Mark 3
OGCMark 3:1-6
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
On what sabbath did this event occur? Please read Luke 6:6before answering.
Just what is meant by a withered hand?
Who was watching Jesus to accuse Him?
Why call the man to stand forth in the midst?
Was the question of Jesus in Mark 3:4 based on scripture? Why ask the question?
In what sense was Jesus angry with the Pharisees?
Please explain in your own words the heart action described in Mark 3:5.
Did the willingness of the cripple relate to the healing? If so, how?
Why the decision to kill Him? Why made at this particular time?
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; Luke 6:6-11.
OUTLINE1. The place of the healing, Mark 3:1. 2. The critics of the healing, Mark 3:2. 3. The man to be healed, Mark 3:3. 4. The question of the purpose of healing and the sabbath, Mark 3:4. 5. The attitude of Jesus and the healing, Mark 3:5. 6. The sad reaction of the healing on those who refused to learn, Mark 3:6.
ANALYSIS
I.
THE PLACE OF THE HEALING, Mark 3:1.
At Capernaum in the synagogue.
In the midst of the Jewish worshippers in the synagogue.
II.
THE CRITICS OF THE HEALING, Mark 3:2.
The Pharisees and perhaps the Herodians.
They were there to spy not to worship or learn.
III.
THE MAN TO BE HEALED, Mark 3:3.
An adult with a hand which was dried up.
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, Mark 3:4.
Some were worried about the purpose of the sabbathJesus asked if they really knew what should or should not be done on this day?
They refused to answer the obvious question.
V.
THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS AND THE HEALING, Mark 3:5.
Searching the faces and hearts Jesus was grieved at what He saw.
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, Mark 3:6.
Left with their minds made up.
Immediately agreed with their enemies to destroy Jesus.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I.
THE PLACE OF HEALING, Mark 3:1.
Mark 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 Christ’s defenses; and mark the first concerted plan for his destruction. Again, that is, on a different occasion from the one referred to in Mark 3:21. The synagogue, most probably the one there mentioned, which was in Capernaum. Here, as in Mark 3:23, the absence of any more specific note of time shows that exact chronological order was of small importance to the author’s object. There is somewhat more precision as to this point in the parallel accounts of Luke (Luke 6:11) and Matthew (Matthew 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 Christ’s ministry. Withered, literally, dried or dried up, elsewhere applied to liquids (Mark 5:29. Revelation 16:12), and to plants (Mark 4:6,* Mark 11:20. James 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 (Luke 6:6).* A similar affliction, preternaturally caused, was that of Jeroboam (1 Kings 13:4-6).
II.
THE CRITICS OF THE HEALING, Mark 3:2.
Mark 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 Acts 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 (Mark 2:24. Matthew 12:2), and from the parallel account in Luke (Luke 6:7), where the scribes and Pharisees are expressly mentioned.
III.
THE MAN TO BE HEALED, Mark 3:3.
Mark 3:3. And be saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth!
This direction to the patient is placed by Matthew (Matthew 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 Mark 1:31, Mark 2:9, Mark 11:12, and strictly means to rouse another or one’s self, especially from sleep, (Compare Matthew 8:25. Luke 8:24.)
IV.
THE QUESTION OF THE PURPOSE OF HEALING AND THE SABBATH, Mark 3:4.
Mark 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 (Matthew 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-’ (Matthew 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 (1 Peter 3:16-17. 3 John 1:11), or to do good and to injure in particular (Acts 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 Saviour’s 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 John 3:2.)
V.
THE ATTITUDE OF JESUS AND THE HEALING, Mark 3:5.
Mark 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 Peter’s influence upon it, to wit, the occasional description of our Saviour’s 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 (Mark 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. Ephesians 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 Mark 1:31; Mark 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 Matthew 12:13 (compare Luke 6:10), may be used to illustrate Mark’s laconic phrase, in which it is really implied.
VI.
THE SAD REACTION OF THE HEALING ON THOSE WHO REFUSED TO LEARN, Mark 3:6.
Mark 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 Mark 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 (Luke 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 Lord’s 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 (Matthew 12:14; Matthew 22:15; Matthew 27:1; Matthew 28:12), Mark’s 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 (Luke 6:11). (J. A, Alexander)
FACT QUESTIONS 3:1-6.
What possible purposes were there in the record of Mark of the Sabbath healing?
Was the cripple planted there to entrap Christ? Prove your answer.
How did the man come to have a withered hand?
In what manner and in what attitude did the Pharisees watch Jesus?
How would the accusations of the enemies of Jesus be carried out?
At what particular time in the action did Jesus ask the man to stand forth? What is meant by Stand forth?
Why did Jesus ask the question of Mar 2:4? Cf. Matthew 12:10.
Was our Lord stating a truism?
If this was not a truism what two propositions were involved in the statement?
In what reference do some see the influence of Peter upon the writer Mark?
How could Jesus look upon certain persons with anger and yet not sin?
With whom was Jesus grieved? I thought He was angry with them? Explain.
What was included in the expression hardness of heart?
Was there any act of faith on the part of the man healed? Explain.
How does Mark 2:6 indicate the purpose for Mark 2:1-6?
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 God’s 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. (Proverbs 5:14).
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 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. (Proverbs 25:23; Ephesians 4:26). (J. C. Ryle)
LESSONS
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.
Jesus never ate the grainwhereas He defended the actions of His disciples He was above reproachso should the teacher be.
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. Deuteronomy 5:15.
How many withered hands do we have in the church today? Jesus is commanding them to stand forth and be healed.
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
How many of the Ten Commandments are reproduced in the New Testament? Give references.
Is there any commandment in the New Testament to observe the Lord’s Day? Why do we observe it?
Make a contrast between the sabbath and the Lord’s Day.
Name some things we should do on Sunday.
Is it right to keep drug stores and other stores open on Sunday?
If a man works all day on Sunday and gives what he earns on that day to the Lord’s work, does that excuse him for working?
What are some of the things causing the American people to misuse the Lord’s Day?
Show how the forces of evil today are united.
Show how the forces of good are divided.
What is the unpardonable sin?
Mark 3:7-12
**9. THE FAME OF JESUS 3:7-12
TEXT 3:7-12**
And Jesus with his disciples withdrew to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed: and from Judea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and beyond Jordan, and about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, hearing what great things he did, came unto him. And he spake to his disciples, that a little boat should wait on him because of the crowd, lest they should throng him: for he had healed many; insomuch that as many as had plagues pressed upon him that they might touch him. And the unclean spirits, whensoever they beheld him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he charged them much that they should not make him known.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 3:7-12
Did the opposition of the Pharisees prompt the move to the beach of Galilee?
Where was Idumaea? What is meant by beyond the Jordan?
What number is estimated in the expression a great multitude?
Why were the crowds so interested?
What was Jesus going to do with the little boat?
What was physically wrong with the persons with plagues?
Did Jesus have any failures in healing? Specify.
Why the testimony of the demons?
Why so urgently caution the demons?
COMMENT 3:7-12
TIMEMidsummerA.D. 28. PLACEThe beach of the sea of Galilee, not far from Capernaum.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat 12:15-21.
OUTLINE1. Jesus withdraws to the Sea, Mark 3:7. 2. A multitude follows, Mark 3:8. 3. The little boat requested, Mark 3:9. 4. Healing and casting out demons, Mark 3:10-11.
ANALYSIS
I.
JESUS WITHDRAWS TO THE SEA. Mark 3:7.
His disciples are with Him.
He is accompanied by a great multitude.
II.
A MULTITUDE FOLLOWS. Mark 3:8.
From Jerusalem and Judea.
From Idumaea and beyond Jordan.
From round about Tyre and Sidon.
III.
A LITTLE BOAT REQUESTED. Mark 3:9.
Asked disciples for the boat.
Feared lest He be thronged.
IV.
HEALING AND CASTING OUT DEMONS. Mark 3:10-12.
So many were healed others pressed toward Him for just a touch.
Unclean spirits cast out and caused to acknowledge His divinity.
Jesus wanted no testimony from an evil sourceand most especially when it was given before He wanted it known.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I.
JESUS WITHDRAWS TO THE SEA. Mark 3:7.
But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea. His hour was not yet come; so He went with His disciples to the borders of the lake of Galilee, where, if pursued, He could the more easily take ship, and escape to some other part, out of the reach of His persecutors.
II.
A MULTITUDE FOLLOWS, Mark 3:8.
And a great multitude from Galilee followed him, We should put a full stop after followed him, and read the two verses thus: And a great multitude from Galilee followed him, And a great multitude from Judea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and from beyond Jordan, and about Tyre and Sidon, hearing what great things He did, came unto Him. The multitude from the neighboring Galilee, in which He had been preaching and healing, followed Him; the multitude from Judea, and Jerusalem, and from all the regions bordering on the Holy Land, attracted by the fame of His miracles, came to Him. Notice how, though He is rejected by the leaders both in Church and State, the people from all parts seem to accept Him. I say seem, for the Evangelist is careful to inform us that they were attracted, not by His preaching, but by His miracles.
Let the reader notice how here, as before, this Evangelist loves to dwell upon the widespread popularity of the Lord.
III.
A LITTLE BOAT REQUESTED. Mark 3:9.
And he spake to the disciples, that a small ship should wait on him, The word wait does not give the full meaning of the original, which is the same word as that used in the Apostolic precept, continue instant in prayer, of Romans 12:12. It means that the ship should be always at His beck and call, so that, by escaping the pressure of the multitude, He should not be unduly hindered in the exercise of His ministry.
IV.
HEALING AND CASTING OUT DEMONS. Mark 3:10-12.
For he had healed many: insomuch that they pressed upon him, Pressed upon him should rather be rendered fell upon him, as if there was a rush towards Him of all who had plaguesplagues (literally scourges) describing the painfulness and distress of disease, as if it were a scourging inflicted on man as a punishment for his sin.
To touch him. It was the Lord’s will most frequently to heal men by contact with His body. He makes communication with His body the means by which virtue flows from Himself to those whom He wills to benefit. The reader will understand.
And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him. The uniformity of action on the part of all evil spirits in the presence of the Lord, in that they should fall down and confess Him, is exceedingly remarkable (Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:23-24). These fallen beings seem to be under a law that they should thus acknowledge the Son of God. I cannot think that this is to be explained, as so many attempt to do, on the ground of diabolical cunning. It seems as if they were compelled to fall down, and confess their Maker, even though they had made it the one object of their existence to oppose and thwart Him.
And he Straitly charged them that they should not make him known. On this Bede remarks, A sinner is forbidden to preach the Lord, lest any one listening to his preaching should follow him in his error, for the devil is an evil master, who always mingles false things with true, that the semblance of truth may cover the witness of fraud. But not only devils, but persons healed by Christ and even Apostles (Mark 8:9) are ordered to be silent concerning Him before the Passion, lest by the preaching of the majesty of His Divinity, the economy of His Passion should be retarded. (M. F. Sadler)
FACT QUESTIONS 3:7-12
Why did Jesus withdraw to the borders of the lake of Galilee?
Who followed Jesus and who came to Him?
What is meant by the word wait in reference to the boat?
What would be a better translation of pressed upon him?
Why did the sick want to touch him?
151
.Why did the demons seem compelled to fall down before Jesus?
If demons told the truth why not accept it?
Mark 3:13-19
B. THE SECOND PERIOD 3:13 to 7:23
- Friends and Foes 3:13-35 a. The appointment of the twelve 3:13-19
TEXT 3:13-19
And he goeth up into the mountain, and calleth unto him whom he himself would: and they went unto him. And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have authority to cast out devils: and Simon he surnamed Peter; and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and them he surnamed Boanerges, which is, Sons of thunder: and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 3:13-19
Please read Matthew 10:1-4 and Luke 2:12-16 as parallel accounts of this important event.
What did Jesus do before He went into the mountain to choose the twelve?
What mountain?; is it the mount of the sermon on the mount?
Why were the disciples so willing to go after Him?
What was the two-fold purpose of appointing the twelve?
Why the authority to cast out demons?
Why the surname for Peter and the two sons of Zebedee?
Read the list in Matthew and Luke and explain the use of the name Thaddaeus.
Is the term Cananaean the same as Zealotcompare accounts. (Acts 1:13)
COMMENT 3:13-19
TIMEMidsummer, A.D, 28. PLACEOn a mount at no great distance from Capernaum.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16.
OUTLINE1. The place where He called the twelve, Mark 3:13 a. 2. The actual call of the twelve, Mark 3:13 b. 3. Their appointment, Mark 3:14. 4. Sent with authority, Mark 3:15. 5. The names, Mark 3:16-19.
ANALYSIS
I.
THE PLACE WHERE HE CALLED THE TWELVE, Mark 3:13 a.
Near Capernaum and the sea of Galilee.
A place of prayerprobably the mount from which we have the sermon on the mount. Cf. Matthew 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16.
II.
THE ACTUAL CALL OF THE TWELVE. Mark 3:13 b.
From among the multitude.
Made by the power of Jesus-’ will.
They left all to follow Him.
III.
THEIR APPOINTMENT, Mark 3:14.
The word appoint sometimes translated ordained.
That they might be with Him.
That He might send them out to preach.
IV.
SENT WITH AUTHORITY, Mark 3:15.
Over demons.
With His message.
V.
THE NAMES, Mark 3:16-19.
The first fourPeter, James, John and Andrew.
The second fourPhilip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas.
The third fourJames, Thaddaeus, Simon, Judas.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I.
THE PLACE WHERE HE CALLED THE TWELVE, Mark 3:13 a.
The Chosen Twelve (Mark 3:13-19 a).It is evident that the bitter opposition and plots of the rulers must, in no long time, put an end to Jesus-’ earthly work. He can not hope to do more than start the work, to break the ground and commence scattering the seed. Jesus had summoned to his side a few of the Baptist’s disciples (John 1:35-51). Later, by the seaside, he had attached four of these more distinctly to him, to travel with him. But there was yet to be formed a compact, organized body of disciples commissioned to teach his doctrines.
But ere he did it, he withdrew into the mountain, doubtless the Horns of Hattin, and there spent an entire night in prayer (Luke 6:12).
II.
THE ACTUAL CALLING OF THE TWELVE. Mark 3:13 b
When dawn came, he called out of the disciples about him twelve whom he ordained (1) to be with himthat is, especially and continuously with him; (2) to be sent forth to preach as his special apostles, and (3) to have power to exercise his authority over demons. These, Luke informs us, he named apostles. Apostle means one sent, and is very close in meaning to our words ambassador and missionary.-’ It was a necessary condition of this apostleship that the apostles should have been with Jesus, and so be qualified to tell of his words and actions, particularly of the resurrection (Acts 1:8; Acts 1:21-22; 1 Corinthians 9:1; Acts 22:14-15). The apostles can therefore have no successors.
III.
THEIR APPOINTMENT, Mark 3:14
The number twelve was evidently with purpose, for they were to be tribal judges of the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:30), and were, according to Paul, ministers to the twelve tribes, or to the circumcision, rather than to Gentiles (Galatians 2:7-9).
The lists in the four gospels are different, but the first four names, the second four and the last four in each are the same in all groups. The first name in each four is the same, and the traitor, Judas Iscariot, is always last. This seems to signify that the apostles were so banded as groups of four, each with a leader.
V.
THE NAMES, Mark 3:16-19.
Because he was first to publicly confess Christ, and because the Lord saw in him peculiar gifts of bold, aggressive leadership, Peter was given the right to open the doors of the kingdom of heaven. But after he had done this in the two sermons to Jews and Gentiles (Acts 2:14-41; Acts 10:34-48), there is no evidence of Peter’s having any authority above that of the other apostles. Christ never so stated; Peter never so claimed; the Apostles never so owned. Jesus, on the other hand, specifically placed them on a level, with himself as their only Master (Matthew 23:8-11). Peter claims only equal position with other officers in the church (1 Peter 5:1; 1 Peter 5:4). Paul names James first (Galatians 2:9; Galatians 2:11-14). See Matthew 18:18; Matthew 19:27-28; Matthew 20:25-27; John 20:21; Acts 1:8. Peter was but one of the apostles, one of the pillars of the church (Galatians 2:9).
Jesus had prophesied that Simon should be called Peter when Simon was first brought to him by Andrew (John 1:41-42). The name signifies a piece of stone broken from mother-rock, and indicates Jesus-’ prophetic insight into his character. Probably because of their vigor and zealous, stormy dispositions (Luke 9:51-56; Mark 9:38), James and John were surnamed Sons of thunder, James-’ vigorous character probably led to Herod’s slaying him, and John’s vigor sustained him to a ripe old agebetween ninety and one-hundred. John’s writings, too, reveal this vigor; he denounces sin in strong terms, such as liar, antichrist, deceiver, children of the devil and murderer (1 John 1:6; 1 John 2:4; 1 John 2:22; 1 John 3:15; 2 John 1:3-11). James and John were sons of Zebedee and Salome (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40) and perhaps cousins of Jesus (cf. John 19:25).
Philip, like the four preceding disciples, was a native of Bethsaida, and became allied to Jesus on the latter’s return from temptation to Galilee (John 1:43-44). He brought to Jesus Nathanael, who is generally identified with the Bartholomew here named, because John always names Philip and Nathanael together, while the Synoptists name Philip and Bartholomew. Philip seems to have been of practical turn of mind (John 6:5-9). Nathanael was the Israelite in whom is no guile (John 1:47).
Matthew is Levi, and alone of all the Synoptists, describes himself in the list of apostles as the publican, as if recalling the depth from which grace had raised him (Mark 2:14).
Thomas is also called Didymus (John 11:16). Both words mean twin, the first being Aramaic and the second Greek. His attachment to Jesus was deep (John 11:16), but a tendency to misgiving and despondency probably accounts for his doubting the news of Christ’s resurrection, until the sight of his beloved Master brought that explosion of affection, My Lord and my God!
James called son of Alphaeus and James the Less (Mark 15:40), to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee, must not be confused with James the Lord’s brother, who became a leader in the Jerusalem church (Galatians 1:19; Galatians 2:9-12: 1 Corinthians 15:5-7; Acts 15:6-9; Acts 21:18), and wrote the Epistle of James.
Thaddaeus is called Judas, son of James, in the two later Gospels-Luke and John. He may have been known as Thaddaeus in the early days to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot. He is not the author of the epistle of Jude, written by the Lord’s brother. The cognomen Cananaean means the Zealot (used by Luke and John). Judas, famed for his infamy, is called Iscariot, from his native city Kerioth, in Judea; he was the only one of the twelve not from Galilee. He was treasurer of the group. Much speculation has been wasted upon the reason for his choice as an apostle; suffice it to note that Jesus called whom he himself would. It is a strikingly human group, possessed in varying degrees of fear, ambition, rivalry, impetuosity, vows, weakening faith, yet real loyaltya group of men, and not supermen, with common virtues and common faults, to do an uncommon work with divine power and under divine guidance. (Standard Bible Lesson Quarterly, Jan., Feb., March 1918.)
FACT QUESTIONS 3:13-19
What was the purpose in the appointment of the twelve?
Who were the first disciples to follow Jesus? (Cf. John 1:35-51).
Why spend the whole night in prayer?please think on this question.
In what sense were the twelve to be with Himin what special sense were they to represent Him?
What is the meaning of the word apostle?
What were the necessary conditions of apostleship? Why twelve apostles?
Why in three groups of four?
What right did Jesus give Peter?
Give three lines of evidence to indicate Peter was on a level with the other apostles. Give the meaning of the name Peter.
State indications that James and John had stormy dispositions.
Give two historical facts about each of the following: (1) Philip (2) Matthew (3) Thomas (4) James, son of Alphaeus (5) Thaddaeus (6 Judas)
Mark 3:20-27
B. OPPOSITION 3:20-27
(1)
From Friends 3:20-21
TEXT 3:20-21
And he cometh into a house. And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. And when his friends heard it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 3:20-21
In whose house did this incident occur?
Why such a large crowd? Is Mark complaining about the inability to eat?
Who were the friends making this complaint?
What particular circumstances seemed to disturb His friends? What did they want to do?
Were they accusing Jesus of being insane?
(2)From enemies 3:22-27
TEXT 3:22-27
And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and, By the prince of the devils casteth he out the 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 will not be able to stand. And if Satan hath risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. But 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.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 3:22-27
What authority had the scribes to pass judgment on the miracles of Jesus?
Who was Beelzebub?
Jesus did not evade opposition i.e. on this occasionshow indications this is true.
What is meant by the expression said unto them in parables?
Knowing something of the deceitfulness of Satan why wouldn-’t Satan on some occasions cast out Satan?
Did Jesus infer there was an evil kingdom over which Satan rules? In what sense would this kingdom be divided?
Who is the head of the house? In what sense divided? Is there a lesson in this parable for us?
What is meant by the expression hath an end in Mark 3:26?
Who is the house? who the strong man? What are the goods to be spoiled?who is the one stronger than the strong man?
COMMENT 3:20-27
TIMEMidsummer and Autumn, A.D. 28. PLACEIn the house of Jesus in the city of Capernaum.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTS:Matthew 12:22-30.
OUTLINE1. Opposition from friends, Mark 3:20-21. 2. Opposition from enemies, Mark 3:22-27.
ANALYSIS 3:20-27
I.
OPPOSITION FROM FRIENDS, Mark 3:20-21.
This occurred at home in Capernaum.
The occasion of opposition was the inability to eat.
The form of the opposition was to bodily remove Him from His labors.
The reasonthey feared for His sanity.
II.
OPPOSITION FROM ENEMIES, Mark 3:22-27.
Jesus is accused of being in league with Satan.
Jesus answers in parables:
(1)
A kingdom divided cannot stand.
(2)
A house divided cannot stand.
(3)
Satan casting out himself is defeating himselfthis would end in his own complete loss.
(4)
There must be someone stronger than Satan to cast out Satan.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
OPPOSITION FROM FRIENDS, Mark 3:20-21.
Mark 3:20. As soon as he had returned the crowd was about him again.the vivid description is peculiar to Mark. So that they could not so much as eat bread. So at chap. Mark 6:31. The activity on our Lord’s own part is left to be inferred, but it must have been an intense activity of teaching and healing, continued we know not how long.
Mark 3:21. His friends of Mark 3:21 are his mother and his brethren of Mar 3:31. Their coming and calling for him is narrated by Matthew and Luke as well as by Mark, but Mark alone tells of their setting out in search of him and of their motive. Considerably later his brethren did not believe on him (John 7:5), and probably they persuaded his mother on this occasion, playing, perhaps, upon the anxiety of maternal love. These brethren appear to be the James and Joses and Juda and Simon of Mar 6:3. The question, What was their relation to Jesus? will probably never be settled with unanimous consent. The data being insufficient to furnish a positive decision, temperament and feeling, as well as theological prepossessions, will always be elements in the formation of opinions on the subject. The theories are: (That they were children of Joseph and Mary, younger than Jesus; (2) That they were children of Joseph by a former marriage; (3) That they were cousins, probably orphaned, and in some way adopted into the family. The first is rejected by all Roman Catholic interpreters, by all who share their feeling as to the superior holiness of virginity, and by some besides who feel that reverence is best satisfied by regarding the Only-begotten of God as also the only offspring of his mother. Yet the scriptural argument for it is very strong (see it stated at length by Alford, on Matt. 13-55), and its adherents claimprobably correctlythat no other view would ever have been thought of but for unscriptural ideas of our Lord’s mother. If the first theory is rejected, there is no choice between the second and the third.His friends heard of itof the great throng that was about him and of the busy life he was livingand went out from their home in Nazareth, where they were all living, mother, brothers, and sisters, a little later, when Jesus visited the place (chap. Mark 6:1-6). The news reached them there, and brought them down to Capernaum, a distance of perhaps twenty miles. They came to lay hold on himi. e, by force, as one who was not fit to take care of himself. They said, He is beside himself, insanea conclusion from the excited life that he seemed to them to be living; perhaps the more plausible from the quietness and placidity of the years that he spent with them at Nazareth. Strangers misapprehended him thus (John 10:20), but so did his nearest friends, Unbelief will misapprehend whether its opportunities be small or great. Even the mother and brethren cannot know Jesus except they be true mother and brethren.
II.
OPPOSITION FROM ENEMIES, 22-27.
Mark 3:22. Mark omits the occasion of this conversation, which is carefully given by Matthew and Lukenamely; the healing of the blind and dumb demoniac (Matthew 12:22), which caused many to inquire, Is not this the Son of David?i.e. the Messiah. The scene is still at home, and most probably in the house of Peter. Pharisees are present (Matthew), and so (Mark) are the scribes which came down from Jerusalem. This language distinctly indicates an embassy, men who had come on purpose to watch and harm him. It is not to be assumed that they were the same as the men mentioned at Luke 5:17, for some time had elapsed and meanwhile Jesus had been absent from Capernaum. But, whether the same or not, these were spies.Indignant at the suggestion that this was the Christ, they were ready with their explanation of his mighty works, the reality of which they thus explicitly admitted. He hath Beelzebub, or, as the best manuscripts agree, Beelzebul. The name has been variously interpreted. The name from which it came was Baalzebub, lord of flies, the god of the Philistines worshipped at Ekron (2 Kings 1:2) and consulted as an oracle. The god was named, doubtless, from his supposed control over the swarms of flies and similar insects that torment the East. After a time the Jews, thinking all heathen deities to be evil spirits, adopted this name as a title of the chief of evil spirits, but changed it by one letter, making Beelzebub into Beelzebul. Some think that in this change they intentionally degraded and insulted it, even as a word, by turning it into a name which meant lord of dung or of the dunghill. But others, apparently with better reason, make it mean lord of the mansion or of the dwellingi.e. lord of the place in which evil spirits dwell, or, substantially, head of the family of evil spirits, he who rules them as a man rules his household. This sense best corresponds to the form of the word (Meyer) and best suits the allusions in the New Testament. So here: He hath Beelzebul means he is possessed by the spirit who is lord of all the rest, and who orders them in and out at his pleasure, as a man commands his servants.Thus the second clause of their charge is the application of the first. By the prince of the devils casteth he out devils, or demons. In the Greek the use of the recitative hoti (that) before each of these clauses seems to indicate that two separate remarks are quoted. One says, that he hath Beelzebul. Another, that by the prince of the demons casteth he out demons. Luke adds that others, tempting him, asked of him a sign from heaven.
Mark 3:23-26. The whole twenty-third verse is peculiar to Mark. He called themthe scribes from Jerusalembespeaking their attention and bringing them face to face with himself and their own words. The wonderful calmness and self-control of this reply cannot be too distinctly noticed in connection with the fearful charge that had just been brought against him. No more terrible accusation than this was possible; it was the direct charge of a positive and practical league with infernal powers. But he, when he was reviled, reviled not again: when he suffered, he threatened not (1 Peter 2:23).He said unto them in parables. In illustrative comparisons. The word does not require a narrative, such as we often associate with it. The point lies in the fact of a comparison. But here the fact to be confirmed is given in the first question (Mark 3:23); it is then confirmed and illustrated by two comparisons, of the kingdom and the household, in Mark 3:24-25 and it is restated directly in Mark 3:26.How can Satan cast out Satan? The principle is that no intelligent power works against itself and defeats its own purposes. Observe what is here assumed: it is assumed that the dominion of Satan is an intelligent dominion, with character and purposes; that the kingdom of evil is one intelligent kingdom, managed by one mind who knows what he is doing. The individual spirits that torment men are not identified personally with Satan, but they are identified morally with him; so that their presence is his presence, and when they are cast out he is cast out. Now, it is said that in a kingdom there must be unity of counsel, illustrated first by the case of a kingdom among men. It is notorious that divided counsels, going into action, are the ruin of a state; divided counsels or, more exactly, contradictory counselsnot between rulers and subjects, but in the government itself. How, then, if the kingdom of the prince of the demons be thus divided against itself and act against its own purposes? Illustrated next by the case of a household, regarded, not as made up of individuals, who may disagree, but as under the rule of a householder, goodman of the house, lord of the mansion. If it acts against the character and counsels that govern it, it will be a failure. How, then, if the lord of the mansion be thus divided against himself, acting for the defeat of his own work? And now is made the application. If Satan were casting out demons, he would be rising up against himself. His sole purpose is to injure men. If he brings in health, calmness, purity, reason, godly gratitude, piety, to the souls of men, and if he sets them free from the bondage by which they are held away from these blessings, he will be acting directly against his own nature. Such a work as that of Jesus cannot possibly be attributed to him, any more than demoniacal possession can be attributed to God. Judge a work by its moral affinities. If it is good, it is not of the devil, for he never delivers men from evil, If such a rising up of Satan against himself as the work of Christ would be were proved real, there would be more than danger to his kingdom, He cannot stand, but hath an end, would be the true word. A kingdom so broken would be no kingdom at all.
Mark 3:27. More than this does Christ’s work mean. The verse should begin with butBut no man can enter, etc. Not only does Christ’s merciful and holy work prove him to be no ally of Satan, but if Satan’s kingdom is being taken away from him, the fact proves the presence of Satan’s conqueror. No one can plunder the property of a strong lord of the mansion until he has bound the lord of the mansion himself; so, if Jesus is doing a great triumphant work of mercy in setting men free from the inferior agents of Satan’s kingdom, he must already be master over Satan himself. The defeat of the Lord precedes the defeat of the servants; if the master were at liberty and had the power, he would not suffer his goods to be spoiled.Perhaps there is a special touch of triumph in the closing words. And then he will spoil his house; as if Jesus were regarding the end as absolutely sure and the work as actually begun. Compare John 12:31: Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out. Here speaks, in Jesus, the consciousness that he is absolutely the conqueror and destroyer of Satan’s kingdom. Here, as a transition to the solemn words that Mark adds immediately, Matthew and Luke insert, He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. There are only two sides in this conflict, and they are the side of the strong man armed and the side of the stronger than he. Not to be with the conqueror of Satan is to be with Satan. (W. N. Clarke)
FACT QUESTIONS 3:20-27
In whose house was Jesus living at this time?
What were Jesus and His disciples doing instead of eating?
Just who was involved in the effort to restrain Him?
Why would those who knew Him best think Him fanatical in His work?
How could it be said the scribes came down from Jerusalem when they traveled north?
Why did Jesus call the scribes to Him to deliver His answer to their criticism?
Does the use of the term parable here fit your previous use of the form? Explain its use here. How many parables are used?
Discuss the king, dominion, subjects, and expansion of Satan’s kingdom.
In what sense does Satan have a house?
Jesus said Satan was dividedexplain.
I thought Satan was an immortal beingin what sense has he an end?
What glorious victory is indicated in Mark 3:27?
Mark 3:28-30
**C. THE UNPARDONABLE SIN 3:28-30
TEXT 3:28-30**
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.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 3:28-30
What is meant by the word blaspheme?
Why use the expression verily I say unto you? What does it mean?
Is Jesus saying the sins of men will be forgiven them or could be forgiven?
When Jesus warned concerning it, had anyone committed the eternal sin?
Why is it impossible to forgive this sin? (Please attempt an answer of your own).
COMMENT
TIMEAutumn of 28 A.D. PLACEAt home in Capernaum.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat 12:31-37.
OUTLINE1. Forgiveness promised, Mark 3:28. 2. One exception, Mark 3:29. 3. The cause of such a severe warning, Mark 3:30.
ANALYSIS 3:28-30
I.
FORGIVENESS PROMISED, Mark 3:28.
Promised with great certainty.
To all the sons of men.
All sins and blasphemies.
II.
ONE EXCEPTION, Mark 3:29.
Applies to all.
The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
An eternal sin with no forgiveness.
III.
THE CAUSE OF SUCH A SEVERE WARNING, Mark 3:30.
The Pharisees and scribes involved.
The words, He hath an unclean spirit caused the warning.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I.
FORGIVENESS PROMISED, Mark 3:28.
Mark 3:28-30. I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven. He hath an unclean spirit. We learn clearly from this place in what this fearful sin consists; the only one of all the evils which the sons of men commit which will not be forgiven. Those with whom the Lord was now remonstrating were in danger of committing it, because they said, He hath an unclean spirit, This was, in point of fact, almost equivalent to their calling the Lord an Incarnation of Satan.
II.
ONE EXCEPTION, Mark 3:29.
In order to see something of the wickedness of this sin we must realize that all our Lord’s teaching was on the side of God and goodness, and all His miracles, especially that of the expulsion of evil spirits, were done to enforce such teaching, and to set forth the character of Godthe God Who sent Him, as at once a holy and benevolent God, desirous to free men from the yoke of all moral and spiritual as well as of all physical evil. To call the Spirit of such an One as our Lord an evil spirit was the extremest form of that wickedness denounced by the prophet when he said: Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness (Isaiah 5:20). For a man to have a mind which could deliberately ascribe such a spirit to the Saviour is, as far as man can, to cut himself off from redemptionto make the acceptance of redemption impossible to him. This will be more clearly seen if we remember certain words said on this occasion by the Lord, which are only given in St. Matthew, Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him, A man might, through prejudice, speak against the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah, He might not be the Messiah whom he expected. He might be led away by false hopes of an earthly temporal Messiah, to reject the true one. Such an one might continue in infidelity, but the door of repentance and faith would be open to him, because, as Saul of Tarsus, what he did in rejecting Christ he did ignorantly and in unbelief. But if such an one had an opportunity of observing the Spirit of Christthe Spirit of goodness and love displayed in all His character and discourses, and enforced by His mighty deeds, all on the side of benevolence and holiness, and yet deliberately called such a Spirit the Spirit of Evil, then there was nothing left in him for Redemption to take hold of. He was reprobate in the deepest sense of the word. He had first given himself over, and then he was given over by God, to a reprobate mindthat is, to his own evil, absolutely evil, self. But if a person thus ascribed the works of Christ to the power of evil, would that not be blaspheming against the Son of Mannot against the Holy Spirit? No, we are told that both the teaching and the mighty works of Christ were done by the Spirit (Acts 1:2; Matthew 12:28). Christ taught very emphatically that He did nothing of Himself. He must, consequently, act by some spiritual power not His own. Was that power Divine or diabolical? Of God, or of God’s enemy? If a man deliberately said it was from God’s enemy he displayed an intensity of perverse and malicious wickedness almost incredible.
III.
THE CAUSE OF SUCH A SEVERE WARNING, Mark 3:30.
Some of the most acute observations on this difficult subject are to be found in Calvin’s Commentary on the Synoptics. Shall any unbeliever curse God? It is as if a blind man were dashing against a wall. But no man curses the Spirit, who is not enlightened by Him, and conscious of ungodly rebellion against Him; for it is not a superfluous distinction, that all other blasphemies shall be forgiven, except that one blasphemy which is directed against the Spirit. If a man shall simply blaspheme against God, he is not declared to be beyond the hope of pardon, but of those who have offered outrage to the Spirit it is said that God will never forgive them. Why is this but because those only are blasphemers against the Spirit, who slander His gifts and power contrary to the conviction of their own mind?
Two observations on all this may not be out of place:
- It is clear that no one can have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost who desires the influence of the Holy Ghost to deliver him from sin, and make him love God, for such an one must believe that the power exhibited in Christ was on the side of God and goodness. He must believe that Christ was actuated and impelled by a holy and good spirit, which must be from God.
- Looked at in the light of this one exception to the forgiving power of God, how exceedingly broad and large is the promise implied in the 28th verse, Verily, I say unto you, ALL sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men. The one exception proves the universality of the rule. If any sinner has a mind to lay hold on the Divine mercy, no memory of past sin need deter him; and the state of mind which he has towards sin, and his desire of deliverance, forbids the idea that he has committed the one unpardonable sin. (M. F. Sadler).
FACT QUESTIONS 3:28-30
What was meant by saying of the Lord, He hath an unclean spirit?
What helps us to realize something of the wickedness of this sin?
Show how the man who would attribute the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan is reprobate in the deepest sense of the word.
Would not speaking against the works of Christ be speaking against the Son of Man instead of against the Holy Spirit? Explain.
What did Calvin’s comments add to your understanding of this subject?
When can one know he has not committed this sin? Could the sinner know he had committed this sin? Explain.
Mark 3:31-35
**D. THE HOUSEHOLD OF CHRIST 3:31-35
TEXT 3:31-35**
And there come his mother and his brethren; and, standing without, they sent unto him, calling him. And a multitude was sitting about him; and they say unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, and saith, Who is my mother and my brethren? And looking round on them which sat round about him, he saith, Behold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 3:31-35
Are we to associate this incident with the one in Mark 3:21? If so how?
How many half-brothers did Jesus have? (Cf. Matthew 13:56; Mark 6:3)
Why had His mother and brothers come?
Did Mary or the brothers speak to Jesus personally?
What was the purpose behind the reply of Jesus?
Did Jesus ignore the request of His mother? What impression did this make upon the multitude?; upon His mother?; upon His brothers?
COMMENT
TIMEAutumn A.D. 28. PLACEAt home in Capernaum or on hill outside the city.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat 12:46-50; Luke 8:19-21.
OUTLINE1. The arrival from Nazareth of His mother and brothers, Mark 3:31. 2. The message relayed to Jesus, Mark 3:32. 3. The response of Jesus to the visit, Mark 3:33-35.
ANALYSIS 3:31-35
I.
THE ARRIVAL FROM NAZARETH OF HIS MOTHER AND BROTHERS, Mark 3:31.
They stood without the door of the house.
They requested an audience with Him.
II.
THE MESSAGE RELAYED TO JESUS, Mark 3:32.
Word sent in to the house from the family to the multitude.
Someone told Jesusprobably one of His apostles.
III.
THE RESPONSE OF JESUS TO THE VISIT, Mark 3:33-35.
Answered with a question.
He was now speaking with His family.
Their needs were met in doing the will of God.
EXPLANATORY NOTES 3:31-35
I.
THE ARRIVAL FROM NAZARETH OF HIS MOTHER AND BROTHERS, Mark 3:31.
Mark 3:31-32. They had come to take him. (See note on Mark 3:21). Mark has meanwhile described the scene in which they found him and the conversation in which he was engaged. He graphically shows them coming, standing without, and sending their message in through the crowd which they could not penetrate.
II.
THE MESSAGE RELAYED TO JESUS, Mark 3:32.
A multitude sat about him. Not the multitude. Some manuscripts (and Tischendorf, not the revisers) read, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren and thy sisters without are seeking thee. The sisters are mentioned at Mark 6:3, but we know nothing of their names or history. His mother, coming as his mother, would doubtless have been welcomed; but an intrusive coming of his kindred to interfere with his work was quite another matter. Now that he was fully about his Father’s business, it was even more necessary than at the beginning of his work (John 2:4) that his mother should leave him to his Father’s guidance. The moment, too, was a solemn one; he had just been speaking of the deadly opposition between the two kingdoms, and was in a frame of mind to prize most highly those who were with him and were not scattering abroad. Any attempt to scatter abroad, to weaken his work, would then be especially painful to his soul, and the more if it came from those who ought to know him well. Yet in their coming, (at least, we may be sure, in his mother’S) there was kindness, but kindness how ignorant and mistaken! With what faults of friends he had to bear, as well as with evil in enemies! Not without pain, however, can he have given to his mother this rebuff. It was necessary; but he was a genuine son, and had a son’s grateful and loyal heart toward his mother. His dying act of care for her (John 19:26) was a more congenial act to his heart.
III.
THE RESPONSE OF JESUS TO THE VISIT, Mark 3:33-35.
Mark 3:33-35. Who is my mother, or my brethren? As if he did not know any from without who might appeal to him in that name.He looked round about on them which sat about him. Literally, in a circle about him. A graphic touch of Mark, to which Matthew adds another Stretching out his hand toward his disciples, The gesture impressed one beholder, the look another. Very full of tenderness and solemnity must the look have been, accompanying such words, for here is the adoption of the obedient.Behold (these are) my mother, and my brethren! for whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and my mother. In Luke, My mother and my brethren are these, who hear and do the word of God. Compare Every one that heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them (Matthew 7:24). The center of his true kindred is not the mother, the brother, or the sisters, but the Father. This, he says, is the only center; there is no true unity with him except through spiritual harmony with the will of God: Whoever would be a brother to me must be a child to him. Without this even natural kinship is as nothing. This, he also says, is the real centerthe center of an actual unity; whoever is doing the will of God is united to Jesus by a tie stronger than any tie of flesh and blood: Whoever is my Father’s own is my own, one of my true kindred, in the closest bonds. Does he not even imply that the relation is as close and tender on one side as on the other?toward the true brother, sister, and mother as toward the Heavenly Father? Do not God and they that do the will of God thus come into one family for Jesus, in which one and the same love reaches out in both directions? He said elsewhere, As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you; and this is almost saying, As I love my Father, so do I love you. Does this passage make God (or the doing of the will of God) the way to Christ, rather than Christ the way to God? Yes, in a sense. Whoever comes to Christ does the will of God in doing so, and it is in (not by the merit of) the doing of what God appoints that Christ accepts him. In all this Jesus did not disown the ties of kindred or put any slight upon them; rather did he show how highly he esteemed them. What must the natural relations be to him if he can make them the illustration of his relations both to God who sent him and to the people whom he saves?Notice that the two misstatements respecting Jesus, He is beside himself and He hath Beelzebul, are morally very far apart, One was a misunderstanding of his workan ignorant, mistaken misrepresentation in which there was at least room for the anxiety of affection, and in which he was regarded as unfortunate. It implied spiritual ignorance, but not malignity. The other was a malignant refusal to see good in him, and a spontaneous judgment that his highest good was highest evil. The one corresponds to speaking a word against the Son of man; while the other at least approaches the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.It is a satisfaction to find that after the resurrection of Jesus, Mary, the mother of the Lord, and his brethren were with the apostles in the upper room, where they waited for the fulfillment of Jesus-’ promise (Acts 1:14). (W. N. Clarke)
FACT QUESTIONS 3:31-35
Who probably instigated the visit of the family?
Read Mark 6:3 and John 19:26 and notice the expression son of Mary as in contrast to the way the brothers are mentioned.
Why did Jesus commit the care of his mother to John if He had brothers?
Is there any contradiction in the accounts concerning the message of Mary and His brothersCf. Matthew 12:47; Luke 8:20; Mark 3:31.
What type of rebuke did Jesus give to His relatives? Show how this was needed.
Why look round about Him and stretch forth His hand?
Please explain how doing the will of God makes us brothers and sisters to Christ.
SUMMARY 2:13:35
There are three facts set forth in the preceding section, which have an important bearing on the claims of Jesus. The first is the fact that he had authority to forgive sins. This was demonstrated in the case of the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12), and it is the one fact which proves Jesus adapted to the highest demands of human salvation. Sins being forgiven, all other blessings follow as a consequence.
In the second place, it is shown that his conduct as a man was irreproachable. He was attacked in reference to the company he kept (Mark 2:13-17); in reference to his neglect of fasting (Mark 2:18-22); and in reference to Sabbath-keeping (Mark 2:23-28; Mark 3:1-6); but in all these matters he vindicated his conduct, and put his accusers to shame. That they made no more serious attacks on his conduct, proves that they could not, and that in morals he was irreproachable.
In the third place, it was demonstrated by his discussion with the Jerusalem scribes, that the power by which he cast out demons, and, a fortiori, the power by which his other miracles were wrought, was not, as they alleged, satanic, but divine. Finally, his answer to the people, in reference to the call of his mother and his brothers, is in perfect keeping with the character and position which the text assigns him. It is a singular infatuation which has led the Roman Catholic Church to attribute to Jesus even in heaven, a subserviency to his mother which he so expressly repudiated while on earth. (J. W. McGarvey).