrates that even the outcasts are welcome to come to Him for healing of soul because He is the Healer of men’s souls (Mar 2:13-17), calls on all to recognise the joy that there should be because of His coming as the Heavenly Bridegroom in order to establish something totally new (Mar 2:18-22), reveals that as the Son of Man He has authority over the Sabbath (Mar 2:23-28), and publicly heals the man whose arm is withered on the Sabbath day, revealing that He has come as the Restorer (Mar 3:1-6). In all this He was challenging the norms on which Jewish society was based, which were that the ‘unclean’ had to be avoided, forgiveness was the prerogative of God alone, outcasts and sinners were best avoided and had to be ostracised, pious men were to evidence it by fasting and mourning, and the Sabbath was to be honoured according to the letter of the Scribes and Pharisees, with the needs of men taking a very subsidiary place. But Jesus brings out that He is turning everything upside down. He makes clean the unclean with a word, He forgives the unforgiven, He meets up with outcasts and sinners who have demonstrated repentance, He declares that because He is here it is not a time for fasting, and He brings compassion into the interpretation of the Sabbath Law on the grounds that the purpose of the Sabbath is to benefit man, not in order to be a sign of piety. And all this because the old is past and the new has come, and because He has come the introducer of a new age in which the needy are important.
It will be noted in passing that following the incident of the skin-diseased man we have five incidents from the life of Jesus. which all follow a literary a similar pattern, that of commencing with an incident which then leads on to a final saying. These may well have been patterned on a regular presentation of the oral tradition used in the churches which had been provided by Peter or the other Apostles.
Analysis 1:40-3:6.
This whole subsection may be analysed as follows:
a Jesus heals a leper with a touch and a word and sends him as a testimony to the priests in Jerusalem (Mar 1:40-45).
b The healing of a paralytic – the Scribes criticise Jesus for declaring that the man’s sins are forgiven and learn that ‘the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins’ (Mar 2:1-12).
c The ‘astonishing’ immediate calling of Levi, an outcast public servant, to be a disciple (Mar 2:13).
d Jesus and His disciples feast in Levi’s house along with many public servants and sinners, and the Pharisees grumble (Mar 2:14-16).
e Jesus makes clear that He has come as the Healer of those who acknowledge that they are ‘sick’, that is, not of those who claim to be righteous but of those who acknowledge themselves as sinners (Mar 2:17).
d The disciples of John and the Pharisees fast, and they grumble because Jesus’ disciples do not fast, at which Jesus points out that because He has come as the Bridegroom they should not fast because it is a time of rejoicing, for He is introducing something so totally new and incompatible with the old that fasting would be out of place (Mar 2:18-20).
c He illustrates the fact that the new ways have come to replace the old (Mar 2:21-22).
b The Pharisees criticise Jesus’ disciples for eating in the grainfields on the Sabbath and learn that ‘the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath’ (Mar 2:23-28).
a Jesus heals the man with a withered hand with a word, as a testimony to the Pharisees (Mar 3:1-6).
Note that in ‘a’ a sin diseased man is healed, who is a picture of the need of Israel, and in the parallel a man with a withered hand is healed who is also a picture of the need of Israel. The first contains a message to the Jerusalem priesthood, the second a message to the attendant Pharisees, that the Healer and Restorer of men is here. In ‘b’ He reveals Himself as the Son of Man Who forgives sins on earth, and in the parallel as the Son of Man Who is Lord of the Sabbath. In ‘c’ Jesus calls to be a disciple an outcast from Jewish society, and in the parallel points out that He has come to introduce a world with new attitudes. In ‘d’ Jesus and His disciples feast because the new age is here, and in the parallel the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast because they are still in the old age. Centrally Jesus has come as a Physician to make whole those who are spiritually sick.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jesus Heals a Man With a Withered Hand on the Sabbath ( Mat 12:9-14 , Luk 6:6-11 ) Mar 3:1-6 gives us the account of Jesus healing a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath day.
Mar 3:3 Comments – The reason that Jesus Christ called this man forth to stand in the midst of the synagogue was so that everyone could clearly witness the miracle which was about to take place. Keep in mind that in Jesus’ Galilean ministry He often healed the multitudes because of their faith. In His Judean ministry He often healed individuals by the gifts of the Spirit operating in His life because of the doubt and unbelief of the Jewish leaders. This preaching of the Gospel accompanied by the demonstration of the gifts of the Spirit what Paul was referring to in 1Co 2:4, “And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:” This is because miracles break through the heart of doubt and unbelief. Thus, in the midst of miracles people often belief. In this synagogue Jesus was trying to get the people to believe by having them see this miracle.
Mar 3:4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
Mar 3:4
Mar 3:5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
Mar 3:6 Narrative: Indoctrination Through Preaching and Healing – The message of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God within Mark’s Gospel is two-fold: to repent and to believe (Mar 1:4-7; Mar 1:15), which is the basis of our justification. When the people humbly repented, they also experienced the manifold healings that accompany the preaching of the Gospel because of their faith in God, as listed in Mar 16:17-18. When some of the Jews confronted Jesus with their doubt and unbelief, Jesus responded by teaching them and working miracles through the gifts of the Holy Spirit as a testimony that His message was truly from God. Jesus told the Pharisees in Joh 5:20 that the Father would work miracles through Him so that they may marvel. Thus, miracles are primarily for the unbelievers as a witness to the truth that is being preached.
Joh 5:20, “For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.”
As we examine Mark’s Gospel, which emphasizes the proclamation of the Gospel with signs following, we find many verses where the people marveled or feared after witnessing the miracles of Jesus Christ (Mar 1:22; Mar 1:27; Mar 2:12; Mar 4:41; Mar 5:15; Mar 5:20; Mar 5:42; Mar 6:2; Mar 6:6; Mar 6:51; Mar 7:37).
Each book of the Holy Bible is structured in a way that reflects one aspect of our spiritual journey. The book of Mark is structured to reveal to us a journey that will take us into a lifestyle of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ with signs and wonders accompanying it, just as Jesus preached and miracles followed. This is the promise that Jesus made to His disciples in the closing verses of Mark’s Gospel when Jesus said, “And these signs shall follow them that believe” (Mar 16:17)
Thus, upon closer examination, we see that the narrative material of Mark’s Gospel alternates between Jesus preaching or teaching and with signs following. This is because the theme of Mark’s Gospel is the testimony of Jesus’ miracles through the preaching of the Gospel. Every evangelist desires to see miracles accompanying the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; for this is the passion of an evangelist, to see lives transformed and people healed. In fact, Mark closes his Gospel by saying, “And these signs shall follow them that believe.” (Mar 16:17) Thus, the ministry of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Mark is structured in this same way.
Outline: Here is a proposed outline:
1. Jesus Begins His Preaching Mar 1:14-20
a) Jesus Preaches Repentance & Faith Mar 1:14-15
b) Jesus Calls Disciples Mar 1:16-20
2. Jesus’ Ministry in Capernaum Mar 1:21-34
a) Jesus Casts Out a Demon Mar 1:21-28
b) Jesus Heals Peter’s Mother-in-Law Mar 1:29-31
c) Jesus Heals the Sick & Casts Out Demons Mar 1:32-34
3. Jesus’ Ministry Throughout Galilee Mar 1:35 to Mar 2:12
a) Jesus Preaches in Galilee Mar 1:35-39
b) Jesus Heals a Leper Mar 1:40-45
c) Jesus Heals a Paralytic Mar 2:1-12
4. Jesus Faces Opposition Mar 2:13 to Mar 3:6-17
a) Jesus Calls Levi Mar 2:13-17
b) Jesus Teachings On Fasting Mar 2:18-22
c) Jesus Teaches About the Sabbath Mar 2:23-28
d) Jesus Heals Man with Withered Hand Mar 3:1-6
5. Jesus’ Ministry Grows Mar 3:7-35
a) Jesus Heals the Multitudes Mar 3:7-12
b) Jesus Calls the Twelve Mar 3:13-19
c) Jesus Faces More Persecutions Mar 3:20-30
d) Jesus’ Family Comes for Him Mar 3:31-35
Indoctrination Through Preaching and Healing In Mar 1:14 to Mar 4:34 Jesus begins to indoctrinate those who believe in Him through His public ministry of preaching and healing. This section of Mark can be divided into narrative material (Mar 1:14 to Mar 3:35) and sermon material (Mar 4:1-34).
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. Narrative: Indoctrination Through Preaching and Healing Mar 1:14 to Mar 3:35
2. Sermon: Jesus Teaches on the Kingdom of Heaven Mar 4:1-34
The Preaching Ministry of Jesus Christ Mar 1:14 to Mar 13:37 describes the preaching ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ as well as the miracles that accompanying the proclamation of the Gospel. His public ministry can be divided into sections that reflect God’s divine plan of redemption being fulfilled in Jesus’s life.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. Indoctrination – The Preaching of Jesus Christ in Galilee Mar 1:14 to Mar 4:34
2. Divine Service Training the Twelve in Galilee Mar 4:35 to Mar 6:13
3. Perseverance: Preaching against Man’s Traditions Mar 6:14 to Mar 7:23
4. Perseverance – Beyond Galilee Mar 7:24 to Mar 9:50
5. Glorification – In Route to and in Jerusalem Mar 10:1 to Mar 13:37
Jesus Faces Opposition As Jesus’ public ministry expanded from Capernaum to other cities throughout Galilee, the Jewish leaders began to publically question His actions. Jesus took these opportunities to teach on the principles of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. Jesus Calls Levi Mar 2:14-17
2. Jesus Teachings On Fasting Mar 2:18-22
3. Jesus Teaches About the Sabbath Mar 2:23-28
4) Jesus Heals Man with Withered Hand Mar 3:1-6
Healing the Withered Hand.
v. 1. And He entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
v. 2. And they watched Him, whether He would heal him on the Sabbath-day, that they might accuse Him.
v. 3. And He saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.
Again He entered, or, as Luke relates, more exactly, on another Sabbath, Luk 6:6, on the Sabbath following this one on which He had shown the real meaning of Sabbath and Sabbath-rest. Into a synagogue He went, whether into that of Capernaum or elsewhere, is of no consequence here. But He had a purpose, an object, in mind. For there, in the synagogue, as one of the worshiping congregation, was a man that had the hand, the right hand, withered, as the result of injury by accident or disease. He was deprived entirely of its use. It seems that the man was not here by chance, but had been induced to come by the enemies of Christ, for they were watching very closely whether Jesus would on the Sabbath heal him. Note: Jesus does not permit the apparent hatred of the Pharisees and scribes to keep Him from attending the services of the synagogue after His custom; He went for His own edification. Also, the Pharisees felt that the difference between the teaching of Christ and their own dead traditions was an essential difference, that they would have to change their entire mode of speaking and living if there were to be harmony between them and this new Teacher; and this they refused to do. They had even now determined to find some way of silencing or removing this objectionable speaker of truth. The purpose of their watchfulness in this case was to find some accusation against Him before the government, if possible, before the Church at any rate. Jesus knew their thoughts, even before they spoke them, Mat 12:10. His course of action He had determined on at once. The lesson He wanted to teach at this time was to be an impressive one. For that reason He said to the man with the withered hand: Arise toward the center. He wanted him to be standing in the middle, before the entire congregation, as a fitting object of demonstration.
EXPOSITION
This chapter begins with the record of another case of healing on the sabbath day; and it closes with the notice of a combination of the Pharisees with the Herodians to bring about the destruction of the Saviour. We may observe that he again chose the sabbath for a new miracle, that he might again and again confute the error of the scribes and Pharisees with regard to the observance of the sabbath.
Mar 3:1
He entered again into the synagogue. St. Matthew (Mat 12:9) says, “their synagogue” ( ) This would probably be on the next sabbath after that named at the close of the last chapter. And there was a man there which had a withered hand ( ); literally, which had his hand withered, or dried up. And they watched him ( ); kept watching him. There were probably scribes sent for this purpose from Jerusalem. St. Jerome informs us that in an apocryphal Gospel in use amongst the Nazarenes and Ebionites, the man whose hand was withered is described as a mason, and is said to have asked for help in the following terms:”I was a mason, seeking my living by manual labour. I beseech thee, Jesus, to restore me the use of my hand, that I may not be compelled to beg my bread.” This is so far consistent with St. Mark’s description ( ) as to show that the malady was the result of disease or accident, and not congenital. St. Luke (Luk 6:6) informs us that it was the right hand. The disease probably extended through the whole arm according to the wider meaning of the Greek word It seems to have been a kind of atrophy, causing a gradual drying up of the limb; which in such a condition was beyond the reach of any mere human skill.
Mar 3:2
The scribes had already the evidence that our Lord had permitted his disciples to rub the ears of corn on the sabbath day. But this was the act of the disciple, not his. What he was now preparing to do was an act of miraculous power. And here the ease was stronger, because work, which was prohibited under pain of death by the Law (Exo 31:14), was understood to include every act not absolutely necessary.
Mar 3:3, Mar 3:4
Stand forth. The words in the original are Rise into the midst. In St. Matthew’s account (Mat 12:10), the scribes and Pharisees here ask our Lord, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?” The two accounts are easily reconciled if we first suppose the scribes and Pharisees to ask this question of our Lord, and then our Lord to answer them by putting their own question to them in another form. Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill? Our Lord’s meaning appears to be this: “If any one, baying it in his power, omits to do an act of mercy on the sabbath day-for one grievously afflicted, as this man is, if he is able to cure him, as I Christ am able, he does him a wrong; for he denies him that help which he owes him by the law of charity.” Our Lord thus plainly signifies that not to do an act of kindness to a sick man on the sabbath day when you are able to do it, is really to do him a wrong. But it is never lawful to do a wrong; and therefore it is always lawful to do good, not excepting even the sabbath day, for that is dedicated to God and to good works. Whence it is a greater sin to do a wrong on the sabbath than on other days; for thus the sanctity of the sabbath is violated, just as it is all the more honoured and sanctified by doing good. In our Lord’s judgment, then, to neglect to save, when you have it in your power to do so, is to destroy. They held their peace. They could not answer him. They are obstinate indeed in their infidelity, who, when they can say nothing against the truth, refuse to say anything for it.
Mar 3:5
When he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved ()the word has a touch of “condolence” in itat the hardening of their heart. All this is very characteristic of St. Mark, who is careful to notice the visible expression of our Lord’s feelings in his looks. The account is evidently from an eye-witness, or from one who had it from an eye-witness. He looked round about on them with anger. He was indignant at their blindness of heart, and their unbelief, which led them to attack the miracles of mercy wrought by him on the sabbath day as though they were a violation of the law of the sabbath. We see hero how plainly there were in Christ the passions and affections common to the human nature, only restrained and subordinated to reason. Hero is the difference between the anger of fallen man and the anger of the sinless One. With fallen man, auger is the desire of retaliating, of punishing those by whom you consider yourself unjustly treated. Hence, in other men, anger springs from self-love; in Christ it sprang from the love of God. He loved God above all things; hence he was distressed and irritated on account of the wrongs done to God by sins and sinners. So that his anger was a righteous zeal for the honour of God; and hence it was mingled with grief, because, in their blindness and obstinacy, they would not acknowledge him to be the Messiah, but misrepresented his kindnesses wrought on the sick on the sabbath day, and found fault with them as evil. Thus our Lord, by showing grief and sorrow, makes it plain that his anger did not spring from the desire of revenge. He was indeed angry at the sin, while he grieved over and with the sinners, as those whom he loved, and for whose sake he came into the world that he might redeem and save them. Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth: and his hand was restored. The words “whole as the other” ( ) are not found in the best uncials. They were probably inserted from St. Matthew. In this instance our Lord performed no outward act. “He spake, and it was done.” The Divine power wrought the miracle concurrently with the act of faith on the part of the man in obeying the command.
Mar 3:6
The Pharisees and the Herodians combine together against the Lord. This was a terrible crisis in his history, or rather in the history of those unbelieving men. They are now in this dilemma: they must either accept his teaching, or they must take steps against him as a sabbath-breaker. But what had he done? The miracle had been wrought by a word only. It would have been difficult, therefore, to have obtained a judgment against him. Therefore they secured some fresh allies. They had already gained to their side some of the disciples of John the Baptist (Mar 2:18), now they associate with themselves the Herodians. This is the first mention that we find made of the Herodians. They were the natural opponents of the Pharisees; but here they seem to have found some common ground of agreement, though it is not very easy to say what it was, in combining against our Lord. But it is no uncommon thing to find coalitions of men, strangely opposed to one another on most points, but united to effect some particular object; and it is easy to see how the purity and spirituality of our Lord and of his doctrine would be opposed, on the one hand, to the ceremonial formality of the Pharisee, and on the other to the worldly and secular spirit of the Herodian.
Mar 3:7, Mar 3:8
Jesus with his disciples withdrew to the sea. This shows that the miracle just recorded took place in the interior of Galilee, and not at Capernaum, which was close by the sea. The chief city in Galilee at that time was Sepphoris, which Herod Antipas had made his capital. There the Herodiaus would of course be numerous, and so too would the Pharisees; since that city was one of the five places where the five Sanhedrims met. The remainder of these two verses should be read and pointed thus: And a great multitude from Galilee followed: and from Judaea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and beyond Jordan, and about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, hearing what great things he did, come unto him. The meaning of the evangelist is this, that, in addition to the great multitude that followed him from the parts of Galilee which he had just been visiting, there were vast numbers from other parts who had now heard of his fame, and flocked to him from every quarter. This description sets before us in a strikingly graphic manner the mixed character of the multitude who gathered around our Lord to listen to his teaching, and to be healed by himas many, at least, as had need of healing.
Mar 3:9
And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship ()literally, a little boatshould wait on him )literally, should be in close attendance upon himbecause of the multitude, lest they should throng him. This shows in a very graphic manner how assiduously and closely the crowd pressed upon him, so that he was obliged to have a little boat always in readiness, in which he might take refuge when the pressure became too great, and so address them with greater freedom from the boat. St. Luke (Luk 5:3) says, “He sat down, and taught the people out of the ship,” making the boat, so to speak, his pulpit.
Mar 3:10
As many as had plaguesthe Greek word is ; literally, scourges, painful disorderspressed upon him ( ); literally, fell upon him, clung to him, hoping that the very contact with him might heal them. This expression, “scourges,” reminds us that diseases are a punishment on account of our sins.
Mar 3:11
And the unclean spirits, whensoever they beheld him, fell down before him, and cried, saying. It is worthy of notice that the afflicted people fell upon him ( ); but the unclean spirits felt down before him ( ), and this not out of love or devotion, but out of abject fear, dreading lest he should drive them out of the “possessed,” and send them before their time to their destined torment. It is just possible that this homage paid to our Lord may have been an act of cunninga ruse, as it were, to lead the people to suppose that our Lord was in league with evil spirits. Thou art the Son of God. Did, then, the unclean spirits really know that Jesus was the Son of God? A voice from heaven at his baptism had proclaimed him to be the Son of God, and that voice must have vibrated through the spiritual world. Then, further, they must have known him to be the Son of God by the numerous and mighty miracles which he wrought, and which they must have seen [o be real miracles, such as could only have been wrought by the supernatural power of God, and which were wrought by Christ for this very purpose, that they might prove him to be the promised Messiah, the only begotten Son of God. It may, however, be observed that they did not know this so clearly, but that, considering, on the other hand, the greatness of the mystery, they hesitated. It is probable that they were ignorant of the end and fruit of this great mystery, namely, that mankind were to be redeemed by the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Death of Christ; and so their own kingdom was to be overthrown, and the kingdom of God established. Blinded by their hatred of Jesus, whom they perceived to be a most holy Being, drawing multitudes to himself, they stirred up the passions of evil men against him, little dreaming that in promoting his destruction they were overthrowing their own kingdom.
Mar 3:12
Mar 3:13
Into a mountain; literally, into the mountain ( ). Similarly, St. Luke (Luk 6:12) says,” He went out into the mountain to pray.” The use of the definite article might either point to some well-known eminence, or to the high table-land as distinguished from the plain, and in which there would be many recesses, which would explain the use of the preposition Tradition indicates Mount Hatten as the place, about five miles to the west of the Sea of Galilee. The summit rises above a level space, where large numbers might stand within hearing. It is supposed, with good reason, that it was from thence that the sermon on the mount was delivered. It was at daybreak, as we learn from St. Luke (Luk 6:13), after this night of prayer, that he called unto him whom he himself would ( ): and they went unto him ( ); literally, they went away to him, the word implying that they forsook their former pursuits. His own will was the motive power: he called “whom he himself would;” but their will consented. “When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, Lord, will seek.”
Mar 3:14, Mar 3:15
Out of those who thus came to him, he ordained twelve literally, he made or appointed twelve. They were not solemnly ordained or consecrated to their office until after his resurrection. Their actual consecration (of all of them at least but one, namely, Judas Iscariot) took place when he breathed on them and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost” (Joh 20:22). But from this time they were his apostles “designate.” They were henceforth to Be with him as his attendants and disciples. They were to go forth and preach under his direction, and by his power they were to cast out devils. Several manuscripts add here that they were “to heal sicknesses,” but the words are emitted in some of the oldest authorities. The authority over unclean spirits is more formally conveyed later on, so that here St. Mark speaks by anticipation. But this shows how much importance was attached to this part of their mission; for it recognizes the spiritual world, and the special purpose of the manifestation of the Son of God, namely, that he might “destroy the works of the devil.” He appointed twelve. The number twelve symbolizes perfection and universality. The number three indicates what is Divine; and the number four, created things. Three multiplied by four gives twelve, the number of those who were to go forth as apostles into the four quarters of the worldcalled to the faith of the holy Trinity.
Mar 3:16, Mar 3:17
And Simon he surnamed Peter. Our Lord had previously declared that Simon should be so called. But St. Mark avoids as much as possible the recognition of any special honor belonging to St. Peter; so he here simply mentions the fact of this surname having been given to him, a fact which was necessary in order that he might be identified. All the early Christian writers held that Peter was virtually the author of this Gospel. Simon, or Simeon, is from a Hebrew word, meaning “to hear.” James the son of Zebedee, so called to distinguish him from the other James; and John his brother. In St. Matthew’s list, Andrew is mentioned next after Peter, as his brother, and the first called. But here St. Mark mentions James and John first after Peter; these three, Peter and James and John, being the three leading apostles. Of James and John, James is mentioned first, as the eldest of the two brothers. And them he surnamed Boanerges, which is, Sons of thunder. “Boanerges” is the Aramaic pronunciation of the Hebrew B’ne-ragesh; B’ne, sons, and ragesh, thunder. The word was not intended as a term of reproach; although it fitly expressed that natural impetuosity and vehemence of character, which showed itself in their desire to bring down fire from heaven upon the Samaritan village, and in their ambitious request that they might have the highest places of honor in his coming kingdom. But their natural dispositions, under the Holy Spirit’s influence, were gradually transformed so as to serve the cause of Christ, and their fiery zeal was transmuted into the steady flame of Christian earnestness and love, so as to become an element of great power in their new life as Christians. Christ called these men “Sons of thunder” because he would make their natural dispositions, when restrained and elevated by his grace, the great instruments of spreading his Gospel. He destined them for high service in his kingdom. By their holy lives they were to be as lightning, and by their preaching they were to be as thunder to rouse unbelievers, and to bring them to repentance and a holy life. It was no doubt on account of this zeal that James fell so early a victim to the wrath of Herod. A different lot was that which fell to St. John. Spared to a ripe old age, he influenced the early Church by his writings and his teaching. His Gospel begins as with the voice of thunder, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Beza and others, followed by Dr. Morisen, have thought that this distinctive name was given by our Lord to the two brothers on account of some deep-toned peculiarity of voice, which was of much service to them in impressing the message of the Gospel of the kingdom upon their hearers.
Mar 3:18, Mar 3:19
Andrew is next mentioned after these eminent apostles, as the first called. The word is from the Greek, and means “manly.” Bartholomew, that is, Bar-tolmai, the son of Tolmay. This is a patronymic, and not a proper name. It has been with good reason supposed that he is identical with Nathanael, of whom we first read in Joh 1:46, as having been found by Philip and brought to Christ. In the three synoptic Gospels we find Philip and Bartholomew enumerated together in the lists of the apostles; and certainly the mode in which Nathanael is mentioned in Joh 21:2 would seem to show that he was an apostle. His birthplace, too, Cana of Galilee, would point to the same conclusion. If this be so, then the name Nathanael, the “gift of God,” would bear the same relation to Bartholomew that Simon does to Bar-jona. Matthew. In St Matthew’s own list of the apostles (Mat 10:3) the epithet “the publican” is added to his name, and he places himself after Thomas. This marks the humility of the apostle, that he does not scruple to place on record what he was before he was called. The word Matthew, a contraction of Mattathias, means the “gift of Jehovah,” according to Gesenius, which in Greek would be “Theodore.” Thomas. Eusebius says that his real name was Judas. It is possible that Thomas may have been a surname. The word is Hebrew meaning a twin, and it is so rendered in Greek in Joh 11:16. James the son of Alphaeus, or Clopas (not Cleophas): called” the Less,” either because he was junior in age, or rather in his call, to James the Great, the brother of John. This James, the son of Alphaeus, is called the brother of our Lord. St. Jerome says that his father Alphaeus, or Clopas, married Mary, a sister of the blessed Virgin Mary, which would make him the cousin of our Lord. This view is confirmed by Bishop Pearson (Art. 3:on the Creed). He was the writer of the Epistle which bears his name, and he became Bishop of Jerusalem. Thaddaeus, called also Lebbaeus and Judas; whence St. Jerome describes him as “trionimus,” i.e. having three names. Judas would be his proper name. Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus have a kind of etymological affinity, the root of Lebbaeus being “heart,” and of Thaddaeus, “breast.” These names are probably recorded to distinguish him from Judas the traitor. Simon the Canaanite. The word in the Greek, according to the best authorities, is, both here and in St. Matthew (Mat 10:4), , from a Chaldean or Syriac word, Kanean, or Kanenieh. The Greek equivalent is , which we find preserved in St. Luke (Luk 6:15). It is possible, however, that Simon may have been born in Cana of Galilee. St. Jerome says that he was called a Cananaean or Zealot, by a double reference to the place of his birth and to his zeal. Judas Iscariot. Iscariot. The most probable derivation is from the Hebrew Ish-Kerioth, “a man of Kerioth,’ a city of the tribe of Judah. St. John (Joh 6:7) describes him as the son of Simon. If it be asked why our Lord should have chosen Judas Iscariot, the answer is that he chose him, although he knew that he would betray him, because it was his will that he should be betrayed by one that had been “his own familiar friend,” and that had “eaten bread with him.” Bengel says well here that “there is an election of grace from which men may fall.” How far our Lord knew from the first the results of his choice of Judas belongs to the profound, unfathomable mystery of the union of the Godhead and the manhood in his sacred Person. We may notice generally, with regard to this choice by our Lord of his apostles, the germ of the principle of sending them forth by two and two. Here are Peter and Andrew, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, and so on. Then, again, our Lord chose three pairs of brothers, Peter and Andrew, James and John, James the Less and Jude, that he might teach us how powerful an influence is brotherly love. We may also observe that Christ, in selecting his apostles, chose some of his kinsmen according to the flesh. When he took upon him our flesh, he recognized those who were near to him by nature, and he would unite them yet mere closely by grace to his Divine nature. Three of the apostles took the lead, namely, Peter and James and John, who were admitted to be witnesses of his transfiguration, of one of his greatest miracles, and of his passion.
Mar 3:20, Mar 3:21
The last clause of Mar 3:19, And they went into an house, should form the opening sentence of a new paragraph, and should therefore become the first clause of Mar 3:20, as in the Revised Version. According to the most approved reading, the words are (), He cometh into an house, or, He cometh home. There is here a considerable gap in St. Mark’s narrative. The sermon on the mount followed upon the call of the apostles, at all events so far as it affected them and their mission. Moreover, St. Matthew interposes hero two miracles wrought by our Lord after his descent from the mount, and before his return to his own house at Capernaum. St. Mark seems anxious here to hasten on to describe the treatment of our Lord by his own near relatives at this important crisis in his ministry. So that theyi.e., our Lord and his disciplescould not so much as eat bread; such was the pressure of the crowd upon them. St. Mark evidently records this, in order to show the contrast between the zeal of the multitude and the very different feelings of our Lord’s own connections. They, his friends, when they heard how he was thronged, went out to lay hold on him; for they said, He is beside himself. This little incident is mentioned only by St. Mark. When his friends saw him so bent upon his great mission as to neglect his bodily necessities, they considered that he was bereft of his reason, that too much zeal and piety had deranged his mind. His friends went out () to lay hold on him. They may probably have come from Nazareth. St. John (Joh 7:5) says that “even his brethren did not believe on him;” that is, they did not believe in him with that fuiness of trust which is of the essence of true faith. Their impression was that he was in a condition requiring that he should be put under some restraint.
Mar 3:22
The scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, etc. These scribes had apparently been sent down by the Sanhedrim, on purpose to watch him, and, by giving their own opinion upon his claims, to undermine his influence. They gave as their authoritative judgment, “He hath Beelzebub.” One of the most prominent characteristics of the public works of our Lord was the expulsion of evil spirits. There was no questioning the facts. Even modern scepticism is here at fault, and is constrained to admit the fact of sudden and complete cures of insanity. So the scribes were obliged to account for what they could not deny. “He hath Beelzebub,” they say; that is, he is possessed by Beelzebub, or “the lord of the dwelling,” as a source of supernatural power. They had heard it alleged against him,” He hath a devil;” and so they fall in with this popular error, and give it emphasis, by saying, Not only has he a devil, but he is possessed by the chief of the devils, and therefore has authority over inferior spirits. Observe the contrast between the thoughts of the multitude and of those who professed to be their teachers, the scribes and Pharisees. The multitude, free from prejudice, and using only their natural light of reason, candidly owned the greatness of Christ’s miracles as wrought by a Divine power; whereas the Pharisees, filled with envy and malice, attributed these mighty works which he wrought by the finger of God, to the direct agency of Satan.
Mar 3:23-27
How can Satan cast out Satan? Observe here that our Lord distinctly affirms the personality of Satan, and a real kingdom of evil. But then he goes on to show that if this their allegation were true, namely, that he cast out devils by the prince or the devils, then it would follow that Satan’s kingdom would be divided against itself. As a house divided against itself cannot stand, so neither could the kingdom of Satan exist in the world if one evil spirit was opposed to another for the purpose of dispossessing, the one the other, from the minds and bodies of men. Our Lord thus employs another argument to show that he casts out evil spirits, not by Beelzebub, but by the power of God. It is as though he said, “As he who invades the house of a strong man cannot succeed until he first binds the strong man; in like manner I, Christ Jesus, who spoil the kingdom of Satan, whilst I lead sinners who had been under his power to repentance and salvation, must first bind Satan himself, otherwise he would never suffer me to take his captives from him. Therefore he is my enemy, and not in league with me, not my ally in the casting out of evil spirits, as you falsely represent me to be. It behoves you, then, to understand that it is with the Spirit of God that I cast out devils, and that therefore the kingdom of God is come upon you.”
Mar 3:28
All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, etc. St. Mark adds the words (verse 30), “Because they said, [, ‘they were saying,’] He hath an unclean spirit.” This helps us much to the true meaning of this declaration. Our Lord does not here speak of every sin against the Holy Spirit, but of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. These words of St. Mark point to a sin of the tongue mere especially, although not excluding thoughts and deeds against the Holy Spirit. Observe what these scribes and Pharisees did; they cavilled at works manifestly Divineworks wrought by God for the salvation of men, by which he confirmed his faith and truth. Now, when they spake against these, and knowingly and of malice ascribed them to the evil spirit, then they blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, dishonoring God by assigning his power to Satan. What could be more hateful than this? What greater blasphemy could be imagined? And surely they must be guilty of this sin who ascribe the fruits and actions of the Holy Spirit to an impure and unholy source, and so strive to mar his work and to hinder his influence in the hearts of men.
Mar 3:29
Hath never forgiveness. Not that any sinner need despair of forgiveness through the fear that he may have committed this sin; for his repentance shows that his state of mind has never been one of entire enmity, and that he has not so grieved the Holy Spirit as to have been entirely forsaken by him. But is in danger of eternal damnation. The Greek words, according to the most approved reading, are : but is guilty of an eternal sin; thus showing that there are sins of which the effects and the punishment belong to eternity. He is bound by a chain or’ sin from which he can never be loosed. (See St. Joh 9:41, “Therefore your sin remaineth.”)
Mar 3:31-33
Our Lord’s brethren and his mother had now arrived to look after him. He was in the house teaching; but the crowd was so great that they could not approach him. The multitude filled not only the room, but the courtyard and all the approaches. St. Luke (Lujke Luk 8:19) says,” they could not come at him for the crowd.” His brethren here spoken of were in all probability his cousins, the sons of Mary, the wife of Alphaeus or Clopas. But two of these, already chosen to be apostles, were most likely with him in the room, and of the number of those towards whom he stretched out his hand and said, “Behold, my mother and my brethren!” whilst Mary and the others had come (Mary, perhaps, induced by the others in the hope that the sight of his mother might the more move him) for the purpose of bringing him back to the quiet of Nazareth. We cannot suppose that the Virgin Mary came with any other feeling than that of a mother’s anxiety in behalf of her Son. She may have thought that he was in danger, exposed to the fickle temper of a large multitude, who might at any moment have their passions stirred against him by his enemies, the scribes and Pharisees; and so she was willingly persuaded to come and use her influence with him to induce him to escape from what appeared evidently to be a position of some danger. If so, this explains our Lord’s behavior on this occasion. The multitude was sitting about him, and he was teaching them; and then a message was brought to him from his mother and his brethren who were without, perhaps in the courtyard, perhaps beyond in the open street, calling for him. The interruption was untimely, not to say unseemly. And so he says, not without a little tone of severity in his words, Who is my mother and my brethren? Our Lord did not speak thus as denying his human relationship; as though he was not “very man,” but a mere “phantom,” as some early heretics taught; and still less as though he was ashamed of his earthly lationships; but partly perhaps because the messengers too boldly and inconsiderately interrupted him while he was teaching; and chiefly that he might show that his heavenly Father’s business was more to him than the affection of his earthly mother, greatly as he valued it; and thus he preferred the spiritual relationship, in which there is neither male nor female, bond nor free, but all stand alike to Christ in the relationship of brother, sister, and mother. It is remarkable, and yet the reason for the omission is obvious, that our Lord does not mention” father” in this spiritual category.
Mar 3:34
Looking round on them which sat round about him. Here is one of the graphic touches of St. Mark, reproduced, it may be, from St. Peter. Our Lord’s intellectual and loving eye swept the inner circle of his disciples. The twelve, of course, would be with him, and others with them. His enemies were not far off. But immediately about him were those who constituted his chosen ones. As man, he had his human affections and his earthly relationships; but as the Son of God, he knew no other relatives but God’s children, to whom the performance of his will and the promotion of his glory are the first of all duties and the dominant principle of their lives.
HOMILETICS
Mar 3:1-5
The withered hand.
This incident serves to bring out the antagonism between the spiritual and benevolent ministry of the Lord Jesus, and the formalism, self-righteousness, and hard-heartedness of the religious leaders of the Jews. It serves to explain, not only the enmity of the Pharisees, but their resolve to league with whomsoever would help them in carrying out their purposes and plot against the very life of the Son of man. It serves to exhibit the mingled feelings of indignation and of pity with which Jesus regarded his enemies, whose hatred was directed, not only against his person, but against his works of mercy and healing. But the incident shall here be treated as a symbol of man’s need and of Christ’s authority and method as man’s Saviour.
I. THE CONDITION OF THIS MAN IN THE SYNAGOGUE IS A SYMBOL OF THE STATE AND NEED OF MAN. He was a man “with a withered hand.”
1. The hand is the symbol of man‘s practical nature. The husbandman, the mechanic, the painter, the musician, every craftsman of every grade, makes use of the hand in executing works of art or fulfilling the task of toil. The right hand may be regarded as the best bodily emblem of our active, energetic nature. It is our lot, not only to think and to feel, but to will and to do.
2. The withering of the hand is symbolical of the effect of sin upon our practical nature. As this man was rendered incapable of pursuing an industrial life, so the victim of sin is crippled for holy service, is both indisposed and incapacitated for Christian work. The withering of muscle, the paralysis of nerve, is no more disastrous to bodily effort than the blighting and enfeebling power of sin is destructive of all holy acceptable service unto God.
3. The apparent hopelessness of this man‘s case is an emblem of the sinner‘s hopeless state. This unhappy person was probably condemned by his misfortune to poverty, privation, neglect, and helplessness. He was aware of the inability of human skill to cure him. The case of the sinner is a case of inability and sometimes of despondency. Legislation and philosophy are powerless to deal with an evil so radical and so unmanageable. Unless God have mercy, the sinner is undone!
II. THE MIRACULOUS ACTION OF CHRIST SYMBOLIZES ONE ASPECT OF HIS REDEMPTIVE WORK. And this in two respects:
1. He saves by the impartation of power. Christ in the synagogue spoke with authority, both when addressing the spectators who cavilled, and when addressing the sufferer who doubtless welcomed his aid. Power accompanied his wordspower from on high; healing virtue went forth from him. How grateful should we be that, when the Son of God came to earth with power, it was with power to heal and bless! He is “mighty to save.” There was power in his person and presence, power in his words and works, power in his example and demeanour, power in his love and sacrifice. When he saves, he saves from sin and from sin’s worst results. The spiritual inefficiency and helplessness, which is man’s curse, gives place to a heavenly energy and activity. The redeemed sinner finds his right hand of service whole, restored, vigorous. Under the influence of new motives and new hopes, he consecrates his renewed nature of activity to the Lord who saved him.
2. He saves with the concurrence of human effort. Observe that the Lord Jesus addressed to this sufferer two commands. He bade him “Stand forth!” which he could do; and “Stretch forth thy hand!” which he could not door at least might, judging from the past, have felt and believed himself unable to do. Yet he believed that the Prophet and Healer, who spoke with such authority, and who was known to have healed many, was not uttering idle words. His faith was called forth, and his will was exercised. Without his obedience and concurrence, there is no reason to suppose that he would have been healed. So every sinner who would be saved by Christ must recognize the Divine authority of the Saviour, must avail himself of the Saviour’s compassion, and in humble faith must obey the Saviour’s command. It is not, indeed, faith which saves. It is Christ who saves, but he saves through faith; for it is by faith that the sinner lays hold upon the Saviour’s might, and comes to rejoice in the Saviour’s grace.
APPLICATION.
1. The first requisite for a sinner who would be saved is clearly to see, and deeply to feel, his need and helplessness. Mar 3:6-12
Persecution and popularity.
The evangelist represents, in very graphic language, the crisis in the ministry of Jesus now reached. We learn what was the attitude towards Jesus, both of the populace and of the ruling classes. We see the scribes and Pharisees meeting with the Herodians, and plotting against the Benefactor of mankind. We see the multitudes thronging from every quarter to look upon, to listen to, the far-famed Prophet of Nazareth. It is a striking contrast. It may be to us an earnest of what was to come; of the malice that slew the Lord of glory, and of the praise that should encompass him from all lands; of the cross, and of the throne.
I. WE HAVE A PICTURE OF OUR LORD‘S POPULARITY.
1. This passage furnishes the evidence of our Lord’s popularity. The people left their cities and villages, their homes and occupations, in order to follow Jesus. From various parts of the province of Galilee, through which he had just been travelling upon an evangelistic tour, the people flocked to the neighborhood of the lake. They came also from Jerusalem and Judaea, where successive miracles had made his name and person familiar to the inhabitants of the metropolis. Not only so, but from the east side of the Jordan, and Idumaea; and (strangest of all) from Phoenicia, far away in the north-west, multitudes, attracted by the great Prophet and Physician, found their way to Gennesaret. It is plain that an immense impression had been created by the ministry of our Lord, that he was becoming the chief figure in the land, succeeding to the prominence and the popularity of John the Baptist.
2. This same passage brings before us the grounds of our Lord’s popularity. Wherever he had gone, he had so acted as to justify the name he gave himself, “the Son of man;” he had shown himself the universal Saviour and Friend. Some came grateful for healing virtue and for pardoning mercy, having themselves tasted and seen that the Lord was good. Some brought to him the maladies of themselves or their friends, hoping to experience his grace. The unclean spirits came, confessing him to be the Son of God, acknowledging his regal authority, prepared to flee at his bidding and to leave the sufferers free. Some came to see him of whom such great and delightful tidings had been spread abroad; and others hoping that they might witness some illustrations of his saving might. His ministry of teaching attracted some, and the sequel tells us how richly such were rewarded by the incomparable discourses which were delivered at this period of Christ’s career. And there were, doubtless, some few noble, devout, and ardent souls, who longed for the revelation of a spiritual kingdom, which should fulfill the promises of God and realize the ancient and prophetic visions.
3. The consequences of Christ’s popularity are no less clearly related. It is plain that at this period our Lord was quite embarrassed by the excitement and eagerness of the crowds who thronged around him. It was this embarrassment that led him, first to withdraw to the lake, and then to request that a boat might be in readiness to receive him from the pressure of the crowd, and, if necessary, to take him to the near seclusion of the eastern shore. It was this embarrassment also which led him to direct those who partook of the benefit of his compassion to refrain from celebrating his praise, and even to keep silence concerning what he had done for them.
4. But let us bear in mind that this popularity was but superficial. Jesus knew well that most who followed him did so either from curiosity or with selfish desires of benefiting from his ministry. He was not deceived by the popular interest and acclaim. He was aware that at any moment the tide might turn. At Nazareth it was proved how ungrateful and violent the people could be when once their passions were roused or their prejudices crossed. And his ministry closed amidst the clamor and the execration of the fickle multitude, upon whose minds the arts of crafty priests and politicians played, as the storm-wind plays upon the surface of the mighty sea.
II. WE HAVE A PICTURE OF OUR LORD‘S PERSECUTORS, THEIR PLOTS AND PROJECTS. At the very time that multitudes were openly thronging around Christ, there was secret consultation among men of position and influence as to the means of effecting his ruin. We observe the occasion of this hostile attitude and action. For a while there had been no opposition, but rather a general interest and expectation. The change seems to have come about as a consequence of the violation by the Lord Jesus of the customs and traditions of the ceremonial rabbis or scribes. There were deep-seated reasons for the hostility cherished against the Prophet of Nazareth by the religious leadersscribes and Pharisees.
1. His conduct towards the common people was a grave offense. The rabbis generally held the unlearned and lower class in great contempt; in their esteem those who knew not the Law were cursed. They would not associate with them or touch them. Now, the Lord Jesus made himself at home with all classes, and accepted invitations, not only from rulers and scholars, but from publicans, at whose table he met the worldly and the sinful. He even chose one from the despised class of tax-collectors to occupy a place among his own immediate friends and followers. He ate and drank with publicans and sinners, and, when he preached, encouraged such to draw near to him. “The common people heard him gladly.” That an acknowledged rabbi should act in such a way was a scandal in the view of the self-righteous and ceremonious; it was conduct likely to lower the learned in the general esteem, to bring religion and the profession of the scribes into contempt.
2. We gather from the Gospel record that the chief cause of complaint against Jesus was his neglect and violation of the ceremonial Law. This Law was to the rabbis the breath of their nostrils; and our Lord and his disciples, doubtless under his influence, were very negligent of the observances upon which the ruling class laid such stress. The Pharisees fasted, Jesus feasted; the Pharisees performed innumerable ablutions, Jesus ate bread “with unwashen hands.”
3. The sabbath was, however, the most important point of difference. Many of the rigid Jewish religionists held the most narrow opinions and cherished the most absurd and ridiculous scruples with regard to what was lawful and what unlawful upon the weekly day of rest. It was not possible that Jesus, with his views as to the spirituality of worship and as to the nature of holiness, should agree with these petty and childish notions; it was not possible that he should do other than violate traditional rules and shock formal prejudices. He encouraged his disciples to pluck and eat corn on the sabbath; he performed cures upon the day which he held to be made for man; he directed those who were healed to take up their couch and return home. In all these respects he both vindicated religious liberty and asserted himself “Lord of the sabbath.” The rigid ceremonialism and ritualism of the rabbis was offended, alike with the superiority which the Lord claimed over all rules, and with the disdain he showed for their usages and traditions. They hated him, as narrow and formal religionists of all schools ever hate the teachers who place religion in the heart rather than in ceremonies and creeds, and who proclaim that newness of life is the one acceptable offering and sacrifice in the sight of the Divine Searcher of hearts.
4. Our Lord’s treatment of the scribes and Pharisees was itself a cause of offense, an occasion of their enmity to him. Instead of treating them with deference, he defied their judgment, and (at a later period of his ministry) uttered denunciations and woes upon them for their hypocrisy. When about to heal the withered hand, Jesus “looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart.” It was not thus that they were wont to be regarded and treated. If this treatment were continued, their influence must be undermined.
5. The cause of hostility just mentioned was a symptom of a deeper difference between Jesus and the rabbis: the spiritual quality of his teaching was such as to conflict with all their notions of religion. With them religion was an affair of the outward life alone; with him it was, first and foremost, an affair of the heart. And even with respect to outward actions there was this great difference: the rabbis thought of the attitude of prayer, Christ of the feeling and desire; the rabbis thought much of tithes and fasts, of sacrifices and services, Christ of the weightier matters of the Law; the rabbis thought much of what went as food into the man, Christ of the thoughts which expressed themselves in moral conduct. Observe the feeling that was aroused in the breasts of the Pharisees. Luke tells us “they were filled with madness,” i.e. carried away by violent rage and hostility. What a revelation of human iniquity! The actions of the holy and gracious Redeemer excite the fury of those he came to benefit and save! And the hostility then felt grew and gathered as the months passed on, until it culminated in the successful plot against the Holy One and Just. Such feeling did not evaporate in words; it led to action. The enemies of Jesus retired to deliberate, to plot. There was more than indignation; there was malice, a resolve to avenge themselves upon One too holy, too authoritative, for them to bear with him. An unnatural alliance was formed between the rabbis, who represented the principles of rigid Judaism both in nationality and in religion; and the Herodiaus, who seem to have been Sadducees in religion, and in politics supporters of the house of Herod, and accordingly advocates of all possible independence upon Rome. It is not easy to understand this league. The Herodians themselves may not so much have hated Jesus as, from political motives, they desired to gain the favor of the powerful Pharisaic party, whose influence with the people generally was great, and who might be made the means of strengthening the supporters of Antipas. The aim which these confederates set before them was atrocious indeed; it was nothing less than the destruction of Jesus. Answer his reasoning they could not. Equally unable were they to find fault with his irreproachable character, his benevolent actions. Their only weapons were slander and craft and violence. How to work upon the fears of the secular authorities and the passions of the populacethis was their aim and endeavor.
Mar 3:13-19
The twelve.
Some of these twelve had been “called” by the Master long ago, and had already been much in his company. Others had been, for a shorter time and less intimately, associated with him. This formal appointment and commission took place upon the mount, and immediately before the delivery of the ever-memorable sermon to the disciples and the multitude. The passage is suggestive of great general truths.
I. CHRIST THOUGHT FIT TO EMPLOY HUMAN AGENTS IN THE PROMULGATION OF HIS RELIGION, That he might have dispensed with all created agency, that he might have employed angelic ministers, we cannot doubt. But in becoming man”the Son of man “he contracted human sympathies and relationships, and undertook to work, with a Divine power indeed, yet by human means.
II. CHRIST SELECTED HIS AGENTS BY VIRTUE OF HIS OWN WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. He called “whom he himself would.” The Lord Jesus is the absolute Monarch in his own kingdom. Having perfect knowledge, unerring wisdom, and unfailing justice, he is fitted for supreme, unshared rule.
III. CHRIST CHOSE HIS TRUSTED APOSTLES FROM A LOWLY POSITION OF SOCIETY. Only one of the bandand he the unworthy memberwas from Judaea. All the others were Galileans; and the inhabitants of this northern province were comparatively rude, unlettered, unpolished. Some rabbis would fain have been received into the number, but the Lord would not encourage them. He preferred to deal with unsophisticated natures. Perhaps James and John and Levi were in fair circumstances; the rest were in all likelihood poor. The twelve were, in education, very different from such men as Luke and Paul. Christ chose, as he has often done since, “the weak things of the world to confound the mighty.” He rejoiced and gave thanks because things, hidden from the wise and prudent, had been revealed unto babes.
IV. CHRIST APPOINTED AGENTS WITH VARIOUS GIFTS, QUALIFICATIONS, AND CHARACTER. The three leaders among the apostles were certainly men of ability. Peter’s vigor of style was only one index to the great native force of his character; James was slain by Herod, as probably the most prominent representative of the early Christian community; and John’s writings show him to have been both profound and imaginative as a thinker. Of the other apostles, James the Less was certainly a man of inflexible will and of vigorous administrative power. In disposition these twelve men differed marvellously from one another. Two were “sons of thunder,” anotherThomaswas of a doubting, melancholy spirit, and Simon was ardent and impulsive. All but Iscariot were deeply attached to Jesus, and it was not without purpose that one avaricious and treacherous person was included in the number. What various instruments our Lord employs for accomplishing his own work!
V. CHRIST RECOGNIZED AND EMPLOYED THE SPECIAL GIFTS OF HIS DISCIPLES IN HIS OWN SERVICE. This passage brings this truth vividly before us. Simon was surnamed “The Rock”a title to which his character especially entitled him; and the sons of Zebedee were designated “Sons of Thunder,” doubtless from their ardent, impetuous zeal in the service of the Lord. There was a special work corresponding to the special endowments of each.
VI. CHRIST QUALIFIED THESE AGENTS BY KEEPING THEM IN HIS OWN SOCIETY AND BENEATH HIS OWN INFLUENCE. “That they might be with him.” How simple, yet how profound these words! What a Companion! What lessons were to be learned from his character, his demeanour, his language, his mighty works! Nothing could so qualify these men for the service of coming years as this brief period of daily and close intimacy with a Being so gracious, so holy, so wise.
VII. CHRIST HIMSELF COMMISSIONED AND AUTHORIZED THESE AGENTS. They were to be “sent forth;” hence their designation, “apostles.” They were to be his messengers, his heralds, his ambassadors. And what was their ministry?
1. To preach, to publish good tidings of salvation, righteousness, eternal life, through Christ. To this end it was evidently necessary that they should imbibe the Master’s spirit, as well as know the Teacher’s doctrine. It was necessary that, in due time, they should be witnesses of his resurrection and partakers of the Spirit poured out from on high.
2. To have authority to cast out demons, to carry on the work of the Lord, and to contend with the kingdom of Satan, and establish the reign of Christ, of light, of righteousness, of peace.
APPLICATION. 2. We are summoned to consecrate all our gifts and acquirements to the service and cause of Immanuel.
3. It is the highest honor and the purest happiness to be employed by Christ as his agents.
4. It is necessary to be much with Christ in order that we may be fitted efficiently to work for Christ.
Mar 3:20-30
Blasphemy.
Great men are often misunderstood by reason of their very greatness. Aims higher than those of others need other methods than such as are commonly employed by ordinary persons. How much more must this have been the case with the Son of man! His mission was uniquewas altogether his own. He could not fulfill his ministry and do the work of him who sent him, without stepping aside from the beaten tracks of conduct, and so courting criticism and obloquy. He could not well conciliate public opinion, for he came to condemn and to revolutionize it. For the most part he went his way, without noticing the misrepresentations and the calumnies of men. Yet there were occasions, like the present, when he paused to answer and to confute his adversaries.
I. THE BLASPHEMOUS CHARGE BROUGHT AGAINST JESUS. His friends charged him with madness; his enemies attributed his works to the power of evil. In the allegation of the former there may have been some sincerity; those of the latter were animated by malice and hatred. Probably these scribes were sent down into Galilee from the authorities at Jerusalem, to check the enthusiasm which was spreading throughout the northern province with regard to the Prophet of Nazareth. The same charges were brought against him in Jerusalem; so that there may have been an understanding as to the method to be adopted in opposing the great Teacher. The scribes discredited Jesus, first, by asserting that he was possessed by Beelzebub, the Syrian Satan; and secondly, by explaining his power to dispossess demons by the league between him and the lord of the demons, whose authority the inferior spirits could not but obey. There was no attempt to deny the fact that demoniacs were cured; this would have been so monstrously false that to take such a position would have been to ruin their own influence with the people.
II. THE REFUTATION OF THIS BLASPHEMY.
1. Our Lord’s reply was on the ground of reasonof what might be called common sense. He used two parables, by which he showed the unreasonableness, the absurdity of the allegations in question. Suppose a house or a kingdom to be divided against itself, to be rent by internal discord and faction; what is the result? It comes to ruin. And can it be believed that the crafty prince of darkness will turn his arms against his own servants and minions? So, Satan would “have an end.”
2. Having refuted their argument, our Lord proceeded with his own; gave his explanation of what was the spiritual significance of his ministry, especially as regarded the “possessed.” So far from being in league with Satan, the Lord Jesus was Satan’s one mighty Foe; he had already, in the temptation, overcome him, and was binding him, and now, behold! he was spoiling the house of his vanquished enemy, in expelling the demons from the wretched demoniacs of Galilee! He could not have done this had he been in league with Satan, had he not already vanquished Satan. Having effected this, he “spoiled principalities and powers.”
III. THE CENSURE OF THIS BLASPHEMY. Our Lord first reasoned; then he spoke with authority, as One in the secrets of Heaven, with power to declare the principles of Divine judgment. There is, he declared, an eternal and unpardonable sin. If the scribes were not committing this, they were approaching it. The sin against the Holy Ghost, the confusion of truth with error, good with evil,is a sin, not of ignorance, Hot of misunderstanding, but of wilfulness; a sin of the whole nature; a sin against the light without and the light within. Our Saviour, in condemning this sin, speaks as the rightful Lord, the authoritative Judge, of all mankind!
APPLICATION. “What think ye of Christ?” To think of him with indifference is unreasonable, and shows the most blameable insensibility to the great moral conflict of the universe, on one side of which Jesus is the Champion. To think of him disparagingly is blasphemy; for “he that honoureth the Son honoureth the Father,” and he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father. It is blasphemy to speak against the character or the authority of the Son of God. What remains, then? This: to think and speak of him with reverence and gratitude, faith, and love. This is just and right; and though Christ does not need our homage and honor, he will accept it and reward it.
Mar 3:31-35
Kindred of Christ.
The feeling with regard to Christ had, by this time, become extremely strong. On the one hand, the people generally were deeply interested in his teaching, were eager spectators of his mighty works, and in many cases were much attached to himself. Hence the crowd which thronged the house where Jesus was engaged in teachinga crowd so dense that none from the outside could approach the Master. On the other hand, the opposition to the Prophet of Nazareth was growing and spreading among the scribes and Pharisees, some of whom from Jerusalem were now usually among the audience, anxiously on the watch for any utterance which they might use to the disadvantage of the bold and fearless Teacher. In these circumstances, the concern of the relatives of Jesus was natural enough. They saw that his labours were so arduous and protracted that he was in danger of exhaustion through weariness. And they feared that the attitude he was taking towards the hypocritical Pharisees was imperilling his liberty and safety. They accordingly professed to believe in his madness, and sought to lay hold on him. Hence the interruption recorded in this passage, which gave rise to this memorable and precious declaration of his spiritual affinity and kindred to all whose life is one of obedience to the Father.
I. THE FACT OF SPIRITUAL KINDRED BETWEEN CHRIST AND HIS PEOPLE. Earthly relationships were admitted and honored by Jesus. Yet spiritual kindred was set above them. Under the gospel dispensation there are revealed emphatically the fatherhood of God, and the brotherhood of Christ. We are the children of God. Jesus, in his glory, “is not ashamed to call us brethren.”
II. THE PROOF OF SPIRITUAL KINDRED WITH CHRIST. Who are they whom Jesus commends and admits to his fellowship and confidence? They who do his Father’s will. Upon such he looks with approval.
1. His requirement is not intellectual or sentimental merely, but practical. Belief and feeling are necessary, but not sufficient. We are made to act, and in our life to carry out the Divine commands. Jesus asks the devotion of the heart, expressed in the service of the active nature. We are saved by grace, and works are the proofs of faith. Obedience proceeds from hearty confidence and sincere love. Indeed, the Lord himself has told us that this is the work of God, that we “believe on him whom he hath sent.” And Christians are those who prove the sincerity of their love by a practical consecration.
2. It is the privilege of the Christian voluntarily to obey a personal, Divine will. He sees the Lawgiver behind the law. His life is not mere conformity to regulationto some such abstract standard as “the fitness of things.” It is subjection to a Being whose will enjoins a course of virtue and piety. Religion Has too often, like law, like society, summoned men to do the will of manof fallible, fickle man. Christ calls us all away from this endeavor to a far nobler and better aimsummons us to do the will, not of man, but of God! This is a standard with which no fault can be found, no dissatisfaction can be felt.
3. Jesus looks for, not a mechanical, but a spiritual, obedience. The description of the Christian life is, “doing the will of God from the heart.”
4. Christ requires not servile but filial obedience. We know from personal experience the difference between doing the will of a master or a ruler and doing the will of a father. It is to this latter kind of obedience that we are called. It is much to believe in the personality and authority of God, but it is more to live under the sense of his fatherhood; for this involves his interest in us, his care for us, his love toward us; and all these are obviously considerations which make duty both delightful and easy. The motive is not merely moral, it becomes religious. The Christian acts as a child who brings before his mind, as a ruling consideration, “my Father’s will.”
5. Christ desires not occasional or fitful acts of obedience, but habitual service. One act is good, both in itself and also as making a second act easier. Obedience becomes a second nature, a law recognized and accepted; and perseverance is the one proof of true principle.
III. THE PRIVILEGE OF SPIRITUAL KINDRED ASSURED BY CHRIST. Men boast of eminent ancestors, distinguished connections, powerful kinsmen; but such boast is usually foolish and vain; whereas it is in the power of the humblest Christian to glory in the Lord. The friendship of Jesus surpasses that of the greatest and the best of human friends. It is closer and more delightful, it is more honorable and more certain and enduring than the intimacy of human kindred.
1. Participation in Christ’s character. There is a family likeness; the Divine features are reproduced.
2. Enjoyment of the tender affection of Christ.
3. Intimate and confidential intercourse with Christ. These two are closely associated. This spiritual relationship involves a peculiar interest, each in the other. So far from indifference, there is mutual regard and concern. The honor of Christ is very near the Christian’s heart, and Christ engraves his people “upon the palms of his hands.” There is a special tenderness in these mutual regards, very different from the ceremonial or official respect attaching to some relations. “Ye are my friends,” says the Saviour. Hymns and devotional books have sometimes exaggerated this side of piety; yet with many probably the danger lies on the other side. As there is a specially confidential tone in the intercourse of the several members of a family, so is there something like this in the fellowship of the Redeemer and his redeemed ones. “All things that I have heard of the Father,” says he, “I have made known unto you;” and, on the other side, the follower of the Lord Jesus pours all his intimate thoughts and wishes into the ear of his heavenly Friend and Brother.
IV. THE OBLIGATIONS OF SPIRITUAL KINDRED. Of these may be mentioned:
1. Reverent regard for his honor.
2. Self-denying devotion to his cause.
3. Recognition of his brethren as ours.
PRACTICAL CONCLUSION. Observe the liberality of the language of Jesus, the wide invitation virtually given in his declaration: “Whosoever,” etc. This is not limited to the learned or the great; it is open to us all.
HOMILIES BY A.F. MUIR
Mar 3:1-6
The man with the withered hand; or, keeping the sabbath.
In the most sacred and joyous scenes there may be circumstances of pain and sorrow. There are often some in God’s house who are hindered in their enjoyment by personal affliction. But even these may be of service in testing the spirit and disposition of God’s professed people.
I. IT IS IN SPIRIT ALONE THAT THE SABBATH IS TRULY KEPT,
1. Outward observances are of value only as expressing and fostering this.
2. Evil hearts will fail to keep the day even, whilst seemingly engaged in its special duties.
3. Institutions that were designed for the highest ends may be perverted to the worst.
II. WORKS OF MERCY HONOUR THE SABBATH.
1. Because they are always urgent.
2. They exercise the holiest emotions and faculties of human nature.
3. They are the service of God.
4. They may be the means of others keeping the day and serving him.
III. THE TRUE SABBATIC SPIRIT CONVICTS AND INFLAMES THE FALSE. The hatred manifested is all but incredible. Yet it was already in their hearts. They had been condemned where they thought to have been judges. False religion (Pharisees) and worldliness (Herodians) are united in their hatred of the spirit and work of Christ, because they are both exposed by him.M.
Mar 3:4
“But they held their peace.”
“There is much silence that proceeds from the Spirit of God, but there is also a devilish silence,” says Quesnel; and it is not difficult to pronounce upon the character of this.
I. WHAT WAS INTENDED BY IT. It was evasive. Christ had propounded a dilemma which those who watched him dared not answer, since, had they done so, they would either have compromised themselves or committed themselves to approval of his action. It was doubtless intended also to suggest that the problem was too difficult for them to solve, at any rate without due consideration.
II. WHAT IT SHOWED. There was no concealing from his eyes its real meaning, which he at once denounced. The circumstances of it and the exposure it received made it evident that it was due:
1. To unwillingness to be convinced. The state called “hardness of heart” it is not easy to resolve into all its elements, but this is undoubtedly the chief one. These men had come into the synagogue with sinister designs against Christ, and so strong was their prejudice that they refused to assent to the most cogent evidence. The language used by their intended Victim conveys the impression that this “hardening” was in process whilst the scene lasted. It is impossible to dissociate religious opinion from character. Prejudice and malice incapacitate the mind for the reception of truth. Here the most cogent evidence was resisted; for they evidently expected that he would heal the man, and yet were unwilling to attach its due weight to the miracle as a proof of Christ’s Divine mission. How much of modern scepticism is to be attributed to similar causes it is impossible to say; but that a large proportion of it is to be so explained cannot be doubted. The hesitation to reply is the more noticeable in this instance as the question is one turning, not upon material evidence, but upon moral considerations.
2. To lack of sympathy. The condition of the sufferer did not move them to compassion, even in the house of God. A touchstone of the religious professions of men may still be found in the pool the suffering, etc.
3. To dishonesty and cowardice. They knew how the question ought to have been answered, but they feared the consequences. The question as to killing alarmed their own guilty consciences, for they knew that they had come thither not to worship but to compass the destruction of a fellow-creature. There is still a great deal of suppressed religious conviction amongst men; how are we to interpret it? When moral obligations are evaded, and scepticism is made an excuse for uncertainty of conduct and laxity of life, we are justified in attributing such behavior to the same principles. There are circumstances that demand candour and outspokenness, and in which silence is dishonorable; we ought “to have the courage of our convictions:” occasions when it is wrong to be silent; when religious zeal is made a cloak for murder, cruelty, injustice, and licentiousness; when the difficulty of theological problems is made an excuse for compromise, or inaction, or moral indifference; when, in the face of the clearest evidence, a man says he “does not know.”
III. WHAT IT EARNED.
1. The anger of Christ. His look must have searched their hearts and abashed them. There would be in it something of the awfulness of the judgment day. This moral indignation, in which there is surely an element of contempt, is still the sentence upon all similar conduct.
2. Consciousness of guilt. They were self-convicted, but the condemnation of one so pure and loving would seal their sense of unworthiness and dishonor.
3. Exposure. No one in that crowd was deceived as to their real motive. The same law still prevails; the moral obliquity which refuses to pronounce upon great questions of duty and righteousness will sooner or later be made evident to others. Just as there are circumstances which precipitate opinion, so there are circumstances in every life which call for decided action, and reveal the manner in which one has dealt with one’s convictions. At such junctures the man who has been true to his best lights and sincere in following out his convictions, will be honest, fearless, chivalrous; the man who has not been truly in earnest, or disinterested in his attachment to truth, will be seen to shuffle, to shirk responsibility, and to shrink from sacrifice; or, worse still, he will yield to the lusts and tendencies of his baser nature, and act with unscrupulousness, inhumanity, and godlessness. It is the law that opinions determine character; and that, in the course of life, character must inevitably make itself known.M.
Mar 3:5
“Stretch forth thy hand!”
I. CHRIST SOMETIMES ENJOINS WHAT SEEMS TO BE IMPOSSIBLE.
II. FAITH IS SHOWN IN DOING WHAT HE COMMANDS, EVEN WHEN IT SEEMS TO BE IMPOSSIBLE.
III. WHERE THERE IS THE “OBEDIENCE OF FAITH,” POWER WILL BE GRANTED.M.
Mar 3:13-19
The choosing of the apostles.
I. THE RELATION BETWEEN CHRIST AND HIS SERVANTS WAS DELIBERATELY ENTERED UPON AND VOLUNTARY IN ITS NATURE.
1. It was formally commenced in retirement. We may suppose a season of devotion. The absence of public excitement or external interference was evidently desired.
2. The utmost freedom existed on both sides. He called “whom he himself would: and they went unto him? There was no coercion. The highest principles and emotions were addressed. On the one hand, the teaching and the work of the Master were not dominated by the influence now associated with him; nor, on the other, was their service other than the fret of enthusiasm, intelligent conviction, and willing sympathy.
II. REPUTATION WAS RECEIVED FROM CHRIST BY HIS SERVANTS, NOT CONFERRED BY THEM. The names are all of men in humble life, with no previous distinction of shy kind. They were names common enough in Palestine. But their connection with Christ has immortalized them. How many have come to the Saviour in similar circumstances, and have received the reflected renown of his name! He makes the best out of the poor materials of human nature, and bestows what human nature in its greatest circumstances and moods could never of itself have produced. Men are honored in being made the servants of Christ.
III. THE APOSTLES WERE TO BE REPRESENTATIVE IN OFFICE AND CHARACTER FOR ALL TIME. As his first disciples, and because of the marked variety and force of their individual natures as influenced by the gospel and developed in Christ’s service; their names have wrought themselves into the very texture of the gospel, and we have received it with the impress of their varied natures and habits of thought. “He sent them forth to preach, and to have authority to cast out devils”a fundamental work. Therefore are they called “the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” of whom Jesus is the Corner-stone. In serving Christ they laid the world and the ages under inestimable obligation.M.
Mar 3:20, Mar 3:21
Christ hindered by his friends.
I. THROUGH IGNORANCE. Owing
(1) to want of sympathy with him in his higher aims; and
(2) consequent failure of spiritual perception.
II. BY CHARGING HIM WITH MADNESS. They had so little of the spirit of self-denial in themselves that they could not understand enthusiasm which would not admit of his attending to his own wants, “so much as to eat bread.”
1. They feared also the consequences which might arise from the presence of his enemies. The scribes were there “from Jerusalem,” on the alert to find accusation against him; and they must have been observed.
2. But by this charge they discredited the character of his ministry. Who should be supposed to know whether he was sane or not, if not his own family? In attributing to maniacy the Divine works and words of Christ, they did him and all who might through him have life and peace, a cruel, irreparable wrong. So Paul was charged with being beside himself; and all who for Christ’s sake try to live above the maxims and aims of the world will meet with similar judgment. The blow thus struck is not at an individual, but at the spiritual prospects and hopes of a whole race.
III. BY UNAUTHORIZED AND UNTIMELY INTERFERENCE.
1. A sin of presumption.
The judgment was hasty and mistaken; the action was unjustifiable, both foolish and wicked.
2. Enmity to God.M.
Mar 3:20-22
The Saviour judged by the world.
There were various opinions amongst the multitude. They cannot be indifferent to the work and teaching of Christ. “Some believed, and some believed not.” Of those who did not believe all were in opposition to him. This circumstance was
I. A TRIBUTE TO THE INFLUENCE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE GOSPEL.
II. IT ILLUSTRATED THE IMPOTENCY OF THE CARNAL MIND IN SPIRITUAL QUESTIONS. III. IT SUGGESTS THE PERILS TO WHICH THE CARNAL MIND IS EXPOSED. “Lest haply ye be found to fight against God” (Act 5:39).
IV. IT SUGGESTS THE DUTY UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES OF CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY.M.
Mar 3:23-27
“How can Satan cast out Satan?” or, the logic of spiritual forces.
The spirit of Christ’s answer to this malicious attack is calm, fearless, and full of light. He meets the charge with convincing and irrefutable logic.
I. THE DEFENCE. There are two elements in his argument:
1. A demonstration. It is the familiar reductio ad absurdum, such as one might use with a schoolboy. It is so simple and trenchant that it straightway becomes an attack of the most powerful kind. He treats them as children in knowledge, and convicts them at the same time of diabolical malice.
2. An inference. Here the advantage is pushed beyond the point expected. tie is not satisfied with a mere disclaimer; he comes to a further and higher deduction. If it was true that he did not cast out Satan by Satan, then it must also be true that he cast out Satan in spite of the latter; and that could only mean one thing. Satan, “the strong man,” must have been bound by the Son of man, else he would not suffer himself to be so “spoiled.” This is at once an assurance full of comfort to his friends and a warning to his enemies.
II. POSITIONS ASSUMED IN IT.
1. The solidarity of evil.
2. The irreconcileableness of the kingdoms of light and darkness.M.
Mar 3:28-30
The unforgivable sin.
I. AN ACTUAL OFFENCE. It is not mentioned again in the Gospel, but the warning was called forth by the actual transgression. There is no mere theorizing about it therefore. It is an exposure and denunciation. This gives us an idea of the fearful unbelief and bitter hatred of those who opposed him. The manifestation of light and love only strengthened the antagonism of some. They consciously sinned against the light.
II. WHY IS IT UNFORGIVABLE?
1. Bemuse of the majesty of the crime. It identifies the Representative and Son of God with the devilthe best with the worst.
2. the nature of the spiritual state induced. When a man deliberately falsifies his spiritual intuitions, and corrupts his conscience so that good is considered evil, there is no hope for him. Such a condition can only be the result of long-continued opposition to God and determined hatred of his character. The means of salvation are thereby robbed of their possibility to save.
III. THE LIKELIHOOD OF ITS BEING REPEATED. As it is an extreme and final degree of sin, there is little danger of its being committed without full consciousness and many previous warnings.
1. It is therefore, a priori, improbable in any. Yet as increasing light and grace tend to throw into stronger opposition the spirit of evil, it must be regarded as:
2. A possibility of every sinner. Necessity for self-examination and continual recourse to the cleansing and illuminating power of Christ.M.
Mar 3:31-35
The mother and the brethren of Jesus.
The annoyance and hindrance of a moment are turned to eternal gain to the cause of truth.
I. FAMILY INFLUENCES MAY INJURE SPIRITUAL USEFULNESS. They are powerful either way. They operate subtly and constantly. A tendency to narrowness in the family tie, which requires to be checked. Much of this influence which is adverse to Christian life is unconsciously so. Yet the intensest forms of hatred to truth and goodness are exhibited within the family relation. Hence the necessity for clear forcible realization of the distinction between lower and higher obligations. The child of God will have recourse to constant prayer for help and guidance, and for the conversion of relatives.
II. THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE NATURAL MUST YIELD TO THE SPIRITUAL RELATIONSHIP. This is so whenever they conflict, or when, both being of Divine obligation, the later is manifestly more immediately impressed upon the conscience, and more evidently calculated for the good of men and the glory of God.
III. THE NEAREST AND ONLY PERMANENT RELATION TO CHRIST IS SPIRITUAL NATURAL.
1. An invitation to all.
2. An encouragement and inspiration to real disciples.
3. A forecast of the communion of saints.M.
Mar 3:35
Divine relationships.
I. HOW FAR RESEMBLING HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS.
1. In laying down the condition of Divine relationship, Christ does not absolutely displace human relationships. It would have been hard for him so to do, since men were being addressed, and the relationships sustained by them would depend upon the religious sanction they might possess for the measure of honor and faithful observance they would receive. That the terms of human relationship were still employed showed that an analogy at least existed.
2. The terms denoting the distinctions of natural relationships are used in speaking of the heavenly. The “brother “and “sister” and “mother,” therefore, express a real distinction in the heavenly family. And there are differences of mutual service and affection which must exist within the common “bond of charity,” even as on earth. In the case of those who believe in Christ, then, the beautiful variation which God has created in the affection of the domestic circle will have a use and fitness in fulfilling the duties and realizing the ideal of the Divine life. The latter has its sphere for the sisterliness, the brotherliness, etc., even as the human life; and these are modes through which the Divine love will express itself. Indeed, it may be said that the human affections of father, mother, etc., do not fully manifest or realize themselves in the merely human life; it is the Divine life in which the ideal of each is rendered possible.
II. IN WHAT RESPECTS DIFFERING FROM THESE.
1. The affections characteristic of human family will spring from a spiritual principle and express Divine love. “The will of God,” or “the will of the Father,” will take the place of blind instinct or selfish gratification. Thus springing from a new source they will be transformed, purified, and freed from limitation and defect. “The will of God” will be the law according to which they will express themselves; but as that will has been interpreted as salvation and universal benevolence, so the distinctions of human affection will be brought into play in furthering the redemptive scheme of the Father amongst his sinful children; and through them phases of the Divine love will be realized that would otherwise find no expression. They will thus, also, be universalized and directed into channels of service and helpfulness.
2. The Divine relationship is therefore based upon a new nature. It is only those who are born of the Spirit who can do the will of God. It is the life of the Spirit in them that changes and adapts them for the unselfish affections of the family of God.
3. The Divine relationship is a moral possibility of every one. Every woman may become a sister, a mother, of Christ; event man his brother.M.
HOMILIES BY A. ROWLAND
Mar 3:2
A miracle of healing.
The cure of the man with a withered hand was more obviously a supernatural work than sudden recovery from a fever, so that we need not wonder at the excitement it aroused. But it was only an example of many similar works, and as such we propose to consider it.
I. THE MIRACLE WHICH JESUS DID.
1. It was a removal of bodily infirmity. Although the Son of God came from heaven to do a spiritual work, much of the time of his earthly ministry was spent in curing physical disorders. We might have supposed that, coming from a painless and sorrowless world he would have had sparse sympathy with such suffering; that he would have exhorted to fortitude and self-control, and expectation of a time when pain would be no more. It was not so, however. He sympathized with all sufferers, and, although he had before him a stupendous spiritual work, he by no means confined himself to it. Though sometimes he had “no leisure so much as to eat,” he found time to heal many bodily diseases; and he did this without hurrying over it as if it were an inferior work, or as if it were necessitated by the hardness of the human heart; but he did it lovingly and constantly, as being an essential part of his mission. In some respects, no doubt, this was a lower work than preaching. The body is inferior to the soul, as the tent is to its inhabitant. The effects of cure were only transient, for none were promised exemption in the future from disease or death. Yet these lower and temporary blessings were generously bestowed by One who habitually stood in the light of eternity. Point out the ministry of mercy which the Church has yet to do, in Christ’s name, for suffering humanity.
2. It was a miracle with a moral purpose. The supernatural works of Christ were not mainly intended to excite attention. When he was asked “for a sign” with that object, he resolutely refused it. Had this been his purpose, he would have flung snowy Herman into the depths of the sea, instead of doing the kind of work which is more slowly done by human physicians. He had a better purpose than this. He healed disease because, as the Conqueror of sin, he would point out and abolish some of its effects. He rescued a man, if only for a time, from the evil that harassed him, to show that he was his Redeemer. And besides this, he appeared as the Representative of God, and therefore did what he is ever doing in more gradual methods. A modern writer has wisely said, “This, I think, is the true nature of miracles; they are an epitome of God’s processes in nature, beheld in connection with their source.” We are apt to forget God in the processes through which he ordinarily works, and this forgetfulness could not be better checked than by the miracles in which Christ did directly what is usually done indirectly. For example, when we eat our daily bread, we know all that man has done with the corn since the harvest, and seldom think of God who gave life to the seed, strength to the husbandman, and nutriment to the ground. But if we saw the processes condensed into one Divine act, as the multitude did on the hillside, when Jesus created bread, there would be a recognition of God which would afterwards find expression in the more ordinary events we saw. So with the healing of the diseased. Every such miracle revealed God as the Dispenser of health and the Giver of all blessings.
3. It was a miracle having special significance for the spectators. By means of it Christ taught more clearly the nature and design of the sabbath day. His foes had followed him from Jerusalem, with the resolute determination to destroy his influence and, if possible, to compass his death. Already they had detected his disciples in the violation of a rabbinical rule by rubbing corn in their hands on the sacred day. And the Lord had at once thrown over his followers the shield of his authority, as an Achilles would have done over the wounded Greeks, and had roundly declared that the “Son of man was Lord even of the sabbath day.” They hoped now that he would publicly commit himself by some action in harmony with this declaration, and that so prejudice might be raised against his heresy. Show how bravely, wisely, and victoriously he met this, and taught for all generations that “it is lawful to do well on the sabbath day.”
II. THE LESSONS JESUS TAUGHT.
1. Neglecting opportunities for doing good is really doing evil. Jesus Christ meant, by the alternative he put in the fourth verse, that if he did not do the good he was able to do for this poor sufferer, he did him a wrong. This is universally true. If at the judgment seat any appear who have done nothing for others and for their Lord, they will not be able to say, “We have done no harm!” for they have injured themselves and others by neglect. The “wicked and slothful servant” was not condemned because he had done harm with his wealth and talent, but because he had done no good with them, having digged in the earth and hid his lord’s money.
2. Loving help is better than outward ritual. The religious leaders of our Lord’s day thought it of vital importance that the law of the Jewish sabbath”Thou shalt do no manner of work”should be observed with scrupulous exactness. But on that holy day Christ freely cured disease, and so taught the people the meaning of Jehovah’s words, “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.” We are bound so to use our sacred day, associating acts of love and mercy with the services which sanctify its hours.
3. Fear of personal consequences should never hinder the true servant of God. What our Lord did on this occasion so aroused anger that we read in St. Luke’s Gospel, “They were filled with madness;” and “straightway they took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.” Foreseeing this, he did not hesitate for a moment. May the fear of God in us also cast out all fear of man!A.R.
Mar 3:5 (first part)
The Saviour’s view of sin.
Describe the scene in the synagogue; the wickedness of the plot formed by the Pharisees; the compassion of our Lord, breaking through it as a mighty tide over a flimsy barrier; the nobility of his teaching concerning the right use of the sabbath; the healing of the man with the withered hand, etc. Our text graphically describes the feeling with which our Lord regarded his adversaries, and this deserves earnest consideration. At first the bold declaration, “He looked round about on them with anger,” startles us; for it seems in contradiction to his meekness and patience, which were perfect. But the explanation follows, “Being grieved for the hardness of their hearts.” This shows the nature of his feeling. It reminds us of another occasion (Luk 13:34), when he spoke of Jerusalem in a tone of reproachful indignation; but at once added the gentle words, “How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings!” On both occasions there was a blending of feelings which too often appear to us contradictory and incompatible. But it is possible to be “angry and sin not.” Christ looked on the Pharisees, and was indignant at their hypocrisy and unscrupulous hatred; but at once the feeling softened into pity as he thought of the insidious process of “hardening,” which (as the Greek implies) was still going on, to end in hopeless callousness. With him warning was mingled with weeping; as his disciple Paul afterwards spoke with tears of those who were “enemies of the cross of Christ” (Php 3:18). In this, as in all things else, Christ has left us an example; therefore we will endeavor first to
I. UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEX FEELING HERE EXEMPLIFIED. We see in it two elements:
1. Indignation against sin. We are constantly coming in contact with the faults and sins of men. Our newspapers contain accounts of murders and cruelties, of thefts and treasons. Overreaching and fraud meet us in business; slander and enmity lurk in society. Sensibility to such sins is not only not wrong, it is right and Christlike, and will become more keen as we grow in likeness to our Lord. It is an evil day for a man when he becomes callous even to those wickednesses which will never affect him personally; for this is distinctly contrary to the feeling which moved the Saviour to effect the world’s redemption. As his disciples, we must never be good-naturedly easy about sin; we must not put on an air of worldly indifference; we must not attempt to hush feeling to rest, as if men were committed by a resistless fate to do “all these abominations” (Jer 7:10). The presence and prevalence of sin should stir within us strong moral indignation.
2. Indignation tending to pity. Anger should be swallowed up in grief. Indignation against wrong-doing, whether it affects ourselves or not, must not make us forget the deepest commiseration for the wrongdoer. Instead of this, too often, proud of our own virtue, we stand on our small moral pedestal, and look with scorn on those below it. Respected and honored ourselves, with our robes to outward appearance unstained, we gather them about us, and sweep past some fallen brother or sister, and say, “Come not near unto me; for I am holier than thou!” The evil effects of this are manifold. We may drive others into deeper sin, because despair takes the place of hope in them; and we weaken ourselves in the service of our Lord. We can never benefit one whom we despise, or over whose fall we secretly exult; for nothing but love can so grasp the sinner as to lift him out of the horrible pit. Nor is it enough that we are indignant and angry with sin, so. that as passionate parents or denunciatory preachers we administer hasty reproof or indiscriminate punishment. Our faults will never conquer the faults of others. We must seek to deal with others as our Lord did. He loved the sinner, even when he hated the sin. His “gentleness hath made us great.”
II. INCULCATION OF THE DUTIES HERE SUGGESTED. Let us point out a few considerations which may help us to cultivate the temper of mind we have discussed.
1. Remember what sin is and what sin has done. It caused the loss of Paradise; it brought about the sickness and sorrows we suffer; it made our work hard and unproductive; it created discord between man and his fellow, between man and his God; it seemed so woeful in itself and its results, to him who knows all things, that the Son of God gave himself as a sacrifice to save us from its power; it is so stupendous in its nature and awful in its issues that it is not a subject for selfish irritation, but one respecting which pity should blend with indignation. He who has done you a wanton wrong has injured himself far more than he can injure you. Therefore, beware of peevish anger and sinful revenge, remembering the words of the Master, “Blessed are the meek,.. the merciful,.. the peacemakers,.. the persecuted for righteousness’ sake.”
2. Reflect on what sin might have done for you. How far character and reputation are affected by circumstances we cannot tell. But if we all have the same passions and evil propensities, our moral victory or defeat may depend largely on the degree of temptation which is permitted to assail us. We cherish a vindictive feeling against one who has offended his country’s laws, but possibly our own criminality might have been as great but for the good providence of God. Certain classes of sin are so harshly and indiscriminately condemned that she who commits them is only left to plunge more deeply into sin and misery. But perhaps temptations were great, and home defences were few and frail, and the first wrong step was taken ignorantly; and then there seemed no going back. The story of the weeping penitent at our Saviour’s feet is a rebuke to the want of pitifulness shown too often by the Christian Church.
3. See the nobility of the feeling here portrayed. To look with scorn, or with indifference, or with pleasure on sin, indicates a very low state of moral feeling. To burst forth with indignation against it is higher, but it is a sign of the youth of one’s virtue, the manhood of which is seen in Jesus Christ. Forbearance and gentleness are among the higher Christian graces. We expect them of the cultured nation rather than of a savage horde, of a mature man than of a half-disciplined child. “He who ruleth his own spirit is greater than he that taketh a city.” To control angry feeling within ourselves is the best means of helping us to control the evil deeds of others in our home and in the world.A.R.
Mar 3:5 (latter part)
“Stretch forth thy hand!”
There was no kind of pain which Jesus could not relieve, no kind of grief he could not assuage. Those who were regarded as unclean were welcomed, and those whom none could cure he healed. Like the heavenly Father, of whom he was “the express Image,” he was “kind to the unthankful and to the unworthy.” We will regard the restoration of the man with the withered hand to health and soundness as a typical example of what our gracious Lord is ever doing. It reminds us of the following truths respecting him:
I. OUR LORD GIVES STRENGTH FOR DAILY LABOUR. The apocryphal “Gospel according to the Hebrews” says that this sufferer was a mason by trade, and represents him as beseeching the Saviour to heal him in order that he might no longer be compelled to beg his daily bread. Be this as it may, he presented a piteous spectacle, for his limb was wasted, all power in it was gone as completely as if death had seized it, and he was without hope of cure. It was no small blessing to have that limb made in an instant “whole as the other;” for henceforth honest industry was possible. We too may thank God if what we have has been sweetened by the toil which has made it our own. He gives us power to get wealth. It is his kindly providence which saves us from eating the bitter bread of charity and dependence.
II. THE LORD GIVES STRENGTH FOR CHRISTIAN SERVICE. Until we feel his touch and bear his voice, we are towards religious work what this man was towards daily work. Many in our congregations in this sense have their hand withered. Some cannot put forth their hand to give to the poor, to minister to the sick, to lead others to the Saviour, to “subscribe with their hands to the Lord,” or even to lay hold on salvation. Their hand is withered. This paralysis or incapacity has its source in sin, in the selfishness which lives without love, in the pride which refuses to alter old habits, in the avarice which will hoard all it grasps, in the distrust of God that will make no venture. Only when God reveals the sin, and by his grace destroys it, can such be fit to serve him. But if Christ’s voice is heard, there will come the stirring of new strength, the uprising of a new purpose in life, and the question will rise to heaven, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?”
III. THE LORD OFTEN EFFECTS THIS IN HIS OWN HOUSE. As once Jesus was found in the synagogue, so now he is often found in the assembly of his people. After his resurrection he appeared amongst the praying disciples, and it was on those who had assembled together with one accord for prayer that the Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost. How often since, in our congregations, the power of the Lord has been present to heal us! Sin-laden souls have been relieved; the perplexed have been guided aright; those morally weak have renewed their strength by waiting upon God; hungry souls have been satisfied; and those dead in trespasses and sins have been quickened to new life. Therefore, let us go to his house constantly, reverently, expectantly, and he will bless us “above all that we ask or think.”
IV. THE LORD CONNECTS HIS HIGHER BLESSINGS WITH PROMPT AND FEARLESS OBEDIENCE TO HIS WORD. Directly Jesus saw the man with the withered hand, he said, “Stand forth!” It was a simple command, but not easy under the circumstances to obey. Jesus was a comparative stranger; the position of a crippled man, who was made the gazing-stock of a congregation, would be painful; and the Pharisees might be angered by obedience. But on the man’s part there was no hesitation. To the voice of authority he yielded at once, perhaps not without the stirring of new hope in his heart. This first act of obedience made the second more easy. After a few words to the Pharisees, our Lord spoke to him again, saying, “Stretch forth thy hand!” He might have urged that it was impossible for him to do that, and that the attempt would only cover him with ridicule. But faith was growing fast and courage with it. He made the effort, and with the effort came the strength; believing that through Christ he could do it, he did it, and his band was restored” whole as the other.” Many fail now through their want of this obedience of faith. They get no blessing because they neglect to obey the first command that comes to them. They want the assurance of salvation, the certain hope of heaven, and wonder that it does not come, though they have not obeyed the command. “Bow down in penitential prayer,” or “give up the sin you love.” Because they do not “stand forth in the midst,” they do not hear the command, “Stretch forth thy hand!” Be true to the impulse God gives, and then “to him that hath, to him shall be given yet more abundantly.” In that synagogue Christ was both a Stone of stumbling and a sure Foundation, over which some stumbled and others rose to higher things. We too may leave his presence, like the Pharisees, hardened, or like this man who, believing and obeying, became ready for the work God gave him to do. Which shall it be?A.R.
Mar 3:13, Mar 3:14
The helpers of Jesus.
Our Lord was fulfilling the prophecy Simeon had uttered concerning him. From the cradle to the cross he was “set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” As a new element introduced into a chemical solution will detect and separate the elements already there, so did Christ appear in the moral world. With growing distinctness his foes and friends became separate communities. “He called unto him” those who were ready for service, while those who were hostile became more pronounced in their hatred. The Pharisaic party, which began by the denial of his authority, tried next to disparage his character, and finally plotted his destruction. It is the tendency of sin thus to go onward toward deeper guilt. He who “stands in the way of sinners” at last “sits in the seat of the scornful.” So unscrupulous had the Pharisees become that (Mar 3:6) they even took counsel with the Herodians to destroy him. Professedly patriotic and orthodox, they united with the friends of the usurper; and (as so often since) priests and tyrants combined against the Christ. See how Christ met this hostility. He might have overwhelmed his foes by superhuman power, but he resolutely refused to use force against them (Mat 4:8-10; Mat 26:53, Mat 26:54). He might have defied them, and so hastened the crisis which ultimately came; but “his hour had not yet come,” for he had a ministry yet to fulfill. Hence he gave himself up to more private work, avoiding perils, although he never feared them, and labouring amongst the poor and obscure. Around him he gathered a few faithful ones, “that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach.” This text gives us some thoughts.
I. ON PREPARATION FOR SERVICE. See how our Lord prepared himself and his disciples. “He goeth up into a mountain”an expression which in the Gospels implies the withdrawal of our Lord from the people for the purpose of prayer. This preceded all his great deeds and sufferings, as was exemplified in the temptation and in the agony. It was fitting that the disciples should be appointed in a place of prayer. Apart from the world and near to God, we are ready to hear our Master’s words and receive his commission. From the height of communion with God we should come down to our work (Isa 52:7). His requirement of spiritual fitness for spiritual work is shown by his constant refusal of the testimony of demons (Mar 3:12): “He straitly charged them that they should not make him known.” This verse, immediately preceding our text, makes a suggestive contrast with it. He recoiled from an ambiguous confession. As the Holy One, he would not suffer the unclean to bear witness to him. The testimony was true, but the spirit that gave it was evil. These disciples were “ordained,” or more correctly (Revised Version) “appointed,” that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach. The former was the preparation for the latter. Only those who are in communion with Jesus can truly bear witness for him to the world.
II. ON ADVANTAGE IN FELLOWSHIP. The Lord himself cared for the sympathy and co-operation of others. Even in his direst agony he would not be without it (Mar 14:34). Much more was it necessary for his disciples to be associated in a common brotherhood; the beauty of which appears again and again to those who study the Acts and the Epistles. In the fellowship of the Church, one supplements the weakness of another; numbers increase enthusiasm and afford hope to the timid; intercourse with others removes one-sidedness of character, etc. See the teaching of St. Paul about the “body of Christ,” and “the temple of the Holy Spirit,” in which Christians are living stones, mutually dependent, and all resting on Christ.
III. ON DIVERSITIES AMONG DISCIPLES. Jesus chose “twelve” for special worka number probably selected as a reminder that they were primarily commissioned to be ambassadors to the twelve tribes, and as a type of the perfection of the redeemed Church (Rev 7:1-17.). But even in that comparatively small company, what diversities of gifts! Some of them are indicated even in the brief list of their names given here by St. Mark. We see the Rock-man, Peter; “the beloved disciple,” John; the fiery “sons of thunder;” the guileless Nathanael; the zealot Simon; and the traitor Judas. Each had his special gift and sphere. And still there are “diversities of gifts” amongst the Lord’s disciples.
IV. ON POSSIBILITIES OF PERIL. Judas Iscariot lived with Jesus, was called by him, possessed miraculous gifts, preached the gospel to others; but he died a traitor and a suicide. To fill a spiritual office, and yet to be careless of our own spiritual life, is fatal. “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.”A.R.
HOMILIES BY R. GREEN
Mar 3:7-35
Retirement.
In the calm and successful prosecution of his work, Jesus has excited various feelings in the minds of the different classes around him. He has wrought many miraclesall of them miracles of mercy; almost all, so far as recorded, miracles of healing. Of necessity his presence is hailed by the throngs of needy and suffering ones, and “his name is as ointment poured forth” to the multitudes who have proved his rower to heal. These cannot be restrained from publishing his fame abroad, though he has begged them to be silent, for he sees but too plainly the hindrance to his usefulness which a blaze of popularity would cause. In the course of his teaching he has made the Pharisees to blush more than once; and the popular movement which he seems likely to excite has stirred up the fears or the jealousies of the court party”the Herodians,” who join their own political antagonists in their opposition to him, and they together plot his destruction. His relatives, “friends,” including the highly honored one, “his mother, and his brethren,” are excited with fear that “he is beside himself,” for he allows not himself time to “so much as eat bread.” “Scribes from Jerusalem,” learned in the Law, the trained expounders of its sacred truths, and the authoritative adjudicators in matters of dispute, pass their judgment and verdict in explanation of the astounding facts which they cannot or dare not deny. “He is possessed,” they say, “by the very “prince of the devils.” He is the tool, the agent of Beelzebub himself, and ‘by the prince of the devils casteth he out the devils.'” This is truly a most ingenious though the most wicked of all explanations; a very blasphemy, ascribing the work of “the Holy Spirit” to “an unclean spirit,” and placing Jesus in the lowest category of alllower than the lowest. It affirms him to be the agent of the arch-demon, working his behests, the servant of the devil of devils. And if possession by an evil spirit is the consequence and punishment of evil work, as was the current opinion, he is surely the worst of the bad. All this needs adjustment. The anger of some, the timidity, the fears, the indiscreet zeal, the error, the false views, and the wickedness of others, must all be corrected. For this purpose he, “with his disciples,” withdraws “to the sea,” where, “because of the crowd, lest they should throng him,” he orders that in future “a little boat should wait on him;” by which means he can escape the press, and either teach from the boat or sail away for rest and quiet. At eventide “he goeth up into the mountain,” where he continues “all night in prayer to God;” needful in the midst of so much pressure and excitement, and most fitting in anticipation of the great work of the morrow. Then, when the morning breaks, he calls his disciples to him, from whom he chooses twelve, “that they might be with him,” for his own comfort and for purposes of training for future service in his kingdom, “and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have authority to cast out devils, and to heal all manner of disease, and all manner of sickness.” These “he named apostles,” and “appointed,” and “sent forth,” and “charged them.” Then, with awful withering words, he silences the scribes, first by argument, showing that on their own ground the divided kingdom “hath an end;” then by pointing to the “eternal sin” which he committeth who thus “shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit,” and who “hath never forgiveness.” And now, turning to his anxious relatives, he asks and answers the question, “Who is my mother and my brethren?” Breaking loose from the bonds of mere natural relationship, he declares that he holds the closest alliance with “whosoever shall do the will of God.” From all which every true disciple treading in his Master’s steps, and hearkening to his Master’s teaching, may learn:
1. The wisdom of frequent withdrawal from the excitements of life into calm, quieting intercourse with God in prayer, to the cooling contemplation of the Divine works, and the humbling communion with his own soul.
2. The sacredness of holy companionship; and, if he is called to teach great truths, the wisdom of gathering around him a few sympathetic spirits, and sharing with them his work and honor for the general good.
3. The necessity for keeping his mind sensitively alive to the teachings of the Holy Spirit, lest, resisting, he grieve him, and quench the only light by which the path of life may be found.
4. To learn the terrible peril to which he exposes himself who “puts darkness for light.”
5. And joyfully to see the high calling which is of God, the close alliance with the Lord Christ which is secured to him who keeps the commandments of God, concerning whom the Lord says, “The same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”G.
HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON
Mar 3:1-6
Sabbath observance.
I. THE SABBATH MAY BE OBSERVED TO THE LETTER WHILE BROKEN IN THE SPIRIT. Here were men watching to see whether a man would dare to do a loving deed! The letter, which can never be more than the expression of the spirit, must be kept at all costsexcept that of the literalists. There are pedants who will quarrel with a great writer because he departs from the “rules of grammar,” forgetting that grammar is but a collection of observations of the best that has been written. So there are ritualists who will slander a good man because he neglects rites for the sake of going to the root of all rites.
II. CENSORIOUSNESS THE CERTAIN SYMPTOM OF SELF–DISCONTENT. Why do we want to find fault with others? Because we are not satisfied with ourselves. We must either feed on a good conscience or on the semblance of it. And it seems that we are better than others whenever we can put them in an unfavourable light.
III. EMULATION AND ENVY ARE NEAR AKIN. We are jealous of great successes. Jealousy is natural enough. It depends on the will whether the effects be good or evil on ourselves. A noble deed! let me seek to imitate it and share the blessedness of it: this is good. A noble deed! let me extinguish the author of it, who shames me: this of the devil, devilish; of hell, hellish. The ideal Christian and the ideal Pharisee are in eternal opposition. Goodness produces one of two effects in uswe long to embrace it and possess it, or to kill
Mar 3:7-12
Testimony of evil to goodness.
I. ITS SINCERITY. We see many coming to Christ who thought they could get an immediate good from him. Others kept aloof who doubted what good could come, what evil might come, from the intercourse. The devils, whether for good or evil, “rush to Jesus.” Whenever there is such a “rush,” something significant is stirring.
II. ITS IRRESISTIBLE CHARACTER. There are men, there are movements, which are advertised by the evil they elicit from the latent depths of the heart. Observe the man who is hated, and by whom; observe the man who is loved, and by whom. Note the center of attraction, and for what sort of people; the center of repulsion, and what sort of people; and you have a clue to important truths. Christ is illustrated by all these rules. Who were they who approached him in love then? who now? What were the instincts arrayed against himthen and now?J.
Mar 3:13-19
The need of missionaries.
I. POPULARIZERS OF GREAT DOCTRINES ARE NECESSARY in every branch of science, art, literature, religion. Where would the sublime doctrine we call the gospel have been, as an influence, had there not been found men to make it “current coin”?
II. SECOND–HAND INSTRUMENTALITY PLAYS A LARGE PART IS THE SPIRITUAL WORLD. Few are the leaders or generals, many the officers, multitudinous the rank and file; but every soldier who is in living contact with the Leader’s spirit may and will work marvels.
III. FEEBLENESS BECOMES STRENGTH WHEN INSPIRED BY ORIGINAL FORCE. These were humble men, yet their names live. They were reflections of Christ, as he was the Reflection of the power and love of God.
IV. THERE IS A MORAL MIXTURE IN EVERY RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT. A Judas among the apostles. Something of a Judas even in every apostle’s heart. Light contends with darkness in the twilight before each great historical dawn. The characters of great religious reformers have often been mixed and dubious. There is a traitor in every camp, a doubtful element in every good man’s life.J.
Mar 3:20-30
The sin against the Holy Spirit.
I. THE CHARGE AGAINST JESUS. He holds to Beelzebub, and by the chief of demons casts out demons.
1. It was absurd; but absurd arguments readily satisfy passion and hate and those who have no care for the truth. They accused the Saviour, in short, of a self-contradiction in thought and action, which was a moral impossibility.
2. It was wicked. It had the worst element of the lie in itit denied the truth within them.
II. THE WORST DEGREE OF SIN. Sin has its scale, its climax. There are sins of instinct and of passion and of ignorance. When there is little light to be guided by there is little light to sin against. The next step in sin is where there is deliberation before the wrong is done. Last and worst is where not only the deliberate judgment is gone against, but the attempt is made to deny the principle of judgment in the soul itself. The hands of the watch move backwards; the lamp flags with the very abundance of oil; the man’s soul dies. Over against the words “Repent! be forgiven!” stand these, “Irreclaimable! unforgivable!”J.
Mar 3:31-35
Kinship to Jesus.
I. FIRST THAT WHICH IS NATURAL, AFTERWARDS THAT WHICH IS SPIRITUAL. This is one order. Our spiritual being is built up on a natural basis. Slowly the bud of the higher being unfolds from the plant of earthly root. Through the home to the Church; by the love of mother and brother and sister, to the love of God and of all.
II. FIRST THE SPIRITUAL, AFTERWARDS THE NATURAL. This is the order in another way. The end of our being is in the spiritual; this is its dignity, its reflection of the Divine. It claims the first thought, other things being equal. When friends stand in the way of duty, between us and the light of truth, we must be true to the higher self. It may seem a stern rule, until we find that every low affection we renounced for the higher is given hack to us bathed in a new glory.J.
HOMILIES BY J.J. GIVEN
Mar 3:1-6
Parallel passages: Mat 12:9-14; Luk 6:6-11.
The man with the withered hand.
I. THE NATURE OF THE DISEASE. It was a case of severe paralysis of the handthe right hand, as St. Luke, with a physician’s accuracy, informs us. The sinews were shrunken, and the hand shrivelled and dried up. And yet we owe to St. Mark’s great particularity in narration and minuteness of detail a piece of information that one might rather have expected from the professional skill of “the beloved physician,” Luke. St. Luke, as well as St. Matthew, uses an adjective (, equivalent to dry) to describe, in a general way, the state of the diseased member; but St. Mark employs the participle of the perfect passive (, equivalent to having been dried up), which furnishes a hint as to the origin of the ailment. While from the expression of the former two evangelists we might conclude that the ailment was congenitalthat the man was born with it; we are enabled, by the term made use of in the Gospel before us, to correct that conclusion, and to trace this defect of the hand as the result of disease or of accident.
II. VARIETY OF DISEASES. The multitude of “ills that flesh is heir to” is truly wonderful; the variety of diseases that afflict poor frail humanity is astonishing. Whatever be the place of our abode, or wherever we travel, we find our fellow-creatures subject to weakness, pains, physical defects, wasting all sense, pining sickness, and bodily ailments, too many and too various to enumerate. No continent, no island, no zone of earth, is exempt. The greatest salubrity of climate, though it may somewhat diminish the number, does not do away with cases of the kind. Though our lot be cast amid the mildness of Southern climes, or under the clear bright sky of Eastern lands; though our dwelling-place be
“Far from the winters of the West, still we find ourselves within the reach of those infirmities that seem the common of man. We cannot read far in the Gospels, or trace the ministry of our Lord to much length, until we find him surrounded by and ministering to whole troops of invalids and impotent folk.
III. SOURCE OF ALL DISEASES. If there were no sin there would be no sorrow, and if there were no sin there would be no sickness. The effects of sin extend to both body and soul. Sin has brought disease as well as death into the world, as we read, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death hath passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” As death has thus passed upon all men, so disease, more or less aggravated, at one time or other, has become the lot of all; for what are pain and disease and sickness but forerunners, remote it may be, of death, and forfeitures of sin? The original punitive sentence was not Moth tumath,” Thou shalt be put to death,” that is, immediately or instantaneously; but Moth tamuth, “Thou shalt die,” namely, by a process now commenced, and, though slow, yet sure; for sin has planted the germ of death in the system. It is as though, simultaneously with the breath of life, the process of decay and death began, part after part wasting away in consequence of disease or in the so-called course of nature, till the vital spark at last becomes extinct, and “the dust returns to the earth as it was.” A heathen poet preserves the remnant of an old tradition, which, like many of the traditions of heathenism, is evidently a dispersed and distorted ray from the light of revelation. He tells us that a crowd of wasting diseases invaded this earth’s inhabitants in consequence of crime; while a Christian poet speaks of that lazar-house which sin has erected on our earth, “wherein are laid numbers of all diseased, all maladies,.. and where dire are the tossings, deep the groans.” But for transgression manhood would have remained in all its original health and vigor and perfection, like “Adam, the goodliest man of men since born his sons;” and womanhood would have retained all the primitive grace and loveliness and beauty that bloomed in “the fairest of her daughters, Eve.”
IV. TIME AND PLACE OF THE CURE. The time was the sabbath day; and this was one of the seven miracles which our Lord performed on the sabbath. Of these St. Mark records threethe cure of the demoniac at Capernaum, the cure of fever in the case of Peter’s mother-in-law, and the cure of the withered hand; the former two recorded in the first chapter of this Gospel, and the last in the passage under consideration. Two more of the sabbath-day miracles are recorded by St. Lukethe cure of the woman afflicted with the spirit of infirmity, and also of the man who had the disease of dropsy; the former in the thirteenth and the latter in the fourteenth chapter of St. Luke’s Gospel. Besides these, two more are recorded by St. Johnthe recovery of the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, and the restoration of sight to the man born blind; the former in the fifth and the latter in the ninth chapter of St. John’s Gospel. Our Lord had vindicated his disciples for plucking the cars of corn on the sabbath; he had now to vindicate himself for the miracle of healing, which he was about to perform also on the sabbath. The place where he was going to perform this miracle was the synagogue.
V. PERSONS PRESENT AT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CURE, This is a most important item in the narrative, and a most important element in the transaction. There was a multitude present, and that multitude consisted of foes as well as friends. It could not, therefore, be said that the thing was done in a corner, or that it was done only in the presence of friends, with whom collusion or connivance might possibly be suspected. The persons, then, in whose presence this cure was effected were the worshippers on that sabbath day in the synagoguea goodly number, no doubt, comprehending not only those who assembled ordinarily for the sabbath service, but many more drawn together by the rumors about the great Miracle-worker and in expectation of some manifestation of his wonder-working power. But besides these ordinary worshippers and these curiosity-mongers, as perhaps we may designate them, there were othersthe scribes and Pharisees, as we learn from St. Lukewhose motive was malignancy, and whose business on that occasion was espionage. They kept watching our Lord closely and intently () to see if he should heal on the sabbath; not in admiration of his wondrous power, nor in gratitude for his marvellous goodness, but in order to find some ground of accusation against him.
VI. OBJECTION TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CURE ON THE SABBATH. In pursuance of their plan, they anticipated our Lord, as we learn from St. Matthew, with the question, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?” Our Lord, in reply, as we are informed in the same Gospel, appealed to their feelings of humanity and to the exercise of mercy which men usually extend even to a dumb animala sheep, which, if it fall into a pit on the sabbath, is laid hold of and lifted out. The superiority of a man to a sheep justifies a still greater exercise of mercy, even on the sabbath. But to their captious and ensnaring question he made further answer, replying, as was his wont, by a counter-question, “Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath day, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill?” The alternative here is between doing good and doing evil, or, putting an extreme case, between saving a life and destroying it ( in St. Luke). We may observe, in passing, that the received text, which reads in this passage of St. Luke’s Gospel, admits one or other of the two following renderings, according to the punctuation: either
(1) “I will ask you, further, What is allowable on the sabbathto do good or to do evil?” or
(2) “I will ask you, further, a certain thing: Is it allowable on the sabbath to do good or to do evil?” The first is favored by being nearly the same as the Peshito-Syriac, which is to the effect, “I will ask you what is it allowable to do on the sabbath? What is good or what is bad?” But the critical editors, Lachmann, Tisehendorf, and Tregelles, read ), and the latter two have the present of the verb, viz. . Of course the translation of the text thus constituted is, “I ask you, further, if it is allowable on the sabbath to do good or to do evilto save a life or to destroy?” With this the Vulgate coincides, as follows:Interrogo yes, si licet sabbatis benefacere an male: animam salvam facere, an perdere? This was a home-thrust to these deceitful, wicked men who, while he was preparing to restore a human being to the full enjoyment of life in the unimpeded and unimpaired use of all his members, were murderously plotting the destruction of the great Physician’s own life. No wonder they were silenced, as St. Mark tells us, for they must have been conscience-stricken, at least in some measure. At all events, they were confuted and confounded, but not converted, though they maintained a stolid, sullen silence. The question of our Lord left them in a dilemma. They could not deny that it was disallowable to do evil on any day, still more on the sabbath, for the holiness of the day aggravated the guilt; and yet they were seeking means of inflicting the greatest evileven the destruction of life. They could not deny that it was allowable to do good on any day, especially on the sabbath; for the good deed, if not enhanced by, was fully in keeping with, the goodness of the day on which it was done. They found themselves shut up to the inevitable conclusion that it was not unlawful to do good on the sabbath day. And so our Lord turns to the performance of that good act on which he had determined, but which they in heart disallowed, notwithstanding their enforced silence or their seeming to give consent.
VII. MODE OF PREPARATION FOR THE CURE. He commanded the man who had his hand withered to stand forth. This was a somewhat trying ordeal for that poor disabled man. Standing forward, he became the gazing-stock of all eyes. He thereby made himself and his peculiar defect conspicuous. He thus practically confessed his helplessness and eagerness for relief. There he stood, an object of heartless curiosity to some, an object of contempt to others; the scrutinizing looks of some, the scowling glances of others, were fixed upon him. Few like to be thus looked out of countenance. Besides, in addition to all this, he was publicly expressing confidence in the ability of the Physician, and so exposing himself to like condemnation. And then there was the contingency of failure. What of that? The man must have had some, yea, much, moral courage to brave all this. Thus it is with all who will come to Christ with earnestness of spirit and manfully confess him. False shame must be laid aside. The scowl of enemies, perhaps the sneer of friends, the scorn of the world, may be calculated on and contemned; much must be done and dared in this direction. Yet the true confessor will not shrink from all this, and more. His spirit is
“I’m not ashamed to own my Lord
Or to defend his cause,
Maintain the glory of his cross,
And honor all his laws.”
VIII. OUR LORD‘S LOOK WHEN PROCEEDING TO PERFORM THE CURE. The man was now standing forth in the midst, with the eyes of all present fastened on him. Our Lord, before actually speaking the word of healing power, looked round upon the persons presentupon all of them, as St. Luke informs us. There was deep meaning in that look. The expression of that look needed an interpreter, and so St. Mark tells us that the feelings which that intent and earnest look into every man’s thee gave expression to were twofoldthere was anger and there was grief at the same time. This at, get was righteous indignation; as the apostle says, “Be angry and sin not.” This anger was incurred by the wicked malevolence which the Saviour, in his omniscience, read in the dark hearts of those dark-visaged men; for, as St. Luke reminds us, “he knew their thoughts,” or rather their reasonings. But there was grief as well.
1. Though the compound verb is interpreted by some as identical with the simple form, yet the prepositional element cannot be thus overlooked, but must add somewhat to the meaning of the whole.
2. This additional significancy, however., may be variously understood. The preposition may mean
(1) that he grieved with and so within himselfin his own spirit; or
(2) that his grief was simultaneous with his anger and accompanied it; or
(3) that, angry though he was, he grieved nevertheless or sympathized with them. The ground of this complex feeling was the hardness of their hearts. The root-word denotes a kind of stone, then a chalkstone, also a callus, or substance exuding from fractured bones and joining their extremities; and the derivative noun, which occurs here, is the process of reuniting by a callus, then hardening, hardness, callousness; while the verb signifies to petrify, harden, or make callous. This hard-heartedness is thus a gradual, not an instantaneous, formation. It is a process which may commence with some small omission or trifling commission; but in either case it continues unless checked by gracethe once soft becoming hard, and the hard yet harder, till it is consummated in fearful obduracy of heart or complete callousness of the moral nature.
IX. THE CURE PERFORMED. “Stretch forth thy hand!” is the command; and as the aorist imperative, used here, generally denotes a speedy execution of the order given, like o phrase, “Have it done!” the command amounted to “Stretch forth thy hand at once!” How unreasonable this command, at the first blush of the matter, appears! Many a time the attempt had been made, but in vain; many a time before he had tried to stretch it out, but that withered hand had refused obedience to the volitions of the will. Was not the Saviour’s command, then, strange and unnatural in bidding him extend a hand that had long lost the proper power of motion; a hand crippled and contracted in every joint, shrunken and shrivelled in every partin a word, completely lifeless and motionless? And yet this man did not cavil nor question; he did not doubt nor delay. Soon as the mandate came he made the effort; soon as the command was uttered, hard as it must have seemed, he essayed compliance; and no sooner is compliance attempted than the cure is effected, Divine, power accompanying the command, or rather both acting with simultaneous effect. Thus his word was a word of power, as we read, “He sent his word and healed them.” And now the tendons are unbound, the nerves act, the muscles are suppled, the vital fluid flows once more along the reopened channel. Thus it was brought back again to what it once was; in power, appearance, and use it was restored to its original condition, whole and sound.
X. CONSEQUENT ON THE CURE WAS AN UNNATURAL, COALITION. The enemies were filled with folly, wicked and senseless folly (), but not madness, as it is generally understood, for that would properly be . They felt humiliated in the presence of so many people. Their pride was humbled, for they were silenced; their logic was shown to be shallow, for with them “to do or not to do”that was the question; but our Lord showed them that” to do good or not to do good, while not to do good was tantamount to doing evil,” was in reality the question; and so they were put to shame. They were disappointed, moreover, for they were deprived of any ground whereon to found an accusation, because, in the mode of effecting the cure, there had been no touch, no contact of any kind, no external means usednothing but a word, so that even the letter of the Law had been in no way infringed. In their desperation they communed one with another, held a council, or, as St. Mark informs us more explicitly, “took or made counsel with the Herodians.” Misfortune, according to an old saw, brings men into acquaintance with strange associates, and never more so than on this occasion. In theology the Herodians, as far as they held any theological opinions, fraternized with the Sadducees, the latitudinarians of that day; in politics they were adherents of Herod Antipas, and so advocates of the Roman domination. To both these the Pharisees were diametrically opposed. Yet now they enter into an unholy alliance with those who were at once their political opponents and religious antagonists. Nor was this the only time that extremes met and leagued themselves against Christ and his cause. Herod and Pilate mutually sacrificed their feelings of hostility, and confederated against the Lord and his Anointed. It has been thought strange that Luke, who from his acquaintance with Manaen, the foster-brother of Herod the Tetrarch, had special facilities for knowledge of the Herods, their family relations, and friends, omits this alliance of the Herodians with the Pharisees; while it has been surmised that, from that very acquaintance, sprang a delicacy of feeling that made the evangelist loth to record their hostility to Christ.
XI. LESSONS TO BE LEARNT FROM THIS SECTION.
1. The first lesson we learn here is the multitude of witnesses that are watching the movements of the disciples of Christ; for as it was with the Master so is it with ourselves. The eye of God is upon us, according to the language of ancient piety, “Thou God seest us;” the eyes of angels are upon us to aid us with their blessed and beneficent ministries; the eyes of good men are upon us to cheer us onward and help us forward; the eyes of bad men are upon us to mark our halting and take advantage of our errors; the eyes of Satan and his servantsevil angels as well as evil menare upon us to entrap us by their machinations and gloat over our fall. How vigilant, then, must we be, watching and praying that we fall not into, nor succumb to, temptation!
2. In every case of spiritual withering we know the Physician to whom we must apply. Has our faith been withering, or has it lost aught of its freshness? we pray him to help our unbelief and increase our faith. Has our love been withering and languishing? we must seek from him a renewal of the love of our espousals, and meditate on him till in our hearts there is rekindled a flame of heavenly love to him who first loved us. Is our zeal for the Divine glory, or our activity in the Divine service, withering and decaying? then we must seek grace to repent and do our first works, stretching out at Christ’s command the withered hand to Christian work, whether it be the resumption of neglected duty, or the rendering of needful help, or relieving the wants of the indigent, or wiping away the tears of the sorrowing, or usefulness of whatever kind in our day and generation, or honest endeavors to leave the world better than we found it.
3. It is well worthy of notice that if we are doing no good we are doing evil; nay, if we are doing nothing, we are doing evil; still more, if we are not engaged at least in helping to save, we are guilty of abetting, if not actually causing destruction. Let us, then, be “not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord.”
4. The mercifulness of the Saviour is an encouragement to faith and obedience. With his anger against sin was mingled grief for sinners’ hardness of heart. Many a tear he shed for perishing souls in the days of his flesh. He dropped a tear at the grave of a beloved friendonly dropped a silent tear (); but over the impenitent inhabitants of a doomed city his eyes brimmed over with tears and he wept aloud, for we there read . In this restoration of the withered hand we have evidence of the Saviour’s gracious disposition, a warrant to take him at his word, and a guarantee that when he gives a precept he will grant power for its performance.
5. Divine power was here displayed in human weakness. The sinner has a warrant to believe, and in responding to that warrant he realizes Divine help; in his willingness to obey he experiences Divine power; in his earnest entreating Christ for strength to believe, he is actually and already exercising a reliance on Christ for salvation. Divine power harmonized with the faith of this afflicted man, and the Saviour’s strength made itself manifest in his obedience. And yet faith lays claim to no inherent power; it is, on the contrary, human weakness laying hold of Divine strength. Its potency is derived entirely from that on which it rests; believing the Word of God, trusting in the Son of God, relying on aid from the Spirit of God, it surmounts every obstacle, overcomes every difficulty, and triumphs over every enemy. It is a principle that develops most wonderful potencies for good; in its exercise we cress the borderland that lies between the humanly impossible and heavenly possibilities; for “what is the victory that overcometh the world? Even our faith.”J.J.G.
Mar 3:7-12
Parallel passage: Mat 12:15-21.
Popularity of Christ on the increase.
I. THE POPULARITY OF JESUS. It was ever increasing, as is proved by this passage. A great multitude followed him from Galilee in the north; from Judaea and its capital in a central position; and from Idumaea in the far south, situated as it was between Judaea, Arabia, and Egypt; then from Peraea, east of the Jordan; the people of Tyre and Sidon also in the north-west;all these, attracted by the fame of what Jesus was doing, flocked unto him. So great were the multitude and pressure that he directed his disciples to procure a little boat to keep close to him in order to escape the crowding ( ) and consequent confusion.
II. His power to heal. This appears to be as yet the main attraction. The miracles of healing were abundant, so much so that the afflicted sufferers actually fell against him (), that by the contact their plagues might be removed. Unclean spirits also, wherever they saw him, kept falling down before him, crying out, “Thou art the of God.”
III. PECULIARITY OF THE SYRIAC VERSION IN THIS PLACE. It strangely combines the two last classes in its rendering, namely, “Those that had plagues of unclean spirits, as often as they saw him, kept falling down before him.” Our Lord, however, invariably reprobated and rejected their testimony, as if there were something insidious in it or injurious to his cause.
IV. THE PHYSICAL HEALTH RESTORED TO SO MANY AFFLICTED BODIES WAS A GUARANTEE OF SPIRITUAL HEALTH FOR THE SOUL. In all the ages, and in all the annals of medical science, and in all the countries of the world, we have account of one Physician, and only one, who was able to lay his hand on the aching head and diseased heart of suffering humanity, bringing immediate cure and effectual relief. No malady could resist his healing power, no sickness withstand his touch, and no illness remain incurable once he but spoke the word. No disease, however deep-seated in the system, or deadly in its nature, or inveterate from long duration, could baffle his skill or defy his power. Whether it was palsy, or dropsy, or asthma, or convulsions, or ulceration, or bloody issue, or fever, or even consumption, or, what was still worse, leprosy itself,whatever the form of disease might be, he cured it. Persons labouring under organic defectsthe deaf, the dumb, the blind, the lamewere brought to him, and he removed all those defects. Mental ailments also, as lunacy and demoniacal possession, all were relieved by him. Sometimes it was a word, sometimes a touch, again some external appliance, not as a remedy but to act as a conductor, or to show a connection instituted between the operator and the patient, but, whatever was the plan adopted, the power never failed to produce the desired effect. Now, whatever he did in this way to the body is proof positive of his ability and willingness to do the same and more for the soul. We may be diseased with sin so as to be loathsome in our own eyes and morally infectious to our neighbors and acquaintances; we may be leprous with sin so as to be cut off from the fellowship of the saints and the communion of the holy; we may be under the ban of man and the curse of heaven; yet if we approach this great Physician of soul as well as body, confiding in his power and trusting in his mercy, we shall obtain, and that without fail, healing and health for our diseased spirits and sin-sick souls. Thousands alive this day can testify from actual happy experience to the healing power of Jesus’ word, the cleansing efficacy of his blood, and the renewing, purifying, and sanctifying influences of his Spirit. Millions this day in the realms of bliss above are enjoying the health and the happiness, the brightness and the beauty, the purity and perfection of that upper sanctuary, though on earth the diseases of their souls had been of the most desperate characterutterly incurable had it not been for the mercy and grace of this great Physician. And he is still the same”the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever,” and able as ever to “save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him.”
V. A RECONCILIATION. It is thought by some that a discrepancy exists between the fourth verse of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah and the seventeenth verse of the eighth chapter of St. Matthew. But if we take the first clause of each verse as referring to bodily diseases, and the second clause to the diseases of the mind or soul, we shall have an instructive harmony in place of an insuperable difficulty or seeming discrepancy. The verbs will then be most suitable and appropriate: the nasa of the Hebrew, being general in its meaning, to take up in any way, or to take up in order to take away, will correspond in its generality of signification to , to take in any way; while saval, for which of St. Matthew is an exact equivalent, is to bear as a burden. “Thus,” says Archbishop Magee, in his invaluable work on the Atonement, “are Isaiah and Matthew perfectly reconciled; the first clause in each relating to diseases removed, and the second to sufferings endured.“ Thus too there is a close correlation between the removal of the diseases of the body and the expiation of the sins of our souls.J.J.G.
Mar 3:13-19
Parallel passages: Mat 10:2-4; Luk 6:12-19.
The choosing of the twelve.
I. THE CHOICE AND ITS OBJECT. The Saviour ascends the mountain that was near at hand, probably Karun Hattin, “and calls to him whom he wished.” At once they went off away (), leaving other things, and turning to him as their sole object. Of these he appointed, or ordainedthough the original word is more simple, viz. “he made “twelve for a threefold purpose:
(1) to “be with him,” to keep him company, assisting him and sympathizing with him;
(2) to be his messengers to men, heralding the good news of salvation; and
(3) to alleviate miraculously human miserycuring diseases and expelling demons.
II. THE LIST OF NAMES. The order and meaning of the names require only a few remarks. The twelve are distributed into three classes. Simon, the Hearer, whom our Lord surnamed the Rock-man, heads the first class; next to him were James, the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, both of whom were surnamed Boanerges, “Sons of Thunder,” that is, bene (oa equivalent to e) regesh; and Andrew. The second class is headed by Philip; then comes Bartholomew, which means the son of Tolmai, the word being a patronymicin all probability the person meant was Nathanael, the proper name of the same; also Matthew and Thomas. The third class begins with James the son of Alphaeus; then Judas, surnamed Thaddseus, or Lebbseus, the Courageous; and Simon the Kananite, that is, the Zealot, not a Canaanite; while Judas Iscariot, that is, the man of Kerioth, the traitor, is the last in every list.J.J.G.
Mar 3:20-30
Parallel passages: Mat 12:22-37; Luk 11:14-23.
Mistaken friends and malignant foes.
I. MISTAKEN FRIENDS.
1. The connection. Between the appointment of the apostles and the transactions here narrated several important matters intervened. There was the sermon on the mount, recorded in the Gospel of St. Matthew, chs. 5-7; and an abridgment or modification of the same repeated in the Gospel of St. Luke, Luk 6:17-49. Next followed the events recorded throughout the seventh chapter of St. Luke, and which were as follows:The cure of the centurion’s servant; the restoration to life of the widow’s son of Nain; the message sent by John the Baptist; the dinner in the house of Simon, with the anointing by a woman who had been a stoner. Previously to this last had been the doom pronounced on the impenitent cities, narrated by St. Matthew in Mat 11:1-30. towards the end; the second circuit through Galilee, of which we read in Luk 8:1-56., at the beginning; while immediately before, and indeed leading to, the circumstances mentioned in this section was the healing of a blind and dumb demoniac.
2. The concourse. Our Lord had just returned, not into the house of some believer, as Euthymius thinks; nor into the house in which he made his abode while at Capernaum, as this meaning would require the article; but more generally, “to home,” as in Mar 2:1. And no sooner is his return reported than he is followed by a great concourse of people. Again a crowd, as on several previous occasions, especially that mentioned in Mar 2:2, when “there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door,” pressed after him. Such was the curiosity of the crowd, and so great their eagerness, that no opportunity was allowed our Lord and his apostles to enjoy their ordinary repasts; “they could not so much as eat bread.” This rendering corresponds to that of the Peshito, which omits the second and strengthening negative, for, while in Greek a negative is neutralized by a subsequent simple negative of the same kind, it is continued and intensified by a following compound negative of the same kind. The meaning, therefore, is stronger, whether we read or ; thus, “They were able, no, not () to eat bread;” or, stronger still, “They could not even () eat bread,” much less find leisure to attend to anything else: though, it may be observed in passing, if were the right reading, the meaning would rather be that they were neither able nor did eat bread. In fact, the crowd was so great, so continuous, so obtrusive, that no time was allowed our Lord and his apostles for their ordinary and necessary meals. From this we learn that our Lord’s popularity was steadily as well as rapidly increasing, and that the excitement, instead of diminishing, was daily, nay, hourly, intensifying.
3. The concern of our Lord‘s kinsfolk. Hearing of this wonderful excitement which the presence of Jesus was everywhere occasioning, his friends or kinsmen were alarmed by the circumstance; and, dreading the effect of such excitement upon his physical constitutionfearing, no doubt, that he might be carried away by his enthusiasm and zeal beyond the measure of his bodily strength, and even to the detriment of his mental powersour Lord’s relations went forth to check his excessive efforts and repress his superabundant ardor. The statement is either general, that is to say, “they went forth,” or it may be understood in the stricter sense of their coming out of their place of abode, probably Nazareth, or possibly Capernaum. The expression, , according to ordinary usage, would mean persons sent by him or away from him, as , in Thucydides, is “the messengers of Nicias.” But the expression cannot mean
(1) his apostles, who though sent out by him and selected for this purpose, as we read in vet. 14, were now with him in the house; nor can it mean
(2) his disciples, or those about him, for this would confound the expression with . It must, it appears, be taken to signify his kinsmenthe sense assigned to it by most commentators, ancient and modern. And, though this is a rare use of the expression, it is not quite without parallels, as for example in Susanna, verse 33, , “but her friends wept;” and in this Gospel, Mar 5:26, is “all the things from with her,” that is, all her resources”all her living,” as we read in the parallel passage of St. Luke.
4. Their course of action. We have now to consider their course of action or mode of procedure, and the object which they had in view. They went out to lay hold of him, and so
(1) to put him under salutary restraint, if the literal meaning of supposed derangement be adhered to. It may indeed mean
(2) to hold him back from such superhuman efforts, in consequence of their believing him to be in an unnatural and abnormal state of mind or body, or both. But, though the word rendered “he is beside himself” is often used in that sense, sometimes elliptically as here and in 2Co 5:13, but mostly in conjunction with , or , or , and so equivalent to , still it may be employed figuratively, and merely import that he was transported too far. What with the watchings of the preceding night, and the lastings of that morning, and his unceasing labours in addressing his newly chosen apostles, preaching to the people, and working miracles, all of which we learn, by a comparison with the sixth chapter of St. Luke, both mind and body must have been taxed to the utmost, the strain was excessive, they thought, and far too great to be long borne; and so an earnest but friendly interference was deemed by them to be necessary. There is, however,
(3) another view of the matter, which some prefer. They understand the word as equivalent to or , and to denote fainting from bodily exhaustion, and consequently the object of his kinsfolk was to support and sustain him (). But some resort to the still more questionable expedient of changing the object of the verb just mentioned, and so understanding
(4) that his disciples went out to repress the crowd, for they (i.e. the disciples) said, “It [the crowd] is mad.” This last (4) view is untenable; the preceding one (3) is not well supported; the one going before it (2) is plausible, but rather specious than sound; while the first (1) alone, notwithstanding the difficulty it presents in connection with our Lord’s relatives, is the plain and natural meaning of the expression.
5. Their confined notions of religion. It is painfully manifest that the kinsfolk of our Lord entertained very contracted and very commonplace, or rather indeed low, ideas of religion. They were very imperfectly acquainted with the great object of Jesus’ mission; their notions of his work were of the crudest kind; their faith, if at this period it existed at all, must have been in a very incipient state. Their anxiety at the same time for his safety, and their alarm at the public agitation and the probable upshot of that agitation, all combined to force on them the conclusion that he was on the border between fanaticism and frenzy, or that he had actually made the transition into the region of the latter.
6. A common experience. We find in this mistake no new or very strange experience. The Rev. Rowland Hill, on one occasion, strained his voice, raising it to the highest pitch, in order to warn some persons of impending danger, and so rescued them from peril. For this he was warmly applauded, as he deserved. But when he elevated his voice to a similar pitch in warning sinners of the error and evil of their ways, and in order to save their souls from a still greater peril, the same friends who before had praised him now pronounced him fool and fanatic.
II. MALIGNANT FOES.
1. The charge of the scribes. The evangelist never suppresses truth; he keeps nothing back, however harsh or unnatural it may at first sight appear. Having shown the effect of the Saviour’s ministry on his friends, he proceeds to exhibit the impression it made on his foes. A notable miracle had been performed, as we learn from St. Matthew’s Gospel, Mat 12:22, a blind and dumb demoniacsad complicationhad been cured. Now, there are two ways in which men diminish the merit of a good quality, and destroy the credit of a noble actiondenial is the one, and depreciation is the other. The scribes, or theologians, of the Pharisaic sect, had come down as emissaries from the metropolis, to dog our Saviour’s steps and destroy, if they could, his influence. Had denial of the miracle been possible, it is plain they would have adopted that course; but facts are stubborn things, and denial in the face of facts is impossible. The miracle was too plain, too palpable, and too public to admit denial. The next best thing for their nefarious purpose was depreciation or detraction. “He casteth out devils,” they saythey could not deny this; “but he hath Beelzebub, and in union () with him, or by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils,” or rather “demons,” as we have already seen. Beelzebub was the god of Ekron, and got this name from the supposed power which he possessed to ward off flies, like the Latin averrunci or the Greek , who were named averters, which those words signify, as though they possessed the power of averting disease or pestilence from their worshippers. But the name Beelzebub was changed, contemptuously and insultingly no doubt, into Beelzebul, the god of dung; nor is the affinity between the god of flies and the god of the dunghill difficult to discover, while the filth of idolatry is not obscurely implied. Now, this name was given to the evil one, whose proper name is either Satan the adversary, in Hebrew, or Diabolos the accuser, in Greek. Other names he also bears, such as “prince of darkness,” “prince of the power of the air,” “the tempter,” “the God of this world,” “the old serpent,” “the dragon,” and Belial. All of these, more or less indicate his hostility to God and man, his opposition to all good, and instigation to all evil.
2. Confutation. The Saviour refutes this charge by four different arguments. The first argument is an appeal to common sense, the second is ad absurdum, the third is ad hominem, and the fourth from human experience. The first
(1) points out the fact that the stability of a kingdom, or the success of a family depends on unity and peace; as the proverb has it, “Concordia res parvae crescunt, discordia maximae dilabuntur.” So the kingdom or family of demons would perish by dissensions. Again
(2) “if Satan cast out Satannot if one Satan cast out another Satan, which is the rendering of some, but, if Satan cast himself out,” his policy is suicidal. He had by his demons taken possession of men’s bodies, and thereby exercised his power over his victims; but if he countenanced or combined with the Saviour in casting out these demons, he was destroying his own subjects and diminishing his own power. Thus his kingdom, like many another and many a better, “could not stand,” or rather “could not be made to stand” () or, as the other synoptists express it, “it is brought to desolation” (); and, in that case, “house falleth against house,” according to Meyer’s rendering of the parallel expression in St. Luke, or, as it stands in the Authorized Version, “a house divided against a house falleth.” The conditional proposition in reference to kingdom and house is of that kind which denotes probable contingency, not a mere supposition; but that applied to Satan rising up against himself implies possibility without any expression of uncertainty. Why is this? How can we account for this somewhat striking difference? Because in the former case civil commotions may distract a kingdom, and an unhappy feud may divide a family or household. Such things have occurred; and it is likely enough that they may occur again, and so their occurrence comes within the limits of probability. But, according to the supposition or imputation of the scribes, the thing has already actually occurred, and Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided. Such suicidal policy it would be utterly absurd to attribute to a power so subtle as Satan, unless, indeed, he be supposed to be possessed of less than ordinary worldly prudence. He now turns
(3) to another line of argument which comes home to them more closely. This argument, though omitted by St. Mark, is found in both St. Matthew and St. Luke, and is the following:”And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children [‘sons,’ in St. Luke] cast them out?” This they assumed to do, as we learn from Act 19:13, Act 19:14,” Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.” Our Lord, in his reasoning and for the purpose of his argument, employs the fact of the assumption which they made, without necessarily admitting the reality of their accomplishing what they pretended. If they were asked by what power or whose aid their sons cast out or took upon them to cast out devils? by Beelzebub or by the Spirit? he knew well what their answer would be, and that they would not acknowledge their children to be leagued with Satan in casting out devils, but that they would contend for the co-operation of Divine power. if, then, our Lord would say, you impute that power which I exert to Beelzebub, and that same power of which they claim the exercise to God, they will be your judges, and condemn you of hostility to me, while you are guilty of such partiality to themselves. There was no escaping from this argument. But he urges
(4) yet another argumentone from human experience: How can I rob Satan of his subjects until I have conquered him? And how can I, besides, distribute the spoils of victory unless that conquest be complete? His enemies had accused him of being in alliance with Satan; he argues on the contrary that, instead of being an ally of Satan, he has made open war on him and bound him, invaded his dominions, subdued his subjects, having first overpowered their prince.
III. PICTURE OF SATAN.
1. His power. He is the strong man. He is strong in his princedom. He is “prince of the power of the air; ” that is, chieftain of those powerful spirits that have their residence in the air. He is strong in his power to destroy, and hence he is called Apollyon, or Abaddon, the destroyer. By his powerful temptations he destroyed the happiness of our first parents and ruined their race. He is strong in the power of cunning. Oh, how subtle, how insidious, how cunning, in his work of destruction I “We are not ignorant,” says the apostle, “of his devices.” He is strong in the power of calumny, and consequently he is called “the accuser of the brethren,” while his accusations are founded on falsehood. He maligned the patriarch of Uz, upright and perfect though he was, misrepresenting that good man’s principles and practice and patience. He is strong in the sovereignty which he exercises over his subjects, and strong in the multitude of those subjects, leading thousands, yea, millions, of men and women captive at his will, and enslaving them with his hellish yoke. He is strong in the fearfully despotic power with which he controls the souls and bodies of his slaves; and every sinner is his slave, and, what is worse, a willing slave, so that, though we urge them by the tenderest motives, address to them the most solemn warnings, allure them by the most precious promises, and appeal to them by the most valuable interests, thousands reject all our overtures, preferring to go on and continue, to live and die, in slavish subjection to the complete control and terrible power of Satanthis strong man.
2. His palace and property. St. Luke is fuller in his description here. He speaks of his complete armor, his panoply; he speaks of his palace, the other synoptists speak of his house; he speaks of his goods and of those goods as spoils, the other two speak of his vessels. They all tell us of one stronger than the strong one. St. Luke again tells us that, though the strong man is armed cap-a-pie, and stands warder of his own palace, and keeps his goods in security, yet that he who is stronger than the strong one, having effected an entrance, overcomes him, strips him of his armor in which he reposed such confidence, and distributes his spoils; while the other two Evangelists tell us that, having entered the strong man’s dwelling, he binds the strong man, and plunders, taking as a prey both his house and his vesselsthe container and the contained. The groundwork of the description is to be found, perhaps, in Isa 49:24, Isa 49:25, “Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive delivered? But thus saith the Lord, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children.” But what are we to understand by these particulars? The strong man is Satan, the stronger than the strong man is our blessed Saviour; this world is his palace or house; his goods in general and vessels in particular which are made spoils of are inferior demons according to some, or men according to others, rather both, as Chrysostom explains the meaning when he says, “Not only are demons vessels of the devil, but men also who do his work.” In a still narrower sense, man or man’s heart is the palace, and its powers and affections are the goods. The heart of man was once a palace, a princely dwelling, worthy of and intended for the habitation of God. But that palace is now in ruins. We have gazed on a ruined palace; and oh, how sad the sight! Its chambers are dismantled, its columns are prostrate, its arches are broken; fragments of the once stately fabric are scattered about. Ivy twines round its ruined walls, grass grows in its halls, weeds and nettles cover the courtyard. Owls look out of the apertures that once were windows, or hoot in melancholy mood to their fellows. Mounds of earth or heaps of rubbish occupy the apartments once grand and gorgeous. The whole is a sad though striking picture of decay, desolation, and death. Just such a place is the heart of man. It was a palace once; it is a palace still, but the palace is now in ruins, and over these ruins Satan rules and reigns. But what are the goods, or vessels, or spoils? If the unrenewed heart itself be the palace where Satan resides, and which he has made his dwelling, then the powers of that heartfor the Hebrews referred to the heart what we attribute to the headits faculties so noble, its feelings so tender, its affections so precious, are Satan’s goods, for he uses them for his own purposes; they are his vessels, for he employs them in his work and service; they are his spoils, for he has usurped authority over them. His, no doubt, they are by right of conquest, if might ever makes right. He is not only a possessor, but wields over them the power of a sovereign. He is enthroned in the sinner’s heart, and exalted to a chief place in his affections. Accordingly, he receives the homage of his intellect, he claims and gets the ready service of his will, he controls the actions of the life; and thus over head and heart and life he sways his scepter, exercising unlimited and incessant control. To one faculty or feeling he says, “Come,” and it cometh; to another power or principle of action he says, “Go,” and it goeth.
3. His possession, and how he keeps it. In the heart of man there are what Ezekiel calls “chambers of imagery.” These chambers of imagery in the human heart are of themselves dark enough and dreary enough; but Satan, if we yield to him and resist him not, for he cannot control us without our consent or coerce us against our consent, will curtain those chambers with darknessspiritual darkness. As long as he can keep us in the darkness of ignoranceignorance of God, of Christ, of the way of salvation, of ourselves, of our slavery, of our responsibility, of our danger, and of our dutyhe is secure in his possession. “The god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” By subtlety and stratagem, by wiles and wickedness, he holds possession of those chambers, actually furnishing them with his own hand, while the furniture thus supplied consists of delusionsstrong delusions, sinful delusions. Even the pictures on the walls are painted by him; scenes base and bad, wicked and abominable, are there portrayed to pervert the judgment and incline it to what is perverse, to debase the imagination with visions foul and filthy, to inflame the affections with objects indelicate and impure. Another effectual way in which Satan holds possession of the palace of man’s heart is by keeping it under the influence of sense. He occupies men with the things of sense and sight, to the neglect of things spiritual and eternal; he employs them with material objects and worldly interests; he amuses them with the trifles of the present time, to the neglect of the interests of the never-ending future; he engrosses our attention with worldliness, vanity, and pridethings sensual, earthly, and perishable; thoughts about the body and its wants are pressed on men, to the neglect of the soul and its necessities. Such questions as, “What shall I eat, or what shall! drink, or wherewithal shall! be clothed?” are ever present, while the vastly more important question, “What must! do to be saved?” is lost sight of or left in abeyance. Present profits and worldly pursuits absorb attention, to the neglect of present responsibilities and future realities; the pleasures of sin, short-lived and unsatisfactory as they are sure to prove, divert men’s thoughts from those “pleasures which are at God’s right hand for evermore.” But, as the Word of God warns us of Satan’s devices that we may be on our guard against them, it may not be amiss to pay the more particular attention to them. Another way by which he holds possession of the palace of what Bunyan calls Mansoul is delay. This is a favourite method, and one specially successful with the young. “Time enough yet,” Satan whispers into the young ear, and the inexperienced heart of youth is too ready to believe the falsehood. He persuades them into the belief that it is too soon for such grave subjects, too early to engage in such solemn reflections. Many other and even better opportunities, they are induced to think, will be afforded; they are yet young and strong, and with a keen zest for youthful pleasures, and the world is all before them. Every year the delay becomes more difficult to break away from, and the delusion the more dangerous; and while the difficulty as well as the danger increases, the strength of the sinner, or his power to overcome the suggestions of Satan, decreases. A more convenient season is expected, and thus procrastination becomes, as usual, “the thief of time; year after year it steals till all is past, and to the mercies of a moment leaves the vast concerns of an eternal scene.” But to delay succeeds at length another means by which he keeps possession, and that other means, in one respect the opposite, is despair. Thus extremes meet. Satan had long flattered them with the delusive fancy that it was too soon; now he drives them to the desperate notion that it is too late. Once he flattered them with the false hope of a long and happy future, with death in the remote distance, and with means of grace not only ample but abundant, and power at pleasure to turn to God; now he tortures them with the thought that the day of grace is gone, irrevocably gone. Once he made them believe that the time to break up their fallow ground and sow to themselves in righteousness had not yet come; now, on the contrary, he induces the belief that “the harvest is past, the summer ended, and their souls not saved. Once he deluded them with the thought that sin was only a trifle, and they were willing to lay to their soul the false unction that sin was too small a matter to incur the wrath of Heaven; now he prompts the despairing thought that their sin is too great to be forgiven, and their guilt too heinous to be ever blotted out.
4. The peace he produces. All the while he produces a sort of peace; all the while “his goods are in peace;” all the while sinners are promising themselves “peace, peace; but there is no peace,” saith God, “to the wicked.” Satan may promise, and even produce, a kind of peace; but that peace is perilousit is a false peace. He may lead them into a sort of calm, but it is the lull before the storm; he may amuse them with a species of quietude, but it is the sure forerunner of the fast-approaching hurricane. The only true peace is that which the Spirit bestowsa “peace that passeth all understanding,” a peace which the world with all its wealth cannot give, and with all its wickedness cannot take away. This peace is compared to a river: “Then shall thy peace be as a river”a river broad and beautiful, glancing in the bright sunshine of the heaven above, and reflecting the varied beauties along its banks; a river deepening and widening at every reach, bearing health and fertility throughout its course, broadening out and expanding at last into the boundless, shoreless ocean of everlasting bliss.
5. Satan‘s defeat and dispossession. Though Satan be strong, there is One stronger than heOne “mighty to save,” even from his grasp, and “lead captivity captive.” That stronger One is the mighty Saviour, whose mission of mercy was meant to take the prey from the mighty, to bruise his head and destroy his works, and so rescue man from the thraldom of Satan and the dominion of sin. Himself mightier than the mighty, he is “able to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by him.” St. Luke informs us of the manner in which he effects the great emancipation. He comes upon him () both suddenly and by way of hostile attack. He comes upon him suddenly, and so takes him by surprise. Satan’s goods are meantime in peace, and he fancies he has it all his own way, and that for ever. The Saviour comes upon the heart enslaved by Satan with the sword of the Spirit, which is the word and truth of God, and immediately the chains are burst asunder and the shackles fall off. Henceforth it enjoys that freedom with which Christ makes his people free. He comes upon the sinner’s soul with the power of the Spirit, convincing of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. The Spirit takes of the things of Christ and shows them to the sinner, and so the truth is brought home to the heart and conscience; not in word only, “but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance.” He comes upon the sinner, whose powers lay dormant, or rather “dead in trespasses and sins,” and he awakens the powers that thus lay dormant, and quickens the soul, it may be long dead, into new spiritual life, and makes it “alive unto God through Christ Jesus.” But with life comes light. Soon as the life-giving Spirit operates upon the mass erewhile chaotic and dead, living forces are developed, and light springs up; the light of the glorious gospel of the grace of God shines through all that heart, however dead and dark it had been before. Every soul thus awakened, enlightened, quickened, and truly converted to God, is a victory of the Saviour over Satana trophy snatched from the strong one by him who thus proves himself stronger than the strong man. Every such one is evidence of Satan’s defeat, and proves the destruction of his power, as also his expulsion from his usurped dominiona thorough and blessed dispossession of the spirit of evil.
6. Satan‘s armor. His offensive weapons are his snares, his devices, his wiles, his lies, his lusts; of all these we read in Scripture. But he has other armor; and, as panoply has its root in , or “thing moved about,” as the shield, from , according to Donaldson, the reference may rather be to defensive armor. The parts of this armor may be regarded as consisting of our ignorance of God and hatred of him, our unbelief and ungodliness, hardness of heart and unrighteousness. Theophylact explains Satan’s armor to be made of our sins in general; his words are , equivalent to “All forms of sin, for this is the arms of the devil.” By such armor he defends his possessions and maintains his interest in them; by such armor he repels all attacks on his goods, opposing the impressions of the Divine Word, the influences of the Holy Spirit, and the leadings of God’s providence. Christ captures his arms when he enables us to guard against his devices and wiles, to avoid his snares, to discredit his lies, shun his lusts, and resist his temptations. Further, he takes from Satan the armor in which he places such confidence when he breaks the power of sin in the soul, opens men’s eyes to the perils that surround them, regenerates the heart, and renews the life, humbles their spirit, rectifies their errors, checks their corruption, and, in a word, bruises Satan under their feet.
7. Division of the spoils. This is usually the consequence of conquest. When Satan led the sinner captive and made him his prey, he took him with all he is and all he has for his spoil, employing all his endowments of mind and energies of body, his time, his talents, his health, his influence, his estate, small or great, in his service. But again, in the day of the sinner’s conversion to God, not only is Satan defeated and dispossessed, Christ recovers the long-lost possessionall of it for himself. He regains those energies and endowments, that time, those talents, that influence; he restores all to their right use and to the great end for which they were intended. The whole manbody, soul, and spiritis brought back to the service of his Maker, and every thought becomes subject to the law of Jesus Christ. Further, the Saviour not only regains those spoils and recovers them for himself, but also, like a great and good Captain, he divides them among his followers. In every case when he defeats, disarms, and dispossesses Satan, Christ shares with his soldiershis servantsthe spoils consequent on victory. The sinner thus rescued is blessed “with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ Jesus;” but he is not only blessed in his own soul, he is made a blessing to all around. He becomes a blessing to friend and fellow-man. In this way the spoil is divided and the blessing distributed. He becomes a proof of Divine power and a pattern of purity to an ungodly world; while his talents, be they many or fewten, or five, or oneare employed for the good of Christ’s Church,” for the perfecting of the saints, for the edification of the body of Christ.” To sinners he serves as a beacon-light to warn them of the sunken rocks or breakers ahead, and to direct their course into the haven of heavenly rest. A curious and not uninteresting exposition by Theophylact of the distribution of the spoils is to this effect, that men, being the spoils first taken by Satan, and then retaken by Christ, the Saviour distributes them, giving one to one angel and another to another angel as a faithful guardian, that, instead of the demon that lorded it over him, an angel may now have him in safe keepingof course, in order to be his guide and guard him.
8. Practical lessons.
(1) The sinner still in the power of the strong man should cry mightily to Christ to rescue him from such base servitude, and deliver him from such dreadful drudgery. He, and he alone, can free him from enslavement, because he is stronger than the strong man.
(2) The saint already delivered, while still to be on his guard against Satan, has nothing to fear from his assaults. He can never again regain possession, for he is vanquished, and the means of retrieving his lost possessions and forfeited power are for ever wrested from him. If he goes out of himself without being dislodged, he is sure to return and resume possession with increased forces and power, as the parable which follows in St. Luke teaches.
(3) The believer is bound to bless his deliverer, which he may suitably do in the words
“Thou hast, O Lord most glorious,
Ascended up on high;
And in triumph victorious led
Captive captivity ..
Bless’d be the Lord, who is to us
Of our salvation God;
Who daily with his benefits
Us plenteously doth load.”
(4) Neutrality in this cause is criminal. If we are not on Christ’s side, contending against Satan, we evince our unwillingness that his kingdom should be destroyed; and if not engaged in seeking to bring subjects into Christ’s kingdom, as a shepherd collects his flock and pens them in the fold, we are scattering the sheep away from and leaving them without the place of safety.
IV. THE BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST.
1. Patristic explanations of this sin. Some have understood it of apostasy in time of persecution. This was the opinion of Cyprian, who says, in ‘Epist.’ 16, that “It was a very great crime which persecution compelled men to commit, as they themselves know who have committed it, inasmuch as our Lord and Judge has said, ‘Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess before my Father who is in heaven. But he that denieth me, him will I also deny.’ And again, ‘All sins and blasphemies shall be forgiven to the sons of men: but he that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost, shall not have forgiveness, but is guilty of eternal sin’ (reus est aeterni peccati).“ Some understand it of the denial of the divinity of our Lord, as Athanasius, who says that “the Pharisees in the Saviour’s time, and the Arians in our days, running into the same madness, denied the real Word to be incarnate, and ascribed the works of the Godhead to the devil and his angels, and therefore justly undergo the punishment which is due to this impiety, without remission. For they put the devil in the place of God, and imagined the works of the living and true God to be nothing more than the works of the devil.” And elsewhere the same Father says, “They who spake against Christ, considering him only as the Son of man, were pardonable, because in the beginning of the gospel the world looked upon him only as a prophet, not as God, but as the Son of man: but they who blasphemed his divinity after his works had demonstrated him to be God, had no forgiveness, so long as they continued in this blasphemy; but if they repented they might obtain pardon: for there is no sin unpardonable with God to them who truly and worthily repent.” Others again have understood it to consist in the denial of the divinity of the Holy Ghost. Thus Epiphanius charged with this sin the Maccdonian heretics, because they opposed the Godhead of the Holy Spirit, making him a mere creature. In like manner Ambrose accused these same heretics of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, because they denied his divinity.
2. The two most important patristic authorities on this subject. These are Chrysostom among the Greek Fathers, and Augustine of the Latin Fathers; both near the close of the fourth century. The former on the nature of the sin itself says, “For though you say that you know me not, you are surely not ignorant of that also, that to expel demons and cure diseases are the work of the Holy Spirit. Not only, then, do you insult me, but the Holy Spirit also. Therefore your punishment is inevitable both here and hereafter.” Again, in reference to the unpardonableness of this sin, he says, “‘Ye have said many things against methat I am a deceiver, that I am an opponent of God. These things I forgive you on your repentance, and I do not exact punishment of you; but the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven even to the penitent.’ And how could this have reason, for truly even this sin was forgiven to persons repenting? Many, then, of those who said these things believed afterwards, and all was forgiven them. What, then, does he mean? That this sin above all is least capable of pardon. Why at all? Because they were ignorant who Christ was; but of the Holy Spirit they had had sufficient proof. For truly the prophets spake by him what they did speak, and all in the old dispensation had had abundant knowledge of him. What he means then is this: ‘Grant it, you stumble at me because of the garb of flesh I have assumed; can you also say about the Holy Spirit that you are ignorant of him? Therefore this blasphemy shall not be forgiven you; both here and there you shall suffer punishment.'” Further on he proceeds to say, “For truly some men are punished both here and there; others only here; others only there; while others neither here nor there. Here and there, as these very persons (i.e. the Pharisees), for truly both here they suffered punishment when they endured those irremediable sufferings at the capture of their city; and there they shall undergo the most severe punishment, as the inhabitants of Sodom, and as many others. But there only, as that rich man when tortured in flames was not master of even a drop of water. Some only here, as the person who had committed fornication among the Corinthians. Others again, neither here nor there, as the apostles, as the prophets, and as the blessed Job; for what they suffered did not belong to punishment, but was exercises and conflicts.” The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is, according to Chrysostom, greater than the sin against the Son of man, and, though not absolutely irremissible to such as repent, yet in the absence of such timely repentance it will be punished both here and hereafter. Augustine has several references to this sin, but his opinion of the matter may be briefly summed up in continued resistance to the influences of the Holy Spirit by insuperable hardness of heart, and in perseverance in obduracy and impenitence to the last. Thus in his Commentary on Romans he says, “That man sins against the Holy Spirit who, despairing or deriding and despising the preaching of grace by which sins are washed away, and of peace by which we are reconciled to God, refuses to repent of his sins, and resolves that he must go on hardening himself in a certain impious and fatal sweetness of them, and persists therein to the end.” He further insists that neither pagans, nor Jews, nor heretics, nor schismatics, however they may have opposed the Holy Spirit before baptism, were shut out by the Church from that sacrament in case they truly repented; nor after baptism in case of falling into sin, or resisting the Spirit of God, were they debarred from restoration to pardon and peace on repentance, and that even those whom our Lord charged with this blasphemy might repent and betake themselves to the Divine mercy. “What else remains,” he asks, “but that the sin against the Holy Spirit, which our Lord says is neither forgiven in this world nor in that which is to come, must be understood to be no other than perseverance in malignity and wickedness with despair of the indulgence and mercy of God? For this is to resist the grace and peace of the Spirit of which we speak.”
3. Modern expositions of this sin. Some of these reproduce or nearly so the interpretations of the ancients. They may in the main be divided into three classes. The first class consists of those who, like Hammond, Tillotson, Wetstein, understand the sin in question to be the diabolical calumny of the Pharisees, in ascribing to the power of Satan the miracles which the Saviour by the Spirit given him without measure performed. Here was evidently the mighty power of God, but these men, maliciously, wantonly, and wickedly, as also presumptuously and blasphemously, pronounced the miracle just wrought before their eyes and in their presence to be an effect produced by the evil one. The connection instituted between the twenty-ninth and thirtieth verses of this third chapter of St. Mark by the word , corresponding to the parallel of St. Matthew, and the imperfect , equivalent to” they kept saying,” are both in favor of this interpretation. Under this first class are several modifications, such as that which proceeds on the supposed distinction between “Son of man” and “Son of God,” as though he said that whosoever spake a word against Jesus as the Son of man, having his divinity shrouded and veiled in his humanity, might obtain forgiveness; but blasphemy against him as the Son of God, evidencing his divinity by miracles, could not obtain forgiveness. Another modification understands our Lord’s warning the Pharisees that they were fast approaching an unpardonable sin by wickedly rejecting the Son of man as a Saviour; that one step furtherone other blasphemy, that of the Spirit who, if not then, might hereafter reveal this, or a coming, Saviour unto them, would deprive them of the means and agent and so of the hope of salvation, and consequently of pardon. Yet another modification is that of Grotius, following in the steps of Chrysostom, to the effect that it is easier for any or all sins to obtain forgiveness than that this calumny should be pardoned; and that it will be severely punished both in the present and coming age. The second class, to which Whitby, Doddridge, and Macknight belong, holds that the Pharisees, by their conduct on this particular occasion or at the time then present, were not guilty of the sin referred to, and in fact that the sin against the Holy Ghost could not be committed while Christ still abode on earth, and before his ascension; because the Spirit was not yet given. They hold, therefore, that after our Lord’s resurrection and ascension, when he would send down the Holy Ghost to attest his mission, and when his supernatural gifts and miraculous operations would furnish incontestable proofs of almighty power, any such calumny or blasphemy uttered against the Spirit then would be unpardonable. The reason was plain, because the Son of man, while he was clothed in human flesh, and his divinity shrouded from human sight, and while his work on earth was not yet finished, might be slandered by persons unwittingly, or, according to the Scripture phrase, “ignorantly in unbelief;” but once the Holy Spirit had come down, and shed the light of heaven over the events of the Saviour’s life from the cradle to the cross, and had illumined with glory unspeakable the scenes of Gethsemane and Calvary and Olivet, making plain to every willing mind the momentous import of all those marvellous transactions, the blasphemy of the Spirit could not then be in ignorance or for lack of sufficient demonstration; but presumptuous against light and against knowledge, from sheer malevolence and unaccountable malignity. The Pharisees were preparing for thisthey were approaching the brink of this fearful abyss, and our Lord warns them back before it was possible for them to take the fatal plunge, and involve themselves in ruin without remedy. A third class of interpreters generalizes the sin in question in much the same way as we have seen Augustine do, and resolves it into continued resistance and obstinate opposition to the grace of the gospel, impenitently and unbelievingly persisted in till the end. This is the view which Dr. Chalmers elabourates with great eloquence and power in his sermon on “Sin against the Holy Ghost.” In that sermon we read as follows:”A man may shut against himself all the avenues of reconciliation. There is nothing mysterious in the kind of sin by which the Holy Spirit is tempted to abandon him to that state in which there can be no forgiveness and no return unto God. It is by a movement of conscience within him, that the man is made sensible of sin, that he is visited with the desire of reformation, that he is given to feel his need both of mercy to pardon, and of grace to help him; in a word, that he is drawn unto the Saviour, and brought into that intimate alliance with him by faith which brings down upon him both acceptance with the Father and all the power of a new and constraining impulse to the way of obedience. But this movement is a suggestion of the Spirit of God, and, if it be resisted by any man, the Spirit is resisted. The God who offers to draw him unto Christ is resisted. The man refuses to believe because his deeds are evil; and by every day of perseverance in these deeds, the voice which tells him of their guilt and urges him to abandon them is resisted; and thus the Spirit ceases to suggest, and the Father, from whom the Spirit proceedeth, ceases to draw, and the inward voice ceases to remonstrateand all this because their authority has been so often put forth and so often turned away. This is the deadly offense which has reared an impassable wall against the return of the obstinately impenitent. This is the blasphemy to which no forgiveness can be granted, because, in its very nature, the man who has come this length feels no movement of conscience towards that ground on which alone forgiveness can be awarded to him, and where it is never refused even to the very worst and most malignant of human iniquities. This is the sin against the Holy Ghost. It is not peculiar to any one age. It does not lie in any one unfathomable mystery. It may be seen at this day in thousands and thousands more, who, by that most familiar and most frequently exemplified of all habits, a habit of resistance to a sense of duty, have at length stifled it altogether, and driven their, inward monitor away from them, and have sunk into a profound moral lethargy, and so will never obtain forgivenessnot because forgiveness is ever refused to any who repent and believe the gospel, but because they have made their faith and their repentance impracticable The whole mysteriousness of this sin against the Holy Ghost is thus done away. Grant him the office with which he is invested in the Word of God, even the office of instigating the conscience to all its reprovals of sin, and to all its admonitions of repentance; and then, if ever you witnessed the case of a man whose conscience had fallen into a profound and irrecoverable sleep, or, at least, had lost to such a degree its power of control over him, that he stood out against every engine which was set up to bring him to the faith and repentance of the New Testament,behold in such a man a stoner against conscience to such a woeful extent that conscience had given up its direction of him; or, in other words, a sinner against the Holy Ghost to such an extent that he had let down the office of warning him away from that ground of danger and of guilt on which he stood so immovably posted.” There are some modifications of this view which it may be well to notice. One is that which makes the sin against the Holy Ghost to be resistance to conscience as the voice of God in the soulthe voice which the Holy Spirit employs in testifying to truth and goodness, and in reprobating sin and recommending the Saviour. Another modification is that which makes blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to consist in the expression of malignant unbelief of, and wilful apostasy from, the truth of God, and that, because it is the Holy Ghost which illumines the understanding and applies the truth to the heart of believers.
4. Remarks on the foregoing theories. In our observations on the foregoing theories we do not deem it prudent dogmatically to determine which of them is the correct one. In a ease where such diversities of opinion have prevailed, even among the ablest scholars and the most eloquent theologians, it is better that every one should be persuaded in his own mind. We may, however, be permitted to state that view which has recommended itself most to our mind, and some grounds for the preference to which we think it entitled. The view held by the first class above mentioned appears to us on the whole the most tenable, for
(1) it is most in harmony with the context, as it stands both in this Gospel and that of St. Matthew. The Pharisees had witnessed an undeniable miracle in the cure of a blind and dumb demoniac; but, instead of acknowledging the finger of God in the miraculous cure, they ascribed it to complicity or collusion with the power of darkness. This was a gratuitous and malicious calumny; it was a sin of speech as well as of thoughta blasphemy, in fact, in the literal sense. The form which the sin is represented as taking is that of speech, as appears plainly from the contrast between speaking a word against the Son of man and speaking against the Holy Ghost. Again,
(2) the allegation of the second class, that the Holy Ghost was not given till after the Ascension, though quite true in reference to the disciples, does not apply to the Master, to whom the Spirit was given without measure from the first. Further,
(3) the view of the third class, so ably advocated by Dr. Chalmers and many others, and which in substance was that held by Augustine, appears too wide in extent and too general in its character; whereas the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is something peculiar and special, and of rare occurrence. Besides, if the sin in question consisted in obstinate resistance to the gospel, continued till that resistance culminated in final unbelief, it would Be little, if anything, different from sin in general which, by obstinate continuance therein, becomes unpardonable, and that, not from lack of cleansing power in the blood of Christ, nor from any peculiar aggravation, but solely on account of continued persistence therein.
5. Perilous approximations to this sin. That marry have been unduly exercised and harassed by fancied guiltiness of this sin, is certain; that some have despaired or become melancholy on this account, is credible; that many have been driven to insanity by it we can scarcely believe. To any who are troubled with anxious thoughts about the matter we may say that, according to the theories of the first and second classes, they could not have committed the same sin in kindas they did not, like the Pharisees, see the miracles wrought by our Lord, nor did they witness the supernatural operations of the Spirit after his descent at Pentecostwhatever the degree of their sin may have been; while, with respect to the third, the sin being that of continued resistance, they have only to abandon their dogged opposition, the abandonment of which their very anxiety proves to have become already an accomplished fact. To all, of whatever class of opinion, who are apprehensiveearnestly apprehensive and afraid of having committed this sintheir very uneasiness on that score is proof of their guiltlessness of the fancied crime, for these very upbraidings of conscience prove incompatibility with commission of this sin. At the same time, there are approximations to this sin which we should most carefully guard against. A rejection of the truth of Scripture wilfully persisted in; or trifling with the operations of the Holy Spirit in the heart; or ridicule of religion and opposition to its ordinances in general; or hostility to Christianity in particular; or contempt, malevolence, and slander directed against God and the things of God, or against the Church and people of God; or mockery of sacred things; or blasphemous suggestions harboured and indulged ineach of these involves an awfulness of criminality and a fearfulness of guilt that betoken a considerable similarity or close approximation to the heinousness of the unpardonable sin. We do not affirm that any of these is actually that sin, but only such an approach to the verge of the precipice as is sufficient to startle men to a sense of danger, and drive them back before they venture a step further. Alford, who makes the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to be a state of wilful, determined opposition to the present power of the Holy Ghost, in which state or at least approaching very near to which the act of the Pharisees proved them to be, compares, among other Scriptures, Heb 6:4-8 and Heb 10:26, Heb 10:27. But the purport of the last-cited Scripture is that, in case the sacrifice of Christ is rejected, there is no other sacrifice available, all others having been done away, and consequently no other means of escape from the wrath of God; while the former passage refers to apostasy so aggravated as to render restoration impossible, because the persons guilty of it felt away in spite of the clearest possible evidence to the truth of the Christian faith. Another Scripture frequently compared with that before us is 1Jn 5:16. The there mentioned as tending unto () death is regarded by some to be the act of denying Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God, or the state of apostasy indicated by that act; others hold it to be apostasy from Christianity, combined with diabolical enmity, and that in the face of extraordinary evidence; but it appears to be a specific act of sin, of the commission of which the evidence is clear and convincing, distinct and precisesuch an act of apostasy as blasphemes the Holy Ghost by ascribing his operations to Satanic power. This sin unto death is certainly the nearest approach to the unpardonable sin, if it be not, as many hold it to be, identical with it. Of the three different readings, , , and , the last is the best supported; while the expression “an eternal sin” signifies either a sin that is not pardoned or a sin of which the punishment is not remitted. The connection of the aphoristic expression which immediately follows in St. Matthew, viz. “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit,” is briefly but correctly pointed out in the remark of Chrysostom, “Since they did not reprove the works, but calumniated him that did them, he shows that this accusation was contrary to the natural sequence of affairs.”J.J.G.
Mar 3:31-35
Parallel passages: Mat 12:46-50; Luk 8:19-21.
The real relationship.
I. NO SLIGHT INTENDED. The crowd that sat around prevented his relatives reaching him; they therefore sent a message, to which his reply cannot with any propriety be twisted into an expression of contempt. His obedience to his parents in the humble home at Nazareth during the years of youth, and his tender solicitude for his apparently widowed mother when, as he hung on the cross, he commended her to the care of the beloved disciple, preclude the possibility of such a meaning.
II. HEAVENLY KINSHIP. He looked round in a circle; this expression of the look, like that of the sitting posture of the multitude, implies the report of an eye-witness. Looking round about him and directly into the face of every faithful follower sitting there, he announced a higher and holier relationship than that formed by an earthly tie; he acquainted them with the existence of kinship near and dear as that which unites the nearest and dearest of human kindred. The Church is Christ’s family, and to every true member of that family he is bound by the tenderest bonds of love. What a privilege to be thus closely united to and tenderly loved by Christ!
III. CONDITION OF THIS RELATIONSHIP. It is not the possession of varied knowledge of God’s will and works and ways, though that is important; nor is it the possession of faith, though that is the root; nor is it the acceptance of Christ in the exercise of faith, though that is indispensable to salvation; but it is a more practical condition, and one more easily known and more readily discernible;it is doing the will of God.
IV. THE MEASURE OF ENDEARMENT BELONGING TO THIS KINSHIP. The Saviour makes his natural affections the measure of his spiritual friendship. When we are enjoined to love our neighbor as ourselves, it does not mean that we should love ourselves less, but our neighbor more; so here, he does not love his mother and brothers and sisters less, but his true disciples more. The poorest and meanest as well as the richest may attain to this honor and share this love. We may obtain in this way a name better than that of sons and daughters; we may be honored with that new, best name of love.
“Behold th’ amazing gift of love
The Father hath bestow’d
On us, the sinful sons of men,
To call us some of God.”
J.J.G.
Mar 3:1-6 . See on Mat 12:9-14 ; comp. Luk 6:6-11 . The brief, vividly and sharply graphic account of Mark is in Matthew partly abridged, partly expanded.
] see Mar 1:21 .
. ] at Capernaum . See Mar 2:15 .
] “non ex utero, sed morbo aut vulnere; haec vis participii,” Bengel. More indefinitely Matthew (and Luke): .
] of hostile observing, spying (comp. Luk 6:7 , al. ; Polyb. xvii. 3. 2 : ), which, however, is implied, not in the middle, but in the context.
Mar 3:3 ff. . ] arise (and step forth) into the midst . Comp. Luk 6:8 .
] to act well ( Tob 12:13 ), or to act ill ( Sir 19:25 ). Comp. , Mat 12:12 ; Ep. ad Diogn. 4 : God does not hinder on the Sabbath day. The alternative must be such that the opponents cannot deny the former proposition, and therefore must be dumb. On this account it is not to be explained: to render a benefit ( 1Ma 11:33 ), or to inflict an injury (Erasmus, Bengel, Beza, de Wette, Bleek, and others); for the former might be relatively negatived on account of the Sabbath-laws, the observance of which, however, could not be opposed to the idea of acting well ( i.e. in conformity with the divine will). We can only decide the question on this ground, not from the usus loquendi , which in fact admits of either explanation. The reading in D: , is a correct gloss of the late Greek word (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 200), comp. 1Pe 2:15 ; 1Pe 2:20 ; 1Pe 3:6 ; 3Jn 1:11 .
] to rescue a soul , that it be not transferred to Hades, but, on the contrary, the man may be preserved in life. Comp. Mar 8:35 , often also among Greek writers. This likewise could not be denied, for “periculum vitae pellit sabbatum,” Joma , f. 84, 2. See the passages in Wetstein, ad Mat 12:10 .
] to be taken by itself, not to be connected with . At the foundation of the question of Jesus lies the conclusion from the general to the special; He carries the point in question about the Sabbath healings back to the moral category , in consequence of which a negative answer would be absurd. The adversaries feel this; but instead of confessing it they are silent , because they are hardened .
] feeling compassion over , etc., Herod. ix. 94, vi. 39; Polyb. vii. 3. 2; Aelian, V. H. vii. 3. Anger and compassion alternated. The preposition denotes not the emotion of the heart collectively, but the fellowship, into which the heart enters, with the misfortune (in this case moral) of the persons concerned. Comp. Plato, Pol. v. p. 462 E.
] with double augment (Winer, p. 67 [E. T. 84]) is, in accordance with Lachmann, to be read. Comp. on Mat 12:13 .
Mar 3:6 . . . .] “crevit odium,” Bengel. They instituted a consultation, in order that , etc. Comp. on Mat 22:5 . That the Herodians are introduced into this place erroneously from Mat 22:16 (see in loc. ) is not to be maintained (de Wette, Baur, Hilgenfeld). The sensation produced by the working of Jesus (see Mar 3:7-8 ) was sufficiently fitted to induce their being now drawn by the Pharisees into the hostile effort. Hence the mention of them here is no meaningless addition (Kstlin).
Fifth Conflict.Healing of the Withered Hand on the Sabbath. The Traditionalists hardened into purposes of Murder. Withdrawal of Jesus to the Sea. Mar 3:1-12
(Parallels: Mat 12:9-21; Luk 6:6-11; Mar 3:17-19.)
1And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. 2And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day; that they might accuse him. 3And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth [up]. 4And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. 5And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored [whole as the other]. 1 6And the Pharisees went forth, and straight way took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him. 7But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to [, unto] 2 the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judea, 8And from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him. 9And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him. 10For he had healed many; insomuch that they pressed upon him for to touch him, as many as had plagues. 11And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down be fore him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. 12And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
See on the parallelsThe narrative of Mark is here particularly vivid and pictorial. He places the scene actually before us, giving his relation very much in the present tense. Like Matthew, he regards the incident in the light of an important turning-point. But he omits the parabolic word concerning the sheep fallen into a pit.
Mar 3:1. And He entered again.According to Luke, this occurred eight days later, on the Sabbath which immediately followed the Sabbath of the previous narrative. By the side of the reading , Cod. D. [which Tischendorf follows] places the reading , into a synagogue: probably an exegetical hint that it was not the same synagogue as before. But the expression, into the synagogue, does not designate of itself any definite synagogue. It has, however, this advantage, that it marks the fact of Jesus having gone into the synagogue again, in spite of all the machinations of the Pharisees and scribes.
Mar 3:3. Stand forth.Meyer: Up! into the midst!
Mar 3:4. To do good.The and may be taken generally, to do good and to do evil; or, more concretely, to benefit and to injure. Erasmus, De Wette, and others, take it in the latter sense; Meyer, in the former, and Matthew decides us for this. The question of Jesus, that is, was an answer to their question, May a man heal on the Sabbath? This question Jesus answers by an impregnable principle; as appears also from the words, It is lawful to do good, to perform a good act, on the Sabbath-day ( ).To save life.The antithesis of doing good and doing evil now receives its concrete force, to benefit or to injure, and thereby its application to the present case.
Mar 3:5. With anger.Mark gives vivid prominence to the indignation of Jesus. With a glance of displeasure and discomposure He looked round upon the assembly of men who were hardening their hearts before His eyes, as they could not refute His vindication of the right of healing, by reference to the design of the SabbathGrieved, The establishes Meyers translation, feeling compassion for.
Mar 3:6. With the Herodians.Comp. on Matthew. De Wette, without reason, thinks that the Herodians have been by error introduced here from Mat 22:16. Tiberias in Galilee was a place of residence for the Herodians, that is, the Herodian political party; and the time had come when they began to take part in the persecution of the Lord. But it marks a great advance in the enmity of the Pharisees, that they, who had before leagued themselves with the disciples of John for the sake of gathering weight against Christ, now entered into fellowship with the Herodians, whom in reality they hated, in order to destroy Him whom they hated still more, by machinations behind his back.How they might destroy Him.Thus the Galilean conflicts had in rapid process reached their conclusion.
Mar 3:7. To the sea.Not merely to the coast. The life on the sea, in the ship which was now His chief place of instruction in opposition to the synagogue, and which more than once served Him for a transient retreat to the opposite bank, here had its commencement. Matthew also had made this turning-point prominent. But in Mark it is plainly enough characterized as a withdrawal of Christ from His customary work in the synagogue to the ship.And a great multitude.The great crowds who heard the ship-discourses of Jesus were formed of two main masses, who are distinguished by and . Thus, after the words, followed Him, we must, with Griesbach, and De Wette, and Meyer, place either a colon or a period. The Jews from Galilee followed Him. The strangers from other parts came to Him. The following does not merely indicate external following; it includes a moral element also. In the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, they held with Jesus. It was the beginning of a specific discipleship, from which indeed most afterwards receded, but from which the germ of the Galilean believers was afterwards developed. The remaining multitude testifies the extent of the fame of Jesus; but we must also take into account the Jewish traffic, and the commercial route through Capernaum, which attracted multitudes in that direction. The description of the crowd brings them from all parts.
Mar 3:8. They about Tyre and Sidon are the Jews of that district. We quote the good remark of Meyer: Observe the different position of in Mar 3:7 and Mar 3:8. In the one, the greatness of the mass of people is prominent; in the other, the idea of the mass itself is presented; or rather their coming from all distances. With the followers, the most important thing was, that it was a great multitude; with the crowds coming, it was that they came from all parts, and from all distances. Comp. Luk 6:17; Mat 12:15. Moreover, we must remark that the concourse of people round Jesus stood in a reciprocal relation to His excitement and His breach with the Pharisees. The time had now come when the people began to display an inclination to make a political party in His favor, and to exalt Him into a king. And on this account, also, He was constrained to withdraw from the people, now to this and now to the other side of the lake, in the ship that was provided. Comp. Mar 4:1 seq.; Joh 6:15. We must bear in mind the tendency of the vigorous and brave Galilean people to insurrection and uproar.And from Idumea.John Hyrcanus had brought the Idumeans by violence to embrace the Jewish faith. There were possibly some of that people by this time who voluntarily adhered to it, notwithstanding that unholy violence. But the words may refer to Jews who had been dispersed so far as Idumea and Arabia.[This is the fullest statement to be found in any of the Gospels as to the extent of our Lords personal influence and the composition of the multitudes who followed Him. Alexander in loc.Ed.]
Mar 3:9. A small ship should wait on Him.The immediate object was that the people should not throng Him. But this does not exclude the ulterior purpose, of having a freer position in the ship, and retreating often to the other shore.
Mar 3:10. Insomuch that they pressed upon Him.The cause of the thronging. It was not merely the pressure of a vast listening multitude towards the central speaker; it was rather the intenser earnestness of many who were urged by their desire to touch Him for their cure.
Mar 3:11. Unclean spirits.That is, demons, who identified themselves with these.
Mar 3:12. That they should not make Him known.That is, as the Messiah.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. See on the parallels.The Pharisees now seek to involve the Lord Himself in the charge of Sabbath desecration. The present case seemed to differ from the former in this, that the healing of the withered hand was a matter that might have been postponed. And it did not appear to be one of those urgent works of necessity which even the Pharisees permitted themselves to do. On the other hand, the Lord declares the work of compassionate love, or doing good generally, to be of itself always urgent; and the thought is further involved, that sickness does not tarry at a. stand, but that there is a continual sinking into deeper danger and need.
2. On the previous Sabbath a work of necessity was justified and established; on the present, the Lord justifies and establishes a work of love. The Christian glorification of the Sabbath into the Lords day assumes two aspects: 1. The ethical law of the day of rest is, with the other laws of the decalogue, transformed into an ethical principle for the Christian social world, especially the State. 2. The divine law, and the human tradition, of the festival become now the Incarnate Lords creation and institution of the Sunday. The Sabbath was the end of the old world,a figure of its rest in death after its labor under the law. The Sunday was the beginning of the new world,a figure of the rising to a new life, which began with the resurrection of Christ. The former was the close of a week of labor which had passed in restless activity, like the days works of creation; the latter was the beginning of a festal week, the works of which should be performed in the joyful light of the Spirit and of love. On the historical and general relations of the day, consult Hengstenbergs treatise (Berlin, 1852). Comp. also the writings of Rcker, Liebetrut, Oschwald, Wilhelmi, and others.
3. Christ the personal fulfilment and manifestation of the law in glorified form, and thus also of the Sabbath. The source and the founder of the day; Himself the Sun of the Christian Sunday. HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
See the parallels.The Lords Sabbath work: saving life and the soul; the traditionalists Sabbath work: destroying life (that of the Messiah Himself).The needy and wretched in the synagogue; or, the school of the law cannot save and heal.The envious glance of the spy in the sanctuary; or, how carnal zeal does not look up to the Lord, but sideways at what others are doing.Christ performs the glorious work of heaven in the midst of the dark contentions of those who harden themselves in unbelief: standing alone as Saviour with His faithful few.The Lords glance in the world is a looking around in indignation, or a looking upon in love.The hardening of His enemies under the very eye of Christ.Christ is to some a savor of life unto life; to others, a savor of death unto death.As the paralytic, who could not move, took the boldest course through faith (over the roof); so the man with the withered hand learns by faith to come forward and stretch out his hand in spite of the mightiest enemies of faith.As it was divinely great to work wonders in the midst of this envious circle of enemies, so it was humanly great to maintain faith in such a circle.The old and new connection between need and the boldness of faith.The leagues between carnal religious zeal and secular power against Christ (Pharisees and Herodians).The transference of Christs preaching from the synagogue to the ship, in its significance; or, Gods word is not bound.The thronging of the people round the Lord, in its various aspects: 1. A confused impulse to seek help, confused by a craving for the miraculous in that help; 2. an act of homage to the Prince of life: at Golgotha a band of deadly enemies, who cast Him out as if He had been the great enemy of man and destroyer of the people.How men have ever sought to change the pastoral office, and preaching of the Gospel of Christ for the good of souls, into an office of external acts and helps (changing the spiritual Messiah into a worldly one).Christ must often withdraw Himself, not only from His enemies, but also from His friends, in order to maintain the spirituality and freedom of His vocation.It is beyond all important that we should accept Christ as the Physician of souls; for the redemption of the soul occurs now, the resurrection of the body at the last day.The earthly mind would fain invert this order.The ship 3 of the Church must save Christianity from intermingling with the politics of the world.How often did Jesus retreat before the disposition of the people to proclaim Him as a Messiah in the carnal sense!The crying demons mislead the people.The infinitely discordant mixture of dispositions and characters in an excited mass of people.The test of right-coming to Jesus: 1. A coming to Him alone, not only with, but also in spite of, the multitude; 2. a being alone with Him, whether among many or few; 3. a remaining alone with Him, and entering through Him into the fellowship of the saved.The confession of the demons: how the Lord estimated its ambiguity and recoiled from it.The demons were first in the confession that Jesus was the Messiah, but their confession was a slavish one.The Lord had here to do not merely with the words of truth, but with the truth of the words.The glance of Christs anger a prelude of the judgment; yet it was qualified by compassion.Christ, the gentlest friend of men, will one day be a most terrible personage to many.
Starke:Majus:The contradiction and slander of enemies should not restrain us from avowing the truth, but make us more courageous and joyful in our confession.Quesnel:A miser, ah unfruitful Christian, a negligent ruler, a strong man that will not help, are all mere withered hands.O avarice, how withered is thy hand!To suck poison out of what is good, or to slander, is devilish.Hypocrites are very urgent about ceremonies; but as it regards true discipline, they know nothing about it.When we do what is right, we Seed not fear secret slanderers.True love is not afraid of wicked men when it would do good to others.Canstein:The enemies of Christ are not sincere; they have seared consciences, and backbite in secret.Quesnel:There is much silence that proceeds from the Spirit of God, but there is also a devilish silence.Here anger and love meet together; but the Socinians cannot, and will not, reconcile these.The passions of Christ are a great mystery.Majus:Divine zeal against sin must be connected with love, with tender compassion towards the sinner.Quesnel:What a mystery is an envious heart! It poisons everything, and extracts poison from everything.When Jesus is persecuted or forsaken of all, there is yet a little company of the faithful who follow Him.Osiander:The more fiercely the Gospel of Christ is persecuted; the more surely and widely it is diffused.The hearing about Christ is not saving of itself; it must lead the soul to Himself.Quesnel: True love makes no difference among men, but does good to all, even to those who come with excitement and at an unseasonable time.Christ would receive no testimony from lying spirits.
Gerlach:The Sabbath was to remind us of, and introduce us into, that rest which God enjoyed when He contemplated the creatures happy in Himself after creation was finished, and that into which redeemed men shall again enter at the finishing of the new creation.This rest is not the rest of death, but the highest life; and to spread abroad life and blessedness in the spirit of love, is the proper business of the Sabbath.Lisco:Herods servants are his servile dependants. (This is true; for the dependants of an absolute despot can only be his servants.) Braune:That the Sabbath would not tolerate what might be postponed, was a law to them: he that had the withered hand was not in deadly danger, and his cure might as well take place the next day. Jesus penetrated their thoughts. Jesus established, that the not doing good was equivalent to the doing of evil; the sin of omission as bad as the sin of commission.Their mouth was stopped, but their heart was not emptied of envy and malice.Jesus glance: the enemy of sin, the friend of the sinner.The withered hand, 1Ki 13:4.Instead of joining the tempted Saviour, they made a compact with their deadliest enemies, the dependants of Herod; and instead of sanctifying the Sabbath by doing good and preserving life, they engaged in plans to put to death the Lord of the Sabbath and of life.The hatred which Jesus encountered was already an earnest of His death; and the multitude of the people coming to Him from Gentile lands was already an earnest of the blessing of His death.The praise of the Holy One cannot issue from unholy lips and an unclean spirit.Beda:Jesus had victoriously defended His disciples from the charge of violating the Sabbath; but the Pharisees were all the more vehement in involving Him, the Master Himself, in the same condemnation.Chrysostom:Jesus places the unhappy man in the midst of the assembly, that his appearance might excite compassion, and his healing shame the wickedness of the enemies.Schleiermacher:What good thing we have to do, we must set about doing at once.These Pharisees confederated with the officials of Herod against Him; those Pharisees in Jerusalem brought the affairs of the Redeemer before the Roman governor.We see how one party stood in need of the other in order to accomplish that which was in each party a foul wrong, though there was something at the bottom like a dependence upon what they thought was the law of God.How many examples of a similar kind in the history of the Christian Church!(The withdrawal to the sea.) Here also He remained in the way of His vocation, and retreated from them without neglecting His mission.(The cry of the demons.) The Redeemer would not that any faith in Him should arise which had not the right foundation.Gossner:The Saviour can be severe; but He is grieved that He must be angry.Bauer:The Pharisees were silent. The eye of the Lord rested upon them, but none of the Pharisees could stand that glance.They kept angry silence, like that which precedes the storm.
Footnotes:
[1]Mar 3:5.Whole as the other wanting in the most important Codd. Probably brought over from Mat 12:13.
[2]Mar 3:7.E, after D., P., Lachmann, Tischendorf; stronger than the .
[3]Perhaps there is an allusion here to the nave of the church edifice, which is derived from the Latin navis, from a supposed resemblance to the hull of a vessel.Ed.
CONTENTS.
We have here the case of the Man with the withered hand: the Call of the Apostles: the Scribe’s Blasphemy: and the LORD JESUS speaking of his relations.
AND he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had withered hand. (2) And they watched him whether he would heal him on the sabbath-day; that they might accuse him. (3) And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. (4) And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? but they held their peace. (5) And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand, and he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. (6) And the Pharisees went forth, and straitway took counsel with the Herodians against him how they might destroy him.
In relation to the miracle here recorded, I refer the Reader for my observations upon it, to Mat 12:9 , etc. When the Reader hath consulted what is there said, I beg his attention to behold the conduct of the Scribes and Pharisees upon the occasion. We are told, that they watched JESUS; not to adore him for his grace and mercy, but that they might accuse him. And as soon as the LORD had manifested his tender compassion to this poor man, they went forth, and took counsel to kill him. Now, Reader, do not overlook these things: for very awful as they are, they become precious testimonies to the truth as it is in JESUS. The LORD himself hath explained the cause. For while he saith, My sheep hear my voice; and I know them and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life. Joh 10:27-28 . he saith to those that are not his sheep: Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. Joh 8:43-47 .
No wonder JESUS looked round about upon them with anger. The seed of the woman, and the children of the wicked one, can never agree. And let it be remembered, that the destruction of the enemies of CHRIST, forms a part of CHRIST’s mission as much as the salvation of his chosen. The hour of decision will come, when JESUS will gather out of his kingdom all things that offend; and while the redeemed shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their father, the LORD will cast them that do iniquity into the furnace of fire, where is wailing and gnashing of teeth. Isa 63:4 ; Mat 13:36-43 ; Mat 25:31 to the end.
True Lawfulness
Mar 3:4
This is one of the instances of Christ’s power of subtle and at first sight unperceived retort Have you really collated into one radiant conspectus the answers of Christ to the people who wished to take Him by guile or otherwise? You would make quite a little Bible if you were to collate all those happy and even thrilling instances of Christ’s power in retort, in sending back in another form that which had been flung at Him by hostile hands. He was great in asking questions, and peculiarly great in reply. His replies were always on the spur of the moment He never took any time to consider what answer He would make to anybody.
I. Let us look into this case a little further, and see how it touches us. Learn first that a man may break the law say, the Sabbath in the very act of ostentatiously keeping it You can only keep the Sabbath in the heart, you can only keep it in penitence and in thankfulness; it can only be kept in its own spirit, which is a spirit of peace and meekness, restfulness and love. Christ’s resurrection day cannot be kept by finding fault with the way in which other people keep it. When we enter into these deeper sympathies and realizations of the Divine Spirit we shall have a cleansed world.
II. A man may dishonour the Bible in the very act of ostentatiously believing that every dot, every comma, is the punctuation of the almost visible Divine hand. The Bible is alive. You may have taken off its coat or patched it here and there with some historic or syntactical patching, and the coat may be none the worse for it, but the revelation is still alive, the truth is still as energetic in the Bible, as it ever was. He honours, keeps, the Bible who finds its truth, its Gospel, its mighty blood, and holds them up as the ministries and evidences of God. We owe nothing to ignorance. Ignorance is only pardonable when it knows that it is ignorant and wants to be instructed, refined, and ennobled.
III. See then how we are driven back, back into the spirituality of religion. The true religion is not a certificate which you take out annually; the true faith is not a renewal of your registration at a guinea a year: it is something that belongs to the soul, the very soul of the soul, so that religion is an affair between man and God, between God and man, away among the unspeakables, away among the saddest, gladdest ministries. We may keep the letter, and deny the spirit. We may have the book, but not the revelation; a beautifully bound Bible, but no spirit Bible, no spirit Gospel, singing to us and teaching us and helping us along all the way of life.
Joseph Parker, Guy Temple Pulpit, vol. iv. p. 184.
References. III. 5. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Mark I.-VIII. p. 94. C. E. Jefferson, The Character of Jesus, p. 297. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxii. No. 1893. III. 6-19. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Mark I.-VIII. p. 105. III. 8. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvi. No. 1529. III. 10. Ibid. vol. xiv. No. 841. III. 13-15. W. Howell Evans, Sermons for the Church’s Year, p. 304.
Mar 3:14
His hold over all his pupils I know perfectly astonished me. It was not so much an enthusiastic admiration for his genius or learning or eloquence which stirred within them; it was a sympathetic thrill, caught from a spirit that was earnestly at work in the world whose work was healthy, sustained, and constantly carried forward in the fear of God.
Mr. Price in Stanley’s Life of Arnold, ii.
References. III. 14. J. Rendel Harris, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxii. 1902, p. 153. H. C. G. Moule, My Brethren and Companions, p. 14. III. 20, 21. John Watson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlvii. 1895, p. 273. III. 20-35. W. H. Bennett, The Life of Christ According to St. Mark, p. 47.
Enthusiasm
Mar 3:21
I. Jesus was counted mad simply because He was enthusiastic, and the incident is therefore typical. Our Master illustrates that passion for religion which is prepared to sacrifice everything, even life itself, in the service of God, and His family represents for the time the worldly mind which regarded Him with angry suspicion and has been pouring cold water on enthusiasm ever since. Two states of mind are contrasted one inspired and self-forgetful, the other prosaic and self-regarding.
From time to time a tide of emotion has swept through the Church, cleansing her life from the pollution of the world and lifting it to a higher spiritual level, as when the ocean fills the bed of a shrunken river with its wholesome buoyant water. Every such springtime has been a lift to religion, and has been condemned as madness by the world.
II. There are two convincing pleas for enthusiasm and the first is its reasonableness. A man may be keen about many interests, but of all things he ought to be keenest about religion. If any one believes that the kingdom of God will remain when this world has disappeared like a shadow, then he is right to fling away all that he possesses, and himself too, for its advancement and victory.
My second plea for enthusiasm is its success. Take if you please the enthusiast who has not always been perfectly wise, and whose plans any one can criticize; the man who has not had tangible success. It does not follow that the cause of God is condemned in him or has lost by him. There is something more important than results which can be tabulated in reports, there is the spirit which inspires action and without which there will be no report to write. When a knight dies in his steel armour it does not matter much in the long result whether he lost or won. Every one who saw him fall, fearless to the last, leaves the lists with a higher idea of manhood. III. We are hag-ridden in the Church of God by the idea of machinery, and we forget that the motive power of religion is inspiration. ‘The world,’ some one has said, ‘is filled with the proverbs of a base prudence which adores the rule of three, which never subscribes, which never gives, which seldom lends, and only asks one question Will it bake bread?’ What we have to search for high and low is imprudent people, self-forgetful, uncalculating, heroic people.
J. Watson (Ian Maclaren), The Inspiration of Our Faith, p. 24.
References. III. 21. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Mark I.-VIII. p. 112. Vincent Tymms, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxix. 1905, p. 27. Henry Drummond, The Ideal Life, p. 9. III. 22-35. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Mark I.-VIII. p. 122.
An Eternal Sin
Mar 3:29
Or ‘guilty of an eternal sin’. This is almost certainly the true rendering of the words of the Evangelist, from which some transcribers shrank as something strange and unusual, and took refuge in a word more easy to be explained and more closely related to cognate expressions.
I. What may we take it to mean, this description of a state, which men seem to have hesitated even to write down? It means surely, first of all, a great mistake. You may notice that our blessed Lord had just been speaking about that mysterious blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which has so exercised the thoughts and guesses, and even terrors of men. It is this which brings man into the imminent danger of which we are thinking. Surely we are face to face with the possibility of a great mistake where a man gets so entirely out of sympathy with God that where there is God, he can only see an evil spirit; where there is goodness, he can only see malignity; where there is mercy, he can only see cruel tyranny. The great mistake! It begins, perhaps, in the will. Life is presented with all its fascinating material; there is the deadly bias of disposition, while there is the make-weight of grace; and the will gives in. And the dishonoured will now seeks to justify its degradation by an appeal to the intellect. Sin is decried as an ecclesiastical bogey. And then from the intellect it goes to the heart. ‘I will pull down my barns, and build greater.’ This is the extent of the heart’s ambition. See how the great mistake has spread! Self has deflected all the relations of life until the man has become denaturalized. He has made a great mistake his relations to the world, to God, to self, are inverted unless God interferes, i.e. unless the man allows God to interfere; he is guilty of an eternal sin, in the sense of having made an irreparable mistake, and missed the object for which he was created, the purpose for which he was endowed.
II. But, besides a great mistake, an eternal sin means a great catastrophe.
What a terrible consciousness to wake up to the thought that the position which God has given us, the talents, the intellect, the skill, have been abused by a real perversion of life, and that we have been only doing harm when we were meant to be centres of good! See how an eternal sin may mean an eternal catastrophe, where the forces of life have become mutinous and disobedient; where self-control has gone for ever, and anarchy or misrule riot across life, where there is the perversion of blessings which reaches its climax in the fact that man is the great exception in the order of nature; that while every other living thing is striving for its own good, man alone is found choosing what he knows to be for his hurt. There is no ruin to compare to it, no depravity so utterly depraved as that which comes from a disordered and shattered human nature.
III. Lastly, we are face to face with a great loss. ‘I do not wonder at what people suffer, but I wonder often at what they lose.’
The loss of God out of life, which begins, it may be, with a deprivation, and is a disquieting pang, which, if it is not arrested, becomes death, which, if persisted in, becomes eternal, becomes utter and complete separation from God, which becomes what we know as hell the condition of an eternal sin.
W. C. E. Newbolt, Words of Exhortation, p. 230.
Illustration. It was only that petty thieving from the bag, which Judas forgot as the miracles flashed before him, in speaking tongues, in unstopped ears, healed lepers, and awakened dead. It was only the selfish love of the world which he forgot, as he listened to the wondrous word of searching power, of veiling parable, or piercing insight, but insensibly it has begun to tell. A rift has begun to open in the lute. He finds himself as he never did before, a critic; he finds himself a grumbler; he finds himself in opposition. He is outside the charmed circle; ‘this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor’. He has a policy and a purpose of his own, ‘what will ye give me, and I will deliver Him unto you?’ Christ has dropped out of his life. He is definitely on the side of His enemies, ‘And Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them’. ‘I have sinned;’ remorse pushes out repentance, and he stands in the piteous void of the awful and eternal loss.
W. C. E. Newbolt, Words of Exhortation, p. 243.
References. III. 29. William Alexander, Primary Convictions, p. 133. W. Leighton Grane, Hard Sayings of Jesus Christ, p. 133. W. Temple, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxxiv. 1908, p. 214. III. 31-35. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Mark I.-VIII. p. 129. R. Rainy, British Weekly Pulpit, vol. ii. p. 109. III. 33-35. R. J. Campbell, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lix. 1901, p. 409. T. Vincent Tymms, ibid. vol. lxix. 1906, p. 219. III. 34. R. Rainy, Sojourning With God, p. 114. III. 35. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture St. Mark I.-VIII. p. 138. IV. 1-25. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xliii. No. 2512. IV. 1-34. W. H. Bennett. The Life of Christ According to St. Mark, p. 54. IV. 3-8, 14-20. C. G. Lang, Thoughts on Some of the Parables of Jesus, p. 13. IV. 4. F. Y. Leggatt, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxxiv. 1908, p. 337. IV. 5, 6. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xix. No. 1132.
Healing the Withered Hand
[An Analysis]
Mar 3
(1) Christ’s detection of human incompleteness. He instantly discovered that there was a man in the synagogue with a withered hand. The musician instantly detects a false note; the painter instantly detects an inartistic line; the complete Christ instantly detects the incomplete man. (2) Jesus Christ’s power over partial disease. The man had only a withered hand. In some cases Christ had to heal thoroughly diseased men, in this case the disease was local; yet in both instances his power was the same. (3) Christ’s inability to heal the obstinacy of his enemies. Here we come into the moral region, where all power is limited, and where omnipotence itself can work effectually only by the consent of the human will. A series of contrasts may be drawn in connection with this point. Christ could raise dead bodies; but dead souls had first to be willing to be raised. Christ could quell the storm on the sea, but he could not quiet the tumult of rebellious hearts. (4) Christ’s moral indignation overcoming all outward obstacles. He was indignant with the men who valued the sacredness of a day above the sacredness of a human life. Herein he showed the intense benevolence of his mission. Everything was to give way to the importunity of the wants of men. An important point is involved in the question which Jesus Christ puts in the fourth verse, viz., not to do good is actually to do evil.
The instance shows Christ’s carefulness over individual life. There was only one man, yet Jesus Christ give that solitary sufferer the full benefit of his omnipotence. The Gospel is a revelation of God’s love to individual men.
There are special moral deformities as well as special bodily diseases. Some Christians have withered hands, or defective vision, or one-sided sympathies, imperfect tempers, or faulty habits. Christ alone can heal such diseases.
All kinds of sufferers ought to associate the synagogue, the sanctuary, with their best hopes. It should be a place of healing, and of instruction, and of all holy stimulus.
6. And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.
This verse shows the working of three determined and most mischievous powers: (1) The power of prejudice; (2) The power of technicality; (3) The power of ignorance. Prejudice as against Christ; technicality as opposed to humanity; ignorance as forgetful of the fact that in morals as well as in physics the greater includes the less. Sabbath-keeping is less than man-healing.
7. But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea; and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Juda,
8. And from Jerusalem, and from Iduma, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him.
(1) There is a time to withdraw from opponents. (2) Withdrawment is not necessarily the result of cowardice. (3) Withdrawment from one sphere ought to be followed by entrance into another.
Great things draw great multitudes. How did Christ exercise his influence over great throngs? (1) He never lowered the moral tone of his teaching; (2) He was never unequal to the increasing demands made upon his power; (3) He never requested the multitude to help him in any selfish endeavours.
No subject can draw such great multitudes as the Gospel. No subject can so deeply affect great multitudes as the Gospel. No subject can so profoundly and lastingly bless great multitudes as the Gospel.
9. And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him.
10. For he had healed many: insomuch that they pressed upon him for to touch him, as many as had plagues.
11. And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.
12. And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known.
(1) Whoever has power to satisfy human necessities will never be in want of applicants. This is most obvious in the case of bodily suffering, but the principle holds good in reference to the deepest wants of human nature. (2) Unclean spirits may pay compliments to the good without changing their own disposition. (3) Unclean spirits are always commanded, as in this case, not to attempt the revelation of Christ. In the instance before us there was of course a special reason for the injunction; but the principle is applicable to the whole subject of teaching and interpreting Christ and his doctrine.
13. And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him.
14. And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
15. And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils.
16. And Simon he surnamed Peter;
17. And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
18. And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphus, and Thaddus, and Simon the Canaanite,
19. And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.
20. And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.
This paragraph may be used as showing the beginnings of the Christian Ministry. (1) The Christian ministry is an organization; (2) the Christian ministry is divinely selected; ( a ) a warning to pretenders; ( b ) an encouragement to true servants; ( c ) a guarantee of adaptation and success. (3) The Christian ministry is invested with special powers. The work of the ministry is to heal and bless mankind. This work can be fully sustained only by close communion with him who gave the power. Jesus Christ does not give even to ministers power for more than the immediate occasion. They must renew their appeals day by day. To them as to all the Church applies the admonition “Pray without ceasing.”
Amongst the general remarks which may be made upon the subject are the following: (1) Some ministers are marked by special characteristics, as, for example, Peter and James and John. (2) Some ministers are more prominent than others. One or two of the names in this list are prominent and illustrious; others are comparatively obscure. (3) The principal fact to determine is not a question of fame, but a question of vocation; whom Christ has called to the ministry he will also award appropriate honour.
On the 19th verse, remark (1) the possibility of debasing a divine position; (2) the impossibility of detaching the stigma of unfaithfulness. The name of Judas will always be associated with the betrayal, and the name of Simon Peter will always bring to memory his denial of his Lord.
21. And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
The abuses of friendship. (1) Friendship unable to follow the highest moods of the soul. (2) Friendship unable to see the spiritual meaning of outward circumstances. (3) Friendship seeking to interfere with spiritual usefulness. (4) Friendship seeking to reduce life to commonplace order. The sincere servant of Jesus Christ will take his law from the Master, and not from public opinion. The most complete detachment from worldly considerations and pursuits is necessary to sustain the soul when friendship itself becomes an assailant. The misinterpretation of our conduct by friendly critics often occasions the severest pain which is inflicted upon our spiritual life. The hand of enmity may be concealed within the glove of friendship.
22. And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.
23. And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?
24. And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
25. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
26. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.
Christ now encounters open hostility in addition to friendly, though mischievous, remonstrance. A theory of explanation was proposed by the scribes. Christ’s answer to that theory shows (1) that opinions of leading minds may be entirely fallacious; and (2) that common-sense often suggests the best answer to fanciful theories respecting the work of Christ. Christ’s whole answer turned upon the common-sense of his position. He does not plead authority; nor does he plead exemption from the ordinary laws of thought and service; he simply puts in the plea of common-sense. This fact supplies the basis for a discourse upon the relations of common-sense to the Gospel. The Gospel may in this respect be likened to Jacob’s ladder, the foot of which was upon the earth. The Gospel has its peculiar mysteries, and its light too brilliant for the naked eye; at the same time it has aspects and bearings admitting of the most vivid illustration and defence within the region accessible to all minds. On the other hand the paragraph shows (1) the binding power of religious prejudice; and (2) the utter recklessness of religious bigotry. With regard to the suggestion of the scribes it should be remembered (1) that bold theories are not necessarily true; and (2) that the espousal of untrue theories will end in the confusion and humiliation of the theorists.
27. No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.
Human life as affected by two different forces. (1) The strong enemy; (2) the strong friend. It is important to recognise the strength of the enemy, because it may be supposed that little or no effort is required to encounter his assaults. It should always be pointed out that Jesus Christ never speaks with hesitation as to the results of his repulse of the enemy. He never represents himself as clothed with more than sufficiency of power. In the text he is set forth as spoiling the strong man. It was prophesied that he should bruise the serpent’s head.
Application: (1) Man must be under one or other of these forces, the enemy or the friend. (2) Those who continue under the devil will share the ruin to which he is doomed. When Satan’s head is bruised, all who are in his empire will be crushed.
28. Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29. But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
30. Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
Tischendorf reads the twenty-ninth verse “in danger of the eternal sin.” Two aspects of human probation: (1) the pardonable, (2) the unpardonable. (1) The pardonable, ( a ) Its great extent, “all sins,” etc.; ( b ) the implied greatness of the divine mercy. (2) The unpardonable: ( a ) its intense spirituality; ( b ) its perfect reasonableness. To sin against the Spirit is to cut away the only foundation on which the sinner can stand. Christianity is the appeal of God’s Spirit to man’s spirit; men may sin against the letter, the form, the dogma, and yet be within the pale of forgiveness; but when they revile and defy the very Spirit of God, they cut themselves off from the current of divine communion.
31. There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
32. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
33. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
34. And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren.
35. For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
(1) The spirituality of Christ’s relationships. The kinship of the body is held subordinate to the kinship of the spirit. (2) The true bond of communion with Christ: ( a ) not merely natural; ( b ) not merely social. What is the true bond of communion with Christ? Obedience to God’s will, ( a ) There is but one infallible will; ( b ) that will appeals for universal obedience, “whosoever.” (3) The privileges resulting from communion with Christ. ( a ) Intimate relationship, mother, sister, brother; ( b ) social communion: this is the family idea.
Among the general inferences which may be drawn from this passage are the following: (1) If men are to obey the Divine will, a great change must pass upon their natural dispositions. (2) If our communion with Christ is spiritual, it will be eternal. (3) If all the good are Christ’s kindred, they are the kindred of one another, and ought therefore to live in the spirit of brotherhood.
Prayer
Almighty God, do thou take away the heart of unbelief, and put within us a believing spirit. Lord, we believe; help thou our unbelief. Thou canst do all things with him who believeth; all things are possible to him: but is not faith the gift of God? Lord, increase our faith. Thou knowest how we are beset by the senses, how we are limited and tempted and urged by a thousand influences which only thine own strength can resist: come to our aid, stand by our side. Christ, thou Son of God, thou wast in all points tempted like as we are; thou knowest our frame, thou rememberest that we are dust, and thou wilt not suffer us to be tempted with any temptation that cannot be overcome. Our hope is in God; our confidence is in the Cross; we fly unto the Son of God as unto an eternal refuge. Save us, keep us, protect us, in all the hours cf agony which make our life so deep a trouble. Thou knowest us altogether: the difficulties here and there, in the house, in the church, in the market, in the soul itself that inner battlefield on which the great contests are urged and waged and finished. Lord, again and again we say, Come from thy Cross and save us; Christ, Thou Son of man, have mercy on us! Lead us into the knowledge of thy truth; give us such a love of thyself and thy purpose that all other influences and impulses shall be shut out from our life, or sanctified and regulated by thy presence. Thou knowest our downsitting and our uprising, our going out and our coming in; there is not a word upon our tongue, there is not a thought in our heart, but lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. This is our joy, and this is our terror; for wherein we would be right how blessed is thy smile; and wherein we would seek to deceive thee or evade thee, how awful is the penetration of thine eye. Regard us in all the relations of life, and make us strong in Christ and in his grace, hopeful because his kingdom is ever coming, and willing to work in the Lord’s service, for in his labour there is rest. Help the good man to pray some bolder prayer; help the timid man to put out his soul in one act of faith; disappoint the bad man; when the cruel man is seeking his prey, let sudden darkness fall upon him and rest upon his eyes like a load. The Lord thus undertake for us, guide us, uphold us; give us wisdom, grace, purity, strength, and patience, and all the fruits of the Spirit. Let the Holy Ghost be our life, and light, and joy; quicken our spiritual discernment that we may see things that are not seen; so excite our highest sensibilities as to enable us to respond with instant and grateful love to all the appeals of thy truth. Thou alone canst renew human life, and establish it in everlasting blessedness. Truly thou workest in mystery, yet are the results of thy work beautiful and noble exceedingly. Thou hidest thyself in the chambers of our heart, so that none can see thee, and yet we know that thou art there by the flooding love which overflows our being, by the heavenward desires which stir our nature with blessed unrest, and by the lofty power with which we are enabled to do all the common work of life. Abide with us! When thou goest, our light is put out; when thou returnest, no shadow can be found upon us. In the light of thy mercy we see all our guilt; in the sweetness of thy love we feel the bitterness of our sin. Abide with us! By thy word we see the folly of our own wisdom; by thy Holy Spirit we know the wickedness of the devil. Abide with us! Where our sin abounds let thy grace much more abound. Shame us by the incessancy of thy love, rather than destroy us by thy great power. O loving One, patient, tender, abide with us! And to God who made us, and to God who redeemed us with an infinite price, to the Holy Ghost, the God who sanctifieth us, be the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, world without end. Amen.
XXIX
OUR LORD’S GREAT MINISTRY IN GALILEE
Part IV The Centurion’s Servant Healed, the Widow’s Son Raised, The Sin Against the Holy Spirit
Harmony -pages 52-59 and Mat 8:1 When Jesus, who spoke with authority, had finished the Sermon on the Mount, he returned to Capernaum where he acted with authority in performing some noted miracles. Here he was met by a deputation from a centurion, a heathen, beseeching him to heal his servant who was at the point of death. This Jewish deputation entered the plea for the centurion that he had favored the Jews greatly and had built for them a synagogue. Jesus set out at once to go to the house of the centurion, but was met by a second deputation, saying to Jesus that he not trouble himself but just speak the word and the work would be done. The centurion referred in this message to his own authority over his soldiers, reasoning that Christ’s authority was greater and therefore he could speak the word and his servant should be healed. This called forth from our Lord the highest commendation of his faith. No Jew up to this time had manifested such faith as this Roman centurion. Then our Lord draws the picture of the Gentiles coming from the east, west, north, and south to feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven while the Jews, the sons of the kingdom, were cast out. Jesus then granted the petition of the centurion according to his faith.
The second great miracle of Jesus in this region was the raising of the widow’s son at Nain, which was a great blessing to the widow and caused very much comment upon the work of our Lord, so that his fame spread over all Judea and the region roundabout. His fame as a miracle worker and “a great prophet, “ reached John the Baptist and brought forth his message of inquiry.
This inquiry of John, which reflects the state of discouragement, and also the testimony of Jesus concerning John, is discussed in Joh 10 of this volume (which see), but there are some points in this incident not brought out in that discussion which also need to be emphasized. First, what is the meaning of “the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence” (Mat 11:12 )? The image is not precisely that of taking a city by storm, but of an eager, invading host, each trying to be first, pressing and jostling each other, as when gold was discovered in California, or at the settlement of the Oklahoma strip. It means impassioned earnestness and indomitable resolution in the entrance upon and pursuit of a Christian life, making religion the chief concern and salvation the foremost thing as expressed in the precepts: “Seek first the kingdom, etc.,” “Agonize to enter in at the strait gate.” It rightly expresses the absorbing interest and enthusiasm of a revival. “Thus Christianity was born in a revival and all its mighty advances have come from revivals which are yet the hope of the world.” This thought is illustrated in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, pp. 47-49. Following this is the contrast between the publicans and scribes, the one justifying God and the other rejecting for themselves the counsel of God. Then he likens them unto children in the market, playing funeral. One side piped but the other side did not dance; then they wailed but the others did not weep. So, John was an ascetic and that did not suit them; Jesus ate and drank and that did not suit them. So it has ever been with the faultfinders. But in spite of that, wisdom is justified of her works (or children), i.e., wisdom is evidenced by her children, whether in the conduct of John or Jesus. But this statement does not justify the liquor business as the defendants of it claim.
There is no evidence that Jesus either made or drank intoxicating wine
Then began Jesus to upbraid the cities wherein were done these mighty works, including Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, because they had not repented. This shows that light brings with it the obligation to repent, and that this will be the governing principle of the judgment. Men shall be judged according to the light they have. Then follows the announcement of a great principle of revelation. God makes it to babes rather than to the worldly-wise man, and that Jesus himself is the medium of the revelation from God to man, but only the humble in spirit and contrite in heart can receive it. Because he is the medium of the blessing, the God-man, his compassion here finds expression in this great, broad invitation: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for am I meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Note the two kinds of rest here: First, the given rest, which is accepted by grace, and second, the found rest, which is attained in service.
The next incident is the anointing of our Saviour’s feet by a woman who was a sinner. This incident occurred in Galilee just where I do not know possibly, but not probably, in Nain. It is recorded by Luke alone, who, following a custom of the historians of mentioning only one incident of a special kind, omits the narrative of a later anointing.
Two preceding things seem to be implied by the story: (a) That the host had been a beneficiary in some way of Christ’s healing power over the body; (b) That the woman had been a beneficiary” of his saving power. It is quite probable that her weary and sin-burdened soul had heard and accepted the gracious invitation: “Come unto me, etc.,” just given by the Saviour. At any rate her case is an incarnate illustration of the power of that text and is a living exposition of it. It is far more beautiful and impressive in the Greek than any translation can make it. Several customs prevalent then but obsolete now, constitute the setting of the story, and must be understood in order to appreciate its full meaning.
(1) The Oriental courtesies of hospitality usually extended to an honored guest. The footwear of the times open sandals and the dust of travel in so dry a country, necessitated the washing of the feet of an incoming guest the first act of hospitality. See Abraham’s example (Gen 18:4 ) and Lot’s (Gen 19:2 ) and Laban’s (Gen 24:32 ) and the old Benjaminite (Jdg 19:20-21 ) and Abigail (1Sa 25:41 ). See as later instances (Joh 13 ) our Lord’s washing the feet of his disciples and the Christian customs (1Ti 5:10 ). This office was usually performed by servants, but was a mark of great respect and honor to a guest if performed by the host himself.
(2) The custom of saluting a guest with a kiss. See case of Moses (Exo 18:7 ) and of David (2Sa 19:39 ). To observe this mode of showing affectionate respect is frequently enjoined in the New Testament epistles. As employed by Absalom for purposes of demagogy (2Sa 15:5 ), and as employed toward Amasa by Joab when murder was in his heart (2Sa 20:9-10 ), and by Judas to our Lord when treachery was in his heart, rendered their crimes the more heinous. To this Patrick Henry refers: “Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.”
(3) The custom of anointing the head at meals (Ecc 9:7-8 ; Psa 23:5 ). Hence for the Pharisee to omit these marks of courteous hospitality was to show his light esteem for his guest. It proves that the invitation was not very hearty.
(4) The custom of reclining at meals (Amo 6:4-6 ). This explains “sat at meat” and “behind at his feet.”
With these items of background we are prepared to understand and appreciate that wonderful story of the compassion of Jesus. His lesson on forgiveness and proportionate love as illustrated in the case of this wicked woman has been the sweet consolation of thousands. The announcement to the woman that her faith had saved her throws light on the question, “What must I do to be saved?” There are here also the usual contrasts where the work of salvation is going on. The woman was overflowing with love and praise while others were questioning in their hearts and abounding in hate and censure. This scene has been re-enacted many a time since, as Christianity has held out the hand of compassion to the outcasts and Satan has questioned and jeered at her beautiful offers of mercy.
In Section 47 (Luk 8:1-3 ) of the Harmony we have a further account of our Lord’s ministry in Galilee with the twelve, and certain women who had been the beneficiaries of his ministry, who also ministered to him of their substance. This is the first Ladies’ Aid Society of which we have any record and they were of the right sort.
We now take up the discussion of the sin against -the Holy Spirit found in Section 48 (Mat 12:22-37 ; Mar 3:19-30 ). Before opening the discussion of it, allow me to group certain passages of both Testaments bearing on this question: Psa 19:13 : “Innocent of the great transgression.” Mar 3:29 : “Guilty of an eternal sin.” Num 15:28-31 : “If any soul sin through ignorance, the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the Lord, to make an atonement for him and it shall be forgiven him. But the soul that doeth presumptuously, born in the land of a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.” Heb 10:26-29 : “For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries. A man that hath set at naught Moses’ law, dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses; of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” Jer 15:1 : “Then said the Lord unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people: cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth.” 1Jn 5:16 : “If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: not concerning this do I say that he should make request.” Eze 14:13-14 : “Son of man, when a land sinneth against me, by committing a trespass, and I stretch out mine hand upon it, and break the staff of the bread thereof, and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast; though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God.”
The scriptures just cited have excited profound interest in every age of the world since they were recorded. In all the intervening centuries they have so stirred the hearts of those affected by them as to strip life of enjoyment. They have driven many to despair. In every community there are guilty and awakened consciences as spellbound by these scriptures as was Belshazzar when with pallid lips and shaking knees he confronted the mysterious handwriting on the wall, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. In almost every community we can find some troubled soul, tortured with the apprehension that he has committed the unpardonable sin. Sympathetic and kindly-disposed expositors in every age have tried in vain to break the natural force or soften in some way the prima facie import of these divine utterances. Some have denied that there ever was, or ever could be an unpardonable sin. Others conceded that such sin might have been committed in the days of Christ’s earthly ministry, but the hazard passed away with the cessation of miracles. All the power of great scholarship has been brought to bear with microscopic inspection of words and phrases to establish one or the other of these propositions. And, indeed, if great names could avail in such cases, this slough of despond would have been safely bridged. But no such explanation ever satisfies a guilty conscience or removes from the hearts of the masses of plain people, the solemn conviction that the Bible teaches two things:
First, that in every age of the past, men were liable to commit the unpardonable sin and that as a matter of fact, some did commit it.
Second, that there is now not only the same liability, but that some do now actually commit it. There is something in man which tells him that these scriptures possess for him an awful admonition whose truth is eternal.
Whether all the scriptures just cited admit of one classification matters nothing, so far as the prevalent conviction is concerned. Where one of the group may be successfully detached by exegesis another rises up to take its place. The interest in the doctrine founded on them is a never-dying interest. Because of this interest, it is purposed now to examine somewhat carefully, the principal passages bearing on this momentous theme. Most humbly, self-distrustingly and reverently will the awful subject be approached.
It is deemed best to approach it by considering specially the case recorded by Matthew and Mark. The words are spoken by our Lord himself. The antecedent facts which occasioned their utterance may be briefly stated thus:
(1) Jesus had just delivered a miserable demoniac by casting out the demon who possessed him.
(2) It was a daylight affair, a public transaction, all the circumstances so open and visible, and the fact so incontrovertible and stupendous that many recognized the divine power and presence.
(3) But certain Pharisees who had been pursuing him with hostile intent, who had been obstructing his work in every possible way, finding themselves unable to dispute the fact of the miracle, sought to break its force by attributing its origin to Beelzebub, the prince of demons, charging Jesus with collusion with Satan.
(4) The issue raised was specific. This issue rested on three indisputable facts conceded by all parties. It is important to note these facts carefully and to impress our minds with the thought that as conceded facts, they underlie the issue. The facts are, first, that an evil and unwilling demon had been forcibly ejected from his much desired stronghold and dispossessed of his ill-gotten spoils. It was no good spirit. It was no willing spirit. It was a violent ejectment. It was a despoiling ejectment. Second, the one who so summarily ejected the demon and despoiled him was Jesus of Nazareth. Third fact, the ejectment was by supernatural miraculous power by some spirit mightier than the outcast demon. Evidently Jesus had, by some spirit, wrought a notable miracle. He claimed that he did it by the Holy Spirit of God resting on him and dwelling in him. The Pharisees alleged that he did it by an unclean spirit, even Satan himself. The contrast is between “unclean-spirit” and “Holy Spirit.” An awful sin was committed by one or the other. Somebody was guilty of blasphemy. If Jesus was in collusion with Satan if he attributed the devil’s work by him to the Holy Spirit, he was guilty of blasphemy. If the Pharisees, on the other hand, attributed the work of the Holy Spirit to an unclean spirit, this was slandering God. They were guilty of blasphemy.
(5) Jesus answers the charge against himself by three arguments: First, as the demon cast out belonged to Satan’s kingdom and was doing Satan’s work, evidently he was not cast out by Satan’s power, for a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, and none could justly accuse Satan of the folly of undermining his own kingdom. Second, the demon could not have been despoiled and cast out unless first overpowered by some stronger spirit than himself, who, if not Satan, must be the Holy Spirit, Satan’s antagonist and master. Third, as the Pharisees themselves claimed to be exorcists of demons, it became them to consider how their argument against Jesus might be applied to their own exorcisms.
Then he in turn became the accuser. In grief and indignation he said, “Therefore I say unto you, every sin and blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in that which is to come.”
Or as Mark expresses it, “Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin; because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” Having the case now before us, let us next define or explain certain terms expressed or implied in the record.
Unpardonable. Pardonable means not that which is or must be pardoned, but which may be pardoned on compliance with proper conditions that while any sin unrepented of, leads ultimately to death, yet as long as the sinner lives, a way of escape is offered to him. But an unpardonable sin is one which from the moment of its committal is forever without a possible remedy. Though such a sinner may be permitted to live many years, yet the very door of hope is closed against him. It is an eternal sin. It hath never forgiveness. Sermons, prayers, songs, and exhortations avail nothing in his case. The next expression needing explanation is, “Neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” Construed by itself this language might imply one of two things:
First, that God will pardon some sins in the next world, i.e., there may be for many, though not all, a probation after death. So Romanists teach. On such interpretation is purgatory founded.
Second, or it may imply that God puts away some sins so far as the next world is concerned, but yet does not remit chastisement for them in this world.
Where the meaning of a given passage is doubtful, then we apply the analogy of the faith. That is, we compare the doubtful with the certain. The application of this rule necessitates discarding the first possible meaning assigned. It is utterly repugnant to the tenor of the Scriptures. Men are judged and their destiny decided by the deeds done in the body, not out of it. If they die unjust they are raised unjust. There is no probation after death. It remains to inquire if the second possible implication agrees with the tenor of the Scriptures. Here we find no difficulty whatever. The general Bible teaching is in harmony with the second meaning. The Scriptures abundantly show three things:
First, some sins are remitted both for time and eternity. That is, when they are pardoned for eternity, even chastisement on earth is also remitted.
Second, much graver sins are, on repentance, put away as to eternity, but very sore chastisement is inflicted in time. As when God said to David after Nathan visited him: “The Lord hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.” The Lord also announced to him that “the sword should never depart from his house” because he had caused the death of Uriah (see 2Sa 12:7-14 ). Here is one unmistakable case out of many that could be cited where sin was forgiven as to the next world, but not as to this world.
The thought is that God, in fatherly discipline, chastises all Christians in this world. To be without chastisement in this world proves we are not God’s children. An awful token of utter alienation from God is to be deprived of correction here, when we sin. To be sinners and yet to prosper. To die sinners and yet have no “bands in our death.” So that the expression “hath never forgiveness, neither in this world nor in the world to come,” implies nothing about a probation after death, but refers to God’s method of withholding correction in this world, from some sinners, but never withholding punishment of this class in the next, and to his method of correcting Christians in this world, but never punishing them in the next world.
Third, the expression teaches that in the case of those who sin against the Holy Spirit, God’s method of dealing is different from both the foregoing methods. In the case of the unpardonable sin, punishment commences now and continues forever. There is no remission of either temporal or eternal penalties. They have the pleasures of neither world. To illustrate: Lazarus had the next world, but not this; Dives had this world, but not the next. But the man who commits the unpardonable sin has neither world, as Judas Iscariot, Ananias, and others.
To further illustrate, by earthly things, we might say that Benedict Arnold committed the unpardonable sin as to nations. He lost the United States and did not gain England. Hated here; despised yonder. The price of his treason could not be enjoyed. He had never forgiveness, neither on this side the ocean nor on the other side. Another term needing explanation is the word,
Blasphemy. This is strictly a compound Greek word Anglicized. It is transferred bodily to our language. In Greek literature it is quite familiar and often used. Its meaning is thoroughly established. According to strict etymology, it is an offense of speech, i.e., of spoken words. Literally, as a verb, it means to speak ill or injuriously of any one, to revile or defame. As a noun, it means detraction or slander. I say it means to defame any one whether man or God. Even in the Bible usage of both the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament, the word is generally applied to both man and God.
When Paul says he was “slanderously reported,” as saying a certain thing, and when Peter says “speak evil of no man,” they both correctly employ the Greek word “blaspheme.” Even this passage refers to other blasphemies than those against God, “all manner of blasphemies except the blasphemies against the Holy Spirit.” In both English and American law, blasphemy has ever been an indictable offense, whether against man or God. Later usages, however, restrict the term “blasphemy” to an offense against God, while the term “slander” is applied to the same offense against men. According to strict derivation, it is an offense of spoken words. To this our Saviour refers in the context when he says, “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” But one is quite mistaken who limits the meaning of the term to strict etymology. In both human and divine law, the offense of “blasphemy” may be committed by writing the words, or publishing them, as well as by speaking them. We may blaspheme by either printing, painting, or pantomime. Any overt, provable action which intentionally conveys a false and injurious impression against any one comes within the scope of the offense. Under the more spiritual, divine law, the offense may be committed in the mind, whether ever spoken aloud. Our context says, “Jesus knowing their thoughts.” Indeed, the very essence of the offense is in the heart the intent the idea. Words are matters of judgment, solely because they are signs of ideas and expressions of the heart. This our context abundantly shows. Our Saviour says, “Either make the tree good and its fruit good; or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by its fruit. Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. The good man out of his good treasure, bringeth forth good things: and the evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.”
From this exhibition of the meaning of the word “blasphemy,” we can easily see that either Jesus or the Pharisees were guilty of the offense. Both could not be innocent. If Jesus, while claiming to act by the Holy Spirit, was but the organ of “an unclean spirit,” then he blasphemed or slandered the Holy Spirit. If his work was wrought by the Holy Spirit, then the Pharisees, by attributing that work to an “unclean spirit,” blasphemed the Holy Spirit.
Having clearly before us the meaning of “blasphemy,” let us advance to another explanation. The character of any code or government is revealed by its capital offenses; the grade of any nation’s civilization is registered by its penal code. If capital punishment, or the extreme limit of punishment is inflicted for many and slight offenses, the government is called barbarian. If for only a few extraordinary and very heinous crimes, the government is called civilized. For instance, under the English law of long ago, a man might be legally put to death for snaring a bird or rabbit. The extreme limit of punishment was visited upon many who now would be pronounced guilty of only misdemeanors or petit larceny. It was a bloody code. The enlightened mind intuitively revolts against undue severity. Modern civilization has reduced capital offense to a minimum. Even in these few cases three things at least must always be proved:
(1) That the offender had arrived at the age of discretion, and possessed a sound mind. A mere child, a lunatic or idiot cannot commit a capital offense.
(2) Premeditation. The crime must be deliberately committed.
(3) Malice. The evil intent must be proved.
The higher benevolence of the divine law will appear from the fact that there is but one unpardonable offense, and that even more must be proved against one accused of this offense than the age of discretion, a sound mind, premeditation, and malice. Indeed, the sin against the Holy Spirit must outrank all others in intrinsic heinousness. This will abundantly appear when we reach the Bible definition and analysis of the sin against the Holy Spirit. We are not ready even yet, however, to enter upon the discussion of the sin itself. Two other preliminary explanations are needed.
Why must the one unpardonable sin be necessarily against the Holy Spirit? What is the philosophy or rationale of this necessity? This question and the answer to it cannot be understood unless we give due weight, both separately and collectively, to the following correlated proposition: There is one law giver, God. His law is the one supreme standard which defines right and wrong prescribing the right, proscribing the wrong. God himself is the sole, authoritative interpreter of his law. The scope of its obligations cannot be limited by finite knowledge, or human conscience. Any failure whatever at conformity thereto, or any deflection therefrom, to the right or left, however slight, and from whatever cause, is unrighteousness. All unrighteousness is sin. The wages of sin is death. All men are sinners by nature and practice.
Therefore, by the deeds of the law can no man be justified in the sight of God. The law condemns every man. It also follows: First, that any possible salvation must flow from God’s free grace. Second, that not even grace can provide a way of escape for the condemned inconsistent with God’s Justice and holiness. That is, any possible scheme of salvation for sinners must both satisfy the law penalty, thereby appeasing justice, and provide for the personal holiness of the forgiven sinner.
To put it in yet other words, the plan of salvation, to be feasible, must secure for every sinner to be saved, three things at least: (a) justification, (b) regeneration, (c) sanctification, which are equivalent to deliverance from the law penalty, a new nature, and personal holiness. I say that these three things are absolutely requisite. I cite just now only three scriptural proofs, one under each head:
Rom 3:23-26 declares that a propitiation must be made for sin in order that God might be just in justifying the sinner. Joh 3:3-7 sets forth the absolute necessity of the new birth the imparting of a new nature.
Heb 12:14 declares that “without holiness no man shall see the Lord.”
To admit into heaven even one unjustified man, one man in his carnal nature, one unholy man, would necessarily dethrone God, while inflicting worse than the tortures of hell on the one so admitted.
No fish out of water, no wolf or owl in the daylight, could be so unutterably wretched as such a man. He would be utterly out of harmony with his surroundings. I think he would prefer hell. The gates of the holy city stand open day and night, which means that no saint would go out, and no sinner would go in. After the judgment as well as now, the sinner loves darkness rather than light. It therefore naturally, philosophically and necessarily follows that salvation must have limitations. A careful study of these limitations will disclose to us the rationale of the unpardonable sin. What, then, are these limitations?
(1) Outside of grace, no salvation.
(2) Outside of Christ, no grace.
(3) Outside of the Spirit, no Christ.
In other words, Christ alone reveals the Father, and the Spirit alone reveals Christ; or no man can reach the Father except through Christ Christ is the door and no man can find that door except through the Spirit. It necessarily follows that an unpardonable sin is a sin against the Spirit. This would necessarily follow from the order of the manifestations of the Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. From the order of the dispensations: First, the Father’s dispensation of law; second, the Son’s dispensation of atonement; third, the Spirit’s dispensation of applying the atonement. The Spirit is heaven’s ultimatum heaven’s last overture. If we sin against the Father directly, the Son remains. We may reach him through the Son. If we sin directly against the Son, the Spirit remains. We may reach him through the Spirit. If we sin against the Spirit, nothing remains. Therefore that sin is without remedy. So argues our Saviour: “Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come. He is guilty of an eternal sin.”
Our last preliminary explanation answers this question: Are men now liable to commit this sin? If not liable, the reasons for discussing the matter at all are much reduced. If liable, the reasons for discussion are infinitely enhanced. It is of infinitely greater moment to point out to the unwary of a possible immediate danger, than to relieve the mind from the fear of an unreal danger, however great and torturing may be that fear. It is claimed by many intelligent expositors that this sin cannot be committed apart from an age of miracles, nor apart from the specific miracle of casting out demons, nor apart from attributing the supernatural, miraculous power of the Holy Spirit in said miracle to Beelzebub, the prince of demons.
Very deep love have I for the great and good men who take this position, as, I believe, led away by sentiment, sympathy, and amiability on the one hand, and horrified on the other hand with the recklessness which characterizes many sensational discussions of this grave matter by tyros, unlearned, and immature expositors. Very deep love have I for the men, but far less respect for their argument. I submit, just now, only a few out of many grave reasons for rejecting this interpretation.
(1) Such restriction of meaning is too narrow and mechanical. The Bible could not be to us a book of principles, if the exact circumstances must be duplicated in order to obtain a law. From the study of every historical incident in the Bible we deduce principles of action.
(2) The Scriptures clearly grade miracles wrought by the Spirit below other works of the Spirit. This is evident from many passages and connections. Writing the names of the saved in the book of life was greater than casting out devils (Luk 10:20 ). Fourth only in the gifts of the Spirit does miracle-working power rank (1Co 12:28 ). Far inferior are any of these gifts to the abiding graces of the Spirit (1Co 13:1-13 ; 1Co 14:1-33 ). How, then, in reason and common sense, can it be a more heinous blasphemy to attribute an inferior work of the Spirit to the devil than a superior work? Will any man seriously maintain that this is so, because a miracle is more demonstrable its proof more vivid and cognizable by the natural senses? This would be to affirm the contrary of scriptural teaching on many points. We may know more things about spirit than we can know about matter. This knowledge is more vivid and impressive than the other. Spiritual demonstration to the inner man is always a profounder demonstration than any whatever to the outer man.
(3) Such a restriction of meaning to the days of Christ in the flesh is out of harmony with Old Testament teaching on the same subject.
(4) It fails to harmonize with many other passages in later New Testament time, which will not admit of a different classification without contradicting the text itself, since thereby more than one kind of unpardonable sins would be established.
(5) The utter failure of this exposition to convince the judgment of plain people everywhere, and its greater failure to relieve troubled consciences everywhere, is a strong presumptive argument against its soundness.
Because, therefore, I believe that the sin against the Holy Spirit may now be committed because I believe that some men in nearly every Christian community have committed it because I believe that the liability is imminent and the penalty, when incurred, utterly without remedy, and because I feel pressed in spirit to warn the imperiled of so great condemnation, therefore I preach on the subject preach earnestly preach in tears preach with melted heart.
QUESTIONS
1. How did Jesus vindicate his authority apart from his claims and teaching?
2. What are the details in the incident of healing the centurions servant, how do you reconcile the accounts of Matthew and Luke, and what the lessons of this incident?
3. Describe the incident of the raising of the widow’s son at Nain and its lesson.
4. What inquiry from John the Baptist brought forth by this fame of Jesus and what was Jesus’ reply?
5. What is the meaning of “the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence?
6. What reproof of the Pharisees by our Lord called forth by this?
7. What cities here upbraided by our Lord and what principle enunciated in this connection?
8. What principle of revelation announced here also?
9. What great invitation here announced by our Lord and what is its great teaching?
10. Relate the story of the anointing of the feet of Jesus by the wicked woman.
11. What two things seem to be implied by the story?
12. What Oriental customs constitute the setting of this story and what is the explanation of each?
13. What are the lessons and contrasts of this incident?
14. Give an account of the first Ladies’ Aid Society.
15. What scriptures of both Testaments bearing on the sin against the Holy Spirit?
16. What can you say of the impression made by these scriptures?
17. What efforts of sympathetic expositors to soften the import of these scriptures?
18. What two solemn convictions yet remain?
19. What were the antecedent facts which occasioned the statements of our Lord in Section 48 of the Harmony?
20. What is the meaning of “unpardonable”?
21. What is the meaning of “neither in this world, nor in the world to come”?
22. What is the meaning of “blasphemy”?
23. Show that either Jesus or the Pharisees were guilty of blasphemy on this occasion.
24. How is the character of a code of laws determined? Illustrate.
25. What three things must be proved in the case of capital offenses against our laws?
26. How does the higher benevolence of the divine law appear?
27. What correlated proposition must be duly considered in order to understand the sin against the Holy Spirit?
28. What two things also follow from this?
29. What three things must the plan of salvation secure for every sinner who shall be saved, and what the proof?
30. What are the limitations which determine the rationale of the sin against the Holy Spirit? Explain.
31. What are the claims of some expositors with respect to this sin and what the reasons for rejecting them?
XXVII
OUR LORD’S GREAT MINISTRY IN GALILEE
Part II
Harmony -pages 89-45 and Mat 9:27-34 This is a continuation of the great ministry of our Lord in Galilee and the next incident is the healing of the two blind men and the dumb demoniac. It will be noted that our Lord here tested the faith of the blind men in his ability to heal them, and when they were healed he forbade their publishing this to the people, but they went forth and told it and spread his fame in all the land. It was “too good to keep.” Immediately after this they brought to him one possessed with a demon and dumb, and he cast out the demon. This produced wonder among the common people, but brought forth another issue between our Lord and the Pharisees. Tins is the third issue with them, the first being the authority to forgive sins at the healing of the paralytic; the second, the eating with publicans and sinners at the feast of Matthew; the third, the casting out of demons by the prince of demons, which culminated later in the unpardonable sin.
The next incident in our Lord’s ministry is his visit to Jerusalem to the Feast of the Passover (see note in Harmony, p. 39), at which he healed a man on the sabbath and defended his action in the great discourse that followed. In this discussion of our Lord the central text is Joh 5:25 and there are three things to be considered in this connection.
THE OCCASION
The scriptural story of the circumstances which preceded and called forth these utterances of our Saviour is very familiar, very simple, and very touching. A great multitude of impotent folk, blind, halt, withered, were lying in Bethesda’s porches, waiting for the moving of the waters. It is a graphic picture of the afflictions and infirmities incident to human life; the sadness of ill-health; the unutterable longing of the sick to be well; the marvelous power of an advertised cure to attract to its portals and hold in its cold waiting rooms earth’s despairing sufferers, so grouped as to sicken contemplation by the varieties and contrasts of all the ills that flesh is heir to.
Blindness groping its way trying to see with its fingers; deafness vainly and painfully listening for a voice it cannot hear listening with its eyes; lameness limping along on nerveless, wooden feet; blistered, swollen tongues, dumb and senseless, appealing to fingers for speech and to nostrils for taste; the pitiful whining of mendicancy and vagabondage and raga timidly dodging from an expected blow while begging alms; the hideousness of deformity, either shrinking from exposure or glorifying to make conspicuous its repulsiveness, while a side-light reveals, crouched in the misty background, Sin, the fruitful mother of all this progeny of woe.
Ah I Bethesda, Bethesda, thy porches are the archives of unwritten tragedies! If the hieroglyphics inscribed by suffering on thy cold stone pavements could be deciphered, the translations age by age, would be but a repetition of sorrow’s one prayer to pitying heaven: Oh heaven! have compassion on us! Oh heaven I send a healer to us.
It was a sad sight. Now, among the number gathered about that pool was a man who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. His infirmity was impotence lack of power. His physical and his mental powers were prostrated, paralyzed. His affliction was so great that it prevented him from availing himself of any chance of being cured in this pool, and he was tantalized by lying in sight of the cure, continually seeing cures performed on others, and never being able to reach it himself. Such a case attracted the attention of Jesus. He came to this man and propounded an important question: “Do you want to be healed? Are you in earnest? Do you really wish to be made whole?” The man explains the circumstances that seemed to militate against his having a desire to be made whole: “I have not continued in this condition thirty-eight years because I did not try to help myself. I would be cured if I could be, but I cannot get down there into that water in time. Somebody always gets ahead of me. There is nobody to put me into the pool. My lying here so long and suffering so long, does not argue that I do not wish to be healed.” Now, here is the key of the passage. Without employing the curative powers of the water, without resorting to any medical application whatever, by a word of authority, Jesus commanded him to rise up: “Be healed and walk.” Now, do not forget that it was by a simple command, an authoritative voice, that that cure was consummated.
The time was the sabbath. There were certain bigots and hypocrites who imagined that they were the conservators of religion, and the only authoritative interpreters and expounders of the obligations of the Fourth Commandment: “Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.” They preferred two charges against the Lord Jesus Christ. The first charge was that he had violated the sabbath in performing that cure on the sabbath day. He worked on the sabbath day, whereas the commandment said that there should be a cessation from work on that day. And the second count in the charge was that he had caused another to work on that day, in that he made this man take up his bed and walk. Now, that is the first controversy. It is a controversy with reference to the violation of the Fourth Commandment. Jesus defended himself: “My Father worketh on the sabbath day. You misunderstand that commandment. It does not say, ‘Do no work,’ but that commandment says, ‘Do no secular and selfish work.’ It does not gay, ‘Do no work of mercy.’ It does not say, ‘Do no work of necessity.’ And as a proof of it, God, who rested upon the day originally and thereby hallowed it, himself has worked ever since. True, he rested from the work of creation, but my Father worketh hitherto and I work.” His defense was this: That they misunderstood the import of the commandment, and that what he did had this justification that is was following the example of the Father himself. Now comes the second controversy. Instantly they prefer a new charge against him, growing out of the defense that he had made. The charge now is a violation of the First Commandment, in that he claimed God as his father, his own father, and thereby made himself equal with God, which was blasphemy.
The keynote grows out of his defense against this second charge not the charge about the violation of the sabbath day, but the charge suggested by his defense the charge that he made himself equal with God. His defense is this: “I admit the fact. I do make myself equal with God. There is no dispute about the fact. But I deny the criminality of it. I deny that it furnishes any basis for your accusation.” And then he goes on to show why. He says, “As Son of man, in my humanity I do not do anything of myself. I do not put humanity up against God. As Son of man I never do anything unless I first see my Father do it. Then, if my Father doeth it, I do it. In the next place, everything that the Father doeth I see. He shows it to me.” What infinite knowledge; what intimacy with the Father! Why does he show it? “He shows it to me because he loves me. Why else does he? He shows it to me in order that he may induce all men to honor me as they honor him, and therefore he does not himself execute judgment upon anybody. He hath committed all judgment to me. He hath conferred upon me all authority and all power. And whoever hears my voice and believeth in me hath eternal life and shall not come unto condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.” Thus he claims omniscience that he sees everything that the Father does. He claims omnipotence that he does everything that his Father does. He claims supreme authority that he exercises all the judgment that is exercised upon this earth and in the courts of heaven and in the realms of woe. He claims that he does this because, like the Father, he hath life in himself underived life, self-existence. Now, that brings us to the key verse: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, the hour cometh and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” Hence the theme of this passage is “The Voice and the Life.”
Everyone that hears the voice of the Son of God, from the moment that he hears it, is alive forevermore; is exempt from the death penalty; is possessed of eternal life and shall not receive the sting of the second death and shall stand at the right hand of the Father, happy, saved forever!
THE EXEGESIS
The meaning of this passage is easily determined. We have only to compare this verse with a statement of the context. Let us place them side by side: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming [not “now is,”] in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” Here are two things set over against each other. One present, the other future. Two kinds of dead people: Those who are alive and yet dead, and those who are dead and in their tombs. The dead who are alive may now hear and live. The dead in their graves cannot hear until the resurrection. It follows that the first is spiritual death and the second physical death. The dead soul may now hear and live; the dead body not now, but hereafter. As there are two deaths, there are two resurrections. Spiritual resurrection is now resurrection of the body is not now. And the meaning is that the death in each case is broken by the voice. The voice gives life now to those “dead in trespasses and sins.” “You hath he quickened.” The voice raises the dead in the tombs at the second coming.
I have already called attention to this fact, that that impotent man was healed, not by the application of any medicine; that he was healed by a word of authority. He spoke and it was done. The thought that runs all through this passage, that indeed is the essence and marrow of it, is that the voice which confers life is a voice of command, is a voice of authority, is a divine voice, speaking from the standpoint of sovereignty and of omniscience and of power, and commanding life, and life coming in a moment, at the word. That is the thought of it. The dead shall hear his voice. The dead shall hear his voice when he says, “Live,” and, hearing, shall live. I want to impress that idea of the voice being a voice of command, a voice of authority and of irresistible power.
Let me illustrate: John, in the apocalyptic vision, sees the Son of God, and I shall not stop to describe his hair, his voice, his girdle, his feet, or his manner. He is represented as opening his lips and a sword coming out of his mouth a sword!
The word of God is quick and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword. The command that issues from the lips of Jesus Christ is irresistible. No defensive armor can blunt the point of that sword. No ice can quench the fire that is in it. No covering can protect from it. It reaches into the joints and into the marrow, and it touches the most secret things that have been hidden even from the eyes of angels.
Let me illustrate again: Once there was chaos, and chaos was blackness wave after wave of gloom intermingled with gloom. Suddenly a voice spoke, “Let there be light,” and light was. What means were employed? No means. Only the voice. He spake and it stood fast. It was the voice of authority. It was the voice of God. It was the voice of commandment, and nature obeyed her God. Read Psa 28 . A mountain is described in that psalm a mountain covered with tall cedar trees and then it says God spoke and the mountain trembled and the cedar trees snapped in twain and skipped like lambs, carried away, not on the breath of the wind, but on the voice of God.
Take but this case: Job had some ideas about salvation. God spoke to him and after asking how much knowledge he had, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world? What do you know about the heavenly bodies? What do you know about the giving of color, and the father of the rain, and in what womb the hoar frost and the ice are gendered? What do you know? Then what power have you? Can you feed the young lions when they lack? Can you drag out Leviathan with a hook? Can you pierce Behemoth with a spear when he churneth the deep and maketh it hoary?” Now comes the climax: “Have you a voice like God? If you think you have, rise up and speak; and speak to all the proud, and by your voice cast the proud down and bind their faces in secret. Then I will confess that your right hand can save you. But if you have no such knowledge; if your knowledge is not infinite; if your power is not infinite; if you cannot bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades or loose the bands of Orion; if you cannot abase the proud by a word, then do not attempt to say you save yourself.”
Notice again: A man had one of his senses locked up the sense of hearing. He had an ear, but it could not hear, and be came to Jesus. There he is, the deaf man. Jesus spoke one word, Ephphatha. What does it mean? “Be open.” And the ear opened.
Occasionally now for the benefit of the gullible and the credulous some man will claim to have such vast powers as that he shall put his hand upon the sick and they shall be made whole for two dollars a visit! But the whole of it is a fraud.
Here is one who spoke to an ear whose power of hearing was destroyed, and to give hearing to that ear meant creative power, and he simply said, “Be open,” and it was open.
Take another case: A centurion comes upon the recommendation of the Jews to Jesus. He says, “Lord, I have a servant very dear to me and he is very sick. He is at the point of death. But I am not worthy that you should come to my house. You just speak the word and my servant shall be healed. I understand this; I am a man of authority myself. I have soldiers under me and I say to this one, Do that, and he doeth it. And I say to another, Do this, and he doeth it. Now you have authority. You need not come. You need not go through any movements of incantation. Speak the word and my servant will be healed.” Jesus says, “He is healed.”
Take another case: In Capernaum was a nobleman. He had one child, just one, a little girl twelve years old and she died. His only child is dead, and he comes to Jesus, and Jesus follows him, comes into the house, pushes people aside that are weeping there and wailing, walks into the room of death, takes hold of that dead girl’s hand, and he says, “Talitha Cumi damsel, arise.” And at the word of the Son of God, the dead girl rose up and was well.
Take another. He is approaching a city. There comes out a procession, a funeral procession. Following it is a brokenhearted widow. On the bier is her son her only son. The bier approaches Jesus. He commands them to stop. They put it down. He looks into the cold, immobile, rigid face of death, and he speaks: “Young man, I say unto thee, arise.” And at the voice of the Son of God he rises.
Take another. In Bethany was a household of three, but death came and claimed one of the three, and the sisters mourned for the brother that was gone. And he was buried four days; he had been buried, and decay and putridity had come. Loathesomeness infested that charnel house, and the Son of God stands before that grave, and he says, “Take away that stone.” And there is the presence, not of recent death, as in the case of that girl on whose cheek something of the flush of life yet lingered; not like the young man of Nain, who had not been buried. But here was hideous death. Here was death in all of its horror and loathesomeness. The worms are here. And into that decayed face the Son of God looked and spoke, “Lazarus, come forth!” And he rose up and came forth. He heard the voice of the Son of God, and he lived.
Take yet another, Eze 37 . There is a valley. That valley is full of bones dead men’s bones dead longer than Lazarus dead until all flesh is gone, and there is nothing there but just the dry, white bones. And the question arises, “Can these dry bones live?” And there comes a voice, “O breath, breathe on these slain.” And at the voice they lived. That is why I said that the voice of this passage is the voice of authority. It is a voice of power. It is an irresistible voice. And whoever hears it is alive forevermore.
It is winter, and winter has shrouded the world in white and locked the flow of rivers and pulsation of lakes; stilled the tides which neither ebb nor flow, and there comes a voice, the voice of a sunbeam shining, the voice of a raindrop falling, the voice of a south wind blowing, and winter relaxes his hold. Cold winter is gone and the waters flow, and the juices rise, and the flowers bud and bloom, and fruit ripens and the earth is recreated. That represents the voice of God.
THE DOCTRINE
Now, what is the doctrine? The doctrine of this passage is that Jesus Christ is God Almighty manifest in the flesh the self-existent, eternal, immutable, all-powerful God. That his word is authoritative; that his word conveys life; and that he speaks that word when, where, bow, and to whom he wills. He is the sovereign.
If there are many lepers in Israel he may speak to Naaman, the Syrian, only, “Be thou clean.” If there are many widows in Israel he may speak to the widow of Sarepta alone, “Be thou saved from famine.” If there are a multitude lying impotent around this pool he may speak to this one only and say, “Rise up and walk.” He is a sovereign. The election is his.
I can no more tell to whom he will speak than I can count the stars, or the leaves, or the grains of sand. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me. I know to whom I speak. I do not know to whom Jesus shall speak.
But I can tell the evidences from which we may conclude that he has spoken when he does speak, and that is the great point here. It is the ringing trumpet note of the Eternal God. How may we know that we hear him? Paul says in his letter to the Thessalonians, “This gospel came unto you, not in word only, but in power.” In power I If, then, we hear the voice of Jesus, there will be energy in it. There will be vitality in it. There will be life in it. It will not be mere sound, but Bound embodying life. And how is that power manifested? It is manifested in this, that if we hear him we feel that we are singled out from all the people around us. We feel that we are cut out from the crowd. We feel that his eye is on us. We feel that we stand before God in our individuality alone. If we hear his voice, it discovers our heart to us. It shows us what we are. And not only that, but if we hear his voice there is a revelation to us of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. What says the Scripture? “If our gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost in whom the god of this world hath blinded the eyes of them that believe not, but God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined into our hearts, revealing the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Now look back to that first scripture, “Let there be light, and light was.” God, who commanded the light to shine out of the darkness, hath shined into our hearts, into the chaos and gloom and blackness of our hearts, and by that shining he has revealed to us his glory. Where? In the face of his incarnate Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Continuing his discourse, Jesus refers to John as a witness and he says that his witness was greater than that of John, because his works bear witness of him. He then asserts that they had never heard God’s voice nor did they have his Word abiding in them; that they were destitute of the love of God; that they sought not the glory of God; that they were convicted by the law of Moses because it testified of him and they received not its testimony. This he said was the reason that they would not believe his words. The reader will note how tactfully our Lord here treats his relation to the Father in view of the growing hatred for him on the part of the authorities at Jerusalem (see note in Harmony, p. 41).
On his way back from Jerusalem to Galilee he and his disciples were passing through the fields of grain and the disciples, growing hungry, plucked the heads of grain and rubbed them in their hands, which they were allowed to do by the Mosaic law. But the Pharisees, in their additions to and expositions of the law, had so distorted its true meaning that they thought they had ground for another charge against him. But he replies by an appeal (1) to history, the case of David, (2) to the law, the work of the priests, (3) to the prophets, and (4) to his own authority over the sabbath. This fourth issue with the Pharisees is carried over into the next incident where he heals the man with a withered hand on the sabbath day. Here he replied with an appeal to their own acts of mercy to lower animals, showing the superior value of man and the greater reason for showing mercy to him. Here again they plot to kill him.
When Jesus perceived that they had plotted to kill him, he withdrew to the sea of Galilee and a great multitude followed him, insomuch that he had to take a boat and push away from the shore because of the press of the crowd. Many were press- ing upon him because of their plagues, but he healed them all. This is cited as a fulfilment of Isa 42:1-4 , which contains the following items of analysis: (1) The announcement of the servant of Jehovah, who was the Messiah; (2) his anointing and its purpose, i. e., to declare judgment to the Gentiles; (3) his character lowly; (4) his tenderness with the feeble and wounded; (5) his name the hope of the Gentiles.
After the great events on the sea of Galilee our Lord stole away into the mountain and spent the whole night in prayer looking to the call and ordination of the twelve apostles. Then he chose the twelve and named them, apostles, whom both Mark and Luke here name. (For a comparison of the four lists of the twelve apostles see Broadus’ Harmony, p. 244.)
QUESTIONS
1. How did our Lord test the faith of the two blind men whom he healed?
2. What was our Lord’s request to them and why, and what was the result and why?
3. What was the result of his healing the dumb demoniac and what the culmination of the issue raised by the Pharisees?
4. What were the great events of our Lord’s visit to Jerusalem to the Passover (Joh 6:1 )?
5. What was the occasion of his great discourse while there?
6. Describe the scene at the pool of Bethesda.
7. What was the time of this incident and the issue precipitated with the Pharisees?
8. How did Jesus defend himself?
9. What was new charge growing out of this defense and what our Lord’s defense against this charge?
10. How does Jesus here claim omniscience, omnipotence, and all authority?
11. What was the bearing of this upon the key verse (Joh 5:25 ) of this passage?
12. Give the exegesis of Joh 5:25-29 .
13. What was the main thought running all through this passage? Illustrate by several examples.
14. What was the doctrine here expressed and how does the author illustrate it?
15. What were the evidences of the voice of the Son of God?
16. How does Jesus proceed to convict them of their gross sin and what the charges which he prefers against them?
17. Show how tactfully Jesus treated his relation to the Father and why.
18. State the case of the charge of violating the sabbath law in the cornfields and Jesus’ defense.
19. How does he reply to the same charge in the incident of the man with a withered hand and what the result?
20. Describe the scene that followed this by the sea of Galilee.
21. What prophecy is here fulfilled and what was the analysis of it?
22. What the occasion here of all-night prayer by our Lord?
23. What the order of names in the four lists of the twelve apostles as given by Mark, Luke, and Acts?
1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
Ver. 1. There was a man there, &c. ] A fit object inciteth and should elicit our bounty. Where God sets us up an altar, we should be ready with our sacrifices, with such sacrifice “God is well pleased,” Heb 13:16 .
1 6. ] HEALING OF THE WITHERED HAND. Mat 12:9-14 .Luk 6:6-11Luk 6:6-11 . On Matthew’s narrative, see notes on Luke. The two other accounts are cognate, though each has some particulars of its own.
1. ] See ch. Mar 1:21 , = ., Luke. The synagogue was at Capernaum.
Mar 3:1-6 . The withered hand (Mat 12:9-14 , Luk 6:6-11 ).
Mar 3:1 . : connection simply topical, another instance of collision in re Sabbath observance. : as was His wont on Sabbath days (Mar 1:21 ; Mar 1:39 ). : without the article ( [17] [18] ), into a synagogue, place not known. , dried up, the abiding result of injury by accident or disease, not congenital “non ex utero, sed morbo aut vulnere; haec vis participii,” Beng.
[17] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[18] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
Mark Chapter 3
Mar 3:1-6 Mat 12:9-14 ; Luk 6:6-11 .
Jesus is in the synagogue upon another Sabbath Day, and there was a man there which had a withered hand, and they watched Him whether He would heal him on the Sabbath Day, that they might accuse Him. How remarkable it is that Satan gets an instinctive sense of what the Lord was going to do. Satan outwits himself in his servants by expecting good from the Lord and the Lord’s people. This is a remarkable thing. Again, if you find a child of God doing something wrong the world feels it at once. Even they have an instinctive feeling of what the child of God ought to do. They know that he has no business with the pleasures and vanities of the world. They are surprised to see a Christian there. Why is this? They have not a bit of conscience themselves. Those who have got a purged conscience or those who have got no conscience at all are far more likely to see what is right than those that carry a bad conscience. The man who had no conscience at all offers to follow the Lord wherever He goes. There was no struggle in it, no reality, no moral purpose. It was the mere vanity of the flesh, the same kind of presumption that said, “All that Jehovah has spoken will we do.” (Exo 19:8 ) The flesh always assumes its own competency, whereas faith feels that it is only God who can work anything good, and can ripen the fruits from trees of His own planting.
These men, I must repeat, who were assembled in the synagogue expected the Lord to do good. They were looking for this; but they judged from their own thoughts what an awful thing it would be to heal on the Sabbath Day! Our Lord knew what they thought about it, but faith and love are very different things from human prudence. Mere prudence would have led a man not to have given them the smallest excuse, but grace does not mind giving people handles if they are disposed to take them. Grace is bent upon pleasing God, whether people like it or not, and Jesus therefore says to the man that had the withered hand, “Stand forth.” He gives it a publicity, and stamps the character of the transaction in the most manifest manner – makes it a sign of what grace is before them all. “He saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath or to do evil? to save life or to kill? But they were silent, and when he had looked round about on them with anger, being distressed at the hardening of their hearts, he says to the man, Stretch out thine hand, and he stretched it out, and his hand was restored.”* But those that would not let our Lord do what was good were ready, even as He hinted Himself, to do what was evil on the Sabbath Day. They conspired to kill Him, the Lord; and to kill Him for what? Because He brought the goodness of God before their very eyes, and they hated God. They would not have allowed it to themselves for a moment that Jesus was even a good man, so blind and perverted is the judgment when the heart is not right! All the grace of Jesus only appeared to their eyes as the most abominable iniquity. We may well think what the heart of man is, and learn hence what our own natural thoughts and feelings are – not a whit better than theirs. The point of this second tale is not so much the passing away of mere ordinances in presence of the rejected Christ, or the supremacy of His person above the highest earthly claim; rather is it the necessary superiority of grace as God’s character and work in a world of sin and misery. How came this man with a withered hand in Israel? It was through sin somewhere, and the evident token of misery. Could God rest where there reigned either the one or the other? Was either the manifestation of God? And what were these proud Sabbatarians, these enemies of grace and of Jesus? Were they or was He the true witness of what God is? Not more surely were they false representatives of God’s character than Jesus was the manifestation of God’s power as well as of His love. Jesus showed both in that word, “Stretch out thine hand,” and by its restoration proved that God, the Goodness of goodness, was there. And He was there, not maintaining the Pharisees in their thoughts about His law, but vindicating His own grace, for grace alone can bring blessing into a sin-stricken world. This may suffice for the general teaching of the second Sabbath Day, which I think is full of instruction, as giving us the witness that our Lord bore His patient, gracious ministry in deed as well as in word.
* Ccorr L, Syrrsin hcl add “sound as the other.” Edd. omit, with ABCpmD, 33, Amiatine and the rest of Syrr.
But a few words must now be said upon our relation to the Sabbath. When God sanctified and instituted that day, whether you take the time of creation or the giving of the law, it was emphatically the seventh day and no other. No man could have been thought to honour God had he kept the fourth or fifth, or any other but the last day of the week. Instead of this, to have kept the first day of the week would have been an act of rebellion against God. How comes the mighty change? Is it that the first day is simply substituted for the seventh day? Is this what Scripture teaches? Taking the Acts of the Apostles, we find there that the Apostles and others used to go on the Sabbath Day into the synagogue of the Jews – used to teach the Jews on that day whenever there was an open door. On the first day they used to meet with Christians to take the Lord’s Supper, or at any other services which might open. There was no such thing as dropping one day for another. Had it been a substitution they would not still have gone on the Sabbath Day with the Jew, and on the first day with the Christian. Yet they did both. At first such of the Christians as had been Jews went to the synagogue, and they were at liberty to take a part in reading Scripture. If this were done now generally the person would be considered an intruder, but in a Jewish synagogue it was allowed and welcomed. The Apostles, therefore, and others were perfectly justified in using this liberty for the truth; they were acting in the spirit of grace. Wherever we can go with a good conscience, and without joining in anything that is contrary to the Word of God, there one may and ought to go if it would be a service to the Lord. But where one is required to join in that or with those we know to be opposed to the will of God, how are we free to go? Are we at liberty in anything to make light of what we know to be disobedience? But in this case there was nothing of the kind, for at the synagogue they simply read the Word of God and gave leave that it should be expounded. Who could say that this was wrong? If we knew that the Scripture and nothing but the Scripture was read upon any day of the week in a so-called church or chapel, and there were perfect room left to help, should one not be delighted to go, if, indeed, there would not be a kind of obligation upon us? If it were a mere crowd of heathen reading the Scriptures, one might enter it and speak with them. The door would be, I believe, open on the Lord’s part, and grace would take advantage of it.
These facts are enough, then, to show that it is a great mistake to suppose that the Lord’s Day is a mere substitution for the Sabbath. On the contrary, the Lord’s Day has a far higher character than the ancient day of rest. Not that one would for a moment forget that the Sabbath Day was divinely appointed. It was founded upon two great truths of God. First, it involved and displayed and promised, as it were (in type at least), creation-rest; it witnessed rest after God had finished His work of creating. The second notable connection with the Sabbath Day was this – it was the day of law. On these two occasions of surpassing moment to man and Israel was the Sabbath brought out by God with peculiar solemnity. The Sabbath Day rests, therefore, upon Divine ground, but it is the ground of creation and law. Is either of the two the Christian place? In no wise. Are you a mere child of man, a creature now? Then you are assuredly sinful, and must be cast into hell. Are you on the ground of law? Then you are lost and condemned, for you are under the curse. But the Christian is on the footing neither of creation nor of law. On what is he, then? He belongs to the new creation and stands in grace – the clean, exact contrast of the foundations of the Sabbath Day. Hence it is that the first day of the week comes before us as a wholly new thing, the holy memorial of Divine blessing, proper to the Christian individually and to the Church of God. And on what basis does it rest? When Christ rose from the grave with a new life to give to every soul that believes in Him at once Israel is set aside. Risen from the dead, what more connection had He with Israel than with the Gentiles? He was entirely above them both. We meet Him there, His work done, in resurrection-life. He is found after that meeting with disciples only, not with Jews and Gentiles, but in the midst of the assembly or that which is the type of it. But He first meets with individual saints, Mary Magdalene and others. We find Him in the assembly on the first day of the week. And the Lord’s Day has this character to us now. It is first the day of Christ’s resurrection, when not merely the work of redemption was done, but the work of new creation begun in mighty power. Thus the new day is founded, not upon creation, but upon redemption, and it is the expression of grace, not of law.
These are the Scriptural ways of putting the matter. Therefore is it to be maintained not that the Christian man has got no special day in which he meets his Saviour, for he has one incomparably more blessed than the Sabbath of man. It is not that he has not got as good a day as the Sabbath of Israel: he has an infinitely better one. He is not merely remembering a creation which is passed away, but he has entered on a new creation. Not that he is occupied with a paradise that is lost; he looks onward confidently to that which is gained. The paradise of God is opened to him. It is not that he is following and occupied with Adam that fell; he has before his soul the second man, the last Adam, that rose. These are our hopes. He is not, therefore, within the domain of the law that will curse him, but in the atmosphere of grace by which he is saved. This shows us why people, whether they understand the difference or not – all Christians – keep the first day and not the Sabbath. They may call it the Sabbath Day, but this is quite a mistake, and a grievous one. Those who view it as the Sabbath may be most excellent persons, but the notion is seriously an error in doctrine and practice. It is an earthly Jewish principle, and it is a Christian’s duty, if he know better, not to spare it, however he may feel for the prejudices of the godly.
I have heard of believers who could say, There is no harm in working upon the Lord’s Day. Who put such a thought into their heads? Seeking gain upon the Lord’s Day! Why, even the world shames those who do so. Christendom owns the Lord’s Day. They may not enter into it intelligently. It is impossible for them to appreciate its roots and fruit. But a Christian behaving more selfishly or loosely than a worldly man – what a picture! How is the Lord’s Day, then, to be kept? It is a remarkable fact that nowhere is it made into a commandment. This is not the character of Christianity. When the Lord (as in John) speaks about commandments, they are always of a spiritual nature, and not like an ordinance. Take even Baptism. People may call it an ordinance, but it is a misconception. So as to the Lord’s Supper. When the Lord says, “Do this in remembrance of Me,” how lowering to call this a commandment! Supposing you were at the dying bed of one who loved you better than anyone else in this world. If he said, Here is my Bible, take it and keep it in remembrance of me, would you call this a commandment? Would it be the reason for keeping the Bible that you had a peremptory injunction to keep it? Such a thought would show that there was no heart there, and very little head either. I can understand a person in authority, if a child lacked feeling and sense, laying down something as a positive charge, just because the child wanted heart to do the right thing, unless it were made a matter of stringent obligation and penalty. But not so does the Lord speak to us. If you love the person who gives you the Bible to keep in remembrance of him it is not as a mere commandment, but his heart gives you this token of his love to you, and your love keeps it, of course, and keeps it best because it is love that does it.
There are places where commandments come in most beautifully. Where in the New Testament do you hear of commandments most? In the Gospels, where the Lord’s Supper, Christian Baptism, or both, are shown out, commandments to the Christian are not, as such, mentioned. On the other hand, it is in the Gospel of John that we have the Spirit of God so full of the new commandments that the Lord lays upon us. These were the expressions of His mind. They brought in, not His love only, but His authority, which is blessed whenever it does come in, and the child of God loves and values both thoroughly. But if you bring in such thoughts into the Lord’s Supper, what a complete misapprehension of the Lord’s mind! It falsifies Baptism and the Lord’s Supper to change them into things enjoined in the way of commandment. They are the most precious institutions of the Lord, the symbol and acknowledgment of the great standing facts of Christianity.
As to the Lord’s Day, I must again recall the remarkable manner in which it is introduced in the New Testament. There is no positive word such as, “The first day of the week thou shalt keep.” Wickedness thence infers that it is not to be kept. Some take advantage not to observe the day because the Lord does not make it a matter of positive command. Another class take advantage of it in another form, and assume that it is the business of the Church to decide in such matters. One is human laxity, and the other the self-importance of man. The Lord’s Day comes before us as those that are quickened with Christ, stamped with His own special presence. Christ was, and I believe is, with His disciples in a manner peculiar to that day. I do not say that the Lord did not visit His disciples upon other days. but He was specially and pre-eminently with them gathered together on that day. This is enough for me. If I own the Word of God as that which has supreme power over my soul, if I value every act of Christ as that from which I am to gather Divine instruction, how can this be lost upon me? But the Holy Ghost follows it up. That day which our Lord consecrated with His own presence in the midst of His gathered saints, the Holy Ghost impresses upon His people. It is not brought out in the form of law or injunction or threat; but the Church of God, whatever other days they might meet on, took especial care to meet on this day. There was also a sweet connection between the Lord’s Supper and His day. The earliest disciples took that supper every day; they seemed as if they could hardly part when they got together, and they came together as often as they could, and everything gave place to this. Not that I think that the Pentecostal state of things was the most maturely blessed. There was singular power of simplicity in them, and very wonderful manifestation of Divine grace; but I have little doubt there were many souls that went on and grew and enjoyed the Lord more than they ever did on that day. It is an evil, unfounded notion, because the flesh constantly tends to draw the believer back from the first enjoyment of the Lord, to think that therefore it must be so. There is no necessity for declension at all. There is a kind of first fervour and freshness that is very apt to be lost in the soul; but if there is real integrity of heart to the Lord, positive growth in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ will follow. And although there may be a certain kind of joy that is not so great at the end of ten or twenty years as it was on the first day of coming to the knowledge of the Saviour, yet I do not believe that it is therefore a more spiritual state or more glorifying to God. One is the blessedness of an infant, the other of a full-grown soul, more firmly, calmly, unselfishly, it may be, honouring God in its way, provided the soul, along with increase of knowledge, maintains its singleness of heart to the Lord. That is where we fail; but as far as the power of the Spirit of God goes, there is no reason why a soul should not be as happy after fifty years as at the first.
In the course of the New Testament I think you find this very thing – the Spirit of God taking up the first day, and showing that it was not merely a hasty feeling of the disciples, but a truly godly one. The Spirit of God directed it when the Apostles were there, and not only leads them on, but preserves the record of the fact for us. Therefore, in Act 20:7 , we have it recorded that so it was after the Jerusalem-state, when they went up to the Temple to worship, and used to break bread at home. For, let me say in passing, the margin [of the A.V.] is correct; it is in contrast with worshipping in the Temple. They used to pray in the Temple because they had been Jews, and they took their Christian feast at home. Now, it may have been always the same houses where persons went. There is no such idea as moving about from house to house, but it was at home – i.e., in a private house and not in the Temple. After this state of things was passed away, we hear of assembling to break bread on the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week. And, when we think of it, there is peculiar force and blessedness in the first day of the week being the Christian day. What is the idea of the Sabbath Day? I take the first six days to myself, to the world, to earthly things, and then at the end of it, when I may be tired of serving myself and other people, I finish up with the Lord, and give the last day to Him. But now how beautifully the Christian form of the truth comes in! It is the first day. I begin with the Saviour. I begin with His grace. I begin with Him that died for me and rose again. I am not a Jew, I am a Christian, and therefore let us not forget it is the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, for the one, but the first day, which is the Lord’s Day, for the other – the day of Him who by His own blood, death, and resurrection has acquired a just title for my eternal and heavenly blessing. He had it in His own person: He was Jehovah the Lord of all, before ever He came into the world; but now He is Lord on another ground – that of redemption, because He has died and risen. There is at once the open door of my blessing – of your blessing – Divine blessing to every poor soul that is brought by grace to receive Him and bow to Him.
We will not dwell further upon this subject now. I have desired to convey with simplicity the general principle of these two Sabbath Days. Instead of pursuing the subjects of the chapter for the present, it seemed better to bring out the Divine character of the Sabbath Day, and the still more blessed and equally Divine character of the first day, the one being the day for the Jew, the other for the Christian. The Sabbath Day will reappear on the earth in the millennium. I mean that the seventh day of the week will be then kept by the Jews. The prophecies are plain that the Sabbath of the Lord is yet to be observed. But by whom? By Israel and by the Gentiles too, for the Gentiles by-and-by will be subordinate to Israel, and both on earthly ground. God’s intention is to exalt Israel to the first place on the earth. Meanwhile what becomes of Christians? They will be taken out of the earth altogether, they will be in heaven; all question of particular days will be completely at an end; we shall be in the day of eternity, we shall have entered upon the rest of God, the sabbatism that remains. In spirit we have done so even now, because we have received Christ and eternal life in Christ. But then we shall be manifestly in the eternal day, when there will be neither first day nor last day, but one infinity in the glorified state, blessedly serving our God and the Lamb. But upon the earth, when Israel will be restored and brought back to their own land, and converted by God’s goodness there, will they observe the Lord’s Day? No; they will keep the Sabbath. If you look at Ezekiel you will see the force of it exactly. You might be able from thence to form a map of Israel’s condition in the land; it is given there so distinctly and positively that a person might with little trouble lay down the landmarks of each tribe of Israel.* Thus clear is the Word of God as to the future disposition of each tribe within the borders of the Holy Land. They will have not only a glorious city and temple – the name of it “Jehovah is there” – but when that day of glory comes they will not be as we are, keeping the day of resurrection, but the Sabbath, which was a sign between the Lord and Israel. Looking at the Scriptures, you will find how often the Sabbath Day is said to be Jehovah’s sign to them, and He will cause His people then to keep the Sabbath Day. They will do so in a far more blessed way than ever they did; they will rest upon Christ, though they will not have the same heavenly assurance that the Christian has now. When Christ rose from the dead He had done with the world, and we, too, in Him have done with the world now in the spirit of our souls, and in the character of our relationship to God. “They are not of the world.” How far? “Even as I am not of the world.” (Joh 17:16 ) Christ is the measure and standard of how far we are not of the world, and not being of the world we have a day that bears the stamp of joy upon it. The day that Christ rose from the dead and was manifested as not of the world – that is the day for the Christian. But inasmuch as the world will be made a blessed world then, and the Lord will make it His own world, they will have a day suited for the world – the Sabbath Day. Nothing can be more plain or more important practically.
*See map, “Palestine of Prophecy,” in Bagster’s “The Paragraph Bible,” in separate issue (Eze 48 ).
Yahveh-shammah: last verse of Ezekiel.
May our souls, each of us for himself, learn the truth, and, having learnt it, may we be witnesses of it in word and deed! May we stand forth by His grace as those who now have nothing to do in this world but the will of God, for the glory of the name of the Lord Jesus Christ! That is the business of every soul that loves Jesus, and rests upon His blood, and is risen with Him.tid=32#bkm36-
Mar 3:7-12 .
Mat 12:15-21 ; Luk 6:17-19 .
Jesus was now made manifest in the holy grace and power of His ministry, the vanquisher of Satan, and withal subject to God, superior to ordinances even as Son of man and the asserter of God’s right to do good in an evil world. Much as man might like to profit for his own interests by His power and the mercy in which it was wielded, enmity to God in Him soon displayed itself. The self-righteous and the profane take counsel how to destroy Him.
But, His hour not being yet come, Jesus withdrew with His disciples to the sea, retiring from the hypocritical malice of His enemies, but unwearied on the errand of love on which He was sent. “And a great multitude from Galilee followed Him, and from Judea, and from Jerusalem,tid=32#bkm37- and from Idumea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things He did, came to Him. And He spake to His disciples that a small ship should wait on Him because of the crowd, lest they should press upon Him. For He healed many; so that they beset Him, that they might touch Him, as many as had plagues.” After all, how little can man arrest the stream of blessing! Till God’s time arrives to yield to the cross the stream of testimony may be diverted, but it will flow to the eternal joy of the poor and needy who bow to Jesus. In the cross it overflowed. But the Lord, intent on the best blessings for man, provides against the overpressure of a crowd too engrossed in the relief of bodily weakness and suffering; while He refuses the testimony of the unclean spirits, compelled to bow and own His glory. It was not for such to make Him known. He received not testimony from man as such, much less from demons.tid=32#bkm38- What was the value of any recognition of His person unless it were of God’s own working by the Spirit?
Mar 3:13-19 .
Mat 10:1-4 ; Luk 6:12-16 .
Far, however, from hiding the light under a bushel our Master now enters on a new and momentous step in the testimony of grace. “And He goes up into the mountaintid=32#bkm39- [for ministry has its source on high, and in nowise has its sanction from the multitude] and calls whom He Himself would*; and they went to Him, and He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach, and to have power [to heal diseases and] to cast out demons.” It was an act not only new and strange to man’s eye, but in truth independent of Israel and man, and most significant in every point of view. The Lord separates Himself from men to God, and summons in sovereign choice whom He would.; and they came. And if He caused twelve to be with Him specially and to be sent by Him, it was, as in His own case, with marked prominence given to preaching, but with title and ability to heal diseases and expel demons, and even among the Apostles there was a peculiar place assigned from the first to Simon, surnamed by Him Peter,tid=32#bkm40- and to the sons of Zebedee, whom He surnamed Boanerges40a (verse 17), followed by the rest, though, one of them, Andrew, was certainly among the first who saw and followed Jesus, and was the means of bringing to Jesus his own brother Simon. But there are last who become first, and the Lord, who calls and orders all, alone is wise and worthy. What a testimony to the condition of men and things around! Men – the Jews – needed to be preached to; all was out of course. It was not a question of heathen only. It was in the midst of self-satisfied Israel that the lowly Son of God thus wrought.
*As to this being the place where the Sermon on the Mount would come in, see “Lectures on Matthew,” p. 194, and cf. “Introductory Lectures,” pp. 161-168.
To heal diseases and so ACcorrD, etc., nearly all cursives, Latt. Syrr. Arm. Goth. Edd. omit, with BCpmL, etc., Memph.
Mar 3:20-30 .
Mat 12:22-32 ; Luk 11:14-23 .
On their coming home, a crowd again assembled so that they could not even eat bread. But His kinsmen felt the reproach of the world, and went out at the singular tidings to lay hold on Him, as if He were out of His mind! They were ashamed of a relative, mad to their thinking, who virtually condemned all the world, especially in what He had just done. It was nature, always blind in Divine things.tid=32#bkm41-
Not so merely – “the scribes who had come down from Jerusalem said, He has Beelzebub, and By the prince of the demons He casts out demons.” They were filled and guided of the enemy, and knew well it was no case of a madman, but of a real power which cast out demons. This their malice attributed to Satan in their effort to explain, weaken, and defame what they could not deny. The energy which dealt with Satan, in mercy to man, was owned; but if they owned it to be of God, their religious importance, their occupation, their gain, was gone. And the highest of occupations is proverbially the basest of trades; and trading in souls and truth or falsehood exposes men to Satan. And the fatal die was cast. And these proud teachers, setting up to be authorized of God to reject His Son, sunk into the merest slaves of Satan. How solemnly and with what unbroken calm the Lord deals with them! “And having called them to Him, He said to them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom have become divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house have become divided against itself, that house cannot subsist. And if Satan rise up against himself and be divided, he cannot subsist, but hath an end. But* no one can enter into a strong man’s house and spoil his goods, unless he will first bind the strong man; and then he will plunder his house. Verily, I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme; but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin, because they said, He has an unclean spirit.” It was not only self-contradictory and attributing good to the evil one, but blasphemous – yea, it was to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, and judgment, eternal judgment,tid=32#bkm42- is the sentence of His lips, “because they said, He has an unclean spirit.”
*”But”: so recent Edd., with BL, etc., 1, 33, 69, Memph. it is omitted by T.R. with AD, etc., Amiat. Syrr. Goth.
“Sin” (), so Edd., with BL, 33, almost all Latt. Syrsin, Memph. Goth. A few cursives have it in the form . “judgment” is the reading of ACcorr and the later uncials, and almost all cursives Syrpesch hcl AEth. See, further, note tid=32#bkm42- .
Mark 3: 31- 38.
Mat 12:46-50 ; Luk 8:19-21 .
The concluding scene is the grave and fitting sequel for therein the Lord, in the hearing of a crowd that surrounds Him, renounces, as it were, all natural ties, were they the nearest ones of His mother and His brethren,* substituting His disciples, whosoever should do the will of God, in the place of that relationship to Him from which apostate Israel was falling.tid=32#bkm43-
*After “brethren” AD, etc., Syrhcl (mg) Goth. add “and thy sisters,” but the omission is sustained by BCL, etc., 1, 33, 69, Syrrpesch Arm. Memph. AEth. The “Workers’ New Testament” has the words without the brackets used by Nestle (after Treg. W. H.). B. Weiss supposes that the omission was due to similarity of ending (). – As to the attitude of the Lord’s kinsfolk (verse 21), cf. “Introductory Lectures,” p. 164 ff.
NOTES ON Mar 3
36 Mar 3:1-6 . – Neander observes as to the incident recorded in these verses that “it is obvious that the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were written independently of each other” (p. 275 note).
37 Mar 3:7 , Mar 3:8 . – Farrar rightly finds here an implication of Judean ministry (cf. note 20), the Lord having been “well-known [already] to people at and near Jerusalem.” See also verse 22 of this chapter.
38 Mar 3:12 . – We find Chrysostom long ago saying “The Lord would not have the wicked, whether demons or men, bear testimony to His truth” (cited by Isaac Williams, i. 410).
39 Mar 3:13 . – “The mountain.” Wernle (“Sources of the Life of Jesus,” p. 58) here indulges in miserable criticism of the use of the definite article; as if Mark, from vague acquaintance with the land, thought that there was only one mountain in the district. The definite article in the colloquial style is used to mark mountainous country, highlands. It is the same in more or less classical Hebrew, as at Gen 12:8 , Gen 14:10 , Deu 1:24 (“ins Gebirge” in German, Kautzsch’s “Textbibel,” 1899, for which French has a like fitting expression, ” la montagne”). So at Mar 6:46 , Mat 5:1 , etc.
It is at this point that “the Sermon on the Mount” fits in with Mark’s narrative. See, further, last verse of the chapter and note 43.
40 Mar 3:16 . – Klostermann draws from this verse another of his illustrations of how he supposes Peter’s communications to Mark took shape in this Gospel (cf. note 25 above).
40a As to “Boanerges,” see art. by Prof. Rendel Harris, in Expositor, Feb., 1907.
41 Mar 3:21 . – Farrar writes The Gospels faithfully record what sceptics are pleased to consider so damaging an admission (“Life Of Christ,” p. 75). Wernle and others imagine that Matthew’s and Luke’s omissions were sometimes dictated by the feeling that Mark had divulged incidents derogatory to the Lord’s reputation – so little do such writers grasp the singleness of purpose with which plain-speaking, because plain-thinking men, as the sacred writers, were animated. Such an experience of Christ as is here recorded does but reveal the hindrances to devotedness in God’s service for which those of one’s own flesh and blood in every age are accountable: for the disciple it must be as it was for the Master, as we are told by each of the Evangelists, who, it is alleged, suppressed such incidents in their narratives (Mat 10:24 , Luk 6:40 ).
42 Mar 3:29 . – As to the Biblical usage of such words as (everlasting), see note 29 above. Etymology is a slender basis to go upon; the usus loquendi all important. Outside the Gospels (as Mat 25:46 ) we have the word contrasted with in 2Co 4:18 . Call it there “timeless,” “cyclic,” or what you will, it is but to reach some equivalent expression for that which is beyond the limits of human intelligence; this ever needs conditions of time as of space, because apprehension is not the same as comprehension. God himself is (Rom 15:26 ). If in 2Th 1:9 destruction is not really “everlasting,” then salvation in Heb 5:9 will not be either; if fire in Jud 1:7 be not “eternal,” so also glory in 2Ti 2:7 . To come to our Gospel; if guilt do not mean endless woe, the “life eternal” of Mar 10:30 cannot stand for endless bliss. Bishop Moorhouse, in a sermon on “The Teaching of Christ,” has actually ventured to insist on the “life” of Mat 25:46 not being “eternal”; and logic is, confessedly, on his side. Were it not well to leave that severely alone? (cf. note 35). Dean Farrar, in his “Eternal Hope,” here takes refuge in the critical reading (“sin”); but Dr. Beet rightly treats this as equivalent to the “punishment” of Mat 25:46 . The word used there, Trench (“Parables”) insists, does not in Biblical Greek bear its classical meaning of that which is corrective, remedial. The reader is referred to Sir R. Anderson’s powerful treatment of the whole question in his “Human Destiny.”
43 Mar 3:35 . – Adeney (p. 46) notes the obvious implication that the Lord did not, “could not, regard other people in the same light” as the responsive hearers spoken of in this passage. For the “will of God,” see the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7).
Mark
WORKS WHICH HALLOW THE SABBATH
Mar 2:23 – Mar 2:28 These two Sabbath scenes make a climax to the preceding paragraphs, in which Jesus has asserted His right to brush aside Rabbinical ordinances about eating with sinners and about fasting. Here He goes much further, in claiming power over the divine ordinance of the Sabbath. Formalists are moved to more holy horror by free handling of forms than by heterodoxy as to principles. So we can understand how the Pharisees’ suspicions were exacerbated to murderous hate by these two incidents. It is doubtful whether Mark puts them together because they occurred together, or because they bear on the same subject. They deal with the two classes of ‘works’ which later Christian theology has recognised as legitimate exceptions to the law of the Sabbath rest; namely, works of necessity and of mercy.
Whether we adopt the view that the disciples were clearing a path through standing corn, or the simpler one, that they gathered the ears of corn on the edge of a made path as they went, the point of the Pharisees’ objection was that they broke the Sabbath by plucking, which was a kind of reaping. According to Luke, their breach of the Rabbinical exposition of the law was an event more dreadful in the eyes of these narrow pedants; for there was not only reaping, but the analogue of winnowing and grinding, for the grains were rubbed in the disciples’ palms. What daring sin! What impious defiance of law! But of what law? Not that of the Fourth Commandment, which simply forbade ‘labour,’ but that of the doctors’ expositions of the commandment, which expended miraculous ingenuity and hair-splitting on deciding what was labour and what was not. The foundations of that astonishing structure now found in the Talmud were, no doubt, laid before Christ. This expansion of the prohibition, so as to take in such trifles as plucking and rubbing a handful of heads of corn, has many parallels there.
But it is noteworthy that our Lord does not avail Himself of the distinction between God’s commandment and men’s exposition of it. He does not embarrass himself with two controversies at once. At fit times He disputed Rabbinical authority, and branded their casuistry as binding grievous burdens on men; but here He allows their assumption of the equal authority of their commentary and of the text to pass unchallenged, and accepts the statement that His disciples had been doing what was unlawful on the Sabbath, and vindicates their breach of law.
Note that His answer deals first with an example of similar breach of ceremonial law, and then rises to lay down a broad principle which governed that precedent, vindicates the act of the disciples, and draws for all ages a broad line of demarcation between the obligations of ceremonial and of moral law. Clearly, His adducing David’s act in taking the shewbread implies that the disciples’ reason for plucking the ears of corn was not to clear a path but to satisfy hunger. Probably, too, it suggests that He also was hungry, and partook of the simple food.
Note, too, the tinge of irony in that ‘Did ye never read?’ In all your minute study of the letter of the Scripture, did you never take heed to that page? The principle on which the priest at Nob let the hungry fugitives devour the sacred bread, was the subordination of ceremonial law to men’s necessities. It was well to lay the loaves on the table in the Presence, but it was better to take them and feed the fainting servant of God and his followers with them. Out of the very heart of the law which the Pharisees appealed to, in order to spin restricting prohibitions, Jesus drew an example of freedom which ran on all-fours with His disciples’ case. The Pharisees had pored over the Old Testament all their lives, but it would have been long before they had found such a doctrine as this in it.
Jesus goes on to bring out the principle which shaped the instance he gave. He does not state it in its widest form, but confines it to the matter in hand-Sabbath obligations. Ceremonial law in all its parts is established as a means to an end-the highest good of men. Therefore, the end is more important than the means; and, in any case of apparent collision, the means must give way that the end may be secured. External observances are not of permanent, unalterable obligation. They stand on a different footing from primal moral duties, which remain equally imperative whether doing them leads to physical good or evil. David and his men were bound to keep these, whether they starved or not; but they were not bound to leave the shew bread lying in the shrine, and starve.
Man is made for the moral law. It is supreme, and he is under it, whether obedience leads to death or not. But all ceremonial regulations are merely established to help men to reach the true end of their being, and may be suspended or modified by his necessities. The Sabbath comes under the class of such ceremonial regulations, and may therefore be elastic when the pressure of necessity is brought to bear.
But note that our Lord, even while thus defining the limits of the obligation, asserts its universality. ‘The Sabbath was made for man’-not for a nation or an age, but for all time and for the whole race. Those who would sweep away the observance of the weekly day of rest are fond of quoting this text; but they give little heed to its first clause, and do not note that their favourite passage upsets their main contention, and establishes the law of the Sabbath as a possession for the world for ever. It is not a burden, but a privilege, made and meant for man’s highest good.
Christ’s conclusion that He is ‘Lord even of the Sabbath’ is based upon the consideration of the true design of the day. If it is once understood that it is appointed, not as an inflexible duty, like the obligation of truth or purity, but as a means to man’s good, physical and spiritual, then He who has in charge all man’s higher interests, and who is the perfect realisation of the ideal of manhood, has full authority to modify and suspend the ceremonial observance if in His unerring judgment the suspension is desirable.
This is not an abrogation of the Sabbath, but, on the contrary, a confirmation of the universal and merciful appointment. It does not give permission to keep or neglect it, according to whim or for the sake of amusement, but it does draw, strong and clear, the distinction between a positive rite which may be modified, and an unchangeable precept of the moral law which it is better for a man to die than to neglect or transgress.
The second Sabbath scene deals with the same question from another point of view. Works of necessity warranted the supercession of Sabbath law; works of beneficence are no breaches of it. There are circumstances in which it is right to do what is not ‘lawful’ on the Sabbath, for such works as healing the man with a withered hand are always ‘lawful.’
We note the cruel indifference to the sufferer’s woe which so characteristically accompanies a religion which is mainly a matter of outside observances. What cared the Pharisees whether the poor cripple was healed or no? They wanted him cured only that they might have a charge against Jesus. Note, too, the strange condition of mind, which recognised Christ’s miraculous power, and yet considered Him an impious sinner.
Observe our Lord’s purpose to make the miracle most conspicuous. He bids the man stand out in the midst, before all the cold eyes of malicious Pharisees and gaping spectators. A secret espionage was going on in the synagogue. He sees it all, and drags it into full light by setting the man forth and by His sudden, sharp thrust of a question. He takes the first word this time, and puts the stealthy spies on the defensive. His interrogation may possibly be regarded as having a bearing on their conduct, for there was murder in their hearts Mar 2:6. There they sat with solemn faces, posing as sticklers for law and religion, and all the while they were seeking grounds for killing Him. Was that Sabbath work? Whether would He, if He cured the shrunken arm, or they, if they gathered accusations with the intention of compassing His death, be the Sabbath-breakers?
It was a sharp, swift cut through their cloak of sanctity; but it has a wider scope than that. The question rests on the principle that good omitted is equivalent to evil committed. If we can save, and do not, the responsibility of loss lies on us. If we can rescue, and let die, our brother’s blood reddens our hands. Good undone is not merely negative. It is positive evil done. If from regard to the Sabbath we refrained from doing some kindly deed alleviating a brother’s sorrow, we should not be inactive, but should have done something by our very not doing, and what we should do would be evil. It is a pregnant saying which has many solemn applications.
No wonder that they ‘held their peace.’ Unless they had been prepared to abandon their position, there was nothing to be said. That silence indicated conviction and obstinate pride and rooted hatred which would not be convinced, conciliated, or softened. Therefore Jesus looked on them with that penetrating, yearning gaze, which left ineffaceable remembrances on the beholders, as the frequent mention of it indicates.
The emotions in Christ’s heart as He looked on the dogged, lowering faces are expressed in a remarkable phrase, which is probably best taken as meaning that grief mingled with His anger. A wondrous glimpse into that tender heart, which in all its tenderness is capable of righteous indignation, and in all its indignation does not set aside its tenderness! Mark that not even the most rigid prohibitions were broken by the process of cure. It was no breach of the fantastic restrictions which had been engrafted on the commandment, that Jesus should bid the man put out his hand. Nobody could find fault with a man for doing that. These two things, a word and a movement of muscles, were all. So He did ‘heal on the Sabbath,’ and yet did nothing that could be laid hold of.
But let us not miss the parable of the restoration of the maimed and shrunken powers of the soul, which the manner of the miracle gives. Whatever we try to do because Jesus bids us, He will give us strength to do, however impossible to our unaided powers it is. In the act of stretching out the hand, ability to stretch it forth is bestowed, power returns to atrophied muscles, stiffened joints are suppled, the blood runs in full measure through the veins. So it is ever. Power to obey attends on the desire and effort to obey.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mar 3:1-6
1He entered again into a synagogue; and a man was there whose hand was withered. 2They were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him. 3He said to the man with the withered hand, “Get up and come forward!” 4And He said to them, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?” But they kept silent. 5After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6The Pharisees went out and immediately began conspiring with the Herodians against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.
Mar 3:1 “into a synagogue” This event is paralleled in Mat 12:9-14 and Luk 6:6-11. The synagogue developed during the Babylonian Exile. It was primarily a place of education, prayer, worship, and fellowship. It was the local expression of Judaism as the Temple was the national focal point.
Jesus attended the synagogues regularly. He learned His Scriptures and traditions at synagogue school in Nazareth. He fully participated in first century Jewish worship.
It is also interesting that Jesus, apparently purposefully, acted in provocative ways on the Sabbath and in synagogue. He intentionally violated the Oral Traditions (i.e., Talmud) of the elders so as to enter into a theological confrontation/discussion with the religious leaders (both local and national; both Pharisees and Sadducees). The best extended discussion of His theology as it deviates from the traditional norms is the Sermon on the Mount (cf. Matthew 5-7, especially Mar 5:17-43).
“hand was withered” This is a perfect passive participle. Luk 6:6 says it was his right hand, which would have affected his ability to work.
Mar 3:2 “They were watching Him” This is imperfect tense. It refers to the ever-watchful presence of the religious leaders.
“if” This is a first class conditional sentence, which is assumed to be true. Jesus did heal on the Sabbath in the synagogue right before their eyes!
“so that they might accuse Him” This is a hina, or purpose, clause. They were not interested in the crippled man. They wanted to catch Jesus in a technical violation so as to discredit and reject Him. Jesus acts out of compassion for the man, to continue to teach His disciples, and to confront the rule-oriented, tradition-bound, self-righteousness of the religious leaders.
Mar 3:3
NASB”Get up and come forward!”
NKJV”Step forward”
NRSV”Come forward”
TEV”Come up here to the front”
NJB”Get up and stand in the middle”
This is literally “Rise into the midst.” This is a present active imperative. This was so that everyone could see.
Mar 3:4 The rabbis had a highly developed Oral Tradition (Talmud) which interpreted the Mosaic Law (cf. Mar 2:24). They made rigid pronouncements on what could legally be done or not be done on the Sabbath. One could stabilize an injured person in an emergency, but could not improve his condition. Jesus’ question revealed the problem of the priority of their cherished traditions above human needs. This is always true of legalists!
“save” This is the Greek term sz. It is used in two distinct ways in the NT: (1) it follows the OT usage of deliverance from physical problems and (2) it is used of spiritual salvation. In the Gospels it usually has the first meaning (cf. Mar 3:4; Mar 8:35 a; Mar 15:30-31; even heal, cf. Mar 5:23; Mar 5:28; Mar 5:34; Mar 6:56; Mar 10:52), but in Mar 8:35 b; Mar 10:26; Mar 13:13 it might refer to the second meaning. This same double usage is in James (#1 in Mar 5:15; Mar 5:20, but #2 in Mar 1:21; Mar 2:14; Mar 4:12).
“life” This is the Greek word psuch. It is so hard to define. It can speak of
1. our earthly physical life (cf. Mar 3:4; Mar 8:35; Mar 10:45)
2. our feelings and self-consciousness (cf. Mar 12:30; Mar 14:34)
3. our spiritual, eternal consciousness (cf. Mar 8:36-37)
The difficulty in translating this term comes from its Greek philosophical usage, humans having a soul, instead of the Hebrew concept of humans being a soul (cf. Gen 2:7).
Mar 3:5 “After looking around at them with anger” Mark’s Gospel is the most transparent in recording Jesus’ feelings (cf. Mar 1:40-43; Mar 3:1-5; Mar 10:13-22; Mar 14:33-34; Mar 15:34). The deafening silence and moral superiority of the self-righteous religious leaders angered Jesus! This event continues to clarify Mar 2:27-28.
“grieved at their hardness of heart” This is an intensified form of the term grief (lup) with the preposition sun. It is only used here in the NT. Jesus identified with this man’s problem and need as He reacted negatively toward the religious leaders’ intransigence. They were unwilling to see the truth because of their commitment to tradition (cf. Isa 29:13; Col 2:16-23). How often does this happen to us?
The term “hardness” means calcified (cf. Rom 11:25; Eph 4:18). See Special Topic: Heart at Mar 2:6.
“restored” This term (i.e., to restore to its original state) implies that the withered hand was an accident, not a birth defect. The non-canonical Gospel of Hebrews records the tradition that he was a mason who had come to ask Jesus to restore his hand so that he could return to work.
Mar 3:6 “The Pharisees went out” Luk 6:11 says “in a rage.” This is literally “out of the mind” (cf. 2Ti 3:9). See note on Pharisees at Mar 2:16.
“immediately” See note at Mar 1:10.
“began conspiring” This is an imperfect active indicative used in the sense of the beginning of an action in past time. In Mar 3:11 three imperfects are used to show repeated action in past time. These two usages are the major linguistic function of this tense.
“with the Herodians” Normally the very conservative and nationalistic Pharisees would have nothing to do with the politically oriented Herodians who supported the reign of Herod and the Roman occupation.
SPECIAL TOPIC: HERODIANS
“as to how they might destroy Him” These leaders were offended by healing on the Sabbath, but saw no problem in premeditated murder! They probably based this decision on Exo 31:13-17. Strange things have been rationalized in the name of God. This is surely a foreshadowing of Jesus’ death at the hands of the Jewish leadership.
SPECIAL TOPIC: DESTRUCTION (APOLLUMI)
And. Note the Figure of speech Polysyndeton in verses: Mar 3:1-4. App-6.
again, i.e. on another Sabbath. Probably the next.
into. Greek. eis. App-104.
synagogue. See App-120.
man. Greek. anthropos. App-123.
a withered hand = his hand withered. Compare Mat 12:10,
1-6.] HEALING OF THE WITHERED HAND. Mat 12:9-14. Luk 6:6-11. On Matthews narrative, see notes on Luke. The two other accounts are cognate, though each has some particulars of its own.
Chapter 3
And he entered again into the synagogue( Mar 3:1 );
This was on the Sabbath day.
and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other ( Mar 3:1-5 ).
Sabbath day, Jesus came to the synagogue. There was a man there with a withered hand, and so immediately it created a stir as the Pharisees watched Him to see if He would violate their traditional interpretation of the Sabbath day law. For according to their interpretation of the law, it was unlawful to heal a person on the Sabbath day. You could save a person’s life, do what was necessary to save the life, but do nothing towards healing. Apply a tourniquet, stop the flow of blood to save his life, but don’t put a band-aid on or don’t wrap it up, don’t wash it, don’t put any sab on, because that’s ministering towards his healing. And you can’t do that until the sun goes down. You can’t do that until the Sabbath day is over. Nothing to heal a person on the Sabbath day; only to save the life.
Now, they understood Jesus even better than His own disciples, because they knew that Jesus would immediately be interested in the man with the withered hand. They knew that Jesus could never face any crippling area in a person’s life without desiring to minister to that person and to help them. They knew instinctively that Jesus always sought to heal the blight of man when he came face to face with it. And they knew that He would be interested in the man in the synagogue with the greatest need. And so, they watched Him to see if He would heal Him, because it was the Sabbath day.
So many times we feel that Jesus isn’t interested in us because our needs are too great. Jesus only likes to chum with the beautiful people, with the successful, with the prosperous. But the person that Jesus is always most interested in is the person who has the greatest need. And so it was when He came into the synagogue. They were correct in their assessment of Jesus. They were absolutely correct. He was immediately interested in that man in the synagogue who had the greatest need. He was immediately interested in that man with the withered hand.
And Jesus said to Him, “Stand up.” The man stood up. And Jesus then asked them two questions, “Is it lawful to do good or to do evil on the Sabbath day?” Naturally, it’s lawful to do good. They could not answer Him. He had them trapped. They could not say, “It’s lawful to do evil,” and yet, it would be evil not to help this man if you had the capacity to do so. Is it lawful to heal or to kill? Well, it’s never lawful to kill a person. And so, again they’re trapped. They can’t answer and they don’t answer. And He looks upon them with anger because of the hardness of their hearts. They, because of their religious traditions, would keep this man from experiencing the power of God in his life. They would keep him from the work that God wanted to do in setting him free, because it was not according to their religious traditions, or their theological positions.
There are people today who would hold back the work of God in needy lives because it doesn’t fit with their theological position. They would hold back God’s power, God’s healing power, because it doesn’t fit with their theological position that all miracles ceased with the apostles. And so, they would hold back the work of God in needy lives just because it doesn’t fit with their theology. And this upset Jesus, that they, by their rigid traditions, would actually hold back the work of God for this needy man. He looked upon them with anger; an emotion you seldom relate with Jesus, and yet we find Him angry when they were selling the doves and all in the temple precincts and exchanging money and all. And He was angry, made a scourge and drove them out. Angry always with the blind religious fervencies of man. How it would upset Him that man could be blinded by His religion. When God is seeking to establish a vital, life-changing relationship, people try and formalize it into a religious system.
Jesus said to Him, “Stretch forth your hand.” It’s impossible. The man knew it was impossible; Jesus knew it was impossible when He told him to do it. And because it was impossible, the man can do one of two things: he can either argue with Jesus and tell him that he can’t and tell him why he can’t, and tell him how many times he’s tried and failed, and tell him of all his past failures, rehearse his life story of failure. Or he can obey Jesus and stretch forth his hand. He has a choice. He chose to stretch forth his hand, and immediately, as he did, it was made whole just like the other. For a basic law, the moment you choose to will, to obey the command of Christ, in that very moment He will give you everything necessary for you to obey.
The Lord, many times, says to us things that to us are impossible. As He faces that blighted area in our life, that thing that has been destroying us and keeping us from real victory: that attitude, that temper, that weakness of our flesh, that area of our failure; and that’s the thing that Jesus wants to address Himself to in our lives. Jesus didn’t talk to him about his good hand and how well he was able to use the good hand. He was interested in the hand that wasn’t working. He’s interested in your life those things that aren’t working properly. That’s the thing that He wants to address Himself to. And He says to you, “Now be free and be delivered from that character and that part of your nature.” You say, “Oh, but Lord, you don’t know how hard I’ve tried and you don’t know how long, and you don’t know…” Hey, He’s not looking for an argument or looking for an excuse. He’s telling you to do something. Don’t argue with Him. Don’t rehearse your past failures. Do it. You say, “But I can’t.” Of course you can’t, but do it anyhow. For if you will will to obey the command of Christ, He’ll give you everything necessary. And the moment that you will to do it, you’ll say, “I won’t do that any more.” Because He said, “Now don’t do that again.” “Oh, but Lord, I don’t want to do it again, but you don’t know, Lord.” No. He said, “Don’t do it again. Will to obey!” “All right, Lord, I won’t do it again.” And the moment you will to obey, He will give you the capacity and the ability to obey. He will never command you to do anything but what He will give to you the power to obey that command. And He commands all of us to be victorious. He commands all of us to overcome. He commands all of us to be free. He commands all of us to be filled with His Spirit and to live that new life. And if you will will to do it, “Yes, Lord, I will,” He’ll give you the capacity.
And the Pharisees went forth [after that] ( Mar 3:6 ),
That was enough, they’d had it.
and straightway [they] took council with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him ( Mar 3:6 ).
Look how blind religion can make people. When God works, they want to destroy it. They can’t stand to see God work outside of their boundaries, outside of their prescribed borders. They’ve actually organized, you know, “who can organize better than us? After all, we’ve been to seminary. And we’ve got the education, and we know how God can work. And this is how God works.” And when God begins to work outside of their little prescribed boundaries, they get upset and want to crush it. “Let’s destroy it!”
But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about [that were around] Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, [they] came unto him. And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him. For he had healed many; insomuch that they pressed upon him for to touch him, as many as had [the various] plagues ( Mar 3:7-10 ).
And so, this great surge of people, wanting to get near Jesus, wanting to touch Him. And, of course, if you were there and you had a problem, a disease, a plague, you would be pushing too. You’d be trying to get up close enough just to touch Him. And so, it became difficult for Jesus to move around. So they took this little boat and they just dropped anchor a little ways off shore.
And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and [they] cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known ( Mar 3:11-12 ).
Now, the demons were crying out, “Thou art the Son of God.” “Quiet. Don’t tell anybody.” Now,
And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: and Simon he surnamed Peter; and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder ( Mar 3:13-17 ):
So, Jesus had His own little nicknames for these fellows.
And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus [which is also known as Judas, not Iscariot, that’s Thadaeus], and Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into a house. And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread ( Mar 3:18-20 ).
The crowds were getting around Him so much.
And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He’s beside himself ( Mar 3:21 ).
They’d figured He had flipped. He didn’t even have time to eat bread, because He was just giving Himself so completely, so completely to the needs of the people. They thought, “Oh, He’s flipped; He’s beside Himself.” Beside himself is a term sort of used for the schizophrenia who talks to himself. So, “All right, quit it. Okay, wait a minute, I’ll be with you. All right.” And you’re talking back and forth to yourself. So, he’s beside himself, conversing with himself. And they actually thought He had flipped, probably under the pressure of all of these people gathering around, His friends, His family and all.
And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: [and this was] because they said, He hath an unclean spirit ( Mar 3:22-30 ).
Now, their declaration, “He has an unclean spirit; He’s doing this by the power of the devil,” they were attributing the works of God’s Holy Spirit to Satan. This was not the unpardonable sin. This was a sign that they were getting close to the unpardonable sin. The unpardonable sin, the sin for which there is no forgiveness, is the sin of rejecting Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believed in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. And he that believes is not condemned. But he that believes not is condemned already, seeing he hath not believed on the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light came into the world, but men would not come to the light” ( Joh 3:16-19 ).That’s the unpardonable sin. A man’s failure to come to the light, to receive God’s provision for his sins. God has made only one provision for man’s sins, and that is the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son. If you refuse to come to that, then you are committing the unpardonable sin. If you do not receive Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, there’s no other forgiveness in this world or in the world to come. God has provided one way for man to be saved. For you to reject that, there’s no other way. That’s unpardonable.
Now, when a person has rejected Jesus over and over and over again, and he is faced with the indisputable evidence that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, you have to somehow explain away the miracles and the power in the life of Jesus Christ. And so, people in explaining it away, say, “Ah, He’s doing that by hypnosis or something else.” And that’s just as bad as anything else, you see. That is an indication that you are trying now to rationalize against the plain facts that you can see. You’re trying to, with irrational arguments, destroy the evidence concerning Jesus Christ. And that you are doing because you have set your position and your heart against Jesus, “I will not believe in Him; I will not receive Him.” And you set your heart and your position, but now you’ve got to explain away the evidence. And any time a man starts to, by irrational argument, set aside Jesus Christ, that man is close to committing the unpardonable sin, because he’s not even believing his own intellect at this point.
And so, when they began to try to explain away this evidence of His power by saying, “He’s doing it through the lord of devils,” they are now irrationally rejecting that evidence that is right there before them, because they have set in their heart the position of, “We’re not going to believe in Him.” And you’re getting close to the unpardonable sin when you set yourself in such a way that you refuse the obvious evidence before you.
There came then his brethren and his mother, and, [they were] standing without, [and they] sent unto him, calling him ( Mar 3:31 ).
Now, there’s a huge crowd of people, and outside they said, “He’s beside Himself; He’s gone crazy. Let’s go down and save Him.” And so, His brothers, James, Jude and Simon, and His mother were outside. They sent a message in and they said, “Tell Jesus we’re out here. Come on out.”
And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without [are outside and they] seek for thee. And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother ( Mar 3:32 , Mar 3:34-35 ).
What Jesus is saying is that there is a bond that comes in the family of God that is deeper than the bond in the human family. When we are followers of Jesus Christ, we come into this deep beautiful inner relationship with each other. So that a person can have a closer relationship with some native in New Guinea, who a few years ago was a cannibal, than you can have with your own blood brothers or sisters, or maybe even an identical twin who isn’t saved, if that native is saved.
I was over in New Guinea and I had this native chieftain come up to me. He had to speak to me through an interpreter. And he had these spears in his hand. He said, “I used these to kill men. But,” he said, “now that they have brought me this,” holding up his Bible, “I don’t need these any more, and I want to give them to you.” And there came an instant bonding between this chieftain and myself. My brother in Jesus. Though we could not communicate linguistically, we communicated spiritually, as he grabbed hold of me and I grabbed hold of him and we began to embrace each other in the love of Jesus Christ. And how I felt God’s love just pouring out from that man to me. And how I was bonded to him in the Spirit, as I realized, “This man’s my brother in Jesus.” It was a tremendous spiritual experience for me, being bonded by the Spirit to this native who just not too many years ago was a cannibal. But now, because of the work of God’s grace in his life, he’s a brother in Christ. And though we are culturally worlds apart, though linguistically we cannot communicate, yet there was such a spiritual communication and a spiritual bond that I’ve never felt quite that experience of bonding before as I did with that native chieftain as we stood there in the village and embraced each other. My brother in Jesus Christ.
And that’s what Jesus is saying, “Hey, these are My brothers, these are My sisters, these are My mothers. Whoever does the will of My Father, whoever is walking with Me, the same is My mother, My sister, My brother.” We’re the family of God. We’ve been bonded to each other through that common relationship with Jesus Christ. We’re one, together in Him, the body of Christ. Oh, may God help us to realize this beautiful bond that exists, as we are one in Jesus, bonded together in the family of God by His love of us.
Now, inasmuch as Jesus took this attitude towards Mary, for another gospel said He said, “Who is My mother? Who are My brothers?” And this He did here also, “Who is My mother? Who is My brother?” I think it’s rather chancy to ask Mary to do favors for you. “Holy, Mary, mother of God, have mercy on us sinners, in this our hour of death.” Wait a minute. “Who is My mother?” Hey, why not go directly to the source? Therefore, let us come boldly to the throne of grace to make our requests known, seeing that Jesus has opened the door and laid the way. Oh, how glorious it is, that we can come directly to God through Jesus Christ.
So, next week we’ll begin with chapter four. May the Lord be with you, watch over and keep you in His love. May the Spirit of God just take the word of God and continue to refresh our minds and our hearts in God’s truth. This week, may the Lord bring back to us in our times of need that word that we have put in our hearts and have studied together. And may we grow together in the family of God into that fullness, into that completeness, that He would have us to experience and know in Jesus Christ. God bless you; God keep you. And may He use you this week to spread abroad through all the land that work of Jesus Christ that He has wrought in your life. “
Mar 3:1. , again) on another Sabbath [which preceded the feast of the Passover by eight days.-Harm. p. 309]. Luk 6:6).[23]-, withered) not from the womb, but through disease or a wound. This is the force of the participle.[24]
[23] , into the synagogue) What an amount of wickedness is there not introduced into holy assemblages, and perpetrated in them!-V. g.
[24] As distinguished from the adjective , had it been used.-ED. Mark groups together, in ch.1, those acts to which Jesus adversaries made no opposition: he then also joins together those which they assailed, in ch. 2; until, goaded on by hatred, they began laying plots for our Lord. The method of Luke is the same.-V. g.
Mar 3:1-6
5. JESUS HEALING ON THE SABBATH
Mar 3:1-6
(Mat 12:9-14; Luk 6:6-11)
1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there who had his hand withered.–Luk 6:6 says: “His right hand,” making it a more serious affliction than if it had been the left unless the man was left-handed. [Telling of what he did and said on one Sabbath seems to call up his action on another, and it is here given without regard to time. He entered into the synagogue on the Sabbath and found a man with a withered hand. His known readiness to relieve the afflicted, and the knowledge that he had not observed the Sabbath as strictly as they thought the law required, made them watch to see what he would do to the withered hand.]
2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.–Of Sabbath breaking, and thus be able to stop his preaching. They were watching his every move to get some ground of accusation, that they might accuse Jesus to both the people and the civil authorities. They asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?” (Mat 12:9.) They were anxious to lead him into a trap. [Seeing him, he determined to heal him, and so commanded him to stand forth in the midst so all could see what was done.] The law of Moses did not forbid works of healing on the Sabbath day, but the traditions and the interpretations of the Pharisees did; and they cared more for their conceited and perverted religious rules and ceremonies than they did for the welfare of any man.
3 And he saith unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand forth.–Luk 6:8 says: “He knew their thoughts; and he said to the man that had his hand withered, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.” Jesus saw that a crisis was at hand and an issue must be made, and he determined to make it bold and plain–as conspicuous as possible. [He was rooting out their ideas concerning the Sabbath, and brought the point before their minds: it is to do good or evil on the Sabbath; to heal a man or let him remain suffering carried out to save life, or in failing to save to let it perish, or destroy it. To fail to save life when we can is to be guilty of destroying it. These were the questions involved. He laid them before them and asked, What is right?]
4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill?–He puts it squarely up to them. He answers not only their evil thoughts which he knew (Luk 6:8), but their question (Mat 12:10) as well. The principle of doing good on the Sabbath is being clearly drawn. He makes a center thrust at his opposers.
But they held their peace.–Refused to answer, for they could not without condemning themselves. Jesus made a home thrust and drove them to the wall. The question put them in a dilemma. They were the ones that were breaking the Sabbath law, and the whole sum of the commandments, which is love. [Luke (6:7) says: “And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him.” Matt. (12:10-12) says: “And behold, a man having a withered hand. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be of you, that shall have one sheep, and if this fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man of more value than a sheep!
[“Wherefore it is lawful to do good on the sabbath day.” If this was the same conversation, Matthew states it more fully, and shows they were trying to excite the Jewish prejudices against him for healing on the Sabbath. But he placed before them their inconsistency in taking a sheep out of the pit, which they did not condemn, while refusing to heal a man of his afflictions, and placed before them the issue, it was to do good by healing, or evil by leaving him unhealed; carried out, to save life by healing, or to destroy it by leaving him to perish? Seeing their own inconsistency and determined to condemn him, they held their peace. This was an unfair and unmanly way of meeting a question they had raised. Saving the ox or the ass from the pit was doing good on the Sabbath day; to heal the man or to save his life was a greater good. To fail to save life when it is in our power is to destroy it.]
5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, –Anger, when applied to God and to Jesus, is not passion, but a deep, moral resentment against wrong. It is perfectly consistent with love for the sinner; indeed it is a fruit of love. It would be base and sinful not to be kindled to indignation by baseness, treachery, cruelty, and hypocrisy. This indignation is one of the motive powers of all reformatory movements.
being grieved at the hardening of their heart,–He was as sorry as he was indignant. He was grieved at their spiritual dullness. The words translated “being grieved” imply sympathy and pity for those in such a miserable and hardhearted state. They were so blind to the truth that they mistook prejudice for religion. The heart, which is the seat of feeling, or affection, is tender when it is easily affected by the sufferings and pains of others; by our own sins and anger; by the love and commands of God. It is hard when nothing touches or moves it; when a man is alike insensible to the sufferings of others, the dangers of his own condition, and the commands, the love, and the threatenings of God. It is most tender in youth, or when we have committed the fewest sins. Doubtless the wise man had this in view, when he said: “Remember also thy Creator in the days of thy youth.” (Ecc 12:1-3.) The heart is made hard by indulgence in sin; by resisting the offers of life; or by opposing appeals which God makes through the gospel.
he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth; and his hand was restored.– [He was grieved at the hardening of their hearts in refusing to see the truth. He was angry with such a sinful course, but determined to pursue the right, he commanded the man to stretch forth his hand, and on stretching it out, it was restored whole. Here the man showed his faith by doing what Jesus commanded, and in trying to obey, Jesus gave the hand strength. He blessed when faith showed itself in stretching out the hand. Faith was made perfect by doing the thing commanded. In all the examples of healing through faith, this order is observed. Faith proves itself by obeying God, or, in the absence of a command, in doing something that expresses the faith in God. Faith never molds character until it moves to action. Let it be noted that God gives the needed help when we make an effort to do his commands.]
6 And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him,–A political rather than a religious body. They were such Jews as favored Herod Antipas, especially in his attempts to be made king over the whole kingdom of his father, Herod the Great, which had been divided into several portions under governors appointed by Rome. “They joined the Sadducees in skepticism, the Greeks in licentiousness, pandered to the Herods in vice and cruelty, and truckled to the Romans.” The union of these two opposite parties shows how intense was their feeling against Jesus. The Pharisees and Herodians were fierce political enemies, yet they unite in plotting against Jesus. Opposition to Jesus had been aroused some weeks before this at the Passover at Jerusalem (Joh 5:16), and the flame was fanned by the memory of his driving out the cattle and money-changers from the temple the year before. It was increased also by his teaching and miracles, and still more so by his rising popularity and his wonderful works.
how they might destroy him.–They advised among themselves not whether they would destroy him, but how they might destroy him. They had already determined to do it, but how was the question to settle.
This is one of the few occasions on which it is said that Christ was angry. Particularly note the reason for His anger: “When He had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their hearts.” What a picture these next verses give us of the thronging of the crowds! Perhaps there is no other picture in the Gospels quite equal to it for life, and color, and movement.
The time had now arrived for setting apart His workers.
1. “He . . . calleth unto Him whom He Himself would.”
2. “They went unto Him.”
3. “He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him, and that He might send them forth.” The chosen are “appointed” to two things, first, to be with Him; and, second, to be sent forth.
Here is chronicled the effect which the news of His ceaseless activity had on His kinsfolk at Nazareth. These brothers of the Lord never had had any great confidence in Him, and in all probability He spoke out of the depth of His own experience when He said, “A man’s foes shall be they of his own household.”
No more solemn and awful words ever fell from the lips of Jesus than those in which He referred to “eternal sin” (see R.V.). That sin is the sin against the Holy Spirit, the deliberate, willful, and final rejection of His ministry. His kinsfolk, the account of whose setting out to Him is contained in the earlier part of the chapter, here arrive. They were come, from whatever motive, to hinder Him in His work. It must have cost Him suffering to how that neither His mother nor His nearest relations understood that He was carrying out the will of God.
HEALING ON THE SABBATH
1-6. Jesus heals a withered hand in the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stirs up fresh opposition against himself.
The fifth offence of Jesus against the current Judaism is a case of healing on the Sabbath. It belongs evidently to a period when the freedom of Jesus treatment of this sacred day had created considerable notoriety, for his enemies are on the watch for him to give them a fresh charge against him. The scene is the synagogue, and the case is that of a man with a withered hand. Jesus himself is the challenger this time, as he calls the man out into their midst, and meets their scruple with the question, whether it is allowable to confer the good of healing, or to inflict the injury of refusing to heal.
1. -again into the synagogue.1
Omit before Tisch. Treg. (Treg.) WH. B. The art is an apparent emendation.
The , again, keeps up the connection with preceding visits to the synagogue, after the manner of Mk. See 1:21-28. -the hand withered. The article is the possessive article.2 The participle, instead of the adjective, denotes a process, and not simply a state, and hence, an effect produced by disease, and not an original defect.
2. -they were watching. The imperfect denotes the act in its progress. There is no subject expressed here, but it is easily supplied from our knowledge of the class who insisted on these rigors of Sabbath observance. And v. 6 tells us that it was the Pharisees who went out and conspired with the Herodians against him.
3. (or Tisch.), Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL 33, one ms. of Lat. Vet. Memph. Harcl. etc.
3. 3 -Arise (and come) into the midst.
instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. ABCDL etc.
This is a pregnant construction. The action begins with and ends with ; but between these, there is an intermediate act, of coming or stepping. By this act, Jesus challenged the attention of the carpers to the miracle that he is about to perform. Not as a miracle, however, but as a case involving the principle in dispute between himself and them in regard to healing on the Sabbath.
4. 4-Is it allowable to do good? , and its contrasted verb , may mean to do good or evil, either in the sense of right and wrong, or of benefit and injury. The connection here points to the latter meaning.
Mt. says that the Pharisees began by asking him if it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath; Lk., that he knew their thoughts, and so asked them the question about doing good and evil. Both are attempts to explain the apparent abruptness of Jesus question.
This question of Jesus not only suggests the general principle that makes healing permissible on the Sabbath, but is aimed directly at the specious distinction made by the Scribes. They admitted no healing, except where life was in danger, on that day. The point of Jesus answer is found in the substitution of the positive for the negative in the second part of the contrast. They regarded the not healing as simply an omission of ; Jesus treats it as a positive . Not to do good to a person needing it is the same as to do him evil; to withhold a good is to inflict an injury. But he deals more directly and boldly with their fallacy in the second part of the question, showing that not to heal is in any case to be classed with killing. The case in which life is in danger is not therefore a case by itself, but includes in itself a principle applicable to all cases of sickness. To weaken life is not the same thing in degree as to end life, but of the same kind notwithstanding, and therefore morally in the same class. The principle is analogous to that stated in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus shows that the law against murder is directed equally against any manifestation of anger. In all these discussions, beginning with 2:13, Jesus appears as the emancipator of the human spirit, revealing principles, instead of rules, as the guide of human conduct, and so delivering all men possessed of his spirit from the fetters of conventional morality.
5. -they kept silence. This is a case in which the imperfect denotes the continuance of a previous state. -Anger is legitimate in the absence of the personal element. Anger caused by wrong done to me, and seeking to retaliate on the person doing it, is clearly wrong. But anger against wrong simply as wrong, and without evil design or wish against the perpetrator, is a sign of moral health. -The preposition in composition may denote merely the inwardness of the act, as in , to be conscious, i.e. to have inward knowledge; or it may denote what is shared with others, as the same word may mean to know with others, to be privy to. Probably it is the latter here, denoting the sympathetic character of his grief. He was grieved because they hurt themselves. -at the hardness of their heart. The expression does not denote, as with us, the callousness of their feelings, but the unsusceptibility of their minds. They were hardened by previous conceptions against his new truth. The collocation of anger and sympathetic grief excited by the same act is significant of the nature of Christs anger, showing how compatible it was with goodwill. 1-it was restored.
instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. ABL etc. Omit after Tisch. (Treg.) WH. marg. BEMSUV II2, 126, etc. Doubtful. Omit Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. ABC* D etc. mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Syrr. etc.
6. -The immediateness of this act is noted by Mk. only, and is quite characteristic of his style, hitting off a situation with a word. The immediateness is here a sign of the violence of the feeling excited against Jesus. To estimate their fanatical zeal, we must remember that they valued the Sabbath far beyond any mere morality, and reacted with corresponding violence against any supposed violation of its sacredness. Fanaticism is always busy and eager over the mere outworks of religion.
-the Herodians. The adherents of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee. The Pharisees were zealous patriots, and as such were generally opposed to any foreign yoke. But here was an opportunity to use the foreign power against a common enemy. The common opinion ascribed Messianic pretensions to Jesus, and on more than one occasion attempted to force him to play the role according to the popular conception of the Messiah. This would be the argument by which the Pharisees excited the temporal power against him, as they did finally at Jerusalem. The preceding paragraphs have given us a view of Jesus in his work of undermining one after another of the Pharisaic positions, and this conspiracy is the natural result.
(or )1-they took counsel.
, instead of , Tisch. C 238 etc. , Treg. WH. BL 13, 28, 69, etc.
GROWTH OF POPULARITY
7-12. Jesus departs to the sea of Galilee, followed by a great multitude.
The narrative of opposition is interrupted here, and we are introduced to a scene of another kind. The multitude about Jesus heretofore has been from Galilee, with a sprinkling of hostile Scribes and Pharisees (from Jerusalem?). But now we see it swelled by people from Juda, and from the Gentile districts both north and south. It is an eager crowd, moreover, who fall upon him and threaten to crush him in their attempt to obtain his healing touch, so that Jesus has to procure a boat to be in attendance on him. The meaning of it all is, that the period of conflict does not signify a loss of popularity, but rather that the great access of favor with the people swells the tide of opposition.
7. -withdrew. The verb is used of such retirement from public view as would be natural in such a position of danger as Jesus found himself in. Mt. uses the same verb, 12:15. It does not seem probable, in these circumstances, that he would choose the part of the lake near to Capernaum which was the scene of his usual work, because it was a place of resort. This time, he was seeking retirement, and he would find it in some more secluded part of the lake.
8. The last clause of v. 7 should be included in this verse. As it stands in the T.R., the first statement, with as its verb, goes as far as ; the second, with as its verb, begins with . But with the omission of before , we can make the break where we please. Tisch. makes it at the end of v. 7, transferring to the end of the verse. But this separates Juda and Jerusalem in an unwarrantable way. Most probably, the first statement is about Galilee, the district near at hand, and the second includes all the remote districts beginning with Juda. Those from the neighboring Galilee are represented as following him, and those from the remote districts as coming to him. Read, And a great multitude from Galilee followed. And from Juda, and from Jerusalem, and from Iduma, and beyond Jordan, and about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, hearing what things he is doing, came to him.
, instead of , Treg. WH. ABGL etc. mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg. Tisch. CEFK etc. mss. of Lat. Vet. This verb is transferred to the end of v. 7 after by Tisch. WH. marg. C 238 Lat. Vet. Vulg. Placed after by Treg. ABL etc. Memph. Syrr. After by WH. 235, 271. The separation of Juda and Jerusalem caused by the transfer is clearly against it. Omit after Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL Memph. etc. Omit before Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. * and c BCL mss. of Lat. Vet. Pesh. etc. instead of Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. B 1, 13, 69, etc. mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. , instead of , Treg. WH. BL. Internally probable.
Iduma is the Greek name for Edom, a district situated E. of the Jordan, between Southern Palestine and Arabia. Tyre and Sidon were the two great cities of Syro-Phnicia on the Mediterranean Sea, NW. of Galilee.
9. -he told, i.e. he gave orders. -should be in constant attendance. The verb expresses this idea of assiduous waiting. It was rendered necessary by the crowd, which was in danger of crushing him.
10. -so that they were falling upon him. Not in a hostile sense, but the verb is a strong word, like and , and is intended to bring before us vividly the turbulent eagerness and excitement of the crowd. -touch him. They believed that there was some virtue in his touch, and that it made no difference whether he touched them, or they him. See 6:19. -scourges, a strong figurative term for diseases.
11. -The unclean spirits are here put by metonymy for the men possessed by them, because the action is directed by them. 1-whenever they beheld him.
, , , instead of the singular, Tisch. Treg. WH. ABCDL etc. , instead of , Tisch. WH. marg. DK 61, 69 etc.
-would fall down before him and cry out. The impf. denotes repeated action. 2- -the Son of God. This title was a Messianic title, denoting theocratic sonship, and there is nothing here to indicate that it is used in any other than this common sense. The onus probandi is not on those who deny the use of the term in the Synoptical Gospels, of metaphysical sonship, but on those who claim this use. Unless it was accompanied by language pointing out the metaphysical sonship, no Jew would have understood it.
APPOINTMENT OF THE TWELVE
13-19. Jesus goes up into the mountain, and chooses the twelve.
The appointment of the twelve is put in different connections in the Synoptics. But in them all, the connection is such as to point to the growth of our Lords work as the occasion of the appointment. They are to aid him in his work of proclaiming the kingdom, and of healing. But after all, the other purpose named, the association with himself, is the one most in evidence in the subsequent history.
13. -the mountain, i.e. the one in the neighborhood. -whom he himself wished. The pronoun is emphatic, the form of the verb being enough to indicate the person. Those who came to Jesus at this time came not of their own accord, but in accordance with his desire.
14. -he appointed twelve. This use of the verb comes under the head of making one something,-king or priest, for instance. Only here, that to which they were appointed is expressed, not as an office, but as the purpose of the appointment. This purpose is expressed under two heads, the first being association with himself, and the second, to act as his messengers in the work of proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and of healing the sick. Apparently, the former was the only one fully carried out during our Lords life, the second becoming their work when they were made necessarily independent of him by his death. And in accordance with this, the name generally given in the Gospels is disciples, and afterward, in the Acts and Epistles, they are called apostles.
, whom he also named apostles, is inserted after by WH. RV.marg. BC* 13, 28, 69, 124, 238, 346, Memph. Harcl. marg. Tisch. thinks it has been copied from Luk 6:13. But on the whole, considering the strength of the testimony for it, it seems at least equally possible that Lk. found it in the original Mk.
-to herald, or here, where it is used absolutely, to act as heralds. The word conveys the idea of authority, a herald being an official who makes public proclamation of weighty affairs. The proclamation which they were to make was the coming of the kingdom of God.
15. -to have power to cast out. This is in the same construction as , and denotes one of the objects of sending them forth.
Omit , , to heal diseases, and, Tisch. Treg. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. BC* L Memph.
With this omission, the casting out of demons is taken as the representative miracle. So frequently.1
16. .
, and he appointed the twelve, is inserted before by Tisch. WH. RV.marg. BC* .
interrupts the structure of the sentence, which is resumed in the next verse. The names that follow are in apposition with in the inserted clause, and the enumeration is interrupted to give the descriptive names assigned to some of them by Jesus.
-Peter. Mt. gives the only explanation of this name given to Simon, in ch. 16:18. But neither in this passage nor in that, is there any definite indication that it was at either time that the name was given him. J. 1:42, however, assigns the giving of the name to a time much earlier than either, immediately after the Baptism. means a rock. The masculine form, instead of , is due to its being appropriated as the name of a man.
17. -This resumes the structure of v. 14, as if v. 16 read .
. This is a modified form of the Heb. . properly means tumult or uproar, of any kind, and thunder, as a secondary meaning, is not improbable, though we have no example of it in Hebrew literature. The name probably describes a fiery, vehement temperament, rather than a thunderous eloquence, or a sonorous speech. The little that is told us about the disciples makes it impossible to follow out these hints about their character and temperament. These four, Peter, James and John, and Andrew, always stand first in these lists of the twelve, and among them, Peter is always first. Mt. calls him . But Mt. and Lk. put Andrew into the second place, evidently to associate him with his brother. Mk.s order is the order of their rank, Peter, James, and John being the three disciples chosen by Jesus to attend him on special occasions, e.g. the Transfiguration, the raising of the daughter of Jairus, and the scene in the garden of Gethsemane.
18. -Philip heads the second group in all the Gospels, as Peter the first. The name is a Greek name. We hear nothing more about him in the Synoptics, though he is mentioned several times in the fourth Gospel.
-This name does not occur in the Gospels outside of these lists, and elsewhere only in Act 1:13. And in the passage in Acts, Bartholomews name is associated, as it is here, with those of Philip and Thomas. In the fourth Gospel, on the other hand, we find that Nathanael is associated with Philip and Thomas, as Bartholomew is in the Synoptics and the Acts. In J. 1:46-50, Nathanael is the one whom Philip introduces to Jesus, while in J. 21:2, Nathanaels name is associated with Thomas. This, together with the fact that so important a personage as Nathanael appears to be in J. is not mentioned in the list of the twelve, has led to the quite reasonable supposition that the two are to be identified. In that case, Bartholomew, which means Son of Tolmai, would be a patronymic, and Nathanael would be the real name.
-On the identification of this disciple with Levi the publican, see on 2:14. He is not mentioned after this, except in Act 1:13. -This disciple, who is a mere name in the Synoptics and the Acts, becomes a personage in the fourth Gospel. J. 11:16, 14:5, 20:24-28. This group of four is the same in all three Synoptics, but in Mt., Thomas precedes Matthew.
-This James is probably the same as , James the little, the son of Mary and Clopas. See 15:40, 16:1, J. 19:25. The supposition, however, that in this passage from J., is in apposition with , and that thus the brothers of our Lord were his cousins and included in the list of apostles, is decisively negatived, first, by its giving us two sisters having the same name, Mary; secondly, by the fact, that in Luk 2:7, Jesus is called the firstborn son of Mary, implying that there were other sons; thirdly, by Act 1:14, in which the brothers of our Lord are distinguished from the apostles; and finally, by J. 7:5 which states distinctly, that at the Feast of Tabernacles, six months before the death of Jesus, his brothers did not believe in him.
-This must be the same as Lebbus, Mat 10:3 (AV. Tisch.), and Jude the son of James, Luk 6:16.
-the Zealot.
, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCDL 33, Latt. Memph. (Pesh.) etc.
If this name meant an inhabitant of Cana, it would be . Probably, it comes from the Heb. , Chald. , with the termination which denotes a party (, ), and is the same as zealot, the name given to him in Luk 6:15. This was the name of a party of fanatic nationalists among the Jews, leaders of the national revolt against the foreign yoke.
19. -Heb., , Man of Kerioth. Judas is designated thus as an inhabitant of Kerioth, a village of Juda. -delivered up. The word for betrayal is .
There can be no doubt what significance Mk. means to give to the appointment of the twelve. It is preceded and followed in his account by the gathering of the importunate crowds about our Lord. And the connection points plainly to the conclusion that Jesus appoints them to be his helpers in the work thus growing on his hands. This is indicated in the purpose, that he may send them forth to preach, and to heal; that is, to share in the work which has been described before as done by him.1 But we do not find that much of this active work was done by them during Jesus lifetime. The purpose which was more fully carried out was that of permanent association with himself, expressed in the words, that they may be with him. Instead of the fluctuating attendance on his person of the ordinary disciples, he desired for these twelve such constant association that they could afterwards be his witnesses, and carry forward his work. Mat 9:35-4 gives the same general reason, but the immediate occasion is a missionary tour made by Jesus through Galilee, in which he is impressed by the greatness of the spiritual harvest, and the small number of laborers. Luk 6:17-19 places the concourse of people after the appointment of the twelve. The inclusion of Judas in the number of the apostles is a certain indication that he was at the time a genuine disciple. In his case, as in that of all the apostles, there was a failure to understand our Lords purely spiritual programme, but the personal equation, the faith in Christ himself, overcame this doubt at first. Later, the doubt predominated in the case of Judas, and even in the rest of the apostles it led to the temporary desertion of the ten, and to the denial of Peter.
CHARGE OF DIABOLISM
20-35. Jesus, at home again, is met by the opposition of the Scribes, and by the attempt on the part of his family to restrain him.
It is evident that there is both a logical and a chronological relation between this attitude of our Lords family and this new phase of the opposition of the Scribes. The logical relation is found in the language of the two. His family said, he is beside himself; the Scribes said, he is possessed by the devil himself. The close juxtaposition of these in the narrative shows that Mk. had this logical relation in his mind. On the other hand, the interruption of the story of his familys attempt to restrain him by the introduction of the other account, and the resumption of the former in v. 31, is not explained so well by any other assumption as that there was really such an interval between the familys original purpose and their arrival on the scene of action, which was filled up by the controversy with the Scribes. Jesus makes this opposition the occasion of teaching, of which it is easy to miss the point, and which has been badly misunderstood. In regard to the charge that he is in collusion with Satan in casting out demons, his point fully stated would be, that such collusion is possible up to the point where it involves an actual arraying of Satan against himself. And Jesus turns their charge against themselves by his counter-claim that his whole action is hostile to Satan, making such collusion impossible. And this is the acumen of his statement about the sin against the Holy Ghost. In the case of the Scribes, their charge had been very close to that sin, when they said that the Spirit in Jesus was the Devil instead of the Holy Spirit, involving a complete upsetting of all moral values, and a stupendous and well-nigh irrecoverable moral blindness in themselves. That is, their whole error lay in their failure to value the moral element in Jesus works. It is not implied at all that his family was in sympathy with the Scribes, their apprehension being simply that his mind was unsettled, and that he needed to be put under restraint. This lack of sympathy with him on the part of his human family led Jesus to point out the higher reality of spiritual relationship and association.
20. -comes. is here probably the colloquial anarthrous phrase, equivalent to our home. The gathering of the Scribes from Jerusalem and the visit of his family would probably both of them be at Capernaum, and this points to his own house as the one meant here, RV. margin.
instead of , Tisch. WH. RV. B mss. of Lat. Vet. etc.
() -And (the,) crowd gathers again.
before Tr. (WH.) RV. ABDLcorr. 209, 300, Memph.edd. The article is rather favored by Mk.s habit of correlating persons and things with previous mentions of the same in his account.
-again. This refers to 2:1, 2, and denotes a repetition of what occurred then in the same place. -not able even.
, instead of , Treg. WH. RV. ABKLU 28, 33 etc.
.1
21. -his family. v. 31, which is evidently a resumption of this part of the narrative, says his mother and his brothers. Literally, this phrase would denote those descended from him, but it has come to have this modification of its strict meaning. -to lay hold of him, to get possession of him. They wanted to protect Jesus against his own madness. For they said that he is beside himself, .2 has for its object the preceding statement. Jesus permitting the multitude to gather about him in this tumultuous way and to engross him so entirely, seemed to them an unwarranted absorption in an entirely visionary work. This absence of prudence and of care of himself seemed to them misplaced.
Weiss, with some show of reason, makes the subject of the persons from whom the family received their account. But the more natural subject is the same as that of , unless a different one is pointed out. And it is just as probable that the family inferred the from what they heard, as that it made a part of the report.
-And the Scribes who came down from Jerusalem.
This delegation is introduced here with the article, as if it had been mentioned before. But the article may be taken as meaning the Scribes who were present, and as an incidental statement of the reason of their presence. This slight change of meaning would be indicated by a comma,-and the Scribes, who came down from Jerusalem.
22. -It was down from Jerusalem, which was situated on high land, to most other parts of the country. This is the first mention of the presence of Scribes from Jerusalem, and it is an indication of an increased activity and hostility of the religious leaders against Jesus.
-he has Beelzebul. This is a modification of a Heb. name, and is one of their names for Satan.1 One is said to have a demon, or here, the prince of demons, as he is said to have a disease, that is, to be afflicted with it.
The particular form of this charge, that he is possessed, not with an ordinary demon, but with the devil himself, is in order to account for his power over demons, as representing their prince. But we may suppose that they took a malicious pleasure in making his an exaggerated case. -in the prince of the demons. The preposition has the same force as in the phrases in Christ, in the Holy Spirit. It is a local designation of intimate union, as if the two were so absorbed in each other, that they dwelt, one in the other. The charge is, that Jesus cast out demons by virtue of this connection with their prince. It is not merely an attempt to explain these miracles, so as to do away with the effect of them, but a distinct charge on the strength of them. They said, this man is in collusion with the devil. It is evident all through his course, but this assumed miracle is distinct proof of it. How else does this insignificant person coming among us without any credentials, get this extraordinary power over demons, unless there is some connection between him and their ruler. The devil has power to order them round, and has authorized this man to act for him, and so further the dangerous delusion about himself which is spreading among the people. There is no connection between the attitude of the religious leaders, and of Jesus own family here. Rather, the hostility of the Scribes was one of the dangers of the situation, to which Jesus himself seemed rashly indifferent, and which led his family to seek to restrain him.
Mat 12:22, Mat 12:23 and Luk 11:14 give us a more immediate occasion for this charge in their account of the casting out of a demon at this time. In this Gospel, the connection is general, the charge being occasioned by Jesus frequent performance of this most prominent of all his miracles.
23. -A parable is an analogy. It assumes a likeness between higher and lower things, such that what is true in one department holds good in another. It serves the purpose not only of illustration and of figurative statement, but also of proof. Here the apologetic purpose is evident. The analogy may be drawn out into a story, or description, as in most of Jesus parables, but this is not essential. In this case, Jesus begins with an abstract statement of his position, and then gives several analogous cases proving the general principle.
-Satan is the Heb. name of the devil, the prince of the demons. It means the Adversary, and except in this passage, and Luk 22:3, the name is written with the article.1 Jesus shows the fallacy of the scribes position by calling their attention to one essential element in his casting out of demons, which makes it impossible to account for it in their way. And that is, that his action toward the demons is hostile action. To be sure, his ordering them round, in itself considered, may be merely an exercise of the power which their ruler exercises over them. But when his authority is exercised, not for them, but against them, and against everything for which they and their ruler stand, he must be representing, not some friendly power, but a distinctly hostile force. They are so identified with their ruler, that what he does to them he does virtually to himself, and he does not cast himself out from one of his principal vantage points, possessing a special strategic value for his cause.
24. -And if a kingdom is divided against itself. This is the analogy which lies nearest at hand. Indeed, it may be called the generic statement of the preceding principle. Satan and his subjects constitute a kingdom, and what is true of any kingdom is applicable to them. There is no difference between human kingdoms and this kingdom of evil spirits, which would invalidate this common truth. In the form in which this analogy is stated, it contains the reason why it is morally impossible for Satan to cast out Satan. It is, that such division leads to destruction. The condition is here a general one, not confined to any time.
25. The second analogy is that of a house. The word is used by metonymy for the family inhabiting a house. Here, too, division ends in destruction. -will not be able. The form of the conditional statement in this case belongs to the future, and not to a general condition.
, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL mss. of Lat. Vet. and of Vulg. is an evident emendation, to correspond to v. 24.
26. , -And if Satan arose against himself, he was divided and cannot stand.1
, instead of , Tisch. * C mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg. Treg. marg. WH. RV. c BL. is a probable emendation to bring the aorists and together, instead of and the pres. . , instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. BCL.
This verse applies the principle to the case in hand, and the form of conditional statement corresponds. It states the condition as belonging to past time, and says of an event actually past, if it was of such a character. In the conclusion, the aor. states what was involved, the pres. what is involved.
27. -no one can enter into the strong mans house, and plunder his tools.
, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL 33, Memph. Pesh.
In what precedes, Jesus has simply taken the negative attitude towards their charge that he is in collusion with Satan, showing that that is impossible. But in this verse he shows what is the real relation to Satan involved in his casting out demons. What it does mean is conflict with Satan, and victory over him. This also is stated in the form of an analogy, that no one can enter a strong mans house, and despoil his tools, except he first bind the strong man. is here not possessions or goods, but utensils, and denotes the demons as Satans instruments, or tools. What Jesus says is not simply an inference from his casting out of demons, though that is the proof of it to others. But this victory over Satan is a part of his self-consciousness. He knows that he has met Satan here on his own stamping ground, where he has been accustomed to take advantage of the weakness of men for their undoing; moreover, that Satan has approached him on this same side of his human weakness, and for once, has met his master. Instead of mastering, he has been himself mastered, and the mastery has been followed up by crippling; he has been bound. Here we come upon one of the deepest truths of Jesus life, that the real basis of his power, which is a spiritual power, is to be found in his own righteousness under difficulties, and those difficulties the same which are inherent in human nature, and due to the exposure of that nature to a subtle and victorious power of evil which had so far dominated the world.
28. -Verily.1 This has the effect of solemn emphasis. -all sins shall be forgiven. The statement that all the sins of men shall be forgiven is not to be taken of individual sins, but of classes, or kinds of sin. -the blasphemies. This word means primarily injurious speech, and, as applied to God, speech derogatory to his Divine majesty. -Literally, whatsoever things they blasphemously utter.2
before Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. ABCEFGHL Memph. etc. , instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BDE* GH etc.
Blasphemy is not here regarded as that into which all sins may be resolved,3 but it adds to the general term sins, the special class to which the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit belongs.
29. -against the Holy Spirit.4 What is meant by the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? The difficulty on one side, has been the consideration of this question without reference to the case in hand, and on the other hand, so superficial an explanation of this case as to leave what Jesus says about the enormity of the sin involved practically unexplained. Plainly, the Holy Spirit is not to be considered here in his independent action, but as the inward source of Jesus acts. What Jesus says is occasioned by their charge that he had an evil spirit; that is, that the power acting in him was not good, but bad. Now, the Holy Spirit is the Divine power to which the acts of Jesus are attributed. The Spirit is represented as descending on him at his baptism, and driving him into the wilderness, and Jesus is said to have begun his ministry in Galilee in the power of the Spirit. Especially, Jesus ascribes his expulsion of evil spirits to the Holy Spirit. Hence, a distinction is to be made between his other acts, and those which manifestly reveal the Holy Spirit in him, and between slander directed against him personally, as he appears in his common acts, and that which is aimed at those acts in which the Spirit is manifest. Just so far as there is in the man who utters the slander any recognition, however vague, of this agency, or so far as there is in the person against whom it is directed so manifest a revelation of the Spirit as should lead to this recognition, so far, there is danger, to say the least, of this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Moreover, this act of driving out evil spirits was the act in which the holiness of the Spirit operating in Jesus specially appeared. It is not in the power shown in the miracles that the operation of the Holy Spirit is most evident, but in their moral quality. There is the moral uniqueness about the miracles of Jesus which appears in the rest of his life, only there, it is, if anything, most conspicuous. And this quality appears specially where he not only cures the bodily diseases of men, but frees them from an evil spirit which deranges their inner life. To call that evil, instead of good, and especially to ascribe it to the very prince of evil, is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The only alleviation of it is the failure to recognize fully these facts. -hath never forgiveness,1 -but is guilty of an eternal sin.
, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BL 28, 33 (C* D 13, 69, 346, ), Latt. Memph.
An eternal sin may be one subjecting the person to an eternal punishment, eternal in its consequences, that Isa_2 But certainly it is equally allowable to suppose that it describes the sin itself as eternal, accounting for the impossibility of the forgiveness by the permanence of the sin,-endless consequences attached to endless sin. This is the philosophy of endless punishment. Sin reacts on the nature, an act passes into a state, and the state continues. That is, eternal punishment is not a measure of Gods resentment against a single sin, which is so enormous that the resentment never abates. It is the result of the effect of any sin, or course of sin in fixing the sinful state beyond recovery. This is more accordant with the inwardness of Jesus ordinary view of things.
30. -he has an unclean spirit. The report of their saying above is, he hath Beelzebul, and it is changed here in order to make the contrast between and , the Holy Spirit.
31. , -and there came his mother and his brothers, and standing outside calling him.
(), instead of , Treg. WH. RV. (Tisch. ) BCDGL 1, 13, 28, 69, 118, 124, 209, Latt. Memph. Pesh. etc. , instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCDGL Latt. Memph. Pesh. , instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. BC 28. , instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL 1, 13, 28, 69, 118, 124, etc.
Though the resumptive is omitted, it is plain that this is a resumption of what is said about his family coming out to restrain him in v. 21. The preliminary statement is put there, in order to connect with its cause in the tumultuous gathering of the people. Then it is interrupted by the story of the dispute with the Scribes, because that event precedes in the order of time. It is this unsympathetic attitude of his family in this visit which gives force to what Jesus says about his true family. On the brothers of Jesus, see on v. 18. is used sometimes to denote less intimate relationship, but it is not at all common, and aside from usage, the supposition that the of Jesus were anything else than brothers is quite against the evidence. The names of these brothers are given in Mat 13:55 as James, Joseph, Simeon, and Jude. -and standing outside. Evidently on account of the crowd surrounding the house.1
32. -around him.2 -and they say to him.
, instead of , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCDL 13, 69, 124, 346, mss. of Lat. Vet. Vulg. Memph. Pesh. Harcl. marg.
-thy mother, and thy brothers, and thy sisters.
-Tisch. (Treg. marg.) WH. marg.. ADEFHMSUV 22, 124, 238, 299, 433, mss. of Lat. Vet. Harcl. marg. Omitted probably to accord with v. 33, 34, and with Mt. and Lk.
33. 3-And answering, he says.
, instead of , , Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCL Vulg. Memph. Harcl. , and my brothers, instead of , or, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. BCGL 1, mss. of Lat. Vet. Memph. Pesh.
Jesus does not wish, in this question, to deny or underrate the human relations. But he feels with a strength, not common among men, the Divine relation and the human relations to which this gives rise. Moreover, the present errand of his family has made him feel that they come short of the real connection which alone gives worth to the family relation.
34. -those seated around him. v. 32 has stated that the crowd was seated about him. But evidently from what follows, this was made up in this case of his disciples.
35. -Mat 12:50 says , which defines more closely the nature and reason of this relation. It is a common relation to the heavenly Father, and not to an earthly father, that is at the basis of the kinship acknowledged by him.Moreover, the relation to God is of the moral kind, shown by doing His will. It is due to a new nature begotten in the man by God, but it shows itself in obedience. Jesus own relation to God, making it his meat and drink to do his will, is the uppermost and central thing in his life, and those who share with him this relation come nearest to him. Spiritual kinship surpasses the accidents of birth.
-whoever does.
Omit , for, Tisch. (Treg.) WH. B mss. of Lat. Vet. Memph. is an emendation. Omit , my, after Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. ABDL mss. of Lat. Vet.
The order of Mk. here, connecting this paragraph with the teaching in parables which follows, is also the order of Mt., and the latter marks this as a chronological order by the use of , 12:46, and , 13:1. On the other hand, Luk 11:37 connects this attack of the Pharisees with Jesus denunciation of them by another definite chronological mark, . And Mt. puts this denunciation among the events of the passion week, and fixes it there by his introductory . This is a specimen of the disagreement of the Evangelists in their attempts to give chronological sequence to their narratives. Dr. Gardiner, Harmony, p. 70, explains this by the supposition that such expressions as and may be used by the Evangelist to indicate that an event took place, not necessarily in the midst of that particular discourse, but simply of some discourse or other; that is, while he was talking, instead of walking, or healing or something. This is a good example of the ingenuities and curiosities of harmonizing interpretation. Such use of language by the Evangelists would discredit them equally with the inconsistencies that it is intended to remove.
1 The omission of the art. is probably due to the fact that had passed into a phrase, like , or our to church.
Tisch. Tischendorf.
Treg. Tregelles.
WH. Westcott and Hort.
Codex Sinaiticus.
B Codex Vaticanus.
2 Luk 6:6 says the right hand. Dr. Morison contends that this is the reason for the use of the art. But evidently, the art. is insufficient for this discrimination, as the other use, allowing it to apply to either hand, is so much more obvious.
RV. Revised Version.
C Codex Bezae.
L Codex Regius.
Codex Sangallensis
33 Codex Regius.
Lat. Vet. Vetus Latina.
Memph. Memphitic.
Harcl. Harclean.
3 On the use of , see on 2:11.
A Codex Alexandrinus.
D Codex Ephraemi.
4 is a Biblical word. is the Greek word, or . is a good Greek word.
1 On the double augment, see Win. 12, 7 a.
marg. Revided Version marg.
E Codex Basiliensis.
M Codex Campianus.
S Codex Vaticanus.
U Codex Nanianus.
V Codex Mosquensis.
Codex Tischendorfianus
Vulg. Vulgate.
Syrr. Syriac Versions.
1 belongs to later Greek.
13 Codex Regius.
28 Codex Regius.
69 Codex Leicestrensis.
G Codex Wolfi A.
F Codex Borelli.
K Codex Cyprius.
Pesh. Peshito.
1 .Codex Basiliensis
1 is a rare construction. Generally, is used with conditions belonging to the future, or with general conditions belonging to any time, and is construed with the subjunctive. The indefiniteness in the time of past conditions expressed in our -ever is denoted by -.
2 On this use of to introduce direct quotation, see on 1:15.
346 Codex Ambrosianus.
1 See on 1:39.
AV. Authorised Version.
Latt. Latin Versions.
1 See 1:34.
209 An unnamed, valuable manuscript.
1 Where the inf. is used with , the N.T. invariably employs the neg. , even when the result is stated as a fact. See Win. 55, 2d.
2 See on 2:12.
1 The Heb. is , , being a rabbinical form of . The whole means god of filth.
1 See on 1:13.
1 and are aorist, and it preserves the flavor of the original better to translate them as simple pasts, arose, and was divided, instead of perfects.
1 is the Heb. particle of affirmation from , to be firm, sure. Its proper place is at the end of the sentence, and disconnected with it, like our Amen. This adverbial use of it, placed at the beginning of the sentence, belongs to the report of our Lords discourses in the Gospels. Elsewhere in the N.T. it is used after the Heb. fashion.
2 is the cognate acc. after , and independent of both and . See Col 3:14, where is used in the same way.
H Codex Wolfi B.
3 See Morisons singular note.
4 In this use of a preposition after , there is a return to the earlier construction, for which the N.T. employs the simple acc.
1 Literally, hath not forgiveness forever. The Heb. form of the universal negative, joining the negative with the verb, instead of with the adverb.
2 So Meyer, Weiss, Holtzmann, etc.
1 See v. 20, and especially Luk 8:19.
2 With the acc., is used locally, with the gen., of subject matter-around a person or thing, and about a subject.
3 The Greeks used the middle, instead of the pass, of , in the sense of answer. This use is peculiar to N.T. Greek.
the Lord of the Sabbath
Mar 2:23-28; Mar 3:1-19
The ritualist demands the outward, the conventional, the ancient usage of the past. Christ says, Be natural. The needs of man, whether of body or of soul, are greater than ceremonial restriction. Ceremonies are only expressions of life, and where life is wanting, they are meaningless and void.
The withered hand, Mar 3:1-6. Through long disuse of powers which God has given, but which we have refrained from exercising, degeneration may have set in; Christ, however, bids us exert them again. In so far as we dare to obey, we shall find ourselves able. Dare to speak, or pray, or work, not at the impulse of your nature, but at His bidding, and you will suddenly find yourself given power.
The Apostolate, Mar 2:7-19. On three occasions Christ used the boat as His pulpit, Mar 4:1; Luk 5:3. We must be disciples (learners), before we can be apostles (those sent). As the Father sent the Master, so the Master sends us. Our mission is threefold-to bear Him company, to perform His errands, and to cast out devils. What infinite variety in the apostolic band! The Boanergic group of four; the group of questioners who were sometimes doubters; and the group of practical men, whose business capacity was a snare at least to one. If there was a traitor even amid the Twelve, who can expect to find his fields free from tares?
Chapter Three The Work Of The Divine Servant Part Two
Submitted by H A Ironside on Wed, 08/06/2008 – 16:05
Jesus Heals on the Sabbath (Mar 3:1-6)
Again we find the Lord in conflict with the Pharisees as to the sabbath question. His declaration that the sabbath was Gods gracious provision for mans comfort-never intended to add to mans burdens but rather to relieve them-had made no impression on these stern and crafty legalists.
Among the congregation in the synagogue service on this particular sabbath was a poor, helpless man with a withered hand-that is, a hand that had become paralyzed and hung uselessly by his side. Jesus critics, knowing the compassion of His heart took it for granted that He would take an interest in this man. Instead of rejoicing in this evidence of divine love and consideration, they watched Him with jealous eyes to see if He would exercise His healing power on the sabbath. They secretly hoped He would, so they could accuse Him of violating the tradition of the elders. Such is the heart of man, even though outwardly pious and religious, when a stranger to the grace of God!
Jesus, to whom nothing was hidden and who read their minds like an open book, asked the partially paralyzed man to stand forth. One can imagine how eagerly and hopefully he would obey, expectantly looking to Jesus for the healing of his infirmity.
Then the Lord asked the question, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? No one answered. Knowing their hypocrisy He looked on them with anger. It was holy indignation because of their pretense to honor God and their indifference to the needs of men. The hardness of their hearts grieved the tender spirit of Jesus.
He then commanded the man to stretch out his hand. At once, as he looked in faith to Jesus, he felt new life pulsating through that paralyzed limb, and he stretched it out and found it was now as well and strong as the other.
One might have thought that such an exhibition of the grace and power that was in Jesus would have filled every heart with gladness and led to praise and thanksgiving to God for having visited His people so wonderfully. But the miracle had the very opposite effect on these jealous advocates of human traditions as opposed to divine revelation. They exhibited an utter lack of conscience toward God while displaying a punctilious concern for the observance of their traditions and false conceptions of the will of God regarding the observance of the weekly sabbath. The Pharisees, stern champions of orthodoxy that they were, entered into collaboration with the Herodians, the worldly and corrupt politicians of their day. Both groups wanted to lay hold of Jesus and put Him out of the way. Thus did extremes meet then, as often since. Men of entirely opposite views agreed on the rejection of Christ and consulted each other about how He might be destroyed. Such is the inevitable evil of the natural heart in its opposition to God!
Jesus Heals Multitudes (Mar 3:7-12)
We are told that Jesus withdrew Himself and that with His disciples He returned to the shore of the sea of Galilee. Learning of His whereabouts, great crowds assembled. They came not only from Galilee itself but also from Judea, from as far southeast as Idumaea (the land of Edom), and from as far northwest as the regions of Tyre and Sidon. The fame of Jesus had spread far abroad. It was a time of expectation and speculative ferment among the Jewish people everywhere, who confidently looked for the predicted appearance of the long-desired Son of David who was to bring liberty and salvation to Israel. The hope that Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth, might be the Messiah evidently was in the hearts of the multitudes that came from near and far to hear His words and to behold His works of power.
So dense was the crowd that they pressed upon Jesus as He stood on the narrow beach. He therefore asked of one of His disciples (Peter, we know from other records) for the privilege of using his fishing boat, which was anchored offshore, as a pulpit. Standing in this little ship He addressed the people who hung avidly on His words. The hills rise from the shore in that particular section of the coast of the little inland sea like a vast amphitheater so that the voice of the speaker would be heard readily by thousands.
Many sick ones were in that crowd, and after finishing His discourse Jesus healed all who came. So great was their faith in His healing power that they stretched forth eager hands, believing that to touch even His garments would bring the deliverance for which they longed. None were disappointed. Even those possessed with demons were freed from their bondage, the evil spirits proclaiming the truth of His deity. But He did not look with favor on audible recognition from these vile powers, and so commanded them to refrain from acknowledging Him in this way.
Jesus Ordains the Twelve (Mar 3:13-21)
From among the many who had become disciples of Jesus He chose twelve who were to be intimately associated with Him. With one unhappy exception, they were destined to become His witnesses after His death and resurrection.
He ordained twelve that he might send them forth to preach. It is not men who choose or appoint themselves to be servants of Christ. He chooses and ordains His own (Joh 15:16). All of the twelve apostles were what we might call hand-picked men (even Judas), being the special objects of divine interest. Helpless in themselves, the twelve were empowered by the Lord to do mighty works in order to accredit the message they were to carry to Israel.
The name of Simon, whom the Lord surnamed Peter, stands alone in verse 16. He was in some respects the prince of the apostles. His warm, energetic nature and fervency of spirit fitted him in a special way for leadership after he was endued with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. His ministry, as we know, was to the Jews particularly, although it was he who also opened the door of faith to the Gentiles by proclaiming the gospel in the house of Cornelius. Jesus surnamed him a stone.
Next in order are James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges. When Jesus gave a new name to anyone, it indicated some characteristic He saw in him or which He was to produce in him in days to come. Boanerges is interpreted for us as sons of thunder. These young men were evidently of an electric disposition, easily stirred to quick judgments, and likely to be committed readily to decisive action. James was the first of the twelve to seal his testimony with his blood. John, evidently the youngest of the entire group, outlived them all, and after almost incredible suffering, died a natural death at Ephesus in the last decade of the first century of the Christian era.
Andrew was the brother of Peter, and it was the former who led the latter to Christ, as we are told in Joh 1:40-42. The names of Philip and Bartholomew (also called Nathanael) are linked together. They were friends before they met Jesus, and it was Philip who introduced Nathanael to the Savior. Matthew, also known as Levi, had been a tax collector in the Roman customhouse at Capernaum, but left all to follow Jesus. Of Thomas s earlier life we know nothing. He is chiefly remembered for his outspoken declaration of his doubt as to the identity of the One whom the rest declared to be the risen Christ. But when Jesus appeared a week later, Thomas was convinced and worshiped Him as his Lord and God. James and Thaddaeus (or Judas, not Iscariot) were brothers, sons of Alphaeus, and apparently cousins of Jesus. Simon the Canaanite, elsewhere distinguished as the Zealot, had belonged to a radically subversive party of Jewish patriots working secretly, and at times overtly, for the deliverance of Palestine from the Roman yoke.
The last of the list is Judas Iscariot (the man of Kerioth) who was to be doomed to eternal infamy. He seems to have been the gentleman of the twelve, a man of culture, appointed to be the treasurer of the little company. Judas was trusted by the rest as deserving special recognition, but he proved to be unreal and hypocritical from the very beginning. Of him Jesus said later, One of you is a devil.
After giving us this list Mark hastened rapidly on, as it were, to tell us of the further activities of Gods anointed servant. So many came to Jesus for healing and instruction that there scarcely seemed time for any physical relaxation on His part. He was kept so busy that neither He nor the twelve had leisure even to take their ordinary meals quietly and restfully. His friends-by that is meant His immediate relatives-actually feared for His mental health and, considering Him distraught, sought to dissuade Him from further service for a while at least. But He allowed none to interfere with the work He had come to do.
Jesus Warns of the Unpardonable Sin (Mar 3:22-30)
As the multitudes watched the miracles Jesus performed, certain scribes, religious leaders who had come up from Jerusalem, looked on with envy and jealousy. Observing His growing power over the minds of the populace, the leaders feared for their own prestige and authority. Even when demons departed from their victims, exorcised by His word, the scribes and Pharisees refused to believe that the Spirit of God was working in and through Jesus thus accrediting Him as the promised Messiah. Deliberately they declared, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils [demons] casteth he out devils [demons]! The statement was an evidence of the utter hardness of their hearts and their complete rejection of His testimony. In declaring the work of the Holy Spirit to be that of the prince of the demons, the scribes crossed the deadline. Their hearts were hardened, and the day of repentance for them had passed.
This is what some have designated the unpardonable sin. Actually there is no sin that is unpardonable if men repent and turn in faith to Christ. But it is possible to sin so that the conscience becomes seared as with a hot iron. Men then lose all desire to repent and are given up to strong delusion; believing a lie, they are doomed to eternal perdition. It was so with these scribes. They had refused every witness God had given to the truth as set forth in Jesus.
The Lord exposed the wickedness and foolishness of the suggestion that He had cast out demons by the aid of the prince of demons when He asked, How can Satan cast out Satan? And He declared that if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Nor could a house so divided continue. Neither was it possible to believe that Satan would rise up against himself and seek to destroy his own kingdom. To do so would mean an end of his power over mankind.
As a strong man, Satan had held the poor victims of demon possession in bondage for years until the stronger One came to bind him with His word and so spoil his house. To refuse the Holy Spirits testimony was to show that one allied himself completely with Satan in this great conflict. Therefore Jesus added solemnly, Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. The scribes committed blasphemy by saying, He hath an unclean spirit.
Mar 3:28-29 was never intended to torment anxious souls honestly desiring to know Christ, but the verses stand out as a blazing beacon warning of the danger of persisting in the rejection of the Spirits testimony of Christ until the seared conscience no longer responds to the gospel message.
Jesus Introduces a New Family (Mar 3:31-35)
Even the mother of Jesus evidently had not yet fully understood the nature and destiny of her miraculously conceived Son. She and other relatives of Jesus stood on the outskirts of the crowd and sent a messenger bidding Him come to them. In His answer the Lord showed how all merely natural relationships were to be superseded by those of a spiritual character. He asked, Who is my mother, or my brethren? Then looking around at the eager faces of those who were listening earnestly to His words He exclaimed, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. Thus Jesus emphasized the great truth that He had told Nicodemus: That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (Joh 3:6). The new birth, demonstrated by obedience to the Word, brings one into everlasting relationship to our Lord Jesus Christ.
As we continue to read about the work of the divine servant, we observe that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit Mark was not led to record the events in the life and ministry of Jesus in their exact chronological order. Rather in a beautiful moral order, Mark linked together certain facts and teachings that emphasize outstanding principles.
Mar 3:1
Note:-
I. The meaning of the withered hand. It was a word picture of that infirmity-whatever it may be-which destroys a man’s power of doing anything well in this world of ours. There was a man there who had a withered hand. That right hand, as St. Luke describes it, robbed of its nourishment, hanging helplessly in a sling, was a picture of whatever deprives a man of the power of holy work, and renders him an incumbrance, if not a mischief, in God’s great kingdom. (1) The bigotry of the Pharisees rendered them useless in the great kingdom of God and destroyed their power of serving Christ. (2) Prejudices wither up some of the energies of men. (3) Past inconsistences often wither up the power of service. (4) Easily besetting sins will paralyse the usefulness of any man who does not with earnestness, faith, and prayer, wage war against them. (5) The fear of man is another of the silent withering influences which restrain usefulness, and quench our zeal.
II. The healing of the withered hand. Christ came into this world not merely to set man free from the bondage of sin, but to emancipate all his faculties for holy service, to strengthen all his powers, to summon him to work while it is day. He cried in words which are preserved by three Evangelists, “Stretch forth thine hand,” and immediately that hand which had no power in itself, which no human skill could heal, felt at once that a Divine energy was given to it. Divine strength was perfected in its weakness, and it was made whole even as the other. There are three lessons of practical value which we may learn from this narrative: (1) We may gather Christ’s willingness to heal, as He is ever seeking us; His eye is always scanning our necessity; He knows our imperfections and shortcomings as no other can do, and He is able and willing to remove all that hampers and impedes the freedom of our spiritual life. (2) We may learn the way in which we are to make use of Divine strength. When the man willed to stretch forth his hand God willed in him; the communication of Divine strength was granted to him at the very moment when he determined to obey the will of Christ. This is just a type of what takes place whenever a sinner tries to seize and appropriate God’s promises or God’s strength. (4) Here is the great rule by which, at all times, we may overcome our listlessness and uselessness in God’s service. It is by our own vigorous effort to overcome the withering up of our faculties that we shall test the worth of Divine promises. Let us stretch forth our hands, let us try to serve our Master; and let us work while it is day, for the night cometh.
H. R. Reynolds, Notes of the Christian Life, p. 207.
Mar 3:1-5
Note:-
I. Christ’s detection of human incompleteness. He instantly discovered that there was a man in the synagogue with a withered hand.
II. Jesus Christ’s power over partial disease. The man had only a withered hand. In some cases Christ used to heal thoroughly diseased men; in this case the disease was local; yet in both instances His power was the same.
III. Christ’s inability to heal the obstinacy of His enemies.
IV. Christ’s moral indignation overcoming all outward obstacles. He was indignant with the men who valued the sacredness of a day above the sacredness of a human life.
Parker, City Temple, 1871, p. 68.
References: Mar 3:1-6.-H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Son of Man, p. 55; Homilist, new series, vol. iii., p. 1; T. L. Cuyler, Christian World Pulpit, vol. x., p. 32; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. vi., p. 265; vol. xii., p. 37. Mar 3:2.-W. F. Hook, Sermons on the Miracles, vol. i., p. 135; W. S. Houghton, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxx., p. 340.
Mar 3:5
Our Lord goes into the synagogue at Capernaum, where He had already wrought more than one miracle, and there He finds an object for His healing power in a poor man with a withered hand; and also a little knot of His enemies. The scribes and Pharisees expect Christ to heal the man. So much had they learned of His tenderness and of His power. But their belief that He could work a miracle did not carry them one step towards a recognition of Him as sent by God. They have no eye for the miracle, because they expect that He is going to break the Sabbath. There is nothing so blind as formal religionism. The poor man’s infirmity did not touch their hearts with one little throb of compassion. They had rather that he had gone crippled all his days than that one of their rabbinical Sabbath restrictions should be violated. There is nothing so cruel as formal religionism. Our Lord reduces them all to silence and perplexity by His question, sharp, penetrating, unexpected, “Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day, or to do evil? You are ready to blame Me as breaking your Sabbatarian regulations if I heal this man. What if I do not heal him? Will that be doing nothing? Will not that be a worse breach of the Sabbath day than if I heal him?” He takes the question altogether out of the region of pedantic rabbinism, and bases His vindication upon the two great principles that mercy and help hallow any day, and that not to do good when we can is to do harm; and not to save life is to kill. They are silenced. His arrow touches them; they do not speak because they cannot answer, and they will not yield. There is a struggle going on in them, which Christ sees, and He fixes them with that steadfast look of His, of which our Evangelist is the only one who tells us what it expressed, and by what it was occasioned. “He looked round about on them with anger, being grieved.”
I. Consider, first, the solemn fact of Christ’s anger. It is the only occasion, so far as I remember, upon which that emotion is attributed to Him. Once and once only, the flash came out of the clear sky of that meek and gentle heart. He was once angry, and we may learn the lesson of the possibilities that lay slumbering in His love. He was only once angry, and we may learn the lesson that His perfect and Divine charity is not easily provoked. Christ’s anger was part of the perfection of His manhood. The man that cannot be angry at evil lacks enthusiasm for good. The nature that is incapable of being touched with generous and righteous indignation is so, generally, either because it lacks fire and emotion altogether, or because its vigour has been dissolved into a lazy indifference, and easy good nature which it mistakes for love. It is one of the strengths of man that he shall be able to glow with indignation at evil.
II. Look at the compassion which goes with our Lord’s anger here. “Being grieved for the hardness of their hearts.” The somewhat singular word rendered here “grieved” may either simply imply that this sorrow co-existed with the anger, or it may describe the sorrow as being sympathy or compassion. I am disposed to take it in the latter application; and so the lesson that we gather from these words is the blessed thought that Christ’s wrath was all blended with compassion and sympathetic sorrow. The scribes and Pharisees had very little notion that there was anything about them to compassionate. But the thing which in the sight of God makes the true evil of men’s condition is not their circumstances, but their sins. The one thing to weep for when we look at the world is not its misfortunes, but its wickedness. Men are divided into two classes in their way of looking at wickedness in this world-one set rigid and stern, and crackling into wrath; the other set placid and good-natured, and ready to weep over it as a calamity and misfortune and the like, but afraid or unwilling to say, “These poor creatures are to be blamed as well as pitied.” We have to make an effort to keep in the centre, and never to look round in anger, unsoftened by pity, nor in pity, enfeebled by being separated from righteous indignation.
III. Note the occasion for both the sorrow and the anger. “Being grieved for the hardness of their hearts.” And what was hardening their hearts? It was He! Why were their hearts being hardened? Because they were looking at Him, His graciousness, His goodness, and His power, and were steeling themselves against Him, opposing to His grace and tenderness their own obstinate determination. Nothing so tends to harden a man’s heart to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as religious formalism.
A. Maclaren, Christian Commonwealth, Oct. 23rd, 1884.
References: Mar 3:5.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxii., No. 1893; J. S. Exell, Christian World Pulpit, vol. ix., p. 374; J. J. Goadby, Ibid., vol. xvii., p. 200; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. i., p. 226; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. i., p. 539; B. F. Westcott, Expositor, 3rd series, vol. v., p. 461.
Mar 3:7-8
I. There is a time to withdraw from opponents.
II. Withdrawment is not necessarily the result of cowardice.
III. Withdrawment from one sphere should be followed by entrance into another. Great things draw great multitudes. How did Christ exercise His influence over great throngs? (1) He never lowered the moral tone of His teaching. (2) He was never unequal to the increasing demands made upon His power. (3) He never requested the multitude to help Him in any selfish endeavours.
Parker, City Temple, 1871, p. 69.
References: Mar 3:7-9.-Parker, Christian Commonwealth, vol. vii., p. 515. Mar 3:7-12.-J. S. Exell, Christian World Pulpit, vol. ix., p. 408; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. vi., p. 267. Mar 3:7-19.-H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Son of Man, p. 60. Mar 3:8.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvi., No. 1529. Mar 3:9.-Todd, Lectures to Children, p. 140; Homilist, 3rd series, vol. ii., p. 291. Mar 3:10.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiv., No. 841. Mar 3:13.-Ibid., Morning by Morning, p. 254. Mar 3:13, Mar 3:14.-Parker, Hidden Springs, p. 311. Mar 3:13-19.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. vi., p. 337; A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 30. Mar 3:14.-Expositor, 1st series, vol. i., p. 29. Mar 3:17.-Christian World Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 381. Mar 3:20, Mar 3:21.-A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 48. Mar 3:20-30.-H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Son of Man, p. 65. Mar 3:22-30.-W. Hanna, Our Lord’s Life on Earth, p. 190.
Mar 3:22-26
Christ now encounters open hostility in addition to friendly, though mischievous remonstrance. A theory of explanation was proposed by the scribes. Christ’s answer to that theory shows (1) that the opinions of leading minds may be entirely fallacious; and (2) that common sense often suggests the best answer to fanciful theories respecting the work of Christ. Christ’s whole answer turned upon the common sense of His position. He does not plead authority; nor does He plead exemption from the ordinary laws of thought and service; He simply puts in the plea of common sense.
Parker, City Temple, 1871, p. 70.
Mar 3:27
The world, or, to reduce the subject to what is equally true, and perhaps more practical, every one’s own heart, is-we have the authority of Christ to say it-“a house” or a palace, which Satan, as a strong man, holds and keeps. So long as the strong man holds his palace on an undisputed tenure, it is all quiet; his goods are in peace. But when Christ, who is represented as the stronger One, comes, there is warfare-warfare to the death; and thus warfare in the breast is the first, and for a long while the only, token for good. There are three stages, then. We will take them in their order.
I. First, “the strong man armed keepeth his palace.” The strong one-none know how strong, but those who try to escape and break off his tyranny-so strong, that his strength is unseen, while in stillness and in silence he holds his own; so strong that the greatest determination of the most strong-minded man, unaided, trying to break any one of those many bonds, would be as if he were to try to uproot a mountain.
II. But the stronger comes, and now the fighting begins. Unknown to you, the stronger is binding the strong one. Heavy blasts blew, bitter winds came, and severe discipline and desolating bereavements fell upon you; but they were never meant to hurt you; they were to kill the strong one, the power of evil that is in you.
III. Now mark the spoil. He will bind the strong man, and then he will spoil his house. The habit of sin broken, the power of sin reduced, the love of sin destroyed-the soul is emancipated; and now Christ is free to claim His own property, which His own blood has purchased, and His own right hand has rescued. Has He not a right? Are not all the spoils His? So once, two thousand years ago, when He had gained the victory over the whole world by His death, and when He had led captivity captive “up to the highest heaven,” He took His seat before the throne, and distributed to men, from His royal greatness, the good things which, by that death, He had redeemed from Satan’s grasp. Then, the outpourings of the day of Pentecost-then the largesses of pardon, life, grace, joy, wisdom, service, love, heaven, which from His throne He is always pouring upon men. He had bound the strong man on Calvary. He had restored the property to the lawful owner, and then He ascended into the heaven of heavens, and “divided the spoils.”
J. Vaughan, Sermons, 1867, p. 45.
Human life as affected by two different forces.
I. The strong enemy.
II. The strong friend. Man must be under one or other of these forces, the enemy or the friend. Those who continue under the devil will share the ruin to which he is doomed. When Satan’s head is bruised, all who are in Satan’s empire will be crushed.
Parker, City Temple, 1871, p. 71.
References: Mar 3:27.-J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 6th series, p. 292. Mar 3:28-30.-S. Cox, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. iii., p. 321; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iii., p. 110; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iii., p. 207. Mar 3:30.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxii., p. 68.
Mar 3:31-35
Note:-
I. The spirituality of Christ’s relationships. The kinship of the body is held subordinate to the kinship of the spirit.
II. The true bond of communion with Christ is obedience to God’s will. (1) There is but one infallible will. (2) That will appeals for universal obedience.
III. The privileges resulting from communion with Christ. (a) Intimate relationship-mother, sister, brother. (b) Social communion-this is the family idea.
Parker, City Temple, 1871, p. 71.
References: Mar 3:31-35.-Homilist, vol. vi., p. 428; H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Son of Man, p. 70; H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvi., p. 372. Mar 3:34, Mar 3:35.-J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 7th series, p. 33. Mar 3:35.-H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, The Life of Duty, vol. ii., p. 246. Mar 4:1-12.-H. M. Luckock, Footprints of the Son of Man, p. 75. Mar 4:1-20.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ix., p. 331. Mar 4:1-34.-A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve, p. 41.
Chapter 3
1. In the synagogue. The man with the withered hand healed. (Mar 3:1-6. Mat 12:9-14; Luk 6:6-11.)
2. The Withdrawal of the Servant. Many healed. (Mar 3:7-12. Mat 12:15-21; Luk 6:17-19.)
3. On the Mountain calling the Twelve. (Mar 3:13-19. Mat 10:1-4; Luk 6:12-16.)
4. The interrupted meal. (Mar 3:20.)
5. The Servant charged with madness. (Mar 3:21.)
6. The Blasphemy of the Scribes; His Warning. (Mar 3:22-30. Mat 12:22-32; Luk 11:14-23.)
7. Old relationship disowned and a new relationship announced. (Mar 3:31-35. Mat 13:46-50; Luk 8:19-21.)
1. In the Synagogue. The Man with the withered hand healed. Mar 3:1-6
This incident stands in closest relation to the preceding chapter. In their blindness they watched Him, if He would heal on the Sabbath. Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day, or to do evil; to save life or to kill? He answered the question by healing the sufferer. Note the addition by Mark, which is not found elsewhere. When He had looked round about them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts. It was a righteous wrath when He saw them in their wicked and wilful hardness. His service was rendered in the deepest emotions of His holy soul. He did good, but Pharisees and Herodians were ready to destroy Him.
2. The withdrawal of the Servant. Many healed. Mar 3:7-12
The sudden departure of the Lord is not without meaning. Not alone did He withdraw Himself from the hatred of the Pharisees and Herodians to continue His ministry of love and power elsewhere, but His withdrawal indicates that the nation Israel was to be set aside dispensationally. He withdrew Himself to the sea. The sea is symbolical of the Gentile nations. Again they crowd about Him–a great multitude from the border land of the Gentiles ( Tyre and Sidon ). Satans power was likewise manifested. Unclean spirits, when they saw Him, fell down before Him. These were demon possessed persons. They had to own and confess the Glory of the Servant. But He did not want their witness and forbade them to make Him known.
3. On the Mountain calling the Twelve. Mar 3:13-15
In Matthew we find all these events and actions of our Lord in a different setting. In vain do we look in our Gospel for the Sermon on the Mount. It is not reported and only given in full in the Gospel of Matthew. The Sermon on the Mount is the proclamation of the King concerning His Kingdom. Mark, describing Him as the ministering One, had to omit the utterances of the King. If we look for a place in Mark where the Sermon on the Mount belongs chronologically, it is at this point. For the peculiar arrangement of the events in the Gospel of Matthew see Exposition of Matthew. He ordained the twelve to be with Him and endowed with supernatural power to be sent forth by Him. In Luke we read He prayed all night. The calling of the Twelve was for the extension of His loving ministry. Notice also the giving of names. Boanerges for the sons of Zebedee is only found here.
4. The interrupted Meal. Mar 3:20
This is likewise mentioned by Mark exclusively (see Mar 6:31). It shows that the Servant was ever ready to minister, forgetting his own physical need.
5. The Servant charged with madness. Mar 3:21
This is also a characteristic statement in Marks Gospel. It shows that His own relations were ashamed of Him. They looked upon Him as being out of His mind. Thus His perfect service of love, the untiring labor, never ceasing toil, was judged by them.
6. The Blasphemy of the Scribes. His Warning. Mar 3:22-30
Still worse, the Jerusalem Scribes attributed His Divine power to Satan. What an awful accusation! They could not deny the power, but refused to believe that it was the power of God. Under Satanic impulses they called the Holy Spirit a demon power. But the perfect wisdom of the Lord silenced their blasphemy. The power He manifested was a power in the most blessed mercy to man, the prey of Satan and his demons. If it were Satans power then his kingdom is divided. This is the unpardonable sin. No forgiveness for this sin. The words is in danger of eternal damnation are better rendered by is guilty of an eternal sin (see 1911 Bible).
7. The Old Relationship disowned and a new Relationship announced. Mar 3:31-35.
He refused to see His relations. This refusal indicates the broken relationship with Israel. He no longer recognizes His own, and speaks of a new relationship, founded upon obedience to the will of His Father. It was spoken in anticipation of the present dispensation.
CHAPTER 11
They Watched Him
And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him. But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea, And from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him. And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him. For he had healed many; insomuch that they pressed upon him for to touch him, as many as had plagues. And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known.
Mar 3:1-12
When the Lord God told Eli that he was going to kill his sons, take the priesthood from his family, and destroy his family because he indulged his sons in their wickedness, he said, And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever. And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left in thine house shall come and crouch to him (1Sa 2:35-36). God has fulfilled his Word in sending his Son to be a merciful, faithful, obedient High Priest over the house of God, before whom everyone and everything in heaven, earth, and hell must bow.
The third chapter of Mark opens with our Lord Jesus in his Fathers house doing his Fathers business, according to his Fathers will. Here, while the Pharisees watched him so that they might accuse him, our Lord Jesus healed in the synagogue on the sabbath day a man there which had a withered hand. Lets read verses one through twelve together.
While he walked upon this earth, our Lord Jesus was always about his Fathers business, always doing good. In the sight of his enemies and in the sight of his friends he did that which he knew to be his Fathers will, whether men approved or disapproved mattered little to him. He was concerned about the will of God and the welfare of men, the glory of God and doing good to men. That was the daily tenor of our Lords earthly life and ministry. Thus, he left us an example that we should follow his steps (1Pe 2:21). Blessed are those men and women who, believing on Christ as Lord and Savior, seek to imitate their Master, striving to walk in his steps and follow his example.
A Place of Hope
First, I want to remind you that the house of God is a place of hope. And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand (Mar 3:1). We have no way of knowing whether this man came to the synagogue as one who regularly attended the worship of God, or because he knew that Christ was going to be there that day and came hoping to be healed by him. What his reasons were we are not told; but our Saviors reason for being there is obvious. He came on an errand of mercy to heal this man by the power of his omnipotent grace.
This man no more knew what the purpose of God was than we do. He did not know whether the Lord would be gracious to him or not; but he knew he had a withered arm. I suspect that he knew that Christ had power to heal his withered arm. Perhaps he knew that on the appointed day of worship Christ would be in the place of worship. Therefore, he came to the synagogue. It was to him the place of hope.
I do not know for sure that that was the case; but I do know for sure that the church of God, the gathering of Gods saints in public worship, is the place of hope for needy sinners. This is the place where God meets with men (Mat 18:20; 1Co 3:16). And this is the place where God sends forth his Word and his power for the healing of mens souls.
Many who profess to believe God make public worship an insignificant matter. If you are determined to do so, you have no difficulty in finding a way to justify absenting yourself from the house of God and the ministry of the Word. But God has promised to meet sinners nowhere else. And those who need mercy will be found in the place of hope. Those who need no mercy may be found anywhere. But sick people are found in the hospital. Hungry people are found in the soup kitchen. And needy sinners are found in the house of God, the place of hope.
God Hating Religionists
Second, the Pharisees in the synagogue, watching our Savior that they might accuse him, are held before us as a representation of God hating, self-righteous religionists. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him (Mar 3:2). If you read Matthews account (Mat 12:10), you will notice that they first ask the Lord Jesus in a pretense of piety, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? But their only motive was to lay a trap for him. What a shameful display these men are of the depravity and deceitfulness of the human heart. Carnal men still watch Christs disciples, hoping to catch them doing or saying something that can be used against them.
These things happened on the sabbath day. They did not take place in a bar room, or a back alley, but in the house of God! Men who were assembled in the name of God, supposedly to hear the Word of God and worship God, plotted to destroy the Son of God! These men who pretended to be so strict, so sanctimonious, so very precise about the things of God sat in the house Of God with malicious hearts, plotting murder! It is no surprise that the Lord Jesus looked round about upon them with anger.
As these Pharisees watched our Savior that they might accuse him, so men and women today, especially self-righteous religionists, watch Gods saints, that they might accuse them. The servant is not above his Master, nor the disciple above his Lord. We must never expect to fare better among men than our Savior did if we walk in his steps. Gods saints are all marked people in a godless world. They are watched by everyone. They can do nothing without the world noticing it.
The Pharisees watched the Lord Jesus, not to adore him for his grace and mercy, but that they might accuse him. And as soon as our Savior manifested his tender mercy toward this poor man, they took counsel to kill him. Robert Hawkers comments on the conduct of these wretched creatures are instructive. He wrote
Do not overlook these things: for very awful as they are, they become precious testimonies to the truth as it is in Jesus. The Lord himself hath explained the same. For while he saith, My sheep hear my voice; and I know them and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life (Joh 10:27-28), he saith to those that are not his sheep: Why do ye not understand my speech? even, because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do (Joh 8:43-47).
No wonder Jesus looked round about upon them with anger. The seed of the woman, and the children of the wicked one, can never agree. And let it be remembered, that the destruction of the enemies of Christ, forms a part of Christs mission as much as the salvation of his chosen. The hour of decision will come, when Jesus will gather out of his kingdom all things that offend; and while the redeemed shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father, the Lord will cast them that do iniquity into the furnace of fire, where is wailing and gnashing of teeth (Isa 63:4; Mat 13:36-43; Mat 15:31 to the end).
That which is true concerning believers in general is doubly true concerning gospel preachers. Their dress, their use of their time, their recreations, the cars they drive, the restaurants they eat in, every relationship of their lives, every word they speak, and everything they do is rigidly observed, closely scrutinized, and noted by men and women, especially religious men and women, who are hoping to catch them in some error that can be magnified and used against them.
That being the case, what should we do? Should we live like hermits, wear simple, unadorned attire like the Amish, and take great care never to do anything with which anyone can find fault? That is impossible. If you live like a hermit, someone will say, He is so unfriendly. He thinks he is better than anyone else. If you are warm and friendly, and you happen to be a lady, your gossiping sisters will say, Look at her. She is such a flirt. Doesnt she care what people think? If you wear plain, simple clothes, people will say you do not pay enough attention to your appearance. If you wear stylish clothes, they will say you are a show-off. And if you should happen to say, or do something that really is bad, something that is totally out of character for you, they will jump on that like fleas on a dog, and say, Well, I always was suspicious. Sooner or later, the truth will come out.
What are we to do? How are we to live before such people? Do exactly what your Lord did here. He knew what the Pharisees thought and what they would say and do in response to his actions; but he paid absolutely no attention to them. He simply did what he knew was his Fathers will, for the glory of his Fathers name and the benefit of other men. He looked upon the Pharisees and their opinions about what he did with absolute, utter contempt.
Let me give you a few, simple guidelines for day by day behavior, as you attempt to follow Christ in this world.
Seek in all things to do the will of God and to live for the glory of God.
Try never to give the enemies of our God occasion to blaspheme.
Do nothing that violates the law of God or principles of righteousness.
Always seek to do that which is good for and never injurious to others.
In all things, seek to be governed by love for Christ and his people.
In a word, live as God the Holy Spirit has told us to live in this world.
This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: Neither give place to the devil. Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christs sake hath forgiven you. Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. (Eph 4:17 to Eph 5:5)
Omnipotent Mercy
Third, in Mar 3:3-6 we see a display of our Saviors omnipotent mercy. Our Lord Jesus had come to the synagogue on an errand of mercy. He was not about to let these Pharisees turn him aside from his mission. There is much in these verses deserving serious contemplation.
A command was given to the helpless soul. And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth (Mar 3:3). In light of the fact that the Pharisees had already challenged the lawfulness of a man being healed on the sabbath day (Mat 12:10), it required considerable courage for this man to stand forth, considerable courage or great need and great faith. Those two things, great need and great faith, always produce great courage.
And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace (Mar 3:4). Not to do good when there is opportunity is to do evil. Passive wickedness is just as evil as the performance of evil (Rev 2:4; Rev 2:14; Rev 2:20; Rev 3:4; Rev 3:15-16).
With this poor soul standing before them and before the entire congregation, these Pharisees, who would not hesitate to pull an ox out of ditch on the Sabbath, could hardly say it is wrong to heal on the sabbath. They held their silence; but they were not happy. The Lord had embarrassed them; and embarrassed men are angry men.
And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts (Mar 3:5). Our Lord was filled with anger, but it was not an anger of personal revenge. We see that by the fact that his anger toward these men was the anger of one who was grieved, not the anger of one who was enraged. He looked upon their behavior with contempt. He looked upon their hypocrisy with anger. He looked upon their hearts with grief.
He saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. Here is a display of the saving power of our Saviors irresistible grace. When our Lord called the man to stretch forth his hand, he gave him the power to do what he otherwise could not do. When he called Lazarus to come forth from the dead, with his call came the power for the dead to come forth. So it is with the call of God the Holy Spirit. He does not merely nudge dead sinners toward life by his call. With his call comes the power that gives life to the dead. He does not merely call us to grace, but into the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (Gal 1:6). He does not merely call dead sinners to live, but calls the dead unto life in Christ (2 Timothy 6:12).
As soon as the Savior showed his tender mercy in healing this needy soul, the Pharisees and Herodians conspired to murder the Lord Jesus. And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him (Mar 3:6). The Pharisees had what they wanted, a pretense of grounds upon which to justify the murder of the Lord of glory. They hated the Herodians. They had nothing in common with the Herodians. Yet, they did not hesitate to unite with the Herodians, when it served their ends. It cannot be ignored that these good men did this on the sabbath day!
Hope Inspired
Fourth, we see in Mar 3:7-10 thronging crowds of needy souls rushing to the Savior, inspired with hope.
But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea, And from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him. And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him. For he had healed many; insomuch that they pressed upon him for to touch him, as many as had plagues.
The Lord withdrew himself from the Pharisees. Multitudes heard about his power and grace. These needy souls came to the Lord Jesus with the prospect of being healed. They were inspired with the hope of mercy by the fact that he had healed many. They seem to have thought within themselves, If he healed Leper Larry, he can surely heal me, if he will! And those who needed healing spared no effort in coming to him who was their only hope of being healed. They came not with the promise that they would be healed, only with the hope that the Son of God might do for them what he had done for the man with the withered arm, and with the faith that he could, if he would, heal them too. That is the way for sinners to come to Christ.
Hell Defeated
Fifth, in Mar 3:11-12 we see hell defeated and prostrate before the Lord Jesus Christ. And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known. Here is a picture of what will happen in the last day. These unclean spirits were compelled by God our Savior to give open testimony to his eternal Godhead and sovereignty over them as God the Son. So it shall be with every creature. Hell itself shall bow to Christ (Php 2:8-11). Satan, the fallen angels, and all the damned shall see Christ in his glory, confess him as God and Lord, and shrink away from his presence into everlasting torment.
The destruction of Christs enemies and ours is as much a part of his mission as our Mediator and Jehovahs Servant as the salvation of Gods elect. The hour will soon come when he will gather out of his kingdom all things that offend. In that day the redeemed of the Lord shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father, and death and hellthe fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. The Lord Jesus shall cast all his foes and ours into the furnace of fire, where is wailing and gnashing of teeth (Isa 63:4; Mat 13:36-43; Mat 15:31; Rev 20:14; Rev 21:18).
he entered: Mar 1:21, Mat 12:9-14, Luk 6:6-11
withered: 1Ki 13:4, Joh 5:3
Reciprocal: Joh 9:14 – General
FAITH AND UNBELIEF CONTRASTED
There was a man there which had a withered hand.
Mar 3:1
The narrative, like the whole of Marks Gospel, is marked by picturesqueness.
I. The obedience of faith is exhibited.
(a) This man was obedient in the presence of a great foe. And He saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth; and Luke adds, He arose and stood forth (Mar 6:8). Luke also informs us that the scribes and Pharisees watched Christ. The foe of Christ and of the Truth was now present. Of the Pharisees Josephus has said, They had so much weight with the multitude, that if they said anything against a king or a high priest they were believed. May we follow the courageous example of those who lived and died for the faith!
(b) This man was obedient although suffering from natural inability. Jesus said, Stretch forth thine handyea, the dry, withered handand he stretched it out. So Christ now bids the spiritually dead believe, obey, live.
(c) This man was obedient to the reception of a great blessing. And his hand was restored whole as the other. To-day Christ gives to such as are obedient to His call the unspeakable gift, the new life.
II. The hostility of unbelief.This unbelief was not doubt or the suspension of judgment, but the positive rejection of Christ and His claims upon them. Such unbelief is characterised by
(a) Unfriendliness. They observed Him narrowly that they might accuse Him. The mind which thus labours is contemptible. Such unbelief is always unfriendly to Christ.
(b) Callousness. They were unsympathetic. To them the welfare of the maimed man was a small matter. They were morally impenetrable. Unbelief is always associated with hardness, callousness; moral petrifaction is the sure end and companion of persistent unbelief.
(c) Madness. This is shown by its bitter hatred of goodness. Christ was goodness personified, yet they bitterly hated Him. It is shown by their purpose to suppress the truth by the murder of its exponent and advocate. How they might destroy Him. To act thus is to challenge the Almighty to arms.
Illustrations
(1) The old Gospel of the Hebrews informs us that the man was a mason by trade, and there is no reason to doubt the tradition. He is said to have addressed his supplication to the Lord in these words: I was a mason seeking sustenance by my hands; I beseech Thee, O Jesus, restore Thou me to health, that I may not shamefully beg my food. Luke (Mar 6:6) adds the characteristic note, which would come naturally from the pen of the physician, that the man had his right hand withered.
(2) Our Lord goes into the synagogue at Capernaum, where He had already wrought more than one miracle, and there He finds an object for His healing power in a poor man with a withered hand; and also a little knot of His enemies. The scribes and Pharisees expect Christ to heal the man. So much had they learned of His tenderness and of His power. But their belief that He could work a miracle did not carry them one step towards a recognition of Him as sent by God. They have no eye for the miracle, because they expect that He is going to break the Sabbath. There is nothing so blind as formal religionism. The poor mans infirmity did not touch their hearts with one little throb of compassion. They had rather that he had gone crippled all his days than that one of their rabbinical Sabbath restrictions should be violated. There is nothing so cruel as formal religionism.
THE PHARISEES HOWEVER were by no means convinced, and they re-opened the whole question a little later when on another sabbath He came into contact with human need in one of their synagogues. The conflict raged around the man with a withered hand. They watched Jesus anticipating that they would be furnished with a point of attack. He accepted the challenge which lay unspoken in their hearts by saying to the man, Stand forth (v. Mar 3:3), thus making him very prominent, and ensuring that the challenge should be realised by everyone present.
Another point concerning the sabbath is now raised. Is the law intended of God to prohibit good as well as evil ? Does the sabbath render unlawful an act of mercy?
The question, Is it lawful to do good… or to do evil? may be connected with Jam 4:17. If we know the good and yet omit it, it is sin. Should the perfect Servant of God, who knew the good, and moreover had full power to execute it, withhold His hand from doing it because it happened to be the sabbath day? Impossible!
In this striking way did the holy Servant of God vindicate His ministry of mercy in the presence of those who would have tied His hands by rigid interpretations of the law of God. It is important that we should learn the lesson taught by all this, in case we should fall into a like error. The law of Christ is very different in character and spirit from the law of Moses, yet it may be misused in similar fashion. If the light and easy yoke of Christ is so twisted as to become burdensome, and also a positive hindrance to the outflow of grace and blessing, it becomes a more grievous perversion than anything we see in these verses.
The hearts of the Pharisees were hard. They were tender enough about the technicalities of the law, but hard as to any concern for human need, or any sense of their own sin. Jesus saw the dreadful state they were in and was grieved, but He did not withhold blessing. He cured the man, and left them to their sin. They were outraged because He had broken through one of their precious legal points. They went forth themselves to outrage one of the major counts of the law by plotting murder. Such is Phariseeism!
Faced by this murderous hatred, the Lord withdrew Himself and His disciples. We see Him withdrawing Himself from the blaze of popularity at the end of chapter 1. He did not court favour, nor did He desire to stir up strife. Here we find the perfect Servant acting in just the way that is enjoined upon the under servants in 2Ti 2:24.
But such was His attractiveness that men pressed upon Him even as He withdrew. Multitudes thronged about Him, and His grace and power were manifested in many directions, and unclean spirits recognized in Him the Master whom they had to obey, though He did not accept their testimony. He blessed men and delivered them, yet He did not seek anything from them. First He had a small boat on the lake into which He could retire from the throng; and then He went up into a mountain, where He called to Him only those that He desired, and of them He chose twelve who were to be apostles.
So not only did He answer the hatred of the religious leaders by retiring from them, but also by calling the twelve who in due time should go forth as an extension of His matchless service. He prepared thus to widen out the service and testimony. The chosen twelve were to be with Him, and then, when their period of instruction and preparation was complete, He would send them forth. The period of their training lasts until verse Mar 3:6 of Mar 6:1-56. In verse Mar 3:7 of that chapter we begin the account of their actual sending forth.
This being with Him is of immense importance to the one called to service. It is as necessary for us as it was for them. They had His presence and company upon earth. We have not that, but we have His Spirit given to us and His written Word. Thus we may be enabled prayerfully to maintain contact with Him, and gain that spiritual education which alone fits us to intelligently serve Him. The twelve were first chosen, then educated, then sent forth with power conferred upon them. This is the divine order, and we see these things set forth in verses Mar 3:14-15.
Having called and chosen the twelve upon the mountain, He returned to the haunts of men and was in an house. At once the multitudes came together. The attraction He exerted was irresistible, and the demands upon Him such that there was no leisure for meals. So the first thing to be witnessed by the twelve when they began to be with Him was this strong tide of interest and the apparent popularity of their Master.
They soon however saw another side of things, and firstly that He was totally misunderstood by those who were nearest to Him according to the flesh. The friends were of course His relations, and they were filled doubtless with well-meaning concern for Him. They could not understand such incessant labours and felt they ought to lay a restraining hand upon Him as though He were out of His mind. Light upon this extraordinary attitude on their part is cast by Joh 7:5. At this point in His service His brethren did not believe in Him, and apparently even His mother had as yet but a dim conception of what He was really doing.
But secondly, there were enemies, who were becoming even more bitter and unscrupulous. In verse Mar 3:6 of our chapter we saw Pharisees making friends with their antagonists the Herodians in order to plot His death. Now we find scribes making a journey from Jerusalem in order to oppose and denounce Him. This they do in the most reckless way, attributing His works of mercy to the power of the devil. It was not just vulgar abuse, but something deliberate and crafty. They could not deny what He did, but they attempted to blacken His character. They looked His miracles of mercy full in the face, and then deliberately and officially pronounced them to be the works of the devil. This was the character of their blasphemy, and it is well to be quite clear about it in view of the Lords words in verse 29.
But first of all He called them to Him and answered them by an appeal to reason. Their blasphemous objection involved an absurdity. They suggested in effect that Satan was engaged in casting out Satan, that his kingdom and house was divided against itself. That, if it were true, would mean the end of the whole Satanic business. Satan is far too astute to act in that way.
We must admit, alas! that we Christians have not been too astute to act in that way. Christendom is full of division of that suicidal kind, and it is Satan himself who, without a doubt, is the instigator of it. Had it not been that the power of the Lord Jesus on high has remained unaltered, and that the Holy Ghost abides, dwelling in the true church of God, the public confession of Christianity would long since have perished. That the faith has not perished from the earth is a tribute not to the wisdom of men but to the power of God.
Having exposed the foolish unreasonableness of their words, the Lord proceeded to give the true explanation of what had been happening. He was the One stronger than the strong man, and He was now occupied in spoiling his goods, by setting free many who had been captivated by him. Satan was bound in the presence of the Lord.
Thirdly, He plainly warned these wretched men as to the enormity of the sin they had committed. The perfect Servant had been delivering men from Satans grip in the energy of the Holy Ghost. In order to avoid admitting this they denounced the action of the Holy Ghost as the action of Satan. This was sheer blasphemy; the blind blasphemy of men who shut their eyes to the truth. They put themselves beyond forgiveness with nothing but eternal damnation ahead. They had reached that fearful state of hardened hatred and blindness which once characterized Pharaoh in Egypt, and which at a later date marked the northern kingdom of Israel, when the word of the Lord was, Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone (Hos 4:17). God would leave these Jerusalem scribes alone, and that meant no forgiveness but damnation.
This then was the unpardonable sin. Understanding what it really is, we can easily see that the folk of tender conscience, who today are troubled because they fear they may have committed it, are the last people who really have done so.
The chapter closes with the arrival of the friends of which verse Mar 3:21 has told us. The Lords words as to His mother and His brethren have seemed to some unnecessarily harsh. There certainly was in them a note of severity, which was occasioned by their attitude. The Lord was seizing the opportunity to give needed instruction to His disciples. They had seen Him in the midst of much labour, and apparently popular; and also the centre of blasphemous opposition. Now they are to have an impressive demonstration of the fact that the relationships that God recognizes and honours are those which have a spiritual basis.
Of old, in Israel, relationships in the flesh counted for much. Now they are to be set on one side in favour of the spiritual. And the basis of what is spiritual lies in obedience to the will of God: and for us today the will of God lies enshrined in the Holy Scriptures. Obedience is the great thing. It lies at the foundation of all true service, and must mark us if we would be in relation with the one true and perfect Servant. Let us never forget that!
Chapter 18.
The Calling of the Twelve
“And He entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched Him, whether He would heal him on the Sabbath day; that they might accuse Him. And He saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. And He saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And when He had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, He saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against Him, how they might destroy Him. But Jesus withdrew Himself with His disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed Him, and from Juda, And from Jerusalem, and from Iduma, and from beyond Jordan; and they about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, when they had heard what great things He did, came unto Him. And He spake to His disciples, that a small ship should wait on Him because of the multitude, lest they should throng Him. For He had healed many; insomuch that they pressed upon Him for to touch Him, as many as had plagues. And unclean spirits, when they saw Him, fell down before Him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And He straitly charged them that they should not make Him known. And He goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom He would: and they came unto Him. And He ordained twelve, that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils.”-Mar 3:1-15.
A Great Event.
It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the calling of the Twelve Apostles. “The wall of the city,” says John, in his Apocalypse, “had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb” (Rev 21:14, R.V.). That is only a parabolic way of saying that the whole fabric of the Christian Church bears for ever upon it the stamp and impress of these men who laid its first foundations. Our Lord Himself realised that the choice of men to be His apostles was a critical choice, and, according to Luke’s account, He prepared for it by a night of vigil and prayer.
The Hour.
The opening verses of this chapter lead up to the account of the calling of the Twelve, and they help us to understand why it was just at this particular point in His career that our Lord felt the time had come to choose men who should be “with Him.”
(1) The rulers had taken up an attitude of distinct hostility. In Mar 3:6 we read: “The Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against Him, how they might destroy Him.” Our Lord foresaw what this meant. He knew that in the long run it meant the Cross. And knowing that that death was to be His lot, He took forethought for the continuance of His work by the choice of the Twelve. (2) The work our Lord Himself had begun had so increased that more labourers were demanded in order to cope with it. Mar 3:7 and Mar 3:8 speak of the ferment caused by the preaching and works of Jesus. Beyond the bounds of Palestine His fame had spread. The work had become too great for His single-handed efforts. And so Jesus called these twelve men to share with Him the work of preaching the good tidings of the Kingdom of God.
-And the Men.
“He appointed Twelve”; and the number twelve is significant. Jesus might have chosen more, had He so wished. A little later He did despatch seventy disciples upon this same work of preaching. He chose twelve-so many and no more-as corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel. It was a subtle way of suggesting to the Jews that He was founding a new theocracy-the newer and nobler theocracy that was to replace the old. There is thus implied in this choice of twelve our Lord’s Messianic claim.
Their Work: in Relation to Christ.
And what was the work of the apostles to be? It was to be a twofold work. (1) Christ called these twelve men, “that they might be with Him.” Our Lord wanted friends. There is something inexpressibly touching in that little sentence. “He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him” (Mar 3:14, R.V.). It brings our blessed Lord very near to us, for it reveals a soul on its human side hungry for sympathy. We know how the presence of a friend helps and cheers us in our hours of trial. Our Lord was like unto His brethren in this respect. With opposition and rejection and the bitter cross to face, He hungered for sympathy, He longed for friends; and so He called these twelve men, that they might be with Him.
In spite of their manifold blunderings, they did give Christ some of the sympathy and love He craved. By their loyalty and affection they made things easier for Him, they strengthened His hand in God, and it was with a full heart that Jesus said to them the night before He died, “Ye are they which have continued with Me in My temptations” (Luk 22:28, R. V.).
-In Relation to the World.
(2) He called these twelve men “that He might send them forth to preach.” He called them not simply for His own sake, but even more for the work’s sake. The calling was with a view to the sending. There are here implied two stages in the training of these men for their apostolic work. First of all, they were called that they might be with Him. They were to be Christ’s companions, partly to help Him by their sympathy and love, but partly also that they might learn of Him. They were to be Christ’s pupils and scholars. And then, having learned of Christ, they were to go forth and preach. The time of fellowship was meant to issue in service.
Privilege and Duty.
You will see then, how privilege always leads up to duty. The twelve were made disciples that they might become apostles. They were blessed that they might become a blessing. They were saved that they might become saviours. They were called that they might be sent.
The same duty follows privilege still. Have we been called to be “with Him”? It is in order that He may send us forth to preach. Experience ought to end in expression. “Oh, speak to me,” we say in our hymn. What for? “That I may speak, In living echoes of Thy tone.”
The Man with the Withered Hand
Mar 3:1-10
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
We are giving a study in the Book of Mark which will carry some splendid suggestions for the student. Every Sunday morning we see a large group of people hurrying toward Sunday School and church. I wonder how many of us ever stop to consider the objectives of the various people who move on their way churchward.
In our study, in Mar 3:2, we read these words, “And they watched Him, whether He would heal him on the Sabbath Day; that they might accuse Him.” It is not difficult to discover why these people entered the synagogue, but we do wonder why people today enter?
1. One group go to church with the mere outward show of Divine service. There is a verse in Ezekiel which says, “And they come unto Thee as the people cometh, and they sit before Thee as my people, and they hear Thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness.”
This is a sad story, but it is still true. How many there are who go to church regularly, and yet there is no real faithfulness to God in their hearts. Outwardly they appear pious, but inwardly their hearts goeth after covetousness. They like the sermon and the singing. It is all to them as a lovely song, as one who has a pleasant voice. However, there is no real worship in their hearts. Formal Christianity means nothing to God; a worship of the lip, and an outward demonstration of piety is not acceptable to God.
2. A second group goes to church with the thought of honoring God, and yet they know nothing of real heart worship. This group is described in Mat 15:8-9 “This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoureth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me.” Such people worship God in vain. They are teaching the doctrines of men. They cannot please God. The Lord demands heart worship, and He Himself must be recognized as the Head of the Church, and given all authority and all power in the lives of His worshipers.
3. There is another group of worshipers who seek to go to church, but their lives are unclean. To such, God says: “When ye come to appear before Me, who hath required this at your hand?” God goes on to say, “When ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.”
There is one thing that God demands of those who worship Him. They must have clean hands, they must cease to do evil, seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fathers, plead for the widows. God pity those who have a churchianity, but know nothing of a clean life.
4. There is another group who say, “Lord, Lord, and yet they never do the things that their Lord demands of them. To such God says, “I never knew you.” He who seeks to appear before Christ and calls Jesus “Lord,” must serve Him faithfully. If He is Lord, they must be servants.
5. The fifth group is the group who go to church to find fault. These are described in this study. There were many Pharisees present, but they were not there for any good. They were there that they might discover something with which to accuse Christ. They were persecutors and haters of Christ.
No one could have convinced them that Jesus Christ was true, no matter how hard they tried. They were that kind who had sealed their hearts and minds against His Name.
6. Another group are those who go to church for what they can get out of it. They are the loaves and fishes. They follow with Christ when, it is advantageous to themselves. We fear that among professing Christians there are those who want to be in the church that will give them the best social standing. They want to go where they themselves will be advanced in their worldly ambitions. They are not after serving Christ. He is no more to them than an aid to their own advancement.
7. The seventh group are those who go with the spirit of self pride. They say, “We have increased in riches, and have need of nothing.” They are the Laodiceans. To them God says ye “are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.”
8. Our last group are those who go to church to worship with pure hearts. These are they who have turned from their sins to serve the Living, and the True God, and to await His Son from Heaven. Let those who study the various groups of church goers, place themselves where they rightfully belong in the above eight groups.
I. THE WITHERED HAND (Mar 3:1)
When we think of the man with the withered hand, as standing before Christ seeking His helping power, there are three things which come to us.
1. The fact of sin. Sin always impoverishes, weakens, and saps the strength. We have seen the grass withering away because of the hot sun; so it is, whenever sin sweeps down upon us, it tends to wither us, until it leaves us altogether without the power of action. Sin breaks down our resistance; it hinders our conquests. Did you ever fall down and collapse spiritually in your weakness?-that is the effect of sin.
2. The picture of a fruitless life. A withered life, makes us think of the corn in the field, or the ‘wheat, or the rye that never comes to harvest. It is the fruit tree whose fruit shrivels up, and never matures.
There are many young people, today, who are like the man with the withered hand. They are in that helpless state where nothing ripens for the harvest. There is work to do, yet there is no one who can be trusted by Christ to point the lost to the Saviour. Their tongues cleave to the roof of their mouth; their power is broken, and they wither away.
II. THE COMMAND, “STAND FORTH” (Mar 3:3)
1. God’s call to separation. When Jesus said to the man with the withered hand, “Stand forth,” He seemed to be saying, “Get out of the crowd, come away from, your former environment.” This is always the call of God. If we want to serve Him, we must go forth unto Him without the camp. We cannot serve God and mammon, for either we will love the one, and hate the other; or else we will hold to the one, and despise the other.
Did you ever see a young man, or a young woman trying to be a Christian and at the same time, he or she was living the life of a sinner. This is utterly impossible. The Lord calls us to separation, these are His words: “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, * * and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.”
2. God calls us to the negation of human aid. As long as the man, with the withered hand, stood in the crowd he would be tempted to trust in the crowd, to lean upon them, and to follow their suggestions. At Christ’s call, he stepped forth, separating himself from them. He denied their power to help him. He had come to the place where he had no hope in man. Man had never been able to heal him, or even to help him. He had no power, himself, to better his condition; and they, likewise, had no power.
We have gone a long way toward victory when we are willing to utterly repudiate every human aid. So long as we think we can do it, or that some one else can do it, we will never find victory.
3. God’s call to perfect trust. As Jesus said, “Stand forth,” and the man stood forth, he found himself in the position of being thrown wholly upon the Lord. As he walked away from the world, and from man, he was prepared to follow with Jesus, God says, “Trust in the Lord * * and lean not unto thine own understanding.” The sinner does not need any human trust.
III. THE LORD QUESTIONS HIS WOULD-BE ACCUSERS (Mar 3:4)
1. Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath? As the Lord commanded the one with the withered hand to stand forth, Christ’s would-be accusers immediately began to insinuate that He was about to break the Sabbath Day.
The Lord Jesus knowing this said, “Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days?” The church of today is keeping the first day of the week. We are not under bondage to the Seventh Day. Yet, we often face the question as to what should be done, or should not be done on the Lord’s Day. Should we do this, or should we do that? The question Christ asked His accusers should help us.
There is another thing the Lord said, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” That is, the Sabbath is for our good, and not for our harm. We think of Sunday as a day for rest, and that is a true conception. Is there, however, any rest to a man with a withered hand? If the day is the day of rest, should it not be used to give rest to anyone who is bound by a disease, or by sin?
When we hear our minister preach the Word of Life does he not seem to be saying, “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest?”
Jesus is our Sabbath, because He is our rest. There is no better time than Sunday, for Christ to say, “Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth.” There is no better time for Christ to say, “If any man thirst, let him come unto Me, and drink.”
2. Is it lawful to give life on the Sabbath Day? Certainly, the Sabbath stands for a day of rest, on the one hand, and for life on the other hand. There is, in the thought of the Sabbath, everything that gives and invigorates life, and nothing that tends to kill and destroy.
When we think of the Jewish Sabbath we think of its significance. First of all, we think of God’s rest in creation. At that time He brought the world out of its chaotic condition. He said, “Let there be light: and there was light.” He created physical life, as well as vegetable. The whole picture, therefore, of the first day of rest was the picture of life out of death.
Second: When we think of the Sabbath, we are reminded of the rest which the Children of Israel had from the Egyptians. We are reminded of their deliverance from their cruel taskmasters, who ground out their very life.
Third: There is another typical meaning of the Seventh Day. It looked on to the rest, which we commonly call the Millennial Rest, a rest which remaineth for the children of God. This will be another life, out of death. The terrific woes and judgments of the great tribulation will succumb to this Kingdom of Rest.
In the above three suggestions of rest, there is an answer to Christ’s questions concerning the Sabbath Day: “Is it lawful * * to save life, or to kill?”
IV. THE LORD’S GRIEF AT THE PEOPLE’S HARDNESS (Mar 3:5)
1. Religious bigotry makes hearts impregnable to the Truth. These men who sought to accuse Christ in this Scripture had their consciences seared, as with a hot iron, Their hearts were hardened as steel. Their necks were stiffened against Christ.
Whenever you find people blinded by religious bigotry, you find them all together set against the Truth.
Let anyone appear in the midst who is ever so humble, and ever so faithful to God, they will immediately malign him, unless he runs with them.
They think that every one who does not fall in with their religious set-up, is altogether perverse. They imagine that he, who is not a member of their religious denomination, or clique, is altogether wrong.
They would more readily believe a lie from their own, than they would believe the truth from one of God’s faithful servants.
2. The rejection of Truth hardens the heart. Whenever the Truth is kept down, refused, reviled, the heart is left more adamant than ever. If we would know the Truth, we must follow on to know it. The Word of God is a two-edged sword, it cuts unto life, or it cuts unto death.
3. God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. We read that the Lord looked on them with anger. In the same moment we read that He was grieved in His heart. The anger which Christ manifested, was not anything akin to our anger. God is always angry with sin. Anger is an attribute of His nature. God does not get angry, but He is angry with the sinner every day. The accompanying phrase, That He was grieved in His heart, gives a wonderful insight to His anger. God’s wrath must fall upon the wicked, but, even as it falls, it grieves Him. We have read these words, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.
V. THE UNION OF TWO ANTAGONISTIC SECTS (Mar 3:6)
1. The Pharisees were the orthodox Jews. They stood for everything written in the Law, and in the Prophets. They considered themselves the fountainhead of all truth. To be sure, they continually added many of their own laws and ceremonies to God’s Word.
2. The Herodians were heterodox. They denied both the resurrection, and the existence of angels. They were what we might call, in our day the modernistic wing of the church. Between the Pharisees and the Herodians there was lasting antagonism, with no possibility of organic union. Two could not walk together, without being agreed.
3. Against the Truth, the two enemies joined. The Pharisees sought the aid of the Herodians, in fighting against God. One of the strangest things today, is the fact that the modernistic wing of the church, joins hands with denominational orthodoxy, in order to fight the men who go all the way with Christ.
Denominationalism contends against every truth which is not under their wing. There is so striking a similarity between the conditions described in Mar 3:6, and the conditions which we have in our present day among Churchmen, that we are amazed. Jesus Christ has been ruled out from the Headship of His own Church. Indeed He stands outside the door and knocks.
VI. SEEKING TO SLAY THE SAVIOUR (Mar 3:6)
1. The scribes and Herodians joined together to cast off their only hope of national and spiritual life. They joined together to overthrow the Lord Jesus, the rightful heir to David’s throne, and the King of the Jews. As Christ left them that day, He left their house desolate, and desolate it shall be until they shall say, “Blessed is He that cometh in the Name of the Lord.”
At this very moment, the Jews, after two thousand years, are still wandering among the Gentiles. They are without God, without Christ, without hope, without any national home, and their only hope still lies in the Second Coming of Christ.
2. In rejecting Christ they sought to kill the Author of Life. They, therefore, rejected their only national and spiritual hope, when they sought to kill the One who was both the Resurrection and the Life.
The Pharisees believed in the resurrection, yet, apart from Christ they could never have realized the resurrection. The Pharisees believed in the life to come, yet, without Christ, life to come was impossible.
3. They sought to slay their best Friend. He who had come with deliverance, they were ready to deliver to the Cross. Rejecters are even refusing everything vital to life and light. It is from God that every good and perfect gift proceeds; and he who would destroy Christ, destroys the only hope of his own good. Oh, Thou Friend of all friends, teach me to be friendly to Thee.
VII. THE WITHDRAWAL (Mar 3:7-8)
1. Christ will not force His grace upon His rejecters. When the Pharisees and the Herodians joined together to destroy Christ, He quietly withdrew Himself with His disciples to the sea. This is not the only time when our Lord withdrew. In the 4th chapter of Luke, the Nazarenes would have cast Him off the hill upon which the city was built, but Jesus quietly passed through the midst of them, and went His way.
The withdrawal of Christ, was not the withdrawal of a coward unwilling to face His enemies. It was simply His rejection of His rejecters. He could have overwhelmed them by His power, but the conquest of Christianity is not the conquest of the sword, God could drive men into subjection to His rule, but this He utterly refused to do. The Lord stands as one pleading all day long. He holds out His hands calling upon men to come into His arms of love. He is willing and able and ready to save, but He never saves until men come to Him believing and ready to be saved.
2. Some believed and some believed not. In our study we have seen why the Pharisees and Herodians rejected Christ. Yet, there were multitudes who went with Him. It is always so. There are some willing to follow Christ, but others follow Him not.
Christ went into the pool of Bethsaida, and healed one who had been sick thirty-eight years. However, a multitude of impotent folk, who needed Him, never said one word to Him about being healed.
3. The curiosity group. We have read the statement concerning the great multitude, that they followed Him because they had heard what great things He had done. We wonder if they were merely curiosity followers. The Lord have mercy on those who follow Christ merely from excitement.
AN ILLUSTRATION
“An observation balloon over the lines of the Allies was suddenly attacked by a German airplane firing ‘tracer bullets,’ which, if they pierced the balloon, would set it on fire. Watching from beneath we saw two black shapes drop like stones out of the car. They were observers. For two or three awful moments it looked as if they would be dashed to pieces. Suddenly a white cloud opened above their heads, and their fall stopped. It was their parachute, a frail thing of fine silk, but they cast their weight on it, the air filled it, and it sustained them. They floated gently and safely to the ground. I said to one of the officers, ‘Isn’t it rather awful, wondering if your parachute will open and hold you up?’ ‘Not a bit,’ he replied, ‘it always works; you know it will.’ So faith is trusting yourself to God as completely as the observer trusts himself to the parachute. The parachute might fail. God cannot.”
1
Withered hand means that something had shut off the circulation from that member and it had pined away for lack of moisture, rendering it useless.
THESE verses show us our Lord again working a miracle. He heals a man in the synagogue, “which had a withered hand.” Always about His Father’s business-always doing good-doing it in the sight of enemies as well as of friends-such was the daily tenor of our Lord’s earthly ministry. And He “left us an example that we should follow His steps.” (1Pe 2:21.) Blessed indeed are those Christians who strive, however feebly, to imitate their Master!
Let us observe in these verses, how our Lord Jesus Christ was watched by His enemies. We read that “they watched Him, whether He would heal him on the Sabbath day, that they might accuse Him.”
What a melancholy proof we have here of the wickedness of human nature! It was the Sabbath day, when these things happened. It was in the synagogue, where men were assembled to hear the word and worship God. Yet even on the day of God, and at the time of worshiping God, these wretched formalists were plotting mischief against our Lord. The very men who pretended to such strictness and sanctity in little things, were full of malicious and angry thoughts in the midst of the congregation. (Pro 5:14.)
Christ’s people must not expect to fare better than their Master. They are always watched by an ill-natured and spiteful world. Their conduct is scanned with a keen and jealous eye. Their ways are noted and diligently observed. They are marked men. They can do nothing without the world’s noticing it. Their dress, their expenditure, their employment of time, their conduct in all the relations of life, are all rigidly and closely remarked. Their adversaries wait for their halting, and if at any time they fall into an error, the ungodly rejoice.
It is good for all Christians to keep this before their minds. Wherever we go, and whatever we do, let us remember that, like our Master, we are “watched.” The thought should make us exercise a holy jealousy over all our conduct, that we may do nothing to cause the enemy to blaspheme. It should make us diligent to avoid even the “appearance of evil.” Above all, it should make us pray much, to be kept in our tempers, tongues, and daily public demeanor. That Savior who was “watched” Himself, knows how to sympathize with his people, and to supply grace to help in time of need.
Let us observe, in the second place, the great principle that our Lord lays down about Sabbath observance. He teaches that it is lawful “to do good” on the Sabbath.
This principle is taught by a remarkable question. He asks those around Him, whether it was “lawful to do good or evil on the Sabbath days, to save life, or to kill?” Was it better to heal this poor sufferer before Him with the withered hand, or to leave him alone? Was it more sinful to restore a person to health on the Sabbath, than to plot murder, and nourish hatred against an innocent person, as they were doing at that moment against Himself? Was He to be blamed for saving a life on the Sabbath? Were they blameless who were desirous to kill? No wonder that before such a question as this, our Lord’s enemies “held their peace.”
It is plain from these words of our Lord, that no Christian need ever hesitate to do a really good work on the Sunday. A real work of mercy, such as ministering to the sick, or relieving pain, may always be done without scruple. The holiness with which the fourth commandment invests the Sabbath day, is not in the least degree invaded by anything of this kind.
But we must take care that the principle here laid down by our Lord, is not abused and turned to bad account. We must not allow ourselves to suppose that the permission to “do good,” implied that every one might find his own pleasure on the Sabbath. The permission to “do good” was never meant to open the door to amusements, worldly festivities, traveling, journeying, and sensual gratification. It was never intended to license the Sunday railway train, or the Sunday steamboat, or the Sunday exhibition. These things do good to none, and do certain harm to many. They rob many a servant of his seventh day’s rest. They turn the Sunday of thousands into a day of hard toil. Let us beware of perverting our Lord’s words from their proper meaning. Let us remember what kind of “doing good” on the Sabbath His blessed example sanctioned. Let us ask ourselves whether there is the slightest likeness between our Lord’s works on the Sabbath, and those ways of spending the Sabbath for which many contend, who yet dare to appeal to our Lord’s example. Let us fall back on the plain meaning of our Lord’s words, and take our stand on them. He gives us a liberty to “do good” on Sunday, but for feasting, sight-seeing, party-giving, and excursions, He gives no liberty at all.
Let us observe, in the last place, the feelings which the conduct of our Lord’s enemies called forth in His heart. We are told that “He looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts.”
This expression is very remarkable, and demands special attention. It is meant to remind us that our Lord Jesus Christ was a man like ourselves in all things, sin only excepted. Whatever sinless feelings belong to the constitution of man, our Lord partook of, and knew by experience. We read that He “marveled,” that He “rejoiced,” that He “wept,” that He “loved,” and here we read that He felt “anger.”
It is plain from these words that there is an “anger” which is lawful, right, and not sinful. There is an indignation which is justifiable, and on some occasions may be properly manifested. The words of Solomon and Paul both seem to teach the same lesson. “The north wind driveth away rain, so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.” “Be ye angry and sin not.” (Pro 25:23. Eph 4:26.)
Yet it must be confessed that the subject is full of difficulty. Of all the feelings that man’s heart experiences, there is none perhaps which so soon runs into sin as the feeling of anger. There is none which once excited seems less under control. There is none which leads on to so much evil. The length to which ill-temper, irritability, and passion, will carry even godly men, all must know. The history of “the contention” of Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, and the story of Moses being provoked till he “spake unadvisedly with his lips,” are familiar to every Bible reader. The awful fact that passionate words are a breach of the sixth commandment, is plainly taught in the Sermon on the Mount. And yet here we see that there is anger which is lawful.
Let us leave this subject with an earnest prayer, that we may all be enabled to take heed to our spirit in the matter of anger. We may rest assured that there is no human feeling which needs so much cautious guarding as this. A sinless wrath is a very rare thing. The wrath of man is seldom for the glory of God. In every case a righteous indignation should be mingled with grief and sorrow for those who cause it, even as it was in the case of our Lord. And this, at all events, we may be sure of-it is better never to be angry, than to be angry and sin. [Footnote: In connection with this subject, Bishop Butler’s Sermon on Resentment deserves perusal. He says at the conclusion of it: “That passion, from whence men take occasion to run into the dreadful sins of malice and revenge, even that passion, as implanted in our nature by God, is not only innocent but a generous movement of mind. It is in itself, and in its original, no more than indignation against injury and wickedness-that which is the only deformity in the creation, and the only reasonable object of abhorrence and dislike.”-Bishop Butler.]
Mar 3:1. He entered again. On the next Sabbath (Luk 6:6). Again may refer to Mar 1:21. In that case the place was Capernaum.
The synagogue. It is doubtful whether we should render: the or a synagogue. Matthew says definitely their synagogue, i.e., that of His opponents. Luke adds that He taught there.
Withered. This word suggests disease or accident as the cause. It was the right hand (Luke).
The former part of this chapter reports to us a miraculous cure wrought by Christ upon a man who had a withered hand. The place where he wrought it, was the synagogue; the time when, was the sabbath-day; the manner how, was by speaking a word; the persons before whom, were the envious and malicious Pharisees. These men were always cavilling at our Saviour’s doctrine, and slandering his miracles; yet our Saviour goes on with his work before their faces, without either interruption or discouragement.
Learn thence, That the unjust censures and malicious cavils of wicked men against us for well-doing, must not discourage us from doing our duty either towards God, or towards our neighbour. Though the Pharisees watched our Saviour, and when their envy and malice could find no occasion of quarrel, they could invent and make one; yet such was our Lord’s courage and resolution, that he bids the man which had the withered hand, stand forth: to show that he was resolved to heal him, notwithstanding their malicious purpose to accuse him for it as a breaker of the sabbath. Opposition met with in doing our duty, must not discourage us from doing good, if we will follow the example of our blessed Redeemer.
Mar 3:1-5. He entered again into the synagogue Luke says, On another sabbath. The synagogue seems not to have been at Capernaum, but in some city which lay in his way as he went through Galilee. And there was a man which had a withered hand His hand was not only withered, but contracted, as appears from Mar 3:5. See the notes on Mat 12:10-13. And they The scribes and Pharisees, watched him These men, being ever unfriendly to the Saviour, carefully attended to every thing he said and did, with an expectation of finding some matter of blame in him, by which they might blast his reputation with the people. Their pride, anger, and shame, after being so often put to silence, began now to ripen into malice. Luke observes, He knew their thoughts, their malicious designs. We may therefore see, in this instance, the greatness of our blessed Lords courage, who resolutely performed the benevolent action he had undertaken, notwithstanding he knew it would expose him to the fiercest resentment of these wicked men. And said to the man, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. He ordered him to stand forth and show himself to the congregation, that the sight of his distress might move them to pity him; and that they might be the more sensibly struck with the miracle, when they observed the wasted hand restored to perfect soundness in an instant. Then Jesus said, Is it lawful to do good, &c. That he might expose the malice and superstition of these scribes and Pharisees, he appealed to the dictates of their own minds, whether it was not more lawful to do good on the sabbath days, than to do evil; to save life, than to kill. He meant, more lawful for him to save mens lives, than for them to plot his death without the least provocation. But it is justly observed here by Dr. Campbell, that in the style of Scripture, the mere negation of any thing is often expressed by the affirmation of the contrary. Thus, Luk 14:26, not to love, or even to love less, is called, to hate; Mat 11:25. not to reveal, is to hide; and here, not to do good, when we can, is to do evil; not to save, is to kill. From this, and many other passages of the New Testament, it may be justly deduced, as a standing principle of Christian ethics, that not to do the good which we have the opportunity and power to do, is, in a certain degree, the same as to do the contrary evil; and not to prevent mischief, when we can, the same as to commit it. Thus, also, Dr. Whitby: Hence, it seems to follow, that he who doth not do good to his neighbour when he can, doth evil to him; it being a want of charity, and therefore evil, to neglect any opportunity of doing good, or showing kindness to any man in misery; and that not to preserve his life when it is in danger, is to transgress that precept which saith, Thou shalt not kill. Our Lords words contained a severe, but just rebuke, which in the present circumstances must have been sensibly felt. Yet these men, pretending not to understand his meaning, held their peace Being confounded, though not convinced, therefore he answered them with an argument which the dulness of stupidity could not possibly overlook, nor the peevishness of cavilling gainsay: What man that shall have one sheep, &c. See on Mat 12:11. Having uttered these convincing arguments and cutting reproofs, he looked round about on them, (Luke, on them all,) with anger, grieved at the hardness of their hearts Showing at once his indignation at their wickedness, and his grief for their impenitence. See on Matthew as above. He knew his arguments did not prevail with them, because they were resisting the convictions of their own minds; and was both angry at their obstinacy, and grieved on account of the consequences of it; showing these just affections of his righteous spirit by his looks, that if possible an impression might be made either on them or on the spectators. He might in this, likewise, propose to teach us the just regulation of the passions and affections of our nature, which are not sinful in themselves, otherwise he who was without sin could not have been subject to them. The evil of them lies in their being excited by wrong objects, or by right objects in an improper degree. Thus Dr. Whitby:
Hence we learn that anger is not always sinful; this passion being found in him in whom was no sin. But then it must be noted, that anger is not properly defined by philosophers, , a desire of revenge, or, of causing grief, to him who hath provoked or hath grieved us; for this desire of revenge is always evil; and though our Saviour was angry with the Pharisees for the hardness of their hearts, yet had he no desire to revenge this sin upon them, but had a great compassion for them, and desire to remove this evil. Mr. Scott, who quotes a part of the above note properly adds, Our Lords anger was not only not sinful, but it was a holy indignation, a perfectly right state of heart, and the want of it would have been a sinful defect. It would show a want of filial respect and affection for a son to hear, without emotion, his fathers character unjustly aspersed. Would it not, then, be a want of due reverence for God, to hear his name blasphemed, without feeling and expressing an indignant disapprobation? Vengeance belongs to the ruler exclusively; and he may grieve at the necessity imposed on him of thus expressing his disapprobation of crimes; but it is his duty. Eli ought to have shown anger as well as grief when informed of the vile conduct of his sons; and to have expressed it by severe coercive measures. Thus parents and masters, as well as magistrates, may sin, in not feeling and expressing just displeasure against those under their care: and anger is only sinful when it springs from selfishness and malevolence; when causeless, or above the cause; and when expressed by unhallowed words and actions.
XXXVI.
THE CALL OF MATTHEW.
(At or near Capernaum.)
aMATT. IX. 9; bMARK II. 13, 14; cLUKE V. 27, 28.
c27 And after these thingsa [after the healing of the paralytic] he went forth, aagain by the seaside [i. e., he left Capernaum, and sought the shore of the sea, which formed a convenient auditorium for him, and which was hence a favorite scene for his teaching]; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them. 14 And as he aJesus passed by from thence, he saw cand beheld aa man, ca publican, named {ccalled} Matthew, cLevi, bthe son of Alphaeus [It will be observed that Matthew, in his account of his call, does not make himself prominent. All [189] the evangelists keep themselves in the background. Because Mark and Luke give us the name Levi, it has been thought by some that they describe the call of a different person from the one mentioned by Matthew–an opinion which seems to have started with Origen. But the difference in name is not an important divergence, for many in that day had two names; as, for example, Lebbus, who was called Thaddus; Silas, who was called Sylvanus; John, who was called Mark; etc. Moreover, it was then common to change the name; as is shown by the cases of Simon, who became Peter; Joseph, who became Barnabas; Saul, who became Paul, etc. Therefore, as we have previously suggested ( Mat 10:3). It is not likely, however, that Matthew and James were brothers, for Alphus was a very common Jewish name, and brothers are usually mentioned in pairs in the apostolic lists, and these two are not so mentioned. Pool takes the extreme view here, contending that James, Matthew, Thaddus, and Simon Zelotes were four brethren], sitting at the place of toll [Wherever it is at all practicable, Orientals sit at their work. The place of toil was usually a booth or a small hut. Whether Matthew’s booth was by the lake, to collect duties on goods and people ferried across; or whether it was by the roadside on the great highway leading from Damascus to Acco, to collect taxes on all produce brought into Capernaum, is not material. The revenues which Rome derived from conquered nations consisted of tolls, tithes, harbor duties, taxes for use of public pasture lands, and duties for the use of mines and salt works], and he saith {csaid} unto him, Follow me. 28 And he forsook all, And he arose {crose up} and followed [190] him. [Such obedience was not, of course, performed in ignorance; it indicates that Matthew was already a disciple, as were the four fisherman when they also received a like call. Matthew was now called to become a personal attendant of Jesus, preparatory to being chosen an apostle. Nor are we to conclude from the abruptness of his movements that he went off without settling accounts with the head of his office. Though it may be more dramatic to thus picture him as departing at once, yet the settlement of accounts was indispensable to his good name in the future, and in no way diminishes the reality and beauty of his sacrifice–a beauty which Matthew himself forbears to mention, as became him ( Pro 27:2). But Matthew certainly neither delayed nor sought counsel ( Gal 1:15, Gal 1:16). By thus calling a publican, Jesus reproved the religious narrowness of his times.] [191]
[FFG 189-191]
Mark Chapter 3
Such was the question raised in the synagogue (chap. 3) on the occasion of the man with the withered hand. The Lord sets it publicly before their conscience; but neither heart nor conscience answered Him; and He acts in His service according to the goodness and rights of God, and heals the man. [4] The Pharisees and their enemies, the Herodians-for all were against God and united in this-consult together how they might destroy Christ. Jesus departs to the sea-coast of the sea of Tiberias. There the multitude follow Him, because of all that He had done; so that He is obliged to have a boat, that He may be outside the crowd. Spirits are subject to Him, compelled to own that He is the Son of God; but He forbids them to make Him known.
Service in preaching, and in seeking souls, in devoting Himself to all, shewing Himself by His acts to be the possessor of divine power, hiding Himself from the notice of men, in order to fulfil, apart from their applause, the service He had undertaken-such was His human life on earth. Love and divine power were disclosed in the service which that love impelled Him to accomplish, and in the accomplishment of which that power was exercised. But this could not be circumscribed by Judaism, however subject the Lord was to the ordinances of God given to the Jews.
But, God being thus manifested, the carnal opposition of man soon shews itself. [5] Here, then, the description of Christ’s service ends, and its effect is manifested. This effect is developed in that which soon follows, with respect both to the iniquity of man and to the counsels of God. Meanwhile the Lord appoints twelve of His disciples to accompany Him, and to go forth preaching in His name. He could, not merely work miracles but, communicate to others the power to work them, and that by way of authority. He goes back into the house, and the multitude re-assemble. And here the thoughts of man display themselves at the same time as those of God. His friends search for Him as one who was beside Himself. The scribes, possessing influence as learned men, attribute to Satan a power which they could not deny. The Lord answers them by shewing that in general all sin could be pardoned; but that to acknowledge the power, and attribute it to the enemy, rather than own Him who wielded it, was taking the place not of ignorant unbelief but of adversaries, thus blaspheming against the Holy Ghost-was a sin that could never be pardoned. The “strong man” was there; but Jesus was stronger than he, for He cast out the devils. Would Satan endeavour to overthrow his own house? The fact that the power of Jesus manifested itself in this manner left them without excuse. God’s “strong man” was then come: Israel rejected Him; and, as regards their leaders, by blaspheming against the Holy Ghost, they brought themselves under hopeless condemnation. The Lord therefore immediately distinguishes the remnant who received His word from all natural connection He had with Israel. His mother or His “brethren” are the disciples who stand around Him, and those who do the will of God. This really sets aside Israel at that time.
Footnotes for Mark Chapter 3
4: One cannot but see how the old system, based on what man ought to be for God, is being set aside for what God is for man. But, the former having been established by God, nothing but the words and works of Jesus would have justified the Jews in giving it up. As it was, it was clearly opposition and hatred to the full revelation of Him who had ordained the other. Compare Joh 15:22; Joh 15:24.
5: This is the secret of all the history of Jesus, Son of David. All the promises being in Him for the Jews, the servant of every want too and every sorrow, yet being God and God manifested in Him, man could not bear it. The mind of the flesh is enmity against God.
THE WITHERED HAND
Mat 12:9-14; Mar 3:1-6; and Luk 6:6-11. Our Lord and His disciples have again reached Galilee, their native land. Luke notifies us that this incident transpired on the Sabbath following the preceding, and that it was the right hand which was utterly paralyzed and withered away. Mark: And he came again into the synagogue, and there was a man with a withered hand. And they were watching Him if He will heal him on the Sabbath-day, in order that they may accuse Him. And He says to the man having the withered hand, Rise up in the midst. And He says to them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath-day or to do evil, to save life or to kill? And they were silent. And looking round on them with anger, being grieved on account of the hardness of their heart, He says to the man, Reach forth thy hand, and he reached it forth, and his hand was made whole as the other. And the Pharisees, going out, immediately took counsel, along with the Herodians, against Him, in order that they may kill Him. Doubt less you are surprised over the extreme fanaticism of the Jews on the Sabbath question. You must remember that the penalty for Sabbath-breaking under the law of Moses was death. Sabbath is a Hebrew word, which means rest; i.e., that perfect rest which the sanctified soul finds in Jesus. Now you know that God’s method with sin is destruction. You can not have this blessed Sabbatic soul-rest until you crucify the man of sin. Then it is impossible for you to keep it unless you deal death to every disturber; i.e., keep the Sword of the Spirit unsheathed and lifted high, ready to strike the death-blow and cut off every snake-head that pokes out. Therefore the symbolic dispensation punished the Sabbath-breaker with death, confirming to us this grand and glorious truth of entire sanctification by sin’s annihilation, received and perpetuated. The fact is, even at that early day in His ministry, the leading preachers and official laymen had determined to kill Him, and were only seeking an opportunity. They thought that if they could condemn Him for Sabbath-breaking, they could secure the edict of the Sanhedrin, which was death by stoning. You see in this, the Pharisees and Herodians unite against Him, taking mutual counsel for His death. Do you not know the Pharisees were the orthodox denomination of the Jewish Church and leaders in the opposition to Roman rule, which they had then endured thirty years, while the Herodians were a political party in favor of the Roman Government.
Hence, you see, they were bitter enemies, either to other. Yet we here find them uniting their forces against Jesus, and taking mutual counsel to kill Him. How wonderfully history repeats itself! Holiness is the abstract of which Jesus is the concrete. Opposition to holiness is nothing more nor less than opposition to Jesus. How frequently do we find the wurring sects laying down the cudgel of controversy, and all mutually uniting against holiness!
During our Savior’s response to them on this occasion, Mark says, Looking round upon them with anger, being grieved on account of the hardness of their hearts. Here he uses the same word, orge, which Paul used (Eph 5:26), Be ye angry and sin not. Now how can we be angry and sin not? Why! in the same sense in which Jesus looked round on them with anger, as Mark and Paul both use the same word-the former applying it to Jesus, and the latter to the saints of all ages. We can be angry and sin not precisely as Jesus did on that occasion. Fortunately, we have an inspired definition of our Lord’s anger on that occasion, Being grieved on account of the hardness of their heart. Hence, we see, the anger of Jesus consisted in holy grief. Therefore this is the only sense in which we can be angry and sin not. The more holy we are, and the more like Jesus, the more we realize holy indignation against all sin, in every conceivable form and phase. Hence anger, in the sense of holy grief, is characteristic of every true Christian. In this sense, God is angry with the wicked every day. Lord, make us all like Thyself!
Mar 3:13. He calleth to him whom he would. He knew them as he knew Nathaniel; he knew their piety, he knew their worth. They followed him at first as hearers, having no thoughts of the glory that would follow. Therefore, like the ancient scripture characters, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, David, and the later prophets, they had no hand in their call and elevation. The Lord drew his workmen from the treasures of his providence. He counted me faithful, says Paul, putting me into the ministry.
Mar 3:17. Boanerges, which is, sons of thunder, because of their vocal powers. Beza derives this word from the Hebrew bene reghesch, and would write it Benerges. Now, though he brings many proofs of letters suppressed, or words changed, yet he has adduced no substantial argument that the orthography is wrong. Dr. Lightfoot here mentions, from the Talmud, a Samuel who sat in the synagogue and heard the voice of Rigsha, which he diffidently renders thunder. The Bath Kol, daughter of thunder, was the voice heard from the mercyseat. So on Sinai the voice was terrible, with thunder and earthquake. Yet it is obvious, says the doctor, in what respect erges is applicable to thunder. The greater body of critics however derive this word, Ben-erges, from Ben-rehem, the sons of commotion; for rehem is the same as the Greek word seio, to move, or seismos, earthquake. The shaking or commotion implied in this term may also be expressed by the Greek bront, thunder. Hence Boanerges was an honourable surname, highly expressive of the power and unction of the ministry of these two brothers: and happy is the man who is favoured with so great a talent. Peters ministry was powerful to the circumcision, as Pauls was to the gentiles.
Mar 3:21. He is beside himself. Christs friends said this when they heard that he had no leisure to eat. The Greek exese often occurs in the LXX, and in the new testament. 2Co 5:13. See also the Septuagint in Gen 45:26, and Jos 2:11, where it implies, to faint. Its general import is to express something out of the common way. Heinsius, distinguished by originality of criticism, illustrates the passage from 2Ki 9:11 : wherefore came this mad fellow to thee?
Mar 3:30. Because they said, he hath an unclean spirit. His divine and gracious works to heal the sick, and console the wounded mind, were the most signal acts of grace which heaven could confer on man. And for the learned doctors to say, that they were the works of the devil, was malice and vileness surpassing any thing on earth, and indicated the scribes to be reprobate beyond the hope of recovery. By consequence, all persons afflicted with nervous gloom, should avoid charging themselves with the commission of this blasphemy, for they never did, nor were they ever in a situation to commit it. Robert Russel therefore, in his seven sermons, totally mistakes the case, by supposing that both Paul and Peter would have committed this sin, if Peter had denied his Master with Pauls malice; or, if Paul had wasted the church with Peters light. Their crimes would indeed have been double, but we have no authority to drive men to despair. After all, the assertion of our Saviour is not more absolute than the ministry of Jonah. There were, no doubt, pardons concealed for the contrite. They were in danger of eternal damnation, but not as yet delivered to the tormentor.
Mar 3:35. The same is my brother. Conversion introduces us into the great family of heaven and earth. The aged are parents, the young converts are children, and the body of the church are all brethren. The bonds are sacred, intimate, and eternal, provided we hold last the beginning of our confidence stedfast to the end. If related before conversion, we are then doubly akin, being of one family, and of one spirit. See my translation of Saurins sermon on this subject: vol. 7.
REFLECTIONS.
Our Lord went about doing good; and he confounded his enemies in the synagogue of Capernaum by asking whether it was lawful to do good? Hence we should imitate our Master, as time and opportunity may suggest. This question was introductory to the restoring of the man with the withered hand, a case highly instructive to us, whose beauty and rectitude are faded and withered away; and we want the Saviour to restore them by his grace. See Mat 12:13.
Mar 3:1-6. The Sabbath Healing which Determined Pharisaic Hostility.(See p. 666.) Mk. links this synagogue incident with his first (Mar 1:21) by the word again. Jesus is no longer unknown; He is suspect. Another healing in a synagogue may be used as the basis of a charge against Him. He challenges with a question the opponents who are watching Him. Is it not a more loyal observance of the Sabbath to save life as Jesus proposes to do than to be plotting evil against another man as the Pharisees are actually doing? (This interpretation seems to be more attractive than that adopted in HNT, Loisy, or Pfleiderer; who says, He recognises no third course between the fulfilment of duty by doing good and the transgression of duty by not doing good: for the omission of a possible work of love is in itself an evil-doing which cannot be justified by any Sabbatic ordinance.) The refusal of the Pharisees to answer the question moves Jesus to anger. This is one of the few passages peculiar to Mk. which attributes anger to Jesus (cf. Mar 10:14); passionate grief rather than wrath is meant. The evangelist had little power of analysis and had not precise nomenclature for emotions shading into one another. (See The Practice of Christianity by the author of Pro Christo et Ecclesia, p. 92, but note also Fairbairns sentence, A character incapable of indignation is destitute of righteousness, without the will to give adequate expression to its moral judgments.) The result is the determined hostility of the religious and political leaders of Galilee, who even plot His destruction. (The plot to kill is perhaps introduced too early into the story. See Menzies.)
Mar 3:1. The Gospel to the Hebrews adds that the man was a mason who asked Jesus to give him back the use of his arm to save him from the disgrace of begging. Such an addition is clearly an afterthought, and does not develop the main interest of the story. Cf. a more clearly irrelevant addition in the story of the rich young ruler (Mar 10:17-31).his hand withered: the attempt to derive this story from that of king Jeroboam (1Ki 13:6, see Loisy, p. 107) seems to depend on the word withered, a very slight connexion!
Mar 3:5. when he had looked round: characteristic of Jesus according to Mk.; cf. Mar 3:34; Mar 10:23; Mar 11:11; Mar 10:21. The kind but searching glance.
We have seen that the sabbath was made for the purpose of ministering to the needs of men. Now the Lord in the synagogue encountered a man who was in manifestly serious need. But his need meant nothing to the Pharisees compared to their zeal for the sabbath day. Knowing His compassion, they suspect that He will heal the man in spite of their opposition. He does not tell the man to meet Him elsewhere out of sight of the Pharisees, but makes a decided issue of the matter. For they were contesting God’s right to show mercy. Having the man stand forth, He asked them a simple question that was fully to the point. Did the law allow one to do good on the sabbath days or to do evil? — to save life or to kill? So far as they were concerned, they would rather see one die on the sabbath than to see him healed. They would not answer, for they knew that an answer either way would incriminate them, unless they gave up their foolish prejudice.
He looked round about on them with anger. We may be sure that all in turn would avoid His eyes as He did so. But their hearts remained hard. The man, obedient to the Lord’s command, stretched forth his hand, which was instantly healed. Seeing such a result, the Pharisees, instead of being rightfully ashamed of their hardness, were all the more hardened in enmity against Him. They reject grace (in which the power of God had been clearly shown) in favor of a cold, stern legality that prefers a withered state. They, the Pharisees, strict, orthodox ritualists, joined with Herodians, who were of a lax, worldly character, in plotting the death of this faithful Servant of God. Their motives were no doubt different, but they shared a common hatred toward Him.
He goes on doing the work of God, now going to the seaside, where crowds followed Him, not only from Galilee, but from further south in Judea, from Idumea (Edom) and east of Jordan, as well as from the west (Tyre and Sidon). Hearing of Him and His great works, people came from every direction and from long distances.
To avoid the crowds He asked His disciples to provide a small boat for Him. It is not here said that He preached from the boat (as in ch.4:1-2), but that because of His healing many, the crowd more intensely pressed upon Him, those specially anxious who had infirmities. Those with unclean spirits were drawn also by the crowds, and crying out that He was the Son of God. Though this was true, yet the Lord did not want the witness of evil spirits, nor was He there to display the greatness of His gory, but in serving mankind, He sought to draw the attention to the Word of God, that men should obey it. Their witness only caused excitement rather than sober exercise of heart and conscience. Therefore He silenced them.
Ascending to a higher level on the mountain, He called His disciples, choosing from them twelve who would first be with Him, then he sent out to preach, with power given them to heal the sick and to cast out demons. The first thing for the servant is always to be in his Master’s presence. For this is the source of power as well as the place of instruction. Service must follow this.
In Mat 10:1-42 these are recorded in groups of two emphasizing their witness to Christ the King, but here the order is different, though Simon is mentioned first, and his surname, then James and John, surnamed Boanerges, “the sons of thunder.” Surnames of the others are not recorded here. The first three evidently have a special character, but Judas is mentioned last, and the fact of his being the betrayer.
Though going into a house, they could not so much as eat bread because of the crowds pressing on them. In this section (from verse 7 to 35) there are six obstacles raised to hinder the true service of Christ:
in verses 7-10 the crowd attracted for merely material ends;
verses 11-12 unclean spirits feigning friendship;
verse 19: a false disciple among the true;
verse 20: personal communion endangered;
verses 21, 31-35: the influence of fearful relatives; and
in verses 22-30: the brazen opposition of callous religious men.
How beautiful to see this devoted Servant of God calmly going forward in spite of all this Close relatives (v.21) were alarmed as to His serving God as He did, mistaking His faithfulness for some mental aberration. Though His brothers (who did not believe on Him — Joh 7:5) were so deluded, this ought not to have influenced His mother.
Scribes were attracted to come all the way from Jerusalem, for they knew there was manifest spiritual power in the Lord and in His works. Yet in cunning wickedness they attributed this power to satanic activity, asserting that He cast out demons by the prince of the demons. This was transparent nonsense, as the Lord shows them. Satan is not so foolish as to cast himself out. Is he divided against himself? Whether a kingdom or a house, if divided against itself, it will fall. Only a power opposed to Satan would cast Satan out. Moreover, this must be a power greater than Satan. Satan was the strong man who jealously guarded his goods. One must overcome his power first before he can spoil his goods. Satan’s power was being manifestly annulled by the superior power of the Lord Jesus, which was therefore clearly the power of God.
The opposition of scribes is consequently seen to stem from vicious, unreasoning hatred, not from honest skepticism. The Lord’s words in verses 28-29 are a solemn indictment against this deliberate antagonism toward the Spirit of God. Sin and blasphemy of many kinds might be forgiven (of course where there is repentance), but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven. This blasphemy was that of attributing to Satan what was the manifest work of the Spirit of God. One guilty of this had reached a point so hardened that he would not repent. How awful a state for any man.
The relatives of the Lord (“His brethren”) mentioned in verse 21 now come to the house where He was, His mother with them, asking to see Him. Though they could not get in because of the crowd, the word was passed to Him. Of course He knew the reason for which they had come (v.21). Was their natural relationship to Him going to influence Him to cease declaring the Word of God? He asks rather, “Who is my mother my brethren?” Then He insists on the far higher claims of a spiritual relationship. Looking at those who sat to hear His Word, He said, “Behold my mother and my brethren!” He did not leave this matter at only hearing the Word, however, but declared that those who do the will of God were His real relatives: their relationship to Him was vital. Thank God His mother did have this vital relationship to Him also, but she needed the reminder that the mere natural relationship is much inferior to the spiritual.
Verse 1
Withered; wasted away by disease.
(Mark 3) THE CHANGE OF DISPENSATION
In the former chapters we have seen the perfect Servant, in His ministry of grace and power, dispensing blessing in the midst of the Jewish nation. We have also seen that, while this ministry brought to light the faith of a godly remnant, it also aroused the enmity of the leaders of the nation who dared to charge the Lord with being a blasphemer, of associating with sinners and breaking the sabbath.
This opposition foreshadowed the great change of dispensation about to take place. The Jews, who reject their Messiah and commit the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, will be set aside and grace will flow out to the Gentiles. The old order, under law in Judaism, will give place to the reign of grace under Christianity. This change of dispensation is indicated, in this fresh division of the Gospel, by a series of incidents that take place in the synagogue (1-6); by the sea (7-12); on the mountain (13-19); and in an house (19-35). Each place and scene has its special significance.
(Vv. 1-6). The first incident tells us that the Lord “again entered into the synagogue,” thus setting forth His presence in the midst of the Jewish nation – for the synagogue was the meeting place of those under law. What an arresting scene takes place in this synagogue at Capernaum! God’s perfect Servant – the Lord of glory – is present with power to bless, and grace in His heart to use the power on behalf of the needy. Man is there in all his deep need, but powerless to help himself, for his hand is withered. The religious man is there with no sense of his need, no realisation of the glory of the Lord, and indifferent to the need of others.
Of these Pharisees, we read that “they watched Him,” not to learn of His ways and the grace of His heart, but in the hope that He would do good “on the sabbath day” in the healing of a poor needy man that was present, and thus give them occasion to bring a charge against the Lord of working on the sabbath. What a witness to the perfection of Christ, that His enemies do not expect any evil from Him, but can count upon His doing good! And in our day, and measure, do not the men of the world bear unconscious witness to the truth of Christianity, inasmuch as they expect Christians to do good and act in a way different to themselves. If Christianity is all false, why should unbelievers expect the Christians to act in a better way than themselves?
If the Lord was not the Son of God and the Servant of Jehovah, why should these Jews expect Him to heal this man? They unconsciously bear witness to the grace of His heart and the hardness of their own hearts. Seeing that the Lord knew what was in their hearts and that they were seeking an occasion against Him, we might judge it would have been prudent to refrain from healing the man in public, and thus deprive these wicked men of the opportunity that they sought. But the Lord was here to manifest the grace of God and so proceeds to act with the utmost publicity. He tells the man to “stand forth” before them all. By His question the Lord gives these men an opportunity to state their difficulties as to healing on the sabbath day. But we read, “They held their peace.” This silence was not that lowly grace that marked the Lord when, in the presence of insults, He answered never a word. It was the silence of mere policy and, more eloquently than words, exposed the impotent hatred of their hearts. The Lord looked upon them with righteous anger. But behind the anger there was distress. He was grieved for the hardness of their hearts that was wholly indifferent to the need of the man, perfectly helpless to meet that need, and bitterly opposed to the One who had both the grace and the power to bless. In result, the men that would not allow the Lord to do good on the sabbath, were perfectly prepared to do evil. Already they had watched to accuse Him; now they take counsel to destroy the Blesser.
(Vv. 7-12). The malice of the Jew cannot stay the grace of the Lord, or check His unwearied service of love. It does, indeed, divert that service into other channels, and become the occasion of grace reaching a wider circle. This change in the ways of God is suggested by the Lord withdrawing from the synagogue – the Jewish centre – and taking His place by the sea, so often used in Scripture as a figure of the nations. The rejection of Christ by the Jew opens the door for the blessing of the Gentile.
Further, in this new position, we have an indication of the new principles which mark the day of grace. The Jews in the synagogue were governed by sight – “they watched Him”; their hearts were hardened to their own need, and filled with enmity to the One who alone could meet their need. In contrast, by the sea side, “a great multitude,” including Gentiles, were attracted to the Lord “when they had heard what great things He did.” Faith cometh by hearing and is the outcome of a sense of need. For, if they were drawn to Christ by His grace, they were driven to Him by their need. “As many as had plagues” came. Solomon, in his prayer, speaks of every man knowing “the plague of his own heart,” and points the only way of relief in spreading it out before God (1Ki 8:38). A plague in the heart is something known only to the individual, that comes in to mar his joy. Some question between the soul and God that is unsettled; it may be some secret sin unconfessed. Faith, realising the grace that is in the heart of Christ, can spread the plague out before Him, and find deliverance from every evil influence.
(Vv. 13-19). Again the scene changes from the sea to the mountain. The Lord had been with the Jews in their synagogue to find only the withered hand, the hard heart, and deadly enmity. He had been by the sea side the centre of attraction for needy souls, drawn from Jews and Gentiles. Now we are lifted above man’s world to learn on the mountain something of the new ways of God. In the sovereign choice of the Twelve we see the foundation laid for the new order of blessing about to be introduced. The Church is called out from Jews and Gentiles, and is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.” (Eph 2:20). When at last we have a description of the Church in glory, we find in the foundation of the city the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb. (Rev 21:14).
This new work does not flow from the responsibility of man. It is wholly of God. The Lord, having separated Himself from man and his world, according to His own sovereign choice “calleth unto Him whom He would”. He calls them, He ordains them, He sends them forth, and He gives them power. But above all, they are chosen that “they should be with Him.” The nearest and dearest object of His heart is to have His people with Himself. Here, however, it is specially in view of service, for which the only true preparation is the company of the Lord. So the Lord could say in an earlier scene, “Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.” (and again, at a later day, “if any man serve me, let him follow me” (Joh 12:26)). To reach Christ we must be separate from the world, even as He is, set forth by following Him into the mountain. There, from His company, in the separate place, they are sent forth to preach the glad tidings. This was something entirely new. In the Jewish system there was, indeed, the reading and expounding of the law in their synagogues, but there was no preaching. This new thing was to be introduced with the power to heal diseases, and cast out demons. Christ, not only does miracles Himself, but, He can give others the power to perform them.
(Vv. 19-21). Associating the disciples with Himself, the Lord now enters into an house. Connected with the house we have the relations of the Lord according to the flesh. If in the mountain we see the foundation laid for that which is entirely new, in the house we learn that the Lord no longer owns any connection with Israel after the flesh. His relatives felt the reproach of being connected with One who was condemned by their leaders, and whose teaching and practice condemned the world. Not being prepared for the reproach of Christ, they would seek to restrain Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind.” They probably admitted all the hard things that their leaders said about Him, but they said, “He is beside himself,” and should be put under restraint.
(V. 22). The scribes from Jerusalem, who by reason of their official position and intellectual superiority, had power and influence with the people, will not accept the plea of madness. They knew it was not the diseased mind of a madman, concentrating all his energy on one aim, but a very real power that cast out demons. They knew it was a power above that of man. They would not own it was of God, and hence they were compelled to impute His power to the devil – the only other power.
(Vv. 23-30). This terrible charge seals their doom. And yet with what perfect calm and grace the Lord meets this wickedness. In the mountain the Lord had just called unto Himself the Twelve, to associate them with Himself in blessing. Now He calls His enemies unto Him to pronounce their doom. Solemn thought! The One who calls in grace, will call in judgment. The Lord shows that their charge was, not only ignorant folly, but deliberate blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Here was One who was stronger than the strong man, who was taking his goods from him, showing, indeed, that He had bound the strong man. All this power was exercised by the Lord Jesus in the power of the Holy Ghost (cf. Act 10:38). Hence to ascribe His power to the devil was to call the Holy Ghost a demon. This was a sin that could not be pardoned. It was the end of all hope for Israel on the ground of responsibility. This, then, is the solemn climax to all the Lord’s gracious service in this world. “Man can see nothing in the activity of divine goodness but madness and the work of the devil.” (J.N.D.).
(Vv. 31-35). The solemn scene that follows is the terrible result for the Jewish nation. All relationship with Israel after the flesh is renounced. Every link with the nation is broken. At the same time the Lord distinguishes a remnant who are in relationship with Himself, not by reason of their natural connection with Israel, but by faith in His word (see Joh 6:39-40).
CHAPTER 3
1 Christ healeth the withered hand, 10 and many other infirmities: 11 rebuketh the unclean spirits: 13 chooseth his twelve apostles: 22 convinceth the blasphemy of casting out devils by Beelzebub: 31 and sheweth who are his brother, sister, and mother.
Ver. 4. And He saith to them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath-days, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy? But they held their peace. The translator reads , that is, to destroy. We now read , i.e, to kill. But to destroy is better. For the Gospel is speaking of a maimed person, who had a withered hand, not of one who was dead. With reference to healing this maimed person, the Scribes had proposed a doubt or scruple, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-days? Christ resolved this doubt by means of another question, not dubious, but plain, Is it lawful to do well on the Sabbath, or to do evil; to save a soul, or to destroy it? (Vulg.). A soul, i.e., a man, says S. Augustine. The meaning is, if any one should not succour or do a kindness to one who is sick or heavily afflicted, like this maimed man, on the Sabbath, when he is able to do it, as I, Christ, am able, he does him an injury; for he refuses him the help which is due to him by the law of love. In a similar sense S. Augustine says, “If thou hast not fed the hungry, thou hast killed him,” because thou hast allowed him to die of hunger. In like manner, if thou hast not delivered him who was about to be killed by a robber, when thou mightest have done so, thou hast slain him; for his death will be reckoned to thee by God for guilt and punishment, in exactly the same manner as if thou hadst killed him thyself. Christ, therefore, signifies that not to do good on the Sabbath to a sick person, when thou art able, is to do him evil. But it is never lawful to do evil. Therefore it is always lawful to do good to such persons, even on the Sabbath. For the Sabbath is devoted to God and good works. And thus it is a more grievous sin to do evil on the Sabbath than upon other days. For by this means the sanctity of the Sabbath is violated, even as by doing good upon it it is the better kept and hallowed.
Ver. 5. And looking round upon them with anger. Being angry at their unbelief, says the Interlinear, showing by His countenance that He was wroth with the blind, and obstinate, and perverse minds of the Scribes, in that they ascribed Christ’s miracles of goodness, which He wrought upon the Sabbath, to a breach of the law enjoining the observance of that day. From hence it is plain that there was in Christ real anger, sorrow, and the rest of the passions and affections, as they exist in other men, only subject to reason. Wherefore anger was in Him a whetstone of virtue. “Anger,” says Franc. Lucas, “is in us a passion; in Christ it was, as it were, an action. It arises spontaneously in us; by Christ it was stirred up in Himself. When it has arisen in us, it disturbs the other faculties of the body and mind, nor can it be repressed at our own pleasure; but when stirred up in Christ, it acts as He wills it to act, it disturbs nothing,-in fine, it ceases when He wills it to cease.”
This is what S. Leo (Epist. 11) says, “The bodily senses were vigorous in Christ without the law of sin; and the reality of His affections was governed by His soul and deity.”
Lactantius says (lib. de Ira Dei ex Posidon.), “Anger is the lust of punishing him by whom you think yourself to have been injured.” Wherefore anger in other men springs from self-love; but in Christ it sprang from love of God, because He loved God perfectly. Hence He was infinitely grieved and angry at offences against God by reason of sin, and committed by sinners, wishing to compensate for those offences by punishing or correcting sinners and unbelievers. Wherefore Christ’s anger was zeal, or seasoned with zeal, even as in the angels and the blessed it is not anger but zeal. (See S. Thomas, 3 p. q. art 9.)
Being grieved at the blindness, Syriac, hardness or callousness, of their hearts. Grieved, Gr. , i.e., condoling with and commiserating them, because, being blinded and hardened by envy and hatred, they would not acknowledge Him to be the Messiah, but spake evil of His kindness to the sick upon the Sabbath-days. It is meant, therefore, that the anger of Jesus did not proceed from the desire of vengeance, but was mingled with pity; and that Jesus was angry with sin, but sorry for sinners, insomuch as He loved them, and strove to save them. Lastly, all such anger is mingled with sorrow; for he that is angry grieves for the evil at which he is angry. Thus the sorrow for the evil causes and sharpens anger, that it may strive to remove the evil at which it is grieved.
Ver. 9. That a little ship should wait upon Him. Gr. , i.e., should be close at hand, that He might betake Himself to it when the multitude pressed upon Him.
Ver. 10. Plagues, Gr., i.e., scourgings, viz., strokes and diseases, with which God chastises and scourges men on account of their sins.
Ver. 11. And unclean spirits fell down before Him, i.e., they fell clown, kneeling at His feet, not out of love and devotion, but from fear, deprecating punishment, that He would not drive them out of the men, and banish them to hell.
Saying, Thou art the Son of God. You will ask whether the devils really knew that Jesus was the Messiah or the Christ, the Son of God? I answer, it is plain from this passage, and from S. Mat 8:29, and from S. Luk 4:41, and from the Fathers and commentators generally, that the devils, although they did not fully know Christ at His baptism, and before His baptism, because they afterwards tempted Him, that they might learn who He was; yet subsequently they did recognise who He was, from the many and great miracles, which they clearly saw were true miracles, and far transcending their own power and that of the angels. They saw that what Christ did was wrought alone by the power of God, with this end in view, that He might prove, first, that He was the Messiah promised to the fathers; second, that He was God, and the Son of God. Wherefore, I say that the devils knew that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God, especially when they compared the Scriptures and the ancient prophecies with the miracles of Christ. For they saw that Jesus was to be such a person, and would work such miracles, as they had predicted.
Observe, however, that the devils did not so clearly know this truth, as not, on the other hand, when they thought of the greatness of the mystery, and of the infinite dignity and humiliation of Christ incarnate (which would appear a thing of itself incredible, especially to the devil, being most proud), somewhat to hesitate and be in doubt whether Jesus were really Messiah and the Son of God. They the more hesitated, yea, they were ignorant of the object and fruit of this mystery, that indeed by the incarnation and death of Christ men were to be redeemed, and that the kingdom of God was to be erected in them. Especially were they blinded by their hatred of Jesus, because they saw that many souls were delivered from them by Him. Hence they felt that He must be altogether opposed and crushed by them. Whence it came to pass that they, being blinded by their hatred of Jesus, did not understand the Holy Scriptures, otherwise so plain, concerning the cross of Christ and our redemption thereby. Thus, by means of the Jews, they crucified and slew Jesus as an irreconcilable enemy, and thus they ignorantly destroyed their own kingdom. Thus S. Leo (Serm. 9, de Pass.), “Nor did the devil himself perceive that by his rage against Christ he destroyed his own principality; who would not have lost the rights he had gained by his ancient fraud if he had refrained from shedding the blood of the Lord Jesus. But by his malice, being greedy of doing harm, when he rushes upon Him, he falls; when he would capture, he is taken; whilst he pursues a mortal, he stumbles against the Saviour.”
And Simon He surnamed Peter. Several Greek codices prefix to these words, , first Peter. The rest omit them. The same thing is sufficiently gathered from the fact that Peter is here first named by Christ, and his name changed, so that he who was first called Simon, is afterwards called in Syriac Cephas, in Greek and Latin Petrus, that is, a rock, because he was to be made by Christ the rock and foundation of the Church.
And James the son of Zebedee (James is named first because he was the elder), and John the brother of James. And he called the Boanerges, which is, Sons of thunder. He saith not name, but names, because they were two. They were thunderers, thundering forth, as it were, Christ’s Gospel and doctrines.
Boanerges: so the Arabic, Egyptian, and Persian. The Ethiopic has Baanerges. This name is a corruption, for in Hebrew, or rather in Syriac, it would be Banerges or Bonerges, as it is found in certain MSS., as Franc. Lucas attests in his Notation. For the Syrians, like the Bavarians and the Westphalians, pronounce the vowel a like o, and e like a. For Semuel they say Samuel, and for bene, or sons, bane. It may be that Banerges has been changed into Boanerges by persons ignorantly supposing that boa signifies the sound of thunder.
Banerges, as Jansen observes, is a compound word, consisting of , bane, sons, and , regesch, a roaring, i.e., of thunder. Thus Jupiter is called by the Greeks , loftily roaring, i.e., thundering on high. The Syriac version has in this place bane reges, sons of thunder, instead of the Hebrew expression, bene raam. For Christ here spoke in the Syriac of that age. There is here, then, a metathesis or transposition of the letters r and e, banerges, instead of bane reges. A similar transposition is common in many languages, as Angelus Caninius shows (Hellen. p. 64). Thus, for the Greek poets say , for ; for the Latins say nervus; for , rapax; for , forma. Punic has gerac for , i.e., arx, a citadel. Etruscan has bigr, virgo, a virgin; darag, gradus, a step; elmara, mulier, a woman; cabbirim, cherubim, &c.
The meaning, then, is as follows: Christ called James and John by a new name, Banerges, Sons of thunder, because He charged them above the rest of the Apostles with the glorious preaching of His Gospel, that by the holiness of their lives and their miracles they might be like thunderbolts, and might, by the power of their voices, shake as with claps of thunder unbelievers and barbarians, and bring them to repentance and a holy life. This appears in the history of S. James. Because of his liberty and zeal in preaching, he was the first among the Apostles to incur the wrath of Herod and the Jews, by whom he was beheaded (Acts 12.). The same converted the Spaniards, and by their means the inhabitants of the East and West Indies, to the faith of Christ. John preached for a very long period, and very efficaciously. He was the last of the Apostles to depart this life, which he did after he had subdued Asia and other provinces to Christ by his preaching. Hence, also, his Gospel begins with divine thunder, as it were an eagle of God crying with a voice of thunder, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (S. Epiphanius, Hres. 73). Wherefore, when he was writing his Gospel, there were lightnings and thunderings from heaven, like as it lightened from Mount Sinai when God gave the law to Moses. So Baronius shows from Metaphrastes (A.D. 99 in fin).
See what I have said on Eze 1:14, on the words, “They went like a flash of lightning,” where I have given a threefold meaning to the expression, Sons of thunder. Thus Pericles, as an orator, seemed, says Quintilian, not so much to speak as to thunder and lighten. Wherefore he was called by the poets the Olympian, that is, the heavenly.
Ver. 21. He is beside himself. See what has been said on S. Mat 12:46. The Arabic has, saying that He is foolish. The Greek is , i.e., He has gone out of his mind, through too great piety and zeal. The Syriac renders literally. Others render differently, saying that He has swooned, from hunger, because, on account of the multitude, He had no leisure to eat. (Top )
MARK CHAPTER THREE
Mar 3:1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. 2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. 3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. 4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
The term “synagogue” is a transliteration of the Greek word rather than a translation. It was the gathering of men, just as the term “church” means a gathering or a called gathering. It may well have been in a building, but the building was not the synagogue, the people were the synagogue just as the church is the people rather than the meeting place.
Among these men at the synagogue was one with a withered hand. What was wrong with the man’s hand is not known, other than it was withered. The term used relates to drying up, of crops, of water or of a person’s hand. Not being a doctor, I would guess this was just a shrinking of the hand due to not being used for some reason. The man may have had an injury that caused inactivity or he may have had a circulation problem, or some other injury/malady that caused his problem. His hand is not the focus, but rather the tension between Christ and the Jewish leaders.
One is left to wonder how the disciples felt at this point. Will He heal the man and get us all in trouble, or will he do the safe thing and not make waves? Not an unimportant consideration for the freshly chosen disciples – did I really follow this guy and open myself to all sorts of trouble with the leaders?
Some times we need to stand against a corrupt leadership even if it will cost us dearly. Standing for right almost always has a cost, but we as believers must count the costs and stand anyway.
It is quite evident that the leaders were looking for an opportunity to clobber the Lord – why – because he stood for truth, because He claimed deity, and because He taught as one with authority. Anyone today that stands for truth and teaches truth (which is the authority) will be coming to trouble with the established leadership.
More than once in my meager ministry I have stood for what was right in the face of leadership and found myself on the outskirts of the group or organization I was a part of at the time. One particular time I had dinner with one of the leaders of the church group I was with. I was asked point-blank what I thought of the organization leadership. I put forth several disturbing items that I had come to know about. At the time I was looking for a church to pastor and the group had several churches open. Not one contact came to me from the group – hummmm wonder why.
The joy of such situations is knowing that when I stand before God to give account I will not be asked about why I did not stand for truth in those numerous situations. Take Christ’s example and stand for what you know to be right and proper. Do not shrink from doing what you know to be right even if you know your enemies are watching.Not only did He want to confront the error in the place, He wanted to be right up front about it – He wanted to be sure all that were present knew what was going on and where He stood in relation to the established leadership.
This is God, and He knew what was right as opposed to the Jewish leadership that THOUGHT they knew what was right. When you take your stand, be sure you stand on the Word of God and not on your own opinion.
He got into their face with this one. He was upset with their attitude and their rejection of Him as Messiah. He was drawing the line in the sand for His disciples and followers – these gentlemen are wrong and we are going to be sure everyone knows it.
His confrontation is stark. “Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life or to kill? But they held their peace.” Mark said that they “held their peace.” or was it that they knew they had better keep their mouths shut?
3:1 And {1} he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a {a} withered hand.
(1) Thirdly, because they preferred the ceremonial law (which was but an addition to the moral law) before the moral law, whereas in reality they should have learned from this the true use of the ceremonial law.
(a) That is, unprofitable and dead.
Healing on the Sabbath 3:1-6 (cf. Matthew 12:9-14; Luke 6:6-11)
The following incident demonstrated Jesus’ sovereign authority over the Sabbath. This is the last in this series of conflict accounts in this part of this Gospel (cf. ch. 12). It provides the climax in this section of Mark’s narrative.
This event happened on a different Sabbath than the one just described in Mar 2:23-28 (cf. Luk 6:6). The location of the synagogue is unimportant. The Pharisees continued to watch Jesus to accuse Him (Mar 2:23; Mar 3:6). Rather than honestly evaluating His claims, most of them looked for an opportunity to discredit Him. Here they found an opportunity to charge Him with a capital offense in Israel, namely, Sabbath violation (Exo 31:14-17).
Chapter 3
CHAPTER 3:1-6 (Mar 3:1-6)
THE WITHERED HAND
“And He entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had his hand withered. And they watched Him, whether He would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse Him. And He saith unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand forth. And He saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And when He had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, He saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth: and his hand was restored. And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against Him, how they might destroy Him.” Mar 3:1-6 (R.V.)
IN the controversies just recorded, we have recognized the ideal Teacher, clear to discern and quick to exhibit the decisive point at issue, careless of small pedantries, armed with principles and precedents which go to the heart of the dispute.
But the perfect man must be competent in more than theory; and we have now a marvelous example of tact, decision and self-control in action. When Sabbath observance is again discussed, his enemies have resolved to push matters to extremity. They watch, no longer to cavil, but that they may accuse Him. It is in the synagogue; and their expectations are sharpened by the presence of a pitiable object, a man whose hand is not only paralyzed in the sinews, but withered up and hopeless. St. Luke tells us that it was the right hand, which deepened his misery. And St. Matthew records that they asked Christ, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? thus urging Him by a challenge to the deed which they condemned. What a miserable state of mind! They believe that Jesus can work the cure, since this is the very basis of their plot; and yet their hostility is not shaken, for belief in a miracle is not conversion; to acknowledge a prodigy is one thing, and to surrender the will is quite another. Or how should we see around us so many Christians in theory, reprobates in life? They long to see the man healed, yet there is no compassion in this desire, hatred urges them to wish what mercy impels Christ to grant. But while He relieves the sufferer, He will also expose their malice. Therefore He makes His intention public, and whets their expectation, by calling the man forth into the midst. And then He meets their question with another: Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day or evil, to save life or to kill? And when they preserved their calculated silence, we know how He pressed the question home, reminding them that not one of them would fail to draw his own sheep out of a pit upon the Sabbath day. Selfishness made the difference, for a man was better than a sheep, but did not, like the sheep, belong to them. They do not answer: instead of warning Him away from guilt, they eagerly await the incriminating act: we can almost see the spiteful subtle smile playing about their bloodless lips; and Jesus marks them well. He looked round about them in anger, but not in bitter personal resentment, for He was grieved at the hardness of their hearts, and pitied them also, even while enduring such contradiction of sinners against Himself. This is the first mention by St. Mark of that impressive gaze, afterwards so frequent in every Gospel, which searched the scribe who answered well, and melted the heart of Peter.
And now, by one brief utterance, their prey breaks through their meshes. Any touch would have been a work, a formal infraction of the law. Therefore there is no touch, neither is the helpless man bidden to take up any burden, or instigated to the slightest ritual irregularity. Jesus only bids him do what was forbidden to none, but what had been impossible for him to perform; and the man succeeds, he does stretch forth his hand: he is healed: the work is done. Yet nothing has been done; as a work of healing not even a word has been said. For He who would so often defy their malice has chosen to show once how easily He can evade it, and not one of them is more free from any blame, however technical, than He. The Pharisees are so utterly baffled, so helpless in His hands, so “filled with madness”: that they invoke against this new foe the help of their natural enemies, the Herodians. These appear on the stage because the immense spread of the Messianic movement endangers the Idumaean dynasty. When first the wise men sought an infant King of the Jews, the Herod of that day was troubled. That instinct which struck at His cradle is now reawakened, and will not slumber again until the fatal day when the new Herod shall set Him at nought and mock Him. In the meanwhile these strange allies perplex themselves with the hard question, How is it possible to destroy so acute a foe.
While observing their malice, and the exquisite skill which baffles it, we must not lose sight of other lessons. It is to be observed that no offense to hypocrites, no danger to Himself, prevented Jesus from removing human suffering. And also that He expects from the man a certain cooperation involving faith: he must stand forth in the midst; every one must see his unhappiness; he is to assume a position which will become ridiculous unless a miracle is wrought. Then he must make an effort. In the act of stretching forth his hand the strength to stretch it forth is given; but he would not have tried the experiment unless he trusted before he discovered the power. Such is the faith demanded of our sin-stricken and helpless souls; a faith which confesses its wretchedness, believes in the good will of God and the promises of Christ, and receives the experience of blessing through having acted on the belief that already the blessing is a fact in the Divine volition.
Nor may we overlook the mysterious impalpable spiritual power which effects its purposes without a touch, or even an explicit work of healing import. What is it but the power of Him Who spake and it was done, Who commanded and it stood fast?
And all this vividness of look and bearing, this innocent subtlety of device combined with a boldness which stung His foes to madness, all this richness and verisimilitude of detail, this truth to the character of Jesus, this spiritual freedom from the trammels of a system petrified and grown rigid, this observance in a secular act of the requirements of the spiritual kingdom, all this wealth of internal evidence goes to attest one of the minor miracles which skeptics declare to be incredible.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
2. The next requisite is to come into the presence of the Divine Saviour.
3. Yet again, it is requisite to exercise faith in him who is mighty and willing to save.
4. And every healed and restored sinner should consecrate all his active powers to the service of his Redeemer.
1. Christ’s first call is to discipleship. We must first learn that we may teach; obey and serve that we may guide and aid others.
By every breeze and season blest;”
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
4. The Pharisees and the Herodians. Hierarchs and despots are necessary to each other. F. v. Bander.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
Fuente: The Gospel According to St. Mark: A Devotional Commentary
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible
Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary