05.17. Opposition by Friends and Foes
17. — Opposition by Friends and Foes
"And he cometh into a house.*1 And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. And when his friends*2 heard it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.*3 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and, By the prince of the devils*4 casteth he out the devils.*4 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.*5 And if a house be divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand? And if Satan hath risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand,*5 but hath an end. But no one can enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil*6 his goods, except he first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil*6 his house. Verily I say unto you, All their sins*7 shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme;*8 but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal*9 sin: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit" (Mark 3:19-30, R.V.).
{*1 "They came to [the] house" J.N.D.; "they came home," McClellan.
*2 "relatives," J.N.D.
*3 "out of his mind," J.N.D.
*4 "demons," J.N.D.; W.K.
*5 "subsist," J.N.D.; W.K.
*6 "plunder," J.N.D.; W.K. (second case only).
*7 "all sins," J.N.D.; W.K.
*8 "injurious speeches"; "speak injuriously," J.N.D.
*9 "everlasting," J.N.D.; W.K.}
Immediately after the call and appointment of the twelve it would seem that the Lord delivered an exposition of the principles of the new kingdom, such as is recorded by Matthew (Matthew 5:1-48, Matthew 6:1-34, Matthew 7:1-29) and inLuke 6:20-49. But Mark does not mention what is commonly known as the "Sermon on the Mount"; he states briefly that the Lord and the band of apostles came home, or to the house. This house was one habitually occupied by Jesus and His disciples when they came to Capernaum. Here on a previous occasion the crowd had gathered, and the paralytic let down through the roof was healed (Mark 2:1-11). In the house He explained the parable of the sower to His disciples (Mark 7:17). In the house also the Lord questioned the apostles privately as to the subject of their disputations among themselves by the way (Mark 9:33). This practice of Jesus appears to have been recognized in Capernaum, for, as a crowd quickly assembled upon a former occasion, so we read they did so "again"; "the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread." The open doors of Eastern houses and the liberal hospitality of the domestic circle would explain as customary much of what in this incident the Western mind might regard as an unwarrantable intrusion. But making due allowance for local custom, it is clear from this passage and others (Mark 6:31-33) that there was a great eagerness on the part of the people to know more of the Prophet of Nazareth, while on His part an absolute disregard of self and an absorbing love to do good to the needy led Him willingly to forego meal-time when an occasion such as this arose for service. Is He out of His Mind? The news that Jesus was again at Capernaum spread quickly beyond the town itself into the surrounding country and to Nazareth where He was brought up. His relatives received these tidings with feelings of apprehension. They were alarmed at the growing interest and the excitement displayed by the populace, and possibly more so by the fact that a deputation of scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem (Mark 3:22) was even then in Capernaum to investigate the practices of the Prophet of Nazareth and to ascertain whether anything in the new teaching was antagonistic to the religion they had received from Moses and the fathers. As soon as they heard,* they started out, presumably from Nazareth, to go to Capernaum in order to prevent this mischief, for so they conceived it, spreading further. In their blind ignorance and blinding unbelief they said, He is beside Himself, or, out of His mind.
{*The phrase "of it" is italicised in the A.V. very properly, thus indicating that it is not in the original. The Revisers have not made this distinction, and consequently have unwarrantably restricted the news to a report of the crowd being in the house.}
There is no ground for understanding the term "friends" in the above translation in the sense of a relation based mainly upon feelings of love and regard. When the Lord said to His disciples, "Ye are my friends, if ye do the things which I command you" (John 15:14), He used a different word altogether (philoi), which does signify those who love. But here the Evangelist employs a peculiar phrase (or, par autou), literally, those from Him, or, from His home. It means no doubt His relatives or kinsfolk, and certainly included, as we find from the account in this chapter of their subsequent arrival (Mark 3:31), His mother and brethren. Cranmer’s Version (1539), following Tyndale’s (1534), translated the phrase expressively enough as, those belonging unto Him: "And when they that belonged vnto him heard of it, they went out to laye handes vpon him. For they sayde: he is madd."
We are shown here by this outrageous comment of the relatives how utterly unable "flesh and blood" under the most favourable conditions was of appreciating the true nature of the service of Jesus. It might be supposed that the family at Nazareth would have supported Him. And yet sacred history is not without examples of family ties covering family feuds, even though the enmity existed upon one side only. Cain slew Abel his brother; the sons of Jacob sold Joseph into Egypt; and the sons of Jesse scoffed at David the shepherd who slew Goliath before their eyes. And the Spirit of Christ in the prophets said, "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children" (Psalms 69:8); and again, "Because of all mine adversaries, I am become a reproach, yea, unto my neighbours exceedingly, and a fear to mine acquaintance" (Psalms 31:11, R.V.). The Gospels illustrate the fulfilment of this predicted estrangement. Mary, in her overweening anxiety that Jesus should do some great thing to signalize Himself, said to Him suggestively at Cana, "They have no wine." Before the feast of tabernacles, His brethren said to Him in Galilee, "Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works which thou doest. . . . If thou doest these things, manifest thyself to the world" (John 7:3-4). Here, as Mark shows, mother, brethren and others came out to restrain Him, for such zeal, they said, bespoke an unsound mind. Thus in every case, whatever appearance of aid their actions had, there was real opposition to Him in His path of service.
How full of bitterness was the cup of the Lord, who endured not only the "contradiction of sinners" against Himself, but the mistaken and evil judgments of His own kinsfolk. He trod first and foremost in that pathway wherein, as He warned His disciples, a man should find that his foes included his own household.
It has seemed to some that to translateexesteby "out of his mind," "beside himself," or is mad," is to give the word a stronger sense than is justifiable. And it is true that inJohn 10:20, where His enemies say, "He hath a demon and is mad," a different word is used. But whatever may be an exacter rendering here in Mark the general sense is certainly that they thought Jesus was actuated by an extravagant enthusiasm which altogether exceeded the bounds of soberness and propriety. This was a false judgment which arose because they failed to understand what Person had now undertaken service for Jehovah in the midst of His chosen people. The Infamous Charge of the Scribes With that austere impartiality which is indubitable evidence of the divine inspiration of the sacred Gospels, the Evangelist, after she wing that the Lord’s zealous activities awakened in His kinsfolk a suspicion of mental derangement, states, in immediate juxtaposition, the awful charge preferred against the Servant of Jehovah by the religious leaders of the Jews. They were unable to disprove or to deny the reality of the signs and wonders wrought by Him. They therefore, with horrible perversity, attributed this power to a Satanic origin. They could not condemn Him as guilty of this charge by the test laid down of old in the Scriptures of failure in the fulfilment of His words. For in their presence the Lord spoke the word of healing to the palsied man who was so helpless that only by a most extraordinary method was the prostrate sufferer brought before the Prophet of God. His word was immediately effective, as crowds in Capernaum could testify, and the man was able to carry away his bed before their eyes. This proved conclusively the validity of the Lord’s claims. Was it not written, "When the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known that the LORD hath really sent him" (Jeremiah 28:9). And Moses had previously written of the converse, "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18:22). In the case of the Lord, however, there were abundant instances that His word was fulfilled, so that a fair-minded teacher of eminence in Israel was constrained to confess, "Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him (John 3:2). The Pharisaic scribes from Jerusalem,* unable to accuse Jesus of failing to comply with these tests divinely laid down in former days for an alleged prophet, resort to a charge of complicity with evil spirits. Such a charge, if established, would have rendered the Lord liable to the death-sentence of the law. For Jehovah had commanded through Moses, "A man or a woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones" (Leviticus 20:27). The Jews did, as we learn elsewhere, say of the Lord that He had a demon (John 7:20;John 8:48; John 8:52;John 10:20), and they also sought to stone Him (John 8:59). Here they went further, for they said, "He hath Beelzebub," and "By the prince of the demons casteth he out demons." The degree of aggravation in this charge will be seen when we remember, on the one hand, that Judas, the perfidious traitor, in his act of betrayal, was possessed not of a demon but of Satan himself (Luke 22:3;John 13:27), and, on the other hand, that the Man Christ Jesus was anointed for service by the Heavenly Dove, the Holy Spirit of God (Mark 1:10-12). By this statement of theirs which attributed the works of Jesus to the power of Satan, the scribes incurred the guilt of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
(1) Their folly. The Lord demonstrated that these learned scribes whose opinions by reason of their eminence would possess a weighty influence upon the people, were devoid of even ordinary wisdom. He set this forth in "parables" or pithy metaphors stated in the form of interrogatories. "How," said He, "can Satan cast out Satan?" The prince of the demons is a liar and a murderer (John 8:44), and his purpose is to rob and kill and destroy. How unthinkable therefore that Beelzebub should be the author of the merciful and beneficent deliverances from the power of the demons wrought in the cases they had witnessed. The prince of darkness could not be the agent of such works of light.
Besides, as the Lord proceeded to point out, such a policy involved self-destruction on the part of Satan. All worldly experience proves that disunion and faction in a community result in disintegration. That union is strength is a universal maxim. Whether it is a kingdom or a household that is divided against itself it will not be able to subsist. And if Satan had risen up against himself, as the words of the scribes implied, he could not continue, but must destroy himself.
Thus the Lord exposed the folly of His accusers and then added another truth which the many instances of the expulsion of demons by Him proved. Every demoniac was a witness of the power Satan wielded over men; while every such miracle of Jesus was evidence of the superiority of His power to that of the Evil One. As the Lord said, "No one can enter into the house of the strong man and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house." This He Himself had already done. He had resisted the temptations of the strong and crafty one in the wilderness. He had also delivered a great number of demoniacs. And shortly He would bruise the serpent’s head, through death bringing to nought him that had the power of death (Hebrews 2:14). The hand of Jehovah was thus upon the Man of His right hand, the Son of man whom He made strong for Himself (Psalms 80:17). And if only Israel had faith, they might well sing praise with the Psalmist, "All my bones shall say, LORD, who is like unto thee, which deliverest the poor from him that is too strong for him, yea, the poor and needy from him that spoileth him?" (Psalms 35:10). But the scribes and Pharisees could not deny the gracious mercy in exercise in their midst, yet would not believe it to be the power of God, bringing rather the baseless and improbable charge of Satanic influence against the Lord.
(2) Their wickedness. This gross charge was not only foolish, it was worse; it was impious and blasphemous. They said of Jesus, He hath an unclean spirit; and this statement was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by whom the Son of man was indwelt, anointed and sealed. And the Lord warned of the gravity of their sinful speech, prefacing His warning by the solemn and impressive phrase, "Verily I say unto you."* He said to the scribes, "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."
Though they knew it not, these scribes were tools of the great enemy of God and man. They were carrying into effect the scheme of Satan to cause that the Lord should be regarded among men as his emissary. The awful character of this design will become more apparent to us when we recollect that, according to apostolic teaching, Satan will even yet succeed in imposing upon men for a time a modified form of delusion. If he then sought to persuade men that Jesus was his Servant, he will yet delude men into accepting his agent as the object of divine worship. Such temporary success over men Satan will accomplish in the days of the coming apostasy, which will affect both Judaism and Christendom. This agent is in the prophetic word called the "man of sin, the son of perdition," and in evil arrogance will impersonate the Messiah Himself to the deceit and destruction of many. It is said of this personage that at his future coming he "opposeth and exalteth himself exceedingly against every one called god or object of veneration; so that he sitteth down in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God," his coming being "according to the working of Satan in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood, and in all deceit of unrighteousness" (2 Thessalonians 2:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:9).
Scripture is clear that this gross imposture will be accepted by the mass of Christendom as well as of the Jews, and this servant of Satan will be successful in luring multitudes to destruction. But think of the enormity of this evil scheme, originated in the days of the Lord, to characterise Jesus, the meek and lowly Servant of Jehovah, as One under the power and direction of Satan! And according to the subtle policy of the serpent, that the slanderous accusation might fall with greater force upon the hearts of men, this declaration concerning the Prophet of Nazareth was made by the religious leaders who had come down with authority from Jerusalem to Galilee.
Such a sinful charge, directed as it was against the eternal Spirit of holiness, was of such heinousness that there was no forgiveness, neither in that age nor in that to come (Matthew 12:29).
Unpardonable Blasphemy
It is important to observe that the sin concerning which our Lord made such an unqualified pronouncement is a specific one. It is in no sense vague and indefinite, but on the contrary it is here, as well as in the parallel passages of Matthew and Luke, stated in precise terms to be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. This terrible guilt rested upon the Jewish generation of that day. Most cogent evidence of the power of the Holy Ghost was before their eyes in the words and works of Jesus; but they denied the validity of that evidence, and going further in their malice they ascribed this power for good to the energy of Satan. For this wilful blindness and obduracy of heart there was no remission. Such perverse unbelief was the sure sign of that impending doom to the nation which could not be averted. Could there be a more perfect testimony than that which was rendered by the Spirit through the holy Son of man in whom every act and word and motive were in absolute accord with His divine energy? The generation to which the Lord ministered had "done despite to the Spirit of grace" by describing this testimony as Satanic, and was "guilty of an eternal sin." This last phrase is peculiar to Mark. And the expression is one pregnant with deep significance. It teaches by a word the unalterable character of the unforgiven. There is an eternal fixity in the unholy character of such rebellion against the authority and love of God. The penitent is forgiven, but the guilt of the impenitent is eternal. And eternal sin implies eternal punishment. A Common Error The following remarks are helpful in elucidating the correct interpretation, and thus preventing erroneous views of this passage, some of which have caused unnecessarily much personal distress, as in the case of Peter Williams and of many others.
"Our Lord most solemnly pronounces their doom [the scribes], and shows that they were guilty — not of sin, as men say, but of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. There is no such phrase as sin against Him in this sense. People often speak thus, Scripture never. What the Lord denounces is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Keeping that distinctly in view would save many souls a great deal of needless trouble. How many have groaned in terror through fear of being guilty of sin against the Holy Ghost! That phrase admits of vague notions and general reasoning about its nature. But our Lord spoke definitely of blasphemous unforgivable sin against Him. All sin, I presume, is sin against the Holy Ghost, who has taken His place in Christendom, and, consequently, gives all sin this character. Thus, lying in the church [the case of Ananias and Sapphira] is not mere falsehood toward man, but unto God, because of the great truth that the Holy Ghost is there. Here, on the contrary, the Lord speaks of unforgivable sin (not that vague sense of evil which troubled souls dread as ’sin against the Holy Ghost,’ but blasphemy against Him).
"What is this evil never to be forgiven? It is attributing the power that wrought in Jesus to the devil. How many troubled souls would be instantly relieved if they laid hold of that simple truth! It would dissipate what really is a delusion of the devil, who strives hard to plunge them into anxiety, and drive them into despair, if possible. The truth is, that as any sin of a Christian may be said to be sin against the Holy Ghost, what is especially the sin against the Holy Ghost, if there be anything that is so, is that which directly hinders the free action of the Holy Ghost in the work of God, or in His church. Such might be said to be the sin, if you speak of it with precision.
"But what our Lord referred to was neither a sin northesin, butblasphemy against the Holy Ghost.It was that which the Jewish nation was then rapidly falling into, and for which they were neither forgiven then, nor will ever be forgiven. There will be a new stock, so to speak; another generation will be raised up, who will receive the Christ whom their fathers blasphemed; but as far as that generation was concerned, they were guilty of this sin, and they could not be for given. They began it in the lifetime of Jesus. They consummated it when the Holy Ghost was sent down and despised. They still carried it on persistently; and it [this persistency] is always the case when men enter upon a bad course, unless sovereign grace deliver. The more that God brings out of love, grace, truth, wisdom, the more determinedly and blindly they rush on to their own perdition. So it was with Israel. So it ever is with man left to himself, and despising the grace of God. ’He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness.’ It is the final stage of rebellion against God. Even then they were blaspheming the Son of man, the Lord Himself; even then they attributed the power of the Spirit in His service to the enemy, as afterwards still more evidently when the Holy Ghost wrought in His servants; then the blasphemy became complete."* {*"Lectures Introductory to the Gospels," by W. Kelly, 2nd ed., 1874, pp. 165-7.}